FAQ 09 Cost-Benefit Analysis

More in this section

• Teamwork
• ESG Criteria
• Safe Grounds
• Ecological Transition
• Benefit Activities
• FAQ 01 Issues in Fields
• FAQ 02 Player Safety
• FAQ 03 The Risks of Rubber
• FAQ 04 Zinc in Rubber
• FAQ 05 Advice to Players
• FAQ 06 How does POWERgrass solve?
• FAQ 07 Sports Fields Standards
• FAQ 08 Hours of play per week
• FAQ 09 Cost-Benefit Analysis
• FAQ 10 Regular vs Extraordinary
• FAQ 11 The Challenges of Sports Fields
• FAQ 12 Environmental standards and the field
• FAQ 13 Meaning of Sustainable Fields
• FAQ 14 Fields and Greenwashing

How is balance between costs and benefits determined, considering the installation and maintenance costs of the POWERgrass hybrid system compared to traditional natural or synthetic grass fields?

When analyzing the cost-benefit ratio between POWERgrass hybrid fields and those made of synthetic or natural grass, it is important to consider various variables of each system, which include the initial installation cost, the expected lifespan of the field, maintenance expenses and the field's performances.

Although the installation of synthetic or hybrid grass fields may initially be more expensive than natural grass fields, in the long term, both synthetic and POWERgrass hybrid fields can turn out to be more cost-effective thanks to their longer lifespan and availability for play.

The lifespan of a natural grass field can be difficult to estimate due to potential climate change-related risks. This could also be partially true for synthetic grass, which can be significantly damaged, for example, by flooding. However, these risks do not apply to hybrid grass fields, which not only have a lifespan twice as long as a synthetic field, but also pose less risk of requiring costly extraordinary maintenance.

With respect to maintenance costs, synthetic grass fields usually are less expensive to maintain than natural grass ones. Even POWERgrass hybrid fields, being almost entirely natural, require less intensive maintenance compared to fully natural fields, generating considerable savings both in the medium and long term, even when compared to synthetic fields, if you consider the entire lifecycle of the system, including both regular and extraordinary maintenance costs.

In terms of performance, both synthetic and natural grass have strengths and weaknesses: synthetic grass offers consistent gameplay, but can be slippery when it is too wet, while natural grass ensures top performances when it is in excellent condition but can quickly deteriorate. POWERgrass hybrid fields combine the advantages of both, ensuring natural performances along with greater durability due to synthetic fibers.

Upon evaluating all the variables, such as available budget, the expected lifespan of the field, and desired playing standards, the cost-benefit balance between a POWERgrass hybrid system and natural or synthetic grass fields could vary. However, the analysis suggests that the POWERgrass hybrid option could represent the best solution.

Evaluating all variables, including available budget, anticipated duration of the field, and desired game standards, the cost-benefit balance between a POWERgrass hybrid system and natural or synthetic grass fields can vary. However, the analysis suggests that the POWERgrass hybrid option may represent the solution with the best balance, providing a high-quality field, durable over time, with lower maintenance needs and ensuring excellent game performance. Although the installation cost may be similar to that of synthetic grass, the installation of a POWERgrass hybrid system may prove to be more economical in the long-term, considering savings on extraordinary maintenance costs and a longer field life. Finally, the POWERgrass hybrid system mitigates risks associated with weather conditions, protecting the value of the infrastructure.