I’m bullish on the brownfields market for the next decade. The confluence of a number of important factors has set the next stage in the evolution of this market.

I see these factors and their impact on transactions every day, and they are affecting all four major brownfield stakeholders—property owners, developers/investors/end-users, transaction support, and government.

Increased pressures on corporations by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to measure and disclose environmental liabilities, and the increased risk of Security and Exhange Commission (SEC) investigations around environmental disclosure is no longer taken lightly in the board room. FIN 45, FIN 47 and recent SEC investigations and settlements around this issue have been well documented, including here in Brownfield News.

Many bellwether, large corporations have traditionally “mothballed” their surplus industrial sites. Today, these same companies have begun to think and act collaboratively to develop innovative solutions for their surplus properties, approaching the issue with combined regulatory, legislative and financial methods. As a result of these corporate initiatives, I predict that we will see a significant amount of additional supply enter the market over the next 1 to 3 years.

On the acquisition side, developers, investors and end-users increasingly have found that brownfields are good business, particularly over the last couple of years of the real estate cycle. As “the line has gotten deeper” among competitive developers for greenfield sites, more attention is being focused on the “urban infill” (read brownfields) market. It is simply a matter of market forces. Brownfields start to attract more buyers when developers over bid on the cost-per-acre of greenfield sites, during a burgeoning, competitive real estate market cycle.

A norming has occurred on the acquisition side of this market. Where brownfields once seemed the exclusive domain of the niche developer, they now are highly sought after by major real estate investment trusts (REITs) and traditional commercial developers in most large urban markets in America.

The transaction support sector has played its role in helping the market evolve, too. Innovations in remedial technology, contractors who are willing to guarantee cleanups for a fixed-price, and the emergence of environmental insurance as a valuable, malleable tool for mitigating risks have helped enable numerous transactions and redevelopment projects.

The capital markets have responded to the market evolution and opportunity in ways that are also fueling brownfield redevelopment. At present, I know of over $3 billion in debt and equity capital committed to this market. If one were able to aggregate all the capital that is committed to this market without specifically defining it as a brownfield market, the amount is closer to double that figure. It is no longer coming just from specialty private equity funds, either. A number of large pension funds and financial services firms have major investments in this market. I have seen those investments increase significantly over the past few years, both in dollar amount and the diversification of where and with whom that capital is being placed.

The government, too, has contributed to the evolution of the market using the carrot and the stick approach. Few would argue that regulatory relief for prospective purchasers at the state and federal level hasn’t had a boosting effect on the brownfields market, nor have state and local financial incentives favoring redevelopment or the prevalence of risk-based cleanup standards that foster tailoring cleanups to reuse. On the stick side, regardless of where you stand on the issue, the Kelo vs. New London eminent domain ruling hasn’t exactly hurt the growth of the market, either.

When you mix all this up in the cauldron of capitalism, socioeconomics, science, and the law, the recipe starts to smell a lot like the next evolution of the brownfields market.

Alan Bressler is president of CPR Companies in Atlanta, Ga.