brownfield regeneration in europe: identifying stakeholderperceptions, concerns, attitudes and...

Bp

EAa

b

a

ARRA

KBSSSI

1

iwi

h0

Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 437–453

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate / landusepol

rownfield regeneration in Europe: Identifying stakeholdererceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs

rika Rizzo a, Marco Pesce a, Lisa Pizzol a, Filip Mihai Alexandrescu a,b, Elisa Giubilato a,ndrea Critto a, Antonio Marcomini a,∗, Stephan Bartke b

Department of Environmental Sciences, Informatics and Statistics, University Ca’ Foscari Venice, Calle Larga S. Marta 2137, I-30123 Venice, ItalyHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Permoserstr. 15 – 04318 Leipzig, Germany

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 4 December 2014eceived in revised form 25 May 2015ccepted 16 June 2015

eywords:rownfield regenerationtakeholder involvementtakeholder categoriestakeholder information needsnformation categorisation system

a b s t r a c t

Brownfield areas are a major concern in Europe because they are often extensive, persistent in time andcompromise stakeholders’ interests. Moreover, due to their complex nature, from the decision-makingpoint of view, the regeneration of brownfields is a challenging problem requiring the involvement of thewhole range of stakeholders. Many studies, projects and organisations have recognised the importanceof stakeholder involvement and have promoted public participation. However, comprehensive studiesproviding an overview of stakeholders’ perceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs whendealing with brownfield regeneration are still missing.

This paper presents and discusses a participatory methodology applied to stakeholders from five Euro-pean countries to fill this research gap, to develop a system to support the categorisation of the neededinformation and to support the understanding of which typology of information is the most relevant forspecific categories of stakeholders also in relation with their concerns.

The engagement process consists of five phases: (i) planning and preparatory work, (ii) identificationof stakeholder categories, (iii) engagement activities (e.g. focus groups and workshops), (iv) submissionof a questionnaire and (v) provision of feedback to the involved stakeholders.

Thanks to this process, appropriate stakeholders have been identified as well as their perceptions, con-cerns, attitudes and information needs. Stakeholders’ perceptions proved to be different according to thecountry: German and Italian stakeholders perceive brownfields as complex systems, where several issuesneed to be addressed, while Romanian stakeholders consider contamination as almost the only issue tobe addressed; Czech and Polish stakeholders address an intermediate number of issues. Attitudes andconcerns seemed to be quite similar between countries. As far as information needs are concerned, sim-ilarities between some groups of stakeholders have been noticed: site owners and problem holders areprimarily interested in information on planning and financing, while authorities and services providers
are interested in more technical aspects like investigation, planning and risk assessment. Some outstand-ing outcomes emerged from the scientific community and research group, which showed an interest forremediation strategies and options and socio-economic aspects.
The research outcomes allowed to create a knowledge base for the future development of tailored andcustomised approaches and tools for stakeholders working in the brownfield regeneration field.

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

De-industrialisation and abandonment of productive and min-
ng sites have produced many brownfield areas all over Europe,
hich represent a major concern for many countries and munic-palities. In fact, these sites have adverse effects not only on the

∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +39 0412348584.E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Marcomini).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.06.012264-8377/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

economy and environment, but also on the social well-being andquality of life of a region (Alloway, 1995; CLARINET, 2002; Bartkeet al., 2013). They are characterised by complex interactions, asindicated by the definition provided by the Concerted Action onBrownfields and Economic Regeneration Network (CABERNET),which defines brownfields as sites that “have been affected by the
former uses of the site and the surrounding land; are derelict orunderused; have real or perceived contamination problems; aremainly in developed urban areas; require intervention to bring
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.06.012

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02648377

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.06.012&domain=pdf

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.06.012

4 e Poli

tn

taoeSeptmpmat

atcaepJesibHKrtcewfdbsr

thissihpa

tobIS2tBmvipite

38 E. Rizzo et al. / Land Us

hem back to beneficial use” (based on the original CLARINET defi-ition – cf. Oliver et al., 2005).

This complexity requires considerable efforts to successfully ini-iate and complete brownfield revitalisation processes, including

proper strategy for the involvement of a considerable numberf stakeholders with potentially divergent interests (Alexandrescut al., 2014b; Schädler et al., 2013; Alexandrescu et al., 2012;chädler et al., 2011; Agostini et al., 2007; Bardos, 2004). Reedt al. (2009) speak of stakeholders as any organisation, group orerson who takes an interest in a project, or those who havehe ability to influence its outcomes. Often, experts and decision

akers are understood to be key stakeholders in terms of theirerceived critical role in initiating and guiding the redevelop-ent process. Notwithstanding, the present work will emphasise

nd recognise the substantial role of the other stakeholders,oo.

The involvement of stakeholders in all phases of the regener-tion process has been recognised as an important prerequisiteowards improving the acceptance of the decision-making pro-ess (Cundy et al., 2013; REVIT, 2007b; RESCUE, 2005). Moreover,t the institutional level, the awareness of the importance of anffective stakeholder involvement led to the promotion of publicarticipation at brownfields and contaminated sites (Gallagher and

ackson, 2008), especially at local and site specific levels. A notablexample is the REVIT project (REVIT, 2007a), which encouragedtakeholder involvement, public discussion and local participationn some European cities and urban areas affected by the presence ofrownfields (Stuttgart in Germany, Nantes in France, Tilburg andengelo in the Netherlands, Medway and Torfaen in the Unitedingdom). These activities concluded in the definition of sharededevelopment strategies, stimulated inhabitants to participate inhe planning and in the execution of projects, enhanced effectiveommunication and built the needed relationships with future gen-rations (REVIT, 2007a). Sparrevik et al. (2011) present a study,here stakeholders were involved in order to collect and evaluate

actors affecting their “risk perception of contaminated sedimentisposal that occurred during a remediation project in Oslo har-or, Norway”. Cundy et al. (2013) describe the importance oftakeholder engagement when implementing green versus otheremediation options at contaminated sites.

Even though the above described examples clearly demonstratehe importance of stakeholder involvement, nevertheless stake-older engagement is only one of multiple factors for success

n brownfield regeneration decision-making processes, and latelyome concern that stakeholder engagement is not living up toome of the claims made is emerging (Reed, 2008). Additionally,nevitable trade-offs have been identified between certain stake-older requirements on the one side and on the other side theursuit of a normatively defined sustainable regeneration (Bartkend Schwarze, 2015).

Moreover it has to be taken into consideration that, even thoughhe regeneration of brownfield sites can offer immense devel-pment potentials including economic, social and environmentalenefits (De Sousa, 2002; Lange and McNeil, 2004; Carrol and Eger

II, 2006; Ganser and Williams, 2007; Chen and Khumpaisal, 2009;trazzera et al., 2010; Syms, 2010; Schädler et al., 2011; Wang et al.,011), still the exploitation of these benefits is hampered by uncer-ainties and information asymmetries (Gross and Bleicher, 2013;artke, 2011; Schädler et al., 2012). Environmental contaminationay not be clearly detected, stakeholders’ attitudes on a rede-

elopment might not meet the municipalities’ nor the investors’nterests. Despite the social desirability, brownfield sites are not
erceived as an economically attractive solution for regeneration
n the eyes of investors when compared with greenfield sites, ashe latter do not require private or public intervention (Thorntont al., 2007; Bartke, 2013).

cy 48 (2015) 437–453

Furthermore, the availability of information on Europeanbrownfields and their regeneration is not always satisfactory tosupport successful decision making processes. On the one hand,there is a dearth of data on the scale of brownfield sites for alarge portion of Europe (Oliver et al., 2005). On the other hand,there is a relative wealth of information on regulations, strategies,guidelines, tools as well as case studies pertaining to brownfieldregeneration for several European countries, but this wealth ofinformation is not used in its entire potential (Bartke et al., 2013).

Consideration and integration of the two above described issues,i.e. the importance of stakeholder involvement and the importanceof availability and provision of useful information, is consideredto be beneficial for successful brownfield regeneration decisionalprocesses since it allows to identify all stakeholders involved in thedecisional process and to be sure that all of them have access to theinformation they need to clearly communicate with each other andto take informed decisions.

This paper aims to present and discuss a participatory method-ology for identifying brownfield regeneration stakeholders, forcollecting and analysing their perceptions, concerns, attitudes andinformation needs and for finding out what information is mostrelevant for their communication and decision-making process.

Accordingly, this paper focuses, first, on what the main cat-egories of stakeholders are, also in terms of stakeholder groupperceptions, attitudes and concerns with regard to brownfield sites.Second, it aims to identify a specific range of information needs(included under specific categories) for these stakeholders as wellas the information that they deem most critical. Third, this paperinvestigates whether specific stakeholder concerns are associatedwith certain information needs.

Within this main aim, a focus will be dedicated to highlightwhich information needs are the most important, useful and criticalfor specific categories of stakeholders, in order to define a cate-gorisation system for the collection of information on brownfieldregeneration.

The developed methodology has been applied to stakeholdersfrom the case studies of the European project TIMBRE, located inthe Czech Republic, Germany, Poland and Romania, as well as tostakeholders from Italy.

In the following, this methodology of stakeholder engagementis introduced and its five proposed phases are described. Next,the case studies are presented. Section 4 will provide an in-depthoverview on the results and discussion, before a final section willoutline the conclusions.

2. Methods: the stakeholder engagement methodology

The proposed methodology for the identification and analysisof perceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs of stake-holders involved in the brownfield regeneration process consistsof five phases: (1) planning and preparatory work; (2) stakeholderidentification and selection; (3) workshops and focus groups; (4)web-based questionnaire and (5) feedbacks to stakeholders. Themain results expected from the methodology will be derived fromthe second, third and fourth stages of the engagement process.More exactly, the second stage will help to develop a compre-hensive list of stakeholders potentially involved in brownfieldregeneration. As part of the third and fourth steps, the stakeholders’profiles will be identified, along with their perceptions, concernsand attitudes on brownfield regeneration. Within these stages, thefocus will also be on recognising information needs and highlight-
ing which are the most important, useful and critical for specificcategories of stakeholders and in relation with the identified con-cerns. The final result achieved within these two stages will be toclassify the collected information needs within a categorisation sys-

E. Rizzo et al. / Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 437–453 439

1. Planning and preparator y

work

2. Stakeholder categori es

iden�fica�on and selec �on

3. Workshops and focus

groups

4. Ques�onnaire

5. Fee dbacks to stakeholders

List of categori es of stakeholders

Stakeholders’ percep�ons, concerns

and a�tudes Stakeholders’ infor ma�on

needs

Categori sa�on system for the coll ec�on of informa�on

Stakeholders’ profiles

llectio

tTaTp

2

a2wwtitwgrtdpehbahties

hkstlt(ofIt

Fig. 1. Stakeholder engagement process for the systematic co

em for the collection of information on brownfield regeneration.he above mentioned methodological steps are illustrated in Fig. 1,long with the expected results, which are reported as rectangles.he specific motivations and characterisations for the suggestedhases are discussed in the following sub-sections.

.1. Planning and preparatory work

It has been agreed that stakeholders as well as researchersre likely to gain from an engagement process (Rounsevell et al.,012). Stakeholders can gain extra knowledge about their roleithin the brownfield regeneration process and their relationsith other stakeholders. Researchers can collect useful informa-

ion necessary for the main aim of their study, and in particularnformation concerning stakeholders’ perceptions, concerns, atti-udes and information needs when dealing with brownfields,hich is useful for the development of more tailored methodolo-

ies, approaches, tools and strategies in the field of brownfieldegeneration. Researchers can then feed-back the outcomes ofhe engagement process to the stakeholders. Before discussingifferent forms of stakeholder engagement, the four concepts oferceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs shall bexplained. Stakeholder perceptions are the ways in which stake-olders describe and define a given problem, for example that ofrownfields. Their concerns reflect more specifically the negativespects of those perceptions. The attitudes of stakeholders revealow important a given problem is for stakeholders, in relation tohe things they value (e.g. health or economic costs). Finally, thenformation needs suggest the kinds of information that stakehold-rs say they would need in order to deal with a given problem, thusuggesting a proactive stance.

Enengel et al. (2012) differentiate among three forms of stake-older engagement: (a) information, (b) consultation and (c)nowledge co-production and empowerment. The involvement oftakeholders with expertise in the field of brownfield regenera-ion was considered necessary for the achievement of the aboveisted objectives. The selected degree of engagement is the “consul-ation” level, consisting of gathering information from participantsAlexandrescu et al., 2014a; Rowe and Frewer’s, 2000). Two meth-
ds were adopted in order to engage stakeholders: meetings in theorm of workshops and focus groups, and an online questionnaire.n fact, it is a common practice to use focus groups in combina-ion with other methods (NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2009),
n of perceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs.

and one of the most common pairings is to combine meetings (i.e.workshops or focus groups) with questionnaires (Morgan, 1996).

2.2. Identification of stakeholders categories and selection ofparticipants

On the basis of the outcomes of the planning phase, the secondphase is aimed at defining categories of stakeholders and at select-ing participants able and willing to participate in focus groups andrespond to a questionnaire (Reed, 2008). Defining the categoriesof stakeholders relies on expert opinions, focus groups, interviews,literature reviews or a combination of them (Reed, 2008). Once thecategories have been defined, participants must be contacted andselected. This can be done by means of calls for participation inworkshops, which aim to mobilise all stakeholders with an interestin brownfield regeneration, and snowball sampling, in which stake-holders contacted during workshops provide references to otherpotential research participants. One aspect that needs to be con-sidered is the required expertise and knowledge (Glicken, 2000).Glicken (2000) identifies three types of knowledge through whichstakeholders can contribute to the engagement process: cognitiveknowledge, based on technical knowledge and expertise; experi-ential knowledge, based on practical and professional experienceand value-based knowledge (socio-political knowledge), based onendorsement of social values.

In this study, key stakeholder categories were identified througha close collaboration between the TIMBRE partners and the expertmembers of the project International Advisory Board (IAB). For theidentified categories of stakeholders, TIMBRE researchers proposedto contact some representatives on the basis of the following char-acteristics:

• Expertise in their field: it was agreed that knowledge and expe-rience in the brownfield regeneration process were fundamentalfor the value of the engagement process, thus, covering the firsttwo types discussed above; and

• Propensity to participate: another fundamental aspect to con-sider was the availability and willingness to participate in theengagement process.

2.3. Workshops and focus groups

As agreed in the planning phase, workshops and focus groupshave been selected as the first operative phase of the engagement

4 e Poli

prtatAoi

taatgbW

itcrtcfirtcaibC

sps2

ttic

tiicgbha

wdrsa

brttpotwc


rocess. Workshops are meetings where experienced people inesponsible positions come together with experts and consultantso find solutions to common problems (WHO, 1987). They have theim to facilitate the flow of information from experts to researchers,hus, having a primary informative rather than data-collection role.s such, they were considered appropriate for the initial stagesf stakeholder engagement, in which stakeholders needed to be

ntroduced to the problem and to the researchers and to each other.Focus groups are a special type of setting used to gather informa-

ion from a limited number of members of a clearly defined targetudience. They are composed of six to twelve stakeholders whore similar in one or more aspects and are guided by a facilitatorhrough a discussion focussing on several related topics in order toather information about the opinions and expertise of group mem-ers in a comfortable environment (Rennekamp and Nall, 2003;ilcher et al., 2000).In the proposed methodology, workshops were used mostly to

ntroduce the TIMBRE project and the related issues of concerno participants, to stimulate discussions about their perceptions,oncerns, attitudes and information needs concerning brownfieldegeneration, to establish a good relationship for the continua-ion of the study and to present a preliminary structure of theategorisation system for the collection of information on brown-eld regeneration. Within this scheme, the main phases of theisk-based regeneration process are identified and correspond tohirteen “information categories” (Rizzo et al., 2013). The proposedategorisation system was the result of an analysis of the avail-ble brownfield rehabilitation schemes and frameworks developedn previous programmes and projects on contaminated sites andrownfields (Sanja et al., 2000; NORISC, 2001-2003; RESCUE, 2005;ABERNET, 2006; Pizzol et al., 2009).

Workshops were organised at the Hunedoara TIMBRE projectite in Romania, in which the regeneration process is in its incipienthases (cf. Alexandrescu et al., 2014b), at the Szprotawa projectite and in the regional capital Zielona Góra in Poland (Pizzol et al.,012b).

Stakeholders were contacted through a formal written invita-ion. In order to avoid loss of information, meetings were held inhe languages of the participating stakeholders. Before the involv-ng activities, a facilitator was trained in order to create the rightonditions to lead the meetings.

Workshops lasted for several hours and they were structured inwo parts. During the first part, the facilitator and the researchersntroduced to stakeholders the TIMBRE project and the relatedssues of concern to stimulate a discussion on possible perceptions,oncerns and attitudes, as well as on the above mentioned cate-orisation system for the collection of the needed information onrownfield regeneration. In the second part of the meetings, stake-olders were asked to provide opinions, comments and suggestionsbout the proposed system.

Focus groups were used at a later stage in the research process,hen respondents seemed to be reasonably familiar with han-

ling information related to the different stages of the brownfieldegeneration process, with the aim of discussing the categorisationystem and collecting information on their perceptions, concerns,ttitudes and information needs.

Focus groups were 2 h long and involved a limited num-er of stakeholders having a broader experience in brownfieldegeneration, such as those in Bucharest, Romania and Ostrava,he Czech Republic. After a brief presentation of the system forhe collection of information on brownfield regeneration, thearticipants were asked to convey and exchange their views
n it in terms of its perceived usefulness for their informa-ion needs. As for the workshops, stakeholders were invited torite down comments on a poster displaying the information
ategories. The discussions between stakeholders were recorded,

cy 48 (2015) 437–453

with their consent, transcribed and translated for later analy-sis.

2.4. Web-based questionnaire

After workshops and focus groups, the second operative phaseconsisted in the administration of an online questionnaire to stake-holders. A questionnaire is an individual form of engagement and itconsists in a set of questions for obtaining information from respon-dents. It is a very convenient way of collecting information from alarge number of people within a relatively short period of time (Ng,2006). Questionnaires include two formats of questions (Dillmanet al., 2009):

• Closed-ended questions: questions that limit the respondentswith a defined list of possible choices from which they mustchoose the answer (e.g. yes–no, multiple choice and Likert ques-tions);

• Open-ended questions: questions that allow respondents todevelop their own answers.

In this study, the questionnaire was adopted in order to confirmand extend the information collected during workshops and focusgroups, and to highlight the differences in perceptions, concerns,attitudes and information needs between stakeholder categories.

Moreover the questionnaires supported researchers: (i) toachieve a shared and agreed categorisation system for the col-lection of information on brownfield regeneration by collectingstakeholders’ opinions and suggestions on information categoriesand by identifying possible gaps; and (ii) to identify the order of cat-egories of information from the most relevant to the least relevantone for all information users as a whole as well as for different cat-egories. (iii) The questionnaire also allowed the cross-examinationof stakeholders’ concerns and of their information needs.

The questionnaire was structured in three parts. In each of thema specific combination of open-ended and closed questions wasused:

1. Stakeholders’ profile: the participants were asked, via closedquestions, about the stakeholder categories to which theybelong, and about their main activities related to brownfieldregeneration. Given the factual nature of such questions, theclosed format was deemed to be the most appropriate.

2. Brownfield perceptions, concerns and attitudes: this part of thequestionnaire was used to capture the understanding of respon-dents about the presence and regeneration of brownfields. Thefirst question was open-ended and asked about the respondent’sexperience-based description of a brownfield site (stakeholders’perceptions). The second question was closed and was devised toassess the degree of concern that respondents had with regard toten possible problems generated by the presence of brownfieldsites on a scale from 1 (“very low concern”) to 5 (“very high con-cern”). The third question was also closed and asked respondentsabout the opportunity of brownfield regeneration under differ-ent scenarios (stakeholders’ attitudes towards brownfields).

3. Stakeholders’ information needs and categorisation of informa-tion: in the last part of the questionnaire, stakeholders wereasked to evaluate and provide comments on a proposed cate-gorisation system for the collection of information on brownfieldregeneration (Fig. 2). This preliminary structure was developedby the TIMBRE researchers with feedbacks from the workshopsand focus groups (Pizzol et al., 2012a). Most questions in this
part of the questionnaire were closed, with the aim of assessingas precisely as possible the usability of the information struc-ture according to different stakeholders’ needs. For collectingdescriptive feedbacks on stakeholders’ choices of information


rege

ahacmesapTtvt

Fig. 2. System of information categories for brownfield

categories, open-ended questions complemented the closedones. Stakeholders were guided through the evaluation of thesystem with a series of instructions that asked them: (a) to selectthe categories of information on brownfield regeneration funda-mental for their work; and (b) to rank the selected categories inorder of importance, always referring to their objectives withinthe brownfield regeneration process (from 1, indicating the mostrelevant category, to n, indicating the nth relevant category ofinformation).

For the evaluation of the rankings of the information categoriesccording to the relevance scores, the Kemeny–Young methodas been used (Kemeny, 1959; Kemeny and Snell, 1960; Youngnd Levenglick, 1978; Young, 1988). Kemeny–Young is a statisti-al method to analyse different rankings of elements and find theost frequently chosen ranking among them. The method consid-

rs all possible rankings provided by the respondents and gives acore to each of them. It is not mandatory for respondents to rankll the elements. Those categories that were not classified are inter-reted as “least preferred” and they go to the bottom of the rank.
he ranking with the highest score is the most agreed between allhe respondents. The “winner” ranking might be one of those pro-ided by the respondents, or a new, constructed ranking, whichakes into account all the rankings provided by the respondents.
neration processes evaluated by experts-stakeholders.

Once the questionnaire had been developed, it was pre-testedby sending it out to a limited number of stakeholders of the Roma-nian case study in order to detect possible errors or to identifypossible misunderstandings and doubts of the respondents. Often,questions may look clear to the researchers but not to the respon-dents. It is, therefore, good practice to “pilot” the questionnairewith a small sample of respondents before distributing it to allrespondents. Any amendments highlighted by the pilot should bemade to the questionnaire before issuing a final version (Kirklees,2008).

The questionnaire was then translated in the five languages ofthe case studies and then submitted to the stakeholders throughthe internet. The online format was chosen because the question-naire could be easily filled directly in a webpage without the need toprint it or send it back by e-mail, and because the data were auto-matically saved upon completion in a dedicated database. It wasconsidered necessary to contact a minimum number of 30 stake-holders from every country, in order to obtain a sufficient numberof responses. Out of 182 questionnaires sent, a total of 55 (30%)were returned. Different numbers of stakeholders were contacted
in the five countries and the final response rate for each countrywas: Czech Republic 32%; Germany 52%; Italy 22%; Poland 18% andRomania 36%.

4 e Policy 48 (2015) 437–453

2

cfiwtbqcatsoTcg

3

sfnhs

qo

3

srOsootilamwenaa

3

n2t

aoectTor

Table 2Stakeholder categories selected for the engagement process.

Stakeholder category Sub-group

Site owners Landowner/problem owner, subsidiaryinterest group

Site neighbours Immediate (<1 km), further afieldLocal authorities (town orcity)

Local authorities dealing with urban planning,environmental health, soil/groundwaterprotection

Region and sub-regionalgovernment

Region and sub-regional authorities dealingwith spatial planning and land management

Regional and nationalregulators

Protection agencies dealing withsoil/groundwater protection, waste,environmental management, occupationalhealth and safety, preservation order, regionaldevelopment

Local community groups(neighbourhood, districts)

Local residents and business users dealing withsocial issues

Public interest groups NGOs, grassroots movementDeveloper/investors Market actors re-use plannersTechnology providers Companies that develop, produce and sell

innovative solutions for environmentalproblems, innovation seekers

Consultants Designers, environmental experts, ecologists,town planners, marketing agents

Financiers Public, private companiesContractors Companies providing remediation,

infrastructure, construction, landscaping,worker’s health & safety

Insurers Companies which support risk transfer, carrierof ongoing risk, carrier of residual risk

End-users Occupier, residents, businesses, leisure, andcasual visitors

Media Press (TV and radio), web, otherScientific community andresearch

Students, natural science researchers, socialscience researchers, engineering science


.5. Analysis of results and feedbacks to stakeholders

The last phase of a stakeholder engagement process usuallyonsists in collecting and evaluating results, and then providingeedbacks to the stakeholders that participated in the process. Qual-tative data resulting from meetings (workshops and focus groups)

ere obtained from audio/video records realised during the events,ranscribed into a word processing software, translated in Englishy project partners and then directly analysed. Quantitative andualitative data resulting from the web-based questionnaire wereollected and then analysed using descriptive statistics and visu-lly represented through graphs and charts in order to summarisehe answers of respondents on specific questions. Feedbacks totakeholders have then been provided both through the provisionf project deliverables, which are available to the public via theIMBRE web site, and presentations at national and internationalonferences, to which also participants of the workshops, focusroups and questionnaires have been invited.

. Case studies

The stakeholder involvement methodology has been applied totakeholders directly related to the TIMBRE case studies from theollowing countries: Czech Republic, Germany, Poland and Roma-ia (see Table 1). One additional country is Italy, where stakeholdersave been involved by the group of researchers that performed thistudy on the basis of professional networks.

The involvement methods (i.e. workshops, focus groups anduestionnaire) applied in the different countries and the numberf involved stakeholders are reported in Table 1.

.1. Workshops

The first TIMBRE stakeholder engagement event was a work-hop that brought together about 60 actors interested in brownfieldegeneration in Romania. This event took place in Hunedoara, inctober 2011 (Bartke et al., 2012). During the Hunedoara work-

hop, project researchers met local and national stakeholders inrder to establish a first acquaintance with them. The instaurationf a good relationship was considered to be a crucial step to guaran-ee stakeholder involvement also in the subsequent activities. Thenvolved categories of stakeholders were the following: site owner,ocal authorities, region and sub-regional government, regionalnd national regulator, developer/investor, consultant, contractor,edia, scientific community and researcher and end-user. Anotherorkshop was held in Poland, in Zielona Góra in March 2012 (Bartke

t al., 2012). Nearly 70 people representing public administration ofational, regional and local levels, non-governmental organisationsnd various experts, such as architects, experts in spatial planningnd scientists participated in this workshop.

.2. Focus groups

Two focus groups have been organised, one in Bucharest (Roma-ia) in January 2012 and one in Ostrava (Czech Republic) in October012. The focus group in Bucharest involved 15 participants, whilehe one in Ostrava brought together 9 individuals.

Considering that brownfield regeneration in Romania is still atn early stage with regard to perceived needs, knowledge/expertisen what revitalisation involves and actual revitalisation experi-nce, the Bucharest focus group aimed to provide a hypotheticalategorisation encompassing all phases of brownfield regenera-
ion to collect stakeholders’ perceptions and information needs.he represented stakeholder categories were the following: sitewners, contractors, technology providers, regional and nationalegulators, scientific community and researchers. The Ostrava focus
researchers, otherOther

group brought together local and regional stakeholders from theMoravian–Silesian Region, a region with a large number of brown-fields and substantially more expertise but also divergences inviewpoints with regard to regeneration strategies, compared toRomania. The involved stakeholder categories were: site owners,researchers, consultants, local authorities, site neighbours, publicinterest groups.

3.3. On-line questionnaire

On the basis of the outcomes from workshops and focus groups,a questionnaire was developed and submitted to stakeholders fromthe case studies located in Czech Republic, Germany, Poland andRomania and other “external” stakeholders, including Italian stake-holders. They were asked to respond to the online questionnairein order to collect information on their attitudes on the brownfieldregeneration process and feedbacks on the proposed categorisationsystem for the collection of information on brownfield regenera-tion. The respondents belong to all the categories of stakeholdersreported in Table 2, with the exception of the “Insurer” category.

4. Results and discussion

In this section, we present the obtained results of the systematicengagement process. These results contribute to better understandwho the stakeholders of brownfield regeneration are and what theyknow and expect from this process. The results are structured infour Sections: first, the identification of representative categories
of stakeholders is outlined. Then stakeholders’ profiles are intro-duced. Third, we present stakeholders’ perceptions, concerns andattitudes, followed by a discussion of stakeholders’ informationneeds. The latter are correlated with the categories of stakehold-


Table 1Number of stakeholders involved within each engagement method, for different countries and cities.

Romania Poland Czech Republic Germany Italy

ara)

st)

esi

4

spatha2abhp

4

tiaai

qlor

Ftws(eererbffii

ssgrtptnes

Workshop 60 (HunedoFocus group 15 (BuchareOn line questionnaire (number filled in/number distributed) 17/47

rs and their main concerns, to identify what kinds of brownfieldtakeholders are likely to be interested in certain categories ofnformation.

.1. Identified categories of stakeholders

The categorisation of stakeholders is the result of a TIMBRE con-ortium internal discussion session together with experts from theroject’s International Advisory Board (IAB). Consortium partnersnd IAB members have proven expertise in brownfield regenera-ion research, regulation and practice. Several of the members alsoave significant expertise in inter- and trans-disciplinary researchnd projects. A specifically devoted project meeting session in June011 was organised, to define, for the TIMBRE project’s futurectivities and tasks, a categorisation of stakeholders relevant inrownfield regeneration processes. The list of categories of stake-olders and of the sub-groups to be involved in the participatoryrocess is reported in Table 2.

.2. Stakeholders’ profiles

In order to define the spectrum of stakeholders willing to fill inhe questionnaire, their profile was described by the type of organ-sation they are working for, their stakeholder categories and theirrea of expertise. Identifying the profiles of stakeholders is aimed,s a first step, at distinguishing the different views of stakeholdersnvolved in the brownfield regeneration process.

More than two-thirds of the stakeholders who took part in theuestionnaires belong to public sector organizations (69%), fol-

owed by those belonging to the private sector (15%) and to researchrganizations (11%). Not-for-profit organisations are the least rep-esented among the respondents (only 4%).

The categories of stakeholders selected by the respondents (seeig. 3) overlap for most stakeholders, which means that most ofhem indicated to belong to more than one stakeholders’ category,ith an average of 1.7 categories per respondent. The most repre-

ented stakeholder categories are regional and national regulators17.2%), and consultants (17.2%), followed by members of the sci-ntific community and researchers (16.1%). All categories with thexception of “insurers” have obtained at least one selection. As aesult it was possible to collect information from almost all the rel-vant categories of stakeholders needed for the objectives of thisesearch. The categories with low percentages of participation muste treated with caution, as they are based on the responses of veryew individuals and bar generalisation. Despite this fact, the identi-cation and the overall number of respondents make us confident

n reporting results, which bear potential conclusions of interest.It is also possible to notice that the first most represented

takeholder category “Regional and national regulators” has beenelected mostly by Romanian stakeholders (12.6%), followed atreat distance by German (3.4%) and Italian (1.1%). This partlyeflects the greater availability of respondents from the regula-or category in Romania, given that one of the Timbre consortiumartners was a national-level regulatory organization. At the same
ime, the relatively high number of regulators, compared to theear-absence of consultants in Romania, is symptomatic for anmergent brownfield market that has not yet been opened up toustained regeneration processes (Alexandrescu et al., 2013). The
70 (Zielona Góra)9 (Ostrava)

7/39 9/28 12/23 10/45

second most represented stakeholder category “Consultant” hasbeen selected mostly by German (8.0%) and Polish (5.7%) stake-holders, followed by Czech (2.3%) and Italian (1.1%). The thirdmost represented stakeholder category “Scientific community andresearchers” has been selected in comparable proportions by stake-holders from all the countries analysed.

Considering the areas of expertise described (see Fig. 4), onecan observe that the most represented areas are: Characteri-sation/monitoring/control (24.2%), followed by Decision makingprocess (20.5%) and Risk assessment (15.2%). Each of these waschosen by stakeholders from the five countries in comparable pro-portions.

Stakeholders provided also a brief description of their workactivity, past or present, related to brownfield regeneration. Thedescribed activities can be summarised under three categories: (i)brownfield regeneration planning and decision making (e.g. urbanplanning, creating redevelopment scenarios, assessment of invest-ment costs, decision making and involvement of stakeholders),(ii) carrying out technical tasks (e.g. characterisation, risk analy-sis, remediation, disposal of waste, monitoring) and (iii) providinginformation to interested parties (e.g. provision of inventories ofbrownfields, media activities).

4.3. Stakeholders’ perceptions, concerns and attitudes towardsbrownfield regeneration

In this section, a more detailed characterization of stakeholdersin terms of their subjective, and at the same time practice-based,orientation towards brownfield regeneration is provided.

4.3.1. Stakeholders’ perceptionsStakeholders’ perceptions regarding brownfields have been

identified by the analysis of the definitions provided by respon-dents through open-ended questions, in comparison with theCABERNET definition (cf. Oliver et al., 2005). Five main issuesidentified within the CABERNET definition (i.e. brownfields arelikely: affected by former uses, derelict/underused, affected by realor perceived contamination, located within urban areas, requir-ing intervention) have been analysed by checking how many ofthese issues were explicitly mentioned by each respondent. Thestakeholders, subdivided into five groups according to their respec-tive country, clearly differentiate themselves in how they describebrownfields.

Fig. 5 shows radar graphs, where the tips of the pentagonrepresent the five characteristics identified within the CABERNETdefinition. Within each graph, the percentage of respondents thatexplicitly included the characteristics within the definition theyprovided is reported (the centre of the pentagon corresponds to 0%of respondents, while the most external line indicates 100%).

First, the main differences are those in the number of charac-teristics mentioned. This ranges from all the characteristics beingmentioned, albeit with different frequency, in Germany and Italy,to almost only one characteristic being mentioned, in the case ofRomania. The Czech Republic and Poland occupy intermediate posi-
tions, with respectively three and four issues being mentioned.
What is not indicated in Fig. 5, but is worth mentioning, isthat some definitions provided by the respondents pointed outthe lack of economic attractiveness that may characterise brown-

444 E. Rizzo et al. / Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 437–453

Fig. 3. Graph representing the distribution of answers, within the indicated stakeholder categories, given by respondents from the five countries.

given

fienusetbm“tse

Fig. 4. Graph representing the areas of expertise

eld land. They described brownfield land as a land which is notconomically worth “developing”, of any interest for the market,ot developable without financial support and, at the same time,nable to attract investors and financial investments. The results oftakeholder groups’ varied definitions add to the findings of Frantált al. (2012) on the heterogeneous status of brownfield concepts inhe TIMBRE case studies and respective nations. The distribution ofrownfield descriptions for Romania warrants one additional com-ent. Following the general understanding of brownfields as sites

associated with the contamination of land” (Cobârzan, 2007; p.29),he question translated into Romanian in the questionnaire askedpecifically for the description of a contaminated site. There is noquivalent single word for “brownfield” in Romanian. The fact that

by respondents from the five different countries.

most responses referred in some way or another to the contamina-tion aspect of the CABERNET definition should come as no surprise.Notwithstanding, this overwhelming majority might actually alsorepresent the Romanian view on brownfields to a certain degree (cf.Kaiser, 2009; p.14). A contrary example is the German case, whereneither a specific word for brownfield is widely accepted but rathera term is used in legislation that refers to land (potentially) affectedby contamination. Despite the fact that the translated question inthe questionnaire used the more general, unspecific word simi-
lar to brownfield, it must be assumed that respondents referred intheir mind-sets also to some degree to the legally defined settingin Germany – however, still they choose a diverse set of categories,for which one explanation could be, that German participants in


dents

ceo

4

s

twrtet(

Fig. 5. Radar graphs representing how respon

omparison to their Romanian colleagues on average have morexperience in brownfield regeneration and, hence, are more awaref the diversity of driving factors.

.3.2. Stakeholders’ concernsThe presence of brownfields does raise concerns among the

takeholders interviewed (see Fig. 6).All the entries have obtained a significant score showing that

he presence of a brownfield raises different concerns to the peopleho have to deal with them or are affected by their presence. The

esults are presented without a breakdown by countries because
he trend was similar in all of them. The two entries with the high-st rate are the concerns for environmental pollution (mean equalo 4) and for the loss of property value of the surrounding areamean equal to 3.9). Both correspond to a high level of concern.
from the five countries describe a brownfield.

On the other end, the entry that generates the least concern amongexperts in brownfield regeneration is the reduction of local employ-ment opportunities. However, the mean values for all the concernsdo all range between 3 and 4, indicating that all these concernsare relevant for the respondents and cannot be neglected. Otherspecific concerns that have been pointed out by the respondentsand that are not reported in the figure are the following: futureprofitability of the municipality, development paralysis (due to theinability to add new factories, plants, establishments or to expandthe existing ones), worsening of the image of the owner, reducingthe advantages generated by the spatial aesthetic of the surround-
ing area, and worsening of the image of the town. It becomes clearthat not merely the sheer complexity but also the significant extentof concerns drive the persistence of brownfields dereliction and thereluctance in regeneration.

446 E. Rizzo et al. / Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 437–453

3.0

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.3

3.6

3.7

3.9

4.0

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0

Redu ced l ocal employm ent opp ortun i�es

Urban bli ght

Economic Loss of the comm unity

Kee ping out poten �al investors

Housing a bandonment

Land consump�on

Heal th risks

Loss of property value

Envi ronmenta l poll u�on

F r the

t cerns.

4

hrtario

tweetprahaosaFfcsDiRih

4po

gcbiificte

ig. 6. Bar chart representing the mean of the points provided by the respondents foo 5 (“very high concern”). Respondents were allowed to skip the evaluation of con

.3.3. Stakeholders’attitudesStakeholders’ attitudes indicate under which conditions stake-

olders consider the brownfield regeneration process worthwhile,anging from an “A” scenario (regeneration should generate short-erm economic benefits) to a “D” scenario (in which the socialnd environmental benefits are deemed predominantly important,egardless of economic return). There are two intermediate scenar-os – called “B” and “C” – in which the economic benefits are equalr smaller than the costs, respectively (see Fig. 7).

Of the four options, C and D are the most frequently selected byhe respondents. This is not surprising, given that most respondentsork in the public sector and are, therefore, likely to see the regen-

ration of brownfields as a “public good”, and thus placing mereconomic benefits in a secondary position. Analysing the answerso the open-ended questions, however, provides a more nuancedicture of stakeholder attitudes. On the one hand, it is generallyecognised that environmental and social benefits can generate, as

consequence, economic benefits in the long term. On the otherand, it is often noted that economic dynamics cannot be avoidednd should be always considered. In addition, a consistent numberf respondents pointed out the necessity to identify the financialources that should cover the economic costs of the regeneration of

brownfield when this will not generate profits in the short term.ig. 7 suggests an interesting inter-country difference. Whereas,or the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Poland most responsesluster around option C, with lower proportions of respondentselecting B or D, for Romania the pattern is skewed towards option. Corroborating this with the fact that brownfield redevelopment

s in its initial stages in Romania (Cobârzan 2007), we suggest thatomanian stakeholders might lack adequate knowledge on a real-

stic balance between social and environmental benefits on the oneand and economic costs on the other, in regeneration.

.4. Stakeholders’ information needs and feedbacks to theroposed categorisation system for the collection of informationn brownfield regeneration

Based on stakeholder exchanges during workshops and focusroups, a categorisation system for the collected information wasreated. The information categories, encompassing all phases of therownfield regeneration process, were shared and agreed by partic-

pating stakeholders (see Fig. 2). This section addresses the range ofnformation needs of the consulted stakeholders. One of the main
ndings is that they have settled on a number of 13 informationategories, which suggests that this is the range of informationhat they deem useful. Even if they were offered the opportunity toxpand this number, the resulting categories appear to capture the
9 proposed concerns. Mean values can range on a scale from 1 (“very low concern”) The total number of respondents for this question is 50.

information needs of a relatively diverse set of users of brownfieldinformation. The sections below show, for a selection of stakeholdergroups, what categories of information figure as their top choices.

4.4.1. Stakeholder groups and information rankingIn order to obtain relevance rankings with a low dispersion of

data, the categories of stakeholders have been rearranged into fivegroups of stakeholders with similar characteristics, as describedbelow. The original categories included in the questionnaire aregiven in brackets:

• Group 1: site owners (site owners);• Group 2: authorities (local authorities; region and sub-regional

government; regional and national regulators);• Group 3: problem holders (site neighbours; local community

groups; public interest groups; end-users);• Group 4: services providers (developer/investors; technology

providers; consultants; financiers; contractors; insurers; media);• Group 5: scientific community and research (scientific commu-

nity and research).

From the most popular relevance ranking for each of the fivegroups of stakeholders, we notice that the information categories“Strategic planning” and “Investigation” are always ranked in thetop five information categories (see Table 3). This answers the sec-ond question outlined in the introduction section, suggesting thatdistinct groups of stakeholders have specific information needs.

The observed range of first choices (highest number of choices)is, however, limited to three information categories out of five pos-sible (strategic planning, investigation and remediation strategiesand options). In terms of first choices, for example, both site ownersand problem holders choose strategic planning, while authoritiesand service providers value information on brownfield investiga-tion. For the scientific and research community the most valuableis information on remediation strategies and options.

Considering the data in Table 3, a selection of the top five infor-mation categories for each group of stakeholders has been analysedfurther. To this end, for each group of stakeholders, a score from 1to 5 has been assigned to each information category of the selec-tion (where 1 represents low relevance and five represents highrelevance). The obtained histogram is reported in Fig. 8.

Table 3 and Fig. 8 show that site owners and problem holders areprimarily interested in gaining information about strategic plan-
ning and funding and financing, which is reasonable consideringthe role they play in brownfield regeneration. Authorities, listinginvestigation, strategic planning and risk assessment in the first topthree positions, present a strong similarity with services providers,


Fig. 7. Stakeholder’s attitudes towards brownfield regeneration process.

Table 3Relevance rankings for the five groups of stakeholders. The 5 most relevant information categories for each group of stakeholders are highlighted in grey.

Group 1 site owners Group 2 authorities Group 3 problem holders Group 4 services providers Group 5 scientific communityand research

Strategic planningInvestigation(preliminary/detailed)

Strategic planning Investigation(preliminary/detailed)

Remediation strategies andoptions

Funding and financing Strategic planning Funding and financing Risk assessment(qualitative/quantitative)

Socio-economic assessment

Socio-economic assessment Risk assessment(qualitative/quantitative)

Investigation(preliminary/detailed)

Strategic planning Investigation(preliminary/detailed)

Investigation(preliminary/detailed)


Socio-economic assessment Funding and financing Decision-making andcommunication

Risk assessment(qualitative/quantitative)

Funding and financing Remediation strategies andoptions

Remediation technologiesevaluation and selection

Strategic planning


Decision-making andcommunication


Building and infrastructuredocuments

Funding and financing

Implementation, control,monitoring (land back tomarket)

Socio-economic assessment Decision-making andcommunication









Requalification plandevelopment


Socio-economic assessment Deconstruction/re-use ofstructures materials







Deconstruction/re-use ofstructures materials





Waste management Waste management Waste management Waste management

ion, coand b

wg

la

4

waparTiolp

Waste management Implementation, control,monitoring (land back tomarket)

Implementatmonitoring (lmarket)

hich keep investigation in first position and simply switch strate-ic planning and risk assessment.

Finally, the scientific community and research group interestinglyists in the two first positions remediation strategies and optionsnd socio-economic assessment.

.4.2. Stakeholder concerns and information categoriesOne expects that the relevance of the information categories

ill vary not only in relation to the group of stakeholders, butlso depending on the level of concern with specific brownfieldroblems. In order to address the third research question of thisrticle, we have investigated the relationships between the selectedelevant information categories and the identified concerns (seeable 4) considering only the categories of information ranked

n first position for relevance. In the contingency Table 4, wenly included those responses that indicated a high or very high

evel of concern with the different problems generated by theresence of brownfields. This allows making tentative inferences

ntrol,ack to



on the kinds of concerns that stakeholders interested in specificinformation categories might have. In what follows, the choiceof information categories for each of the five stakeholder groupswill be discussed, adding where appropriate insights from thecross-tabulation between information categories and brownfieldconcerns. Given that the information categories discussed in Sec-tion 4.4.1 are based on the top five choices and the informationcategories analysed in Section 4.4.2 relate to the top first choice,the results in the two sections are not directly comparable, but canprovide a wider picture of the analysed problem. Moreover, our aimhere is to establish possible hypotheses that could be explored infuture research.

The breakdown of the results by the five stakeholder groupsreveals some noteworthy patterns. The site owners appear to be
mostly concerned about strategic planning, followed by fundingand financing. While this is not surprising, as the presence ofbrownfields poses both planning and financial challenges, the thirdselected category – that of socio-economic assessment – is unex-

448

E. R

izzo et

al. /

Land U

se Policy

48 (2015)

437–453

Table 4Number of times a specific information category has been selected as the most relevant (i.e. first position for relevance) by a stakeholder who identified a specific concern as “High”. Cells with values above 5 have been colouredin grey.

Strategicplanning

Investigation(prelimi-nary/detailed)

Riskassessment(qualitative/quantitative)

Remediationstrategiesandoptions

Remediationtechnolo-giesevalua-tion andselection

Buildingandinfras-tructuredocu-ments

Deconstruc-tion/re-useofstructuresmaterials

Wastemanage-ment

Requalifica-tion plandevelop-ment

Implementa-tion, control,monitoring(land back tomarket)

Socio-economicassess-ment

Fundingandfinancing

Decision-makingandcommu-nication

Total(mean =18.5)

Environmentalpollution

6 7 2 2 1 1 3 2 24

Loss of propertyvalue

7 10 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 26

Health risks 6 5 2 1 1 4 2 21Land

consumption5 5 1 1 1 1 3 1 18

Housingabandonment

4 4 1 1 4 1 15

Keeping outpotentialinvestors

3 6 1 1 1 1 2 15

Economic loss ofthe community

1 6 1 2 1 1 2 2 16

Urban blight 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 13Reduced local

employmentopportunities

1 3 1 2 2 9

Total(mean = 14.3)

35 48 8 10 1 3 7 6 22 15 2


F ion caT y 5 pop

psctpeaamcrclotr

iorrofti

iaetpbta

ig. 8. Histogram representing the distribution of scores achieved by the informathe values have been computed by assigning the first ranked information categoroint.

ected and invites potentially new interpretations. It suggests thatite owners pay attention to the wider social and economic impli-ations of the presence of brownfields, which makes them similaro researchers and members of the scientific community and toroblem holders. Notwithstanding, their rationale behind puttingmphasis on these latter categories might also be driven by anssumption that they need to consider these elements to convincectors necessary to approve their investment projects. Whateverotivation, it appears that all stakeholders, who deal with spe-

ific sites or are interested in a grounded approach to brownfieldegeneration, require information on the local economic and socialontext. This unexpected finding elevates the importance of col-ecting and making available socio-economic information for sitewners. This finding shows site owners’ interest for issues relatedo the social pillar, supporting recent discussions about sustainableemediation.

If considered from the point of view of stakeholder concerns,t emerges that those interested in the socio-economic conditionsf brownfields also have a high level of concern and attention withegard to health risks and housing abandonment, followed by envi-onmental pollution and land consumption and by different formsf economic losses (see column 12 in Table 4). A potential area foruture research would, thus, be the specific content of environmen-al, social and economic risks, which site owners see as importantn their work.

Authorities are mostly interested in information pertaining tonvestigation and strategic planning, followed by risk assessmentnd remediation strategies and options (see Table 3). One wouldxpect strategic planning to be of pivotal interest also for authori-ies, but instead it appears to be chosen mostly by site owners and
roblem holders. The interest of authorities in risk assessment cane explained by the fact that authorities are usually responsibleo protect the general public from perils and therefore, to affectnd supervise measures of hazard defence, hence the results of risk
tegories according to the preferences provided by the five groups of stakeholders.ints, the second one 4 points and so on up to the fifth category, which received 1

assessment usually identify the need to intervene to determine anacceptable level of contamination. The choice of the more techni-cal information on strategies and options for remediation mightbe interpreted in line with this remediation focus, where authori-ties can also determine remediation technologies. Nevertheless, itcould perhaps also be linked to the professional interests of indi-vidual respondents who work as authorities. Future research couldperhaps elucidate if there are differences between the countriesinvolved. Based on preliminary interviews in Romania, it appearsthat Romanian authorities are eager to learn about remediationoptions, perhaps because this information is largely missing in theRomanian public sector.

Apart from sharing in the general interest for strategic plan-ning, problem holders were interested in information on fundingand financing, on the same par with site owners. They were alsointerested in investigation, socio-economic assessment and reme-diation strategies and options. As the problem holders group mightbring together quite varied interests, such as those of organ-ised public interest groups and of individual site neighbours, itwould be worthwhile to investigate if there are distinct profilesof information-seekers to be identified.

Service providers stand out through their high interest in inves-tigation, on a comparable level with authorities. If considered fromthe point of view of brownfield concerns, investigation seems tobe relevant for all those who attach a high score to the problem oflosing property value. This result can indicate that these individu-als are mostly aware of the need for sound investigation measuresto generate knowledge and reduce uncertainties about the sitestatus, thus reducing the risks that impact the market value ofa property (cf. Bartke, 2011). As further evidence for the investi-
gation – economic value relationships, those who are concernedabout keeping out potential investors or about economic losses forthe community, are also likely to choose investigation as a cate-gory of interest. On the other hand, given that the service provider

4 e Poli

cltrTrTttogt

iivarTabtaaaosrtfis

atdbitw

5

ficMgaopeus

ctt(papambht


ategory includes investors, financiers and contractors, it appearsogical that maintaining or enhancing property values is importanto them. However, investigation is relevant for a much broaderange of concerns, apart from those related to economic value.hose highly concerned about environmental pollution or healthisks also selected investigation as a primary category of interest.he specific aims that stakeholders might have in relation to inves-igation may be worth further exploration. A notable absence forhe service providers is the category of remediation strategies andptions, which is absent from the top five choices of relevant cate-ories within this group. Without further evidence, this is difficulto explain.

Finally, the scientific community seems to be mostly interestedn remediation strategies and options. This may seem counter-ntuitive to those equating science with research lacking practicalalue. Apart from the already noted interest in socio-economicssessments, it is worth pointing out the limited interests ofesearchers among our respondents in the area of investigation.his might be due to the fact that investigation strategies are rel-tively well established. On the other hand, scientists appear toe the only ones interested in decision-making and communica-ion. If we link this finding to the high interest in socio-economicssessments, we may hypothesise that researchers have developed

strong interest for the involvement of stakeholders in regener-tion processes – at least those researchers who participated inur questionnaire (it could be argued that as a result of a self-election process in all categories more of those stakeholders wereeady to engage that have a higher propensity to participatory andrans-disciplinary processes). Future research could indicate if thisnding is robust and, moreover, what would be the scientific rea-ons for striving for socially and economically relevant information.

It is also noteworthy that the information categories “Buildingnd infrastructure documents”, “Deconstruction/re-use of struc-ures and materials”, “Waste management”, “Requalification planevelopment” and “Implementation, control, monitoring (landack to market)” are never ranked in the top five positions. This

s not to say that they were not of importance per se – however,hey seem neither to be as critical nor as demanding to be dealtith when compared to the top rated categories.

. Conclusions

On average, we find stakeholder involvement to be a bene-t for brownfield regeneration. Indeed, stakeholder involvementan contribute to identify more sustainable regeneration options.oreover, through systematic engagement, ensuring that all

roups are addressed and are given the opportunity to participatend their specific information needs are addressed, the acceptancef the decision-making process can be increased amongst thesearties whose opposition could otherwise interfere with a regen-ration project. Furthermore, stakeholder engagement can also besed by researchers, consultants and regulators to design moreuitable policies and tools.

This contribution has presented a structured approach to theollection of stakeholder needs. This methodology – consisting ofhe five steps of (i) planning and preparatory work, (ii) identifica-ion of potential stakeholder categories, (iii) engagement activitiese.g. focus groups and workshops), (iv) a questionnaire and (v)rovision of feedback to the stakeholders involved – had beenpplied to stakeholders from five European countries. The pro-osed engagement methodology is an attempt to collect andnalyse stakeholders’ perceptions, concerns, attitudes and infor-
ation needs when dealing with brownfield regeneration. It has
een applied to experts belonging to a variety of different stake-older categories, who have been preliminarily identified in ordero have a wide representation of professionals dealing with brown-

cy 48 (2015) 437–453

field regeneration. The information obtained allows drawing someinteresting conclusions.

In general, a systematic approach for the collection of infor-mation needs, as proposed here, is important for the design orimprovement of support tools that shall be tailored to actualstakeholder needs. These are supporting stakeholders in manag-ing brownfield sites by reducing the various uncertainties linkedto the rehabilitation process such as, for example, the unstruc-tured overabundance of information for some specific aspectsof the regeneration process or gaps of information for others.Our suggested methodology lifts some of these uncertainties, byidentifying categories of stakeholders and their perceptions, con-cerns, attitudes and information needs. Enlightening what concernsstakeholders and what information they might seek is of great helpin supporting researchers to provide tailored answers to real ques-tions.

Moreover, it is expected that not only researchers gain fromthe involvement by collecting useful information necessary forthe aims of their studies, in addition, stakeholders can gain extraknowledge about their role within the brownfield regenerationprocess and their relations with other stakeholders.

Our empirical data interpretations contribute to a better under-standing of who the stakeholders of brownfield regeneration areand what they know and expect from this process. The engagementmethods revealed an understanding that stakeholders’ perceptionson brownfields differ in the five analysed European countries, whilethe concerns that the presence of a brownfield site can raise aresimilar and comparable in the analysed countries. These resultsillustrated two variations. On the one hand there are differencesalready in the scope of the conceptualisation of brownfields, whichis viewed quite narrowly in Romania and more comprehensivelyin Germany and Italy. Despite these differences, stakeholders arerelatively unanimous with regard to the two key categories of infor-mation which are important for them, that are “Strategic planning”and “Investigation”. This paper offers some first interpretation tothe apparent differences that can be observed between the coun-tries’ stakeholders and between the individual stakeholder groups.Further research and analysis can be fruitful to investigate in moredetail these contrasts and extend the following preliminary assess-ment.

The collected data also supported the framing of the informa-tion needs which have been structured in a categorisation system.The analysis of the developed categorisation system recognisedthat information needs are concentrated in some specific aspectsincluding the contamination characterisation, the development ofstrategic plans, the identification of socio-economic benefits andconstraints, the assessment of the impacts on human health and theidentification of suitable remediation technologies. Further studiesare needed to design how the necessary information can be pro-vided and tailored according to stakeholders’ characteristics andrequirements.

In order to further tailor brownfield information to differentcategories of stakeholders, some specific suggestions for futureresearch and action can be proposed. Site owners will likely bene-fit from information on planning and funding opportunities, mostlikely by linking them to regional and national networks dealingwith brownfield regeneration. At the same time, further studiesthat detail the specific economic and social circumstances and con-ditions in which owners have to act could help them mobiliseother local actors in regeneration. Such research is also interest-ing for researchers, therefore a synergy in the goals of these twogroups is apparent. Authorities could benefit from information on
strategic planning but also from more technical information oninvestigation, risk assessment and remediation. The desirability ofa closer relationship with service providers, especially for estab-lishing best practices, could be explored in future research. The

e Polic

pfidhrsi

eadtabmc

mfihacfiaooi

icf

miotwep

A

lppErw

sB

A

I

S

tctat

E. Rizzo et al. / Land Us

roblem holder category has not emerged as having a distinct pro-le in this research, but future endeavours could aim to classifyifferent categories of problem holders. Service providers are mostighly interested in investigation and from this point of view, theelationship between the brownfield scientific community (univer-ities or research centres) and practitioners could be explored formproved knowledge transfers from the former to the latter.

Scientific community and researchers, showing a clear inter-st for remediation strategies and options and for socio-economicspects, seem they will likely benefit from information on the reme-iation options appraisal process as well as on the way to integratehe three sustainability pillars, which represent the main issuesddressed by sustainable remediation. Moreover, this group wouldenefit from closer relationships with all the above categories, butost importantly with site owners and problem holders, and espe-

ially in improving communication with them.There is, however, a broader implication of this endeavour. The

ethodology developed in this paper, which has been applied tove European countries, led to clarify which are the relevant stake-olders in brownfield decision-making processes and helped tottain a partial cross-EU overview of their perceptions, attitudes,oncerns and information needs. These will vary because brown-eld regeneration is managed differently in European countries,ccording to different legal frameworks. Therefore, this method-logy, and the rationale it is based upon, can be informative forther research areas where a cross-EU perspective on stakeholders

nvolved in decision-making processes is of interest.Knowing who all the relevant actors are and knowing the

nformation they need to better manage environmental issues arerucial factors, not to be taken for granted but to be investigated,or successful decision-making processes.

Land use policy development, integrated water resourceanagement, integrated coastal zone management and major

nfrastructure projects could represent potential examples of areasf application of the methodology presented in this paper, sincehey are also characterised by complex decision-making processes,ith multiple stakeholder’s interests, which, according to differ-

nt countries and legal frameworks, can be reflected in changes oferceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs.

cknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the receipt of the fol-owing financial support for the research, authorship and/orublication of this article: This work was supported by the Euro-ean Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme in the themeNV.2010.3.1.5-2 – Environmental technologies for brownfieldegeneration (Grant Agreement No. 265364) – project TIMBRE –ww.timbre-project.eu

Furthermore, the authors gratefully acknowledge the scientificupport received by the project TIMBRE International Advisoryoard.

nnex 1.

nformation categories

trategic planningLegal requirements, regional/urban land use plans as well as

he interests of local government, zoning boards, planning agen-
ies and environmental regulatory agencies are identified in ordero ensure that all the plans requisites and restrictions are respectednd to foster the success of the rehabilitation process. In this con-est the identification and involvement of the relevant stakeholders
y 48 (2015) 437–453 451

is a key point since it ensures that their needs, visions for the areaand interests are properly analysed and taken into consideration.

Investigation (preliminary/detailed)Determination of site characteristics and definition of the extent

and magnitude of contamination at a site.Preliminary investigation concerns the identification of poten-

tial contamination according to information on of site history (i.e.maps, plans, photographs, geological and hydrological data, pastowners/occupiers, industrial or commercial uses, raw materials,disposal of waste and any mining activities) and available samplingdata.

Detailed investigation focuses on confirming whether anycontamination exists at a site, locating any contamination, char-acterizing the nature and extent of that contamination as well asdefining the conceptual model of the site. It is essential to performan appropriately detailed study of the site in order to identify thecause, nature, and extent of contamination and the possible threatsto the environment or to any people living or working nearby.

Risk assessment (qualitative/quantitative)Qualitative risk assessment allows the quick identification of

potential risks, as well as assets and resources which are vulnerableto these risks. Qualitative risk assessment deals with the compari-son of contaminant concentrations measured in soil, water or soilgas at a site with generic assessment criteria. Generic assessmentcriteria are typically conservative to ensure that they are applicableto the majority of sites and normally apply to only a limited numberof pollutant linkages.

Quantitative risk assessment makes greater use of site-specificdata to conduct a more accurate assessment of risks. Quantita-tive/detailed risk assessment involves the use of models to derivesite-specific assessment criteria that are then compared with mea-sured concentrations in soil, water or soil gas at the site to estimaterisk.

Remediation strategies and optionsReview and analysis of clean up alternatives. It is a prepara-

tory stage to the “Remediation technologies selection” because itaims to collect available information on possible strategies andoptions including the capability to meet specific clean up and rede-velopment objectives, in accordance with legal requirements andregional/local planning and development goals.

Remediation technologies evaluation and selectionPermits the evaluation of various technologies in order to iden-

tify those technologies with the capability to meet specific clean-upand redevelopment objectives taking into account also the eco-nomic aspects (i.e. the most suitable remediation technologies forthe specific site according to a specific budget). The review, analysisand selection of clean-up alternatives relies on the data collectedduring the site assessment, the investigation phases and the cost-benefit analysis.

Building and infrastructure documentsCollection of documents for building planning, drawings and

specifications needed to obtain building permits and to support theBF rehabilitation. These documents are used for tendering and toensure that buildings are safe, healthy, accessible and sustainablefrom the environmental point of view.

Deconstruction/re-use of structures materials
Deconstruction is the process of selectively and systematically
disassembling buildings that would otherwise be demolished togenerate a supply of materials suitable for reuse in the constructionor rehabilitation of other structures.

http://www.timbre-project.eu




4 e Poli

W

ms

R

trah

I

md

S

br

F

cs

D

fcecie

R

A

A

A

A

A

AB

B

B

B


aste managementThe collection, transport, processing or disposal, managing and

onitoring of waste materials, mostly produced during the decon-truction of structures.

equalification plan developmentDefinition of a remediation technologies plan, which focuses on

he application clean-up technologies to prepare the property foredevelopment and reuse. The design of the requalification plannd its implementation requires close coordination with all stake-olders.

mplementation, control, monitoring (land back to market)Guarantee that the selected interventions are properly imple-

ented, monitored and enforced in order to ensure the long-termurability, reliability and effectiveness of the interventions.

ocio-economic assessmentThe socio-economic assessment aims at identifying the possi-

le economic (business) implications of different alternatives forequalification of the site.

unding and financingThe organization responsible for the remediation process has to

onsider several strategies in order to provide funding and financialupport to all the other processes and phases.

ecision-making and communicationDecision making is the process of evaluating and ranking dif-

erent scenarios (i.e., suitable solutions for the rehabilitation ofontaminated sites) on the basis of different criteria such as forxample future land uses, socioeconomic benefits, remediationosts, time span, environmental impacts, technology set/s (includ-ng train technologies) and residual risk. These aspects are usuallyvaluated by means of suitable indices.

eferences

gostini, P., Carlon, C., Critto, A., Marcomini, A., 2007. A step toward contaminatedmegasites management: six European experiences at comparison. In: Velinni,A.A. (Ed.), Landfill Research Trends. Nova Science Publishers Inc, New York, pp.47–75.

lexandrescu, F., Bleicher, A., Weiss, V., 2014a. Transdisciplinarity in practice: theemergence and resolution of dissonances in collaborative research onbrownfield regeneration. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 4, 307–322.

lexandrescu, F., Martinát, S., Klusácek, P., Bartke, S., 2014b. The path frompassivity toward entrepreneurship: public sector actors in brownfieldregeneration processes in Central and Eastern Europe. Organ. Environ. 27 (2),181–201.

lexandrescu, F., Bleicher, A., Werner, F., Martinát, S., Frantál, B., Krupanek, J.,Michaliszyn, B., Bica, I., Iancu, I., 2012. Report on Regional Decision Structuresand Key Actors, Deliverable D2.1 Version 3 of EC Funded TIMBRE Project(FP7-ENV-2010.3.1.5-2-265364), 66p. Available online: <http://timbre-project.eu/tl files/timbre/Intern/4%20Work%20Packages/WP8/Deliverables/timbre265364 D2.1 V3.pdf>.

lexandrescu, F., Bleicher, A., Bartke, S., Martinát, S., Klusacek, P., Krupanek, J.,Michaliszyn, Deaconu, L., Sileam, T., Homuth, A., Bielke, A., Pizzol, L., Rizzo, E.,Bica, I., Gaitanaru, D., 2013. Report on Country and State Level SpecificCharacteristics, Deliverable D2.2 Version 4 of EC Funded TIMBRE Project(FP7-ENV-2010.3.1.5-2-265364), 48p. Available online: <http://timbre-project.eu/tl files/timbre/Intern/4%20Work%20Packages/WP8/Deliverables/timbre265364 D2.2 V4.pdf>.

lloway, B., 1995. Heavy Metals in Soils. Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 331.ardos, P.R., 2004. Sharing experiences in the management of megasites: towards

a sustainable approach in land management of industrially contaminatedareas. In: Final Report of the NICOLE Workshop, NICOLE, Lille (FR), October2003, p. 55.

artke, S., 2013. Editorial: improving brownfield regeneration – a sustainable landtake solution. In: Science for Environment Policy: Brownfield Regeneration,
Thematic Issue 39. European Commission’s DG Environment, Bristol, pp. 3–4.
artke, S., 2011. Valuation of market uncertainties for contaminated land. Int. J.Strat. Prop. Manage. 15 (4), 356–378.

artke, S., Finkel M., Alexandrescu, F., 2012. Report on TIMBRE Event Organization.Deliverable D7.1 Version 3 of EC Funded TIMBRE Project

cy 48 (2015) 437–453

(FP7-ENV-2010.3.1.5-2-265364), 22p. Available online: <http://www.timbre-project.eu/tl files/timbre/Intern/4%20Work%20Packages/WP8/Deliverables/Timbre 265364 D7.1V3.pdf>.

Bartke, S., Rizzo, E., Giubilato, E., Pizzol, L., Critto, A., Marcomini, A., 2013.Improvement of Brownfield Regeneration in Europe Through TailoredInformation Platform, Communication, Prioritisation and Assessment. In:Skowronek, J. (Ed.). Innowacyjne Rozwiazania Rewitalizacji TerenówZdegradowanych, IETU & Centrum Badan, Ledzinach, pp. 135–143, ISBN978-83-930319-9-3.

Bartke, S., Schwarze, R., 2015. No perfect tools: trade-offs of sustainabilityprinciples and user requirements in designing tools supporting land-usedecisions between greenfields and brownfields. J. Environ. Manage. 153,11–24.

CABERNET (Concerted Action on Brownfield and Economic RegenerationNetwork). <www.cabernet.org.uk>.

Carrol, D.A., Eger III, R.J., 2006. Brownfields, crime, and tax increment financing.Am. Rev. Public Adm. 36 (4), 455–477.

Chen, Z., Khumpaisal, S., 2009. An analytic network process for risks assessment incommercial real estate development. J. Prop. Invest. Fin. 27 (3), 238–258.

Cobârzan, B., 2007. Brownfield redevelopment in Romania. Transylvanian Rev.Adm. Sci. 21E, 28–46.

CLARINET, 2002. Contaminated land rehabilitation network for environmentaltechnologies. In: Brownfields and Redevelopment of Urban Areas. FederalEnvironment Agency, Austriawww.cluin.org/wales/download/3CLARINET brownfields report.pdf.

Cundy, A.B., Bardos, R.P., Church, A., Puschenreiter, M., Friesl-Hanl, W., Müller, I.,Neu, S., Mench, M., Witters, N., Vangronsveld, J., 2013. Developing principles ofsustainability and stakeholder engagement for gentle remediation approaches:the European context. J. Environ. Manage. 129, 283–291.

De Sousa, C.A., 2002. Measuring the public costs and benefits of brownfield versusgreenfield development in the Greater Toronto area. Environ. Plann. B: Plann.Des. 29 (2), 251–280.

Dillman, D., Smyth, J., Christioan, L.M., 2009. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-ModeSurveys: The Tailored Design Method, 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.

Enengel, B., Muhar, A., Penker, M., Freyer, B., Drlik, S., Ritter, F., 2012.Co-production of knowledge in transdisciplinary doctoral theses on landscapedevelopment – an analysis of actor roles and knowledge types in differentresearch phases. Landscape Urban Plann. 30, 106–117.

Frantál, B., & Klusácek, P., Kunc, J., Martinát, S., Osman, R., Bartke, S.,Alexandrescu,F., Hohmuth, A., Bielke, A., Pizzol, L., Rizzo, E., Krupanek, J., Sileam, T., 2012.Report on Results of Survey on Brownfield Regeneration and StatisticalAnalysis, Deliverable D3.1 Version 3 of EC Funded TIMBRE Project(FP7-ENV-2010.3.1.5-2-265364), 76p. Available online: <http://www.timbre-project.eu/tl files/timbre/Intern/4%20Work%20Packages/WP8/Deliverables/timbre 265364 D3.1 V3.pdf>.

Gallagher, R.D., Jackson, S.E., 2008. Promoting community involvement atbrownfields sites in socio-economically disadvantaged neighbourhoods. J.Environ. Plann. Manage. 51, 615–630.

Ganser, R., Williams, K., 2007. Brownfield development: are we using the righttargets? evidence from England and Germany. Eur. Plann. Stud. 15 (5),603–622.

Glicken, J., 2000. Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: a discussion of theparticipatory processes and possible pitfalls. Environ. Sci. Policy 3, 305–310.

Gross, M., Bleicher, A., 2013. ‘It’s always dark in front of the pickaxe’: organizingignorance in the long term remediation of contaminated land. Time Soc. 22 (3),316–334.

Kaiser, U., 2009. Altlastenerkundungs- und -sanierungsmarkt in Mittel- undOst-europa -Marktanalyse für Rumänien. [Markets for Contaminated LandInvestigation and Regeneration in Central and Eastern Europe: Market Analysisfor Romania]. Fraunhofer MOEZ, Leipzig. Available at: <https://www.ufz.de/export/data/38/34546 Marktstudie Rumaenien Final.pdf>. (Retrieved15.02.14.).

Kemeny, J.G., 1959. Mathematics without numbers. Daedalus 88, 577–591.Kemeny, J.G., Snell, J.L., 1960. Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences. Ginn,

Boston.Kirklees, 2008. Research & Consultation Guidelines – Questionnaire. [Online]

Available at: <http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/community/yoursay/Questionnaires.pdf> (Retrieved 27.12.12.).

Lange, D., McNeil, S., 2004. Brownfield development: tools for stewardship. J.Urban Plann. Dev. 130 (2), 109–116.

Morgan, D.L., 1996. Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22., pp. 129–152.Ng, C.J., 2006. Designing a questionnaire. Malaysian Family Physician 1 (1), 32–35.NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2009. Social science tools for coastal programs. In:

Introduction to Focus Groups. NOAA Coastal Services Center.NORISC, 2001–2003. Network oriented risk assessment by in situ screening of

contaminated sites. Technology development project founded by the EuropeanCommission under the 5TH Framework Programme (www.norisc.com).

Oliver, L., Ferber, U., Grimski, D., Millar, K., Nathanail, P., 2005. The scale and natureof European brownfields. Available online: <www.cabernet.org.uk/resourcefs/417.pdf> (Retrieved 15.04.13.).

Pizzol, L., Giubilato, E., Rizzo, Critto. A., Marcomini, A., 2012. Decisional Framework
Developed During the Workshops Organised for the Involvement of Expertsand Stakeholders, Milestone M11 Version 3 of EC Funded TIMBRE Project(FP7-ENV-2010.3.1.5-2-265364), 17p. Available online: <http://www.timbre-project.eu/tl files/timbre/Intern/4WorkPackages/WP8/Milestones/timbre265364 MS11 final approved 20120729.pdf>.
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0264-8377(15)00180-5/sbref0005











































































http://timbre-project.eu/tl_files/timbre/Intern/4 Work Packages/WP8/Deliverables/timbre_265364_D2.1_V3.pdf


























































































































http://www.timbre-project.eu/tl_files/timbre/Intern/4 Work Packages/WP8/Deliverables/Timbre_265364_D7.1V3.pdf




















































































http://www.cabernet.org.uk







































































































































































http://www.timbre-project.eu/tl_files/timbre/Intern/4 Work Packages/WP8/Deliverables/timbre_265364_D3.1_V3.pdf






































































































http://https://www.ufz.de/export/data/38/34546_Marktstudie_Rumaenien_Final.pdf




























http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/community/yoursay/Questionnaires.pdf




























































http://www.norisc.com



http://www.cabernet.org.uk/resourcefs/417.pdf







http://www.timbre-project.eu/tl_files/timbre/Intern/4WorkPackages/WP8/Milestones/timbre_265364_MS11_final_approved_20120729.pdf



















e Polic

P

P

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

E. Rizzo et al. / Land Us

izzol, L., Rizzo, E., Giubilato, E., Zabeo, A., Cosmo, L., Critto, A., Marcomini, A., 2012.Web Database with a Structured Site Related Inventory of EuropeanBrownfield, Deliverable D1.1 Version 4 of EC Funded TIMBRE Project(FP7-ENV-2010.3.1.5-2-265364), 37p. Available online: <http://www.andrea-kubitz.de/timbre/tl files/timbre/Intern/4%20Work%20Packages/WP8/Deliverables/timbre 265364 D1.1 V4.pdf>.

izzol, L., Critto, A., Marcomini, A., et al., 2009. A spatial decision support systemfor the risk-based management of contaminated sites: the DESYRE DSS. Bookchapter. In: Marcomini (Ed.), Decision Support Systems for Risk-basedManagement of Contaminated Sites. Springer Publishers.

eed, M., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: aliterature review. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2417–2431.

eed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C.,Quinn, C.H., Stringer, L.C., 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholderanalysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manage. 90,1933–1949.

ennekamp, R.A., Nall, M.A., 2003. Using Focus Groups in Program Developmentand Evaluation. University of Kentucky – College of Agriculture, Lexington.

ESCUE Project, 2005. The RESCUE Manual: Best Practice Guidance for SustainableBrownfield Regeneration. Land Quality Press, a Division of Land QualityManagement Ltd, ISBN 0-9547474-0-2.

EVIT Project, 2007. Working towards More Effective and Sustainable BrownfieldRevitalisation Policies. Interreg IIIB project <http://www.revit-nweurope.org/download/REVIT booklet.pdf> (Retrieved 04.14.).

EVIT Project, 2007. Working towards More Effective and Sustainable BrownfieldRevitalisation Policies, Stakeholder Engagement a Toolkit. Interreg IIIB project<http://www.revit-nweurope.org/selfguidingtrail/27 Stakeholderengagement a toolkit-2.pdf> (Retrieved 04.14.).

izzo, E., Pizzol, L., Giubilato, E., Critto, A., Marcomini, A., 2013. Timbre ExpertSystem for choosing sustainable solutions of risk-based approaches andtechnologies for brownfield rehabilitation. In: Proceedings of the 12thInternational UFZ-Deltares Conference on Groundwater-Soil-Systems andWater Resource Management (AquaConSoil), Session D3.3, Barcelona, Spain
(Retrieved 04.14) http://www.aquaconsoil.org/Previous/AquaConSoil2013/Proceedings.html
ounsevell, M.D., Pedroli, B., Erb, K.H., Gramberger, M., Busck, A.G., Haberl, H.,Wolfslehner, B., 2012. Challenges for land system science. Land Use Policy 29(4), 899–910.

y 48 (2015) 437–453 453

Rowe, G., Frewer, L., 2000. Public participation methods: a framework forevaluation in science. Technol. Hum. Values 25, 3–29.

Sanja, V., Gonzalez-Valencia, E., Lodolo, A., Miertus, S., 2000. Decision supportsystems: application in remediation technology evaluation and selection. In:NATO/CCMS Pilot Study Evaluation of Demonstrated and EmergingTechnologies for the Treatment and Clean Up of Contaminated Land andGroundwater, NATO, Wiesbaden, Germany, pp. 42–57.

Schädler, S., Finkel, M., Bleicher, A., Morio, M., Gross, M., 2013. Spatially explicitcomputation of sustainability indicator values for the automated assessmentof land-use options. Landscape Urban Plann. 111, 34–45.

Schädler, S., Morio, M., Bartke, S., Rohr-Zänker, R., Finkel, M., 2011. Designingsustainable and economically attractive brownfield revitalization optionsusing an integrated assessment model. J. Environ. Manage. 92 (3), 827–837.

Schädler, S., Morio, M., Bartke, S., Finkel, M., 2012. Integrated planning and spatialevaluation of megasite remediation and reuse options. J. Contam. Hydrol. 124(1–4), 88–100.

Sparrevik, M., Ellen, G.J., Duijn, M., 2011. Evaluation of factors affecting stakeholderrisk perception of contaminated sediment disposal in Oslo harbor. Environ. Sci.Technol. 45, 118–124.

Strazzera, E., Cherchi, E., Ferrini, S., 2010. Assessment of regeneration projects inurban areas of environmental interest: a stated choice approach to estimateuse and quasi-option values. Environ. Plann. 42, 452–468.

Syms, P., 2010. Land, Development and Design, 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.Thornton, G., Franz, M., Edwards, D., Pahlen, G., Nathanail, P., 2007. The challenge

of sustainability: incentives for brownfield regeneration in Europe. Environ.Sci. Policy 10, 116–134.

Wang, L., Fang, L., Hipel, K.W., 2011. Negotiation over costs and benefits inbrownfield redevelopment. Group Decision Negotiation 20 (4), 509–524.

WHO, 1987. How to Organize an Educational Workshop. [Online] Available at:<http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/1987/924170635X eng Chapters5-7.pdf> (Retrieved 27.12.12.).

Wilcher, R.A., Glibert, L.K., Siano, C.S., Arredondo, E.M., 2000. From focus groups toworkshops: developing a culturally appropriate cervical cancer prevention
intervention for rural Latinas. Int. Q. Community Health Educ. 19 (2), 83–102.
Young, H.P., 1988. Condorcet’s theory of voting. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 82 (2),1231–1244.

Young, H.P., Levenglick, A., 1978. A consistent extension of condorcet’s electionprinciple. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 35 (2), 285–300.

http://www.andrea-kubitz.de/timbre/tl_files/timbre/Intern/4 Work Packages/WP8/Deliverables/timbre_265364_D1.1_V4.pdf



























































































































http://www.revit-nweurope.org/download/REVIT_booklet.pdf









http://www.revit-nweurope.org/selfguidingtrail/27_Stakeholder_engagement_a_toolkit-2.pdf













http://www.aquaconsoil.org/Previous/AquaConSoil2013/Proceedings.html


































































































































































































































http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/1987/924170635X_eng_Chapters5-7.pdf
































































