Report German

7/25/2019 Report German

1/35

German Green City IndexAssessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities

A research project conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsored by Siemens


2/35

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 R esults

9 Overall key findings

14 Key findings from the categories

17 Methodology

German Green City Index


3/35

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 themethodology, 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 GermanGreen 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

worlds 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 environmentand infrastructure, such as the citys environ-

mental governance, its water consumption, its

recycling rate, or its level of CO2 emissions. Pub-

licly available data was used whenever possi

and was evaluated using a uniform, transpare

scoring process. Each city received points for

performance in the eight individual categor

and also for its overall result. On that basis, t

German cities were classified in performan

bands and compared with the 30 Europe

cities. However, numbers alone do not tell t

whole story. So the results were combined i

detailed individual profiles. They describe t

challenges, strengths, and potential of each c

as well as innovative green ideas and projec

Projects that could inspire other cities were

particular interest.

y 2050, more than two-thirds of the worlds

population will live in cities, up from about

today, according to United Nations fore-

s. The global trend is already advanced in

ope, where about 73% of people live in cities,

in Germany, where 74% are urban dwellers.

figures for both Europe as a whole and Ger-

ny are expected to rise by 10% within the

t 40 years.

easing urbanization leads to major chal-

es for the environment and for infrastruc-

, for example, in the form of increasing ener-

emand. The European Environment Agency

A) estimates that almost 70% of Europes

rgy is consumed in cities. Globally this isn more apparent urban areas account for

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 EuropeanGreen City Index, which was published in 2009.

This creates an Index containing a total of 41

European and German cities. The purpose of the



4/35

CO2

Well aboveaverage

Aboveaverage

Average

Belowaverage

Well belowaverage

OsloStockholm

AmsterdamBerlinBrusselsCopenhagenHelsinki

LondonMadridNurembergParisRome

ViennaZurich

Bremen

CologneFrankfurtHamburgHanover

Istanbul

LeipzigLjubljanaMannheimMunich

Riga

Stuttgart

AthensBelgradeBratislavaBucharestBudapest

DublinEssenLisbonPragueTallinn

VilniusWarsawZagreb

KievSofia

Well aboveaverage

Aboveaverage

Average

Belowaverage

Well belowaverage

CopenhagenOsloVienna

AmsterdamBrusselsLeipzigMunichRome

StockholmStuttgartZurich

Athens

BelgradeBerlinBratislavaCologne

Dublin

EssenFrankfurtHamburgHanover

Helsinki

IstanbulLisbonLondonMadrid

Mannheim

NurembergParisWarsawZagreb

BremenBucharestBudapestPragueRiga

Vilnius

KievLjubljanaSofiaTallinn

Energy

Results


Overall results

Well aboveaverage

Aboveaverage

Average

Belowaverage

Well belowaverage

AmsterdamBerlinBremenBrusselsCopenhagen

FrankfurtHamburgHanoverHelsinkiLeipzig

MannheimMunichNurembergOsloStockholm

StuttgartViennaZurich

CologneEssenLondonMadridParis

RigaRomeVilniusWarsaw

AthensBratislavaBudapestDublinIstanbul

LisbonLjubljanaPragueTallinn

BelgradeBucharestKiev

SofiaZagreb

Buildings

Well aboveaverage

Aboveaverage

Average

Belowaverage

Well belowaverage

AmsterdamBerlinBremenCopenhagenEssen


MannheimMunichNurembergOsloParis

StockholmStuttgartViennaZurich

Brussels

CologneLisbonLondonMadrid

Rome

SofiaVilniusWarsaw

AthensBelgradBratislavaBucharestBudapest

DublinLjubljanaPragueRigaZagreb

IstanbulKievTallinn

Transport

Well aboveaverage

Aboveaverage

Average

Belowaverage

Well belowaverage

Stockholm

AmsterdamBerlinBremenBrusselsCologne

CopenhagenEssenFrankfurtHamburgHanover

MannheimMunichNurembergOsloStuttgart

ViennaZurich

Bratislava

BudapestHelsinkiLeipzigLjubljana

Madrid

RigaTallinn

AthensBucharestIstanbulKievLisbon

LondonParisPragueRomeSofia

VilniusWarsawZagreb

BelgradDublin


5/35

Air quality

Well aboveaverage

Aboveaverage

Average

Belowaverage

Well belowaverage

StockholmVilnius

BerlinBremenCopenhagenDublinHamburg

HanoverHelsinkiLeipzigMannheimRiga

StuttgartTallinn

Amsterdam

BrusselsCologneEssenFrankfurt

Ljubljana

LondonMadridMunichNuremberg

Oslo

ParisPragueRomeWarsaw

Vienna

Zurich

BratislavaBudapestIstanbulLisbon

AthensBelgradBucharestKievSofia

Zagreb

Environmentalgovernance

Well aboveaverage

Aboveaverage

Average

Belowaverage

Well belowaverage

AmsterdamBremenBrusselsCopenhagenEssen

HamburgHelsinkiMannheimOsloParis

StockholmStuttgartWarsawViennaZurich

Berlin

BudapestCologneFrankfurtHanover

Leipzig

LisbonLjubljanaLondonMadrid

Munich

NurembergRigaTallinnVilnius

AthensBelgradBratislavaDublinKiev

RomeZagreb

BucharestIstanbulPragueSofia

ResultsGerman Green City Index

Water

Well aboveaverage

Aboveaverage

Average

Belowaverage

Well belowaverage

AmsterdamBerlinBremenBrusselsCologne

CopenhagenEssenFrankfurtHamburgHanover

LeipzigLondonMadridMannheimMunich

NurembergParisStuttgartViennaZurich

Athens

BratislavaBudapestDublinHelsinki

Oslo

PragueRomeStockholmTallinn

Vilnius

IstanbulKievLisbonRigaWarsaw

BelgradBucharestLjubljanaSofiaZagreb

Well aboveaverage

Aboveaverage

Average

Belowaverage

Well belowaverage

AmsterdamBerlinBremenCopenhagenEssen


MunichNurembergOsloStockholmStuttgart

ViennaZrich

Brussels

BudapestCologneDublinLjubljana

London

MannheimParisPragueRome

Tallinn

Vilnius

AthensBelgradBratislavaIstanbulLisbon

MadridRigaWarsawZagreb

BucharestKievSofia

Waste and land use

Overall key findingsGerman 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, industrys 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 resultsare very similar to each other,reflecting the federal govern-ments efforts to simplify environ-mental policies in Germany, as wellas 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 compa

with all 41 cities in the Index (see graphic

pages 12/13). The range of results for the oth

European cities is much wider, regularly stret

ing across four, and even all five, performan

bands. It can clearly be seen that German cit

often do well or poorly at the same things.

German cities score well for low water consum

tion, for example. Regarding policies, the perf

mance is even more consistent. For 26 out of

qualitative criteria in the Index, every Germ

city had the same score (usually full marks), a

for a further five criteria there were only one

two differences. Even when cities scored le

well on some qualitative issues, they did

together. For example, no German city h

water recycling.This homogeneity reflects, in part, the imp

tant role of the German federal governmen

1)InrealGDPperperson,basedon2000prices.


6/35

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-

cting and implementing urban sustainability

cies. The Ministry of Transport, Building and

an Affairs, for example, develops standard-

, nationwide regulations for building codes

grants financial aid for groundbreaking

an development projects. It also has one of

argest budgets of any federal ministry. This

so intended to address climate-related prob-

s for example making mobility more envi-

mentally friendly or promoting the develop-

nt of city centers. Federal influence, already

ng, has generally been growing. Since 2006,

federal government has begun to develop

ulations on a wider range of urban environ-

ntal issues and increased its efforts to bring

ormity to environmental legislation.ther factor is Germanys history of environ-

ntal awareness. Prussia had a nature conser-

on department before World War I. Environ-

ntal movements developed in both the

Federal Republic of Germany and the former

German Democratic Republic in the 1970s and

1980s. In the east, the movement was one of

the countrys 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-Wrt-

temberg, for the first time.

Environmental protection is not aluxury: In contrast to otherEuropean cities, neither incomenor historical development wasshown to affect the environmentalperformance 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 GreenCity 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 wellwith other European cities onenvironmental 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 citiesare 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 citys 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 Indexsuggests that, over time, the environment in

these cities should get better as more advanced

policies have an impact.

When compared with Europeancities of similar wealth, Germancities fall short of the top tier.

As mentioned above, German cities perfo

well when compared with the 29 cities in t

European Green City Index. However, the p

tern is somewhat different when the compa

son is limited to the 12 German cities and t

14 other European cities with a similar range

income, i.e., over 22,500 real GDP per perso

(see graphic at the bottom of page 12). Most

the 12 German cities now fall into the avera

band, and only Berlin is above average. With trating, most of the German cities outperfo

European cities such as London, Madrid, Dub

and Rome, but they fall behind the greene

European leaders such as the Scandinavian ca

tal cities, Amsterdam and Zurich. This could s

gest that the strong influence of the Germ

federal government and the environmen

awareness of the citizens raise the performan

of cities with lower per capita GDP but may n

provide sufficient incentives for richer cit

to develop and adopt more ground-break

approaches.

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


7/35


8/35

2 emissions: Compared with Europeans, German cities see their poorest perfor-

nce in this category, largely from the relative-

gh share of coal used in energy production.

ctive policies, however, could lead to future

rovements.

etail:

German cities emit an average of 9.8 metric

of CO2 per person annually, nearly twice as

ch as other European cities,4) at 5.2 metric

s.German cities do better on CO2 intensity (the

unt of CO2 emissions per Euro of GDP), at

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 betterthan 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, at2.5 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 dovery 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 opportunitiesto improve energy efficiency.

Eight out of 12 cities also provide financial

incentives for retrofitting to save energy.

Accordingly, all 12 German cities are abo

average in promoting energy efficiency

buildings compared with Europe.

Germanys strict policies are having a posit

effect on the energy consumed by residen

buildings: It is far lower in the German cities

an average of 702 megajoules per square met

compared with 921 megajoules per squa

meter for the other European cities.

Transport: German cities are actively puring sustainable transport policies but are havi

difficulty getting people out of their cars.

In detail:

Ten of the 12 German cities have adopted

seven sustainable transport policies covered

the European Green City Index, including usi

bio-fuels or electricity in public transport, en

ronmental zones, reducing the use of autom

biles and promoting public awareness of gretransport.

Eleven of the 12 German cities are in t

above average band for transport policies. Y

when it comes to quantitative indicators, incl

ing the density of the public transport system

the modal split, three are below average a

only one is above average.

This is not because of a lack of public tra

port. German cities offer on average 2.6 km

public transport per square kilometer, compa

with 2.4 km for the other European cities. Th

also have more cycling lanes per square kilom

ter than in Europe, at 1.9 km per square kilom

ter, compared with an average of 1.2 km in t

other European cities.

Despite these options, almost half of the G

man residents drive to work, against about 3

in the other European cities. Even in Europe

cities with a comparable income, the figure

still higher than in the German cities, at 43%.

Given Germanys famously entrenched

culture, it is likely to be difficult to reduce t

share of people taking their car to work.

Water: All German cities perform extremwell in this category, given their low levels

water consumption per capita and leakages

the water supply system.

In detail:

Residents of the German cities consume

average 59 cubic meters per inhabitant eve

year, which is substantially lower than the av

age of the other European cities, at 107 cu

meters.

One reason for the low consumption ratan impressively low level of leakage in pipelin

at only 8%. Even the highest individual wa

leakage rate among the 12 German cities,

eaboutmethodology:Whenevaluatingcategoryresults,theaveragesofthequantitativefiguresforthe12 Germancitieswerecomparedwiththeaveragesofthe29otherEuropeancitiesfrom09EuropeanGreenCityIndex(excludingBerlin).ThiswastobetterdistinguishdifferencesandsimilaritiesbetweenGermancitiesasawholeandcitiesin therestofEuropeasa whole.

Key findings from the categoriesGerman Green City Index


9/35

%, is still substantially lower than the average

he other European cities, at 23%.

olicy choices have also had an effect: Meter-

s widespread and residents pay a relatively

h price for water. In addition, all 12 German

s monitor water usage and quality, promote

servation, and treat 100% of their waste-

er.

None of the German cities reuses water, formple for street cleaning, before treatment.

e out of 29 cities outside of Germany have

e type of reuse, including six of the 14 that

n the same income bracket as the German

s. It is reasonable to question, though, how

essary this is in Germany given its low usage

leakage rates.

ste and land use: The German citieserate more waste than the other European

s on average, but comprehensive waste

uction policies and high recycling rates

rove their overall performance in this cate-

y. On land use, however, they tend to fall

nd other European cities at the same level of

lth.

etail:

The German cities generate on average

kg of waste per inhabitant each year, which

ghtly above the average of the Europeans, at 512 kg, but nearly the same as the aver-

for the European cities in the same income

ge, 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 GreenCity 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 citys level of

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: Germancities 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 thecontext 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, andenvironmental 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, improvingthe 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 EuropeanGreen City Index: To better classify theresults of the German Green City Index and

place them in a broader context, the German

cities were compared with the cities of the Eu

pean Green City Index. This required norma

ing the German results on the basis of the Eu

pean Green City Index (see description of t

normalization method under Indicators) a

generating a new theoretical Index of 41 citi

Berlin, which is included in both the Europe

and the German Green City Index, is shown o

on the basis of the results of the German GreCity Index. The final results for the German cit

are shown in performance bands instead of

a detailed ranking (see Index construction

page 18).

Indicators: To be able to compare dpoints across cities, as well as to constru

aggregate scores for each city, the project tea

first had to make the data gathered from diff

ent sources comparable. To do so, the quanti

tive indicators were normalized on a scale

0 to 10, where 10 points were assigned to t

best scoring city and 0 points were assigned

the worst scoring city.

In some cases, an upper benchmark or a low

benchmark was inserted to prevent outli

from skewing the distribution of points. T

Economist Intelligence Unit used the same n

malization for the German Green City Index

for the European Index. Qualitative indicat

were scored by Economist Intelligence Unit an

lysts, who defined objective criteria to evaluthe environmental targets, strategies, and e

vironmental policies of a city. The qualitat

MethodologyGerman Green City Index


10/35

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.

cators were again scored on a scale of 0 to

with 10 points assigned to cities that met or

eeded the check-list of criteria. In the case of

CO2 reduction strategy indicator, for exam-

cities were assessed according to whether

y actively and regularly monitor CO2 emis-

s, what CO2 reduction targets have been sethow ambitious they are, given the time peri-

within which they are supposed to be met.

ex construction: To compose theex, a score was first calculated for each city

scale of 0 to 10 in the eight categories. This

uation included all quantitative and qualita-

data for each infrastructure category. In

eral, all indicators received the same weight-

To create the overall scores, the scores of

eight categories were then aggregated

ording to their assigned weighting. To avoid

any category is lent greater importance

n another, the Economist Intelligence Unit

gned equal weightings on each category

e. This also reflects feedback from the inde-

dent experts who were involved in develop-

the methodology. During the final step, the

s were grouped into performance bands

ording to their scores. Those bands were

ed on average (mean) scores and definedg the standard deviation, a statistical term

he area around the mean which covers 66%

l values.

ClusterTo analyze the effect of income, population,

industrialization, and temperature on a citys

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 analystsstrategy 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/GDPo f r ea l G DP (i n e ur os , b as e y ea r 2 00 0) . i ns er te d t o p re ve nt ou tl ie rs .

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 analystsenergy 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.o f re si de nti al bu il di ngs pe r s qu are mete r o f re si de nti al fl oo r sp ace .

Energy-efficient Qualitative 33% An assessment of the extensiveness of cities energy Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analystsb ui ldi ng s st and ard s e ff ici ency sta nda rds fo r b ui ldi ng s. o n a s cal e of 0 to 1 0.

Energy-efficient Qualitative 33% An assessment of the extensiveness of efforts to promote Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analystsbuildings 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 andtransport 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 analystspromotion 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 analystsreduction 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 analystsand treatment to improve the eff iciency 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 analystsand 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 analystspolicies policies to contain the urban sprawl and promote on a scale of 0 to 10.

the availability of green spaces.

N it ro ge n d io xi de Q ua nt it at iv e 2 0% A nn ua l d ai ly me an of NO2 emissions. Scored against a lower benchmark of 40 ug/m3 (EU target).

Ozone Quantitative 20% Annual daily mean of O3 emi ssi ons. S co red ag ai nst a l owe r b enchma rk o f 1 20 u g/m3 (EU target)

P ar ticula te m at ter Quant it at ive 20% A nn ua l dai ly m ean of P M10 e mi ss ions. S co red ag ai nst a l owe r b enchm ark of 50 ug /m3 (EU target).

S ul fu r d iox ide Qu anti ta ti ve 2 0% Annu al dai ly me an of SO2 e mi ssi ons . S co red ag ai nst a l owe r b enchma rk o f 4 0 u g/m3 (EU target).

Clean air polic ies Qualitative 20% An assessment of the extensiveness of polic ies Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analyststo 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 analystscomprehensivene ss 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 analystsissues 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 analystsin 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

Wasteandland use

Air quality

Environ-mentalgover-nance


11/35

attributable to the citys 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 comparedto 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 states energy

program. Numerous major Berlin industrial,

utility and construction companies have al-

ready joined the Alliance.

Energy: Berlin scores average in the energycategory. 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 Europes largest

district heating network 1,300 km, with acapacity of some 7,700 megawatts and serving

more than 600,000 of the citys nearly two mil-

lion households. According to 2006 figures,


Berlin

ackground indicators

ation 3.4 million

per person (PPP) in 21,400

nistrative area in km2 892

e of in dust ry / gross va lue added in % 18

ge temperature in C 9

CO2, buildings, transport, water, waste and land

use, and air quality. What is remarkable is thegenuinely 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 percapita 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, its also the mostheavily 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 Berlins ecological footprint, because the

shutdown of most of East Berlins industrial

operations and the modernization of a large

proportion of buildings since then has cut CO2and other pollutant emissions substantially.

Today, Berlins 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 citys 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 citys 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

citys energy utility and a solar specialist inaugu-

rated a pilot solar power plant at the site of the

former Mariendorf gas works, with an initialcapacity of 100 kilowatts. The partners are cur-

rently studying whether the plant can be

expanded into Berlins largest solar power sta-

tion, with a capacity of as much as 2 mega -

watts.

Buildings: In the buildings category, Berlinscores 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 bloc

from 150 kWh to 80 kWh per square meter

year.

Green initiatives: To lend new momentu

to energy efficiency and energy saving in t

building stock, Climate Protection Partners,

Energy-savingpartnershipsThe 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 citys 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 andswimming 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 belowaverage

belowaverage

average aboveaverage

well aboveaverage

Performance

CO2

Energy

Buildings

Transport

Water

Waste and land use

Air quality

Environmental governance

Overall results

Berlin Other German cities Other European cities

Theorderofthedotswithintheperformancebandshasnobearingonthecitiesresults.


12/35

nce of ten Berlin business chambers and

tutions, has awarded the Climate Protec-Partner of the Year prize for outstanding

ate protection projects every year since

2. From among the 47 candidates in 2010,

winners included a complete retrofit of the

-year-old tropical plant house at the Botani-

Garden. Energy consumption was reducede than 50% with technical measures like

ovating the faades and adding insulation

al challenge for materials and technology

n the necessary high humidity of 80%.

nsport: Berlin scored above average intransport category. As early as 2003, the

tals mobil 2010 urban development plan

hich is currently being updated had stated

goal of making the transportation system

e environmentally friendly. This includes,

example, encouraging alternative means of

transportation like buses, rail and bicycles, and

reducing traffic jams. The local public transportnetwork, at 1.0 km per square kilometer, may

not be as well developed yet as in other Euro-

pean cities (average 2.4 km), but gaps in the

road and rail network between the eastern an d

western parts of the city have now been filled

in. Today about 38% of Berliners take publictransportation to work; compared to the

nationwide average of 27%, this is the second-

best score, after Munich. The bike path network

measures 1.6 km per square kilometer of city

territory, and is thus already a little longer than

the European average (1.4 km). According to

the citys latest estimates, 22% of the popula-

tion walk or bike to work, roughly equal to the

average for all European cities studied.

Green initiatives: To prevent traffic jams and

keep street traffic moving even during rush

hours, the up-to-date traffic control center

monitors traffic over more than 1,500 km of

streets, and coordinates traffic lights at roughly2,000 intersections. It also monitors warning

and notice signs called traffic management

systems and they are switched manually from

here as needed. In the local public transporta-

tion system, the Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe

transportation agency supports the use of

hydrogen as a fuel and has started applying this

technology to its bus fleet to reduce green-

house gas emissions. Fourteen buses with

hydrogen combustion engines have been in use

in Charlottenburg and Spandau since 2006.

Water: Berlin is above average in the watercategory. Water losses due to leakage in the

pipeline network are just 2% the lowest value

in Europe, and far below the European Index

average of 19%. Annual water consumption in

Berlin is also quite low, at 56 cubic meters; the

average for the European cities is 93 cubic

meters. The installation of water meters and the

encouragement of water-conserving house-hold appliances are something to be taken for

granted in Berlin. These measures have had a

demonstrably positive effect. Since 1991,

drinking water supplied and consumed has

decreased significantly.

Green initiatives: In 2008 the Berliner Was-

serbetriebe water company built a solar plant at

the Tegel Water Works. With a collector area of

about 5,400 square meters, this is Berlins

largest contiguous solar plant. The electricity isenough to pump drinking water for more than

26,000 Berliners out of the ground, purify it,

and carry it to homes through the pipelines.

Although the electricity from Tegel is fed into

the general power grid, it serves primarily to

cover the plants own water delivery needs. Cur-

rently, the water company is tapping additional

alternative energy sources. For example, it

plans to make the Schnerlinde sewage treat-

ment plant the first energy self-sufficient water

treatment plant, starting in 2012, by building

three windmills with a total combined capacity

of 6 megawatts.

Waste and land use: Berlin scores aboveaverage in waste and land use. It earned points

with its recycling level, which at about 40% is

well above the European average of 26%. It

is also remarkable that this level increased

5% from 2004 to 2008 because of a variety of

measures. For example, the city provides a

480 liter composting bin, emptied weekly, for all

large apartment buildings. There is a charge for

emptying the bins, and their use is mandatory.

The city also scores well in waste generated: at

452 kg of waste per resident per year, the city is

below the European average of 517 kg, and

earned the third best score in Germany. Waste

generation has decreased significantly in recent

years, from 2.3 million metric tons in 1992 to

barely 900,000 tons in 2007. In land use,

Berlins Agenda 21 specifies, among other

requirements, that the amount of green space in

heavily populated areas should be increased by

at least 10% by 2015. The program additionally

provides that the waiting time for an allotmentgarden plot must be no more than one year, and

that the citys own larger areas of land must be

connected together with green corridors.

Green initiatives: According to the 2009

Berlin Area Use Plan of the Urban DevelopmentOffice of the Senate Administration, strength-

ening the inner city as a residential and living

center, with homes, jobs, culture and recreation

on an equal par, is a strategic goal. The Tempel-

hof Field, measuring nearly 400 hectares, will

become a new district with attractive apart-ments and many jobs, together with a park

landscape that will round out the downtown

range of open space and assist the citys climate

for the long term.

Air quality: In air quality, Berlin scores abovethe European average. The citys air quality is

carefully monitored and has greatly improved,

especially because of the structural change

away from industry and toward a ser vice econo-

my. Apart from ozone concentration, all figures

included in this Index are below the European

average. The average nitrogen dioxide concen-

tration, for example, is 27 micrograms per cubic

meter in Berlin, compared to 34 micrograms in

the other European cities. The daily average

of annual particulate matter concentration, at

24 micrograms, is also below the European

average, 31 micrograms. But although annual

average particulate matter figures for 2009

were within the allowable range, the tolerance

limit, at 73 days, was not maintained. Only 35

days are allowed. As in many other cities, traffic

is the main source of emissions in Berlin. It

accounts for 40% of particulate matter emis-

sions and 80% of nitrogen dioxide emissions.

Green initiatives: Berlin has taken a number

of steps to reduce emissions from transporta-

tion, including establishing an environmental

zone in 2008, intended to reduce vehicle emis-

sions in the inner city. It has also outfitted city

buses with particulate filters, and the BerlinSenate has encouraged the use of natural-gas-

powered utility vehicles. Apart from reducing

emissions with improved vehicle technologies,

however, the city is also concentrating on traffic

planning measures, such as optimizing traffic

lights to ensure a more efficient traffic flow.

Environmental governance: Berlinscores average for environmental governance.

A positive factor is that the Berlin House of Dele-

gates adopted the Local Agenda 21 Berlin in

2006, with the participation of politicians, citi-

zens and business, thus approving an acti

program for sustainable urban developme

with the active involvement of the populatio

As a continuation of this program, twelve s

tainability indicators were proposed in 2010,

which a biennial data report reviewing the ci

sustainable development is to be based on. B

a negative factor is that the city has set a

communicated clear goals for only a few en

ronmental aspects.

Green initiatives: Berlin is the only Germ

city that is a member of the C40 Group. C40

an association of 40 metropolises that ha

agreed to support climate protection. Throua partnership with the Clinton Climate Init

tive, the C40 Group works to reduce emissio

through greater energy efficiency. Additiona

since 2008 Berlin has been a member of t

Covenant of Mayors, a European Union init

tive. This group has committed to outperfoEU goals, and reduce greenhouse gases

more than the targeted 20% from 1990 valu

by 2020. Berlin plans to reduce its CO2 em

sions 40% by 2020.

Biogas for the citysruck fleethe Berliner Stadtreininigung waste disposal

fice is currently building a fermentation

ant at the Ruhleben site with a capacity of

0,000 metric tons, to be operated with

aste from the composting bins. The biogas

stem will produce about 2,000 metric tons

natural gas a year. After appropriate

ocessing, the product will be used as a

esel replacement in the offices 50 garbage

ucks. That will save about 2.5 million liters

diesel fuel. The number of vehicles is

adually to be more than doubled.

Eur.avg.= Averageofa totalof41EuropeanandGermancitiesstudied;Ger.avg.=Averageforonlythe12Germancities.

*Ifa varietyofdatasourceswereconsulted,theyearindicatedhererefersonlytothemostimportantsource;e= EIUestimate

Quantitative indicators

Eur. avg. Ger. avg. Berlin Year* Source

CO2 CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/head) 6.52 9.79 5.55 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office

CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/) 32 6. 46 24 9. 77 246.97 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office

CO2 reduction target by 2020 18.64 30.83 40.00 2008 Environment Office of the Senate Administration

Energy Energy consumption per capita (GJ/head) 85.22 95.46 68.05 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office

Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/ GDP) 4.48 2.47 3.03 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office

Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%) 6.30 3.43 1.64 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office

Buildings Energy consumption of residential buildings (MJ/m 2) 85 6. 97 70 2. 18 520.12 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office

Transport Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%) 21.98 24.02 21.80 2 00 8 City o f Ber lin

Share of population that takes public transportation to work (%) 37.40 27.21 38.40 2 00 8 City o f Ber linLength of bike path network (km/km2) 1.39 1.93 1.58 2009 Berlin Cycling Office; Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office

Length of public transport network (km/km2) 2.44 2.61 1.01 2009 City of Berlin; Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office

Water Annual water consumption per capita (m3/head) 93.12 59.21 56.40 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office

Water system leakages (%) 18.88 8.36 2.41 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office

Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%) 96.25 99.53 99.00 2007 Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office

Waste and Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head) 51 6. 77 52 7. 88 451.67 2008 State of Berlin Waste Balance Sheet; Berlin-Brandenburgland use Statistics Office

Recycling rate (%) 25.93 47.48 40.39 2008 State of Berlin Waste Balance Sheet

Air quality Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (g/m3) 33.98 30.51 27.18 2 00 8 E EA A irbase

Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (g/m3) 40.49 40.97 42.13 2 00 8 E EA A irbase

Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (g/m3) 31.30 21.92 23.97 2 00 8 E EA A irbase

Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (g/m3) 6.44 5.05 4.86 2 00 6 E EA A irbase


13/35

Bremen scored points for its ambitious CO2 re-

duction goal (see green initiatives).

Green initiatives: In December 2009, the Bre-

men city government approved the fourth ver-

sion of its 2020 Climate Protection and Energy

Plan, which prescribes the goals for the next

few years. The primary goal is to reduce CO2emissions 40% by 2020 from the 1990 figure.

The city has adopted a number of measures to

achieve the goal: promoting clean energy

(especially wind power), expanding district

heating, saving energy in existing residential

buildings, municipal buildings and businesses,

and monitoring CO2 emissions better. Bremenresidents are also to get better information and

be better advised about energy-saving and cli-

mate-protection programs. Moreover, the city

has founded the Bremen Energy Consensus

climate protection agency, which is supposed to

point out how to use energy more efficiently

and thus cut CO2 emissions and energy con-

sumption. For example, the agency promotes

model projects, coordinates publicity cam-

paigns, and provides information to s pecialists

and consumers.

Energy: Bremen scores below average inenergy. One reason is its high energy consump-

tion of 171 gigajoules per capita per year, the

highest in Europe. By comparison, the average

for the 41 European cities studied was 85 giga-

joules. However, 48% of this energy consump-

tion is attributable to the steel industry. If that

consumption is subtracted, the energy con-

sumption is around 89 gigajoules. If energy

consumption (including the steel industry) is

set relative to economic output, at 4.6 mega-joules per unit of GDP Bremen is only slightly

above the European average of 4.5 megajoules.

Renewables share of the energy mix is only


Bremen


ation 547,000





age in energy very largely a consequence of

industrys large CO2 emissions and heavy ener-

gy consumption, especially in the steelmaking

industry. But the city can point to a very low

per capita water consumption compared to

the eleven other German cities, and the third-

longest network of bike paths. Bremen also

scored well in waste, with one of the countrys

lowest levels of waste generated per person

and the second-highest level of recycling.

CO2 emissions: Bremen scores average forCO2 emissions, most significantly because the

citys CO2 emissions come to 15.9 metric tons

per capita the highest of any of the 41 Euro-

pean cities, and well above the European aver-

age of 6.5 metric tons. CO2 figures per unit of

GDP, at 429 grams per euro generated, are also

well above the European average of 326 grams.

According to city government, 59% of the CO2emissions come from industry (49% from the

steel industry alone), 28% from homes, and

13% from transportation. On the other hand,

Bremen is located in n orthwestern Germany,

about 60 km south of the mouth of the

Weser River. The city has a population of some

550,000, and like many other northern Euro-

pean cities, was a member of the historical trad-

ing Hansa League. Even today, this port citys

economy remains traditionally dominated by

trade, and a variety of logistics and transporta-

tion services are domiciled here. But science

and industry also play a significant role; the lat-

ter contributes 25% of the citys gross value

added. The largest local industries include aero-

space, automobiles and steel. The city is also

home to major breweries and coffee roasters.

With an estimated gross domestic product

(GDP) of 36,700 per capita, Bremen is in the

medium range of the twelve German cities

studied.

Bremen scores above average overall in the Ger-

man Green City Index. It scores above averagein buildings, transport, water, waste and land

use, air quality and environmental governance,

but is average in CO2 emissions and below aver-

0.8%, well below the other European cities

(average 6.3%). A positive factor, however, is

that Bremen is actively promoting clean forms

of energy, for example by increasing the use of

renewable sources like wind and water power.

Green initiatives: In April 2010, Bremen was

the first German city to sign up for the LED City

Program, with the aim of expanding the use of

LED lamps in the citys infrastructure. LED lamps

save energy, reduce maintenance costs and

offer better-quality light than conventional light

sources for urban lighting. The city also recently

launched a pilot project to replace compact flu-

orescent lamps with LED lamps. By convertingto LED lamps, the city hopes to cut its lighting

costs by about one-third.

In its 2010 action plan to reduce CO2 emissions,

the city acknowledges the potential of district

heating, and has now developed its first specific

plans. The district heating network is first to beexpanded further on the basis of coal-fired

power plants. Then the heat collected in waste

recycling will be used more extensively to gen-

erate electricity and heating energy. Further

goals include better use of waste heat from the

local steel industry, and a more extensive use of

combined heating and power plants in industry

and in large housing projects. Bremen is already

looking at several possible projects that could

save about 280,000 metric tons of CO2 a year.

Buildings: Bremen comes out above aver-age in the buildings category. Energy consump-

tion in residential buildings, at 722 megajoules

per square meter, is below the average of 857megajoules for the 41 European cities. As part

of its climate policy, the city offers financial

incentives to improve heat insulation in existing

buildings. Since 1993 it has financed more th

11,000 projects, and made 18 million ava

able (see below). The city also supports t

Modernize Bremen initiative, which provid

citizens with information about improv

building efficiency.

Green initiatives: Bremen has recogniz

that buildings have great energy-saving pot

tial. For that reason, the fourth version of t

well belowaverage

belowaverage

average aboveaverage

well aboveaverage

Performance

CO2

Energy

Buildings

Transport

Water

Waste and land use

Air quality

Environmental governance

Overall results

Bremen Other German cities Other European cities

Theorderofthedotswithintheperformancebandshasnobearingonthecitiesresults.

Efficient pumps at thesteel millBremen Steelworks, in cooperation with the

German Energy Agency (DENA) and three

pump manufacturers, has swapped out large

numbers of electric pumps at its steel mill for

energy-efficient versions. The change was

made as part of the DENAs initiative to install

more energy efficient pumping systems in

industry and commerce, which is intended to

show how energy-efficiency programs can be

carried out relatively quickly and easily in

businesses. While the steelworks electric

power consumption is low relative to its

demand for heat, the electricity savings are

substantial: by using energy-efficient pumps,

the steelworks saves 2.7 million kilowatt-hours

a year, equivalent to the energy demand from

about 670 four-person households.


14/35

mate Protection and Energy Program for

0 calls for improving the energy efficiency

xisting buildings. In 2008 the citys Senate

roved a program for energy-efficient build-

rehabilitation in public facilities and made

.4 million available for the purpose. New

lic buildings are normally to be built to the

sive house standard. Even more, to

ourage energy-awareness, the city set up

voluntary 3/4plus program for schools,

h the aim of influencing user habits and

ucing energy and water consumption in

dings. Caretakers ensure that building sys-

s are operating at their best, and teachers

h students energy-aware behavior withinin cooperation with their school. The pro-

m has been a success: a total of 200 schools

remen and nearby Bremerhaven are in-

ed in the project, and their substantial cuts

nergy and water consumption reduced CO2

ssions from more than 65,000 metric tons987 to about 35,700 tons in 2009.

nsport:Bremen scores above average onsport. The city is making an effort to make

ng and local public transport more attrac-

in various ways. The network of bike paths,

5 km per square kilometer, is already signif-

tly more extensive than the 41-city Euro-

pean average (1.4 km). However, the local pub-

lic transport network, at 2.1 km per square kilo-

meter, is a bit shorter than in many other Euro-pean cities studied (average 2.4 km). One-

quarter of the Bremen population walks or

bikes to work, and another 24% use public

transportation. For comparison, the European

average is 22% pedestrians or bikers and 37%

users of the bus or rail. Bremen is also makingan effort to reduce traffic congestion, and has

installed an electronic traffic monitoring sys-

tem that allows it to control traffic flexibly.

Depending on the level of traffic, different

speed limits are signaled to drivers by way of

electronic switchboards. In other places, signal

boards in the parking control system steer dri-

vers toward available parking spaces.

Green initiatives: To relieve downtown traffic

congestion, Bremen has set up what it calls

mobile point stations. Short-term rental cars

are available at these stations, which are near

bus and streetcar stops or taxi stands. Cus-

tomers of this car-sharing initiative can parktheir rental car there and board other forms of

transportation directly. The city reports that the

initiative is a great success. A study of the first

two mobile point stations showed that 170

new car sharing customers were enlisted for the

ten car sharing cars at the two stations, at the

same time eliminating 90 private cars. By now

the initiative has recruited some 5,500 private

and business customers. Another innovative car

sharing initiative, e-car4all, is currently being

tested in Bremen by the Personal Mobility Cen-

ter, the project center for the Bremen-Olden-

burg Electromobility Model Region. Private indi-

viduals can apply to be the caretaker or user of

an electric car. The cars are distributed among

residential areas, charged up by the caretakers,

and made available to users for short trips.

Water: In the water category, Bremen scoresabove average. The annual per capita water

consumption of 57 cubic meters, as for theeleven other German cities, is well below the

European average of about 93 cubic meters.

The share of water lost to system leakage is 5%

in Bremen, likewise well below the average for

the European cities studied (19%).

Green initiatives: Since January 2011, Bre-

men has had separate sewage fees for house-

hold sewage and rainwater. This makes it possi-

ble for the city to encourage handling pre-

cipitation water ecologically, letting it percolate

into the ground naturally instead of channelingit into the sewer system. Additionally, the city

encourages rainwater collection, and provides

grants of up to 2,000 per household to ins tall

rainwater collection tanks. The only require-

ment is that the water must be used for flushing

toilets and at least one other application, such

as watering gardens.

Waste and land use: Bremen scoresabove average in waste and land use, and is one

of the best German and European cities, with a

relatively low waste accumulation and one of

the highest recycling rates. The city produces

450 kg of waste per capita less than the aver-

age for European cities (517 kg). This is also thesecond-lowest waste generation of the eleven

other German cities, following Leipzig. The

recycling rate, at 57%, is the second highest in

Germany and the third highest in Europe. The

European average here is only 26%.

Green initiatives: The Bremen city govern-

ment encourages infill on unbuilt land in areas

that have already been built up a significantly

more environmentally-friendly alternative to

building in green space, and also a brake on

urban sprawl. Another advantage: unlike newly

built areas, where entirely new infrastructures

must be installed, infill buildings can tie into

existing infrastructure. More than 14,000 apart-

ments have been built in this way since the ini-

tiative was launched in 1990 about half the

new apartments built in the city since that date.

Some 3,000 infill spaces are still available inside

and outside town.

Air quality: Bremen scores above average inthe air quality category. Except for ozone, the

figures for all air pollutants that the study

looked at are below the Index average. Bre-

mens average nitrogen dioxide concentration

is 23 micrograms per cubic meter; the averagefor the European cities is 34 micrograms. Partic-

ulate values, at 20 micrograms per cubic meter,

are likewise below the European average of 31

micrograms. The figures for sulfur dioxide are

similar: at an average of 4.8 micrograms per

cubic meter per year, they too are below theEuropean average of 6.4 micrograms. Ozone,

however, at 43 micrograms, is slightly higher in

Bremen than in the other European cities (40

micrograms average).

Green initiatives: As in many other German

cities, street traffic makes a significant contri-

bution to air pollution in Bremen. For that rea-

son, the city is concentrating its air quality

improvement efforts on this area. In 2009 Bre-

men introduced an environmental zone that

can be entered only by cars and trucks that

comply with a certain exhaust standard. Vehi-

cles that emit high levels of pollutants are pro-

hibited. This mainly applies to diesel vehicles

and gasoline-engine cars without an adjusted

catalytic converter. Bremen also encourages

buying natural-gas-powered vehicles, which

emit 80% less nitrogen dioxide than vehicles

under the Euro IV standard. Bremen residents

receive up to 700 to retrofit a conventional car

for natural gas.

Environmental governance: Bremenscores above average in environmental gover-

nance. The city published an up-to-date envi-

ronmental status report in 2011 that includes a

comprehensive stocktaking of the environmen-tal situation. It will be updated every four years.

A drawback is that apart from CO2 reduction, no

clear goals for other areas of the environment

have been defined. But a positive factor is an

innovative city service online as a place for citi-

zens to consult on environmental matters. Cur-

rent ideas or complaints are published on the

citys website, and citizens can track the sta

of their complaints using a traffic-light syste

Green initiatives: The Hansa citys Office

the Environment, Construction, Traffic a

Europe has been implementing the Europe

Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMA

since 2003. EMAS is subdivided into seve

phases: adopting an environmental guideli

performing an eco-audit, and determining

effective environmental management syste

The Office has not only established the EM

systems principles within its own sphere, b

also encourages the introduction of EMAS a

other environmental management systemslocal companies and organizations.

A massive expansion ofwind power

emen is planning on assuming a leading

osition in promoting renewable energy

urces in Northern Germany. One emphasis is

n wind power. The city current operates eight

ind farms, and plans to add six more by 2020.

nce 2009, Bremen has supported the new

aunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and

nergy Systems Technology in Bremerhaven to

dvance wind power research.

nother emphasis is generating energy from

ater power. By the end of 2011 Bremen plans

complete a 40 million, 10 megawatt

ydroelectric plant on the Weser River, which is

xpected to generate 42 million kilowatt-hours

ecologically sound electricity per year, and

supply 17,000 homes.

Eur.avg.= Averageofa totalof41EuropeanandGermancitiesstudied;Ger.avg.=Averageforonlythe12Germancities.

*Ifa varietyofdatasourceswereconsulted,theyearindicatedhererefersonlytothemostimportantsource;e= EIUestimate

Quantitative indicatorsEur. avg. Ger. avg. Bremen Year* Source

CO2 CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/head) 6.52 9.79 15.90 2006 Bremen State Statistics Office

CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/) 326 .46 24 9. 77 429.12 2006 Bremen State Statistics Office

CO2 reduction target by 2020 18.64 30.83 40.00 2 00 9 City o f Bre me n

Energy Energy consumption per capita (GJ/head) 85.22 95.46 171.24 2006 Bremen State Statistics Office

Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/ GDP) 4.48 2.47 4.62 2006 Bremen State Statistics Office

Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%) 6.30 3.43 0.76 2006 Bremen State Statistics Office

Buildings Energy consumption of residential buildings (MJ/m 2) 856 .97 70 2. 18 721.80 e 2006 EIU Estimate, based on the following data:Bremen State Statistics Office; Eurostat UrbanAudit; Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office;Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein Statistics Office

Transport Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%) 21.98 24.02 25.40 2004 Eurostat Urban Audit

Share of population that takes public transportation to work (%) 37.40 27.21 24.40 2004 Eurostat Urban Audit

Length of bike path network (km/km2) 1.39 1.93 2.51 2008 Senator for Environment, Construction, Trafficand Europe; Bremen State Statistics Office

Length of public transport network (km/km2) 2.44 2.61 2.05 2008 Bremer Strassenbahn AG; Bremen StateStatistics Office

Water Annual water consumption per capita (m3/head) 93.12 59.21 57.17 2007 Bremen State Statistics Office

Water system leakages (%) 18.88 8.36 5.25 2008 SWB (utility company)

Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%) 96.25 99.53 99.65 2007 Bremen State Statistics Office

Waste and Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head) 516 .77 52 7. 88 450.13 2008 Senator for Environment, Construction, Traffic and Europland use Waste Balance Sheet; Bremen State Statistics Office

Recycling rate (%) 25.93 47.48 57.20 2008 Senator for Environment, Construction, Traffic andEurope Waste Balance Sheet

Air quality Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (g/m3) 33.98 30.51 22.77 2 00 8 E EA A irbase

Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (g/m3) 40.49 40.97 43.03 2 00 8 E EA A irbase

Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (g/m3) 31.30 21.92 19.68 2 00 8 E EA A irbase

Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (g/m3) 6.44 5.05 4.75 2 00 8 E EA A irbase


15/35

mate protection. It wasnt until February 2010

that Cologne presented a Sustainable Energy

Action Plan to meet the climate protection com-

mitments of the Climate Alliance and the Euro-

pean Unions Covenant of Mayors.

CO2 emissions: Cologne ranks average inthe category of CO2 emissions. The city emits

10.0 metric tons of CO2 per capita each year,

well above the average of 6.5 metric tons

among the 41 European cities. To turn this situa-

tion around, Cologne has committed to the CO2reduction targets put forward by the Climate

Alliance and the European Unions Covenant of

Mayors. Cities in the Climate Alliance seek tolower their CO2 emissions by 10% every five

years. The Sustainable Energy Action Plan

reports CO2 reductions of nearly 20% in the peri-

od from 1990 to 2007, achieved primarily by

replacing the energy sources of coal and fuel oil

with natural gas. Cologne scores relatively wellwhen CO2 emissions are examined relative to

economic output: at 261 grams per euro of GDP,

it lies below the average of 326 grams in the

41 European cities.

Green initiatives: The local utility company

has a pilot project underway to examine the

potential of using wood chips for energy produc-

tion. In its very own energy forest, the compa-

ny is planting fast-growing poplars that can be

cut down and processed into wood chips after

just three years. These wood chips are then used

as fuel. The process is regarded as carbon-neu-

tral, since the volume of carbon dioxide emitted

during combustion is equal to the volumeabsorbed by the trees during their growth.

Energy: Cologne scores average in the cate-gory of energy. At 123 gigajoules per capita, the

city consumes much more energy than the aver-

age in the European cities (85 gigajoules). But

Cologne has acknowledged the need for action,

and in 2010, it presented its Sustainable Energy

Action Plan to reduce energy consumption. The

plan begins by presenting a rough comparison

of energy consumption and CO2 emissions in

1990 and 2007. A concrete plan of action will

then be developed over the next two years.

Colognes energy consumption relative to its

economic output at 3.3 megajoules per euro of

GDP is far below the European average of

4.5 megajoules.

Green initiatives: The local utility company

has allocated 10 million to expand district

heating capacity by another 10 megawatts ayear until 2020 as part of the Energy & Climate

2020 environmental initiative. This is equiva-

lent to heating some 1,000 single-family homes


Cologne


ation 1.02 million





percentage among a

Documents

Report German