War leaves five types of contaminated landscapes with different paths to recovery

“War-affected landscapes should not be understood only through destruction and contamination. They can also be ecological systems, cultural landscapes and historical resources with different possibilities for future regeneration.”— Yawen Han

War does not end when the fighting stops. Landscapes can continue to carry the environmental, spatial and cultural consequences of warfare for decades, sometimes creating safety risks, restricting land use, or leaving behind places with important historical and ecological value.

This study introduces the concept of war brownfields to provide a broader way of understanding post-war landscapes. Rather than focusing only on contamination or destruction, the study considers how different war legacies can shape the future use and regeneration of affected places. The researchers identify five main types of war brownfields according to the ways warfare transforms landscapes: remnant military fortifications, craters, ammunition-contaminated sites, radioactively contaminated sites, and military storage and toxic contamination sites. These categories can occur in very different settings, including cities, agricultural land, forests, industrial areas and natural ecosystems. They are therefore defined by their dominant war-related legacy rather than simply by their current land use.

The study also shows that these different landscapes require different approaches. Former military fortifications may have strong heritage value and can potentially be reused as museums, memorial parks or educational spaces. Crater landscapes may offer opportunities for ecological restoration, wetlands or alternative uses. In contrast, areas affected by unexploded ammunition require clearance and risk management before redevelopment, while radioactive contamination can impose long-term restrictions on human access and land use.

The researchers propose a war brownfield decision-making framework that brings together five considerations: security risk, environmental consequences, heritage value, regeneration potential, and emotional or psychological impact. Importantly, the framework recognises that several types of war legacy can coexist within the same site, meaning that regeneration decisions need to be tailored to individual conditions rather than follow a single standard model.

By bringing environmental management, heritage conservation and landscape regeneration into one framework, the study provides a new basis for thinking about how war-affected land can move from long-term abandonment or restriction towards more sustainable forms of recovery.

Contact author details:

Yawen Han, PhD student in the Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Polytechnic University of Milan. yawen.han@polimi.it

Funder:

This research was supported by China Scholarship Council (Grant number: 202408330073). 

Conflict of interest:

Given Xiaodi Zheng's role as a Guest Editor, she had no involvement in the peer review of this article and had no access to information regarding its peer review. Full responsibility for the editorial process for this article was delegated to another journal editor. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. 

See the article:

Han, Y., Zheng, X., 2026. War brownfields: Classification, characteristics, and regeneration strategies from a landscape architecture perspective. Landscape Architecture and Sustainability 100060. doi: 10.1016/j.las.2026.100060