Habitat International 45 (2015) 72e81

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Post-industrial landscapes as drivers for urban redevelopment: Public

versus expert perspectives towards the benefits and barriers of the
reuse of post-industrial sites in urban areas
Luís Loures a, b, *
a
C3i, Polytechnic Institute of Portalegre, Portugal
b
CIEO e Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, UAlg, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Generally located in advantageous locations near city centers or along waterfronts and supported by
Available online 17 July 2014 existing infrastructure, post-industrial landscapes constitute environmentally impaired resources that
need to be returned to productive uses, and reintegrated into the surrounding community. However, the
Keywords: complexity of any post-industrial redevelopment project, evident in the number of different ways in
Post-industrial sites which it is described both in the literature and by designers and developers who work and/or analyze
Urban transformation
these landscapes make post-industrial redevelopment difficult to accomplish. Considering the purpose of
Barriers to redevelopment
the present research, it was necessary to use several methods throughout the investigation, including
Benefits of redevelopment
Public versus expert opinion
quantitative and qualitative research methods divided in two main sections: literature review and case
study research. Considering the collected data and the performed statistical analysis, it is possible to
conclude that, thought there are strong relationships between several of the identified benefits and
barriers, the survey revealed distinct perceptions about the benefits and the barriers associated to post-
industrial redevelopment between the general public (i.e. redeveloped post-industrial site users) and
redevelopment experts, idea which is of utmost importance considering that designers tend to be pri-
marily focused on aesthetics, leaving society's other main goals to secondary status, and that planning
and landscape redevelopment activities are increasingly becoming less the result of design and more the
expression of economic and sociocultural forces. Moreover the performed analysis showed that while for
the general public the main barriers to post-industrial redevelopment are the potential for biological,
physical and chemical impacts, and the uncertainty about liability and cleanup issues; for experts the
main barriers are the high redevelopment costs; and the challenges in obtaining financial support.
Regarding the main benefits while for the general public, the creation of open green spaces and the
creation of jobs are the most important ones, for experts they are associated with the possibility to
reduce urban sprawl, and encourage recreation and connectivity.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction this regard, land transformation policies have been considered an

The transformation of landscapes worldwide has raised global
concerns increasing the need to rethink landscape and protect the
environment. This is especially true for previously developed areas
that are now abandoned or underused. Instead of consuming green
lands, the brown lands need to be redeveloped and given new life,
achieving a more sustainable urban setting (De Sousa, 2003;
Loures, 2011; Panagopoulos & Loures, 2007; Portney, 2003). In
* Escola Superior Agra
ria de Elvas, Quartel do Trem, Avenida 14 de Janeiro s/n,
7350-903 Elvas, Portugal. Tel.: þ351 965193379.
E-mail address: lcloures@gmail.com.
important tool for urban containment, fostering urban redevelop-
ment and revitalization (Adams & Watkins, 2002: Urban Land
Institute, 2004; Willem, 2009). However, these contributions and
the principles they integrate have not been adequately assessed
regarding post-industrial land transformation efforts. Still, this
approach may be considered a proficient approach to address ur-
ban sprawl, increasingly viewed as significant and growing land-
use problem that encompass a wide range of social, economic
and environmental issues (Bengston, Fletcher, & Nelson, 2004;
Brueckner, 2000; Johnson, 2001).
The relevance of these land transformation projects and ap-
proaches are increasingly recognized and recommended since
“nearly every significant new landscape designed in recent years

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.06.028
0197-3975/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L. Loures / Habitat International 45 (2015) 72e81
occupies a site that has been reinvented and reclaimed from obsoles-
cence or degradation, as cities in postindustrial era remake and
redefine their outdoor spaces” (Reed (2005: 15). Still, demolition and
abandonment were and continue to be fairly common approaches
to deal with these post-industrial landscapes that no longer serve
their original productive functions (Rea, 1991: 48). However, the
creation of new and more specific legislation, and the public
pressure related with the need to redevelop these landscapes,
created a momentum to enhance post-industrial landscape rede-
velopment, considered by several authors as unrealized resources
for initiating urban regeneration and ecological restoration (Allen &
Linden, 2002; Backhaus & Murungi, 2002; Brebbia, Almorza, &
Klapperich, 2002).
In fact, generally located in advantageous locations near city
centers or along waterfronts and supported by existing infrastruc-
ture, these landscapes constitute environmentally impaired re-
sources that need to be returned to productive uses, and
reintegrated into the surrounding community (Ekman, 2004).
However, the complexity of these land transformation projects,
evident in the number of different ways in which they have been
characterized, both in the literature and by designers and other
specialists who worked and/or analyzed them, make post-
industrial redevelopment difficult to accomplish. Apart from the
eminent contamination and liability issues present on many of
these sites (Alberini, Longo, Tonin, Trombetta, & Turvani, 2005;
Gibbons, Attoh-Okine, & Laha, 1998; McGrath, 2000), post-
industrial redevelopment processes have to consider planning,
real estate transaction and land use aspects (Amekudzi, 2004; De
Sousa, 2002, 2006), plus community and economic development
matters (De Sousa, 2006; Kaufman & Cloutier, 2006; Ozdil, 2006;
Paull, 2008), among others. Nonetheless, questions such as: What
should be done with these landscapes? Which functions might
these areas acquire in the future? What makes these spaces
underutilized? What obstacles and barriers keep these landscapes
from being transformed? Who is responsible for transforming
them? Who is best qualified to do it? Is this process a single pro-
fession endeavor? Which are the main benefits of redeveloping
these spaces? Remain to be answered.
In this regard it is urgent to rethink the way in which our
urban areas are growing and the different forms to reuse previ-
ously developed landscapes, instead of consuming new ones.
Increasing public discontentment towards derelict landscapes
augmented the urgency to develop new methodologies and
frameworks for both post-industrial land transformation theory
and practice. However, since positive and negative impacts may
vary from one landscape to another, it remains a challenge and a
task for those aiming to transform these landscapes to develop a
more systematic and theoretically fruitful methodology that in-
corporates both economic, socio-cultural and environmental as-
pects, public needs and will, and the knowledge about local
characteristics, effects and impacts of post-industrial landscape
transformation projects. As Thayer (1994, in Tymoff, 2001: 1)
mentions “Why diagnose if not to cure? Why reveal if not ulti-
mately to heal?”.
Considering this background and the current need to enhance
the reuse of post-industrial sites, particularly the ones located in
urban areas, this research intents on the one hand to highlight
the importance to redevelop these landscapes, identifying not
only the benefits that arise from their redevelopment, but also
the main barriers inherent to current approaches to post-
industrial land transformation, and on the other hand to
address the differences between public and expert perspectives
regarding the identified post-industrial redevelopment benefits
and barriers, considering at the same level, economic, social, and
environmental aspects.
73
Materials and methods
Considering the purpose of the present research a significant
amount of time and attention was dedicated to the development of
the methodological framework, since the study required the use of
several methods throughout the research, including quantitative
and qualitative research methods. In this regard the general
research methodology (Fig. 1) was divided in two main sections:
literature review and case study research which were the basis and
the foundation for the development of the investigation, which
might be schematized as follow:
In summary, the methodology was based on the following steps:
i) Literature review e with the intention of covering a wide
range of issues, the literature review considered the changes
in patterns and processes which happened throughout the
deindustrialization process and the state-of-the-art
regarding the connection of planning and design issues
with the main public and private benefits and barriers of
post-industrial redevelopment.
ii) Case study selection and analysis e the selection of the case
studies was an essential component of the research. The
process was based in the collection and analysis of as much
post-industrial land transformation projects as was possible,
within the boundaries set by schedule, focusing on relatively
recent projects, in which it was possible to clearly identify, on
the one hand the main barriers and setbacks faced both by
designers and redevelopers, and on the other hand, the
direct and indirect benefits enabled by post-industrial
redevelopment projects under analysis. Considering these
principles and even if there is an inevitable value judgment
in any process to ascertain relative importance, this method
was considered to bring a degree of objectivity and trans-
parency to the assessment, enabling the selection of the
cases that respond better to the research objectives. Addi-
tionally, considering that throughout the present research,
multiple-case studies were analyzed, it was essential to
establish a specific protocol, which according to (Yin, 1994)
integrated an overview of the case study; several case study
questions related to the research objectives; and a guide for
the case study report.
iii) Identification of the main barriers and benefits of post-
industrial land transformation e considering the different
types of data collected throughout the analysis (i.e. literature
review and information collected throughout the analysis of
the selected case studies), several heuristically driven factors,
considering both the barriers and the benefits of post-
industrial landscape transformation/redevelopment were
identified and briefly explained.
iv) Public versus expert perspectives regarding the main
barriers and benefits of post-industrial land trans-
formation e considering the identified barriers and bene-
fits a survey was developed both to site users of some of the
analyzed redeveloped post-industrial sites (general public)
and to designers, project managers and developers
responsible for the analyzed redevelopment projects
(experts).
v) Data analysis e once collected the data regarding the
survey instrument, statistic analysis was developed using
first the Microsoft Office Excel 2007 spreadsheet to orga-
nize the collected data, and then the computer statistical
analysis programs, SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sci-
ences), version 17.0 for Windows, and SAS (Statistical
Analysis System), version 9.1.3 (TS1M3) for Microsoft
Windows.
74 L. Loures / Habitat International 45 (2015) 72e81
Fig. 1. Methodological scheme.
Current approaches on post-industrial land transformation
The legacy of derelict, idled, obsolete, and often abandoned
post-industrial structures and sites we face today in our land-
scapes is, arguably the result of human current and former uses
of land. One way or another, the present situation, enabled by
technological innovation and structural economic change, is
founded in human (ab)use of this limited and valuable resource,
and in his increasing ability to affect large landscapes. Changes
in society's values began in the 1960s enabled a different view,
according to which the former production and consumption
patterns were no longer acceptable. As these landscapes become
economically disadvantaged, environmentally degraded and
socially distressed, several planners, designers and developers
started to react to decline, both by looking for answers to the
social and economic problems caused by the growing waste-
lands (Secchi, 2007) and by developing new methods to trans-
form them, considering that the issues facing post-industrial
land transformation today are multidimensional, including
socio-cultural, economic and environmental and aesthetic
aspects.
In fact, as it was mentioned before, it is increasingly acknowl-
edged that previously developed land (e.g. post-industrial land-
scapes) constitute an undervalued asset towards urban
redevelopment. This idea is support by the six key challenges for
producing a sustainable built environment presented by the
European Council for Construction Research, Development and
Innovation (2001): urban sprawl; redeveloping industrial sites;
regenerating brownfield sites; sustainable construction; green
space; and regenerating distressed neighborhoods.
These principles may be, somehow connected with post-
industrial land transformation processes. However, even if it is
argued by several authors that investing in the redevelopment of
existing sites may be preferable to developing new areas (Bartsch
& Anderson, 1998; Cairney, 1995; De Sousa, 2000; EPA, 1995;
Miller, Greenberg, Lowrie, & Mayer, 2001; Pediaditi,
Wehrmeyer, & Chenoweth, 2005; Simons, 1998; Tyman, 2008),
and that several redevelopment/land transformation programs
(as it is the case of SUPER e Sustainable Urban Planning and
Economic Redevelopment and CABERNET (Concerted Action on
Brownfield and Economic Regeneration Network) in Europe; and
CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act), commonly known as Superfund (EPA,
2009) from EPA, and AHP e Affordable Housing Program e
Brownfields Initiative in North America) provide decision-
making tools that help to optimize the cost-benefit relation of
redeveloped sites, reducing political conflicts, economic barriers
and environmental problems, it is still hard to assess such op-
tions scientifically, and to demonstrate which one is better, at
least at design, conception and programmatic levels. Still, it is
increasingly acknowledge that the redevelopment of underused
areas might constitute a feasible way of dealing with the pro-
gressive urbanization.
This paradigm shift, from perceiving urban areas in formal
terms to looking at them in dynamic ways “demand that de-
signers and planners revise their approaches toward the making of
urban projects. A renewed concern with infrastructure, services,
mobility, and with the provision of flexible, multifunctional surfaces
promises a revitalized role for the design professions” (Wall, 1999:
234e5). Indeed, the fact that these landscapes, originally viewed
as threats, became increasingly recognized as opportunities, not
only because of their location, proximity with infrastructure,
uniqueness in form and configuration, but also because they
became often the only lands available for redevelopment in ur-
ban areas, enabled the emergence of new approaches and per-
spectives towards landscape, especially previously developed
and abandoned ones. While at the beginning the practices and
approaches towards these landscapes were primarily site-
specific and driven mainly by economic motivations, under-
valuing the importance of a contextual approach in achieving
sustainable redevelopment, now they tend to be much more
inclusive and holistic, providing directions on how ecological
restoration, cultural preservation, economic development and
public needs and interest should be met.
However, even if throughout the last decades several re-
searchers and academics have been committed with the devel-
opment of strategies and frameworks to enable the creation of
better landscape transformation projects, redevelopment pro-
posals tended to be excessively subjective and directly depen-
dent on designer's/developer's determinations and intentions.
This scenario, coupled with the shift of emphasis from the
design of single and isolated buildings to the design of larger urban
surfaces, highlighted not only the need to identify the main barriers
and benefits driven and faced by post-industrial redevelopment
projects, providing a responsible structure with attendant princi-
ples and norms from which prescriptions for action may be drawn,
but also to ascertain which are, according to those that directly
influence and are affected by post-industrial redevelopment pro-
jects, the most determinant aspects (benefits and barriers) pre-
venting or enabling post-industrial landscape redevelopment.
In this regard, considering that designer's and developer's
options are often not coincident with public needs and desires,
creating a gap between what designers envision and what people
want, it is crucial to identify and understand the drivers in which
redevelopment solutions are based, how they operate and under
which conditions they are established. In this regard, considering
that theory development in planning and design, requires, nor-
mally, the evaluation of practical case studies describing effective
planning and design principles, explaining useful normative
theories, and illustrating valuable planning and design processes
to achieve redevelopment, the present research identified and
analyzed several case studies bearing in mind the method pre-
sented by Francis (1999), according to which case studies are
considered to be a very important research strategy and a pro-
ficient tool to present and analyze specific projects, enabling the
analysis and comparison among them.
 L. Loures / Habitat International 45 (2015) 72e81
Case studies e results
Even if, throughout the research 346 post-industrial land
transformation case studies were identified (Fig. 2), considering the
established protocol and the availability of data, just 117 case
studies (Appendix 1) were analyzed in the present research in or-
der to identify the main barriers and benefits of post-industrial
redevelopment.
These multiple case studies were looked at with an eye for
generalizable lessons or principles that can advance knowledge
considering essentially the identification of the main barriers and
benefits faced and driven by each one of these projects, throughout
the use of a variety of research techniques (experimental, quasi-
experimental, historical documentation as well as multi-method
approaches) and sources of data and evidence (archival material
searches including project files, newspaper articles, public records;
bibliographic searches; design process analysis; historical analysis;
interviews with designer(s) and/or any other person who has
knowledge of the project; site/project analysis; web searches; ob-
servations of the research team, etc.), which enabled researchers to
triangulate data in order to strengthen the research findings and
conclusions, increasing the validity and reliability of the research.
Analyzed case studies
After identifying the 346 land transformation projects it was
necessary first to address the availability of data regarding the
project, and second to verify the possibility to access, collect and
use that data. If the necessary information was available, and the
case study was considered relevant for the present research, the
project was analyzed, summarizing and describing the used ap-
proaches, the applied design strategies, the lessons learned from
such redevelopments and the ways in which designers have
transformed postindustrial buildings, sites and landscapes, solving
existing problems and envisioning new futures for these re-
developments, highlighting the key benefits brought by the project
and the main barriers faced by designers and/or developers
throughout redevelopment. Following these procedures 117 post-
Fig. 2. Geographic distribution of the identified case studies e developed by Author. Note: Case studies with similar location were represented by a single dot.
75
industrial land transformation case studies from all over the
world were identified and analyzed.
Identified barriers and benefits to post-industrial land
transformation
As it has been mentioned in previous points in this paper, even if
post-industrial landscape redevelopment is often considered a
positive approach towards urban sustainable development, post-
industrial landscapes face often numerous problems regarding
both regulation and liability issues, cleanup standards, and access
to funding (Bartsch, Collaton, & Pepper, 1996; Ekman, 2004;
McCarthy, 2002; Pepper, 1997). Considering the analyzed case
studies it was possible to identify 17 barriers to post-industrial
redevelopment:
- Perception of crime;
- Available but under-skilled labor force;
- Difficulties in site assembly;
- High redevelopment costs;
- Inadequate access;
- Insufficient understanding of redevelopment interrelationships;
- Local and regional lobbies;
- Ownership patterns;
- Uncertain demand;
- Challenges in obtaining financial support;
- Uncertainty about liability and cleanup issues;
- Potential for biological, physical and chemical impacts;
- Practical uncertainties regarding remediation and construction;
- Overlapping jurisdiction;
- Unclear idea of monetary cost;
- Long cleanup and site assembly;
- Aging urban infrastructure.
Regarding the benefits of post-industrial redevelopment, iden-
tified throughout this research, they range from environmental to
social and economic. The identified benefits are considerably broad,
given that several of the analyzed redevelopment projects have
76 L. Loures / Habitat International 45 (2015) 72e81

Table 1
Barriers and Benefits associated with post-industrial redevelopment.

Public% Experts% Barriers Public% Experts% Benefits

12.1 1.7 1 Perception of crime; 2.7 3.8 1 Increase sense of belonging;

2.2 9.2 2 Available but under-skilled labor force; 1.2 5.8 2 Increase human-environment connections create
1.8 2.1 3 Difficulties in site assembly; green open space;
4.1 17.2 4 High redevelopment costs; 17.7 0.8 3 Job creation;
0.6 1.1 5 Inadequate access; 6.2 0.7 4 Stigma reduction;
0.4 0.7 6 Insufficient understanding of redevelopment 10.4 13.1 5 Encourage recreation and connectivity;
interrelationships; 1.8 17.2 6 Reduce urban sprawl;
8.0 0.5 7 Local and regional lobbies; 6.0 12.7 7 Create affordable housing;
6.4 2.3 8 Ownership patterns; 1.8 6.0 8 Protect and highlight industrial heritage;
13.7 12.1 9 Uncertain demand;
10.8 14.7 10 Challenges in obtaining financial support; 1.2 4.9 9 Utilize existing infrastructure;
0.2 0.1 10 Reduce infrastructure cost;
16.2 9.8 11 Uncertainty about liability and cleanup issues; 3.3 8.7 11 Increase property value;
1.7 9.7 12 Encourage inner city investment;
18.3 1.8 12 Potential for biological, physical and chemical impacts; 5.2 3.0 13 Reduce greenfield consumption;
1.8 1.0 14 Stimulate new economic activity;
2.6 1.2 15 Reduce air and water pollution;
2.5 6.7 13 Practical uncertainties regarding 0.6 0.8 16 Increase tax revenue;
remediation and construction; 0.8 0.6 17 Increase value of cultural assets;
1.6 0.6 18 Increased spending spinoff;
0.6 1.2 14 Overlapping jurisdiction; 2.2 0.8 19 Prevent the spread of contaminants;
4.1 5.6 15 Unclear idea of monetary cost; 2.1 0.2 20 Create and protect wildlife habitat;
3.2 9.6 16 Long cleanup and site assembly; 10.2 1.3 21 Improve aesthetic quality of the urban fabric;
1.0 3.7 17 Aging urban infrastructure. 18.7 7.0 22 Create green open space.

interconnected effects not only on site, but also beyond its bound- The survey was based on the benefits and barriers identified
aries, which range depend, normally, on the type of land use, pro- throughout the analysis of the 117 case studies, and had as main
gram and functions proposed in each redevelopment project. objectives, first to address which of the identified benefits and
Throughout the analysis of the 117 case studies it was possible to barriers were more relevant, according to the general public and
identify 22 benefits associated with post-industrial redevelopment: the experts directly associated to post-industrial redevelopment,
and second to identify if there are significant differences between
- Increase sense of belonging; general public and expert opinions towards the benefits and the
- Increase human-environment connections; barriers associated to post-industrial redevelopment. In this sense
- Job creation; participants were invited to check, within a list containing the
- Stigma reduction; identified benefits and barriers, which were the five benefits and
- Encourage recreation and connectivity; the five barriers that according to them are more influential in
- Reduce urban sprawl; promoting and preventing post-industrial redevelopment in urban
- Create affordable housing; areas. Besides the identified benefits and barriers, respondents
- Protect and highlight industrial heritage; could also indicate other benefits or barriers that according to them
- Utilize existing infrastructure; had not been identified throughout the research. For the analysis
- Reduce infrastructure cost; there were 110 responses suitable for descriptive and inferential
- Increase property value; tests.
- Encourage inner city investment; Regarding descriptive analysis, as it is possible to verify in Table 1
- Reduce greenfield consumption; (all figures expressed in percentages), while for the general public
- Stimulate new economic activity; (i.e. redeveloped post-industrial site users) the main barriers to
- Reduce air and water pollution; post-industrial redevelopment are: potential for biological, physical
- Increase tax revenue; and chemical impacts (18.3); uncertainty about liability and cleanup
- Increase value of cultural assets; issues (16.2); uncertain demand (13.7); perception of crime (12.1);
- Increased spending spinoff; and challenges in obtaining financial support (10.8), for experts the
- Prevent the spread of contaminants; main barriers are: high redevelopment costs (17.2); challenges in
- Create and protect wildlife habitat; obtaining financial support (14.7); and uncertain demand (12.1).
- Improve aesthetic quality of the urban fabric; Considering the main benefits associated with post-industrial
- Create green open space. redevelopment while for the general public they are: the creation
of open green spaces (18.7); the creation of jobs (17.7); encourage
Public versus expert opinion towards the main barriers and benefits recreation and connectivity (10.4); and improve aesthetic quality of
to post-industrial land transformation e result analysis the urban fabric, for experts they are associated with the possibility
to: reduce urban sprawl (17.2); encourage recreation and connec-
In this study, one observation set corresponds to a completed tivity (13.1); and create affordable housing (12.7).
survey by a respondent. The survey was explained to each Regarding inferential statistics, Pearson's Chi-square tests were
respondent. Regarding the general public the survey was applied developed independently regarding the collected data considering
considering face-to-face interviews, and from the 100 approached the identified barriers and benefits associated to post-industrial
post-industrial redeveloped site users, 63 agreed to fill up the redevelopment, in order to verify the relationship between the
survey. Considering expert opinion, the survey was developed by categorical variables (benefits and barriers that the respondents
email, and from the 100 experts to whom the survey was sent, only considered to be more important in preventing or fostering post-
47 returned the survey filled up. In this regard the response rates industrial redevelopment), i.e. to see if preferences for some
were 63% to the general public and 47% to the experts. mean preferences for others. In this regard, collapsed 2  2
 L. Loures / Habitat International 45 (2015) 72e81 77

Table 2
Chi-square analysis of independence regarding the barriers to post-industrial development e significant results of dependence (p  0.05).

contingency tables with four boxes were used in order to meet the
requirements of the test (more than five responses in each box).
Considering the performed Chi-square analysis of independence
regarding the existence of statistically significant relationships
between the categorical variables, there were 8 significant results
(p  0.05) of dependence regarding the barriers to post-industrial
development, as may be observed in Table 2, and 10 significant
results (p  0.05) of dependence regarding the benefits of post-
industrial redevelopment, represented in Table 3.
Discussion and conclusions
Throughout the last decades several researchers and academics
have been committed with the development of frameworks and
methodologies that enable the creation of better landscape rede-
velopment projects, which are normally excessively subjective and
dependent on designer's and developer's determination, giving
little attentions to people's needs and desires. However, even if the
importance of post-industrial land transformation is increasingly
recognized, the benefits and the barriers associated to post-
industrial redevelopment have been poorly addressed.
Considering the developed research it is possible to say that the
case study method constitutes an appropriate strategy to the
analysis of post-industrial landscape redevelopment projects,
facilitating the identification of the main barriers and benefits
associated with this type of project, that might help the develop-
ment of future post-industrial land transformation projects, a ty-
pology poorly explored by contemporary urban planning.
Furthermore, considering that research for urban design should
yield information that has normative dimensions to help designers
(Moudon, 2007), while proposing recommendations for future
design, and that nothing is more important to theory than its
respective practice (Demo, 1996), the use of case studies is consid-
ered to be very helpful, given that, as it was pointed out before, while
not always used with this objective, case studies can play an
important role in understanding and developing new theory.
Considering the analyzed case studies it is possible to argue
that in order to achieve a successful outcome, post-industrial land
transformation projects should include two different but com-
plementary levels. The first related to the preservation of a
harmonious relationship among the project and its surroundings
with special attention to cultural, environmental and aesthetic
assets (that might constitute a specific barrier to redevelopment);
and the second connected with the social and economic interests
of the community as it relates to the perceived benefits of any
project.

Table 3
Chi-square analysis of independence regarding the benefits to post-industrial development e significant results of dependence (p  0.05).
78 L. Loures / Habitat International 45 (2015) 72e81
Additionally, the presented results, obtained throughout this
investigation, considering both the analyzed case studies and used
validation procedures (survey instrument), put forward note-
worthy ideas:
- The instruments and methods used in this study (e.g. literature
review and case study research) were adequate to identify the
main barriers and benefits associated with post-industrial
redevelopment (considering that even if respondents were
invited to indicate any other benefit or barrier that they consid-
ered relevant and was not present on the developed list, no
suggestions were made), highlighting not only the most relevant
ones, considering both redevelopment experts and redeveloped
site users (general public), but also the existing differences be-
tween general public and experts opinions towards the relative
importance of the identified benefits and barriers;
- Although the present research might constitute a specific
perspective towards the definition of a methodological
approach regarding the identification of benefits and barriers
associated to post-industrial land transformations projects, it is
thoroughly acknowledged that it constitutes just one possibility
among several others and that the definition of such framework
would be augmented by a multidisciplinary approach composed
by several specialists with different scientific backgrounds;
- The results affiliated with the “public participation survey”, Pear-
son's Chi-square tests of independence developed for the cate-
gorical variables, demonstrated that there is a high level of
statistically interrelated aspects, both regarding the barriers faced
by post-industrial redevelopments, and the benefits driven by
them. Though requiring a fair amount of study the analysis of the
relation between the categorical variables enabled the identifica-
tion of important issues towards the delineation of redevelopment
proposals for post-industrial landscapes in urban areas. For
example, the obtained results illustrated that while for experts the
main barriers to post-industrial redevelopment are directly asso-
ciated with redevelopment costs (which is strongly related to
practical uncertainties regarding remediation and construction,
and to long cleanup and site assembly) and the challenges in
obtaining financial support, according to public perception the
main barriers are the high potential for biological, physical and
chemical impacts and the uncertainty about liability and cleanup
issues, which are both statistically related with uncertain demand.
This information, might be very helpful, not only for defining the
type of redevelop to implement in each post-industrial site, but
also to help state and governmental authorities to redefine new
methods and approaches for reducing stigma towards post-
industrial infrastructures, while finding a balance between eco-
nomic and environmental issues, i.e. a balance which encourages
redevelopment while ensuring that sites are adequately reme-
diated and do not pose a danger to public and environmental
health, which constitutes normally, a critical redevelopment
barrier;
- The high number of statistically significant relations between the
categorical variables (barriers and benefits), while corroborating
with the ideas presented by Loures (2011), emphasizes the fact that
different redevelopment aspects should act together on an inter-
connected manner, considering not only that site specific decisions
should be integrated with the general public and private needs, but
also that public environments can no longer be the result of
concerted actions between designer and local j regional author-
ities. People must be consulted, needs identified and priorities
highlighted in order to build meaningful landscapes, which actu-
ally meet the requirements of their future users;
- Still, considering the performed statistical analysis, even if it
showed that there are strong relationships between several
benefits and barriers, the survey revealed distinct perceptions
about the benefits and the barriers associated to post-industrial
redevelopment between the general public and experts, idea
that is of utmost importance considering that designers tend to
be primarily focused on aesthetics, leaving society's other main
goals to secondary status, and that planning and landscape
redevelopment activities are increasingly becoming less the
result of design and more the expression of economic and so-
ciocultural forces. In this regard the obtained results constitute a
valuable resource to tackle this setback in achieving sustainable
landscapes redeveloped from underused ones;
- The introduction of public participation is in general conse-
quential to better decision-making (Buchecker, Hunziker, &
Kienast, 2003; Loures, 2011) however, it is not considered a
“sine qua non” equation to develop better post-industrial land
transformation projects.
Beside the aforementioned conclusions, the present study
corroborate with the ideas put forward by several authors, ac-
cording to which (i) post-industrial redevelopment is increasingly
becoming a key factor in land use planning and urban design
contributing directly for minimizing consumption of natural re-
sources, especially non-renewable and slowly renewable ones,
while reconciling accessibility, economic development and envi-
ronmental objectives (De Sousa, 2003; Ekman, 2004; Panagopoulos
& Loures, 2007; Portney, 2003); (ii) liability concerns are commonly
believed to be one of the main responsible factors for pushing
capital away from post-industrial land transformation (Wright,
1997), thus limiting the possibility of redevelopment; (iii) uncer-
tainty regarding site assessment considerations can also represent
an important barrier to redevelopment based both on the lack of
objective site remediation standards (BenDor & Metcalf, 2005) and
on the fact that environmental assessments and cleanups can
impose unexpected costs on property owners and severe depres-
sion on property values (Meyer, 2000, 1998); (iv) high costs
inherent to environmental assessments and remediation, often
require significant financial investment in order to reduce pollution
to an acceptable level (Loures, 2011).
In summary the present research revealed that post-industrial
redevelopment must be considered as one of the several compo-
nents that influence the broader context of urban planning and eco-
nomic development, since post-industrial landscapes represent
significant assets to the community, which redevelopment will create
wealth and jobs, while enhancing the visual and aesthetic quality of
the community, fostering the sense of place and belonging, and
tackling urban sprawl and the loss of green space. Moreover, this
research emphasizes that a wise use of the collected information,
coupled with the inclusion of public participation in the planning
process, constitute valid and defendable premises on which post-
industrial redevelopment should be based. In fact the introduction
of redevelopment attitudes and practices in the social consciousness
of both present and future generations might eventually affect not
only the way people look upon abandoned and derelict elements but
also the way new landscapes are build, considering from the begin-
ning its resilience and potential use for redevelopment. In this regard,
the present research does not intent to represent an end, but a basis for
future steps considering the redevelopment process, in which the
envisioned methodology will enable new futures for old landscapes.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge financial support given
by the Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics (CIEO) and
from the Fundaç~ ^ncia e a Tecnologia.
ao para a Cie
 L. Loures / Habitat International 45 (2015) 72e81 79

Appendix 1. Addressed cases studies.

Name Design team Former use Location

1 22@Barcelona Municipal society 22 ARROBA BCN, Industrial/Residential District Barcelona, Spain

S.A.U.
2 798 Arts District Sasaki Associates Electronics Factory Beijing, China
3 Academy Mont-Cenis Jourda Architectes and Hegger Schleif Training Academy Sodingen, Germany
4

Aguas Claras Design Workshop Iron-ore Mine ~o Paulo, Brazil
Sa
5 Al Azhar Park Sasaki Associates Rubble Mound Cairo, Egypt
6 Alc^
antara Rio Frederico Valsassina Arquitectos Lda Soap Factory Lisbon, Portugal
and PROAP
7 Alumnae Valley Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates Parking Lot Wellesley e Massachusetts, USA
8 Anchor Park SLA Landscape Architects Industrial Harbor Malmo€ , Sweden
9 Arborela de Vida Design Workshop and team of Sawmill Albuquerque e New Mexico, USA
sustainable design consultants
10 Arco Ribeirinho do Sul Parque Expo Industrial Landscape South MLA, Portugal
11

Area Mineira de Aljustrel EDM e Empresa de Desenvolvimento Mining Aljustrel, Portugal
Mineiro, SA
12
rio Municipal
Audito Anto
nio Meireles and Vibeiras Canning Factory Olh~ao, Portugal
13  Paganini
Auditorium Niccolo Renzo Piano Building Workshop Sugar Factory Parma, Italy
14 Bilbao Ria 2000 Coordinated by public company Bilbao Industrial Waterfront Bilbao, Spain
Ria 2000 with collaborators
15 Blackstone Power Plant Renovation Landworks-Studio among others Power Plant Cambridge e Massachusetts, USA
16 Bo01 Coordinated by the city of Malmo €, with Industrial Waterfront € , Sweden
Malmo
collaborators
17 Boca do Rio Resort Architect Fernando Raposo Canning Factory Lagoa, Portugal
18 Bordeaux Botanical Garden Catherine Mosbach Paysagistes and Industrial/Residential District Bordeaux, France
Jourda Architects
19 BP Site Parkland McGregor þ Coxall Oil Storage and Transfer Facility Sydney, Australia
20 Bradford City Center Masterplan Alsop Architects Industrial/Residential District Bradford, England
21 Braga Municipal Stadium Souto Moura Arquitectos Lda and Quarry Braga, Portugal
Daniel Monteiro
22 Brickworks Michael Hough Quarry and Industrial Complex Toronto, Canada
23 BTC City Urban Planning Institute of the Republic Industrial and Warehousing District Ljubljana, Slovenia
of Slovenia among others
24 Buffalo's Inner Harbor e Erie Canal Flynn Battaglia Architects and Parking Lot New York e New York, USA
Harbor collaborators
25 Busan Civic Park Field Operations Military Base Busan, Korea
26 Butterworth Landfill Park Siteworks and E2 Inc Consulting Landfill Grand Rapids e Michigan, USA
27 Byxbee Park Hargreaves Associates Landfill Palo Alto e California, USA
28 Camilla Superfund Site D.I.R.T. Studio Wood Transformation Industry Camilla e Georgia, USA
29 Candlestick Point Hargreaves Associates among others Landfill San Francisco e California, USA
30 Casa dos Cubos Embaixada Arquitectura Storage Warehouse Tomar, Portugal
31 Castlefield Central Manchester Development Industrial District Manchester, England
Center among others
32 Cockatoo Island Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Industrial District/Shipbuilding Yard Sydney, Australia
33 Convento das Bernardas Souto Moura Arquitectos Lda Canning Factory Tavira, Portugal
34 Criar Institute Sílvio Oksman and Fernanda Neiva Industrial District ~o Paulo, Brazil
Sa
35 Crissy Field Hargreaves Associates Military Airbase San Francisco e California, USA
36 Cultural Waterfront SLETH MODERNISM Industrial Waterfront BodØ, Norway
37 Cuyahoga River Valley Cuyahoga County Planning Commission Industrial Landscape Cleveland e Ohio, USA
and collaborators
38 Dania Park Thorbjorn Andersson among others Industrial Waterfront Malmo€ , Sweden
39 Danube Waterfront West 8 Urban Design & Landscape Industrial/Commercial Waterfront Budapest, Hungary
Architecture and Espoprojekt Architects
40 Deansgate Quay Stephenson-Bell Architects Industrial District Manchester, England
41 Distillery District Cityscape Holdings Distillery District Toronto, Canada
42 Docklands Park Rush & Wright Associates among others Docklands Melbourne, Australia
43 Downsview Park OMA e Bruce Mau and Rem Khoolas Military Airbase Toronto, Canada
44 Duisburg Nord Latz þ Partner Steel Factory Duisburg, Germany
45 East Hotel Jordan Mozer & Associates Steel Factory Hamburg, Germany
46 Eden Project Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Clay Pit St. Austell, England
47 Erie Basin Park Lee Weintraub Shipyard Brooklyn e New York, USA
48 Espenhain Brownfield Municipality of Leipzig þ collaborators Mine and Industrial Complex Leipzig, Germany
Redevelopment
49 Estacio
Vella Park Batlle i Roig Arquitectes Train Station Igualada, Spain
50 Evanston Roundhouse Park D.I.R.T. Studio Railyard and Repair Station Evanston e Wyoming, USA
51 Exchange Square Martha Schwartz Partners Industrial/Commercial District Manchester, England
52
brica da Baleia
Fa Rui Pinto & Ine ^s Robalo Architects Whaling Factory Lajes do Pico, Portugal
53 Fabryka Trzciny Bogdan Kulczynski Architects Food Factory Warsaw, Poland
54 Fiat Lingotto Factory Renzo Piano Building Workshop Car Manufacturing Plant Torino, Italy
55 Fire & Police Station Sauerbruch Hutton Architects Warehouse District Berlin, Germany
56 Fresh Kills Field Operations Landfill Staten Island e New York, USA
57 Gantry Plaza State Park Thomas Balsley Associates Transportation Hub Long Island e New York, USA
(continued on next page)
80 L. Loures / Habitat International 45 (2015) 72e81

Appendix 1 (continued )

Name Design team Former use Location

58 Garonne Riverfront Master Plan Michel Desvigne Industrial Waterfront Bordeaux, France
59 Gasworks Richard Haag Gas Refinery Seattle e Washington, USA
60 Gdansk Shipyard Sasaki Associates Shipyard Gdansk, Poland
61 Geraldton Mine Project Martha Schwartz Partners Gold Mine Geraldon, Canada
62 Grand Plaza Rush & Wright Associates among others Docklands Melbourne, Australia
63 GreeNOLA: Holy Cross Project D.I.R.T. Studio Industrial/Commercial Derelict District New Orleans e Louisiana, USA
64 Greenwich Peninsula Richard Rogers Partnership and Industrial Waterfront London, England
Desvigne & Dalnoky
65 Hammarby Sjo€stad City of Stockholm Industrial Harbor District Stockholm, Sweden
66 Hellenikon Metropolitan Park David Serero, Elena Fernandez and Airport Athens, Greece
Office of Landscape Morphology
67 Henry Jones Art Hotel Morris-Nunn þ Associates Jam Factory Tasmania, Australia
68 High Line Field Operations among others Railway New York e New York, USA
69 Hiriya Waste Mountain Latz þ Partner Landfill Tel Aviv, Israel
70 Hudson River Park Sasaki Associates and Michael Van Industrial Waterfront New York e New York, USA
Valkenburgh Associates, among others
71 IBA Emscher Park Regional Planning Commission with Industrial Landscape Emscher Valley, Germany
collaboration from 17 Municipalities
72 Jardim de Santa Luzia Topia
ris Sugar Factory Funchal, Portugal
73 Lower Don Lands Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates Industrial Waterfront Toronto, Canada
74 Loyola College Athletic Complex Sasaki Associates Landfill Baltimore e Maryland, USA
75 Lyon Confluence Michel Desvigne, François Grether, Industrial District Lyon, France
Julien Descombes, Georges Descombes,
Latz þ Partner among others
76 Manchester City Centre EDAW Industrial District Manchester, England
77 Maritime Youth Centre PLOT Architects Derelict Waterfront Copenhagen, Denmark
78 MFO Park Burckhardt þ Partner AG Architekten Industrial District Zurich, Switzerland
and Raderschall Landschaftsarchitekten
AG
79
ris Park
Millena Kova
cs, Lendvai, Muszbek, Posza

r, Industrial District Budapest, Hungary
Tihanyi and Wallner
80 Millennium Park Edward K. Ulhir (Project Coordinator) Industrial District and Transportation Hub Chicago e Illinois, USA
and a Multi-functional Design Team
81 Millennium Parklands (Sydney Peter Walker þ Partners among others Industrial District Sydney, Australia
Olympic Park)
82 Museo del Acero Surfacedesign Inc, Harari Landscape Iron and Steel Factory Monterrey, Mexico
Architecture and Grimshaw Architects
83 ~o
Museu de Portima
Cid & Isabel Aires, Lda
Jose Canning Factory ~o, Portugal
Portima
84 Nordstern Park Prof. Pridik þ Freese Coal Mine Gelsenkirchen, Germany
Landschaftsarchitekten
85 Olympic Sculpture Park Weiss/Manfredi Architects and Charles Energy Plant Seattle e Washington, USA
Anderson Landscape Architecture
86 Opera House Snøhetta Shipyard Port Oslo, Norway
87 Orange County Great Park Landscape Architect Ken Smith among Military Airbase Irvine e California, USA
others
88
Citroe
Parc Andre €n
ment and Alain
Patrick Berger, Gilles Cle Car Manufactoring Plant Paris, France
Provost, among others
89 Parc de la Villette Bernard Tschumi Architects Industrial District Paris, France
90 Parc du Chemin de I'lle Guillaume Geoffroy-Dechaume Industrial District Nanterre, France
91 Parco Dora Latz þ Partner Industrial District Torino, Italy
92 Paris Rive Gauche Roland Schweitzer Industrial District/Train Hub Paris, France
93 Parque da Juventude Rosa Gliena Kliass Penitentiary ~o Paulo, Brazil
Sa
94 Parque do Tejo e do Tranc~
ao PROAP Estudos e Projectos de Industrial Waterfront Lisbon, Portugal
Arquitectura Paisagista, Lda. and
Hargreaves Associates
95 Parque Urbano de Santa Iria da Biodesign Landfill
ia, Portugal
Santa Iria da Azo

ia
Azo
96 Philadelphia Navy Yard Robert A. M. Stern Architects Navy Base Philadelphia e Pennsylvania, USA
97 Port Olimpic MBM Arquitectes, Albert Industrial Port/Waterfront Barcelona, Spain
Puigdome
nech and J. R. Clasca


98 Postindustrial Park Topotek1 Industrial District Eberswalde, Germany
99 Quimiparque RISCO þ Juan Busquets BAU Industrial District Barreiro, Portugal
100 Red October Foster þ Partners, Jean Nouvel, Jean Industrial District Moscow, Russia
Michel Wilmotte, McAdam Architects
among others
101 Requalificaça~o Urbana Lisnave Richard Rogers Industrial Waterfront Almada, Portugal
102 Revitalizing the Rouge D.I.R.T. Studio and William Car Manufacturing Plant Dearborn e Michigan, USA
McDonough þ Partners
103 Riverfront Park Design Workshop Railyard Denver e Colorado, USA
104 Schouwburgplein West 8 Urban Design & Landscape Commercial/Industrial District Rotterdam, Holland
Architecture
105 Seonyudo Park SeoAhn Total Landscape Sewage Treatment Plant Seoul, South Korea
106 Shanghai Houtan Park Turenscape Industrial Waterfront Shanghai, China
107 South Eastern Coastal Park Landscape Architect Teresa Gali-Izard Industrial Waterfront Barcelona, Spain
and FOA-Foreign Office Architects
 L. Loures / Habitat International 45 (2015) 72e81 81

Appendix 1 (continued )

Name Design team Former use Location

108 Stone Town Sasaki Associates Industrial/Commercial Historic Waterfront Zanzibar, Tanzania
109 Sulzerareal Vetschpartner Landschaftsarchitekten Iron and Steel Factory Winterthur, Switzerland
110 Sydney Olympics 2000 Hargreaves Associates Industrial Landscape Sydney, Australia
111 Tate Modern Herzog & de Meuron Power Plant London, England
112 Urban Outfitters D.I.R.T. Studio Military Shipyard Philadelphia e Pennsylvania, USA
113 USF Square 3RW Architects Car Park/Canning Factory Bergen, Norway
114 Walsh Bay Redevelopment Tropman & Tropman Architects among Industrial Port Sydney, Australia
others
115 Westergasfabriek Cuulturpark Gustafson-Porter Industrial District Amsterdam, Netherlands
116 Zhongshan Shipyard Park Turenscape Shipyard Zhongshan, China
117 Zollverein Park Planergruppe Oberhausen Coal Mining District Essen, Germany

References Kaufman, D., & Cloutier, N. (2006). The impact of small brownfields and green-
spaces on residential property values. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Eco-
nomics, 33, 19e30.
Adams, D., & Watkins, C. (2002). Greenfields, brownfields and housing development.
Loures, L. (2011). Planning and design in post-industrial landscapes: East Bank Arade
Oxford: Blackwell Science Ltd.
River e Lagoa, case study. Ph.D thesis. Portugal: University of Algarve.
Alberini, A., Longo, A., Tonin, S., Trombetta, F., & Turvani, M. (2005). The role of
McCarthy, L. (2002). The brownfield dual land-use policy challenge: reducing bar-
liability, regulation and economic incentives in brownfield remediation and
riers to private redevelopment while connecting reuse to broader community
redevelopment: evidence from surveys of developers. Regional Science and
goals. Land Use Policy, 19(4), 287e296.
Urban Economics, 35(4), 327e351.
McGrath, T. (2000). Urban industrial land redevelopment and contamination risk.
Allen, B., & Linden, M. (Eds.). (2002). De-industrialization: Social, cultural and political
Journal of Urban Economics, 47(3), 414e442.
aspects. Cambridge: University Press.
Meyer, P. (1998). Real estate appraisers and access to redevelopment finance. In
Amekudzi, A. (2004). Integrating brownfields redevelopment with transportation
C. Bartsch (Ed.), Financing brownfield reuse (pp. 21e28). Washington DC:
planning. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 130(4), 204e212.
Northeast-Midwest Institute.
Backhaus, G., & Murungi, J. (Eds.). (2002). Transformation of urban and suburban
Meyer, P. (2000). Accounting for stigma on contaminated lands: the potential
landscapes: Perspectives from philosophy, geography, and architecture. New York:
contributions of environmental insurance coverages. Environmental Claims
Lexington Books.
Journal, 12(3), 33e55.
Bartsch, C., & Anderson, C. (1998). Matrix of brownfields programs by state. Retrieved
Miller, K., Greenberg, M., Lowrie, K., & Mayer, H. (2001). Brownfields redevelopment
April 10, 2007, from http://www.nemw.org/bfmartrix.htm.
fights sprawl. New Jersey Municipalities, 78(3), 26e29.
Bartsch, C., Collaton, E., & Pepper, E. (1996). Coming clean for economic development:
Moudon, A. (2007). A catholic approach to organizing what urban designers should
A resource book on environmental cleanup and economic development opportu-
know. In M. Larice, & E. Macdonald (Eds.), The urban design reader. London and
nities. Washington DC: Northeast-Midwest Institute.
New York: Routledge.
BenDor, T., & Metcalf, S. (2005). Conceptual modeling and dynamic simulation of
Ozdil, T. (2006). Assessing the economic revitalization impact of urban design im-
brownfield redevelopment. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference of
provements: The Texas main street program. Doctoral dissertation. Texas: Texas
the System Dynamics Society, July 17e21, 2005, Boston.
A&M University.
Bengston, D., Fletcher, J., & Nelson, K. (2004). Public policies for managing urban
Panagopoulos, T., & Loures, L. (2007). Reclamation of derelict industrial land in
growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in
Portugal: greening is not enough. In Book of Abstracts of the 10th European
the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2e3), 271e286.
Forum on Urban Forestry, May 16e19, 2007, Gelsenkirchen, Germany (pp.
Brebbia, A., Almorza, D., & Klapperich, H. (2002). Brownfield sites: Assessment,
71e72).
rehabilitation and development. Southampton: WIT Press.
Paull, E. (2008). The environmental and economic impacts of brownfields redevelop-
Brueckner, J. (2000). Urban sprawl: diagnosis and remedies. International Regional
ment. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://www.nemw.org/images/stories/
Science Review, 23(2), 160e171.
documents/EnvironEconImpacts BFRedev.pdf.
Buchecker, M., Hunziker, M., & Kienast, F. (2003). Participatory landscape devel-
Pediaditi, K., Wehrmeyer, W., & Chenoweth, J. (2005). Monitoring sustainability of
opment: overcoming social barriers to public involvement. Landscape and Ur-
brownfield redevelopment projects e the redevelopment assessment frame-
ban Planning, 64, 29e46.
work. Land Contamination and Reclamation, 13(2), 173e183.
Cairney, T. (1995). The re-use of contaminated land: A handbook of risk assessment.
Pepper, E. (1997). Lessons from the field. Washington DC: Northeast-Midwest
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Institute.
De Sousa, C. (2000). Brownfield redevelopment versus greenfield development: a
Portney, K. (2003). Taking sustainable cities seriously: Economic development, the
private sector perspective on the costs and risks associated with brownfield
environment, and quality of life in American cities. Cambridge: MIT Press.
redevelopment in the greater Toronto area. Journal of Environmental Planning
Rea, C. (1991). Rethinking the industrial landscape: The future of the ford rouge
and Management, 43(6), 831e853.
complex. Master thesis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
De Sousa, C. (2002). Brownfield redevelopment in Toronto: an examination of past
Reed, P. (Ed.). (2005). Groundwell: Constructing the contemporary landscape. New
trends and future prospects. Land Use Policy, 19, 297e309.
York: The Museum of Modern Art.
De Sousa, C. (2003). Turning brownfields into green space in the city of Toronto.
Secchi, B. (2007). Section 1: wasted and reclaimed landscapes: rethinking and
Landscape and Urban Planning, 62, 181e198.
redesigning the urban landscape. Places, 19(1), 6e11.
De Sousa, C. (2006). Unearthing the benefits of brownfield to greenspace projects:
Simons, R. (1998). Turning brownfields into greenbacks: Redeveloping and financing
an examination of project use and quality of life impacts. Local Environment,
environmentally contaminated urban real estate. Washington DC: Urban Land
11(5), 577e600.
~o pela pesquisa. S~ Institute.
Demo, P. (1996). Educaça ao Paulo: Autores Associados.
Thayer, R. (1994). Gray world, green heart. New York: John Wiley.
Ekman, E. (2004). Strategies for reclaiming urban postindustrial landscapes. Master
Tyman, S. (2008). Gunpowder park: A case study of post-industrial reinhabitation.
thesis. Massachusetts: Institute of Technology.
Master thesis. Oregon: University of Oregon.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (1995). The brownfields economic redevel-
Tymoff, M. (2001). Reinterpreting the post-industrial landscape Athens' former man-
opment initiative: Application guidelines for demonstration projects. Retrieved
ufactured gas plant. Master thesis. Athens: University of Georgia.
March 12, 2006, from http://www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/pilot.htm.
Urban Land Institute. (2004). Barriers and solutions to land assembly for infill
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009). Superfund. Retrieved June 12, 2009,
development. Washington DC: The Urban Land Institute.
from http://epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm.
Wall, A. (1999). Programming the urban surface. In J. Corner (Ed.), Recovering
European Council for Construction Research, Development and Innovation. (2001).
landscape: Essays in contemporary landscape theory (pp. 233e249). New York:
Building the future. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European
Princeton Architectural Press.
Communities.
Willem, K. (2009). Taxing land for urban containment: reflections on a Dutch
Francis, M. (1999). A case study method for landscape architecture. Washington DC:
debate. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 233e241.
The Landscape Architecture Foundation.
Wright, J. (1997). Risks and rewards of brownfield redevelopment. Cambridge: Lincoln
Gibbons, J., Attoh-Okine, N., & Laha, S. (1998). Brownfields redevelopment issues
Institute of Land Policy.
revisited. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 10(1), 151e162.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage Publications.
Johnson, M. (2001). Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the liter-
ature and proposed research agenda. Environment and Planning A, 33(4),
717e735.