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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.