German Green City Index - Assessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities

German Green City Index - Assessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities

German Green City Index - Assessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities

German Green City Index Assessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities A research project conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsored by Siemens

German Green City Index - Assessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities

2 3 Contents City portraits 20 Berlin 24 Bremen 28 Cologne 32 Essen 36 Frankfurt 40 Hamburg 44 Hanover 48 Leipzig 52 Mannheim 56 Munich 60 Nuremberg 64 Stuttgart Berlin Hamburg Bremen Essen Cologne Leipzig Hanover Frankfurt Mannheim Nuremberg Munich Stuttgart 4 Introduction: The challenges of urbanization in Germany 6 Results 9 Overall key findings 14 Key findings from the categories 17 Methodology German Green City Index

German Green City Index - Assessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities

4 5 The challenges of urbanization in Germany study is to provide information about the envi- ronmental performance and initiatives of the various cities to stakeholders, to support them in making choices about additional activities in the area of climate and environmental protection and to stimulate a dialog about the best solu- tions. The study is divided into four sections. The first section summarizes the overall key findings of the study. The second section presents key find- ings in the eight categories: CO2 emissions, energy, buildings, transport, water, waste and land use, air quality, and environmental gover- nance.

The third section discusses in detail the methodology, data collection and the construc- tion of the Index. The fourth section presents portraits of the 12 German cities which illustrate their particular strengths and weaknesses and highlight selected green initiatives. The city por- traits offer an opportunity to discuss the actions taken by the cities and pass along valuable expe- rience that has been gained.

How the study was done: The German Green City Index is part of the international “Green City Index” research series conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit as an indepen- dent research partner, and sponsored by Siemens. It compares more than 100 of the world’s major cities; Indexes have already been published for Europe (2009), Latin America (2010), and Asia (2011). Every German city with a population over one million and all metropoli- tan regions in Germany are covered in the Ger- man Green City Index. The study differs from those done by other institutions because it did not rely on voluntary submissions from city gov- ernments, but was conducted independently instead.

The methodology (see page 17) was developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit in coopera- tion with Siemens. An independent panel of urban sustainability experts provided important insights on the methodology. Both the number and the breadth of the underlying indicators are noteworthy: The Index scores each city on 30 in- dividual quantitative and qualitative indicators for various aspects related to the environment and infrastructure, such as the city’s environ- mental governance, its water consumption, its recycling rate, or its level of CO2 emissions. Pub- licly available data was used whenever possible and was evaluated using a uniform, transparent scoring process.

Each city received points for its performance in the eight individual categories and also for its overall result. On that basis, the German cities were classified in performance bands and compared with the 30 European cities. However, numbers alone do not tell the whole story. So the results were combined into detailed individual profiles. They describe the challenges, strengths, and potential of each city, as well as innovative green ideas and projects. Projects that could inspire other cities were of particular interest.

By 2050, more than two-thirds of the world’s population will live in cities, up from about half today, according to United Nations fore- casts. The global trend is already advanced in Europe, where about 73% of people live in cities, and in Germany, where 74% are urban dwellers. The figures for both Europe as a whole and Ger- many are expected to rise by 10% within the next 40 years. Increasing urbanization leads to major chal- lenges for the environment and for infrastruc- ture, for example, in the form of increasing ener- gy demand. The European Environment Agency (EEA) estimates that almost 70% of Europe’s energy is consumed in cities.

Globally this is even more apparent – urban areas account for 80% of global CO2 emissions today. It is clear that the choices cities make, both globally and in Germany, will be key in facing global environ- mental challenges such as climate change. Some challenges, such as improving air quality, reducing waste through recycling or containing urban sprawl, will be more localized but no less important to residents.

Against that background, the German Green City Index considers the sustainability of 12 ma- jor German cities, examining their use of re- sources and their commitment to environmen- tal protection. To allow a comparison with other cities in Europe, the results of the German cities are presented in the context of the European Green City Index, which was published in 2009. This creates an Index containing a total of 41 European and German cities. The purpose of the German Green City Index

German Green City Index - Assessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities

7 6 CO2 Well above average Above average Average Below average Well below average Oslo Stockholm Amsterdam Berlin Brussels Copenhagen Helsinki London Madrid Nuremberg Paris Rome Vienna Zurich Bremen Cologne Frankfurt Hamburg Hanover Istanbul Leipzig Ljubljana Mannheim Munich Riga Stuttgart Athens Belgrade Bratislava Bucharest Budapest Dublin Essen Lisbon Prague Tallinn Vilnius Warsaw Zagreb Kiev Sofia Well above average Above average Average Below average Well below average Copenhagen Oslo Vienna Amsterdam Brussels Leipzig Munich Rome Stockholm Stuttgart Zurich Athens Belgrade Berlin Bratislava Cologne Dublin Essen Frankfurt Hamburg Hanover Helsinki Istanbul Lisbon London Madrid Mannheim Nuremberg Paris Warsaw Zagreb Bremen Bucharest Budapest Prague Riga Vilnius Kiev Ljubljana Sofia Tallinn Energy Results German Green City Index Overall results Well above average Above average Average Below average Well below average Amsterdam Berlin Bremen Brussels Copenhagen Frankfurt Hamburg Hanover Helsinki Leipzig Mannheim Munich Nuremberg Oslo Stockholm Stuttgart Vienna Zurich Cologne Essen London Madrid Paris Riga Rome Vilnius Warsaw Athens Bratislava Budapest Dublin Istanbul Lisbon Ljubljana Prague Tallinn Belgrade Bucharest Kiev Sofia Zagreb Buildings Well above average Above average Average Below average Well below average Amsterdam Berlin Bremen Copenhagen Essen Frankfurt Hamburg Hanover Helsinki Leipzig Mannheim Munich Nuremberg Oslo Paris Stockholm Stuttgart Vienna Zurich Brussels Cologne Lisbon London Madrid Rome Sofia Vilnius Warsaw Athens Belgrad Bratislava Bucharest Budapest Dublin Ljubljana Prague Riga Zagreb Istanbul Kiev Tallinn Transport Well above average Above average Average Below average Well below average Stockholm Amsterdam Berlin Bremen Brussels Cologne Copenhagen Essen Frankfurt Hamburg Hanover Mannheim Munich Nuremberg Oslo Stuttgart Vienna Zurich Bratislava Budapest Helsinki Leipzig Ljubljana Madrid Riga Tallinn Athens Bucharest Istanbul Kiev Lisbon London Paris Prague Rome Sofia Vilnius Warsaw Zagreb Belgrad Dublin

German Green City Index - Assessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities

9 Air quality Well above average Above average Average Below average Well below average Stockholm Vilnius Berlin Bremen Copenhagen Dublin Hamburg Hanover Helsinki Leipzig Mannheim Riga Stuttgart Tallinn Amsterdam Brussels Cologne Essen Frankfurt Ljubljana London Madrid Munich Nuremberg Oslo Paris Prague Rome Warsaw Vienna Zurich Bratislava Budapest Istanbul Lisbon Athens Belgrad Bucharest Kiev Sofia Zagreb Environmental governance Well above average Above average Average Below average Well below average Amsterdam Bremen Brussels Copenhagen Essen Hamburg Helsinki Mannheim Oslo Paris Stockholm Stuttgart Warsaw Vienna Zurich Berlin Budapest Cologne Frankfurt Hanover Leipzig Lisbon Ljubljana London Madrid Munich Nuremberg Riga Tallinn Vilnius Athens Belgrad Bratislava Dublin Kiev Rome Zagreb Bucharest Istanbul Prague Sofia Results German Green City Index Water Well above average Above average Average Below average Well below average Amsterdam Berlin Bremen Brussels Cologne Copenhagen Essen Frankfurt Hamburg Hanover Leipzig London Madrid Mannheim Munich Nuremberg Paris Stuttgart Vienna Zurich Athens Bratislava Budapest Dublin Helsinki Oslo Prague Rome Stockholm Tallinn Vilnius Istanbul Kiev Lisbon Riga Warsaw Belgrad Bucharest Ljubljana Sofia Zagreb Well above average Above average Average Below average Well below average Amsterdam Berlin Bremen Copenhagen Essen Frankfurt Hamburg Hanover Helsinki Leipzig Munich Nuremberg Oslo Stockholm Stuttgart Vienna Zürich Brussels Budapest Cologne Dublin Ljubljana London Mannheim Paris Prague Rome Tallinn Vilnius Athens Belgrad Bratislava Istanbul Lisbon Madrid Riga Warsaw Zagreb Bucharest Kiev Sofia Waste and land use Overall key findings German Green City Index To deepen the understanding of the environ- mental strengths and weaknesses of the German cities, their results are analyzed in the context of the European Green City Index, which was published in 2009.

Examining a few general features shows that the German cities tend to be much smaller – but also more affluent – than the other European cities. The average city has less than one million inhabitants, while the aver- age population in the European Green City Index is about 2.5 million. Compared with the other cities in Europe, the gross domestic product (GDP) of the German cities puts them in the top income group, although per capita GDP varies widely between €22,500 in Berlin and €67,900 in Frankfurt.1) In contrast, industry’s contribu- tion to gross value creation is much higher in Germany than in the European cities.

Three Ger- man cities, Mannheim, Essen and Stuttgart, have a higher percentage of industry (from 36% to 39%) than Istanbul, the most industrialized city in the European Green City Index, at 33%. These factors were taken into account when comparing and contrasting the environmental performance of German cities with the rest of Europe.

The German cities’ Index results are very similar to each other, reflecting the federal govern- ment’s efforts to simplify environ- mental policies in Germany, as well as the highly developed environ- mental awareness of the citizens. Overall, and in six out of the eight categories, German cities rank across just one or two of the five performance bands (mainly “average” and “above average”) when the results are compared with all 41 cities in the Index (see graphic on pages 12/13). The range of results for the other European cities is much wider, regularly stretch- ing across four, and even all five, performance bands.

It can clearly be seen that German cities often do well or poorly at the same things. All German cities score well for low water consump- tion, for example. Regarding policies, the perfor- mance is even more consistent. For 26 out of 40 qualitative criteria in the Index, every German city had the same score (usually full marks), and for a further five criteria there were only one or two differences. Even when cities scored less well on some qualitative issues, they did so together. For example, no German city has water recycling.

This homogeneity reflects, in part, the impor- tant role of the German federal government in 1) In real GDP per person, based on 2000 prices. 8

German Green City Index - Assessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities

Eastern bloc trying to overcome the legacy of poor infrastructure and pent-up demand for western conveniences, such as automobiles. The German Green City Index found no indica- tions of a gap between east and west, but it eval- uated only two former East German cities – Leipzig and (East) Berlin. It is notable that, in these two cities at least, the differences com- pared with western Germany do not show up – both rank above average overall.

Both Berlin and Leipzig are particularly strong on infrastructure indicators, suggesting that substantial invest- ments in recent years have overcome potential divides. In addition, there was no correlation between overall environmental performance and levels of industrialization in German cities or in the European Green City Index. Generally, these results of the German cities imply that, no matter the level of income, historical develop- ment or levels of industrialization, environmen- directing and implementing urban sustainability policies. The Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs, for example, develops standard- ized, nationwide regulations for building codes and grants financial aid for groundbreaking urban development projects.

It also has one of the largest budgets of any federal ministry. This is also intended to address climate-related prob- lems – for example making mobility more envi- ronmentally friendly or promoting the develop- ment of city centers. Federal influence, already strong, has generally been growing. Since 2006, the federal government has begun to develop regulations on a wider range of urban environ- mental issues and increased its efforts to bring uniformity to environmental legislation. Another factor is Germany’s history of environ- mental awareness. Prussia had a nature conser- vation department before World War I.

Environ- mental movements developed in both the Federal Republic of Germany and the former German Democratic Republic in the 1970’s and 1980’s. In the east, the movement was one of the country’s few independent voices, while in the west it led to the creation of Green parties. More recently, green issues have been pivotal in German local elections, putting the Green party in charge of a state government, Baden-Würt- temberg, for the first time.

Environmental protection is not a luxury: In contrast to other European cities, neither income nor historical development was shown to affect the environmental performance of German cities. While the European Green City Index showed a strong correlation between average income (as measured by GDP per person) and environmen- tal performance, this relationship was absent in the German Green City Index. This is even more surprising given the wide range in income among the German cities, from GDP of €22,500 per person in Berlin to €67,900 in Frankfurt.2) This suggests that uniform German policies set by the federal government have helped smooth out the effects of any income differences on environmental performance.

For example, low- income European cities had far less ambitious environmental policies, while in Germany even lower-income cities do well. Indeed, the Euro- pean Green City Index cited Berlin as a leading example of how cities with lower incomes can still benefit from ambitious environmental tar- gets and policies.

Another finding of the 2009 European Green City Index: There was also a noticeable divide in environmental performance between eastern and western Europe, with cities in the former tal performance doesn't have to be only a luxury good and is something to which every city can aspire. German cities compare very well with other European cities on environmental performance, especially regarding policies. When the overall results of the German Green City Index are compared with the 2009 Euro- pean Green City Index, 10 of the 12 German cities are above average, the highest ranking achieved by any European city.

German cities are particularly strong on environmental strate- gies and policies – such as energy efficiency standards for buildings or the promotion of public transport – which make up about half of the indicators that were measured. If those indicators alone are measured, 11 of the 12 Ger- man cities are above average overall. This strength is consistent across most individual cat- egories, and no city’s qualitative scores ever fell below average (see graphic at the bottom of page 13).

The quantitative scores, which evaluate current infrastructure and consumption levels, tell a slightly different story. Here the German cities turn in less consistent performances. As shown by the graphic at the top of page 13, the cities have strong performances in the buildings and water categories and weaker performances in CO2 emissions, transport, energy, and air quali- ty. Because environmental policies are an indica- tion of potential future improvements, the Index suggests that, over time, the environment in these cities should get better as more advanced policies have an impact.

When compared with European cities of similar wealth, German cities fall short of the top tier.

As mentioned above, German cities perform well when compared with the 29 cities in the European Green City Index. However, the pat- tern is somewhat different when the compari- son is limited to the 12 German cities and the 14 other European cities with a similar range of income, i.e., over €22,500 real GDP per person3) (see graphic at the bottom of page 12). Most of the 12 German cities now fall into the average band, and only Berlin is above average. With that rating, most of the German cities outperform European cities such as London, Madrid, Dublin and Rome, but they fall behind the “greenest” European leaders such as the Scandinavian capi- tal cities, Amsterdam and Zurich.

This could sug- gest that the strong influence of the German federal government and the environmental awareness of the citizens raise the performance of cities with lower per capita GDP but may not provide sufficient incentives for richer cities to develop and adopt more ground-breaking approaches.

10 11 2) In real GDP per person, based on 2000 prices. 3) In real GDP per person, based on 2000 prices

German Green City Index - Assessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities

Scores of cities with comparable income Overall results of all 41 cities How the cities scored 2) Qualitative indicators ➔ 16 quantitative and 14 qualitative indicators ➔ 16 quantitative indicators ➔ Such as CO2 emissions, energy and water consumption, recycling rate ➔ Upshot: German cities show some weaknesses in actual consumption levels and infra- structure ➔ German and European cities with > €22,500 GDP per capita Berlin Bremen Cologne Essen Frankfurt Hamburg Hanover Leipzig Mannheim Munich Nuremberg Stuttgart Amsterdam Athens Brussels Copenhagen Dublin Helsinki London Madrid Oslo Paris Rome Stockholm Vienna Zurich ➔ 14 qualitative indicators ➔ Such as promotion of clean energies, waste reduction efforts, public participation in green policies ➔ Upshot: Environmental policies make a decisive con- tribution to the good results of German cities 29 European cities 12 German cities 12 13 1) Quantitative indicators Well below average Below average Average Above average Well above average Number of German cities Number of European cities Number of German cities Number of European cities Number of German cities Number of European cities Number of German cities Number of European cities 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 12 12 12 13 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 5 5 7 7 8 9 10 10 11 1 11 12 Well below average Below average Average Above average Well above average No quantitative indicators measured 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 12 13 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 8 10 12 Well below average Below average Average Above average Well above average 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 12 13 14 1 1 2 5 5 6 6 7 7 10 11 11 12 12 12 Well below average Below average Average Above average Well above average 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 10 CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall result CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall result CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall result CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall result

German Green City Index - Assessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities

CO2 emissions: Compared with European cities, German cities see their poorest perfor- mance in this category, largely from the relative- ly high share of coal used in energy production. Proactive policies, however, could lead to future improvements. In detail: ➔ German cities emit an average of 9.8 metric tons of CO2 per person annually, nearly twice as much as other European cities,4) at 5.2 metric tons. ➔ German cities do better on CO2 intensity (the amount of CO2 emissions per Euro of GDP), at 250 grams, compared with 358 grams in other European cities. But they do worse when com- pared with the 14 European cities with a similar income, at 110 grams.

➔ All of the German cities measure emissions and have set their own reduction targets sepa- rate from federal targets. The city targets are ambitious, aiming on average for a 31% reduc- tion by 2020, twice the average of the goals of the other European cities, at 15%. Energy: The German cities do slightly better than other European cities on energy efficiency, although the policies of the city governments are weaker in this area. This suggests that cities may be relying on federal policy instruments, such as feed-in tariffs for renewable energy sources, rather than local initiatives. In detail: ➔ German cities consume 95 gigajoules per capita each year.

Although this is higher than the average of the other European cities, at 81 gigajoules, it is comparable to the average level for the 14 European cities of similar wealth, at 92 gigajoules.

➔ Regarding energy intensity, the German cities do better than the other European cities, at 2.5 megajoules per Euro of GDP, compared with 5.4 megajoules. ➔ Although all German cities have developed green energy projects within their borders, only half fully promote the use of green energy, and none scores full marks for expanding decentral- ized power generation. ➔ The biggest energy challenge for the 12 Ger- man cities is the very low proportion of renew- able energy, at 3% of overall energy consump- tion. This is less than half of the overall average of the other European cities, at about 8%.

The 14 European cities in the same income range cover 12% of their overall energy demand with renewable energy sources.

Buildings: The German cities in this study do very well compared with the rest of Europe in this category. Advanced policies, including fed- erally mandated building codes and other regu- lations at city level, are reducing energy con- sumption by buildings. In detail: ➔ Every city has introduced energy efficiency standards for new buildings and requires regular maintenance of heating and air conditioning systems. An “energy passport” must be shown when a building is rented or sold, and the cities also inform their residents about opportunities to improve energy efficiency.

➔ Eight out of 12 cities also provide financial incentives for retrofitting to save energy.

15 14 ➔ Accordingly, all 12 German cities are above average in promoting energy efficiency for buildings compared with Europe. ➔ Germany’s strict policies are having a positive effect on the energy consumed by residential buildings: It is far lower in the German cities, at an average of 702 megajoules per square meter, compared with 921 megajoules per square meter for the other European cities. Transport: German cities are actively pursu- ing sustainable transport policies but are having difficulty getting people out of their cars. In detail: ➔ Ten of the 12 German cities have adopted all seven sustainable transport policies covered in the European Green City Index, including using bio-fuels or electricity in public transport, envi- ronmental zones, reducing the use of automo- biles and promoting public awareness of green transport.

➔ Eleven of the 12 German cities are in the above average band for transport policies. Yet when it comes to quantitative indicators, includ- ing the density of the public transport system or the modal split, three are below average and only one is above average. ➔ This is not because of a lack of public trans- port. German cities offer on average 2.6 km of public transport per square kilometer, compared with 2.4 km for the other European cities. They also have more cycling lanes per square kilome- ter than in Europe, at 1.9 km per square kilome- ter, compared with an average of 1.2 km in the other European cities.

➔ Despite these options, almost half of the Ger- man residents drive to work, against about 38% in the other European cities. Even in European cities with a comparable income, the figure is still higher than in the German cities, at 43%. ➔ Given Germany’s famously entrenched car culture, it is likely to be difficult to reduce the share of people taking their car to work. Water: All German cities perform extremely well in this category, given their low levels of water consumption per capita and leakages in the water supply system.

In detail: ➔ Residents of the German cities consume on average 59 cubic meters per inhabitant every year, which is substantially lower than the aver- age of the other European cities, at 107 cubic meters.

➔ One reason for the low consumption rate is an impressively low level of leakage in pipelines, at only 8%. Even the highest individual water leakage rate among the 12 German cities, at 4) A note about methodology: When evaluating category results, the averages of the quantitative figures for the 12 German cities were compared with the averages of the 29 other European cities from the 2009 European Green City Index (excluding Berlin). This was to better distinguish differences and similarities between German cities as a whole and cities in the rest of Europe as a whole. Key findings from the categories German Green City Index

German Green City Index - Assessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities

13%, is still substantially lower than the average of the other European cities, at 23%. ➔ Policy choices have also had an effect: Meter- ing is widespread and residents pay a relatively high price for water. In addition, all 12 German cities monitor water usage and quality, promote conservation, and treat 100% of their waste- water. ➔ None of the German cities reuses water, for example for street cleaning, before treatment. Nine out of 29 cities outside of Germany have some type of reuse, including six of the 14 that are in the same income bracket as the German cities. It is reasonable to question, though, how necessary this is in Germany given its low usage and leakage rates.

Waste and land use: The German cities generate more waste than the other European cities on average, but comprehensive waste reduction policies and high recycling rates improve their overall performance in this cate- gory. On land use, however, they tend to fall behind other European cities at the same level of wealth. In detail: ➔ The German cities generate on average 528 kg of waste per inhabitant each year, which is slightly above the average of the European cities, at 512 kg, but nearly the same as the aver- age for the European cities in the same income range, at 525 kg.

➔ Waste separation and recycling are deeply entrenched in German culture, as shown by the recycling rates of the German cities: On average 48% of the waste generated in the cities is recy- cled, compared to 27% for the European cities with the same wealth and 17% for all of the other European cities.

➔ Every German city gained full marks for poli- cies on sustainable waste management and pro- moting waste separation and reduction. ➔ On land use, though, while every German city protects its green spaces, two have incom- plete green space policies and only seven fully promote reuse of brownfield sites for develop- ment. For the 14 European Index cities of the same wealth, all have comprehensive green space policies and all but one gain full marks for brownfield redevelopment.

Air quality: The cities in the German Green City Index have comprehensive air quality plans, and this has helped keep down the levels of sev- eral key air pollutants. In detail: ➔ All 12 German cities have air quality targets and plans. Only 13 of the 29 other European cities have both. ➔ These policies seem to be successful at limit- ing the effects of air pollution across Germany, even in cities with more industry and automo- biles. This is demonstrated by the lack of a corre- lation in the Index between each city’s level of 17 16 industrialization and overall air pollution. Nor is there a correlation between the percentage of commuters who drive to work and levels of nitrogen dioxide, which is closely associated with automobile exhaust.

➔ Although German cities have average ozone concentrations that are approximately equal to those of the European cities, they have measur- ably lower concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter. Environmental governance: German cities are generally strong on standards and environmental policies across categories, but their performance in the environmental gover- nance category is relatively modest. This surpris- ing result again suggests that federal involve- ment, while driving advanced environmental policies overall, may be superseding autonomy at the municipal level.

In detail: ➔ The structures of environmental governance are uniform in the 12 German cities. These include an integrated strategy endorsed by the city administration and the mayor, a dedicated environmental authority, support for interna- tional environmental protection initiatives, and public awareness campaigns. ➔ However, the German cities will need to improve in some areas compared with the best European cities. ➔ Only two of the 12 German cities have defined specific targets for each environmental category, while the others are limited to selected categories.

➔ Only two German cities issue annual or bi- annual environmental reports on the progress of their work.

The vast majority of German cities issue a report of this kind only every three to ten years. ➔ A lack of citizen involvement is another obvi- ous weakness. Only five of 12 cities fully involve citizens in environmental decision-making or have a central contact point for complaints. The European Green City Index shows a correlation between higher levels of citizen engagement and better environmental performance. This suggests that citizens who act responsibly and are environmentally aware make a decisive con- tribution to improving the environmental bal- ance of cities.

The German Green City Index evaluates 12 major German cities with regard to their sustainability in using resources and their com- mitment to environmental protection. The study covers the four German cities with populations over one million as well as a city from all metro- politan regions. To provide insights on how the German cities are doing compared with other cities in Europe, their results are presented in the context of the European Green City Index. This study investigated the environmental sustain- ability of 30 major European cities from 30 Euro- pean countries and was published in December 2009.

The methodology used in the German Green City Index was developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit in cooperation with Siemens. It is identical to the methodology used in the Euro- pean Green City Index to ensure the comparabil- ity of cities. An independent panel of urban sus- tainability experts provided important insights and feedback. Because data was collected at dif- ferent times for Europe and Germany, it is not completely comparable. For that reason, the results are presented in performance bands and not as detailed rankings. This helped to smooth out minor differences.

The German Green City Index scores cities across eight categories – CO2, energy, buildings, trans- port, water, waste and land use, air quality, and environmental governance – based on 30 indi- vidual indicators.

Sixteen of the 30 indicators are derived from quantitative data and aim to mea- sure how a city is currently performing – for example, its level of CO2 emissions, the amount of energy it consumes, how much waste it pro- duces or levels of air pollution. The remaining 14 indicators are qualitative assessments of cities’ environmental policies, aspirations or ambitions to reduce their environmental foot- print. This could include their commitment to consuming more renewable energy, improving the energy efficiency of buildings, reducing con- gestion, or recycling and reusing waste. Data sources: A team of independent ana- lysts at the Economic Intelligence Unit collected and evaluated data for the German Green City Index over the period from May to November 2010.

Publicly available data from official sources, such as European, national, or regional statistics offices, local city authorities, and city and national environmental agencies, was used whenever possible. Care was taken to use data for 2008 whenever possible or, failing that, data for previous years or for 2009 in order to ensure that the pool of data was as similar as possible to the European Green City Index. In the few cases where gaps in the data existed, the Economist Intelligence Unit produced estimates based on regional figures.

Comparison with the European Green City Index: To better classify the results of the German Green City Index and place them in a broader context, the German cities were compared with the cities of the Euro- pean Green City Index. This required normaliz- ing the German results on the basis of the Euro- pean Green City Index (see description of the normalization method under “Indicators”) and generating a new theoretical Index of 41 cities. Berlin, which is included in both the European and the German Green City Index, is shown only on the basis of the results of the German Green City Index.

The final results for the German cities are shown in performance bands instead of in a detailed ranking (see “Index construction” on page 18).

Indicators: To be able to compare data points across cities, as well as to construct aggregate scores for each city, the project team first had to make the data gathered from differ- ent sources comparable. To do so, the quantita- tive indicators were “normalized” on a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 points were assigned to the best scoring city and 0 points were assigned to the worst scoring city. In some cases, an upper benchmark or a lower benchmark was inserted to prevent outliers from skewing the distribution of points. The Economist Intelligence Unit used the same nor- malization for the German Green City Index as for the European Index.

Qualitative indicators were scored by Economist Intelligence Unit ana- lysts, who defined objective criteria to evaluate the environmental targets, strategies, and en- vironmental policies of a city. The qualitative Methodology German Green City Index

German Green City Index - Assessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities

Definition of performance bands: ➔ “Well above average”: Scores are more than 1.5 times the standard deviation above the mean. ➔ “Above average”: Scores are between 0.5 and 1.5 times the standard deviation above the mean. ➔ “Average”: Scores are between 0.5 times the standard deviation above and 0.5 times the standard deviation below the mean. ➔ “Below average”: Scores are between 0.5 and 1.5 times the standard deviation below the mean. ➔ “Well below average”: Scores are more than 1.5 times the standard deviation below the mean.

indicators were again scored on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 points assigned to cities that met or exceeded the check-list of criteria.

In the case of the “CO2 reduction strategy” indicator, for exam- ple, cities were assessed according to whether they actively and regularly monitor CO2 emis- sions, what CO2 reduction targets have been set and how ambitious they are, given the time peri- od within which they are supposed to be met. Index construction: To compose the Index, a score was first calculated for each city on a scale of 0 to 10 in the eight categories. This evaluation included all quantitative and qualita- tive data for each infrastructure category. In general, all indicators received the same weight- ing. To create the overall scores, the scores of the eight categories were then aggregated according to their assigned weighting.

To avoid that any category is lent greater importance than another, the Economist Intelligence Unit assigned equal weightings on each category score. This also reflects feedback from the inde- pendent experts who were involved in develop- ing the methodology. During the final step, the cities were grouped into performance bands according to their scores. Those bands were based on average (mean) scores and defined using the standard deviation, a statistical term for the area around the mean which covers 66% of all values.

19 18 Cluster To analyze the effect of income, population, industrialization, and temperature on a city’s score, the 41 cities were also divided into a series of clusters, which were defined as follows: Income: “Low income,” with per capita GDP of less than €21,000; “middle income” of €21,000 to €31,000 and “high income” of more than €31,000 Size: “Small,” with a population of less than 1 million; “mid-sized,” with a population of between 1 million and 3 million and “large” with a population of more than 3 million Industrialization: “Industrial,” with a 25% or greater share of industry; “service-oriented,” with a share of less than 25% industry Temperature: “Cold,” with an average temperature of 6-8 degree Celsius; “temperate,” with an average temperature of 9-12 degrees Celsius and “hot,” with an average temperature of more than 13 degrees Celsius List of categories, indicators and their weightings CO2 emissions Quantitative 33% Total CO2 emissions, in tonnes per head.

Min-max. CO2 intensity Quantitative 33% Total CO2 emissions, in grams per unit of real GDP Min-max; lower benchmark of 1,000 grams (2000 base year). inserted to prevent outliers.

CO2 reduction Qualitative 33% An assessment of the ambitiousness Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts strategy of CO2 emissions reduction strategy. on a scale of 0 to 10. Energy consumption Quantitative 25% Total final energy consumption, in gigajoules per head. Min-max. Energy intensity Quantitative 25% Total final energy consumption, in megajoules per unit Min-max; lower benchmark of 8MJ/€GDP of real GDP (in euros, base year 2000). inserted to prevent outliers. Renewable energy Quantitative 25% The percentage of total energy derived from renewable Scored against an upper benchmark of 20% (EU target).

consumption sources, as a share of the city's total energy consumption, in terajoules.

Clean and efficient Qualitative 25% An assessment of the extensiveness of policies promoting Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts energy policies the use of clean and efficient energy. on a scale of 0 to 10. Energy consumption Quantitative 33% Total final energy consumption in the residential sector, Min-max. of residential buildings per square meter of residential floor space. Energy-efficient Qualitative 33% An assessment of the extensiveness of cities’ energy Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts buildings standards efficiency standards for buildings. on a scale of 0 to 10.

Energy-efficient Qualitative 33% An assessment of the extensiveness of efforts to promote Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts buildings initiatives efficiency of buildings. on a scale of 0 to 10. Use of non-car Quantitative 29% The total percentage of the working population travelling Converted to a scale of 0 to 10. transport to work on public transport, by bicycle and by foot. Size of non-car Quantitative 14% Length of cycling lanes and the public transport network, Min-max. Upper benchmarks of 4 km/km2 and transport network in km per square meter of city area. 5 km/km2 inserted to prevent outliers.

Green transport Qualitative 29% An assessment of the extensiveness of efforts to increase Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts promotion the use of cleaner transport. on a scale of 0 to 10.

Congestion Qualitative 29% An assessment of efforts to reduce vehicle traffic Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts reduction policies within the city. on a scale of 0 to 10. Water consumption Quantitative 25% Total annual water consumption, in cubic meters per head. Min-max. Water system leakages Quantitative 25% Percentage of water lost in the water distribution system. Scored against an upper target of 5%. Wastewater Quantitative 25% Percentage of dwellings connected to the sewage system. Scored against an upper benchmark of 100% treatment and a lower benchmark of 80%.

Water efficiency Qualitative 25% An assessment of the comprehensiveness of measures Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts and treatment to improve the efficiency of water usage and the on a scale of 0 to 10.

policies treatment of wastewater. Municipal waste Quantitative 25% Total annual municipal waste collected, in kg per head. Scored against an upper benchmark of 300 kg (EU target). production A lower benchmark of 1,000 kg inserted to prevent outliers. Waste recycling Quantitative 25% Percentage of municipal waste recycled. Scored against an upper benchmark of 50% (EU target). Waste reduction Qualitative 25% An assessment of the extensiveness of measures Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts and policies to reduce the overall production of waste, on a scale of 0 to 10.

and to recycle and reuse waste. Green land use Qualitative 25% An assessment of the comprehensiveness of Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts policies policies to contain the urban sprawl and promote on a scale of 0 to 10. the availability of green spaces. Nitrogen dioxide Quantitative 20% Annual daily mean of NO2 emissions. Scored against a lower benchmark of 40 ug/m3 (EU target). Ozone Quantitative 20% Annual daily mean of O3 emissions. Scored against a lower benchmark of 120 ug/m3 (EU target). Particulate matter Quantitative 20% Annual daily mean of PM10 emissions. Scored against a lower benchmark of 50 ug/m3 (EU target).

Sulfur dioxide Quantitative 20% Annual daily mean of SO2 emissions. Scored against a lower benchmark of 40 ug/m3 (EU target). Clean air policies Qualitative 20% An assessment of the extensiveness of policies Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts to improve air quality. on a scale of 0 to 10.

Green action plan Qualitative 33% An assessment of the ambitiousness and Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts comprehensiveness of strategies to improve and on a scale of 0 to 10. monitor environmental performance. Green management Qualitative 33% An assessment of the management of environmental Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts issues and commitment to achieving international on a scale of 0 to 10. environmental standards. Public participation Qualitative 33% An assessment of the extent to which citizens may Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts in green policy participate in environmental decision-making.

on a scale of 0 to 10.

Category Indicator Type Weighting Description Normalisation technique CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environ- mental gover- nance

attributable to the city’s ambitious CO2 reduc- tion goals: by 2020 it plans to cut emissions a total of 40% from the 1990 figure. Berlin has already achieved its interim goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and energy con- sumption 25% by 2010. This has been the result of a variety of programs, such as energy effi- ciency retrofits of the building stock (especially in the former East Berlin), a changeover from coal-fired to gas-fired power plants, and a sharp reduction in coal furnaces, from 400,000 in 1990 to fewer than 60,000 in 2008.

In addition, after the Wall came down, many unprofitable industrial operations were shut down, some of which had especially high CO2 emissions. The city also achieves good results for CO2 emis- sions per unit of GDP, with 247 grams compared to the European average of 326 grams. Green initiatives: To achieve its CO2 reduction goal, the city is trying to sign up businesses to join the Berlin Climate Alliance. The Alliance is a group of Berlin businesses and associations who are making a contribution to protect the climate. The partners support the City of Berlin in implementing the goals of the state’s energy program.

Numerous major Berlin industrial, utility and construction companies have al- ready joined the Alliance.

Energy: Berlin scores average in the energy category. It made points with relatively low energy consumption: 68 gigajoules per capita, or 3.0 megajoules per euro of GDP. Both figures are below the average of 85 gigajoules and 4.5 megajoules for the 41 European cities. Berlin benefits from Western Europe’s largest district heating network – 1,300 km, with a capacity of some 7,700 megawatts and serving more than 600,000 of the city’s nearly two mil- lion households. According to 2006 figures, German Green City Index 20 21 Berlin Background indicators Population 3.4 million GDP per person (PPP) in € 21,400 Administrative area in km2 892 Share of industry / gross value added in % 18 Average temperature in °C 9 CO2, buildings, transport, water, waste and land use, and air quality.

What is remarkable is the genuinely low CO2 emissions of 5.6 metric tons per capita. These put Berlin in the lead for Ger- many, and make it one of only two German cities (along with Nuremberg) that scored above average compared to the rest of Europe. Also noteworthy is the low energy consumption of residential buildings compared to the 40 other European cities. In the energy and envi- ronmental governance categories, however, Berlin is average. The energy score is affected by the relatively low share of renewable energy sources as part of the overall energy consump- tion. But as the city increasingly turns to solar and biomass energy, the score may well im- prove in this area.

CO2 emissions: Berlin scores above aver- age in this category, and along with Nuremberg is one of only two German cities to score at this level in comparison to the other European cities. With CO2 emissions of 5.6 metric tons per capita per year, Berlin leads the German pack, and is below the European average of 6.5 met- ric tons. The good score in this category is also Berlin is not just the capital – with a popula- tion of about 3.4 million, it’s also the most heavily populated city in Germany. The city was divided by the famous Wall until 1989. Quite apart from the political split, this meant that the city developed differently in East and West Berlin.

Reunification in 1990 had a vast effect on Berlin’s ecological footprint, because the shutdown of most of East Berlin’s industrial operations and the modernization of a large proportion of buildings since then has cut CO2 and other pollutant emissions substantially. Today, Berlin’s economy is profoundly shaped by the service sector, particularly media compa- nies, creative professions, and biosciences. The metals and electronics industry also plays an important role. Berlin is a popular travel desti- nation, and has made a name for itself as a con- ference city. Compared to other German cities, however, Berlin must contend with relatively high unemployment, and must manage on a relatively low gross domestic product (GDP) of €21,400 per capita.

Overall, the results for the German capital rank above average. Specifically, its performance is above average in six of the eight categories – however, 43% of the city’s heating energy is still generated from coal. The relatively low propor- tion of renewable energy sources in the energy mix is another disadvantage. So far only 1.6% of the city’s energy consumption comes from renewable sources, while the European average is 6.3%. The expansion of solar energy, howev- er, has now been assigned a higher priority in the city, so that the share of renewable sources should rise in the future.

Green initiatives: In December 2009, the city’s energy utility and a solar specialist inaugu- rated a pilot solar power plant at the site of the former Mariendorf gas works, with an initial capacity of 100 kilowatts.

The partners are cur- rently studying whether the plant can be expanded into Berlin’s largest solar power sta- tion, with a capacity of as much as 2 mega- watts. Buildings: In the buildings category, Berlin scores above average. The city stands out espe- cially for one of the lowest energy consump- tions in residential buildings: 520 megajoules per square meter. That is the second-lowest fig- ure in both Germany and all of Europe (only Stuttgart does better). By comparison, the Euro- pean average was 857 megajoules. Berlin has invested massively in modernizing buildings since 1990, especially in the former East Berlin, where there was a serious need to catch up in terms of building standards and energy effi- ciency.

Over the past 20 years, energy con- sumption has decreased very substantially. Bet- ter insulation, the conversion from coal fur- naces to central heating and gas furnaces, and easier access to information about energy effi- ciency made it possible. For example, energy efficiency retrofits reduced energy consump- tion by Berlin industrialized apartment blocks from 150 kWh to 80 kWh per square meter per year.

Green initiatives: To lend new momentum to energy efficiency and energy saving in the building stock, “Climate Protection Partners,” an Energy-saving partnerships The Berlin Energy-Saving Partnership was founded in 1996 as a joint initiative by the city and the Berlin Energy Agency. The Energy- Saving Partnership guarantees enhanced energy efficiency in public buildings and energy savings averaging 25% per year, while the partners provide both expertise and financing. Over 6% of these savings go directly to the city budget, while the rest is used to modernize and optimize buildings. In return, the partners receive all savings in excess of the guaranteed amount.

The newly installed systems remain the city’s property. When the individual contracts expire after about twelve years, the city alone reaps the energy savings. The retrofitting of schools, child care centers, universities, administrative buildings and swimming pools has already saved the city €11 million in energy costs. The initiative has made Berlin a prime example of energy-saving programs in public buildings.

well below average below average average above average well above average Performance CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall results Berlin Other German cities Other European cities The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.

23 alliance of ten Berlin business chambers and institutions, has awarded the “Climate Protec- tion Partner of the Year” prize for outstanding climate protection projects every year since 2002. From among the 47 candidates in 2010, the winners included a complete retrofit of the 100-year-old tropical plant house at the Botani- cal Garden.

Energy consumption was reduced more than 50% with technical measures like renovating the façades and adding insulation – a real challenge for materials and technology given the necessary high humidity of 80%. Transport: Berlin scored above average in the transport category. As early as 2003, the capital’s “mobil 2010” urban development plan – which is currently being updated – had stated the goal of making the transportation system more environmentally friendly. This includes, for example, encouraging alternative means of transportation like buses, rail and bicycles, and reducing traffic jams.

The local public transport network, at 1.0 km per square kilometer, may not be as well developed yet as in other Euro- pean cities (average 2.4 km), but gaps in the road and rail network between the eastern and western parts of the city have now been filled in. Today about 38% of Berliners take public transportation to work; compared to the nationwide average of 27%, this is the second- best score, after Munich. The bike path network measures 1.6 km per square kilometer of city territory, and is thus already a little longer than the European average (1.4 km). According to the city’s latest estimates, 22% of the popula- tion walk or bike to work, roughly equal to the average for all European cities studied.

Green initiatives: To prevent traffic jams and keep street traffic moving even during rush hours, the up-to-date traffic control center monitors traffic over more than 1,500 km of streets, and coordinates traffic lights at roughly 2,000 intersections. It also monitors warning and notice signs – called traffic management systems – and they are switched manually from here as needed. In the local public transporta- tion system, the Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe transportation agency supports the use of hydrogen as a fuel and has started applying this technology to its bus fleet to reduce green- house gas emissions.

Fourteen buses with hydrogen combustion engines have been in use in Charlottenburg and Spandau since 2006. Water: Berlin is above average in the water category. Water losses due to leakage in the pipeline network are just 2% – the lowest value in Europe, and far below the European Index average of 19%. Annual water consumption in Berlin is also quite low, at 56 cubic meters; the average for the European cities is 93 cubic meters. The installation of water meters and the encouragement of water-conserving house- hold appliances are something to be taken for granted in Berlin. These measures have had a demonstrably positive effect.

Since 1991, drinking water supplied and consumed has decreased significantly.

Green initiatives: In 2008 the Berliner Was- serbetriebe water company built a solar plant at the Tegel Water Works. With a collector area of about 5,400 square meters, this is Berlin’s largest contiguous solar plant. The electricity is enough to pump drinking water for more than 26,000 Berliners out of the ground, purify it, and carry it to homes through the pipelines. Although the electricity from Tegel is fed into the general power grid, it serves primarily to cover the plant’s own water delivery needs. Cur- rently, the water company is tapping additional alternative energy sources. For example, it plans to make the Schönerlinde sewage treat- ment plant the first energy self-sufficient water treatment plant, starting in 2012, by building three windmills with a total combined capacity of 6 megawatts.

Waste and land use: Berlin scores above average in waste and land use. It earned points with its recycling level, which at about 40% is well above the European average of 26%. It is also remarkable that this level increased 5% from 2004 to 2008 because of a variety of measures. For example, the city provides a 480 liter composting bin, emptied weekly, for all large apartment buildings. There is a charge for emptying the bins, and their use is mandatory. The city also scores well in waste generated: at 452 kg of waste per resident per year, the city is below the European average of 517 kg, and earned the third best score in Germany.

Waste generation has decreased significantly in recent years, from 2.3 million metric tons in 1992 to barely 900,000 tons in 2007. In land use, Berlin’s Agenda 21 specifies, among other requirements, that the amount of green space in heavily populated areas should be increased by at least 10% by 2015. The program additionally provides that the waiting time for an allotment garden plot must be no more than one year, and that the city’s own larger areas of land must be connected together with green corridors. Green initiatives: According to the 2009 Berlin Area Use Plan of the Urban Development Office of the Senate Administration, strength- ening the inner city as a residential and living center, with homes, jobs, culture and recreation on an equal par, is a strategic goal.

The Tempel- hof Field, measuring nearly 400 hectares, will become a new district with attractive apart- ments and many jobs, together with a park landscape that will round out the downtown range of open space and assist the city’s climate for the long term.

Air quality:In air quality, Berlin scores above the European average. The city’s air quality is carefully monitored and has greatly improved, especially because of the structural change away from industry and toward a service econo- my. Apart from ozone concentration, all figures included in this Index are below the European average. The average nitrogen dioxide concen- tration, for example, is 27 micrograms per cubic meter in Berlin, compared to 34 micrograms in the other European cities. The daily average of annual particulate matter concentration, at 24 micrograms, is also below the European average, 31 micrograms.

But although annual average particulate matter figures for 2009 were within the allowable range, the tolerance limit, at 73 days, was not maintained. Only 35 days are allowed. As in many other cities, traffic is the main source of emissions in Berlin. It accounts for 40% of particulate matter emis- sions and 80% of nitrogen dioxide emissions. Green initiatives: Berlin has taken a number of steps to reduce emissions from transporta- tion, including establishing an environmental zone in 2008, intended to reduce vehicle emis- sions in the inner city. It has also outfitted city buses with particulate filters, and the Berlin Senate has encouraged the use of natural-gas- powered utility vehicles.

Apart from reducing emissions with improved vehicle technologies, however, the city is also concentrating on traffic planning measures, such as optimizing traffic lights to ensure a more efficient traffic flow. Environmental governance: Berlin scores average for environmental governance. A positive factor is that the Berlin House of Dele- gates adopted the Local Agenda 21 Berlin in 2006, with the participation of politicians, citi- zens and business, thus approving an action program for sustainable urban development with the active involvement of the population. As a continuation of this program, twelve sus- tainability indicators were proposed in 2010, on which a biennial data report reviewing the city’s sustainable development is to be based on.

But a negative factor is that the city has set and communicated clear goals for only a few envi- ronmental aspects.

Green initiatives: Berlin is the only German city that is a member of the C40 Group. C40 is an association of 40 metropolises that have agreed to support climate protection. Through a partnership with the Clinton Climate Initia- tive, the C40 Group works to reduce emissions through greater energy efficiency. Additionally, since 2008 Berlin has been a member of the Covenant of Mayors, a European Union initia- tive. This group has committed to outperform EU goals, and reduce greenhouse gases by more than the targeted 20% from 1990 values by 2020. Berlin plans to reduce its CO2 emis- sions 40% by 2020.

Biogas for the city’s truck fleet The Berliner Stadtreininigung waste disposal office is currently building a fermentation plant at the Ruhleben site with a capacity of 60,000 metric tons, to be operated with waste from the composting bins. The biogas system will produce about 2,000 metric tons of natural gas a year. After appropriate processing, the product will be used as a diesel replacement in the office’s 50 garbage trucks. That will save about 2.5 million liters of diesel fuel. The number of vehicles is gradually to be more than doubled. 22 Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger.

avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities. * If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate Quantitative indicators Eur. avg. Ger. avg. Berlin Year* Source CO2 CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/head) 6.52 9.79 5.55 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€) 326.46 249.77 246.97 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office CO2 reduction target by 2020 18.64 30.83 40.00 2008 Environment Office of the Senate Administration Energy Energy consumption per capita (GJ/head) 85.22 95.46 68.05 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP) 4.48 2.47 3.03 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%) 6.30 3.43 1.64 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office Buildings Energy consumption of residential buildings (MJ/m2) 856.97 702.18 520.12 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office Transport Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%) 21.98 24.02 21.80 2008 City of Berlin Share of population that takes public transportation to work (%) 37.40 27.21 38.40 2008 City of Berlin Length of bike path network (km/km2) 1.39 1.93 1.58 2009 Berlin Cycling Office; Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office Length of public transport network (km/km2) 2.44 2.61 1.01 2009 City of Berlin; Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office Water Annual water consumption per capita (m3/head) 93.12 59.21 56.40 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office Water system leakages (%) 18.88 8.36 2.41 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%) 96.25 99.53 99.00 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office Waste and Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head) 516.77 527.88 451.67 2008 State of Berlin Waste Balance Sheet; Berlin-Brandenburg land use Statistics Office Recycling rate (%) 25.93 47.48 40.39 2008 State of Berlin Waste Balance Sheet Air quality Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 33.98 30.51 27.18 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3) 40.49 40.97 42.13 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3) 31.30 21.92 23.97 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 6.44 5.05 4.86 2006 EEA Airbase

Bremen scored points for its ambitious CO2 re- duction goal (see “green initiatives”). Green initiatives: In December 2009, the Bre- men city government approved the fourth ver- sion of its 2020 Climate Protection and Energy Plan, which prescribes the goals for the next few years. The primary goal is to reduce CO2 emissions 40% by 2020 from the 1990 figure. The city has adopted a number of measures to achieve the goal: promoting clean energy (especially wind power), expanding district heating, saving energy in existing residential buildings, municipal buildings and businesses, and monitoring CO2 emissions better.

Bremen residents are also to get better information and be better advised about energy-saving and cli- mate-protection programs. Moreover, the city has founded the “Bremen Energy Consensus” climate protection agency, which is supposed to point out how to use energy more efficiently and thus cut CO2 emissions and energy con- sumption. For example, the agency promotes model projects, coordinates publicity cam- paigns, and provides information to specialists and consumers.

Energy: Bremen scores below average in energy. One reason is its high energy consump- tion of 171 gigajoules per capita per year, the highest in Europe. By comparison, the average for the 41 European cities studied was 85 giga- joules. However, 48% of this energy consump- tion is attributable to the steel industry. If that consumption is subtracted, the energy con- sumption is around 89 gigajoules. If energy consumption (including the steel industry) is set relative to economic output, at 4.6 mega- joules per unit of GDP Bremen is only slightly above the European average of 4.5 megajoules.

Renewables’ share of the energy mix is only German Green City Index 24 25 Bremen Background indicators Population 547,000 GDP per person (PPP) in € 36,700 Administrative area in km2 325 Share of industry / gross value added in % 25 Average temperature in °C 9 age in energy – very largely a consequence of industry’s large CO2 emissions and heavy ener- gy consumption, especially in the steelmaking industry. But the city can point to a very low per capita water consumption compared to the eleven other German cities, and the third- longest network of bike paths. Bremen also scored well in waste, with one of the country’s lowest levels of waste generated per person and the second-highest level of recycling.

CO2 emissions: Bremen scores average for CO2 emissions, most significantly because the city’s CO2 emissions come to 15.9 metric tons per capita – the highest of any of the 41 Euro- pean cities, and well above the European aver- age of 6.5 metric tons. CO2 figures per unit of GDP, at 429 grams per euro generated, are also well above the European average of 326 grams. According to city government, 59% of the CO2 emissions come from industry (49% from the steel industry alone), 28% from homes, and 13% from transportation. On the other hand, Bremen is located in northwestern Germany, about 60 km south of the mouth of the Weser River.

The city has a population of some 550,000, and like many other northern Euro- pean cities, was a member of the historical trad- ing Hansa League. Even today, this port city’s economy remains traditionally dominated by trade, and a variety of logistics and transporta- tion services are domiciled here. But science and industry also play a significant role; the lat- ter contributes 25% of the city’s gross value added. The largest local industries include aero- space, automobiles and steel. The city is also home to major breweries and coffee roasters. With an estimated gross domestic product (GDP) of €36,700 per capita, Bremen is in the medium range of the twelve German cities studied.

Bremen scores above average overall in the Ger- man Green City Index. It scores above average in buildings, transport, water, waste and land use, air quality and environmental governance, but is average in CO2 emissions and below aver- 0.8%, well below the other European cities (average 6.3%). A positive factor, however, is that Bremen is actively promoting clean forms of energy, for example by increasing the use of renewable sources like wind and water power. Green initiatives: In April 2010, Bremen was the first German city to sign up for the LED City Program, with the aim of expanding the use of LED lamps in the city’s infrastructure.

LED lamps save energy, reduce maintenance costs and offer better-quality light than conventional light sources for urban lighting. The city also recently launched a pilot project to replace compact flu- orescent lamps with LED lamps. By converting to LED lamps, the city hopes to cut its lighting costs by about one-third.

In its 2010 action plan to reduce CO2 emissions, the city acknowledges the potential of district heating, and has now developed its first specific plans. The district heating network is first to be expanded further on the basis of coal-fired power plants. Then the heat collected in waste recycling will be used more extensively to gen- erate electricity and heating energy. Further goals include better use of waste heat from the local steel industry, and a more extensive use of combined heating and power plants in industry and in large housing projects. Bremen is already looking at several possible projects that could save about 280,000 metric tons of CO2 a year.

Buildings: Bremen comes out above aver- age in the buildings category. Energy consump- tion in residential buildings, at 722 megajoules per square meter, is below the average of 857 megajoules for the 41 European cities. As part of its climate policy, the city offers financial incentives to improve heat insulation in existing buildings. Since 1993 it has financed more than 11,000 projects, and made €18 million avail- able (see below). The city also supports the “Modernize Bremen” initiative, which provides citizens with information about improving building efficiency.

Green initiatives: Bremen has recognized that buildings have great energy-saving poten- tial. For that reason, the fourth version of the well below average below average average above average well above average Performance CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall results Bremen Other German cities Other European cities The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results. Efficient pumps at the steel mill Bremen Steelworks, in cooperation with the German Energy Agency (DENA) and three pump manufacturers, has swapped out large numbers of electric pumps at its steel mill for energy-efficient versions.

The change was made as part of the DENA’s initiative to install more energy efficient pumping systems in industry and commerce, which is intended to show how energy-efficiency programs can be carried out relatively quickly and easily in businesses. While the steelworks’ electric power consumption is low relative to its demand for heat, the electricity savings are substantial: by using energy-efficient pumps, the steelworks saves 2.7 million kilowatt-hours a year, equivalent to the energy demand from about 670 four-person households.

26 27 Climate Protection and Energy Program for 2020 calls for improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings. In 2008 the city’s Senate approved a program for energy-efficient build- ing rehabilitation in public facilities and made €28.4 million available for the purpose. New public buildings are normally to be built to the “passive house” standard. Even more, to encourage energy-awareness, the city set up the voluntary “3/4plus” program for schools, with the aim of influencing user habits and reducing energy and water consumption in buildings. Caretakers ensure that building sys- tems are operating at their best, and teachers teach students energy-aware behavior within and in cooperation with their school.

The pro- gram has been a success: a total of 200 schools in Bremen and nearby Bremerhaven are in- volved in the project, and their substantial cuts in energy and water consumption reduced CO2 emissions from more than 65,000 metric tons in 1987 to about 35,700 tons in 2009. Transport: Bremen scores above average on transport. The city is making an effort to make biking and local public transport more attrac- tive in various ways. The network of bike paths, at 2.5 km per square kilometer, is already signif- icantly more extensive than the 41-city Euro- pean average (1.4 km). However, the local pub- lic transport network, at 2.1 km per square kilo- meter, is a bit shorter than in many other Euro- pean cities studied (average 2.4 km).

One- quarter of the Bremen population walks or bikes to work, and another 24% use public transportation. For comparison, the European average is 22% pedestrians or bikers and 37% users of the bus or rail. Bremen is also making an effort to reduce traffic congestion, and has installed an electronic traffic monitoring sys- tem that allows it to control traffic flexibly. Depending on the level of traffic, different speed limits are signaled to drivers by way of electronic switchboards. In other places, signal boards in the parking control system steer dri- vers toward available parking spaces.

Green initiatives: To relieve downtown traffic congestion, Bremen has set up what it calls “mobile point stations.” Short-term rental cars are available at these stations, which are near bus and streetcar stops or taxi stands. Cus- tomers of this car-sharing initiative can park their rental car there and board other forms of transportation directly. The city reports that the initiative is a great success. A study of the first two “mobile point” stations showed that 170 new car sharing customers were enlisted for the ten car sharing cars at the two stations, at the same time eliminating 90 private cars.

By now the initiative has recruited some 5,500 private and business customers. Another innovative car sharing initiative, “e-car4all,” is currently being tested in Bremen by the Personal Mobility Cen- ter, the project center for the Bremen-Olden- burg Electromobility Model Region. Private indi- viduals can apply to be the caretaker or user of an electric car. The cars are distributed among residential areas, charged up by the caretakers, and made available to users for short trips. Water: In the water category, Bremen scores above average. The annual per capita water consumption of 57 cubic meters, as for the eleven other German cities, is well below the European average of about 93 cubic meters.

The share of water lost to system leakage is 5% in Bremen, likewise well below the average for the European cities studied (19%). Green initiatives: Since January 2011, Bre- men has had separate sewage fees for house- hold sewage and rainwater. This makes it possi- ble for the city to encourage handling pre- cipitation water ecologically, letting it percolate into the ground naturally instead of channeling it into the sewer system. Additionally, the city encourages rainwater collection, and provides grants of up to €2,000 per household to install rainwater collection tanks. The only require- ment is that the water must be used for flushing toilets and at least one other application, such as watering gardens.

Waste and land use: Bremen scores above average in waste and land use, and is one of the best German and European cities, with a relatively low waste accumulation and one of the highest recycling rates. The city produces 450 kg of waste per capita – less than the aver- age for European cities (517 kg). This is also the second-lowest waste generation of the eleven other German cities, following Leipzig. The recycling rate, at 57%, is the second highest in Germany and the third highest in Europe. The European average here is only 26%. Green initiatives: The Bremen city govern- ment encourages infill on unbuilt land in areas that have already been built up – a significantly more environmentally-friendly alternative to building in green space, and also a brake on urban sprawl.

Another advantage: unlike newly built areas, where entirely new infrastructures must be installed, infill buildings can tie into existing infrastructure. More than 14,000 apart- ments have been built in this way since the ini- tiative was launched in 1990 – about half the new apartments built in the city since that date. Some 3,000 infill spaces are still available inside and outside town.

Air quality:Bremen scores above average in the air quality category. Except for ozone, the figures for all air pollutants that the study looked at are below the Index average. Bre- men’s average nitrogen dioxide concentration is 23 micrograms per cubic meter; the average for the European cities is 34 micrograms. Partic- ulate values, at 20 micrograms per cubic meter, are likewise below the European average of 31 micrograms. The figures for sulfur dioxide are similar: at an average of 4.8 micrograms per cubic meter per year, they too are below the European average of 6.4 micrograms. Ozone, however, at 43 micrograms, is slightly higher in Bremen than in the other European cities (40 micrograms average).

Green initiatives: As in many other German cities, street traffic makes a significant contri- bution to air pollution in Bremen. For that rea- son, the city is concentrating its air quality improvement efforts on this area. In 2009 Bre- men introduced an environmental zone that can be entered only by cars and trucks that comply with a certain exhaust standard. Vehi- cles that emit high levels of pollutants are pro- hibited. This mainly applies to diesel vehicles and gasoline-engine cars without an adjusted catalytic converter. Bremen also encourages buying natural-gas-powered vehicles, which emit 80% less nitrogen dioxide than vehicles under the Euro IV standard.

Bremen residents receive up to €700 to retrofit a conventional car for natural gas.

Environmental governance: Bremen scores above average in environmental gover- nance. The city published an up-to-date envi- ronmental status report in 2011 that includes a comprehensive stocktaking of the environmen- tal situation. It will be updated every four years. A drawback is that apart from CO2 reduction, no clear goals for other areas of the environment have been defined. But a positive factor is an innovative city service online as a place for citi- zens to consult on environmental matters. Cur- rent ideas or complaints are published on the city’s website, and citizens can track the status of their complaints using a traffic-light system.

Green initiatives: The Hansa city’s Office for the Environment, Construction, Traffic and Europe has been implementing the European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) since 2003. EMAS is subdivided into several phases: adopting an environmental guideline, performing an eco-audit, and determining an effective environmental management system. The Office has not only established the EMAS system’s principles within its own sphere, but also encourages the introduction of EMAS and other environmental management systems at local companies and organizations. A massive expansion of wind power Bremen is planning on assuming a leading position in promoting renewable energy sources in Northern Germany.

One emphasis is on wind power. The city current operates eight wind farms, and plans to add six more by 2020. Since 2009, Bremen has supported the new Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and Energy Systems Technology in Bremerhaven to advance wind power research.

Another emphasis is generating energy from water power. By the end of 2011 Bremen plans to complete a €40 million, 10 megawatt hydroelectric plant on the Weser River, which is expected to generate 42 million kilowatt-hours of ecologically sound electricity per year, and to supply 17,000 homes. Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities. * If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate Quantitative indicators Eur. avg. Ger. avg. Bremen Year* Source CO2 CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/head) 6.52 9.79 15.90 2006 Bremen State Statistics Office CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€) 326.46 249.77 429.12 2006 Bremen State Statistics Office CO2 reduction target by 2020 18.64 30.83 40.00 2009 City of Bremen Energy Energy consumption per capita (GJ/head) 85.22 95.46 171.24 2006 Bremen State Statistics Office Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP) 4.48 2.47 4.62 2006 Bremen State Statistics Office Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%) 6.30 3.43 0.76 2006 Bremen State Statistics Office Buildings Energy consumption of residential buildings (MJ/m2) 856.97 702.18 721.80 e 2006 EIU Estimate, based on the following data: Bremen State Statistics Office; Eurostat – Urban Audit; Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office; Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein Statistics Office Transport Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%) 21.98 24.02 25.40 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit Share of population that takes public transportation to work (%) 37.40 27.21 24.40 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit Length of bike path network (km/km2) 1.39 1.93 2.51 2008 Senator for Environment, Construction, Traffic and Europe; Bremen State Statistics Office Length of public transport network (km/km2) 2.44 2.61 2.05 2008 Bremer Strassenbahn AG; Bremen State Statistics Office Water Annual water consumption per capita (m3/head) 93.12 59.21 57.17 2007 Bremen State Statistics Office Water system leakages (%) 18.88 8.36 5.25 2008 SWB (utility company) Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%) 96.25 99.53 99.65 2007 Bremen State Statistics Office Waste and Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head) 516.77 527.88 450.13 2008 Senator for Environment, Construction, Traffic and Europe – land use Waste Balance Sheet; Bremen State Statistics Office Recycling rate (%) 25.93 47.48 57.20 2008 Senator for Environment, Construction, Traffic and Europe – Waste Balance Sheet Air quality Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 33.98 30.51 22.77 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3) 40.49 40.97 43.03 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3) 31.30 21.92 19.68 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 6.44 5.05 4.75 2008 EEA Airbase

mate protection. It wasn’t until February 2010 that Cologne presented a “Sustainable Energy Action Plan” to meet the climate protection com- mitments of the Climate Alliance and the Euro- pean Union’s Covenant of Mayors. CO2 emissions: Cologne ranks average in the category of CO2 emissions. The city emits 10.0 metric tons of CO2 per capita each year, well above the average of 6.5 metric tons among the 41 European cities. To turn this situa- tion around, Cologne has committed to the CO2 reduction targets put forward by the Climate Alliance and the European Union’s Covenant of Mayors. Cities in the Climate Alliance seek to lower their CO2 emissions by 10% every five years.

The “Sustainable Energy Action Plan” reports CO2 reductions of nearly 20% in the peri- od from 1990 to 2007, achieved primarily by replacing the energy sources of coal and fuel oil with natural gas. Cologne scores relatively well when CO2 emissions are examined relative to economic output: at 261 grams per euro of GDP, it lies below the average of 326 grams in the 41 European cities.

Green initiatives: The local utility company has a pilot project underway to examine the potential of using wood chips for energy produc- tion. In its very own “energy forest,” the compa- ny is planting fast-growing poplars that can be cut down and processed into wood chips after just three years. These wood chips are then used as fuel. The process is regarded as carbon-neu- tral, since the volume of carbon dioxide emitted during combustion is equal to the volume absorbed by the trees during their growth. Energy: Cologne scores average in the cate- gory of energy. At 123 gigajoules per capita, the city consumes much more energy than the aver- age in the European cities (85 gigajoules).

But Cologne has acknowledged the need for action, and in 2010, it presented its “Sustainable Energy Action Plan” to reduce energy consumption. The plan begins by presenting a rough comparison of energy consumption and CO2 emissions in 1990 and 2007. A concrete plan of action will then be developed over the next two years. Cologne’s energy consumption relative to its economic output at 3.3 megajoules per euro of GDP is far below the European average of 4.5 megajoules.

Green initiatives: The local utility company has allocated €10 million to expand district heating capacity by another 10 megawatts a year until 2020 as part of the “Energy & Climate 2020” environmental initiative. This is equiva- lent to heating some 1,000 single-family homes German Green City Index 28 29 Cologne Background indicators Population 1.02 million GDP per person (PPP) in € 37,500 Administrative area in km2 405 Share of industry / gross value added in % 13 Average temperature in °C 10 percentage among all the German cities stud- ied. Cologne’s per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of €37,500 puts it in the middle of the pack among the German cities.

Cologne’s overall ranking in the German Green City Index is average. The city earns a mark of above average in the categories of transport and water, posting for example the second-highest share of the population that commutes to work using environmentally friendly modes of trans- port – on foot or by bicycle. Cologne ranks aver- age in the other categories. Cologne lagged behind other German cities in embracing cli- With a population of just over one million, Cologne is Germany’s fourth-largest city and the largest city in North Rhine-Westphalia. Cologne’s five Rhine harbors make it Germany’s second-largest river port as well as an important trade center and transshipment point for rail and barge traffic.

The local economy is dominat- ed by the service sector – above all banking and insurance, research and development, trade fairs, tourism, and media enterprises. Industry, on the other hand – primarily the food, chemi- cal, and automotive industries – contribute only 13% to Cologne’s gross value added, the lowest or 2,000 households. Currently, some 50,000 households in Cologne get district heating through a 280-kilometer network. Buildings: Cologne ranks average in the buildings category. The energy consumption of Cologne’s residential building stock is relatively high at 1,167 megajoules per square meter.

The average residential building in the 41 European cities uses just 857 megajoules. Cologne’s figure is actually the highest in Germany. The city of Cologne tightened its energy guidelines in 2010 after the latest energy report found a consistent upward trend in the overall energy costs of municipal institutions since 2003. The resolu- tion calls for the application of the energy-sav- ing “passive house” standard to all new munici- pal construction projects. Although the city does not subsidize climate protection measures in new construction and renovation projects, it does provide information on funding options from the federal and state government and other sources.

Green initiatives: Cologne’s largest municipal housing association completely renovated 144 units in Cologne-Ossendorf as part of a modernization project. A total of €7 million was invested in the houses, which were built in 1963. The units have now been completely heat-insulated to meet low-energy standards. Photovoltaic systems installed on the roofs gen- erate energy that is fed into the grid. The old electrical heating system has been replaced by wood pellet heating supported by a solar instal- lation to provide heat. The energy overhaul reduced the heating costs from nearly €3 per square meter of living space to some €0.20.

Transport: Cologne ranks above average in the transport category. The city has an expan- sive network of bike paths with 2.0 km per square kilometer, much longer than the average in the 41 European cities (1.4 km). And it is heavily used: 37% of the population of Cologne walks or bicycles to work – the second-highest figure in Germany and much higher than the European average of 22%. The share of resi- dents who commute using public transport is relatively low at 21%, however, compared to the European average of 37%. But the public trans- port network of 1.9 km per square kilometer is also shorter than the European average (2.4 km).

Cologne scores points for its efforts to Climate model In October 2009, Cologne joined the envi- ronmental agency of North Rhine-Westphalia and the German Weather Service in launching a project to develop a new mathematical climate model for the city.

The idea was to simulate the consequences of climate change for Cologne. Experts predict that the city will experience both higher tem- peratures and higher levels of precipitation in the future, for example. The computer model is designed to give policymakers a basis for taking action against the effects of climate change – such as an increased risk of flooding and its consequences for the drainage and sewer system. well below average below average average above average well above average Performance CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall results Cologne Other German cities Other European cities The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.

31 30 reduce traffic congestion – for its city park & ride system, for example, or the widespread use of traffic control systems. The latter is particularly important, since several federal highways in and around Cologne produce high traffic volumes. Green initiatives: Some 210,000 people com- mute into the city each day, while about 90,000 commute out of the city. To deal with the com- muter volume more efficiently, the city of Cologne joined the “Commuter Network” in 2008. Commuters go to the Commuter Network portal www.pendlernetz.de to look for other commuters or join existing carpools.

Essen is also making use of this online service. The city is also receiving support from the “Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment, and Energy” in developing further programs designed to make transportation more climate-friendly. As with the “Sustainable Energy Action Plan,” the first step is to draw up an energy and CO2 bal- ance sheet for transportation.

Water: Cologne scores above average in the water category. Cologne’s per capita annual water consumption of 66 cubic meters is much lower than the average of the 41 European cities (93 cubic meters). The water loss of 11% from leakage in the supply system is also below the European average of 19%. In Germany, howev- er, Cologne had the second-highest rate of loss – only Leipzig was higher. Cologne intends to upgrade old pipelines to further reduce losses and improve the water supply system. Green initiatives: The local utility company is installing smart meters in 200 to 300 house- holds in four Cologne neighborhoods.

Smart meters measure electricity, gas, and water usage in the households and show the total costs of the resources on a digital display. The hope is that this real-time data will motivate consumers to curb their usage. The pilot project is supposed to help determine whether it makes sense to install the smart meters throughout the city starting this year.

Waste and land use: Cologne scores average in the waste and land use category. The city produces some 677 kg of waste per capita each year; the average in the 41 European cities is 517 kg. The recycling rate of 37% is higher thantheEuropeanaverageof26%butbelowthe average of 47% among the twelve German cities studied. The city’s ambitions regarding land use and above all green space are noteworthy. Cologne has abundant natural areas – some 230 square kilometers covering 57% of the ur- ban area. Much of this is in the form of a green- belt surrounding the city. Cologne is working to protect this greenbelt through measures such as building restrictions on the city’s perimeter.

Green initiatives: The city partnered with local businesses to launch the “Forest Laboratory” reforestation project in March 2010. The pur- pose of the lab is to study which trees can best withstand the effects of climate change. The partners seek insight into what tomorrow’s forests will look like and how they can best be maintained and managed.

Air quality: Cologne ranks average in the air quality category. The measured levels of air pol- lutants are all moderate. This can be attributed primarily to Cologne’s economic structure, which is based largely on the service sector. The city needs to pay close attention to its levels of nitrogen dioxide, however: measurements in 2010 showed a concentration that regularly exceeded the thresholds allowed in Germany and the EU. Cologne’s daily average of annual nitrogen dioxide is 43 micrograms per cubic meter, above the average of 34 micrograms in the 41 European cities. The average sulfur dioxide concentrations of 7.5 micrograms per cubic meter per day are also slightly above the European average of 6.4 micrograms.

Annual particulate matter levels of 27 micrograms per cubic meter, on the other hand, remain below the European average of 31 micrograms. The same is true of ozone concentrations, which at 34 micrograms are below the European Index average of 40 micrograms.

Green initiatives: The city’s comprehensive clean air plan is currently focused on automobile traffic – for two reasons: First, traffic is regarded as the largest source of air pollution. And sec- ond, it is the easiest source to fight. Measures include a ban on high-emission vehicles in the city center (“environmental zone”) and a smart traffic control system that manages traffic lights to reduce congestion and gridlock. There are also plans to redirect vehicles onto less-traveled transit corridors. The current measures ran through the end of 2010. If the findings show no definitive improvement in air quality, other mea- sures will follow.

Residents are also encouraged to use public transportation more often or car- pool. Other plans include expanding the park & ride program, shifting heavy transport loads to rail, and improving traffic flow. Environmental governance: Cologne ranks average in the environmental governance category. Many aspects of the city’s environ- mental governance leave room for improve- ment. Cologne is the only city in the German Index, for example, that does not publish an environmental report with a comprehensive assessment of the environmental situation. Moreover, there was no evidence of a compre- hensive strategy covering all key aspects of envi- ronmental policy.

At the beginning of 2010, however, the city did announce plans to develop an integrated climate protection plan over a period of two years.

Green initiatives: For over 30 years, the city of Cologne has regularly offered an “environmen- tal protection award” to encourage citizens to share their creative ideas for the environment. The objective is to sensitize the population to environmental concerns. The award honors achievements in various areas of environmental protection: projects to preserve the countryside, ideas to reduce waste, or new environmental technologies. Ecoprofit Cologne The “Ecoprofit Cologne” initiative seeks to motivate local businesses to adopt resource- and energy-saving programs. A total of 13 businesses took part in the first round of the initiative in 2010, which focused on saving water and energy and reducing waste and emissions.

Businesses received advice and support from the city and academic experts. The city hopes that the initiative will lead to more efficient business workflows and a closer relationship between the city and local businesses when it comes to promoting sustainable energies.

Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities. * If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate. 1) Current CO2 reduction target is 50% by 2030. 2) Estimate based on energy consumption of City of Cologne. 3) Figure for the state of North Rhine–Westphalia. 4) Figure represents the average of one measurement station in a central urban location close to traffic and two measurement stations in non-central urban locations. 5) Figure is the average of two measurement stations in non-central urban locations.

Quantitative indicators Eur. avg. Ger. avg. Cologne Year* Source CO2 CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/resident) 6.52 9.79 10.02 2007 City of Cologne CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€) 326.46 249.77 260.63 2007 City of Cologne CO2 reduction target by 2020 18.64 30.83 25.00 1 2010 City of Cologne Energy Energy consumption per capita (GJ/resident) 85.22 95.46 122.85 2e 2008 EIU estimate based on Rheinergie data Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP) 4.48 2.47 3.29 2e 2007 EIU estimate based on Rheinergie data Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%) 6.30 3.43 3.93 3e 2007 ITNRW Buildings Energy consumption by residential buildings (MJ/m2) 856.97 702.18 1,166.88 3e 2007 ITNRW Transport Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%) 21.98 24.02 36.50 2006 City of Cologne Share of population that takes public transport to work (%) 37.40 27.21 21.20 2006 City of Cologne Length of bike path network (km/km2) 1.39 1.93 2.01 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit Length public transport network (km/km2) 2.44 2.61 1.88 2007 KVB; Cologne Statistical Almanac Water Annual water consumption per capita (m3/resident) 93.12 59.21 66.11 2008 Cologne Wastewater Office; Cologne Statistical Almanac Water system leakages(%) 18.88 8.36 11.49 3e 2007 NRW Information and Technology Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%) 96.25 99.53 98.80 2008 Cologne Wastewater Office Waste and Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head) 516.77 527.88 677.21 2007 NRW State Office of the Environment land use Recycling rate (%) 25.93 47.48 36.70 2007 NRW State Office of the Environment Air quality Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 33.98 30.51 42.93 4 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3) 40.49 40.97 34.13 5 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3) 31.30 21.92 26.84 4 2007 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 6.44 5.05 7.49 5 2008 EEA Airbase 30

Green initiatives: The 160-Point Plan that Essen introduced in 2009 includes a wider use of renewable energy sources in municipal build- ings, and an improvement of energy efficiency at businesses. The city government has also begun taking climate protection factors into account when it invests in goods or equipment. One example is the replacement of convention- al traffic lights with LED systems. Private house- holds are also being encouraged to adopt more environmentally friendly habits: in 2007 alone, conversions of households from coal, oil or electric heating to natural gas saved more than 12,000 metric tons of CO2.

Energy: Essen scores average in energy. Energy consumption per capita, at 103 giga- joules, is above the 85 gigajoule average for the 41 European metropolises. In terms of energy consumption, at 3.2 megajoules consumed per euro of GDP, Essen is well below the European average of 4.5 megajoules, but above the Ger- man average of 2.5 megajoules. The city is mak- ing an effort to promote clean, efficient energy sources. And it’s working: the share of renew- able energy sources is 7.1%, above the Euro- pean average (6.3%). In fact, this is the second highest figure among the twelve German cities.

Combined heating and power generation is also being encouraged. For example, at the waste incineration facility in Essen-Karnap, the city uses waste to generate energy. The plant generates heat and power simultaneously, which is significantly more efficient. The gener- ated heat is then fed into the Ruhr district heat- ing system.

Green initiatives: To increase the share of renewable energies, the city offers its own roof German Green City Index 32 33 Essen Background indicators Population 580,000 GDP per person (PPP) in € 31,400 Administrative area in km2 210 Share of industry / gross value added in % 38 Average temperature in °C 10 Essen also has the second highest share of renewable energy among German cities, and has the country’s third longest public transport network. CO2 emissions: In CO2 emissions, Essen ranks below average, particularly because of the high level of emissions from industry. Per capita CO2 emissions are 10.8 metric tons, above the average of 9.8 tons for the twelve German cities, and far above the 6.5 tons per capita for the 41 European cities.

The city emits 334 grams of CO2 per euro generated, and is thus slightly above the European average of 326 grams.

Essen’s accession to the European Climate Alliance, Europe’s largest network of cities for climate protection, is praiseworthy. As a mem- ber, the city has set ambitious CO2 reduction goals. Emissions are to be cut 10% every five years, per capita emissions are to be cut in half from 1990 levels by 2030, and over the long term, emissions are to be reduced to 2.5 metric tons per resident. This is all to be possible through extensive energy efficiency measures and a wider use of renewable energy sources. A first step in this direction is a 160-Point Plan, which Essen presented in 2009 as part of the Integrated Energy and Climate Concept, and intends to implement by 2013.

The city of Essen has a population of about 580,000 and is located in what is probably Germany’s most important industrial region, the Ruhr area. This metropolitan region of 53 cities and other municipalities and a popula- tion of about 5.3 million is the most densely populated conurbation in Europe. The largest cities in Essen’s immediate vicinity include Mül- heim, Oberhausen, Duisburg and Dortmund, with a total population of about two million. Coal was first mined in Essen in 1450; the city later developed into an important center of the steel industry. In 1811, the Krupp family found- ed Germany’s first steel casting mill here.

Struc- tural change has greatly decreased the impor- tance of coal and steel, but industry still accounts for 38% of gross value added – the sec- ond highest of any of the twelve German cities in the study. Service companies, the healthcare industry, and major utility companies, with their administrative centers, are other important employers. With a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of €31,400, Essen is below the average of €40,900 for German cities. Industry has a significant influence on the environmental performance of Essen and its region. Essen ranks average overall in the Index; it is below average in CO2 emissions, and above average in buildings, transport, water, waste and land use, and environmental governance.

space to interested citizens who wish to invest in building solar installations. They can pay into a fund that finances the installation of solar col- lectors, for example on school roofs. According to the city, over a 20-year term, investors can expect a yield of 4 to 7% per year. The first three solar projects were implemented in 2009, and solar collectors were built on the roofs of more schools in 2010.

Buildings: Essen scores above average in buildings. Energy consumption in residential buildings (864 megajoules per square meter) is a bit higher than the European average (857 megajoules). But the energy efficiency stan- dards, similarly to the eleven other German cities, are relatively high compared to the other European metropolises, with a positive impact on the overall result. However, the city offers few financial incentives to improve the energy efficiency of existing buildings. Yet it is making efforts to raise residents’ awareness of conserv- ing energy in buildings.

Green initiatives: In the special “Thermogra- phy” campaign in the winter of 2006/2007, the city of Essen offered residents a chance to get low-cost thermographic snapshots of their buildings’ exteriors, made with a thermal cam- era.

Several hundred residents took up the offer to get a better idea of their houses’ weak points – a first step toward an energy rehabilitation of the buildings. In addition, since 2005 the Envi- ronmental Office of the City of Essen has been working with the North Rhine-Westphalian Ministry of the Economy to acknowledge build- ings that conserve energy especially well. Own- ers receive a plaque that can be applied con- spicuously to the façade to point up the building’s especially good energy quality. By now, dozens of buildings in several categories have won awards, for example for especially low heating energy demand (a passive house, “three liter” house, rehabilitated building), or for using renewable energy sources (photo- voltaic, solar collectors, heat pumps, biomass).

Transport: Essen scores above average in the transport category. The city encourages the use of bicycles, buses and rail with a well-devel- oped network of local public transportation and bike paths. With 2.4 km per square kilometer, Essen has substantially more bike paths than the average for all 41 European cities (1.4 km). The bus and rail network, at 3.5 km, is likewise longer than in most of the other European cities Prize for ecological improvements The city has announced a prize of €10,000 for the best citizen environmental initiative. The award will go to the concept that makes an especially sustainable contribution toward protecting the environment in Essen.

The prize money is provided by the Essen Disposal Companies, which are responsible for the city’s waste disposal. Small businesses, organizations and private individuals are eligible to participate. There are no limits on the suggestions – all ideas are welcome, from reducing energy consumption, to reducing waste, to making use of rainwater. well below average below average average above average well above average Performance CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall results Essen Other German cities Other European cities The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.

34 35 studied (average 2.4 km). In fact, it is the third best among the German cities. Nevertheless, 69% of the population drives to work – a high figure compared to the rest of Europe. Here, however, it must also be taken into account that as a traffic node in the Ruhr region, Essen has one of the densest networks of freeways and other highways in Germany, which encourages car use. Another 11% of the population walks or bikes to work (European average 22%), and 20% of the residents use public transport (Euro- pean average 37%). For these reasons, the city intends to make using local public transporta- tion, as well as walking and biking, more attrac- tive (see “green initiatives”).

Green initiatives: As a part of its integrated energy and climate concept, the city is paying special attention to expanding more environ- mentally-friendly means of transportation. It has decided that encouraging biking is especial- ly important: by improving the bicycle infra- structure, and with public relations work, the city intends to create an incentive for residents to use cars less. One Essen city initiative along this line is expanding walking and biking paths on former railroad right-of-ways. Only recently it opened a new 5 km bike path from the univer- sity to the city limits. This is part of a regional bike path that is expected to extend as far as Duisburg and elsewhere.

Another initiative to reduce commuter vehicles is the free “Commuter Network” Web portal (www.essen.pendlernetz.de), which is run by a private company. Drivers in work traffic espe- cially tend to drive alone or with very few pas- sengers. To change that, anyone interested can look on the portal for rides or passengers to share the commute. Water: Essen scores above average in water. Similarly to the other German cities, per capita water consumption, at 62 cubic meters per year, is a third lower than the average of 93 cubic meters for the 41 European cities studied. Water lost to leakage in the distribution system, at 11%, is also well below the European average of 19%.

Green initiatives: Allbau AG, located in Essen, owns more than 18,000 residential buildings all around the city. It’s now planning to install rain- water cisterns in its buildings. The collected rainwater will be used to flush toilets and for washing machines. If precipitation is heavy, the water will be diverted to surrounding gardens, not into the city’s sewer system. That not only saves fresh water, but lowers energy consump- tion for water purification. Tenants in turn ben- efit from lower water charges thanks to the use of rainwater.

Waste and land use: Essen scores above average in waste and land use. Although the city generates more waste, at 538 kg per capita, than the 41-city European average of 517 kg, it recycles 33% of its total and has extensive mea- sures to reduce waste. By comparison, the aver- age European recycling rate is only 26%. The city’s green land use policies are also exemplary, including both improvements of existing green space and opening up new areas. For example, Essen is planning a network of green spaces and waterways.

Green initiatives: The 230-hectare “Krupp Belt” near Essen’s center was closed off to the public for 200 years.

The center of town and the Altendorf district were separated by an industri- al zone. Now the site is open to everyone. The city government and ThyssenKrupp Real Estate have created a new neighborhood out of the formerly idle land. Extensive green spaces have also been installed in the area, including a park measuring 220,000 square meters, landscaped hills, and a 9,100-square-meter lake fed by rain- water. Additional offices and a hotel are planned as the next construction projects. Air quality: Essen scores average in air qual- ity. Mean ozone and nitrogen dioxide concen- trations are slightly above the averages for all the German and European cities in the study, particularly because of two factors.

First, the economy of Essen and its environs is heavily influenced by industry. And second, there is heavy traffic because of the dense network of freeways and other highways. Essen has an especially high sulfur dioxide concentration – the highest German value, at 13.0 micrograms per cubic meter, and far above the European average of 6.4 micrograms per cubic meter. Green initiatives: To improve air quality, the city government has launched a “More Green, More Climate” initiative. It has the goal of pro- tecting green space in and around Essen by making residents more aware of the impor- tance of such areas.

The campaign especially promotes the attractions and ecological impor- tance of forests, fields and water bodies, which according to Essen government make up about half of the city’s territory. Environmental governance: Essen comes in above average in environmental gov- ernance. An especially positive factor is that the city fully involves its residents in political deci- sions on the environment. For example, public opinion was extensively consulted in the redesign of the “Krupp Belt.” Also in 2009, the “Our City, Our Climate” campaign was launched to raise environmental awareness among the population.

However, the city does less well in green city management. It gathers only some statistical data on its environmental perfor- mance. There are also no regular publications on the extent to which environmental pro- grams have been implemented.

Green initiatives: To make clear the impor- tance of programs to combat climate change, Essen is training interested residents as climate ambassadors. Their job is to raise their fellow residents’ awareness of environmental issues, for example by informing them about rehabili- tating buildings, using more renewable forms of energy, or saving energy and protecting the environment at work. Some climate ambas- sadors were specially trained at the Essen Peo- ple’s University to explain the importance of climate protection to school children. They or- ganize small environmental projects at schools, for example, where children can become active- ly involved and learn to think and act with an awareness of the environment.

Like other cities, Essen has also introduced an “Ecological Project for Integrated Environmen- tal Technology” (known as “Ecoprofit” for short) – a cooperative project among environmental agencies and groups and local private business- es. The project finances workshops and encour- ages the exchange of specialized knowledge about matters of the environment and costs. The 50 participating businesses have identified and assessed about 230 specific measures to improve protection of the environment. Heat Vision 2020 Essen is currently working out its “Heat Vision 2020.” The document is first intended to record the current energy consumption and current CO2 emissions from buildings, and then to prepare projections for the year 2020.

The “Vision” will help support city government in deciding on the right measures to improve energy efficiency and conserve energy. Examples include optimized heat insulation or a variety of technical innovations. Essen is developing “Heat Vision 2020” jointly with power utilities, consumers and environmental groups.

Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities. * If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate, 1) Calculation of CO2 emissions is based on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach. This approach is more extensive than the measurement method for other cities, and includes all emissions from the upstream chains of energy production. 2) Current CO2 reduction target is 10% every 5 years. 3) Estimate for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia.

4) Measurement station is located in the urban background. Quantitative indicators Eur. avg. Ger. avg. Essen Year* Source CO2 CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/head) 6.52 9.79 10.75 1e 2007 Unsere Stadt. Unser Klima.de (Our City, Our Climate); NRW State Database CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€) 326.46 249.77 334.45 1e 2007 Unsere Stadt. Unser Klima.de (Our City, Our Climate); Bremen Statistics; EIU CO2 reduction target by 2020 18.64 30.83 20.00 2 2010 Unsere Stadt. Unser Klima.de (Our City, Our Climate) Energy Energy consumption per capita (GJ/head) 85.22 95.46 103.22 2007 City of Essen CO2 Balance Sheet; NRW State Database Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP) 4.48 2.47 3.21 2007 City of Essen CO2 Balance Sheet; Bremen Statistics Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%) 6.30 3.43 7.12 2007 City of Essen CO2 Balance Sheet Buildings Energy consumption of residential buildings (MJ/m2) 856.97 702.18 864.39 2007 City of Essen CO2 Balance Sheet; NRW State Database Transport Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%) 21.98 24.02 10.90 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit Share of population that takes public transportation to work (%) 37.40 27.21 20.10 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit Length of bike path network (km/km2) 1.39 1.93 2.38 2008 City of Essen, Office of Urban Planning and Construction Code; NRW State Database Length of public transport network (km/km2) 2.44 2.61 3.50 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit; NRW State Database Water Annual water consumption per capita (m3/head) 93.12 59.21 61.64 2007 Office of Elections, Statistics and Urban Research of the City of Essen; NRW State Database Water system leakages (%) 18.88 8.36 11.49 3e 2007 Information und Technik NRW Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%) 96.25 99.53 99.60 2007 NRW State Database Waste and Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head) 516.77 527.8 537.83 2008 City of Essen, Environmental Office land use Recycling rate (%) 25.93 47.48 32.72 2008 City of Essen, Environmental Office Air quality Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 33.98 30.51 35.32 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3) 40.49 40.97 45.00 4 2008 NRW State Office for Nature, the Environment and Consumer Protection Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3) 31.30 21.92 27.84 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 6.44 5.05 12.96 2008 EEA Airbase

climate report, the city has stated the goal of reducing CO2 emissions 20% by 2020, by cut- ting them back 10% every five years between 2010 and 2020. Green initiatives: In the early 1990s, Frank- furt helped found the Climate Alliance, and at the time set higher climate protection goals for 2030 than other cities. The city government plans to achieve the goals with what it calls a “balanced” package of measures: reducing heat and electricity demands in residential, office and industrial buildings, stricter standards for energy-efficient construction, and a heavier use of combined heat and power generation and renewable sources of energy, especially biomass.

The projects can also be studied graphically: outstanding climate protection projects in Frankfurt – such as a combined heat and power generating plant, biomass plant, or passive buildings – can be located on an interactive “Cli- mate Protection Town Map,” and anyone inter- ested can find out about individual projects and their estimated CO2 prevention. Energy: In energy, Frankfurt scores average. The city’s energy consumption is relatively high – 121 gigajoules per capita. The 41 European cities consume an average of 85 gigajoules. But relative to economic output, the figure is 1.7 megajoules per real unit of GDP, well below the European average of 4.5 megajoules.

The extensive use of combined heating and power plants was a positive factor. Since the waste heat from power generation is also used for heating, these power plants make a key contri- bution toward saving energy. Moreover, Frank- furt is the German leader in using renewable energy sources. Their share is 7.9%, and thus also above the average of 6.3% for the 41 Euro- pean cities.

Green initiatives: Since 1991, the city has supported construction of combined heating and power plants and local power generation in new construction areas. Today it has a close- meshed network of these efficient power plants. Frankfurt has three rather large com- bined heating and power plants, as well as about 120 smaller and medium-sized ones, pro- viding a total of 24,000 kW of energy for large areas of the city, including for office buildings, schools, hospitals and fire stations. To make the population more familiar with the topic of com- bined heat and power generation, the city has also set up a no-charge consulting and informa- tion service for owners of commercial and resi- dential buildings.

In some newly constructed zones, using combined heat and power plants German Green City Index 36 37 Frankfurt Background indicators Population 673,000 GDP per person (PPP) in € 66,300 Administrative area in km2 248 Share of industry / gross value added in % 16 Average temperature in °C 10 above average. It scores average in CO2, energy, air quality and environmental governance. What is especially noteworthy is the extensive use of alternative forms of transportation: there is no other city in Germany where so many resi- dents (64%) do without cars to get to work, and rely instead on public transport, bicycle or just walking.

Frankfurt is also the German leader in using renewable forms of energy. Yet the city’s CO2 emissions are still well above the European average – also a consequence of its lively eco- nomic activity and the associated heavy traffic. CO2 emissions: Frankfurt scores average on CO2 emissions. The main reason is that at 12.8 metric tons per resident, the city’s CO2 emissions are almost twice as high as the 41-city European average (6.5 tons). But when CO2 is referred to gross domestic product, the city comes off comparatively well. A 2005 mea- surement found emissions of 185 grams (CO2 and CO2-equivalent) per euro of GDP – the third-best showing nationwide.

In its latest Statistically, Frankfurt ranks fifth in popula- tion among all German cities. Its roughly 670,000 residents generate a real per capita gross domestic product of about €66,300 – the highest of any German city in the German Green City Index. Frankfurt is an economic agglomeration with more than 44,000 busi- nesses and almost 490,000 jobs. About 320,000 additional workers commute into town daily, far more than in any other German city. Because of its location in the center of Cen- tral Europe, Frankfurt has become a transporta- tion and logistics hub for Germany and the entire continent.

Air, rail and highway traffic come together here – overall, ideal conditions for a highly international economy in industry, commerce and services. For example, Frankfurt is the headquarters of the European Central Bank, and is now considered one of Europe’s most important financial centers.

In the overall rating and four of the eight indi- vidual categories – buildings, transport, water, and waste and land use – Frankfurt scores or district heating has actually been made obligatory. Buildings:Frankfurt scores above average in the buildings category. Energy consumption in residential buildings, at 689 megajoules per square meter, is well below the European aver- age of 857 megajoules – not least of all a conse- quence of buildings’ high energy efficiency standards. But Frankfurt does not explicitly pro- mote the energy rehabilitation of buildings. According to the city, the economic advantages have been well enough communicated, and energy efficiency factors have now been taken into account anyway in many construction pro- jects.

Such projects usually pay for themselves by way of the energy costs they save. The city will perform the cost-effectiveness calculations on request.

Green initiatives: Frankfurt has Europe’s largest count of buildings built to the “passive house” standard, including 1,000 residences, schools, child care centers, gymnasiums and office buildings. A city resolution requires the passive house approach for the construction of all new municipal facilities. In terms of sustain- ability, Frankfurt can point to a remarkable con- struction: the “Sophienhof” residential and office complex, completed in 2006, is currently Germany’s largest passive-building residential settlement. It has 149 apartments, as well as shops and commercial space. A successor pro- ject has already been launched: this year, con- struction will start on Europe’s first passive- building clinic, in the Höchst district of town.

Transport: Frankfurt also scores above aver- age in transport. In spite of the large numbers of commuters, there is no other city in Germany where more residents (64%) do without cars to get to work, and rely instead on public trans- port, bicycles or just walking. Thirty-two per- cent of all Frankfurt residents take public trans- portation to work. A well-developed local public transport network of buses, streetcars, sub- ways, commuter trains and regional trains makes it possible. The Frankfurt local public transport network covers 3.1 km per square kilometer; the average for all European cities is The “Green Building Frankfurt” architecture prize Every two years, the city of Frankfurt honors owners and planners with the “Green Building Frankfurt” architectural prize for especially innovative, sustainable residential and nonresidential buildings.

The prize assesses rehabilitation projects and new construction. In 2009, eight buildings – ranging from residential buildings to an office high-rise – received the award. Among them was the “Tevesstrasse” project for the successful rehabilitation of state-subsidized apartment housing to the passive building standard. Another winner was the new building for the Reconstruction Loan Corporation (KfW), which was recognized as an especially energy- saving design for its annual primary energy demand of less than 100 kWh/m2 and the potential for covering the remaining energy demand with renewable forms of energy.

well below average below average average above average well above average Performance CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall results Frankfurt Other German cities Other European cities The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.

38 39 city’s traffic office can watch and control all the city’s traffic control systems from a 14-square- meter monitor – including the parking guid- ance system, information boards, the control system for the Frankfurt Messe fairgrounds, and traffic monitoring cameras. By moderniz- ing traffic management, the city plans to enhance the performance of the transport net- work, and to get drivers faster and more smoothly to where they’re going. Water: Frankfurt also scores above average in water. Water consumption in Frankfurt, at 61 cubic meters per resident, is significantly lower than the average of 93 cubic meters for the 41 European cities.

Another welcome finding is that relatively little water is lost to pipeline leaks in Frankfurt. With only 11%, Frankfurt is well below the average for the studied European cities (19%).

Green initiatives: The Frankfurt Messe has announced a number of programs to reduce water consumption. To take just two among many examples: rainwater or reprocessed wa- ter will be used to flush toilets, to water plants and to fill ornamental fountains. All toilets in the restaurants and exhibition halls have now been outfitted with water-saving flush mecha- nisms. The effects of these steps will be espe- cially evident during major exhibitions like the Frankfurt Book Fair, which draws more than 300,000 visitors and more than 7,000 exhibi- tors each year.

Waste and land use: Frankfurt scores above average in waste and land use.

Its low waste generation is the main contributor to the good score. The city generates 464 kg of waste per capita, less than the European average of 517 kg. According to the city, the volume of household waste steadily declined by a total of 16.5% between 2001 and 2008. Frankfurt also recycles 47% of its waste, substantially more than the European cities’ average (26%). The city also comes out quite well in its green land use policies, which aim both to preserve green space and contain urban sprawl.

Green initiatives: A new “green” route is to be set up between Ostpark and Mainufer in the eastern part of town. Today the route is still rather wearisome on foot or by bike, because a wide major traffic artery separates the two areas. But the new green connection is expect- ed to close up this gap in the landscape within the next few years. A disused rail right-of-way will also be tied in. Air quality: Frankfurt’s air quality rates as average. An important reason is the high nitro- gen dioxide concentration: at 36 micrograms per cubic meter, it is above the European aver- age of 34 micrograms.

The main culprit is truck traffic, but industry and air traffic also make a significant contribution. Ozone values, on the other hand, at 39 micrograms per cubic meter, are slightly below the European average of 40 micrograms. Particulate matter concentra- tion in Frankfurt, at an average of 20 micro- grams per cubic meter, is actually well below the European cities’ average of 31 micrograms. The situation with sulfur dioxide is similar. Green initiatives: In 2005, the state of Hesse adopted an air purification plan. As the state’s largest city, Frankfurt adopted long-term mea- sures to implement the plan and improve air quality in areas with especially severe air pollu- tion.

The first action plan took effect in October 2005, and was replaced by a new one in 2008. The result: an environmental zone in the center of Frankfurt, where the city’s particulate matter concentration is to be reduced. As of January 1, 2010, only vehicles with a yellow or green stick- er can enter the zone, and a green sticker will become mandatory as of 2012.

Environmental governance: Frank- furt comes out average in environmental gover- nance. The city’s most recent environmental report was published in 2010. But the city lost points because the goals in the various environ- mental areas were worded vaguely, except for the reduction of CO2 emissions. A positive fac- tor is that the city is actively encouraging its res- idents to change their habits – for example with the “Frankfurt Saves Electricity” initiative to lower private households’ power consumption still further. Residents have also been involved in policy decisions about environmental mat- ters (see initiatives).

Green initiatives: A current example of resi- dents’ involvement in planning decisions is the reconfiguration of the Heinrich-Lübke-Sied- lung, a public-housing hot spot in the north- western part of town. A package of measures is to transform the housing project into a very liv- able, sustainable residential area that residents can identify with. The residents’ desires will be listened to in a number of “neighborhood meet- ings.” One goal is to set up a curb-free network of walkways, bike paths and traffic-calmed streets, as well as attractive green areas. Exist- ing buildings will be rehabilitated under the current Energy Savings Regulation; new build- ings will be built to the “passive house” stan- dard.

So that environmental problems can be approached communally, the city is also inform- ing residents about necessary changes in habits. There are examples for this too: the “Frankfurt Saves Electricity” program encour- ages private households to change over to ener- gy-saving light bulbs, and the “Cariteam Energy Saving Service” founded by Caritas Frankfurt is training recipients of one category of un- employment benefits to be electricity-savings assistants. Low-income households receive a no-cost electricity-saving consultation from Cariteam, and a package of energy-saving items. By now the project has expanded to 60 German cities.

Biking in Frankfurt and “Bike+Business“ Frankfurt is working on a number of programs to wean its residents away from cars and onto bicycles. In 2003 the City Council resolved to increase the share of bike traffic from only 6% in 1998 to 15% by 2012. At 14%, they’ve already come very close to the target. The city has built bike paths, remedied gaps and dangerous intersections, redesigned traffic light circuits and right-of-way rules with a clearer eye to bike traffic, and provided a number of bike parking opportunities. Just a year before the resolution, the Hesse General German Bicycle Club and the Frankfurt/Rhine- Main Urban Regional Planning Association had established the “Bike+Business” project with the goal of strengthening the image of the bicycle as a means of transportation with equal rights, and thus encouraging the population to change over.

Sixteen major-name employers and eleven cooperating cities in the Frankfurt/Rhine-Main region have joined “Bike+Business.” The Corporation for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), for example, has been a part of the project since 2003, and by now about 15% of its staff bikes to work. only 2.4 km. Another 32% of Frankfurt resi- dents bike or walk to work – the third-highest figure in Germany, even though the bike path network, at 1.0 km per square kilometer of city territory, is actually somewhat shorter than the European average (1.4 km). On the other hand, the number of residents who drive to work is still relatively high; more than one-third prefer their car.

Green initiatives: In March 2011, a new inte- grated general traffic control center was opened in Frankfurt. Now employees at the Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities. * If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate. 1) Also includes CO2-equivalents. 2) Estimate by the City of Frankfurt am Main. 3) Estimate by the Frankfurt Street Traffic Office and Environmental Office. Quantitative indicators Eur. avg. Ger. avg. Frankfurt Year* Source CO2 CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/head) 6.52 9.79 12.79 1e 2005 ifeu Energy and Climate Protection Concept 2008; Current Frankfurt Statistics CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€) 326.46 249.77 184.75 1e 2005 ifeu Energy and Climate Protection Concept 2008; Frankfurt am Main Statistics Annual CO2 reduction target by 2020 18.64 30.83 20.00 2010 City of Frankfurt am Main, Environmental Office Energy Energy consumption per capita (GJ/head) 85.22 95.46 120.56 2005 ifeu Energy and Climate Protection Concept 2008; Current Frankfurt Statistics Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP) 4.48 2.47 1.74 2005 ifeu Energy and Climate Protection Concept 2008; Frankfurt am Main Statistics Annual Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%) 6.30 3.43 7.88 2e 2005 City of Frankfurt am Main; ifeu Energy and Climate Protection Concept 2008 Buildings Energy consumption of residential buildings (MJ/m2) 856.97 702.18 689.17 2005 ifeu Energy and Climate Protection Concept 2008; Eurostat – Urban Audit Transport Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%) 21.98 24.02 32.00 2008 Frankfurt am Main Dept.

of Mobility and Traffic Planning Share of population that takes public transportation to work (%) 37.40 27.21 32.00 2008 Frankfurt am Main Dept. of Mobility and Traffic Planning Length of bike path network (km/km2) 1.39 1.93 1.01 3e 2008 Frankfurt Street Traffic Office and Environmental Office; Current Frankfurt Statistics Length of public transport network (km/km2) 2.44 2.61 3.09 2008 Frankfurt am Main Dept. of Mobility and Traffic Planning; Current Frankfurt Statistics Water Annual water consumption per capita (m3/head) 93.12 59.21 61.49 2008 Frankfurt am Main Statistics Annual; Current Frankfurt Statistics Water system leakages (%) 18.88 8.36 11.25 2008 Frankfurt am Main Statistics Annual Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%) 96.25 99.53 99.70 2008 Frankfurt am Main Statistics Annual Waste and Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head) 516.77 527.8 463.90 2008 City of Frankfurt am Main, Environmental Office; land use Current Frankfurt Statistics Recycling rate (%) 25.93 47.48 47.00 2008 City of Frankfurt am Main, Environmental Office Air quality Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 33.98 30.51 36.26 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3) 40.49 40.97 39.03 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3) 31.30 21.92 20.46 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 6.44 5.05 4.62 2008 EEA Airbase

age of 326 grams. A positive factor is that the city intends to reduce CO2 emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. That would represent a 74% reduction from the latest figures, which date from 2007. Green initiatives: The Hamburg Climate Pro- tection Concept for 2007-2012 was developed as a central instrument to cut CO2 emissions 40% by 2020, equivalent to reducing these emissions by two million metric tons a year. For that purpose the city is implementing some 450 projects – especially in building rehabilita- tion, mobility, equipment systems and innova- tive energy concepts. Hamburg remains the pro- ject sponsor and coordinator of the international “EUCO2 80/50” project, in which 15 European metropolises are engaged.

The program has the ambitious goal of reducing CO2 emissions 80% by 2050. In 2009 the cities prepared detailed CO2 balance sheets. In the second phase of the project, representatives of interest groups from government and business from all of the partner cities will meet to agree on long-term strategies for reaching the CO2 goal. Then the best prac- tices initiatives from the project will also be made available to other cities in the EU. Energy: Hamburg scores average on energy. Energy consumption, at 99 gigajoules per resi- dent, is above the average of 85 gigajoules from the 41 European cities.

But relative to economic output, Hamburg’s energy consumption is rela- tively low. At 2.3 megajoules per euro of GDP, Hamburg consumes only about half as much as the European average of 4.5 megajoules. On top of that, the city is making an effort to increase the share of renewable energy sources. This figure, at 2.2%, is still relatively low; the European average is 6.3%. But a part of the Hamburg climate protection concept is to increase investments in local wind energy, and 40 41 Background indicators Population 1.8 million GDP per person (PPP) in € 42,800 Administrative area in km2 755 Share of industry / gross value added in % 16 Average temperature in °C 8 CO2 emissions and energy – it scores average.

Major environmental protection measures include promoting alternative means of trans- portation, such as bicycles, buses and rail, and developing new green space. In this, the city is making an effort to counteract the adverse influence of heavy road traffic and the port’s operations. A noteworthy factor is that none of the other German cities studied has as many residents who walk or bike to work as in Ham- burg. The city also holds a lead in environmen- tal governance, and was chosen the European Green Capital for 2011.

CO2 emissions: Hamburg rates average in the CO2 category. At 9.1 metric tons, the city’s CO2 emissions are slightly below the average of 9.8 tons for the twelve German cities, but well above the average of 6.5 tons for the 41 Euro- pean cities. Transport is the biggest polluter, and here the port also plays a major role. But CO2 emissions per euro generated, at 208 grams, are well below the European aver- With a population of some 1.8 million, Ham- burg, in the north of the country, is Ger- many’s second largest city. The port city is a major industrial and commercial location, and generates a gross domestic product (GDP) of €42,800 per capita.

The port of Hamburg is the second largest in Europe, after Rotterdam, and is of key significance for the German economy. It makes the city a major international trading and transshipment site, as well as an attractive location for shipbuilders. Other important industrial sectors in Hamburg include civil avia- tion, food processing, and steel- and metal- working heavy industry. But industry con- tributes only a total of 16% of total gross value added. The service sector is dominated mainly by transportation and commerce, tourism, information technology, and media. In the German Green City Index, Hamburg scores above average on the whole.

The city sets a high priority on environmental protec- tion, with positive effects on the score. Ham- burg is above average in six categories. In two – to more than double wind energy capacity with- in the medium term.

Green initiatives: In March 2010, the Ham- burger EnergieAgentur was founded to help support the city’s climate protection measures. This new agency is intended to help private households reduce their energy consumption – the source of 25% of the total energy consump- tion for the whole city. The EnergieAgentur is also a partner for businesses, which it assists in activities to improve their energy efficiency. Buildings: Hamburg rates above average in buildings. The key factor for this result is the low energy consumption of residential buildings, at 600 megajoules per square meter, which is below the average of 857 megajoules for the 41 European cities.

Hamburg also does well in energy efficiency standards and initiatives for buildings, thanks to a number of construction and energy-efficiency regulations for municipal buildings. Some 85% of Hamburg’s housing stock is more than 25 years old. It was built at a time when building codes still paid no attention to extensive building insulation. So a part of the city’s strategy for buildings is to encourage retrofitting existing buildings with good insula- tion, so as to reduce heat losses.

Green initiatives: There are now a consider- able number of programs nationwide in Ger- many to encourage heat insulation in buildings, but Hamburg offers additional financial assis- tance. The city has introduced the Energy Pass- port, for example, which determines energy consumption and heating loss in residential buildings. The analysis also provides sugges- tions about updates and calculates potential savings. If the owner wants to apply for support funds from the city, he or she must present an Energy Passport. The amount of the financial aid from the city depends on the savings that the owner achieves by optimizing the building.

Transport: Hamburg comes in above aver- age on transport. The city’s bicycle path net- work, at 2.3 km per square kilometer, is very well developed – longer than the European average of 1.4 km – and is also extensively used. Thirty-eight percent of the population bikes or walks to work each day, the highest fig- ure for any of the twelve German cities. On the other hand, the share of the population that takes public transport to work, at 19%, is con- siderably lower than in the other European metropolises (average 37%), and the lowest Zemships “Zemships” – “zero emission ships” – are the result of a pioneering program conducted under the leadership of the City of Hamburg.

With financial support from the EU’s “LIFE” program, which offers funding for environmen- tal projects, the city has put together a team of experts from business and science that has developed the world’s first fuel-cell-powered, low-emission passenger ship. The first ship of this type went into service on Hamburg’s waterways in 2008. A hydrogen refueling station with docking facilities is located right on the waterfront.

well below average below average average above average well above average Performance CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall results Hamburg Other German cities Other European cities The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results. German Green City Index Hamburg

42 43 figure in Germany. However, the local public transport network, at 1.9 km per square kilome- ter, is also shorter than the European average of 2.4 km. The city is actively making an effort to keep car traffic out of the center of town by encouraging public transportation and bicy- cling.

Green initiatives: By 2015, suitable strategies are expected to make bicycling so attractive that it becomes a real alternative to other forms of transportation. Plans include expanding bike paths and bicycle parking lots, improving the combined use of bicycles and public transporta- tion, and raising awareness of bicycling among the public. Ten million euros a year have been set aside for the purpose.

Under the “HH = more” title (“Hamburg electro- mobility model region”), the city is planning a pilot run with electric cars. In the first phase, 70 vehicles and 100 charging stations will be in use. Plans for the new light rail system are also to be included in the project. Hamburg shut down its last streetcar route in 1978. There have been plans for some time to reestablish a “city rail” system that would supplement the commuter train and subway system. A final decision is still pending.

Water: Hamburg likewise ranks above aver- age in water. The annual per capita water con- sumption of 59 cubic meters, as in other Ger- man cities, is well below the European city average of about 93 cubic meters.

Although Hamburg loses more water through leakage from the pipeline network, at 11%, than the other German cities, the figure is still well below the average for the full set of European cities studied (19%). Green initiatives: Hamburg has set up a pro- ject to study the consequences of larger vol- umes of rainwater. These appear more and more likely – first of all because of climate change, but also because of the further hard- scaping of the city as urban development con- tinues. In the RISA rain infrastructure adjust- ment project, the city and the local water utility, Hamburg Wasser, are developing possible solu- tions to be applied in urban development and planning.

The paramount goals of the RISA pro- ject include protection from flooding and pro- tection of water bodies. In the “Aqua Agents” project, Hamburg Wasser also plans to teach children in the third and fourth grades about dealing with water in an aware way. It offers experimentation kits for classes and field trips to various water locations in Hamburg, where the children can expand their understanding of water.

Waste and land use: In the waste and land use category, Hamburg scores above aver- age. Waste generated in Hamburg, at 482 kg per capita per year, is below the average of 517 kg for the 41 European cities. A large share of this waste is incinerated; the city stopped using landfills for waste more than ten years ago. It recycles 25% of its waste, thus ranking slightly below the European average of 26% and trailing behind all the other German cities studied. The city earns good marks for its plans for using green space, for example in finding new uses for inner-city wasteland like the HafenCity area.

In this significant urban devel- opment project, a 157-hectare parcel of unused land in the area of the harbor was repurposed with offices and apartments, retail shops, leisure facilities, restaurants and cultural facili- ties.

Green initiatives: Jointly with Stadtreinigung Hamburg, the city’s largest waste removal and street cleaning service, the Office for Urban Development and the Environment has begun a recycling campaign to increase the amount of recyclables collected and to make the recycling process itself more efficient. Still more – con- struction and demolition work in Hamburg gen- erates about 5 million metric tons of waste each year. To improve reuse and recycling, the envi- ronment office has set up an online exchange, the ALOIS waste online information system. Construction owners, planners and contractors can use the portal at no charge to place offers or inquiries about soil material or used building parts (such as windows and doors).

At the beginning of 2010, the city also founded the “Lebensraum Elbe” foundation to improve the ecological condition of the Elbe River, one of the city’s most important recreational areas. One of the foundation’s goals is to set aside new shallow-water areas and maintain tidal zones. It also plans to reconnect old channels and back- waters to the main stream of the Elbe, and to limit further shoreline construction with new regulations.

Air quality: Hamburg also comes out above average in air quality. Except for ozone, the city’s figures for all the analyzed air pollutants are below the average for the 41 European cities. This result is partly the consequence of low industrial activity, which accounts for only 16% of the city’s total gross value added. The average sulfur dioxide concentration, for example, at 4.2 micrograms per cubic meter per year, is well below the European average of 6.4 micrograms. In general, the primary sources of air pollution are transport, especially shipping goods to and from the harbor, ship traffic, and car traffic.

Nevertheless, the ozone figure for Hamburg, at 42 micrograms, is only slightly higher than the average for the other European cities (40 micrograms).

Green initiatives: Hamburg is making an effort to improve air quality with an all-inclusive air purification plan. Introduced in 2004, the plan concentrates primarily on reducing emis- sions caused by vehicle traffic. It includes sever- al projects to improve traffic flow. The city also provides further air purification requirements for local industry. Hamburg is looking as well into the feasibility of an environmental zone in the inner city, by which vehicles with heavy exhaust emissions would be kept out of the city center. Many German cities already have such environmental zones.

Environmental governance: Ham- burg is above average in environmental gover- nance.

In fact the city on the Elbe leads Ger- many in this category. It was designated European Green Capital 2011 by the European Commission. The title highlights the leadership role that Hamburg plays not only within Ger- many, but in the entire EU, in matters of climate and environmental protection. Hamburg is the second city to hold the title, after Stockholm in 2010. It has adopted numerous measures in every aspect of the environment to improve its environmental record. Here the city is taking its orientation primarily from its climate protection concept, updated in 2009, which includes more than 300 projects to reduce CO2 emissions and energy consumption.

Green initiatives: As part of its year as 2011 European Green Capital, Hamburg launched the Environmental Partnership: Project 2011 initiative. This project is intended to encourage businesses to act voluntarily to protect the envi- ronment, for example by participating in an environmental management system like EMAS or Ecoprofit, or by implementing energy-saving and resource-conserving measures like using renewable energies. Companies can apply to be named Environmental Partners, and use the name in their advertising. The initiative also offers companies advice and subsidy fund- ing for environmental governance, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.

Some 750 companies are already Environmental Partners.

Renewable energy in Hamburg Energy efficiency is another of the main themes in Hamburg’s climate protection concept. One of its goals is to increase investment in local wind energy. In the medium term, wind energy capacity in Hamburg is to be more than doubled. Moreover, a financing program for using geothermal energy is under examination. Encouraging the use of renewable energy sources is also the goal of the “Hamburg Renewable Energy Cluster,” which is currently being set up by representatives of business, science and the city’s office for urban development and the environment. The initiative aims to strengthen the fast-growing renewable energy industry in the Hamburg metropolitan region.

The focus is on marketing Hamburg more vigorously as an attractive international headquarters location for sales and administration in the renewable energy business.

Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities. * If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate Quantitative indicators Eur. avg. Ger. avg. Hamburg Year* Source CO2 CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/head) 6.52 9.79 9.12 2007 Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€) 326.46 249.77 208.22 2007 Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein CO2 reduction target by 2020 18.64 30.83 40.00 2010 Klima Hamburg Energy Energy consumption per capita (GJ/head) 85.22 95.46 99.33 2007 Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP) 4.48 2.47 2.27 2007 Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%) 6.30 3.43 2.22 2007 Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein Buildings Energy consumption of residential buildings (MJ/m2) 856.97 702.18 600.27 2007 Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein Transport Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%) 21.98 24.02 38.00 2008 HVV Share of population that takes public transportation to work (%) 37.40 27.21 19.00 2008 HVV Length of bike path network (km/km2) 1.39 1.93 2.25 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit; Federal Statistical Office, Germany Length of public transport network (km/km2) 2.44 2.61 1.85 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit; Federal Statistical Office, Germany Water Annual water consumption per capita (m3/head) 93.12 59.21 58.82 2007 Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein Water system leakages (%) 18.88 8.36 10.85 e 2007 EIU estimate on the basis of data from the Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%) 96.25 99.53 100.00 2007 Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein Waste and Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head) 516.77 527.8 482.24 2007 Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein land use Recycling rate (%) 25.93 47.48 25.44 2007 Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein Air quality Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 33.98 30.51 26.08 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3) 40.49 40.97 42.33 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3) 31.30 21.92 20.53 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 6.44 5.05 4.24 2008 EEA Airbase

is 6.5 tons. But the figure looks rather different when referred to the city’s economic output: Hanover emits 261 grams per euro of GDP, while the group of European cities averages 326 grams. The city is taking considerable steps to reduce its CO2 emissions. It has joined forces with the municipal utility company and about 80 partners from numerous companies and organizations to found the “Hanover Climate Alliance.” This campaign to protect the climate aims to attract as many players as possible, including trade businesses, chambers of archi- tects, commercial property owners and home- owners.

For CO2 emissions, Hanover has set itself the ambitious goal of reducing its emis- sions 50% from 1990 levels by 2030. Green initiatives: The “Hanover 2020 Climate Alliance” is an all-inclusive climate-protection program for the years 2008 through 2020. The city government is setting a good example, and hopes to save significant amounts of CO2 by ren- ovating all municipal buildings and heating sys- tems to make them more energy-efficient. A fur- ther emphasis is in commercial areas with especially energy-intensive businesses. Yet another contributor toward saving CO2 is the expansion and modernization of combined gas and steam turbine systems at the Hanover-Lin- den heating and power plant, which will be completed by the end of 2011.

The combined generation of heat and electricity makes more efficient use of natural gas as a fuel. Two more components of the climate protection program: an electricity-saving campaign with numerous new advice services for private households, and a campaign to expand the use of combined heat and power, which advises businesses, hotels and government agencies in using new district heating connections and combined heat and power stations.

Energy: Hanover scores average in the ener- gy category. One reason is its relatively high energy consumption of 105 gigajoules per capi- ta, well above the average of 85 gigajoules for the 41 European cities. Moreover, the use of renewable energy sources, at 1.2%, is lower than in the studied European cities, which derive an average of 6.3% of their energy demand from renewable sources. But this may change soon, because Hanover has set an exam- ple in promoting clean energy. Some of the most significant measures in this area are financial aid for the use of renewable energy sources in homes, and plans for the construction of new wind turbines.

When Hanover’s energy con- sumption is referred to the city’s economic output, the picture is already positive today: At 2.4 megajoules per euro of GDP, the city’s ener- German Green City Index 44 45 Hanover in five of the eight individual categories – build- ings, transport, water, waste and land use, and air quality. One remarkable feature is the very low energy consumption of its residential build- ings, about one-third lower than the average for the 41 European cities, and the third best in Ger- many. Hanover also scores especially well in the transport category, in comparison with both all of Europe and the rest of Germany.

It has Ger- many’s densest network of alternative means of transportation – bike paths, bus routes and rail lines taken all together. In the categories for CO2 emissions, energy and environmental gover- nance, the city scores average, in part because of its relatively high CO2 emissions per capita and relatively high per capita energy consump- tion.

CO2 emissions: Hanover ranks average in CO2 emissions, particularly because of its rela- tively high per capita CO2 emissions of 11.5 met- ric tons. The average for the 41 European cities Hanover, the capital of the state of Lower Saxony, is one of the world’s largest trade fair sites, with more than 60 domestic and inter- national trade fairs and exhibitions each year. The city of 518,000 is also an important univer- sity center. Leibniz University and the Medical University, among others, enjoy a prestigious reputation. Its most important employers in- clude automotive manufacturers and suppliers, but several major companies in the service sec- tor are headquartered here as well.

Hanover generates a gross domestic product (GDP) of €46,800 per resident, and is thus slightly above the average for the twelve German Cities stud- ied. The city calls itself the “Business Location in Nature.” Hanover is known for its expansive green spaces, including the Eilenriede urban for- est, the Maschsee lake, the Royal Gardens in Herrenhausen, extensive landscaped grounds, and many small gardens.

Hanover rates above average in its overall assessment. Specifically, it scores above average gy consumption is only about half the European average of 4.5 megajoules. Green initiatives: Hanover has a variety of programs to improve the energy supply, includ- ing the expansion of combined heat and power generation and district heating. The goal is to increase the share of electricity from combined heat and power plants and renewable sources to a total of 30% by 2020. Hanover is also planning to modernize its coal-fired power plants and to invest extensively in wind power systems. For example, 60 more wind turbines will be added in the Hanover region, and 100 existing turbines will be replaced with larger models.

The city decided to stop using nuclear power some years ago. Since the city’s utility companies generate more electricity than Hanover itself consumes, the city is nuclear power-free on balance. The construction of the gas-fired power plant in Hanover-Linden made a particular contribution here.

Buildings: In the buildings category, Hanover comes out above average in compari- son to the other cities in the study. The crucial factor for this result is the low energy consump- tion of the city’s residential buildings. Hanover consumes only 560 megajoules per square meter – more than one-third less energy than the average used by residential buildings in all the European cities (857 megajoules). In fact, this is the fourth best figure in Europe, after Stuttgart, Berlin and Copenhagen. Another posi- tive factor here is that the “proKlima” climate protection fund makes financial grants available for implementing climate protection measures in the construction and modernization of build- ings (see the box on the “proKlima” exemplary project).

Green initiatives: In keeping with the Climate Alliance’s requirements, the Hanover city gov- ernment intends to complete energy upgrades in all municipal buildings by 2020. It has set aside €60 million for the period from 2008 to 2012 alone. Additionally, all new municipal facilities are to be built to the “passive house” standard. A passive house includes such fea- tures as efficient building insulation and heating technology, triple-glazed windows with super- insulated frames, and mechanical ventilation systems with heat recovery. When combined with other features, a passive house design can cut a household’s average energy consumption by about 90%.

The passive house standard has ProKlima The “proKlima” “enercity” fund was founded by the municipal utility company Stadtwerke Hannover in 1998 as Europe’s first climate protection fund. ProKlima offers advice and financial grants for implementing climate protection projects, such as energy-efficient construction and modernization, energy- savings consultations, or installing solar heating systems and combined heat and power plants. The fund approved assistance funding of some € 44 million between 1998 and 2009. The grants are awarded on the basis of specific criteria like CO2 efficiency and reduction, or the project’s level of innovation.

well below average below average average above average well above average Performance CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall results Hanover Other German cities Other European cities The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results. Background indicators Population 518,000 GDP per person (PPP) in € 46,800 Administrative area in km2 204 Share of industry / gross value added in % 23 Average temperature in °C 7

46 47 already been applied in Hanover in the construc- tion of two new childcare centers and a new fire station. Transport: In transport, Hanover comes in above average. The city has extensively devel- oped both its local public transport network and its network of bike paths. The bus and rail net- work measures 3.6 km per square kilometer, compared with the average of only 2.4 km for the other European cities. And the bike path net- work, at 2.6 km per square kilometer, is almost twice as long as in the other European cities (average 1.4 km). If the lengths of the bike paths and local public transportation routes are added together, Hanover has Germany’s densest net- work of alternative means of transportation.

Yet although both networks are comparatively well developed, the number of residents who do without cars for the commute to work is relative- ly low: only 19% walk or bike to work, compared to the European average of 22%. The difference is even sharper with local public transportation: only 21% of the population takes the bus or train to work, compared to an average of 37% for the other European cities.

Green initiatives: At the end of 2010, Hanover adopted the “Mobility Master Plan for 2025,” laying a conceptual basis for transporta- tion development. By promoting local public transportation, biking and walking, the program intends to make it easier for residents to switch from cars to alternative modes of transporta- tion. Biking is a particular emphasis in the con- cept: by expanding the network of bike paths and the biking infrastructure, and with special public relations work, the city hopes to increase the proportion of bike traffic to 25% by 2025. It’s also working on public transport: to lower buses’ and trains’ CO2 emissions even further, hybrid vehicles and other measures are being intro- duced, with financial support from the Federal Ministry of the Environment.

Ten new hybrid buses are to go into operation within the city by mid-2011.

Water: Hanover scores above average in water. The Lower Saxony capital’s per capita water consumption, at 58 cubic meters, is well below the European average of 93 cubic meters. The picture with water loss due to leaks in the distribution system is similar: nearly 19% of the water leaks out in the 41 European cities stud- ied, but in Hanover the figure is just 4%. This is the second best showing in Germany, after Berlin, and the third best in Europe, after Berlin and Amsterdam. Green initiatives: Hanover has had a program in place since 1995 to reduce water consump- tion in municipal properties.

Since then, a vari- ety of municipal departments and the Hanover waste processing facility have implemented some 170 projects for efficient water use and wastewater treatment. According to the city, this has saved 35% over the water consumption figure from 1990. Stadtentwässerung Hanover, the city’s sewer and drainage utility, is also par- ticularly committed to environmental educa- tion, to make children more aware of how to handle water responsibly. The programs include guided tours of sewage treatment plants, a kids’ page on the website, and extensive age-appro- priate informational material that is made avail- able to schools at no charge.

Waste and land use: Hanover is also above average in the waste and land use catego- ry. Waste generated, at 475 kg per capita, is less than in the other studied European cities (aver- age 517 kg). Fifty percent of the waste is recy- cled – almost twice the European average (26%). Similarly to the city of Leipzig, Hanover has now expanded its waste separation program to include household and commercial electric appliances. A further positive factor for the over- all results was that the city has set up incentives for the recovery of empty lots, expanding and maintaining green space, and the containment of urban sprawl.

Green initiatives: Since new construction pro- jects constantly cut down green space, the city government has pledged to reactivate and use unused business and industrial areas, rail yards, military installations and other idle space. According to the city government, some 62 idle lots, with a total area of 210 hectares, are avail- able for restructuring, many of them suitable for residential or business buildings. In the Limmer district, for example, the 20-hectare site of a for- mer automotive parts factory will be trans- formed into a residential neighborhood. The city is also working to expand green space in its existing districts: Stöcken, with 11,900 resi- dents, is one of Hanover’s most densely populat- ed areas, and is being renovated as a district with a special need for development.

The urban renewal goals for the area, with its large indus- trial facilities, include expanding and upgrading green space and open space that can particular- ly be used as play areas for children. Air quality:Hanover scores above average in air quality. Except for the ozone concentration, the city can point the lowest or second lowest figures in Germany for all air pollutants. For example, Hanover’s average annual sulfur diox- ide concentration, at 3.0 micrograms per cubic meter, is not even half the average for the 41 European cities (6.4 micrograms). Ozone, however, at 45 micrograms per cubic meter, is slightly above the European average of 40 micrograms.

But these figures come from Hanover’s only ozone measuring station, which was installed in an inner-city area with heavy traffic. Consequently there is no way to compen- sate for peak values with comparable measure- ments from less polluted areas, as is often the case in other cities.

Green initiatives: Hanover has had an air purification plan since 2008, with an emphasis on road traffic. The plan includes a whole pack- age of projects – such as introducing a 40 kmph speed limit on selected routes, prohibiting through-traffic for trucks with a gross weight of more than twelve metric tons, and optimizing traffic flow. Speeds are also to be limited with optical narrowing of lanes. This applies both for planning new streets and reconditioning old ones. Like many other German cities, Hanover has set up an environmental zone in the city cen- ter, where only vehicles that meet especially stringent exhaust standards are allowed.

Environmental governance: Hanover rates average in environmental governance. The city publishes an environmental report every three years. The emphasis in the 2008 report was on assessing the environmental situation on the basis of an “environmental barometer” that represents change in terms of sustainability indicators in various aspects of the environ- ment. Aside from its clear goals for CO2 reduc- tion, however, the report is sometimes vague in setting targets for other environmental factors. On the other hand, Hanover gained points for its membership in the Covenant of Mayors, and for signing the Aalborg Charter in 1995 and the Aal- borg Commitments in 2004.

Green initiatives: Hanover has a number of projects to encourage residents to help config- ure their residential and living space. For exam- ple, in the “Hannover City 2020” pilot project, the city has been in dialogue with the popula- tion for two years about future developments in the city center. It intends to attract input from every conceivable interest group, including resi- dents, architects, planning experts, businesses, public-sector entities, and nongovernmental organizations. The project includes a number of public forums, workshops and other events, as well as an international competition seeking ideas for the design of the inner city.

Environmental education for business – Ecoprofit In 1999, Hanover was one of the first German cities to introduce an Ecoprofit program. Ecoprofit stands for “Ecological Project for Integrated Environmental Technology,” and is a cooperative project that brings environmental agencies and groups together with local private enterprise. The project also finances workshops, and encourages exchanges of professional expertise about matters of the environment and costs. More than 100 major-name companies have become involved in Ecoprofit in Hanover over the past ten years.

Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities. * If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate 1) This value includes consumption of renewable energy in transportation. 2) Figure for the Region of Hanover. Quantitative indicators Eur. avg. Ger. avg. Hanover Year* Source CO2 CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/resident) 6.52 9.79 11.52 2005 City of Hanover, Department of Environment and City Greenery CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€) 326.46 249.77 261.22 2005 City of Hanover, Department of Environment and City Greenery; Lower Saxony State Statistics Office CO2 reduction target by 2020 18.64 30.83 40.00 2010 Hanover Climate Protection Region Energy Energy consumption per capita (GJ/resident) 85.22 95.46 104.74 2005 City of Hanover, Department of Environment and City Greenery Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP) 4.48 2.47 2.37 2005 City of Hanover, Department of Environment and City Greenery; Lower Saxony State Statistics Office Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%) 6.30 3.43 1.19 1 2005 City of Hanover, Department of Environment and City Greenery; City of Hanover CO2 Balance Sheet Buildings Energy consumption by residential buildings (MJ/m2) 856.97 702.18 560.42 2005 City of Hanover, Department of Environment and City Greenery; Statistics Office of Capital City of Hanover Transport Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%) 21.98 24.02 19.00 2002 Mobility in Germany 2002 Share of population that takes public transport to work (%) 37.40 27.21 21.00 2002 Mobility in Germany 2002 Length of bike path network (km/km2) 1.39 1.93 2.60 2008 Capital City of Hanover Length of public transport network (km/km2) 2.44 2.61 3.61 2009 Region of Hanover – Department of Transportation Water Annual water consumption per capita (m3/resident) 93.12 59.21 58.47 2008 Hanover Statistics Office; City of Hanover, Department of Environment and City Greenery Water system leakages(%) 18.88 8.36 4.00 2008 Stadtwerke Hannover Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%) 96.25 99.53 99.84 2008 Stadtentwässerung Hannover Waste and Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head) 516.77 527.88 474.79 2 2008 Region of Hanover Waste Management District; land use Lower Saxony State Statistics Office Recycling rate (%) 25.93 47.48 49.62 2 2008 Region of Hanover Waste Management District Air quality Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 33.98 30.51 21.00 2008 Lower Saxony Ministry of the Environment and Climate Protection Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3) 40.49 40.97 45.00 2008 Lower Saxony Ministry of the Environment and Climate Protection Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3) 31.30 21.92 19.00 2008 Lower Saxony Ministry of the Environment and Climate Protection Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 6.44 5.05 3.00 2007 Lower Saxony Ministry of the Environment and Climate Protection

Green initiatives: To reduce CO2 emissions in public transport, the Leipzig transportation authorities have committed to gradually replac- ing its fleet of older vehicles with green buses by 2015. Hybrid buses, which have two electric engines and one diesel engine and emit 20% less CO2 than the older vehicles, have been used on a trial basis since 2007. A total of 58 standard buses with the EEV standard (Enhanced Environ- mentally Friendly Vehicle) had been deployed by 2010. The second phase will see 50 articulated buses with hybrid technology introduced by 2015.

Energy: Leipzig ranks above average in the energy category.

One reason for this is Leipzig’s markedly low per capita energy consumption of 50 gigajoules per year. This is the lowest level of all twelve of the German cities in the Index and much lower than the European average of 85 gigajoules. This positive result is attributable in part to the city’s low level of industrialization but also to successful efforts to increase the effi- ciency of the power production and supply grid. The city also scores relatively well in energy con- sumption relative to economic output: Leipzig uses 2.2 megajoules per euro of GDP compared to the European average of 4.5 megajoules.

Green initiatives: The city launched the “Leipzig City of Energy” network with the objec- tive of bundling common interests and efforts. Business, academic, and political leaders join forces here in search of innovative ideas and solutions for sustainable energy and climate poli- cies. Members include Leipzig-based businesses and leading energy research institutes. Expert roundtablesandeventsareheldeachyeartopro- motetheexchangeofideas.Anexampleofacur- rent project is the “Energy-Efficient City,” which is developing a sustainable strategy for energy- optimized urban development in East Leipzig.

The aim is to reduce energy consumption even while meeting the business, environmental, and social needs of the city.

German Green City Index 48 49 Leipzig Background indicators Population 515,000 GDP per person (PPP) in € 23,300 Administrative area in km2 297 Share of industry / gross value added in % 23 Average temperature in °C 9 Germany’s peaceful revolution in the fall of 1989. It was here that the Monday demonstra- tions took place and citizens sowed the seeds of democracy. The city has changed greatly since then: Most of the open-pit lignite mines around Leipzig, which in East Germany once accounted for ten percent of worldwide lignite production, were closed in 1990. Many buildings have been renovated and waterways cleaned.

Infrastruc- ture projects have made Leipzig into a trans- portation and logistics hub. Today, Leipzig is home to various businesses in the service and industrial sectors, including automotive compa- nies. Industry contributes only 23% to gross value added, however, slightly below the aver- age of 25% in the German Index cities. Leipzig still enjoys an excellent reputation in what have traditionally been its strengths: art, music, edu- cation, and research.

In the German Green City Index, Leipzig scores an overall grade of above average – an excellent result given its comparatively low GDP. This shows that good environmental performance is not at all dependent solely on a city’s financial resources.AcloserlookshowsthatLeipzigscores above average in five categories and average in three.Worthyofspecialmentionaretheverylow per capita volume of waste and the highest recy- cling rate among all the German and European cities. If you compare Leipzig only with those European cities that have a comparable average GDP (€21,000 to €31,000 per capita per year), the city actually has the highest overall score in the category of waste and land use.

Leipzig also distinguishes itself through its markedly low per capita energy consumption, the second-lowest water consumption in Europe, and the densest local transport network of any German city. CO2 emissions: Leipzig ranks average in the category of CO2 emissions. The city emits some 6.2 metric tons of CO2 per capita per year, slightly below the average of 6.5 metric tons among the 41 European cities. The per capita CO2 emissions right after German reunification in 1990 were still 11.3 metric tons. The collapse of the industrial and commercial sectors and the closure of power plants, most of which still relied on lignite, brought about a rapid decline in Leipzig’s CO2 emissions to 7.0 metric tons by 1998.

This fell further to 6.2 metric tons by 2005, though the rate of decline was slower than in the earlier years. Due to a renewed increase in ener- gy demand for industry, the city expects CO2 emissions in 2010 to be at roughly the same level as at the time of the last CO2 balance sheet in 2005. If you compare the city’s emissions to its economic output, Leipzig’s 278 grams of CO2 per GDP unit is still below the European average of 326 grams.

Leipzig, with a population of 515,000 and an important convention center, is one of the largest cities in the former East Germany but the third-smallest in the German Green City Index. With a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of €23,300, it is one of the economically weaker German cities in the Index. Only Berlin has a lower GDP. Leipzig played a critical role in East Buildings: Leipzig ranks above average in the buildings category. At 603 megajoules per square meter, the energy consumption of Leipzig’s buildings is significantly below the aver- age of 857 megajoules in European cities.

Reno- vation of Leipzig’s building stock began after reunification under a federal-state partnership program “Urban Renewal East,” dedicated to rapid renovation of the older and prefabricated buildings. Funds for the renovation projects came from the state of Saxony and the Bank for Reconstruction. The city had no programs of its own.

Green initiatives: Therenovationofaneleven- story prefab building on Hans-Marchwitza- Strasse in 2005 was funded as a showcase pro- ject. To lower the energy needs, the focus was on better heat insulation, thermal-insulated win- dows, ventilation systems, and a heating system using combined heat and power. Solar collectors in the balcony balustrades also provide hot water for the 167 residential units. With the work com- plete, the building uses 44 kilowatt hours per square meter, 75% less than before and nearly 40% less than a comparable new building. This makes it the largest “low-energy legacy building” in Germany.

This showcase project of Leipziger Wohnungs- und Baugesellschaft mbH (LWB) and Deutsche Energie-Agentur GmbH (dena) is intended to blaze the trail for energy-saving housing.

“Leipzig Environment Days” and “Ecofestival” “Leipzig Environment Days” and “Ecofestival” are events held to coincide with World Environment Day and sponsored by “Ökolöwe Umweltbund Leipzig e.V.,” a non-profit organization for environmental protection and education run by the city of Leipzig. “Leipzig Environment Days” aims to sensitize the citizens of Leipzig to environmental topics, solutions, and initiatives. The two-week program includes environmental events, discussions, and guided tours in and around Leipzig presented by associations, grass-roots initiatives, the city, research institutions, and businesses.

“Ecofestival” is a springtime event for the entire family that takes place during “Leipzig Environment Days” and offers some 100 booths and a stage program for a hands-on celebration. With over 10,000 visitors, it is also the largest environmentally themed festival in the city. well below average below average average above average well above average Performance CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall results Leipzig Other German cities Other European cities The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.

50 51 1.4 km. To make transportation more environ- mentally friendly in the future, Leipzig has set so- called modal split targets and spearheaded a series of corresponding initiatives: promoting bicycling,buildingandexpandingthelocaltrans- portation network, and reducing car traffic in the city center (see “green initiatives”). Automobile traffic is also managed using a state-of-the-art traffic control system. Green initiatives: In 2009, Leipzig launched a “low-car city center” initiative, part of an overall transportation concept to reduce motorized indi- vidual transport and lower the number of cars in the city center.

Measures intended to reach this goal include redirecting the flow of traffic, restricting traffic into the city center, changing road markings and signage, introducing retract- able bollards, and increasing parking fees. The city would also like to motivate its citizens to cycle. City administrators have created a multi- departmental “bicycle working group” that includes consultants from Germany’s national bicycle coalition ADFC. Thanks to the efforts of the working group, the bike path network has doubled in size since reunification and the laws have been changed to allow cyclists to ride against traffic on one-way streets.

Today, the city has 60 km of designated bike routes, and there are plans to add new bike racks by 2012. An envi- ronmental zone was also introduced this year in the city center in which only low-emission vehi- cles are allowed.

Water: Leipzig ranks above average in the water category. With per capita annual con- sumption of 51 cubic meters, the city is well below the European average of 93 cubic meters. With this score, Leipzig is not only the leader in Germany but only slightly behind Tallinn, which at 50 cubic meters has the lowest per capita annual water consumption of any city in the European Green City Index. Water loss of 13% from leakage in the water pipelines is also below the European average of 19%. This is the highest figure among the German cities, however. Green initiatives: In 1993, the city’s water- works launched a project to convert the former Podelwitz sludge drying plant into a wetland biotope.Theareawasheavilycontaminatedwith toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, chromium, and nickel, posing a threat to groundwater.

But since rare communities of plants and animals had found a home in this marshland over time, the decision was made to maintain the area while removing the contaminants from the toxic sludge. The level of contaminants has since fall- en thanks to special plant cultures that can absorbheavymetals,nitrogen,andphosphorous from the sludge. The area is the site of frequent school projects and guided tours.

Waste and land use: Leipzig earns a gradeofaboveaverageinthewasteandlanduse category. The city generates 356 kg of waste per person per year, much less than the European averageof517kg.Leipzigalsohasastate-of-the- art waste recycling system and recycles an astounding 81% of waste, far above the Euro- pean average of just 26%. This makes Leipzig the leader both in Germany and throughout Europe. Green initiatives: Leipzig’s outstanding recy- cling program is no coincidence. In 2002, the city formed a public-private partnership with a Berlin waste management and recycling specialist that helpeddevelopLeipzig’srecyclingsystem.Atwo- year pilot project launched in 2004 under the “Recycling Plus” initiative expanded the regular recycling system for household waste.

The new “Recycling Plus” bins accepted not only packag- ing but also small electronics, plastic toys, and metal pots and pans.

Air quality: Leipzig ranks above average in theairqualitycategory.Thelevelsforthreeofthe four air pollutants are well below the average for the 41 European cities. Only ozone levels of 46 micrograms per cubic meter exceeded the European average of 40 micrograms. Leipzig’s sulfur dioxide concentrations of 2.3 micrograms per cubic meter are actually much lower than the European average (6.4 micrograms). Sulfur diox- ide concentrations have fallen sharply since the decline of industrial and commercial activities in the early 1990s. Automobile traffic is now the primary source of air pollutants.

But Leipzig’s nitrogen dioxide concentrations of 19 micro- grams per cubic meter are still below the Euro- pean average of 34 micrograms. The ratio of average particulate levels is similar, with 19 mi- crograms in Leipzig compared to a European average of 31 micrograms.

Green initiatives: In December 2009, Leipzig adopted a new clean air program with 48 mea- sures to reduce air pollution. The program focus- es on combating traffic-related pollution and introducing an environmental zone in the city center in 2011. Since March 2011, as in the over 30 other German cities that have already intro- duced such a concept, Leipzig’s environmental zone has been restricted to vehicles that meet strict emission criteria. Environmental governance: Leipzig ranks average in the environmental governance category. The city worked very hard to develop an environmental plan, establishing environ- mental quality targets as far back as 1996.

Envi- ronmental reports were published in 2000 and 2007, an interval that is less regular than that of the leading cities. Leipzig gets high marks for its annual assessments based on a range of environ- mental indicators relating to air quality, noise, traffic, water, soil, waste, nature conservation, energy, and climate protection. The public has easy access to information on the subject of envi- ronmental protection, but the city could allow its citizens to play a more active role in environmen- tal policy decisions.

Green initiatives: The environmental informa- tion center, founded in 1993 and located in Leipzig City Hall, offers citizens and educational institutions comprehensive information on envi- ronmental topics and hosts exhibitions and events. Transport: Leipzig ranks average in the transport category. The city’s local public trans- port network is the densest in any German city with 4.4 km per square kilometer of urban area, well above the European average of 2.4 km. The fares and transfer options also received high marks in a European-wide public transportation survey conducted by the German automobile association ADAC.

Public transport is used rela- tively little, however: only 24% of Leipzig resi- dents take the bus or light rail to work, compared to 37% on average in the other European cities. Some 22% of Leipzig residents walk or bicycle to work, which is exactly the European average. One reason that more residents don’t bicycle may be the relatively underdeveloped bike path network of 1.0 km per square kilometer in the urban area. The European average here is “For a leafy city” In 1996, the city of Leipzig launched the program “For a leafy city,” which encouraged city residents and those with ties to the city to donate funds to plant trees.

Some 2,250 people have taken part to date, raising more than €500,000 for the program and “adopting” more than 2,100 new trees throughout the entire city – in parks, recreational areas, and green spaces, and along Leipzig’s streets. The trees improve the city’s climate and absorb a portion of CO2 emissions. Everyone who donates receives a certificate, and those who donate more than €250 have their name placed on a plaque on their adopted tree.

Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities. * If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate. 1) Estimate based on the share of renewable energy sources in electrical production. 2) Measurement station in a central urban location close to traffic. Quantitative indicators Eur. avg. Ger. avg. Leipzig Year* Source CO2 CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/resident) 6.52 9.79 6.15 2005 City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€) 326.46 249.77 277.70 2005 City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections CO2 reduction target by 2020 18.64 30.83 20.00 2010 City of Leipzig – Office of the Environment Energy Energy consumption per capita (GJ/resident) 85.22 95.46 50.36 2006 City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP) 4.48 2.47 2.15 2006 City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%) 6.30 3.43 5.55 1e 2008 Leipzig City Utility Company Buildings Energy consumption by residential buildings (MJ/m2) 856.97 702.18 602.85 2006 City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections Transport Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%) 21.98 24.02 22.00 2008 City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections Share of population that takes public transport to work (%) 37.40 27.21 24.00 2008 City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections Length of bike path network (km/km2) 1.39 1.93 1.00 2008 City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections Length of public transport network (km/km2) 2.44 2.61 4.39 2008 City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections Water Annual water consumption per capita (m3/resident) 93.12 59.21 51.40 2007 City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections Water system leakages(%) 18.88 8.36 13.10 2008 Leipzig Municipal Waterworks; City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%) 96.25 99.53 98.30 2007 City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections Waste and Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head) 516.77 527.88 355.99 2008 Leipzig Office of Environmental Services land use Recycling rate (%) 25.93 47.48 81.33 2008 Leipzig Office of Environmental Services Air quality Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 33.98 30.51 19.00 2008 City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3) 40.49 40.97 46.25 2008 City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3) 31.30 21.92 19.00 2008 City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 6.44 5.05 2.33 2 2008 City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections

sions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. The city already managed to reduce CO2 emissions by 15% from 1990 to 2010. Green initiatives: To rein in CO2 emissions, Mannheim signed three-year alternative energy contracts with its energy suppliers in July 2008. The city has since begun drawing on power from renewable energies for many municipal func- tions such as schools, streetlights, and traffic lights. The city calculates that this changeover will result in savings of 80,000 metric tons of CO2 by 2011. Energy: Mannheim also ranks average in the energy category. Per capita energy consumption of 93 gigajoules is a bit higher than the average in the 41 European cities (85 gigajoules).

But the city ranks higher when you compare consump- tion to economic output: Mannheim consumes 2.3 megajoules per euro of GDP, and the average in the European cities is nearly twice as high at 4.5 megajoules. The share of renewable ener- gies in overall energy consumption is 5.9%, just below the European average of 6.3% – but still the third-highest among the twelve German cities.

Green initiatives: The district heating grid, which currently supplies some 12,000 house- holds in Mannheim, is set to expand more rapid- ly in the coming years: the city utility company expects to increase the number of households on the grid from 59% currently to about 70% by 52 53 Background indicators Population 311,000 GDP per person (PPP) in € 43,600 Administrative area in km2 145 Share of industry / gross value added in % 39 Average temperature in °C 10 58 cubic meters, the city is well below the Euro- pean average of 93 cubic meters. Whereas an average of nearly 19% of water is lost to pipeline leakage in the 41 European cities studied, the rate of loss in Mannheim is just 5%.

Mannheim also ranks favorably when it comes to renewable energies, with the second-highest share among the industrialized cities of Europe. In the cate- gories of CO2 emissions, energy, and waste and land use, Mannheim ranks average. CO2 emissions:Mannheimranksaveragein the category of CO2 emissions. Industry is a major source of CO2 emissions. Mannheim emits 11.0 metric tons of CO2 per capita per year, well above the average of 6.5 metric tons in the 41 European cities. The city would like to change this and has set a target of reducing CO2 emis- With a population of 311,000, Mannheim is the smallest city in the German Green City Index.

Mannheim lies in northwestern Baden- Wuerttemberg and is highly industrialized. Industry here accounts for 39% of gross added value, the highest rate among the German cities in the Index, and this has a profound impact on the city’s environmental ranking. Many busi- nesses in the technology, pharmaceutical, chemical, and automotive sectors are head- quartered or operate plants in Mannheim. With a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of €43,600, Mannheim is somewhat above aver- age among the twelve German cities studied. Mannheim ranks above average in five cate- gories and earns an overall ranking in the Ger- man Green City Index of above average.

With a relatively low per capita water consumption of 2030. For now, district heating lines will be extended into two more neighborhoods by 2012. In addition, a subsidy program was launched in July 2010 that offers customers financial assistance to install combined heat and power (CHP) microplants. The subsidy applies to installations with an output of up to 11 kilowatts in residential or small commercial buildings. The subsidized CHP installations must run on natural gas or biogas. The subsidy varies from €4,500 to €10,000, depending on the capacity of the plant (estimated from 2 to 11 kilowatts) and annual service time (1,500 to 5,000 hours).

In the future, consumers will be able to feed energy from the micro-CHP generators back into the local power grid.

Buildings: Mannheim ranks above average in the buildings category. The average energy consumption of 714 megajoules per square meter is below the average of 857 megajoules in the 41 European cities. High marks are also earned for subsidies for energy efficiency initia- tives in buildings. The city grants financial assis- tance for insulating residential buildings or installing energy-saving windows. The subsidies require a so-called “Mannheim heat passport” issued by the Mannheim climate protection agency, which assesses the quality of the build- ing’s insulation and identifies any energy- or cost-saving opportunities.

This allows citizens to obtain financial assistance to improve energy efficiency.

Monthly initiatives To strengthen environmental awareness among its citizens, Mannheim launched the “12 months – 12 climate protection projects” initiative in 2009. A new project was introduced to the public each month – the renovation of the city nursery, free environmental consultations, a trade-in program for old bicycles, etc. The city believes these initiatives helped sensitize the public to environmental issues. After its successful debut in 2009, the city extended the program for another twelve months. Projects in 2010 include opening a photovoltaic facility on the site of a former dump, retrofitting streetlights with LED bulbs, and another trade-in incentive, this time for old refrigerators.

well below average below average average above average well above average Performance CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall results Mannheim Other German cities Other European cities The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results. German Green City Index Mannheim

54 55 square kilometer is longer than the average in the 41 European cities (1.4 km). Nearly one- third of Mannheimers (29%) walk or bicycle to work; the European average is 22%. Another rea- son for Mannheim’s favorable ranking in the transport category is its extensive pedestrian zones and a dynamic parking control system that displays the current capacity of parking garages on the main approach routes leading into the city. The public transport network measures 2.3 km per square kilometer, slightly less than the European average (2.4 km). The share of the population that commutes to work on public transport is only 20%, however, well below the European average of 37%.

Green initiatives: Mannheim’s city council developed an incentive program for exchanging old bicycles. It is very similar to the trade-in pro- gram for old cars that the federal government adoptedin2009:anycitizenwillingtoreplacean old bicycle with a new one receives €50. The pro- gram is designed to help raise the level of bicycle usage from 16% in 2007 to 20% in 2014. Unlike the car trade-in program, however, the old bicy- cles are not scrapped but given to unemployed bike mechanics, who repair them for re-use. Now there are plans to replicate the Mannheim project around the country.

Water: Mannheim earns a grade of above average in the water category.

The rate of water loss due to leakage in the supply system stands at just 5% compared to 19% on average in Europe. This figure is impressive even in Ger- many, where the average stands at 8%. Annual water consumption in Mannheim is 59 cubic meters per resident, more or less on a par with the average in Germany and well below the European average (93 cubic meters). Green initiatives: Like other cities in the Ger- man Green City Index, Mannheim also supports the capture of rainwater for use in toilets, yard irrigation, and washing machines. City adminis- trators also promote green roofs by lowering the water fees for their irrigation.

The benefits of green roofs are clear: they insulate the building against heat and cold and store rainwater, which alleviates the load on sewer systems, especially during heavy rain.

Waste and land use: Mannheim ranks average in the waste and land use category. This can be attributed primarily to the relatively high volume of waste of 641 kg per capita per year compared to the average of 517 kg in the 41 European cities. The recycling rate of 43%, on the other hand, is well above the European aver- age (26%). Green initiatives: Mannheim operates a con- sultation center to help businesses and individu- als get all the information they need about recy- cling and waste prevention. The center has a special program to educate schoolchildren on the topic of waste and recycling.

On the subject of land use, the city is unrolling the big urban development project “Mannheim 21” from now until 2012. Mannheim 21 will transform old industry and railroad property adjacent to the main station into a mixed residential-commer- cial neighborhood. Plans for the 28-hectare space include open and green spaces and gener- ously proportioned bike and pedestrian paths. Air quality: Mannheim earns a grade of above average in the air quality category. Among Germany’s six “industrial cities” in which industry’s share of gross added value exceeds 25%, only Mannheim, Stuttgart, and Bremen score above average.

Aside from ozone concen- trations, which are at the average level of the 41 European cities, Mannheim’s levels of the measured air pollutants are below the European averages. The difference in particulate concen- tration is especially stark: Mannheim has an average concentration of 22 micrograms com- pared to the European average of 31 micro- grams. Mannheim’s sulfur dioxide concentra- tions of 4.3 micrograms are also relatively low compared to the average in the other European cities of 6.4 micrograms.

Green initiatives: The clean air program that Mannheim adopted in 2006 calls for 19 different primarily traffic-related measures, including mo- dernized infrastructure to improve traffic flow, an expanded public transport network, and a retrofitted bus fleet. Since 2008, the city center has also had an environmental zone in which only low-emission vehicles are allowed. Non- traffic-related measures include reducing dust during construction projects. Environmental governance: Mann- heim earns a grade of above average in the envi- ronmental governance category. The city earned points in 2010 for joining both the EU Covenant of Mayors and the EUROCITIES network.

The public is informed about the city’s climate pro- tection and environmental policies through pro- grams such as the “Mannheim Environment Forum,” an initiative of several environmental protection associations with the support of the city of Mannheim. The forum solicits opinions and viewpoints from various non-governmental organizations on environmental issues and pro- vides citizens with information, including a car- bon footprint for 2004 and 2007.

Green initiatives: In 2009, Mannheim estab- lished the climate protection agency to provide unbiased consulting services on environmental and climate protection issues. The agency is open to citizens, businesses and associations and offers financial assistance for green projects such as the installation of solar collectors. Its aim is to sensitize the population to environmental issues through targeted initiatives, such as the competition “Mannheim’s oldest heating pump” in 2011 in which contestants with the oldest heating pumps have the chance to win one of three high-efficiency pumps. The initiative is intended to raise awareness of energy efficiency issuesandcallattentiontoavailablesubsidiesfor energy efficiency upgrades.

Those who trade in an old heating pump, for example, are reim- bursed for 25% of the costs by the climate pro- tection agency through a climate fund. Green initiatives: City administrators are ag- gressively promoting energy efficiency initia- tives in municipal buildings. In the past year, for example, the old natural gas furnace system in the city offices in Mannheim-Friedrichsfeld was replaced by a pellet furnace system. The old 1970s-era heating system used 220 megawatts of energy each year. The new system – planned, installed, and financed by the city utility compa- ny – uses only 130 megawatts.

It has been up and running since November 2009. Similar sys- tems are to be installed in other city administra- tion buildings in the coming years. Transport:Mannheim also ranks above aver- age in the transport category. One reason for this is the bike path network, which at 1.8 km per Smart grid Mannheim’s local utility company recently launched the “Mannheim Model City” project. At the heart of the project is a field test for the construction of a smart grid. The initiative is designed to give researchers insight into how smart grids and smart meters can help make the energy provider more efficient and reduce CO2 emissions.

Customers can use their online accounts to access detailed information on their energy use, benefit from flexible rate structures and lower their overall energy costs. The smart meters can also automatically switch household appliances on or off. In the future, this will make it possible to have electric vehicles charge when the electricity rate is low and feed back into the grid during peak- rate hours.

Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities. * If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate. 1) Figure for Baden-Wuerttemberg. Quantitative indicators Eur. avg. Ger. avg. Mannheim Year* Source CO2 CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/resident) 6.52 9.79 11.00 2007 BW State Office of Statistics; Mannheim City Office of Statistics CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€) 326.46 249.77 260.95 2007 BW State Office of Statistics CO2 reduction target by 2020 18.64 30.83 40.00 2010 City of Mannheim, Department of Building Code and Environmental Protection Energy Energy consumption per capita (GJ/resident) 85.22 95.46 93.36 2005 City of Mannheim; Mannheim City Office of Statistics Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP) 4.48 2.47 2.25 2005 City of Mannheim; BW State Office of Statistics Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%) 6.30 3.43 5.89 1e 2007 Interstate Working Group for Energy Balance Sheets Buildings Energy consumption by residential buildings (MJ/m2) 856.97 702.18 713.59 2005 BW State Office of Statistics; City of Mannheim Transport Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%) 21.98 24.02 29.00 2007 City of Mannheim, Climate Protection Agency Share of population that takes public transport to work (%) 37.40 27.21 20.00 2007 City of Mannheim, Climate Protection Agency Length of bike path network (km/km2) 1.39 1.93 1.77 2008 City of Mannheim; BW State Office of Statistics Length of public transport network (km/km2) 2.44 2.61 2.33 2008 BW State Office of Statistics; City of Mannheim Water Annual water consumption per capita (m3/resident) 93.12 59.21 58.46 2007 City of Mannheim, Climate Protection Agency Water system leakages(%) 18.88 8.36 4.50 2009 City of Mannheim, Climate Protection Agency Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%) 96.25 99.53 99.87 2007 City of Mannheim, Climate Protection Agency Waste and Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head) 516.77 527.88 640.79 2008 BW State Office of Statistics land use Recycling rate (%) 25.93 47.48 43.40 2008 BW State Office of Statistics Air quality Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 33.98 30.51 30.37 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3) 40.49 40.97 40.05 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3) 31.30 21.92 21.50 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 6.44 5.05 4.31 2008 EEA Airbase

Germany and the highest share of the popula- tion that commutes to work by bus or light rail. CO2 emissions: Munich ranks average in the category of CO2 emissions. Annual per capi- ta emissions of 7.3 metric tons are above the European average (6.5 metric tons) but still well below the average in Germany (9.8 metric tons). When the city’s economic output is taken into account, Munich achieves the best results in Germany: Munich emits just 147 grams of CO2 per euro of GDP – less than half the European average of 326 grams. In 2008, the city of Munich adopted a plan to gradually reduce its CO2 emissions.

The aim is to cut CO2 emissions by 10% every five years. This should reduce CO2 emissions to 50% of 1990 levels by 2030. Green initiatives: Munich’s “Climate Protec- tion Program 2010” was published in May 2010. The program outlines a total of 55 initiatives to be implemented from 2010 to 2012 with the aim of reducing CO2 emissions by 10% every five years. The first package of initiatives deals with buildings, urban development, mobility and transportation, energy efficiency in industry, energy production and distribution, and energy use in municipal buildings. The climate protec- tion program is to be updated every two years.

Energy: The city earns a grade of above aver- age in the energy category. One of the decisive factors here is the relatively low annual energy consumption of 65 gigajoules per resident com- pared to the European average of 85 gigajoules. The results are even better when economic out- put is taken into consideration: the people of Munich consume 1.3 megajoules per euro of GDP. In Germany, only Stuttgart scores better. German Green City Index 56 57 Munich Background indicators Population 1.4 million GDP per person (PPP) in € 49,100 Administrative area in km2 310 Share of industry / gross value added in % 28 Average temperature in °C 8 average in five of eight individual categories.

The city, for example, scores particularly well in CO2 intensity – the ratio of CO2 emissions to eco- nomic output – where it takes the top spot in Germany. Munich also scores high in energy intensity – energy consumption per unit of real GDP – ranking second in Germany behind Stuttgart. The achievements in the transport category are also worth noting: Munich has the most highly developed network of bike paths in With a population of about 1.4 million, Munich is Germany’s third-largest city after Berlin and Hamburg. Munich has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country and is among the wealthier cities in the German Green City Index.

The per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of €49,100 is topped only by Frankfurt and Stuttgart. As the economic center of southern Germany, Munich has a mixed eco- nomic structure. Several major industrial enter- prises are based here from sectors such as machinery, automotive, and technology. Indus- try alone generates some 28% of gross value added. The city is also regarded as a center for biotechnology, microelectronics, IT, media, and services. Banks and insurance companies are also headquartered here. Only Frankfurt ranks ahead of Munich as a financial center. Munich ranks above average overall in the com- parison among the twelve German cities in the Index.

In the breakdown, the city ranks above The European average is over three times as high (4.5 megajoules). The share of renewable energies is relatively low at 2.1%, below the European average of 6.3%. This topic is already on the agenda as a result of the climate protec- tion program, however, and the city has set itself ambitious goals.

Green initiatives: Munich’s utility company wants to meet all the city’s energy needs through renewables by 2025. Production of renewable energies has already been ramped up through a series of environmental projects such as the new hydroelectric plant on Prater Island, which has been providing green energy to 4,000 households since June 2010. The utility company plans to begin operations by year’s end at a new geothermal plant in the communi- ty of Sauerlach south of Munich that will harness geothermal energy to produce heat and electric- ity for 16,000 households. Beyond the city’s bor- ders, Munich’s utility company has invested in the construction of an offshore wind farm in the North Sea that will go live in 2013.

To create further incentives for the use of renew- able energies, the Munich city council has long offered financial support to homeowners who wish to move to renewable energy sources. As one of the sunniest spots in Germany, the city is also studying what role solar energy can play. One example is Ackermannbogen, a neighbor- hood of 319 households that meets 50% of its heating needs through solar energy. Excess solar energy generated in the summer is fed into a storage unit for use at a later time. Buildings:Munich also scores above average in the buildings category. An average residential building in Munich uses some 783 megajoules per square meter, below the European average of 857 megajoules.

The city is also recognized for providing energy efficiency incentives: granting financial support and loans for devel- opers that replace windows, insulate their build- ings, utilize district heating, install solar collec- tors, or otherwise make their construction project more environmentally friendly. Green initiatives: As of July 1, 2009, an energy consumption statement with information on energy use must be submitted for all non-resi- dential buildings in Munich. Public agencies must make this information available online. This same requirement has been in effect since January 1, 2009, for all residential buildings built after 1965, and since July 2008 for residen- tial buildings built before 1965.

A penalty is charged if no energy consumption statement is available when the building is sold or leased. Munich has teamed up with the non- Munich Environmental Award Since 1994, the Bavarian capital has awarded the “Munich Environmental Award” to honor exemplary commitment to the environment on the part of businesses, associations, educational institutions, and individuals. The €10,000 prizes are awarded primarily for innovative climate and environmental protection projects such as environmentally friendly production methods or outstanding energy conservation or production programs. The prize money must be reinvested in environmental programs or projects.

well below average below average average above average well above average Performance CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall results Munich Other German cities Other European cities The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.

58 59 governmental organization co2online to present “Munich Heat Monitor 2010,” which provides citizens with a free tool for analyzing their ener- gy and heating consumption. Participants need only submit their most recent heating bill, which co2online uses to create a report outlining how the energy efficiency of the building can be improved. Participants also learn how their heat- ing costs measure up to city-wide averages. Con- sumers are then notified of incentive programs for environmentally friendly renovations. Transport: Munich scores above average in the transport category. Some 41% of the pop- ulation commutes to work with public trans- portation.

This is above the 37% average in the 41 European cities and the best result in Ger- many. The city has a relatively dense network of bike paths. Its citizens enjoy 3.9 km of bike paths per square kilometer of the city, more than in any other Germany city and nearly three times the European average (1.4 km). Despite this, only 17% of residents walk or cycle to work, less than the European average (22%). The public transport network of 2.0 km per square kilome- ter is close to the European average (2.4 km). Green initiatives: In 2007, the city of Munich launched a campaign to promote car-free mobil- ity in certain population groups.

The project, entitled “Munich – Clever Mobility,” provides new residents, children and youths, businesses, and seniors with information on alternatives to owning a car. The programs and workshops are designed to reduce automotive traffic in the city by some 80 million kilometers annually. The “Mobi-Race” project aims to teach children environmental awareness and safety when it comes to mobility. The project is a joint effort by Munich’s public transit system operator MVG and the city’s regional administration offices. The goal is to teach children how to use Munich’s public transport system on their own and generate interest in green transportation options with buses and light rail.

“Mobi-Race” is directed at fourth- and fifth-grade students and has reached 4,500 children in 181 classes since 2005. The children learn to find their way around in an urban environment and eventually get around safely and independently using pub- lic transportation while developing the key skills of taking responsibility, making decisions and working with others. The winning teams receive prizes at the end of the project. Water:In the category of water, Munich again ranks above average. Water use in the Bavarian capital, as in the other cities in Germany, is also well below the levels elsewhere in Europe.

The people of Munich consume 63 cubic meters of water per capita per year, compared to 93 cubic meters on average in the 41 European cities. Water loss of 8% from pipeline leakage is also well below the European average (19%). Green initiatives: Munich’s public utility com- pany has launched the “Eco-Farmers” initiative, which offers financial assistance to organic agri- cultural business on the outskirts of Munich with the aim of protecting the city’s water reserves. So far, more than 100 farmers have converted their operations to organic practices. Together, they maintain the largest organic farming zone in Germany, encompassing some 2,500 hec- tares.

Waste and land use: Munich also scores above average in the waste and land use category. One key reason for this is the relatively high recycling rate of 43%, compared to just 26% on average in the other European cities. Munich’s waste volume of 557 kg per capita per year is higher than the European average, how- ever (517 kg). The city’s score is hurt by the fact that it does not have any subsidy programs to revitalize unused land. Green initiatives: The city is continuing its efforts to renaturalize the Isar from a canal-like state to a natural-growth river bed. The last sec- tion in the city center around the Weideninsel is scheduled for completion this year.

The project is a joint effort by Munich’s public works office and water management bureau. The costs for renaturalizing the Isar are split between the state of Bavaria and the city. Associations, orga- nizations and private citizens have been in- volved in the planning throughout all phases of the project.

Since 2008, Munich’s office of waste manage- ment has operated a dry fermentation plant in Freimann in the north of the city. Some 25,000 metric tons of kitchen and yard waste from the area are converted there each year into 1.8 million cubic meters of biogas, a volume suf- ficient to power some 1,600 households in Munich. The facility also produces 9,000 metric tons of compost annually that is used as fertiliz- er and soil conditioner in agriculture and land- scaping. Air quality: Munich ranks average in the category of air quality. One reason for this is the nitrogen dioxide concentration of 35 micro- grams per cubic meter, which is above the aver- age of 34 micrograms measured in the 41 Euro- pean cities.

The ozone levels of 41 micrograms are more or less in line with the European aver- age (40 micrograms). The particulate matter concentration of 22 micrograms, on the other hand, is below the European average of 31 mi- crograms. Munich’s 4.8 micrograms of sulfur dioxide also compares favorably with the other European cities (6.4 micrograms). Green initiatives: In the fight against particu- lates, Munich introduced a truck-free zone at the beginning of 2008 so that through traffic is now redirected onto highway A99 around the city. This closed off the city to most of the trucks that used to drive through Munich.

Environmental governance: Munich ranks average among European cities in the environmental governance category. A negative factor was that only limited information on the city’s environmental performance is public: the city’s CO2 balance sheet and end energy con- sumption, for example, are not published. Citi- zens are actively involved, however. Public input was a factor in the draft of the “Ecological Guide- line – Climate Change and Climate Protection,” published in late 2010 by the city of Munich (see under “green initiatives”). The city also gets bonus points for joining the Covenant of Mayors and signing the Aalborg Charter.

Green initiatives: Under the campaign “Working Together for the Climate,” the city council decided in 2008 to involve the public in further developing and updating the “Ecological Guideline – Climate Change and Climate Protec- tion.” The guideline lays out the challenges, objectives, and strategies for climate change and climate protection in five different cate- gories: energy supply; buildings; urban planning and mobility; land use and ecosystem; and user behavior, lifestyles, and health. The aim was to gain new ideas and insights into these fields by tapping into the community. Drawing upon numerous events, the exhibition “Munich: Con- trolling the Climate,” and a wealth of infor- mation on the Internet, a draft guideline was finally published in 2010 – the result of a broad- based consensus, according to the city council.

The website www.gemeinsam-fuer-das-klima.de served as a forum for soliciting public input in the revision of the guideline. The result was pre- sented to the city council in late 2010 for final deliberations.

Reinventing Riem On Munich’s east side, a new community is arising on the site of the old Munich-Riem airport. The project, slated for completion in 2013, will realize the concept of combined living and working in the countryside. Plans for the 560-hectare site, situated adjacent to the Munich exhibition and trade fair center, call for combining new office buildings with more than 6,100 residential units and generous amounts of open space. The concept follows the ten guidelines of the “Munich Perspective” plan for strategic urban development. These guidelines are based on the interplay of three core ideas: compact, urban, and green.

Compact means the efficient use of space.

Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities. * If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate. 1) Current CO2 reduction target is 50% by 2030. 2) City data does not include energy consumption for transportation – an estimate of 30% has therefore been added. 3) City data does not include energy consumption for transportation – an estimate of 30% has therefore been added; GDP figure from 2007. Quantitative indicators Eur. avg. Ger. avg.

Munich Year* Source CO2 CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/resident) 6.52 9.79 7.28 2006 City of Munich CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€) 326.46 249.77 147.30 2006 City of Munich CO2 reduction target by 2020 18.64 30.83 25.00 1 2010 City of Munich Energy Energy consumption per capita (GJ/resident) 85.22 95.46 64.78 2e 2008 Munich City Utility Company Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP) 4.48 2.47 1.34 3e 2008 Munich City Utility Company Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%) 6.30 3.43 2.10 2008 Munich City Utility Company Buildings Energy consumption by residential buildings (MJ/m2) 856.97 702.18 783.19 2008 Munich City Utility Company Transport Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%) 21.98 24.02 17,30 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit Share of population that takes public transport to work (%) 37.40 27.21 41.30 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit Length of bike path network (km/km2) 1.39 1.93 3.87 2009 City of Munich; Munich Office of Statistics Length of public transport network (km/km2) 2.44 2.61 2.00 2008 Munich Office of Statistics Water Annual water consumption per capita (m3/resident) 93.12 59.21 62.60 2007 Bavarian State Office of Statistics and Data Processing; Munich Office of Statistics Water system leakages(%) 18.88 8.36 7.81 e 2007 Bavarian State Office of Statistics and Data Processing Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%) 96.25 99.53 99.80 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit Waste and Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head) 516.77 527.88 556.93 2008 Munich Office of Statistics land use Recycling rate (%) 25.93 47.48 42.95 2008 Munich Office of Statistics Air quality Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 33.98 30.51 35.35 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3) 40.49 40.97 40.52 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3) 31.30 21.92 21.67 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 6.44 5.05 4.83 2006 EEA Airbase

1990 levels by 2020. This matches the targets of the other German Index cities and the require- ments set by the federal government. Green initiatives: Since 1996, the local ener- gy company has provided citizens with financial assistance for steps taken to lessen their carbon footprint. A total of €850,000 in program grants for CO2 reduction have been promised for 2010. Residents receive vouchers or cash to purchase an electric vehicle, install solar cells on residen- tial buildings, or receive an energy consultation. The utility company claims that this program has eliminated 4,600 metric tons of CO2 in 2010.

Energy:Nuremberg scores average in the cat- egory of energy. Per capita energy consumption of 91 gigajoules is a bit higher than the average in the 41 European cities (85 gigajoules), but rel- atively low compared to the economic output of the city: at 2.3 megajoules per euro of GDP, the city consumes only half as much as the Euro- pean average of 4.5 megajoules. Nuremberg also gets points for promoting the use of clean energy. Nuremberg’s 2.3% share of renewable German Green City Index 60 61 Nuremberg Background indicators Population 504,000 GDP per person (PPP) in € 39,300 Administrative area in km2 186 Share of industry / gross value added in % 25 Average temperature in °C 8 high compared to the other cities in Germany, with Nuremberg showing the third-highest level behind Munich and Berlin.

Nuremberg scores average in the categories of energy, air quality, and environmental governance.

CO2 emissions: Despite the high volume of traffic in and around Nuremberg and the CO2 emissions that this brings, the city scores above average in the category of CO2 emissions. The high score can be attributed to a series of initia- tives aimed at reducing CO2 emissions. Although the city’s per capita annual emissions of 7.4 metric tons of CO2 are above the average of the 41 European cities (6.5 metric tons), that figure is still well below the German average of 9.8 metric tons. Nuremberg compares very favorably when it comes to CO2 intensity, with CO2 emissions of 184 grams per euro of GDP far below the European average of 326 grams.

In Germany, that is the second-lowest level after Munich. And what’s more, by 2008 the city had already achieved its goal of reducing CO2 emis- sions by 27% from 1990 to 2010. Now the city aims to reduce its CO2 emissions by 40% below With a population of about 500,000, the city of Nuremberg in Franconia is the second smallest city in the German Green City Index. Nuremberg is home to numerous enterprises from the automation and energy sector and the medical technology industry. A total of 75% of city employees work in the service sector, and industry contributes some 25% to gross added value.

The geographic location and accessibility make the city a logistics hub for trade with East- ern Europe, which is conducted predominantly by road transport. With a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of €39,300, Nuremberg is just below average among the twelve German cities studied.

Nuremberg ranks above average overall in the German Green City Index, scoring above aver- age in five of the eight individual categories as well. Among cities in which industry accounts for 25% or more, Nuremberg is actually the only city in Germany that ranks above average in the category of CO2 emissions. The results in the transport category are also noteworthy. The per- centage of citizens who commute to work using public transportation, for example, is relatively energies is still relatively low, though it is com- parable to that of the other German cities. The European average is 6.3%.

Nuremberg has launched a series of initiatives to make its ener- gy supply more environmentally friendly. House- holds that switch to district heating receive cash awards of up to €2,000, for example. Green initiatives: Nuremberg participates in the so-called “Solar National League,” a national competition to track the progress made by cities and communities in installing photovoltaic sys- tems. According to city calculations, Nuremberg holds first place in the competition with other cities of 500,000 or more. The environmental office reports that installed capacity in Nurem- berg has nearly doubled since 2004, from 2.0 to 3.8 megawatts.

Overall, Nuremberg now has some 18,000 square meters of photovoltaic area. One factor at play here is the city’s decision to lease the roof space of municipal buildings to private investors.

Buildings: Nuremberg ranks above average in the buildings category. At 815 megajoules per square meter, the energy consumption of Nuremberg’s residential buildings is slightly be- low the average of 857 megajoules in the 41 European cities. The city is trying hard to im- prove the energy efficiency of its buildings. Nuremberg’s climate protection program in- cludes an initiative designed to reduce the ener- gy consumption of commercially used buildings by 2020, for example. The reason: only 30% of the office buildings in Nuremberg were built in the last ten years. Most are much older and therefore require much more energy for heating and lighting.

For this reason, Nuremberg offers an energy conservation consultation for small and medium-sized businesses as well as assis- tance and subsidies to improve energy effi- ciency.

Green initiatives: The local housing industry business group has committed to improving energy efficiency in its buildings through the “Innovative Housing” modernization program. The group manages some 18,000 residential buildings, some 10% of the total building stock in Nuremberg. About half are new construction, the rest were built before 1960. The group aims to retrofit all its buildings by 2012 to the seven- liter standard, meaning seven liters or less of fuel oil per square meter and year. The city Smart subways As part of its climate protection program 2010/2020, Nuremberg added a new, automated line to its subway system.

The five-kilometer stretch is the first to use centrally controlled, driverless trains. Full automation allows the trains to operate at high energy efficiency, optimizes braking and acceleration, and places less strain on the system. The system was also designed so that the energy accumulated when one train brakes can be used to accelerate the next train. The system operator reports that subway ridership has grown by some 100,000 since the U3 line opened in 2008.

well below average below average average above average well above average Performance CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall results Nuremberg Other German cities Other European cities The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.

62 63 hopes this will save costs and bring it a bit closer to its environmental targets. Transport:Nuremberg scores above average in the transport category. The city has a well- developed public transport network with 2.9 km per square kilometer.

One in three residents (33%) commutes to work each day using public transportation – the third-highest level in Ger- many. The average among the 41 European cities is higher still, however, with 37% of citi- zens commuting by bus and light rail. The bike path network of 1.6 km per square kilometer is longer than the European average (1.4 km), but only one in five residents commutes to work on foot or by bicycle – more or less on a par with the European average. The city’s expansive pedestri- an zone received favorable marks, as did the “Intelligent Mobile” program (see “green initia- tives”) that seeks to encourage citizens to get out of their cars in favor of alternative modes of transportation.

The city also emphasizes the importance of the automatic traffic control sys- tem introduced in 2004 that guides traffic flows toward the stadium and convention center. The traffic control system is intended to minimize the negative effects of special-event traffic on city streets and keep the burden to those living near the event sites as low as possible. Green initiatives: Since April 2000, Nurem- berg has run the “Intelligent Mobile” information campaign to induce people to leave their car at home more often. The initiative highlights the value of green alternatives such as public trans- port, carpooling, cycling, and walking.

The cam- paign emphasizes that doing without a car can actually offer a better quality of life. Cycling and walking, for example, reduce stress and pro- mote good health. At the same time, such choic- es reduce air pollution and lessen the daily traf- fic volume.

Water:Nuremberg ranks above average in the water category. The annual per capita water consumption of 57 cubic meters is, as in the other German cities in the Index, well below the approximately 93 cubic meters that is the aver- age in the 41 European cities. Nuremberg’s rate of water loss from pipeline leakage is, at 7%, also much lower than the European average of 19%. Green initiatives: To teach elementary school students how drinking water makes its way from its source to the water faucet, the regional stu- dent radio station “school+radio” has, with the support of Bavarian State Radio and local energy company NERGIE, produced a water-themed program.

Three fictional sisters – Mirella, Lara, and Laura – explore the key stations of Nurem- berg’s drinking water supply in a radio play for children. The piece was subsequently posted to the school radio station website. Waste and land use: Nuremberg earns a grade of above average in the waste and land use category. The volume of waste is 506 kg per capita per year, below the average of 517 kg in the 41 European cities. The recycling rate of 56% is noteworthy, over twice the European average of 26% and also above the German average of 47%. Nuremberg has launched various pro- grams to try to make its citizens more acutely aware of household waste and reduce overall waste.

The waste management companies pro- vide residents with information on how to avoid waste, including online information and an “Infomobile” that stops at various locations throughout the city several days a month. Green initiatives: In 2007, Nuremberg joined Bremen and Leipzig in founding “co-op city,” a joint project among the three cities to confront the challenges of future urban development. These challenges are divided into the three cate- gories of economic innovation and creative milieus, urban quality of life, and regional coop- eration. In Nuremberg, six neighborhoods with development potential were identified, includ- ing the West City, a former industrial area and the site of social tensions.

Following the identifi- cation and concept phase, selected projects will be implemented in close cooperation among the three cities starting in 2012. The aim is to exchange experience and insights in order to learn from one another.

Air quality: Nuremberg ranks average in the category of air quality. One reason for this is the relatively high concentrations of nitrogen diox- ide in the city, which at 36 micrograms per cubic meter is slightly above the European average of 34 micrograms. This can be attributed at least in part to intense industrial activity. The average concentrations of particulates and sulfur dioxide are better: both lie below the average in the 41 European cities. Nuremberg actually has the lowest levels of any German city in the Index when it comes to ozone, the indicator most closely linked to (automobile) traffic.

Green initiatives: The city of Nuremberg has continued its clean air program. The plan came into effect in December 2010 and is focused pri- marily on traffic. The objective is to expand the availability of public transportation and bicy- cling incentives. In the short term, the plan also seeks to improve traffic flow by optimizing traf- fic lights, for example, or striping extra bus lanes. The long-term goals include the expan- sion of the subway network.

Environmental governance: Nurem- berg ranks average in the category of environ- mental governance. Although the city updated its CO2 balance sheet from 2006 in the latest cli- mate protection plan for 2010 and identified areas in need of action, the environmental report does not include a comprehensive assess- ment of the current situation in each category with detailed targets. Nuremberg does get high marks, however, for providing easy public access, especially online access, to information on the city’s environmental performance and initiatives.

Green initiatives: The “Keep Energy in Mind” project gets schoolchildren actively involved in a water and energy conservation project that is designed to raise awareness of the threats posed by climate change and the scarcity of resources.

One class designed stickers to put on light switches to remind children to turn off the light when no one is in the room. Solar roof exchange Nuremberg set up a so-called “solar roof exchange” with the objective of increasing the share of renewable energies. This online platform brings together the owners of rooftop surfaces – private, public, or commercial-use buildings – with potential investors and solar cell manufacturers. The owner leases the roof to an investor and receives a fixed rent or a per- centage of the proceeds from the photovoltaic installation in exchange. The online forum is free to use.

The solar roof exchange collects a brokerage fee when a deal is signed between a roof owner and investor.

Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities. * If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate. 1) GDP figure from 2007. 2) Measurement station is not away from road traffic and therefore meets the criteria only to a limited extent. Quantitative indicators Eur. avg. Ger. avg. Nuremberg Year* Source CO2 CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/resident) 6.52 9.79 7.40 2008 Nuremberg’s application for European Green Capital Award CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€) 326.46 249.77 184.30 1e 2008 Nuremberg’s application for European Green Capital Award; Nuremberg Statistical Almanac CO2 reduction target by 2020 18.64 30.83 40.00 2010 City of Nuremberg, Office of the Environment Energy Energy consumption per capita (GJ/resident) 85.22 95.46 90.75 2007 Nuremberg’s application for European Green Capital Award Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP) 4.48 2.47 2.26 2007 Nuremberg’s application for European Green Capital Award Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%) 6.30 3.43 2.28 2008 City of Nuremberg, Office of the Environment Buildings Energy consumption by residential buildings (MJ/m2) 856.97 702.18 814.97 2007 Energy Agency of Northern Bavaria Transport Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%) 21.98 24.02 19.50 2007 Urban Research and Statistics, Nuremberg and Fürth (2007) Share of population that takes public transport to work (%) 37.40 27.21 33.10 2007 Urban Research and Statistics, Nuremberg and Fürth (2007) Length of bike path network (km/km2) 1.39 1.93 1.56 2010 City of Nuremberg, Traffic Planning Office; Nuremberg Statistical Almanac Length of public transport network (km/km2) 2.44 2.61 2.87 2008 Nuremberg Statistical Almanac Water Annual water consumption per capita (m3/resident) 93.12 59.21 57.20 2008 Nuremberg’s application for European Green Capital Award Water system leakages(%) 18.88 8.36 7.00 2008 Nuremberg’s application for European Green Capital Award Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%) 96.25 99.53 99.85 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit Waste and Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head) 516.77 527.88 506.45 2008 Nuremberg Statistical Almanac land use Recycling rate (%) 25.93 47.48 55.90 2008 City of Nuremberg, Office of the Environment Air quality Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 33.98 30.51 36.39 2 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3) 40.49 40.97 34.04 2 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3) 31.30 21.92 23.30 2007 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 6.44 5.05 4.08 2008 EEA Airbase

above average in each individual category except CO2 emissions. Of special note are the high marks in the categories of energy and buildings: Stuttgart stands out in Germany for its very low energy consumption and is also the European leader in energy-efficient housing. There is room for improvement in the city’s waste volume and the share of renewable ener- gies. CO2 emissions: The category of CO2 emis- sions is the only category in which Stuttgart ranked average. Although the CO2 emissions of 10.1 metric tons per capita per year are more or less on a par with the German average of 9.8 metric tons, they are much higher than the average in the 41 European cities of 6.5 metric tons.

The city’s CO2 emissions can be broken down to 60% for private households, offices, Stuttgart, with a population of 600,000, is the capital of the state of Baden-Wuerttem- berg. Stuttgart’s per capita gross domestic prod- uct (GDP) of €52,200 is well above the German average. Only Frankfurt has a higher per capita GDP among the cities in the German Green City Index. Industry contributes 36% to the gross value added, making Stuttgart a relatively indus- trialized city in the Index compared to the nationwide average of 25%. Stuttgart is an important production site in the European auto- motive industry.

It is also home to many high- tech, technology, and electronics companies, along with their research and development cen- ters. Stuttgart also has a vibrant service sector and is home to several major financial service providers.

Stuttgart earns an overall grade of above aver- age in the German Green City Index, scoring and public buildings; 20% for industry; and 20% for transportation. However, Stuttgart’s level of 202 grams of CO2 emissions per unit of GDP is much lower than the European average (326 grams). The reason for this is that the stan- dard of living in Stuttgart is relatively high, and the city has a high per capita GDP. Green initiatives: The Stuttgart Climate Pro- tection Concept is the main basis for reducing CO2 emissions in the city. The city council has ruled that CO2 emissions should be reduced 10% by 2010 and, in keeping with the EU target, 20% by 2020.

Both these targets are relative to levels from the year 2000. The Climate Protec- tion Concept includes numerous programs designed to reduce CO2 emissions caused by vehicles, households, and businesses. The pro- grams include transportation advice for resi- dents, visitors, tourists, and business travelers; financial assistance to optimize heat insulation of all types of buildings; better coordination of the city’s energy efficiency programs; carpools; and the creation of an energy consulting agency.

Energy:Stuttgart scores above average in the energy category. Only two other German cities, Leipzig and Munich, equal Stuttgart in this cate- gory. The main reason for this is the low per capita energy consumption of 56 gigajoules, the second-best score in Germany after Leipzig. The average among the 41 European cities is 85 gigajoules. The energy consumption is even German Green City Index 64 65 Stuttgart Background indicators Population 600,000 GDP per person (PPP) in € 52,200 Administrative area in km2 207 Share of industry / gross value added in % 36 Average temperature in °C 9 lower when compared to economic output: at 1.1 megajoules per euro of GDP, it is less than one-fourth of the European average (4.5 mega- joules).

This puts Stuttgart at the very top in Germany, with only Zurich and Oslo scoring higher in the European Index. The city has the lowest share of renewable energies among all the German Index cities, however: only 0.6% of Stuttgart’s total energy needs are currently met by renewable energies – a figure far below the European average of 6.3%.

Green initiatives: Stuttgart has set a goal to use more energy from renewable sources in city properties. The percentage of green energy was 25% in 2008 and is expected to rise to 67% by 2011. The share of renewable energies in municipal buildings is also supposed to grow from 11% to 20% by 2020. Stuttgart has also decided to no longer compost the 18,000 cubic meters of wood scraps that accumulate each year as a result of forest maintenance. Instead, the city has begun feeding the leftover wood into biomass heating systems. This is used to heat seven municipal buildings, which in turn increases the share of renewable energies.

Buildings: Stuttgart’s above average ranking in the buildings category is due primarily to the markedly low energy consumption in residential Integrated traffic control center Stuttgart began operating an integrated traffic control center in 2006. The center collects and provides real-time analysis of information on the current traffic situation. Using this data, the city can control traffic as needed through illuminated road signs, parking guidance systems, flexible traffic light controls, etc. This helps avoid traffic jams, which in turn reduces pollutants. Data is fed in from various city agencies: the public policy office, the office of civil engineering, a municipal transportation company, and police headquarters.

well below average below average average above average well above average Performance CO2 Energy Buildings Transport Water Waste and land use Air quality Environmental governance Overall results Stuttgart Other German cities Other European cities The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.

66 67 buildings, which at 388 megajoules per square meter is far below the average of 857 mega- joules in the 41 European cities. This makes the city number one both in Germany and in the European Index. One key reason for this success is that the city offers energy-conscious property owners a broad portfolio of financial assistance for energy-efficient upgrades.

Stuttgart also wins praise for ensuring that all new municipal buildings are constructed according to the latest low-energy and efficiency standards. Green initiatives: Stuttgart has set out to reduce the energy consumption of municipal institutions by at least 1% annually. An “energy service” is dealing with the building stock, which accounts for 60% of energy consumption in the city. City administrators use a computerized sys- tem to monitor energy consumption in the prop- erties, teach operators to optimize the use of their facilities, and develop concepts for optimiz- ing energy use in buildings.

One example of an “energy service” project: The city’s Hans-Rehn- Stift retirement home underwent an energy overhaul in 2009, reducing its primary con- sumption by some 25% and CO2 emissions by 70% compared to 2005 levels. These energy sav- ings were achieved by combining a heat pump with a combined heat and power unit, a low- temperature natural gas boiler, and a solar ther- mal system.

“Triple zero” is a concept developed in Stuttgart that seeks to achieve zero emissions, zero ener- gy and zero resource consumption for buildings in the city. The goal is to develop housing that produce their own power and heat for heating purposes. The “triple zero” idea is part of a re- search project conducted by the city in collabo- ration with the Association for Sustainable Con- struction. The concept will initially run on a trial basis in public buildings such as schools and retirement homes before it is broadly imple- mented in five years. A current example is the Uhlandschule in Stuttgart-Rot, the first so-called “energy plus” school in Germany that will pro- duce more energy than it consumes.

Transport: Stuttgart also scores above aver- age in the transport category, thanks primarily to programs that promote the use of alternative transportation and reduce traffic and to the rela- tively expansive public transport network, which at 2.8 km per square kilometer is more developed than the average of 2.4 km in the 41 European cities. The 32% share of the popu- lation that uses public transportation to com- mute to work is slightly above the German aver- age but below the European average of 37%. Stuttgart’s bike path network, on the other hand, is much less developed than in the other European cities.

The city has 0.6 km of bike paths per square kilometer, compared to an average of 1.4 km in Europe and 1.9 km in Ger- many. Only 17% of city residents walk or bicycle to work each day compared to the European average of 22%, though this is certainly related to Stuttgart’s especially hilly topography. Green initiatives: Stuttgart is participating in the nationwide bicycle initiative 2002–12, dedicated to promoting the use of bicycles. Stuttgart is also working to make the bicycle more popular in general as more than just a way to get to work. The city seeks to increase the share of bicycles in urban traffic to 20% in the next ten years.

To this end, the city is following a ten-point plan to improve bicycle infrastruc- ture, including bike paths, bike racks, and appro- priate signage. Plans also call for developing a comprehensive approach to allowing bicycles on trains.

Water: Stuttgart also earns a grade of above average in the water category. The main reason for this is moderate water use of 61 cubic meters per capita per year, far below the average of 93 cubic meters in the 41 European cities. The 11% rate of water loss from pipeline leakage, on the other hand, is relatively high compared to the other German cities but still below the 19% average of all the European cities studied. Stuttgart, like the other German cities in the In- dex, monitors its water quality and water levels, promotes water-saving practices, and treats all its wastewater prior to disposal.

Green initiatives: Since 2007, Stuttgart has broken down its wastewater fees by household wastewater and storm runoff. The aim is to motivate homeowners to let rainwater seep nat- urally into the ground rather than diverting it into the sewer system, which ultimately leads to high costs. This is also intended to help maintain groundwater levels, lessen the burden on waste- water treatment plants, and prevent storm drain overflows during heavy rain.

Waste and land use: Stuttgart also scores above average in the category of waste and land use. Although the city has a very high waste volume per capita per year of 737 kg, the highest in Germany, it makes up for this with a relatively high recycling rate of 57%, more than double the European average of 26%. Among the German cities, only Leipzig and Bremen score better. Stuttgart plans to further increase its recycling rate by providing different types of recycling containers and opening new recycling centers.

Green initiatives: Stuttgart has responded to its shortage of new building sites with a pro- gram to identify and systematically compile data on idle properties.

The aim is to push the con- struction of the housing that is urgently needed in the short term. The city acts as a broker between investors and property owners to find construction and financing solutions. The more successful the program, the fewer the valuable open spaces that will have to be sacrificed for new housing. Air quality: Stuttgart also rates above aver- age when it comes to air quality. Stuttgart’s aver- age sulfur dioxide concentration of 3.1 micro- grams per cubic meter is less than half the average of 6.4 micrograms in the 41 European cities. The level of 19 micrograms per cubic meter of particulates is also well below the Euro- pean average of 31 micrograms.

The ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels, on the other hand, are close to the average levels found in the other European cities.

Green initiatives: The city has joined the city council in passing a clean air plan designed to further reduce nitrogen dioxide and particu- lates. One focus here is on automobile emis- sions. The plan calls for such measures as a ban on heavy vehicle traffic through the city, envi- ronmental zones in the city center, and speed limits on heavily trafficked transit roads. Calcium magnesium acetate is also used in winter to help bind the particulates in the air. A temporary ban on vehicles that exceed certain levels of emis- sions has been in place in the city center since 2008, and a general ban on vehicles with a red particulate sticker has been in place in designat- ed zones since July 2010.

Environmental governance: Stuttgart ranks above average in the environmental gov- ernance category. In 2007, the city updated a comprehensive environmental report from 1997. The concept includes ten areas of focus ranging from sustainable urban development to wastewater, waste management, consulting, and public relations. The city is also active on the transregional stage: it is a member of the Covenant of Mayors and has joined “Energy Cities,” an association of 1,000 European cities and towns. It is also taking advantage of EU sub- sidies available to help finance environmental projects and studies.

Green initiatives: The ten-point program initi- ated by Stuttgart’s mayor sets the direction for environmental protection in the city for the coming ten years. The program calls for expand- ing the energy consulting agency and further improving the energy efficiency of public build- ings such as schools and older buildings. Pro- jects that promote renewable energies and energy-efficient mobility are also supported. Other initiatives include offering rooftop space for the installation of solar collectors and im- proving the exchange of information with other cities on environmental issues. Also, environ- mental aspects are to be taken into greater account by urban developers from now on.

Concept Stuttgart Four-Pack Stuttgart has introduced a “Four-Pack” concept aimed at promoting electromobility through four different projects. The first project involves revamping the call-a-bike rental system run by Deutsche Bahn, which has 400 bicycles and 450 electric bicycles at 45 locations. The plan is to integrate this system into the local transportation network. The second project is a comprehensive pilot program with electric scooters to be conducted in collaboration with the regional power company. The plan is to introduce 500 e-scooters that will be able to recharge at some 200 gas stations.

City administrators have been using 25 e-scooters in various offices for several months. The third project calls for testing various electric vehicles as part of the Stuttgart model region. The city is reviewing options for deploying such vehicles for test purposes. Finally, the fourth project involves the local transportation company testing several hybrid buses in day-to-day operations.

Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities. * If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate. 1) Estimate of the City of Stuttgart. Quantitative indicators Eur. avg. Ger. avg. Stuttgart Year* Source CO2 CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/resident) 6.52 9.79 10.05 2007 BW State Office of Statistics CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€) 326.46 249.77 201.59 2006 BW State Office of Statistics CO2 reduction target by 2020 18.64 30.83 20.00 2009 City of Stuttgart Energy Energy consumption per capita (GJ/resident) 85.22 95.46 56.32 2008 City of Stuttgart Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP) 4.48 2.47 1.06 2006 City of Stuttgart Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%) 6.30 3.43 0.60 2008 City of Stuttgart Buildings Energy consumption by residential buildings (MJ/m2) 856.97 702.18 388.45 1e 2008 City of Stuttgart; BW State Office of Statistics Transport Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%) 21.98 24.02 16.80 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit Share of population that takes public transport to work (%) 37.40 27.21 32.00 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit Length of bike path network (km/km2) 1.39 1.93 0.60 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit Length of public transport network (km/km2) 2.44 2.61 2.76 2008 SSB Water Annual water consumption per capita (m3/resident) 93.12 59.21 60.70 2008 Stuttgart Office of Statistics Water system leakages(%) 18.88 8.36 11.21 2004 BW State Office of Statistics Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%) 96.25 99.53 99.91 2004 Eurostat – Urban Audit Waste and Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head) 516.77 527.88 736.58 2008 BW State Office of Statistics land use Recycling rate (%) 25.93 47.48 57.10 2008 BW State Office of Statistics Air quality Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 33.98 30.51 33.50 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3) 40.49 40.97 40.10 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3) 31.30 21.92 19.20 2008 EEA Airbase Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 6.44 5.05 3.10 2008 EEA Airbase

Published by: Siemens AG Corporate Communications and Government Affairs Wittelsbacherplatz 2, 80333 Munich For the publisher: Stefan Denig stefan.denig@siemens.com Phone: +49 89 636 83110 Project management: Karen Stelzner karen.stelzner@siemens.com Phone: +49 89 636 31321 Editorial office: Emily Jackson, Aviva Freudmann, Jason Sumner, Economist Intelligence Unit, Frankfurt, London Research: Jan Friederich, Harald Langer, Economist Intelligence Unit, Frankfurt, London Picture editing: Irene Kern, Publicis Munich, branch office of PWW GmbH Layout: Rigobert Ratschke, Gabriele Schenk, Seufferle Mediendesign GmbH, Stuttgart Graphics: Jochen Haller, Seufferle Mediendesign GmbH, Stuttgart Photography: Ronald Frommann (Bremen, Hamburg, Hanover), Simon Katzer (Munich), Birgitta Kowsky (Leipzig), Uwe Mühlhäusser (Nuremberg), Rupert Oberhäuser (Essen, Cologne), Klaus Ohlenschläger (Frankfurt), Jan Potente (Mannheim, Stuttgart), Andreas Schoelzel (Berlin).

Photo credits: Ulrich Wirrwa (p. 40), Sven Grundmann (p. 60), Christian Höhn (p. 62), GKK + Architekten (p. 59) All other pictures: Copyright Siemens AG Any exploitation and usage which is not explicitly allowed by copyright law, in particular reproduction, translation, storage in electronic database, on the internet and copying onto CD-ROMs of this print work requires prior consent of the publisher. While every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this document, neither the Economist Intelligence Unit nor Siemens AG nor its affiliates can accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this information.

Munich, Germany, 2012 © 2012, Siemens AG. All rights reserved. www.siemens.com/greencityindex

You can also read