This special issue of Environmental Practice provides an overview of the major concepts useful for redeveloping brownfields, and the Editorial Office sincerely hopes you find it of interest. We are grateful to the many authors, reviewers, and editorial assistants who made this venture possible.

When the editors announced that there would be a special issue on brownfields they indicated that it might be a good idea to have an ethics editorial on brownfield–related challenges. I pulled out my notes taken during the time that “the brownfield solution” was just beginning to be formulated in the early 1990s. The whole program stemmed from a bad situation created by good inten- tions. The intention to clean up polluted areas affected the landowner, the property sold at tax auction, and the unwitting investor: huge expenses were involved, and there was an economic inability to deal with past choices of correction. The selected solution was to redefine environmental regulations where a full cleanup might not have any tangible ecological or health benefits. The classic argument was that if it was acceptable to cap a landfill, why did a person need to dig up a parking lot to remove chemicals already well sequestered in the ground below? The pollutants were doing little to no damage where they were. Leave them alone.

The metropolitan area known as Detroit, Michigan, which unmistakably drives the southeastern Michigan economy most related to the auto industry, hosted the June 2002 annual conference of the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP). Environmental professionals, pledged to uphold the highest standards of environmental assay, planning, and management, met to conduct workshops, lead symposia on current topics, and launch for the first time a separate track in brownfields management. Michigan, having more than its fair share of brownfields due to its location near the epicenter of the “rust belt,” was a fitting place for the NAEP to move into the emerging field of industrial site management. Due to its history and location, Detroit is known for a number of dubious firsts that framed the conference and called for professionals to once again provide the leadership and technology development for which they are well suited. Thanks to the leadership of the NAEP, particularly Mr. Bruce Hasbrouck, the conference and the themes relied on past successes and looked forward to the needs of the future.

The discovery of contamination on real estate can be the kiss of death for a land acquisition or development project. The label “hazardous waste” can spook buyers, sellers, banks, investors, landlords, tenants, and brokers. Government agencies acquiring property by purchase, eminent domain, condemnation, tax title, gift, or otherwise, get cold feet when waste is found before the purchase and sale. Developers disappear from the landscape when they see signs of hazardous waste. Business expansions are cancelled for the fear of disturbing past contamination. This fear of liability is natural, considering that innocent landowners can be liable for acquiring contaminated land even if they were not aware of the contamination at the time of acquisition. Although recent changes in the law offer help for parties in many regards, issues still need to be addressed.

The Northeast–Midwest Institute is a Washington, DC–based, private, nonprofit, and nonpartisan research organization dedicated to economic vitality, environmental quality, and regional equity in the traditional rust belt states of the Northeast and Midwest. Formed in the mid-1970s, the Institute fulfills its mission by conducting research and analysis, developing and advancing innovative policy, providing evaluation of key federal programs, disseminating information, and highlighting sound economic and environmental technologies and practices. The Institute is unique among policy centers because of its ties to Congress through the bipartisan Northeast–Midwest Congressional and Senate Coalitions. Co-chaired by Senators Susan Collins (R–ME) and Jack Reed (D–RI), and Representatives Marty Meehan (D–MA) and Jack Quinn (R–NY), the coalitions advance federal policies that enhance the region's economy and environment.

Often the most significant impediment to the redevelopment of a brownfield is the difficulty in quantifying and limiting environmental risk. Prospective purchasers/redevelopers, potential tenants, and financing sources all focus on environmental issues that, by their nature, can turn an otherwise viable project into a quagmire. In addition, owners of potentially contaminated properties are often reluctant to market them for sale in light of the risk that a buyer will uncover environmental issues during due diligence. As a result, potentially valuable real estate assets remain mothballed and idle.

When looking at brownfields, there is no single “European” way of dealing with the issue. The complexity of the problem, the differences in industrial development, and varying political and legal frameworks have hindered a uniform approach. This incoherence, however, has led to a range of methods and expertise that can be turned into a resource if brought together, evaluated, and fed into the development of an overall strategy. Such efforts have been made in recent years.

From November 13 through 15, 2002, the seventh annual national brownfields confer ence — Brownfields 2002 — was held at the Charlotte Convention Center in Charlotte, North Carolina. This year's event was the largest (3,287 registrants) and perhaps most inspiring national brownfields conference to date, showcasing a wide range of potential new directions for the national brownfields program made possible by the new federal brownfields legislation that was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 11, 2002. The conference began with an opening plenary session where Marianne Horinko, the Assistant Administrator for the Solid Waste and Emergency Response Office of the USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), acted as master of ceremonies.

The notion of a brownfield brings to mind sites littered with the remains of past industrial activity: crumbling buildings, frozen machinery, and railroad tracks overgrown with weeds. To anybody interested in an area's history and cultural heritage, such sites can be potential treasures (Brown, 2001; Quivik, 2001). But to others, especially city officials struggling to maintain a solid tax base and neighbors worried about safety and property values, these sites are more likely to be seen as blights on the landscape, pieces of industrial property that have been used, discarded, and left for another generation to deal with (Jakle and Wilson, 1992). Unlike “greenfields,” vacant pieces of property that have never been developed, brownfields come with the risk of contamination and the costs of demolition and cleanup.

Currently, a number of different federal, state, and local definitions of brownfields are in use. I argue here that two types of definitions are required. The first is a broad, universally agreed upon conceptual definition that will permit the creation of brownfield inventories for resource allocation and federal funding purposes and will inform individuals of potential health hazards in their communities. The second type of definition, which assumes the underlying conceptual definition, specifies eligibility qualifications for particular programs. The conceptual definition should contain terms that are unambiguous, and should allow policy makers and practitioners wide latitude in addressing the dual nature of brownfields as both environmental and economic problems. A definition satisfying these criteria is provided in the 2001 Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act. In this article, I trace the evolution of the dual nature of brownfields and offer examples of the various meanings assigned to the term by state and federal entities. I then examine key distinctions made in various definitions and assess their appropriateness as components of a universal conceptual definition. Such a definition must remain true to the environmental and economic development concerns that gave rise to the term. Only the definitional elements central to these concerns should be included — i.e., the presence or potential presence of contamination and the complications this environmental condition presents for redeveloping a site. Further specifications should be relegated to eligibility definitions that designate legal and programmatic qualifications. The analysis indicates that the conceptual definition provided in the 2001 Act is superior to other definitions in use and should be adopted at all levels of government.

Communities historically have had a difficult time understanding the scope and breadth of their brownfield situation. This lack of information has resulted in part from property owner reluctance to reveal contamination potential because of liability fears. Failure to inform creates a debilitating stigma effect, where properties and entire neighborhoods are avoided because of suspected but unknown contamination potential. In this article, I present a method with which communities can address the brownfield information gap while bypassing individual property owner objections by means of a creative combination of existing formal and informal government records. Using assumptions based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) official definition of a brownfield, environmental, land use, and property tax information can be collected on an individual property basis. The resulting data will allow communities to develop a more comprehensive brownfields profile that will help reduce the stigma effect of suspected brownfields and further community–wide redevelopment efforts.

Land contamination imposes a wide variety of different types of financial, environmental, and social costs, some of which may be experienced by individuals and organizations located far from any brownfield sites. The better these diverse costs are understood and recognized, the more prepared public sector managers will be to make choices about economic development efforts and other subsidies that may minimize them. This article examines two distinct sets of costs, which need to be compared with respect to how they accrue to the citizens of different political units so that decision makers can determine their most appropriate courses of action: (1) status quo costs& mdash; those associated with not mitigating and redeveloping brownfields, including lost real estate and business tax revenues, decreasing densities and their costs, and the public health and pollution mitigation costs associated with ignoring sources of contamination; and (2) mitigation costs — those associated with redevelopment efforts, including site assessments, actual mitigations, redevelopment, and possible post–remediation monitoring and maintenance. In both instances, I disaggregate costs and point to some of the less direct impacts and spillover effects that need to be considered. I then consider the parties that may be likely to bear these economic burdens — and highlight the fact that even urban brownfields are not exclusively a “city problem.” I conclude with evidence from the public record on the efficiency of brownfield subsidies, and review the economic rationale for public sector brownfield programs as a key element of economic development efforts.

On January 11, 2002, President Bush signed the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Public Law 107-118) into law — nearly eight years after the first brownfield bill was introduced into Congress. For the first time, “brownfield” is defined in statute as all “. . . real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.” The new law makes it easier for communities and site owners to promote site cleanup and revitalization; gives states new resources — and new responsibilities — in the cleanup process; and clarifies liability concerns for innocent parties, prospective purchasers, and adjoining property owners who did not have a hand in the contamination and who cooperate in its cleanup. The new law more than doubles the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) pilot brownfield program, authorizing $250 million per year (through 2006) for the effort; it also realistically expands the nature of activities that can be addressed with USEPA help to include tools like environmental insurance, which can leverage additional private support. In short, the new law will enable site reuse advocates to address contaminated sites in ways that are both environmentally responsible and economically feasible.

Brownfields sites come in all sizes and locations. Some are viable projects simply due to market economics. Others are not as market friendly, the so-called second– and third–tier properties. Other sites may have little market value, but are desirable to put into community use such as parks and open space. Successful redevelopment requires the coordination of various interests, including the private sector, public officials, and the affected community. Brownfields transactions can range from simple to complex — this article presents an overview of potential players, their roles, and the skill sets that may come into play on any particular brownfields deal. The information presented here is intended to provide a broad–based background for environmental consultants desiring to be part of an effective brownfields redevelopment team.

Environmental justice strives for equal access for all citizens to a healthy environment, and refers to unequal exposure to environmental contamination due to locational variables. Human health is often compromised by this contaminant exposure. “Communities of concern” are frequently communities populated by people of color and/or low income. In addition to air, water, and soil pollution, specific problems include degraded structures, poor schools, unemployment, high crime, and poor roads and transportation systems. This article addresses some of these issues and makes policy recommendations for business leaders, local government leaders, and those otherwise responsible for enhancing the quality of life in affected communities.

The process of brownfield redevelopment often demands higher levels of information than traditional real estate transactions. While much of this information is pertinent to site identification and remediation, additional information is needed to address issues that are important for better public understanding of the process by which brownfields can be made clean and productive. Decision makers within municipal government need more information from developers on the site identification and selection process, how properties are characterized as suitable for redevelopment, and how various redevelopment options are evaluated. Other stakeholder groups, including regulators, lenders, realtors, and the general public, are becoming more involved in the prioritization and acceptance of redevelopment plans. Information is also needed to address growing concerns over envir onmental justice, social equity, and quality of life. This article discusses information needs and public issues in brownfield redevelopment projects with respect to information access, screening and selection of properties, intergovernmental cooperation, public participation, and the evaluation of the impacts and risks of redevelopment alternatives (including the no action alternative). Innovative information technologies help create decision support systems, which include enhanced geographic information systems, site prioritization methods, and training programs. These decision support systems are information rich and technologically advanced, and they have been valuable in providing information to decision makers and the public to evaluate redevelopment options. Such systems have been used in several brownfield redevelopment programs in Michigan, and can provide models for other communities engaged in brownfield redevelopment.

The recent growth of urban brownfield redevelopment and greenfield protection initiatives is a positive indicator of the redirected priorities of the public and private sectors to restore and regenerate sustainable places and spaces in the American landscape. Concepts such as “sustainable development” and “environmental stewardship” are universal ideals, achievable goals, and intergenerational necessities that have practical applications. This article suggests that brownfield redevelopment and greenfield protection are land use strategies that emphasize long–term sustainability goals rather than unrestrained economic growth and resource expansion. Brownfield initiatives are deeply intertwined with community economic redevelopment and job creation, and they are also important aids in health and safety issues, neighborhood restoration, and the reuse of urban space to counter suburban sprawl into green, open spaces. Planning processes such as “smart growth” and “urban infill” help to better manage development and slow down sprawl. Central to smart growth are brownfields and infill development, because smart growth strives to use underdeveloped areas within the urban environment more efficiently. Urban infill, such as brownfields redevelopment, holds the promise of enabling cities and communities to grow and evolve over time through many incremental changes. By creating places of enduring value and by restoring and reusing buildings and other urban spaces, we can build common ground between sustainability and historic preservation efforts, and provide alternatives to developing greenfield sites.

The popular Uptown Bistro Restaurant represents the successful adaptive reuse of a tire service shop that left behind waste oils and hydraulic fluid on a quarter–acre lot in the middle of Main Street. The 0.24–acre former automobile service site is located in the mountain town of Frisco, Colorado. Prior to the mid–1990s, this relatively small town (population 2,800) had been a fueling stop, a virtual stepchild to nearby ski resorts. Following a tremendous makeover, Frisco has become a well–regarded “local stop” known for shops, restaurants, and overnight accommodations servicing the entire Summit County resort community. Cleanup and redevelopment of the Uptown Bistro Restaurant locale in 1996 was a pioneering development at the beginning of this transformation.