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

REFERENCES

1. 1. Annen Günther

   . 1990. The Emscher River—A model of integrated water management in an urbanized area: problems and challenges. In Hydrological Processes and Water Management in Urban Areas, Proceedings of the Duisberg Symposium, 198: 347–352. IAHS Press, Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.

   OpenUrl
2. 1. Borak David,
   2. Wagner Danielle Miller

   . 2005. Land Use Control Implementation Plan Model Framework. International City/County Management Association.
3. 1. Brandt Jesper,
   2. Vejre Henrik,
   3. Mander Ülo,
   4. Antrop Marc

   . 2004. Multifunctional Landscapes: Theory, Values, And History. Ashurst, Southampton, UK: WIT Press.
4. 1. Brownfield Integrated Urban Policies (BRINGUP)

   . 2010. Brownfield Integrated Governance, Baseline Study—Development Phase. Brussels, Belgium: European Programme for Sustainable Urban Development.
5. 1. Brown Brenda J.

   2001. Reconstructing the Ruhrgebeit. Landscape Architecture 91: 66–95.

   OpenUrl
6. 1. Concentrated Action On Brownfield and Economic Regeneration Network (CABERNET)

   . 2006. Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration, Network Report. Nottingham, UK: CABERNET Coordination Team, University of Nothingham.
7. 1. Carman Eric

   . 2001. From laboratory to landscape: a case history and possible future direction for phyto-enhanced soil bioremediation. In Manufactured Sites: Rethinking the Post-Industrial Landscape, ed. Kirkwood Niall, 43–49. New York: Taylor and Francis.
8. 1. Christine Stella,
   2. Teeuw Richard

   . 1998. Varied policy of European Union states on contaminated land. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 18(2): 175–197.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
9. 1. Christine Stella,
   2. Teeuw Richard

   . 2000. Policy and administration of contaminated land within the European Union. European Environment 10(1): 24–34.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
10. 1. Dames,
    2. Moore

    . 1997. Final Remedial Investigation Report, Presidio Main Installation, Presidio of San Francisco. Denver, CO: Dames and Moore.
11. 1. Dettmar Jörg

    . 2005. Nature-dominated development in urban landscapes. In Landscape Architecture in Mutation: Essays on Urban Landscape, eds. Hubertus Adam, Institute for Landscape Architecture, 79–98. Zurich: ETH Zurich.
12. 1. Erler,
    2. Kalinowski

    . 2004. Crissy Field Operable Unit 4 Implementation Report, Presidio San Francisco. http://www.Archieve.org/strean/CrissyFieldOperableUnit4ImplementationReportPresidioOfSanFrancisco/CrissyFieldOperableUnit4ImplementationReportclosureReport#page/n13/mode/1up [October 10, 2010].
13. 1. Ferber Uwe,
    2. Grimski Detlef,
    3. Millar Kate,
    4. Nathanail Paul

    . 2006. Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration: CABERNET Network Report. Nottingham, UK: CABERNET Coordination Team, University of Nothingham.
14. 1. Ferguson Colin C.

    1999. Assessing risk from contaminated sites: Policy and practice in 16 European countries. Land Contamination and Reclamation 7(2): 33–54

    OpenUrl
15. 1. Golden Gate National Park Conservancy

    . 2010. http://www.parksconservancy.org/visit/park-sites/crissy-field.html [September 10, 2010].
16. 1. Grimski Detlef,
    2. Ferber Uwe

    . 2001. Urban brownfields in Europe. Land Contamination and Reclamation 9(1):143–148.

    OpenUrl
17. 1. Grimski Detlef,
    2. Ferber Uwe

    . 2002. Brownfield and redevelopment of urban areas: A Report From Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies. Vienna, Austria: Umweltbundesamt GmbH.
18. 1. Guglielmi Andrew O.

    2005. Recreating the western city in a post-industrialized world: European brownfield policy and an American comparison. Buffalo Law Review 25(4): 1273–1312.

    OpenUrl
19. 1. Hamm Astrid

    . 2006. A Landscape Laboratory in Germany— reaching out for new landscape concepts. Master diss., Alnarp, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
20. 1. Kingsbury Garrie L.,
    2. Ray R.M.

    1996. Reclamation and Redevelopment of Contaminated Land: Volume 1. U.S. Case Studies. The USEPA /600/2-86/066.
21. 1. Kirkwood Niall

    . 2001. Manufactured sites: Integrating technology and design in reclaimed landscapes. In Manufactured Sites: Rethinking the Post-Industrial Landscape, ed. Kirkwood Niall, 3–11. New York: Taylor and Francis.
22. 1. Khan Faisal I.,
    2. Husain Tahir,
    3. Hejazi Ramzi

    . 2004. An overview and analysis of site remediation technologies. Journal of Environmental Management 71(2):95–122.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
23. 1. Krinke Rebecca

    . 2001. Overview: Design practice and manufactured sites. In Manufactured Sites: Rethinking the Post-Industrial Landscape, ed. Kirkwood Niall, 125–149. New York: Taylor and Francis.
24. 1. Langhorst Joern

    . 2004. Rising from ruins: Postindustrial sites between abandonment and engagement. Proceedings of the OpenSpace: PeopleSpace Conference. October 27–29, Edinburgh, Scotland.
25. 1. Latz Peter

    . 2001. Landscape Park Duisburg-Nord: The metamorphosis of an industrial site. In Manufactured Sites: Rethinking the Post-Industrial Landscape, ed. Kirkwood Niall, 150–161. New York: Taylor and Francis.
26. 1. Lyall Sutherland

    . 1991. Richard Haag Associates, Gas Works Park, Seattle, Washington. In Designing the New Landscape, 204–207. Thames and Hudson.
27. 1. McGeehan Patrick

    . 2011. The High Line isn’t just a sight to see: It’s also an economic dynamo. The New York Times, June 5.
28. 1. Meyer Peter B.,
    2. VanLandingham H. Wade

    . 2000. Reclamation and Economic Regeneration of Brownfields: Reviews of Economic Development Literature and Practice 1. Louisville, KY: The E.P. System Group.
29. 1. Nassauer Joan

    . 1992. The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landscape Ecology 6(4): 239–250.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
30. 1. Provoost Jeroen,
    2. Cornelis Christa,
    3. Swartjes Frank

    . 2006. Comparison of soil clean-up standards for trace elements between countries: Why do they differ? Journal of Soil Sediments 6(3): 173–181.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
31. 1. Rieder Kirt

    . 2001. Crissy Field: Tidal marsh restoration and form. In Manufactured Sites: Rethinking the Post-Industrial Landscape, ed. Kirkwood Niall, 193–205. New York: Taylor and Francis.
32. 1. Rock Steven

    . 2001. Phytoremediation: integrating art and engineering through planting. In Manufactured Sites: Rethinking the Post-Industrial Landscape, ed. Kirkwood Niall, 52–58. New York: Taylor and Francis.
33. 1. Rodrigues Sonia Morais,
    2. Eduarda Pereira Maria,
    3. Anselba Ferreira da Silva Eduardo,
    4. Hursthouse Andrew,
    5. da Costa Armando

    . 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.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
34. 1. Russ Thomas

    . 2000. Redeveloping Brownfields: Landscape Architects, Planners, Developers. New York: McGraw Hill.
35. 1. Sarni William

    . 2010. Greening Brownfields: Remediation Through Sustainable Development. New York: McGraw Hill.
36. 1. Selman Paul

    . 2009. Planning for landscape multifunctionality. Sustainability: Science, Practice, and Policy 5(2): 45–52.

    OpenUrl
37. 1. Shaw Robert

    . 2002. The International Building Exhibition (IBA) Emscher Park, Germany: A model for sustainable restructuring? European Planning Studies 10(1): 77–97.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
38. 1. Swartjes Frank A.,
    2. Carlon Claudio,
    3. de Wit Niek H.S.M.

    2008. The possibilities for the EU-wide use of similar ecological risk-based soil contamination assessment tools. Science of the Total Environment 406(3): 523–529.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
39. 1. Thornton Gareth,
    2. Franz Martin,
    3. Edwards David,
    4. Pahlen Gemot,
    5. Nathanail Paul

    . 2007. The challenge of sustainability: Incentives for brownfield regeneration in Europe. Environmental Science and Policy 10(2): 116–134.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
40. 1. Tucker Robert. K.,
    2. Auer Shaw Judith

    . 2000. Phytoremediation and public acceptance. In Phytoremediation of Toxic Metals: Using Plants to Clean up the Environment, eds. Raskin Ilya, Ensley Burt. D., 33–42. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
41. 1. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    . 2009. Ecological Revitalization, Turning Contaminated Properties into Community Assests, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA 542-R-08.
42. 1. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    . 2012a. Brownfields and Land Revitalization. http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/ [September 4, 2012].
43. 1. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    . 2012b. Gowanus Canal New York EPA ID#: NYN000206222. http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/0206222c.pdf [August 30, 2012].
44. 1. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    . 2013. Ecological Risk Assessment Glossary of Terms. http://www.epa.gov/reg5sfun/ecology/glossary.html [March 20, 2013].
45. 1. Ward Kristen,
    2. Ablog Myla

    . 2006. Crissy Field Restoration Project Summary of Monitoring Data 2000–2004. San Francisco: National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
46. 1. Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)

    . 2005. First Five-Year Review Report Gas Works Park Site. Bellevue, Washington: Washington State Department of Ecology, Northwest Regional Office
47. 1. Weilacher Udo

    . 2007. Duisburg-Nord Landscape Park. In Syntax of Landscape, The Landscape Architecture of Peter Latz and Partner, ed. Weilacher Udo,102–132. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser.