Redevelopment of Landfill Sites (ROLS)

Willem van Vossen. Royal Haskoning

CONTACT

Name: W.J. van Vossen

E-mail: w.vanvossen@royalhaskoning.com

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Tipping on landfills is the most widely used method to dispose of our waste. In the 27 member states of
the European Union nowadays 40% of all municipal waste is still landfilled. Europe counts more than
150,000 landfills and the aftercare costs are roughly valued at € 40-50 billion. This can hardly be fi-
nanced from public environmental budgets only. Investments from the private and real estate sector
within the framework of redevelopment of landfill sites are really one of the best ways to finance the
aftercare costs. Depending on the type of reuse (housing, industry, offices, etc.), the private and real
estate sector will take care of the aftercare costs by discounting them in the total redevelopment costs.

The Netherlands count 4,000 old landfills with represent total surface of 8,000 ha. Almost 2,000 land-
fills (3,200 ha) are situated in the vicinity of urban and/or industrial areas and they represent an eco-
nomic land value of € 4.8 to 8.0 billion in case of reuse as industrial or residential area.

No policy has been developed in the EU to stimulate and facilitate redevelopment of landfill sites. In
the Netherlands directives and guidelines have been developed since 2004. This resulted anno 2012 in a
total number of 158 redevelopment initiatives at landfill sites, divided into three categories: housing
(28%), industry (29%) and recreation and sports (43%). The 158 redevelopment initiatives only repre-
sent 10% of the total redevelopment potential. As a consequence 90% is still unused space with a po-
tential land value of € 4.3 to € 7.2 billion.

In the Netherlands the increasing social acceptance of reusing landfill sites for housing and/or industrial
areas is caused by 1) the absence of human and environmental risks at landfill sites due to the self-
cleaning natural processes in the landfill body, 2) the implementation of directives and guidelines to
support and facilitate redevelopment initiatives, and 3) the need for developing landfill sites caused by
scarcity of public space close to urban and industrial areas.

The same goes for the redevelopment of the 150,000 landfills sites in Europe, even in countries which
are less densely populated than the Netherlands. It can be concluded that the redevelopment of the re-
maining unused landfill space is a big challenge in the Netherlands as well as in Europe and can there-
fore be considered to be a huge future perspective.

INTRODUCTION

Tipping on landfills is still the most widely used method to dispose of our waste. Figure 1 (lit 1) shows
that in the 27 member states of the European Union almost 40% of all municipal solid waste (MSW) is
still landfilled. In the southern and eastern countries of Europe more than 75% of the waste is land-
filled, even up to 100% in Bulgaria.
 100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Landfilling
50% Incineration
40% Recyling
30%
20%
10%
0%
Netherlands

Estonia

Lithuania
Finland
France
Germany

Hungary
Austria

Slovenia

Tjech Republic

Romania
Spain
Ireland

Poland
Cyprus
Portugal

Greece
UK

Slovakia

Latvia

Malta

Bulgaria
EU27

Sweden

Belgium
Luxembourg
Denmark

Italy
Figure 1 Waste processing (incineration, recycling, landfilling) in the EU-countries

Based upon a rough estimation, Europe counts more than 150,000 landfills. Most of them are old and
abandoned landfills. The total costs of traditional aftercare of old and abandoned landfills in Europe, is
roughly valued at € 40.000 to 50.000 million (€ 40-50 billion). This is a huge amount of money, which
can hardly be financed from public environmental budgets only.

Figure 2

Application of new aftercare technologies, such as Natural Attenuation, will already help to lower the
costs of aftercare significantly. But investments from the private and real estate sector within the
framework of redevelopment of the landfill site is really one of the best ways to finance the aftercare
costs. Depending on the type of reuse (housing, industrial area, office buildings, etc.), the private and
real estate sector will take care of the aftercare costs by discounting them in the total costs of redevel-
opment of the landfill site.

Especially in urban areas the reuse of old landfill sites can be considered as privileged. A combination
of relative low aftercare costs due to natural self-cleaning processes in the landfill (Natural Attenua-
tion) at one hand and high benefits by redevelopment projects as housing, office buildings, industrial
area at the other hand, is the most favourable opportunity.

In urban areas the subject of contamination cannot be avoided. It is an illusion to think that one can still
build on clean land in an urban environment. So the most important prerequisite is the cleaning up the
landfill site in order to make it acceptable i.e. suitable for the intended reuse.
For old landfills especially, the provinces of Brabant and Gelderland in the Netherlands are trendsetters
to this subject. They established guidelines with respect to the reuse of landfills, including granting
subsidy, to stimulate redevelopment initiatives.

WHAT IS MEANT BY REDEVELOPMENT?

Reuse of landfill sites means a wide range of redevelopment possibilities. An overview is presented in
table 1. The choice of type of reuse is depending on the urban or rural spatial planning of the area in
which the landfill is situated. Table 1 shows the redevelopment possibilities, categorised from low
quality reuse and low benefits to high quality reuse and high benefits. The benefits are expressed in
value of land and real estate.

Table 1 Reuse possibilities

Quality of reuse Type of reuse Benefits of reuse
Low quality Parking area Low
Nature
Sports and recreation
Shopping malls
Industrial area
Office buildings
High quality Residential area High

The type of reuse can also related to the potential vulnerability, expressed in the average number of
hours per day that people are spending at the location. The more time people spend at the landfill site,
the higher the chance of potential exposure to the landfill site and as a consequence the higher the po-
tential vulnerability of the type of reuse. This means that a residential area at a landfill site is far more
vulnerable than for instance a parking area. At the other hand the impact of potential exposure also de-
pends on the intrinsic environmental and human risks of the landfill site itself with respect to the degree
of contamination of the waste body as well as the potential emissions of gas to the air compartment and
contaminants to groundwater. Figure 3 shows the relation between vulnerability of the type of reuse
and the environmental risk levels of the landfill.

Risk of Vulnerability of type of reuse

landfill site Low High

Low

High

Figure 3 Vulnerability of reuse versus risk of landfill

It is obvious that in the green box situation redevelopment projects can be initiated and carried out
without any problem. The red box represents the opposite situation. From a social and psychological
point of view the reuse of the landfill site for housing will not be feasible anyway and should in fact not
be wanted. In the yellow box situation any type of reuse is possible, but the choice and feasibility de-
pends on the specific local situation with respect to the environment, spatial planning and last but not
least the costs and benefits.

POLICY ON REDEVELOPMENT OF LANDFILL SITES

Figure 4

As far as known no specific policy has been developed in the European countries in order to stimulate
and facilitate redevelopment projects at landfill sites. In the Netherlands policy has been developed at a
national as well as a regional level.

Especially for the old and abandoned landfills especially, the province of North-Brabant (NL) is trend-
setter to this subject by making a directive and guideline called ‘Hergebruik van stortplaatsen’ (Reuse
of landfills) in 2004. This directive is divided into four main chapters concerning guidelines for inves-
tigations, analysis on human and environmental risks, rehabilitation measures and aftercare measures.
The directive includes granting of subsidy in order to stimulate redevelopment initiatives.

On a national level the Dutch national Ministry of Spatial Planning and Environment decided to subsi-
dy a huge redevelopment project, called Belvédère. It concerns a residential area at a landfill site of 15
ha in the city of Maastricht (see figure 5). This large-scale pilot project was emphasized on the strategy
of communication to future home-owners in the context of social acceptance (see next chapter).

Figure 5 The Belvédėre landfill before and after redevelopment

It is clear that the existence of national and regional policy, legislation and guidelines is necessary to
support the local authorities in their decision-making and to stimulate simultaneously the initiatives
from the private sector.

SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF REDEVELOPMENT OF LANDFILL SITES

From a point of social perception old landfills do have a negative image and are considered to be a
threat to human health and the environment. For that reason public and private redevelopment initia-
tives have never been taken in the past. As a consequence the old landfill sites remained undeveloped
areas with hardly any economic value.

Figure 6 The ‘Lekkerkerk affair’ in the Netherlands

In 1983 the first scandal of polluted residential district in the Netherlands became news when the media
zoomed in on the residential area in Lekkerkerk. Serious pollution has been discovered in the soil,
which resulted in a huge clean-up operation by means of excavation of all polluted soil underneath the
houses (see figure 6). It caused a national pollution trauma.

From that period the social perception in the Netherlands to ‘pollution related to redevelopment’has
been transformed in the last 30 years from ‘trauma’ into ‘acceptance’. This transformation process is
illustrated by the timetable mentioned below.
 Table 2
1980-1983 Lekkerkerk caused a national pollution-trauma.

1983-1995 Better understanding of human risk-assesment, open communicaton to society, new

and better remedial technology, social habituation to pollution.

1995-present Redevelopment of polluted sites more or less common use, except for landfills (im-
age of chemical time bomb!).

Since 2000 Results of nation-wide landfill investigation, new technology (NA) and intensive
communication proves actual and future absence of risks at former landfills, which
resulted in social acceptance.

At present Policy-makers, politicians, real estate developers are very interested in planning and
realisation redevelopment projects at former landfills (> 150 projects in the Nether-
lands).

Due to new insights the landfill is considered to be a dynamic biochemical reactor in stead of a static
chemical time-bomb. It has been proved (lit 2) that natural self-cleaning processes (Natural Attenua-
tion: see text frame below) have reduced pollution in the landfill body to admissible levels, which re-
sults in harmless landfills without negative effects to human health and environment (no inadmissible
gas emissions and inadmissible emissions to groundwater). This resulted in a positive adjustment of the
public opinion in the Netherlands with respect the redevelopment of landfill sites.

Table 3
NA stands for Natural Attenuation and represents all natural processes, which are able to neutralise
concentrations of contaminants to admissible emission levels. The three dominating processes are mi-
crobial decay, chemical precipitation, and sorption to organic matter and silt particles.

Nevertheless the public opinion remains playing a major role in the redevelopment process. Questions
as ‘how dangerous is the pollution?’, ‘will it affect human health?’, ‘what kind of aftercare actions are
taken?’ must be answered by means of adequate and open communication. Insight in the psychological
aspects of the perception of pollution is one of the success-factors in the communication process.

Van de Griendt (2007) investigated the public anxiety on all kinds of risks which people encounter day-
to-day (lit 3). Figure 7 shows a summary of the results, expressed in terms of little, moderate and great
anxiety. It shows that the extent of great anxiety on landfills (30%) is relative low and that even 25% of
the public does not have any concern about landfills. This explains the more or less the feasibility and
acceptance of redevelopment of landfill sites.
 Public anxiety on:
1. soil pollution, 2. firework plant,
3. nuclear power plant, 4. landfill,
5. railway, 6. gas transportation pipes
100%

80%

60% little
moderate
40%
great
20%

0%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 7 Degree of public anxiety on social risks (lit 3)

STRATEGY OF REDEVELOPMENT OF LANDFILL SITES

The strategic objective of the redevelopment process can be formulated as the transformation of the
abandoned and unused landfill sites into land with an economical value by means of clean up actions
and high quality reuse. In other words, change the actual negative status and image of abandoned land-
fills into a comeback of these landfills as a daily part of society. This objective can be realised by tak-
ing into account two main aspects.

An integrated approach (see figure 8) from the very start of the redevelopment process, which con-
tains the continuous life-cycle of the following relevant aspects:

 Examination;
 Risk-assessment;
 Aftercare measures;
 Finances and cost-benefit analysis;
 Redevelopment possibilities;
 Communication and public support;
 Legal aspects and liabilities;

A strong interaction and/or co-operation between public and private sector in order to get financed
the necessary aftercare measures, which are additional costs in comparison with redevelopment pro-
jects on clean soil. Besides they should agree upon mutual liabilities and financial guarantees in case of
unexpected risks and costs after the realisation of the redevelopment projects, which have to be solved
by taking mitigating measures.
 Actual negative status and
image of abandoned landfills

Examination Risk-assesment

Comeback of former
Aftercare
Communication landfills as a daily measures
part of society

Redevelopment Finances

Figure 8 Integrated approach for redevelopment of landfill sites

FEASIBILITY OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

The most important feasibility criterion is a positive outcome of the cost-benefit analysis. In spite of all
social benefits with respect to the environmental and social aspects, the real estate developer only will
join a redevelopment project in case the additional costs of measures to mitigate the risks of building at
a landfill site can largely be financed from the profits of increased land value and real estate. The rede-
velopment project is considered to be feasible when the total cost-benefit-analysis ends up positive.

Of course the realisation of the redevelopment project also depends on social and political acceptance
and feasibility. This requires an open process of communication of the redevelopment plans to the pub-
lic and the competent authorities. An important issue are the financial guarantees to be able to fulfil the
obligations with respect to aftercare.

Last but not least legal aspects must be tackled with respect to liabilities between the involved public
and private participants in case of unexpected negative environmental, geotechnical and civil engineer-
ing effects after realisation, which are due to the landfill site.
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Residential area

28%
Industrial area
43%

29% Nature,
recreation &
sports

Figure 9 Redevelopment projects in the Netherlands

The Dutch policy resulted anno 2012 in a total number of 158 redevelopment initiatives and already
realized projects at landfills in the Netherlands. These initiatives and already realized projects have
been divided into three categories: residential areas, industrial areas and nature, recreation and sports.
The distribution of these three categories over the 158 projects is shown in figure 9.

The Netherlands count 4,000 old and abandoned landfills with a total surface of 8,000 ha. Almost 2,000
landfills (3,200 ha) are considered to be dynamic landfills with respect to the potential of spatial plan-
ning and development. Because these dynamic landfill sites are all situated in the vicinity of urban
and/or industrial areas, they represent an potential economic land value of € 4.8 billion in case of reuse
as an industrial area (€ 150/m2) to € 8.0 billion in case of reuse as a residential area (€ 250/m2).

So the 158 redevelopment initiatives anno 2012 only represent ± 10% of the total redevelopment poten-
tial. This means that in potential ± 90% is still unused space, waiting for redevelopment projects, with a
potential land value of € 4.3 to € 7.2 billion. So the redevelopment of the remaining unused landfill is a
big challenge and can be considered to be a huge future perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing social acceptance of reusing landfill sites for housing and/or industrial areas is caused
by three main aspects:

1. The absence of human and environmental risks at landfill sites due to the self-cleaning natural
processes in the landfill body. This has been proven by an extensive study and investigation at
80 representative landfills in the Netherlands (lit 2).
2. The establishment and implementation of national and regional policy and guidelines to support
and facilitate redevelopment initiatives.
3. The need for developing landfill sites from a point of view of scarcity of public space close to
urban and industrial areas.
This resulted in 158 redevelopment initiatives in the Netherlands, which is only 10% of the total rede-
velopment potential. So it is a big challenge to start the redevelopment of the remaining 90% of unused
space at the landfill sites into residential or industrial area, which will increase the land value by € 4 to
7 billion.

The same goes for the redevelopment of the 150,000 landfills sites in Europe, even in countries which
are less densely populated than the Netherlands. Also in thinly populated countries, the old landfills
have been situated nearby urban and industrial areas in order to reduce the transport distance of waste
to the landfills.

So the redevelopment of the remaining unused landfill space is a big challenge and can be considered
to be a huge future perspective with respect to environmental and economic values.

REFERENCES

Annual Review 2009, Dutch Waste Management Association.

Griendt, v.d. B, (2007): Grond voor zorg, stof tot nadenken’, page 56.

Royal Haskoning, TNO, Bioclear, Free University of Amsterdam (2002): Natural Attenuation and old
landfill, NA-Verification Methodology and Set of Characteristic NA-Parameters, integrated report, IPO
publication number 141, 25 June 2002.