A review of brownfields revitalisation and reuse research in the US over three decades

ABSTRACTOver the past 30 years, US-based research on contaminated and potentially-contaminated sites, or brownfields, has grown from defining the scope and size of the environmental, health and economic risks posed by abandoned manufacturing sites to exploring and documenting site-specific and area-wide impacts of their cleanup and revitalisation. From early and varied research on environmental and economic policy to equity and public impacts on minority communities, later research considered planning, adding case studies on sustainability and resilience to the scope of research covered. This review paper stems from exchanges of a long-standing network of academic, government agency, and practice professionals working to identify research, policy, and practice gaps. It traces the evolution of US brownfield revitalization research as was informed by, and informed, policy, program and practice. This review summarizes the literature and identifies research gaps and opportunities to further community and agency actions related to investigating, remediating, and redeveloping brownfield sites. It outlines site and area options to build climate resilience, strengthen community action for dismantling structural racism and disinvestment, and reduce the disproportionate risks experienced by communities of colour and areas of low income. The authors propose a new research agenda to address the gaps identified.KEYWORDS: Brownfieldcontaminated landredevelopmentresearchequity AcknowledgementsThis article is dedicated to our friend and colleague, Charlie Bartsch, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude for his leadership and his role as a font of policy ideas and as an energetic author at the Northeast Midwest Institute documenting local, state, and federal innovations from the very start of the federal brownfield programme through over two decades. Without him, the EPA brownfield programme might not have happened. We are also sincerely grateful to the domestic and international researchers and practitioners who participated in the research meetings at the US Brownfields conferences that prompted the preparation of this article and to those that contributed to the article by participating in planning and review meetings and commenting on earlier versions of this manuscript, namely: Deborah Lange, Joseph Schilling, Peter B. Meyer, Kris Wernstedt, Allison S. Smith, Patrick Kirby, Sarah Sieloff, Maria Chrysochoou, Nefeli Bompoti, Annette Gatchett, Keely Maxwell, Brittany Kiessling, Barry Hersh, Jonathan Essoka, Meredith Fry, Christiaan Abildso, Daniel Moher, Schenine Mitchell, Jessica Dominguez, Camilla Warren, Jessica Daniel, Timothy Barzyk, Susan Julius, I. Leslie Rubin, Nova Blazej, Aimee Storm, Stephan Bartke, Tad Mcgalliard, Blasé Leven, Colette L. Santasieri, Claire Weston, Meredith Hendricks, Cindy Nolan, Peter Grein, B. Suzi Ruhl, Kathleen Williams, and others who may have attended conference session discussions but are not listed here. Our work and research is further inspired by our colleagues and innovative community leaders, too numerous to mention, who continue to shape fairer futures in their work for brownfield revitalisation centred on environmental justice and equity.Disclosure statementThe authors report there are no competing interests to declare. This work is not a product of the United States Government or the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The authors are not doing this work in any governmental capacity. The views expressed are their own and do not necessarily represent those of the United States or the US EPA.Notes1 Methodological note: Beginning in 2008, a group of academics, policy-makers, and practitioners engaged in brownfields research have organised meetings and sessions at the bi-annual National Brownfields Conferences to discuss the state of the literature and other issues related to research needs and directions, as well as translating research into policy. After a decade of proposing the preparation of a research review, a small group of regular participants (Carroll, De Sousa, and Whitehead) came together after the 2019 conference to coordinate the preparation of this review. The group contacted over forty individuals who regularly participated in the conference meetings and other established brownfield researchers to solicit their participation. Preliminary discussions in 2020 identified a core group of ten individuals available to undertake research and writing, with several others participating in an advisory capacity. Given the expertise of the writing team, the group agreed that the review should focus on US research published mainly in journals, as well as impactful grey literature. The larger group divided itself into four writing sub-groups aligned with key themes of brownfields research and the researcher's area of expertise: (1) policy and history; (2) economics and real estate; (3) environment; and (4) equity and public health. The sub-groups selected the topics and studies for review, highlighting research that had a significant impact on addressing key themes or informing debates amongst brownfield practitioners or scholars. The coordinating team and the individual subgroups met regularly during the review preparation, and then the entire group met to review, provide input, and finalise the submission for publication.