Financing Mechanisms for Contaminated Land Remediation and Redevelopment



This chapter focuses on the main features of funding mechanisms for contaminated land in the US and UK, and tries to determine what China can learn from the financing experiences of these two countries. It examines the financing mechanisms of the UK for contaminated land redevelopment efforts, and mechanisms for brownfield redevelopment in the US at federal and state levels. Also, it compares the regimes of UK and US and considers the application of contaminated land financing mechanism in China in the light of the UK and US experiences.


Contaminated land capital projects program English partnerships European regional development fund Grant in aid Supplementary credit approvals 


  1. Agency, E. (2009). Dealing with contaminated land in England and Wales: A review of progress from 2000-2007 with Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act. (pp. 39).Google Scholar
  2. Agency, E. (2010). Contaminated Land Capital Grants Guidance Note – July 2010. Bristol.Google Scholar
  3. Agency, E. (2013). Contaminated Land Capital Projects Outcomes Report 2012-13. (pp. 20). Bristol.Google Scholar
  4. Agency, E. (2016). Contaminated Land: Capital Projects Funding. Accessed April 6 2019.
  5. Archives, T. N. (2004). Single Regeneration Budget: Background and Overview. Accessed March 7 2019.Google Scholar
  6. Bartsch, C. (2002). Financing Brownfield Cleanup and Redevelopment. Government Finance Review, 18(1), 26-31.Google Scholar
  7. Bartsch, C., & Wells, B. (2003). Financing Strategies for Brownfield Cleanup and Redevelopment. Washington, D: Northeast-Midwest Institut.Google Scholar
  8. Bartsch, C., & Wells, B. (2005). State Brownfield Financing: Tools and Strategies. (pp. 20). Washington, DC Northeast-Midwest Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Beall, J. (1997). A City For All: Valuing Difference And Working With Diversity. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  10. Commission, E. (2011). Structural Funds Regulations 2007-2013. Accessed March 9 2019.
  11. Davis, T. S., & Sherman, S. A. (2010). Brownfields: A Comprehensive Guide to Redeveloping Contaminated Property (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  12. Defra (2006). Defra Circular 01/2006 Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A Contaminated Land. London: Defra.Google Scholar
  13. EIA (2019). Electric Power Monthly. Accessed April 9 2019.
  14. EPA (2004). Congressional Request on Funding Needs for Non-Federal Superfund Sites.Google Scholar
  15. EPA (2007). Financing Brownfields: State Program Highlights. Washington, D.C.: US EPA.Google Scholar
  16. EPA (2008a). Brownfields Tax Incentive Fact Sheet. (pp. 2). Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  17. EPA (2008b). Environmental Brownfields Tax Incentive Guidelines. (pp. 5). Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  18. EPA (2008c). Paying for Sustainable Environmental Systems: Guidebook of Financial Tools (EPA-205-R-08-001). Washington, DC: EPA.Google Scholar
  19. EPA (2009). Underground Storage Tank Program: 25 Years of Protecting Our Land and Water. (pp. 10).Google Scholar
  20. EPA (2011). A Guide to Federal Tax Incentives for Brownfields Redevelopment. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  21. EPA (2012). FY 2012 National Program Manager’s Guidance Final. (pp. 55). Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  22. EPA (2015). FY 2016-2017 National Program Manager’s Guidance (pp. 77). Washington, D.C.: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.Google Scholar
  23. EPA (2017a). FY18 Guidelines For Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Grants (pp. 64). Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  24. EPA (2017b). FY 2018 EPA Budget in Brief. (pp. 80). Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  25. EPA (2019). Types of Brownfields Grant Funding. Accessed April 3 2019.
  26. Fogelman, V. (2005). Environmental Liabilities and Insurance in England and the United States. London: Witherby.Google Scholar
  27. Foste, T. (2007). An Evaluation of the SRB Program in the North East. (Vol. 2019, pp. 107): One NorthEast.Google Scholar
  28. GAO (2003). Superfund Program Current Status and Future Fiscal Challenges. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  29. GAO (2008). Superfund: Funding and Reported Costs of Enforcement and Administration Activities. Washington, DC: GAO.Google Scholar
  30. GAO (2009). Superfund Litigation Has Decreased And Epa Needs Better Information On Site Cleanup And Cost Issues To Estimate Future Program Funding Requirements. GAO Report To Congressional Requesters (pp. 122). Washington, D.C.: GAO.Google Scholar
  31. GAO ( 2010). Superfund: EPA’s Costs to Remediate Existing and Future Sites Will Likely Exceed Current Funding Levels. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  32. Gibbons, S., Overman, H., & Sarvimäki, M. (2017). The Local Economic Impacts of Regeneration Projects: Evidence from UK’s Single Regeneration Budget. (pp. 44). London.Google Scholar
  33. Government, B. o. t. U. (2010). Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2011.Google Scholar
  34. Heberle, L., & Wernstedt, K. (2006). Understanding brownfields regeneration in the US. Local Environment, 11(5), 479-497(419).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Judy, M. L., & Probst, K. N. (2009). Superfund at 30. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 11, 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Milne, J. E. (2010). Environmental Taxation in the United States: The Long View. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 15(2), 418.Google Scholar
  37. Minister, O. o. t. D. P. (2006). Single Regeneration Budget Guidance Manual - Regional Development Agencies. (pp. 121). London.Google Scholar
  38. ODPM (2002). The Government’s Response to the Transport, Local Government and the Regions Select Committee Report: The Need for a New European Regeneration Framework. London.Google Scholar
  39. ODPM (2003). Decontaminated Land to be Brought Back into Use Thanks to State Aid Approval. ODPM News Release. London.Google Scholar
  40. Rhodesi, J., Tyler, P., & Brennan, A. (2007). The Single Regeneration Budge: Final Evaluation.Google Scholar
  41. Syrett, S. (2011). Regeneration - How should the Problem be Addressed? A Discussion Paper Commissioned from the Regeneration and Economic Development Analysis Expert Panel for the Regeneration Futures Roundtable. (pp. 16). London: Centre for Enterprise and Economic Development Research.Google Scholar
  42. Tromans, S., & Turrall-Clarke, R. (2008). Contaminated land (2nd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law and JusticeUniversity of Southern QueenslandToowoombaAustralia

Personalised recommendations