Artificial turf or green space? Defending the wild corners of childhood

Written By Gillian Erskine

Last week, I shared a question on LinkedIn on behalf of a group of Sheffield parents who are pushing back against a proposal to replace much of their children’s school playing field with a second artificial surface.

"Does anyone know individuals or organisations who advise schools on the use of outdoor space, particularly with a nature-positive, child-centred, or play-focused lens?"

I did not expect the flood of generous and thoughtful responses that followed. Here’s a quick summary of the conversation, a digest of resources, and a huge thank you to everyone who took the time to comment, tag others, and share your insights. 

May it help others facing similar decisions in their own school communities.

Original Post (for context)

Looking for advice: natural space VS artificial surfaces in schools

(Posting this on behalf of a friend – let me know if you can help)

My children’s primary school in Sheffield is proposing to replace much of its grass playing field with a second artificial surface, a multi-use games area (MUGA). The school says the grass has become “substantially unusable” and that they’re now struggling to deliver PE.

But many of us in the community believe this is the wrong solution. The natural space is valuable — for biodiversity, for play, for well-being — and we believe there are ways to accommodate outdoor PE without losing the grass entirely.

We also think the school has a blind spot when it comes to the benefits of nature, especially in urban education.

We’re a group of parents trying to:

  • Push for a more structured consultation around multiple options

  • Challenge what’s been a top-down, poorly communicated decision-making process

  • Bring in expertise to suggest more creative, inclusive, and nature-based uses of the space

Planning permission has just been granted, but the school says it’s still open to other options.

Does anyone know individuals or organisations who advise schools on the use of outdoor space, particularly with a nature-positive, child-centred, or play-focused lens?

Thanks in advance for any leads.

Themes that emerged from the comments:

  1. Artificial surfaces come with hidden costs. From chemical exposure (e.g. PFAS) to heat retention and water runoff, artificial turf has serious downsides. EU regulations are changing, and maintenance isn’t as low-effort as many believe.

  2. Girls and non-dominant groups often lose out. MUGAs may be “multi-use” in name, but in practice, they’re often dominated by competitive ball games and exclude girls and quieter forms of play. Make Space for Girls offers a detailed breakdown.

  3. Nature-based solutions are proven, cheaper, and more inclusive. Whether it’s OPAL, Cour Oasis, or Nantes’ playground initiative, natural schoolyards support mental health, creativity, and biodiversity — and often cost less than artificial installs.

  4. There’s a policy and advocacy network ready to help. From Let’s Go Zero to the National Education Nature Park and Department for Education (DfE) sustainability goals, there are frameworks that support green school grounds - schools just need help tapping into them.

People & Projects 

Ideas & Frameworks

Did I miss anything? Probably, please comment below and let me know.

Huge thanks to everyone who commented, tagged others, or shared their time and insight. 

We can do better, and as you’ve shown, there’s no shortage of ideas, just a need for visibility and will.

If you’re reading this and working through a similar issue, I’d love to hear from you, or help you connect with any of the contributors above.

Gill

Link to the original LinkedIn Post below: 

Gillian Erskine
Next

NatureMind 2025