| Conclusions Brownfield 
          remediation is an emerging field, and as such, substantial research 
          has yet to be done related to the feasibility for community groups of 
          pursuing remediation options to prepare land for planting. Thus far, 
          very few grassroots organizations that have undertaken such endeavours 
          and of the few community groups who have in fact remediating, most are 
          simply experimenting with process and have rarely planted crops for 
          consumption post-remediation. Remediating contaminated land remains 
          a domain largely in the hands of industry and government. 
 There are no straightforward solutions to the problem of brownfield 
          remediation for urban agriculture. Feasibility issues including accessibility, 
          cost, timeframe, effectiveness to remediate soil to agricultural standards 
          and environmental effects. The selection of an appropriate technique 
          will depend on the needs, capabilities and constraints of individual 
          groups as well as the particular soil characteristics, and the type 
          and degree of contamination present. There is no technique that will 
          be suitable to all groups and to all sorts of contamination problems. 
          In light of these limitations, we have identified excavation as the 
          most appropriate option for community groups to pursue at this time. 
          Because of the high health risk in the ingestion of food cultivated 
          in contaminated soil, we recommend that community groups exercise the 
          precautionary principle and employ excavation, the only feasible solution 
          guaranteed to provide nutritious produce grown in a contaminant-free 
          environment. It is accessible, cost- and time-effective, and represents 
          the least amount of risk in bringing soil up to agricultural standards 
          as well as maintaining these standards over the long term.
 
 In light of this recommendation, we recognize the great future potential 
          of biological methods such as microbial and phytoremediation. Microbial 
          remediation and phytoremediation are very effective in removing the 
          majority of contamination in a given plot. They are also both cost-effective 
          and accessible to community groups. However, both techniques have demonstrated 
          difficulty in removing the final pollutants required to achieve agricultural-grade 
          soil. With more research and time, these methods have the prospective 
          of being risk-free and even more cost-effective than excavation, presenting 
          exciting options for the future.
 
 Finally, by thinking creatively, community groups may wish to recast 
          the problem of brownfield remediation for urban agriculture as "brownfields 
          for urban agriculture" and pursue options that are not affected 
          by urban soil contamination at all. Examples include container gardening 
          and aquaponics. These techniques enable groups to achieve urban gardens, 
          but without the cost, time requirements and risk of soil remediation 
          at this time. Exploring such options makes urban agriculture feasible 
          in the interim while research into remediation for small-scale, low 
          budget urban projects develops and matures.
 
  © 
          2002 McGill School 
          of EnvironmentMcGill University
 3534 University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2A7
 |