ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Neiman Sports Complex , St . Paul , Minnesota . University of Minnesota St . Paul Campus , St . Paul , Minnesota .
Provisioning ecosystem services are more tangible material outputs that can be biotic and abiotic ( e . g ., decorative flowers ).
Regulation and maintenance ecosystem services refer to the abiotic and biotic effects of environments that impact human comfort , health and / or safety ( e . g ., cooling ).
Within each category there are a vast number of subcategories to enhance the specificity of benefits . This helps researchers better capture specific differences between landscapes and ecosystems and then compare the relative benefits between different types of nature . With a little background on ecosystem services , we can discuss the two factors mentioned earlier : inappropriate landscape comparisons , and missing cultural ecosystem services .
WHY IS TURFGRASS DEVALUED ? First , turfgrass greenspaces rarely are compared on a like-to-like basis with other surface types . Often , turfgrass is compared with landscapes that share minimal characteristics in common with it such as prairies or forests . Although these landscapes have immense value , they don ’ t afford the same use and functions as turfgrass . For example , it would be quite difficult to hold a soccer match in a forest without a lot of risk . So , although a forest will provide significantly more CO2 absorption than a turfgrass sports field , its uses and functions are distinctly different .
So , to what should we compare turfgrass areas ? These spaces provide a comfortable ground cover , which allows a variety of activities to take place on them . The logical comparisons are then alternative “ ground covers ” ( e . g ., artificial turf and hardscape ) or lack of ground cover ( e . g ., dirt ). When we compare the ecosystem services , what do we find ? Natural turfgrass areas contain far more ecosystem services than the alternatives , which provide — at best — minimal services , or — at worst — disservices , or outputs that negatively impact environmental or human well-being ( e . g ., increased heat ). Therefore , when using like-to-like surface comparisons we can say that turfgrass greenspaces provide : Increased CO2 sequestration . Increased cooling to combat urban heat effects . Increased opportunities for safe and sustainable recreation and relaxation .
It also should be noted that these ecosystem services or benefits can be enhanced further by the adoption of best management practices and lower-input turfgrasses , allowing turfgrass spaces to increase their benefits while maintaining quality .
The second factor is related to an issue from the research and academic side , whereby , until recently , cultural ecosystem services have received little attention . The ecosystem services framework was first widely adopted for use in the natural sciences , which prioritized work on provisioning and regulation and maintenance services of landscapes , which makes sense given their perspectives . However , this meant that the area in which turfgrass is strongest — cultural services — was not talked about nearly as frequently to its ongoing detriment .
An observation from my initial work in the world of turfgrass science was that individuals largely glossed over the surface on which activities were taking place . While researchers would talk about the benefits of parks , for example , they would mention that people could play frisbee in the park , but never mention what surface it was on – which was most likely turfgrass . So , what may seem obvious to folks in the industry is sadly overlooked by many .
What kinds of benefits do turfgrass areas have specifically related to cultural ecosystem services compared to similar surfaces ?
Continued on page 37 sportsfieldmanagementonline . com September 2023 | SportsField Management
27