Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 37 (2022) 100480

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jort

Differences in likelihood of use between artificial and natural

turfgrass lawns
Michael R. Barnes *, Eric Watkins
Department of Horticultural Science - University of Minnesota Twin Cities, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Parks in urban areas provide a range of significant benefits across natural and social systems. These critical urban
Artificial turfgrass green spaces and those who manage them are faced with balancing budgetary constraints, sustainability goals,
Natural turfgrass and user requirements. Competing demands are exemplified in the difficulties faced in managing the dominant
Use
form of park vegetation: natural turfgrass lawns. Traditionally turfgrass lawns can have high input requirements
Recreation
Parks
(e.g., water and fertilizer), which may cause negative environmental effects if not managed properly. One
Lawns proposed solution is the adoption of artificial turfgrass lawns which do not require the more intensive inputs of
natural turfgrass lawns. However, park users’ perceptions of the equivalency of artificial and natural lawns across
various use cases remain unknown. Thus, we surveyed adults in the United States to elicit responses on the most
common uses of public lawn spaces, as well as specifically how likely they were to use artificial and natural lawns
across various use cases using photos of each type. Overall, significant differences were found between partic­
ipants’ likelihood to use artificial lawns compared to natural lawns with small to moderate effect sizes across the
majority of use cases. This work suggests that park users are generally more hesitant to use artificial turfgrass
lawns compared to using natural turfgrass lawns. More work needs to be done on understanding specific reasons
for why park users seem to prefer natural lawns across various use cases compared to artificial lawns.
Management implications: The current work generates several implications for decision making and management
of public lawn green spaces:
Higher favorability towards natural turfgrasses across many use cases should prompt managers to assess the
suitability of low input turfgrasses to meet user preferences while addressing management, budgetary, and
sustainability constraints and targets.
Individuals utilize lawns for a wide variety of use cases. Park level observational surveys could be employed by
public land managers and parks departments to assess use cases in any given park and/or park sub-area to better
align management regimes with uses.
Artificial turfgrass lawns could be used in specific contexts where constraints demand, such as sports fields where
individuals held equally favorable views towards artificial and natural turf.

1. Introduction globe are dominated by homogeneous turfgrass lawns (Fischer et al.,

Urban green space comes in a variety of forms but none more
important than parks, which provide a range of individual, social, and
ecological benefits (Chiesura, 2004; Mexia et al., 2018). As urbanization
continues globally, pressure to provide amenities to urban residents is
more salient than ever, especially in the case of urban green spaces
(Aronson et al., 2017). Parks function as places for rest, relaxation, and
recreation for urban residents and provide opportunities for both indi­
vidual activity and social interaction. Urban parks across most of the
2018; Wheeler et al., 2017). Yet, vegetation choices in urban parks have
recently been questioned; existing turfgrass lawns have been particu­
larly challenged, due to the number of inputs needed to maintain them
in both materials (e.g., fertilizers, water) as well as labor (Barnes,
Nelson, Kowalewski, et al., 2020; Law et al., 2016; Robbins & Sharp,
2003). Such high use of inputs elicits concerns not only related to
budgetary constraints faced by many cities but also climate change.
Indeed, these conflicting limitations complicate cities’ efforts to deliver
areas of lawn desired by residents in an economically and

* Corresponding author. 305 Alderman Hall 1970 Folwell Ave, Saint Paul, MN, 55108.
E-mail address: mrbarnes@umn.edu (M.R. Barnes).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2021.100480
Received 21 December 2020; Received in revised form 21 December 2021; Accepted 23 December 2021
Available online 4 January 2022
2213-0780/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
M.R. Barnes and E. Watkins
environmentally responsible way (Reynolds et al., 2018; Ignatieva et al.,
2017; Molin & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, 2014). As a result, some
cities have turned to artificial turfgrass surfaces as a potential solution.
However, research on how potential park visitors might use artificial
turfgrass surfaces compared to natural turfgrass surfaces is necessary.
2. Literature review
Parks, as part of urban green space broadly, provide several signifi­
cant benefits within the urban landscape related to human health and
well-being, which have been studied extensively (Gascon et al., 2016;
van den Berg et al., 2015; among others). Specifically, parks provide
spaces for recreation, relaxation, and socializing (Langemeyer et al.,
2018; Liu et al., 2017; Svendsen et al., 2016). Recreation in parks is
present in a variety of fashions from individual forms of exercise such as
walking and biking, informal group sports (e.g., frisbee), and formal
organized sporting activities (e.g., baseball and soccer) among many
other forms (Cohen et al., 2016; Zafri et al., 2019; Zwierzchowska et al.,
2018). Parks are also utilized for relaxation by visitors to reduce stress
and enhance well-being through activities such as sitting, meditating,
taking a nap, or taking in views of nature including plant and animal life
(Dou et al., 2017; Sreetheran, 2017; Zwierzchowska et al., 2018). Parks
provide a variety of social opportunities as well. Individuals along with
broader family units including parents, relatives, children, and even pets
can engage in social interactions in a different environment away from
home (Buchel & Frantzeskaki, 2015; Kabisch & Haase, 2014). Also
afforded by parks are opportunities for spontaneous social interactions
among strangers and friends, which can help to facilitate new and
deeper social ties (Fischer et al., 2018; Kaźmierczak, 2013; Wood et al.,
2017). In addition to human health and well-being, parks provide sig­
nificant benefits in the context of urban ecosystems, most importantly in
providing habitat for ecologically critical species (e.g., birds, bats), as
well as promoting biodiversity especially in larger urban parks
(Chaiyarat et al., 2019; Fischer et al., 2018; Mexia et al., 2018).
Although urban parks contain a variety of vegetation, the founda­
tional vegetation for many urban parks globally are natural turfgrass
lawns (Fischer et al., 2018; Wheeler et al., 2017). Natural turfgrass
lawns are defined as low-growing species of grasses that form a dense
ground cover of living plants that can be mown and can tolerate traffic.
Most natural turfgrass lawns commonly are made up of traditional
turfgrass species such as Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), tall fescue
[Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort.], fine leaf fescues (Festuca
spp.), bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L.), and zoysiagrass (Zoysia
spp.), among others (Ignatieva et al., 2020; Wheeler et al., 2017).
Natural turfgrasses provide several benefits for both humans and the
environment. Indeed, natural turfgrass lawns provide spaces for a va­
riety of forms of relaxation and recreation depending on the size, type,
and location of the lawn (Barnes, Nelson, & Dahmus, 2020; Larson et al.,
2009; Ramer et al., 2019). Relaxation and recreation on lawns can
encompass a wide variety of activities on an individual or group level
and can be formal or informal in nature including playing with a child or
pet and organized sporting events (Barnes, Nelson, & Dahmus, 2020;
Ignatieva et al., 2017). Relaxation can also include the ‘use’ of turfgrass
areas for aesthetic purposes or viewing pleasure, especially when
maintained as expected by users (Barnes, Nelson, & Dahmus, 2020;
Ramer et al., 2019). Second, natural lawns provide cooling and respite
from urban heat events, which are happening more frequently due to
climate change (Beard & Green, 1994; Monteiro, 2017). Although other
forms of vegetation do provide better overall cooling (e.g., trees) turf­
grass on its own has been found to provide cooling benefits (Wu et al.,
2007). Additionally, healthy stands of natural turfgrass can successfully
sequester carbon if managed properly (Cameron et al., 2012; Hamido
et al., 2016; Monteiro, 2017). Further, properly managed turfgrass
lawns can be an essential part of stormwater infrastructure and help
absorb runoff while simultaneously providing filtration (Elderbrock
et al., 2020; Monterio, 2017). Finally, natural turfgrass lawns are simply
2
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 37 (2022) 100480
well-liked and desired by urban residents in both private yards and
gardens as well as public green spaces such as parks and form a type of
cohesive green carpet throughout many urban areas (Barnes, Nelson, &
Dahmus, 2020; Ignatieva et al., 2017, 2020).
Despite significant positive benefits, traditional turfgrass lawn spe­
cies can present environmental and management challenges for cities in
the context of urban parks. Poor species selection in conjunction with
neglect of best management practices can lead traditional turfgrasses to
be associated with increased greenhouse gas emissions, water quality/
quantity issues, and a reduction in urban biodiversity (Bertoncini et al.,
2012; Hobbie et al., 2017; Hong et al., 2019; Kowalewski et al., 2014;
von Delden et al., 2016). Management challenges include ensuring
ongoing usability during/after inclement weather or longer climatic
conditions (e.g., drought), recovery time, and aesthetic issues. Acute
weather events, such as heavy rainfall, can negatively impact the us­
ability and performance of natural turfgrasses for both recreational users
and professional athletes, largely due to improper drainage (Silva et al.,
2017; Straw et al., 2020). Longer-term conditions including winter
stress, drought, and heat stress can also have adverse effects on turfgrass
quality and performance (Braun et al., 2020; Dingle & Mallen, 2020).
Natural turfgrasses also require time and in some cases additional
maintenance to recover after significant stress from such events (e.g.,
sporting matches; Christians et al., 2017; Murphy & Ebdon, 2013).
Additional maintenance can come in a variety of forms such as
topdressing, as used on golf courses, and overseeding of highly trafficked
areas (Kowalewski et al., 2011; Lee, 2011; Murphy & Ebdon, 2013).
Finally, natural turfgrass lawns can have issues related to their aesthetic
qualities. A wide range of stakeholders value and prioritize specific
aesthetic attributes of lawns including color, texture, and being
weed-free (Barnes et al., 2020a, 2020b; Hugie et al., 2012). Yet, these
desired aesthetic qualities are usually achieved through intensive
management via high inputs (e.g., water, fertilizer, herbicides) and
significant amounts of time, labor, and cost (Bertoncini et al., 2012;
Kowalewski et al., 2014; Wheeler et al., 2017).
Artificial turfgrass lawns have primarily been used in the context of
sports fields, though more recently artificial turf has been used in home
lawns as well as public green spaces such as playgrounds (Watterson,
2017). Artificial turf refers to synthetic surfaces used to “mimic the
appearance and sports performance … of natural grass,” which require
none of the traditional inputs associated with natural turfgrass lawns
(Cheng et al., 2014). Synthetic turf surfaces were developed in the late
1960s and have gone through several waves of technological in­
novations resulting in the current fourth-generation artificial turf sys­
tems (Fleming, 2011). Artificial turfgrass lawn surfaces have several
benefits compared to natural turfgrass lawns. Primarily, such surfaces do
not require traditional maintenance inputs related to water, fertilizer,
and herbicides (Cheng et al., 2014); lowering inputs has been a recent
priority of public land managers and municipalities to reduce both
material and labor costs (Barnes, Nelson, Kowalewski, et al., 2020).
Additionally, synthetic turf surfaces can provide a more consistent
playing surface both generally and in a variety of weather conditions (e.
g., rain, snow) due to its durability (Fleming, 2011; Serensits et al., 2013;
Taylor et al., 2012). Indeed, the variability of natural turfgrass surfaces
is seen by some athletes as a potential injury and performance liability
compared to artificial turf surfaces (Straw et al., 2018, 2020). Finally,
the durability of artificial turf surfaces means that they can be used more
frequently since no recovery period is needed between events, as is the
case with most natural turf surfaces (Serensits et al., 2013). This
increased frequency of use can be used to argue for artificial turfgrass as
more cost-effective than natural turfgrass over their lifespan. Never­
theless, artificial turfgrass lawns have come under scrutiny by users,
managers, and health officials in relation to several health and safety
issues.
Environmental and human health concerns have been raised over the
makeup of materials used in the construction of artificial turfgrass sur­
faces. Primarily, research has investigated the crumb rubber infill
M.R. Barnes and E. Watkins
material used on sports turf; concerns include the leaching of heavy
metals, as well as the presence of volatile organic compounds and other
potential carcinogenic substances that could cause both acute and
chronic health issues in users, as well as impact terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems (Bocca et al., 2009; Halsband et al., 2020; Menichini et al.,
2011; Serensits et al., 2013; Watterson, 2017). Further, artificial turf­
grass surfaces have been consistently found to retain heat at significantly
higher levels than natural turfgrass surfaces (Liu & Jim, 2021; Serensits
et al., 2013). This can impact not only surface temperatures, which can
be around 20 ◦ C higher on artificial turf than natural but also increase air
temperature by 4 ◦ C; such drastic temperature changes can significantly
impact human comfort in urban areas as well as athletic performance
(Hiemstra et al., 2017; Liu & Jim, 2021; Yaghoobian et al., 2010). Such a
heating effect could influence whether users would like to spend time on
such surfaces if they are significantly hotter than natural turfgrasses.
Perceptions have also been mixed in relation to how users conceptualize
the risk of injury and playing surface qualities associated with artificial
turfgrass compared to natural turfgrass. For instance, athletes have been
concerned about increased injury risk while playing on artificial turf
surfaces, especially related to abrasion type injuries which are more
common on synthetic surfaces (Burillo et al., 2014; Poulos et al., 2014;
Roberts et al., 2014; Strutzenberger et al., 2020).
Previous research demonstrates the complex factors associated with
artificial turfgrass lawns. Their widespread use and technological
development have outpaced the availability of critically needed research
related to environmental and human health consequences, as well as
individual behaviors and perceptions of such synthetic landscapes
(Fleming, 2011). The current research attempts to fill the gap in the
literature related to how individuals might use such artificial turfgrass
surfaces differently than natural ones. We ask two main questions
answered via an online survey and photos of artificial and natural
turfgrass lawns. First, how do individuals compare artificial and natural
turfgrass lawns in relation to how likely they are to use each surface for
their chosen use cases? Second, does labeling the photos as either arti­
ficial or natural impact individuals’ likelihood to use each type of lawn
for various use cases? We expect to see significant differences in in­
dividuals’ likelihood to use natural turfgrass over artificial turfgrass
surfaces, and such differences to be increased when photos were labeled
versus unlabeled.
3. Methods
3.1. Participants & procedures
Data collection was carried out utilizing an online survey on the
Qualtrics™ platform and distributed via Amazon Mechanical Turk
(MTurk). Respondents were paid $0.50 for participating in the study.
Several inclusion criteria were used to establish the sample frame: re­
spondents had to be located in the United States, be 18 years of age or
older, and consent to participate in the study. After consenting, partic­
ipants were randomly assigned into either the labeled or unlabeled
photo condition. In addition to the inclusion criteria above, data integ­
rity was assessed via three measures. First, an attention check was
performed midway through the survey which asked respondents to
answer a dummy question in a specific way, if they failed this check they
were presented with an end-of-survey message that indicated why their
survey had ended. Second, Google reCAPTCHA v3 was used to assess
potential bot behavior. The reCAPTCHA v3 script analyzes user behavior
compared to bots and provides a score ranging from 0.0 to 1.0, with
scores closer to 0.0 potentially indicating bot-like behavior. All survey
responses with a reCAPTCHA v3 score <0.5 were manually reviewed for
completion and variety of responses. Finally, total survey time was
assessed with a predetermined threshold of 2 min, survey responses with
a total completion time less than the threshold were manually reviewed
for completion and variety of responses.
3
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 37 (2022) 100480
3.2. Turfgrass lawn photos
A total of four photos were used to create the figures presented to
respondents. Two photos presented a broad view of an artificial turfgrass
lawn and a closeup of the texture (Fig. 1) along with two additional
photos presenting the same view and closeup for a natural turfgrass lawn
(Fig. 2). The original images were digitally edited by a professional
graphic designer for color balancing and to make the backgrounds of the
images identical. This was done to have participants focus on the dif­
ferences between the lawns themselves and not background vegetation
or significant color variations between the photos. Two versions of each
image were created, one unlabeled (Figs. 1 and 2) and one labeled
(Fig. 3).
3.3. Survey questions
All participants answered the same set of questions, but half of the
participants saw unlabeled versions of the turfgrass lawn photos, and the
other half saw labeled versions. This was done to understand whether
simply labeling the turfgrass lawn types had an effect on participant
responses to their likelihood of engaging in various use cases. Partici­
pants were first asked to select all of the ways they might use an area of
public turfgrass lawn. Uses included the following: Picnic space, Playing
with a child(ren), Playing with a pet(s), Playing organized sports (e.g.,
soccer, football, lacrosse), Playing recreational sports (e.g., frisbee,
bocce ball), Resting/Relaxing, Individual exercise (e.g., walking), Group
exercise (e.g., yoga), Wildlife viewing, Aesthetic enjoyment (views), and
Other (participants filled in their own use). Then, participants were
asked how likely they were to engage in their previously selected uses
related to each turfgrass lawn type on a 1–7 Likert type scale ranging
from 1 being ‘Extremely unlikely’ to 7 being ‘Extremely likely’. Finally,
participants were asked to complete a short section of sociodemographic
questions that included age, race/ethnicity (open-response), gender
(open-response), state of residence, if they had pets and type (dog, cat,
other), and if they had children with age ranges (under 5, 5–11, 12–17,
older than 17).
3.4. Analysis
Data was cleaned and organized when needed for open-ended
questions (e.g., race/ethnicity) along with missing values being
assigned for blank responses so as not to be included in the analysis.
Descriptive statistics, further statistics, and graphs were prepared using
Stata v.16. Paired sample t-tests (ɑ = 0.05) were used to compare arti­
ficial and natural use case ratings. Effect sizes are reported for all sig­
nificant t-tests and were calculated using Cohen’s d values interpreted
broadly as: 0.2 as small, 0.5 as a medium, and 0.8 as large (Cohen,
1992). Correlations were conducted between use case variables and
sociodemographic variables using Pearson’s r correlation test. Mixed
(split-plot) ANOVA was conducted to assess within-subject effects
(artificial vs. natural) and between-subject effects (labeled vs. unla­
beled) for each use case. All models were run with Type III sum of
squares and assessed for sphericity.
4. Results
A total of 1012 responses were gathered of which 931 qualified for
inclusion in the final sample. Excluded survey responses were due to: did
not consent to participate (n = 5), failed attention check (n = 76).
Thirty-three responses fell under the <0.05 reCAPTCHA v3 threshold
but all were included upon manual review. No survey responses fell
under the 2-min time threshold that was not already excluded by other
criteria.
M.R. Barnes and E. Watkins Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 37 (2022) 100480

Fig. 1. Artificial turfgrass photos showing a broad view and closeup texture.

Fig. 2. Natural turfgrass photos showing a broad view and closeup texture.

Fig. 3. Combined labeled photos of artificial and natural turfgrass lawns.

4.1. Sociodemographics individuals, along with a small underrepresentation of Mixed/Biracial

Sample sociodemographics are located in Table 1. The sample was
broadly representative of racial diversity within the United States
(United States Census Bureau, 2019). There was a moderate underrep­
resentation of Hispanic/Latino (− 9.1%) and Caucasian//White (− 5.6%)
(− 2.1%), and Native American/Indigenous (− 0.2%) individuals. Afri­
can American/Black (+7.9), and Asian American/Asian (+7.1%) in­
dividuals were overrepresented in the sample. Females were
underrepresented in the sample by 17.5% compared to the United States
population. The sample was slightly younger (35.6 years) than the

4
M.R. Barnes and E. Watkins Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 37 (2022) 100480

Table 1 4.3. Likelihood of use between artificial and natural turfgrass lawns
Sample Sociodemographics.
Variable n % Variable n % Significant differences were found using paired sample t-tests con­
a c ducted between participants’ likelihood to use artificial and natural
Race/Ethnicity Geographic Region
turfgrass spaces among the majority of use cases (Table 2). Differences
Caucasian/White 513 57.8 South 314 33.7 were unidirectional in nature with a lower likelihood of use for artificial
African American/Black 189 21.3 West 291 31.3
Asian American/Asian 115 13.0 Midwest 165 17.7
turfgrass lawns compared to natural turfgrass lawns. Only one use case,
Hispanic/Latino 55 6.2 Northeast 161 17.3 playing organized sports, had no significant difference between the
Native American/ 10 1.1 Have Child(ren) 692 74.3 likelihood of use between artificial and natural turfgrass lawns. Effect
Indigenous sizes across comparisons were small to medium generally with the
Mixed/Biracial 5 0.6 Younger than 5 yrs 263 38.0
smallest effects (d = − 0.15) found for the use case of playing recrea­
old
Gender b
Child(ren) 5–11 yrs 348 50.3 tional sports. The largest effects were related to the use cases of aesthetic
old enjoyment (d = − 0.41) and picnic space (d = − 0.35).
Male/Masculine 619 66.6 Child(ren) 12–17 yrs 146 21.1 An additional analysis was conducted using mixed ANOVA models,
old to understand if there were significant effects related to labeling the
Female/Feminine 310 33.3 Older than 17 yrs old 95 13.7
Non-binary 1 0.1 Have Pet(s) 748 80.5
turfgrass lawn images as either natural or artificial. Two main effects
were assessed that of lawn type and the labeling of the images as either
Mean SD Dog(s) 631 84.3
artificial or natural. One interaction effet was assessed between lawn
Age 35.6 10.6 Cat(s) 258 34.4
type and labeling. Lwn type was a within-subjects factor, and the lawn
a
Race/Ethnicity categories were created from terms used by survey types being labeled as artificial or natural was a between-subjects factor.
respondents.
b
Gender categories were created from terms used by survey respondents.
c
Geographic region designations follow US census regions as follows. South: Table 2
AL, AR, DC, DE, GA, FL, KY, LA, MD, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV. West: AK, Results of paired t-tests between artificial and natural turfgrass use case
AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MT, NM, OR, UT, WA, WY. Midwest: IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, likelihood.
MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, WI. Northeast: CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT.
Artificial Natural t(df) p Cohen’s
d
average age of the total population (38.5). Regional distribution was Use Cases M SD M SD

also broadly in line with population estimates, with the South and Picnic space 5.23 1.68 5.78 1.40 5.73 <.001 -.35
Midwest having small underrepresentation of − 4.5% and − 3.1% (346)
Playing with a 5.49 1.53 5.81 1.38 4.94 -.22
respectively. The West was moderately overrepresented by +7.5%, and <.001
child(ren) (432)
the Northeast (+0.3%) was almost identical to the population distribu­ Playing with a 5.35 1.62 5.79 1.34 5.80 <.001 -.30
tion. The majority of individuals in the sample had children (74.3%) and pet(s) (409)
were most commonly between 5 and 11 years of age (50.3%). Finally, Playing 5.39 1.64 5.52 1.52 1.56 .12 NS
the majority of individuals had pets (80.5%) of which the majority were organized (276)
sports
dogs (84.3%).
Playing 5.42 1.54 5.65 1.44 2.60 <.01 -.15
recreational (254)
4.2. Turfgrass lawn use cases sports
Resting/ 5.40 1.55 5.86 1.34 5.86 <.001 -.31
Relaxing (385)
No single use case was utilized by the majority of respondents in the Individual 5.44 1.46 5.78 1.30 4.59 <.001 -.24
survey, however the most common use cases related to playing with exercise (365)
children (47%) and pets (44%) as well as general resting and relaxing Group exercise 5.35 1.58 5.69 1.44 4.68 <.001 -.22
(42%) (Fig. 4). The use cases less frequently identified by respondents (328)
Wildlife viewing 5.33 1.70 5.85 1.39 5.01 -.33
were playing organized sports (30%), aesthetics or views (29%), and
<.001
(275)
playing recreational sports (27%). There was only a single significant Aesthetic 5.10 1.76 5.77 1.48 6.25 <.001 -.41
correlation among use cases and sociodemographic variables which was enjoyment (271)
individuals that had pets were positively related to using turfgrass lawns NS = non-significant t-test result Cohen’s d not calculated.
for playing with pets (r = 0.13, p < .01).

Fig. 4. Percentage of individuals who utilize public turfgrass lawns across various use cases.

5
M.R. Barnes and E. Watkins
Fig. 5. Dot plot of mean scores of four study conditions.
Fig. 5 shows mean values for the four total conditions (artificial labeled,
artificial unlabeled, natural labeled, natural unlabeled) by use case. All
assessed models failed Mauchly’s sphericity test, most likely due to the
large sample size, therefore the values reported below are Greenhouse-
Geisser corrected values. Significant results were found across several
use cases.
4.3.1Picnic space
Use had a significant main effect of lawn type (F (1, 345) = 34.65,
MSE = 52.29, p < .001), but the main effect of labeling (F (1, 345) =
2.17, MSE = 3.51, n.s.) was insignificant. While the interaction effect
was significant (F (1, 345) = 6.93, MSE = 10.45, p < .01).
4.3.2Playing with a child(ren)
Use had a significant main effect of lawn type (F (1, 431) = 24.85,
MSE = 23.44, p < .001). The main effect of labeling was insignificant (F
(1, 431) = 0.81, MSE = 1.33, n.s.). However, the interaction effect be­
tween was significant (F (1, 431) = 5.49, MSE = 5.18, p < .05).
4.3.3Playing with a pet(s)
Use had a significant main effect of lawn type (F (1, 408) = 33.01,
MSE = 39.05, p < .001), but the main effect of labeling (F (1, 408) =
2.96, MSE = 4.84, n.s.), and interaction effect (F(1, 408) = 3.33, MSE =
3.94, n.s.) were not significant.
4.3.4Playing organized sports
Use had no significant effects across lawn type (F (1, 275) = 2.39,
MSE = 2.46, n.s.), labeling (F (1, 275) = 1.49, MSE = 2.96, n.s.), or
interaction effects (F(1, 275) = 0.006, MSE = 0.006, n.s.).
4.3.5Playing recreational sports
Use had a significant main effect of lawn type (F (1, 253) = 6.71,
MSE = 6.51, p < .05), but the labeling effect (F(1, 253) = 2.72, MSE =
4.70, n.s.), and interaction effects were not significant (F(1, 253) = 1.98,
MSE = 1.92, n.s.).
4.3.6Resting/Relaxing
Use had a significant main effect of lawn type (F (1, 384) = 33.99,
MSE = 38.43, p < .001), however the labeling effect was not significant
(F (1, 384) = 2.37, MSE = 3.61, n.s.). The interaction effect was sig­
nificant (F (1, 384) = 4.92, MSE = 5.56, p < .05).
4.3.7Individual exercise
Use had a significant main effect of lawn type (F (1, 364) = 20.76,
MSE = 20.44, p < .001), but both the labeling effect (F (1, 364) = 0.23,
MSE = 0.32, n.s.), and interaction effect were not significant (F (1, 364)
6
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 37 (2022) 100480
= 0.50, MSE = 0.49, n.s.).
4.3.8Group exercise
Use had a significant main effect of lawn type (F (1, 327) = 21.56,
MSE = 17.95, p < .001). The labeling effect was non-significant (F (1,
327) = 1.45, MSE = 2.70, n.s.), but the interaction effect between lawn
type and labeling was significant (F (1, 327) = 4.03, MSE = 3.36, p <
.05).
4.3.9Wildlife viewing
Had a significant main effect of lawn type (F (1, 274) = 24.84, MSE
= 36.73, p < .001) as well as a significant effect of labeling (F (1, 274) =
6.57, MSE = 10.79, p < .05). However, the interaction effect was not
significant (F (1, 274) = 0.14, MSE = 0.21, n.s.).
4.3.10Aesthetic enjoyment
Had a significant main effect of lawn type (F (1, 270) = 39.15, MSE
= 60.67, p < .001), however both the labeling effect (F (1, 270) = 2.41,
MSE = 4.47, n.s.), and intersection effect were not significant (F (1, 270)
= 2.37, MSE = 7.33, n.s.).
5. Discussion
Parks are critical green spaces within the built environment and
provide a range of significant benefits both social and ecological. With
pressure to reduce inputs, maintenance budgets, and provide consistent
recreational surfaces, municipalities have turned to artificial turfgrass
lawns which purport to alleviate problems associated with natural
turfgrass lawns. However, research into social perceptions of artificial
turfgrass lawns remains minimal, especially in the context of public
green spaces. In the current study artificial and natural turfgrass lawns
were perceived differently across several use cases.
5.1. Uses of public urban lawns
. First, however, participants articulated the multifunctional uses of
urban public lawn spaces. While broad patterns of how parks are used
have been established in the past (Mexia et al., 2018; Zwierzchowska
et al., 2018), the current work situates turfgrass lawns as the surface on
which many common activities take place in public parks. Turfgrass
lawn spaces allow for use cases that are highly restorative and socially
important such as playing with children and pets, relaxing, and exer­
cising. This reinforces previous findings regarding the central role that
both public and private turfgrass lawns play in supporting various forms
of play and relaxation (Barnes, Nelson, & Dahmus, 2020; Ignatieva et al.,
2017). While other forms of urban vegetation provide certain enhanced
M.R. Barnes and E. Watkins
ecosystem services (e.g., trees and carbon sequestration), natural turf­
grass lawns provide a ground cover that allows for individuals to
actively participate in outdoor activities. Additionally, urban green
spaces including urban parks, as opposed to large wilderness areas, are
often the most frequently visited form of nature that individuals interact
with; therefore, having parks contain flexible spaces that can adapt to
multiple users and use cases is critical in enhancing livability and pro­
moting health and well-being among urban residents (Chiesura, 2004).
While the flexibility of turfgrass lawns is a significant benefit to park
users who can make a patch of lawn into everything from an outdoor
gym to a cozy place to relax, managing such spaces for a variety of use
cases can be challenging. For example, the management requirements of
an actively used sports field vary significantly from a low-traffic area of
lawn on a park’s periphery. While such cases are extreme, management
regimes vary along with several input factors such as mowing and wa­
tering frequency, which can be directly influenced by uses occurring on
the lawn (Murphy & Ebdon, 2013; Tidåker et al., 2017). The complexity
of managing multifunctional public lawns is a difficult task that leaves
public land managers and parks supervisors to balance aesthetics, use
case requirements, and resources simultaneously (Barnes et al., 2018,
2020a; Hammond & Hudson, 2007).
5.2. Likelihood of use differences between artificial and natural turfgrass
lawns
Our study found moderate noticeable differences between artificial
and natural turfgrass lawns related to a participant’s likelihood of use
across most activities. Participants held more favorable views towards
natural turfgrass lawns than artificial ones across all but one use case.
This indicates broad support of natural turfgrass lawns as preferable to
artificial turf for the vast majority of uses cases. The largest effects were
seen in aesthetic enjoyment, wildlife viewing, and a lawn as a picnic
space. Current findings related to aesthetics and wildlife viewing suggest
that even though natural turfgrass lawns are highly managed and often
thought of as an entirely ‘artificially’ human crafted landscape, in­
dividuals see them as natural when compared to non-living artificial turf
(Ignatieva et al., 2017). This socially driven differentiation plays into
biophysical considerations of natural turfgrass lawns being included as
part of urban green infrastructure providing a variety of ecosystem
services (Bowler et al., 2010; Monterio, 2017) compared to artificial turf
being part of built infrastructure in an urban area. Such natural versus
artificial considerations around issues of aesthetics and wildlife viewing
also intersect with the aspect of urban biodiversity. While some natural
turfgrass areas can be monocultures due to extensive management via
herbicide and pesticide use (Bertoncini et al., 2012; Wheeler et al.,
2017), a growing number of alternatives exist to enhance lawn biodi­
versity. More complex alternative natural lawns can come in a variety of
styles. For example, ‘bee lawns’, or ‘flowering lawns’ can attract and
provide habitat to a number of different pollinator species (Ramer et al.,
2019; Wolfin et al., 2021) while maintaining quality turfgrass ground
cover. Additionally, low input turfgrasses (e.g., fine fescues) that
broadly use fewer inputs (e.g., water, fertilizer, mowing) compared to
their traditional counterparts (e.g., Kentucky bluegrass), and urban
meadows that have highly diverse seed mixtures (Hedblom et al., 2017:;
Ignatieva et al., 2015). These alternatives which through various
mechanisms (species, density, maintenance requirements) can lead to
improved ecosystem services especially increased biodiversity (DeBels
et al., 2012; Francoeur et al., 2021; Watkins et al., 2014; Wheeler et al.,
2017). While these alternatives exist their adoption have been slow in
some cases (Barnes, Nelson, Kowalewski, et al., 2020), future research
should investigate aspects of naturalness related to not only the di­
chotomy between artificial and natural but new & alternative forms of
turfgrass landscapes that enhance biodiversity while balancing aesthetic
desires.
Other use cases where differences were moderate included those that
involved more direct contact with the turf surface itself (e.g., picnic
7
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 37 (2022) 100480
space, resting/relaxing). These activities might be more likely to invoke
the characteristics of the surfaces that make them more or less attractive
to individuals related to the specific use case being considered. For
example, an individual wanting to use a lawn as a place to have a picnic
might consider characteristics such as softness/texture, density, and
temperature. Past work has suggested that there are indeed character­
istics that impact individual perceptions of whether a surface as suitable,
related to heat, hardness, and abrasiveness, however, such work has
been limited to athletes and evaluations of sports turf surfaces (Barnes
et al., 2019; Roberts et al., 2014). Future research should address this
gap to understand specific characteristics of artificial and natural turf
related to various use cases among general users and diverse use cases.
The smallest and the only non-significant difference between turf types
was related to playing recreational sports and organized sports respec­
tively. Sporting uses are one area where artificial turf surfaces are
commonly used and have high public visibility especially in professional
sports (Watterson, 2017). Participants’ previous exposure to and po­
tential use of artificial turf surfaces for sports could be a reason why
observed differences were small or non-existent. Artificial turf then
could be seen as an equally acceptable alternative for these specific use
cases. The previously observed critiques of artificial turf found among
professional athletes (Roberts et al., 2014; Strutzenberger et al., 2020)
could be a result of a higher amount of attention paid to the surface and
performance demands compared to casual/recreational sports partici­
pants in the current sample.
5.3. Effects of artificial and natural labels
The effects of labeling lawn images did enhance differences across a
handful of use cases. Activities where labeling mattered (e.g., picnic
space, resting/relaxing) generally mirrored the strongest lawn type ef­
fects. Differences could once again be related to specific attitudes sur­
faced by the term ‘artificial lawn/turf’ which has been found to invoke
highly emotional responses from individuals (Brooks & Francis, 2019).
However, labeling effects were smaller than those observed between the
lawn types themselves. Such findings illustrate that the main differences
found seem to be inherently embedded in the visual appearance of the
lawn types themselves. Meaning that participants were able to assess
that the images were distinct from one another and identified them as
artificial and natural on their own without the need for labels. Addi­
tionally, this find illustrates that despite progress among generations of
artificial turf more naturally mimics natural turfgrass, the visual dif­
ferences still prompt individuals to recognize it is an artificial surface
they are viewing and respond differently. Future research should assess
the specific visual cues that prompt individuals to be able to recognize
and identify an artificial lawn from a natural one.
5.4. Limitations
The current work has a few limitations related to it. First, although
the study asked how participants might use an area of turfgrass lawn, it
didn’t directly sample actual park users which may reflect a different
(and potentially more accurate) pattern of uses than the sample of adults
in the current work. Yet, a sample of general adults could have benefits
related to understanding how they might use parks if such spaces were
available to them. Future work should conduct a similar survey with
park users specifically to understand if use cases and differences be­
tween artificial and natural turf persist. Second, differences found in the
current work are based on images and participants’ own knowledge of
and experience with the two turf types, which could bias responses, and
the direction and strength of such biases is unknown. Future research
could be experiential in nature and conducted in-person with partici­
pants interacting with both turf types which allows for a multi-sensory
experience which could reflect more accurately experiences with each
surface.
M.R. Barnes and E. Watkins
6. Conclusion
The current study identified common uses of pubic turfgrass lawns,
and also how likely individuals might be to use artificial and natural
turfgrass lawn surfaces related to those uses. Participants indicated
support for a wide variety of use cases incorporating both individual and
social activities, and a range from highly active undertakings such as
organized sports to passive ones like resting. This demonstrates the
critical role that turfgrass lawns play in public parks as spaces that
facilitate diverse forms of recreation and relaxation. Participants held
favorable views of natural turfgrass lawns related to the likelihood of use
among all but one use case compared to artificial turfgrass. This suggests
that individuals do indeed prefer natural turfgrass over artificial turf in
most use cases. Additionally, such differences were found in a context
where individuals only had visual comparisons alongside their pre-
existing knowledge rather than an in-person comparison between sur­
face types. While artificial turf has been promoted as an alternative to
natural turfgrass lawns, participants are less likely to use them across
most use cases compared to their natural counterparts. This has signif­
icant implications for decision-makers across the urban landscape who
might be considering artificial turf whereby in addition to environ­
mental drawbacks of artificial turfgrass, socially individuals also prefer
natural turfgrass across the majority of use cases.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Michael R. Barnes: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Meth­
odology, Investigation, Writing - original draft, conceptualized and ac­
quired funding for the project, developed the methodology, conducted
the investigation, and wrote the original draft of the manuscript. Eric
Watkins: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Project administra­
tion, Writing – review & editing, conceptualized and acquired funding
for the project. edited and revised the manuscript, oversaw project
administration.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the funding support by the
Washington Turfgrass Seed Commission along with the participants who
gave their time to complete the survey. Additionally, the authors would
like to thank MR and DH for their review of earlier drafts.
References
Aronson, M. F. J., Lepczyk, C. A., Evans, K. L., Goddard, M. A., Lerman, S. B.,
MacIvor, J. S., et al. (2017). Biodiversity in the city: Key challenges for urban green
space management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(4), 189–196. https://
doi.org/10.1002/fee.1480
Barnes, M. R., Donahue, M. L., Keeler, B. L., Shorb, C. M., Mohtadi, T. Z., & Shelby, L. J.
(2019). Characterizing nature and participant experience in studies of nature
exposure for positive mental health: An integrative review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9,
2617. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02617
Barnes, M. R., Nelson, K. C., & Dahmus, M. E. (2020). What’s in a yardscape? A case
study of emergent ecosystem services and disservices within resident yardscape
discourses in Minnesota. Urban Ecosystems, 23, 1167–1179. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11252-020-01005-2
Barnes, M. R., Nelson, K. C., Kowalewski, A. R., Patton, A. J., & Watkins, E. (2020).
Public land manager discourses on barriers and opportunities for a transition to low
input turfgrass in urban areas. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 53, Article
126745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126745
Barnes, M. R., Nelson, K. C., Meyer, A. J., Watkins, E., Bonos, S. A., Horgan, B. P.,
Meyer, W. A., Murphy, J., & Yue, C. (2018). Public land managers and sustainable
urban vegetation: The case of low-input turfgrasses. Urban Forestry and Urban
Greening, 29, 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.12.008
8
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 37 (2022) 100480
Beard, J. B., & Green, R. L. (1994). The role of turfgrasses in environmental protection
and their benefits to humans. Journal of Environmental Quality, 23(3).
van den Berg, M., Wendel-Vos, W., van Poppel, M., Kemper, H., van Mechelen, W., &
Maas, J. (2015). Health benefits of green spaces in the living environment: A
systematic review of epidemiological studies. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14,
806–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.07.008
Bertoncini, A. P., Machon, N., Pavoine, S., & Muratet, A. (2012). Local gardening
practices shape urban lawn floristic communities. Landscape and Urban Planning,
105, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.017
Bocca, B., Forte, G., Petrucci, F., Costantini, S., & Izzo, P. (2009). Metals contained and
leached from rubber granulates used in synthetic turf areas. The Science of the Total
Environment, 407(7), 2183–2190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.12.026
Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). Urban greening to
cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 97(3), 147–155.
Braun, R. C., Bremer, D. J., & Hoyle, J. A. (2020). Simulated traffic on turfgrasses during
drought stress: I. Performance and recovery of turf canopies. Crop Science. https://
doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20324
Brooks, A., & Francis, R. A. (2019). Artificial lawn people. Nature and Space, 2(3),
548–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619843729
Buchel, S., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived
ecosystem services by urban park users in rotterdam, The Netherlands. Ecosyst.
Services, 1, 169–177.
Burillo, P., Gallardo, L., Felipe, J. L., & Gallardo, A. M. (2014). Artificial turf surfaces:
Perception of safety, sporting feature, satisfaction and preference of football users.
European Journal of Sport Science, 14(1), S437–S447. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17461391.2012.713005
Cameron, R., Blanusa, T., Taylor, J., Salisbury, A., Halstead, A., Henricot, B., &
Thompson, K. (2012). The domestic garden: Its contribution to urban green
infrastructure. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 11(2), 129–137. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ufug.2012.01.002
Chaiyarat, R., Wutthithai, O., Punwong, P., & Taksintam, W. (2019). Relationships
between urban parks and bird diversity in the Bangkok metropolitan area, Thailand (Vol.
22, pp. 201–212). Urban Ecosyst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0807-1
Cheng, H., Hu, Y., & Reinhard, M. (2014). Environmental and health impacts of artificial
turf: A review. Environmental Science & Technology, 48, 2114–2129. https://doi.org/
10.1021/es4044193
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 68, 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
Christians, N., Patton, A. J., & Law, Q. D. (2017). Fundamentals of turfgrass management
(5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119308867
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Cohen, D. A., Han, B., Derose, K. P., Williamson, S., Marsh, T., Raaen, L., &
McKenzie, T. L. (2016). The paradox of parks in low-income areas: Park use and
perceived threats. Environment and Behavior, 48(1), 230–245. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0013916515614366
DeBels, B. T., Griffith, S. E., Kreuser, W. C., Melby, E. S., & Soldat, D. J. (2012).
Evaluation of mowing height and fertilizer application rate on quality and weed
abundance of five home lawn grasses. Weed Technology, 26(4), 826–831. https://doi.
org/10.1614/WT-D-12-00062.1
von Delden, L., Larsen, E., Rowlings, D., Scheer, C., & Grace, P. (2016). Establishing
turfgrass increases soil greenhouse gas emissions in peri-urban environments. Urban
Ecosystems, 19(2), 749–762.
Dingle, G., & Mallen, C. (2020). Community sports fields and atmospheric climate
impacts: Australian and Canadian perspectives. Managing Sport of Leisure. https://
doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2020.1766375
Dou, Y., Zhen, L., De Groot, R., Du, B., & Yu, X. (2017). Assessing the importance of
cultural ecosystem services in urban areas of Beijing municipality. Ecosyst. Serv., 24,
79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.011
Elderbrock, E., Enright, C., Lynch, K. A., & Rempel, A. R. (2020). A guide to public green
space planning for urban ecosystem services. Land, 9(10), 391. https://doi.org/
10.3390/land9100391
Fischer, L. K., Honold, J., Botzat, A., Brinkmeyer, D., Cvejić, R., Delshammar, T.,
Elands, B., Haase, D., Kabisch, N., Karle, S. J., Lafortezza, R., Nastran, M.,
Nielsen, A. B., van der Jagt, A. P., Vierikko, K., & Kowarik, I. (2018). Recreational
ecosystem services in European cities: Sociocultural and geographical contexts
matter for park use. Ecosyst. Serv., 31, 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecoser.2018.01.015
Fleming, P. (2011). Artificial turf systems for sports surfaces: Current knowledge and
research needs. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers - Part P: Journal
of Sports Engineering and Technology, 225(2), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1754337111401688
Francoeur, X. W., Dagenais, D., Paquette, A., Dupras, J., & Messier, C. (2021).
Complexifying the urban lawn improves heat mitigation and arthropod biodiversity.
Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 60, Article 127007.
Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Marítnez, D., Dadvand, P., Rojas-Rueda, D., Plasència, A.,
& Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2016). Residential green spaces and mortality: A
systematic review. Environment International, 86, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2015.10.013
Halsband, C., Sørensen, L., Booth, A. M., & Herzke, D. (2020). Car tire crumb rubber:
Does leaching produce a toxic chemical cocktail in coastal marine systems? Frontiers
of Environmental Science, 8, 125. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.00125
Hamido, S. A., Guertal, E. A., & Wood, C. W. (2016). Carbon sequestration under warm
season turfgrasses in home lawns. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 4,
53–63. https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2016.49005
M.R. Barnes and E. Watkins
Hammond, R. A., & Hudson, M. D. (2007). Environmental management of UK golf
courses for biodiversity-attitudes and actions. Landscape and Urban Planning, 83,
127–136.
Hedblom, M., Lindberg, F., Vogel, E., Wissman, J., & Ahrné, K. (2017). Estimating urban
lawn cover in space and time: Case studies in three Swedish cities. Urban Ecosystems,
20, 1109–1119.
Hiemstra, J. A., Saaroni, H., & Amorim, J. H. (2017). The urban heat island: Thermal
comfort and the role of urban greening. In D. Pearlmutter (Ed.), The urban forest,
future city (Vol. 7, pp. 7–19). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-50280-9_2.
Hobbie, S. E., Finlay, J. C., Janke, B. D., Nidzgorski, D. A., Millet, D. B., & Baker, L. A.
(2017). Contrasting nitrogen and phosphorus budgets in urban watersheds and
implications for managing urban water pollution. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(16), 4177–4182.
Hong, M., Bremer, D., & Keeley, S. (2019). Minimal water requirements of cool-season
turfgrasses for survival and recovery after prolonged drought. Kansas Agricultural
Experiment Station Research Reports, 5(5). https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.7765
Hugie, K., Yue, C., & Watkins, E. (2012). Consumer preferences for low-input turfgrasses:
A conjoint analysis. HortScience, 47(8), 1096–1101.
Ignatieva, M., Ahrné, K., Wissman, J., Eriksson, T., Tidåker, P., Hedblom, M., Kätterer, T.,
Marstorp, H., Berg, P., Eriksson, T., & Bengtsson, J. (2015). Lawn as a cultural and
ecological phenomenon: A conceptual framework for transdisciplinary research.
Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 14(2), 383–387.
Ignatieva, M., Eriksson, F., Eriksson, T., Berg, P., & Hedbloom, M. (2017). The lawn as a
social and cultural phenomenon in Sweden (Vol. 21, pp. 213–223). Urban For. Urban
Green.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.12.006
Ignatieva, M., Eriksson, F., Eriksson, T., Kätterer, T., Tidåker, P., Wissman, J., Ahrné, K.,
Bengtsson, J., & Hedblom, M. (2020). Pros and cons of transdisciplinary research: A
case study of Swedish lawns and their sustainable alternatives. Urban Forestry and
Urban Greening, 56, Article 126799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126799
Kabisch, N., & Haase, D. (2014). Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green
spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 129–139. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.11.016
Kaźmierczak, A. (2013). The contribution of local parks to neighborhood social ties.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 109, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2012.05.007
Kowalewski, A. R., Dunne, J. C., Rogers, J. N., & Crum, J. R. (2011). Heavy sand and
crumb rubber topdressing improves Kentucky bluegrass wear tolerance. Applied
Turfgrass Science. https://doi.org/10.1094/ATS-2011-1223-01-RS
Kowalewski, A. R., Schwartz, B. M., Grimshaw, A. L., McCrimmon, J. N., & Layton, J. M.
(2014). Mowing requirement and cost to maintain Bermudagrass is influenced by
cultivar selection and trinexapac-ethyl use. Applied Turfgrass Science. https://doi.
org/10.2134/ATS-2014-0019-RS
Langemeyer, J., Camps-Calvet, M., Calvett-Mir, L., Barthel, S., & Gómez-Baggethun, E.
(2018). Stewardship of urban ecosystem services: Understanding the value(s) of
urban gardens in Barcelona. Landscape and Urban Planning, 170, 79–89. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.013
Larson, K. L., Casagrande, D., Harlan, S. L., & Yabiku, S. T. (2009). Residents’ yard
choices and rationales in a desert city: Social priorities, ecological impacts, and
decision tradeoffs. Environ. Mgmt., 44, 921–937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-
009-9353-1
Law, Q. D., Bigelow, C. A., & Patton, A. J. (2016). Selecting turfgrasses and mowing
practicies that reduce mowing requirements. Crop Science, 56, 3318–3327. https://
doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2015.09.0595
Lee, S.-K. (2011). Winterkill and strategy of golf course management: A review. Asian
Journal of Transfusion Science, 25(2), 133–137.
Liu, Z., & Jim, C. Y. (2021). Playing on natural or artificial turf sports field? Assessing
heat stress of children, young athletes, and adults in Hong Kong. Sustainable Cities
and Society, 75, Article 103271.
Liu, H., Li, F., Li, J., & Zhang, Y. (2017). The relationships between urban parks,
residents’ physical activity and mental health benefits: A case study from Beijing,
China. Journal of Environmental Management, 190, 223–230. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.058
Menichini, E., Abate, V., Attias, L., De Luca, S., di Domenico, A., Fochi, I., Forte, G.,
Iacovella, N., Iamiceli, A. L., Izzo, P., Merli, F., & Bocca, B. (2011). Artificial-turf
playing fields: Contents of metals, PAHs, PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs, inhalation
exposure to PAHs and related preliminary risk assessment. The Science of the Total
Environment, 409(23), 4950–4957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.07.042
Mexia, T., Vieira, J., Principe, A., Anjos, A., Silva, P., Lopes, N., Freitas, C., Santos-
Reis, M., Correia, O., Branquinho, C., & Pinho, P. (2018). Ecosystem services: Urban
parks under a magnifying glass. Environmental Research, 160, 469–478. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.10.023
Molin, J. F., & Konijnendijk van den Bosch, C. C. (2014). Between big ideas and daily
realities - the roles and perspectives of Danish municipal green space managers on
public involvement in green space maintenance. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening,
13, 553–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2014.03.006
Monteiro, J. A. (2017). Ecosystem services from turfgrass landscapes. Urban Forestry and
Urban Greening, 26, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.04.001
Murphy, J. A., & Ebdon, J. S. (2013). Study and management of turfgrass traffic stress. In
J. C. Steier, B. P. Horgan, & S. A. Bonos (Eds.), Agron. Monogr. 56Turfgrass: Biology,
use, and management (pp. 1029–1074). Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, SSSA.
Poulos, C. C. N., Gallucci, J., Jr., Gage, W. H., Baker, J., Buitrago, S., & Macpherson, A. K.
(2014). The perceptions of professional soccer players on the risk of injury from
Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 37 (2022) 100480
competition and training on natural grass and 3rd generation artificial turf. BMC
Sports Science, Medicine, and Rehabilitation, 6(11).
Ramer, H., Nelson, K. C., Spivak, M., Watkins, E., Wolfin, J., & Pulscher, M. (2019).
Exploring park visitor perceptions of ‘flowering bee lawns’ in neighborhood parks in
Minneapolis, MN, US. Landscape and Urban Planning, 189, 117–128. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.04.015
Reynolds, H., Brandt, L., Widhalm, M., Fei, S., Fischer, B., Hardiman, B., Moxley, D.,
Sandweiss, E., Speer, J., & Dukes, J. S. (2018). Maintaining Indiana’s urban green
spaces: A report from the Indiana climate change impacts assessment. Purdue climate
change research center. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University. https://doi.org/
10.5703/1288284316653
Robbins, P., & Sharp, J. T. (2003). Producing and consuming chemicals: The moral
economy of the American lawn. Economic Geography, 79(4), 425–451.
Roberts, J., Osei-Owusu, P., Harland, A., Owen, A., & Smith, A. (2014). Elite football
players’ perceptions of football turf and natural grass surface properties. Procedia
Engineering, 72, 907–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.06.150
Serensits, T. J., McNitt, A. S., & Sorochan, J. C. (2013). Synthetic turf. In J. C. Steier,
B. P. Horgan, & S. A. Bonos (Eds.), Agron. Monogr. 56Turfgrass: Biology, use, and
management (pp. 1029–1074). Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, SSSA.
Silva, D. C. F., Santos, R., Vilas-Boas, J. P., Macedo, R., Montes, A. M., & Sousa, A. S. P.
(2017). Influence of cleats-surface interaction on performance and risk of injury in
soccer: A systematic review. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics. , Article 1305479.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1305479
Sreetheran, M. (2017). Exploring the urban park use, preference and behaviours among the
residents of Kuala Lumpur (Vol. 25, pp. 85–93). Malaysia: Urban For. Urban Green..
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.003
Straw, C. M., Henry, G. M., Shannon, J., & Thompson, J. J. (2018). Athletes’ perceptions
of within-field variability on natural turfgrass sports fields. Precision Agriculture.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-018-9585-2
Straw, C. M., Samson, C. O., Henry, G. M., & Brown, C. N. (2020). A review of turfgrass
sports field variability and its implications on athlete-surface interactions. Agronomy
Journal, 112(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20193
Strutzenberger, G., Edmunds, R., Nokes, L. D. M., Mitchell, I. D., Mellalieu, S. D., &
Irwin, G. (2020). Player-surface interactions: Perception in elite soccer and rugby
players on artificial and natural turf. Sports Biomechanics. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14763141.2020.1720279
Svendsen, E. S., Campbell, L. K., & McMillen, H. L. (2016). Stories, shrines, and symbols:
Recognizing psycho-social-spiritual benefits of urban parks and natural areas.
Journal of Ethnobiology, 36(4), 881–907.
Taylor, S. A., Fabricant, P. D., Khair, M. M., Haleem, A. M., & Drakos, M. C. (2012).
A review of synthetic playing surfaces, the shoe-surface interface, and lower
extremity injuries in athletes. Physiotherapy in Sport, 40(4), 66–72. https://doi.org/
10.3810/psm.2012.11.1989
Tidåker, P., Wesström, T., & Kätterer, T. (2017). Energy use and greenhouse gas
emissions from turf management of two Swedish golf courses. Urban Forestry and
Urban Greening, 21, 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.11.009
United States Census Bureau. (2019). https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/
US/PST045219.
Watkins, E., Gardner, D. S., Stier, J. C., Soldat, D. J., St John, R. A., Christians, N. E.,
Hathaway, A. D., Diesburg, K. L., Poppe, S. R., & Gaussoin, R. E. (2014). Cultivar
performance of low input turfgrass species for the North Central United States.
Applied Turfgrass Science, 11. https://doi.org/10.2134/ATS-2013-0101-RS
Watterson, A. (2017). Artificial turf: Contested terrains for precautionary public health
with particular reference to Europe? International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health, 14, 1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14091050
Wheeler, M. M., Neill, C., Groffman, P. M., Avolio, M., Bettez, N., Cavender-Bares, J.,
Chowdhury, R. R., Darling, L., Grove, J. M., Hall, S. J., Heffernan, J. B., Hobbie, S. E.,
Larson, K. L., Morse, J. L., Nelson, K. C., Ogden, L. A., O’Neil-Dunne, J., Pataki, D. E.,
Polsky, C., Steele, M., & Trammell, T. L. E. (2017). Continental-scale homogenization
of residential lawn plant communities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 165, 54–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.05.004
Wolfin, J., Watkins, E., Lane, I., Portman, Z., & Spivak, M. (2021). Floral Enhancement of
turfgrass lawns benefits Wild Bees and Honey Bees (Apis Mellifera). Research Square.
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-298235/v1
Wood, L., Hooper, P., Foster, S., & Bull, F. (2017). Public green spaces and positive
mental health - investigating relationship between access, quantity and types of
parks and mental wellbeing. Health & Place, 48, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
healthplace.2017.09.002
Wu, F., Li, S. H., & Liu, J. M. (2007). The effects of greening, none-greening square and
lawn on temperature, humidity and human comfort. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 27(7),
2964–2971.
Yaghoobian, N., Kleissl, J., & Krayenhoff, E. S. (2010). Modeling the thermal effects of
artificial turf on the urban environment. Journal of Applied Meteorology and
Climatology, 49. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2012.713005
Zafri, N. M., Jahangir, A., Prithul, A. A., Rahman, M., Sharmin, N., & Islam, I. (2019).
Who uses urban parks? A study of user characteristics and activity patterns of ramna
park, Dhaka. IJAUD, 9(2), 5–14.
Zwierzchowska, I., Hof, A., Iojă, I.-C., Mueller, C., Poniży, L., Breuste, J., & Mizgajski, A.
(2018). Multi-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services of parks in Central
European cities. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 30, 84–97. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ufug.2017.12.017