Advertisement

The Rehabilitation of Contaminated Land to Enhance Future Options for Cities

  • Elizabeth J. Brandon
Chapter
Part of the International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy book series (IYSLP, volume 2018)

Abstract

The rehabilitation of contaminated land is a potentially attractive solution for cities that are under growing pressure to find new sources of land for housing and new sources of socio-economic revitalisation. Although it is sometimes a complex, expensive and lengthy process, remediating contaminated sites can make a positive contribution to the sustainability of a city. It does so by ensuring that land is not left unproductive and potentially harmful to people or the environment and instead is given a new purpose that is tailored to the needs of surrounding communities. Two cities discussed in this chapter—Hong Kong and Glasgow—demonstrate some of the potential benefits of rehabilitating urban contaminated land, as well as the problems commonly encountered. Case studies for these two cities highlight the need for rehabilitation to be carefully planned and managed so that the needs of residents and other site users are met in a timely manner. There is a growing recognition by city planners in both Scotland and Hong Kong that the reuse of contaminated land has a role to play in their future urban vision.

References

  1. Aberdeen City Council (2012) Aberdeen – the smarter city, 2012–2017Google Scholar
  2. Aberdeen City Council (2016) Dealing with the legacy of land contaminationGoogle Scholar
  3. BBC (2014) Why is Glasgow the UK’s sickest city? BBC News Magazine, 5 June 2014Google Scholar
  4. Brandon EJ (2013) Global approaches to site contamination law. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan N (2003) Impact of contaminated land adjoining the new Disney theme park in Hong Kong. Pac Rim Prop Res J 9(3):265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clyde Gateway Urban Regeneration Company (2017a) Clyde Gateway accounts, key performance indicators and annual report, 2016/17Google Scholar
  7. Clyde Gateway Urban Regeneration Company (2017b) Clyde Gateway – removing eyesores and tackling blightGoogle Scholar
  8. Clyde Gateway Urban Regeneration Company (2018) Clyde Gateway – building the legacyGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and Remediation of the Environment (CRC CARE) (2009) Factsheet 1 – contaminationGoogle Scholar
  10. Duncan H, Popp I (2017) Migrants and cities: stepping beyond World Migration Report 2015, IOM (2017) World Migration Report 2018. IOM, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  11. Dundee City Council (2016) Dundee City Council contaminated land strategyGoogle Scholar
  12. Edinburgh City Council (2017) 2050 Edinburgh city visionGoogle Scholar
  13. Ericson B (2011) Common global pollution issues: Blacksmith Institute’s experience. Presentation to the 10th meeting of the International Committee on Contaminated Land, Washington DC, 4–6 October 2011Google Scholar
  14. European Commission (2013) Science for environment policy. Thematic issue: brownfield regeneration. Issue 39, May 2013Google Scholar
  15. European Environment Agency (2015) Progress in management of contaminated sites. European Communities, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  16. Glasgow City Council (2010) Strategy for the inspection of contaminated land in Glasgow, 3rd ednGoogle Scholar
  17. Glasgow City Council (2016) Sighthill TRA – environmental updateGoogle Scholar
  18. Glasgow City Council (2017a) Environmental health annual report 2016–2017Google Scholar
  19. Glasgow City Council (2017b) Sighthill regeneration questions and answersGoogle Scholar
  20. Glasgow City Council (2017c) Update on vacant and derelict land issues affecting GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  21. Glasgow City Council (2018a) Sighthill TRAGoogle Scholar
  22. Glasgow City Council (2018b) Transforming communities partnershipGoogle Scholar
  23. Hong Kong Free Press (2017) Hong Kong Government ignored 723 hectares of brownfield land that could be used for 84,000 flats, say researchers. 16 March 2017Google Scholar
  24. Hong Kong Government (1999) Background information on Hong Kong Disneyland. Information Services DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  25. Hong Kong Government (2006a) Decommissioning of the former Kai Tak airport other than the north apron. Civil Engineering and Development DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  26. Hong Kong Government (2006b) Kai Tak Development environmental impact assessment report. Civil Engineering and Development DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  27. Hong Kong Government (2007) Hong Kong 2030: planning vision and strategy – final reportGoogle Scholar
  28. Hong Kong Government (2008) Information note on land contamination policy, to the Legislative Council Panel on Environmental Affairs. Environmental Protection DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  29. Hong Kong Government (2015) Hong Kong: the facts. Information Services DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  30. Hong Kong Government (2016) Hong Kong 2030+ - towards a planning vision and strategy transcending 2030Google Scholar
  31. Hong Kong Government (2017a) Fact sheet – brownfield development. Research Office, Legislative Council SecretariatGoogle Scholar
  32. Hong Kong Government (2017b) Housing possible for brownfield sites. 10 October 2017. Information Services DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  33. Hong Kong Government (2018) Overview of Kai Tak development. Civil Engineering and Development DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  34. Lawson L, Kearns A (2017) Living in new homes in Glasgow’s regeneration areas: the experience of residents in the Pollokshaws and Sighthill Transformational Regeneration AreasGoogle Scholar
  35. Leslie C (2015) Disappearing Glasgow: documenting the demolition of a city’s troubled past. The Guardian. 22 April 2015Google Scholar
  36. Longo A, Campbell D (2016) The determinants of brownfields redevelopment in England. Environ Resource EconGoogle Scholar
  37. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (UK) (2018) National planning policy framework – draft text for consultation. March 2018Google Scholar
  38. Nathanail P (2014) Brownfield sites are opportunities in the heart of towns and cities. The Conversation. 13 June 2014Google Scholar
  39. Panagos P, Van Liedekerke M, Yigini Y, Montarella L (2013) Contaminated sites in Europe: review of the current situation based on data collected through a European network. J Environ Public HealthGoogle Scholar
  40. Preston B (2008) Ecologically sustainable development in the context of contaminated land. Environ Plan Law J 25:164Google Scholar
  41. Protection of the Harbour Ordinance, Cap. 531 (1997) (Hong Kong)Google Scholar
  42. Russolo N (2015) Analysing culture-led regeneration: Clyde waterfront, Glasgow. SURF (Scotland’s Regeneration Forum) magazine, 17 March 2015Google Scholar
  43. Scottish Government (2006) Statutory guidance on contaminated land, 2nd ednGoogle Scholar
  44. South China Morning Post (2004) We’ll try to avoid Kai Tak reclamation, says official. 16 January 2004Google Scholar
  45. South China Morning Post (2016) Hong Kong becomes a dumping ground for US e-waste, research finds. 19 June 2016Google Scholar
  46. South China Morning Post (2017a) Hong Kong Disneyland on roller-coaster ride amid expansion plans. 20 February 2017Google Scholar
  47. South China Morning Post (2017b) Hong Kong’s Kai Tak area to see bidding war among developers. 24 January 2017Google Scholar
  48. South China Morning Post (2017c) ‘Land Supply Task Force signals new government approach to tackling Hong Kong’s housing problem’, South China Morning Post, 29 August 2017Google Scholar
  49. South China Morning Post (2017d) Scrap loss-making Hong Kong Disneyland and put public housing on the site instead. 27 February 2017Google Scholar
  50. South China Morning Post (2018a) Hong Kong may renegotiate fees with Disneyland after park posts HK$345 million loss, minister says. 26 February 2018Google Scholar
  51. South China Morning Post (2018b) Hong Kong government must stop giving Ocean Park and Disneyland a free ride. 8 March 2018Google Scholar
  52. South China Morning Post (2018c) Kai Tak River’s HK$2.8 billion makeover ready before rainy season in Hong Kong. 27 March 2018Google Scholar
  53. South China Morning Post (2018d) Proposed solutions to Hong Kong’s housing crisis ‘conceptual’ and controversial. 26 April 2018Google Scholar
  54. Tang YT, Nathanail CP (2012) Sticks and stones: the impact of the definitions of brownfield in policies on socio-economic sustainability. Sustainability 4:840–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Toxics Link (2014) Impact of e-waste recycling on water and soilGoogle Scholar
  56. Turvani M, Tonin S (2008) Brownfields remediation and reuse: an opportunity for urban sustainable development. In: Clini C, Musu I, Gullino ML (eds) Sustainable development and environmental management. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  57. United States Government Accountability Office (2015) Hazardous waste cleanup – numbers of contaminated federal sites, estimated costs, and EPA’s oversight role. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives. 11 September 2015Google Scholar
  58. Varna G (2014) Glasgow’s experience in waterfront regeneration. A success story? Policy Scotland, University of GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  59. Wong MH (1981) Environmental impacts of iron ore tailings – the case of Tolo Harbour, Hong Kong. Environ Manage 5(2):135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wong C, Schulze Bäing A (2010) Brownfield residential redevelopment in England: what happens to the most deprived neighbourhoods? Joseph Rowntree FoundationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth J. Brandon
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations