The regeneration of brownfields has been increasingly recognized as a key instrument in sustainable land management, since free developable land (or so called "greenfields") has become a scare and more expensive resource, especially in densely populated areas. However, the complexity of these sites requires considerable efforts to successfully complete their revitalization projects, thus requiring the development and application of appropriate tools to support decision makers in the selection of promising sites where efficiently allocate the limited financial resources. The design of effective prioritization tools is a complex process, which requires the analysis and consideration of critical points of attention (PoAs) which has been identified considering the state of the art in literature, and lessons learned from previous developments of regional brownfield (BF) prioritization processes, frameworks and tools. Accordingly, we identified 5 PoAs, namely 1) Assessing end user needs and orientation discussions, 2) Availability and quality of the data needed for the BF prioritization tool, 3) Communication and stakeholder engagement 4) Drivers of regeneration success, and 5) Financing and application costs. To deepen and collate the most recent knowledge on the topics from scientists and practitioners, we organized a focus group discussion within a special session at the AquaConSoil (ACS) conference 2017, where participants were asked to add their experience and thoughts to the discussion in order to identify the most significant and urgent points of attention in BF prioritization tool design. The result of this assessment is a comprehensive table (Table 2), which can support problem owners, investors, service providers, regulators, public and private land managers, decision makers etc. in the identification of the main aspects (sub-topics) to be considered and their relative influences and in the comprehension of the general patterns and challenges to be faced when dealing with the development of BF prioritization tools.

BRGM F 44323 Nantes Cedex 3 France

BRGM F 45060 Orléans Cedex 2 France

BRGM F 69626 Villeurbanne Cedex France

GreenDecision S r l Via delle industrie 21 8 30175 Marghera VE Italy; University Ca' Foscari Venice Department of Environmental Sciences Informatics and Statistics Via Torino 155 30170 Mestre VE Italy

Institute of Geonics of the Czech Academy of Sciences Department of Environmental Geography Drobneho 28 613 00 Brno Czech Republic

Institute of Geonics of the Czech Academy of Sciences Department of Environmental Geography Studentska 1768 708 00 Ostrava Czech Republic

UFZ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research Department of Economics Permoserstr 15 04318 Leipzig Germany

USEPA 26 West Martin Luther King Cincinnati OH 45268 United States

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Agostini P, Pizzol L, Critto A, D’Alessandro M, Zabeo A, Marcomini A, 2012. Regional risk assessment for contaminated sites part 3: spatial decision support system. Environ. Int 48, 121–132. 10.1016/j.envint.2012.07.005. PubMed DOI

Alexandrescu F, Klusáček P, Bartke S, Osman R, Frantál B, Martinát S, Kunc J, Pizzol L, Zabeo A, Giubilato E, Critto A, Bleicher A. 2017. Actor networks and the construction of applicable knowledge: The case of the Timbre Brownfield Prioritization Tool, Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 19(5), 1323–1334, doi: 10.1007/s10098-016-1331-8 DOI

Amundson R, Berhe AA, Hopmans JW, Olson C, Sztein AE, Sparks DL, 2015. Soil and human security in the 21st century. Science, 348 (6235), 647, 10.1126/science.1261071 PubMed DOI

Azadi H, Ho P, Hafni E, Zarafshani K, & Witlox F. (2011). Multi-stakeholder involvement and urban green space performance. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(6), 785–811.

Bartke S. 2013. Urban regeneration and brownfield remediation: addressing challenges for tailored, integrated and sustainable urban land revitalization, in CRC CARE (ed.): 5th International Contaminated Site Remediation Conference: Program and Proceedings, CleanUp 2013 Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 15–18 September 2013, Salisbury, South Australia: CRC CARE, pp. 112–113.

Bartke S. 2011. Valuation of market uncertainties for contaminated land. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 15(4), 356–378.

Bartke S, Bielke A, Homuth A, Roselt K, & Zill T. (2014). Das TIMBRE Priorisierungstool: Brach flächenbewertung von Grundstücksportfolien in Sachsen und Thüringen. Altlasten Spektrum 23(5), 202–210.

Bartke S, Hagemann N, Harries N, Hauck J, Bardos P, submitted. Market Potential of Nanoremediation in Europe – Market Drivers and Interventions Identified in a Deliberative Scenario Approach. Submitted manuscript, Science of the Total Environment, SI AquaConSoil 2017. PubMed

Bartke S, Boekhold AE, Brils J, Grimski D, Ferber U, Gorgon J, Guerin V, Makeschin F, Maring L, Nathanail CP, Villeneuve J, Zeyer J, Schröter-Schlaack C, submitted manuscript. Soil and land management in Europe: Lessons learned from INSPIRATION bottom-up strategic research agenda setting, Journal of the Total Environment. Submitted manuscript, Science of the Total Environment, SI AquaConSoil. PubMed

Bartke S, Martinát S, Klusáček P, Pizzol L, Alexandrescu F, Frantál B, Critto A, Zabeo A. 2016. Targeted selection of brownfields from portfolios for sustainable regeneration: User experiences from five cases testing the Timbre Brownfield Prioritization Tool, Journal of Environmental Management 184, 94–107, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.037 PubMed DOI

Bartke S, Schwarze R. 2015. No perfect tools: Trade-offs of sustainability principles and user requirements in designing tools supporting land-use decisions between greenfields and brownfields, J. Environ. Manage. 153, 11–24, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.040 PubMed DOI

Burger J. (2005). Assessing environmental attitudes and concerns about a contaminated site in a densely populated suburban environment. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 101(1), 147–165. PubMed

CEN, 2014. Glossary of Terms for Holistic Management of Brownfield Regeneration (GoT-HOMBRE). CEN Workshop Agreement 74. https://www.cen.eu/work/areas/env/Pages/WS-74.aspx.

CABERNET, 2006. Sustainable brownfield Regeneration: CABERNET Network Report. Ferber U, Grimski D, Millar K, Nathanail P, Land Quality Management Group on behalf of the CABERNET Network, University of Nottingham. ISBN 0–9547474-5–3

Carlon C. (Ed.) 2007. Derivation methods of soil screening values in Europe. A review and evaluation of national procedures towards harmonization. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, EUR 22805-EN, 306 pp.

De Sousa CA (2006). Urban brownfields redevelopment in Canada: the role of local government. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 50(3), 392–407.

Dixon T, Otsuka N, & Abe H. (2011). Critical success factors in urban brownfield regeneration: an analysis of ‘hardcore’sites in Manchester and Osaka during the economic recession (2009–10). Environment and Planning A, 43(4), 961–980.

Cheng F, Geertman S, Kuffer M, Zhan Q, 2011. An integrative methodology to improve brownfield redevelopment planning in Chinese cities: a case study of Futian, Shenzhen. Comput. Environ. Urban 35 (5), 388–398. 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2011.05.007. DOI

Chrysochoou M, Browna K, Dahala G, Granda-Carvajalb K, Segersonb K, Garricka N, Bagtzogloua A, 2012. A GIS and indexing scheme to screen brownfields for area-wide redevelopment planning. Landscape Urban Plan. 105 (3), 187–198. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.010. DOI

Cundy AB, Bardos RP, Church A, Puschenreiter M, Friesl-Hanl W, Müller I, … & Vangronsveld J. (2013). Developing principles of sustainability and stakeholder engagement for “gentle” remediation approaches: The European context. Journal of environmental management, 129, 283–291 PubMed

EC, 2012. Commission Staff Working Document : Guidelines on best practices to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing. SWD(2012) 101 final 12 April. European Commission, Brussels.

EC, 2011. Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. COM(2011) 571 20 September. European Commission, Brussels.

Dooley E, Roberts E, Wunder S. (2015). Land degradation neutrality under the SDGs: National and international implementation of the land degradation neutral world target. Elni Rev, 1(2), 2–9.

EEA (European Environment Agency), 2005. “Towards an EEA Europe-wide assessment of areas under risk for soil contamination. Volume III PRA.MS: scoring model and algorithm” (http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/etcte/library?l=/2004_subvention/wp3_spatialchange/spatial_assessments/323_support_sts/risk_analysis/reports&vm=detailed&sb=Title)

Frantál B, Klusáček 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 statistical analysis, TIMBRE deliverable D3.1v3, 76p. 10.13140/2.1.1546.7202. DOI

Frantál B, Kunc J, Nováková E, Klusáček P, Martinát S, & Osman R. (2013). Location matters! exploring brownfields regeneration in a spatial context (A case study of the South Moravian Region, Czech Republic). Moravian geographical reports, 21(2), 5–19.

Frantál B, Kunc J, Klusácek P, Martinát S. (2015a) Assessing success factors of brownfields regeneration: international and interstakeholder perspective. Transylv Rev Adm Sci 44(E):91–107

Gardi C, Panagos P, Van Liedekerke M, Bosco C, De Brogniez D, 2015. Land take and food security: assessment of land take on the agricultural production in Europe. J. Environ. Plann. Man 58 (5), 898–912. 10.1080/09640568.2014.899490. DOI

Gausemeier J, Fink A, & Schlake O. (1998). Scenario management: An approach to develop future potentials. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 59(2), 111–130, doi: 10.1016/S0040-1625(97)00166-2. DOI

Hartig JH, Krueger A, Rice K, Niswander SF, Jenkins B, & Norwood G. (2012). Transformation of an industrial brownfield into an ecological buffer for Michigan’s only Ramsar Wetland of International Importance. Sustainability, 4(5), 1043–1058.

Hunsaker CT, Graham RL, Suter GW, O’Neill RV, Barnthouse LW, & Gardner RH (1990). Assessing ecological risk on a regional scale. Environmental management, 14(3), 325–332.

Ishii K, Furuichi T, & Nagao Y. (2013). A needs analysis method for land-use planning of illegal dumping sites: A case study in Aomori–Iwate, Japan. Waste management, 33(2), 445–455. PubMed

Krzysztofik R, Tkocz M, Sporna T, & Kantor-Pietraga I. (2016). Some dilemmas of post-industrialism in a region of traditional industry: The case of the Katowice conurbation, Poland. Moravian Geographical Reports, 24(1), 42–54.

Lee S, & Mohai P. (2013). The socioeconomic dimensions of brownfield cleanup in the Detroit region. Population and Environment, 34(3), 420–429.

Locantore NW, Tran LT, O’Neill RV, McKinnis PW, Smith ER And O’Connell M, 2004. An overview of data integration methods for Regional assessment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 94: 249–261. PubMed

Long J, & Fischhoff B, 2000. Setting risk priorities: A formal model. Risk Analysis, 20, 339–351. PubMed

Limasset E, Aubert N, Scamps M. (2016). Priorisation de friches industrielles en vue de leur reconquête : état de l’art, méthodologie et prise en compte des enjeux environnementaux - Pilote sur le territoire du Haut Rhin (68). Rapport final. BRGM/RP-66498-FR, 55 p.

McCarthy L. (2002). The brownfield dual land-use policy challenge: reducing barriers to private redevelopment while connecting reuse to broader community goals. Land Use Policy, 19(4), 287–296.

Pediaditi K, Doick KJ, Moffat AJ, 2010. Monitoring and evaluation practice for brownfield, regeneration to greenspace initiatives: A meta-evaluation of assessment and monitoring tools. Landscape Urban Plan. 97(1), 22–36, doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.04.007. DOI

Pizzol L, Critto A, Agostini P, Marcomini A, 2011. Regional risk assessment for contaminated sites Part 2: ranking of potentially contaminated sites. Environ. Int. 37, 1307–1320. 10.1016/j.envint.2011.05.010. PubMed DOI

Pizzol L, Zabeo A, Klusáček P, Giubilato E, Critto A, Frantál B, Martinát S, Kunc J, Osman R, Bartke S, 2016. Timbre Brownfield Prioritization Tool to support effective brownfield regeneration. J. Environ. Manage 116, 178–192. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.09.030. PubMed DOI

Raco M. (2003). Assessing the discourses and practices of urban regeneration in a growing region. Geoforum, 34(1), 37–55.

RESCUE. 2005. Best Practice guidance for Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration. Edwards D, Pahlen G, Bertram C. and Nathanail CP. Land Quality press on behalf of the RESCUE consortium, Nottingham. ISBN 0–9547474-0–2

Rijnaart H, v. d. Meulen S, Moinier S. 2017. “Welcome to AquaConSoil 2017!”, in: AquaConSoil 2017 14th International Conference on Sustainable Use and Management of Soil, Sediment and Water Resource Conference Programme, p. 3.

Rizzo E, Pesce M, Pizzol L, Alexandrescu F, Giubilato E, Critto A, Marcomini A, Bartke S, 2015. Brownfield regeneration in Europe: identifying stakeholder perceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs. Land Use Policy 43, 437–453. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.06.012. DOI

Ruelle C, Halleux JM, & Teller J. (2013). Landscape quality and brownfield regeneration: a community investigation approach inspired by landscape preference studies. Landscape research, 38(1), 75–99.

Sardinha ID, Craveiro D, & Milheiras S. (2013). A sustainability framework for redevelopment of rural brownfields: stakeholder participation at SÃO DOMINGOS mine, Portugal. Journal of cleaner production, 57, 200–208.

Schädler S, Morio M, Bartke S, Rohr-Zänker R, Finkel M, 2011. Designing sustainable and economically attractive brownfield revitalization options using an integrated assessment model. J. Environ. Manage 92(3), 827–837, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.026. PubMed DOI

Schieffer A, Isaacs D, & Gyllenpalm B. (2004). The world café: part one. World, 18(8), 1–9.

Smith ER, O’Neill RV, Wickham JD, Jones KB, Jackson L, Kilaru JV, and Reuter R, 2000. The U.S. EPA’s Regional Vulnerability Assessment Program: A Research Strategy for 2001 – 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC.

Stezar IC, Pizzol L, Critto A, Ozunu A, Marcomini A, 2013. Comparison of risk-based decision-support systems for brownfield site rehabilitation: DESYRE and SADA applied to a Romanian case study. J. Environ. Manage 131, 383–393, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.09.022. PubMed DOI

Solitare L. (2005). Prerequisite conditions for meaningful participation in brownfields redevelopment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48(6), 917–935.

Thomas MR (2002). A GIS-based decision support system for brownfield redevelopment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(1), 7–23.

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 (2), 116–134. 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.08.008. DOI

Tonin (2014) should be added – is mentioned in supplementary – (Tonin, S. (2014). Assessing the impact of the remedial actions taken at a contaminated Italian site: an ex-post valuation analysis. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 13(2), 121–137.)

UN, 2014. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 20 December 2013 [on the report of the Second Committee (A/68/444)] - 68/232. World Soil Day and International Year of Soils – http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/232&Lang=E

Zabeo A, Pizzol L, Agostini P, Critto A, Giove S, Marcomini A, 2011. Regional risk assessment for contaminated sites part 1: vulnerability assessment by multicriteria decision analysis. Environ. Int. 37, 1295–1306. 10.1016/j.envint.2011.05.005. PubMed DOI

Regeneration of Post-Agricultural Brownfield for Social Care Needs in Rural Community: Is There Any Transferable Experience?