How can we clean up brownfields in the face of residents' skepticism?
Nearly eight in ten French people live near a contaminated brownfield site. Despite cleanup efforts, redevelopment policies, and the “zero net land take” (ZAN) goal, several thousand sites remain abandoned. Amid technical uncertainties, hidden cleanup costs, and collective memory, it remains difficult to restore residents’ trust.
Cecile Bazart, University of Montpellier and Marjorie Tendero, ESSCA School of Management
You may be living near a contaminated brownfield site without even realizing it: this is the case for nearly eight out of ten French people. Despite the redevelopment policies implemented in recent years—particularly as part of the France Relance plan (2020–2022) and the initiatives launched by the French Agency for Ecological Transition (Ademe)—these brownfield sites still exist. According to data from the national Cartofriches inventory, more than 9,000 brownfields are still awaiting redevelopment projects in France by 2026.
Former factories, landfills, military barracks, port or rail areas, as well as hospitals, schools, and service facilities… Brownfield sites are, by nature, highly diverse. Most are legacies of our industrial past. But some are associated with current service-sector activities that have been established on former industrial sites that were already contaminated, as illustrated by the former Kodak site in Vincennes (Val-de-Marne).
Beyond their physical footprint, some brownfield sites have left a lasting mark on local communities and collective memory. Today, certain names are associated with persistent pollution or even social crises, such as Métaleurop, Péchiney, Florange, and AZF.
These abandoned sites—whether developed or undeveloped, but requiring renovation before any reuse—are undergoing a variety of transformations: housing, gardens, offices, shopping centers, or cultural spaces, such as the Belle-de-Mai brownfield site in Marseille’s 3rd arrondissement. At a time when France has committed to the goal of zero net land take (ZAN), the redevelopment of brownfields is a major challenge for local areas in order to limit urban sprawl and promote regional attractiveness.
Yet, despite decontamination efforts, many sites struggle to find a new use. Why? Because decontaminating the soil is not enough to erase the past or restore residents’ trust.
Remediation: an essential but complex step
Before being redeveloped, a contaminated brownfield site undergoes soil assessments, which typically lead to the development of a management plan. This document outlines the measures needed to make the site suitable for its intended use, such as excavation of contaminated soil, containment under slabs or asphalt, water management, long-term monitoring, or restrictions on use.
Its content depends on the future use. Converting a brownfield site into a logistics warehouse does not entail the same requirements as building a school. The more “sensitive” the use, the higher the health and safety requirements. In France, therefore, remediation does not aim to restore the soil to a completely pollution-free state. It is based on a balance between residual pollution, potential exposure, and future uses.
Added to this is a reality that is often underestimated: the cost of remediation varies widely and is rarely known with precision from the outset.
Depending on the site’s characteristics, the pollutants, their depth, and the proposed uses, costs can skyrocket. In the event of unexpected discoveries (such as asbestos hidden in fill material or higher-than-expected concentrations of heavy metals), the management plan is revised. In other words, remediation is often straightforward on paper, but much more uncertain in reality, with potentially hidden costs.
Stigma: The Blind Spot in Career Transition
This technical uncertainty has an impact on residents’ perceptions, as they sometimes see traces of a past they thought they had brought under control resurface during construction. Even after work has been completed in accordance with standards, many brownfield sites struggle to attract residents, users, or investors.
This is what is knownas the “stigma effect.” A site remains associated with its past, with high-profile pollution incidents or health and social crises that have left a lasting impression.
In other words, the past continues to shape the present. The soil has been remediated, but the collective memory has not. To extend the metaphor, the brownfield site becomes an “imperfect present”: legally rehabilitated, but symbolically suspect. This stigma has tangible consequences: prolonged vacancy or underutilization and local opposition, for example.
To gain an objective understanding of this mistrust, we conducted a survey of 803 residents living near a contaminated brownfield site, spread across 503 French municipalities. The results are clear: nearly 80% of respondents say they are dissatisfied with how contaminated brownfield sites are managed and redeveloped in France.
This dissatisfaction is more pronounced among people who perceive the soil as heavily contaminated, who have previously experienced pollution, or who express little confidence in government actions. They also say they are more reluctant to use or invest in the sites once they have been remediated.
A disconnect between technical management and perceptions
These findings reveal a disconnect between the technical management of brownfield sites and how residents perceive them. From a regulatory standpoint, a site may be deemed compatible with its intended use, but from a social standpoint, it may still be perceived as risky.
Several factors account for this discrepancy.
- The first reason is that soil contamination is invisible. Unlike a dilapidated building, decontaminated soil is not visible, which can fuel doubt.
- Collective memory also plays a central role. Contaminated brownfields are often associated with a troubled industrial past, sometimes marked by health scandals or social crises that leave lasting impressions in people’s minds.
- Finally, a lack of information can fuel suspicion. Concepts such as residual pollution or management plans can indeed be difficult for non-specialists to grasp. However, when pollution has not been completely eliminated, the message may be misunderstood and perceived as a hidden danger.
Thus, even though the technical solutions are sound, the stigma persists. Yet without public trust, there can be no sustainable transition.
These findings highlight a key point: the redevelopment of contaminated brownfields does not depend solely on the quality of the remediation work. It depends just as much on the ability to build trust. This requires clear, transparent, and accessible information that explains not only what has been done, but also what remains in place and why. It involves engaging local residents in projects early on, so they are not surprised by the changes once decisions have been made. Finally, it requires acknowledging the weight of the past and local memory, rather than trying to erase it.
In the context of zero net land take (ZAN), contaminated brownfields present a land-use opportunity. However, without taking social and symbolic factors into account, technical solutions—no matter how effective they may be—are likely to fall short. Remediating contaminated soil is essential. Rebuilding or restoring residents’ trust is just as crucial.
Cecile Bazart, Associate Professor, University of Montpellier and Marjorie Tendero, Associate Professor of Economics, ESSCA School of Management
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Readthe original article.