Conceptual definitions of brownfields and strategies of their regeneration
From the beginning of the soil remediation operations in the 80s, one strives to remediate multifunctional. Despite the huge investments in remediation techniques the initial request 'everything must go' is hardly technically feasible for many areas. This is shown in the approach of soil and groundwater contamination which is so expensive that the perpetrators of contamination are unwilling or unable to pay.
Increasingly, advisers and officials realize that the soil in many places can not be economically de-contaminated. In 2008, the Soil Protection Act (WBB) states that soil needs to meet a desired emotional function (the ground should be clean 'and' free of sickening pollution), partly from fear of claims ( "the government will implement complete removal requirements in the future) officials and investors will need to meet of much wider objectives in the practice. There is a vicious circle:
- Emotional motives lead to unnecessarily tight environmental remediation targets;
- The strict targets result in costly remediation;
- The high remediation costs created a major financial risk for redevelopment;
- Due to the financial and psychological risks redevelopment is only realized after extensive removal of the contamination.
This circle prevents an economically thinking company from organizing and financing the restructuring of contaminated sites.
For more information download this pdf. (ONDERSTEBOVEN- duurzame herinrichting van verontreinigde bedrijventerreinen, in dutch)
