• Treat flood and slope exposure as first-order constraints before promoting visitor uses
• Connect riverfront interpretation with existing walking routes rather than assuming major new construction
• Use the distinct village identity and landscape as a linked visitor story

What differs: Lynmouth is a coastal tourism destination with a harbor and national-park visitor context; Haysi is an inland Appalachian settlement. Similar terrain does not imply similar market demand or hazard conditions.

• Map the actual buildable land and access pinch points before identifying reuse sites
• Build interpretive walking links around existing river and heritage assets
• Pair visitor access with riverbank and slope stewardship

What differs: Pont-en-Royans has a denser historic core and a Vercors regional visitor economy; the analogy supports form and access questions, not a claim that tourism is transferable at the same scale.

• Make hazard, ecological carrying capacity and access capacity explicit in visitor planning
• Interpret settlement history through existing paths and buildings
• Protect river edges and avoid treating all constrained land as available for development

What differs: Sainte-Énimie is a recognized medieval tourism destination within a UNESCO-listed cultural landscape region; Haysi is not an equivalent heritage or visitor-market place.

• Use existing buildings for low-footprint visitor or community functions rather than expanding the footprint
• Link any visitor offer to local stewardship and resident needs
• Track actual resident, business and visitor outcomes instead of assuming that visibility creates population recovery

What differs: Corippo is a protected historic stone village with an established heritage foundation and scattered-hotel model; Haysi’s housing, building stock, economy and governance differ.

• Present industrial and community history as a connected place narrative
• Reuse an existing landmark or route as an interpretation anchor
• Separate verified heritage assets from tourism aspirations and measure outcomes over time

What differs: Rjukan was a large, planned hydro-industrial company town and is part of a UNESCO World Heritage property; Haysi is a much smaller Appalachian confluence settlement without that industrial system.

• National Park Service interpretation places Matewan within the West Virginia Mine Wars story and a designated historic district
• Use place-based interpretation to explain labor, community and industry together rather than reduce the story to scenic tourism
• Tie any visitor route to accurate local history and existing public sites
• Do not infer current employment or community benefit from heritage designation alone

What differs: Matewan’s nationally recognized Mine Wars history and historic-district designation are distinctive; Haysi’s confluence geography and local industrial story require their own evidence and interpretation.

• Municipal tourism information links a riverside promenade, covered bridge, beach, wharves and local museum as a compact visitor offer
• Use an existing riverfront network to connect public spaces and local interpretation
• Coordinate outdoor access with community-serving destinations rather than rely on a single attraction
• Treat this as a coastal-region example, not proof that the same visitor economy fits inland Haysi

What differs: Grande-Vallée faces the maritime Gulf and has coastal access, a municipal tourism network and a different settlement/economic history; Haysi is an inland Virginia confluence settlement.

• Afan Forest Park uses trail networks and heritage features to support outdoor recreation
• Glyncorrwg’s mountain-bike centre combines trails with visitor services
• Build on existing access assets and community-serving facilities before proposing new attractions
• Measure local business participation and resident benefit; tourism presence alone is not an impact estimate

What differs: Glyncorrwg has an established nationally known mountain-bike destination and is close to the M4 corridor; Clinchco is more isolated and has different transport and market conditions.

• Treat the former industrial landscape as an asset for interpretation, with community voice and accurate history
• Connect routes to functioning services rather than building a stand-alone attraction
• Use local-level indicators to test whether visitor activity benefits residents

What differs: Blaengwynfi sits within the Afan Valley tourism catchment; Clinchco’s remoteness and market access are different. No comparable economic outcome is established by these sources.

• The local heritage booklet frames the Ogmore Valley through coalfield history and landscape, offering a regional rather than single-village interpretation model
• Verify which legacy sites and routes are locally accessible before proposing visitor programming
• Treat commuter function and regional access as part of the transition story, not as evidence of local job creation
• Track village-scale outcomes separately from county-level change

What differs: Lewistown is in the Bridgend/Ogmore context and is reported as a commuter locality; Clinchco’s Appalachian setting, rail legacy and remoteness differ. The sources do not prove equivalent economic trajectories.

• Bustiello’s interpretation centre uses a former engineer’s residence and guided village visits
• Interpret the social history of labor and company power alongside architecture
• Link individual heritage sites into a regional mining itinerary
• Use bookings and visitor counts as outputs, not proof of broader economic impact

What differs: Bustiello is a designed company village built largely 1890–1925 and protected as an Asset of Cultural Interest; Clinchco has a different Appalachian coal/rail history and built form.

• Rhondda Cynon Taf’s heritage account links Cwmaman’s growth to three large collieries and describes worker housing and amenity needs
• It documents a miners’ institute built through worker contributions and community action, illustrating a social-infrastructure lesson rather than industrial-land conversion
• Map surviving civic and heritage buildings before proposing adaptive reuse
• Do not conflate this Cwmaman with Carmarthenshire’s Garnant/Glanaman community or import its Raven Industrial Park case

What differs: Cwmaman is a coal-mining village near Aberdare; Clinchco’s rail geography, isolation and contemporary assets differ. The cited Cwmaman source documents historical development, not present-day employment or land-reuse outcomes.

• The former Benham school, built in 1926 for coal-camp children and used as a school until 1992, was converted into the Benham Schoolhouse Inn
• The Kentucky Historic Schools Survey reports local investors and former graduates funded rehabilitation, with historic fabric retained
• A reused school can combine lodging, dining and meeting functions, but needs a viable operating model and capital plan
• The documented inn is a project output; the source does not quantify net jobs or broader local economic impact

What differs: Benham’s schoolhouse inn is an operating private lodging asset in a coal-camp context; Clinchco needs its own building inventory, ownership review, visitor-market test and operating partner.

• The Inverness Miners Museum preserves and interprets local 19th- and 20th-century coal-mining history
• Cape Breton tourism information presents the beach, harbour, boardwalk and outdoor recreation as a wider visitor offer
• Connect heritage interpretation with existing recreation assets and local providers
• Do not transfer the coastal beach/harbour market strategy to an inland valley without demand evidence

What differs: Inverness is a Gulf coast village with sandy beach and harbour; it is not steep-sided or valley-confined like Clinchco. The comparison is about coal-memory interpretation and diversified recreation, not physical form.

• Reuse trails and existing facilities to connect heritage and outdoor recreation
• Plan for maintenance, safety and seasonal use as recurring costs
• Avoid promising employment or population gains without project-level evidence

What differs: Afan Forest Park has a developed trail system and active visitor infrastructure; Nora’s described isolation and flood vulnerability require a distinct hazard/access response.

• Coordinate heritage routes with transport and emergency-access planning
• Build a small-scale, locally anchored visitor story around existing assets
• Distinguish documented projects from proposed regeneration and measure their results

What differs: The Afan Valley contains established forest-recreation infrastructure; Nora’s described flood vulnerability and isolation call for additional hazard screening.

• A community-demanded project recovered the San Luis mine and railway route as the Valle de Samuño Mining Ecomuseum, opened in 2013
• The visitor experience connects train, former mining tunnel, shaft buildings and landscape interpretation
• Integrate industrial interpretation with protected-landscape routes
• Report the established attraction as an implemented heritage project; the sources do not establish net job or population effects

What differs: La Nueva is part of Asturias’ large historic coalfield and is embedded in a designated protected landscape; Nora’s local industrial scale, current assets and hazard exposure require independent verification.

• The former Cwmtillery Colliery feeder pond and reclaimed mine area now provide open access, paths and seating
• Council identifies mining history through lakeside sculpture and local nature-reserve status
• A prior planning description proposed an outdoor gateway/education centre and trails; a later plan says that initiative is no longer progressing, so do not describe it as delivered
• Screen flood, ecology and site ownership before proposing new facilities

What differs: The implemented lakeside access and nature features are not evidence of a completed outdoor visitor centre or proven economic transition; Nora’s flood exposure needs its own assessment.

• Coflein records that the former school became a residential centre and a former chapel became a community centre with a heritage room
• The case shows reuse of civic buildings for continuing community and interpretation functions, not just visitor attractions
• Pair industrial interpretation with housing, services and everyday community use
• Do not infer population recovery or economic impact from building reuse alone

What differs: Cwm Penmachno’s slate-quarry landscape and Conwy geography differ from Nora’s specified coal/rail/creek context; no comparable flood outcome is asserted.

• National Park Service restored the depot as a seasonal visitor centre and maintains more than 20 historic structures
• NPS stabilization work includes drainage, vegetation removal and exterior repairs, showing ongoing stewardship costs
• The case depends on federal park ownership, staffing and preservation funding; this is a major institutional difference from a Virginia town acting alone
• Use Thurmond to study asset preservation and access management, not to forecast independent tourism revenue or demographic recovery

What differs: Thurmond sits within New River Gorge National Park and Preserve and has exceptionally low resident population; Nora’s services, ownership, river conditions and institutional support are not equivalent.

• Municipal history records the copper mine closure in October 1999 after ore reserves were exhausted
• Official tourism materials now promote year-round outdoor activities including hiking, mountain biking, skiing and snowmobiling
• Consider how legacy infrastructure, services and workforce needs change after a dominant employer closes
• The sources establish a current recreation offer, not the scale of new jobs or replacement income

What differs: Murdochville was built around copper mining at high elevation among forested mountains and lakes; Nora’s stipulated coal, rail, creek and flood-vulnerability profile differs. Canadian Appalachian physiography is not the U.S. Appalachian Regional Commission service region.

• Map regional services and travel catchments separately from municipal boundaries.
• Coordinate transport, utilities, and public facilities with surrounding rural jurisdictions.
• Protect a compact centre while recognizing terrain constraints on expansion.

What differs: Sort is the comarca capital in Catalonia and is embedded in Spanish regional and municipal structures; Clintwood is a Virginia town within Dickenson County. Sort's Pyrenean economy and cross-border European context are not proxies for Appalachian coal-transition conditions.

• Assess service catchments beyond town limits before locating public facilities.
• Pair visitor-economy investments with year-round services and resident needs.
• Treat regional access and utility reliability as economic-development infrastructure.

What differs: Potes is described by Spanish tourism authorities as central to Liébana and by Spain's environment ministry as its service pole; tourism is prominent. Clintwood's comparison should focus on rural service centrality, not copy a tourism-led strategy.

• Inventory service access by settlement rather than relying on municipality-wide averages.
• Coordinate road, communications, and service planning for remote communities.
• Design tourism and heritage actions as complements to everyday economic and public-service needs.

What differs: Ibias is a very dispersed Asturias municipality with 77 settlements and extensive forest land; Clintwood is a distinct incorporated town in a coalfield county. No village-level population is asserted.

• Treat the central business area and public realm as part of the service network, not just visitor scenery.
• Use place-specific assets to diversify rather than assume they can replace all legacy employment.
• Track resident population and seasonal/second-home effects as different measures.

What differs: Ax-les-Thermes is a thermal spa and mountain recreation destination, not a coal-transition analogue. INSEE reports 1,285 residents for the whole commune in 2023; 78.6% of dwellings were secondary/occasional residences, so seasonal pressure matters.

• Map where municipal services are located and how remote residents reach them.
• Connect conservation and recreation management to local businesses and resident needs.
• Do not conflate a settlement's population with the municipality or protected-area population.

What differs: Somiedo's protected landscape and nature-based visitation differ from Clintwood's Appalachian coalfield and administrative context. Village-level population is not asserted; available municipal data cannot be substituted.

• Connect downtown visitor and resident services to a continuous, well-signed trail access network.
• Use flood maps and local flood data to steer new facilities away from high-risk locations and protect critical services.
• Coordinate town and county investments because the service catchment extends beyond the municipal boundary.
• Treat recreation and heritage as diversification opportunities while maintaining year-round local services.

What differs: Marlinton's documented historic industries were timber and railroad, and its current recreation identity is closely tied to the Greenbrier River Trail. Clintwood is a Virginia coalfield county seat with a different industrial legacy. Marlinton's river flood risk is a central land-use constraint.

• Map the service catchment and settlement network rather than treating municipal land area as the service area.
• Pair forest and farm value-chain development with downtown services, workforce access, and community infrastructure.
• Phase land-use, service, and capital plans against the actual post-reform municipal boundary.
• Record census geography and municipal boundary dates on every population comparison.

What differs: New Brunswick's municipal amalgamation/annexation took effect 1 January 2023; the 2021 count is for the earlier, much smaller town/population-centre unit. The current municipal site gives an undated population statement. Saint-Quentin is strongly Francophone and its resource base differs from Clintwood's coal economy.

• Separate the reclaimed envelope from saleable plateau area.
• Relate the access programme to the order in which pads can be marketed.
• Use design guidance to connect roads, landscape and individual business plots.
• Compare the four-plateau delivery model with Red Onion's three-pad 2025 programme.
• Distinguish historic investment, current plot readiness and actual tenant demand.

What differs: Oakdale's advertised estate envelope is much larger. Welsh planning and historical European funding are not U.S. programmes. Its older marketing pages do not establish current vacancy, transport frequencies or construction costs.

• Match parcel sizes to local food, forestry, equipment and service businesses.
• Distinguish gross estate area from saleable industrial land.
• Trace how three phases and segregated subphases were funded and delivered.
• Combine business support with utilities and transport access.
• Use a maintained business directory and parcel inventory as marketing evidence.

What differs: The reviewed sources describe municipal land and mining-region funding, not a reclaimed mine at the estate itself. AS-216 frontage and the local food/forestry economy differ from Red Onion's engineered mine-land setting.

• Separate industrial phase boundaries from river and rail barriers.
• Compare agency-led and municipality-led delivery responsibilities.
• Relate plot subdivision to a documented business mix.
• Include shared utilities, streets, maintenance and business information in the marketing package.
• Treat a completed phase and a currently available plot as different claims.

What differs: These are valley-floor estates in a larger urban-industrial corridor, not verified reclaimed mine plateaus. Their established regional business network and agency structure differ from Red Onion.

• Draw river, road and rail constraints before subdividing industrial land.
• Show the access works required to make a plot usable.
• Distinguish gross estate area, industrial plots, streets and green-space allocations.
• Align utility and drainage responsibilities with the phase programme.
• Explain environmental and access constraints honestly in recruitment material.

What differs: Argame is a valley-floor river/highway/rail site, not an established reclaimed mine plateau. Source mining-transition funding does not prove that the land itself was formerly mined.

• Compare gross site boundaries with separately marketed development platforms.
• Link industrial recruitment to skills and regional transport investment.
• Distinguish approved factory proposals from operating businesses.
• Set out landscape buffers and net developable land in site marketing.
• Treat an enterprise-zone designation as one policy tool, not proof of demand.

What differs: Rassau is part of a much larger established manufacturing system. A 1976 parliamentary record describes an expansion on common land, not former mine land; the whole estate's prior use must not be generalized from that record.

• Maintain a parcel-level site inventory that distinguishes controlled gross acreage from ready-to-build lots.
• Document utility capacities, last-mile access, grading, and substation dependencies for each phase.
• Use public funds for defined enabling infrastructure and report grant approval, closure, construction, and completion as different statuses.
• Keep mixed-use housing/commercial phases separate from industrial acreage and jobs reporting.

What differs: Southern Gap is a multi-use redevelopment on a broader 3,153-acre IDA-controlled reclaimed-mined-land area. The specific Red Onion Virginia reference is retained as the requested comparison ID; no unverified acreage or site condition is assigned to it.

• Maintain distinct maps for original industrial property, park boundary, remediated phase, and currently available parcel.
• Coordinate the land steward, regulator, infrastructure operator, and park marketer with explicit transfer conditions.
• Tie public investment claims to the specific parcel and work item rather than the whole regional cleanup program.
• Publish service status and remaining environmental monitoring obligations before marketing a parcel as ready.

What differs: Harbourside is a flat urban waterfront steel-mill reclamation project with non-operational rail infrastructure and nearby deep-water port access. It does not match the Red Onion reference's Appalachian plateau setting. Its relevance is legacy-site reuse, governance, and phased readiness only.