FOCUS SUR : Tendero, M. and C. Bazart (2024). ““I can’t get no satisfaction”: Soil contaminated brownfield redevelopment in France.” Cities Vol 145.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104719
Cleaning Up Industrial Brownfields: How to Address Residents’ Mistrust
Article focus publié dans :
Nearly Eight in Ten French People Live Near a Contaminated Brownfield Site. Despite remediation operations, redevelopment policies and the objective of net zero land take (ZAN), several thousand sites remain abandoned. Between technical uncertainties, hidden remediation costs and collective memory, residents’ trust remains difficult to restore.
.
Despite remediation operations, redevelopment policies and the objective of net zero land take (ZAN), several thousand sites remain abandoned. Between technical uncertainties, hidden remediation costs and collective memory, residents’ trust remains difficult to restore.
You may be living, without knowing it, near a contaminated brownfield site: this is the case for nearly eight in ten French people. Despite redevelopment policies implemented in recent years, particularly under the France Relance recovery plan (2020–2022) and schemes introduced by the French Agency for Ecological Transition (Ademe), these brownfields still exist. According to data from the national inventory Cartofriches, more than 9,000 brownfield sites were still awaiting redevelopment projects in France in 2026.
Former factories, landfills, military barracks, port or railway areas, but also hospitals, schools or service facilities… Brownfield sites are, by nature, highly diverse. Most are inherited from our industrial past. Some, however, involve current service activities established on former industrial land that was already contaminated, such as the former Kodak site in Vincennes (Val-de-Marne).
Beyond their physical footprint, some brownfields have left a lasting mark on territories and collective memory. Certain names are now associated with persistent pollution, or even with social crises, such as Métaleurop, Péchiney, Florange or AZF.
These abandoned sites—whether built-up or not but requiring work before any reuse—are undergoing various transformations: housing, gardens, offices, shopping centers or cultural spaces, as illustrated by the Belle-de-Mai brownfield site in Marseille’s 3rd arrondissement. At a time when France has committed to the objective of net zero land take (ZAN), brownfield redevelopment represents a major challenge for local authorities in order to limit urban sprawl and enhance territorial attractiveness.
Yet despite remediation efforts, many struggle to regain a new use. Why? Because cleaning up contaminated soil is not enough to erase the past or restore residents’ trust.
Remediation: An Essential but Complex Step
Before being redeveloped, a contaminated brownfield undergoes soil diagnostics that usually lead to the development of a management plan. This document defines the measures required to make the site compatible with its intended use: excavation of contaminated soil, confinement beneath slabs or asphalt, water management, long-term monitoring, or usage restrictions.
Its content depends on the future use. Converting a brownfield into a logistics warehouse does not involve the same requirements as building a school. The more “sensitive” the intended use, the stricter the health standards. In France, remediation therefore does not aim to restore soil to a completely pollution-free state. Instead, it is based on a balance between residual pollution, potential exposure and future uses.
Another often underestimated reality is that remediation costs are highly variable and are rarely known precisely from the outset.
Depending on site characteristics, pollutants, their depth and the intended uses, costs can escalate dramatically. In the event of unexpected discoveries (asbestos hidden in backfill or higher-than-expected concentrations of heavy metals), the management plan must be revised. In other words, remediation may appear straightforward on paper, but in reality it is far more uncertain, with potentially hidden costs.
Stigma: The Blind Spot of Redevelopment
This technical uncertainty affects residents’ perceptions, as traces of a past once thought to be under control sometimes reappear during construction work. Even after remediation compliant with regulations, many brownfields struggle to attract residents, users or investors.
This is known as the “stigma effect.” A site remains associated with its past—often with highly publicized pollution cases or health and social crises that have left a lasting impression.
In other words, the past continues to shape the present. The soil may be cleaned up, but collective memory is not. To extend the metaphor, the brownfield becomes an “imperfect present”: legally rehabilitated, yet symbolically suspect. This stigma has concrete effects, such as prolonged vacancy or underuse, and local opposition.
To better understand this mistrust, we conducted a survey of 803 residents living near a contaminated brownfield site, across 503 French municipalities. The results are unequivocal: nearly 80% of respondents declared themselves dissatisfied with the way contaminated brownfields are managed and redeveloped in France.
This dissatisfaction is stronger among those who perceive soils as highly contaminated, who have previously experienced pollution situations, or who express low trust in government actions. They also report greater reluctance to use or invest in sites once they have been rehabilitated.
A Gap Between Technical Management and Public Perception
These findings reveal a gap between the technical management of brownfields and the way they are perceived by residents. From a regulatory standpoint, a site may be declared compatible with its intended use; from a social standpoint, it may still be perceived as risky.
Several mechanisms explain this gap.
First, soil pollution is invisible. Unlike a dilapidated building, remediated soil cannot be seen, which may fuel doubt.
Collective memory also plays a central role. Contaminated brownfields are often associated with a heavy industrial past, sometimes marked by health scandals or social crises that leave lasting impressions.
Finally, a lack of information can reinforce suspicion. Concepts such as residual pollution or management plans may be difficult for non-specialists to grasp. When pollution is not completely removed, the message can be misunderstood and perceived as a concealed danger.
Thus, even when technical solutions are sound, stigma persists. Yet without public trust, there can be no sustainable redevelopment.
These results highlight an essential point: the redevelopment of contaminated brownfields does not rely solely on the quality of remediation work. It depends just as much on the ability to build a climate of trust. This requires clear, transparent and accessible information explaining not only what has been done, but also what remains in place and why. It involves engaging local residents upstream in projects so that they do not discover transformations only after decisions have been made. Finally, it requires acknowledging the weight of the past and local memory rather than attempting to erase it.
In a context of net zero land take (ZAN), contaminated brownfields represent a significant land opportunity. But without taking social and symbolic dimensions into account, even the most effective technical solutions are likely to remain insufficient. Cleaning up soils is essential. Establishing—or restoring—residents’ trust is just as crucial.
_____________________
