Characteristics and land use of contaminated brownfield properties in voluntary cleanup agreement programs

Land Use Policy

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 551-559

  Page, G W ^a   Berger, R S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

Brownfield; Contaminated land; Environmental cleanup; Land use

Indexed keywords

BROWNFIELD SITE; CONTAMINATED LAND; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; LAND USE;

NEW YORK [UNITED STATES]; NORTH AMERICA; TEXAS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33745728831     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.08.003     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Adams D., and Watkins C. Greenfields (2002), Brownfields and Housing Development. Blackwell, Oxford, UK
2. Alberini, A., Longo, A., Tonnin, S., Trombetta, F., Turvani, M., 2003. The Role of Liability, Regulation and Economic Incentives in Brownfield Remediation and Redevelopment: Evidence from Surveys of Developers. Fondazione Eni Enrici Mattei Working Papers Series, http://www.feemi.it/web/activ/_wp.html, accessed April 22, 2003.
3. Alker S., Joy V., Roberts P., and Smith N. The definition of brownfield. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management 43 1 (2000) 49-69
4. Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, 1997. ASTSWMO Survey of State Institutional Control Mechanisms. Washington DC. www.astswmo.org, accessed 22 April 2003.
5. Bartsch C., Collaton E., and Pepper E. Coming Clean for Economic Development: A Resource Book on Environmental Clean-up and Economic Development Opportunities (1997), Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington DC
6. Bartsch, C., Munson, R., 1994. Restoring contaminated industrial sites. Issues in Science and Technology, Spring, 10 (3).
7. Coffin S., and Shepherd A. Barriers to brownfield redevelopment: lessons learned from two great lakes states. Public Works Management & Policy 2 3 (1998) 258-266
8. Collins T., and Savage K. A case study in learning to see assets as well as liabilities, opportunities as well as constraints. Public Works Management & Policy 2 3 (1998) 210-219
9. Council for Urban Economic Development (CUED), 1999. Brownfield Redevelopment: Performance Evaluation, Report Developed Under a Cooperative Agreement with the US EPA # CR826290-01-0, Washington, DC.
10. De Sousa C. Brownfield redevelopment versus greenfield development: a private sector perspective on the costs and risks associated with brownfield redevelopment in the Greater Toronto Area. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management 43 6 (2000) 831-853
11. Edwards A. Brownfields redevelopment. Practical Real Estate Lawyer 19 2 (2003) 47-57
12. Environmental Law Institute, 1999. Protecting Public Health at Superfund Sites: Can Institutional Controls Meet the Challenge? Environmental Law Institute Research Report, Washington, DC.
13. Gaspar C., and Van Burik D. Local Government Use of Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites (1998), International City/County Managers Association, Washington, DC
14. Gorman H. Brownfields in historical context. Environmental Practice 5 1 (2003) 21-24
15. Greenberg M., Lowrie K., Mayer H., Miller K., and Solitare L. Brownfields as a smart growth option in the United States. The Environmentalist 21 (2001) 29-143
16. Leigh N., and Coffin S. How many brownfields are there? Building an industrial legacy database. Journal of Urban Technology 7 3 (2000) 1-18
17. Page G. Contaminated Sites and Environmental Cleanup: International Approaches to Prevention, Remediation, and Reuse (1997), Academic Press, New York
18. Page G., and Rabinowitz H. The potential for redevelopment of contaminated brownfield sites. Economic Development Quarterly 8 4 (1994) 353-363
19. Pepper E. Lessons from the Field: Unlocking Economic Potential with an Environmental Key (1997), Northeast Midwest Institute, Washington, DC
20. Schwab, J., 1997. Redeveloping Brownfields. Planning Advisory Service Memo, American Planning Association.
21. Simons R. Turning Brownfields into Greenbacks: Developing and Financing Environmentally Contaminated Real Estate (1998), Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC
22. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 2003. URL: http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/remed/vcp/index.html, accessed January 2, 2004.
23. US Bureau of the Census. Characteristics of the Population, Table 84 vol. 2 (1950), US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
24. US Bureau of the Census. Characteristics of the Population, Table 61 vol. 2 (1960), US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
25. US Bureau of the Census. Census of Population: General Social & Economic Characteristics, Table 48 (1970), US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
26. US Bureau of the Census. Census of Population: General Social & Economic Characteristics, Table 62 (1980), US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
27. US Bureau of the Census. Census of Population: General Social & Economic Characteristics, Table 26 (1990), US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
28. US Bureau of the Census, 2000. American FactFinder, Census 2000 Summary File (SF 3)-Sample Data. http://factfinder.census.gov/ accessed 5 June 2003.
29. US Bureau of the Census, 2005. Definitions/Glossary, http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/glossary.html, accessed 10 June.
30. US Environmental Protection Agency. Land Use Decisions in the Remedial Process. OSWER 9355.0-55, EPA/540/R-95/037, PB95-963230 (1995), Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
31. US Environmental Protection Agency, 2004. www.epa.gov/swerosps/bf/index.html, accessed 16 June.
32. US Office of Management and Budget. North American Industry Classification System (1999), JIST, Indianapolis, IN
33. Winson-Geidman K., Simons R.A., and Pendergrass J. Tracking remediation and redevelopment trends of brownfield clean-up programmes: the Cook County experience. Journal of Environmental Planning & Management 47 3 (2004) 393-405
34. XL Capital, 2002. The XL Environmental Land Reuse Report 2002, http://www.xlenvironmental.com/landreuse/reportpdfs/2002/2002_landreuser eport.pdf, accessed on 24 June 2004.