Is synthetic grass sustainable for childcare centres?

Synthetic grass can be a practical and good-value surface for childcare centres, but the sustainability equation is different from a school.

Childcare yards are usually smaller, more intensively landscaped and more heavily shaded. Children are also much closer to the ground. They sit, crawl, roll, lie and play directly on the surface, rather than primarily using it for running and active games.

There can also be playground impact requirements, complex drainage and high traffic concentrated into relatively small areas.

The right question is therefore not simply natural grass or synthetic grass?

It is which surface creates the best whole-of-life outcome for this particular part of the childcare environment?

A childcare yard combining synthetic lawn with planting and natural materials

Why can natural turf be difficult in childcare?

Natural grass provides important benefits. It is a living surface, supports soil biology, helps cool the environment and provides children with genuine contact with nature.

But childcare yards can create difficult growing conditions.

Compared with many school grounds, they often have:

smaller outdoor areas
high use relative to the available space
significant building and tree shade
limited opportunities to rotate or rest areas
repeated traffic along the same routes
play equipment occupying substantial portions of the yard
limited sunlight reaching ground level
drainage constraints between buildings and boundaries

Healthy turf needs sunlight, soil, water, drainage and an opportunity to recover.

When those conditions are not available, maintaining natural turf can mean ongoing mowing, watering, fertilising, aerating, repairing worn areas and regularly replacing failed turf.

A natural lawn that continually turns to bare soil or mud is not necessarily the more sustainable solution simply because it is natural.

What does natural turf provide?

Where it can grow successfully, natural turf has significant advantages.

It provides:

natural cooling
a soft living landscape
permeable ground
functioning soil biology
opportunities for insects and birds
seasonal variation
genuine contact with nature
the ability to regenerate and be repaired progressively

Natural grass can be particularly valuable when it forms part of a broader landscape of trees, gardens, sensory planting, sand, soil and other natural materials.

It does not need to cover the entire yard to contribute meaningfully to the natural environment.

Why is synthetic grass commonly used in childcare?

Synthetic grass solves several practical problems particularly well in early learning environments.

It provides a consistent surface in areas where natural grass may struggle with shade or concentrated traffic. It eliminates mowing and irrigation for turf growth, avoids mud and can remain usable throughout the year.

Unlike many school applications, childcare synthetic turf is also frequently used as a contact surface.

Children may sit for group activities, roll down a mound, crawl across it, lie on it, build on it or use it as part of imaginative play.

This changes the design criteria.

Texture, surface temperature, pile quality, cushioning, cleanliness, drainage and how the turf feels against the skin become particularly important.

What about softfall?

Synthetic grass and playground softfall are not automatically the same thing.

Where there is a fall from playground equipment, the complete surfacing system may need to provide appropriate impact attenuation for the equipment and its free height of fall.

Synthetic turf can form the visible upper layer of an impact-attenuating system, with an appropriate shock pad or other compliant system underneath it.

The important point is that the grass itself should not be assumed to provide the required impact protection.

The complete installed system needs to be designed for the application and assessed against the relevant playground surfacing requirements.

This can make synthetic turf particularly useful where a childcare centre wants a continuous grass-like appearance through play areas while still accommodating different technical requirements underneath.

Drainage is particularly important in small childcare yards

Drainage can be one of the biggest challenges in childcare landscape design.

A relatively small yard can receive runoff from roofs, paved areas, play structures and adjoining surfaces. Because the available outdoor area is limited, small drainage problems can affect a significant proportion of the usable space.

Synthetic turf can provide useful design flexibility.

The underlying base can be carefully graded to:

create controlled falls
direct water toward drainage points
form gentle mounds and contours
remove local depressions where water collects
transition between different levels
maintain a usable surface over engineered drainage

This does not mean synthetic turf solves drainage by itself.

The base beneath it does the work.

But because the finished surface does not depend on growing grass in soil, the landscape can sometimes be shaped more precisely to manage water while still providing a soft, usable play surface.

For small and highly constrained childcare yards, that can be a significant advantage.

What is the maintenance difference?

Natural turf and synthetic grass both require maintenance, but the type of maintenance is different.

Natural turf can require:

mowing and edging
irrigation
fertilising
aeration
topdressing
weed management
repairing worn areas
re-turfing
machinery and labour
periods of recovery after renovation

Synthetic grass can require:

removal of leaves and organic material
cleaning
brushing or grooming
inspection of edges and joins
local repairs
drainage inspection
periodic specialist maintenance

Synthetic turf is therefore lower maintenance rather than maintenance free.

In a childcare environment, cleaning is also particularly important because children spend so much time physically in contact with the surface.

How long do the surfaces last?

Natural turf does not have a fixed replacement date.

Where growing conditions are good, it can continually regenerate and individual worn areas can be repaired. Where conditions are poor, however, a childcare centre may find itself repeatedly replacing the same patches.

Synthetic turf has a more defined service life.

The actual life depends on product quality, UV exposure, intensity of use, installation and maintenance. Eventually the manufactured surface needs to be replaced, creating a larger periodic capital and environmental cost.

The financial comparison is therefore generally:

Natural turf: lower initial investment, but potentially significant recurring maintenance and repair.

Synthetic turf: higher initial investment, generally lower routine maintenance, but eventual capital replacement.

What about heat?

Synthetic grass can become significantly hotter than healthy natural grass in direct sunlight.

This is an important consideration, particularly because younger children spend more time sitting, crawling and lying directly on the surface.

However, childcare environments are often substantially more shaded than school playing areas.

Buildings, mature trees, verandahs and dedicated shade structures can reduce direct solar exposure across much of the yard. Shade can dramatically reduce synthetic-turf surface temperatures.

This makes shade and turf selection part of the same design decision.

ULP considers where the sun actually reaches the surface, at what time of day, and how children will use that particular area.

An exposed synthetic surface and a well-shaded synthetic surface are very different environments.

What about pile height?

Pile should be selected according to the intended use of the area rather than on appearance alone.

For childcare, tactile quality is particularly important because children have much greater direct body contact with the turf than older school students.

The appropriate product needs to balance:

softness
density
durability
cleanability
heat performance
drainage
accessibility
intended play
any underlying impact-attenuating system

It should not be assumed that longer pile is inherently cooler. Australian testing has found longer-pile synthetic turf can become hotter than shorter products under comparable direct-sun conditions.

Again, shade is the much more important heat-management strategy.

What about loose rubber crumb?

Some synthetic sports fields use loose rubber crumb between the turf fibres.

ULP does not use loose rubber crumb infill in our childcare synthetic grass installations and we advise against it.

Loose crumb can migrate from the surface into adjoining areas, drains and waterways and has been identified as a potential source of microplastic pollution.

It is also unnecessary for the types of landscape synthetic turf systems ULP typically uses in childcare environments.

This is an important distinction when comparing environmental information about synthetic sports fields with synthetic grass used in a childcare landscape.

They are not necessarily the same system.

What about microplastics?

Conventional synthetic turf is still a polymer-based manufactured product.

Even without loose rubber crumb, fibres can wear over time and potentially contribute small plastic fragments to the environment.

Product quality, installation, containment, maintenance and drainage detailing matter, but they do not make conventional synthetic turf plastic free.

ULP therefore believes it should be used where its functional advantages justify the material, rather than simply using it as the default groundcover across an entire childcare yard.

Are lower-impact synthetic products emerging?

Yes.

The technology is changing.

Some manufacturers are now producing synthetic turf fibres using bio-based polyethylene derived partly from renewable feedstocks such as sugarcane. Other systems incorporate recycled materials and alternatives to conventional rubber infill.

These are promising developments.

However, sugarcane-derived polyethylene is still polyethylene. A renewable feedstock can reduce reliance on fossil carbon, but it does not make the finished turf biodegradable or eliminate considerations such as heat, fibre wear and end-of-life replacement.

ULP will continue to assess these materials as the technology develops.

Natural turf vs synthetic grass in childcare

Consideration	Natural turf	Synthetic grass
Initial investment	Usually lower	Usually higher
Ongoing inputs	Water, mowing, turf care, repair and labour	Cleaning, grooming, inspection and periodic maintenance
Shade tolerance	Can struggle in heavily shaded areas	Performs consistently in shade
Concentrated traffic	Can wear quickly	Handles intensive use well
Direct body contact	Natural, soft when healthy	Consistent and can be selected for softness
Mud	Possible when worn or wet	Avoided with a properly designed base
Drainage	Depends heavily on soil and site conditions	Engineered base can provide precise falls and drainage
Contouring	Soil and turf can be shaped	Well suited to formed mounds and controlled surface falls
Softfall	Separate compliant system may be required	Can form the finish over an appropriate impact-attenuating system
Heat	Naturally cooling	Can become hot in direct sun, making shade important
Natural value	Living soil and vegetation	Very limited biological value
Repair	Can regenerate or be locally re-turfed	Local repairs possible, eventual carpet replacement required
Availability	May need recovery after wear or repair	Generally consistent year-round
End of life	Progressively renewable	Manufactured surface eventually requires replacement
Best suited to	Areas with sufficient light and conditions for healthy growth	High-use, shaded or technically constrained areas

Which provides better value for a childcare centre?

The answer depends on the yard.

If a natural lawn receives enough sunlight, drains well and can withstand the number of children using it, natural turf can provide excellent long-term value.

But if a centre continually waters, repairs and replaces turf that fails because the yard is shaded and intensely used, the apparently cheaper surface may not actually be cheaper over its life.

Synthetic grass can justify its higher initial investment by reducing:

mowing
irrigation
repeated turf replacement
muddy or unusable areas
maintenance intervention
downtime while new grass establishes

It can also provide additional value by allowing the underlying landscape to be engineered around drainage, levels, mounds and playground surfacing requirements.

The right comparison is therefore not simply the installation price.

It is:

whole-of-life cost + usability + environmental impact + play value

So, which should a childcare centre choose?

Often, both.

A high-quality childcare environment should not depend on synthetic grass to provide its connection with nature.

Natural turf, planting, trees, gardens, sand, soil, logs, rocks, water and other natural materials can all contribute to a rich living landscape.

Synthetic grass can then be used strategically where it performs a valuable job, particularly in:

heavily shaded areas
high-traffic zones
small constrained yards
spaces requiring carefully controlled drainage
formed mounds and contours
areas where repeated natural turf failure is likely
locations requiring a durable and comfortable everyday play surface

ULP’s approach

ULP does not treat synthetic grass as a substitute for nature.

We treat it as one landscape material within a much broader outdoor environment.

We do not use loose rubber crumb infill and advise against its use.

Where synthetic grass is appropriate, we consider how young children will actually interact with it: sitting, crawling, rolling, lying, playing and moving across it. We consider shade, heat, drainage, softness, durability, maintenance, impact requirements and expected lifespan.

Where natural turf can grow successfully, it provides valuable cooling, living soil and connection with nature.

Where it cannot, repeatedly replacing struggling grass may offer neither the best environmental outcome nor the best value.

The better question is not:

Natural turf or synthetic grass?