Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회지)

The Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Periodic Characteristics and Implications of Programs and Policies for Brownfield Management in the U.S.A.

미국 브라운필드 관리 프로그램과 정책의 시기별 특성과 함의

  • Kim, Eujin Julia (College of Architecture and Urban Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) ;
  • Miller, Patrick (College of Architecture and Urban Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University)
  • 김유진 (미국 버지니아 폴리테크닉 주립대학교 건축도시대학) ;
  • 패트릭 밀러 (미국 버지니아 폴리테크닉 주립대학교 건축도시대학)
  • Received : 2014.11.20
  • Accepted : 2015.01.28
  • Published : 2015.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Brownfield sites are beginning to be considered as potentially useful areas for landscape design and planning, with post-industrial areas such as water treatment facilities and military training bases being converted into useful landscapes such as parks and recreation areas. These redevelopments bring broad benefits through revitalizing communities and increasing property values, thus, increasing the demand for comprehensive management and planning policies. This study examines changes in U.S. brownfield policies and programs and, identifies their periodic characteristics over the thirty years since the Superfund program was introduced in 1980. A descriptive and interpretive approach was utilized, focusing specifically on a time sequential analysis of the data gathered from the overview of the Environmental Protection Agency's web-based documents and related literature. The primary changes in and characteristics of programs and policies were analyzed and divided into three periods : environmental protection, remediation and reuse, and comprehensive planning. Four major features were identified: relaxation and readjustment of regulation, diversification of support programs, a mix of top-down and bottom-up approaches, and database system building. The study examines how common brownfield problems such as site identification difficulties and assessment and remediation cost have been dealt with in the regulatory context and has implications for future policies and programs for effective brownfield planning and management in Korea.

하수처리시설, 군부대 등의 산업이전적지의 공원화 계획이 늘어나면서 브라운필드 재개발은 조경계획 및 디자인에서 하나의 분야로 자리 잡았다. 특히, 주변 커뮤니티 활성화, 지가 상승 등 동반이익에 대한 기대가 높아지면서 선별된 부지들의 종합적 계획 및 관리에 대한 필요성이 인식되고 있다. 본 연구는 미국 브라운 필드 관리 정책의 변화양상을 살펴 본 기초적인 사례연구로서, 1980년 수퍼펀드 프로그램 도입 이후, 약 30 여 년간 확장하여 온 브라운필드 프로그램과 정책의 시기별 특성을 파악하는 것을 주 목적으로 한다. 연구 방법으로 서술적, 해석적 방법에 기반한 미국 환경부 산하 기관들의 웹문서 및 관련 문헌 분석을 통해 정책의 특성을 시계열적으로 분석하였다. 본 연구의 결과, 주요한 변화를 기점으로 하여, 환경규제시기, 오염정화 및 재개발 촉진시기, 종합적 계획시기의 세 가지 시기로 구분되었고, 주요 특성은 규제 완화 및 재조정, 지원 프로그램의 다양화, 하향식과 상향식 방식의 조화, 데이터베이스 구축의 네 가지 측면으로 요약되었다. 본 연구는 대상지 선별기준, 이해 당사자 파악 및 책임분쟁 조정, 오염도 평가비용 및 처리 등 브라운필드만이 가진 공통 문제들이 어떻게 다뤄져 왔는지 선례를 살펴봄으로써, 향후 한국의 체계적 브라운 필드 관리 및 계획에 시사점을 제공하는 것에 의의를 두고 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Adams, D., C. Sousa, and S. Tiesdell, S.(2010) Brownfield development: A comparison of North American and British approaches. Urban Studies 47(1): 75-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009346868
  2. Alker, S., V. Joy, P. Roberts, and N. Smith(2000) The definition of brownfield. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 43(1): 49-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560010766
  3. Bartsch, C. and E. Collaton(1997) Brownfields: Cleaning and Reusing Contaminated Properties. Westport, CT: Praeger.
  4. Begley, R.(1997) Resurrecting brownfields. Environmental Science & Technology 31(5): 226-230. https://doi.org/10.1021/es972269x
  5. Berger, A.(2006) Drosscape. In C. Waldheim, eds., The Landscape Urbanism Reader. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
  6. Choi, Y. K.(2008) Recent development in Korean soil environment conservation act. Korea Comparative Public Law Association 9(1): 367-394. (채영근(2008) 토양환경보전법의 실효성 확보를 위한 과제와 토양환경평가. 공법학연구 9(1): 367-394.)
  7. Collins, F. P.(2002) Small business liability relief and brownfields revitalization act: A critique. The Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum 13: 303.
  8. Dull, M. and K. Wernstedt(2010) Land recycling, community revitalization, and distributive politics: An analysis of EPA brownfields program support. Policy Studies Journal 38(1): 119-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00347.x
  9. Eisen, J. B.(2007) Brownfields at 20: A critical reevaluation. Fordham Urban Law Journal 34: 721.
  10. Gorman, H. S.(2003) Brownfields in historical context. Environmental Practice 5(1): 21-24. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046603030102
  11. Hollander, J., N. Kirkwood, and J. Gold.(2010) Principles of Brownfield Regeneration: Cleanup, Design, and Reuse of Derelict Land. Washington: Island Press.
  12. Hula, R. C.(2001) Changing priorities and programs in toxic waste policy: The emergence of economic development as a policy goal. Economic Development Quarterly 15(2): 181-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124240101500206
  13. ICMA: International City/CountyManagement Association(2001) Brownfields Redevelopment: A Guidebook for Local Governments and Communities.
  14. Innes, J. E. and D. E. Booher(2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory Practice 5(4): 419-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170
  15. Kim, H. K.(2002) Potential responsible parties under the CERCLA and polluters under the soil environment conservation act. Korean Environmental Law Association 24(1): 61-101. (김홍균(2002) 미국 종합환경대응책임법 (CERCLA) 상의 책임당사자와 토양환경보전법상의 오염원인자. 환경법연구 24(1): 61-101.)
  16. Kim, Y. S. and J. Y. Lee(2011) Ecological risk characterization process for comprehensive risk assessment of soil and groundwater contamination sites. Korea Environment Institute. pp.1-70. (김윤승, 이주연(2011) 토양, 지하수 오염부지의 종합적 위해성평가를 위한 생태위해성평가 체계 구축. 기초연구보고서, 한국환경정책평가연구원.) pp.1-70.
  17. Kim, Y. S., Y. J. Hyun, and Y. J. Choi(2013) Local brownfields revitalization policy vision and strategy. Korea Environment Institute 21(3): 1-21.(김윤승, 현윤정, 최유진(2013) 지역 오염부지의 재이용 비전 및 전략. 한국환경정책평가연구원 21(3): 1-21.)
  18. Kirkwood, N.(Ed.)(2001) Manufactured Sites: Rethinking the Post-Industrial Landscape. New York: Taylor Francis.
  19. Langhorst, J.(2004) Rising from ruins: Postindustrial sites between abandonment and engagement. In Proceedings of the Conference 'Tourist Places/Theories and Strategies'. Edinburgh, Scotland.
  20. Levine, A. S.(2002) Brownfields revitalization and environmental restoration act of 2001: The benefits and the limitations. Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository 13: 217.
  21. McMorrow, A. P.(2003) CERCLA liability redefined: An analysis of the small business liability relief and brownfields revitlization act and its impact on state voluntary cleanup programs. Georgia State University Law Review 20: 1087.
  22. Mintz, J. A.(2002) New loopholes or minor adjustments: A summary and evaluation of the small business liability relief and brownfields revitalization act. Pace Environmental Law Review 20: 405.
  23. Oliver, L., U. Ferber., D. Grimski., K. Millar, and P. Nathanail(2005) The scale and nature of European brownfields. In CABERNET 2005-International Conference on Managing Urban Land. Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
  24. Park, J. W.(2010) Legal trend and issues in the field of soil environment. Environmental Law and Policy 4: 149-195. (박종원(2010) 토양환경법제의 최근 동향과 쟁점. 환경법과 정책4: 149-195.) https://doi.org/10.18215/envlp.4..201005.149
  25. Park, J. W.(2014) A study on the liability for clean up contaminated land under the soil environment conservation act revised in 2014. Korean Environmental Law Association 36(1): 299-341. (박종원(2014) 2014년 개정[토양환경보전법]에 따른 토양정화책임조항에 대한 평가와 전망. 환경법연구 36(1): 299-341.)
  26. Park, Y. H., S. Y. Park, and J. E. Yang(2004) Problem findings regarding the legal liability of soil contaminated sites in Korea, and it's policy suggestion from a comparison study to U. S., U K., Germany, Netherlands, and Denmark's policies. Korea Environment Institute 3(2): 31-57. (박용하, 박상열, 양재의(2004) 연구논문: 토양오염지역의 책임에 관한 우리나라, 미국, 영국, 독일, 네덜란드, 덴마크 법과 제도의 비교분석 및 우리 나라 정책개선방향. 한국환경정책평가연구원 3(2): 31-57.)
  27. Reisch, S.(2002) The brownfields amendments: New opportunities, new challenges-part I. Colo. Law 31: 99-100.
  28. Robertson, H. G.(1999) One piece of the puzzle: Why state brownfields programs can't lure businesses to the urban core without finding the missing pieces. Rutgers Law Review 51(5): 1075-1132.
  29. Russ, T. H.(2000) Redeveloping Brownfields: LandscapeArchitects, Planners, Developers. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  30. Sakai, S., H. Yoshida, and Y. Hirai(2011) International comparative study of 3R and waste management policy developments. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management 13(2): 86-102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-011-0009-x
  31. Solitare, L.(2005) Prerequisite conditions for meaningful participation in brownfields redevelopment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 48(6): 917-935. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560500294475
  32. Weigard, S. M.(2003) Brownfields act: Providing relief for the innocent or new hurdles to avoid CERCLA liability. The Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 28: 127.
  33. Vitulli, A., C. Dougherty, and K. Bosworth(2004) Characterization of Reuse Activities at Contaminated Sites. National Center for Environmental Economics.
  34. EDA, Economic Development Administration Grant Program, www.eda.gov
  35. EPA. Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office(FFRRO). www.epa.gov/fedfac
  36. EPA. Superfund Program. www.epa.gov/superfund
  37. EPA. Superfund Redevelopment Program. www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle
  38. EPA. Underground Storage Tanks(UST). www.epa.gov/oust
  39. EPA. Brownfield Area-Wide Planning Program(BF AWP). www.epa.gov/brownfields/areawide_grants
  40. EPA. Brownfield and Land Revitalization.www.epa.gov/brownfields
  41. HUD, Community Development Block Grant Program(CDBG). www.hud.gov/cdbg
  42. RCRA, Hazardous Waste Handler Tracking. www.epa.gov/Compliance/data/results/performance/rcra

Cited by

  1. Residents' perception of local brownfields in rail corridor area in the City of Roanoke: the effect of people's preconception and health concerns factors vol.60, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1182898
  2. Seeking a balance: a procedure-based evaluation of localized approaches for brownfield management in the USA pp.1360-0559, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1369939
  3. The management of brownfields in Ontario: A comprehensive review of remediation and reuse characteristics, trends, and outcomes, 2004–2015 pp.1466-0474, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/14660466.2018.1407615