Fake Green Grass vs. Natural Grass: Why Fake Green Grass Offers Better Cost-Effectiveness in Maintenance?
In modern urban landscaping, sports fields, and residential garden design, the choice between natural grass and fake green grass has always been a hot topic. Natural grass is favored for its aesthetic appeal and eco-friendliness, while fake green grass is increasingly becoming the preferred choice for many due to its durability and low maintenance requirements.
From a long-term maintenance cost perspective, fake green grass often offers better value for money, especially in high-traffic areas, water-scarce regions, or scenarios where minimizing upkeep is a priority. This article will provide a detailed comparison of the installation, maintenance, lifespan, and hidden costs of artificial and natural grass, demonstrating why artificial turf is more cost-effective overall.
1. Initial Installation Cost: Natural Grass is Cheaper, but fake turf grass is More Durable
Fake Turf Grass: Higher Upfront Investment, Long-Term Savings
- Cost Range: ¥100–500 per square meter (depending on material, density, infill, etc.).
- Cost Breakdown:
- Base preparation (compaction, drainage layer)
- Fake turf grass installation
- Infill materials (e.g., rubber, silica sand)
- Labor costs
Although the initial investment is higher, fake turf grass has a lifespan of 8–15 years with minimal ongoing maintenance costs.
Natural Grass: Lower Initial Cost, but Higher Ongoing Expenses
- Cost Range: ¥20–100 per square meter (depending on grass type and installation method).
- Cost Breakdown:
- Seeding or sod installation
- Soil conditioning (if needed)
- Initial watering and fertilization
While natural grass is cheaper initially, it requires continuous investment in watering, mowing, fertilizing, and other upkeep, making it less economical in the long run.
Conclusion:
- Short-term (1–3 years): Natural grass is cheaper.
- Long-term (5+ years): Fake turf grass is more cost-effective.
2. Long-Term Maintenance Costs: Fake turf grass Clearly Wins
Maintenance Requirements for Fake Turf Grass
| Maintenance Task | Frequency | Annual Cost (¥/sqm) |
| Debris removal (leaves, etc.) | Monthly | Almost negligible |
| Rinsing | Every 1–2 months | Minimal water cost |
| Infill replenishment | Every 2–3 years | ¥5–10 |
| Disinfection (e.g., sports fields) | As needed | ¥2–5 |
| Total Annual Cost |
| ¥5–15 |
Maintenance Requirements for Natural Grass
| Maintenance Task | Frequency | Annual Cost (¥/sqm) |
| Watering | Daily in summer, weekly in spring/fall | ¥500–2000 per acre (water cost) |
| Mowing | 1–2 times per week | Equipment + fuel/electricity |
| Fertilizing | 3–4 times per year | ¥200–500 per acre per application |
| Weed/Pest Control | As needed | Labor + chemical costs |
| Reseeding/Repair | For bare patches | ¥50–200 per occurrence |
| Total Annual Cost |
| ¥50–200 |
![artificial grass]()
Comparison:
- Natural grass maintenance costs 3–10 times more than fake turf grass annually.
- Fake Green Grass requires no watering, mowing, or fertilizing, drastically reducing labor, water, and chemical usage.
3. Lifespan: Fake Green Grass Lasts Longer, Natural Grass Demands Continuous Investment
- Fake Green Grass: 8–15 years (premium products can last 20 years).
- Only minor maintenance (e.g., infill replenishment) is needed.
- Full replacement is required at end-of-life, making it ideal for commercial and sports applications.
- Natural Grass: Can theoretically last indefinitely but requires annual upkeep.
- Grass degradation, pests, and drought may necessitate frequent renovations, increasing hidden costs.
- Fake turf grass has lower long-term amortized costs.
- Natural grass maintenance is ongoing, potentially making it more expensive over time.
4. Hidden Costs: Natural Grass Has More Invisible Expenses
Hidden Costs of Fake Turf Grass
- Heat Retention: May require occasional water cooling in summer (but infrequently).
- Environmental Concerns: Some low-quality products contain microplastics, but recyclable options are emerging.
Hidden Costs of Natural Grass
- Water Consumption: Irrigation costs skyrocket in arid regions.
- Time Investment: Frequent mowing, fertilizing, and weeding require labor.
- Climate Sensitivity: Cold or dry climates increase maintenance costs significantly.
Conclusion:
- Natural grass has higher "invisible costs" (water, time, climate adaptation).
- Fake turf grass is better suited for low-maintenance, high-durability needs.
5. Recommended Applications: Fake Turf Grass is the Cost-Effective Champion
Best Uses for Artificial Turf
Sports Fields (soccer, golf) – High durability, wear-resistant.
Commercial Landscaping (malls, office parks) – No watering, stays lush year-round.
Residential Lawns (especially for low-maintenance yards) – No mowing or fertilizing.
Arid Regions – Saves 90%+ on water bills.
Where Natural Grass Still Makes Sense
Luxury Homes (for natural aesthetics).
Eco-Projects (biodegradable).
Temperate, Rainy Climates (lower maintenance needs).
6. Final Verdict: Why Fake Green Grass is More Cost-Effective in Maintenance?
1. Higher initial cost but drastically lower long-term upkeep (¥5–15/year vs. ¥50–200/year for natural grass).
2. No watering, mowing, or fertilizing, saving labor, water, and equipment expenses.
3. Lifespan of 10–15 years, whereas natural grass requires constant care.
4. Ideal for high-traffic areas (e.g., stadiums, commercial zones) due to superior durability.
5. Major advantage in dry regions, reducing water consumption significantly.
Final Recommendation
- If budget allows and minimal maintenance is desired, fake green grass is the best choice.
- If natural aesthetics and eco-friendliness are priorities, natural grass remains viable.
For most modern urban applications, fake green grass offers unbeatable cost-effectiveness in maintenance!
