The previous Mapping, Characterising and Testing analytical phases have provided a comprehensive and multi-scalar description of the complex reality of Alpine brownfields. By means of different methodologies and focused approaches, each of these phases has produced a specific, oriented view on the actual problem. At the first macro scale, the territorial census of Alpine brownfields enriched with the outcomes of the stakeholder survey has led to identify four regional types, i.e. geo-economic aggregations of industrial sites in which the presence of brownfield assumes different weights and roles. The intermediate scale focused on the most representative typologies of mountain brownfields, highlighting their simplified landscape structure and spatial footprint as a recurring feature among sites belonging to the same sector. This step helped to identify how differently large and complex industrial sites relate with the contextual conditions provided by mountain environments, thus leading the resulting brownfields to assume certain common landscape structures. In the third and last analytical scale, finally, it was conducted a reality-based exploration of four Alpine brownfield sites selected accordingly to the previous findings, highlighting and testing their inherent transformation potential on the basis of intensive fieldwork and stakeholders’ engagement. As main result, the Testing phase generated a taxonomy (classification) of those interventions that can realistically take place as in a prospected redevelopment process. As already explained in Chapter 2 (Research design), this three-scales structuring of the empirical analysis has been designed not only to get a comprehensive yet detailed overview on the research questions, but also and especially with the aim to provide the right elements for the future transferability of results. In this sense, the ‘sectoral’ outcomes of Mapping, Characterising and Testing are supposed to be read and interpreted both individually and as a whole. For this second purpose, in the following few pages it is proposed a functional and logical integration of these preliminary results by means of a synthesising tool, the redevelopment matrix. The latter has not to be read as an attempt to forcefully frame the future redevelopment perspectives, but rather as a programmatic guidance to the management of the incredible and complex case system of existing and upcoming Alpine brownfield sites. Furthermore, a similar tool can facilitate the comparison, analytical as well as design-oriented, between two or more geographically and culturally distant situations.

1 The Redevelopment Matrix

The matrix integrates the preliminary results of the previous analytical-explorative phases. Its logical construction is rather simple. The regional typesFootnote 1 (Mapping) and landscape structures (Characterisation) are the two fixed parameters, the first placed on the Y-axis while the second on the X-axis. For each of the four-related voices, a brief description is attached to ease the readability. The intervention taxonomy (Testing) is the variable element of the matrix, as it fills the cells with different figures according to the parameters of reference. In other words, the interventions, or better the balancing between different categories of interventions, are generated by the encounter of a specific regional type with a certain landscape structure. In this way, the matrix acts as a tactical device to identify a priori the orientation of redevelopment, using the results from the case study analysis as key reference. Certainly, any concrete site redevelopment is primary influenced by the local needs and involved interest, which have to be always taken into consideration when planning it, but at the same time it depends to some extent to recurring contextual conditions, either regionally or site-specific.

By looking in detail at the elements of the matrix, as well as by considering the relational influences between the different parameters, some general but useful considerations can be outlined.

First, the regional context has an extremely high influence on the balancing between categories of intervention, often prevailing over the specific features of a given landscape structure. Regions characterised by fragile socioeconomic conditions and thus with limited chances of efficient and successful redevelopment, such as old industrial regions and rural-industrial ones, are surprisingly those characterised by a rather well-balanced equilibrium between the categories of intervention. This indicates that brownfield sites in these contexts, no matter which landscape structure they belong to, are confronted with a higher flexibility in redevelopment purposes compared to sites in more dynamic regions. In particular, besides a 40% average share of interventions addressing environmental regeneration, an interesting balancing of productive refurbishment and cultural reuse interventions (30% each on average) emerges. The successful redevelopment of brownfield sites in these weak contexts relates, therefore, to the capacity of functionally integrating different but complementary ‘economic’ uses on the area, such as small-scale businesses in local value chains and regionally-relevant, heritage-based cultural activities—a sort of ‘mountain’ mixed-use development model. On the contrary, for those brownfields located in industrial-tertiary regions a prevailing orientation towards productive refurbishment interventions, with relevant shares of environmental regeneration (often as mitigation and/or compensation), is foreseen.

The landscape structure also highly influences the balancing between the different interventions, providing indeed the physical conditions and the actual space for action. Expectably, those structures more ‘anchored’ to topographical features are showing higher shares of environment-related interventions, suggesting that the more complex the topography is, the more ecological considerations have to be taken into account. At the same time, landscape structures strongly characterised by infrastructural networks, either relating to transport or energy purposes, are those which accommodate higher shares of productive refurbishment, since these kind interventions can largely profit from existing infrastructures. Again, a rather well-equilibrated coexistence of all the three categories of intervention in each of the four contextual conditions is found only in one specific landscape typology, that of spinning mills. This is characterised by high building density, often with architectural/heritage values, extensive waterscapes (both energy and recreation infrastructure) and a moderate influence of topography. The typological ratio between building density and infrastructural footprint seems to be, according to that, a key influencing factor for the flexibility of transformative interventions. This is valid only partially, however, as other landscape structure typologies with the same ratio (e.g. cement plants and mining-based sites in general) are indeed not showing the same balancing. The quality of buildings, besides the density, is therefore determinant for ensuring that flexibility.

Last but not least, it can be also observed how the specific categories of interventions are variably declined according to the influence of contextual conditions and landscape structures. In the case of productive refurbishment, it can be distinguished between direct measures, such as the reactivation and/or occupation of available spaces, in good conditions and thus ‘ready’, and follow-up interventions, such as add-ons and/or replacement of buildings. The prevalence of either direct or follow-up measures depends mostly on the contextual conditions. For what concerns environmental regeneration, it is also noticeable a difference between adaptive mitigation measures (limited effort and impact) and more extended reclamation/reconfiguration measures (long-term development and variable purposes, from ecological restoration to public use and recreation). Cultural reuse interventions are more homogeneous, as in most cases they address alternative economic uses of the site or parts of it. Nevertheless, in fragile contexts and where the landscape typology allows that, cultural reuse can play the role of temporary ‘change activator’, i.e. catching the attention and thus helping to initiate the transformation.

figure 1