EYE ON THE  P R O F E S S I O N
A CLOSER LOOK AT TRENDS AND ISSUES IN THE PARK AND RECREATION PROFESSION

William J. M. Wald IPRA Chief Executive Officer

Open Space — Natural versus Synthetic

Across the nation a turf war is erupting. As the need for open space increases, some municipalities, counties and schools are looking towards using open space funds to replace natural grass fields with synthetic turf. But this is raises concerns revolving around questions of whether synthetic turf areas can still be considered "open spaces" and, if so, whether those synthetic turf open spaces remain true to the intent of the state or local open space funding initiative.

What is "Open Space"?

Many advocates believe that open space funds should not be used to replace natural turf areas with artificial or synthetic turf. The intent of the funds, they claim, is to maintain natural resource areas.

Other open space advocates contend that the term "open space" is not necessarily synonymous "natural space." A synthetic turf space is still open and preserved for the future, which, they claim, is the intent of open space funding initiatives. These advocates bolster their argument with the contention that some synthetic turf areas use recycled materials, such as tires, and therefore help the environment.

Thus arises a possible distinction between the terms "open space" and "green space."

Does the Intended Use of the Space Make a Difference?

There is also a definite distinction between open space active recreation and athletic fields versus open space natural areas that are meant for more passive recreational opportunities. But that distinction usually is not clear in the text of the laws or (perhaps) in the minds of the public.

"Green space" oriented advocates feel "open space" is natural green space and that natural green space preservation was the whole intent from the beginning, regardless of the intended public use. These green space advocates point out that synthetic turf areas don't do what natural grass areas do: produce oxygen, filter rainwater or cool the air.

But those who favor synthetic turf fields point to two major advantages: increased recreational opportunities and more efficient and responsible use of public dollars. Synthetic turf fields, once they are installed, have lower general maintenance costs (especially when calculated as maintenance cost per hour of use). They conserve the water supply, and, with their padding and relatively consistent footing surfaces, may help reduce certain kinds of injuries. On top of that, synthetic athletic fields recover from poor weather and hard use better than natural fields, so they are more readily available for public use.

Many believe that open space funds should not be used to replace natural turf areas with synthetic turf. The intent of the funds, they claim, is to maintain natural resource areas.

Supporters of synthetic turf areas indicate that developing such areas actually helps keep the environment clean. Yes, natural grass does produce oxygen. However, that benefit gets obliterated by the huge amount of carbon pollution that a two-stroke engine lawn mower puts in the air each week to maintain the correct height of the turf. There is also the danger that any inorganic fertilizers that may be used on a natural grass field may run off into streams and ground water. That won't happen with synthetic fields that never need feeding, weeding or cutting.

The Argument as it Plays Out in the Real World

Lest you think that this debate is a fairly academic exercise, consider this: The State of Maryland is awarding $7 million of open space funding - intended to preserve and develop parkland

8   I l l i n o i s   P a r k s   &   R e c r e a t i o n   www.ILipra.org

Sound Off

What are your thoughts on using opens space funds? Should you be able to build synthetic turf areas and maintain open space status? Are synthetic turfs really any more beneficial to the environment or cost effective to the district? Look for a recap of this column on IPRA's blog and share your thoughts on the subject. The IPRA blog can be found online at blog.ILipra.org.

Green space advocates feel strongly that using open space funds for developing synthetic turf spaces will deplete existing funding levels for when true natural open space becomes available for purchase.

No doubt the debate will continue, and elected officials, judges and state natural resources department officials will have the task of sorting out the intent of open space funding legislation as it pertains to synthetic versus natural turf fields. Hopefully, these officials will commit to working with local park and recreation professionals and with community leaders to ensure that the wants and needs of the community prevail.

www.ILparks.org    J u l y  /  A u g u s t  2008   9