Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
a cura di Luca MarescottiDOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2676.7126
Licenza Creative CommonsConoscenza e tecnologie appropriate per la sostenibilità e la resilienza in urbanistica
Knowledge and Appropriate Technologies for Sustainability and Resilience in Planning diLisa Astolfi, Funda Atun, Maria Pia Boni, Annapaola Canevari, Massimo
Compagnoni, Luca Marescotti, Maria Mascione, Ouejdane Mejri, Scira Menoni, Pierluigi Paolillo, Floriana Pergalani, Mauro Salvemini è distribuito con Licenza
Creative Commons Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale.Based on a work at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luca_Marescotti. Permessi ulteriori rispetto alle finalità della presente licenza possono essere disponibili presso
https://polimi.academia.edu/LucaMarescotti.
Conoscenza e tecnologie appropriate per la sostenibilità urbanistica - Knowledge and Appropriate Technologies for Sustainability in Planning - 29 febbraio - 04 marzo 2016 - Modulo 15
Modulo 15Misurare che cosa? efficacia, efficienza, sostenibilità, resilienza? USA vs UE e le European Green Capital
Luca Marescotti.
Un tempo, non molto tempo fa e con leggi tuttora valide, l'urbanistica si misurava in termini molto semplici: il fabbisogno abitativo, la capacità insediativa, il rapporto tra edilizia pubblica e edilizia privata (per calmierare il mercato, si diceva), gli standard urbanistici, la realizzazione di servizi. Gradualmente, sotto una spinta più o meno sotterranea, sono prevalse altre idee. Il piano è troppo vincolistico, non è flessibile, gli standard urbanistici non misurano tutti i servizi (quelli commerciali, in particolare) o forse non sono altro che un'urbanistica da ragionieri, le programmazioni sono frutto di una mentalità sovietica, e poi ci sono altri problemi: il piano si modifica per generazioni, il piano si concreta con la progettazione urbana a scala architettonica, che poi diventa semplicemente non il termine di Jan Lubicz-Nycz ripreso da Bruno Zevi la urbatecture/urbatettura (Zanelli 2 0 1 0) (Zevi 1973), ma la progettazione urbanistica. Intanto, la disciplina si sposta verso altri livelli e il piano si fa racconto e narrazione.Il tema della sostenibilità nasceva in quegli anni con il congresso di Stoccolma del 1972 (UNEP United Nations Environment Programme 1972) e sono gli stessi anni in cui emerge l'altro tema moderno, la resilienza, ma l'urbanistica sembra preferire le metafore alle misurazioni. In Italia specialmente negli anni '70 del secolo scorso ci si trova di fronte al paradosso istituzionale della contemporanea presenza del riformismo e dell'immobilismo, se da una parte si cerca di intervenire sulla legislazione, anche se fortemente osteggiati, dall'altra parte la loro applicazione è tenuta in stallo, come l'equo canone che invece di normalizzare il mercato della casa lo liberalizza senza controllo. Nel campo urbanistico si promulgano legge regionali che gareggiano negli obiettivi di integrazione e di visione strategica dell'ambiente e poi si discute a lungo sulle salcelte per la cartografia regionale lasciando passare infruttuosamente il tempo (Canevari e Marescotti 1985) e di fronte all'aprirsi dell'enorme potenziale del mondo digitale ci si arrovella sulla differenza tra un SIT o GIS, tra un sistema informativo territoriale e un sistema informativo geografico, senza venire a capo (Alberti et al. 1995) (Alberti 1996).I dibattiti, sempre in quegli anni, sull'efficacia o sull'efficienza del piano si spengono senza lasciare traccia: ad impossibilia nemo tenetur1. Forse sono ancora troppo pochi nel 2016 i risultati concreti e utili? O forse non sono note sufficientemente le ricerche in corso?Quindi la domanda su come valutare una città non è che una premessa per dare un senso pratico alla valutazione ambientale strategica.Dunque, per iniziare vi sono diversi itinerari possibili, sulle classificazioni delle città, cioè le analisi comparate delle città, oppure il discorso sulle scelte di investimenti pubblici o privati.
Le analisi comparate (ranking) e “la vertigine delle liste”
La miglior città del mondo? Le opinioni sono molto diverse. In Wikipedia troviamo tre diverse graduatorie:
1. Most Liveable Cities Index [ lifestyle magazine Monocle], che si fonda su diversi indicatori quali la sicurezza in rapporto ai crimini denunciati, le connessioni internazionali, il clima e i
1 Nessuno è obbligato a fare l'impossibile.
1/4
Conoscenza e tecnologie appropriate per la sostenibilità urbanistica - Knowledge and Appropriate Technologies for Sustainability in Planning - 29 febbraio - 04 marzo 2016 - Modulo 15
giorni di sole, la qualità architettonica, i trasporti pubblici, la tolleranza, l'ambiente e l'accessibilità a zone naturali, la progettazione urbana, le opportunità di lavoro, lo sviluppo di politiche proattive, la sanità. Tra 25 città messe in graduatoria la migliore è Portland, Oregon, USA.
2. Liveability Ranking and Overview [Economist Intelligence Unit's]: la disponibilità di beni e servizi, bassi rischi alla persona e infrastrutture efficienti. Tra 70 città in graduatoria la migliore è Hong Kong, Repubblica Popolare Cinese.
3. Mercer Quality of Living Survey: Tra alcune decine di criteri include la sicurezza, l'istruzione, l'igiene, la sanità, la cultura, l'ambiente, le possibilità di svago, la stabilità economica e politica, i trasporti pubblici e la disponibilità di beni e servizi. Tra 221 città messe in graduatoria la migliore da sei anni è Vienna, Austria.
Potremmo vedere altre liste specifiche per le città italiano, come hanno fatto Legambiente e Ambiente Italia, comparando vivibilità e qualità ambientale, dove il lato oscuro potrebbe stare nella qualità dei dati che trasmettono gli enti locali. Basta cambiare i termini delle analisi e tutto cambia, cosicché nessuno potrebbe mai dubitare che sia possibile costruire una lista che inizi con Montalcino, Milano oppure Napoli.Se da una parte potremmo notare quanto il tutto sia molto soggettivo, perché la qualità è una proprietà nominale e perché i numeri sono una forma di poesia e perché -aggiungo- possono manipolare l'immagine che uno si fa del mondo. D'altra parte, non si vede emergere con chiarezza un'eventuale parte giocata dall'urbanistica, se non forse nelle infrastrutture e nei trasporti, nel far salire o scendere di graduatoria una città, né i suoi legami con il territorio.Ma la realtà è molto più complessa: l'esploratore ha attraversato il mondo, ma il suo racconto non è il mondo. Occorre rivisitarlo e reinterpretare le carte per comprendere il suo punto di vista e il mondo stesso.
La singolarità europea e le motivazioni delle Green Capital
Per l’Unione Europea il fuoco dell’attenzione converge verso la trasformazione delle città in baluardi difensivi dell’ambiente. Proprio l’Europa, continente urbano per eccellenza, costituisce un laboratorio di dimensione eccezionale, come lo statunitense Beatley rimarca(Beatley 2000) (Beatley et al. 2012), il che accresce il valore della sperimentazione, dei metodi di valutazione e della diffusione di nuove strategie e di concreti risultati (per esempio: Dige 2011; Kienast et al. 2011; EEA 2012).La UE ha scelto un'altra strategia per valutare e confrontare la sostenibilità urbana con il premio “European Green Capital” attivo dal 2009, fondato sul riconoscimento di un approccio globale che l'urbanistica deve e può avere per sviluppare positive condizioni sociali economiche e ambientali dimostrato attraverso raccolte consistenti di dati significativi. Questa strategia fu promossa con il Memorandum di Tallinn sottoscritto nel 2006 da 16 città europee allo scopo di segnalare le città capaci di pianificare e attuare attrezzature collettive, virtuosità economica, standard urbanistici e standard ambientali, con misure confrontabili nonostante i diversi contesti geografici, architettonici e culturali. Lo scopo principale consiste nel diffondere e incoraggiare l'adozione progressiva di obiettivi sempre più ambiziosi, descritti da una lista di dieci indicatori rilevanti testati nella prima selezione (Berrini e Bono 2010), poi rivista e ampliata (European Green Capital 2015), così giungendo a dodici indicatori.In coerenza con gli obiettivi della sostenibilità e della sussidiarietà l'Unione Europea ha agito su più piani: lo European Soundscape Award con cui sib vuole diffondere la difesa dal rumore nelle città 9, le certificazioni ambientali Eco-Management and Audit Scheme EMAS; gli investimenti ambientali
2/4
Conoscenza e tecnologie appropriate per la sostenibilità urbanistica - Knowledge and Appropriate Technologies for Sustainability in Planning - 29 febbraio - 04 marzo 2016 - Modulo 15
promossi dal VI Programma d'azione ambientale (Sixth Environmental Action Programme) o dalle Strategie tematiche per l'ambiente urbano (Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment).
Nell'insieme è evidente che si tratta di interventi non strettamente urbanistici, ma che hanno in comune la capacità di plasmarsi su processi di governance nati da mutui scambi top-down/bottom-up, locale/globale, comune/ regione/ stato/ Unione Europea. Freiburg, per esempio, adotta principi sociali e urbani in una visione ecologica e si mette in competizione come città verde partecipando alla Solarbundesliga. La Solarbundesliga è il campionato tedesco iniziato nel 2001 che promuove l'uso di energie rinnovabili classificando le città in funzione dell'energia ottenuta da solare termico, fotovoltaico e dalla combustione del legno.Il campionato, costruito dal basso e sostenuto di leggi federali e regionali, stimola socialmente la drastica riduzione della dipendenza dal petrolio e delle emissioni di anidride carbonica. Sull'esempio tedesco,oltre duemila comuni e 36 milioni di abitanti, altri paesi membri dell'Unione hanno sostenuto il programma Intelligent Energy Europe, grazie al quale nel 2012 sono stati selezionati 12 comuni tra Francia, Germania, Italia, Repubblica Ceca e Ungheria come migliori casi nell'uso delle fonti rinnovabili.
In conclusione
I fattori di successo sono condivisione sociale delle politiche, capacità di combinare strategie unitarie su più fronti, capacità di attuare piani e programmi, monitoraggio e registrazione dei risultati conseguiti anche in termini di efficienza e di efficacia. In Germania, per esempio, si è potuto adottare nel 2004 una legge federale sul consumo di suolo in Germania anche perché nelle singole regioni (Land) da un decennio si controllavano politiche territoriali, usi e consumi del suolo.I diversi temi trattati ci mostrano sia diverse metodologie a confronto che richiedono attente analisi e valutazioni, sia una visione assai più aperta della nostra disciplina.
RiferimentiAlberti, Marina. 1996. «Measuring Urban Sustainability». Environment Impact Assessment Review
16: 381–424.Alberti, Marina, Lorenzo Bagini, Luca Marescotti, e Marta Puppo. 1995. I sistemi informativi
ambientali per l’urbanistica. A cura di Lorenzo Bagini e Luca Marescotti. Milano: Il Rostro.Beatley, Timothy. 2000. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Washington, DC: Island
Press.Beatley, Timothy, Michaela Brüel, Wulf Daseking, Maria Jaakkola, Lucie Laurian, Rebeca Dios
3/4
Contributo locale al riscaldamento globale; Contributo locale al cambiamento climatico globale;Mobilità locale e trasporti pubblici; Trasporti locali;Disponibilità di aree verdi pubbliche; Aree verdi urbane che incorporano l'uso sostenibile del territorio;
Natura e biodiversità;Qualità locale dell’aria; Qualità del locale ambiente;Iinquinamento acustico; Inquinamento acustico;Produzione e gestione dei rifiuti; Produzione di rifiuti e gestione;Consumo idrico; Consumo di acqua;gestione delle acque reflue; Trattamento degli scarichi fognari (le acque reflue);
Eco innovazione ed occupazione sostenibile;Gestione locale dell’ambiente; Gestione ambientale dell'autorità locale;Uso sostenibile del suolo Rendimento energetico.
LISTA DEGLI INDICATORI PER LA SELEZIONE EUROPEAN GREN CAPITAL
Conoscenza e tecnologie appropriate per la sostenibilità urbanistica - Knowledge and Appropriate Technologies for Sustainability in Planning - 29 febbraio - 04 marzo 2016 - Modulo 15
Lema, Dale Medearis, Marta Moretti, Luis Andrés Orive, e Camilla Ween. 2012. Green Cities of Europe Global Lessons on Green Urbanism. A cura di Timothy Beatley. Washington, DC: Island Press. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=452761.
Berrini, Maria, e Lorenzo Bono. 2010. «Measuring urban sustainability, Analysis of the European Green Capital Award 2010 & 2011 application round». EEA, European Green Capital.
Canevari, Anna Paola, e Luca Marescotti, a c. di. 1985. La cartografia per l’urbanistica e l’architettura. Milano: Clup.
Dige, Gorm. 2011. Green infrastructure and territorial cohesion. The concept of green infrastructure and its integration into policies using monitoring systems. EEA Technical report 18/2011. Copenhagen: EEA European Environment Agency.
EEA. 2012. Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe. Challenges and opportunities for cities together with supportive national and European policies. EEA Report 2/2012. Copenhagen: EEA European Environment Agency.
European Green Capital, a c. di. 2015. «European Green Capital Award 2018. Guidance Note». http://ec.europa.eu/environment/europeangreencapital/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/egca_2018_guidance.pdf.
Kienast, Felix, Jochen A. G. Jaeger, Tomáš Soukup, e Christian Schwick. 2011. Landscape Fragmentation in Europe. Joint EEA-FOEN Report. EEA Report 2/2011. Copenhagen: EEA European Environment Agency.
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme. 1972. «Stockholm 1972 - Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment». http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1503.
Zanelli, And rea. 2 0 1 0. «Una parola per costruire — -». Rivista IBC - Istituto per i beni culturali della Regione Emilia-Romagna
Zevi, Bruno. 1973. Il linguaggio moderno dell’architettura. Guida al codice anticlassico. Torino: G. Einaudi.
4/4
1
MEASURING URBAN SUSTAINABILITY
Analysis of the European Green Capital Award 2010 & 2011 application round
2
The authors of the European Green Capital Award 2010 & 2011 report are: Maria Berrini and Lorenzo Bono, Ambiente Italia (www.ambienteitalia.it) The report has been reviewed by the following members of the European Green Capital Award 2010 & 2011 Evaluation Panel:
o Birgit Georgi European Environment Agency Indicator area(s): Sustainable land use and availability of public open areas
o Matthias Ketzel Danish National Environmental Research Institute Indicator area(s): Quality of local ambient air
o J. Luis Bento Coelho Instituto Superior Técnico (TU Lisbon) Indicator area(s): Noise pollution
o P.J. Rudden Irish consultancy RPS Group Indicator area(s): Waste production & management
o Beate Werner European Environment Agency Indicator area(s): Water consumption & Waste water management
o Henrik Gudmundsson Technical University of Denmark Indicator area(s): Local mobility and passenger transportation
Full responsibility for the content of the report lies with Ambiente Italia (research and consultancy, Italy).
May, 2010
3
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 4
2. LOCAL CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE ....................................... 7
3. LOCAL MOBILITY AND PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION ..................................... 12
4. SUSTAINABLE LAND USE AND AVAILABILITY OF LOCAL PUBLIC OPEN AREAS .. 17
5. QUALITY OF LOCAL AMBIENT AIR ...................................................................... 22
6. NOISE POLLUTION ............................................................................................. 27
7. WASTE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT ...................................................... 30
8. WATER CONSUMPTION AND WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT ......................... 34
9. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ........................ 39
4
1. INTRODUCTION
The European Green Capital Award,
background and objectives
The European Green Capital Award (EGCA) is
the result of an initiative taken by 15 European
cities and the Association of Estonian cities in
May 2006 in Tallinn. The 15 cities were Tallinn
itself, Helsinki, Riga, Vilnius, Berlin, Warsaw,
Madrid, Ljubljana, Prague, Vienna, Kiel, Kotka,
Dartford, Tartu and Glasgow. The initiative was
turned into a joint Memorandum submitted to
the European Commission in which they
proposed the establishment of an award
rewarding cities that are leading the way in
environmentally friendly urban living.
The aim of the award is to promote urban
sustainability and the sharing of best practices
between cities.
The Award's objectives are threefold, namely to: a) reward cities that have a well-established record of achieving high environmental objectives, b) encourage cities to commit to ambitious goals for further environmental improvement and sustainable development, and c) provide a role model to inspire other cities and promote best practices and experiences in all other European cities.
All cities from EU Member States, Candidate
Countries and European Economic Area
countries which have more than 200,000
inhabitants can apply for the award.
Read more at: www.europeangreencapital.eu.
Theoretical framework for the Award
The title rewards a number of different
elements of environmental achievements in a
city. The evaluation criteria are based on the
following 3 aspects:
1. The 'greenest' city
The Award rewards the 'greenest' city in
Europe based on the city's state of the
environment as defined by the performance
levels relative to each of the proposed
indicators.
2. Implementation of efficient and innovative
measures & future commitment
The Award rewards the city that has
implemented the most innovative and efficient
environmental measures and which has shown
that it is committed to do the same in the
future.
3. Communication and networking
The Award rewards a city which can act as a
role model and inspire other cities to boost their
efforts towards a greener urban environment
by sharing experiences and promoting best
practice among European cities and beyond.
The indicator areas
Evaluation of the cities' efforts is based upon
the following 10 environmental indicator areas:
- Local contribution to global climate
change
- Local mobility and passenger
transportation
- Availability of local public open areas
- Quality of local ambient air
- Noise pollution
- Waste production and management
- Water consumption
- Waste water management
- Environmental management of the local
authority
- Sustainable land use.
5
The 35 applicant cities for 2010 & 2011
Applicant cities 2010 and 2011 awards
Amsterdam, Netherlands
• Bordeaux, France
• Bremen, Germany
• Bristol, United Kingdom
• Cluj-Napoca, Romania
• Copenhagen, Denmark
• Dublin, Ireland
• Espoo, Finland
• Freiburg, Germany
• Hamburg, Germany
• Hannover, Germany
• Helsinki, Finland
• Kaunas, Lithuania
• Lisbon, Portugal
Łódź, Poland
• Magdeburg, Germany
• Malmø, Sweden
• Munich, Germany
• Murcia, Spain
• Münster, Germany
• Oslo, Norway
• Pamplona, Spain
• Prague, Czech Republic
• Riga, Latvia
• Rotterdam, Netherlands
• Sabadell, Spain
• Stockholm, Sweden
• Tampere, Finland
• Toruń, Poland
• Valencia, Spain
• Vienna, Austria
• Montpellier, France
• Vilnius, Lithuania
• Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
• Zaragoza, Spain
Evaluation of the 2010 & 2011 applications
In 2009, the first evaluation round took place in
order to select Europe's Green capitals for
2010 and 2011.
Thirty-five cities, covering 17 European
countries, applied for the 2010 and 2011
European Green Capital Awards.
The applicant cities sent applications
describing results achieved, measures taken
and short and long term commitments for each
indicator area, as well as their proposed
programs of actions and events to disseminate
experiences and best practices.
The eight finalist cities
The data produced by the 35 applicant cities
was assessed by the Evaluation Panel with the
specific purpose of selecting eight finalist cities.
Various methods of evaluation (quantitative
and qualitative, objective comparisons or
individual expert assessments, final cross
check evaluations, etc.) were applied by the
Evaluation Panel to analyze the data.
The eight finalists were:
Amsterdam
Bristol
Copenhagen
Freiburg
Hamburg
Muenster
Oslo
Stockholm
On the basis of an additional transparent
evaluation process, the European Green
Capital Award Jury made their final decision
and announced the City of Stockholm as the
2010 European Green Capital, and the City of
Hamburg as the Award winner for 2011.
6
The aim of this report
The aim of this report is to make the data from
the finalists' applications available to other
cities in a systematic manner in order to inspire
and provide them with ambitious benchmarks.
This has been done by:
- In depth analysis and reporting on the eight
finalists' achievements, goals and practices in
a useful manner;
- Providing evidence on the best results and
highlighting the best practices, in order to
promote positive competition aiming to achieve
the most ambitious goals possible;
- Reporting the available quantitative data in a
clear manner, with tables and graphs and,
where possible, with appropriate comparisons;
- Integrating quantitative data with qualitative
descriptions of good practices, in a manner that
inspires other cities.
Structure and approach of this report
The report is organized in eight Chapters (eight
and not ten), because the analysis of four
indicator areas, Local public open areas /
Sustainable land Use and Water consumption /
Waste water management have been
integrated into two chapters).
Policies are described with qualitative
information, and a selection of local, best
practices developed by the eight cities are
highlighted.
The report elaborates on the data which was
presented by cities in accordance with the
Award application forms and on additional
documentation provided during the evaluation
rounds. In a few cases, where data provided by
cities was not comparable, (e.g. different years
or units of measure, only qualitative answers
available, etc.), other data sources (e.g. EEA or
Eurostat) have been used, or the
“benchmarking” approach has been avoided.
The reporting activity was structured towards
producing as much useful information as
possible with the available data.
7
2. LOCAL CONTRIBUTION TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Introduction Climate change is at the top of the World global
Agenda. EU has set ambitious targets (20-20-
20 climate and energy package1) and cities are
to play an important role in meeting these
targets.
Local policies aiming to reduce CO2 emissions
and increase energy efficiency and renewable
uses, generally part of city strategy, are already
in place in the form of activities to reduce and
avoid air pollution, reduce car congestion,
improve water and waste management and
increase green areas.
In their applications the cities were asked to
provide information on the baseline as well as
the policies and targets in relation to the
following indicators:
- CO2 per capita and trends (1990 – 2005)
- Carbon content in electricity
- District heating
- Greenhouse gas reduction target
CO2 per capita and trends CO2 calculation methods, when applied at local
level, often differ greatly so comparison data
must be evaluated carefully.
None the less, interesting information emerges
when studying the information from the eight
finalists.
1 The 20-20-20 „climate and energy package‟ was agreed
by the European Parliament and Council in December 2008 and came into force in June 2009. The three main targets of the package are: a reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions of at
least 20% below 1990 levels; 20% of EU energy consumption to come from
renewable resources; a 20% reduction in primary energy use compared with
projected levels, to be achieved by improving energy efficiency.
Oslo is the city which shows the lowest CO2
per capita emission (2.4 t/inh). This data may
be explained by the widespread use of
electricity based on hydropower, a district
heating system based to a large degree on
heat derived from waste incineration, and a
well developed, rail-based public transport
system.
Oslo is followed by Stockholm where the per
capita emissions of 5.4 t registered in 1990
decreased to 4.0 t/inh in 2005. Part of this
improvement can be related to the transport
sector, where the emissions decreased from
1.6 to 1.3 tonnes per capita between 1990 and
2005. This is again thanks to the low car share
of the modal split (this is further explained in
the next chapter on local mobility and
passenger transport) and to the fact that
70,000 vehicles in Stockholm (9%) are ethanol,
biogas, hybrid-electric or ultra-low emission
vehicles. All inner city buses operate on biogas
or ethanol and 50 % of the waste-lorries and 40
% of the taxis are bio fuelled or Hybrid. 75% of
fuel stations offer ethanol or biogas and all
petrol sold in the city contains 5 % ethanol.
Like Stockholm, Copenhagen scores a 26%
CO2 per capita reduction in the period 1990-
2005, reaching 4.9 t/inh. A significant causative
factor in this reduction is the full expansion of
the district heating network and cleaner fuels in
CHP stations (CO2 emissions from CPH
stations has halved since 1984).
CO2 EMISSIONS
City t/inh
% from
transport 1990-2005
Amsterdam 6.6 33% 12%
Bristol 5.4 na na
Copenhagen 4.9 20% -26%
Freiburg 9.3 22% -13%
Hamburg 8.8 41% -25%
Muenster 6.3 32% -22%
Oslo 2.4 58% -8%
Stockholm 4 33% -26%
8
The German cities, Freiburg and Hamburg in
particular, show the highest per capita
emissions: respectively, 9.3 t/inh and 8.8 t/inh.
At the same time, Hamburg is the city that has
experienced the highest emissions decrease
(in absolute value), being able to cut the per
capita emissions by 2.87 t (-25%). Main factors
were: A decrease in energy consumption from
housing and a decrease of the electricity
consumption of households and small
businesses. Since 2004, emissions from
transport have been falling in accordance with
the national emissions, due to higher fuel
prices. Since 1997, Hamburg is subsidising
solar thermal plants and, as of today, more
than 36,000 m² of solar collectors have been
installed. The same programme subsidised bio-
energy plants, with a total power capacity of
14.5 MW. The municipally owned housing
associations have also improved the energetic
performance of some 65,000 residential units
in the past 10 years. This has made it possible
to avoid 75,000 t of CO2 per year, which
represents a 22% reduction in emissions.
CO2 per capita emission
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
Am
ste
rda
m
Bri
sto
l
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Fre
ibu
rg
Ha
mb
urg
Mu
en
ste
r
Oslo
Sto
ckh
olm
1990
2005-2006
ton
/in
h
In Freiburg, the drop in CO2 emissions (-13%)
was achieved by active local policies which
have led to decreased energy consumption by
industry, households and businesses, as well
as in transport. Today 50% of Freiburg‟s
electricity is generated within the city, largely
through combined heat and power generation
and the percentage of nuclear energy has also
been reduced below 25%. Approximately 4% of
electricity is currently generated from
renewable energy sources: 1.5% wind energy,
1.6% biomass, 0.85% solar panels and 0.2%
hydropower. Freiburg has 9.8 MW of solar PV
panels and 13,000 m2 of solar thermal panels
installed.
Amsterdam is the only city where the per capita
emissions increased from 5.9 in 1990 to 6.6 in
2006, despite a rather good diffusion of
renewable energy, particularly wind power.
Today 80 megawatts of wind energy is
produced within the city limits, including the
port area. The port wishes to expand this to
100 megawatts.
No available data for Bristol.
Carbon content in electricity
Although data on electricity consumption
derived from Renewable Energy Sources
(RES) are difficult to compare, the available
data on the carbon content of electricity are
analysed as follows.
Electricity carbon content
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Oslo
Sto
ckh
olm
Mu
en
ste
r
Bri
sto
l
Ha
mb
urg
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Am
ste
rda
m
Fre
ibu
rg
g C
O2
/kW
h
Regarding the carbon content of electricity, the
cities tend to report a value related to the
national energy mix, not being able to account
for the local electricity production‟s ratio.
For example, Amsterdam (where 37% of
households use electricity from RES) considers
the composition of the Dutch fuel mix largely
9
representative for the fuel mix of the city (1
kWh of electricity produces 616 g CO2).
Hamburg imports “only” 80% of its electricity
from the national grid but reports the emission
factors of the national energy production (584 g
CO2/kWh). The city declares a 12% of
electricity produced from RES.
Freiburg does not use the German factors and
the value reported - based on the GEMIS
methodology - is higher than Hamburg's (683 g
per kWh). A record of the CO2 intensity of the
overall energy consumption of the city
(kgCO2/kWh) has not been kept in Freiburg
(they declare a 4% of electricity produced from
RES).
In Oslo most of the electricity supply comes
from renewable hydropower. During limited
periods the electricity supply may contain a
fraction of fossil derived energy imported from
overseas; however this is more than
compensated by exports of hydropower out of
Norway at other times. Even if precise figures
for the size of this fossil fraction are not
available, they consider the CO2 content equal
to zero.
Also in Stockholm the carbon intensity is very
low (103 grams of CO2 per kWh in 2005),
thanks to the widespread use of renewable
energy (as national average the data provided
is 61% and 70% is used for the district
heating). About 70% of the municipal
administrations use electricity from renewable
resources (hydro and wind). There are also
12% of households buying electricity
ecolabelled as from RES.
District heating
Scandinavian cities have a long tradition in the
development of district heating technology and
show the highest percentages of connected
inhabitants. Today, 97% of Copenhagen is
connected to a district heating system. District
heating is mainly a product of surplus heat from
electricity and/or industrial production, energy
from waste incineration plants and bio fuels
and other renewable energy sources.
Inhabitants connected to district heating
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Sto
ckh
olm
Ha
mb
urg
Mu
en
ste
r
Fre
ibu
rg
Am
ste
rda
m
Oslo
Bri
sto
l
In Stockholm almost 70% of the population has
access to district heating. The share of
renewable energies used for the energy
production is about 70% (including waste
recovery). The emissions of greenhouse gases
have dropped with 593,000 t since 1990 as a
result of conversion from oil to district heating.
Furthermore, a new district cooling system
contributes to an annual environmental gain of
approx. 60,000 t CO2.
The other cities, with the exception of Bristol,
show a percentage of connected inhabitants
ranging from 10% to 20%.
In Amsterdam not only household, but also 500
large companies are connected to the network.
A lot of the heat is produced by the Waste and
Energy Company which converts biomass from
waste and biogas from the sewer.
Long Term Energy Storage (LTES) in the
eastern port area of Amsterdam
On the Oosterdoks island, a long term energy
storage (LTES) will be realised in order to supply
energy to 180,000 m2 of commercial and industrial
buildings (offices, other facilities).
The LTES system has a heat and cold distribution
network from where all the required cold and heat
for the buildings is supplied at the right
10
temperature. Heat is generated centrally with
reversible heat pumps, supplemented by bio-fuel
powered central heating boilers at peak demands.
The cold is also generated with reversible heat
pumps. The pumps utilise the stored heat and
cold from the ground water to provide the
necessary heating and cooling. All buildings have
separately metered connections, so that users
can be charged for their own usage.
Compared to traditional installations (gas-fired
boilers and air-cooled compression cooling
machines) it is forecast an annual amount of
approximately 3,200 tonnes in terms of CO2
emissions that will be cut. This corresponds to the
amount of CO2 avoided that could be provided by
means of approximately 8,050 solar panels a
year.
Greenhouse gas reduction targets and
strategies
All the cities have in recent years adopted
specific strategies to cut their greenhouse gas
emissions. Some of them, like Copenhagen,
Hamburg and Stockholm, identified both short
period targets (to be reached by 2015) and
targets related to a longer period (20-30 years
and also 50 years long). Copenhagen and
Stockholm committed themselves to become
carbon neutral cities.
CO2 EMISSION TARGET (BASE 1990)
City
Short period
(2015)
Medium period
(2020-2030)
Long period
(2050)
Amsterdam -40%
Bristol -80%
Copenhagen -20%
(base 2005) carbon neutral
Freiburg -40%
Hamburg -20% -40% -80%
Muenster -40%
Oslo -50%
Stockholm -25% carbon neutral
Stockholm City Council has adopted a target to
reduce the greenhouse gas emissions to 3.0
tonnes CO2 per capita by 2015. The City
Council has also set a long-term target to
continue to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases at the same rate as between 1990 and
2005. This is a step towards Stockholm
becoming a fossil fuel free city by 2050.
In 2007 the city council of Copenhagen
adopted “The Metropolitan Milieu” with the aim
of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20%
from 2005 levels by 2015. The plan will
consider possible ways of achieving a climate-
neutral Copenhagen within 20 years.
In a comprehensive “Strategy for Climate
Protection” published in late 2007 and updated
annually, Hamburg committed itself to reduce
CO2 emissions by 2 million tonnes until 2012 –
about 20% less than the 1990 figure,
representing a per capita reduction of
approximately 25%. The city aims to reduce
CO2 emissions by 40 % until 2020, and
endorses the joint European target to reduce
CO2 emissions by 80% until 2050.
The City of Oslo adopted a strategy for
reducing climate gas emissions in 2003. This
laid the foundations for Oslo‟s climate and
energy action plan which was adopted by the
City Council in 2005 and stated that by the year
2030, Oslo‟s climate gas emissions will be
reduced by 50% compared to 1990. The Oslo
region‟s public transport company has decided
that by the year 2020, use of fossil fuels for its
buses will be phased out. Heating oil will be
phased out in municipal buildings by the end of
2011 and fossil energy for heating will be
phased out entirely by 2020.
The Freiburg municipal set the City's new
objective for climate protection in 2007: a 40%
CO2 reduction by 2030. Short period targets
have been set to obtain 10% of electricity from
renewable energy sources by 2010. 1.2% of
11
the city‟s electricity should come from solar
panels.
In 2007, the Municipality of Amsterdam
approved the New Amsterdam Climate, a
strategy that aims to achieve a 40% CO2
emission reduction by the year 2025 for the
entire city (compared to the level in 1990). In
addition, the municipality itself aims to set a
good example becoming climate neutral by
2015. Buildings, public lighting and the
municipal transport facilities must consume
less energy and must make as much use as
possible of sustainable energy. For functions
where fossil fuels are still unavoidable,
possibilities for carbon setoffs will be
investigated.
The first target adopted by the city of Muenster
aimed at cutting down one quarter of the CO2
emissions from 1990 to 2005. The communal
climate protection balance for the year 2005
showed a factual saving of 21%. Due to these
encouraging results a new target has been set
by the city council in March 2008: to cut CO2
emissions by the year 2020, by at least 40%
(reference year 1990). Furthermore, the
renewable energies are supposed to obtain a
20% share in communal energy supply.
In 2004, the city of Bristol adopted the Bristol
Climate Protection & Sustainable Energy
Strategy and set the target to reduce CO2
emissions by 60% by 2050, from 2000
baseline. This is 1.2% per annum. Between
2005 and 2006, the first years of quality
assured, comparable data, emissions were
reduced by 2%. In 2008 a new Green Capital
Action Plan was adopted and the previous
reduction target is currently being reviewed as
part of a research project with Bristol University
which will set 5-yearly voluntary targets.
12
3. LOCAL MOBILITY AND PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
Introduction Mobility patterns and policies are of paramount
importance for the urban environment and
quality of life. A strong dependency by cars and
the quality of public transport affect parameters
such as air quality, noise, street accidents, city
livability and children safety, health depending
on mobility lifestyles, fossil energy consumption
and production of CO2.
The Data analyzed in this report concerns the
eight EGCA finalists' efforts in reducing car
dependency and shifting modal split towards
means which are more sustainable.
The indicators include:
- Availability of cycling infrastructures, with a
special focus on cycle tracks and lanes
(km, km/inh, km/m2)
- Public transport (population leaving <300 m
from PT stop; low emission PT)
- Private car ownership (n/inh)
- Modal share (%), with a focus on trips not
longer than 5 km.
Availability of cycling infrastructures Cycling infrastructures contribute to promoting
cycling by making it faster, safer and more
comfortable to cycle, even if it is clearly not the
only factor of importance. The infrastructure
offered by the finalist cities varies significantly.
For example, Amsterdam has more than 500
km of cycle tracks and lanes, but there are also
900 km of roads (60% of the total amount) with
speed ramps and a maximum speed of 30
km/h, a traffic management solution that could
be considered very bicycle friendly. It really
makes the difference because if we consider
only cycle tracks and lanes, the Amsterdam per
capita availability is 0.67 m/inh, while
considering the “enlarged cycling network” the
value rises up to 1.87 m/inh.
CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURES
City Separate
d tracks
Signed
with lanes
Routes,
pathways
Street
easy to
bike
km km km km
Amsterdam 400 100 na 900
Bristol 39 32 95 na
Copenh. 309 40 39 na
Freiburg 120 20 149 130
Hamburg 1,500 200 630 1,755
Muenster 293 3 210 na
Oslo 201 30 14 6
Stockholm 760 na na
In Hamburg, as well as an extensive cycle lane
network of 1,700 km, there are an additional
630 km of cycle routes and pathways along
green areas and 1,755 km of streets with a
maximum speed of 30 km/h.
Due to the fact that this type of data is not
available for all eight cities, the following
analysis has only reported on cycle tracks and
lanes.
CYCLE TRACKS AND LANES
City km m/inh km/km2
Amsterdam 500 0.67 2.28
Bristol 71 0.17 0.65
Copenhagen 349 0.69 3.95
Freiburg 140 0.64 0.91
Hamburg 1,700 0.97 2.25
Muenster 296 1.06 0.98
Oslo 231 0.42 0.51
Stockholm 760 0.96 3.64
With regard to the availability of cycle tracks
and cycle lanes, Muenster, Hamburg and
Stockholm have the highest per capita values
(about 1m/inh).
13
Availability of cycle paths and lanes
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0A
mste
rda
m
Bri
sto
l
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Fre
ibu
rg
Ha
mb
urg
Mu
en
ste
r
Oslo
Sto
ckh
olm
m/inh
km/km2
Hamburg, also due to its dimension, has the
most extensive cycle network, with a total
length of 1,700 km. It consists of tracks running
parallel to roads for motor vehicles as well as
of independently routed cycle paths, and has
been in existence for over 30 years.
However, if we consider the length of the cycle
network compared to the extent of the
municipal area, Copenhagen scores the
maximum “cycle network density” value,
accounting 3.95 km of cycle tracks and lanes
for each km2. The Stockholm area is well
covered too (3.64 km/km2) followed by
Hamburg and Amsterdam (about 2.3 km/km2).
Copenhagen and Muenster: priority to the bike
Copenhagen has set the objective of becoming
the world‟s best cycling city. Today 36% of the
capital‟s inhabitants use a bicycle to go to work or
study. The municipality wants to increase this
share to 50% by 2015. It is therefore investing in
new cycle tracks, trails, parks and safety projects.
The Green Wave is the sequenced traffic lights for
commuters put on several of the city‟s main
arteries which have been set so that cyclists do
not have to stop for red lights. In the municipality„s
road projects, very high value is given to cycle
tracks, often over cars or parking needs.
In Muenster, bicycle transport is also a top priority.
The entire municipal area is crossed by a network
of safe bicycle trails. The fact that the citizens of
Muenster make use of the area-wide bicycle lane
network gladly and frequently is helped by three
factors:
the bicyclist-friendly topography of the city;
the installation of 304 km of separate bicycle
lanes along all main artery roads;
the car-free promenade of 4.5 km all around
the old town which is reserved for cyclists and
pedestrians and fulfils important functions (up
to 1,500 cyclists per hour, at peak times,
make use of this “bicycle highway”).
Public transport
The density and service level of the public
transport network plays a very important role in
the sustainable mobility of a city. In Hamburg,
Amsterdam and Copenhagen the share of
population living within a 300 metre radius of
local public transport stops (hourly or more
frequent) is very close to 100%. In
Copenhagen, 98% of the population lives
within 350 metres to the high frequency lines.
With the exception of Bristol, all the cities score
very high, around 90% to 100%.
Population living <300m from a public transport stop
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ha
mb
urg
Am
ste
rda
m
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Fre
ibu
rg
Mu
en
ste
r
Sto
ckh
olm
Oslo
Bri
sto
l
Data about low emission public fleets is rather
difficult to compare because each city provides
different interpretations of the technical
features required for a public means of
transport to be considered “low emission”
(buses with emissions which are 50% or more
below EURO IV standards as regards NOX or
particulate matter). Nevertheless, Stockholm
14
and Amsterdam seem to be the cities which
have invested most resources in reducing the
emissions related to their public transport fleet.
In Stockholm County 65% of the public
transport (based on person-km) is classified as
low emission, including rail traffic. All rail traffic
operates with certified renewable electricity. All
buses operating in the inner city run on
renewables. Some 50 buses run on biogas and
the number will be doubled the coming years.
Stockholm Transport also uses some 400
ethanol buses and a few ethanol hybrid buses.
In 2008 25% of the bus fleet in the whole
region ran on renewables, and the target for
2011 is 50%.
In Amsterdam only 20% of all public transport
journeys is by bus. The other 80% of journeys
by public transport is by emission free trams,
metro or trains with no local emissions. 98% of
buses are equipped with a CRT filter:
(Continuously Regenerating Trap) that reduces
fine particles more than twice as low as the
EURO IV norm. Although, NOx emissions do
not reach a similar level. 15% of the buses of
the transport company meets the - stricter -
EEV NOx norm, but does not achieve the
required 50% NOx of the euro IV norm.
Private car ownership
The car‟s ownership rate (Source: Eurostat) is
very low in the eight cities (except for Bristol) if
compared with the EU15 national average
(around 500 cars every 1,000 inhabitants).
Amsterdam and Hamburg show very low
values, under 300 cars/1,000inh.
Registered cars
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Bri
sto
l
Fre
ibu
rg
Oslo
Sto
ckh
olm
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Am
ste
rda
m
Ha
mb
urg
ca
rs/1
00
0 in
h
Modal share
Even if some differences could be due to
different morphological conditions, innovative
policies and mobility lifestyles have a great
influence in the modal share, especially
referring to short distances (less than 5 km,
that generally are the high majority of urban
trips).
MODAL SHARE (TRIPS < 5km)
City Foot Bicycle
Public
transport Car+moto Other
Amsterdam 61% 25% 14%
Bristol 26% 6% 15% 52%
Copenhagen 29% 26% 17% 28%
Freiburg 26% 31% 18% 25%
Hamburg 40% 16% 11% 34%
Muenster 23% 46% 8% 23%
Oslo 50% 7% 10% 32%
Stockholm 68% 25% 8%
All the cities – with the exception of Bristol –
aim to contain the car use. Stockholm has
reached definitely the best results, with only
8% of short trips made by car, while the other
cities‟ values are between 20% and 30%. In
particular, policies aiming to increase the “soft”
mobility have been successful: in Amsterdam,
Muenster and Stockholm more than 60% of
short trips are done walking or by bicycle. Also
other cities record a value which is higher than
50%.
15
Modal share (trips <5km)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%S
tockh
olm
Mu
en
ste
r
Am
ste
rda
m
Fre
ibu
rg
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Oslo
Ha
mb
urg
Bri
sto
l
car+moto
other
public transport
bicycle
foot
In Amsterdam 38% of all journeys are currently
made by bicycle and in the city centre this
increases to 57%. Amsterdam residents now
use a bicycle on average more frequently than
a car.
Amsterdam: low-traffic city centre and
widespread car sharing system
Amsterdam residents decided on a low-traffic city
centre in a referendum in 1992. The number of car
journeys from and to the city centre has dropped
strongly from 58,900 in 1995 to 40,100 in 2007: a fall
of 32% (whereas the population remained stable).
This drop in car traffic seems to have no negative
economic effects, in view of the increase in price per
square metre for offices and housing in the city
centre over the same period.
The centre of Amsterdam has the highest car
sharing use of the Netherlands, with 200 car sharing
spots. Since 1995, the municipality makes fixed
parking spaces available to car sharing providers.
Amsterdam as a whole city has 740 car sharing
spots. 90% of all housing in Amsterdam is within 400
metres of a car sharing spot and in the Ring, where
60% of all housing is concentrated, 80% has a car
sharing spot within less than 100 metres (96% within
less than 250 metres).
In Stockholm 68% of all trips in the inner city
(usually not longer than 5 km) is done walking
or by bike and 25% by public transport. The car
use has been limited only at 8%. During peak
hour 78% of all trips to the inner city are by
public transport.
The congestion charge in Stockholm
After a seven month testing period, from August
2007 the congestion charge in Stockholm city centre
is permanent. The fee is imposed on Swedish
registered vehicles driving into and out of the
Stockholm inner city zone on weekdays between
6.30 a.m. and 6.29 p.m. Vehicles are automatically
registered at “control points”. Traffic and emissions in
the city centre decreased by at least 10-15 percent.
The emission reduction due to the congestion fee
has been calculated to be equivalent of 30,000
tonnes of CO2 for the year of 2006.
Before the introduction of the congestion scheme
there were a majority opposing it, but once people
saw the benefits many citizens changed their minds.
At the referendum in September 2006 the majority
voted for the continuation. It was re-launched on 1
August 2007 and the opinion polls now show a
majority in favour of the scheme.
In recent years Freiburg has been successful in
introducing sustainable mobility measures in its
long term planning documents. The Land
Development Plan (LDP), approved in 2006,
requires that all new residential and
commercial areas would be assessed in terms
of their potential ramifications on the transport
system. The latest version of the „markets and
commercial centres concept‟, approved in
2008, has the aim to prevent commercial
centres from appearing in the “open
countryside” This is to ensure that local
populations continue to be supplied with
everyday necessities avoiding unnecessarily
long journeys.
16
Freiburg: new car free district
Two new districts have been created in Freiburg
during the past 10 years: the „Rieselfeld‟ district
(11,000 inhabitants) and the „Vauban‟ district, (5,000
inhabitants). For both of these districts a major
objective was to provide them with an
environmentally friendly traffic scheme.
As the Rieselfeld district was developed it was
simultaneously connected to the tram network. The
tram runs right through the heart of the district, in
such a way that no housing or workplaces are more
than 500 m away from the nearest stop. The tram
was in operation right from the beginning of the
development, so that new residents could get used
to basing their travel choices on local public
transport.
Connection to the tram network was an issue of
central importance also for the Vauban district. Here
however, even more ambitious objectives in terms of
environmental policy were pursued: a large section
of the residential area is car-free, or more precisely
„parking space-free‟, i.e. residents may bring goods
to their front doors using their vehicles but must park
the vehicles themselves in collective garages outside
the area. Residents can declare themselves „car-
free‟, in which case they do not have to purchase a
parking space. This project is by far the largest car-
free project in Germany and has attracted much
attention worldwide.
17
4. SUSTAINABLE LAND
USE AND AVAILABILITY
OF LOCAL PUBLIC
OPEN AREAS
Introduction
The land use pattern, as part of the urban
design, lays out the conditions under which
cities can function. Compact cities with high
densities of people and jobs per built up area
and brownfield re-developments enable cities
to reduce their ecological footprint by reducing
the urban land take and soil sealing, the energy
demand for heating and cooling, and the
transport demand per capita. Furthermore
compact cities patterns could help in enabling
more walking, cycling and more efficient public
transport.
Nevertheless, compact development needs to
be balanced with sufficient green urban areas
as a prerequisite for a liveable city. Cities are
human habitats; thus, good access to green
urban areas, their high quality and multiple
usability are even more important than their
absolute share of the municipal's area.
Data analyzed in this report shows the eight
EGCA finalists' efforts in these directions.
Indicators used are:
- Built up area
- Population density
- Building on brownfield
- Availability of public green areas
- Population living <300m from a public open
area
Built up area
In Hamburg the land used for housing and
traffic purposes accounts for a 60% share of
the total area. In Amsterdam this share is about
50% and in Stockholm 45% (35% are business
and residential areas, and 10% consists of
roads)2.
Roads or buildings take up only 1/3 of Oslo‟s
and Muenster‟s municipal area.
Built up area
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Ha
mb
urg
Am
ste
rda
m
Sto
ckh
olm
Oslo
Mu
en
ste
r
The Oslo strategy of preventing urban sprawl
The population of Oslo has grown with 50,000
new inhabitants the last 10 years (10% of total
population). Virtually all new housing in Oslo has
been built within the existing building zone, and
not on virgin land outside the building zone. The
densification takes place in most parts of the city
built up area, mainly in the more central parts of
the city.
The overall strategy of preventing urban sprawl
has been Oslo‟s policy for many years. This
strategy primarily includes densification around
collective transport networks and nodes as well as
improvement of the public transport system. In
addition, building in the green belt around the city
is strictly prohibited. The policy for coordinated
urban land use and transport was adopted in the
Urban Ecology programme 2002 and the City
master plan in 2004.
The goal is to develop favourable conditions for
being able to live in the city without owning a car.
The main strategy to obtain this goal is to improve
the public transport system. Nine nodes in the
public transport system were designated as
prioritized areas for urban development and
densification. An important pre-requisite for this
2 No available data submitted in the applications of
Copenhagen, Freiburg and Bristol.
18
strategy is a development with low car parking
coverage.
The municipal master plan adopted in June 2008
assumes an increase of 60,000 households by the
year 2025, with 2/3 to be built within or close to
the inner city. If this prediction is realized, the
density of inhabitants in the inner city is expected
to increase by more than 25 %, while the density
of the outer city will see a more moderate
increase of up to 15%. The development of the
new Fjord city (redevelopment of harbour
brownfields), with a total area of 226 ha is
expected to absorb a significant amount of
projected growth in the inner city.
Population density
Copenhagen is the most compact city, with a
population density of 5,708 inhabitants for each
km2, followed by Stockholm (4,141 inh/km2)
and Bristol (3,732 inh/km2). The lowest
densities (about 1,000 inh/km2) are the ones of
Oslo and Muenster.
If we consider the density of built up areas
(data available only for 5 cities), Stockholm and
Amsterdam show values (respectively 8,000
and 7,000 inh/km2) that are, more or less, twice
than the average densities of Hamburg or Oslo.
Muenster has the lowest density, also referring
to built up areas (3,000 inh/km2).
Population density
0
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
Muenste
r
Oslo
Fre
iburg
Ham
burg
Am
ste
rdam
Bristo
l
Sto
ckholm
Copenhagen
density
density -
built up
land
inh
/km
2
The new development schemes in
Copenhagen, mainly consisting of mixed uses
(dwellings, office, space, retail, leisure etc), are
characterised by a very high density: 350-400
inhabitants per Ha, three times more than
Stockholm (112 inh/Ha) and Bristol (140
inh/Ha).
DENSITY
City
Density
Density built up areas
Density new developments
inh/km
2 inh/ km
2 inh/Ha
Amsterdam 3,412 6,856 100
Bristol 3,732 Na 140* Copenhagen 5,708 Na 350-400 Freiburg 1,434 na 120 Hamburg 2,331 3,918 200
Muenster 925 2,983 100
Oslo 1,211 3,595 38 Stockholm 4,141 8,032 112
Hamburg‟s urban planning has identified
significant areas (30%) within the inner city
consolidation that will be progressively realised
through the development of vacant sites and by
adding floors. HafenCity is a new development
project for reuse and requalification of part of
the harbour area, with a very high population
density: one third of the area (60 ha) is being
used to build 5,500 residential homes for
12,000 new inhabitants, equating to a
population density of 690 inh/Ha. At the same
time, Hamburg‟s residential building policy also
provides for new terraced and detached
housing of a considerably lower population
density in the peripheral urban regions, such as
the new city district of Neu-Allermöhe (12
inh/Ha).
In Freiburg, during the 1990s, the construction
of two new large districts that now host nearly
7% of total population began: Rieselfeld
(11,000 residents) and the former military site
of the Vauban (5,000 residents). Both districts‟
proximity to the city centre and good local
transport connections enable and demand high
but manageable population densities about 120
inhabitants per Ha.
19
Amsterdam's development within city limits is
aimed at creating municipal environments in
high densities. High offices around the
Amstelpark and in the Zuidas new district are
the trend even if the highest numbers of
residents and employees can still be found in
the centre (>250 residents + employees per
hectare). About ten sites have been
transformed into residential-work areas, with a
joint share of approximately 25 % residential.
Over the next decades this may well grow to
50%. In most cases the population density in
these new projects amounts to 100 residents
per hectare or more.
Building on brownfield
Not all cities adopt a harmonized definition of
the “brownfield” concept so the following data
should be taken with some care.
Bristol, Oslo and Copenhagen show the best
capacity in containing the urban sprawl,
avoiding new developments on virgin and
undeveloped land.
In Bristol all new offices and light industries and
most residential developments have been built
on brownfield areas (since 1997, 93% of
16,000 new homes). The percentage is lower
for industrial and warehouse developments
(nearly 45%).
Building on previously undeveloped land plots
in Oslo was limited during the period 2002 to
2006 to 20% of new buildings over 100 m2,
while 80% were built on previously developed
or brownfield sites.
From 2001 to 2007 a total of 14,400 new
dwellings were built in Copenhagen.
Approximately 80% was on brownfield sites
either as densification in existing
neighbourhoods or in relation to major
redevelopment schemes.
In the same period, 25,000 new apartments
were built in Stockholm; more than 1/3 were
built in larger brownfield areas. Similar
percentages have been recorded in Muenster,
where approximately 25% of the residential
building areas (1,825 dwelling units) were
provided in derelict or reorganisation areas
during the period from 1997 to 2004. This
share rose to more than 38% from 2005 to
2007.
BUILT LAND
City
Built land Building on browfields
% %
Amsterdam 50% na
Bristol na 45%(industrial) - 93% (houses) (1997-2007)
Copenhagen na 80% (2001-2007)
Freiburg na na Hamburg 60% na
Muenster 31% 38% (2005-2007) 25% (1997-2004)
Oslo 34% 80% (2002-2006)
Stockholm 45% 30% (2000-2007)
Freiburg is a continually growing city with a
current total of almost 220,000 inhabitants.
Space-saving housing developments became
the chief aim of the new Land Development
Plan (LDP) 2020 (effective in law since Dec
2006). The Plan is based on a realistic demand
forecast incorporating the potential for central
urban development, which is to be exploited as
a priority. In terms of results, the LDP 2020 has
taken the decision to reduce by 34 hectares the
land available for housing than its predecessor
of 1980.
Availability of public green areas
Stockholm is the city with the highest
availability of public green spaces3, 6,8704 Ha,
36% of all land area. This means that there are
3 Not all cities adopt a harmonized definition of the “green
areas” concept so the following data should be taken with some care. 4 Only the total amount has been given, without specifying
the different kind of green areas (parks, allotments, recreational areas, sport facilities, etc….)
20
86 square meters of green areas for each
inhabitant. Within the city of Stockholm eight
areas of natural and cultural reserves are
protected to secure biodiversity and
accessibility for the citizens. The green areas
of Stockholm are still of a coherent structure in
many parts of the city, the so called ecological
infrastructure, which is also of great importance
for the flora and fauna in the community.
Stockholm’s Ekoparken
Nationalstadsparken also called Ekoparken, is
unique in the world. In 1994 a large piece of land
and water area in a big city area was set apart
and protected by a special law in order to
preserve its nature and culture in our time and for
future generations. Nationalstadsparken is a
unique experiment in cohabitation of city and
nature, a method for keeping a heritage in culture
and nature alive in a world of change.
The other city showing a very high value of per
capita public green areas is Oslo, with 52
m2/inh. The central third of the municipality of
Oslo consists of built-up area, whilst the outer
two thirds are protected forested areas known
as "Marka". The Oslo City Council has decided
to protect the Marka because of its importance
for the city‟s visual character and environment,
as well as for recreation (lakes for bathing,
rivers and lakes for fishing, marked cross-
country skiing trails…).
Hamburg and Bristol have just less than 40
m2/inh of public green areas, while the other
four cities record values around 30 m2/inh.
Availabity of public green areas
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Sto
ckh
olm
Oslo
Ha
mb
urg
Bri
sto
l
Am
ste
rda
m
Mu
en
ste
r
Fre
ibu
rg
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
m2
/in
h
PUBLIC GREEN AREAS
City Public open areas pop living < 300 m from public open
area
m2/inh
Amsterdam 33 71%
Bristol 38 na Copenhagen 28 79% Freiburg 32 100%
Hamburg 39 89%
Muenster 32 95% Oslo 52 94% Stockholm 86 90%
Accessibility of public open areas
The accessibility of public open areas is very
high in all the cities. Amsterdam shows the
lowest rate of population living less than 300 m
from a public green area (70%5), followed by
Copenhagen (80%). All the other cities6
evaluated that more than 90% of their citizens
comply with this standard of accessibility to
public open areas.
5 96% including waters
6 No available data for Bristol
21
In 2007 a citizen poll in Stockholm showed that
8 out of 10 citizens estimated that they visited
close situated parks and green areas regularly
every week. 9 out of 10 were satisfied with the
possibilities of access to public green areas.
In Freiburg the green areas are distributed
relatively evenly throughout the city and can
therefore be reached on foot within a matter of
minutes. On average, citizens of Freiburg are a
maximum of 150-300 metres away from their
nearest free time and leisure area. This is the
results of urban development policies aiming at
increasing the amount of green spaces, but
also their closeness to the new settlements.
Population living <300 m from a public open area
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fre
ibu
rg
Mu
en
ste
r
Oslo
Sto
ckh
olm
Ha
mb
urg
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Am
ste
rda
m
The presence of a networked system of open
spaces is an important prerequisite in order to
guarantee to the citizens the highest
accessibility to green areas. In Hamburg it has
been considered also a fundamental
prerequisite for ecological and social
development of the city as well as for
maintenance the structural qualities in terms of
natural landscape. Radial landscape axes and
the two tangential green rings form the
principal structural elements of the open space
network. This basis is supplemented by
recreational hubs serving half-day and all-day
recreation: district parks, regional parks and
local recreation areas. In order to sufficiently
provide the population with green and open
areas for leisure, sport and recreation within an
appropriate distance of residential areas, the
landscape axes and green rings are
complemented with a compact open area
structure comprising individual spaces such as
parks, playgrounds, sports fields and
allotments. These individual areas are
interlinked with each other as well as with the
landscapes axes and green rings via a network
of green corridors and paths. Thanks to this
network, approximately 90% of Hamburg‟s
population, live within a maximum distance of
300 metres from a public open area.
The green ordinary Muenster
In 1965, Muenster was one of the first cities in
Germany to establish a green structures policy:
A comprehensive conception for the development
of open spaces that has a decisive bearing on the
urban development. It was advanced constantly -
and still is until the present day. When it comes to
making decisions as regards the development and
utilisation of green areas and free spaces, the
green ordinary of Muenster constitutes a reliable
basis for politics and administration. It provides for
the development of green, leisure, and
recreational areas as well as the area-wide supply
of playgrounds, allotments, and cemeteries.
It guarantees the city‟s ecological and climatic
qualities to persist and even be expanded in the
future. Furthermore, it is a substantial contribution
to the land utilisation plan, thus establishing
principles to base decisions on as to which open
spaces have to persist at any rate, due to their
significance for the city, and which ones are to be
developed further.
In 2004, the council of the municipality of
Muenster decided to introduce the integrated city
marketing and urban development concept,
aiming at cultivating Muenster into a city with both
maximum quality of life and of experience. In
terms of this purpose, Muenster is perpetually
evolving also as regards both size and quality of
its green spaces. In this context, the surface of
public green spaces and playgrounds has been
increasing, within the past decade, by a total of
23%.
22
5. QUALITY OF LOCAL AMBIENT AIR
Introduction
Air pollution in European cities is still a critical
issue, due to the impacts that pollutants
concentrations have on citizen health,
particularly severe for elders and children.
Most of the EU cities have still not achieved the
goals established by the EU Air Directives.
Data analyzed in this report show the eight
EGCA finalist cities' efforts in reducing
pollutants concentrations and people's
exposition to them.
Air quality data from cities‟ applications
(provided to the European Green Capital
Award) are not completely homogeneous. In
order to fill the gap, the authors of this report
have used the European air quality database
(managed by European Topic Centre on Air
and Climate Change) to cover the missing data
and make the comparisons more reliable7.
Data showed for each city (year 2007) could be
represented as:
the average value of all the values
registered by the monitoring stations
the maximum value registered by the worst
monitoring station .
Values are referred to air monitoring stations
installed within the urban area, divided into
traffic and background stations8. In some cases
7 In cases where the data reported by the city in their
application has differed from data reported in the Air Quality Database, the data from the application has been chosen. 8 Traffic station: monitoring station located where the
pollution level is determined predominantly by the emissions from nearby traffic (roads, motorways, highways). Background station: monitoring station located where the pollution level is not influenced significantly by any single source or street, but rather by the integrated contribution from all sources upwind of the station (e.g. by all traffic, combustion sources etc. upwind of the station in a city, or
(Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Muenster) only
one traffic or background monitoring station
has been reported.
The indicators used are:
- Fine Particulate Matter (PM10)
- Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
- Ozone (O3)
Fine particulate matter (PM10)
With regard to fine particulate matter (PM10)
concentrations: the annual means‟ average
values are all under the 2010 limit value of 40
µg/m3 (Directive 2008/50/EC), both for
background and traffic stations. The limit value
related to the maximum number of days (35)
per year with a daily mean over 50µg/m3, has
been exceeded only in Copenhagen and
Stockholm. Copenhagen‟s value is related only
to a single traffic station, while in Stockholm the
59 days reported are the average value coming
from three traffic stations (the maximum value
recorded is 75 days)9. All the urban
background stations show pollution levels
respecting the limit values.
PM10 ANNUAL CONCENTRATIONS (AVERAGE VALUES)
City
Days > limit
value (traffic)
Days > limit value
(background)
Annual mean
(traffic)
Annual mean (background)
number number µg/m3 µg/m
3
Amsterdam 22 3 32 26 Bristol Na 15 22 20 Copenhagen 60 na 34 24 Freiburg 22 na 33 Na Hamburg 22 13 29 23 Muenster 31 9 32 23
Oslo 21 15 27 22 Stockholm 59 5 36 17
by all upwind source areas (cities, industrial areas) in a rural area). 9 Almost all the exceedances occur in the winter period
November to April mainly due to the use of studded winter tyres in Sweden.
23
PM10 ANNUAL CONCENTRATIONS (MAXIMUM VALUES)
City
Days > limit value
(traffic)
Days > limit value
(background)
Annual mean
(traffic)
Annual mean (background)
number number µg/m3 µg/m
3
Amsterdam 22 3 32 26 Bristol na 15 22 20 Copenhagen 60 na 38 24 Freiburg 22 na 38 na Hamburg 27 23 31 26 Muenster 31 9 32 23 Oslo 31 19 28 22 Stockholm 75 5 42 17
PM10: yearly number of days > limit value
(AVERAGE VALUE)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Am
ste
rda
m
Bri
sto
l
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Fre
ibu
rg
Ha
mb
urg
Mu
en
ste
r
Oslo
Sto
ckh
olm
urban traffic
urban
background
limit value
ug
/m3
PM10: yearly number of days > limit value
(MAXIMUM VALUE)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Am
ste
rda
m
Bri
sto
l
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Fre
ibu
rg
Ha
mb
urg
Mu
en
ste
r
Oslo
Sto
ckh
olm
urban traffic
urban
background
limit valueug
/m3
The annual mean limit value of 40 µg/m3 has
been respected in all monitoring stations, with
the exception of Stockholm, which has a
maximum value of 42 µg/m3.
PM10: annual mean
(AVERAGE VALUE)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Am
ste
rdam
Bristo
l
Copenhagen
Fre
iburg
Ham
burg
Muenste
r
Oslo
Sto
ckholm
urban traffic
urban
background
limit value
ug
/m3
PM10: annual mean
(MAXIMUM VALUE)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Am
ste
rda
m
Bri
sto
l
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Fre
ibu
rg
Ha
mb
urg
Mu
en
ste
r
Oslo
Sto
ckh
olm
urban traffic
urban
background
limit value
ug
/m3
However, the two cities are in a favourable
position for achieving a definitive improvement
as described in the following.
In Copenhagen, PM10 remained at the same
general level between 2002 and 2007. Levels
varied only slightly during this period, largely
due to meteorological conditions. The
municipality had declared the objective of
achieving 10 concrete initiatives in 2010 which
will result in fewer Copenhageners being
affected by traffic pollution: the PM10
concentrations are predicted to fall by 10% in
relation to the 2007 level.
In Stockholm, the trend for PM10 has remained
unchanged over the past five to ten years in
urban background, while in traffic hotspots a
slight downward trend has been monitored.
The public transport system has been a crucial
factor to improve air quality: the share of trips
to Stockholm city centre taken by public
transport increased from 57% to 64% the last
24
ten years. In the morning peak hour the share
increased from 72% to 77%.This trend is
expected to continue due to relevant political
initiatives.
Use of charges and subsidies to reduce PM10
concentration in Oslo
The air quality action plan of Oslo has resulted in a
steady improvement in the figures for the number of
exceedances of the daily mean value for PM10: in
2007 - for the first time - none of Oslo‟s measuring
stations recorded more than 35 exceedances.
A combination of several measures, including
charges and subsidies, has been effective in
reducing PM10 concentrations. In particular:
The introduction of a charge on the use of
studded tyres has increased the share of stud-
free tyres from 50% to more than 80% and
reduced dust created by road wear. (see Figure)
The measure is self-financing and any profit
made is invested in improved winter road
maintenance.
In order to reduce congestions and to finance the
necessary investments in the public transport
system, Oslo City, Oslo Region and the Ministry
of Transport agreed on the introduction of a toll
ring taxing car traffic entering the central part of
the city. 20% of the toll income went to
investments in public transport, and the rest to
build tunnels under the city to save the built up
area from pollution, traffic accidents and barrier
effects, and to improve car traffic flow on the
main road network.
Reduce particle emissions from wood burning
stoves. There are around 63,000 wood burning
stoves in Oslo. In order to increase the share of
clean burning stoves, citizens can apply for a
grant from the City of Oslo‟s Energy Efficiency
Fund. In the period 1998-2008, a total of NOK
12.3 million has been granted for the
replacement of ca. 4,400 stoves with new and
more efficient ones. This is estimated to have
reduced the annual particle emissions in Oslo by
35.2 tonnes.
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)
As regards the annual mean for nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), the EU limit value is in the
Directive 2008/50/EC set to 46 µg/m3.
In Hamburg, Freiburg, Amsterdam10 and Bristol
the average values registered by traffic stations
exceeded this limit. Both in Hamburg and
Freiburg the concentrations monitored in
background stations are about 1/3 of the
concentrations monitored in traffic stations.
NO2 AND O3 ANNUAL CONCENTRATIONS
(AVERAGE VALUES)
City
Annual mean NO2
(traffic)
Annual mean NO2
(background) Days ozone > limit value
µg/m3 µg/m
3 number
Amsterdam 53 31 2
Bristol 47 30 3 Copenhagen 45 19 3 Freiburg 58 20 33 Hamburg 65 25 7
Muenster 48 23 18 Oslo 44 na 4 Stockholm 44 13 0
NO2 AND O3 ANNUAL CONCENTRATIONS
(MAXIMUM VALUES)
City
Annual mean NO2
(traffic)
Annual mean NO2
(background) Days ozone > limit value
µg/m3 µg/m
3 number
Amsterdam 53 31 2
Bristol 56 34 3
Copenhagen 52 19 3
Freiburg 68 20 33
Hamburg 72 40 11
Muenster 64 23 18
Oslo 47 na 4
Stockholm 50 13 0
If we consider the 2010 target value of 40
µg/m3, all the cities, with the exception of
Muenster, have not still reached the target at
the street stations, and the maximum values
registered were all above the limit of 46 µg/m3
expected for 2007. The three German cities
10
Only one monitoring station has been reported.
25
show the highest maximum values, more than
40% higher than the limit value. Considering
the average levels, Oslo, Stockholm and
Copenhagen are rather close to the 2010
target (only about 10% above), while other
cities like Amsterdam, Freiburg and Hamburg
are still far from it (from 32% to 63% above). All
the background annual means, with the
exception of the Hamburg‟s maximum value,
are below 40 µg/m3.
NO2: annual mean
(AVERAGE VALUE)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Am
ste
rdam
Bristo
l
Copenhagen
Fre
iburg
Ham
burg
Muenste
r
Oslo
Sto
ckholm
urban traffic
urban
background
target value
ug
/m3
NO2: annual mean
(MAXIMUM VALUE)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Am
ste
rdam
Bristo
l
Copenhagen
Fre
iburg
Ham
burg
Muenste
r
Oslo
Sto
ckholm
urban traffic
urban
background
target value
ug
/m3
Almost all cities have introduced good
measures and future plans with the aim of
reducing NO2 concentrations.
In 2006, the Freiburg Regional Council
together with the City of Freiburg approved the
Freiburg Clean Air Plan with the aim to reduce
the NO2 levels. The Plan contains a technical
programme with the objective to comply with
the EU standard for NO2 by 2010. In addition to
numerous measures (e.g. planning and
building a tunnel within the city; and improving
local public transport), the Clean Air Plan also
prescribes traffic bans in the Freiburg low
emission zone affecting Euro 1 and older cars
from 2010 onwards and Euro 2 and older cars
from 2012 onwards.
The City of Hamburg presented a clean air plan
in October 2004 and an air quality
management action plan in December 2005
aiming to improve air quality and reduce NO2
concentration. Hamburg‟s municipal and public
enterprises have strongly committed to
increase the use of vehicles fuelled by natural
gas, including an incentive system for the
introduction of 1,000 new "Green Taxis" with
gas-fuelled engines. As of today, 20 natural
gas fuelling stations exist in the Greater
Hamburg area, to supply and service public
and private natural gas vehicles.
Ozone (O3)
Ozone is a pollutant which strongly depends on
meteorological conditions characterised by
solar intensity and high temperatures.
Therefore northern cities perform in general
better than the southern ones.
Freiburg, having higher NO2 concentrations
(one of the most important ozone precursors)
and a higher solar intensity, is the only city that
exceeds the number of days per year on which
the ozone value was above 120µg/m3 (8h
mean)11.
O3: yearly number of days > limit value
(MAXIMUM VALUE)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Am
ste
rda
m
Bri
sto
l
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Fre
ibu
rg
Ha
mb
urg
Mu
en
ste
r
Oslo
Sto
ckh
olm
limit value
ug
/m3
11
Limit value identified in the Directive 2008/50/EC
26
In 2007 there were 33 days, 8 more than the
25 allowed. In Freiburg electronic display
screens are provided in various locations
throughout the city to indicate air pollution
levels. The population and visitors are thus
kept constantly informed of air quality. In
summer, the City of Freiburg additionally runs
an ozone hotline that gives the current ozone
values measured and also issues „ozone
warnings‟ in the event of excessive ozone
levels (180 μg/m³ per day) including behaviour
indications (the first city in Germany to do so,
introduced in the 1980s).
Public Information on Air Quality in Bristol
A number of methods are used to communicate
air quality matters to the public, ranging from
surveys and consultations on specific schemes to
bespoken web sites for public issues. A bi-annual
newsletter is published and distributed to
residents and partner organisations to notify
customers of developments in air quality.
Bristol‟s web site on Air quality was set up to
deliver close to real time air quality and
meteorological data to the public and researchers
(http://www.bristol.airqualitydata.com). Data from
ten monitoring stations are available via the site.
The web site was further developed to provide a
“kiosk” type product, which can be viewed by the
public in council building foyers etc.
Bristol is participating in the European project
CITEAIR. Bristol has, in particular, been involved
in the development of a Common Operational
Website (COW) which enables participating cities
across Europe to compare air quality data in
close-to real time using a Common Air Quality
Indicator (CAQI). A CAQI for background and
roadside pollution is shown on the COW.
Bristol uploads a data file to
(www.airqualitynow.eu) on an hourly basis and
the web site displays current and recent air quality
classifications for roadside and background
locations. The site has been running with high
reliability for about three years.
27
6. NOISE POLLUTION
Introduction
Noise affects urban quality of life, both during
the day and at night and stems from numerous
sources such as public works and loud music.
However, traffic is the main and more
continuous source. Most EU cities have
difficulty in achieving the goals set by the Noise
Directive, either because they do not respect
noise value limit and/or are late in adopting the
correct noise measurements and plans.
Data analyzed in this report show the eight
EGCA finalist cities' efforts within this field.
The quantitative indicator used is the number
of people exposed to road noise. Information is
completed by a review of the main policies
adopted by cities.
People exposed to noise
The Noise Observation and Information
Service for Europe (NOISE) database of the
European Environment Agency provides a
picture of the numbers of people exposed to
noise generated by air, rail and road traffic in
102 large urban agglomerations. EEA data
about the % of people exposed to road traffic
are available only for Amsterdam, Bristol,
Copenhagen, Hamburg and Stockholm.
PEOPLE EXPOSED TO ROAD NOISE
People
exposed to Lden >55
People exposed to Lnight >50
Amsterdam 35% 20%
Bristol 95% 78%
Copenhagen 36% 32%
Hamburg 18% 13%
Stockholm 35% 20%
These data differ quite a lot from the data
reported in the applications submitted by cities
for the European Green Capital Award12.
Regarding people exposed to Lden > 55dB(A),
only for Stockholm and Hamburg data reported
in the application are similar to the EEA
database13.
Comparisons cannot easily be made as data in
the applications are not consistent.
For example, Muenster reports very recent
data (2008), but related only to areas subjected
to major exposure (main roads traffic) and
older data (2000) with a higher coverage.
Copenhagen, on the other hand, reports the
values of people exposed to road noise with
Lden at over 58 dB(A), which is the national
guidance limit for new buildings, instead of 55
dB(A).
Hamburg's values about the percentage of
people exposed are clearly divided into
different source of noise: road, rail, air, industry
and commerce. In other cities this difference is
not so clear.
People exposed to road noise
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Am
ste
rdam
Bristo
l
Copenhagen
Ham
burg
Sto
ckholm
Lden >55 dB(A)
Lnight >50 dB(A)
Considering only the EEA database, Bristol is
the city with the highest noise values. Nearly all
the population (95%) is exposed to Lden higher
12
Data reported for Amsterdam, Freiburg, Muenster and
Oslo refers to overall noise and not to road noise. 13
Regarding people exposed to Lnight, the EEA database
reports 50-55 dB(A) as the lowest band, so it is not possible to calculate the percentage of people exposed to Lnight >45 dB(A), as required in the application.
28
than 55 dB(A) and 78% to Lnight higher than
50 dB(A). The situation is better in the other
cities, especially in Hamburg where only 20%
of people are exposed to Lden > 55 dB(A) and
Lnight > 50 dB(A).
About 1/3 of the inhabitants of Amsterdam,
Stockholm and Copenhagen are exposed to
Lden > 55 dB(A), while the percentage of
people exposed to Lnight values > 50 dB(A)
ranges from 20% (Stockholm and Amsterdam)
to 32% (Copenhagen).
Stockholm’s noise abatement policies
The city of Stockholm has assessed noise since the
early 1970s. Since 2002 the whole Stockholm area
has been mapped to fulfil the European noise
directive. Today the noise map is very detailed (2 x
2 m grid). Ten years ago two continuous monitoring
stations, where the noise level is measured on an
ongoing basis 24 hours a day were installed.
Since the beginning of 1970 until now, about 50 km
of noise barriers have been built and about 46,000
windows in more than 15,000 dwellings along 110
km roads has received reduced noise as a result of
protective actions. Environmental zones for heavy
goods traffic have been introduced and vehicles
older than eight years are prohibited to go to the
inner city of Stockholm. The trial with congestion
charges were introduced in 2006 and have been
studied with respect to noise. The results of these
noise abatement policies are significant. In 1970
220,000 people in Stockholm were exposed to
levels above 35 dB(A) inside their homes, and
today this number is reduced to 20,000.
Policies against noise pollution
Denmark has imposed traffic noise
requirements for new residences since 1984. In
Copenhagen, new constructions must meet
requirements for acceptable noise levels with
regard to traffic. Noise on the most heavily
affected side of the building may not exceed 68
dB(A) and there must be one façade where the
noise level is lower than 58 dB(A). Outdoor
spaces should not have noise levels above 58
dB(A). Indoor noise levels should not exceed
33 dB(A). The municipality of Copenhagen has
for the last 10 years taken part in tests using
noise-reducing asphalt for maintenance and
new construction of roads which carry more
than 2 000 cars per day and where the speed
limit is over 40 km/h.
In Amsterdam, the concentration policy to
manage the control of car traffic - introduced in
1994 - has resulted in a main car network:
motorways, provincial roads and local main
routes with a high traffic volume. The high
concentration of traffic on these main roads
has caused significant localised air and noise
pollution, while other roads and residential
districts have been spared (especially 30 km/h
zones). In comparison with a greater spread in
traffic control, the concentration policy ensures
that fewer people are exposed to higher (noise)
pollution from traffic. The most important
measures identified by the municipality to
restrict the nuisance for these residents are:
Housing construction projects subjected
to high noise levels should receive
compensation, e.g. extra conservatories
or closable balconies.
Houses must have a quiet side: a wall
that is not directly exposed to noise
levels above the threshold value.
When work is being carried out on the
roads in the main network, noise-
reducing asphalt is used as a rule for all
new road surfaces.
Some of the cities‟ efforts to reduce exposure
of the populations to noise (especially from
road) have been concentrated in improving or
preserving the acoustical environment in
particular “quite areas” where the noise level is
lower than the average level of the urban area.
Measures or provisions to implement or
29
increase quiet areas were especially
highlighted by Oslo.
Quite areas in Oslo
The Oslo‟s noise mapping has identified a number
of areas which may be suitable for designation as
quiet areas. Defining, establishing and protecting
such areas through traffic management, noise
screening and regulation of industrial activities will
be an important part of noise management in Oslo.
Quiet areas have been defined as “Areas which
can offer recreation, outdoor experiences and/or
cultural activities in surroundings sheltered from or
distant from dominant noise sources”. Noise levels
should preferably be below 50 dB (A) in at least
part of the quiet areas. Projects involving the
placing of road traffic in tunnels, especially along
the seafront, will be an important part of city
planning activities, and is likely to greatly improve
conditions in a number of potential quiet areas. A
number of small scale projects have also been
suggested, such as pilot projects for various types
of acoustic design, noise barriers and means of
access to quiet areas. Quiet road surfaces, a focus
on cycle lanes and footpaths are also important
measures within the city centre.
Muenster‟s policies tackling the noise problem
have been mainly concentrated in traffic
calming measures. More than 150 municipal
residential areas were transformed into 30
Km/h zones by the late 1990s. In addition,
there are several areas that incorporate zones
with traffic-calming devices. The measures
package of the municipality of Muenster also
includes the introduction of a traffic
management system ensuring fluent traffic at
low speed levels along the major axes.
Also in Freiburg speed restriction to 30 km/h,
primarily in residential areas, has been one of
the main policies to reduce noise pollution. It
has been evaluated that 90% of Freiburg
inhabitants live on roads where the speed is
limited to 30 km/h. For new constructions or
significant changes to transport infrastructure
measures, noise certificates are also drawn up
as part of obtaining planning permission and
noise protection measures are set down. Over
the past 10 years, numerous active (grass
railway embankments, low-vibration rail
support systems) and passive noise protection
measures (noise protection for buildings) were
carried out as part of the construction of the
new tramlines. For over 10 years now, the City
of Freiburg has on a voluntary basis and with
the help of State subsidies promoted the
construction of noise protection windows in
heavily affected areas of the city. Around 2,500
residences have already been equipped in this
way.
Hamburg airport’s take off and landing fees
In 2001, Hamburg airport introduced take-off and
landing fees that are incremented in line with noise
levels. While an aircraft designated under noise
class 1 (less than 72dB(A)) will be charged just 5.50
euro for each take-off and landing, an aircraft of
noise class 7 (more than 87 dB(A)) will be required
to pay 1.35 euro Over and above this, restrictions on
nocturnal air traffic are also in place. Scheduled
take-offs and landings for regular charter and
scheduled flights of passenger aircraft are
permissible between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. Any traffic
between 12 midnight and 6 a.m. requires an
exemption certificate in each individual case. In
addition, take-off and landing fees also increase after
10 p.m. (take-off) and 11 p.m. (landing).
30
7. WASTE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT
Introduction Waste was chosen as one of the key
evaluation parameters for the EGC award as it
is one of the most critical aspects of living and
environmental protection. It also impacts
significantly on other parameters including
saving of non renewable raw materials, climate
change and protection of soil and water
production sources.
Data analyzed in this report show the eight
EGCA finalist cities' – and citizens' – efforts in
reducing, collecting and managing waste as
sustainably as possible. Indicators used with
the aim of underlining good performance in
waste reduction and good practices in
increasing waste recycling, energy recovery
and landfill use avoidance, are:
- Household waste production (kg/inh and
variations in the last 5 years),
- Waste management: household waste
disposal (% of recycling, incineration with
energy recovery and landfill).
Waste definition
To analyse waste data it is important to
highlight the definition of “municipal” waste:
“the total of household and commercial waste
collected together but excluding industrial
waste”14. It must be noted this definition,
deriving from EU law and policy, is not used in
the same way across the eight cities. In
Hamburg, for instance, an extensive
interpretation of the definition has been used,
accounting for a big amount of commercial and
industrial waste. On the other hand, in Bristol,
Oslo and Muenster municipal waste is about
only 10% higher than the household waste
14
Directive 2006/12/EC
alone. Copenhagen and Amsterdam do not use
the concept of “municipal waste” at all,
because they have separate management and
accountability systems for household waste
and for commercial and industrial waste.
For this reason the data in the table below,
under column “Municipal” should not be used
for comparison.
The focus, more appropriate for comparisons,
should be the production and the management
of the waste fraction strictly defined as
“household waste”.
Waste production
The household waste production ranges from
397 kg/inh to 490 kg/inh. Freiburg managed to
contain the household production under 400
kg/inh, while Stockholm, Bristol and Oslo have
a per capita production around 410 kg/inh.
Household waste production
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Fre
ibu
rg
Sto
ckh
olm
Bri
sto
l
Oslo
Am
ste
rda
m
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Ha
mb
urg
Mu
en
ste
r
kg
/in
h
WASTE PRODUCTION
City Household Municipal
Household
(variation last 5
years)
kg/inh kg/inh %
Amsterdam 436 na -4%
Bristol 410 448 -18%
Copenhagen 469 na 7%
Freiburg 397 na -1%
Hamburg 479 865 -6%
Muenster 490 549 -1%
Oslo 413 467 1%
Stockholm 409 597 na
31
In Bristol the amount of household waste
generated per person in the last five years has
fallen from 500 kg/inh in 2002 to 410 kg/inh in
2007, a reduction of 18%. In Hamburg, for the
same period, the fall has been 6% and in
Amsterdam a reduction of 4% is seen. The
data demonstrates that a reduction in waste
production is clearly possible thus decoupling
waste generation from economic activity.
Copenhagen appears to be the only city
showing a relevant increase of household
waste production (7%).
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
Am
ste
rda
m
Bri
sto
l
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Fre
ibu
rg
Ha
mb
urg
Mu
en
ste
r
Oslo
Household waste annual production: variation in the
last 5 years
Freiburg: promotion of waste-preventing behaviour
The City of Freiburg applies waste fees as an
incentive to avoid waste. The citizens can choose
between residual waste bins with a capacity of 35,
60 or 140 litres, and a weekly or fortnightly
collection. Several households in a single
residence can join forces to form a single
„disposal community‟ and use one or more
residual waste bins together. Many large
residences have waste chutes to enable residual
waste to be collected individually and charged for
according to the household generating it. The €8
per year “compost discount” promotes home
composting. Parents also receive a financial
subsidy if they use reusable cloth nappies for their
babies and toddlers. Freiburg citizens thus profit
directly from their commitment to the cause.
The „commodities market‟ is another measure
designed to prevent waste. Freiburgers can
dispose of their second-hand goods at bulky
waste collection sites and recycling plants. Any
furniture, household goods, books etc. received in
good condition are then sold on a „commodities
market‟ – at a small fee – to any takers. Extending
the lifespan of second-hand articles is an
excellent way to avoid waste.
Household waste management
The following table shows how the eight cities manage their waste. WASTE MANAGEMENT
City Recycling Incineration with energy
recovery Landfill
% % %
Amsterdam 43% 57% 0% Bristol 37% 0% 63%
Copenhagen 25% 74% 2%
Freiburg 67% 33% 0% Hamburg 28% 72% 0% Munster 74% na na
Oslo 30% 65% 5%
Stockholm 27% 71% 2%
In Freiburg, a well functioning integrated waste
management system enables very high
performances in the recycling of materials
(67%). The remaining amount of waste is
incinerated with energy recovery, therefore
resulting in zero landfill. Also Muenster shows
a very high recycling rate (over 60%) thanks to
a waste management system that combines
household separate collections and Mechanical
Biological Treatment for residual waste (it must
be clarified that the Mechanical and Biological
Treatment 'products or outputs' have to be
further treated by landfill or by incineration).
Muenster: separated collection and recycling
In 1996, the largest portion of waste in Muenster was
disposed in landfills. Based on its waste
management concept, the city intended to reduce
this level of landfilling, also in order to comply with
32
the legal requirements. In 2006, landfilled waste was
reduced by 83,000 tonnes compared with 1996
figures. In return, the utilisation ratio has increased
from 50% to 84%. This is due to the development of
a door-to-door system for the separate collection of
waste and to a mechanical-biological treatment plant
for residual waste.
Four separate waste bins, each with its own colour
are provided to households for residual waste,
biowaste, paper and plastic and aluminium and tin-
plate. Glass can be put in containers provided in
residential areas. Ten recycling points accept all
sorts of waste, large amounts of garden waste,
batteries, metal etc. and ensure proper disposal of
these materials. Unwanted household goods as well
as garden waste, larger electrical appliances and
furniture are collected once a month directly from the
citizens‟ homes.
Furthermore, incentive systems for waste avoidance
based on bin size and type has been created. A “free
of charge” paper bin has been introduced to
minimise residual waste, together with a very small
and thus cheap bin for residual waste (35 litres).
Additionally, in order to reward waste separation, the
bio-waste container is subsidised as opposed to the
residual waste bin.
The mechanical-biological waste treatment (MBT)
plant extracts further recyclable material from the
residual waste, leaving the residual material to be
landfilled.
In Hamburg, Stockholm and Copenhagen the
household recycling rate is under 30%, but only
a very small portion of waste goes to landfill.
This is due to very high levels of incineration
(+70%) with high levels of energy recovery.
Stockholm‟s district heating uses the energy
produced from household waste, about 60
GWh heat is produced annually (9% of the total
amount of heat), which supplies more than
16,000 households. The incineration of
household waste with energy recovery
generates ash which is landfilled. This is equal
to 2.4% of the total amount of household waste
collected in the City of Stockholm. The
incineration process also generates clinker; this
is equal to 16% of the household waste arising
and is used for landfill capping or as a
construction material.
Household waste disposal
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Am
ste
rdam
Bristo
l
Copenhagen
Fre
iburg
Ham
burg
Muenste
r*
Oslo
Sto
ckholm
landfill
incineration
recycling
In Hamburg there are currently five incineration
plants within the city limits, which treat
municipal waste thermally for energy recovery
by cogeneration of heat and power. In total,
these plants produce 1,270 GWh heat,
supplying the district heating network and
231,678 MWh electrical power (year 2006).
In Copenhagen the incineration plant is also
connected to the central heating system. In
total the waste generated by the Copenhagen
municipality (household, commercial and
industrial waste) supplies 140,000 households
with heating and electricity (829 GWh heating
and 202 GWh electricity).
Stockholm: mechanical waste collection system
In the city district Hammarby Sjöstad –
internationally known as an eco-profiled
residential and business area – mechanical and
pneumatic systems for waste collection have been
introduced. These systems require less manual
collection resulting in a safer worker environment
and reduced environmental impact from waste
collection and associated transportation of waste.
Mechanical waste collection system are:
stationary and mobile vacuum suction
systems;
large compacting containers and large
33
containers partly under ground;
waste collection systems with waste grinders for food waste.
Another innovative project is food waste disposers
connected to tanks. A food waste disposer grinds
the food waste which is then transported to a tank
by water flushing or vacuum action. This solution
presents a number of advantages when compared
to the conventional one. The personnel in the
kitchens don‟t need to walk with bags to the
garbage room. Collection from these tanks is by
sludge vehicles. Furthermore, the food waste now
doesn‟t need to be pre-treated and can be used to
produce biogas for vehicle fuel at the waste water
treatment plant using Anaerobic Digestion.
34
8. WATER CONSUMPTION AND WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT
Introduction
Water is the basic resource for human life. Its
quality and uses impact significantly on citizen
health, soil and nature quality, urban life.
Climate change will affect water availability and
increase risks related to bad land and water
management. A good water management
could contribute to minimize energy
consumption and related climate gas
emissions.
Data analyzed in this report show the eight
EGCA finalist cities' – and citizens' – efforts in
reducing water pollution and consumption.
Indicators, used with the aim to underline good
performance and good practices are:
- Households subject to individual water
metering
- Per capita household water consumption
- Water losses in pipelines
- Separated rain water management
- Phosphorus and nitrogen‟s abatement rate
Water metering
The proportion of urban water supply subject to
individual water metering is about 100% in
Muenster (included all municipal buildings) and
90% in Copenhagen and Hamburg. Oslo and
Bristol show the lowest percentages, ranging
from 20% to 30%.
In Copenhagen, since 1999 the law has
demanded that water meters be installed for all
properties connected to the general water
supply. For properties consisting of several
apartments, only one water meter for common
invoicing is provided, but it is possible to have
voluntary agreements for apartment-based
water invoicing using individual water meters.
Households subject to individual water metering
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Mu
en
ste
r
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Ha
mb
urg
Fre
ibu
rg
Am
ste
rda
m
Oslo
Bri
sto
l
The installation of apartment water meters is
prescribed also under the Hamburg Building
Regulation. These regulations have applied to
new buildings since 1987, and since 1994 it
has been prescribed that all old buildings must
be retrospectively fitted with apartment water
meters by 2004. Hamburg is the only federal
state in Germany to have implemented the
retrospective obligation to install apartment
water meters in old buildings. The Senate has
given financial subsidies for the retrofitting of
apartment water meters.
In Stockholm, all water sold is metered but only
detached houses have individual metering. For
flats in apartment houses, there is generally a
meter for each property and the residents pay
a standard rate.
WATER CONSUMPTION
Household consumpt.
Household consumption
(10 years variation)
Pipeline losses
Household having
water meters
installed
l/inh day % % %
Amsterdam 146 -6% 3,0% 52%
Bristol 153 2% 18,7% 26%
Copenhagen 117 -12% 8,0% 92%
Freiburg 97 -13% 11,0% 54%
Hamburg 110 -12% 4,2% 90%
Muenster 132 -7*% 3,9% 100%
Oslo 176 -18**% 20,0% 33%
Stockholm 200 na 17,0% na
* related to the period 2001-2007
** related to total consumption
35
Water consumption
Water consumption data related to the
business sector is generally limited and not
comparable, therefore, only the domestic
consumption will be analysed, being fully
aware that this represents only a part of the
total consumption. But local policies can
achieve important results in this field as already
demonstrated. Cities differ from each other in
relation to water availability, so water saving
policies can assume a different priority level in
local agendas.
Household water consumption
0
50
100
150
200
250
Sto
ckh
olm
Oslo
Bri
sto
l
Am
ste
rda
m
Mu
en
ste
r
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Ha
mb
urg
Fre
ibu
rg
1997
2007
litr
es/in
h d
ay
In Freiburg water consumption fell from 111
litres per inhabitant per day in 1997 to 97 litres
per inhabitant per day in 2007 (-13%), the
lowest value of the eight cities. A similar
decrease has been monitored in Hamburg,
where per capita daily consumption has
reached 110 l/inh (-12%). Both cities are
significantly below the national German
average for water consumption (126 litres per
inhabitant). Copenhagen is the third most
performing city, with an average household
consumption of 117 l/inh and the political
commitment to reduce this value to 110 litres
per person by 2010 and 100 litres per person
by 2012.
The highest consumption has been monitored
in Oslo 176 (l/inh) and Stockholm (200 l/inh).
Water losses in pipelines
Amsterdam, Muenster and Hamburg show the
lowest rates of pipeline losses (less than 5%).
Amsterdam‟s water network has a very low
percentage of leakage losses, about 3%, and
in two neighbourhoods this percentage
decrease to 1,6%.
Muenster have managed to minimise the water
leakages (3,9%) thanks to acoustical leak
detection and continuous piping network
review. In Hamburg, approximately 1/5 of total
pipelines water network is inspected every
year. The introduction of an active leak
monitoring system allowed Freiburg to reduce
leakages from 15% to 11% over the past 6
years.
Total water losses in the pipeline network, in
general, have been calculated as difference
between the amount of pure water supplied
and the total water consumption, including
unmeasured usages or measuring differences.
In Hamburg, for example, the conveyance
losses in the pipeline network excluding
measuring differences represent 75% of the
overall water loss. Copenhagen, on the other
hand, reports that water loss in the mains
network is approximately 5% whereas true
unmeasured usage is approximately 3%.
Water losses in pipelines
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Am
ste
rda
m
Mu
en
ste
r
Ha
mb
urg
Co
pe
nh
ag
en
Fre
ibu
rg
Sto
ckh
olm
Bri
sto
l
Oslo
36
Proactive Leakage Management of
Copenhagen’s network
KE Water has sought to keep leakage at a low level
by systematically conducting leakage surveys,
rehabilitation and management of the pipeline
network.
The pipeline network has been systematically
investigated since 2001. The investigations are done
by area, with the loss in an area being recorded and
possible leakages found with the help of electronic
equipment. During the first investigation in 2000-
2004 an average of 35 leakages were found each
year, amounting to a water loss of 500 000 m3 (1% of
the total water volume supplied in 2004).
In 2001 it was decided to rehabilitate the network on
the basis that the entire mains would be rehabilitated
over a 100 year period. This means that 1% has to
be renovated per year, approximately 9 km. Pipeline
renewal is carried out according to rehabilitation
plans which are adjusted on an ongoing basis. The
speed of rehabilitation has been determined using an
estimate of what is needed to assure a high security
of supply through continual rehabilitation of the
pipeline network. Focus has been on the
rehabilitation of supply lines in inner Copenhagen
and of main supply lines made of cast iron in areas
subject to heavy traffic.
Rain water management
In Amsterdam, 75% of the sewage system
operates with separated rain water
management; in 25 % of the area, water is
collected by a combined sewer system.
Approximately half of the municipality area of
Freiburg uses separate channels for sewage
and rainwater. Over 90% of the organic
pollution load transported in Freiburg via
channels in the form of domestic sewage or
rainwater is directed to the central treatment
facility. Combined waste water overspills and
discharge points for rainwater channels are
fitted with treatment facilities so as to prevent
placing excessive loads on the water system‟s
natural ability to clean itself.
WASTE WATER TREATMENT
Connectivity to
waste water
treatment
Rain water separated
management
Removal of substances from all treated waste water
% % P % N
Amsterdam 99,6% 75% 91% 87%
Bristol 100% 0% na na
Copenhagen 100% na 90% 84%
Freiburg 100% 50% 92% 80%
Hamburg 100% 0% na 78%
Muenster 99,8% na 97% 94%
Oslo 99,6% 0% 93% 69%
Stockholm 100% 50% 98% 70%
In Stockholm about 50% of the storm water
(urban run-off) is transported along with the
waste water to treatment plants. The rest is
transported to minor lakes. Stockholm has
many lakes and water sheds which are highly
valued for recreational purposes. These lakes
and water sheds have been classified with
respect to recreational and environmental
value and the impact of storm water has been
taken into consideration on each one of them.
In order to reduce the load on central treatment
plants, the new Waste Water Treatment Plan of
Copenhagen undertakes to perform rain water
drainage of new city developments and of
larger renovation projects according to SUDS
(Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems)
principles. The new Ørestad district which was
founded in 1996 and today covers 150
hectares was equipped with a tripartite system.
This sends black water to treatment plants, roof
water runoff to recreational channels and road
runoff to be purified before being discharged
into recreational channels.
In Copenhagen the discharge of waste water to
receiving waters has also been reduced by
establishing draining basins. The frequency of
annual overflows has been reduced from 20-70
per year to 2-6 per year. The volume of water
37
discharged to the harbour has thus been
reduced from 1.6 million m3 waste water per
year to less than 300,000 m3 per year.
Stockholm’s storm water strategy
Stockholm City has adopted a strategy which
defines the need to treat different kinds of storm
water entering different receiving waters. The
strategy focuses on 4 principles; source control,
detention and infiltration, a scheme for treatment
and cost effectiveness. Stockholm Water Co. has a
special storm water charge which encourages
property and estate owners to treat storm water
locally. Several storm water treatment facilities
have been built in Stockholm in recent years.
Lake Älta, purification of storm water from roads.
Surface water runoff from a nearby road is received
in Kasby bay in Lake Älta. To prevent dispersal of
the pollutants, a shield, an artificial basin consisting
of rafts with textile-screens below water level, has
been built in the inner part of the bay area. The
rafts are also used as a pedestrian link between the
opposite shores in the bay. The main aim is to
reduce heavy metals and organic compounds.
Purification of storm water flowing to Årsta bay
Årsta bay-area, a part of Lake Mälaren, receives
large amounts of storm water from buildings,
industries and roads. More than half of the total
inflow of storm water arrives through two tunnels.
These tunnels have been rebuilt to handle
purification of storm water. Large sedimentation-
tanks that clarify the water have been constructed
close to the mouths (completed in 2007). A
pumping plant, aiming to remove sediment from a
lower part of the Årsta tunnel, will be constructed
during the next few years as well a process for
removing oil from the storm water.
Waste water treatment
The waste water treatment plants of
Stockholm, Muenster and Oslo are able to
remove more than 90 % of phosphorus (P). In
Muenster the nitrogen‟s (N) abatement rate is
over 90% too, while in Stockholm and Oslo it is
only 70%.
Removal of substances from treated waste water
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Am
ste
rdam
Copenhagen
Fre
iburg
Ham
burg
Muenste
r
Oslo
Sto
ckholm
Phosporus
Nitrogen
Very high percentage of removal, both for P
and N, are related to the treatment plants of
Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Freiburg (all
ranging from 80% to 90%).
Separation of yellow waters in Hamburg
Sustainable waste water management has been
a top priority in Hamburg for more than a
decade. In addition to the urban concept for
public toilets in Hamburg, which are all equipped
with energy and water saving technologies,
urinals have been installed in critical and overly
polluted locations. The urinals operate without
water, and the urine is separately collected and
transported to reduce waste water volume.
Urine makes up only around 1% of the volume of
waste water, but is responsible for the majority of
nutrients contained in it. Furthermore, specific
pharmaceuticals are introduced into waste water
via urine. Without treatment, such undesired
residue medication ends up in lakes and
waterways. The separate collection of urine is
also significant because nutrients and
phosphorus can be removed (85% of nitrogen
and over 90% of phosphates), separated by
pharmaceutical and – as recyclable materials –
38
used for alternative purposes, such as fertilisers.
On the basis of these positive results, Hamburg
is endeavouring to develop the separate
collection of urine on a larger scale.
In Amsterdam the purification sludge that is
released during the purification process is
transported to the Waste and Energy Company
in two flows: biogas (methane) and sludge.
Both flows are power sources for the Waste
and Energy Company (as well as solid
domestic waste). 94% of the potential energy
of the residual flows is recovered in this way.
The heat and electricity released in the Waste
and Energy Company is returned. All waste
water treatment plants, sewer pumps and other
installations or buildings obtain electricity from
the waste and energy centre. The heat is used
for the digestion process and the electricity for
the purification process.
39
9. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY
Introduction
Integrated approaches and new management
tools are very useful to deal with the amount of
different environmental aspects the cities have
to tackle.
A vision, a strategy, an action plan should be
set. Moreover Environmental Systems or
Agenda 21 cycles provide, by means of target
setting, monitoring procedures, audits, public
participation, a structured way to support this
comprehensive approach.
To strengthen local government credibility, all
commitments assumed in local Action Plans
should be first of all applied to the local
administration itself, so giving the good
example in managing properly “its own house”.
A rationale and innovative energy management
of the public buildings and a green public
procurement policy could positively influence
the local market and citizen behaviors.
This chapter reports how the eight EGCA
finalist cities perform in relation to the following
criteria:
- Environmental Management Systems (EMS);
- Green Public Procurement (GPP);
- Energy efficiency and management in public
buildings.
Available information from the cities varies
significantly rendering quantitative comparison
quite hard. Consequently, the cities'
information has been analyzed in a more
qualitative way, in an effort to showcase best
practices and a source of inspiration for other
cities.
Environmental Management Systems (EMS)
Amsterdam
Three ISO 14001: Waternet, the organization
responsible for supplying drinking water and
purifying the waste water; Waste & Energy
Company; and District Osdorp, one of the
districts of Amsterdam with a population of
50,000.
In 2007, the Port of Amsterdam was awarded
the PERS-certificate (Port Environmental
Review System).
Bristol
The City Council has been developing and
implementing environmental management
systems since 2000. Currently six out of the
seven council departments (approximately 80%
of total council employees) are registered
EMAS and ISO 14001. The one remaining
department is to be completed during 2009.
The Council‟s Direct Service Organization
(Contract Services), which provides transport,
catering, cleaning, grounds maintenance, and
joinery services, has a certified environmental
management system (EMAS).
Freiburg
Environmental management activities are
rather common in the public administration‟s
work but there are no offices or services
certified EMAS or ISO 14001.
Copenhagen
The number of employees working at
institutions with a certified environmental
management system has more than doubled
from 3,800 to 7,700 in 2007. Furthermore,
approximately 12,000 employees are working
in institutions which are in the process of
introducing environmental management. In this
way, there is an important and necessary
progress in relation to the goal to introduce
environmental management in all institutions.
40
Hamburg
Hamburg Municipal Sanitation Department and
Hamburg Water Company are EMAS certified.
Eleven municipal bodies have participated in
the Ecoprofit project with the aim of
systematically implementing cost-saving
environmental measures. Additionally
environmental management procedures have
been adopted and can be used as the basis for
the future adoption of certified environmental
management systems such as ISO 14001.
Muenster
In Muenster, quality and environmental
managements have been introduced
throughout the Civil Engineering Office.
The forest cemetery, a public administration
building (hosting 300 workers) and the public
utility company have been certified according
to the EMAS scheme.
Oslo
There are 291 municipal units with certified
environmental management systems. 13 are
certified according to ISO 14001, this includes
large agencies and enterprises such as Agency
for Waste Management, Agency for Urban
Renewal, Oslo Port Authority and Oslo Metro
Operations. The rest are certified according to
the national standard Eco Lighthouse (smaller
agencies and offices, urban district
administrations, schools, day care facilities
etc.).
Stockholm
In the City of Stockholm, an Integrated
Management System (IMS) is used by all
departments and municipal companies.
Environmental aspects are integrated into the
Integrated Management System and all
organizational decision-making. The Integrated
Management System covers factors such as
environment, quality, and public procurement
Three housing companies and the water
company are certified ISO 14001.
Green Public Procurement (GPP)
% OF ECO-LABELLED, ORGANIC, ENERGY-EFFICIENT
PRODUCTS
paper food vehicles green
electricity
Amsterdam 40%
Bristol 61% 14%*
Copenhagen 50%
Freiburg 72% 70%
Hamburg 30% 100%
Muenster 100%
Oslo 97%
Stockholm 12% 55% 70%
* 14% municipal buildings and schools; 100% street lighting
Amsterdam
Sustainability is standard in Amsterdam's
municipality wide framework contracts, not only
giving priority to environment aspects, but also
to social aspects (e.g. social return and
compliance with ILO standards).
Sustainable procurement is standard in:
- public lighting
- cleaning services
- work clothing
- public space furnishing
- pew buildings (sharp EPC requirements,
FSC quality label, CO2 neutral (since 2008)
- renovations of old buildings
The purchase amount cannot be indicated yet,
but a cautious estimate is that the total amount
of framework contracts amounts to approx.
20% of the purchase volume.
Amsterdam is targeting 100% sustainable
procurement in 2010. This is the case for all
central framework contracts.
41
Bristol
The percentage consumption of eco-labelled,
organic and energy-efficient products as share
of the total consumption is not measured
directly. However, energy efficient and other
sustainable products are considered in
corporate procurement arrangements. For
example:
the latest fleet of pool cars consume less
than 120 g/ km CO2;
use of FSC/ CSA certified sustainable
timber in the municipal joinery (53%);
54% of stationery is recycled, or from
suppliers with ISO14001/ EMAS
registration;
61% of paper purchased is from recycled or
FSC sources;
45% of soil compost used in nursery
gardens is peat-free;
14% of green electricity purchased for
municipal buildings and schools; 100% of
electricity purchased for street lighting is
from renewable sources.
Copenhagen
By the end of 2009, 60% of food served in the
municipal kitchens and canteens should be
eco-labelled (75% by 2011).
Freiburg
In accordance with a decision of the municipal
Council, construction products must meet the
„Blue Angel'15 criteria in order to be permitted
for use. Following this fundamental decision,
the Blue Angel criteria are already used as a
basis for tenders by the municipal
administration in various sectors. All
government agencies when procuring electrical
equipment have to give priority to products
meeting the Blue Angel criteria.
15
The Blue Angel was the first and one of the most well-
known eco-labels in Europe
Printing and photocopying is now
predominantly done on recycled paper (72% in
administrations and schools).
Municipal canteens now use exclusively Fair
Trade coffee, tea and cocoa.
Under a decision from the municipal Council,
the municipal vehicle fleet is to be upgraded as
soon and as extensively as possible to vehicles
powered by natural gas or biogenic fuels.
Accordingly, more than 2/3 of current leased
company cars run on natural gas (35 vehicles).
Hamburg
Including the share of renewable energy
contained in the national production mix
(approximately 13% in 2007), 100% of the
electricity used for public buildings in the years
2008 – 2010 can be attributed to renewable
energy sources.
Muenster
Since the early 1990s, 90% of the recycling
paper has been procured with the “Blue Angel”.
An increase of the portion to 100% by 2010 is
envisaged due to the high quality of new
recycling papers. The procurement of copiers
with the "Blue Angel" has also been mandatory
since 2004, with the portion amounting to
almost 100% today. Computer and screens
have been required for many years to be
certified according to Energy Star 4.0 or an
equivalent standard. The portion of this
equipment is 100% by now.
The municipal canteens pay attention to
predominantly local products. Furthermore,
some products are procured from ecological
cultivation and/or fair trade: potatoes (100%),
vegetables (30%), coffee, tea, and cocoa
(100%).
Oslo
The only available data is about office paper:
97% is eco-labelled (Nordic Swan label). The
42
municipality has 40 different binding
procurement contracts including criteria to
promote sustainable products and services.
The main categories are: working clothes,
small and medium sized cars, electricity,
computers and printers, soaps and detergents.
Stockholm
The city used approximately 532 GWh
electricity in 2007 and two thirds (370 GWh)
was eco-labelled. This includes 25 out of 33
administrations in a joint agreement. In the
coming purchases of electricity, the other eight
administrations will sign agreements for eco-
labelled electricity when the present
agreements run out in 2010. Thus Stockholm
will have 100 % eco-labelled electricity in 2010.
The objective for the city of Stockholm is to
apply the Purchasing Policy and Guidelines at
100 % of the city‟s purchases.
Energy efficiency and management in
public buildings
Data on energy performance in public buildings
are quite difficult to compare. The table below
shows that good energy performance is
possible, as in Freiburg (117 kWh/m2, even if
related to one single building) and in Muenster
(135 kWh/m2). Other cities score around 180
kWh/m2 (even if in Amsterdam and Oslo the
cases relate only to schools).
ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS
City energy
consumption (heating)
energy consumption (electricity)
energy consumption
(total)
kWh/m2 kWh/m
2 kWh/m
2
Amsterdam 181
Bristol
Copenhagen 150 50 200
Freiburg* 97 20 117
Hamburg 141 42 183
Munster 120 15 135
Oslo 181
Stockholm 181
*Consumption related to a single building
Good measures beyond good results
Amsterdam
Since 2004 the municipality has applied the 'ten-
year-pay-back period measure': all (energy)
measures that pay themselves back within ten
years are compulsory for municipal buildings.
Thanks to this measure, in the new district office
Zuideramstel, for instance, completed in
December 2008, 70 to 80% energy can be saved
compared to an average office.
Copenhagen
Between 2002 and 2006, thanks to saving
measures, electricity consumption fell by 5% and
heating consumption by 7 %.
Freiburg
7million€ are invested yearly for energy
refurbishment in schools.
Hamburg
In 2008, a renovation programme started for 30
buildings saving energy of up to 40%.
Muenster
Several communal administrative buildings have
been refurbished during recent years. 80% of all
employees work in three of these buildings. Heat
consumption in two of these administrative
buildings adds up to 43 kwh/m² and 83 kwh/m².
The target towards nearly zero emission
public buildings
The recast of the Energy Performance of
Buildings Directive (November 2009) calls for
“nearly zero emission public buildings” by the
year 2018. The target could be reached also by
using renewable energies and rational use of
energy, but buildings' standard target is the
most important action a local government could
adopt.
43
Amsterdam
By 2015: city‟s own energy use must be CO2
neutral; schools must reduce energy
consumption in new buildings to 105 kWh/m2
and in rehabilitated buildings to 120 kWh/m2
(current consumption is 181 kWh/m2).
Freiburg:
At present: the construction of all new
buildings, including municipal buildings must
provide <40 kWh/m² (yearly heat
consumption).
By 2011: the construction of all new buildings,
including municipal buildings, must provide the
passive house standard (<50 kWh/m², yearly
heat consumption).
Hamburg
By 2012: renovation of all schools <200
kWh/m² per year (in 60 schools CO2 savings
will be more than 20%)
Muenster
At present: the construction of new municipal
buildings must provide <50 kWh/m² (yearly
heat consumption).
By 2015: existing buildings' average
consumption are to be decreased, thanks to
technical measures and a comprehensive
campaign, to <100 kwh/m² within a period of
five years ((current consumption is 135
kwh/m²).
Oslo
Phase out 95% of all oil burners in municipal
buildings to be replaced with district heating,
biomass or geothermal heating/heat pumps.
Stockholm
2006-2011: the city‟s own energy use must be
decreased by 10%; the construction of new
municipal buildings must provide less than 30%
consumption below the compulsory Swedish
standard (80 kWh/ m² instead of 110 kWh/ m²).
http://www.europeangreencapital.eu
European Green Capital Award 2018
Guidance Note
April 2015
ec.europa.eu/europeangreencapital
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.1 EXPLANATORY NOTE ON INDICATORS ................................................................................ 2
1.2 FORMAT OF APPLICATION ................................................................................................. 3
1.3 SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION ........................................................................................... 3
1.4 TRANSLATION .................................................................................................................. 4
2 INDICATOR AREAS .................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 CLIMATE CHANGE: MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION ............................................................... 6
2.2 LOCAL TRANSPORT .......................................................................................................... 8
2.3 GREEN URBAN AREAS INCORPORATING SUSTAINABLE LAND USE....................................... 10
2.4 NATURE AND BIODIVERSITY ................................................................................... 12
2.5 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................... 13
2.6 QUALITY OF THE ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT ........................................................ 14
2.7 WASTE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT ......................................................................... 15
2.8 WATER MANAGEMENT.................................................................................................... 17
2.9 WASTE WATER TREATMENT ........................................................................................... 18
2.10 ECO-INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABLE EMPLOYMENT .......................................................... 19
2.11 ENERGY PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................ 20
2.12 INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT .................................................................. 21
2
1 INTRODUCTION
This guidance note should be read in conjunction with the Application Form for the European Green Capital Award 2018. The Application Form may be downloaded in the 23 EU languages as per the application portal. It may be completed and submitted in any of the 24 official EU languages.
The Mayoral Declaration is available in English, French and German. It must be completed and submitted in one of these languages.
1.1 EXPLANATORY NOTE ON INDICATORS
This note provides information on how to interpret the indicators and types of information cities must provide when applying.
The 2018 Award Application Form has 4 sections per indicator:
A. Present situation. Describe the present situation, e.g. the relevant infrastructure and systems that are in place and the relevant state of play with respect to environmental performance. This section should also cover governance arrangements and responsibilities. Also, include information on any relevant disadvantages or constraints resulting from historical, geographical and/or socio-economic factors which may have influenced this indicator area. Quantitative information/data should be provided to support the description, including at the minimum, the specific data requested for each indicator.
B. Past performance. The aim of this section is to make clear how the present situation described in section A has been achieved. This should describe the strategies, plans and measures that have been implemented over the last 5 to 10 years. Comment on which measures have been most effective. Where available, quantitative information/data should be provided from previous 5 to 10 in order to show recent trends.
C. Future Plans. Describe the future short and long term objectives and the proposed approach to achieve these, including any additional strategies and plans. Include the measures adopted, but not yet implemented, and details for future measures already adopted. Emphasize to what extent plans are supported by political commitments, budget allocations, and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes.
D. References. List supporting documentation, adding links where possible. Further detail may be requested during the clarification phase. Documentation should not be forwarded at this stage.
Each section must be completed within the stated word limit given at the end of each individual section and can include graphs, tables, diagrams and photographs. All graphs etc. should be included within the application form itself. Appendices will not be accepted.
Applicants will only be assessed on the content of the application form. Incomplete application forms will not be assessed i.e. applications with missing indicator areas or missing sections within an indicator area.
Note: Sections A, B & C are considered on an equal basis as part of the technical assessment and ranking will be devised based on the information provided in these sections.
3
Section D – References; will be used solely for clarification/verification of data purposes. Experts are not required to read additional information.
Good Practices; will be solely used for informative purposes and will not be considered as part of the technical ranking but must be completed. Good practices submitted may be used in the Urban Environment Good Practice & Benchmarking Report.
The Introductory section is for informative purposes only.
Information to be included:
Include clear plans and objectives in the context of European Legislation. Detail, where possible, your city's compliance/non-compliance with EU Directives and legislation.
It should be clearly noted if figures provided are for the city itself or incorporate a larger area/region.
Applicants should highlight integrated approaches to environmental management. The experts who will evaluate the application are only required to assess their primary and co-evaluator indicators. Where cross linkages between indicators/initiatives exist, they should be noted at each point.
Where possible please identify active community groups/stakeholders within the city in the relevant indicator area and also highlight how you have engaged with these groups in the course of your policy development.
1.2 FORMAT OF APPLICATION
The format of the template of the application form should be adhered to.
All documents must be submitted in word document format and uploaded through the application portal. An additional pdf file may be provided if desired.
All word limits must be adhered to. Any words above the specified limit will be removed and may leave application responses incomplete. Text included in the body and heading of graphics/images/tables will not be included in the word count. This is to be within reason and cities may be contacted at the Secretariat’s discretion.
There is a limit of 15 graphics/images/tables per indicator. An additional 2 graphics/images/tables are allowed in the Good Practice section.
1.3 SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION
In order to submit a complete application form the Mayoral Declaration must be signed by the Mayor or highest ranking City Representative and uploaded together with the completed application form.
The application form must be submitted in 12 individual files, one file for each indicator area. Each file must be a word document and labelled correctly e.g. Indicator 1_Hamburg, Indicator 2_Hamburg etc.
4
Please follow steps 1 to 5 as described on the website.
All queries should be directed to the Secretariat: [email protected]
1.4 TRANSLATION
The technical assessment process is conducted in English. As such any applications submitted in other EU languages will be issued for translation.
Applicants requiring translation must complete the checklist as contained on the application portal.
5
2 INDICATOR AREAS
City Introduction & Context
Use this section to provide an overview of the city and a context for the 12 indicator areas. It will act as information for the Experts and should set the scene for the application as a whole. Include any major local constraints, contentious infrastructure/environmental projects and initiatives. Where possible please identify active community groups/stakeholders within the city in the relevant indicator area. Although it does not form part of the 12 indicator areas and will not contribute towards ranking, this section must be completed to present a full application for assessment.
The Secretariat will carry out a detailed background check on applicants' compliance with European legislation and governance.
If the city is involved in a legal procedure under any European directive, or has been condemned by the European Court of Justice, information on progress towards compliance should be provided.
Complete the 12 Indicators under the following sections:
A. Present Situation – focus on describing the present situation (include data, numerical information, figures, graphics etc), including relevant infrastructure and systems, the relevant state of play with respect to environmental performance and information on governance arrangements and responsibilities. Information on the specified indicators should be provided, but other data can also be included.
B. Past Performance – focus on the measures implemented and associated trends for the last 5 to 10 years.
C. Future Plans – focus on realistic and achievable plans, the objectives that these contain and the measures that will be used to achieve these.
D. References – for clarification purposes only
6
2.1 CLIMATE CHANGE: MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION
The EU has targets to be met by 2020, including reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of at least 20% below 1990 levels, 20% of EU energy consumption to come from renewable resources, and 20% reduction in primary energy use, to be achieved principally by improving energy efficiency. Legally binding targets have been set for each Member State.
Whether or not national governments have established legal requirements or targets for local authorities on climate change, applicant cities will be expected to show that they are able to establish a CO2 emissions baseline for a specific year using an internationally recognised methodology (providing specific references), identify the main sources of emissions, set achievable territorial targets aligned with EU objectives, take action to reduce emissions (justifying the decisions on the implemented policies and measures), and continuously measure and monitor their progress towards agreed targets year by year.
In reporting their actions on climate change, applicants should demonstrate awareness of the contribution of their city to implementation of these EU targets, highlighting strategies and measures which contribute to meeting national obligations.
Evaluators will look for demonstrable reductions of CO2 emissions across a range of functions and sectors (including activities not under the direct control of the municipality), using complementary measures well-tailored to local circumstances and covering the whole geographical area for which the local authority is responsible.
When reporting on the specific indicators in Section 1A:
• Note that explanatory leaflets on their preparation are available within the Reference Framework for Sustainable European Cities1;
• The methodological approach used should be explained. Make clear whether or not this addresses both direct emissions (from sources within the city boundary) and indirect emissions (from goods and services provided outside the city but consumed inside the city). Mention the main sources of data and the sectors covered by each indicator, distinguishing between national and local information sources;
• Emissions from shipping and airports should not usually be included in the calculations for transport;
• Report any EU-ETS installations located within your city but do not include their emissions in the calculation of the indicators;
• The measure for carbon content in electricity – Tonnes CO2 per MWh – should be based on consumption and should not include production. All the efforts of the city to reduce this parameter should be explained.
Since cities have a key role not only in mitigation of climate change but also in managing its impacts, applicants are also asked to describe their approach to EU's Adaptation Strategy, in response to the EU's Adaptation strategy. This point should include the works performed to identify and improve the adaptive capacity of the city (its ability to adjust to climate change, to moderate potential damages, to take advantages of opportunities or to cope with the consequences) and its vulnerability through for 1 http://www.rfsc.eu/
7
instance the development of a comprehensive local adaptation strategy and/or integration of adaptation to climate change into existing relevant plans. If the city has an integrated approach to both mitigation of climate change and adaptation to its impacts this section can be used to highlight in particular any smart (‘win-win’) measures undertaken or planned which help both to reduce emissions and improve resilience.
Green Infrastructure (GI) solutions form part of an overall climate strategy to help cities adapt to or mitigate the adverse effects of climate change (see EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change).
GI will also be a necessary adjunct to reducing the carbon footprint of transport and energy provision, mitigating the negative effects of land uptake and fragmentation, disaster risk mitigation and boosting opportunities to better integrate land use, ecosystem and biodiversity concerns into policy and planning.
Applicants are advised to take account of EU policy to mainstream climate adaptation across all policy sectors and may find it useful to refer to specific initiatives for cities such as Mayors Adapt.
8
2.2 LOCAL TRANSPORT
The responsibility for urban mobility policies lies primarily with local, regional and national authorities. Nevertheless there are key European strategies that applicant cities should take into consideration. These include the European Commission’s Transport White Paper, ‘Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area’ (2011), which emphasises the need for clean urban transport and commuting, and sets goals to ‘Halve the use of ‘conventionally-fuelled’ cars in urban transport by 2030; phase them out in cities by 2050; and to achieve essentially CO2-free city logistics in major urban centres by 2030’2. The Commission’s 2013 Communication ‘Together towards competitive and resource-efficient urban mobility’ emphasises the importance of the adoption of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs), as well as for more action on urban logistics, for smarter urban access requirements and for the coordinated deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS)3.
In the section on the Present Situation (2A), cities are encouraged to provide information (for both local passenger transport and urban freight transport) on:
• Transport infrastructure and vehicle numbers; • Mobility flows for different modes; • Infrastructure management tools, including ITS; • Existing modal shares; • Alternative mobility schemes, such as car sharing; • The use of alternatively-fuelled vehicles; • Any relevant disadvantages or constraints of relevance to transport; and • Governance arrangements and responsibilities.
In Section 2A: four indicators must be provided:
1. “Proportion (%) of population living within 300 metres of an hourly (or more frequent) public
transport service”. If the indicator cannot be provided from existing GIS or other data, please provide a best estimate. The data and calculation method for all figures should be described.
2. For all journeys under 5km, proportion of these journeys undertaken by: i) car, ii) public
transport, iii) bicycle, iv) by foot and v) other provide the modal split (%) of all journeys of under 5km that start and/or end in the city.
• Journeys made by car should include those journeys made as a passenger, as well as a driver.
• For public transport, please include journeys by any type of public transport present in the city (e.g. buses, trams, trolleybuses, light rail, and other rail services) even if these are privately-operated.”
• If ‘other’ forms of transport are used please state what is covered by any figure presented for ‘other’.
If it is not possible to supply the modal split for journeys of less than 5km, please provide the “Modal split (%s) of all journeys that start and/or end in the city”.
3. “Proportion of buses operating in the city that are low emission (at least Euro V)”, Provide (or
estimate) the share of buses in the urban transport fleet (owned by the city or region, or by private operators operating in the city or region) that have certified low emissions that meet at least the EURO V emissions standards (i.e. that meet either EURO V or EURO VI or equivalent).
2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0144:FIN:EN:PDF 3 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/doc/ump/com%282013%29913_en.pdf
9
Section 2B (Past Performance) should focus on the plans and measures that delivered the current situation, while Section 2C (Future Plans) should focus on the city’s future plans, including relevant objectives, and the measures that are being, or will be, put in place to deliver these.
10
2.3 GREEN URBAN AREAS INCORPORATING SUSTAINABLE LAND USE
Urban sprawl and the spread of low-density settlements is one of the main threats to sustainable territorial development. By 2020, 80 % of Europe's population is likely to live in urban and peri-urban areas. Urban design inspired by a sustainable land use concept is contributing to good living conditions for city dwellers and at the same time reducing the environmental impact of the urban fabric. This is usually best achieved through strategic urban planning following a more integrated approach to land management.
The Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing (SWD(2012) 101 final/2) collect examples of policies, legislation, funding schemes, local planning tools, information campaigns and many other best practices implemented throughout the EU.
This will contribute to neighbourhood revitalisation to an improved quality of life. At the same time, it will allow for better ecosystem services, including flooding control, the provision of habitat networks and ecological niches, and an increased recreational value (COM(2013) 249).
Regulation relating to this indicator area includes the following:
The 7th European Environment Action Programme (Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2013) is promoting integrated approaches to planning, building and managing in a sustainable way cities and urban settlements, in which long-term environmental considerations are fully taken into account alongside economic, social and territorial challenges. The Programme underlines that environmental considerations including water protection and biodiversity conservation should be integrated into planning decisions relating to land use so that they are made more sustainable, with a view to making progress towards the objective of ‘no net land take’, by 2050.
Further policy which may also be relevant includes; the Soil Thematic Strategy (COM(2006) 231), the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy (COM(2011) 244), the Communication on Green Infrastructure (COM(2013) 249), and the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC), the Pesticides Sustainable Use Directive (2009/128/EC).
Detailed comments:
• Green and blue areas: indicate what percentage of the private green and blue areas (water bodies, wetlands etc.) are publicly accessible; Soil sealing: Soil sealing means the permanent covering of an area of land and its soil by impermeable artificial material (e.g. asphalt and concrete), for example through buildings and roads. Green sites, including those parts of settlement areas not covered by an impervious surface like gardens or sites covered by permeable surfaces should be excluded from the sealed surface area. If this information is not available, please make an estimate what part of the residential areas are sealed and what part are permeable surfaces and use this factor in the calculations; Please communicate the procedure that you have used for this calculation;
• Green infrastucture can be defined as a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. It incorporates green spaces (or blue if aquatic ecosystems are concerned) and other physical features in terrestrial (including coastal) and marine areas. On land, green infrastructure is present in rural and urban settings.
• Brownfield sites are derelict and underused or even abandoned former industrial or commercial sites, which may have real or perceived contamination problems. Bringing them to
11
beneficial use, thus saving precious greenfield sites, normally requires coordinated intervention on the part of owners, local authorities and citizens living in the neighbourhood.
• Public green areas are defined as:
o public parks or gardens/forests, for the exclusive use of pedestrians and cyclists, except green traffic islands or dividers, graveyards (unless the local authority recognises their recreational function or natural, historical or cultural importance);
o green open-air sports facilities, accessible to the public free of charge;
o private green areas (agricultural areas, private parks, forests), accessible to the public free of charge.
• Make note of regard taken for hygiene, public health and biodiversity and relevant risk assessment to ensure that the use of pesticides is minimised or prohibited in certain specific areas such as areas used by the general public, vulnerable groups, protected areas, areas for the establishment of conservation measures or for areas recently treated.
12
2.4 NATURE AND BIODIVERSITY
The technical assessment for Indicator 4 is designed to explore how much information each city holds for its natural spaces and biodiversity, how well it manages them and what plans it has for future management and for the engagement of citizens and stakeholders in improving biodiversity. A good application on this indicator will include mapping of habitats and sites, and an explanation of particular local challenges and resources. It will show how the city protects habitats and species whilst trying to increase and improve biodiversity. We are keen to learn what the city has done in the past and what plans it has for the future. Applicant cities will be aware of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and especially of its target 1 on improving the status of all species and habitats protected under EU nature legislation. In addition, target 2 proposes that “ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15 % of degraded ecosystems.” The Europe 2020 Strategy also links to biodiversity through action on climate change. To demonstrate that nature and biodiversity are protected there should be a description: of the status of natural species (including trends in increase/decrease); of protected habitats and other open spaces, both green and blue, which are used by wild species. A summary of city policies and the range of measures taken to protect, enhance and buffer biodiversity in the city should be given. The natural and semi-natural spaces may include parks, school sports fields, roundabouts/traffic islands, other grassed areas, woodlands, street trees, river corridors, and green roofs and walls. It is expected that the city will have an action plan to promote local biodiversity which will contain these details. This plan will include objectives, measures taken and planned, and an explanation of how actions will be funded to achieve the city’s aims. Enhancing biodiversity may take the form of protection from harm and disturbance, increasing the size of natural areas or improving management. Conservation actions taken in compliance with the EU Nature Directives for habitats and species in Natura 2000 sites should be noted and whether they are subject to management plans. Policies and plans for other nature conservation sites, and the condition of those sites, should be included; these may include sites of national or local city level importance. Other measures to be reported may include improving the connectivity between nature sites to permit migration, foraging and breeding, e.g. installing ponds and opening-up canalized waterways, and other measures to protect the resilience of biodiversity (such as reducing night-time lighting or noise disturbance). Special actions may be taken to favour particular species and habitats, such as providing nesting sites or planting food sources (e.g. nectar-rich species and seed-bearing species). Management of both green and biodiversity spaces that employs ecological methods and safeguards species from ecotoxicological products will be noted. Article 12 of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive 128/2009 and other legislation concerning water quality is also relevant. Appropriate action on invasive species should also be in process in line with EC Regulation 1143/2014 on invasive alien species which entered into force in 2015. Measures taken to protect native biodiversity and ecosystem services, as well as to minimize and mitigate the human health or economic impacts that these species can have should be discussed. Please outline all activities which raise public awareness of your city’s biodiversity (sites and species, including the Natura 2000 network). Also, tell us about opportunities provided for citizens to engage with natural spaces and receive training. Research into local issues including climate change impacts may be another contributing approach to the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. The assessment of bids will take into account the context of the city and the pressures it faces, the current status of biodiversity and the achievements of past protection work, the monitoring of wildlife and its management as well as what use is made of monitoring information. Applicant cities should provide evidence of commitment to agreed plans and funding from a range of sources to back the city’s aspirations for its nature and biodiversity. It is important that good maps are given to show locations of sites, their context and connectivity.
13
2.5 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
The selected indicators are described in the European Union Directive 2008/50/EC of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe.
The target and limit values are set to protect human health. Member States should take action in order to comply with the limit values, and where possible, to attain the target values.
• The target value for ozone (8 hour mean) is 120 µg/m3 not to be exceeded more than 25 times a year averaged over three years.
• The limit value for the annual mean of NO2 is 40 µg/m3.
• The limit value for PM10 (daily mean) is 50 µg/m3 not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year.
• The limit value for the annual mean of PM10 is 40 µg/m3.
• The target value for PM2.5 is 25 µg/m3 in 2010 and becomes a limit value in 2015.
• The limit value for hourly NO2 with a threshold of 200 µg/m3 should not be exceeded more than 18 times during a year.
For presented air quality data specify the type of measurement station (e.g. traffic, urban background, regional background).
For the annual concentrations of NO2, PM2.5 and PM10 provide a quantitative assessment of the contribution from local sources and from long-range transport for these pollutants as a percentage. For example, for annual mean of NO2 at traffic measurement stations about 75% originates from local sources and 25% from long-range transport. The contribution from long-range transport should ideally be determined to represent the administrative boundaries of the city. The purpose of this assessment is to estimate how much of observed concentrations can be managed by the city.
Using Green Infrastructure in an urban environment can help mitigate the urban heat island effect. -Lower humidity in urban areas due to the absence of vegetation and the increased absorption of energy from the sun caused by dark asphalted or concrete surfaces are the main reasons inner city areas are often many degrees warmer than their surroundings. This phenomenon, known as the urban heat island effect, can have serious consequences, particularly during hot periods. Green infrastructure can reduce exposure to pollution in two ways; improved air quality due to trees and vegetation in an urban environment and greening of transport corridors can reduce pollution concentrations.
14
2.6 QUALITY OF THE ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT
The Environmental Noise Directive (2002/49/EC) is one of the main instruments to identify noise pollution levels and to trigger the necessary action both at Member State and at EU level. The Environmental Noise Directive applies to noise to which humans are exposed, particularly in built-up areas, near schools, hospitals and other noise-sensitive buildings, like residential buildings, and in noise-sensitive areas, like public parks or other quiet areas in an agglomeration, and in quiet areas in open country.
The city must provide clear information on the municipal policies regarding the reduction of noise and the improvement of the acoustic environment as well as the protection of good sound environments in the municipal area. Details must be given on urban noise data, on noise abatement actions both already adopted and envisaged for the future, and on urban soundscape management considering the protection of existing good acoustics zones and implementation of quiet or sound improved areas.
Detail municipal strategies for noise management, involving stakeholders and the local population, information and education campaigns performed and planned regarding noise, costs undertaken and budgets for future measures. Regarding the present situation, noise data should be provided, at least on the share of population exposed to total noise values of Lden (day-evening-night indicator) above 55 dB(A) and above 65 dB(A) and to total noise values of Ln (night indicator) above 45 dB(A) and 55 dB(A). In addition, figures for noise exposure to individual noise sources (e.g. road, rail, air, industry, and leisure/entertainment) can also be provided for a better portray of the present situation. Technical advice on the calculation of noise exposure data is to be found in the position paper “Good Practice Guide for Strategic Noise Mapping and the Production of Associated Data on Noise Exposure” - European Commission Working Group Assessment of Exposure to Noise (WG-AEN), Version 2, 13 January 2006. Where available, information/data for the previous (5 – 10) years should be included to show trends. Information on existing or planned quiet areas, or sound improved areas, should also be included. Recommendations and advice concerning quiet areas shall be found in the “Good practice guide on quiet areas” – EEA Technical Report No 4/2014. The description of the measures implemented over the last five to ten years to improve the urban sound quality and to increase awareness to noise should highlight whether these measures are part of an overall and long-term noise management plan.
• Comment on which measures have been most effective;
• Explain how the implemented measures have influenced the present situation;
• Refer to stakeholder involvement, communication with the population, and plans to preserve areas where the acoustic environment is good;
The short and long term objectives for the quality of the acoustic environment and the proposed approach for their achievement must be described in detail together with assigned budgets.
• Emphasize to what extent plans are consolidated by commitments, budget allocations, and monitoring and performance evaluation schemes;
• Refer to stakeholder involvement, consultations, and actions to manage and preserve urban and open country quiet areas.
15
2.7 WASTE PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT
The Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) sets out the basic concepts and definitions related to waste management, such as definitions of waste, recycling, recovery etc. The Directive describes basic waste management principles such as the waste management hierarchy, polluter pays principle and extended producer responsibility and includes targets to be met by 2020 (50% recycling for municipal waste, 70% for construction and demolition waste).
The Directive requires that Member States adopt waste management plans and waste prevention programmes. However waste management is also considered in a wider context having regard to objectives for sustainability, resource efficiency and low carbon growth as set out in the 7th Environment Action Programme (EAP) and the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe (2011).
More specifically, the 7th EAP includes specific objectives for waste management to be met by 2020 (reduction of food wastage, decrease of waste generation, high quality reuse and recycling rates, no energy recovery from recyclable waste, elimination of landfilling of recoverable waste). Therefore information provided should include references to how waste management is considered and managed in this wider context.
• Waste data provided should primarily relate to 'household and municipal waste', i.e. household and commercial waste, collected on behalf of or by the municipalities, unless otherwise specified in the application form. Household waste is defined as all waste generated by a household including residual, recyclable materials (e.g paper, plastics, glass etc) bulky and green waste. The definition of municipal waste4 is ‘waste generated by households, and also includes similar waste from sources such as shops, offices and public institutions’. Be specific if using a different definition of municipal waste;
• You may also include information relating to the management of 'construction and demolition' and other industrial waste to demonstrate overall approach to waste management. This should be shown separately;
• Reference to 'measures' must include compliance with the EU Waste Framework Directive in terms of the preparation and implementation of 'waste management plans' on either a municipal or regional basis. The extent of segregated waste collections into separate waste streams, where they exist, will be assessed in addition to the percentage municipal waste recycling rate and future targets;
• Data on waste prevention and management for different waste streams should be provided and compared to the existing EU legally binding targets but also to the objectives of the 7th EAP;
• Waste prevention shall be as defined in Article 29 & Annex 4 of the WFD;
• Where specific packaging waste data is not available for the city or only available at a national level then measures to promote the prevention, reuse and recycling of packaging waste should be outlined;
• When providing details of separately collected wastes, include the types of waste collected and types of collection systems (e.g. drop off points, civic amenity, kerbside, other initiatives);
4 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Municipal_waste
16
• When considering the “polluter pays” principle, refer to Article 14 of the WFD;
• When describing measures for treatment of residual wastes, information should be provided on any energy recovery measures such as landfill gas utilisation, Waste to Energy and where applicable, the relative efficiency of the recovery measures (e.g. combined heat & power).
17
2.8 WATER MANAGEMENT
The Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources is the EU policy response to challenges to our water resources. It outlines actions that concentrate on better implementation of current water legislation, integration of water policy objectives into other policies, and filling the gaps in particular as regards water quantity and efficiency. The objective is to ensure that a sufficient quantity of good quality water is available for people's needs, the economy and the environment throughout the EU.
The Blueprint focuses on the development of key tools and measures for the implementation of current EU water legislation such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD). In this context relevant indicators include:
• The status of water bodies identified under the WFD and which are relevant at city level.
• For households, units should be litres/capita/day. For industry, agriculture, small business and tourism, water demand values should be reported for each sector both as total amount of used water (in cubic meter/year) and as share of total water consumption in the city (%). For the industry sector, please include water demand for cooling in energy production;
• If your city is a tourist destination, detail the variation in water demand during the tourist season;
• Provide trends of water demand per sector during the last 5-10 years. Explain what sector-specific technical measures have been put in place to improve water efficiency (e.g. water saving devices, network rehabilitation, water recycling/reuse), what incentives have been chosen (e.g. pricing, taxes, subsidies, metering, product eco-labelling, building rating), and what institutional and regulatory changes accompanied the implementation of measures (e.g. were they mandatory or voluntary) to reach the current situation;
• Give details of technical, nature-based, economic and institutional measures planned to improve water management (from both demand and supply side) for each sector, including possible use of alternative water sources.
• Give details of measures aimed at preventing/reducing impacts of floods and droughts and at improving the status of water bodies within the city, e.g. restrictions implemented.
18
2.9 WASTE WATER TREATMENT
Applicants should provide relevant information in the context of current EU Water legislation (mainly the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD5) and the Water Framework Directive WFD6) and requirements that result from the legislation.
Regarding part 2 of indicator 9A: The %-rates of the total annual generated waste water load connected to primary, secondary and tertiary treatment, or treatment more stringent than secondary (referring always to the highest treatment level which is applied in the treatment plant) do not necessarily coincide with the %-rate of the total annual generated waste water load connected to waste water collecting systems, as there is the possibility that a specific % of the total annual generated waste water load is connected to waste water collection systems but not (yet) to an Urban Waste Water Treatment Plant (UWWTP). P.e., collecting systems, primary treatment and secondary are defined in the UWWTD. For the purposes of the application form, the following minimum treatment efficiencies define a tertiary treatment: organic pollution removal of at least 70-90% for BOD5 and 75% for COD, and at least one of the following: a) nitrogen removal of at least 70-80%, b) phosphorus removal of at least 80%, c) further treatment necessary to fulfil other Council Directives, e.g. microbiological removal, according to needs. It is the nature of the area of discharge, if considered as "sensitive", what will determine the needs and requirements to comply with.
Regarding part 3 of indicator 9A: The population not connected to waste water collecting systems might be served by individual and appropriate systems. Examples: on-site systems (e.g. septic tanks, constructed wetlands), which achieve different treatment levels. Another option is that the waste water is stored in water-tight cesspools and transported to an UWWTP by truck. In case of on-site systems, estimate the treatment level achieved (i.e. primary, secondary, tertiary treatment level). In case of transport to UWWTPs, please provide information on the treatment performance of the plants.
Regarding part 6 of indicator 9A: If data on incoming and discharged loads is not measured, please provide an expert judgment.
5 Directive 91/271/EEC 6 Directive 2000/60/EC
19
2.10 ECO-INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABLE EMPLOYMENT
Applicants should discuss plans, programmes and policies in the context of promoting eco-innovation and sustainable employment in the city. The focus should highlight innovative approaches of how technological and non-technological eco-innovations are supported or directly implemented by the applicant city. Applicants should also consider policies aiming to create jobs in green sectors.
Jobs in ‘green sectors’, such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, waste recycling, green chemistry, organic farming and green construction, should be included when discussing issues associated with sustainable employment.
Include data and information on how ‘eco-innovation and sustainable employment’ has developed over time. For example, show how the share of the city budget dedicated to support environmental R&D developed during the last five to ten years (also as a percentage of total budget), how the number of jobs in green sectors changed over time and how the city is implementing public procurement of innovation.
Provide information about the timelines of future plans (section 10C). Discuss whether the city takes active steps in promoting the application and diffusion of eco-innovation by different departments of the city but also by industries within the city boundary.
Include information on budgets for future plans and strategies, note if these are secured or not.
20
2.11 ENERGY PERFORMANCE
Sustainable energy performance plays a central part in the EU’s 2020 strategy which aims at reducing carbon emissions by 20 %, increasing the share of renewable energies by 20 % and increasing energy efficiency by 20 %. The Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC), the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (2010/31/EU), the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC), the Energy Labelling Directive (2010/30/EU) and the Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU) are relevant to this indicator.
• Current development or Action Plan refers to City Plans or Strategies, formulated and adopted over the last 5 to 10 years which are now being implemented, such as Sustainable Energy Action Plans through the Covenant of Mayors.
• The energy mix refers to the share of different energy sources which help meet the energy demand of the city. The dynamics and details of the energy mix over time and future plans for such highlight the intentions of the city in terms of its renewable energy transition. If possible, demonstrate an understanding of the economic, ecological, technical or other (aesthetic, social, infrastructural, cultural) implications of different energy strategies.
• Flexible, efficient and well-coordinated compatible and integrated District Heating and Electricity Systems can be key components in a city's energy mix.
• Increasing energy efficiency is a key strategy for achieving a carbon neutral energy system, but it is equally important to lower energy demand through campaigns and incentives for citizens, organisations, companies and public institutions.
• Refer to the built environment of the city in current Development or Action Plans and the current Status of the energy performance including buildings, industry, tertiary and transport sectors.
• For 2050 the European Commission has long-term goals for a 80-95% reduction of greenhouse gases – which require large and systematic investments in energy efficiency, energy substitution and new renewable energy.
• For future and in particular long-term future energy plans, you may also include systems visions about Transport and Food systems. Built, Transport and Food systems represent three important energy sectors – in particular for renewable energy – with potentially conflicting and/or supplementing uses in the overall future energy system. The use of Green infrastructure can contribute to energy efficiency.
21
2.12 INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
The various dimensions of urban life – environmental, economic, social and cultural – are interwoven and successful urban management requires an integrated approach. Measures for environmental protection and improvement should be combined with those for physical urban renewal, education, economic development and social inclusion. Strong partnerships between citizens, civil society, the local economy and the various levels of government are a pre-requisite for effective action.
This approach is especially important given the seriousness of the challenges that European cities currently face, from demographic change to job creation, social progress, and the impacts of climate change. Effective local responses to these challenges are critical for achieving the smart, sustainable, inclusive society envisaged in the Europe 2020 Strategy.
For guidance on integrated environmental management, see the Reference Framework for European Sustainable Cities www.rfsc.eu (Governance chapter), and the 2007 Integrated Environmental Management, Guidance in relation to the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment report.
A number of practical tools exist to strengthen protection of the urban environment in promoting more integration. One of them is an Integrated Environmental Management System (IEMS) – a strong voluntary commitment by the city to act on its environmental problems. A well-developed IEMS helps avoid conflicts by considering competing demands from various policy areas and initiatives (economic well-being, competitiveness, health, environment, spatial planning), and by setting long-term goals.
EU guidance on IEMS in urban areas provides best practice examples and experiences.
Use this final indicator to describe your integrated approach, ambition and leadership in environmental policy, detailing ambition and vision. Highlight the organisational and management structure of your administration. This section may be brief, but should make clear how the environmental quality of the city is safeguarded, and the priority of environment in relation to other policy fields.
Conoscenza e tecnologie appropriate per la sostenibilità urbanistica - Knowledge and Appropriate Technologies for Sustainability in Planning - 29 febbraio - 04 marzo 2016 - Modulo 16
Modulo 16Dallo spreco del territorio all’approccio “smart”, prevenzione e monitoraggio nel governo del territorio - Annapaola Canevari.
Urbanistica e protezione ambientale per la sostenibilità delle trasformazioni territoriali
A che punto si trova l’Italia riguardo i temi della sostenibilità e della qualità del territorio e dell’ambiente urbano?
Una risposta che ci fotografa in modo impietoso ma veritiero si trova nelle parole con cui il presidente di Legambiente Vittorio Cogliati Dezza apre il XXII Rapporto sulla qualità ambientale dei comuni capoluogo di provincia - “Ecosistema Urbano 2015”.
“Le città sono per l’Italia ….. un possibile cantiere di innovazione, un’industria capace di creare lavoro rigenerando e conferendo qualità e sicurezza agli spazi pubblici e alle abitazioni.
L’agenda delle cose da fare è già scritta da tempo: la smartness, la mobilità nuova, il recupero urbanistico e la riconversione ecologica degli edifici, il corretto ciclo dei rifiuti, l’oculata gestione delle acque e la messa in sicurezza dal rischio idrogeologico, l’agricoltura urbana e periurbana, lo sviluppo della città digitale, la cura della persona, della scuola, dell’educazione.
C’è la necessità del passaggio dalla saggistica, dall’analisi e dalla conoscenza dei fenomeni, alla realizzazione concreta delle soluzioni.
Questo cambiamento, questa trasformazione delle città italiane è in atto? A guardare i dati di Ecosistema Urbano, in realtà, l’elemento che appare dominante è quello del ristagno.”
Sulla base di un set di parametri e indicatori, il documento classifica la qualità dell’ambiente nel nostro paese ed evidenzia una serie di problemi irrisolti che complessivamente possono essere ricondotti alla incapacità della pianificazione urbanistica, e del governo del territorio più in generale, di invertire la ratio delle decisioni parziali, legate a logiche di settore spesso contradditorie tra loro, che conduce ad uno spreco di risorse assolutamente inaccettabile.
A fronte di questa situazione la presa di coscienza della rilevanza delle questioni inerenti il suolo e la sua tutela è testimoniata dalla sintesi definitoria del termine suolo che l’enciclopedia Treccani ha approvato nel dicembre 2014. La definizione riprende i contenuti e le parole della dichiarazione dell’Unione Europea “Strategia tematica per la protezione del suolo” (2006), arricchendola con due concetti fondamentali: il fatto che il
Conoscenza e tecnologie appropriate per la sostenibilità urbanistica - Knowledge and Appropriate Technologies for Sustainability in Planning - 29 febbraio - 04 marzo 2016 - Modulo 16
suolo è una risorsa sostanzialmente non rinnovabile e la necessità di tutelarlo per garantire la conservazione delle sue importantissime funzioni biologiche, socioeconomiche e ambientali.
Purtroppo la tutela del suolo e del territorio, la sua messa in sicurezza e la sostenibilità dello sviluppo restano troppo spesso degli “slogan” cui non corrispondono provvedimenti conseguenti e azioni concrete per combattere lo sprawl territoriale e quello che può essere definito un vero e proprio spreco del territorio.
Infatti i più recenti atti legislativi (per lo più decreti) sono caratterizzati da aspetti di progressiva deregolamentazione e le opere pubbliche (spesso inutili) sparse sul territorio sembrano farci tornare a quel passato in cui “sviluppo” coincideva con “cemento”.
Alcuni tentativi di approccio differente si cominciano ad intravvedere da parte di amministrazioni e di comunità locali più sensibili e partecipi: si tratta ora di allargare e diffondere queste nuove esperienze e soprattutto di radicarle nella pratica urbanistica e di governo del territorio.
Bibliografia
ISPRA – Atti del convegno Recuperiamo terreno, sessione poster vol. I . Milano, 6 maggio 2015
ISPRA – Atti del convegno Recuperiamo terreno, sessione poster vol. II . Milano, 6 maggio 2015
ISPRA –Il consumo di suolo in Italia. Rapporti 218/2015
Silvia Ronchi (CRCS) – il consumo di suolo delle infrastrutture lombarde – 2014
AmbienteItalia – Ecosistema urbano – XXII rapporto sulla qualità ambientale dei comuni capoluogo di provincia 2015
AmbienteItalia – Ecosistema urbano XXII edizione – Best practices - 2015
Gregory D. Squires, Urban sprawl. Causes, consequences and policy responses, Urban Institute Press, Washington, 2002
EEA – report Urban sprawl in Europe, the ignored challenge, 2006
UN Habitat – global report on human settlements 2009. Planning sustainable cities
UN Habitat for a better urban future - Planning sustainable cities, Un-Habitat practices and perspectives 2010
ISPRA – Pianificazione locale l’Agenda 21L e la nuova generazione di piani – quaderni ambiente e società n. 13/2015
ISPRA - La comunicazione ambientale sui siti web dei comuni italiani – Rapporto 244/2015
David Fanfani, Francesco Berni, Alessandro Tirinnanzi – Tra territorio e città. Ricerche e progetti per luoghi in transizione. Firenze, University Press 2014
Conoscenza e tecnologie appropriate per la sostenibilità urbanistica - Knowledge and Appropriate Technologies for Sustainability in Planning - 29 febbraio - 04 marzo 2016 - Modulo 16
Comprendere i cambiamenti climatici. Pianificare per il cambiamento – Quaderni Urbanistica3 – n. 5/2014
Francesco Sbetti, Francesco Rossi, Michele Talia, Claudia trillo – Il governo della città nella contemporaneità. La città come motore di sviluppo. Tema 1: la rigenerazione urbana come resilienza – Dossier di Urbanistica Informazioni n. 4/2013
Maurizio Carta – Stockholm re-silient – Palermo 2015
AA.VV. – The Resilient City – TeMA, Journal of Land Use , Mobility and Environment – Napoli 2012
http://transitionitalia.it/
