All-weather sports turf Debate

Environmental Benefits - Sustainability

Option 1

The majority of residents expressed strong concerns about the environmental impact of constructing an all-weather sports turf, highlighting issues such as microplastic pollution, increased carbon emissions, and the negative effects on local ecosystems and waterways. Many argued that the artificial turf's potential harm, including its contribution to long-term waste due to its limited lifespan and non-biodegradable nature, outweighs its benefits for sports utility. Instead, they advocated for enhancing existing natural grass fields, emphasizing that such upgrades would be more sustainable and less detrimental to the environment.

Table of comments:

Point No	Comment
56.6	Too expensive for current circumstances. We have a lot of large and good sports amenities for quite a small city; let's make do with them for the time being.In addition, what kind of turf is being imagined here? On the surface, I oppose microplastic-generating and other heavy-polluting turf. Traditional grass turf already poses significant problems with soil conservation, pollution and water management as it is, and that warrants a close look at management practices. But maybe a full lifecycle analysis will show that my instincts are wrong here. Please, show us the lifecycle analysis so that we can make better submissions.
76.3	https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350163371/all-weather-turf-aims-boost-nelsons-community-sportThis article is quite hard to believe."FC Nelson’s Phil Thompson, Ngāti Rārua’s Shane Graham, and Rugby Nelson’s Kent Inglis say that an artificial turf at Guppy Park would benefit the entire community. Photo: Max Frethey/Nelson Weekly."This will not benefit our community nor the environment. Missing a few play dates due to sports field grass needing to be repaired is nothing compared to the pollution and damage of adding all this plastic into our environment.Nowhere in this article is there any mention about the downside of using plastic turf to cover a sports field. Why is this considered a good idea?Microplastics, marine litter, riverine litter.  Do we really need to add this mess to our environment? How is this a productive solution in the bigger picture?
162.6	It seems that there is relatively low benefit for the cost given that we generally have few times when the fields are too wet. I am concerned about affordability for the users. There are environmental effects: plastic discharge from Astroturf (or equivalent), removal of grassed area that is a good feeding ground for oystercatchers and other birds, higher carbon emissions and the increased area in impervious surface leads to reduced summer stream flow.
195.6	As a side note, we should not be opting for artificial grass anywhere going forward as this has been proven to shed enormous amounts of plastic particles over time. These particles will then make their way into our natural environment and create huge issues.
281.6	Concerned about the environmental impact of an artificial turf, particularly regarding the runoff of microplastics into stormwater and waterways.
330.6	Sounds a bit extravagant and environmentally hazardous and the players should just get used to getting a bit muddy when they need to in the rain like we used to do when I was a kid! We shouldn't be taking nature away from people.
500.6	while I understand the need for better wet weather sporting facilities in Nelson, I strongly oppose the use of all-weather turf because the negative environmental impact. It is not essential expenditure.
694.5	1 all weather turf is not going to be enough and using anything plastic or artificial really isn't good for the environment. Unfortunately, after watching the budget blows for the Greenmeadows Centre (and other projects) I don't trust the Council to be able to build an All-weather turf on a proposed budget, and so I think it is best to keep with the current fields and maintain as normal when needed.
751.6	Environmental cost of option 2... no thanks
785.6	Turf is plastic. Plastic is one of the most polluting and terrible things for the environment as it takes 500 years to decompose. In addition, the weather, wear and tear, and general build of plastic releases microplastic which are even more dangerous to humans, animals, and the land. With the turf being so close to the water, this would directly pour those microscopic particles closer to the ocean to be eaten by fish which then would be eaten by us. In addition, plastic is a hormone disruptor and can greatly impact human health. Sliding, falling, and being around this will only be worse for all of us. Also, it doesn't look pretty. Please don't choose turf and fight for the environment and the local community.
884.6	synthetic turf can be a bad value over the long term, there are serious environmental problems to consider, and the costs to install and maintain any sizable, well-done installation proved so high that we concluded we’d be better off investing the money and effort in just about any other form of landscaping.
885.6	Please don't add more toxins into nature that then can create microplastics
894.6	cheaper for everyone and still support the improved drainage work and lighting for sports fields a good middle ground i reckon. Also they can always play futsal or indoor touch or rippa. The short lifespan and massive amount of microplastics from all weather turf are more reasons to not spend council money on that. Turf hurts a lot more than mud to fall on also, really it’s all a bit of fun and connection to papatuanuku and with improved drainage systems fields shouldn’t be too bad too often anyway. And if they are it’s not a subdivision so theres no big cost to fix so its all good really.
912.2	I do not believe a new all-weather sports turf would significantly benefit any other club or entity, other than those already on site, based on the proposed locations (Neale Park or Saxton Field)I support improving lighting and quality of existing grass fields instead (Option 1 from 2021 review)Specific suggestions:Install new lighting along both sides of Tahunanui fields near modelers pondReplace poles with taller ones on main reserveConcerns that an all-weather turf would inevitably become focused on serving needs of co-located clubs like FC Nelson, Suburbs and schoolsAn all-weather turf may come at the expense of reduced maintenance for existing grass fields---‐---------Upgrading Tahunanui Reserve Facilities:Tahuna FC strongly supports upgrading facilities at Tahunanui ReserveCurrent amenities like changing rooms are extremely substandard - old, rundown, and leakingWith 6 senior teams and plans for a youth program, the club requires better facilitiesOpportunity to transform the reserve into an integrated community hub for summer and winter sport codesRequest for Tahuna FC to be included in any consultation on new shared facilities impacting operationsPropose exploring housing Tahuna FC in any new multi-code facility for surf lifesaving and summer sportsCould create operational efficiencies and reduce maintenance costsProvide a vibrant, sustainable community hub for year-round sport and recreationFacilities should match the world-class status of Tahunanui Beach environment
923.6	Turf is terrible! Adding more plastic into the environment. Once someone skids while sliding playing rugby, that small piece will turn into microplastic. Once it rains, that piece will get moved through the storm drains and then be washed out to the ocean creating more pollution and harm. Everyone will survive with natural grass and they will be better for it in the future.
946.3	Isupport Option 1: Continue to upgrade our existing sports fields. Nelson should not install an artificial turf sports field because of the embodied carbon emissions and the release of microplastics. Plastic turf has a lifetime of only 8-10 years, so the council would be contributing to on-going carbon emissions if it installs a plastic turf. In addition, artificial turf releases microplastic particles into the air and water. This generates runoff of microplastics into stormwater systems and the potential for inhalation by players and spectators. Let’s improve drainage on our existing sports fields.
978.6	In this Climate Emergency Council should be viewing all projects through a Climate Lens. This project would involve huge amounts of embodied carbon - the emissions toll over the whole project would be huge and not justifiable.
1001.7	6All weather turf: Opposed, I support Option 1. The materials used are likely to result in huge volumes of man-made micro fibres entering local waterways and the bodies of users. There is already too much of it.
1002.4	I dislike the environmental effects of artificial turf - made from non-renewable materials and micro plastics etc.
1047.5	I consider that Nelson should not install an artificial turf sports field because of the embodied carbon emissions and the release of microplastics. Embodied carbonNelson needs to look for all opportunities to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and certainly should not be adding new sources of emissions that are not essential. The report Council commissioned from RSL in May 2020 calculated the embodied carbon emissions of plastic turf: 29 kg of C02-e per square metre per year, compared to 1 kg for natural turf.  For a 10,000m2 field that is 290,000kg (290 tonnes) of C02 every year, the equivalent embodied carbon in 707m3 of concrete. Furthermore, artificial turf doesn’t sequester any carbon, whereas a natural grass field of that size will sequester over 7 tonnes of CO2. Installing an artificial turf will also create an expectation by the sports clubs that the turf will be replaced at the end of its life (typically only 8-10 years). The used turf will need to be disposed of in landfill (at high cost) while the new turf would generate still more embodied carbon emissions and microplastics into the environment. MicroplasticsPlastic turf releases microplastic particles into the air and water[5]. This generates runoff of microplastics into stormwater systems and the potential for inhalation by players and spectators. This has led the European Union and some other jurisdictions to ban some uses of microplastics in artificial turf[6]. These actions reflect rising concern about microplastics in every part of the environment, including our food. Two of NZ’s leading cancer researchers are seeking funding to investigate a potential link between microplastics and a documented rise in bowel cancer. Nelson should not be replacing natural turf with a plastic surface that will generate adverse effects on people and the environment for years to come.
1085.6	environmental impact trumps sport needs
1155.6	While it does require continual mowing and waterinbmg, artificial turf has a large carbon footprint, and you lose the benefits of grass, such as cooling and moisture absorption.
1272.6	The construction of an all-weather turf is not a priority. It is more expensive than what we're already doing and will have a negative environmental impact.
1305.4	Artificial turf is just horrible from an eco point of view (emissions, microplastics and end of life rubbish). Grass is good!
1305.4	Artificial turf is just horrible from an eco point of view (emissions, microplastics and end of life rubbish). Grass is good!
1324.6	If Council decisions are based on reducing carbon emissions, then the question shouldn't even be in this consultation.  The Nelson Tasman Climate Forum's submission details the emissions footprint of artificial turf in comparison to grass.  In addition the leaching of microplastics into the environment from the turf is unacceptable, and again shouldn't even be considered.  The need to landfill the turf is yet another nail in the coffin for this bad proposal. The acts of installing, replacing and then removing the turf will create microplastics, again, a bad decision for the environment.Even if we had this all weather turf, it would not meet the needs of all the sports clubs, and so would still require many games to be played on existing sports grounds.  I think all sports fields should be upgraded to improve their drainage over time, if that is the reason for some fields being worse than others.  Also the issue of sea level rise needs to be considered in terms of best use of investment funds.
1324.6	If Council decisions are based on reducing carbon emissions, then the question shouldn't even be in this consultation.  The Nelson Tasman Climate Forum's submission details the emissions footprint of artificial turf in comparison to grass.  In addition the leaching of microplastics into the environment from the turf is unacceptable, and again shouldn't even be considered.  The need to landfill the turf is yet another nail in the coffin for this bad proposal. The acts of installing, replacing and then removing the turf will create microplastics, again, a bad decision for the environment.Even if we had this all weather turf, it would not meet the needs of all the sports clubs, and so would still require many games to be played on existing sports grounds.  I think all sports fields should be upgraded to improve their drainage over time, if that is the reason for some fields being worse than others.  Also the issue of sea level rise needs to be considered in terms of best use of investment funds.
1338.5	In a time of financial difficulty, this feels like wholly wasteful spending. Furthermore, building an all-weather turf in a potentially at-risk climate area that is clearly biased towards a limited number of sports is unnecessary, as these sports can already play outside for the most part while other sports that cannot lack indoor facilities entirely. Where is the proposed funding for public INDOOR tennis courts, then? Or indoor track and field/gymnasium? Why does rugby always get all the preferential treatment? An upgrade to the fields is sufficient without building a wasteful plastic all-weather turf.
1379.5	I do not support the turf because of a) the on-going environmental issues associated with the artificial turf (greater carbon emissions, more micro plastics and more waste;b) the amount of money that has already been spent on Nelson sports facilities including Saxton field. There needs to be a better balance towards heritage and the arts.