Brownfield regeneration in Europe: Identifying stakeholder perceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs

Brownfield areas are a major concern in Europe because they are often extensive, persistent in time and compromise stakeholders’ interests. Moreover, due to their complex nature, from the decision-making point of view, the regeneration of brownfields is a challenging problem requiring the involvement of the whole range of stakeholders. Many studies, projects and organisations have recognised the importance of stakeholder involvement and have promoted public participation. However, comprehensive studies providing an overview of stakeholders’ perceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs when dealing with brownfield regeneration are still missing. This paper presents and discusses a participatory methodology applied to stakeholders from five European countries to fill this research gap, to develop a system to support the categorisation of the needed information and to support the understanding of which typology of information is the most relevant for specific categories of stakeholders also in relation with their concerns. The engagement process consists of five phases: (i) planning and preparatory work, (ii) identification of stakeholder categories, (iii) engagement activities (e.g. focus groups and workshops), (iv) submission of a questionnaire and (v) provision of feedback to the involved stakeholders. Thanks to this process, appropriate stakeholders have been identified as well as their perceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs. Stakeholders’ perceptions proved to be different according to the country: German and Italian stakeholders perceive brownfields as complex systems, where several issues need to be addressed, while Romanian stakeholders consider contamination as almost the only issue to be addressed; Czech and Polish stakeholders address an intermediate number of issues. Attitudes and concerns seemed to be quite similar between countries. As far as information needs are concerned, similarities between some groups of stakeholders have been noticed: site owners and problem holders are primarily interested in information on planning and financing, while authorities and services providers are interested in more technical aspects like investigation, planning and risk assessment. Some outstanding outcomes emerged from the scientific community and research group, which showed an interest for remediation strategies and options and socio-economic aspects. The research outcomes allowed to create a knowledge base for the future development of tailored and customised approaches and tools for stakeholders working in the brownfield regeneration field.

[1]  Robin Ganser,et al.  Brownfield Development: Are We Using the Right Targets? Evidence from England and Germany , 2007 .

[2]  Deborah Rigling Gallagher,et al.  Promoting community involvement at brownfields sites in socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods , 2008 .

[3]  Ng Chirk Jenn Designing A Questionnaire. , 2006, Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia.

[4]  Filip Alexandrescu,et al.  Transdisciplinarity in Practice: The Emergence and Resolution of Dissonances in Collaborative Research on Brownfield Regeneration , 2014 .

[5]  Alena Bleicher,et al.  Spatially explicit computation of sustainability indicator values for the automated assessment of land-use options , 2013 .

[6]  Stephan Bartke,et al.  Integrated planning and spatial evaluation of megasite remediation and reuse options. , 2012, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[7]  P. Syms Land, Development and Design , 2002 .

[8]  John G. Kemeny,et al.  Mathematical models in the social sciences , 1964 .

[9]  H. Young,et al.  A Consistent Extension of Condorcet’s Election Principle , 1978 .

[10]  Anil Graves,et al.  Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[11]  E. Arredondo,et al.  From Focus Groups to Workshops: Developing a Culturally Appropriate Cervical Cancer Prevention Intervention for Rural Latinas , 1999 .

[12]  Sue McNeil,et al.  Brownfield Development: Tools for Stewardship , 2004 .

[13]  C. P. Nathanail,et al.  The challenge of sustainability: incentives for brownfield regeneration in Europe , 2007 .

[14]  Andrea Critto,et al.  A spatial decision support system for the Risk-based management of contaminated sites: the DESYRE DSS , 2009 .

[15]  Bianca Cobârzan,et al.  Brownfield Redevelopment in Romania , 2007 .

[16]  Paul Bardos,et al.  Sharing experiences in the management of megasites: towards a sustainable approach in land management of industrially contaminated areas. Report of the NICOLE workshop, 29-31 October 2003, Lille, France , 2004 .

[17]  Magnus Sparrevik,et al.  Evaluation of factors affecting stakeholder risk perception of contaminated sediment disposal in Oslo harbor. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[18]  John G. Kemeny,et al.  Mathematical models in the social sciences , 1964 .

[19]  S Schädler,et al.  Designing sustainable and economically attractive brownfield revitalization options using an integrated assessment model. , 2011, Journal of environmental management.

[20]  B. J. Alloway,et al.  Heavy metals in soils , 1990 .

[21]  Stephan Bartke,et al.  Valuation of market uncertainties for contaminated land , 2011 .

[22]  M. Reed Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review , 2008 .

[23]  Filip Alexandrescu,et al.  The Path From Passivity Toward Entrepreneurship , 2014 .

[24]  J. Glicken Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: a discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls , 2000 .

[25]  Zhen Chen,et al.  An analytic network process for risks assessment in commercial real estate development , 2009 .

[26]  Keith W. Hipel,et al.  Negotiation over Costs and Benefits in Brownfield Redevelopment , 2011 .

[27]  Stephan Bartke,et al.  No perfect tools: trade-offs of sustainability principles and user requirements in designing support tools for land-use decisions between greenfields and brownfields. , 2015, Journal of environmental management.

[28]  Elisabetta Cherchi,et al.  Assessment of Regeneration Projects in Urban Areas of Environmental Interest: A Stated Choice Approach to Estimate Use and Quasi-Option Values , 2010 .

[29]  A. Bleicher,et al.  ‘It’s always dark in front of the pickaxe’: Organizing ignorance in the long-term remediation of contaminated land , 2013 .

[30]  N Witters,et al.  Developing principles of sustainability and stakeholder engagement for "gentle" remediation approaches: the European context. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[31]  G. Rowe,et al.  Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation , 2000 .

[32]  Robert J. Eger,et al.  Brownfields, Crime, and Tax Increment Financing , 2006 .

[33]  H. Haberl,et al.  Challenges for land system science , 2012 .

[34]  H. Young Condorcet's Theory of Voting , 1988, American Political Science Review.

[35]  Christopher A. De Sousa,et al.  Measuring the Public Costs and Benefits of Brownfield versus Greenfield Development in the Greater Toronto Area , 2002 .

[36]  Bernhard Freyer,et al.  Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theses on landscape development—An analysis of actor roles and knowledge types in different research phases , 2012 .

[37]  S. Shapiro,et al.  Mathematics without Numbers , 1993 .