Greening the Browns: A Bio-Based Land Use Framework for Analysing the Potential of Urban Brownfields in an Urban Circular Economy
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- an overview of possible bio-based land use options on brownfields and their specific sets of benefits;
- a general conceptualization of how the potential for bio-based production on brownfields is linked to soil contamination, soil remediation options, and time;
- a graphical representation of realizing bio-based land uses on brownfields in relation to the involved interventions and time spans;
- a decision matrix showing how site-specific brownfield conditions affect the realization of different types of bio-based land uses.
2. State of the Art—The Past and Present of Bio-Based Land Use on Brownfields and Its Future Role in a Circular Economy
2.1. Definition of Brownfield
- have been affected by former uses of the site or surrounding land;
- are derelict or underused;
- are mainly in fully or partly developed urban areas;
2.2. Remediation for Repurposing Brownfields
2.3. Gentle Remediation Options (GROs)
2.4. Brownfields in a Circular Economy (CE)
3. Methodology: Developing the Bio-Based Land Use Framework
3.1. Phase 1—Framework Support
- Step 1—Providing a tentative selection of urban greenspaces (UGSs) with potential for bio-based production on brownfields (Section 4.1). This step consisted of a literature search to develop an appropriate classification of UGSs as potential future land uses on brownfields in an urban CE context. Based on this literature search, the 44-item categorisation proposed by the pan-European Green Surge project [105] funded by the European Commission was identified as the most useful and was consequently used as the base inventory for a suggested selection of 14 potential future UGSs relevant for brownfields.
- Step 2—Linking the identified UGSs to the different types of ecosystem services they may provide (Section 4.2). Out of the 14 UGS selected from the Green Surge inventory, eight were further investigated in terms of the provision of ecosystem services. A literature survey was performed to present an inexhaustive list of ecosystem services that can be derived from the studied list of UGSs potentially relevant for brownfields. The literature review was carried out using the Scopus database and was extensive but limited to the 14 specified UGSs, using the combination of the search words “ecosystem services” and the 14 various UGSs identified.
3.2. Phase 2—Framework Realization
- Step 3—Conceptualising the linkages between different types of gentle remediation options (GROs) and prospective UGS uses, taking soil contaminants and time frames into account (Section 5.1). The first tool of the framework was a conceptual diagram illustrating these linkages.
- Step 4—Synthesising the required interventions, time frames, and the permanency of UGSs on brownfields (Section 5.2). The second part of the framework was a scatter diagram that retained some features of the conceptual framework to provide a graphical representation for the realization of 14 UGS opportunities on brownfields, taking into consideration the required intervention level and realization time.
- Step 5—Identifying the site-specific basic conditions affecting the viability of UGSs and assessing these conditions across different types of UGSs relevant for brownfields (Section 5.3). The third tool of the proposed framework was a decision matrix for the analysis of whether or not the selected brownfield had the potential to fulfil the basic conditions for the realization of each UGS.
4. Result: Framework Support
4.1. Green Land Use Options: The Urban Greenspace (UGS) Typology
4.2. Products of Greenspaces—Ecosystem Services
5. Result: A Bio-Based Land Use Framework for Urban Brownfields
5.1. Conceptualization of Linkages
5.2. Required Interventions, Time Frames, and Permanency of UGS on Brownfields
- Potential future green land uses (the identified UGS elements in Table 2) are analysed in the context of two basic requirements: intervention and time needed to realize them.
- The Y axis of the diagram represents the required intervention which can be understood as the resource intensity requirements of, e.g., information, stakeholder commitment, and capital. This acts as a general understanding of the bulk of the work entailed by the upcoming development, of which part is later covered in detail by the list of basic conditions (Table 4). The vertical position of each land use in the figure depicts the relative scale of the intervention required, low, medium, or high, for an UGS to be realized.
- The X axis of the diagram indicates the relative time frame in years (Y) estimated for realizing the future green land use. The axis is scaled in three parts: immediate (<2 Y), intermediate (2–10 Y), and long term (>10 Y). The land uses are positioned horizontally according to the expected time needed for implementation. Again, it needs to be stressed that the time frame provided here is for initial understanding, as it is expected to be impacted heavily by site-specific criteria, such as site conditions, size, location, and the level and types of contamination.
- The diagram finally incorporates the permanency of the green land uses based on their position in the diagram. The more time and resources required, the more likely the green land use is to be permanent. Vice versa, land uses with low time and resource requirements can be considered as more temporary interventions.
5.3. A Decision Matrix for the Potential Future Green Land Uses on Urban Brownfields
6. Concluding Remarks
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- United Nations. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J. Urban ecology and sustainability: The state-of-the-science and future directions. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Angel, S.; Parent, J.; Civco, D.L.; Blei, A.; Potere, D. The dimensions of global urban expansion: Estimates and projections for all countries, 2000–2050. Prog. Plan. 2011, 75, 53–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folke, C.; Jansson, Ä.; Larsson, J.; Constanza, R. Ecosystem by Cities Appropriation. Slanina Royla Swed. Acad. Sci. 1997, 26, 167–172. [Google Scholar]
- Rockström, J.; Steffen, W.; Noone, K.; Persson, A.; Lambin, E.K.; Lenton, T.M.; Scheffer, M.; Folke, C.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; Nykvist, B.; et al. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 2009, 461, 472–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fertner, C.; Große, J. Compact and Resource Efficient Cities? Synergies and Trade-offs in European Cities. Eur. Spat. Res. Policy 2016, 23, 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olofsdotter, B.; Björnberg, K.; Chang, H.-W.; Kain, J.-H.; Linn, E.; Scurrell, B. Nexus Synthesis Report: Competing for Urban Land; Urban-Nexus: Gothenburg, Sweden, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Loures, L. Post-industrial landscapes as drivers for urban redevelopment: Public versus expert perspectives towards the benefits and barriers of the reuse of post-industrial sites in urban areas. Habitat Int. 2015, 45, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loures, L.; Panagopoulos, T. Sustainable reclamation of industrial areas in urban landscapes. Wit Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2007, 102, 791–800. [Google Scholar]
- Dickinson, N.M.; Mackay, J.M.; Goodman, A.; Putwain, P. Planting trees on contaminated soils: Issues and guidelines. Land Contam. Reclam. 2000, 8, 87–101. [Google Scholar]
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Towards the Circular Economy; Ellen MacArthur Foundation: Cowes, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Bio-based Products|Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. European Commission: Policies, Information and Services. 2019. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/biotechnology/bio-based-products_en (accessed on 13 June 2019).
- Coffin, S.L. Closing the brownfield information gap: Some practical methods for identifying brownfields. Environ. Pract. 2003, 5, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loures, L.; Panagopoulos, T. From derelict industrial areas towards multifunctional landscapes and urban renaissance. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2007, 3, 181–188. [Google Scholar]
- Oliver, L.; Ferber, U.; Grimski, D.; Millar, K.; Nathanail, P. The Scale and Nature of European Brownfields; University of Nottingham, Land Quality Management Group: Nottingham, UK, 2005; p. 8. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, Y.T.; Nathanail, P.C. Sticks and Stones: The impact of the definitions of brownfield in policies on socio-economic sustainability. Sustainability 2012, 4, 840–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Superfund Act; The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); U.S. Government Publishing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1980.
- United States Environmental Protection Agency. Brownfield Act; Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2002; p. 115.
- Gorman, H.S. Brownfields in Historical Context. Environ. Pract. 2003, 5, 21–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jones, R.A.; Welsh, W.F. Michigan brownfield redevelopment innovation: Two decades of success. In Reclaiming Brownfields: A Comparative Analysis of Adaptive Reuse of Contaminated Properties; Hula, R.C., Jackson-Elmoore, C., Eds.; Ashgate: Abingdon, UK, 2012; pp. 341–370. [Google Scholar]
- EUGRIS. Brownfields. EUGRIS Glossary entry: Brownfields. 2018. Available online: http://www.eugris.info/GlossaryDetails.asp?TermID=111&Term=Brownfields&List= (accessed on 31 October 2018).
- Carlon, C.; Hope, B.; Quercia, F. Contaminated Land: A Multi-Dimensional Problem. In Decision Support Systems for Risk-Based Management of Contaminated Sites; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2009; pp. 1–23. [Google Scholar]
- EUGRIS. Policy and Regulation: European Union Brownfields. 2018. Available online: http://www.eugris.info/Policy.asp?Title=Brownfields&Special=EUandCountry&CountryID=9&ContentID=3&Category=Country_Digests&GlossaryID=111&en= (accessed on 8 January 2019).
- Vanheusden, B. Recent developments in European policy regarding brownfield remediation. Environ. Pract. 2009, 11, 256–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EEA. Progress in Management of Contaminated Sites in Europe; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- CORDIS. Concerted Action on Brownfield and Economic Regeneration Network|Projects|FP5-EESD|CORDIS|European Commission. 2019. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/60384/factsheet/it (accessed on 7 January 2019).
- Ferber, U.; Grimski, D.; Millar, K.; Nathanail, P. Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration: CABERNET Network Report; University of Nottingham, Land Quality Management Group: Nottingham, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Bartke, S. Brownfield Regeneration:The Science Communication Unit from University of the West of England. Sci. Environ. Policy 2013, 39, 20. [Google Scholar]
- HOMBRE. Holistic Management of Brownfield Regeneration HOMBRE’s Role in Brownfields Management and Avoidance; Deltares: Delft, the Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Dixon, T.; Raco, M.; Catney, P.; Lerner, D.N. Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration: Liveable Places from Problem Spaces; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Alexandrescu, F.; Bleicher, A.; Weiss, V. Transdisciplinarity in Practice: The Emergence and Resolution of Dissonances in Collaborative Research on Brownfield Regeneration. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 2014, 39, 307–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez, A.P.; Sánchez, S.P. Remediated sites and Brownfields Success Stories in Europe; EUR 27530 EN; European Environment Agency (EEA): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- COM/2011/0571. Road Map to a Resource Efficient Europe; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Pediaditi, K.; Doick, K.J.; Moffat, A.J. Monitoring and evaluation practice for brownfield, regeneration to greenspace initiatives. A meta-evaluation of assessment and monitoring tools. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pizzol, L.; Zabeo, A.; Klusáček, P.; Giubilato, E.; Critto, A.; Frantál, B.; Martinát, S.; Osman, R.; Bartke, S. Timbre Brownfield Prioritization Tool to support effective brownfield regeneration. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 166, 178–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, P.A. Remediation Methods for Contaminated Sites. Assess. Reclam. Contam. 2001, 16, 115–139. [Google Scholar]
- Scullion, J. Remediating polluted soils. Naturwissenschaften 2006, 93, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reddy, C.; Adams, K.R.; Richardson, J.A. Potential Technologies for Remediation of Brownfields. Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manag. 1999, 3, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pollard, S.J.T.; Lythgo, M.; Duarte-Davidson, R. The Extent of Contaminated Land Problems and the Scientific Response. Assess. Reclam. Contam. 2001, 16, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- Bardos, P.; Jones, S.; Stephenson, I.; Menger, P.; Beumer, V.; Neonato, F.; Maring, L.; Ferber, U.; Track, T.; Wendler, K. Optimising value from the soft re-use of brownfield sites. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 563–564, 769–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- SPAQuE. Tubize Plastics—SPAQuE. 2018. Available online: https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=fr&sp=nmt4&u=http://www.spaque.be/0133/fr/48/Tubize-Plastics%3FArchive%3D&xid=17259,15700022,15700124,15700149,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700214,1 (accessed on 2 November 2018).
- UKELA. Case Study: Bawtry Gas Works. 2018. Available online: http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/rte.asp?id=228 (accessed on 2 November 2018).
- Espana, V.A.A.; Pinilla, A.R.R.; Bardos, P.; Naidu, R. Contaminated land in Colombia: A critical review of current status and future approach for the management of contaminated sites. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 618, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kanda, A.; Ncube, F.; Hwende, T.; Makumbe, P. Assessment of trace element contamination of urban surface soil at informal industrial sites in a low-income country. Environ. Geochem. Health 2018, 40, 2617–2633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ramírez-Hernández, H.; Perera-Rios, J.; May-Euán, F.; Uicab-Pool, G.; Peniche-Lara, G.; Pérez-Herrera, N. Environmental Risks and Children’s Health in a Mayan Community from Southeast of Mexico. Ann. Glob. Health 2018, 84, 292–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dermont, G.; Bergeron, M.; Mercier, G.; Richer-Laflèche, M. Metal-Contaminated Soils: Remediation Practices and Treatment Technologies. Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic Radioact. Waste Manag. 2008, 12, 188–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onwubuya, K.; Cundy, A.B.; Puschenreiter, M.; Kumpiene, J.; Bone, B.; Greaves, J.; Teasdale, P.; Mench, M.; Tlustoš, P.; Mikhalovsky, S.V.; et al. Developing decision support tools for the selection of ‘gentle’ remediation approaches. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 6132–6142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Németh, J.; Langhorst, J. Rethinking urban transformation: Temporary uses for vacant land. Cities 2014, 40, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Historic England. Heritage at Risk; Historic England: West Midland, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Voiculescu, S.; Jucu, I.S. Producing urban industrial derelict places: The case of the Solventul petrochemical plant in Timişoara. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2016, 23, 765–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bardos, P. Progress in Sustainable Remediation. Remediat. J. 2014, 25, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bardos, P.; Bakker, L.M.M.; Slenders, H.L.A.; Nathanail, C.P. Sustainability and Remediation. In Dealing with Contaminated Sites; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 889–948. [Google Scholar]
- Rosén, L.; Back, P.E.; Söderqvist, T.; Norrman, J.; Brinkhoff, P.; Norberg, T.; Volchko, Y.; Norin, M.; Bergknut, M.; Döberl, G. SCORE: A novel multi-criteria decision analysis approach to assessing the sustainability of contaminated land remediation. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 511, 621–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norrman, J.; Volchko, Y.; Hooimeijer, F.; Maring, L.; Kain, J.-H.; Bardos, P.; Broekx, S.; Beames, A.; Rosén, L. Integration of the subsurface and the surface sectors for a more holistic approach for sustainable redevelopment of urban brownfields. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 563–564, 879–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Smith, J.W.N. Debunking myths about sustainable remediation. Remediat. J. 2019, 29, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bardos, P.; Bone, B.; Boyle, R.; Ellis, D.; Evans, F.; Harries, N.D.; Smith, J.W.N. Applying sustainable development principles to contaminated land management using the SuRF-UK framework. Remediat. J. 2011, 21, 77–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erdem, M.; Nassauer, J.I. Design of Brownfield Landscapes Under Different Contaminant Remediation Policies in Europe and the United States. Landsc. J. 2013, 32, 277–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamm, A. A Landscape Laboratory in Germany—Reaching out for New Landscape Concepts. Master’s Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Skara, Sweden, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Dettmar, J. Landscape Architecture in Mutation: Essays on Urban Landscape. In Landscape Architecture in Mutation: Essays on Urban Landscape; Hubertus, A., Ed.; Institute for Landscape Architecture, ETH: Zurich, Switzerland, 2005; pp. 79–98. [Google Scholar]
- Franz, M.; Güles, O.; Prey, G. Place-making and ‘green’ reuses of brownfields in the Ruhr. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 2008, 99, 316–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latz, P. Rust Red: Landscape Park Duisburg-Nord; Hirmer: Munich, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kennen, K.; Kirkwood, N. Site Contaminants. In Phyto: Principles and Resources for Site Remediation and Landscape Design; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; p. 63. [Google Scholar]
- Juwarkar, A.A.; Singh, S.K.; Mudhoo, A. A comprehensive overview of elements in bioremediation. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 2010, 9, 215–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cundy, A.; Bardos, P.; Church, A.; Puschenreiter, M.; Friesl-Hanl, W.; Müller, I.; Neu, S.; Mench, M.; Witters, N.; Vangronsveld, J. Developing principles of sustainability and stakeholder engagement for ‘gentle’ remediation approaches: The European context. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 129, 283–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bardos, P.; Andersson-Skold, Y.; Blom, S.; Keuning, S.; Pachon, C.; Track, T. Brownfields, bioenergy and biofeedstocks, and green remediation. In Proceedings of the 10th International UFZ-deltares/TNO Conference on Soil: Water Systems (CONSOIL), Special Sessions, Milan, Italy, 3–6 June 2008; pp. 3–10. [Google Scholar]
- OVAM. Phytoremediation—Code of Good Practice; OVAM: Mechelen, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Cundy, A.B.; Bardos, P.; Puschenreiter, M.; Witters, N.; Mench, M.; Bert, V.; Friesl-Hanl, W.; Müller, I.; Li, X.N.; Weyens, N.; et al. Brownfields to green fields: Realising wider benefits from practical contaminant phytomanagement strategies. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 184, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schwitzguébel, J.P.; Comino, E.; Plata, N.; Khalvati, M. Is phytoremediation a sustainable and reliable approach to clean-up contaminated water and soil in Alpine areas? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2011, 18, 842–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evangelou, M.W.H.; Conesa, H.M.; Robinson, B.H.; Schulin, R. Biomass Production on Trace Element–Contaminated Land: A Review. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2012, 29, 823–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evangelou, M.W.H.; Papazoglou, E.G.; Robinson, B.H.; Schulin, R. Phytomanagement: Phytoremediation and the Production of Biomass for Economic Revenue on Contaminated Land. In Phytoremediation; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2015; pp. 115–132. [Google Scholar]
- Fässler, E.; Robinson, B.H.; Stauffer, W.; Gupta, S.K.; Papritz, A.; Schulin, R. Phytomanagement of metal-contaminated agricultural land using sunflower, maize and tobacco. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 136, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, H.; Yu, N.; Wang, L.; Gupta, D.K.; He, Z.; Wang, K.; Zhu, Z.; Yan, X.; Li, T.; Yang, X. The phytoremediation potential of bioenergy crop Ricinus communis for DDTs and cadmium co-contaminated soil. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 11034–11038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tripathi, V.; Edrisi, S.A.; Abhilash, P.C. Towards the coupling of phytoremediation with bioenergy production. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 57, 1386–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Sustainability and Circular Economy|Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. 2019. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/sustainability_en (accessed on 1 July 2019).
- Braungart, M.; McDonough, W. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things; Vintage Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Ellen MacArthur Foundation, and Mckinsey & Company. Towards the Circular Economy: Accelerating the Scale-Up across Global Supply Chains. Available online: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ENV_TowardsCircularEconomy_Report_2014.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2019).
- Sauvé, S.; Bernard, S.; Sloan, P. Environmental sciences, sustainable development and circular economy: Alternative concepts for trans-disciplinary research. Environ. Dev. 2016, 17, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Breure, A.M.; Lijzen, J.P.A.; Maring, L. Soil and land management in a circular economy. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 624, 1025–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kapsalis, V.C.; Kyriakopoulos, G.L.; Aravossis, K.G. Investigation of Ecosystem Services and Circular Economy Interactions under an Inter-organizational Framework. Energies 2019, 12, 1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aravossis, K.G.; Kapsalis, V.C.; Kyriakopoulos, G.L.; Xouleis, T.G. Development of a Holistic Assessment Framework for Industrial Organizations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braungart EPEA. C2C Design Concept|braungart.com. 2018. Available online: http://braungart.epea-hamburg.org/en/content/c2c-design-concept (accessed on 3 January 2019).
- Pimentel, D.; Patzek, T. Green Plants, Fossil Fuels, and Now Biofuels. Bioscience 2006, 56, 875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Compost Network. ECN—Bio-Waste in Circular Economy; European Compost Network: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Das, A.P.; Sukla, L.B.; Pradhan, N.; Nayak, S. Manganese biomining: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2011, 102, 7381–7387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gomes, H.I.; Funari, V.; Ferrari, R. Bioleaching for resource recovery from low-grade wastes like fly and bottom ashes from municipal incinerators: A SWOT analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 715, 136945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Puyol, D.; Batstone, D.J.; Hülsen, T.; Astals, S.; Peces, M.; Krömer, J.O. Resource recovery from wastewater by biological technologies: Opportunities, challenges, and prospects. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 7, 2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dary, M.; Chamber-Pérez, M.A.; Palomares, A.J.; Pajuelo, E. ‘In situ’ phytostabilisation of heavy metal polluted soils using Lupinus luteus inoculated with metal resistant plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 177, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Y.G.; Zhang, H.Z.; Zeng, G.M.; Huang, B.R.; Li, X. Heavy metal accumulation in plants on Mn mine tailings. Pedosphere 2006, 16, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenkranz, T.; Kisser, J.; Wenzel, W.W.; Puschenreiter, M. Waste or substrate for metal hyperaccumulating plants—The potential of phytomining on waste incineration bottom ash. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 575, 910–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenkranz, T.; Hipfinger, C.; Ridard, C.; Puschenreiter, M. A nickel phytomining field trial using Odontarrhena chalcidica and Noccaea goesingensis on an Austrian serpentine soil. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 242, 522–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simonnot, M.-O.; Vaughan, J.; Laubie, B. Processing of Bio-ore to Products; Springer: Cham, Germany, 2018; pp. 39–51. [Google Scholar]
- Dodson, J.R.; Parker, H.L.; García, A.M.; Hicken, A.; Asemave, K.; Farmer, T.J.; He, H.; Clark, J.H.; Hunt, A.J. Bio-derived materials as a green route for precious & critical metal recovery and re-use. Green Chem. 2015, 17, 1951–1965. [Google Scholar]
- UNEP-DTIE. Cities and Buildings UNEP Initiatives and Projects; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Bučienė, A. The Shrinking rate of utilized Agricultural Land And its components in Baltic Sea region Countries. Reg. Form. Dev. Stud. 2003, 1, 6–14. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. EU Agricultural Outlook; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Zezza, A.; Tasciotti, L. Urban agriculture, poverty, and food security: Empirical evidence from a sample of developing countries. Food Policy 2010, 35, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, J.; DuBois, B.; Tidball, K.G. Refuges of local resilience: Community gardens in post-Sandy New York City. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 625–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hahn, K. Soil contamination can be a Deterrent to Urban Agriculture—MSU Extension. 2013. Available online: https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/soil_contamination_can_be_a_deterrent_to_urban_agriculture (accessed on 7 December 2018).
- U.S. EPA. Brownfields and Urban Agriculture: Interim Guidelinrs for Safe Gardening Practices; U.S. EPA: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
- Enell, A.; Andersson-Sköld, Y.; Vestin, J.; Wagelmans, M. Risk management and regeneration of brownfields using bioenergy crops. J. Soils Sediments 2016, 16, 987–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lord, R.A. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) outperforms Miscanthus or willow on marginal soils, brownfield and non-agricultural sites for local, sustainable energy crop production. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 78, 110–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mehmood, M.A.; Ibrahim, M.; Rashid, U.; Nawaz, M.; Ali, S.; Hussain, A.; Gull, M. Biomass production for bioenergy using marginal lands. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2017, 9, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersson-Sköld, Y.; Bardos, P.; Chalot, M.; Bert, V.; Crutu, G.; Phanthavongsa, P.; Delplanque, M.; Track, T.; Cundy, A.B. Developing and validating a practical decision support tool (DST) for biomass selection on marginal land. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 145, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Haase, D.; Kabisch, N.; Strohbach, M.; Eler, K.; Pintar, M. Urban GI Components Inventory Milestone 23; Euopean commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Cundy, A.; Bardos, P.; Puschenreiter, M.; Witters, N.; Mench, M.; Bert, V.; Friesl-Hanl, W.; Müller, I.; Weyens, N.; Vangronsveld, J. Developing Effective Decision Support for the Application of ‘Gentle’ Remediation Options: The GREENLAND Project. Remediat. J. 2015, 25, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, G.; Miller, P.A.; Nowak, D.J. Urban vacant land typology: A tool for managing urban vacant land. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 36, 144–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loures, L.; Vaz, E. Exploring expert perception towards brownfield redevelopment benefits according to their typology. Habitat Int. 2018, 72, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rizzo, E.; Pesce, M.; Pizzol, L.; Alexandrescu, F.M.; Giubilato, E.; Critto, A.; Marcomini, A.; Bartke, S. Brownfield regeneration in Europe: Identifying stakeholder perceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs. Land Use Policy 2015, 48, 437–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiesura, A. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2004, 68, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ståhle, A. More green space in a denser city: Critical relations between user experience and urban form. URBAN Des. Int. 2010, 15, 47–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bowler, D.E.; Buyung-Ali, L.; Knight, T.M.; Pullin, A.S. Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2010, 97, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaplan, D.L.; Hopf, F.A.; Derstine, M.W.; Gibbs, H.M.; Shoemaker, R.L. Periodic Oscillations And Chaos In Optical Bistability-Possible Guided-Wave All-Optical Square-Wave Oscillators. Opt. Eng. 1983, 22, 221161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oke, T.R.; Crowther, J.M.; McNaughton, K.G.; Monteith, J.L.; Gardiner, B. The Micrometeorology of the Urban Forest [and Discussion]. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 1989, 324, 335–349. [Google Scholar]
- Ulrich, R.S. Natural Versus Urban Scenes. Environ. Behav. 1981, 13, 523–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perino, G.; Andrews, B.; Kontoleon, A.; Bateman, I. The Value of Urban Green Space in Britain: A Methodological Framework for Spatially Referenced Benefit Transfer. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2014, 57, 251–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandström, U.G. Green Infrastructure Planning in Urban Sweden. Plan. Pract. Res. 2002, 17, 373–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benedict, M.A.; Mcmahon, E.T. Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century; Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tratalos, J.; Fuller, R.A.; Warren, P.H.; Davies, R.G.; Gaston, K.J. Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 308–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations; Earthscan: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Orsini, F.; Gasperi, D.; Marchetti, L.; Piovene, C.; Draghetti, S.; Ramazzotti, S.; Bazzocchi, G.; Gianquinto, G. Exploring the production capacity of rooftop gardens (RTGs) in urban agriculture: The potential impact on food and nutrition security, biodiversity and other ecosystem services in the city of Bologna. Food Secur. 2014, 6, 781–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francis, L.F.M.; Jensen, M.B. Benefits of green roofs: A systematic review of the evidence for three ecosystem services. Urban For. Urban Green. 2017, 28, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scholz-Barth, K. Green on top. Urban Land 2001, June, 83–97. [Google Scholar]
- Villarreal, E.L.; Bengtsson, L. Response of a Sedum green-roof to individual rain events. Ecol. Eng. 2005, 25, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tonietto, R.; Fant, J.; Ascher, J.; Ellis, K.; Larkin, D. A comparison of bee communities of Chicago green roofs, parks and prairies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 103, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, B.S.; Phillips, B.M.; Voorhees, J.P.; Siegler, K.; Tjeerdema, R. Bioswales reduce contaminants associated with toxicity in urban storm water. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2016, 35, 3124–3134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, Q.; McPherson, E.G. Performance of engineered soil and trees in a parking lot bioswale. Urban Water J. 2011, 8, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozawa, C.P.; Yeakley, J.A. Performance of management strategies in the protection of riparian vegetation in three oregon cities. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2007, 50, 803–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ricaurte, L.F.; Olaya-Rodríguez, M.H.; Cepeda-Valencia, J.; Lara, D.; Arroyave-Suárez, J.; Finlayson, C.M.; Palomo, I. Future impacts of drivers of change on wetland ecosystem services in Colombia. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 44, 158–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koopman, K.R.; Straatsma, M.W.; Augustijn, D.C.M.; Breure, A.M.; Lenders, H.J.R.; Stax, S.J.; Leuven, R.S.E.W. Quantifying biomass production for assessing ecosystem services of riverine landscapes. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 624, 1577–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendez-Estrella, R.; Romo-Leon, J.; Castellanos, A. Mapping Changes in Carbon Storage and Productivity Services Provided by Riparian Ecosystems of Semi-Arid Environments in Northwestern Mexico. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2017, 6, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Sosa, L.L.; Glanville, H.C.; Marshall, M.R.; Williams, A.P.; Jones, D.L. Quantifying the contribution of riparian soils to the provision of ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 624, 807–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hill, A.R. Nitrate Removal in Stream Riparian Zones. J. Environ. Qual. 1996, 25, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kauffman, J.B.; Beschta, R.L.; Otting, N.; Lytjen, D. An Ecological Perspective of Riparian and Stream Restoration in the Western United States. Fisheries 1997, 22, 12–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meek, C.S.; Richardson, D.M.; Mucina, L. A river runs through it: Land-use and the composition of vegetation along a riparian corridor in the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikkelsen, K.; Vesho, I. Riparian Soils: A Literature Review; University of Washington, Center for Streamside Studies: Seattle, WA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Pert, P.L.; Butler, J.R.A.; Brodie, J.E.; Bruce, C.; Honzák, M.; Kroon, F.J.; Metcalfe, D.; Mitchell, D.; Wong, G. A catchment-based approach to mapping hydrological ecosystem services using riparian habitat: A case study from the Wet Tropics, Australia. Ecol. Complex. 2010, 7, 378–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tickner, D.P.; Angold, P.G.; Gurnell, A.M.; Mountford, J.O. Riparian plant invasions: Hydrogeomorphological control and ecological impacts. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 2001, 25, 22–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKergow, L.A.; Prosser, I.P.; Grayson, R.B.; Heiner, D. Performance of grass and rainforest riparian buffers in the wet tropics, Far North Queensland. 2. Water quality. Soil Res. 2004, 42, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zaimes, G.; Nichols, M.; Green, D.; Crimmins, M. Understanding Arizona’s Riparian Areas; College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Naiman, R.; Decamps, H.; McClain, M. Riparia: Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Streamside Communities; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Pusey, B.J.; Arthington, A.H. Importance of the riparian zone to the conservation and management of freshwater fish: A review. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2003, 54, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gray, C.L.; Slade, E.M.; Mann, D.J.; Lewis, O.T. Do riparian reserves support dung beetle biodiversity and ecosystem services in oil palm-dominated tropical landscapes? Ecol. E 2014, 4, 1049–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matos, H.M.; Santos, M.J.; Palomares, F.; Santos-Reis, M. Does riparian habitat condition influence mammalian carnivore abundance in Mediterranean ecosystems? Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 18, 373–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Postel, S.; Carpenter, S. Freshwater ecosystem services. In Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; pp. 195–214. [Google Scholar]
- Ceperley, N.; Montagnini, F.; Natta, A.K. Significance of sacred sites for riparian forest conservation in Central Benin. Bois Forêts Tropiques 2010, 303, 5–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gratani, L.; Catoni, R.; Puglielli, G.; Varone, L.; Crescente, M.F.; Sangiorgio, S.; Lucchetta, F. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Sequestration and Air Temperature Amelioration Provided by Urban Parks in Rome. Energy Procedia 2016, 101, 408–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Speak, A.F.; Mizgajski, A.; Borysiak, J. Allotment gardens and parks: Provision of ecosystem services with an emphasis on biodiversity. Urban For. Urban Green. 2015, 14, 772–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gregory, M.M.; Leslie, T.W.; Drinkwater, L.E. Agroecological and social characteristics of New York city community gardens: Contributions to urban food security, ecosystem services, and environmental education. Urban Ecosyst. 2016, 19, 763–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barthel, S.; Isendahl, C. Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: Sources of resilience for long-term food security in cities. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 86, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lwasa, S.; Mugagga, F.; Wahab, B.; Simon, D.; Connors, J.; Griffith, C. Urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry: Transcending poverty alleviation to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Urban Clim. 2014, 7, 92–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edmondson, J.L.; Davies, Z.G.; Gaston, K.J.; Leake, J.R. Urban cultivation in allotments maintains soil qualities adversely affected by conventional agriculture. J. Appl. Ecol. 2014, 51, 880–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gittleman, M.; Farmer, C.J.Q.; Kremer, P.; McPhearson, T. Estimating stormwater runoff for community gardens in New York City. Urban Ecosyst. 2017, 20, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Borysiak, J.; Mizgajski, A.; Speak, A. Floral biodiversity of allotment gardens and its contribution to urban green infrastructure. Urban Ecosyst. 2017, 20, 323–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahrné, K.; Bengtsson, J.; Elmqvist, T. Bumble Bees (Bombus spp) along a Gradient of Increasing Urbanization. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e5574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Breuste, J.H.; Artmann, M. Allotment Gardens Contribute to Urban Ecosystem Service: Case Study Salzburg, Austria. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2015, 141, A5014005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Middle, I.; Dzidic, P.; Buckley, A.; Bennett, D.; Tye, M.; Jones, R. Integrating community gardens into public parks: An innovative approach for providing ecosystem services in urban areas. Urban For. Urban Green. 2014, 13, 638–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cilliers, S.S.; Siebert, S.J.; Du Toit, M.J.; Barthel, S.; Mishra, S.; Cornelius, S.F.; Davoren, E. Garden ecosystem services of Sub-Saharan Africa and the role of health clinic gardens as social-ecological systems. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 180, 294–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dzerefos, C.; Witkowski, E. Density and potential utilisation of medicinal grassland plants from Abe Bailey Nature Reserve, South Africa. Biodivers. Conserv. 2001, 10, 1875–1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Egoh, B.N.; Reyers, B.; Rouget, M.; Richardson, D.M. Identifying priority areas for ecosystem service management in South African grasslands. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 1642–1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sala, O.; Paruelo, J. Ecosystem services in grasslands. In Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems; Daily, G., Ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; pp. 237–252. [Google Scholar]
- Friday, K.S.; Drilling, M.E.; Garrity, D.P. Imperata Grassland Rehabilitation Using Agroforestry and Assisted Natural Regeneration; International Center for Research in Agroforestry: Bogor, Indonesia, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, D. The Tibetan steppe. In Grasslands of the World, Plant Production and Protection; Suttie, J., Reynolds, S., Batello, C., Eds.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2005; pp. 305–342. [Google Scholar]
- Wen, L.; Dong, S.; Li, Y.; Li, X.; Shi, J.; Wang, Y.; Liu, D.; Ma, Y. “Effect of Degradation Intensity on Grassland Ecosystem Services in the Alpine Region of Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, China. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e58432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Farley, K.A.; Kelly, E.F.; Hofstede, R.G.M. Soil Organic Carbon and Water Retention after Conversion of Grasslands to Pine Plantations in the Ecuadorian Andes. Ecosystems 2004, 7, 729–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farley, K.A.; Bremer, L.L.; Harden, C.P.; Hartsig, J. Changes in carbon storage under alternative land uses in biodiverse Andean grasslands: Implications for payment for ecosystem services. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofstede, R.G.M.; Groenendijk, J.P.; Coppus, R.; Fehse, J.C.; Sevink, J. Impact of Pine Plantations on Soils and Vegetation in the Ecuadorian High Andes. Mt. Res. Dev. 2002, 22, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paul, K.I.; Polglase, P.J.; Nyakuengama, J.G.; Khanna, P.K. Change in soil carbon following afforestation. For. Ecol. Manag. 2002, 168, 241–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beier, C.; Emmett, B.A.; Tietema, A.; Schmidt, I.K.; Peñuelas, J.; Láng, E.K.; Duce, P.; De Angelis, P.; Gorissen, A.; Estiarte, M.; et al. Carbon and nitrogen balances for six shrublands across Europe. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2009, 23, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kotze, D.; Morris, C. Grasslands: A Threatened Life-Support System; SHARE-NET: Howick, New Zealand, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- White, R.P.; Murray, S.; Rohweder, M. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Grassland Ecosystems; World Resources Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Dong, S.; Wen, L.; Zhu, L.; Li, X. Implication of coupled natural and human systems in sustainable rangeland ecosystem management in HKH region. Front. Earth Sci. 2010, 4, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- von Hoffen, L.P.; Säumel, I. Orchards for edible cities: Cadmium and lead content in nuts, berries, pome and stone fruits harvested within the inner city neighbourhoods in Berlin, Germany. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2014, 101, 233–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saunders, M.E.; Luck, G.W.; Mayfield, M.M. Almond orchards with living ground cover host more wild insect pollinators. J. Insect Conserv. 2013, 17, 1011–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myczko, Ł.; Rosin, Z.M.; Skórka, P.; Wylegała, P.; Tobolka, M.; Fliszkiewicz, M.; Mizera, T.; Tryjanowski, P. Effects of management intensity and orchard features on bird communities in winter. Ecol. Res. 2013, 28, 503–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wani, S.P.; Chander, G.; Sahrawat, K.L.; Srinivasa Rao, C.; Raghvendra, G.; Susanna, P.; Pavani, M. Carbon sequestration and land rehabilitation through Jatropha curcas (L.) plantation in degraded lands. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 161, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Haile, S.; Palmer, M.; Otey, A. Potential of loblolly pine: Switchgrass alley cropping for provision of biofuel feedstock. Agrofor. Syst. 2016, 90, 763–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Styles, D.; Börjesson, P.; D’Hertefeldt, T.; Birkhofer, K.; Dauber, J.; Adams, P.; Patil, S.; Pagella, T.; Pettersson, L.B.; Peck, P.; et al. Climate regulation, energy provisioning and water purification: Quantifying ecosystem service delivery of bioenergy willow grown on riparian buffer zones using life cycle assessment. Ambio 2016, 45, 872–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gardiner, M.A.; Tuell, J.K.; Isaacs, R.; Gibbs, J.; Ascher, J.S.; Landis, D.A. Implications of Three Biofuel Crops for Beneficial Arthropods in Agricultural Landscapes. BioEnergy Res. 2010, 3, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lohr, V.I.; Relf, P.D. Horticultural science’s role in meeting the need of urban populations. In Horticulture: Plants for People and Places, Volume 3: Social Horticulture; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2014; pp. 1047–1086. [Google Scholar]
- Castleton, H.F.; Stovin, V.; Beck, S.B.M.; Davison, J.B. Green roofs; building energy savings and the potential for retrofit. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 1582–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whittinghill, L.J.; Rowe, D.B. The role of green roof technology in urban agriculture. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2012, 27, 314–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathey, J.; Arndt, T.; Banse, J.; Rink, D. Public perception of spontaneous vegetation on brownfields in urban areas—Results from surveys in Dresden and Leipzig (Germany). Urban For. Urban Green. 2018, 29, 384–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vangronsveld, J.; van Assche, F.; Clijsters, H. Reclamation of a bare industrial area contaminated by non-ferrous metals: In situ metal immobilization and revegetation. Environ. Pollut. 1995, 87, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velli, A.; Pirola, A.; Ferrari, C. Evaluating landscape changes using vegetation and land-use maps: An integrated approach. Landsc. Res. 2019, 44, 768–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Planchuelo, G.; von der Lippe, M.; Kowarik, I. Untangling the role of urban ecosystems as habitats for endangered plant species. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2019, 189, 320–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papakos, T.H.; Gould, M.; Brunner, J. Redeveloping Brownfields with LID Design. In Low Impact Development; Low Impact Development International Conference (LID): San Francisco, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 1684–1697. [Google Scholar]
- Pavlović, P.; Marković, M.; Kostić, O.; Sakan, S.; Đorđević, D.; Perović, V.; Pavlović, D.; Pavlović, M.; Čakmak, D.; Jarić, S.; et al. Evaluation of potentially toxic element contamination in the riparian zone of the River Sava. CATENA 2019, 174, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- le Guern, C.; Jean-Soro, L.; Béchet, B.; Lebeau, T.; Bouquet, D. Management initiatives in support of the soil quality of urban allotment gardens: Examples from Nantes (France). Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 3681–3692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- SEPA. Swedish Environment Protection Agency. Development of Generic Guideline Values; SEPA: Stockholm, Sweden, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Ljung, K.; Oomen, A.; Duits, M.; Selinus, O.; Berglund, M. Bioaccessibility of metals in urban playground soils. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2007, 42, 1241–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giacchè, G.; Porto, L. The Incredible Edible Movement. Nat. Cult. 2018, 13, 93–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karkee, M.; Adhikari, B. A Method for Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Apple Trees for Automated Pruning. Trans. ASABE 2015, 58, 565–574. [Google Scholar]
- Trapp, S. Fruit Tree model for uptake of organic compounds from soil and air†. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2007, 18, 367–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Armanda, D.T.; Guinée, J.B.; Tukker, A. The second green revolution: Innovative urban agriculture’s contribution to food security and sustainability—A review. Glob. Food Secur. 2019, 22, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, X.; Monnell, J.D.; Niblick, B.; Rovensky, C.D.; Landis, A.E. The viability of biofuel production on urban marginal land: An analysis of metal contaminants and energy balance for Pittsburgh’s Sunflower Gardens. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 124, 22–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pogrzeba, M.; Rusinowski, S.; Krzyżak, J. Macroelements and heavy metals content in energy crops cultivated on contaminated soil under different fertilization—Case studies on autumn harvest. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 12096–12106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- CORDIS. Energy Crops Used to Remediate Heavy Metal Sites|Result In Brief|CORDIS|European Commission. 2018. Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/238337-energy-crops-used-to-remediate-heavy-metal-sites (accessed on 21 July 2020).
- Rizwan, M.; Ali, S.; Rizvi, H.; Rinklebe, J.; Tsang, D.; Meers, E.; Sik Ok, Y.; Ishaque, W. Phytomanagement of heavy metals in contaminated soils using sunflower: A review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 6, 1498–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gondhalekar, D.; Ramsauer, T. Nexus City: Operationalizing the urban Water-Energy-Food Nexus for climate change adaptation in Munich, Germany. Urban Clim. 2017, 19, 28–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gąsiorek, M.; Kowalska, J.; Mazurek, R.; Pająk, M. Comprehensive assessment of heavy metal pollution in topsoil of historical urban park on an example of the Planty Park in Krakow (Poland). Chemosphere 2017, 179, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hung, W.-C.; Hernandez-Cira, M.; Jimenez, K.; Elston, I.; Jay, J.A. Preliminary assessment of lead concentrations in topsoil of 100 parks in Los Angeles, California. Appl. Geochem. 2018, 99, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biasioli, M.; Ajmone-Marsan, F. Organic and inorganic diffuse contamination in urban soils: The case of Torino (Italy). J. Environ. Monit. 2007, 9, 862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wackernagel, M.; Rees, W. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth; New Society Publishers: Gabriola, BC, Canada, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.; Wu, Y.; Shen, L. An evaluation framework for the sustainability of urban land use: A study of capital cities and municipalities in China. Habitat Int. 2011, 35, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doick, K.J.; Sellers, G.; Hutchings, T.R.; Moffat, A.J. Brownfield sites turned green: Realising sustainability in urban revival. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2006, 94, 131–140. [Google Scholar]
- Erkilic, N.H.; Ciravoglu, A. Revitalizing Undefined Urban Saces by Temporary Urban Strategies. In Borders in Architecture, CAUMME 2018 International Symposium; Bahçeşehir University: Istanbul, Turkey, 2018; pp. 145–152. [Google Scholar]
- Garção, R. Assessment of Alternatives of Urban Brownfield Redevelopment Application of the SCORE Tool in Early Planning Stages. Master’s Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Suedia, May 2015. Available online: http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/219167/219167.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2019).
Time Span | Short Term | Long Term | |
---|---|---|---|
Resources | |||
High | Conventional remediation Examples: Bawtry Gasworks, UK; Tubize plastic. Belgium | Gentle Remediation Options (GROs) Example: Duisburg Nord, Germany | |
Low | Temporary use Example: Berlin Tempelhof Airport, Germany | Ruderal/derelict Examples: Solventul plant, Romania; Chatterley Whitfield colliery, UK |
UGS Element | Image | Description | UGS Element | Image | Description | UGS Element | Image | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Building greenspaces | Plants on balcony/roof/façade or any place within a building. | Institutional greenspace | Green spaces surrounding public and private institutions and corporate buildings. | Biofuel production/agroforestry | Land devoted to dedicated biofuel production, like short rotation coppice or poplar, etc. | |||
Bioswale | Vegetated and gently sloped pit for filtering surface runoff. | Allotment | Small garden parcels cultivated by different people for non-commercial food production and recreation. | Horticulture | Land devoted to growing vegetables, flowers, berries, etc. | |||
Riverbank green/ riparian vegetation | Greenspace along rivers, streams and canals, usually with foot or bike paths. | Community garden | Areas collectively gardened by a community for food and recreation. | Shrubland | Natural or secondary shrubland, e.g., heath, macchia, etc. | |||
Historical park/ garden | Similar to large urban parks, but with distinct management due to heritage status. | Grassland | Pastures or meadows with grass cover. | Spontaneous vegetation on abandoned, ruderal, and derelict areas | Recently abandoned areas with spontaneously occurring pioneer or ruderal vegetation. | |||
Neighbourhood greenspace | Semi-public greenspaces, vegetated by grass, trees, and shrubs in multi-story residential areas. | Tree meadow/meadow orchard | Fruit and nut trees, mixed agricultural use. |
Building Greens | |
---|---|
PS: | Food: A study on the city of Bologna (Italy) showed rooftop gardens could provide more than 12,000 t year−1 of vegetables, satisfying 77 % of the inhabitants’ requirements [122]. |
RS: | Reduction of urban heat island effect, air pollution, and building energy consumption: A literature review on urban green roofs found their potential for cooling at street level (0.03–3 °C), in pollution control, such as small particle removal (0.42–9.1 g/m2 per year), and changes in annual energy consumption from a 7% increase to a 90% decrease [123]. Rainwater retention: Extensive green roofs can retain almost 75% of rainwater [124,125]. |
SS: | Biodiversity conservation: Green roofs can provide sites for potential bee conservation in urban areas if planted with native plants and foraging resources designed to accommodate bees [126]. |
Bioswale | |
RS: | Nutrient cycling and water purification: A study in residential sites in California (USA) founds that bioswales significantly reduce contaminants from stormwater, including suspended solids (81% reduction), metals (81% reduction), hydrocarbons (82% reduction), and pyrethroid pesticides (74% reduction) [127]. Reduction in stormwater runoff: Another study on bioswales in a parking lot at Davis (USA) revealed a reduction in runoff of 88.8% and total pollutant loading reduction of 95.4% [128]. |
Riverbank green | |
PS: | Food (indirect): Riverbank green provides habitat and supports aquatic life [129] which in turns supports fishing activities [130]. Raw materials: Riverbank greens can support the production of vegetative biomass [131]. |
RS: | Carbon sequestration and storage: A study on the riverbank green in Mexico suggests that it can store 1.5 times more carbon than oak forests [132]. Nutrient cycling: Multiple studies on riverbank green have found that it acts as a protective buffer between water bodies and land-based activities by filtering nutrients, as well as trapping nutrients for groundwater [129,133,134,135,136,137,138,139]. Bank stability and flood attenuation: Riverbank green helps in trapping sediment during flooding events and forms soil, slowing and spreading flood water, increasing bank stability, and minimizing soil loss in watercourses [129,133,135,136,137,138,139,140,141]. Water temperature regulation: Riverbank green assists in regulating the watercourse temperature by providing shade [133,138,142,143]. |
SS: | Habitat and maintenance of species: Aquatic and terrestrial: Riverbank green provides habitat and support for aquatic life, a refuge for wildlife in urban and rural areas, and contributes to species richness and biodiversity by maintaining wildlife movement corridors [129,133,138,142,144,145]. |
CS: | Recreation and aesthetic appreciation: Riverbank green helps in increasing the aesthetic value of agricultural and urban landscapes, as well as providing places for outdoor activity [136,146]. Culture and sense of place: For the locals of Central Benin, riverbank green is a source of cultural importance and traditional knowledge, cultural identity, and a source of belonging [130,147]. |
Historical park | |
RS: | Carbon sequestration and storage: The urban areas covered by parks, gardens, tree-lined avenues, sport fields, and hedges are important sinks for carbon dioxide (CO2) by storing carbon through photosynthesis to form plant biomass [148]. |
CS: | Healthy living: Urban park experience may reduce stress by providing a place to relax, enjoy peacefulness and tranquillity, and rejuvenation for city inhabitants [110,115,148]. |
Neighbourhood greenspace, allotment, and community garden | |
PS: | Food products as raw materials: Gross benefit from food products per allotment plot in Manchester (UK) can be up to 698 pound in a year. Apart from plant produce, livestock such as chickens are also kept in the allotment garden [149]. Community gardeners in New York City (USA) manage to supply a large share of their households’ food product needs with the garden produce [150]. Food security: Urban allotment gardens are a historically important source of urban resilience against food dependence, extreme weather events, or even climate change, contributing to long-term food security [149,151,152]. Medicinal herbs and tea: Several allotments in Manchester were found to have cultivated medicinal herbs both for medicine and culinary purposes [149]. |
RS: | Soil health: A study in the UK showed that soils in allotment gardens have 32% higher soil organic carbon (SOC) concentrations and 36% higher carbon: nitrogen ratios than pastures and arable fields [153]. Stormwater retention: The community gardens of NYC, USA are expected to retain 45 million litres of additional stormwater due to their raised beds [154]. |
SS: | Habitat and maintenance of species: A study found that the parks in Manchester (UK) have about 65% of the species richness of Manchester allotment gardens [149]. Allotment gardens in Poznan (Poland) were also shown to have more native varieties of flora [155].A study in Stockholm (Sweden) found the variability of bumblebee visits to urban allotment gardens to be higher than peri-urban ones [156]. |
CS: | Nature education: Allotment and community gardens are prime spots for education on nature and sustainable food production techniques among community groups in cities [98,149,157,158]. Health benefits from physical activities: Allotment and community gardens provide alternative and more accessible physical activities especially beneficial for the elderly population [149,158]. Knowledge production: A study in Sub-Saharan Africa found community clinic gardens to be a place for the co-production of knowledge on growing nutritious food by the involvement of multiple stakeholders [159]. Recreational benefits: The allotment gardens in Poznan (Poland) are treated like recreational retreats during the summer months [149]. In Germany and Austria, allotment gardens are also considered as recreational areas in planning regulations [157]. |
Grassland and shrubland | |
PS: | Food, raw materials, medicinal plants: Grasslands are commonly used as grazing fields by many communities and they provide game for hunting, thatching materials for roofs and walls, and medicinal plants and fruits [160,161,162,163,164,165]. |
RS: | Carbon sequestration and storage: Grassland in various regions acts as soil carbon storage at the same time as providing sites for tree plantation to sequester aboveground carbon [166,167,168,169]. A study across six European shrublands shows that net carbon storage in the systems ranged from 1163 g/ m2 to 18,546 g/m2 [170]. |
SS: | Water supply and storage: Grassland plays an important role in water supply by mitigating and storing runoff waters [161,166,171]. Habitat and maintenance of species: Grassland restorations in China show that biodiversity improved by 32.44% [161,172]. |
CS: | Maintenance of culture and tradition: Alpine grassland plays an important role in Tibetan culture and the maintenance of tradition [165,173]. |
Meadow orchard | |
PS: | Food provision: In Berlin, fruit trees are abundantly used for ornamental reasons but can be potentially be used for consumption, as the fruits are found to pose no additional risk from pollution if washed thoroughly and stored properly [174]. |
SS: | Habitat support: A study suggests that the proper maintenance of living ground cover in almond orchards could provide habitat for pollinators like native bees [175]. Orchards, abandoned and functioning, are found to provide habitat and refuge to birds [176]. |
Biofuel agroforestry | |
PS: | Raw materials: Biofuel and biomass: In a study, a Jathropa plantation was shown to produce 230 kg biodiesel for the replacement of fossil fuels per hectare, as well as produce 4000 kg of plant biomass per year [177]. Agroforestry intercropping of woody and perennial bioenergy crops increases combined biomass yield and reduces the cost of production [178]. |
RS: | Carbon sequestration and storage: In 4 years, Jathropa cultivation was shown to have increased the carbon content by 19%, resulting in 25,000 kg carbon sequestrated per hectare [177]. Nutrient cycling and climate change support: A strategically planted willow buffer can improve the net global warming potential (GWP) and eutrophication potential (EP) of soil, as well as cut back nutrient loading to water [179]. Water supply and storage: The water holding capacity of the soil under a Jathropa plantation was shown to increase by 35% compared to adjacent soil [177]. |
SS: | Habitat and maintenance of species: Agroforestry with combined grass cover and perennial biofuel planting is expected to support a larger and more diverse bee community, as well as many other beneficial insects [180]. |
Horticulture | |
PS: | Food and raw materials: Horticulture contributes directly to urban economics through the production and sale of horticulture products [181] |
Basic Conditions | Description |
---|---|
Pre-conditions | Building greens—Presence of built infrastructures Institutional greenspace—Institutional ownership or interest Riverbank greens—Presence of a waterway Historical park—Historical relevance Neighbourhood greenspace—Adjacent neighbourhood Spontaneous vegetation—Derelict site conditions |
Density | The density in the urban context, having either a dense or sparse character of building stock within the site or positioned either in a dense or sparse neighbourhood. |
Sealing | The presence of sealing on soil that, e.g., may function as an exposure barrier on contaminated soil and provide a surface for vertical plantations. |
Size | The size of the land parcel available for development further categorized as large (>1 ha), medium (0.1–1 ha), small (<0.1 ha). For some land uses, the available size is affected by the share of sealed and non-sealed areas on the site. |
Access | The degree of (future) public access to the site. |
Management | The type of management involved in or required for bio-based production in the future green land use. |
Profit | The need for profit generation linked to the biological resources to be produced on the site. |
GRO potential | The possibility of the green land use to facilitate soil remediation with GROs. It always implies that a risk assessment is needed and whether the risks are very high (for humans or ecosystems). |
Regulations | The regulations and policies by authorities (local, national, or global), that need to be adhered to when realizing a new land use. |
UGS Basic Conditions | Building Green | Bioswale | Riverbank Green | Historical Park | Neighborhood Greenspace | Institutional Greenspace | Allotment | Community Garden | Grassland | Meadow Orchard | Biofuel Production | Horticulture | Shrubland | Spontaneous Vegetation | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pre-condition | Buildings | - | River | History | Adjacent housing | Institution | - | Community | - | - | - | - | - | Derelict | |
Density | Site | Preferably dense | Dense or sparse | Sparse | Sparse | Dense or sparse | Dense or sparse; | Dense or sparse | Dense or sparse | Sparse | Sparse | Sparse | Sparse | Sparse | Dense or Sparse |
Surroundings | Dense or sparse | Dense or sparse | Dense or sparse | Dense or sparse | Dense | Dense or sparse | Preferably dense | Preferably dense | Dense or sparse | Dense or sparse | Dense or sparse | Dense or sparse | Dense or sparse | Dense or sparse | |
Sealing | Sealed, butunsealed is possible | Unsealed, but sealed is possible | Unsealed | Unsealed | Unsealed, but sealed is possible | Unsealed, but sealed is possible | Unsealed, but sealed is possible | Unsealed, but sealed is possible | Unsealed | Unsealed | Unsealed | Unsealed | Unsealed | Unsealed, but sealed is possible | |
Size | Preferably small | Preferably small or medium | Large, but medium is possible | Medium or large | Preferably small or medium | Medium or large | All sizes | Preferably small or medium | Large | Large, but medium is possible | Large, but medium is possible | Medium or large | Large | All sizes | |
Access | Private, semi-public, or public | Preferably public | Preferably public | Public | Semi-public or public | Semi-public or public | Semi-public or public | Semi-public or public | Preferably public | Private, semi-public, or public | Private | Private or semi-public | Preferably public | Private, semi-public, or public | |
Management | Individual, communal, private, or public | Private or public | Private or public | Private or public | Communal, private, or public | Private or public | Communal, private, or public | Communal, private, or public | Private or public | Communal, private, or public | Private or public | Communal, private, or public | Public | Individual, communal, private, or public | |
Profit | Needed, there is a market | Not needed | Not needed | Not needed | Not needed or needed, there is a market | Not needed or needed, there is a market | Not needed or needed, there is a market | Not needed or needed, there is a market | Needed, there is a market | Needed, there is a market | Needed, there is a market | Needed, there is a market | Not needed | Not needed | |
GRO potential | Yes, if unsealed | Yes, if unsealed | Yes | Yes | Yes, if unsealed | Yes, if unsealed | Yes, if unsealed and the produce is not for consumption | Yes, if unsealed and the produce is not for consumption | Yes, if not used for cattle grazing | Yes, if the produce is for consumption | Yes | Yes, if the produce is not for consumption | Yes | Yes, if unsealed | |
Regulation | Depends on site specifics and local regulatory systems |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chowdhury, S.; Kain, J.-H.; Adelfio, M.; Volchko, Y.; Norrman, J. Greening the Browns: A Bio-Based Land Use Framework for Analysing the Potential of Urban Brownfields in an Urban Circular Economy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156278
Chowdhury S, Kain J-H, Adelfio M, Volchko Y, Norrman J. Greening the Browns: A Bio-Based Land Use Framework for Analysing the Potential of Urban Brownfields in an Urban Circular Economy. Sustainability. 2020; 12(15):6278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156278
Chicago/Turabian StyleChowdhury, Shaswati, Jaan-Henrik Kain, Marco Adelfio, Yevheniya Volchko, and Jenny Norrman. 2020. "Greening the Browns: A Bio-Based Land Use Framework for Analysing the Potential of Urban Brownfields in an Urban Circular Economy" Sustainability 12, no. 15: 6278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156278
APA StyleChowdhury, S., Kain, J. -H., Adelfio, M., Volchko, Y., & Norrman, J. (2020). Greening the Browns: A Bio-Based Land Use Framework for Analysing the Potential of Urban Brownfields in an Urban Circular Economy. Sustainability, 12(15), 6278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156278