See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265830853

Design of Brownfield Landscapes Under Different Contaminant Remediation

Policies in Europe and the United States

Article in Landscape Journal · January 2013

DOI: 10.3368/lj.32.2.277

CITATIONS READS

20 1,680

2 authors:

Meltem Erdem Kaya Joan I. Nassauer

Istanbul Technical University University of Michigan
24 PUBLICATIONS 30 CITATIONS 118 PUBLICATIONS 6,794 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Kahramanmaraş Kumaşır Gölü Ve Yakın Çevresi İmar Planı, Peyzaj Ve Kentsel Tasarım Projelerinin Hazırlanması View project

A methodology Proposal to Identify Landscape Identity Indice of Rural Settlement- Aegean Region Case View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joan I. Nassauer on 22 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design of Brownfield Landscapes Under Different Contaminant
Remediation Policies in Europe and the United States

Meltem Erdem and Joan Iverson Nassauer

ABSTRACT The relationship between brownfield land- INTRODUCTION

scape design and policy for remediation of contaminants Brownfield redevelopment is a growing, policy-driven
is both an ethical issue and a creative opportunity for area of design practice that has propelled design
designers. Under widely varying policies across Europe innovation internationally over the past 30 years
and the United States (US), residual contamination, (Kirkwood 2001). This growth is fueled partly by
which remains even after required remediation, is perva- market demand, especially in urban locations where
sive on redeveloped sites. Landscape design that antici- “clean” undeveloped properties are rare, and partly
pates evolving scientific understanding of contaminant by attempts to address economic distress in locations
exposure risks and changing policy requirements can with pervasive abandoned development. In addition,
strengthen the resilience of brownfield designs. Spe- contaminant remediation technologies are becoming
cifically, the appearance of the landscape can influ- cheaper and more reliable. Governments both regu-
ence exposures to residual contamination by cueing the late and incentivize brownfield redevelopment with
behavior of humans and other organisms to avoid expo- a widely varied and ever evolving set of tools (Sarni
sures. We discuss three problems to be considered in 2010; EPA 2009).
the design of appropriate cues: the problem of invisible Brownfields are sites where possible contamina-
environmental processes, the problem of false identity tion by past land uses complicates future development.
stemming from mistaken perceptions, and the problem Abandoned industrial sites are one particularly photo-
of design as deceit. Then, we consider three iconic public genic type of brownfield, but gas stations, dry clean-
parks designed in different policy settings: Gasworks Park, ers, residential neighborhoods with high proportions
Duisburg Nord, and Crissy Field. These designs embody of tax-foreclosed properties, and former fruit orchards
© 2013 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

appropriate cues for affecting behavior on redeveloped are also designated as brownfields by policy in some
brownfield sites. Drawing on lessons from these parks, states. The European working group, the Concerted
we conclude that the design of brownfield redevelop- Action on Brownfield and Economic Regeneration
ments can employ landscape appearance as one tool Network (CABERNET), defi nes brownfields as “sites
to limit human and ecosystem exposures to residual that have been affected by the former uses of the sites
contaminants. and surrounding land; are derelict and underused;
Landscape Journal 32:2 ISSN 0277-2426

many have real or perceived contamination problems;

KEYWORDS Landscape architecture, ecological risk are mainly in developed urban areas; and require
assessment, urban design, wildlife, groundwater intervention to bring them back to beneficial use”
(CABERNET 2006). In the US, “brownfield” is a legal
term defi ned by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) as “real property, the expansion, redevelopment
or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence
of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant”
(EPA 2012a). A contaminant is defi ned by the EPA
as “any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological
substance found in air, water, soil, or biological matter
that has a harmful effect on plants or animals; harm- apparent when the institutional controls were enacted.
ful or hazardous matter introduced into the environ- In addition, as planning instruments, institutional
ment” (EPA 2013). controls, which depend on consistent site management
While economic development is the primary even after a property changes owners or has new man-
driver of brownfield redevelopment, contaminant agement, are notoriously unreliable over time (Borak
remediation is a prerequisite for development and and Wagner 2005). Finally, institutional controls inher-
consequently a fundamental rationale for brown- ently discourage multifunctionality by segregating
field policies in the US and Europe (Russ 2000; Sarni certain types of land uses.
2010; Thornton et al. 2007, Grimski and Ferber 2001). Because it must reconcile the toxic legacies of
However, under these policies, residual contaminants, past land uses with the possibility that new land uses
defi ned as contaminants that remain after a brown- may expose humans and ecosystems to contaminants,
field site has been remediated, are legally allowed. brownfield redevelopment exemplifies the challenges
The particular contaminants known to be on the site, and contradictions inherent in applying multifunction-
policy requirements, cost and availability of tech- ality as a criterion for design and planning. Defi ned
nology to remediate contaminants, the quality of their as a benefit of planning for multiple land uses and
implementation, and public perception of their effec- varied environmental and societal functions in a
tiveness, all affect the the type, amount, and distribu- single landscape (Brandt et al. 2004; Selman 2009),
tion of residual contaminants. multifunctionality also connotes the potential risks
Remediation usually combines technological of planning for multiple land uses in the same place
interventions with institutional controls, which restrict over time, placing new land uses in locations that may
future land uses. Among technological interventions, have been contaminated by past land uses. Reconcil-
cut and haul technologies remain popular, partly ing past contamination with future use in landscape
because they move contaminated soils and debris off design inherently requires multifunctional thinking
site, and this can reassure the public that contami- about how to combine human uses with environmental
nants have been removed. However, many types of processes. At the same time, institutional controls limit
contaminants may be remediated in situ. This may the combination of different land uses in the design
entail capping contaminated soil and/or water with of a single place. For example, institutional controls
soil, geotechnical barriers, or pavement; or treating require residential development to be separated from
water-borne contaminants in a fi lter system. Some- some commercial and industrial facilities, which are
times it means venting contaminants into the atmo- allowed on sites with greater risks for exposure to
sphere over time. Less often it means using any of residual contamination.
several bioremediation approaches, which tend to Furthermore, brownfield policies differ from place
remediate in a less spatially uniform pattern and take to place and over time, and remediation is not uniform
a longer time to be effective compared with other in practice. Understanding these policies and their
forms of remediation (Carman 2001; Khan, Husain, variation, especially regarding residual contamination,
and Hejazi 2004; Rock 2001). can help designers propose future landscapes that are
Along with technological interventions, institu- more multifunctional, more attentive to the contami-
tional controls are employed to limit human exposure nant histories of past land uses, and more effectively
to residuals. Institutional controls allow residential supportive of human and ecological health.
land uses only where residual contamination is judged Designers have an ethical imperative to employ
not to be harmful over long, continuous exposures for precautionary approaches to affect the flow of resid-
people (especially children). Several factors complicate ual contamination on redeveloped sites. This impera-
the effectiveness of institutional controls. Technolog- tive includes designing to consider fate and transport
ical failure or ineffective design of in situ remediation of contaminants, including residual contaminants,
technologies sometimes occurs. Scientific understand- which are legally allowed to remain on site. It requires
ing of risks associated with contaminant exposures can taking a transdisciplinary perspective on remedia-
increase with time. Discovery of previously unknown tion (Kirkwood 2001). Rather than relying solely on
contaminants on site can identify risks that were not other disciplines to “clean up” a site before a design is

278 Landscape Journal 32:2

implemented or assuming the effectiveness of accepted broader environmental and habitat risks (EPA 2009).
technologies, landscape architects should engage They also establish a regulatory baseline for state
other disciplines and stakeholders to approach reme- brownfield laws, which apply to non-federal jurisdic-
diation as not only a legal requirement but a broader tions and were adopted by each of the 50 states after
ethical imperative. Anticipating the effects of residual CERCLA. These state laws were developed to remove
contamination should be integral to the landscape liability and stigma as obstacles to urban redevelop-
design process. ment posed by CERCLA listing of brownfields (Meyer
A key to developing precautionary designs is to and VanLandingham 2000). Requirements and
consider how the appearance of redeveloped brown- mechanisms vary considerably from state to state. Spe-
fields might cue human and wildlife behavior to cific site investigation and remediation requirements
discourage exposure to residual contaminants. In typically are negotiated on a site by site basis depend-
this paper, we consider how three iconic public park ing upon contextual issues. For example, background
designs on redeveloped brownfield sites, each designed levels of contamination in the neighborhood surround-
in a different policy setting in Europe or the US, exem- ing the site are often considered with the expectation
plify such cues. We link design practice with theory by that remediation of contamination to levels lower than
considering the appearance of brownfield redevelop- is typical in nearby areas may not be required. Also
ment in light of three problems for the appearance related to context, groundwater typically is remedi-
of ecological systems (Nassauer 1992): the problem ated only if it is a public water source. Finally, states
of invisible environmental processes, the problem of rarely require remediating contamination to protect
false identity stemming from mistaken perceptions, wildlife health. Wisconsin state law (NR722 2006) is
and the problem of deceit. We describe how design among the most stringent, requiring that “presence of
of brownfield redevelopment can be precautionary by endangered or threatened species” be considered in the
addressing these problems in anticipation of changing development of plans for remediating contaminants.
scientific knowledge and varying policies. After nearly all states enacted brownfield laws, the
fi rst federal brownfield law was enacted in 2002. Aptly
BROWNFIELD POLICY IN THE US AND EUROPE titled the Small Business Liability Relief and Brown-
Brownfield defi nitions, standards and incentives vary field Revitalization Act, it empowered the EPA to offer
across the US and in different parts of the world, competititve incentive grants to state, local, and tribal
and they change with time. Policy sets the rules and governments for planning, site assessment, and reme-
procedures to be followed to identify and control the diation, and to engage affected communities. These
risks of contamination including residual contamina- grant programs often require that brownfield redevel-
tion. It also establishes legal liabilities for contami- opment occurs in the context of a larger plan, which
nation, provides fi nancial support for redevelopment, may encourage greater multifunctionality and sustain-
supports related research, and dramatically affects ability. For example, the EPA encourages but does not
the market for brownfield design practice. Variation require planning for ecological revitalization, including
among the policies suggests some ways that practice habitat values, as part of brownfield grant programs
can be more precautionary. (US EPA 2009), while attention to land use planning or
environmental context is not typically required under
US Law and Policy state brownfield laws.
In the US, three federal laws aim to clean up or prevent
environmental contamination on brownfield sites: the European Law and Policy
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) A European environmental policy was adopted in
1976; the Comprehensive Environmental Response 1987 (the Single European Act amendment to the
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) 1980, Treaty of Rome), but there is no overarching European
known as the Superfund Act; and the Small Business or European Union (EU) regulation for remediation
and Liability Relief and Brownfield Revitalization of contaminants (Christine and Teeuw 1998; Sarni
Act (SBLRA) 2002 . Enforced by the EPA, these laws 2010). Under EU environmental policy, the European
focus on reducing risk to human health rather than on legal framework for redevelopment of brownfields

Erdem and Nassauer 279

Table 1. Key effects of soil remediation standards of different nations (adapted from Provoost et.al. 2006).

Netherlands

Switzerland

US federal
US states
Germany
Belgium

Sweden

Norway

Canada
France

UK
Goals of soil remediation standards
Triggering remedial actions • • • •
Triggering further soil investigation • • • • • • • • • •
Limiting future landuses • • • • • • • • •
Protecting human health • • • • • • • • • • •
Protecting ecosystems •* • • • • •
Protecting ground and surface water • • • •
* is not systematically included

Table 2. Examples of national and state remediation criteria for acceptable human exposure to residual arsenic
and lead (adapted from Christine and Teeuw 2000).
Country Criteria Arsenic (mg/kg) Lead (mg/kg)
Canada Human health 5 25
Denmark Sensitive uses 20 40
Finland Overburden topsoil 2.6 1–60
Germany Sensitive landuse 7 50
Germany Domestic grardens and allotments 50 1000
Germany: Nordheim Westfalen Standard soils over 25 m3 volume 380 530
Germany: Hamburg Land Human health in residential areas 100 3000
The Netherlands Human health in residential areas 100 3000
United Kingdom Sand in children’s playgrounds 50 1000
United Kindgdom Domestic gardens and allotments 10 500

Table 3. Comparison of brownfield policies in the U.S. and Europe

Remediation Policy US Europe
Have some national brownfield policies All states Some states
Regional Land Use Planning No states Some states
Land Use Institutional Controls All states All states
Remediation standards for specific contaminants vary among states Yes Yes
Goal to protect human health All states All states
Goal to protect groundwater Most states but only for public Some states
water supply
Goal to prevent bioaccumulation of contaminants in wildlife All lands under federal No
jurisdiction, some states
Goal to prevent bioaccumulation in human food sources No Some states
Goal to retain structures by remediating contaminants No Some states

relies on directives rather than regulations (Guglielmi has not adopted a regulatory baseline for remediation.
2005). Furthermore, there is no single policy directive Instead, it provides grants to support brownfield work-
guiding remediation of brownfields. Rather, relevant ing groups, and international research organizations
EU directives separately address ground water, soils, (Guglielmi 2005; Thornton et al. 2007). An early EU
waste, waste prevention and recycling, soil protection, attempt to create cooperation among member states,
landfi lls, liability, sustainable use, and urban environ- the Common Forum for contaminated land in the EU
ments. Unlike American federal laws, which establish (1994) led to the fi rst research organization, Con-
a regulatory baseline for state brownfield laws, the EU certed Action on Risk Assessment for Contaminated

280 Landscape Journal 32:2

Sites (CARACAS) (1995–1998). It focused on human Rodrigues et al. 2009), and sometimes provoke in-
toxicology, ecological risk assessment, fate and trans- depth investigation (Table 1) (Provoost, Cornelis, and
port of contaminants, site investigation and analysis, Swartjes 2006). Institutional controls in some countries
and risk assessment methodologies (Ferguson 1999). address soil contamination related to food produc-
RESCUE (Regeneration of European Sites in Cities tion more specifically than is true in the US (Table 2).
and Urban Environment), CLARINET (Contaminated Table 1 shows that standards in the Netherlands,
Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Tech- Norway, Sweden and Canada address both human
nologies), and CABERNET are subsequent initiatives and ecosystem exposures including wildlife. Further-
(Grimski and Ferber 2001; Swartjes et al. 2008). more, unlike most US states, Norway, Sweden, and
Varied functional defi nitions of “brownfield” Canada explicitly require remediation for leaching of
across Europe make it difficult to develop a unified contaminants into groundwater regardless of whether
European policy (Ferber et al. 2006). Each EU state the groundwater is a public water source (Provoost,
regulates brownfield contamination differently. All Cornelis, and Swartjes 2006). On each of these issues,
have hazardous waste laws, many have water protec- some European standards afford greater protection
tion laws, planning laws, and even health laws that for humans, wildlife, or ecosystems compared with
may be used to regulate brownfields, but not all have approaches common to the United States.
specific brownfield policies. Denmark (1983), Fin-
land (1981), the Netherlands (1980), and Germany Differences Between US and European Policy
(1981) were the fi rst to have specific legal frame- Significant differences exist between brownfield
works for brownfields. These have been precedents policy in the US and EU (see Figure 1 and Table 3).
for other nations in the EU, but some still do not yet Importantly, brownfield law and policy in America
have brownfield policies (Christine and Teeuw 1998; is underpinned by strong federal laws enforced by
CABERNET 2006; Sarni 2010). Typically, nations reg- the EPA, and these laws could be and are applied to
ulate remediation, but inputs at national, regional, and brownfield sites across the nation if state laws are
local levels vary. Across Europe, national environmen- inadequate or not properly implemented. For example,
tal agencies tend to be involved in an advisory capacity in 2010 the US EPA determined that the Gowanus
or to enforce remediation standards. In federal coun- Canal in New York was to be remediated under
tries, regions may have considerable authority. CERCLA, rather than under state and municipal
Countries that have a regional land planning regulations (EPA 2012b). Furthermore, as a result of
tradition embedded in policy tend to have a more federal environmental laws like the National Environ-
multifunctional perspective on brownfield redevelop- mental Policy Act (1970), American federally-owned
ment. In Germany, Sweden, Ireland, the Netherlands, lands (for example, military bases), are required to be
and the United Kingdom, brownfields are addressed remediated to higher standards than private lands or
as part of an integrated planning and redevelopment land owned by state or local governments. There is no
framework that accounts for the relationship among similar underpinning law or enforcement agency for
multiple landscape functions and uses (Christine the EU as a whole.
and Teeuw 2000; Sarni 2010). The EU encourages an While the EPA has regulatory power, it also makes
integrated, multifunctional approach to brownfield grants to state, tribal, and local governments that
redevelopment through its Community of Regions affect implementation of state laws. While the EU has
Program, particularly the “Thematic Strategy on the no remediation regulations for all member states, it
Urban Environment,” which recognizes that brown- also attempts to influence the actions of member states
field redevelopment will be different in each locale by making grants to states and research organizations
(Guglielmi 2005). (Sarni 2010; BRINGUP 2010; CABERNET 2006).
The European soil protection strategy establishes Remediation standards are fragmented in both the
guidance for remediation policies by EU nations US and EU—developed and administered by states in
(Sarni 2010). Soil remediation standards focus pri- the US and by nation states within the EU. However,
marly on human health risk, offer tools for ecological partly because American states’ policies are reinforced
risk assessment (Swartjes, Carlon, and de Wit. 2008; by federal law, the range of remediation policies is

Erdem and Nassauer 281

Figure 1
Comparison of brownfield policy frameworks in the U.S. and E.U.

wider across the EU than across the US. Germany direct effects on human health) are considered only
takes the most multifunctional approach, typically in certain jurisdictions, for example, federal lands
planning brownfield redevelopment in the context of a in the US. In Europe, even in states where broader
larger regional plan that aims to protect both human ecosystem exposures are considered, the focus is
health and larger environmental systems. German on bioaccumulation in the public food supply and
law includes economic, social, and cultural as well domestic animals—not wildlife. Furthermore, there
as hydrological parameters that address contamina- is no overarching scientific consensus about what level
tion of structures, ground and surface water, and soil. of contamination is safe for human exposure. What
American states do not take such a comprehensive might be deemed safe in one state or on one site might
approach. However, remediation approaches on US be judged unsafe in another. As knowledge increases
federal land are more rigorous than in nearly all states, and policy advances, what was considered safe at
considering movement of contaminants through an one time may be judged unacceptable later. In addi-
ecosystem and bioaccumulation in wildlife. tion, while standards exist for exposure to individual
Policy goals, standards, and approaches across contaminants, orgamisms absorb combinations
the US and EU have several important implications of contaminants over time, and no standards exist
for landscape design. It is important for landscape for combinations of contaminants. Where land-use
designers to know that redeveloped brownfield sites institutional controls have been employed as part of
are not “clean” of all contaminants after remediation; remediation, new knowledge about acceptable risks
while risks for human exposure have been judged to for a contaminant or new information about a remedi-
be acceptable, these sites contain residual contamina- ated site can be particularly problematic. For example,
tion. For example, few European nations or American a sensitive use (for example, residential use) may be
states remediate groundwater contamination unless located on a site that is later understood to pose unac-
a public drinking water supply is at risk. Broader ceptable risks to inhabitants.
ecosystem exposures to contaminants (beyond only

282 Landscape Journal 32:2

THREE DESIGN PROBLEMS FOR THE APPEARANCE The Problem of Invisible Environmental Processes
OF BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT LANDSCAPES In this paper, the fate and transport of contaminants
Human exposure to residuals, ecosystem exposure is the relevant invisible environmental process. Brown-
to residuals, movement of residuals beyond site field contaminants are typically invisible to the naked
boundaries, as well as public perception of poten- eye and often have no odor. Consequently, the presence
tial contamination can and should be incorporated of contaminants is not apparent—either before or after
in brownfield design decisions. In a redeveloped remediation. Even to the knowledgeable eye, there may
brownfield, landscapes that look inviting and neat or be few visible clues to their presence. Before a site is
appear to be returned to nature may harbor residual marked as a brownfield and secured from public access,
contamination. The ethical challenge for designers is possible contamination sometimes can be inferred
not the remove residual contamination beyond what from visible clues such as the presence of industrial
has been required by law. Pragmatically, residual debris. However, even these clues often are not inter-
contamination is a fact of life for the post-industrial preted by local people as signs of potential toxicity. In
world, in every American and European state. Rather, particular, people who need shelter may occupy aban-
designers can employ precautionary design strategies doned buildings and vacant post-industrial sites, and
and tactics that use the appearance of landscape to children seeking adventure may be attracted to these
enhance the effectiveness of remediation. Designers sites. After redevelopment, the presence of residual
can aim to increase protection of human health, the contaminants is more difficult to infer if design seeks
focus of brownfield law in the US and Europe, and to to avoid stigma by erasing signs of past contaminating
introduce protections for organisms and ecosystems, land uses. Only an intentional design gesture can sug-
which are not protected by brownfield law in most gest a more complex contamination history.
jurisdictions. By employing landscape elements that
cue humans and wildlife behaviors to limit exposure The Problem of False Identity of
to contaminants, design can achieve more multi- Landscape Appearance
functional landscapes and more resilient remediation This problem occurs when a cultural construct associ-
over the long term. ated with the appearance of a site is mistakenly iden-
Landscape architects have had little market tified with the site’s actual ecological function (for
incentive to pay attention to residual contaminants. example, movement of contaminants). Where ecosys-
Since contamination is known to stigmatize rede- tems or humans are exposed to residual contaminants
velopment, the market incentive is to hide residual the problem of false identity can occur if the redevel-
contamination, designing a redeveloped site to oped site has little visible evidence of past land uses,
appear “cleaned up” (Meyer and VanLandingham or the appearance of recovering or healthy “nature”,
2000). People who use the redeveloped site assume or an ordered, neat appearance. For example, both
that a place that looks clean and healthy is clean and woodlands and wetlands can create the impression of
healthy. However, design can make a site look appeal- nature in redeveloped brownfields. But these ecosystem
ing while simultaneously giving humans and other types often are located where soil and groundwater are
organisms cues to behavior that separates organisms contaminated. Sometimes this is an intentional remedia-
from residual contaminants. tion strategy. For example, woodlands can contribute
To explore how landscape appearance can be a to slow, inexpensive natural attentuation of certain
cue to appropriate behavior, we employed Nassauer’s contaminants. However, some forms of bioremediation
(1992) description of problems for the appearance of may exacerbate the false identity problem: using plants
ecological systems, and we identified parallel problems to “heal” a contaminated site has popular appeal but
for the appearance of ecological systems in the design can be a relatively unreliable remediation technology
of brownfield development. These are: the problem of (Khan, Husain, and Hejazi. 2004, Tucker and Shaw
invisible environmental processes; the problem of false 2000). In other cases, the problem results from remedia-
identity of landscape appearance; and the problem of tion requirements that do not address ecosystem health.
design as deceit. For example, wetlands—where many wading birds
feed in contaminated sediment of shallow waters—are

Erdem and Nassauer 283

Table 4. Relevant characteristics of three cases of iconic brownfield parks in the U.S. and Europe

Image credits
Image 1. http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20070914/450gasworks.jpg. [November 12, 2010].
Image 2.http://www.landschaftspark.de/en/derpark/industriegeschichte/ueberblick/index.html. [November 12, 2010].
Image 3. http://www.nps.gov/prsf/historyculture/images/crissy1.jpg [November 12, 2010].
Image 4. http://www.peickconniff.com/img/GasworksParkSeattle.jpg. [November 12, 2010].
Image 5. http://www.archidose.org/Sep00/091800.html . date of access [November 12, 2010].
Image 6. http://weddingmapper.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/photos/1/48/91258_l.jpg [November 12, 2010].

often found within or adjacent to redeveloped brown- so many forms of contamination and remediation are
fields. Finally, the problem of false identity can exist on invisible, brownfield designers may be seen as culpable
a site that projects the reassuring appearance of orderly by inaction, by not making a gesture that signals past
care, if that appearance belies insufficient protection of contaminating land uses. This problem puts design-
human or ecosystem health. For example, after some ers in the challenging position of being attentive to the
neat, green residential developments on brownfields residual contamination while satisfying clients who
sites have been occupied, their technological controls on want to reduce the stigma associated with past con-
residual contaminants have been found to be inadequate. tamination. However, even if design does not or cannot
make contamination visible, it can avoid deception
The Problem of Design as Deceit when it acknowledges past land uses or where it takes
Regardless of its benign intent, design that “covers up” a precautionary approach to reducing the possibility of
human health risks or ecosystem contamination may residual contaminant exposure.
be interpreted as deceit if these risks become known.
This problem implies that design intentionally misleads CASE STUDIES
inhabitants about a site’s true condition by covering, These problems are particularly relevant for brownfield
hiding, or blending something undesirable. Because redevelopment, where the public may one day conclude

284 Landscape Journal 32:2

that something toxic has been kept invisible, falsely por- there was no shadow of deceit or problem of false
trayed, or deceitfully hidden by design. To identify some identity. Rather, Haag’s pioneering move to retain
design strategies for addressing these problems, we stud- industrial structures on the site helped to create a
ied three iconic public park on brownfield sites designed public and institutional memory of an industrial
at different times in different American and European legacy, increasing the likelihood that contaminants
states (Table 4). We selected these cases because their would be monitored over time.
formal characteristics are well known, but their con- Gas Works Park exemplifies the positive effects
tamination histories and remediation techniques are less of monitoring, increasing knowledge, evolving tech-
fully understood, especially in light of different policies nology, and more rigorous regulation. The park
that were relevant at each place and time. opened in 1976, the same year RCRA became law,
but four years before CERCLA. By 1984, the EPA
Gas Works Park, Seattle, Washington, USA determined that the park should be sampled for
Gas Works Park is a critical precedent not only as an contamination, and elevated levels of cyanide, PAHs,
iconic design but for its complex remediation history. VOCs and heavy metals were found. Consequently,
The 8ha park site, on Lake Union, was purchased by the park was closed for three months and areas of
the City of Seattle in 1967, long before the passage of highest contamination were fenced. Known con-
CERCLA or Washington state brownfield laws, and its taminated areas, including the turf-covered mound,
remediation has been subject to evolving knowledge, were capped by 0.37m of clean soil. Upon reopening,
technology, and standards. For more than 50 years, signs warned people to wash after playing in the park
the Seattle Gas Company operated a coal gasification (Kingsbury and Ray 1996). In 1996 the Washington
plant and tar refi nery on the site, contaminating it with State Department of Ecology (DOE) ordered more
benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), action. A Clean-up Action Plan, fi nalized in 1999,
arsenic, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). ordered additional remediation; the cap on the mound
However, this contaminantion legacy and its impli- was reengineered to provide more protection and the
cations were relatively unappreciated when Richard park reopened in 2001 (DOE 2005). In 2010, the DOE
Haag was commisioned to design the site as a public required remediation of contaminants affecting wild-
park and arboretum (Lyall 1991). Initial soil testing life habitats immediately off shore.
in the 1970s emphasized limitations for plant growth The landmark gas works towers retained by Haag
rather than contaminant remediation (Kingsbury and prevented the problem of false identity. They signal
Ray 1996), and a compost mix was plowed into the top the complicated history of a place that may not be
0.61m of the soil. Known pockets of arsenic were exca- entirely clean, even when it is judged to be safe for
vated and removed from the site, but a high water table human use. Furthermore, the park’s massive capped
constrained excavation of some known contaminants. mound is clearly an intentional construction that never
Haag advocated using a new bioremediation technique would be mistaken for untouched nature.
that involved injecting oil eating bacteria into the soil, While Gas Works Park repeatedly required addi-
but subsequent testing indicated that the technique tional remediation, its design was never deceptive.
was not successful (Lyall 1991). Rather, the design asserted its industrial past, making
As Haag began to realize the limitations posed the problem of invisible contamination more technical
by contamination, he proposed preserving the impos- than ethical. As policy and technology changed, new
ing gas works industrial structures that remained types of remediation were required. Knowing now
on the site as part of a new kind of public park that about how remediation policy and understanding of
highlighted the site’s industrial past. Not only did risk change over time, we might wish for a more pre-
his innovative proposal open a new era in landscape cautionary approach to be built into this design, espe-
design (Lyall 1991; Kingsbury and Ray 1996; DOE cially because it is a public park beloved by users of all
2005), it made remediation a visible dimension of ages. For example, today people have been fenced out
the site’s identity by signalling its industrial past. As of most parts of the industrial ruins that were origi-
remediation standards and techniques evolved and nally used as a play structure.
the site was repeatedly remediated to new standards,

Erdem and Nassauer 285

Duisburg Nord—Landscape Park, Ruhr, Germany site capped by coal mine spoils, only activities such
Landscape Park-Duisburg Nord, a 230 ha park on a as walking or bicycling are allowed. In contrast, the
former steel mill site designed by Latz+Partners opened more fully remediated and intensively used parts of the
in 1994. Spawned by Germany’s regional planning tra- park are characterized by carefully maintained hedges
ditions and rigorous policies requiring remediation of and grids of trees, which convey an impression of care
structures as well as soil and water (Brown 2001; Latz and safety adjacent to the focal structures. In these
2001), its redevelopment was part of the larger Emscher areas contaminated debris from building demolition
Regional Park Plan (IBA 1999), which aimed to restore is buried in former ore bunkers that have been sealed
the industrialized river, redevelop brownfield sites, and and covered with neat gardens (Krinke 2001). Less
encourage economic redevelopment. contaminated debris from some demolished structures
High standards for ecological restoration, archi- was ground into concrete paving or incorporated into
tectural construction, and repurposing industrial planting soils on the site. Within a former railway
structures were encouraged (Shaw 2002). Cyanide, area, dams of highly alkaline material remediate heavy
arsenic, heavy metals, and PAHs polycyclic aromatic metals and also form a base for pathways covered with
hydrocarbon) contaminated the site, and remediation alkaline limestone chips. Large parts of the park cov-
was integral to the park’s design. It reused industrial ered by successional vegetation had little contamina-
structures, separated stormwater from contaminated tion. To create an experience of mystery and discovery
ground water, and directed visitors’ movements to in these areas, the only cues for visitors’ movement are
avoid exposure to residual contaminants, including narrow paths (Langhorst 2004).
ongoing remediation in some parts of the park (Latz Duisburg Nord confronted its designers with the
2001; Weilacher 2007). To reduce costs, only slow problem of invisible contaminants. Similar to Gas
remediation through natural attentuation is being Works Park, Duisburg’s design rejects the stigma of
employed on 10,000ha of some of the most contami- contamination and puts its visitors in vivid, intimate
nated sites in the Emscher corridor (Dettmar 2005; contact with its industrial past. The problem of invis-
Hamm 2006). German law did not require remedia- ible contaminants was made more tractable in Duis-
tion to limit wildlife exposure, and large areas of burg by rigorous German remediation policies as well
the Emscher corridor continue to expose wildlife to as significant scientific and technological advances
contamination. in the 25 years since Gas Works opened. Employ-
Within the park, restoration of the highly polluted ing uniform remediation standards for structures in
Emscher River to a more naturalistic meandering form, Germany, the park welcomes visitors into contact
had been proposed previously (Annen 1990; Hamm with structural remains of the steel mill. However,
2006). However, noting the ecological effects of this precautionary concern may be warranted for direct
pollution, Latz+Partners kept the river piped under- human contact with a remediated steel mill structure.
ground through the park. Only rainwater, separated The long succession of remediation corrections at Gas
from contaminated groundwater, flows above ground Works Park, where what was once considered to be
in a narrow, linear channel (Brown 2001; Latz 2001). adequate remediation came to be seen as inadequate
Dramatic elements of the steel mill’s structures when science advanced and policy changed, could
were retained as a framework for the park’s focal area. foreshadow future perspectives on the adequacy of
To direct visitors’ movement through the rusted indus- structural remediation at Duisburg.
trial structures, brightly painted blue-railed catwalks, Importantly, remediation is integral to the design
made from recycled materials found on site, were of Duisburg Nord. Compared with Gas Works, where
added (Latz 2001). This design cue encourages visitors design began more than 25 years earlier, Duisburg’s
to avoid parts of the site where residual contamination designers had a better developed scientific and techni-
is greatest. cal foundation for determining how to manage con-
Some parts of the park that remain heavily con- taminants. Separation of visitors from contaminated
taminated are completely closed to visitors (Latz 2001). areas and materials is a key tactic used throughout
In other areas where remediation by natural attenua- the design. Where ecosystem functions, including
tion will require decades, such as the former coke plant contaminant flows, are invisible at Duisburg, they

286 Landscape Journal 32:2

are not hidden to deceive. Rather, the polluted river of often competing ecosystem functions and societal
and contaminated groundwater are kept underground values. At the same time, even the rigorous German
to separate them from relatively clean surface water federal standards do not ensure consideration of all
(Latz 2001). Similarly the gardens that occupy the the ecosystem functions and values that environmental
surface above the former ore bins sit atop a cap that science has identified for contaminated sites. This gap
seals contaminated debris underground. That the gar- between science and policy raises difficult ethical and
dens also call attention to the ore bins, vivifying their pragmatic questions for design.
industrial past, further avoids the problem of false
identity. Crissy Field, San Francisco, California, USA
However, the design of Duisburg reflects German Crissy Field, a long time US military site on the San
policy by not protecting wildlife from contaminant Francisco Bay, is under US federal jurisdiction, and
risks. For example, the Emscher corridor policy allows remediation was based on all relevant federal laws as
large, severely contaminated areas throughout the well as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970,
region to be remediated by natural attenuation alone. which imposes more demanding standards than state
Where slow forms of in situ remediation, including law. Consequently, both human health and ecosystem
phytoremediation, are employed, contaminants can risks were assessed. Protecting against human expo-
move through ecosystems. While heavily contaminated sure, ecosystem exposures, and bioaccumulation in
portions of the park are closed to visitors, other organ- wildlife were integral to the remediation plan (Dames
isms using these areas may be affected, and there may and Moore 1997).
be bioaccumulation of contaminants in the food chain Now administered by to the US National Park
off-site. This invisible environmental process raises Service as part of the Golden Gate National Recreation
technical, fi nancial, and ethical questions for brown- Area on the San Francisco Bay, the 40.4ha public park
field redevelopment design. designed by Hargreaves Associates had been the site
Duisburg Nord largely avoids the problem of of a US Army airfield with associated facilities and
mistaken identity. While climbing the blast furnace other light industry. Over more than a century, the
tower, relaxing in the water garden, or surveying the back dune tidal marsh was fi lled to accommodate these
ore bin gardens, visitors are not deceived about the operations (Rieder 2001). When park design began
past of Duisburg Nord. The park’s boxed and gridded in 1994, 28.3ha of the site were covered with asphalt
planting design pattern would never be mistaken for and hard-packed dirt, rubble lined much of its 1.8km
resurgent nature, and the geometry of its stormwater shoreline, and some areas were highly contaminated
management system, including the former industrial with heavy metals, PAHs, VOCs, and pesticides (Fig-
channel of the Emscher itself, communicates human ure 2) (Erler and Kalinowski 2004).
control. All these cues suggest a measured and reassur- Hargreaves Associates made remediation both vis-
ing engineering of the larger system. ible and integral to the design of Crissy Field. The mas-
By excluding visitors from the most contaminated sive 11.3ha grassy platform landform that recalls the
areas, the design of Duisburg does not decieve about site’s airfield contains contaminated rubble and dredge
the “different” condition of those areas, but the invis- spoils. While more than 87,000 tons of hazardous
ible presence of contamination may lead to a problem fi ll were removed from the site, remaining rubble and
of mistaken identity in those areas of the park. An area contaminated material was remediated on site in the
of early successional forest that is relatively remote platform. In addition, 28.3ha of asphalt and concrete
from the site’s main entry and towering structures may were excavated, crushed, and recycled as structural fi ll
be perceived by visitors to be a natural area. In fact, on site. Contaminated sediment excavated from the
this part of the site was judged to be a low priority for coastal shoreline and from an area that was restored as
active remediation. What looks most natural in the an 7.2ha tidal marsh also contributes to the platform.
park may be of greatest concern for ecosytem expo- Consistent with federal standards, the restored marsh
sures to contaminants. habitat is further protected from contaminants by
Overall, Duisburg Nord is a masterful statement on-site groundwater remediation and is monitored to
of landscape legacy that combines a complex array

Erdem and Nassauer 287

Figure 2
Contamination characterization of Crissy Field before remediation (data from Erler and Kalinowski 2004).

meet standards for saltwater environments (Erler and comprehensive remediation also preempt the problem
Kalinowski 2004). of false identity of ecosystems. It clearly distinguishes
The design of Crissy Field successfully addresses between functioning habitats and areas that remedi-
the three problems for the appearance of brownfield ate contaminants on site. Tidal habitats are clearly
redevelopment landscapes. The problem of invisible identifiable as nature, and the neat turf parterre that
environmental processes is alleviated because the park defi nes the capped platform would not be mistaken for
was remediated to protect ecosystems and wildlife a functioning habitat. Where wildlife appears in the
as well as humans, reducing residual contamination. constructed tidal marsh, federal standards for habitat
The design avoids the problem of deceit by making the remediation were applied. The marsh provides habitat
location of residual contaminants visible. Its mas- for more than 110 native plant species and 135 bird
sive platform for in situ remediation of contaminants species (Golden Gate National Park Conservancy 2010;
is a distinct feature or the site and a noteable cue to Ward and Ablog 2006). While Crissy Field lacks dra-
knowledgable viewers. The park’s design and more matic industrial structures that can signify industrial

288 Landscape Journal 32:2

history and “warn” visitors that a place is not pristine, transport of contaminants, is most directly tied to
its visitor center and museum describe its past mili- science and policy. Where science has not determined
tary use and the 19th century military buildings that that organisms could be harmed by contaminant expo-
remain on the edge of the site convey its historic use. sures or where a precautionary level of remediation is
The appearance of each zone on the site—tidal marsh, not required by policy, designers have little guidance
airfield platform mound, and historic structures—is for making precautionary design decisions. That was
consistent with its ecosystem identity. Experiencing the the case when Gas Works Park was initiated almost
distinct pieces of the site conveys its complex history in 50 years ago. Advancing science and policy combined
a way that intrigues and appropriately cautions visitors. with site monitoring have prompted a series of reme-
dial actions.
CONCLUSIONS: PRECAUTIONARY DESIGN OF On the other hand, where science suggests that
BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT exposure poses some level of risk but policy does not
Invisible contamination, mistaken landscape identity, require remediation, designers are faced with fi nancial,
and deceit about residual contamination are ethical technical, and ethical questions. The ways in which
issues that challenge brownfield design to be both remediation was made integral to the designs of Duis-
aesthetically and analytically creative. In response to burg Nord and Crissy Field demonstrate that these
these challenges, brownfield design can be more pre- questions pose creative possibilities. Duisburg exhibits
cautionary by using the power of appearance to affect this in the separation of its small, inviting stream from
human and wildlife behavior. The three brownfield contaminated groundwater and the Emscher River,
park cases discussed here demonstrate different aspects which is piped underground—rejecting an earlier pro-
of precautionary design in constructed ecosystems of posal to give the polluted river a more natural appear-
extraordinary beauty. They offer formal strategies for ing form within the site. Crissy Field demonstrates
design even for industrial, commercial and residential this by its clear visual separation of the platform that
uses that are common to brownfield redevelopment. caps contaminants on site from its restored tidal marsh
The different times and places in which each of these habitat.
designs was executed also suggest design lessons for The policy context of Duisburg creates the poten-
making remediation more resilient to change—whether tial for mistaken identity regarding contaminated habi-
caused by failures of technology or advances in science tats. The Emscher corridor policy to remediate large,
or policy. highly contaminated areas by natural attentuation only
Each of the cases clearly signals past land uses was followed in Duisburg, where visitors are excluded
and their implied contaminant legacies. Disproving the from the most contaminated areas and are cued to only
assumption that stigma is attached to acknowledgment pass through other areas that retain less dangerous
of past industrial land uses, each park looks inviting contaminants. This framework is realistic in acknowl-
and orderly while also conveying a story about its past. edging the pervasiveness of industrial contamination
At Gas Works Park and Duisburg Nord, dramatic and prohibitive cost of faster remediation strategies.
towers reveal their industrial legacy. At Crissy Field, a However, designating contaminated areas to be slowly
massive platform mound covered by neat turf signals and uncertainly remediated by natural attentuation
that there is “something different” about this place could promote a mistaken identity if such forests are
even to a casual visitor. This strategy of conveying perceived as “nature,” and such areas inevitably are
industrial history while introducing order has been suc- used as habitat. Crissy Field enjoyed federal policy sup-
cessfully applied on other iconic redeveloped brown- port for remediation of wildlife habitat and ground-
fields as well. Most notably, the High Line refutes the water. Consequently, its constructed habitat avoids
market assumption of stigma. The park on the former the problem of mistaken identity: what appears to be
industrial railway has propelled a real estate market nature has been remediated to be safe for wildlife.
boom in the surrounding Chelsea District of Manhat- Wide variation in remediation policies from state
tan (McGeehan 2011). to state in both the US and Europe, the evolution of
How the designs address the problem of invis- remediation requirements with new knowledge and
ible environmental processes, in particular fate and improved technologies, and the profound influence

Erdem and Nassauer 289

of landscape design on human and ecosystem expo- Carman, Eric. 2001. From laboratory to landscape: a case history
sures to residual contamination suggest significant and possible future direction for phyto-enhanced soil
opportunities for designers to get ahead of policy and bioremediation. In Manufactured Sites: Rethinking the Post-
Industrial Landscape, ed. Niall Kirkwood, 43–49. New York:
more assuredly protect human health and ecosystem
Taylor and Francis.
in brownfield redevelopment design. Designing more
Christine, Stella, and Richard Teeuw. 1998. Varied policy of
comprehensive protections into redeveloped sites will European Union states on contaminated land. Environmental
afford wider possibilities for multifunctional use, rely- Impact Assessment Review 18(2): 175-197.
ing less on institutional land use controls and inviting ––––––– . 2000. Policy and administration of contaminated land
more people and other organisms to safely use a site. within the European Union. European Environment 10(1):
Every design is a series of creative choices. Undertaken 24–34.
in collaboration with engineering and ecology, brown- Dames and Moore. 1997. Final Remedial Investigation Report,
field design can broaden the context for those choices Presidio Main Installation, Presidio of San Francisco.
Denver, CO: Dames and Moore.
to create precautionary landscapes that are resilient
Dettmar, Jörg. 2005. Nature-dominated development in urban
to change.
landscapes. In Landscape Architecture in Mutation: Essays
on Urban Landscape, eds. Adam Hubertus, Institute for
Landscape Architecture, 79–98. Zurich: ETH Zurich.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to the USDA Erler and Kalinowski. 2004. Crissy Field Operable Unit 4
Forest Service Northern Research Station for support Implementation Report, Presidio San Francisco. http://
of this research on aligning social and ecological driv- www.Archieve.org/strean/CrissyFieldOperableUnit4
ers of urban landscape change, for the insights of the ImplementationReportPresidioOfSanFrancisco/CrissyField
OperableUnit4ImplementationReportclosureReport#page
reviewers and editors of this journal, and for the stimu-
/n13/mode /1up [October 10, 2010].
lating exchange with students over more than a decade
Ferber, Uwe, Detlef Grimski, Kate Millar, and Paul Nathanail.
in Joan Nassauer’s interdisciplinary course, Ecological 2006. Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration: CABERNET
Approaches to Brownfield Development. Network Report. Nottingham, UK: CABERNET Coordination
Team, University of Nothingham.
Ferguson, Colin C. 1999. Assessing risk from contaminated
REFERENCES sites: Policy and practice in 16 European countries. Land
Annen, Günther. 1990. The Emscher River—A model of Contamination and Reclamation 7(2): 33–54
integrated water management in an urbanized area: Golden Gate National Park Conservancy. 2010. http://www
problems and challenges. In Hydrological Processes and .parksconservancy.org/visit/park-sites/crissy-field.html
Water Management in Urban Areas, Proceedings of the [September 10, 2010].
Duisberg Symposium, 198: 347–352. IAHS Press, Institute Grimski, Detlef, and Uwe Ferber. 2001. Urban brownfields in
of Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK. Europe. Land Contamination and Reclamation 9(1):143–148.
Borak, David, and Danielle Miller Wagner. 2005. Land Use Control ––––––– . 2002. Brownfield and redevelopment of urban areas: A
Implementation Plan Model Framework. International City/ Report From Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network
County Management Association. for Environmental Technologies. Vienna, Austria:
Brandt, Jesper, Henrik Vejre, Ülo Mander, and Marc Antrop. Umweltbundesamt GmbH.
2004. Multifunctional Landscapes: Theory, Values, And Guglielmi, Andrew O. 2005. Recreating the western city in a
History. Ashurst, Southampton, UK: WIT Press. post-industrialized world: European brownfield policy
Brownfield Integrated Urban Policies (BRINGUP). 2010. and an American comparison. Buffalo Law Review 25(4):
Brownfield Integrated Governance, Baseline Study— 1273–1312.
Development Phase. Brussels, Belgium: European Hamm, Astrid. 2006. A Landscape Laboratory in Germany—
Programme for Sustainable Urban Development. reaching out for new landscape concepts. Master diss., Alnarp,
Brown, Brenda J. 2001. Reconstructing the Ruhrgebeit. Landscape Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Architecture 91: 66–95. Kingsbury, Garrie L., and R.M. Ray. 1996. Reclamation and
Concentrated Action On Brownfield and Economic Regeneration Redevelopment of Contaminated Land: Volume 1. U.S. Case
Network (CABERNET). 2006. Sustainable Brownfield Studies. The USEPA /600/2-86/066.
Regeneration, Network Report. Nottingham, UK: CABERNET Kirkwood, Niall. 2001. Manufactured sites: Integrating
Coordination Team, University of Nothingham. technology and design in reclaimed landscapes. In

290 Landscape Journal 32:2

 Manufactured Sites: Rethinking the Post-Industrial Landscape, Shaw, Robert. 2002. The International Building Exhibition
ed. Niall Kirkwood, 3–11. New York: Taylor and Francis. (IBA) Emscher Park, Germany: A model for sustainable
Khan, Faisal I., Tahir Husain, and Ramzi Hejazi. 2004. An restructuring? European Planning Studies 10(1): 77–97.
overview and analysis of site remediation technologies. Swartjes, Frank A., Claudio Carlon, and Niek H.S.M. de Wit.
Journal of Environmental Management 71(2):95–122. 2008. The possibilities for the EU-wide use of similar
Krinke, Rebecca. 2001. Overview: Design practice and ecological risk-based soil contamination assessment tools.
manufactured sites. In Manufactured Sites: Rethinking the Science of the Total Environment 406(3): 523–529.
Post-Industrial Landscape, ed. Niall Kirkwood, 125–149. New Thornton, Gareth, Martin Franz, David Edwards, Gemot Pahlen,
York: Taylor and Francis. and Paul Nathanail. 2007. The challenge of sustainability:
Langhorst, Joern. 2004. Rising from ruins: Postindustrial sites Incentives for brownfield regeneration in Europe.
between abandonment and engagement. Proceedings of Environmental Science and Policy 10(2): 116–134.
the OpenSpace: PeopleSpace Conference. October 27–29, Tucker, Robert. K. and Judith Auer Shaw. 2000.
Edinburgh, Scotland. Phytoremediation and public acceptance. In
Latz, Peter. 2001. Landscape Park Duisburg-Nord: The Phytoremediation of Toxic Metals: Using Plants to Clean up
metamorphosis of an industrial site. In Manufactured Sites: the Environment, eds. Ilya Raskin and Burt. D. Ensley, 33–42.
Rethinking the Post-Industrial Landscape, ed. Niall Kirkwood, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
150–161. New York: Taylor and Francis. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009.
Lyall, Sutherland. 1991. Richard Haag Associates, Gas Works Ecological Revitalization, Turning Contaminated Properties into
Park, Seattle, Washington. In Designing the New Landscape, Community Assests, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
204–207. Thames and Hudson. Response, EPA 542-R-08.
McGeehan, Patrick. 2011. The High Line isn’t just a sight to see: ––––––– . 2012a. Brownfields and Land Revitalization. http://www
It’s also an economic dynamo. The New York Times, June 5. .epa.gov/brownfields/ [ September 4, 2012].
Meyer, Peter B., and H. Wade VanLandingham. 2000. ––––––– . 2012b. Gowanus Canal New York EPA ID#:
Reclamation and Economic Regeneration of Brownfields: NYN000206222. http://www.epa.gov/region02
Reviews of Economic Development Literature and Practice 1. /superfund/npl/0206222c.pdf [August 30, 2012].
Louisville, KY: The E.P. System Group. ––––––– . 2013. Ecological Risk Assessment Glossary of Terms.
Nassauer, Joan. 1992. The appearance of ecological systems as http://www.epa.gov/reg5sfun/ecology/glossary.html
a matter of policy. Landscape Ecology 6(4): 239–250. [March 20, 2013].
Provoost, Jeroen, Christa Cornelis, and Frank Swartjes. 2006. Ward, Kristen and Myla Ablog. 2006. Crissy Field Restoration
Comparison of soil clean-up standards for trace elements Project Summary of Monitoring Data 2000–2004. San
between countries: Why do they differ? Journal of Soil Francisco: National Park Service, Golden Gate National
Sediments 6(3): 173–181. Recreation Area.
Rieder, Kirt. 2001. Crissy Field: Tidal marsh restoration and Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). 2005. First
form. In Manufactured Sites: Rethinking the Post-Industrial Five-Year Review Report Gas Works Park Site. Bellevue,
Landscape, ed. Niall Kirkwood, 193–205. New York: Taylor Washington: Washington State Department of Ecology,
and Francis. Northwest Regional Office
Rock, Steven. 2001. Phytoremediation: integrating art and Weilacher, Udo. 2007. Duisburg-Nord Landscape Park. In Syntax
engineering through planting. In Manufactured Sites: of Landscape, The Landscape Architecture of Peter Latz and
Rethinking the Post-Industrial Landscape, ed. Niall Kirkwood, Partner, ed. Udo Weilacher,102–132. Basel, Switzerland:
52–58. New York: Taylor and Francis. Birkhauser.
Rodrigues, Sonia Morais, Maria Eduarda Pereira, Eduardo
Anselba Ferreira da Silva, Andrew Hursthouse, and
Armando da Costa. 2009. A review of regulatory decisions
for environmental protection: Part 1—Challenges in the
implementation of national soil policies. Environment
International 35(1): 202–213.
Russ, Thomas. 2000. Redeveloping Brownfields: Landscape
Architects, Planners, Developers. New York: McGraw Hill.
Sarni, William. 2010. Greening Brownfields: Remediation Through
Sustainable Development. New York: McGraw Hill.
Selman, Paul. 2009. Planning for landscape multifunctionality.
Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 5(2): 45–52.

Erdem and Nassauer 291

AUTHORS Meltem Erdem, PhD, is Assistant Profes-
sor Dr. at Istanbul Technical University in the Faculty of
Architecture, Department of Landscape Architecture.
Her research focuses on contemporary approaches and
environmental systems in landscape design, and rural
landscape planning and design.

Joan Iverson Nassauer is Professor of Landscape

Architecture in the School of Natural Resources and
Environment at the University of Michigan. Her work
investigating the cultural sustainability of environmen-
tally beneficial design and planning integrates design
and landscape ecology.

292 Landscape Journal 32:2

View publication stats