Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T12:28:01.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Comprehensive Review of Existing Classification Systems of Brownfield Sites

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2009

Shovini Dasgupta  and
Edwin Kwan Lap Tam
Shovini Dasgupta
Affiliation:
AMEC NCL, Tiverton, Canada
Edwin Kwan Lap Tam*
Affiliation:
Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
*
Address correspondence to: Edwin Kwan Lap Tam, PhD, PEng., Associate Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Windsor, 401 Sunset Avenue, Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4, Canada; (phone) 519-253-3000, x2560; (fax) 519-973-7035; (email) [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The state of brownfield remediation and rehabilitation approaches continues to advance significantly, particularly with respect to the types of brownfield technologies available for assessing and treating contaminants. However, largely absent is a structured means for integrating the objectives of multiple stakeholders (e.g., municipality, developer, regulator, community) comprehensively by using a classification method that can differentiate among the brownfields based on an overall suite of relevant characteristics—such as community issues, site characteristics, development potential, and financial viability—and analyze them categorically. Existing brownfield scoring schemes, ranking methods, and identification approaches that were developed in the past by various organizations can be used as classification mechanisms, but many of these systems are designed for a specific group of stakeholders or jurisdictions and cannot be used to evaluate situations outside their intended original use. Nevertheless, they provide useful starting points to consider what the desirable elements are within a comprehensive classification system. This article reviews 12 contemporary brownfield classification systems and analyzes their strengths and weaknesses. It concludes that the lack of a multidisciplinary approach in the development of the existing classification systems limits their use on a broader scale. Lastly, the article establishes the need for a broader multidisciplinary classification system that can serve as a basic framework for systematic decision making regarding brownfields.

Environmental Practice 11:285–300 (2009)

Type
FEATURES
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 285 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

aboutRemediation (AR). 2005. Brownfields Redevelopment Toolbox. Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement (OCETA), Mississauga, Canada. Available at http://www.aboutremediation.com/toolbox/step2_propertyvalue.asp (accessed August 2006).Google Scholar
Alker, S., Barrett, P., Clayton, D., Jones, G., Joy, V., and Roberts, P.. 2000. Delivering Regeneration: A Brownfield Renaissance Reporting the Findings of the National Brownfield Sites Project. National Brownfield Sites Project.Urban Mines Limited, Halifax, UK. 132 pp.Google Scholar
Amekudzi, A., and Fomunung, I.. 2004. Integrating Brownfields Redevelopment with Transportation Planning. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 130(4):204–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J., and Macauley, M.. 1994. The Impact of Environmental Liability on Industrial Real Estate Development. Resources for the Future 114:19–23.Google Scholar
Butler, B., and Petts, J.. 2000. Land Contamination Risk Assessment Tools: An Evaluation of Some of the Commonly Used Methods. R&D Project P5-026 Technical Report TR P260. Geodelft Environmental and Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK, 96 pp.Google Scholar
CABERNET. 2005. Nottingham, UK. Available at http://www.cabernet.org.uk/index.asp?c=1312 (accessed November 14, 2009).Google Scholar
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1992. National Classification System for Contaminated Sites. Report CCME EPC-CS39E, March.CCME, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, 54 pp. Available at http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pn_1005_e.pdf.Google Scholar
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1998. Protocol for the Derivation of Canadian Sediment Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Report CCME EPC-98E, March.CCME, Winnipeg, Canada, 10 pp. Available at http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/wqg_aql_protocol.pdf (accessed November 14, 2009).Google Scholar
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 2008. National Classification System for Contaminated Sites Guidance Document PN 1403 ISBN 978. CCME, Winnipeg, Canada, 80 pp. Available at http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/pn_1403_ncscs_guidance_e.pdf (accessed November 14, 2009).Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Hipel, K.W., Kilgour, M.D., and Zhu, Y.. 2009. A Strategic Classification Support System for Brownfield Redevelopment. Environmental Modelling & Software 24(5):647–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). 2000. Achieving a Better Quality of Life: A Strategy for Sustainable Development in the United Kingdom. Government Annual Report.DETR, Wetherby, UK. Available at http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080530153425/http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/uk-strategy99/index.htm (accessed November 14, 2009).Google Scholar
Environment Canada (EC). 2005. A Method for Ranking Contaminated Marine and Aquatic Sites on Canadian Federal Properties. Report by the Contaminated Site Management Working Group (CSMWG). EC, Ottawa, Canada. Available at http://www2.ec.gc.ca/etad/csmwg/pub/marine_aquatic/en/toc_e.htm (accessed November 14, 2009).Google Scholar
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO). 2005. 2004/2005 Annual Report: Planning Our Landscape. ECO, Toronto, Canada, 224 pp. Available at http://www.eco.on.ca/eng/index.php/pubs/eco-publications/2004-05-annual-report/2004-05-ar-toc.php.Google Scholar
Hybrid Geophysical Technology for the Evaluation of Insidious Contaminated Areas (HYGEIA). 2002. WP 3.1: Analysis of Brownfield Typologies. European Commission Community Research, Madrid, 16 pp.Google Scholar
Long, E.R., and MacDonald, D.D.. 1997. Effects Range Low and Median, Threshold and Probable Effects Levels. In Interactive Short Course “Use of Sediment Quality Guidelines in the Assessment and Management of Contaminated Sediments.” Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC).SETAC, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Maldonado, M. 1996. Brownfields bloom. Civil Engineering 66(5):36–40.Google Scholar
Martin, J.C., and Toll, D.G.. 2006. The Development of a Knowledge-Based System for the Preliminary Investigation of Contaminated Land. Computers and Geotechnics 33(2):97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 1997a. Removing Barriers: Redeveloping Contaminated Lands for Housing. Ottawa. NRTEE, Ottawa, Canada, 156 pp.Google Scholar
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 1997b. Improving Site Specific Data on the Environmental Condition of Land. NRTEE, Ottawa, Canada, 162 pp.Google Scholar
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 1998. State of the Debate: Greening Canada's Brownfield Sites. NRTEE, Ottawa, Canada. 52 pp.Google Scholar
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE). 2003. Cleaning Up the Past, Building the Future: A National Brownfield Redevelopment Strategy for Canada. NRTEE, Ottawa, Canada, 93 pp. Available at http://www.nrtee-trnee.com/eng/publications/brownfield-redevelopment-strategy/NRTEE-Brownfield-Redevelopment-Strategy.pdf (accessed November 14, 2009).Google Scholar
New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (NZ MFE). 1999. Contaminated Site Information Management Strategy. Report U99/74.NZ MFE, Wellington, New Zealand, 46 pp.Google Scholar
New Zealand Ministry for the Environment (NZ MFE). 2004. Risk Screening System: Contaminated Land Management Guideline No. 3. NZ MFE, New Zealand, 41 pp. Available at http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/hazardous/contaminated-land-mgmt-guidelines-no3/contaminated-land-mgmt-guidelines-no3.pdf (accessed November 14, 2009).Google Scholar
O'Reilly, M., and Brink, R.. 2006. Initial Risk-Based Screening of Potential Brownfield Development Sites. Soil and Sediment Contamination 15(5):463–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, P., Joy, V., and Alker, S.. 1998. Towards a Brownfield Sites Taxonomy: Issues in the Definition and Classification of Problems and Potentials. Paper presented at the Remediation of Brownfield Sites for Housing Conference, Aston University, Birmingham, UK. Available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=/published/emeraldfulltextarticle/pdf/1120170504_ref.html.Google Scholar
Swickard, T.J. 2008. Regulatory Incentives to Promote Private Sector Brownfield Remediation and Reuse. Soil and Sediment Contamination 17(2):121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tam, E.K., and Byer, P.H.. 2002. Remediation of Contaminated Lands: A Decision Methodology for Site Owners. Journal of Environmental Management 64(4):387–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 1990. The Revised Hazard Ranking System: Background Information. Publication 9320.7-03FS. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, US EPA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2008. Understanding the Superfund Alternative Approach. EPA-330R08001. Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement, US EPA, Washington, DC. Available at http://epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/publications/cleanup/superfund/factsheet/saa-fact.pdf.Google Scholar
United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). 2009. Brownfields and Land Revitalization. Glossary of terms, available at http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/overview/glossary.htm (accessed November 14, 2009).Google Scholar