Next Article in Journal
Archaeometric Identification of a Perfume from Roman Times
Previous Article in Journal
A Workflow for Uncertainty Assessment in Elemental Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics: A Case Study of Neolithic Coarse Pottery from Eastern Siberia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Heritage
Volume 6
Issue 5
10.3390/heritage6050235
heritage-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Heritage and the Regeneration of Urban Brownfields: Insights on Public Perception in Tehran, Iran

by
Elias Ghabouli
1,2,
Ali Soltani
3,4,5,* and
Ehsan Ranjbar
2,6
1
Department of Urban Engineering, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Science and Culture, Tehran 1461968151, Iran
2
Department of Urban Planning & Design, Faculty of Arts and Architecture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 1411713116, Iran
3
Injury Studies, Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Bedford Park 5042, Australia
4
UniSA Business, University of South Australia, Adelaide 5001, Australia
5
Department of Urban Planning, Shiraz University, Shiraz 7144165186, Iran
6
Department of Architecture, Aalto University, 02150 Espoo, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Heritage 2023, 6(5), 4451-4471; https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6050235
Submission received: 17 March 2023 / Revised: 5 May 2023 / Accepted: 19 May 2023 / Published: 22 May 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Brownfields particularly in old city centers reveal the story of abandonment and concealment, shaping the identity and collective memory of urban areas. Therefore, research and practice must prioritize both reutilization and heritage values. This study centers on the regeneration of historical brownfields in Tehran, the capital of Iran, and assesses public perceptions of redeveloped historical brownfields. Based on their approach to patrimony, the study categorized reclaimed brownfields as interpretive, cultural, or ecological sites. A questionnaire was administered to citizens who visited three sampled sites (n = 385) to collect data. According to the results of principal component analysis (PCA), women preferred the non-economic component, which includes environmental, social, heritage, and aesthetic dimensions, while men and older, highly educated respondents preferred the economic dimension in relation to brownfields. Despite positive attitudes towards brownfield regeneration, environmental and heritage dimensions, especially intangible heritage, are less well-known. However, heritage justifies and determines brownfield redevelopment. Increasing commitment to preserving heritage during brownfield regeneration has a positive effect on the perception of respondents.

1. Introduction

Brownfields refer to sites that have been previously utilized or developed and are currently abandoned, idle, or inadequately used. While not all brownfields are contaminated, they may suffer from soil and groundwater contamination that requires intervention to return them to beneficial use [1,2,3]. Brownfields have diverse origins and histories. Despite their presence in both rural and urban areas, they present a significant concern specifically within urban environments [2,4,5]. Brownfields hinder urban growth but offer unrealized potential [6]. Brownfield regeneration supports urban development [1,7] and promotes sustainable development through environmental, social, and economic benefits [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17].
Cities widely adopt urban regeneration to improve physical, economic, social, and environmental conditions by revitalizing urban areas [18,19,20]. As a specific type of urban regeneration, brownfield regeneration has the potential to address challenges in cities and further the objectives of urban regeneration [17,21,22]. Cities are now implementing innovative approaches for urban regeneration, such as culture-based and tourism-based strategies that exploit cultural assets for generating tourism while improving economic growth and social cohesion [23,24,25]. The transformation of brownfields into novel spaces has the potential to promote cultural events, recreational pursuits, and tourism attractions [20,26,27,28].
In addition to their potential for rehabilitation, brownfields offer cultural and historical importance [4]. By taking into account heritage preservation, sustainable brownfields regeneration may be accomplished [28,29,30]. The stagnation created by these sectors may be transformed into economic development [26,27,28] via the preservation of historical buildings and the utilization of heritage brownfields for tourism and recreation. In addition, heritage sites are major physical landmarks that have emotional and communal importance in modern culture, serving as memory triggers. The city’s reputation and the sense of community may both benefit from their transformation into tourism destinations [31,32]. Brownfields are being maintained and used for regeneration as the idea of heritage receives more attention. However, there is often a conflict between heritage preservation and economic interests, and heritage preservation is not always given top priority [33,34]. The regeneration of brownfields thus requires special consideration for heritage preservation.
Smaller businesses in Iran have had the biggest drops in output over the past two decades. The abandoning of many sectors has also expanded fast [35], mostly as a result of economic sanctions and political tensions with the West. The lack of a definite legal definition for brownfields in Iran [35,36,37,38] has led to their continued disuse. Only 8% of Iran’s many vacant sites are put to use, and 24% are at risk of being demolished [39]. The heritage problem of Iranian brownfields hence needs careful consideration. The public may be made aware of the importance of redeveloping these regions through their preservation, which can also strengthen historical and regional identity.
There has been less focus on the topic of heritage as a key concern in public views of brownfields, despite the fact that scholarly literature emphasizes the importance of heritage preservation in brownfield regeneration. Furthermore, research on how the general public views brownfield regeneration in developing countries like Iran is extremely scarce. Long-term abandonment and physical degradation of Iranian brownfields is a result of structural and economic hurdles such as institutional inconsistencies and disagreements between local governments and developers [35]. Iranian brownfields lack a formal definition, although discussion of them may be facilitated by looking to the past. With heritage as a central component, this study examines brownfields and their revitalization. Residents’ perspectives of brownfield heritage in Iran’s changing context are the focus of this study, which tries to fill a knowledge vacuum.
The primary objective of this research was to understand how Tehran’s residents see the role of heritage in revitalizing brownfields. As case studies, three sites were selected.
The research questions are as follows: (1) How do residents perceive the role of heritage in brownfield regeneration? (2) How does the existing heritage in brownfields affect residents’ priorities? (3) How does the treatment of heritage during brownfield redevelopment affect public perception of the site?

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Urban Brownfields and Public Perception

Urban brownfields have a notable impact on urban development and structures [6]. Brownfields may be abandoned and contaminated after being used for economic activities [2,40]. Environmental pollution heightens anxiety, worsens health risk perceptions [41], and reduces economic value and nearby attractions [1,28]. Revitalizing brownfields positively affects nearby communities and inhabitants [42,43,44,45,46,47]. Hence, these sites garner local interest [6,42], making it crucial to involve residents as primary stakeholders in developing regeneration strategies [44]. Therefore, sustainable regeneration should strengthen public participation and prioritize local perspectives [13,48,49]. Moreover, the vital role of residents’ opinions in brownfield regeneration has been highlighted by various studies such as those by Bartke and Schwarze [50], Glumac et al. [51], Haase [52], Johnson et al. [53], Meyer and Lyons [54], and Navratil et al. [55].
However, the residents’ views in practical projects have received scant attention [56], and market demands and public sector interests typically take precedence over meeting community needs during the reuse process [57]. Therefore, public support is crucial for brownfield projects [58,59]. Differences exist between the viewpoints of people and experts [2,13,51,60,61], and planners need to comprehend local attitudes towards brownfield types, reuse strategies, and planning procedures to foster societal participation [59]. People have diverse perceptions and priorities concerning brownfields [58,62], resulting in varying satisfaction levels when implementing similar regeneration strategies across different regions [49,58]. The issue of brownfields is perceived by residents in relation to the conditions of their city [63]. This highlights the need to study public opinions across various regions.
Table 1 presents an overview of previous empirical studies conducted on brownfield regeneration and public opinion. The table outlines the key findings and methodologies employed in each study.

2.2. Brownfield Regeneration and Heritage Preservation

Brownfield physical structures, whether historical or non-historical, can be preserved for reuse as a symbol of the site’s past identity [36]. In addition to physical preservation, the building’s authenticity should be preserved by assigning suitable functions [64]. In other words, intangible aspects such as social activities, collective memories, and meanings should be considered alongside tangible heritage [24,34] to define the site’s unique identity and strengthen the sense of belonging [65]. Given that these sites and buildings have been integral to cities and served as workspaces for decades, the locals have developed a strong emotional attachment to these places due to their daily interaction with them. This bond can be utilized during site regeneration to enhance local identity [66,67]. Additionally, creating an accessible and open environment can revive a community’s emotional connection to historical sites and expose them to visitors and innovative uses [68,69]. Thus, although the sites’ primary function is no longer present, the adaptive reuse project aims to maintain their unique historical and cultural identity [70], preserving genius loci [39] while accommodating contemporary needs [71].
Preserving historical structures in brownfield regeneration facilitates tourism’s economic impact and supports sustainable urban development [28]. Tourism motivates heritage preservation [34]. Historical brownfields with architectural and urban significance can be transformed into tourist attractions and increase the possibility of their preservation [72]. Brownfields in city centers have the potential for integration into urban life, and their reuse for tourism and recreation can support urban development [73]. These tourist attractions can help to reconstruct the economy, revive industrial history, and enhance local identity [31,32]. However, tourism development may lead to disregard of society’s cultural and intangible heritage value for commercial purposes [34,74]. Heritage interpretation maintains authentic place identity and provides a meaningful heritage experience for visitors and local stakeholders [24,34,75], positively impacting their behavior and connection to the site [76]. Therefore, preserving the authenticity of heritage buildings is crucial to strengthen the sense of identity, connect past with present and future, and consolidate collective memory [77].
Nevertheless, the brownfield regeneration process faces several limiting barriers. Economic factors are the primary obstacle, followed by legislative, procedural–administrative, and political hurdles [78]. Economic factors are the main barriers in the United States [79], Canada [80], and Pakistan [81]. Mehdipour [35] highlights the economic implications of land development and marketing on future brownfield policies in Iran. Preserving brownfields for industrial heritage may be the preferred social choice [72]. However, demolition and landscaping to create green spaces [10], or economically driven new development after demolition [82] are alternative options. The destiny of brownfields should be determined through negotiations involving investors, local government officials, and stakeholder representatives. Notably, brownfields of significant historical importance offer distinct regeneration prospects [27].
Table
Table 1. Summary of previous empirical research on brownfield regeneration and public opinion.
Table 1. Summary of previous empirical research on brownfield regeneration and public opinion.
Study No.AuthorsYearLocationData Collection MethodVariable/Criteria/IndexData Analysis MethodFindings
1K’oyoo et al. [83]2022KenyaQuestionnaire survey;
interview with key informants.		Public perception of effects of the post-mine brownfields on the environment;
public perception on dumping of waste;
public perception on air pollution;
public perception on possible contamination.		Descriptive statistics including percentages;
qualitative data analysis (thematic analysis).		Brownfields experienced waterlogging and illegal dumping, causing health risks in adjacent residential areas.
Each brownfield possesses distinctive spatial features that have led to negative impacts on the neighboring environment.
2Martinat et al. [57]2018Czech Rep.Questionnaire survey.Satisfaction with the aesthetic and functional state of present regeneration;
possibilities for the reuse of present brownfield.		Nonparametric Wilcoxon and Friedman test;
multivariate statistical techniques including PCA, RDA.		The predominant choices for reuse were culture/sport and children’s park.
Gender significantly predicted reuse options.
3Mathey et al. [84]2018GermanyQuestionnaire survey;
photomontages.		Perception of urban brownfields;
use of brownfields;
preferred uses and design of urban brownfields.		Descriptive statistics;
cross-correlations.		Locals possess specific opinions on brownfield utilization or development, with a desire to participate in the transformation process.
4Navratil et al. [27]2018Czech Rep.Questionnaire survey.The perception of the given regenerated brownfield;
general perceptions of brownfield regenerations;
regenerated brownfields as a tourism “destination”;
satisfaction with heritage preservation.		Nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis and Friedman test;
multivariate statistical techniques including RDA.		The awareness of brownfield regeneration is low.
The conditions and technical status of brownfields significantly influence respondents’ views on regeneration choices.
The visitors’ response to the leisure time reuse of brownfields is favorable.
Concern for cultural heritage in society can accelerate regeneration.
5Navratil et al. [55]2018Czech Rep.Questionnaire surveyReuse of brownfields;
brownfields location within city;
spatial factors influencing attitudes of residents towards brownfields.
Regeneration;
involvement with brownfield regeneration.		Two-factorial ANOVA.Citizens’ perceptions of brownfield regeneration options depend on (1) the extent of brownfields in a city, (2) brownfield location within a city’s borders, (3) place of residence, and (4) type of regeneration.
6Kim and Miller. [59]2017Virginia, the United States Questionnaire survey;
visual preference survey (VPS).		Six landscape-based types to classify brownfields;
the effect of preconception;
the effect of health concern.		Descriptive statistics including mean rating and frequency analysis,
analysis of variance (MANOVA and ANOVA).		Preserved historical buildings and landscapes were prioritized for redevelopment, while sites containing industrial remnants received lower priority.
Respondents associated these types with harmful pollutants that may affect human health.
7Loures et al. [13] 2016PortugalQuestionnaire survey.The importance of planning and design dimensions to landscape transformation;
the actual condition of the municipal landscape;
main responsibility for post-industrial land transformation;
uses/functions that should be implemented in the redevelopment.		Descriptive statistics.Brownfield regeneration projects are well received by the community.
The most popular options are multifunctional and leisure green spaces.
8Martinat et al. [6]2016Czech Rep.Questionnaire survey.Options for reusing post-mining brownfields;
the urgency of regeneration of local brownfields;
financial sources for brownfield regeneration projects.		Descriptive statistics.Public awareness of brownfields is limited.
Brownfields in remote areas offer chances for new industries to create jobs in a city struggling with unemployment.
9Rink and Arndt [85]2016GermanyQuestionnaire survey;
photomontages.		Perception of successional brownfields;
perception of afforestation sites;
perception of threats (natural, social and contamination);
perception of usability.		Descriptive statistics. Residents viewed park-related green structures and traditionally designed urban nature areas positively.
Afforestation on brownfields was more accepted than natural succession.
Afforestation was considered less threatening than successional scenarios.
The usability of forestry scenarios was markedly superior to that of succession scenarios.
10Kunc et al. [86]2014Czech Rep.Questionnaire survey.Awareness, urgency and rate of apprehension of pollution about brownfields;
evaluation of brownfield regeneration policy in two cities;
the most problematic locality and best practice for the regeneration project of two cities;
future utilization.		Descriptive statistics including percentages.The term “brownfield” was not widely known.
The most popular options for reuse were housing and greenery.
An open and responsive urban policy is crucial for brownfield regeneration, increasing local satisfaction.
Drawing from the theoretical background, an academic exploration can be undertaken to examine people’s opinions on heritage brownfields in relation to abandoned sites and regenerated sites. These two categories encompass a range of distinct subcategories that are presented within the following conceptual framework (Figure 1).

3. Geographical Context

3.1. History of Brownfields in Iran

In Iran, most brownfields trace their origins to industrial and military sites founded after World War I with the accelerating trend of modernization during the Pahlavi dynasty (1925–1979) [87,88]. Due to their long history, these abandoned fields have a remarkable historical heritage. These abandoned fields possess significant historical heritage due to their long history. The constructions’ size is appropriate for their spatial function, and the decorations and façades reflect Iran’s climatic and cultural features, thereby creating a valuable combination of traditional and modern architecture [89,90]. Besides their architectural significance, the activities and civil society linked to these spaces describe a vital part of a city or nation’s past. They provide proof of cultural, social, and economic shifts that document important values for urban heritage [91]. Thus, any regeneration of these spaces should consider the heritage aspects associated with their activities as well as social and cultural dimensions.
Iranian industrial brownfields are primarily small urban factories and workshops, including textile or food production plants, established in the early Pahlavi era [35]. Numerous industries have ceased operations due to urban expansion, environmental issues, and economic shifts in Iran toward service-based [92] and heavy production sectors [93]. Military sites have been relocated to suburban regions as a result of urban growth and government policy. Governmental decision-making in the reuse of these sites was influenced by rising land value, site location suitability, and social concerns for citizen welfare [35]. Nevertheless, the absence of redevelopment roadmaps [36], undefined land use systems [94], and inadequate legal policies to overcome environmental issues and economic instability [35,36] have resulted in the neglect and deterioration of numerous brownfields in Iranian urban areas.

3.2. The Description of Brownfields in Tehran

The case study took place in Tehran, the administrative and political capital of Iran. According to the most recent official census, the metropolitan area has an estimated population of 8,668,070, making it the most populous metropolis in Iran [95]. Tehran has the greatest urban sprawl among 190 Iranian cities [96]. Tehran’s north and south sections have varied temperatures due to their hilly and desert surroundings, respectively. The north is chilly and dry, whereas the south is hot and dry [97]. Modernism in Iran at the middle of the 20th century helped the city double in size and population in 60 years [98]. Tehran has also the highest GDP and ICT coverage in the country [99].
Tehran has numerous brownfields due to its history as a hub of industries and military facilities, some now abandoned. Moreover, as its municipality is economically and institutionally more potent than other cities [35], Tehran has considerable experience in the regeneration of brownfields. The comprehensive plan for Tehran has identified more than 5400 hectares of land plots as unsuitable for current uses and designated them for urban renewal projects [100]. According to estimates, military centers and barracks occupy approximately 5% of the total land area of Tehran [101]. Despite aims defined in the new comprehensive plan of Tehran (2007), such as “prevention of excessive urban growth”, “use of the potential of spatial-physical development inside the city”, and “following sustainability principles”, as well as specific projects such as “revival of industrial and natural zones” [102] that implicitly involve brownfield redevelopment, there exists no explicit policy regarding brownfield redevelopment for attaining said aims. Brownfield redevelopment in Tehran has been limited to a few isolated architectural projects, lacking a comprehensive approach for effective intervention in these locations [36]. The projects prioritize heritage preservation and aim to revive Tehran’s industrial past in accordance with the municipality’s current policies [103]. There is limited literature on brownfields in Tehran. Zekavat and Motamedi [36] propose a location-based classification of brownfields for design purposes. Afradi [94] and Afradi and Nourian [104] evaluate the use potential of two military sites. Arbab and Alborzi [105] highlight redevelopment principles for an abandoned industrial area in Tehran. However, no study has examined public perceptions, priorities, and knowledge regarding brownfields in Tehran and Iran.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Typology and Selection of Study Sites

To choose our sample, we reviewed urban regeneration documents, Tehran’s comprehensive plan, and relevant research. In addition, we conducted thorough field studies in Tehran to identify regenerated brownfields within the city (Figure 2). Public use and registration in the list of national monuments of the Cultural Heritage Organization of Iran were considered identification indicators. A classification system was established for the identified sites to thoroughly evaluate residents’ perceptions. Two criteria of preserving the physical structure (tangible heritage) and maintaining a conceptual relationship with the historical character and previous use (intangible heritage) were considered for the typology of sites. Adherence to these two criteria was confirmed or rejected by experts for the identified sites. Consequently, the sites were categorized into three distinct types (Figure 3). Here is a breakdown of the various classes. Sites of Type 1 preserve the historical character of the location and explain its legacy. The second category consists of cultural sites that are merely physical in their approach to heritage and have no semantic relationship to their historical character and function. Sites of the third kind are those that prioritize the addition of public green spaces and the exclusive use of any existing buildings for economic or ecological ends. Ultimately, we have chosen a representative example from each category that is commonly known and frequently visited by Tehran’s residents (Table 2). This recognition was achieved through meticulous on-site observations coupled with research efforts.

4.2. Questionnaire Survey

For our purpose, we developed a questionnaire and distributed it to the residents who visited the three sites. The questionnaire was developed through a literature review and piloted by ten experts. It was administered to 385 subjects in November and December 2021.
Two broad areas are covered by the survey’s 14 questions: first, the role that people think heritage plays in brownfield regeneration, and second, how people think heritage is dealt with in brownfield regeneration. Except where noted, the items are presented on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 representing very little and 5 representing a great deal.
Three components made up the first topic. Using two questions, the first part of the study evaluated public perception of brownfield regeneration. (1) To what extent can brownfield regeneration aid in the improvement of quality of life and the resolution of urban issues? (2) Explain the importance of the following objectives for brownfield regeneration: environmental, social, economic, heritage, and aesthetic. Using three questions, the second part assessed the importance of heritage in brownfield regeneration. (1) Describe the significance of the following heritage elements in relation to brownfield regeneration: tangible and intangible heritage. (2) To what extent do the historical and identity values of a city benefit from the regeneration of various brownfields (industrial, military, transportation-related, commercial, and administrative)? (3) If there are historical and heritage features in brownfields, to what extent do these factors support their redevelopment? In both heritage and non-heritage brownfields, the third part examined locals’ preferences for reuse priority (cultural, open space, office, commercial, and residential).
Three case studies were evaluated in three sections in the second topic of the questionnaire. The first part examined the main factor of site memorability (due to historical buildings, cultural spaces, social activities, space design, other causes, or whether “the site is not memorable at all”) as well as the primary purpose of visiting (historical sightseeing, cultural spaces, leisure time, social gatherings, and other reasons). Using two questions, the second part of the study looked at how various preservation techniques affected people’s perceptions of a site’s historical relevance and the significance of the site to the whole city. (1) To what extent would a visit to this area provide information about the history of the site? (2) To what extent can this area contribute to the preservation and promotion of Tehran’s historical qualities and recollections? Satisfaction with the practical, heritage, and aesthetic features was queried in the last part.
Regarding respondents’ demographics, the gender distribution was relatively even. A significant proportion (42%) was between 25 and 34 years of age, while the majority of participants had a secondary education level (47%). More information on participant demographics can be found in Table 3.

4.3. Data Analysis

Using IBM SPSS Statistics 26 and the Canoco 5 program, the questionnaire data were analyzed. Using descriptive statistics, we first arranged and analyzed the data. Since the data did not follow a normal distribution, non-parametric tests were used to conduct additional analysis. The Friedman test was used to compare mean ranks and to prioritize multiple dimensions, whereas the Wilcoxon test was used to analyze differences between two paired variables and to prioritize dual dimensions. The effect of the independent variable on the replies was analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test. In three case studies, we used Pearson’s chi-squared test to assess the level of fit between the gathered categorical data, including visitor motivation, and site recall. Redundancy analysis (RDA) and principal component analysis (PCA) were used as multivariate statistical methods to test the link between independent and dependent variable structures.

5. Results

5.1. Public Perception of the Role of Heritage in Brownfield Regeneration

5.1.1. Perception of Brownfields

Urban regeneration greatly contributes to quality improvement and problem-solving in urban areas, as indicated by residents’ mean score of 4.57 out of 5 (Table 4). Hence, their opinion on brownfield regeneration appears strongly favorable.
In brownfield regeneration, the importance of the five dimensions differed significantly (Χ2F(4) = 321.371, p < 0.001, Figure 4), with mean ranks as follows: social (3.86), aesthetic (3.40), economic (2.88), heritage (2.47), and environmental (2.38). Due to this diversity in preferences for different dimensions, multivariate statistical techniques such as PCA and RDA were also employed. The first two PCA axes were identified as the most critical (Table 5). The two components were separated along the first two axes. The first axis can be referred to as the “non-economic” axis due to its heavy loading with environmental, social, heritage, and aesthetic dimensions, while only the economic dimension is loaded onto the second axis (Figure 5A). The respondents’ structure analysis indicates that men and older, highly educated participants favored the economic component, while women preferred the non-economic aspects (Figure 5B). RDA analyzed the association between preference structure and independent variables. The findings suggest that gender (pseudo F-ratio = 21.095; p = 0.001), level of education (pseudo F-ratio = 14.543; p = 0.001), and age of respondents (pseudo F-ratio = 2.774; p = 0.028), significantly influenced preferences.

5.1.2. Understanding and Evaluation of the Role of Heritage in Brownfields

The findings on the importance of heritage aspects in brownfield regeneration suggest a significant statistical distinction (Wilcoxon test = −13.365, p < 0.001). Tangible heritage received greater attention (mean rank = 133.69) than intangible heritage (mean rank = 116.28).
The study examined residents’ views on heritage potential based on the original land use, revealing significant differences in perception (Χ2F(4) = 249.196, p < 0.001, Figure 6). The results showed that original industrial use had the greatest perceived potential while military use had the least (mean ranks: industrial—3.52; transportation—3.44; commercial—3.24; administrative—2.55; military—2.25).
Most respondents consider heritage as highly impactful in justifying redevelopment, scoring it 4.60 out of 5. Therefore, residents consider heritage to be a crucial aspect of brownfield regeneration.

5.1.3. Comparing the Presence and Absence of Heritage in Redevelopment

The study found that there were significant differences in residents’ preferences for the reuse of heritage brownfields (Χ2F(4) = 996.790, p < 0.001), and non-heritage brownfields (Χ2F(4) = 664.329, p < 0.001). As illustrated in Figure 7, for heritage brownfields, cultural spaces was given the highest priority, followed by open space, office, commercial, and residential redevelopments. In contrast, for non-heritage brownfields, open spaces were prioritized first, followed by commercial, cultural, office, and residential reuses. The Wilcoxon test compared the utilization of heritage and non-heritage brownfields. Results showed a higher preference for cultural uses in heritage brownfields (Wilcoxon test = −14.586, p < 0.001), while other uses were prioritized in non-heritage brownfields.

5.2. Public Perception of the Approach to Heritage in Brownfield Regeneration

5.2.1. Reasons for Visiting and Memorability of Sites

The Pearson’s chi-square test results for the main reason behind visiting Qasr Prison Museum, Haftchenar Museum, and Honarmandan Park were significant (Χ2(8, N = 1155) = 494.647, p < 0.001). The crosstab (Table 6) reveals that the primary purpose of visiting Qasr Prison Museum was historical sightseeing, whereas Haftchenar Museum and Honarmandan Park were preferred for leisure activities and social gatherings, respectively.
The Pearson’s chi-square test found significant relationships between memorability factors in Qasr Prison Museum, Haftchenar Museum, and Honarmandan Park (Χ2(10, N = 1155) = 631.90, p < 0.001). The crosstab (Table 7) indicates that the prominent heritage buildings and historical atmosphere were the primary cause of memorability of Qasr Prison Museum. Haftchenar Museum’s artistic and cultural spaces were found to be significant in making the museum memorable, whereas Honarmandan Park’s human presence and social activities were found to be significant in making the park memorable. The order of sites was: Qasr Prison Museum, Haftchenar Museum, and Honarmandan Park, in terms of notable heritage structures and historical atmosphere. Honarmandan Park ranked worst in terms of memorability, followed by the Haftchenar Museum, and the Qasr Prison Museum.

5.2.2. The Effect of Heritage Preservation Approaches on Understanding the History of the Site and Fostering a Sense of History at the City Level

The study utilized the Friedman test to compare the three sites and determine the effect of preservation type on recognizing their history. The findings were statistically significant (Χ2F(2) = 565.058, p < 0.001). The ranking showed that the Museum of Qasr Prison had the highest mean rank (2.85), followed by Haftchenar Museum (1.83), and Honarmandan Park (1.32).
The Friedman test showed significant results (Χ2F(2) = 514.922, p < 0.001) when comparing the three sites in terms of preservation type and its effect on creating a historical sense at the city scale. The rankings showed that the Museum of Qasr Prison had the highest mean rank (2.80), followed by Haftchenar Museum (1.81) and Honarmandan Park (1.39).

5.2.3. Satisfaction Assessment with Function, Aesthetics, and Heritage Preservation

The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed significant differences among the three sites in terms of satisfaction levels for function (Χ2(2, N = 1155) = 319.30, p < 0.001), and heritage preservation (Χ2(2, N = 1155) = 400.73, p < 0.001). However, no significant difference was found regarding aesthetics (Χ2(2, N = 1155) = 4.441, p = 0.109). The ranking of satisfaction with function was led by Honarmandan Park, followed by the Museum of Qasr Prison and Haftchenar Museum. Meanwhile, the ranking for heritage preservation was topped by the Museum of Qasr Prison, followed by Haftchenar Museum and Honarmandan Park (Figure 8).

6. Discussion

This research investigated the significance of heritage in brownfield regeneration across three types of regenerated sites in Tehran. Below are summarized findings.

6.1. Public Perception of Brownfield and Heritage

Residents believe that regenerating brownfields can solve urban issues and improve the city’s quality, in line with previous studies [13,26,58,86]. The social dimension is crucial in brownfield redevelopment, while environmental and heritage aspects are less important to residents. However, Loures et al. [13] discovered that the environment was perceived as most critical by residents. The absence of a report on brownfield pollution’s environmental impact in Iran has hindered public and governmental recognition of the issue [35]. Brownfields in Iran have significant architectural and aesthetic value in modern history due to their rich social and cultural past. However, many other sites with greater cultural and historical significance have overshadowed them. Residents of Iran show a relatively limited knowledge of these places, and institutions like the Iranian Cultural Heritage Organisation have taken little effort. There are significant ramifications for ancestry that stem from this lack of information [27], potentially leading to the destruction of a substantial portion of Iran’s industrial heritage [39].
Economic and non-economic components were revealed by the principal component analysis of locals’ opinions on brownfields. Members of more powerful demographics, such as males and older, better-educated respondents, gave economics a greater priority. Mehdipour’s focus on the economic role in redeveloping Iran’s brown-fields is consistent with this [35].
For many, the intangible aspects of a heritage are sometimes overlooked in favor of the more obvious material ones. Understanding the intangible aspects is crucial to preserving a society’s past and present, nevertheless. Facilitating heritage interpretation helps stakeholders and visitors obtain a positive experience and perspective of heritage [34]. This fosters recognition of the heritage and generates concern for its conservation and redevelopment [106]. With respect to brownfields resulting from industrial, transportation, and commercial land use, the estimate of historic potential was appropriate. However, there appeared to be less optimism regarding military-originated brownfields despite the successful examples of reconstruction seen in Iran. This discrepancy may be due to the fact that military sites are security-focused. This emphasizes the role that experience and knowledge play in shaping public opinions [107].

6.2. The Effect of Heritage on Reuse Priorities

Heritage is a significant factor in brownfield redevelopment, as the respondents indicated. Kim and Miller [59] found that society readily accepted the revitalization of brownfields with preserved landscapes, historical signs, and scattered structures. However, remediation should still take place when necessary. Conversely, Osman et al. [108] and Frantál et al. [78] did not find historical value to be a major factor in brownfield redevelopment.
The reuse of heritage brownfields gives cultural spaces precedence over open spaces, whereas the reuse of non-heritage brownfields gives open spaces precedence over open spaces. Except for cultural use, non-heritage brownfields are given preference over heritage brownfields for all other reuse options. This indicates that non-heritage brownfields provide more options for redevelopment than heritage brownfields do. Residents’ values on heritage factors greatly impact the sort of brownfield reuse, creating obstacles but also unique opportunities for redevelopment [55,72]. Residential reuse is a low priority in both types of brownfields due to the city center’s dense fabric, which results in a high preference for open spaces. Regardless of heritage or non-heritage status, brownfield reuse prioritizes open spaces followed by cultural uses; as Loures et al. [13] suggest, multifunctional and leisure green spaces are the most favored options.

6.3. Impact of the Type of Approach to Heritage on Public Perception

We divided Tehran’s brownfields into three types based on how important it is to maintain heritage in order to study the link between inhabitants’ perspectives and heritage preservation measures in regeneration.
The Qasr Prison Museum (type 1), the Haftchenar Museum (type 2), and Honarmandan Park (type 3) are the recommended stops in order to learn about the region’s past via visits to sites and conceptual linkages between past and contemporary usage. Heritage interpretation is crucial for understanding a site’s significance [77], while neglecting intangible heritage hinders comprehension of cultural and historical sites [34]. This chronological arrangement of case studies is thought to best showcase the unique character and rich history of the city. Thus, heritage preservation has a visible effect on the site and the city, drawing attention to the abundance of history.
Type 3 reasons for visiting and being memorable, including “historical sightseeing” and “historical buildings”, increased in popularity as a type 1 cause. The other two sites were picked for reasons connected to recent developments, although visitors mostly visited Qasr Prison Museum (type 1) as a result of this decision. Instead of solely depending on the site’s facilities, preserving legacy and restoring historical values encourages visitors to visit and witness the brownfield directly [27].
Attention given to heritage aspects in regeneration increased satisfaction with heritage preservation from type 3 to type 1. Satisfaction levels regarding aesthetic and functional dimensions differed, showing no correlation between heritage and other dimensions. This is supported by Navratil et al. [27] and Firth [34].
In this subsection, we draw the conclusion that prioritizing heritage preservation influences visitor perception positively. By concentrating on different facets of the heritage, engagement and comprehension may be improved, which will ultimately lead to an increase in desire to visit and a better memory.

7. Conclusions

This study could have lessons for brownfield regeneration in emerging nations with rich cultures. These nations typically leave brownfields due to structural, legal, and economic impediments, destroying their legacy. Iranian urban regeneration regulations confine brownfield developments to historic protection. This research analyzes inhabitants’ evaluation of the importance of heritage in rehabilitating Iranian brownfields. The results aid problem-based research on historical brownfield regeneration in emerging and historical nations. The study has policy and urban planning implications and limits that require additional debate.
Iran’s top-down urban planning should include citizen input and citizen science. This work advances this purpose methodically and substantively. Iranians lack environmental awareness and see legacy as a driver for brownfield development, according to studies. This differs from international research. Brownfield contamination is underreported due to Iran’s Environmental Protection Organization’s inadequate laws, regulations, and oversight. Iran’s rich history and culture pique the public’s interest in history. Awareness of brownfield heritage may stimulate decision-making and accelerate brownfield regeneration. Brownfields need public attention and should be reused, even temporarily. The remodeling must follow place-making concepts and provide appealing public areas to match neighboring neighborhoods. Creatively resurrecting historical importance and recollections may strengthen the place’s identity and introduce others to its past. Residents’ views on brownfield redevelopment are economic and non-economic. Influential organizations emphasize the commercial component, including urban branding and creative place-making for revitalizing ancient locations. Industrial tourism and brownfield openings may also justify rehabilitation economically.
This study has some limitations which need to be addressed in future research. Tehran’s administrative services and appeal to outsiders may have affected the results. Because heritage has many aspects and values, classifying brownfields as heritage or non-heritage for new purposes is speculative. Thus, although valuable for comparative analyses, residents’ subjective preconceptions affected the conclusion. These constraints necessitate socio-geographic study in various situations. Qualitative methodologies would help study Iranian opinions; examining brownfield and heritage policies would help to address poor understanding. Given Iran’s long-term brownfield abandonment, redevelopment plans should be considered.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.G. and E.R.; methodology, E.G.; software, E.G.; validation, E.G.; formal analysis, E.G.; investigation, E.G.; resources, E.G.; data curation, E.G.; writing—original draft preparation, E.G., A.S. and E.R.; writing—review and editing, E.G. and A.S.; visualization, E.G.; supervision, A.S.; project administration, E.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Supporting research data are available on request from the first author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. De Sousa, C. Brownfield Redevelopment versus Greenfield Development: A Private Sector Perspective on the Costs and Risks Associated with Brownfield Redevelopment in the Greater Toronto Area. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2000, 43, 831–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alker, S.; Joy, V.; Roberts, P.; Smith, N. The Definition of Brownfield. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2000, 43, 49–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yount, K.R. What Are Brownfields? Finding a Conceptual Definition. Environ. Pract. 2003, 5, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Burinskienė, M.; Bielinskas, V.; Podviezko, A.; Gurskienė, V.; Maliene, V. Evaluating the Significance of Criteria Contributing to Decision-Making on Brownfield Land Redevelopment Strategies in Urban Areas. Sustainability 2017, 9, 759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Grimski, D.; Ferber, U. Urban Brownfields in Europe. Land Contam. Reclam. 2001, 9, 143–148. [Google Scholar]
  6. Martinat, S.; Dvorak, P.; Frantal, B.; Klusacek, P.; Kunc, J.; Navratil, J.; Osman, R.; Tureckova, K.; Reed, M. Sustainable Urban Development in a City Affected by Heavy Industry and Mining? Case Study of Brownfields in Karvina, Czech Republic. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 118, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Alexandrescu, F.; Martinát, S.; Klusáček, P.; Bartke, S. The path from passivity toward entrepreneurship: Public sector actors in brownfield regeneration processes in Central and Eastern Europe. Organ. Environ. 2014, 27, 181–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ahmad, N.; Zhu, Y.; Ibrahim, M.; Waqas, M.; Waheed, A. Development of a Standard Brownfield Definition, Guidelines, and Evaluation Index System for Brownfield Redevelopment in Developing Countries: The Case of Pakistan. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. De Sousa, C. Measuring the Public Costs and Benefits of Brownfield versus Greenfield Development in the Greater Toronto Area. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2002, 29, 251–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. De Sousa, C.A. Turning Brownfields into Green Space in the City of Toronto. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 62, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dixon, T. Integrating Sustainability into Brownfield Regeneration: Rhetoric or Reality?—An Analysis of the UK Development Industry. J. Prop. Res. 2006, 23, 237–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fernandes, A.; Figueira de Sousa, J.; Costa, J.P.; Neves, B. Mapping Stakeholder Perception on the Challenges of Brownfield Sites’ Redevelopment in Waterfronts: The Tagus Estuary. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2020, 28, 2447–2464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Loures, L.; Panagopoulos, T.; Burley, J.B. Assessing User Preferences on Post-Industrial Redevelopment. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2016, 43, 871–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Loures, L.; Vaz, E. Exploring Expert Perception towards Brownfield Redevelopment Benefits According to Their Typology. Habitat Int. 2018, 72, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. 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]
  16. Wang, L.; Fang, L.; Hipel, K.W. Negotiation over Costs and Benefits in Brownfield Redevelopment. Group Decis. Negot. 2011, 20, 509–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mehdipour, A.; Nia, H.R. The Role of Brownfield Development in Sustainable Urban Regeneration. J. Sustain. Dev. Stud. 2013, 4, 78–87. [Google Scholar]
  18. Roberts, P. The Evolution, Definition and Purpose of Urban Regeneration. Urban Regen. A Handb. 2000, 1, 9–36. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chahardowli, M.; Sajadzadeh, H.; Aram, F.; Mosavi, A. Survey of Sustainable Regeneration of Historic and Cultural Cores of Cities. Energies 2020, 13, 2708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lee, W.; Shin, S.; Jang, S. Sustainable Urban Regeneration Strategies in Korea’s Abandoned Mine Area Using Industrial Heritage. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2022, 2022, 7401027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dixon, T.; Otsuka, N.; Abe, H. Critical Success Factors in Urban Brownfield Regeneration: An Analysis of ‘Hardcore’ Sites in Manchester and Osaka during the Economic Recession (2009–10). Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 2011, 43, 961–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhong, Q.; Zhang, L.; Zhu, Y.; van den Bosch, C.K.; Han, J.; Zhang, G.; Li, Y. A Conceptual Framework for Ex Ante Valuation of Ecosystem Services of Brownfield Greening from a Systematic Perspective. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2020, 6, 1743206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Amado, M.; Rodrigues, E. A Heritage-Based Method to Urban Regeneration in Developing Countries: The Case Study of Luanda. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lei, H.; Zhou, Y. Conducting Heritage Tourism-Led Urban Renewal in Chinese Historical and Cultural Urban Spaces: A Case Study of Datong. Land 2022, 11, 2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Moradi, F.; Zarabadi, Z.S.S.; Majedi, H. An Exploratory Study of Culture-Led Urban Regeneration Principles with the Approach of Competitiveness Promotion. Bagh E Nazar 2019, 16, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Martinát, S.; Krejčí, T.; Klusáček, P.; Dohnal, T.; Kunc, J. Brownfields and Tourism: Contributions and Barriers from the Point of View of Tourists. In Proceedings of the Public Recreation and Landscape Protection—With Man Hand in Hand? 2014 Conference Proceeding, Křtiny, Czech Republic, 5–6 May 2014; pp. 59–65. [Google Scholar]
  27. Navratil, J.; Krejci, T.; Martinat, S.; Pasqualetti, M.J.; Klusacek, P.; Frantal, B.; Tochackova, K. Brownfields Do Not “Only Live Twice”: The Possibilities for Heritage Preservation and the Enlargement of Leisure Time Activities in Brno, the Czech Republic. Cities 2018, 74, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Alker, S.; Stone, C. Tourism and Leisure Development on Brownfield Sites: An Opportunity to Enhance Urban Sustainability. Tour. Hosp. Plan. Dev. 2005, 2, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bliek, D.; Gauthier, P. Mobilising Urban Heritage to Counter the Commodification of Brownfield Landscapes: Lessons from Montréal’s Lachine Canal. Can. J. Urban Res. 2007, 16, 39–58. [Google Scholar]
  30. Duží, B.; Jakubínský, J. Brownfield dilemmas in the transformation of post-communist cities: A case study of Ostrava, Czech Republic. Hum. Geogr. J. Stud. Res. Hum. Geogr. 2013, 7, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Xie, P.F. A Life Cycle Model of Industrial Heritage Development. Ann. Tour. Res. 2015, 55, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yang, X. (Stephanie) Industrial Heritage Tourism Development and City Image Reconstruction in Chinese Traditional Industrial Cities: A Web Content Analysis. J. Herit. Tour. 2017, 12, 267–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hampton, M.P. Heritage, Local Communities and Economic Development. Manag. Herit. Cult. Tour. Resour. Crit. Essays Vol. One 2017, 32, 179–204. [Google Scholar]
  34. Firth, T.M. Tourism as a Means to Industrial Heritage Conservation: Achilles Heel or Saving Grace? J. Herit. Tour. 2011, 6, 45–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mehdipour, A. Understanding Brownfield Regeneration in Iran through the Lens of International Experience. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  36. Zekavat, K.; Motamedi, R. Strategic Redevelopment of Brownfield Sites in Tehran, Iran. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Urban Des. Plan. 2015, 168, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mofidi Shemirani, S.M.; Saeidi Mofrad, S. An Essay on Accessing the Brownfields Redevelopment Roadmap Appropriate with Iran’s Condition. Int. J. Archit. Eng. Urban Plan. 2015, 25, 43–52. [Google Scholar]
  38. Laghai, H.; Moradi, A.; Jamshidi, F. Brownfields the Concept, Definition and Their Redevelopment Model in Iran. Adv. Environ. Biol. 2012, 6, 2505–2512. [Google Scholar]
  39. Samadzadehyazdi, S.; Ansari, M.; Mahdavinejad, M.; Bemaninan, M. Significance of Authenticity: Learning from Best Practice of Adaptive Reuse in the Industrial Heritage of Iran. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2020, 14, 329–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Otsuka, N.; Dixon, T.; Abe, H. Stock Measurement and Regeneration Policy Approaches to ‘Hardcore’ Brownfield Sites: England and Japan Compared. Land Use Policy 2013, 33, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Richardeiser, J.; Stafford, T.; Henneberry, J.; Catney, P. Risk Perception and Trust in the Context of Urban Brownfields. Environ. Hazards 2007, 7, 150–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Campbell, H.; Eckerd, A.; Kim, Y. Administration of Community Participation in Small-Scale Projects: Brownfield Remediation in Los Angeles. Adm. Soc. 2021, 53, 378–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Doick, K.J.; Sellers, G.; Castan-Broto, V.; Silverthorne, T. Understanding Success in the Context of Brownfield Greening Projects: The Requirement for Outcome Evaluation in Urban Greenspace Success Assessment. Urban For. Urban Green. 2009, 8, 163–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Feber, U.; Nathanail, P.; Bergatt Jackson, J.; Górski, M.; Krzywoń, R.; Drobiec, Ł.; Petrikova, D.; Finka, M. Brownfields Handbook; Feber, U., Ed.; VSB—Technical University of Ostrava: Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2006; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236656491_Brownfields_Handbook.html (accessed on 1 January 2023).
  45. Simis, M.; Awang, A.; Arifin, K. From Ex-Landfill to Public Park: Impact on Local Community’s Quality of Life and Living Environment. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 222, 763–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. van Duijn, M.; Rouwendal, J.; Boersema, R. Redevelopment of Industrial Heritage: Insights into External Effects on House Prices. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2016, 57, 91–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, L.; Klenosky, D.B. Residents’ Perceptions and Attitudes toward Waste Treatment Facility Sites and Their Possible Conversion: A Literature Review. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 20, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mahdavinejad, M.; Amini, M. Public Participation for Sustainable Urban Planning in Case of Iran. Procedia Eng. 2011, 21, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Franz, M.; Gules, O.; Prey, G. Place-making and ‘green’ reuses of brownfields in the Ruhr. Tijdschr. Voor Econ. Soc. Geogr. 2008, 99, 316–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bartke, S.; Schwarze, R. No Perfect Tools: Trade-Offs of Sustainability Principles and User Requirements in Designing Support Tools for Land-Use Decisions between Greenfields and Brownfields. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 153, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Glumac, B.; Han, Q.; Schaefer, W.F. Actors’ Preferences in the Redevelopment of Brownfield: Latent Class Model. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2015, 141, 04014017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Haase, A. Reurbanisation—An Analysis of the Interaction between Urban and Demographic Change: A Comparison between European Cities. Erde 2008, 139, 309–332. [Google Scholar]
  53. Johnson, A.J.; Glover, T.D.; Stewart, W.P. One Person’s Trash Is Another Person’s Treasure: The Public Place-Making of “Mount Trashmore”. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2009, 27, 85–103. [Google Scholar]
  54. Meyer, P.B.; Lyons, T.S. Lessons from Private Sector Brownfield Redevelopers. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2000, 66, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Navratil, J.; Picha, K.; Martinat, S.; Nathanail, P.C.; Tureckova, K.; Holesinska, A. Resident’s Preferences for Urban Brownfield Revitalization: Insights from Two Czech Cities. Land Use Policy 2018, 76, 224–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Luštický, M.; Musil, M. Towards a Theory of Stakeholders’ Perception of Tourism Impacts. Czech J. Tour. 2016, 5, 93–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Martinat, S.; Navratil, J.; Hollander, J.B.; Trojan, J.; Klapka, P.; Klusacek, P.; Kalok, D. Re-Reuse of Regenerated Brownfields: Lessons from an Eastern European Post-Industrial City. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 536–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Malienė, V.; Wignall, L.; Malys, N. Brownfield Regeneration: Waterfront Site Developments in Liverpool and Cologne. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2012, 20, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kim, E.J.; Miller, P. Residents’ Perception of Local Brownfields in Rail Corridor Area in the City of Roanoke: The Effect of People’s Preconception and Health Concerns Factors. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 862–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Turvani, M.; Paccagnan, V.; Tonin, S. Population Preferences towards Risk and Alternative Reuse Policies for Derelict and Contaminated Sites: Results from a Survey of the Italian Public. 2006. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/download/83308032/Turvanippr.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2023).
  61. Greenberg, M.; Lewis, M.J. Brownfields Redevelopment, Preferences and Public Involvement: A Case Study of an Ethnically Mixed Neighbourhood. Urban Stud. 2000, 37, 2501–2514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. McCarthy, L. The Brownfield Dual Land-Use Policy Challenge: Reducing Barriers to Private Redevelopment While Connecting Reuse to Broader Community Goals. Land Use Policy 2002, 19, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Martinát, S.; Navrátil, J.; Pícha, K.; Turečková, K.; Klusáček, P. Brownfield Regeneration from the Perspective of Residents: Place Circumstances versus Character of Respondents. Deturope 2017, 9, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mısırlısoy, D.; Günçe, K. Adaptive Reuse Strategies for Heritage Buildings: A Holistic Approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2016, 26, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tweed, C.; Sutherland, M. Built Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Urban Development. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2007, 83, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ruelle, C.; Halleux, J.-M.; Teller, J. Landscape Quality and Brownfield Regeneration: A Community Investigation Approach Inspired by Landscape Preference Studies. Landsc. Res. 2013, 38, 75–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Foster, G. Circular Economy Strategies for Adaptive Reuse of Cultural Heritage Buildings to Reduce Environmental Impacts. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 152, 104507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Taraba, J.; Forgaci, C.; Romein, A. Creativity-Driven Urban Regeneration in the Post-Socialist Context—The Case of Csepel Works, Budapest. J. Urban Des. 2022, 27, 161–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Delconte, J.; Kline, C.S.; Scavo, C. The Impacts of Local Arts Agencies on Community Placemaking and Heritage Tourism. J. Herit. Tour. 2016, 11, 324–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Binder, M.L. Adaptive Reuse and Sustainable Design: A Holistic Approach for Abandoned Industrial Buildings. Master’s Thesis, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  71. Blagojević, M.R.; Tufegdžić, A. The New Technology Era Requirements and Sustainable Approach to Industrial Heritage Renewal. Energy Build. 2016, 115, 148–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Berg, S.K.; Stenbro, R. Densification or Dilution? On Cultural and Economic Value Creation along the Aker River in Oslo, Norway. Hist. Environ. Policy Pract. 2015, 6, 197–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Steinführer, A.; Bierzynski, A.; Großmann, K.; Haase, A.; Kabisch, S.; Klusácek, P. Population Decline in Polish and Czech Cities during Post-Socialism? Looking Behind the Official Statistics. Urban Stud. 2010, 47, 2325–2346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sepe, M. Place Identity and Creative District Regeneration: The Case of 798 in Beijing and M50 in Shanghai Art Zones. METU J. Fac. Archit. 2018, 35, 151–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sepe, M. Urban History and Cultural Resources in Urban Regeneration: A Case of Creative Waterfront Renewal. Plan. Perspect. 2013, 28, 595–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Brooks, J.J.; Wallace, G.N.; Williams, D.R. Place as Relationship Partner: An Alternative Metaphor for Understanding the Quality of Visitor Experience in a Backcountry Setting. Leis. Sci. 2006, 28, 331–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Diao, J.; Lu, S. The Culture-Oriented Urban Regeneration: Place Narrative in the Case of the Inner City of Haiyan (Zhejiang, China). Sustainability 2022, 14, 7992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Frantál, B.; Kunc, J.; Klusáček, P.; Martinát, S. Assessing Success Factors of Brownfields Regeneration: International and Inter-Stakeholder Perspective. Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2015, 11, 91–107. [Google Scholar]
  79. Siikamaki, J.; Wernstedt, K. Turning Brownfields into Greenspaces: Examining Incentives and Barriers to Revitalization. J. Health Polit. Policy Law 2008, 33, 559–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. De Sousa, C. Overcoming Barriers and Facilitating Brownfields Redevelopment in the GTHA: A Review of Results from Interviews with Private Sector Stakeholders. Cent. Urban Res. Land Dev. Toronto 2015, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  81. Ahmad, N.; Zhu, Y.; Hongli, L.; Karamat, J.; Waqas, M.; Taskheer Mumtaz, S.M. Mapping the Obstacles to Brownfield Redevelopment Adoption in Developing Economies: Pakistani Perspective. Land Use Policy 2020, 91, 104374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kunc, J.; Klusacek, P.; Martinát, S.; Tonev, P. Renewable Energy Sources as an Alternative to the New Usage of Brownfields. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Geography and Geoinformatics: Challenge for Practise and Education, Brno, Czech Republic, 8–9 January 2012; pp. 82–88. [Google Scholar]
  83. K’oyoo, E.O.; Onyango, L.; Midheme, E. Assessing community perception of post-mine brownfield’s effects on the physical environment in Kisumu, Kenya. Afr. Res. J. Educ. Soc. Sci. 2022, 9, 58–70. [Google Scholar]
  84. 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]
  85. Rink, D.; Arndt, T. Investigating Perception of Green Structure Configuration for Afforestation in Urban Brownfield Development by Visual Methods—A Case Study in Leipzig, Germany. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 15, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kunc, J.; Martinát, S.; Tonev, P.; Frantál, B. Destiny of Urban Brownfields: Spatial Patterns and Perceived Consequences of Post-Socialistic Deindustrialization. Transylv. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2014, 10, 109–128. [Google Scholar]
  87. Bani Masoud, A. Contemporary Architecture of Iran, 1st ed.; Honar-e Memari Publication: Tehran, Iran, 2009. (In Persian) [Google Scholar]
  88. Farahbakhsh, M.; Hanachi, P. Analyzing the Effect of Railway as Industrial Heritage in Iran. Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba Memary Va Shahrsazi 2016, 20, 33–44. [Google Scholar]
  89. Pahlevanzadeh, L. The Heritage of Iranian Industrial Architecture, 1st ed.; Islamic Azad University of Khorasgan Branch: Isfahan, Iran, 2013. (In Persian) [Google Scholar]
  90. Kiani, M. Architecture of the First Pahlavi Period, 3rd ed.; Institute for Iranian Contemporary Historical Studies: Tehran, Iran, 2014. (In Persian) [Google Scholar]
  91. Bidarbakht, N. The Improve of Sense of Pleasure in Reclamation of Post-Industrial Landscapes. Naqshejahan-Basic Stud. New Technol. Archit. Plan. 2019, 9, 55–65. [Google Scholar]
  92. Esfahani, H.S.; Pesaran, M.H. The Iranian Economy in the Twentieth Century: A Global Perspective. Iran. Stud. 2009, 42, 177–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Yousefi, M.; Amadeh, H.; Karimi, T. Structural Change and Its Impact on Employment in Iran’s Manufacturing Industry. Faslnameh-E Elmi Pazhuheshi-E Motaleat-E Modiriat-E Sanati 2013, 11, 119–136. (In Persian) [Google Scholar]
  94. Afradi, K. Landuse Determination Process of Extracted Lands from Transformed Incompatible Land Uses Case Study: GhalehMorghy Base. J. Geogr. Sci. 2013, 13, 115–135. [Google Scholar]
  95. Soltani, A.; Pettit, C.J.; Heydari, M.; Aghaei, F. Housing Price Variations Using Spatio-Temporal Data Mining Techniques. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2021, 36, 1199–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Soltani, A.; Hosseinpour, M.; Hajizadeh, A. Urban Sprawl in Iranian Medium-Sized Cities; Investigating the Role of Masterplans. J. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 10, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ghanbari, R.; Heidarimozaffar, M.; Soltani, A.; Arefi, H. Land Surface Temperature Analysis in Densely Populated Zones from the Perspective of Spectral Indices and Urban Morphology. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 20, 2883–2902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zali, N.; Ghal’ejough, F.H.; Esmailzadeh, Y. Analyzing Urban Sprawl of Tehran Metropolis in Iran (during 1956–2011). Anuário Do Inst. Geociênc. UFRJ 2016, 39, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Qadikolaei, M.R.; Zali, N.; Soltani, A. Spatiotemporal Investigation of the Digital Divide, the Case Study of Iranian Provinces. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Izadi, M.S.; Amiri, N. Internal Development, Concordant, Balanced and Stable Pattern to Develop and Promote the Urban Quality, Planning for Redevelopment of Urban Military Land. Bagh-E Nazar 2016, 13, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  101. Bahrami, B. Map of the Departure of Garrisons from the Capital. Donya-ye Eqtesad; 2015, November 9; Newspaper No. 3625, News No. 958923. Available online: https://donya-e-eqtesad.com (accessed on 1 January 2023). (In Persian)
  102. MHUD (Ministry of Housing and Urban Development). Tehran Comprehensive Plan (The Strategic Plan of Development and Construction of Tehran); Institution of Studies and Preparation of Urban Development Plans of Tehran: Tehran, Iran, 2007. (In Persian)
  103. Ali Abbasi, B.; Giahchi, G. Industrial Heritage Regeneration in Tehran. In Tazeha-ye Nosazi; UROT (Urban Renewal Organization of Tehran): Tehran, Iran, 2019; Volume 33, pp. 1–20. (In Persian) [Google Scholar]
  104. Afradi, K.; Noorian, F. Military Fields Redevelopment Criteria of Efficiency in Crisis Management. J. Emerg. Manag. 2014, 2, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  105. Arbab, P.; Alborzi, G. Application of the Principles and Considerations of Urban Brownfields Redevelopment: An Abandoned Industrial Zone in Hakimiyeh Neighborhood of Tehran. Geogr. Urban Plan. Res. 2022, 10, 165–188. [Google Scholar]
  106. Mahdavinejad, M.; Didehban, M.; Bazazzadeh, H. Contemporary Architectural Heritage and Industrial Identity in Historic Districts, Case Study: Dezful. J. Stud. Iran. Islam. City 2016, 6, 41. [Google Scholar]
  107. Joerin, F.; Desthieux, G.; Beuze, S.B.; Nembrini, A. Participatory Diagnosis in Urban Planning: Proposal for a Learning Process Based on Geographical Information. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2002–2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Osman, R.; Frantál, B.; Klusáček, P.; Kunc, J.; Martinát, S. Factors Affecting Brownfield Regeneration in Post-Socialist Space: The Case of the Czech Republic. Land Use Policy 2015, 48, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Heritage 06 00235 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of public opinion on heritage brownfields.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of public opinion on heritage brownfields.
Heritage 06 00235 g001
Heritage 06 00235 g002 550
Figure 2. Location of the surveyed study sites within Tehran.
Figure 2. Location of the surveyed study sites within Tehran.
Heritage 06 00235 g002
Heritage 06 00235 g003 550
Figure 3. Classification of regenerated brownfields in Tehran.
Figure 3. Classification of regenerated brownfields in Tehran.
Heritage 06 00235 g003
Heritage 06 00235 g004 550
Figure 4. Importance of different dimensions in brownfield regeneration.
Figure 4. Importance of different dimensions in brownfield regeneration.
Heritage 06 00235 g004
Heritage 06 00235 g005 550
Figure 5. PCA ordination plots. (A) PCA ordination plot with dependent variables to evaluate the importance of different dimensions of brownfields. (B) PCA ordination plot with independent variables to evaluate the importance of different dimensions of brownfields.
Figure 5. PCA ordination plots. (A) PCA ordination plot with dependent variables to evaluate the importance of different dimensions of brownfields. (B) PCA ordination plot with independent variables to evaluate the importance of different dimensions of brownfields.
Heritage 06 00235 g005
Heritage 06 00235 g006 550
Figure 6. Heritage potential based on the original land use.
Figure 6. Heritage potential based on the original land use.
Heritage 06 00235 g006
Heritage 06 00235 g007 550
Figure 7. Priority for reuse in heritage and non-heritage brownfields.
Figure 7. Priority for reuse in heritage and non-heritage brownfields.
Heritage 06 00235 g007
Heritage 06 00235 g008 550
Figure 8. Satisfaction assessment with function, aesthetics, and heritage preservation.
Figure 8. Satisfaction assessment with function, aesthetics, and heritage preservation.
Heritage 06 00235 g008
Table
Table 2. Main characteristics of the selected sites (source: authors).
Table 2. Main characteristics of the selected sites (source: authors).
Name of the Brownfield SiteOriginal UseContemporary UseLocationSize of
the Site
(m2)		Type
Museum of the Qasr Prison Qasr prisonHistorical complex, public parkWider city
center		69,0001
Haftchenar Museum of Wildlife and Natural Monuments The Beryanak sock weaving factoryThe museum of nature & wildlifeWider city
center		71002
Honarmandan ParkThe Fisher Abad garrisonPublic park, cultural centerCity
center		59,1403
Table
Table 3. The demographic structure of the respondents of the survey.
Table 3. The demographic structure of the respondents of the survey.
GenderFemale50.6%
male49.4%
Age18–2424.7%
25–3442.3%
35–4419.7%
45–546.5%
55–642.3%
65<1.8%
EducationElementary7.5%
Secondary47.3%
Tertiary45.2%
Table
Table 4. Descriptive statistics on brownfield regeneration’s impact on quality improvement and problem-solving in urban areas.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics on brownfield regeneration’s impact on quality improvement and problem-solving in urban areas.
NMinimumMaximumMeanStd. Deviation
385254.570.638
Table
Table 5. The summary of PCA and RDA to evaluate the importance of the dimensions of brownfields (n = 385) (source: authors).
Table 5. The summary of PCA and RDA to evaluate the importance of the dimensions of brownfields (n = 385) (source: authors).
AxisPCARDA
Eigenvalues1st0.3390.054
2nd0.2460.036
3rd0.1710.002
4th0.1450.304
(Pseudo-) canonical correlations1st0.3260.467
2nd0.4180.338
3rd0.2250.143
4th0.1240.000
Explained cumulative percentage1st33.95.4
2nd58.69.0
3rd75.79.2
4th90.3-
Table
Table 6. The crosstab of the reasons for visiting the three sites (n = 385) (source: authors).
Table 6. The crosstab of the reasons for visiting the three sites (n = 385) (source: authors).
VariablesGroupTotal
The Museum of Qasr PrisonHaftchenar
Museum		Honarmandan Park
Count%Count%Count%Count%
Historical sightseeing17244.74010.4112.922319.3
Galleries and artistic cultural spaces6115.812632.75915.324621.3
Leisure time9725.217044.29223.935931.1
Social gatherings4812.5102.618247.324020.8
Other71.83910.14110.6877.5
Total385100.0385100.0385100.01155100.0
Table
Table 7. The crosstab of the reasons for the memorableness of the three sites (n = 385) (source: authors).
Table 7. The crosstab of the reasons for the memorableness of the three sites (n = 385) (source: authors).
VariablesGroupTotal
The Museum of Qasr PrisonHaftchenar
Museum		Honarmandan Park
Count%Count%Count%Count%
Prominent heritage buildings and historical atmosphere26969.99825.5143.638133
Artistic and cultural spaces 5815.113535.15213.524521.2
Designing spaces and landscape379.610226.58421.822319.3
People’s presence and social activities82.1205.215740.818516
Other112.9112.94411.4665.7
Lack of memorableness20.5194.9348.8554.8
Total385100.0385100.0385100.01155100.0
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ghabouli, E.; Soltani, A.; Ranjbar, E. Heritage and the Regeneration of Urban Brownfields: Insights on Public Perception in Tehran, Iran. Heritage 2023, 6, 4451-4471. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6050235

AMA Style

Ghabouli E, Soltani A, Ranjbar E. Heritage and the Regeneration of Urban Brownfields: Insights on Public Perception in Tehran, Iran. Heritage. 2023; 6(5):4451-4471. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6050235

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ghabouli, Elias, Ali Soltani, and Ehsan Ranjbar. 2023. "Heritage and the Regeneration of Urban Brownfields: Insights on Public Perception in Tehran, Iran" Heritage 6, no. 5: 4451-4471. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6050235

APA Style

Ghabouli, E., Soltani, A., & Ranjbar, E. (2023). Heritage and the Regeneration of Urban Brownfields: Insights on Public Perception in Tehran, Iran. Heritage, 6(5), 4451-4471. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6050235

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop