sustainable brownfield...
TRANSCRIPT
Sustainable BrownfieldRegenerationLiveable Places from Problem Spaces
Edited by
Tim DixonProfessor of Real EstateOxford Institute of Sustainable DevelopmentOxford Brookes University
Mike RacoSenior LecturerDepartment of GeographyKing’s College London
Philip CatneyResearch AssociateDepartment of Town & Country PlanningUniversity of Sheffield
David N. LernerProfessor of Environmental EngineeringCatchment Science CentreUniversity of Sheffield
Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration
Editors’ DedicationsTim Dixon would like to dedicate this book to Rachel and Sam for all theirlove and support during the course of editing this book.
Philip Catney would like to dedicate this book to Rachel for her love,understanding and support over the years.
Sustainable BrownfieldRegenerationLiveable Places from Problem Spaces
Edited by
Tim DixonProfessor of Real EstateOxford Institute of Sustainable DevelopmentOxford Brookes University
Mike RacoSenior LecturerDepartment of GeographyKing’s College London
Philip CatneyResearch AssociateDepartment of Town & Country PlanningUniversity of Sheffield
David N. LernerProfessor of Environmental EngineeringCatchment Science CentreUniversity of Sheffield
© 2007 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Blackwell Publishing editorial offices:Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1865 776868Blackwell Publishing Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA
Tel: +1 781 388 8250Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd, 550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia
Tel: +61 (0)3 8359 1011
The right of the Authors to be identified as the Authors of this Work has been asserted inaccordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrievalsystem, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed astrademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, servicemarks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The Publisher is notassociated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard tothe subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the Publisher is not engagedin rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required,the services of a competent professional should be sought.
First published 2007 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd
ISBN-13: 978-1-4051-4403-2
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Sustainable brownfield regeneration : liveable places from problem spaces / edited by Tim Dixon . . . [et al.].
p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN-13: 978-1-4051-4403-2 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Soil remediation. 2. Brownfields. 3. Reclamation of land. 4. Sustainable buildings. 5. Building sites. I. Dixon, Timothy J., 1958–
TD878.S872 2007333.77′137—dc22
2007010208
A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library
Set in 10/13pt Trump Mediaeval by Graphicraft Limited, Hong KongPrinted and bound in Singapore by Utopia Press Pte Ltd
The publisher’s policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate a sustainableforestry policy, and which has been manufactured from pulp processed using acid-free and elementary chlorine-free practices. Furthermore, the publisher ensures that the textpaper and cover board used have met acceptable environmental accreditation standards.
For further information on Blackwell Publishing, visit our website:www.blackwellpublishing.com/construction
Contents
Notes on the Contributors ixAcknowledgements xvForeword xvi
PART 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1 Introduction 3Tim Dixon and Mike Raco
1.1 Background 31.2 Aims and objectives 51.3 Structure of the book 6
2 Researching Sustainability: The Possibilities and Limitations of Cross-Cutting Research in the Urban Environment 9Mike Raco and Tim Dixon
2.1 Introduction 92.2 Intellectual disciplines, interdisciplinarity and
the construction of knowledge 102.3 The rise and rise of the sustainability agenda 192.4 The EPSRC’s Sustainable Urban Environments programme
and the emergence of the SUBR:IM consortium 222.5 Conclusions: SUBR:IM and new ways of working 28
PART 2 REGENERATION 33
3 Democracy, Trust and Risk Related to Contaminated Sites in the UK 35Philip Catney, Dick Eiser, John Henneberry and Tom Stafford
3.1 Introduction 353.2 Contaminated land in the UK: context and policy 363.3 Democracy, trust and risk in environmental governance 413.4 Case studies 493.5 Conclusions 62
vi Contents
4 Actor Networks: The Brownfield Merry-Go-Round 67Joe Doak and Nikos Karadimitriou
4.1 Introduction 674.2 Actors and their roles 704.3 Networks and their construction 744.4 Network processes in brownfield regeneration 774.5 Conclusions 85
5 Heroes or Villains? The Role of the UK Property DevelopmentIndustry in Sustainable Urban Brownfield Regeneration 89Tim Dixon
5.1 Introduction 895.2 The nature and challenge of brownfield development 905.3 The role of the UK property development industry in
brownfield regeneration 935.4 Survey and interview findings 945.5 Learning from practice: Thames Gateway and
Greater Manchester 985.6 Towards best practice? 1025.7 A checklist for developers 1085.8 Conclusions 109Acknowledgements 1115A.1 Appendix 1 National developer interviewees and
questionnaire sample 1115A.2 Appendix 2 Details of case study interviews 114
6 Delivering Brownfield Regeneration: Sustainable Community-Building in London and Manchester 119Mike Raco, Steven Henderson and Sophie Bowlby
6.1 Introduction 1196.2 Building for the future: visions, practices and
the delivery of sustainable urban regeneration 1206.3 Flagship urban brownfield regeneration in the UK:
the redevelopment of Salford Quays and Paddington Basin 123
6.4 Conclusions: lessons for urban development policy 137
Contents vii
PART 3 REMEDIATION 141
7 Greening Brownfield Land 143Andy Moffat and Tony Hutchings
7.1 Introduction 1437.2 Background and context 1437.3 A sustainable process for greenspace 1507.4 Contamination 1547.5 Sustainable greenspace 1667.6 The future of greenspace on brownfield land 1707.7 Conclusions 171
8 Novel Special-purpose Composts for Sustainable Remediation 177Sabeha Ouki, René van Herwijnen, Michael Harbottle, Tony Hutchings, Abir Al-Tabbaa, Mike Johns and Andy Moffat
8.1 Introduction 1778.2 Materials characterisation 1788.3 Experimental design 1828.4 Heavy metals containment in soils 1838.5 Biomass 1908.6 Enhanced compost 1938.7 Magnetic resonance imaging 1958.8 Conclusions 198
9 Robust Sustainable Technical Solutions 203Abir Al-Tabbaa, Michael Harbottle and Chris Evans
9.1 Introduction 2039.2 Sustainability assessment of currently available
remediation technologies in the UK 2049.3 Sustainability improvements to remediation techniques 2239.4 Conclusions 232
10 ‘The Creature Lurks Within?’ Restoring Acid Tar Lagoons 237Simon Talbot, Nigel Lawson and Colin Smith
10.1 Introduction 23710.2 Acid tar lagoons: a technical introduction 23810.3 Regulating risk on an acid tar lagoon 24310.4 Lesson-drawing from Germany: an appraisal of
the state of the art in remediation 25210.5 Conclusions 260
viii Contents
PART 4 JOINED-UP SOLUTIONS 263
11 Climate Change, Pollutant Linkage and Brownfield Regeneration 265Abir Al-Tabbaa, Sinead Smith, Cécile De Munck, Tim Dixon, Joe Doak, Stephen Garvin and Mike Raco
11.1 Introduction 26511.2 Evidence of impacts of climate change on
contaminated land systems 26611.3 Modelling potential impacts of climate change and
the creation of greenspace on contaminated land 28011.4 Climate change mitigation and adaptation 29211.5 Technical adaptation and risk management strategies 29411.6 Stakeholder adaptation key issues and findings 30311.7 Conclusions 310Acknowledgements 311
12 Evaluating the Sustainability of Brownfield Redevelopment Projects 315Kalliope Pediaditi, Walter Wehrmeyer and Kate Burningham
12.1 Introduction 31512.2 Sustainability evaluation in brownfield projects 31612.3 The Redevelopment Assessment Framework 32012.4 Conclusions 34512A.1 Appendix 346
13 Is Brown the New Green? 352Philip Catney, David N. Lerner, Tim Dixon and Mike Raco
13.1 Introduction 35213.2 Sustainable brownfield regeneration 35213.3 Sustainability in action 35813.4 Constructing cross-disciplinary research: lessons from
the SUBR:IM experience 36613.5 Conclusions 369
Index 373
Notes on the Contributors
Editors
Tim Dixon is Professor of Real Estate and Co-Director of the Oxford Insti-tute of Sustainable Development (OISD) based at Oxford Brookes Univer-sity, UK. With more than 20 years’ experience of research and education inthe built environment, he is a member of SEEDA’s South East ExcellenceAdvisory Board and of the EPSRC Infrastructure and Environment StrategicAdvisory Team as well as the editorial boards of five leading journals. He hasworked on collaborative research projects with UK and overseas academicsand practitioners, and co-led (with David Lerner) the successful 2003 bid toEPSRC for a £1.8 million four-year programme of research into brownfieldissues (SUBR:IM – www.subrim.org.uk) in which Oxford Brookes was a keypartner. Email: [email protected]
Mike Raco is Senior Lecturer in Human Geography in the Department of Geography, King’s College London. He has published widely on the topics of urban and regional development, local governance, urban regen-eration and community development. His publications include BuildingSustainable Communities: Spatial Policy and Labour Mobility in Post-warBritain (Policy Press, Bristol), Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Commun-ity, and Urban Policy (with Rob Imrie; Policy Press, Bristol). He formerlylectured at the universities of Reading and Glasgow. Email: [email protected]
Philip Catney is a political scientist. He is currently a research associate in the Department of Town and Regional Planning at the University ofSheffield, where he also teaches in the Department of Politics, and is theSUBR:IM Consortium Manager. He has published a number of articles onenvironmental, local and urban governance and the ideology of New Labour.Philip is also a member of the Sustainable Development CommissionForum, a stakeholder forum of the UK government’s watchdog on sustain-able development issues. Email: [email protected]
David N. Lerner was Director of the SUBR:IM Research Consortium withresearch interests in urban groundwater and contaminated land. He is Pro-fessor of Environmental Engineering, leader of the Groundwater Protectionand Restoration Group and Director of the Catchment Science Centre atthe University of Sheffield, UK. As well as researching on restoration of con-taminated land and groundwater, he leads projects on integrated catchment
x Notes on the Contributors
modelling and management, especially on the use of systems analysis tobuild decision support tools. The interdisciplinary and multinational CatSciprogramme is researching a range of Water Framework Directive issuesusing the mixed urban–rural River Don catchment as a case study. Email:[email protected]
Main authors
Abir Al-Tabbaa is Reader in Geotechnical Engineering at the University ofCambridge. She is involved in research in a range of areas in geotechnicaland environmental engineering including ground improvement, contam-inated land remediation, waste management and reuse and sustainableconstruction materials and products. Email: [email protected]
Sophie Bowlby is a Senior Lecturer in Human Geography at the Uni-versity of Reading. Her research focuses on issues of inclusion related to gender, race and class with particular reference to issues of mobility, accessto employment and the geographies of informal care demands. Email:[email protected]
Kate Burningham is Senior Lecturer in Sociology of the Environment in the Department of Sociology and the Centre for Environmental Strategy atthe University of Surrey. Email: [email protected]
Philip Catney is a political scientist. He is currently a research associate in the Department of Town and Regional Planning at the University ofSheffield, where he also teaches in the Department of Politics, and is theSUBR:IM Consortium Manager.
Tim Dixon is Professor of Real Estate and Co-Director of the OxfordInstitute of Sustainable Development (OISD) based at Oxford BrookesUniversity, UK. Email: [email protected]
Joe Doak is a Senior Lecturer in Planning and Urban Development in the Department of Real Estate and Planning at the University of Reading,and is Director of Postgraduate Planning Programmes. Email: [email protected]
Uche Duru is a PhD student in Geoenvironmental Engineering at theUniversity of Cambridge’s Department of Engineering, working on theimpact of climate change on chemical and biological properties of contam-inated soils. Email: [email protected]
Notes on the Contributors xi
Richard Eiser is Professor of Psychology at the University of Sheffield, a post he has held since 2000. From 1979 to 2000 he was Professor of Psy-chology at the University of Exeter. He is the author of several articles and books in social psychology with a special focus on attitudes and thejudgement of health and environmental risks. Email: [email protected]
Chris Evans is Technical Director at Arcadis Geraghty and Miller Inter-national Limited, based in Newmarket, UK, specialising in contamin-ated land remediation and geotechnical engineering. Email: [email protected]
Stephen Garvin is a Director of BRE, based at BRE Scotland. He has under-taken research for central government and EPSRC over a 17-year period,producing guidance documents and research papers. He has a wide range ofresearch interests that include land quality through to materials techno-logy. Email: [email protected]
Michael Harbottle was formerly a Postdoctoral Research Associate atCambridge University’s Engineering Department and is now a Lecturer inGeoenvironmental Engineering at Cardiff University. Email: [email protected]
Steven Henderson is a lecturer in Geography and Planning in the School of Applied Sciences at the University of Wolverhampton. Email: [email protected]
John Henneberry is Professor of Property Development in the Departmentof Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield. His research focuseson the structure and behaviour of the property market and its relationswith the wider economy and polity; particularly policy and decision-making with regard to the redevelopment of brownfield land. Email:[email protected]
René van Herwijnen is Research Associate for Forest Research and theUniversity of Surrey for whom he is doing research into new bioremedi-ation technologies for contaminated land. Email: [email protected]
Tony Hutchings is Head of the Land Regeneration and Urban GreeningGroup in Forest Research, the research agency of the Forestry Commission.Email: [email protected]
xii Notes on the Contributors
Srinath R. Iyengar is a PhD student in Geoenvironmental Engineering at theUniversity of Cambridge’s Department of Engineering. He is working on thedevelopment of sustainable contaminated land stabilisation/solidification remediation systems. Email: [email protected]
Michael Johns is a lecturer in Chemical Engineering at the University ofCambridge. He is working on developing magnetic resonance and othertomographic methods to better understand and control industrial processproblems in addition to modelling the flow of pollutants in the subsurface.Email: [email protected]
Kalliope Pediaditi is Research Fellow at Mediterranean AgronomicInstitute Chania (MAICh), Alsyllion Agrokepion, Crete, Greece. Email:[email protected]
Nikos Karadimitriou is a Lecturer in Land and Property Development at the Bartlett School of Planning, University College London. Email:[email protected]
Nigel Lawson is a senior member of staff within the School of Environ-ment and Development at the University of Manchester. Nigel has con-siderable experience in contaminated land and demolition waste researchfollowing a successful career in industry and business. Email: [email protected]
David N. Lerner was Director of the SUBR:IM Research Consortium withresearch interests in urban groundwater and contaminated land. He is Pro-fessor of Environmental Engineering, leader of the Groundwater Protectionand Restoration Group and Director of the Catchment Science Centre atthe University of Sheffield, UK. Email: [email protected]
Andy Moffat is Head of Environmental and Human Sciences Division inForest Research, the research agency of the Forestry Commission. Email:[email protected]
Cécile De Munck is an Environmental Scientist and Modeller in the LandRegeneration and Urban Greening Group of Forest Research, the researchagency of the Forestry Commission. Email: [email protected]
Sabeha Ouki is a Reader in Pollution Control and Waste Management in the Centre for Environmental Health Engineering (CEHE) and Director
Notes on the Contributors xiii
of Research Studies for the School of Engineering, University of Surrey. Email: [email protected]
Mike Raco is Senior Lecturer in Human Geography in the Department ofGeography, King’s College London. Email: [email protected]
Colin Smith is a Senior Lecturer in Geotechnical Engineering in the Depart-ment of Civil and Structural Engineering at the University of Sheffield.Email: [email protected]
Sinéad Smith is a PhD student in Geoenvironmental Engineering at theUniversity of Cambridge’s Department of Engineering working on theimpact of climate change on contaminated land and containment systems.Email: [email protected]
Tom Stafford is a lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the Univer-sity of Sheffield. He is lucky enough to have engaged in the study of decision-making at biological, psychological and social levels of analysis. Email:[email protected]
Simon Talbot is the Director of GMGU, a part of Urban Vision PartnershipLtd, which supplies specialist land use and contaminated land consultancyservices to the public and private sectors and provides teaching, trainingand research through its close links with the University of Manchester.Email: [email protected]
Walter Wehrmeyer is Reader in Environmental Business Management at the Centre for Environmental Strategy of the University of Surrey. Hisresearch interests include organisational approaches to innovation and sustainable development, and participatory approaches to decision-making,including measurement systems to support progress evaluation in theseareas. Email: [email protected]
Other contributors (by chapter)
Chapter 6
Steven Henderson, Geography, School of Applied Sciences, University ofWolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton WV1 1SB. Email: [email protected]
xiv Notes on the Contributors
Chapter 11
Uche Duru is a PhD student in Geoenvironmental Engineering at theUniversity of Cambridge’s Department of Engineering working on theimpact of climate change on chemical and biological properties of con-taminated soils. Email: [email protected]
Srinath Iyengar is a PhD student in Geoenvironmental Engineering at the University of Cambridge’s Department of Engineering working on thedevelopment of sustainable contaminated land stabilisation/solidificationremediation systems. Email: [email protected]
Julian Ridal is a Senior Consultant at BRE Scotland. He specialises in contaminated land, construction materials and waste, sustainability andhealth and safety. Email: [email protected]
Acknowledgements
Our thanks go to the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council(EPSRC), which funded the research in SUBR:IM (Sustainable UrbanBrownfield Regeneration: Integrated Management) under Grant NumberGR/S18809/01.
The editors and contributors would like to note the special contributionthat Mike Brown (now based at the University of Dundee) made in mak-ing this volume possible. Mike’s efficiency was essential in ensuring thatSUBR:IM was successfully established.
The SUBR:IM website is at www.subrim.org.uk
Foreword
Ensuring the effective and efficient reuse of brownfield land is an essentialpart of the British Government’s land use policies in support of sustainablecommunities. English Partnerships, as the Government’s specialist advisoron brownfield land, has prepared new policy recommendations and over-arching principles to form a National Brownfield Strategy for England,aimed at stimulating the redevelopment and reuse of land by both the public and private sectors. The recommendations acknowledge the im-portance of reusing brownfield land for a full range of activities, includ-ing housing, employment, recreation and open space as well as increasingwildlife habitats and the prevention of flooding.
There is already a good track record in England for recycling brownfieldland but there are many barriers that make the process less efficient andless attractive than Government would like. The aim is to increase thebeneficial reuse of brownfield land and buildings, including tackling someof the more difficult, long-term derelict and vacant sites that often blightcommunities. The six ‘over-arching principles’ aim to ensure the country’s63 000 hectares of previously developed land is used to better effect. Theyinclude focusing on the widest possible range of uses, not just housing; concentrating efforts in areas where existing infrastructure has the capa-city to support redevelopment; and ensuring that, where possible, futureuses should help support families and assist in combating anti-socialbehaviour. The Strategy also recognises the need to improve the brownfieldskills base and for Government departments to adopt a more ‘joined up’approach to resolving brownfield problems.
The recommendations are the result of a three-year consultation pro-gramme, carried out in conjunction with DCLG (the Department for Com-munities and Local Government) and involving Defra (the Department forthe Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), the Environment Agency andother Government departments, along with local authorities and privatesector stakeholders. Throughout the process of developing the Strategy thework has been informed by the efforts of the SUBR:IM consortium.
SUBR:IM has played a very important role in raising the profile of brown-field issues and the impact they can have on all aspects of modern society.Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration: Liveable Places from Problem Spacesrecognises that reusing brownfield land is not just about overcoming ‘technical issues to remove contamination or other physical problems withthe ground. It highlights the importance of engaging with the many differentstakeholders whose opinions and concerns need to be taken into account ifsustainable outcomes are to be achieved. The authors also recognise that
Foreword xvii
brownfield land reuse is not just about building new homes or places ofemployment – the creation of new green spaces can be just as important.
Members of the research team should be congratulated on their contri-butions to the brownfield debate and I hope that they will continue theirresearch interests in this challenging, and rewarding, area. I am thereforevery pleased to welcome the publication of the research outputs from theproject.
Professor Paul SymsNational Brownfield Advisor
English PartnershipsMay 2007
Part 1Introduction
1Introduction
Tim Dixon and Mike Raco
1.1 Background
Brownfield regeneration has become a major policy driver in the UK andother developed countries. It is estimated that there are 64 000 hectares ofbrownfield land in England, much of which presents severe environmentalchallenges and lies alongside some of the most deprived communities inthe country.
Brownfields have been defined by CABERNET1 as sites that
• have been affected by former uses of the site or surrounding land• are derelict or underused• are mainly in fully or partly developed urban areas• require intervention to bring them back to beneficial use, and• may have real or perceived contamination problems
In the UK, land that has been ‘previously developed’ is commonly knownas brownfield land. Previously developed land is defined in Planning PolicyGuidance Document 3: Housing (2000) PPG3 as land that ‘is or was occupiedby a permanent structure (excluding agricultural or forestry buildings), andassociated fixed surface infrastructure’. In practice, this means brownfieldland comprises the following categories:
• Land type A – previously developed land now vacant• Land type B – vacant buildings• Land type C – derelict land and buildings• Land type D – land or buildings currently in use and allocated in the
local plan and/or having planning permission• Land type E – land or buildings currently in use with redevelopment
potential
4 Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration
Bringing such land back into active use has taken on a new urgency amongpolicy makers, developers and other stakeholders in the development pro-cess. Frequently, however, policy thinking and practice has been under-pinned by ‘silo’ mentalities, in which integrated and multidisciplinaryapproaches to problem-solving have been limited. Important issues such as the technical identification of forms of contamination and appropriateremediation techniques, the creation of interactive and inclusive systems ofgovernance and policy-making, and mechanisms to encourage the mobilisa-tion of important stakeholders such as the development industry and localcommunities have often been dealt with in isolation. As a consequence,those applying technologies in cleaning up contaminated brownfield landhave often done so in a deterministic way, without fully incorporating an understanding of the impact on communities and other stakeholders.Similarly, some policy makers and local communities have tried to adoptambitious approaches with little appreciation of the technical processesinvolved in site clearance, remediation and development.
To overcome these discontinuities, and to develop more integrated approaches, a new research consortium called SUBR:IM (SustainableBrownfield Regeneration: Integrated Management) was formed in 2003.With more than £1.9 million of initial funding over four years, SUBR:IM(www.subrim.org.uk) brought together ten major research institutions towork on 18 inter-related projects.2 SUBR:IM’s researchers were drawn fromacross the science and social science disciplines and had experience ofworking in fields such as engineering, construction management, propertyand real estate, and development planning. The research also included support from stakeholders, including industry, civic associations, andnational, regional and local government, and SUBR:IM’s work focused onsites in Greater Manchester and the Thames Gateway, which have some ofthe largest concentrations of brownfield land and deprived communities inthe UK.
This book systematically and comprehensively documents the core evi-dence and findings from SUBR:IM’s research programme. It adopts an inte-grated approach to the subject by drawing on the lessons learned from theresearch, not only from the individual projects themselves, but also fromthe synergies established through the process of working together in a multidisciplinary team. It is intended to provide a highly original and inno-vative account of the processes and practices of brownfield regeneration in the UK and how different types of knowledge can be brought to bear to develop a more holistic, and ultimately effective, urban policy. It alsoestablishes wider lessons for multidisciplinary and cross-subject research,something that is likely to become more and more significant across thesocial and technical sciences as the value of such work in tackling multipleurban problems becomes more apparent.
Introduction 5
1.2 Aims and objectives
The book has two principal aims. The first is to examine the ways in whichscience and social science research disciplines can be brought together to help solve important brownfield regeneration issues, with a focus on the UK. The second is to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of differenttypes of regeneration policy and practice, and to show how ‘liveable spaces’can be produced from ‘problem places’.
In order to address these aims the research projects within SUBR:IM havecovered four principal themes (reflected diagrammatically in Figure 1.1):
(1) the property development and investment industries and their role inbrownfield regeneration
(2) the processes of governance and multi-level decision-making relatingto brownfield regeneration, including institutional structures and com-munity engagement as well as risk, trust and systems of democraticrepresentation
(3) the development of robust technical solutions to contamination andexamination of the impact of climate change within this
(4) the ways in which integrated solutions to brownfield renewal can bedeveloped, including how the greening of former brownfield spaces canopen up new opportunities for urban regeneration
Metrics and quality
Science and engineering driven
Social science driven
Propertydevelopmentand investmentindustries
Governance andmulti-leveldecision-making
Robust technicalsolutions andclimate change
Integrated remediationand greening
Figure 1.1 Conceptual diagram of SUBR:IM.
6 Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration
Themes (1) and (2) primarily related to the ‘social science’ disciplines,whereas themes (3) and (4) leaned more towards the environmental andengineering sciences (see Chapter 2 for a broader discussion).
All the SUBR:IM projects sought to develop cross-cutting methodologiesand approaches. Some projects were also developed that were designed toweave together the project’s broader research findings; for example, the‘metrics’ project in SUBR:IM developed a more holistic view of the brown-field development process and questions of sustainability (see Chapter 12).
A large part of SUBR:IM’s work has also focused on two major sub-regionswhere brownfield development is of particular significance: the ThamesGateway and Greater Manchester. This shared empirical focus was essentialfor the coherence of the research programme. The Thames Gateway in thesouth of England represented a site of core regional and national significance,and extends for approximately 60 kilometres along the River Thames fromthe London Docklands to Southend in Essex and Sheerness in Kent. RegionalPlanning Guidance for the South East (RPG 9) and the Sustainable Commu-nities Plan had already identified it as a priority for regeneration and growth.It is also one of the four target areas for new housing in the South East.
Similarly in Greater Manchester, Manchester and Salford have both re-ceived an increased amount of government and media attention not only as a result of the Northern Way strategy and the broader sustainable com-munities agenda, but also because the ‘Manchester model’ of regenerationencapsulates much of what many commentators consider best practice in British post-war regeneration, particularly in relation to joint ventureschemes for redevelopment.
1.3 Structure of the book
In order to address its aims the book is divided into four interrelated parts.These sections are designed to ensure that the contributions do not simplybecome a collection of research papers. Instead, they are designed to pro-vide a framework within which the various chapters can be integrated anddeveloped in a theoretically focused and robust manner.
Part 1 (‘Introduction’) comprises the current chapter (Chapter 1) and Chap-ter 2. It outlines the structures of the SUBR:IM consortium, the processesthrough which it emerged, and the problems and opportunities associatedwith these new, increasingly popular, academic working practices. In Chap-ter 2 Mike Raco and Tim Dixon examine broader conceptions of multidis-ciplinarity and how the SUBR:IM portfolio of work has fitted together. Theyassess the ways in which integrated, ‘socio-technical’ approaches were appliedto the brownfield regeneration ‘problem’ under SUBR:IM and the lessonsfor future research in this field and beyond.
Introduction 7
Part 2 deals with processes of regeneration, exploring socio-technical prob-lems and solutions, and the role of actors/stakeholders in the regenerationprocess, together with governance issues. It consists of four chapters, eachof which explores different dimensions associated with brownfield regen-eration. In Chapter 3 Philip Catney et al. examine questions of ‘Democracy,Trust and Risk Related to Contaminated Sites in the UK’. The authorsexamine the relationships between democracy, trust and risk and draw ontwo case studies of risk assessment and communication to explore howthese issues relate to contaminated brownfield sites in England. The resultsshow how different approaches to risk contamination affect the degree towhich local residents trust their councils. Chapter 4 goes on to examinewhat Joe Doak and Nikos Karadimitriou term ‘Actor Networks and theBrownfield Merry-Go-Round’. The chapter explores the relationships betweenproperty investors and high-profile development projects. The authorsargue that we need to understand the development process through a formof complex and contextual network analysis. Examples from London andManchester are used to examine this framework. In Chapter 5, entitled‘Heroes or Villains? The Role of the Development Industry in BrownfieldRegeneration’, Tim Dixon examines the nature and challenge of brown-field development in the UK, and the role of the development industry andits attitudes towards brownfield development through case study-basedwork in Thames Gateway and Greater Manchester. This chapter is closelyintegrated with Chapter 6, ‘Delivering Brownfield Regeneration – Sustain-able Community-Building in London and Manchester’, in which MikeRaco et al. look at high-profile examples from London and Manchester andbroader questions concerning brownfield regeneration processes and theirwider sustainability. In both chapters the authors argue, from differing perspectives, that policy makers and others need to be more open to thepossibility that brownfield development may represent only one part of abroader set of sustainable development policies.
Part 3 contains four chapters that focus on broader processes of remedi-ation with an emphasis on the relationships between scientific ‘problems’and ‘solutions’ in particular brownfields. Chapter 7, by Andy Moffat andTony Hutchings, addresses the theme of ‘Greening Brownfield Land’ andexamines the challenges of establishing and maintaining greenspace onbrownfield land in a sustainable way. The chapter draws on work from theSUBR:IM projects and beyond. It is closely linked to Chapter 8 and its focuson ‘Novel Special-Purpose Composts for Sustainable Remediation’, wherethe researchers (Sabeha Ouki et al.) give an overview of the major resultsobtained during experimental investigations in testing composts com-bined with naturally occurring minerals (clays and zeolites) for their abilityto reduce plant availability and leachability of heavy metals when appliedto contaminated soils. Technical innovation and knowledge such as this is
8 Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration
often essential to the remediation process. Other remediation techniquesare examined in Chapter 9 in which Abir Al-Tabbaa et al. concentrate onthe appropriateness of ‘Robust Technical Solutions’. The discussion focuseson the assessment of sustainability in relation to containment and clean-upmethods of remediation and how improvements can be made to specifictechnical solutions based on sustainability assessment and experimentalinvestigations. Chapter 10 (Simon Talbot et al.) focuses on a particularlychallenging example of brownfield remediation, that of ‘acid tar lagoons’. Itexamines the scale of the problem, the particular difficulties associated withtar remediation, and provides examples of such remediation ‘in practice’.
The concluding section, Part 4, is focused on what might be termed‘Joined-up solutions’. It draws on SUBR:IM projects that have adopted a cross-cutting methodology and provides conclusions to the book. In Chapter 11 Abir Al-Tabbaa et al. examine the theme of ‘Climate Change,Pollutant Linkage and Brownfield Regeneration’. The research examinesthe impact that climate change could have on pollutant linkages in the soiland the extent to which stakeholders are developing adaptation strategiesto account for this impact. Chapter 12 provides an overview of the workcarried out by Walter Wehrmeyer and Kalliope Pediaditi on ‘Evaluating the Sustainability of Brownfield Redevelopment Projects’. The chapterdescribes a particular framework, named the Redevelopment AssessmentFramework (or RAF), used to assess and monitor the long-term sustain-ability of brownfield redevelopment projects. This is followed by a con-cluding chapter by Philip Catney, David Lerner, Tim Dixon and Mike Racoentitled ‘Is Brown the New Green?’, which summarises and synthesises thekey messages and findings that have emerged from the SUBR:IM researchand assesses their significance for wider debates over urban regeneration,environmental remediation and sustainable urban redevelopment. The chap-ter also highlights the wider lessons concerning the research process, thecontested nature of the concept of sustainable development, and the valueadded by this type of multidisciplinary and integrated research.
Notes
1. CABERNET (Concerted Action on Brownfield and Economic Regeneration Network),is a multidisciplinary network comprising six expert Working Groups that aims tofacilitate new practical solutions for urban brownfields (see www.cabernet.org.uk).
2. The ten institutions are the University of Sheffield, Oxford Brookes University,King’s College London, Forest Research, the University of Reading, the University of Cambridge, the University of Surrey, the Building Research Establishment, theUniversity of Manchester and the Greater Manchester Geological Unit. The websiteis at www.subrim.org.uk
2Researching Sustainability: The Possibilities and Limitations of Cross-Cutting Research in the Urban Environment
Mike Raco and Tim Dixon
2.1 Introduction
Science has spoken, with growing urgency and conviction, to society formore than half a millennium. Not only has it determined technical pro-cesses, economic systems and social structures, it has also shaped oureveryday experience of the world, our conscious thoughts and even ourunconscious feelings. Science and modernity have become inseparable.In the past half-century society has begun to speak back to science, withequal urgency and conviction. (Nowotny et al., 2001)
[I]n the academic world people fight constantly over the question ofwho, in this universe, is socially mandated, and authorised to tell thetruth. (Bourdieu, 2003, pp. 70–71)
Across academia there are new and expanding pressures for researchers toengage in interdisciplinary (ID), multidisciplinary (MD) or transdisciplinary(TD) work. There are intellectual and more practical drivers underpinningthis process. On the one hand there are new conceptual challenges in thetwenty-first century that lend themselves to such study. Issues such asenvironmental change and sustainability, energy generation and habitatdestruction represent expanding problems whose causes and potential solu-tions arguably require the creation and deployment of multiple knowledges.In parallel with this, in countries such as the UK, research environments
10 Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration
are changing rapidly and encouraging academics from diverse disciplinarybackgrounds to work together. The focus on ‘evidence-based’ policy, theNew Public Management, and ‘user-engagement’ have increasingly maderesearch funding conditional on the ability of researchers to work in newnetworks and partnerships and disseminate their knowledge to a widerpublic. Whatever the intellectual strengths and weaknesses of such work,it has become something of a conventional wisdom that mirrors broadershifts in the governance, management, and delivery of the public sector.
And yet, this shift towards non-disciplinary approaches raises a numberof questions. What do such terms really mean, both conceptually and prac-tically? What are their limitations and how do bureaucratic definitions andfunding mechanisms help or hinder such work? Is such research practicallyfeasible, and if so, what conditions are necessary for it be successful? More-over, is such work desirable anyway and an effective use of increasinglyscarce resources? This chapter (and see also Chapter 13) examines some ofthe factors that influenced the work of SUBR:IM and develops a criticalreflexive approach (cf. Bourdieu, 2003) to the consortium and the broadermultidisciplinary agenda that it is a part of. It begins by discussing dis-ciplinarity and its significance for the research process before examiningthe experiences of SUBR:IM. It then concludes by highlighting some of thewider lessons that emerged from the research process for future research onurban sustainability.
2.2 Intellectual disciplines, interdisciplinarity and the construction of knowledge
2.2.1 The challenge to disciplinarity
The creation of knowledge is intimately linked to the formation and repro-duction of academic disciplines. The Collins English Dictionary defines‘discipline’ as ‘systematic training in obedience’ and ‘training or conditionsimposed for the improvement of physical powers, self-control, etc.’. To dis-cipline individuals, therefore, involves the institutionalisation of commonrules and ways of thinking and acting. In the field of knowledge production,disciplinary boundaries correspond to ‘technical languages and univer-sity departments’ (Fuller, 1993, p. 48), which have a social and a functionaldimension through the provision of a shared language, sets of tools andresources. For Petts et al. (2005) these intellectual disciplines are constructsborne out of ‘historical processes’ and ‘have survived for so long in the academic world because they serve a very useful function of constrainingwhat the academic has to think about’. Disciplines provide rules for whatmay or may not provide a research problem or question, count as ‘evidence’