German Green City Index - Assessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities A research project conducted by the Economist ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
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
Hamburg
Bremen
Berlin
Hanover
Essen
Leipzig
Contents Cologne
German Green City Index
Frankfurt
4 Introduction: The challenges of City portraits 20 Berlin
Nuremberg
urbanization in Germany 24 Bremen Mannheim
28 Cologne
6 Results 32 Essen
Stuttgart
36 Frankfurt
9 Overall key findings 40 Hamburg
44 Hanover
14 Key findings from the categories 48 Leipzig Munich
52 Mannheim
17 Methodology 56 Munich
60 Nuremberg
64 Stuttgart
2 3
The challenges of urbanization in Germany
German Green City Index
B y 2050, more than two-thirds of the world’s
population will live in cities, up from about
half today, according to United Nations fore-
that the choices cities make, both globally and in
Germany, will be key in facing global environ-
mental challenges such as climate change.
study is to provide information about the envi-
ronmental performance and initiatives of the
various cities to stakeholders, to support them in
their particular strengths and weaknesses and
highlight selected green initiatives. The city por-
traits offer an opportunity to discuss the actions
man Green City Index. The study differs from
those done by other institutions because it did
not rely on voluntary submissions from city gov-
licly available data was used whenever possible
and was evaluated using a uniform, transparent
scoring process. Each city received points for its
casts. The global trend is already advanced in Some challenges, such as improving air quality, making choices about additional activities in the taken by the cities and pass along valuable expe- ernments, but was conducted independently performance in the eight individual categories
Europe, where about 73% of people live in cities, reducing waste through recycling or containing area of climate and environmental protection rience that has been gained. instead. and also for its overall result. On that basis, the
and in Germany, where 74% are urban dwellers. urban sprawl, will be more localized but no less and to stimulate a dialog about the best solu- The methodology (see page 17) was developed German cities were classified in performance
The figures for both Europe as a whole and Ger- important to residents. tions. How the study was done: The German by the Economist Intelligence Unit in coopera- bands and compared with the 30 European
many are expected to rise by 10% within the Against that background, the German Green The study is divided into four sections. The first Green City Index is part of the international tion with Siemens. An independent panel of cities. However, numbers alone do not tell the
next 40 years. City Index considers the sustainability of 12 ma- section summarizes the overall key findings of “Green City Index” research series conducted by urban sustainability experts provided important whole story. So the results were combined into
Increasing urbanization leads to major chal- jor German cities, examining their use of re- the study. The second section presents key find- the Economist Intelligence Unit as an indepen- insights on the methodology. Both the number detailed individual profiles. They describe the
lenges for the environment and for infrastruc- sources and their commitment to environmen- ings in the eight categories: CO2 emissions, dent research partner, and sponsored by and the breadth of the underlying indicators are challenges, strengths, and potential of each city,
ture, for example, in the form of increasing ener- tal protection. To allow a comparison with other energy, buildings, transport, water, waste and Siemens. It compares more than 100 of the noteworthy: The Index scores each city on 30 in- as well as innovative green ideas and projects.
gy demand. The European Environment Agency cities in Europe, the results of the German cities land use, air quality, and environmental gover- world’s major cities; Indexes have already been dividual quantitative and qualitative indicators Projects that could inspire other cities were of
(EEA) estimates that almost 70% of Europe’s are presented in the context of the European nance. The third section discusses in detail the published for Europe (2009), Latin America for various aspects related to the environment particular interest.
energy is consumed in cities. Globally this is Green City Index, which was published in 2009. methodology, data collection and the construc- (2010), and Asia (2011). Every German city with and infrastructure, such as the city’s environ-
even more apparent – urban areas account for This creates an Index containing a total of 41 tion of the Index. The fourth section presents a population over one million and all metropoli- mental governance, its water consumption, its
80% of global CO2 emissions today. It is clear European and German cities. The purpose of the portraits of the 12 German cities which illustrate tan regions in Germany are covered in the Ger- recycling rate, or its level of CO2 emissions. Pub-
4 5
Overall results
Well above
average
Above Amsterdam Frankfurt Mannheim Stuttgart
average Berlin Hamburg Munich Vienna
Bremen Hanover Nuremberg Zurich
Brussels Helsinki Oslo
Copenhagen Leipzig Stockholm
Average Cologne Riga
Essen Rome
London Vilnius
Madrid Warsaw
Paris
Below Athens Lisbon
average Bratislava Ljubljana
Budapest Prague
Dublin Tallinn
Istanbul
Well below Belgrade
average Bucharest
Kiev
Sofia
Zagreb
Results
German Green City Index
CO2 Energy Buildings Transport
Well above Oslo Well above Copenhagen Well above Well above Stockholm
average Stockholm average Oslo average average
Vienna
Above Amsterdam London Vienna Above Amsterdam Stockholm Above Amsterdam Frankfurt Mannheim Stockholm Above Amsterdam Copenhagen Mannheim Vienna
average Berlin Madrid Zurich average Brussels Stuttgart average Berlin Hamburg Munich Stuttgart average Berlin Essen Munich Zurich
Brussels Nuremberg Leipzig Zurich Bremen Hanover Nuremberg Vienna Bremen Frankfurt Nuremberg
Copenhagen Paris Munich Copenhagen Helsinki Oslo Zurich Brussels Hamburg Oslo
Helsinki Rome Rome Essen Leipzig Paris Cologne Hanover Stuttgart
Average Bremen Istanbul Riga Average Athens Dublin Helsinki Mannheim Average Brussels Rome Average Bratislava Madrid
Cologne Leipzig Stuttgart Belgrade Essen Istanbul Nuremberg Cologne Sofia Budapest Riga
Frankfurt Ljubljana Berlin Frankfurt Lisbon Paris Lisbon Vilnius Helsinki Tallinn
Hamburg Mannheim Bratislava Hamburg London Warsaw London Warsaw Leipzig
Hanover Munich Cologne Hanover Madrid Zagreb Madrid Ljubljana
Below Athens Dublin Vilnius Below Bremen Vilnius Below Athens Dublin Below Athens London Vilnius
average Belgrade Essen Warsaw average Bucharest average Belgrad Ljubljana average Bucharest Paris Warsaw
Bratislava Lisbon Zagreb Budapest Bratislava Prague Istanbul Prague Zagreb
Bucharest Prague Prague Bucharest Riga Kiev Rome
Budapest Tallinn Riga Budapest Zagreb Lisbon Sofia
Well below Kiev Well below Kiev Well below Istanbul Well below Belgrad
average Sofia average Ljubljana average Kiev average Dublin
Sofia Tallinn
Tallinn
6 7
Results
German Green City Index
Water Waste and land use
Well above Well above
average average
Above Amsterdam Copenhagen Leipzig Nuremberg Above Amsterdam Frankfurt Munich Vienna
average Berlin Essen London Paris average Berlin Hamburg Nuremberg Zürich
Bremen Frankfurt Madrid Stuttgart Bremen Hanover Oslo
Brussels Hamburg Mannheim Vienna Copenhagen Helsinki Stockholm
Cologne Hanover Munich Zurich Essen Leipzig Stuttgart
Average Athens Oslo Vilnius Average Brussels London Tallinn
Bratislava Prague Budapest Mannheim Vilnius
Budapest Rome Cologne Paris
Dublin Stockholm Dublin Prague
Helsinki Tallinn Ljubljana Rome
Below Istanbul Below Athens Madrid
average Kiev average Belgrad Riga
Lisbon Bratislava Warsaw
Riga Istanbul Zagreb
Warsaw Lisbon
Well below Belgrad Well below Bucharest
average Bucharest average Kiev
Ljubljana Sofia
Sofia
Zagreb
Environmental
Overall key findings
Air quality governance
German Green City Index
Well above Stockholm Well above
average Vilnius average
Above
average
Berlin
Bremen
Copenhagen
Hanover
Helsinki
Leipzig
Stuttgart
Tallinn
Above
average
Amsterdam
Bremen
Brussels
Hamburg
Helsinki
Mannheim
Stockholm
Stuttgart
Warsaw
T o deepen the understanding of the environ-
mental strengths and weaknesses of the
German cities, their results are analyzed in the
have a higher percentage of industry (from 36%
to 39%) than Istanbul, the most industrialized
city in the European Green City Index, at 33%.
“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
Dublin Mannheim Copenhagen Oslo Vienna
Hamburg Riga Essen Paris Zurich context of the European Green City Index, which These factors were taken into account when European cities is much wider, regularly stretch-
was published in 2009. Examining a few general comparing and contrasting the environmental ing across four, and even all five, performance
Average Amsterdam Ljubljana Oslo Vienna Average Berlin Leipzig Munich
Brussels London Paris Zurich Budapest Lisbon Nuremberg features shows that the German cities tend to be performance of German cities with the rest of bands. It can clearly be seen that German cities
Cologne Madrid Prague Cologne Ljubljana Riga much smaller – but also more affluent – than Europe. often do well or poorly at the same things. All
Essen Munich Rome Frankfurt London Tallinn
Frankfurt Nuremberg Warsaw Hanover Madrid Vilnius the other European cities. The average city has German cities score well for low water consump-
less than one million inhabitants, while the aver- The German cities’ Index results tion, for example. Regarding policies, the perfor-
Below Bratislava Below Athens Rome
average Budapest average Belgrad Zagreb
age population in the European Green City Index are very similar to each other, mance is even more consistent. For 26 out of 40
Istanbul Bratislava is about 2.5 million. Compared with the other reflecting the federal govern- qualitative criteria in the Index, every German
Lisbon Dublin
Kiev
cities in Europe, the gross domestic product ment’s efforts to simplify environ- city had the same score (usually full marks), and
(GDP) of the German cities puts them in the top mental policies in Germany, as well for a further five criteria there were only one or
Well below Athens Zagreb Well below Bucharest income group, although per capita GDP varies as the highly developed environ- two differences. Even when cities scored less
average Belgrad average Istanbul
Bucharest Prague widely between €22,500 in Berlin and €67,900 mental awareness of the citizens. well on some qualitative issues, they did so
Kiev Sofia in Frankfurt.1) In contrast, industry’s contribu- together. For example, no German city has
Sofia tion to gross value creation is much higher in Overall, and in six out of the eight categories, water recycling.
Germany than in the European cities. Three Ger- German cities rank across just one or two of the This homogeneity reflects, in part, the impor-
man cities, Mannheim, Essen and Stuttgart, five performance bands (mainly “average” and tant role of the German federal government in
1) In real GDP per person, based on 2000 prices.
8 9
tal performance doesn't have to be only a luxury When compared with European
good and is something to which every city can cities of similar wealth, German
aspire. cities fall short of the top tier.
German cities compare very well As mentioned above, German cities perform
with other European cities on well when compared with the 29 cities in the
environmental performance, European Green City Index. However, the pat-
especially regarding policies. tern is somewhat different when the compari-
son is limited to the 12 German cities and the
When the overall results of the German Green 14 other European cities with a similar range of
City Index are compared with the 2009 Euro- income, i.e., over €22,500 real GDP per person3)
pean Green City Index, 10 of the 12 German (see graphic at the bottom of page 12). Most of
cities are above average, the highest ranking the 12 German cities now fall into the average
achieved by any European city. German cities band, and only Berlin is above average. With that
are particularly strong on environmental strate- rating, most of the German cities outperform
gies and policies – such as energy efficiency European cities such as London, Madrid, Dublin
standards for buildings or the promotion of and Rome, but they fall behind the “greenest”
public transport – which make up about half European leaders such as the Scandinavian capi-
directing and implementing urban sustainability Federal Republic of Germany and the former tal performance, this relationship was absent in Eastern bloc trying to overcome the legacy of of the indicators that were measured. If those tal cities, Amsterdam and Zurich. This could sug-
policies. The Ministry of Transport, Building and German Democratic Republic in the 1970’s and the German Green City Index. This is even more poor infrastructure and pent-up demand for indicators alone are measured, 11 of the 12 Ger- gest that the strong influence of the German
Urban Affairs, for example, develops standard- 1980’s. In the east, the movement was one of surprising given the wide range in income western conveniences, such as automobiles. man cities are above average overall. This federal government and the environmental
ized, nationwide regulations for building codes the country’s few independent voices, while in among the German cities, from GDP of €22,500 The German Green City Index found no indica- strength is consistent across most individual cat- awareness of the citizens raise the performance
and grants financial aid for groundbreaking the west it led to the creation of Green parties. per person in Berlin to €67,900 in Frankfurt.2) tions of a gap between east and west, but it eval- egories, and no city’s qualitative scores ever fell of cities with lower per capita GDP but may not
urban development projects. It also has one of More recently, green issues have been pivotal in This suggests that uniform German policies set uated only two former East German cities – below average (see graphic at the bottom of provide sufficient incentives for richer cities
the largest budgets of any federal ministry. This German local elections, putting the Green party by the federal government have helped smooth Leipzig and (East) Berlin. It is notable that, in page 13). to develop and adopt more ground-breaking
is also intended to address climate-related prob- in charge of a state government, Baden-Würt- out the effects of any income differences on these two cities at least, the differences com- The quantitative scores, which evaluate current approaches.
lems – for example making mobility more envi- temberg, for the first time. environmental performance. For example, low- pared with western Germany do not show up – infrastructure and consumption levels, tell a
ronmentally friendly or promoting the develop- income European cities had far less ambitious both rank above average overall. Both Berlin and slightly different story. Here the German cities
ment of city centers. Federal influence, already Environmental protection is not a environmental policies, while in Germany even Leipzig are particularly strong on infrastructure turn in less consistent performances. As shown
strong, has generally been growing. Since 2006, luxury: In contrast to other lower-income cities do well. Indeed, the Euro- indicators, suggesting that substantial invest- by the graphic at the top of page 13, the cities
the federal government has begun to develop European cities, neither income pean Green City Index cited Berlin as a leading ments in recent years have overcome potential have strong performances in the buildings and
regulations on a wider range of urban environ- nor historical development was example of how cities with lower incomes can divides. In addition, there was no correlation water categories and weaker performances in
mental issues and increased its efforts to bring shown to affect the environmental still benefit from ambitious environmental tar- between overall environmental performance CO2 emissions, transport, energy, and air quali-
uniformity to environmental legislation. performance of German cities. gets and policies. and levels of industrialization in German cities or ty. Because environmental policies are an indica-
Another factor is Germany’s history of environ- Another finding of the 2009 European Green in the European Green City Index. Generally, tion of potential future improvements, the Index
mental awareness. Prussia had a nature conser- While the European Green City Index showed a City Index: There was also a noticeable divide in these results of the German cities imply that, no suggests that, over time, the environment in
vation department before World War I. Environ- strong correlation between average income (as environmental performance between eastern matter the level of income, historical develop- these cities should get better as more advanced
mental movements developed in both the measured by GDP per person) and environmen- and western Europe, with cities in the former ment or levels of industrialization, environmen- policies have an impact.
2) In real GDP per person, based on 2000 prices. 3) In real GDP per person, based on 2000 prices
10 11
How the cities scored
Overall results Well
below
Below
average
Average Above
average
Well
above
1) Quantitative Well Below Average Above Well
below average average above
of all 41 cities average average indicators average average
➔ 16 quantitative and ➔ 16 quantitative indicators
CO2 2 1 12 9 3 2 10 2 CO2 1 7 8 4 8 10 3
14 qualitative indicators ➔ Such as CO2 emissions, energy
and water consumption,
Energy 4 1 5 8 12 3 5 3 recycling rate Energy 1 3 1 6 7 10 3 8 2
Buildings 3 10 1 8 11 8 Buildings 3 10 2 8 10 8
Transport 2 13 1 7 11 6 1 Transport 3 3 6 8 9 1 10 1
Water 5 5 11 12 8 Water 5 7 13 12 4
Waste and Waste and
3 9 2 10 10 7 1 12 5 9 5 7 2
land use land use
Air quality 6 4 5 12 7 5 2 Air quality 4 7 7 11 5 4 3
Environmental Environmental
4 7 7 8 5 10 No quantitative indicators measured
governance governance
➔ Upshot: German cities show
12 German cities some weaknesses in actual
Overall result 5 9 2 7 10 8 consumption levels and infra- Overall result 4 1 8 4 10 7 5 2
29 European cities
structure
Number of German cities Number of European cities Number of German cities Number of European cities
Scores of cities Well
below
Below
average
Average Above
average
Well
above
2) Qualitative Well Below Average Above Well
below average average above
with comparable income average average indicators average average
➔ 14 qualitative indicators
CO2 8 2 4 3 7 2 CO2 4 7 6 8 6 10
➔ German and European cities ➔ Such as promotion of clean
with > €22,500 GDP per capita energies, waste reduction efforts,
Energy 1 2 4 8 4 1 4 2 public participation in green policies Energy 4 10 7 7 5 8
Berlin Amsterdam
Bremen Athens Buildings 3 2 5 8 7 1 Buildings 5 10 5 12 9
Cologne Brussels
Essen Copenhagen
Frankfurt Dublin Transport 1 5 8 3 4 5 Transport 4 11 1 6 11 8
Hamburg Helsinki
Hanover London
Water 5 1 5 5 7 3 Water 4 5 12 14 4 2
Leipzig Madrid
Mannheim Oslo
Munich Paris Waste and Waste and
3 4 6 3 6 4 4 4 2 12 10 9
Nuremberg Rome land use land use
Stuttgart Stockholm
Vienna Air quality 1 2 5 6 4 4 3 1 Air quality 6 5 5 12 13
Zurich
Environmental Environmental
3 3 1 8 2 1 8 4 7 7 8 5 10
governance governance
➔ Upshot: Environmental
policies make a decisive con-
Overall result 3 1 2 10 3 1 6 tribution to the good results Overall result 3 10 1 8 11 8
of German cities
Number of German cities Number of European cities Number of German cities Number of European cities
12 13
➔ 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-
Key findings from the categories 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%.
German Green City Index ➔ Given Germany’s famously entrenched car
culture, it is likely to be difficult to reduce the
share of people taking their car to work.
CO2 emissions: Compared with European European cities. But they do worse when com- such as feed-in tariffs for renewable energy green energy projects within their borders, only this category. Advanced policies, including fed- Water: All German cities perform extremely
cities, German cities see their poorest perfor- pared with the 14 European cities with a similar sources, rather than local initiatives. half fully promote the use of green energy, and erally mandated building codes and other regu- well in this category, given their low levels of
mance in this category, largely from the relative- income, at 110 grams. none scores full marks for expanding decentral- lations at city level, are reducing energy con- water consumption per capita and leakages in
ly high share of coal used in energy production. ➔ All of the German cities measure emissions In detail: ized power generation. sumption by buildings. the water supply system.
Proactive policies, however, could lead to future and have set their own reduction targets sepa- ➔ German cities consume 95 gigajoules per ➔ The biggest energy challenge for the 12 Ger-
improvements. rate from federal targets. The city targets are capita each year. Although this is higher than man cities is the very low proportion of renew- In detail: In detail:
ambitious, aiming on average for a 31% reduc- the average of the other European cities, at able energy, at 3% of overall energy consump- ➔ Every city has introduced energy efficiency ➔ Residents of the German cities consume on
In detail: tion by 2020, twice the average of the goals of 81 gigajoules, it is comparable to the average tion. This is less than half of the overall average standards for new buildings and requires regular average 59 cubic meters per inhabitant every
➔ German cities emit an average of 9.8 metric the other European cities, at 15%. level for the 14 European cities of similar wealth, of the other European cities, at about 8%. The maintenance of heating and air conditioning year, which is substantially lower than the aver-
tons of CO2 per person annually, nearly twice as at 92 gigajoules. 14 European cities in the same income range systems. An “energy passport” must be shown age of the other European cities, at 107 cubic
much as other European cities,4) at 5.2 metric Energy: The German cities do slightly better ➔ Regarding energy intensity, the German cover 12% of their overall energy demand with when a building is rented or sold, and the cities meters.
tons. than other European cities on energy efficiency, cities do better than the other European cities, at renewable energy sources. also inform their residents about opportunities ➔ One reason for the low consumption rate is
➔ German cities do better on CO2 intensity (the although the policies of the city governments 2.5 megajoules per Euro of GDP, compared with to improve energy efficiency. an impressively low level of leakage in pipelines,
amount of CO2 emissions per Euro of GDP), at are weaker in this area. This suggests that cities 5.4 megajoules. Buildings: The German cities in this study do ➔ Eight out of 12 cities also provide financial at only 8%. Even the highest individual water
250 grams, compared with 358 grams in other may be relying on federal policy instruments, ➔ Although all German cities have developed very well compared with the rest of Europe in incentives for retrofitting to save energy. 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.
14 15
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:
Methodology
➔ The structures of environmental governance
are uniform in the 12 German cities. These German Green City Index
include an integrated strategy endorsed by the
city administration and the mayor, a dedicated
environmental authority, support for interna-
➔ Waste separation and recycling are deeply
13%, is still substantially lower than the average
of the other European cities, at 23%.
➔ Policy choices have also had an effect: Meter-
entrenched in German culture, as shown by the
recycling rates of the German cities: On average
tional environmental protection initiatives, and
public awareness campaigns.
➔ However, the German cities will need to
T he German Green City Index evaluates
12 major German cities with regard to their
sustainability in using resources and their com-
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-
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-
ing is widespread and residents pay a relatively 48% of the waste generated in the cities is recy- improve in some areas compared with the best mitment to environmental protection. The study duces or levels of air pollution. The remaining pean Green City Index (see description of the
high price for water. In addition, all 12 German cled, compared to 27% for the European cities European cities. covers the four German cities with populations 14 indicators are qualitative assessments of normalization method under “Indicators”) and
cities monitor water usage and quality, promote with the same wealth and 17% for all of the ➔ Only two of the 12 German cities have over one million as well as a city from all metro- cities’ environmental policies, aspirations or generating a new theoretical Index of 41 cities.
conservation, and treat 100% of their waste- other European cities. defined specific targets for each environmental politan regions. To provide insights on how the ambitions to reduce their environmental foot- Berlin, which is included in both the European
water. ➔ Every German city gained full marks for poli- category, while the others are limited to selected German cities are doing compared with other print. This could include their commitment to and the German Green City Index, is shown only
➔ None of the German cities reuses water, for cies on sustainable waste management and pro- categories. cities in Europe, their results are presented in the consuming more renewable energy, improving on the basis of the results of the German Green
example for street cleaning, before treatment. moting waste separation and reduction. ➔ Only two German cities issue annual or bi- context of the European Green City Index. This the energy efficiency of buildings, reducing con- City Index. The final results for the German cities
Nine out of 29 cities outside of Germany have ➔ On land use, though, while every German annual environmental reports on the progress of study investigated the environmental sustain- gestion, or recycling and reusing waste. are shown in performance bands instead of in
some type of reuse, including six of the 14 that city protects its green spaces, two have incom- their work. The vast majority of German cities ability of 30 major European cities from 30 Euro- a detailed ranking (see “Index construction” on
are in the same income bracket as the German plete green space policies and only seven fully issue a report of this kind only every three to ten pean countries and was published in December Data sources: A team of independent ana- page 18).
cities. It is reasonable to question, though, how promote reuse of brownfield sites for develop- years. 2009. lysts at the Economic Intelligence Unit collected
necessary this is in Germany given its low usage ment. For the 14 European Index cities of the ➔ A lack of citizen involvement is another obvi- The methodology used in the German Green and evaluated data for the German Green City Indicators: To be able to compare data
and leakage rates. same wealth, all have comprehensive green ous weakness. Only five of 12 cities fully involve City Index was developed by the Economist Index over the period from May to November points across cities, as well as to construct
space policies and all but one gain full marks for citizens in environmental decision-making or Intelligence Unit in cooperation with Siemens. It 2010. Publicly available data from official aggregate scores for each city, the project team
Waste and land use: The German cities brownfield redevelopment. have a central contact point for complaints. The is identical to the methodology used in the Euro- sources, such as European, national, or regional first had to make the data gathered from differ-
generate more waste than the other European European Green City Index shows a correlation pean Green City Index to ensure the comparabil- statistics offices, local city authorities, and city ent sources comparable. To do so, the quantita-
cities on average, but comprehensive waste Air quality: The cities in the German Green between higher levels of citizen engagement ity of cities. An independent panel of urban sus- and national environmental agencies, was used tive indicators were “normalized” on a scale of
reduction policies and high recycling rates City Index have comprehensive air quality plans, and better environmental performance. This tainability experts provided important insights whenever possible. Care was taken to use data 0 to 10, where 10 points were assigned to the
improve their overall performance in this cate- and this has helped keep down the levels of sev- suggests that citizens who act responsibly and and feedback. Because data was collected at dif- for 2008 whenever possible or, failing that, data best scoring city and 0 points were assigned to
gory. On land use, however, they tend to fall eral key air pollutants. are environmentally aware make a decisive con- ferent times for Europe and Germany, it is not for previous years or for 2009 in order to ensure the worst scoring city.
behind other European cities at the same level of tribution to improving the environmental bal- completely comparable. For that reason, the that the pool of data was as similar as possible to In some cases, an upper benchmark or a lower
wealth. In detail: ance of cities. results are presented in performance bands and the European Green City Index. In the few cases benchmark was inserted to prevent outliers
➔ All 12 German cities have air quality targets not as detailed rankings. This helped to smooth where gaps in the data existed, the Economist from skewing the distribution of points. The
In detail: and plans. Only 13 of the 29 other European out minor differences. Intelligence Unit produced estimates based on Economist Intelligence Unit used the same nor-
➔ The German cities generate on average cities have both. The German Green City Index scores cities across regional figures. malization for the German Green City Index as
528 kg of waste per inhabitant each year, which ➔ These policies seem to be successful at limit- eight categories – CO2, energy, buildings, trans- for the European Index. Qualitative indicators
is slightly above the average of the European ing the effects of air pollution across Germany, port, water, waste and land use, air quality, and Comparison with the European were scored by Economist Intelligence Unit ana-
cities, at 512 kg, but nearly the same as the aver- even in cities with more industry and automo- environmental governance – based on 30 indi- Green City Index: To better classify the lysts, who defined objective criteria to evaluate
age for the European cities in the same income biles. This is demonstrated by the lack of a corre- vidual indicators. Sixteen of the 30 indicators are results of the German Green City Index and the environmental targets, strategies, and en-
range, at 525 kg. lation in the Index between each city’s level of derived from quantitative data and aim to mea- place them in a broader context, the German vironmental policies of a city. The qualitative
16 17
List of categories, indicators and their weightings
Category Indicator Type Weighting Description Normalisation technique
CO2 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 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.
Buildings 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.
Transport 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
indicators were again scored on a scale of 0 to Definition of performance bands: reduction policies within the city. on a scale of 0 to 10.
10, with 10 points assigned to cities that met or ➔ “Well above average”: Scores are more than Water Water consumption Quantitative 25% Total annual water consumption, in cubic meters per head. Min-max.
exceeded the check-list of criteria. In the case of 1.5 times the standard deviation above the
Cluster Water system leakages Quantitative 25% Percentage of water lost in the water distribution system. Scored against an upper target of 5%.
the “CO2 reduction strategy” indicator, for exam- mean. To analyze the effect of income, population,
Wastewater Quantitative 25% Percentage of dwellings connected to the sewage system. Scored against an upper benchmark of 100%
ple, cities were assessed according to whether ➔ “Above average”: Scores are between 0.5 and industrialization, and temperature on a city’s treatment and a lower benchmark of 80%.
they actively and regularly monitor CO2 emis- 1.5 times the standard deviation above the score, the 41 cities were also divided into a Water efficiency Qualitative 25% An assessment of the comprehensiveness of measures Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
sions, what CO2 reduction targets have been set mean. series of clusters, which were defined as follows: and treatment to improve the efficiency of water usage and the on a scale of 0 to 10.
and how ambitious they are, given the time peri- ➔ “Average”: Scores are between 0.5 times the Income: “Low income,” with per capita GDP policies treatment of wastewater.
od within which they are supposed to be met. standard deviation above and 0.5 times the of less than €21,000; “middle income” of Waste Municipal waste Quantitative 25% Total annual municipal waste collected, in kg per head. Scored against an upper benchmark of 300 kg (EU target).
standard deviation below the mean. €21,000 to €31,000 and “high income” and production A lower benchmark of 1,000 kg inserted to prevent outliers.
land use
Index construction: To compose the ➔ “Below average”: Scores are between 0.5 and of more than €31,000 Waste recycling Quantitative 25% Percentage of municipal waste recycled. Scored against an upper benchmark of 50% (EU target).
Index, a score was first calculated for each city 1.5 times the standard deviation below the Size: “Small,” with a population of less Waste reduction Qualitative 25% An assessment of the extensiveness of measures Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
on a scale of 0 to 10 in the eight categories. This mean. than 1 million; “mid-sized,” with a population and policies to reduce the overall production of waste, on a scale of 0 to 10.
evaluation included all quantitative and qualita- ➔ “Well below average”: Scores are more than of between 1 million and 3 million and “large” and to recycle and reuse waste.
tive data for each infrastructure category. In 1.5 times the standard deviation below the with a population of more than 3 million 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.
general, all indicators received the same weight- mean. Industrialization: “Industrial,” with a 25% or
the availability of green spaces.
ing. To create the overall scores, the scores of greater share of industry; “service-oriented,”
Air quality Nitrogen dioxide Quantitative 20% Annual daily mean of NO2 emissions. Scored against a lower benchmark of 40 ug/m3 (EU target).
the eight categories were then aggregated with a share of less than 25% industry
according to their assigned weighting. To avoid Temperature: “Cold,” with an average Ozone Quantitative 20% Annual daily mean of O3 emissions. Scored against a lower benchmark of 120 ug/m3 (EU target).
that any category is lent greater importance temperature of 6-8 degree Celsius; “temperate,” Particulate matter Quantitative 20% Annual daily mean of PM10 emissions. Scored against a lower benchmark of 50 ug/m3 (EU target).
than another, the Economist Intelligence Unit with an average temperature of 9-12 degrees Sulfur dioxide Quantitative 20% Annual daily mean of SO2 emissions. Scored against a lower benchmark of 40 ug/m3 (EU target).
assigned equal weightings on each category Celsius and “hot,” with an average temperature
Clean air policies Qualitative 20% An assessment of the extensiveness of policies Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
score. This also reflects feedback from the inde- of more than 13 degrees Celsius to improve air quality. on a scale of 0 to 10.
pendent experts who were involved in develop-
Environ- Green action plan Qualitative 33% An assessment of the ambitiousness and Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
ing the methodology. During the final step, the mental comprehensiveness of strategies to improve and on a scale of 0 to 10.
cities were grouped into performance bands gover- monitor environmental performance.
according to their scores. Those bands were nance
Green management Qualitative 33% An assessment of the management of environmental Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
based on average (mean) scores and defined issues and commitment to achieving international on a scale of 0 to 10.
environmental standards.
using the standard deviation, a statistical term
for the area around the mean which covers 66% 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.
of all values.
18 19attributable to the city’s ambitious CO2 reduc- however, 43% of the city’s heating energy is still
tion goals: by 2020 it plans to cut emissions a generated from coal. The relatively low propor-
total of 40% from the 1990 figure. Berlin has tion of renewable energy sources in the energy
Energy-saving
already achieved its interim goal of reducing mix is another disadvantage. So far only 1.6% of partnerships
greenhouse gas emissions and energy con- the city’s energy consumption comes from The Berlin Energy-Saving Partnership was
sumption 25% by 2010. This has been the result renewable sources, while the European average founded in 1996 as a joint initiative by the city
of a variety of programs, such as energy effi- is 6.3%. The expansion of solar energy, howev- and the Berlin Energy Agency. The Energy-
ciency retrofits of the building stock (especially er, has now been assigned a higher priority in Saving Partnership guarantees enhanced
in the former East Berlin), a changeover from the city, so that the share of renewable sources energy efficiency in public buildings and
coal-fired to gas-fired power plants, and a sharp should rise in the future. energy savings averaging 25% per year, while
reduction in coal furnaces, from 400,000 in the partners provide both expertise and
1990 to fewer than 60,000 in 2008. In addition, Green initiatives: In December 2009, the financing. Over 6% of these savings go directly
after the Wall came down, many unprofitable city’s energy utility and a solar specialist inaugu- to the city budget, while the rest is used to
industrial operations were shut down, some of rated a pilot solar power plant at the site of the modernize and optimize buildings. In return,
which had especially high CO2 emissions. The former Mariendorf gas works, with an initial the partners receive all savings in excess of the
capacity of 100 kilowatts. The partners are cur- guaranteed amount. The newly installed
rently studying whether the plant can be systems remain the city’s property. When the
expanded into Berlin’s largest solar power sta- individual contracts expire after about twelve
tion, with a capacity of as much as 2 mega- years, the city alone reaps the energy savings.
watts. The retrofitting of schools, child care centers,
universities, administrative buildings and
Buildings: In the buildings category, Berlin swimming pools has already saved the city
scores above average. The city stands out espe- €11 million in energy costs. The initiative has
cially for one of the lowest energy consump- made Berlin a prime example of energy-saving
tions in residential buildings: 520 megajoules programs in public buildings.
per square meter. That is the second-lowest fig-
Berlin
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,
German Green City Index 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- tion by Berlin industrialized apartment blocks
B erlin 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
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
city also achieves good results for CO2 emis-
sions per unit of GDP, with 247 grams compared
to the European average of 326 grams.
sumption has decreased very substantially. Bet-
ter insulation, the conversion from coal fur-
naces to central heating and gas furnaces, and
from 150 kWh to 80 kWh per square meter per
year.
divided by the famous Wall until 1989. Quite per capita. These put Berlin in the lead for Ger- easier access to information about energy effi- Green initiatives: To lend new momentum
apart from the political split, this meant that the many, and make it one of only two German Green initiatives: To achieve its CO2 reduction ciency made it possible. For example, energy to energy efficiency and energy saving in the
city developed differently in East and West cities (along with Nuremberg) that scored goal, the city is trying to sign up businesses to efficiency retrofits reduced energy consump- building stock, “Climate Protection Partners,” an
Berlin. Reunification in 1990 had a vast effect above average compared to the rest of Europe. join the Berlin Climate Alliance. The Alliance is a
on Berlin’s ecological footprint, because the Also noteworthy is the low energy consumption group of Berlin businesses and associations
shutdown of most of East Berlin’s industrial of residential buildings compared to the 40 who are making a contribution to protect the
operations and the modernization of a large other European cities. In the energy and envi- climate. The partners support the City of Berlin Performance Berlin Other German cities Other European cities
proportion of buildings since then has cut CO2 ronmental governance categories, however, in implementing the goals of the state’s energy
well below below average above well above
and other pollutant emissions substantially. Berlin is average. The energy score is affected program. Numerous major Berlin industrial, average average average average
Today, Berlin’s economy is profoundly shaped by the relatively low share of renewable energy utility and construction companies have al-
by the service sector, particularly media compa- sources as part of the overall energy consump- ready joined the Alliance. CO2
nies, creative professions, and biosciences. The tion. But as the city increasingly turns to solar
metals and electronics industry also plays an and biomass energy, the score may well im- Energy: Berlin scores average in the energy Energy
important role. Berlin is a popular travel desti- prove in this area. category. It made points with relatively low Buildings
nation, and has made a name for itself as a con- energy consumption: 68 gigajoules per capita,
Transport
ference city. Compared to other German cities, CO2 emissions: Berlin scores above aver- or 3.0 megajoules per euro of GDP. Both figures
Background indicators however, Berlin must contend with relatively age in this category, and along with Nuremberg are below the average of 85 gigajoules and Water
high unemployment, and must manage on a is one of only two German cities to score at this 4.5 megajoules for the 41 European cities. Waste and land use
Population 3.4 million relatively low gross domestic product (GDP) of level in comparison to the other European Berlin benefits from Western Europe’s largest
GDP per person (PPP) in € 21,400 Air quality
€21,400 per capita. cities. With CO2 emissions of 5.6 metric tons per district heating network – 1,300 km, with a
Administrative area in km2 892 Overall, the results for the German capital rank capita per year, Berlin leads the German pack, capacity of some 7,700 megawatts and serving Environmental governance
Share of industry / gross value added in % 18 above average. Specifically, its performance is and is below the European average of 6.5 met- more than 600,000 of the city’s nearly two mil-
Average temperature in °C 9 Overall results
above average in six of the eight categories – ric tons. The good score in this category is also lion households. According to 2006 figures,
The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.
20 21average. The average nitrogen dioxide concen- zens and business, thus approving an action
tration, for example, is 27 micrograms per cubic program for sustainable urban development
meter in Berlin, compared to 34 micrograms in with the active involvement of the population.
the other European cities. The daily average As a continuation of this program, twelve sus-
of annual particulate matter concentration, at tainability indicators were proposed in 2010, on
24 micrograms, is also below the European which a biennial data report reviewing the city’s
average, 31 micrograms. But although annual sustainable development is to be based on. But
average particulate matter figures for 2009 a negative factor is that the city has set and
were within the allowable range, the tolerance communicated clear goals for only a few envi-
limit, at 73 days, was not maintained. Only 35 ronmental aspects.
days are allowed. As in many other cities, traffic
is the main source of emissions in Berlin. It Green initiatives: Berlin is the only German
accounts for 40% of particulate matter emis- city that is a member of the C40 Group. C40 is
alliance of ten Berlin business chambers and transportation like buses, rail and bicycles, and drinking water supplied and consumed has Green initiatives: According to the 2009 sions and 80% of nitrogen dioxide emissions. an association of 40 metropolises that have
institutions, has awarded the “Climate Protec- reducing traffic jams. The local public transport decreased significantly. Berlin Area Use Plan of the Urban Development agreed to support climate protection. Through
tion Partner of the Year” prize for outstanding network, at 1.0 km per square kilometer, may Office of the Senate Administration, strength- Green initiatives: Berlin has taken a number a partnership with the Clinton Climate Initia-
climate protection projects every year since not be as well developed yet as in other Euro- Green initiatives: In 2008 the Berliner Was- ening the inner city as a residential and living of steps to reduce emissions from transporta- tive, the C40 Group works to reduce emissions
2002. From among the 47 candidates in 2010, pean cities (average 2.4 km), but gaps in the serbetriebe water company built a solar plant at center, with homes, jobs, culture and recreation tion, including establishing an environmental through greater energy efficiency. Additionally,
the winners included a complete retrofit of the road and rail network between the eastern and the Tegel Water Works. With a collector area of on an equal par, is a strategic goal. The Tempel- zone in 2008, intended to reduce vehicle emis- since 2008 Berlin has been a member of the
100-year-old tropical plant house at the Botani- western parts of the city have now been filled about 5,400 square meters, this is Berlin’s hof Field, measuring nearly 400 hectares, will sions in the inner city. It has also outfitted city Covenant of Mayors, a European Union initia-
cal Garden. Energy consumption was reduced in. Today about 38% of Berliners take public largest contiguous solar plant. The electricity is become a new district with attractive apart- buses with particulate filters, and the Berlin tive. This group has committed to outperform
more than 50% with technical measures like transportation to work; compared to the enough to pump drinking water for more than ments and many jobs, together with a park Senate has encouraged the use of natural-gas- EU goals, and reduce greenhouse gases by
renovating the façades and adding insulation – nationwide average of 27%, this is the second- 26,000 Berliners out of the ground, purify it, landscape that will round out the downtown powered utility vehicles. Apart from reducing more than the targeted 20% from 1990 values
a real challenge for materials and technology best score, after Munich. The bike path network and carry it to homes through the pipelines. range of open space and assist the city’s climate emissions with improved vehicle technologies, by 2020. Berlin plans to reduce its CO2 emis-
given the necessary high humidity of 80%. measures 1.6 km per square kilometer of city Although the electricity from Tegel is fed into for the long term. however, the city is also concentrating on traffic sions 40% by 2020.
territory, and is thus already a little longer than the general power grid, it serves primarily to planning measures, such as optimizing traffic
Transport: Berlin scored above average in the European average (1.4 km). According to cover the plant’s own water delivery needs. Cur- Air quality: In air quality, Berlin scores above lights to ensure a more efficient traffic flow.
the transport category. As early as 2003, the the city’s latest estimates, 22% of the popula- rently, the water company is tapping additional the European average. The city’s air quality is
capital’s “mobil 2010” urban development plan tion walk or bike to work, roughly equal to the alternative energy sources. For example, it carefully monitored and has greatly improved, Environmental governance: Berlin
– which is currently being updated – had stated average for all European cities studied. plans to make the Schönerlinde sewage treat- especially because of the structural change scores average for environmental governance.
the goal of making the transportation system ment plant the first energy self-sufficient water away from industry and toward a service econo- A positive factor is that the Berlin House of Dele-
more environmentally friendly. This includes, Green initiatives: To prevent traffic jams and treatment plant, starting in 2012, by building my. Apart from ozone concentration, all figures gates adopted the Local Agenda 21 Berlin in
for example, encouraging alternative means of keep street traffic moving even during rush three windmills with a total combined capacity included in this Index are below the European 2006, with the participation of politicians, citi-
hours, the up-to-date traffic control center of 6 megawatts.
monitors traffic over more than 1,500 km of
streets, and coordinates traffic lights at roughly Waste and land use: Berlin scores above
2,000 intersections. It also monitors warning average in waste and land use. It earned points
Quantitative indicators
and notice signs – called traffic management with its recycling level, which at about 40% is Eur. avg. Ger. avg. Berlin Year* Source
systems – and they are switched manually from well above the European average of 26%. It CO2 CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/head) 6.52 9.79 5.55 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
Biogas for the city’s here as needed. In the local public transporta- is also remarkable that this level increased CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€) 326.46 249.77 246.97 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
truck fleet tion system, the Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe 5% from 2004 to 2008 because of a variety of CO2 reduction target by 2020 18.64 30.83 40.00 2008 Environment Office of the Senate Administration
The Berliner Stadtreininigung waste disposal transportation agency supports the use of measures. For example, the city provides a Energy Energy consumption per capita (GJ/head) 85.22 95.46 68.05 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
office is currently building a fermentation hydrogen as a fuel and has started applying this 480 liter composting bin, emptied weekly, for all Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP) 4.48 2.47 3.03 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
plant at the Ruhleben site with a capacity of technology to its bus fleet to reduce green- large apartment buildings. There is a charge for Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%) 6.30 3.43 1.64 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
60,000 metric tons, to be operated with house gas emissions. Fourteen buses with emptying the bins, and their use is mandatory. Buildings Energy consumption of residential buildings (MJ/m2) 856.97 702.18 520.12 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
waste from the composting bins. The biogas hydrogen combustion engines have been in use The city also scores well in waste generated: at Transport Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%) 21.98 24.02 21.80 2008 City of Berlin
system will produce about 2,000 metric tons in Charlottenburg and Spandau since 2006. 452 kg of waste per resident per year, the city is Share of population that takes public transportation to work (%) 37.40 27.21 38.40 2008 City of Berlin
of natural gas a year. After appropriate below the European average of 517 kg, and
Length of bike path network (km/km2) 1.39 1.93 1.58 2009 Berlin Cycling Office; Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
processing, the product will be used as a Water: Berlin is above average in the water earned the third best score in Germany. Waste
Length of public transport network (km/km2) 2.44 2.61 1.01 2009 City of Berlin; Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
diesel replacement in the office’s 50 garbage category. Water losses due to leakage in the generation has decreased significantly in recent
Water Annual water consumption per capita (m3/head) 93.12 59.21 56.40 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
trucks. That will save about 2.5 million liters pipeline network are just 2% – the lowest value years, from 2.3 million metric tons in 1992 to
Water system leakages (%) 18.88 8.36 2.41 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
of diesel fuel. The number of vehicles is in Europe, and far below the European Index barely 900,000 tons in 2007. In land use,
Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%) 96.25 99.53 99.00 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
gradually to be more than doubled. average of 19%. Annual water consumption in Berlin’s Agenda 21 specifies, among other
Berlin is also quite low, at 56 cubic meters; the requirements, that the amount of green space in 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
average for the European cities is 93 cubic heavily populated areas should be increased by
Recycling rate (%) 25.93 47.48 40.39 2008 State of Berlin Waste Balance Sheet
meters. The installation of water meters and the at least 10% by 2015. The program additionally
Air quality Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 33.98 30.51 27.18 2008 EEA Airbase
encouragement of water-conserving house- provides that the waiting time for an allotment
Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3) 40.49 40.97 42.13 2008 EEA Airbase
hold appliances are something to be taken for garden plot must be no more than one year, and
Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3) 31.30 21.92 23.97 2008 EEA Airbase
granted in Berlin. These measures have had a that the city’s own larger areas of land must be
demonstrably positive effect. Since 1991, connected together with green corridors. Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3) 6.44 5.05 4.86 2006 EEA Airbase
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
22 23You can also read
