German Green City Index
Assessing the environmental performance of 12 major German cities
A research project conducted by the Economist Intelligence Unit, sponsored by Siemens
Hamburg
Bremen
Berlin
Hanover
Essen
Leipzig
Contents
Cologne
German Green City Index
Frankfurt
4 Introduction: The challenges of
urbanization in Germany
City portraits 20 Berlin
24 Bremen
Mannheim
Nuremberg
28 Cologne
6 Results
32 Essen
36 Frankfurt
9 Overall key findings
Stuttgart
40 Hamburg
44 Hanover
14 Key findings from the categories
48 Leipzig
Munich
52 Mannheim
17 Methodology
56 Munich
60 Nuremberg
64 Stuttgart
2
3
The challenges of urbanization in Germany
German Green City Index
B
y 2050, more than two-thirds of the world’s
population will live in cities, up from about
half today, according to United Nations forecasts. The global trend is already advanced in
Europe, where about 73% of people live in cities,
and in Germany, where 74% are urban dwellers.
The figures for both Europe as a whole and Germany are expected to rise by 10% within the
next 40 years.
Increasing urbanization leads to major challenges for the environment and for infrastructure, for example, in the form of increasing energy demand. The European Environment Agency
(EEA) estimates that almost 70% of Europe’s
energy is consumed in cities. Globally this is
even more apparent – urban areas account for
80% of global CO2 emissions today. It is clear
4
that the choices cities make, both globally and in
Germany, will be key in facing global environmental challenges such as climate change.
Some challenges, such as improving air quality,
reducing waste through recycling or containing
urban sprawl, will be more localized but no less
important to residents.
Against that background, the German Green
City Index considers the sustainability of 12 major German cities, examining their use of resources and their commitment to environmental protection. To allow a comparison with other
cities in Europe, the results of the German cities
are presented in the context of the European
Green City Index, which was published in 2009.
This creates an Index containing a total of 41
European and German cities. The purpose of the
study is to provide information about the environmental performance and initiatives of the
various cities to stakeholders, to support them in
making choices about additional activities in the
area of climate and environmental protection
and to stimulate a dialog about the best solutions.
The study is divided into four sections. The first
section summarizes the overall key findings of
the study. The second section presents key findings in the eight categories: CO2 emissions,
energy, buildings, transport, water, waste and
land use, air quality, and environmental governance. The third section discusses in detail the
methodology, data collection and the construction of the Index. The fourth section presents
portraits of the 12 German cities which illustrate
their particular strengths and weaknesses and
highlight selected green initiatives. The city portraits offer an opportunity to discuss the actions
taken by the cities and pass along valuable experience that has been gained.
How the study was done: The German
Green City Index is part of the international
“Green City Index” research series conducted by
the Economist Intelligence Unit as an independent research partner, and sponsored by
Siemens. It compares more than 100 of the
world’s major cities; Indexes have already been
published for Europe (2009), Latin America
(2010), and Asia (2011). Every German city with
a population over one million and all metropolitan regions in Germany are covered in the Ger-
man Green City Index. The study differs from
those done by other institutions because it did
not rely on voluntary submissions from city governments, but was conducted independently
instead.
The methodology (see page 17) was developed
by the Economist Intelligence Unit in cooperation with Siemens. An independent panel of
urban sustainability experts provided important
insights on the methodology. Both the number
and the breadth of the underlying indicators are
noteworthy: The Index scores each city on 30 individual quantitative and qualitative indicators
for various aspects related to the environment
and infrastructure, such as the city’s environmental governance, its water consumption, its
recycling rate, or its level of CO2 emissions. Pub-
licly available data was used whenever possible
and was evaluated using a uniform, transparent
scoring process. Each city received points for its
performance in the eight individual categories
and also for its overall result. On that basis, the
German cities were classified in performance
bands and compared with the 30 European
cities. However, numbers alone do not tell the
whole story. So the results were combined into
detailed individual profiles. They describe the
challenges, strengths, and potential of each city,
as well as innovative green ideas and projects.
Projects that could inspire other cities were of
particular interest.
5
Overall results
Well above
average
Above
average
Amsterdam
Berlin
Bremen
Brussels
Copenhagen
Frankfurt
Hamburg
Hanover
Helsinki
Leipzig
Average
Cologne
Essen
London
Madrid
Paris
Riga
Rome
Vilnius
Warsaw
Below
average
Athens
Bratislava
Budapest
Dublin
Istanbul
Lisbon
Ljubljana
Prague
Tallinn
Well below
average
Belgrade
Bucharest
Kiev
Sofia
Zagreb
Mannheim
Munich
Nuremberg
Oslo
Stockholm
Stuttgart
Vienna
Zurich
Results
German Green City Index
CO2
Well above
average
Oslo
Stockholm
Well above
average
Copenhagen
Oslo
Vienna
Amsterdam
Berlin
Brussels
Copenhagen
Helsinki
London
Madrid
Nuremberg
Paris
Rome
Vienna
Zurich
Above
average
Amsterdam
Brussels
Leipzig
Munich
Rome
Stockholm
Stuttgart
Zurich
Average
Bremen
Cologne
Frankfurt
Hamburg
Hanover
Istanbul
Leipzig
Ljubljana
Mannheim
Munich
Riga
Stuttgart
Average
Athens
Belgrade
Berlin
Bratislava
Cologne
Dublin
Essen
Frankfurt
Hamburg
Hanover
Below
average
Athens
Belgrade
Bratislava
Bucharest
Budapest
Dublin
Essen
Lisbon
Prague
Tallinn
Vilnius
Warsaw
Zagreb
Below
average
Bremen
Bucharest
Budapest
Prague
Riga
Vilnius
Well below
average
Kiev
Ljubljana
Sofia
Tallinn
Kiev
Sofia
Buildings
Transport
Well above
average
Above
average
Well below
average
6
Energy
Helsinki
Istanbul
Lisbon
London
Madrid
Mannheim
Nuremberg
Paris
Warsaw
Zagreb
Stockholm
Above
average
Amsterdam
Berlin
Bremen
Brussels
Cologne
Copenhagen
Essen
Frankfurt
Hamburg
Hanover
Above
average
Amsterdam
Berlin
Bremen
Copenhagen
Essen
Frankfurt
Hamburg
Hanover
Helsinki
Leipzig
Average
Brussels
Cologne
Lisbon
London
Madrid
Rome
Sofia
Vilnius
Warsaw
Average
Bratislava
Budapest
Helsinki
Leipzig
Ljubljana
Madrid
Riga
Tallinn
Below
average
Athens
Belgrad
Bratislava
Bucharest
Budapest
Dublin
Ljubljana
Prague
Riga
Zagreb
Below
average
Athens
Bucharest
Istanbul
Kiev
Lisbon
London
Paris
Prague
Rome
Sofia
Well below
average
Istanbul
Kiev
Tallinn
Mannheim
Munich
Nuremberg
Oslo
Paris
Well above
average
Stockholm
Stuttgart
Vienna
Zurich
Well below
average
Mannheim
Munich
Nuremberg
Oslo
Stuttgart
Vienna
Zurich
Vilnius
Warsaw
Zagreb
Belgrad
Dublin
7
Results
German Green City Index
Water
Waste and land use
Well above
average
Well above
average
Above
average
Amsterdam
Berlin
Bremen
Brussels
Cologne
Copenhagen
Essen
Frankfurt
Hamburg
Hanover
Leipzig
London
Madrid
Mannheim
Munich
Average
Athens
Bratislava
Budapest
Dublin
Helsinki
Oslo
Prague
Rome
Stockholm
Tallinn
Vilnius
Below
average
Istanbul
Kiev
Lisbon
Riga
Warsaw
Well below
average
Nuremberg
Paris
Stuttgart
Vienna
Zurich
Belgrad
Bucharest
Ljubljana
Sofia
Zagreb
Above
average
Amsterdam
Berlin
Bremen
Copenhagen
Essen
Frankfurt
Hamburg
Hanover
Helsinki
Leipzig
Munich
Nuremberg
Oslo
Stockholm
Stuttgart
Average
Brussels
Budapest
Cologne
Dublin
Ljubljana
London
Mannheim
Paris
Prague
Rome
Tallinn
Vilnius
Below
average
Athens
Belgrad
Bratislava
Istanbul
Lisbon
Madrid
Riga
Warsaw
Zagreb
Well below
average
Bucharest
Kiev
Sofia
Environmental
governance
Air quality
Well above
average
Well above
average
Stockholm
Vilnius
Above
average
Berlin
Bremen
Copenhagen
Dublin
Hamburg
Hanover
Helsinki
Leipzig
Mannheim
Riga
Stuttgart
Tallinn
Average
Amsterdam
Brussels
Cologne
Essen
Frankfurt
Ljubljana
London
Madrid
Munich
Nuremberg
Oslo
Paris
Prague
Rome
Warsaw
Below
average
Bratislava
Budapest
Istanbul
Lisbon
Well below
average
Athens
Belgrad
Bucharest
Kiev
Sofia
Zagreb
Vienna
Zurich
Above
average
Amsterdam
Bremen
Brussels
Copenhagen
Essen
Hamburg
Helsinki
Mannheim
Oslo
Paris
Stockholm
Stuttgart
Warsaw
Vienna
Zurich
Average
Berlin
Budapest
Cologne
Frankfurt
Hanover
Leipzig
Lisbon
Ljubljana
London
Madrid
Munich
Nuremberg
Riga
Tallinn
Vilnius
Below
average
Athens
Belgrad
Bratislava
Dublin
Kiev
Rome
Zagreb
Well below
average
Bucharest
Istanbul
Prague
Sofia
Vienna
Zürich
Overall key findings
German Green City Index
T
o deepen the understanding of the environmental strengths and weaknesses of the
German cities, their results are analyzed in the
context of the European Green City Index, which
was published in 2009. Examining a few general
features shows that the German cities tend to be
much smaller – but also more affluent – than
the other European cities. The average city has
less than one million inhabitants, while the average population in the European Green City Index
is about 2.5 million. Compared with the other
cities in Europe, the gross domestic product
(GDP) of the German cities puts them in the top
income group, although per capita GDP varies
widely between €22,500 in Berlin and €67,900
in Frankfurt.1) In contrast, industry’s contribution to gross value creation is much higher in
Germany than in the European cities. Three German cities, Mannheim, Essen and Stuttgart,
have a higher percentage of industry (from 36%
to 39%) than Istanbul, the most industrialized
city in the European Green City Index, at 33%.
These factors were taken into account when
comparing and contrasting the environmental
performance of German cities with the rest of
Europe.
The German cities’ Index results
are very similar to each other,
reflecting the federal government’s efforts to simplify environmental policies in Germany, as well
as the highly developed environmental awareness of the citizens.
Overall, and in six out of the eight categories,
German cities rank across just one or two of the
five performance bands (mainly “average” and
“above average”) when the results are compared
with all 41 cities in the Index (see graphic on
pages 12/13). The range of results for the other
European cities is much wider, regularly stretching across four, and even all five, performance
bands. It can clearly be seen that German cities
often do well or poorly at the same things. All
German cities score well for low water consumption, for example. Regarding policies, the performance is even more consistent. For 26 out of 40
qualitative criteria in the Index, every German
city had the same score (usually full marks), and
for a further five criteria there were only one or
two differences. Even when cities scored less
well on some qualitative issues, they did so
together. For example, no German city has
water recycling.
This homogeneity reflects, in part, the important role of the German federal government in
1) In real GDP per person, based on 2000 prices.
8
9
directing and implementing urban sustainability
policies. The Ministry of Transport, Building and
Urban Affairs, for example, develops standardized, nationwide regulations for building codes
and grants financial aid for groundbreaking
urban development projects. It also has one of
the largest budgets of any federal ministry. This
is also intended to address climate-related problems – for example making mobility more environmentally friendly or promoting the development of city centers. Federal influence, already
strong, has generally been growing. Since 2006,
the federal government has begun to develop
regulations on a wider range of urban environmental issues and increased its efforts to bring
uniformity to environmental legislation.
Another factor is Germany’s history of environmental awareness. Prussia had a nature conservation department before World War I. Environmental movements developed in both the
Federal Republic of Germany and the former
German Democratic Republic in the 1970’s and
1980’s. In the east, the movement was one of
the country’s few independent voices, while in
the west it led to the creation of Green parties.
More recently, green issues have been pivotal in
German local elections, putting the Green party
in charge of a state government, Baden-Württemberg, for the first time.
Environmental protection is not a
luxury: In contrast to other
European cities, neither income
nor historical development was
shown to affect the environmental
performance of German cities.
While the European Green City Index showed a
strong correlation between average income (as
measured by GDP per person) and environmen-
tal performance, this relationship was absent in
the German Green City Index. This is even more
surprising given the wide range in income
among the German cities, from GDP of €22,500
per person in Berlin to €67,900 in Frankfurt.2)
This suggests that uniform German policies set
by the federal government have helped smooth
out the effects of any income differences on
environmental performance. For example, lowincome European cities had far less ambitious
environmental policies, while in Germany even
lower-income cities do well. Indeed, the European Green City Index cited Berlin as a leading
example of how cities with lower incomes can
still benefit from ambitious environmental targets and policies.
Another finding of the 2009 European Green
City Index: There was also a noticeable divide in
environmental performance between eastern
and western Europe, with cities in the former
2) In real GDP per person, based on 2000 prices.
10
Eastern bloc trying to overcome the legacy of
poor infrastructure and pent-up demand for
western conveniences, such as automobiles.
The German Green City Index found no indications of a gap between east and west, but it evaluated only two former East German cities –
Leipzig and (East) Berlin. It is notable that, in
these two cities at least, the differences compared with western Germany do not show up –
both rank above average overall. Both Berlin and
Leipzig are particularly strong on infrastructure
indicators, suggesting that substantial investments in recent years have overcome potential
divides. In addition, there was no correlation
between overall environmental performance
and levels of industrialization in German cities or
in the European Green City Index. Generally,
these results of the German cities imply that, no
matter the level of income, historical development or levels of industrialization, environmen-
tal performance doesn't have to be only a luxury
good and is something to which every city can
aspire.
When compared with European
cities of similar wealth, German
cities fall short of the top tier.
German cities compare very well
with other European cities on
environmental performance,
especially regarding policies.
As mentioned above, German cities perform
well when compared with the 29 cities in the
European Green City Index. However, the pattern is somewhat different when the comparison is limited to the 12 German cities and the
14 other European cities with a similar range of
income, i.e., over €22,500 real GDP per person3)
(see graphic at the bottom of page 12). Most of
the 12 German cities now fall into the average
band, and only Berlin is above average. With that
rating, most of the German cities outperform
European cities such as London, Madrid, Dublin
and Rome, but they fall behind the “greenest”
European leaders such as the Scandinavian capital cities, Amsterdam and Zurich. This could suggest that the strong influence of the German
federal government and the environmental
awareness of the citizens raise the performance
of cities with lower per capita GDP but may not
provide sufficient incentives for richer cities
to develop and adopt more ground-breaking
approaches.
When the overall results of the German Green
City Index are compared with the 2009 European Green City Index, 10 of the 12 German
cities are above average, the highest ranking
achieved by any European city. German cities
are particularly strong on environmental strategies and policies – such as energy efficiency
standards for buildings or the promotion of
public transport – which make up about half
of the indicators that were measured. If those
indicators alone are measured, 11 of the 12 German cities are above average overall. This
strength is consistent across most individual categories, and no city’s qualitative scores ever fell
below average (see graphic at the bottom of
page 13).
The quantitative scores, which evaluate current
infrastructure and consumption levels, tell a
slightly different story. Here the German cities
turn in less consistent performances. As shown
by the graphic at the top of page 13, the cities
have strong performances in the buildings and
water categories and weaker performances in
CO2 emissions, transport, energy, and air quality. Because environmental policies are an indication of potential future improvements, the Index
suggests that, over time, the environment in
these cities should get better as more advanced
policies have an impact.
3) In real GDP per person, based on 2000 prices
11
How the cities scored
Well
below
average
Overall results
of all 41 cities
➔ 16 quantitative and
14 qualitative indicators
Below
average
Average
Above
average
CO2
2
Energy
4
Buildings
3
10
1
8
11 8
Transport
2
13
1
7
11 6
Water
5
5
Waste and
land use
3
9
2
Air quality
6
4
5 12
7
Environmental
governance
4
7
7
5 10
Overall result
5
12
1
5
1
9
3
12
8
2
10
2
5
3
3
10
8
9
2
7
➔ German and European cities
with > €22,500 GDP per capita
Berlin
Bremen
Cologne
Essen
Frankfurt
Hamburg
Hanover
Leipzig
Mannheim
Munich
Nuremberg
Stuttgart
Amsterdam
Athens
Brussels
Copenhagen
Dublin
Helsinki
London
Madrid
Oslo
Paris
Rome
Stockholm
Vienna
Zurich
Well
below
average
CO2
Below
average
8
2
7
10
2
8
10
5
9
5
7
2
Air quality
4
7
7
11
5 4
3
5
2
➔ Upshot: German cities show
some weaknesses in actual
consumption levels and infrastructure
10 8
Environmental
governance
Overall result
6
3
7
2
1
5
8
Water
5
1
5 5
7
Waste and
land use
3
4
6
Air quality
1
Environmental
governance
3
Overall result
3
4
8
9
13
4
➔ 14 qualitative indicators
➔ Such as promotion of clean
energies, waste reduction efforts,
public participation in green policies
CO2
4
7
6
8
6 10
Energy
4
10
7
7
5
Average
5
8
7 1
Buildings
5
10
3
4 5
Transport
4
11
3
Water
4
5
3
6 4
Waste and
land use
4
4
6 4
4 3
Air quality
6
5
Environmental
governance
4
7
7
Overall result
3
10
1
3
8
1
6
Number of European cities
➔ Upshot: Environmental
policies make a decisive contribution to the good results
of German cities
1
6
1
Above
average
12
9
11 8
12 14
2
Well
above
average
8
12
5
2
Number of European cities
Below
average
1
1
5
Well
below
average
4
1
7
Number of German cities
2) Qualitative
indicators
10
1
12 4
4 10
8
1
8
2
10 8
No quantitative indicators measured
Number of European cities
4 3
10
2
12
Well
above
average
2
8
3
1
Above
average
8
3
Waste and
land use
1
Average
Number of German cities
12
6
10
10 7
Transport
1 2
8
7
2
3 1
4
5
3
5
1
8
Well
above
average
Water
Buildings
2
1 3
7
Above
average
8
1
4
Energy
1
Average
3
Energy
2
CO2
Below
average
Transport
Number of German cities
Scores of cities
with comparable income
➔ 16 quantitative indicators
➔ Such as CO2 emissions, energy
and water consumption,
recycling rate
Well
below
average
3
12 German cities
29 European cities
1) Quantitative
indicators
Buildings
12
11
Well
above
average
4
10
2
9
12 13
5
8
8
Number of German cities
5 10
11 8
Number of European cities
13
➔ Accordingly, all 12 German cities are above
average in promoting energy efficiency for
buildings compared with Europe.
➔ Germany’s strict policies are having a positive
effect on the energy consumed by residential
buildings: It is far lower in the German cities, at
an average of 702 megajoules per square meter,
compared with 921 megajoules per square
meter for the other European cities.
Transport: German cities are actively pursuing sustainable transport policies but are having
difficulty getting people out of their cars.
In detail:
➔ Ten of the 12 German cities have adopted all
seven sustainable transport policies covered in
the European Green City Index, including using
bio-fuels or electricity in public transport, environmental zones, reducing the use of automobiles and promoting public awareness of green
transport.
➔ Eleven of the 12 German cities are in the
above average band for transport policies. Yet
when it comes to quantitative indicators, including the density of the public transport system or
the modal split, three are below average and
only one is above average.
➔ This is not because of a lack of public transport. German cities offer on average 2.6 km of
public transport per square kilometer, compared
with 2.4 km for the other European cities. They
also have more cycling lanes per square kilometer than in Europe, at 1.9 km per square kilometer, compared with an average of 1.2 km in the
other European cities.
➔ Despite these options, almost half of the German residents drive to work, against about 38%
in the other European cities. Even in European
cities with a comparable income, the figure is
still higher than in the German cities, at 43%.
➔ Given Germany’s famously entrenched car
culture, it is likely to be difficult to reduce the
share of people taking their car to work.
Key findings from the categories
German Green City Index
CO2 emissions: Compared with European
cities, German cities see their poorest performance in this category, largely from the relatively high share of coal used in energy production.
Proactive policies, however, could lead to future
improvements.
In detail:
➔ German cities emit an average of 9.8 metric
tons of CO2 per person annually, nearly twice as
much as other European cities,4) at 5.2 metric
tons.
➔ German cities do better on CO2 intensity (the
amount of CO2 emissions per Euro of GDP), at
250 grams, compared with 358 grams in other
European cities. But they do worse when compared with the 14 European cities with a similar
income, at 110 grams.
➔ All of the German cities measure emissions
and have set their own reduction targets separate from federal targets. The city targets are
ambitious, aiming on average for a 31% reduction by 2020, twice the average of the goals of
the other European cities, at 15%.
Energy: The German cities do slightly better
than other European cities on energy efficiency,
although the policies of the city governments
are weaker in this area. This suggests that cities
may be relying on federal policy instruments,
such as feed-in tariffs for renewable energy
sources, rather than local initiatives.
In detail:
➔ German cities consume 95 gigajoules per
capita each year. Although this is higher than
the average of the other European cities, at
81 gigajoules, it is comparable to the average
level for the 14 European cities of similar wealth,
at 92 gigajoules.
➔ Regarding energy intensity, the German
cities do better than the other European cities, at
2.5 megajoules per Euro of GDP, compared with
5.4 megajoules.
➔ Although all German cities have developed
green energy projects within their borders, only
half fully promote the use of green energy, and
none scores full marks for expanding decentralized power generation.
➔ The biggest energy challenge for the 12 German cities is the very low proportion of renewable energy, at 3% of overall energy consumption. This is less than half of the overall average
of the other European cities, at about 8%. The
14 European cities in the same income range
cover 12% of their overall energy demand with
renewable energy sources.
Buildings: The German cities in this study do
very well compared with the rest of Europe in
this category. Advanced policies, including federally mandated building codes and other regulations at city level, are reducing energy consumption by buildings.
Water: All German cities perform extremely
well in this category, given their low levels of
water consumption per capita and leakages in
the water supply system.
In detail:
➔ Every city has introduced energy efficiency
standards for new buildings and requires regular
maintenance of heating and air conditioning
systems. An “energy passport” must be shown
when a building is rented or sold, and the cities
also inform their residents about opportunities
to improve energy efficiency.
➔ Eight out of 12 cities also provide financial
incentives for retrofitting to save energy.
In detail:
➔ Residents of the German cities consume on
average 59 cubic meters per inhabitant every
year, which is substantially lower than the average of the other European cities, at 107 cubic
meters.
➔ One reason for the low consumption rate is
an impressively low level of leakage in pipelines,
at only 8%. Even the highest individual water
leakage rate among the 12 German cities, at
4) A note about methodology: When evaluating category results, the averages of the quantitative figures for the 12 German cities were compared with the averages of the 29 other European cities from
the 2009 European Green City Index (excluding Berlin). This was to better distinguish differences and similarities between German cities as a whole and cities in the rest of Europe as a whole.
14
15
industrialization and overall air pollution. Nor is
there a correlation between the percentage of
commuters who drive to work and levels of
nitrogen dioxide, which is closely associated
with automobile exhaust.
➔ Although German cities have average ozone
concentrations that are approximately equal to
those of the European cities, they have measurably lower concentrations of nitrogen dioxide,
sulfur dioxide and particulate matter.
Environmental governance: German
cities are generally strong on standards and
environmental policies across categories, but
their performance in the environmental governance category is relatively modest. This surprising result again suggests that federal involvement, while driving advanced environmental
policies overall, may be superseding autonomy
at the municipal level.
13%, is still substantially lower than the average
of the other European cities, at 23%.
➔ Policy choices have also had an effect: Metering is widespread and residents pay a relatively
high price for water. In addition, all 12 German
cities monitor water usage and quality, promote
conservation, and treat 100% of their wastewater.
➔ None of the German cities reuses water, for
example for street cleaning, before treatment.
Nine out of 29 cities outside of Germany have
some type of reuse, including six of the 14 that
are in the same income bracket as the German
cities. It is reasonable to question, though, how
necessary this is in Germany given its low usage
and leakage rates.
Waste and land use: The German cities
generate more waste than the other European
cities on average, but comprehensive waste
reduction policies and high recycling rates
improve their overall performance in this category. On land use, however, they tend to fall
behind other European cities at the same level of
wealth.
In detail:
➔ The German cities generate on average
528 kg of waste per inhabitant each year, which
is slightly above the average of the European
cities, at 512 kg, but nearly the same as the average for the European cities in the same income
range, at 525 kg.
16
➔ Waste separation and recycling are deeply
entrenched in German culture, as shown by the
recycling rates of the German cities: On average
48% of the waste generated in the cities is recycled, compared to 27% for the European cities
with the same wealth and 17% for all of the
other European cities.
➔ Every German city gained full marks for policies on sustainable waste management and promoting waste separation and reduction.
➔ On land use, though, while every German
city protects its green spaces, two have incomplete green space policies and only seven fully
promote reuse of brownfield sites for development. For the 14 European Index cities of the
same wealth, all have comprehensive green
space policies and all but one gain full marks for
brownfield redevelopment.
Air quality: The cities in the German Green
City Index have comprehensive air quality plans,
and this has helped keep down the levels of several key air pollutants.
In detail:
➔ All 12 German cities have air quality targets
and plans. Only 13 of the 29 other European
cities have both.
➔ These policies seem to be successful at limiting the effects of air pollution across Germany,
even in cities with more industry and automobiles. This is demonstrated by the lack of a correlation in the Index between each city’s level of
In detail:
➔ The structures of environmental governance
are uniform in the 12 German cities. These
include an integrated strategy endorsed by the
city administration and the mayor, a dedicated
environmental authority, support for international environmental protection initiatives, and
public awareness campaigns.
➔ However, the German cities will need to
improve in some areas compared with the best
European cities.
➔ Only two of the 12 German cities have
defined specific targets for each environmental
category, while the others are limited to selected
categories.
➔ Only two German cities issue annual or biannual environmental reports on the progress of
their work. The vast majority of German cities
issue a report of this kind only every three to ten
years.
➔ A lack of citizen involvement is another obvious weakness. Only five of 12 cities fully involve
citizens in environmental decision-making or
have a central contact point for complaints. The
European Green City Index shows a correlation
between higher levels of citizen engagement
and better environmental performance. This
suggests that citizens who act responsibly and
are environmentally aware make a decisive contribution to improving the environmental balance of cities.
Methodology
German Green City Index
T
he German Green City Index evaluates
12 major German cities with regard to their
sustainability in using resources and their commitment to environmental protection. The study
covers the four German cities with populations
over one million as well as a city from all metropolitan regions. To provide insights on how the
German cities are doing compared with other
cities in Europe, their results are presented in the
context of the European Green City Index. This
study investigated the environmental sustainability of 30 major European cities from 30 European countries and was published in December
2009.
The methodology used in the German Green
City Index was developed by the Economist
Intelligence Unit in cooperation with Siemens. It
is identical to the methodology used in the European Green City Index to ensure the comparability of cities. An independent panel of urban sustainability experts provided important insights
and feedback. Because data was collected at different times for Europe and Germany, it is not
completely comparable. For that reason, the
results are presented in performance bands and
not as detailed rankings. This helped to smooth
out minor differences.
The German Green City Index scores cities across
eight categories – CO2, energy, buildings, transport, water, waste and land use, air quality, and
environmental governance – based on 30 individual indicators. Sixteen of the 30 indicators are
derived from quantitative data and aim to mea-
sure how a city is currently performing – for
example, its level of CO2 emissions, the amount
of energy it consumes, how much waste it produces or levels of air pollution. The remaining
14 indicators are qualitative assessments of
cities’ environmental policies, aspirations or
ambitions to reduce their environmental footprint. This could include their commitment to
consuming more renewable energy, improving
the energy efficiency of buildings, reducing congestion, or recycling and reusing waste.
Data sources: A team of independent analysts at the Economic Intelligence Unit collected
and evaluated data for the German Green City
Index over the period from May to November
2010. Publicly available data from official
sources, such as European, national, or regional
statistics offices, local city authorities, and city
and national environmental agencies, was used
whenever possible. Care was taken to use data
for 2008 whenever possible or, failing that, data
for previous years or for 2009 in order to ensure
that the pool of data was as similar as possible to
the European Green City Index. In the few cases
where gaps in the data existed, the Economist
Intelligence Unit produced estimates based on
regional figures.
Comparison with the European
Green City Index: To better classify the
results of the German Green City Index and
place them in a broader context, the German
cities were compared with the cities of the European Green City Index. This required normalizing the German results on the basis of the European Green City Index (see description of the
normalization method under “Indicators”) and
generating a new theoretical Index of 41 cities.
Berlin, which is included in both the European
and the German Green City Index, is shown only
on the basis of the results of the German Green
City Index. The final results for the German cities
are shown in performance bands instead of in
a detailed ranking (see “Index construction” on
page 18).
Indicators: To be able to compare data
points across cities, as well as to construct
aggregate scores for each city, the project team
first had to make the data gathered from different sources comparable. To do so, the quantitative indicators were “normalized” on a scale of
0 to 10, where 10 points were assigned to the
best scoring city and 0 points were assigned to
the worst scoring city.
In some cases, an upper benchmark or a lower
benchmark was inserted to prevent outliers
from skewing the distribution of points. The
Economist Intelligence Unit used the same normalization for the German Green City Index as
for the European Index. Qualitative indicators
were scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts, who defined objective criteria to evaluate
the environmental targets, strategies, and environmental policies of a city. The qualitative
17
List of categories, indicators and their weightings
Category
CO2
Energy
Buildings
Transport
indicators were again scored on a scale of 0 to
10, with 10 points assigned to cities that met or
exceeded the check-list of criteria. In the case of
the “CO2 reduction strategy” indicator, for example, cities were assessed according to whether
they actively and regularly monitor CO2 emissions, what CO2 reduction targets have been set
and how ambitious they are, given the time period within which they are supposed to be met.
Index construction: To compose the
Index, a score was first calculated for each city
on a scale of 0 to 10 in the eight categories. This
evaluation included all quantitative and qualitative data for each infrastructure category. In
general, all indicators received the same weighting. To create the overall scores, the scores of
the eight categories were then aggregated
according to their assigned weighting. To avoid
that any category is lent greater importance
than another, the Economist Intelligence Unit
assigned equal weightings on each category
score. This also reflects feedback from the independent experts who were involved in developing the methodology. During the final step, the
cities were grouped into performance bands
according to their scores. Those bands were
based on average (mean) scores and defined
using the standard deviation, a statistical term
for the area around the mean which covers 66%
of all values.
18
Definition of performance bands:
➔ “Well above average”: Scores are more than
1.5 times the standard deviation above the
mean.
➔ “Above average”: Scores are between 0.5 and
1.5 times the standard deviation above the
mean.
➔ “Average”: Scores are between 0.5 times the
standard deviation above and 0.5 times the
standard deviation below the mean.
➔ “Below average”: Scores are between 0.5 and
1.5 times the standard deviation below the
mean.
➔ “Well below average”: Scores are more than
1.5 times the standard deviation below the
mean.
Cluster
To analyze the effect of income, population,
industrialization, and temperature on a city’s
score, the 41 cities were also divided into a
series of clusters, which were defined as follows:
Income: “Low income,” with per capita GDP
of less than €21,000; “middle income” of
€21,000 to €31,000 and “high income”
of more than €31,000
Size: “Small,” with a population of less
than 1 million; “mid-sized,” with a population
of between 1 million and 3 million and “large”
with a population of more than 3 million
Industrialization: “Industrial,” with a 25% or
greater share of industry; “service-oriented,”
with a share of less than 25% industry
Temperature: “Cold,” with an average
temperature of 6-8 degree Celsius; “temperate,”
with an average temperature of 9-12 degrees
Celsius and “hot,” with an average temperature
of more than 13 degrees Celsius
Water
Waste
and
land use
Air quality
Environmental
governance
Indicator
Type
Weighting
Description
Normalisation technique
CO2 emissions
Quantitative
33%
Total CO2 emissions, in tonnes per head.
Min-max.
CO2 intensity
Quantitative
33%
Total CO2 emissions, in grams per unit of real GDP
(2000 base year).
Min-max; lower benchmark of 1,000 grams
inserted to prevent outliers.
CO2 reduction
strategy
Qualitative
33%
An assessment of the ambitiousness
of CO2 emissions reduction strategy.
Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
on a scale of 0 to 10.
Energy consumption
Quantitative
25%
Total final energy consumption, in gigajoules per head.
Min-max.
Energy intensity
Quantitative
25%
Total final energy consumption, in megajoules per unit
of real GDP (in euros, base year 2000).
Min-max; lower benchmark of 8MJ/€GDP
inserted to prevent outliers.
Renewable energy
consumption
Quantitative
25%
The percentage of total energy derived from renewable
sources, as a share of the city's total energy consumption,
in terajoules.
Scored against an upper benchmark of 20% (EU target).
Clean and efficient
energy policies
Qualitative
25%
An assessment of the extensiveness of policies promoting
the use of clean and efficient energy.
Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
on a scale of 0 to 10.
Energy consumption
of residential buildings
Quantitative
33%
Total final energy consumption in the residential sector,
per square meter of residential floor space.
Min-max.
Energy-efficient
buildings standards
Qualitative
33%
An assessment of the extensiveness of cities’ energy
efficiency standards for buildings.
Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
on a scale of 0 to 10.
Energy-efficient
buildings initiatives
Qualitative
33%
An assessment of the extensiveness of efforts to promote
efficiency of buildings.
Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
on a scale of 0 to 10.
Use of non-car
transport
Quantitative
29%
The total percentage of the working population travelling
to work on public transport, by bicycle and by foot.
Converted to a scale of 0 to 10.
Size of non-car
transport network
Quantitative
14%
Length of cycling lanes and the public transport network,
in km per square meter of city area.
Min-max. Upper benchmarks of 4 km/km2 and
5 km/km2 inserted to prevent outliers.
Green transport
promotion
Qualitative
29%
An assessment of the extensiveness of efforts to increase
the use of cleaner transport.
Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
on a scale of 0 to 10.
Congestion
reduction policies
Qualitative
29%
An assessment of efforts to reduce vehicle traffic
within the city.
Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
on a scale of 0 to 10.
Water consumption
Quantitative
25%
Total annual water consumption, in cubic meters per head.
Min-max.
Water system leakages
Quantitative
25%
Percentage of water lost in the water distribution system.
Scored against an upper target of 5%.
Wastewater
treatment
Quantitative
25%
Percentage of dwellings connected to the sewage system.
Scored against an upper benchmark of 100%
and a lower benchmark of 80%.
Water efficiency
and treatment
policies
Qualitative
25%
An assessment of the comprehensiveness of measures
to improve the efficiency of water usage and the
treatment of wastewater.
Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
on a scale of 0 to 10.
Municipal waste
production
Quantitative
25%
Total annual municipal waste collected, in kg per head.
Scored against an upper benchmark of 300 kg (EU target).
A lower benchmark of 1,000 kg inserted to prevent outliers.
Waste recycling
Quantitative
25%
Percentage of municipal waste recycled.
Scored against an upper benchmark of 50% (EU target).
Waste reduction
and policies
Qualitative
25%
An assessment of the extensiveness of measures
to reduce the overall production of waste,
and to recycle and reuse waste.
Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
on a scale of 0 to 10.
Green land use
policies
Qualitative
25%
An assessment of the comprehensiveness of
policies to contain the urban sprawl and promote
the availability of green spaces.
Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
on a scale of 0 to 10.
Nitrogen dioxide
Quantitative
20%
Annual daily mean of NO2 emissions.
Scored against a lower benchmark of 40 ug/m3 (EU target).
Ozone
Quantitative
20%
Annual daily mean of O3 emissions.
Scored against a lower benchmark of 120 ug/m3 (EU target).
PM10
emissions.
Scored against a lower benchmark of 50 ug/m3 (EU target).
Particulate matter
Quantitative
20%
Annual daily mean of
Sulfur dioxide
Quantitative
20%
Annual daily mean of SO2 emissions.
Scored against a lower benchmark of 40 ug/m3 (EU target).
Clean air policies
Qualitative
20%
An assessment of the extensiveness of policies
to improve air quality.
Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
on a scale of 0 to 10.
Green action plan
Qualitative
33%
An assessment of the ambitiousness and
comprehensiveness of strategies to improve and
monitor environmental performance.
Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
on a scale of 0 to 10.
Green management
Qualitative
33%
An assessment of the management of environmental
issues and commitment to achieving international
environmental standards.
Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
on a scale of 0 to 10.
Public participation
in green policy
Qualitative
33%
An assessment of the extent to which citizens may
participate in environmental decision-making.
Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts
on a scale of 0 to 10.
19
attributable to the city’s ambitious CO2 reduction goals: by 2020 it plans to cut emissions a
total of 40% from the 1990 figure. Berlin has
already achieved its interim goal of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption 25% by 2010. This has been the result
of a variety of programs, such as energy efficiency retrofits of the building stock (especially
in the former East Berlin), a changeover from
coal-fired to gas-fired power plants, and a sharp
reduction in coal furnaces, from 400,000 in
1990 to fewer than 60,000 in 2008. In addition,
after the Wall came down, many unprofitable
industrial operations were shut down, some of
which had especially high CO2 emissions. The
however, 43% of the city’s heating energy is still
generated from coal. The relatively low proportion of renewable energy sources in the energy
mix is another disadvantage. So far only 1.6% of
the city’s energy consumption comes from
renewable sources, while the European average
is 6.3%. The expansion of solar energy, however, has now been assigned a higher priority in
the city, so that the share of renewable sources
should rise in the future.
Energy-saving
partnerships
The Berlin Energy-Saving Partnership was
founded in 1996 as a joint initiative by the city
and the Berlin Energy Agency. The EnergySaving Partnership guarantees enhanced
energy efficiency in public buildings and
energy savings averaging 25% per year, while
the partners provide both expertise and
financing. Over 6% of these savings go directly
to the city budget, while the rest is used to
modernize and optimize buildings. In return,
the partners receive all savings in excess of the
guaranteed amount. The newly installed
systems remain the city’s property. When the
individual contracts expire after about twelve
years, the city alone reaps the energy savings.
The retrofitting of schools, child care centers,
universities, administrative buildings and
swimming pools has already saved the city
€11 million in energy costs. The initiative has
made Berlin a prime example of energy-saving
programs in public buildings.
Green initiatives: In December 2009, the
city’s energy utility and a solar specialist inaugurated a pilot solar power plant at the site of the
former Mariendorf gas works, with an initial
capacity of 100 kilowatts. The partners are currently studying whether the plant can be
expanded into Berlin’s largest solar power station, with a capacity of as much as 2 megawatts.
Buildings: In the buildings category, Berlin
Berlin
German Green City Index
B
Background indicators
Population
GDP per person (PPP) in €
Administrative area in km2
Share of industry / gross value added in %
Average temperature in °C
3.4 million
21,400
892
18
9
erlin is not just the capital – with a population of about 3.4 million, it’s also the most
heavily populated city in Germany. The city was
divided by the famous Wall until 1989. Quite
apart from the political split, this meant that the
city developed differently in East and West
Berlin. Reunification in 1990 had a vast effect
on Berlin’s ecological footprint, because the
shutdown of most of East Berlin’s industrial
operations and the modernization of a large
proportion of buildings since then has cut CO2
and other pollutant emissions substantially.
Today, Berlin’s economy is profoundly shaped
by the service sector, particularly media companies, creative professions, and biosciences. The
metals and electronics industry also plays an
important role. Berlin is a popular travel destination, and has made a name for itself as a conference city. Compared to other German cities,
however, Berlin must contend with relatively
high unemployment, and must manage on a
relatively low gross domestic product (GDP) of
€21,400 per capita.
Overall, the results for the German capital rank
above average. Specifically, its performance is
above average in six of the eight categories –
CO2, buildings, transport, water, waste and land
use, and air quality. What is remarkable is the
genuinely low CO2 emissions of 5.6 metric tons
per capita. These put Berlin in the lead for Germany, and make it one of only two German
cities (along with Nuremberg) that scored
above average compared to the rest of Europe.
Also noteworthy is the low energy consumption
of residential buildings compared to the 40
other European cities. In the energy and environmental governance categories, however,
Berlin is average. The energy score is affected
by the relatively low share of renewable energy
sources as part of the overall energy consumption. But as the city increasingly turns to solar
and biomass energy, the score may well improve in this area.
CO2 emissions: Berlin scores above average in this category, and along with Nuremberg
is one of only two German cities to score at this
level in comparison to the other European
cities. With CO2 emissions of 5.6 metric tons per
capita per year, Berlin leads the German pack,
and is below the European average of 6.5 metric tons. The good score in this category is also
city also achieves good results for CO2 emissions per unit of GDP, with 247 grams compared
to the European average of 326 grams.
Green initiatives: To achieve its CO2 reduction
goal, the city is trying to sign up businesses to
join the Berlin Climate Alliance. The Alliance is a
group of Berlin businesses and associations
who are making a contribution to protect the
climate. The partners support the City of Berlin
in implementing the goals of the state’s energy
program. Numerous major Berlin industrial,
utility and construction companies have already joined the Alliance.
Energy: Berlin scores average in the energy
category. It made points with relatively low
energy consumption: 68 gigajoules per capita,
or 3.0 megajoules per euro of GDP. Both figures
are below the average of 85 gigajoules and
4.5 megajoules for the 41 European cities.
Berlin benefits from Western Europe’s largest
district heating network – 1,300 km, with a
capacity of some 7,700 megawatts and serving
more than 600,000 of the city’s nearly two million households. According to 2006 figures,
scores above average. The city stands out especially for one of the lowest energy consumptions in residential buildings: 520 megajoules
per square meter. That is the second-lowest figure in both Germany and all of Europe (only
Stuttgart does better). By comparison, the European average was 857 megajoules. Berlin has
invested massively in modernizing buildings
since 1990, especially in the former East Berlin,
where there was a serious need to catch up in
terms of building standards and energy efficiency. Over the past 20 years, energy consumption has decreased very substantially. Better insulation, the conversion from coal furnaces to central heating and gas furnaces, and
easier access to information about energy efficiency made it possible. For example, energy
efficiency retrofits reduced energy consump-
Performance
tion by Berlin industrialized apartment blocks
from 150 kWh to 80 kWh per square meter per
year.
Green initiatives: To lend new momentum
to energy efficiency and energy saving in the
building stock, “Climate Protection Partners,” an
Berlin
well below
average
Other German cities
below
average
average
Other European cities
above
average
well above
average
CO2
Energy
Buildings
Transport
Water
Waste and land use
Air quality
Environmental governance
Overall results
The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.
20
21
alliance of ten Berlin business chambers and
institutions, has awarded the “Climate Protection Partner of the Year” prize for outstanding
climate protection projects every year since
2002. From among the 47 candidates in 2010,
the winners included a complete retrofit of the
100-year-old tropical plant house at the Botanical Garden. Energy consumption was reduced
more than 50% with technical measures like
renovating the façades and adding insulation –
a real challenge for materials and technology
given the necessary high humidity of 80%.
Transport: Berlin scored above average in
the transport category. As early as 2003, the
capital’s “mobil 2010” urban development plan
– which is currently being updated – had stated
the goal of making the transportation system
more environmentally friendly. This includes,
for example, encouraging alternative means of
Biogas for the city’s
truck fleet
The Berliner Stadtreininigung waste disposal
office is currently building a fermentation
plant at the Ruhleben site with a capacity of
60,000 metric tons, to be operated with
waste from the composting bins. The biogas
system will produce about 2,000 metric tons
of natural gas a year. After appropriate
processing, the product will be used as a
diesel replacement in the office’s 50 garbage
trucks. That will save about 2.5 million liters
of diesel fuel. The number of vehicles is
gradually to be more than doubled.
transportation like buses, rail and bicycles, and
reducing traffic jams. The local public transport
network, at 1.0 km per square kilometer, may
not be as well developed yet as in other European cities (average 2.4 km), but gaps in the
road and rail network between the eastern and
western parts of the city have now been filled
in. Today about 38% of Berliners take public
transportation to work; compared to the
nationwide average of 27%, this is the secondbest score, after Munich. The bike path network
measures 1.6 km per square kilometer of city
territory, and is thus already a little longer than
the European average (1.4 km). According to
the city’s latest estimates, 22% of the population walk or bike to work, roughly equal to the
average for all European cities studied.
Green initiatives: To prevent traffic jams and
keep street traffic moving even during rush
hours, the up-to-date traffic control center
monitors traffic over more than 1,500 km of
streets, and coordinates traffic lights at roughly
2,000 intersections. It also monitors warning
and notice signs – called traffic management
systems – and they are switched manually from
here as needed. In the local public transportation system, the Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe
transportation agency supports the use of
hydrogen as a fuel and has started applying this
technology to its bus fleet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Fourteen buses with
hydrogen combustion engines have been in use
in Charlottenburg and Spandau since 2006.
Water: Berlin is above average in the water
category. Water losses due to leakage in the
pipeline network are just 2% – the lowest value
in Europe, and far below the European Index
average of 19%. Annual water consumption in
Berlin is also quite low, at 56 cubic meters; the
average for the European cities is 93 cubic
meters. The installation of water meters and the
encouragement of water-conserving household appliances are something to be taken for
granted in Berlin. These measures have had a
demonstrably positive effect. Since 1991,
drinking water supplied and consumed has
decreased significantly.
Green initiatives: In 2008 the Berliner Wasserbetriebe water company built a solar plant at
the Tegel Water Works. With a collector area of
about 5,400 square meters, this is Berlin’s
largest contiguous solar plant. The electricity is
enough to pump drinking water for more than
26,000 Berliners out of the ground, purify it,
and carry it to homes through the pipelines.
Although the electricity from Tegel is fed into
the general power grid, it serves primarily to
cover the plant’s own water delivery needs. Currently, the water company is tapping additional
alternative energy sources. For example, it
plans to make the Schönerlinde sewage treatment plant the first energy self-sufficient water
treatment plant, starting in 2012, by building
three windmills with a total combined capacity
of 6 megawatts.
Waste and land use: Berlin scores above
average in waste and land use. It earned points
with its recycling level, which at about 40% is
well above the European average of 26%. It
is also remarkable that this level increased
5% from 2004 to 2008 because of a variety of
measures. For example, the city provides a
480 liter composting bin, emptied weekly, for all
large apartment buildings. There is a charge for
emptying the bins, and their use is mandatory.
The city also scores well in waste generated: at
452 kg of waste per resident per year, the city is
below the European average of 517 kg, and
earned the third best score in Germany. Waste
generation has decreased significantly in recent
years, from 2.3 million metric tons in 1992 to
barely 900,000 tons in 2007. In land use,
Berlin’s Agenda 21 specifies, among other
requirements, that the amount of green space in
heavily populated areas should be increased by
at least 10% by 2015. The program additionally
provides that the waiting time for an allotment
garden plot must be no more than one year, and
that the city’s own larger areas of land must be
connected together with green corridors.
Green initiatives: According to the 2009
Berlin Area Use Plan of the Urban Development
Office of the Senate Administration, strengthening the inner city as a residential and living
center, with homes, jobs, culture and recreation
on an equal par, is a strategic goal. The Tempelhof Field, measuring nearly 400 hectares, will
become a new district with attractive apartments and many jobs, together with a park
landscape that will round out the downtown
range of open space and assist the city’s climate
for the long term.
Air quality: In air quality, Berlin scores above
the European average. The city’s air quality is
carefully monitored and has greatly improved,
especially because of the structural change
away from industry and toward a service economy. Apart from ozone concentration, all figures
included in this Index are below the European
average. The average nitrogen dioxide concentration, for example, is 27 micrograms per cubic
meter in Berlin, compared to 34 micrograms in
the other European cities. The daily average
of annual particulate matter concentration, at
24 micrograms, is also below the European
average, 31 micrograms. But although annual
average particulate matter figures for 2009
were within the allowable range, the tolerance
limit, at 73 days, was not maintained. Only 35
days are allowed. As in many other cities, traffic
is the main source of emissions in Berlin. It
accounts for 40% of particulate matter emissions and 80% of nitrogen dioxide emissions.
Green initiatives: Berlin has taken a number
of steps to reduce emissions from transportation, including establishing an environmental
zone in 2008, intended to reduce vehicle emissions in the inner city. It has also outfitted city
buses with particulate filters, and the Berlin
Senate has encouraged the use of natural-gaspowered utility vehicles. Apart from reducing
emissions with improved vehicle technologies,
however, the city is also concentrating on traffic
planning measures, such as optimizing traffic
lights to ensure a more efficient traffic flow.
zens and business, thus approving an action
program for sustainable urban development
with the active involvement of the population.
As a continuation of this program, twelve sustainability indicators were proposed in 2010, on
which a biennial data report reviewing the city’s
sustainable development is to be based on. But
a negative factor is that the city has set and
communicated clear goals for only a few environmental aspects.
Green initiatives: Berlin is the only German
city that is a member of the C40 Group. C40 is
an association of 40 metropolises that have
agreed to support climate protection. Through
a partnership with the Clinton Climate Initiative, the C40 Group works to reduce emissions
through greater energy efficiency. Additionally,
since 2008 Berlin has been a member of the
Covenant of Mayors, a European Union initiative. This group has committed to outperform
EU goals, and reduce greenhouse gases by
more than the targeted 20% from 1990 values
by 2020. Berlin plans to reduce its CO2 emissions 40% by 2020.
Environmental governance: Berlin
scores average for environmental governance.
A positive factor is that the Berlin House of Delegates adopted the Local Agenda 21 Berlin in
2006, with the participation of politicians, citi-
Quantitative indicators
CO2
Eur. avg.
Ger. avg.
Berlin
Year*
6.52
9.79
5.55
2007
CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/head)
CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€)
Energy
Source
Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
326.46
249.77
246.97
2007
Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
CO2 reduction target by 2020
18.64
30.83
40.00
2008
Environment Office of the Senate Administration
Energy consumption per capita (GJ/head)
85.22
95.46
68.05
2007
Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
4.48
2.47
3.03
2007
Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP)
6.30
3.43
1.64
2007
Buildings
Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%)
Energy consumption of residential buildings (MJ/m2)
856.97
702.18
520.12
2007
Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
Transport
Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%)
21.98
24.02
21.80
2008
City of Berlin
Share of population that takes public transportation to work (%)
Water
37.40
27.21
38.40
2008
City of Berlin
Length of bike path network (km/km2)
1.39
1.93
1.58
2009
Berlin Cycling Office; Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
Length of public transport network (km/km2)
2.44
2.61
1.01
2009
City of Berlin; Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
Annual water consumption per capita (m3/head)
93.12
59.21
56.40
2007
Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
Water system leakages (%)
18.88
8.36
2.41
2007
Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%)
Waste and
land use
Air quality
96.25
99.53
99.00
2007
Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office
516.77
527.88
451.67
2008
State of Berlin Waste Balance Sheet; Berlin-Brandenburg
Statistics Office
Recycling rate (%)
25.93
47.48
40.39
2008
State of Berlin Waste Balance Sheet
Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
33.98
30.51
27.18
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3)
40.49
40.97
42.13
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3)
31.30
21.92
23.97
2008
EEA Airbase
6.44
5.05
4.86
2006
EEA Airbase
Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head)
Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities.
* If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate
22
23
Bremen scored points for its ambitious CO2 reduction goal (see “green initiatives”).
Green initiatives: In December 2009, the Bremen city government approved the fourth version of its 2020 Climate Protection and Energy
Plan, which prescribes the goals for the next
few years. The primary goal is to reduce CO2
emissions 40% by 2020 from the 1990 figure.
The city has adopted a number of measures to
achieve the goal: promoting clean energy
(especially wind power), expanding district
heating, saving energy in existing residential
buildings, municipal buildings and businesses,
and monitoring CO2 emissions better. Bremen
residents are also to get better information and
be better advised about energy-saving and climate-protection programs. Moreover, the city
Bremen
German Green City Index
B
Background indicators
Population
GDP per person (PPP) in €
Administrative area in km2
Share of industry / gross value added in %
Average temperature in °C
547,000
36,700
325
25
9
remen is located in northwestern Germany,
about 60 km south of the mouth of the
Weser River. The city has a population of some
550,000, and like many other northern European cities, was a member of the historical trading Hansa League. Even today, this port city’s
economy remains traditionally dominated by
trade, and a variety of logistics and transportation services are domiciled here. But science
and industry also play a significant role; the latter contributes 25% of the city’s gross value
added. The largest local industries include aerospace, automobiles and steel. The city is also
home to major breweries and coffee roasters.
With an estimated gross domestic product
(GDP) of €36,700 per capita, Bremen is in the
medium range of the twelve German cities
studied.
Bremen scores above average overall in the German Green City Index. It scores above average
in buildings, transport, water, waste and land
use, air quality and environmental governance,
but is average in CO2 emissions and below aver-
age in energy – very largely a consequence of
industry’s large CO2 emissions and heavy energy consumption, especially in the steelmaking
industry. But the city can point to a very low
per capita water consumption compared to
the eleven other German cities, and the thirdlongest network of bike paths. Bremen also
scored well in waste, with one of the country’s
lowest levels of waste generated per person
and the second-highest level of recycling.
CO2 emissions: Bremen scores average for
CO2 emissions, most significantly because the
city’s CO2 emissions come to 15.9 metric tons
per capita – the highest of any of the 41 European cities, and well above the European average of 6.5 metric tons. CO2 figures per unit of
GDP, at 429 grams per euro generated, are also
well above the European average of 326 grams.
According to city government, 59% of the CO2
emissions come from industry (49% from the
steel industry alone), 28% from homes, and
13% from transportation. On the other hand,
has founded the “Bremen Energy Consensus”
climate protection agency, which is supposed to
point out how to use energy more efficiently
and thus cut CO2 emissions and energy consumption. For example, the agency promotes
model projects, coordinates publicity campaigns, and provides information to specialists
and consumers.
0.8%, well below the other European cities
(average 6.3%). A positive factor, however, is
that Bremen is actively promoting clean forms
of energy, for example by increasing the use of
renewable sources like wind and water power.
Green initiatives: In April 2010, Bremen was
the first German city to sign up for the LED City
Program, with the aim of expanding the use of
LED lamps in the city’s infrastructure. LED lamps
save energy, reduce maintenance costs and
offer better-quality light than conventional light
sources for urban lighting. The city also recently
launched a pilot project to replace compact fluorescent lamps with LED lamps. By converting
to LED lamps, the city hopes to cut its lighting
costs by about one-third.
In its 2010 action plan to reduce CO2 emissions,
the city acknowledges the potential of district
heating, and has now developed its first specific
plans. The district heating network is first to be
expanded further on the basis of coal-fired
power plants. Then the heat collected in waste
recycling will be used more extensively to generate electricity and heating energy. Further
goals include better use of waste heat from the
local steel industry, and a more extensive use of
combined heating and power plants in industry
and in large housing projects. Bremen is already
looking at several possible projects that could
save about 280,000 metric tons of CO2 a year.
Buildings: Bremen comes out above average in the buildings category. Energy consumption in residential buildings, at 722 megajoules
per square meter, is below the average of 857
megajoules for the 41 European cities. As part
of its climate policy, the city offers financial
incentives to improve heat insulation in existing
Performance
energy. One reason is its high energy consumption of 171 gigajoules per capita per year, the
highest in Europe. By comparison, the average
for the 41 European cities studied was 85 gigajoules. However, 48% of this energy consumption is attributable to the steel industry. If that
consumption is subtracted, the energy consumption is around 89 gigajoules. If energy
consumption (including the steel industry) is
set relative to economic output, at 4.6 megajoules per unit of GDP Bremen is only slightly
above the European average of 4.5 megajoules.
Renewables’ share of the energy mix is only
Bremen Steelworks, in cooperation with the
German Energy Agency (DENA) and three
pump manufacturers, has swapped out large
numbers of electric pumps at its steel mill for
energy-efficient versions. The change was
made as part of the DENA’s initiative to install
more energy efficient pumping systems in
industry and commerce, which is intended to
show how energy-efficiency programs can be
carried out relatively quickly and easily in
businesses. While the steelworks’ electric
power consumption is low relative to its
demand for heat, the electricity savings are
substantial: by using energy-efficient pumps,
the steelworks saves 2.7 million kilowatt-hours
a year, equivalent to the energy demand from
about 670 four-person households.
buildings. Since 1993 it has financed more than
11,000 projects, and made €18 million available (see below). The city also supports the
“Modernize Bremen” initiative, which provides
citizens with information about improving
building efficiency.
Green initiatives: Bremen has recognized
that buildings have great energy-saving potential. For that reason, the fourth version of the
Bremen
well below
average
Energy: Bremen scores below average in
Efficient pumps at the
steel mill
Other German cities
below
average
average
Other European cities
above
average
well above
average
CO2
Energy
Buildings
Transport
Water
Waste and land use
Air quality
Environmental governance
Overall results
The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.
24
25
Climate Protection and Energy Program for
2020 calls for improving the energy efficiency
of existing buildings. In 2008 the city’s Senate
approved a program for energy-efficient building rehabilitation in public facilities and made
€28.4 million available for the purpose. New
public buildings are normally to be built to the
“passive house” standard. Even more, to
encourage energy-awareness, the city set up
the voluntary “3/4plus” program for schools,
with the aim of influencing user habits and
reducing energy and water consumption in
buildings. Caretakers ensure that building systems are operating at their best, and teachers
teach students energy-aware behavior within
and in cooperation with their school. The program has been a success: a total of 200 schools
in Bremen and nearby Bremerhaven are involved in the project, and their substantial cuts
in energy and water consumption reduced CO2
emissions from more than 65,000 metric tons
in 1987 to about 35,700 tons in 2009.
Transport: Bremen scores above average on
transport. The city is making an effort to make
biking and local public transport more attractive in various ways. The network of bike paths,
at 2.5 km per square kilometer, is already significantly more extensive than the 41-city Euro-
A massive expansion of
wind power
Bremen is planning on assuming a leading
position in promoting renewable energy
sources in Northern Germany. One emphasis is
on wind power. The city current operates eight
wind farms, and plans to add six more by 2020.
Since 2009, Bremen has supported the new
Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and
Energy Systems Technology in Bremerhaven to
advance wind power research.
Another emphasis is generating energy from
water power. By the end of 2011 Bremen plans
to complete a €40 million, 10 megawatt
hydroelectric plant on the Weser River, which is
expected to generate 42 million kilowatt-hours
of ecologically sound electricity per year, and
to supply 17,000 homes.
pean average (1.4 km). However, the local public transport network, at 2.1 km per square kilometer, is a bit shorter than in many other European cities studied (average 2.4 km). Onequarter of the Bremen population walks or
bikes to work, and another 24% use public
transportation. For comparison, the European
average is 22% pedestrians or bikers and 37%
users of the bus or rail. Bremen is also making
an effort to reduce traffic congestion, and has
installed an electronic traffic monitoring system that allows it to control traffic flexibly.
Depending on the level of traffic, different
speed limits are signaled to drivers by way of
electronic switchboards. In other places, signal
boards in the parking control system steer drivers toward available parking spaces.
Green initiatives: To relieve downtown traffic
congestion, Bremen has set up what it calls
“mobile point stations.” Short-term rental cars
are available at these stations, which are near
bus and streetcar stops or taxi stands. Customers of this car-sharing initiative can park
their rental car there and board other forms of
transportation directly. The city reports that the
initiative is a great success. A study of the first
two “mobile point” stations showed that 170
new car sharing customers were enlisted for the
ten car sharing cars at the two stations, at the
same time eliminating 90 private cars. By now
the initiative has recruited some 5,500 private
and business customers. Another innovative car
sharing initiative, “e-car4all,” is currently being
tested in Bremen by the Personal Mobility Center, the project center for the Bremen-Oldenburg Electromobility Model Region. Private individuals can apply to be the caretaker or user of
an electric car. The cars are distributed among
residential areas, charged up by the caretakers,
and made available to users for short trips.
Water: In the water category, Bremen scores
above average. The annual per capita water
consumption of 57 cubic meters, as for the
eleven other German cities, is well below the
European average of about 93 cubic meters.
The share of water lost to system leakage is 5%
26
in Bremen, likewise well below the average for
the European cities studied (19%).
Green initiatives: Since January 2011, Bremen has had separate sewage fees for household sewage and rainwater. This makes it possible for the city to encourage handling precipitation water ecologically, letting it percolate
into the ground naturally instead of channeling
it into the sewer system. Additionally, the city
encourages rainwater collection, and provides
grants of up to €2,000 per household to install
rainwater collection tanks. The only requirement is that the water must be used for flushing
toilets and at least one other application, such
as watering gardens.
Waste and land use: Bremen scores
above average in waste and land use, and is one
of the best German and European cities, with a
relatively low waste accumulation and one of
the highest recycling rates. The city produces
450 kg of waste per capita – less than the average for European cities (517 kg). This is also the
second-lowest waste generation of the eleven
other German cities, following Leipzig. The
recycling rate, at 57%, is the second highest in
Germany and the third highest in Europe. The
European average here is only 26%.
Green initiatives: The Bremen city government encourages infill on unbuilt land in areas
that have already been built up – a significantly
more environmentally-friendly alternative to
building in green space, and also a brake on
urban sprawl. Another advantage: unlike newly
built areas, where entirely new infrastructures
must be installed, infill buildings can tie into
existing infrastructure. More than 14,000 apartments have been built in this way since the initiative was launched in 1990 – about half the
new apartments built in the city since that date.
Some 3,000 infill spaces are still available inside
and outside town.
Air quality: Bremen scores above average in
the air quality category. Except for ozone, the
figures for all air pollutants that the study
looked at are below the Index average. Bremen’s average nitrogen dioxide concentration
is 23 micrograms per cubic meter; the average
for the European cities is 34 micrograms. Particulate values, at 20 micrograms per cubic meter,
are likewise below the European average of 31
micrograms. The figures for sulfur dioxide are
similar: at an average of 4.8 micrograms per
cubic meter per year, they too are below the
European average of 6.4 micrograms. Ozone,
however, at 43 micrograms, is slightly higher in
Bremen than in the other European cities (40
micrograms average).
Green initiatives: As in many other German
cities, street traffic makes a significant contri-
bution to air pollution in Bremen. For that reason, the city is concentrating its air quality
improvement efforts on this area. In 2009 Bremen introduced an environmental zone that
can be entered only by cars and trucks that
comply with a certain exhaust standard. Vehicles that emit high levels of pollutants are prohibited. This mainly applies to diesel vehicles
and gasoline-engine cars without an adjusted
catalytic converter. Bremen also encourages
buying natural-gas-powered vehicles, which
emit 80% less nitrogen dioxide than vehicles
under the Euro IV standard. Bremen residents
receive up to €700 to retrofit a conventional car
for natural gas.
city’s website, and citizens can track the status
of their complaints using a traffic-light system.
Green initiatives: The Hansa city’s Office for
the Environment, Construction, Traffic and
Europe has been implementing the European
Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS)
since 2003. EMAS is subdivided into several
phases: adopting an environmental guideline,
performing an eco-audit, and determining an
effective environmental management system.
The Office has not only established the EMAS
system’s principles within its own sphere, but
also encourages the introduction of EMAS and
other environmental management systems at
local companies and organizations.
Environmental governance: Bremen
scores above average in environmental governance. The city published an up-to-date environmental status report in 2011 that includes a
comprehensive stocktaking of the environmental situation. It will be updated every four years.
A drawback is that apart from CO2 reduction, no
clear goals for other areas of the environment
have been defined. But a positive factor is an
innovative city service online as a place for citizens to consult on environmental matters. Current ideas or complaints are published on the
Quantitative indicators
Eur. avg.
CO2
CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/head)
CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€)
Energy
Ger. avg. Bremen
6.52
9.79
15.90
Year*
2006
Source
Bremen State Statistics Office
326.46
249.77
429.12
2006
Bremen State Statistics Office
CO2 reduction target by 2020
18.64
30.83
40.00
2009
City of Bremen
Energy consumption per capita (GJ/head)
85.22
95.46
171.24
2006
Bremen State Statistics Office
4.48
2.47
4.62
2006
Bremen State Statistics Office
Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP)
6.30
3.43
0.76
2006
Bremen State Statistics Office
Buildings
Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%)
Energy consumption of residential buildings (MJ/m2)
856.97
702.18
721.80 e
2006
EIU Estimate, based on the following data:
Bremen State Statistics Office; Eurostat – Urban
Audit; Berlin-Brandenburg Statistics Office;
Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein Statistics Office
Transport
Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%)
21.98
24.02
25.40
2004
Eurostat – Urban Audit
Share of population that takes public transportation to work (%)
37.40
27.21
24.40
2004
Eurostat – Urban Audit
Length of bike path network (km/km2)
1.39
1.93
2.51
2008
Senator for Environment, Construction, Traffic
and Europe; Bremen State Statistics Office
Length of public transport network (km/km2)
2.44
2.61
2.05
2008
Bremer Strassenbahn AG; Bremen State
Statistics Office
Annual water consumption per capita (m3/head)
93.12
59.21
57.17
2007
Bremen State Statistics Office
Water system leakages (%)
18.88
8.36
5.25
2008
SWB (utility company)
Water
Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%)
Waste and
land use
Air quality
96.25
99.53
99.65
2007
Bremen State Statistics Office
516.77
527.88
450.13
2008
Senator for Environment, Construction, Traffic and Europe –
Waste Balance Sheet; Bremen State Statistics Office
Recycling rate (%)
25.93
47.48
57.20
2008
Senator for Environment, Construction, Traffic and
Europe – Waste Balance Sheet
Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
33.98
30.51
22.77
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3)
40.49
40.97
43.03
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3)
31.30
21.92
19.68
2008
EEA Airbase
6.44
5.05
4.75
2008
EEA Airbase
Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head)
Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities.
* If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate
27
mate protection. It wasn’t until February 2010
that Cologne presented a “Sustainable Energy
Action Plan” to meet the climate protection commitments of the Climate Alliance and the European Union’s Covenant of Mayors.
CO2 emissions: Cologne ranks average in
the category of CO2 emissions. The city emits
10.0 metric tons of CO2 per capita each year,
well above the average of 6.5 metric tons
among the 41 European cities. To turn this situation around, Cologne has committed to the CO2
reduction targets put forward by the Climate
Alliance and the European Union’s Covenant of
Mayors. Cities in the Climate Alliance seek to
lower their CO2 emissions by 10% every five
years. The “Sustainable Energy Action Plan”
reports CO2 reductions of nearly 20% in the period from 1990 to 2007, achieved primarily by
replacing the energy sources of coal and fuel oil
with natural gas. Cologne scores relatively well
when CO2 emissions are examined relative to
economic output: at 261 grams per euro of GDP,
it lies below the average of 326 grams in the
41 European cities.
Green initiatives: The local utility company
has a pilot project underway to examine the
potential of using wood chips for energy production. In its very own “energy forest,” the company is planting fast-growing poplars that can be
cut down and processed into wood chips after
just three years. These wood chips are then used
as fuel. The process is regarded as carbon-neutral, since the volume of carbon dioxide emitted
during combustion is equal to the volume
absorbed by the trees during their growth.
German Green City Index
Background indicators
Population
GDP per person (PPP) in €
Administrative area in km2
1.02 million
37,500
405
Share of industry / gross value added in %
13
Average temperature in °C
10
ith a population of just over one million,
Cologne is Germany’s fourth-largest city
and the largest city in North Rhine-Westphalia.
Cologne’s five Rhine harbors make it Germany’s
second-largest river port as well as an important
trade center and transshipment point for rail
and barge traffic. The local economy is dominated by the service sector – above all banking and
insurance, research and development, trade
fairs, tourism, and media enterprises. Industry,
on the other hand – primarily the food, chemical, and automotive industries – contribute only
13% to Cologne’s gross value added, the lowest
Climate model
In October 2009, Cologne joined the environmental agency of North Rhine-Westphalia
and the German Weather Service in launching
a project to develop a new mathematical
climate model for the city.
The idea was to simulate the consequences
of climate change for Cologne. Experts predict
that the city will experience both higher temperatures and higher levels of precipitation in
the future, for example. The computer model is
designed to give policymakers a basis for taking
action against the effects of climate change –
such as an increased risk of flooding and its
consequences for the drainage and sewer
system.
Buildings: Cologne ranks average in the
buildings category. The energy consumption of
Cologne’s residential building stock is relatively
high at 1,167 megajoules per square meter. The
average residential building in the 41 European
cities uses just 857 megajoules. Cologne’s figure
is actually the highest in Germany. The city of
Cologne tightened its energy guidelines in 2010
after the latest energy report found a consistent
upward trend in the overall energy costs of
municipal institutions since 2003. The resolution calls for the application of the energy-saving “passive house” standard to all new municipal construction projects. Although the city does
not subsidize climate protection measures in
new construction and renovation projects, it
does provide information on funding options
from the federal and state government and
other sources.
Transport: Cologne ranks above average in
Green initiatives: Cologne’s largest municipal
housing association completely renovated
144 units in Cologne-Ossendorf as part of a
modernization project. A total of €7 million was
invested in the houses, which were built in
1963. The units have now been completely
heat-insulated to meet low-energy standards.
Photovoltaic systems installed on the roofs generate energy that is fed into the grid. The old
electrical heating system has been replaced by
wood pellet heating supported by a solar installation to provide heat. The energy overhaul
reduced the heating costs from nearly €3 per
square meter of living space to some €0.20.
the transport category. The city has an expansive network of bike paths with 2.0 km per
square kilometer, much longer than the average
in the 41 European cities (1.4 km). And it is
heavily used: 37% of the population of Cologne
walks or bicycles to work – the second-highest
figure in Germany and much higher than the
European average of 22%. The share of residents who commute using public transport is
relatively low at 21%, however, compared to the
European average of 37%. But the public transport network of 1.9 km per square kilometer
is also shorter than the European average
(2.4 km). Cologne scores points for its efforts to
Energy: Cologne scores average in the cate-
Cologne
W
or 2,000 households. Currently, some 50,000
households in Cologne get district heating
through a 280-kilometer network.
percentage among all the German cities studied. Cologne’s per capita gross domestic product
(GDP) of €37,500 puts it in the middle of the
pack among the German cities.
Cologne’s overall ranking in the German Green
City Index is average. The city earns a mark of
above average in the categories of transport and
water, posting for example the second-highest
share of the population that commutes to work
using environmentally friendly modes of transport – on foot or by bicycle. Cologne ranks average in the other categories. Cologne lagged
behind other German cities in embracing cli-
gory of energy. At 123 gigajoules per capita, the
city consumes much more energy than the average in the European cities (85 gigajoules). But
Cologne has acknowledged the need for action,
and in 2010, it presented its “Sustainable Energy
Action Plan” to reduce energy consumption. The
plan begins by presenting a rough comparison
of energy consumption and CO2 emissions in
1990 and 2007. A concrete plan of action will
then be developed over the next two years.
Cologne’s energy consumption relative to its
economic output at 3.3 megajoules per euro of
GDP is far below the European average of
4.5 megajoules.
Performance
Cologne
well below
average
Other German cities
below
average
average
Other European cities
above
average
well above
average
CO2
Energy
Buildings
Transport
Water
Green initiatives: The local utility company
has allocated €10 million to expand district
heating capacity by another 10 megawatts a
year until 2020 as part of the “Energy & Climate
2020” environmental initiative. This is equivalent to heating some 1,000 single-family homes
Waste and land use
Air quality
Environmental governance
Overall results
The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.
28
29
reduce traffic congestion – for its city park & ride
system, for example, or the widespread use of
traffic control systems. The latter is particularly
important, since several federal highways in and
around Cologne produce high traffic volumes.
Green initiatives: Some 210,000 people commute into the city each day, while about 90,000
commute out of the city. To deal with the commuter volume more efficiently, the city of
Cologne joined the “Commuter Network” in
2008. Commuters go to the Commuter Network
portal www.pendlernetz.de to look for other
commuters or join existing carpools. Essen is
also making use of this online service. The city is
also receiving support from the “Wuppertal
Institute for Climate, Environment, and Energy”
in developing further programs designed to
make transportation more climate-friendly. As
with the “Sustainable Energy Action Plan,” the
first step is to draw up an energy and CO2 balance sheet for transportation.
Ecoprofit Cologne
The “Ecoprofit Cologne” initiative seeks to
motivate local businesses to adopt resourceand energy-saving programs. A total of
13 businesses took part in the first round
of the initiative in 2010, which focused on
saving water and energy and reducing waste
and emissions. Businesses received advice
and support from the city and academic experts.
The city hopes that the initiative will lead to
more efficient business workflows and a
closer relationship between the city and local
businesses when it comes to promoting
sustainable energies.
30
Water: Cologne scores above average in the
water category. Cologne’s per capita annual
water consumption of 66 cubic meters is much
lower than the average of the 41 European cities
(93 cubic meters). The water loss of 11% from
leakage in the supply system is also below the
European average of 19%. In Germany, however, Cologne had the second-highest rate of loss –
only Leipzig was higher. Cologne intends to
upgrade old pipelines to further reduce losses
and improve the water supply system.
Green initiatives: The local utility company is
installing smart meters in 200 to 300 households in four Cologne neighborhoods. Smart
meters measure electricity, gas, and water
usage in the households and show the total
costs of the resources on a digital display. The
hope is that this real-time data will motivate
consumers to curb their usage. The pilot project
is supposed to help determine whether it makes
sense to install the smart meters throughout the
city starting this year.
Waste and land use: Cologne scores
average in the waste and land use category. The
city produces some 677 kg of waste per capita
each year; the average in the 41 European cities
is 517 kg. The recycling rate of 37% is higher
than the European average of 26% but below the
average of 47% among the twelve German cities
studied. The city’s ambitions regarding land use
and above all green space are noteworthy.
Cologne has abundant natural areas – some
230 square kilometers covering 57% of the urban area. Much of this is in the form of a greenbelt surrounding the city. Cologne is working to
protect this greenbelt through measures such as
building restrictions on the city’s perimeter.
Green initiatives: The city partnered with local
businesses to launch the “Forest Laboratory”
reforestation project in March 2010. The purpose of the lab is to study which trees can best
withstand the effects of climate change. The
partners seek insight into what tomorrow’s
forests will look like and how they can best be
maintained and managed.
particulate matter levels of 27 micrograms per
cubic meter, on the other hand, remain below
the European average of 31 micrograms. The
same is true of ozone concentrations, which at
34 micrograms are below the European Index
average of 40 micrograms.
Green initiatives: The city’s comprehensive
clean air plan is currently focused on automobile
traffic – for two reasons: First, traffic is regarded
as the largest source of air pollution. And second, it is the easiest source to fight. Measures
include a ban on high-emission vehicles in the
city center (“environmental zone”) and a smart
traffic control system that manages traffic lights
to reduce congestion and gridlock. There are
also plans to redirect vehicles onto less-traveled
Environmental governance: Cologne
ranks average in the environmental governance
category. Many aspects of the city’s environmental governance leave room for improvement. Cologne is the only city in the German
Index, for example, that does not publish an
environmental report with a comprehensive
assessment of the environmental situation.
Moreover, there was no evidence of a comprehensive strategy covering all key aspects of environmental policy. At the beginning of 2010,
however, the city did announce plans to develop
an integrated climate protection plan over a
period of two years.
Green initiatives: For over 30 years, the city of
Cologne has regularly offered an “environmental protection award” to encourage citizens to
share their creative ideas for the environment.
The objective is to sensitize the population to
environmental concerns. The award honors
achievements in various areas of environmental
protection: projects to preserve the countryside,
ideas to reduce waste, or new environmental
technologies.
Quantitative indicators
CO2
Eur. avg.
Ger. avg.
Cologne
Year*
6.52
9.79
10.02
2007
City of Cologne
260.63
2007
City of Cologne
CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/resident)
CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€)
Energy
Air quality: Cologne ranks average in the air
quality category. The measured levels of air pollutants are all moderate. This can be attributed
primarily to Cologne’s economic structure,
which is based largely on the service sector. The
city needs to pay close attention to its levels of
nitrogen dioxide, however: measurements in
2010 showed a concentration that regularly
exceeded the thresholds allowed in Germany
and the EU. Cologne’s daily average of annual
nitrogen dioxide is 43 micrograms per cubic
meter, above the average of 34 micrograms in
the 41 European cities. The average sulfur
dioxide concentrations of 7.5 micrograms per
cubic meter per day are also slightly above the
European average of 6.4 micrograms. Annual
transit corridors. The current measures ran
through the end of 2010. If the findings show no
definitive improvement in air quality, other measures will follow. Residents are also encouraged
to use public transportation more often or carpool. Other plans include expanding the park &
ride program, shifting heavy transport loads to
rail, and improving traffic flow.
Source
326.46
249.77
CO2 reduction target by 2020
18.64
30.83
Energy consumption per capita (GJ/resident)
85.22
95.46
122.85 2e 2008
Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP)
4.48
2.47
3.29 2e 2007
EIU estimate based on Rheinergie data
Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%)
6.30
3.43
3.93 3e 2007
ITNRW
1,166.88 3e 2007
ITNRW
25.00 1
2010
City of Cologne
EIU estimate based on Rheinergie data
Buildings
Energy consumption by residential buildings (MJ/m2)
856.97
702.18
Transport
Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%)
21.98
24.02
36.50
2006
City of Cologne
Share of population that takes public transport to work (%)
37.40
27.21
21.20
2006
City of Cologne
Length of bike path network (km/km2)
1.39
1.93
2.01
2004
Eurostat – Urban Audit
Length public transport network (km/km2)
2.44
2.61
1.88
2007
KVB; Cologne Statistical Almanac
Annual water consumption per capita (m3/resident)
93.12
59.21
66.11
2008
Water system leakages(%)
18.88
8.36
Water
Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%)
11.49 3e 2007
Cologne Wastewater Office; Cologne Statistical Almanac
NRW Information and Technology
96.25
99.53
98.80
2008
Cologne Wastewater Office
516.77
527.88
677.21
2007
NRW State Office of the Environment
Recycling rate (%)
25.93
47.48
36.70
2007
NRW State Office of the Environment
Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
33.98
30.51
42.93 4
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3)
40.49
40.97
34.13 5
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3)
31.30
21.92
26.84 4
2007
EEA Airbase
6.44
5.05
7.49 5
2008
EEA Airbase
Waste and
land use
Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head)
Air quality
Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities.
* If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate. 1) Current CO2 reduction target is 50% by 2030. 2) Estimate
based on energy consumption of City of Cologne. 3) Figure for the state of North Rhine–Westphalia. 4) Figure represents the average of one measurement station in a central urban location
close to traffic and two measurement stations in non-central urban locations. 5) Figure is the average of two measurement stations in non-central urban locations.
31
Green initiatives: The 160-Point Plan that
Essen introduced in 2009 includes a wider use
of renewable energy sources in municipal buildings, and an improvement of energy efficiency
at businesses. The city government has also
begun taking climate protection factors into
account when it invests in goods or equipment.
One example is the replacement of conventional traffic lights with LED systems. Private households are also being encouraged to adopt more
environmentally friendly habits: in 2007 alone,
conversions of households from coal, oil or
electric heating to natural gas saved more than
12,000 metric tons of CO2.
Energy: Essen scores average in energy.
Energy consumption per capita, at 103 gigajoules, is above the 85 gigajoule average for the
41 European metropolises. In terms of energy
consumption, at 3.2 megajoules consumed per
euro of GDP, Essen is well below the European
average of 4.5 megajoules, but above the Ger-
Essen
Background indicators
Population
GDP per person (PPP) in €
Administrative area in km2
580,000
31,400
210
Share of industry / gross value added in %
38
Average temperature in °C
10
he city of Essen has a population of about
580,000 and is located in what is probably
Germany’s most important industrial region,
the Ruhr area. This metropolitan region of
53 cities and other municipalities and a population of about 5.3 million is the most densely
populated conurbation in Europe. The largest
cities in Essen’s immediate vicinity include Mülheim, Oberhausen, Duisburg and Dortmund,
with a total population of about two million.
Coal was first mined in Essen in 1450; the city
later developed into an important center of the
steel industry. In 1811, the Krupp family founded Germany’s first steel casting mill here. Structural change has greatly decreased the importance of coal and steel, but industry still
accounts for 38% of gross value added – the second highest of any of the twelve German cities
in the study. Service companies, the healthcare
industry, and major utility companies, with their
administrative centers, are other important
employers. With a per capita gross domestic
product (GDP) of €31,400, Essen is below the
average of €40,900 for German cities. Industry
has a significant influence on the environmental
performance of Essen and its region.
Essen ranks average overall in the Index; it is
below average in CO2 emissions, and above
average in buildings, transport, water, waste
and land use, and environmental governance.
Essen also has the second highest share of
renewable energy among German cities, and
has the country’s third longest public transport
network.
CO2 emissions: In CO2 emissions, Essen
ranks below average, particularly because of
the high level of emissions from industry. Per
capita CO2 emissions are 10.8 metric tons,
above the average of 9.8 tons for the twelve
German cities, and far above the 6.5 tons per
capita for the 41 European cities. The city emits
334 grams of CO2 per euro generated, and is
thus slightly above the European average of
326 grams.
Essen’s accession to the European Climate
Alliance, Europe’s largest network of cities for
climate protection, is praiseworthy. As a member, the city has set ambitious CO2 reduction
goals. Emissions are to be cut 10% every five
years, per capita emissions are to be cut in half
from 1990 levels by 2030, and over the long
term, emissions are to be reduced to 2.5 metric
tons per resident. This is all to be possible
through extensive energy efficiency measures
and a wider use of renewable energy sources. A
first step in this direction is a 160-Point Plan,
which Essen presented in 2009 as part of the
Integrated Energy and Climate Concept, and
intends to implement by 2013.
man average of 2.5 megajoules. The city is making an effort to promote clean, efficient energy
sources. And it’s working: the share of renewable energy sources is 7.1%, above the European average (6.3%). In fact, this is the second
highest figure among the twelve German cities.
Combined heating and power generation is
also being encouraged. For example, at the
waste incineration facility in Essen-Karnap, the
city uses waste to generate energy. The plant
generates heat and power simultaneously,
which is significantly more efficient. The generated heat is then fed into the Ruhr district heating system.
Prize for ecological
improvements
The city has announced a prize of €10,000 for
the best citizen environmental initiative. The
award will go to the concept that makes an
especially sustainable contribution toward
protecting the environment in Essen. The prize
money is provided by the Essen Disposal
Companies, which are responsible for the city’s
waste disposal. Small businesses, organizations
and private individuals are eligible to
participate. There are no limits on the
suggestions – all ideas are welcome, from
reducing energy consumption, to reducing
waste, to making use of rainwater.
Buildings: Essen scores above average in
buildings. Energy consumption in residential
buildings (864 megajoules per square meter) is
a bit higher than the European average (857
megajoules). But the energy efficiency standards, similarly to the eleven other German
cities, are relatively high compared to the other
European metropolises, with a positive impact
on the overall result. However, the city offers
few financial incentives to improve the energy
efficiency of existing buildings. Yet it is making
efforts to raise residents’ awareness of conserving energy in buildings.
Green initiatives: In the special “Thermography” campaign in the winter of 2006/2007, the
city of Essen offered residents a chance to get
low-cost thermographic snapshots of their
buildings’ exteriors, made with a thermal camera. Several hundred residents took up the offer
to get a better idea of their houses’ weak points
– a first step toward an energy rehabilitation of
the buildings. In addition, since 2005 the Environmental Office of the City of Essen has been
working with the North Rhine-Westphalian
Ministry of the Economy to acknowledge buildings that conserve energy especially well. Owners receive a plaque that can be applied conspicuously to the façade to point up the
building’s especially good energy quality. By
German Green City Index
T
space to interested citizens who wish to invest
in building solar installations. They can pay into
a fund that finances the installation of solar collectors, for example on school roofs. According
to the city, over a 20-year term, investors can
expect a yield of 4 to 7% per year. The first three
solar projects were implemented in 2009, and
solar collectors were built on the roofs of more
schools in 2010.
Performance
now, dozens of buildings in several categories
have won awards, for example for especially
low heating energy demand (a passive house,
“three liter” house, rehabilitated building), or
for using renewable energy sources (photovoltaic, solar collectors, heat pumps, biomass).
Transport: Essen scores above average in
the transport category. The city encourages the
use of bicycles, buses and rail with a well-developed network of local public transportation and
bike paths. With 2.4 km per square kilometer,
Essen has substantially more bike paths than
the average for all 41 European cities (1.4 km).
The bus and rail network, at 3.5 km, is likewise
longer than in most of the other European cities
Essen
well below
average
Other German cities
below
average
average
Other European cities
above
average
well above
average
CO2
Energy
Buildings
Transport
Water
Waste and land use
Air quality
Environmental governance
Green initiatives: To increase the share of
renewable energies, the city offers its own roof
Overall results
The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.
32
33
studied (average 2.4 km). In fact, it is the third
best among the German cities. Nevertheless,
69% of the population drives to work – a high
figure compared to the rest of Europe. Here,
however, it must also be taken into account that
as a traffic node in the Ruhr region, Essen has
one of the densest networks of freeways and
other highways in Germany, which encourages
car use. Another 11% of the population walks or
bikes to work (European average 22%), and
20% of the residents use public transport (European average 37%). For these reasons, the city
intends to make using local public transportation, as well as walking and biking, more attractive (see “green initiatives”).
Green initiatives: As a part of its integrated
energy and climate concept, the city is paying
special attention to expanding more environmentally-friendly means of transportation. It
has decided that encouraging biking is especially important: by improving the bicycle infrastructure, and with public relations work, the
city intends to create an incentive for residents
to use cars less. One Essen city initiative along
this line is expanding walking and biking paths
on former railroad right-of-ways. Only recently
it opened a new 5 km bike path from the university to the city limits. This is part of a regional
bike path that is expected to extend as far as
Duisburg and elsewhere.
Another initiative to reduce commuter vehicles
is the free “Commuter Network” Web portal
(www.essen.pendlernetz.de), which is run by a
private company. Drivers in work traffic especially tend to drive alone or with very few passengers. To change that, anyone interested can
Heat Vision 2020
Essen is currently working out its “Heat Vision
2020.” The document is first intended to record
the current energy consumption and current
CO2 emissions from buildings, and then to
prepare projections for the year 2020. The
“Vision” will help support city government in
deciding on the right measures to improve
energy efficiency and conserve energy.
Examples include optimized heat insulation
or a variety of technical innovations. Essen is
developing “Heat Vision 2020” jointly with
power utilities, consumers and environmental
groups.
34
look on the portal for rides or passengers to
share the commute.
Water: Essen scores above average in water.
Similarly to the other German cities, per capita
water consumption, at 62 cubic meters per year,
is a third lower than the average of 93 cubic
meters for the 41 European cities studied. Water
lost to leakage in the distribution system, at 11%,
is also well below the European average of 19%.
Green initiatives: Allbau AG, located in Essen,
owns more than 18,000 residential buildings all
around the city. It’s now planning to install rainwater cisterns in its buildings. The collected
rainwater will be used to flush toilets and for
washing machines. If precipitation is heavy, the
water will be diverted to surrounding gardens,
not into the city’s sewer system. That not only
saves fresh water, but lowers energy consumption for water purification. Tenants in turn benefit from lower water charges thanks to the use
of rainwater.
Waste and land use: Essen scores above
average in waste and land use. Although the
city generates more waste, at 538 kg per capita,
than the 41-city European average of 517 kg, it
recycles 33% of its total and has extensive measures to reduce waste. By comparison, the average European recycling rate is only 26%. The
city’s green land use policies are also exemplary,
including both improvements of existing green
space and opening up new areas. For example,
Essen is planning a network of green spaces and
waterways.
Green initiatives: The 230-hectare “Krupp
Belt” near Essen’s center was closed off to the
public for 200 years. The center of town and the
Altendorf district were separated by an industrial zone. Now the site is open to everyone. The
city government and ThyssenKrupp Real Estate
have created a new neighborhood out of the
formerly idle land. Extensive green spaces have
also been installed in the area, including a park
measuring 220,000 square meters, landscaped
hills, and a 9,100-square-meter lake fed by rainwater. Additional offices and a hotel are
planned as the next construction projects.
especially high sulfur dioxide concentration –
the highest German value, at 13.0 micrograms
per cubic meter, and far above the European
average of 6.4 micrograms per cubic meter.
Green initiatives: To improve air quality, the
city government has launched a “More Green,
More Climate” initiative. It has the goal of protecting green space in and around Essen by
making residents more aware of the importance of such areas. The campaign especially
promotes the attractions and ecological importance of forests, fields and water bodies, which
according to Essen government make up about
half of the city’s territory.
Environmental governance: Essen
comes in above average in environmental gov-
ernance. An especially positive factor is that the
city fully involves its residents in political decisions on the environment. For example, public
opinion was extensively consulted in the
redesign of the “Krupp Belt.” Also in 2009, the
“Our City, Our Climate” campaign was launched
to raise environmental awareness among the
population. However, the city does less well in
green city management. It gathers only some
statistical data on its environmental performance. There are also no regular publications
on the extent to which environmental programs have been implemented.
residents’ awareness of environmental issues,
for example by informing them about rehabilitating buildings, using more renewable forms
of energy, or saving energy and protecting the
environment at work. Some climate ambassadors were specially trained at the Essen People’s University to explain the importance of
climate protection to school children. They organize small environmental projects at schools,
for example, where children can become actively involved and learn to think and act with an
awareness of the environment.
Like other cities, Essen has also introduced an
“Ecological Project for Integrated Environmental Technology” (known as “Ecoprofit” for short)
– a cooperative project among environmental
agencies and groups and local private businesses. The project finances workshops and encourages the exchange of specialized knowledge
about matters of the environment and costs.
The 50 participating businesses have identified
and assessed about 230 specific measures to
improve protection of the environment.
Green initiatives: To make clear the importance of programs to combat climate change,
Essen is training interested residents as climate
ambassadors. Their job is to raise their fellow
Quantitative indicators
CO2
Eur. avg.
Ger. avg.
6.52
9.79
10.75 1e
2007
Unsere Stadt. Unser Klima.de (Our City, Our Climate);
NRW State Database
326.46
249.77
334.45 1e
2007
Unsere Stadt. Unser Klima.de (Our City, Our Climate);
Bremen Statistics; EIU
CO2 reduction target by 2020
18.64
30.83
20.00 2
2010
Unsere Stadt. Unser Klima.de (Our City, Our Climate)
Energy consumption per capita (GJ/head)
85.22
95.46
103.22
2007
City of Essen CO2 Balance Sheet; NRW State Database
4.48
2.47
3.21
2007
City of Essen CO2 Balance Sheet; Bremen Statistics
CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/head)
CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€)
Energy
Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP)
Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%)
Essen
Year*
Source
6.30
3.43
7.12
2007
City of Essen CO2 Balance Sheet
Buildings
Energy consumption of residential buildings (MJ/m2)
856.97
702.18
864.39
2007
City of Essen CO2 Balance Sheet; NRW State Database
Transport
Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%)
21.98
24.02
10.90
2004
Eurostat – Urban Audit
Share of population that takes public transportation to work (%)
37.40
27.21
20.10
2004
Eurostat – Urban Audit
1.39
1.93
2.38
2008
City of Essen, Office of Urban Planning and Construction
Code; NRW State Database
Length of bike path network (km/km2)
Length of public transport network (km/km2)
2.44
2.61
3.50
2004
Eurostat – Urban Audit; NRW State Database
Annual water consumption per capita (m3/head)
93.12
59.21
61.64
2007
Office of Elections, Statistics and Urban Research of the
City of Essen; NRW State Database
Air quality: Essen scores average in air qual-
Water system leakages (%)
18.88
8.36
11.49 3e
2007
Information und Technik NRW
ity. Mean ozone and nitrogen dioxide concentrations are slightly above the averages for all
the German and European cities in the study,
particularly because of two factors. First, the
economy of Essen and its environs is heavily
influenced by industry. And second, there is
heavy traffic because of the dense network of
freeways and other highways. Essen has an
Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%)
96.25
99.53
99.60
2007
NRW State Database
Water
Waste and
land use
Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head)
516.77
527.8
537.83
2008
City of Essen, Environmental Office
Recycling rate (%)
25.93
47.48
32.72
2008
City of Essen, Environmental Office
Air quality
Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
33.98
30.51
35.32
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3)
40.49
40.97
45.00 4
2008
NRW State Office for Nature, the Environment and
Consumer Protection
Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3)
31.30
21.92
27.84
2008
EEA Airbase
6.44
5.05
12.96
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities.
* If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate, 1) Calculation of CO2 emissions is based on the
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach. This approach is more extensive than the measurement method for other cities, and includes all emissions from the upstream chains of energy
production. 2) Current CO2 reduction target is 10% every 5 years. 3) Estimate for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. 4) Measurement station is located in the urban background.
35
climate report, the city has stated the goal of
reducing CO2 emissions 20% by 2020, by cutting them back 10% every five years between
2010 and 2020.
Green initiatives: In the early 1990s, Frankfurt helped found the Climate Alliance, and at
the time set higher climate protection goals for
2030 than other cities. The city government
plans to achieve the goals with what it calls a
“balanced” package of measures: reducing heat
and electricity demands in residential, office
and industrial buildings, stricter standards for
energy-efficient construction, and a heavier
use of combined heat and power generation
and renewable sources of energy, especially
biomass.
The projects can also be studied graphically:
outstanding climate protection projects in
Frankfurt – such as a combined heat and power
generating plant, biomass plant, or passive
buildings – can be located on an interactive “Climate Protection Town Map,” and anyone interested can find out about individual projects and
their estimated CO2 prevention.
Energy: In energy, Frankfurt scores average.
Frankfurt
German Green City Index
S
Background indicators
Population
GDP per person (PPP) in €
Administrative area in km2
673,000
66,300
248
Share of industry / gross value added in %
16
Average temperature in °C
10
tatistically, Frankfurt ranks fifth in population among all German cities. Its roughly
670,000 residents generate a real per capita
gross domestic product of about €66,300 – the
highest of any German city in the German
Green City Index. Frankfurt is an economic
agglomeration with more than 44,000 businesses and almost 490,000 jobs. About
320,000 additional workers commute into
town daily, far more than in any other German
city. Because of its location in the center of Central Europe, Frankfurt has become a transportation and logistics hub for Germany and the
entire continent. Air, rail and highway traffic
come together here – overall, ideal conditions
for a highly international economy in industry,
commerce and services. For example, Frankfurt
is the headquarters of the European Central
Bank, and is now considered one of Europe’s
most important financial centers.
In the overall rating and four of the eight individual categories – buildings, transport, water,
and waste and land use – Frankfurt scores
above average. It scores average in CO2, energy,
air quality and environmental governance.
What is especially noteworthy is the extensive
use of alternative forms of transportation: there
is no other city in Germany where so many residents (64%) do without cars to get to work, and
rely instead on public transport, bicycle or just
walking. Frankfurt is also the German leader in
using renewable forms of energy. Yet the city’s
CO2 emissions are still well above the European
average – also a consequence of its lively economic activity and the associated heavy traffic.
CO2 emissions: Frankfurt scores average
on CO2 emissions. The main reason is that at
12.8 metric tons per resident, the city’s CO2
emissions are almost twice as high as the
41-city European average (6.5 tons). But when
CO2 is referred to gross domestic product, the
city comes off comparatively well. A 2005 measurement found emissions of 185 grams (CO2
and CO2-equivalent) per euro of GDP – the
third-best showing nationwide. In its latest
The city’s energy consumption is relatively high
– 121 gigajoules per capita. The 41 European
cities consume an average of 85 gigajoules.
But relative to economic output, the figure is
1.7 megajoules per real unit of GDP, well below
the European average of 4.5 megajoules. The
extensive use of combined heating and power
plants was a positive factor. Since the waste
heat from power generation is also used for
heating, these power plants make a key contribution toward saving energy. Moreover, Frankfurt is the German leader in using renewable
energy sources. Their share is 7.9%, and thus
also above the average of 6.3% for the 41 European cities.
Green initiatives: Since 1991, the city has
supported construction of combined heating
and power plants and local power generation in
new construction areas. Today it has a closemeshed network of these efficient power
plants. Frankfurt has three rather large combined heating and power plants, as well as
about 120 smaller and medium-sized ones, providing a total of 24,000 kW of energy for large
areas of the city, including for office buildings,
schools, hospitals and fire stations. To make the
population more familiar with the topic of combined heat and power generation, the city has
also set up a no-charge consulting and information service for owners of commercial and residential buildings. In some newly constructed
zones, using combined heat and power plants
or district heating has actually been made
obligatory.
The “Green Building
Frankfurt” architecture
prize
Buildings: Frankfurt scores above average in
the buildings category. Energy consumption in
residential buildings, at 689 megajoules per
square meter, is well below the European average of 857 megajoules – not least of all a consequence of buildings’ high energy efficiency
standards. But Frankfurt does not explicitly promote the energy rehabilitation of buildings.
According to the city, the economic advantages
have been well enough communicated, and
energy efficiency factors have now been taken
into account anyway in many construction projects. Such projects usually pay for themselves
by way of the energy costs they save. The city
will perform the cost-effectiveness calculations
on request.
Green initiatives: Frankfurt has Europe’s
largest count of buildings built to the “passive
house” standard, including 1,000 residences,
schools, child care centers, gymnasiums and
office buildings. A city resolution requires the
passive house approach for the construction of
all new municipal facilities. In terms of sustainability, Frankfurt can point to a remarkable construction: the “Sophienhof” residential and
office complex, completed in 2006, is currently
Germany’s largest passive-building residential
settlement. It has 149 apartments, as well as
shops and commercial space. A successor project has already been launched: this year, construction will start on Europe’s first passivebuilding clinic, in the Höchst district of town.
Transport: Frankfurt also scores above average in transport. In spite of the large numbers
of commuters, there is no other city in Germany
Performance
Every two years, the city of Frankfurt honors
owners and planners with the “Green Building
Frankfurt” architectural prize for especially
innovative, sustainable residential and
nonresidential buildings. The prize assesses
rehabilitation projects and new construction.
In 2009, eight buildings – ranging from
residential buildings to an office high-rise –
received the award. Among them was the
“Tevesstrasse” project for the successful
rehabilitation of state-subsidized apartment
housing to the passive building standard.
Another winner was the new building for the
Reconstruction Loan Corporation (KfW),
which was recognized as an especially energysaving design for its annual primary energy
demand of less than 100 kWh/m2 and the
potential for covering the remaining energy
demand with renewable forms of energy.
where more residents (64%) do without cars to
get to work, and rely instead on public transport, bicycles or just walking. Thirty-two percent of all Frankfurt residents take public transportation to work. A well-developed local public
transport network of buses, streetcars, subways, commuter trains and regional trains
makes it possible. The Frankfurt local public
transport network covers 3.1 km per square
kilometer; the average for all European cities is
Frankfurt
well below
average
Other German cities
below
average
average
Other European cities
above
average
well above
average
CO2
Energy
Buildings
Transport
Water
Waste and land use
Air quality
Environmental governance
Overall results
The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.
36
37
only 2.4 km. Another 32% of Frankfurt residents bike or walk to work – the third-highest
figure in Germany, even though the bike path
network, at 1.0 km per square kilometer of city
territory, is actually somewhat shorter than the
European average (1.4 km). On the other hand,
the number of residents who drive to work is
still relatively high; more than one-third prefer
their car.
Green initiatives: In March 2011, a new integrated general traffic control center was
opened in Frankfurt. Now employees at the
Biking in Frankfurt and
“Bike+Business“
Frankfurt is working on a number of programs
to wean its residents away from cars and onto
bicycles. In 2003 the City Council resolved to
increase the share of bike traffic from only
6% in 1998 to 15% by 2012. At 14%, they’ve
already come very close to the target. The city
has built bike paths, remedied gaps and
dangerous intersections, redesigned traffic
light circuits and right-of-way rules with a
clearer eye to bike traffic, and provided a
number of bike parking opportunities. Just a
year before the resolution, the Hesse General
German Bicycle Club and the Frankfurt/RhineMain Urban Regional Planning Association had
established the “Bike+Business” project with the
goal of strengthening the image of the bicycle
as a means of transportation with equal rights,
and thus encouraging the population to
change over. Sixteen major-name employers
and eleven cooperating cities in the
Frankfurt/Rhine-Main region have joined
“Bike+Business.” The Corporation for Technical
Cooperation (GTZ), for example, has been a
part of the project since 2003, and by now
about 15% of its staff bikes to work.
city’s traffic office can watch and control all the
city’s traffic control systems from a 14-squaremeter monitor – including the parking guidance system, information boards, the control
system for the Frankfurt Messe fairgrounds,
and traffic monitoring cameras. By modernizing traffic management, the city plans to
enhance the performance of the transport network, and to get drivers faster and more
smoothly to where they’re going.
Green initiatives: A new “green” route is to be
set up between Ostpark and Mainufer in the
eastern part of town. Today the route is still
rather wearisome on foot or by bike, because a
wide major traffic artery separates the two
areas. But the new green connection is expected to close up this gap in the landscape within
the next few years. A disused rail right-of-way
will also be tied in.
Air quality: Frankfurt’s air quality rates as
Water: Frankfurt also scores above average
in water. Water consumption in Frankfurt, at 61
cubic meters per resident, is significantly lower
than the average of 93 cubic meters for the 41
European cities. Another welcome finding is
that relatively little water is lost to pipeline leaks
in Frankfurt. With only 11%, Frankfurt is well
below the average for the studied European
cities (19%).
Green initiatives: The Frankfurt Messe has
announced a number of programs to reduce
water consumption. To take just two among
many examples: rainwater or reprocessed water will be used to flush toilets, to water plants
and to fill ornamental fountains. All toilets in
the restaurants and exhibition halls have now
been outfitted with water-saving flush mechanisms. The effects of these steps will be especially evident during major exhibitions like the
Frankfurt Book Fair, which draws more than
300,000 visitors and more than 7,000 exhibitors each year.
Waste and land use: Frankfurt scores
above average in waste and land use. Its low
waste generation is the main contributor to the
good score. The city generates 464 kg of waste
per capita, less than the European average of
517 kg. According to the city, the volume of
household waste steadily declined by a total of
16.5% between 2001 and 2008. Frankfurt also
recycles 47% of its waste, substantially more
than the European cities’ average (26%). The
city also comes out quite well in its green land
use policies, which aim both to preserve green
space and contain urban sprawl.
average. An important reason is the high nitrogen dioxide concentration: at 36 micrograms
per cubic meter, it is above the European average of 34 micrograms. The main culprit is truck
traffic, but industry and air traffic also make a
significant contribution. Ozone values, on the
other hand, at 39 micrograms per cubic meter,
are slightly below the European average of
40 micrograms. Particulate matter concentration in Frankfurt, at an average of 20 micrograms per cubic meter, is actually well below
the European cities’ average of 31 micrograms.
The situation with sulfur dioxide is similar.
the “Frankfurt Saves Electricity” initiative to
lower private households’ power consumption
still further. Residents have also been involved
in policy decisions about environmental matters (see initiatives).
Green initiatives: A current example of residents’ involvement in planning decisions is the
reconfiguration of the Heinrich-Lübke-Siedlung, a public-housing hot spot in the northwestern part of town. A package of measures is
to transform the housing project into a very livable, sustainable residential area that residents
ages private households to change over to energy-saving light bulbs, and the “Cariteam Energy
Saving Service” founded by Caritas Frankfurt
is training recipients of one category of unemployment benefits to be electricity-savings
assistants. Low-income households receive a
no-cost electricity-saving consultation from
Cariteam, and a package of energy-saving
items. By now the project has expanded to
60 German cities.
Quantitative indicators
Eur. avg.
CO2
Ger. avg. Frankfurt
Year*
Source
6.52
9.79
12.79 1e
2005
ifeu Energy and Climate Protection Concept 2008; Current
Frankfurt Statistics
326.46
249.77
184.75 1e
2005
ifeu Energy and Climate Protection Concept 2008;
Frankfurt am Main Statistics Annual
CO2 reduction target by 2020
18.64
30.83
20.00
2010
City of Frankfurt am Main, Environmental Office
Energy consumption per capita (GJ/head)
85.22
95.46
120.56
2005
ifeu Energy and Climate Protection Concept 2008;
Current Frankfurt Statistics
Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP)
4.48
2.47
1.74
2005
ifeu Energy and Climate Protection Concept 2008;
Frankfurt am Main Statistics Annual
Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%)
6.30
3.43
7.88 2e
2005
City of Frankfurt am Main; ifeu Energy and Climate
Protection Concept 2008
CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/head)
CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€)
Energy
Green initiatives: In 2005, the state of Hesse
adopted an air purification plan. As the state’s
largest city, Frankfurt adopted long-term measures to implement the plan and improve air
quality in areas with especially severe air pollution. The first action plan took effect in October
2005, and was replaced by a new one in 2008.
The result: an environmental zone in the center
of Frankfurt, where the city’s particulate matter
concentration is to be reduced. As of January 1,
2010, only vehicles with a yellow or green sticker can enter the zone, and a green sticker will
become mandatory as of 2012.
can identify with. The residents’ desires will be
listened to in a number of “neighborhood meetings.” One goal is to set up a curb-free network
of walkways, bike paths and traffic-calmed
streets, as well as attractive green areas. Existing buildings will be rehabilitated under the
current Energy Savings Regulation; new buildings will be built to the “passive house” standard. So that environmental problems can be
approached communally, the city is also informing residents about necessary changes in
habits. There are examples for this too: the
“Frankfurt Saves Electricity” program encour-
Buildings
Energy consumption of residential buildings (MJ/m2)
856.97
702.18
689.17
2005
ifeu Energy and Climate Protection Concept 2008;
Eurostat – Urban Audit
Transport
Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%)
21.98
24.02
32.00
2008
Frankfurt am Main Dept. of Mobility and Traffic Planning
Share of population that takes public transportation to work (%)
37.40
27.21
32.00
2008
Frankfurt am Main Dept. of Mobility and Traffic Planning
Length of bike path network (km/km2)
1.39
1.93
1.01 3e
2008
Frankfurt Street Traffic Office and Environmental Office;
Current Frankfurt Statistics
Length of public transport network (km/km2)
2.44
2.61
3.09
2008
Frankfurt am Main Dept. of Mobility and Traffic Planning;
Current Frankfurt Statistics
Annual water consumption per capita (m3/head)
93.12
59.21
61.49
2008
Frankfurt am Main Statistics Annual; Current Frankfurt
Statistics
Environmental governance: Frank-
Water system leakages (%)
18.88
8.36
11.25
2008
Frankfurt am Main Statistics Annual
furt comes out average in environmental governance. The city’s most recent environmental
report was published in 2010. But the city lost
points because the goals in the various environmental areas were worded vaguely, except for
the reduction of CO2 emissions. A positive factor is that the city is actively encouraging its residents to change their habits – for example with
Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%)
96.25
99.53
99.70
2008
Frankfurt am Main Statistics Annual
516.77
527.8
463.90
2008
City of Frankfurt am Main, Environmental Office;
Current Frankfurt Statistics
Recycling rate (%)
25.93
47.48
47.00
2008
City of Frankfurt am Main, Environmental Office
Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
33.98
30.51
36.26
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3)
40.49
40.97
39.03
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3)
31.30
21.92
20.46
2008
EEA Airbase
6.44
5.05
4.62
2008
EEA Airbase
Water
Waste and
land use
Air quality
Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head)
Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities.
* If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate. 1) Also includes CO2-equivalents.
2) Estimate by the City of Frankfurt am Main. 3) Estimate by the Frankfurt Street Traffic Office and Environmental Office.
38
39
age of 326 grams. A positive factor is that the
city intends to reduce CO2 emissions 80% from
1990 levels by 2050. That would represent a
74% reduction from the latest figures, which
date from 2007.
Green initiatives: The Hamburg Climate Protection Concept for 2007-2012 was developed
as a central instrument to cut CO2 emissions
40% by 2020, equivalent to reducing these
emissions by two million metric tons a year. For
that purpose the city is implementing some
450 projects – especially in building rehabilitation, mobility, equipment systems and innovative energy concepts. Hamburg remains the project sponsor and coordinator of the international
“EUCO2 80/50” project, in which 15 European
metropolises are engaged. The program has the
Hamburg
German Green City Index
W
Background indicators
Population
GDP per person (PPP) in €
Administrative area in km2
Share of industry / gross value added in %
Average temperature in °C
40
1.8 million
42,800
755
16
8
ith a population of some 1.8 million, Hamburg, in the north of the country, is Germany’s second largest city. The port city is a
major industrial and commercial location, and
generates a gross domestic product (GDP) of
€42,800 per capita. The port of Hamburg is the
second largest in Europe, after Rotterdam, and
is of key significance for the German economy.
It makes the city a major international trading
and transshipment site, as well as an attractive
location for shipbuilders. Other important
industrial sectors in Hamburg include civil aviation, food processing, and steel- and metalworking heavy industry. But industry contributes only a total of 16% of total gross value
added. The service sector is dominated mainly
by transportation and commerce, tourism,
information technology, and media.
In the German Green City Index, Hamburg
scores above average on the whole. The city
sets a high priority on environmental protection, with positive effects on the score. Hamburg is above average in six categories. In two –
CO2 emissions and energy – it scores average.
Major environmental protection measures
include promoting alternative means of transportation, such as bicycles, buses and rail, and
developing new green space. In this, the city is
making an effort to counteract the adverse
influence of heavy road traffic and the port’s
operations. A noteworthy factor is that none of
the other German cities studied has as many
residents who walk or bike to work as in Hamburg. The city also holds a lead in environmental governance, and was chosen the European
Green Capital for 2011.
CO2 emissions: Hamburg rates average in
the CO2 category. At 9.1 metric tons, the city’s
CO2 emissions are slightly below the average of
9.8 tons for the twelve German cities, but well
above the average of 6.5 tons for the 41 European cities. Transport is the biggest polluter,
and here the port also plays a major role.
But CO2 emissions per euro generated, at
208 grams, are well below the European aver-
ambitious goal of reducing CO2 emissions 80%
by 2050. In 2009 the cities prepared detailed
CO2 balance sheets. In the second phase of the
project, representatives of interest groups from
government and business from all of the partner
cities will meet to agree on long-term strategies
for reaching the CO2 goal. Then the best practices initiatives from the project will also be
made available to other cities in the EU.
Energy: Hamburg scores average on energy.
Energy consumption, at 99 gigajoules per resident, is above the average of 85 gigajoules from
the 41 European cities. But relative to economic
output, Hamburg’s energy consumption is relatively low. At 2.3 megajoules per euro of GDP,
Hamburg consumes only about half as much
as the European average of 4.5 megajoules.
On top of that, the city is making an effort
to increase the share of renewable energy
sources. This figure, at 2.2%, is still relatively
low; the European average is 6.3%. But a part of
the Hamburg climate protection concept is to
increase investments in local wind energy, and
to more than double wind energy capacity within the medium term.
Zemships
Green initiatives: In March 2010, the Hamburger EnergieAgentur was founded to help
support the city’s climate protection measures.
This new agency is intended to help private
households reduce their energy consumption –
the source of 25% of the total energy consumption for the whole city. The EnergieAgentur is
also a partner for businesses, which it assists in
activities to improve their energy efficiency.
Buildings: Hamburg rates above average in
buildings. The key factor for this result is the low
energy consumption of residential buildings, at
600 megajoules per square meter, which is
below the average of 857 megajoules for the
41 European cities. Hamburg also does well in
energy efficiency standards and initiatives for
buildings, thanks to a number of construction
and energy-efficiency regulations for municipal
buildings. Some 85% of Hamburg’s housing
stock is more than 25 years old. It was built at a
time when building codes still paid no attention
to extensive building insulation. So a part of the
city’s strategy for buildings is to encourage
retrofitting existing buildings with good insulation, so as to reduce heat losses.
Green initiatives: There are now a considerable number of programs nationwide in Germany to encourage heat insulation in buildings,
but Hamburg offers additional financial assistance. The city has introduced the Energy Passport, for example, which determines energy
consumption and heating loss in residential
buildings. The analysis also provides suggestions about updates and calculates potential
Performance
“Zemships” – “zero emission ships” – are the
result of a pioneering program conducted
under the leadership of the City of Hamburg.
With financial support from the EU’s “LIFE”
program, which offers funding for environmental projects, the city has put together a team of
experts from business and science that has
developed the world’s first fuel-cell-powered,
low-emission passenger ship. The first ship of
this type went into service on Hamburg’s
waterways in 2008. A hydrogen refueling
station with docking facilities is located right
on the waterfront.
savings. If the owner wants to apply for support
funds from the city, he or she must present an
Energy Passport. The amount of the financial
aid from the city depends on the savings that
the owner achieves by optimizing the building.
Transport: Hamburg comes in above average on transport. The city’s bicycle path network, at 2.3 km per square kilometer, is very
well developed – longer than the European
average of 1.4 km – and is also extensively
used. Thirty-eight percent of the population
bikes or walks to work each day, the highest figure for any of the twelve German cities. On the
other hand, the share of the population that
takes public transport to work, at 19%, is considerably lower than in the other European
metropolises (average 37%), and the lowest
Hamburg
well below
average
Other German cities
below
average
average
Other European cities
above
average
well above
average
CO2
Energy
Buildings
Transport
Water
Waste and land use
Air quality
Environmental governance
Overall results
The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.
41
figure in Germany. However, the local public
transport network, at 1.9 km per square kilometer, is also shorter than the European average of
2.4 km. The city is actively making an effort to
keep car traffic out of the center of town by
encouraging public transportation and bicycling.
Green initiatives: By 2015, suitable strategies
are expected to make bicycling so attractive
that it becomes a real alternative to other forms
of transportation. Plans include expanding bike
paths and bicycle parking lots, improving the
combined use of bicycles and public transportation, and raising awareness of bicycling among
the public. Ten million euros a year have been
set aside for the purpose.
Under the “HH = more” title (“Hamburg electromobility model region”), the city is planning a
pilot run with electric cars. In the first phase,
70 vehicles and 100 charging stations will be in
use. Plans for the new light rail system are also
to be included in the project. Hamburg shut
down its last streetcar route in 1978. There
have been plans for some time to reestablish a
“city rail” system that would supplement the
commuter train and subway system. A final
decision is still pending.
Renewable energy in
Hamburg
Energy efficiency is another of the main themes
in Hamburg’s climate protection concept. One
of its goals is to increase investment in local
wind energy. In the medium term, wind energy
capacity in Hamburg is to be more than
doubled. Moreover, a financing program for
using geothermal energy is under examination.
Encouraging the use of renewable energy
sources is also the goal of the “Hamburg
Renewable Energy Cluster,” which is currently
being set up by representatives of business,
science and the city’s office for urban
development and the environment. The
initiative aims to strengthen the fast-growing
renewable energy industry in the Hamburg
metropolitan region. The focus is on marketing
Hamburg more vigorously as an attractive
international headquarters location for sales
and administration in the renewable energy
business.
Water: Hamburg likewise ranks above average in water. The annual per capita water consumption of 59 cubic meters, as in other German cities, is well below the European city
average of about 93 cubic meters. Although
Hamburg loses more water through leakage
from the pipeline network, at 11%, than the
other German cities, the figure is still well below
the average for the full set of European cities
studied (19%).
Green initiatives: Hamburg has set up a project to study the consequences of larger volumes of rainwater. These appear more and
more likely – first of all because of climate
change, but also because of the further hardscaping of the city as urban development continues. In the RISA rain infrastructure adjustment project, the city and the local water utility,
Hamburg Wasser, are developing possible solutions to be applied in urban development and
planning. The paramount goals of the RISA project include protection from flooding and protection of water bodies. In the “Aqua Agents”
project, Hamburg Wasser also plans to teach
children in the third and fourth grades about
dealing with water in an aware way. It offers
experimentation kits for classes and field trips
to various water locations in Hamburg, where
the children can expand their understanding of
water.
Waste and land use: In the waste and
land use category, Hamburg scores above average. Waste generated in Hamburg, at 482 kg
per capita per year, is below the average of
517 kg for the 41 European cities. A large share
of this waste is incinerated; the city stopped
using landfills for waste more than ten years
ago. It recycles 25% of its waste, thus ranking
slightly below the European average of 26%
and trailing behind all the other German cities
studied. The city earns good marks for its plans
for using green space, for example in finding
new uses for inner-city wasteland like the
HafenCity area. In this significant urban development project, a 157-hectare parcel of unused
land in the area of the harbor was repurposed
with offices and apartments, retail shops,
leisure facilities, restaurants and cultural facilities.
Green initiatives: Jointly with Stadtreinigung
Hamburg, the city’s largest waste removal and
street cleaning service, the Office for Urban
Development and the Environment has begun a
recycling campaign to increase the amount of
recyclables collected and to make the recycling
process itself more efficient. Still more – construction and demolition work in Hamburg generates about 5 million metric tons of waste each
year. To improve reuse and recycling, the environment office has set up an online exchange,
the ALOIS waste online information system.
Construction owners, planners and contractors
can use the portal at no charge to place offers or
inquiries about soil material or used building
parts (such as windows and doors).
At the beginning of 2010, the city also founded
the “Lebensraum Elbe” foundation to improve
the ecological condition of the Elbe River, one
of the city’s most important recreational areas.
One of the foundation’s goals is to set aside new
shallow-water areas and maintain tidal zones. It
also plans to reconnect old channels and backwaters to the main stream of the Elbe, and to
limit further shoreline construction with new
regulations.
Green initiatives: Hamburg is making an
effort to improve air quality with an all-inclusive
air purification plan. Introduced in 2004, the
plan concentrates primarily on reducing emissions caused by vehicle traffic. It includes several projects to improve traffic flow. The city also
provides further air purification requirements
for local industry. Hamburg is looking as well
into the feasibility of an environmental zone in
the inner city, by which vehicles with heavy
exhaust emissions would be kept out of the city
center. Many German cities already have such
environmental zones.
Environmental governance: Hamburg is above average in environmental governance. In fact the city on the Elbe leads Germany in this category. It was designated
European Green Capital 2011 by the European
Commission. The title highlights the leadership
role that Hamburg plays not only within Germany, but in the entire EU, in matters of climate
and environmental protection. Hamburg is the
second city to hold the title, after Stockholm in
2010. It has adopted numerous measures in
every aspect of the environment to improve its
environmental record. Here the city is taking its
orientation primarily from its climate protection
concept, updated in 2009, which includes more
than 300 projects to reduce CO2 emissions and
energy consumption.
Green initiatives: As part of its year as 2011
European Green Capital, Hamburg launched
the Environmental Partnership: Project 2011
initiative. This project is intended to encourage
businesses to act voluntarily to protect the environment, for example by participating in an
Quantitative indicators
CO2
Eur. avg.
Ger. avg.
Hamburg
Year*
6.52
9.79
9.12
2007
CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/head)
CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€)
Energy
326.46
249.77
208.22
2007
Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein
18.64
30.83
40.00
2010
Klima Hamburg
Energy consumption per capita (GJ/head)
85.22
95.46
99.33
2007
Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein
4.48
2.47
2.27
2007
Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein
Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein
Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%)
6.30
3.43
2.22
2007
856.97
702.18
600.27
2007
Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein
Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%)
21.98
24.02
38.00
2008
HVV
Share of population that takes public transportation to work (%)
Buildings
Energy consumption of residential buildings (MJ/m2)
Transport
Water
Source
Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein
CO2 reduction target by 2020
Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP)
Air quality: Hamburg also comes out above
average in air quality. Except for ozone, the
city’s figures for all the analyzed air pollutants
are below the average for the 41 European
cities. This result is partly the consequence of
low industrial activity, which accounts for only
16% of the city’s total gross value added. The
average sulfur dioxide concentration, for
example, at 4.2 micrograms per cubic meter
per year, is well below the European average
of 6.4 micrograms. In general, the primary
sources of air pollution are transport, especially
shipping goods to and from the harbor, ship
traffic, and car traffic. Nevertheless, the ozone
figure for Hamburg, at 42 micrograms, is only
slightly higher than the average for the other
European cities (40 micrograms).
environmental management system like EMAS
or Ecoprofit, or by implementing energy-saving
and resource-conserving measures like using
renewable energies. Companies can apply to
be named Environmental Partners, and use
the name in their advertising. The initiative
also offers companies advice and subsidy funding for environmental governance, energy
efficiency and renewable energy sources. Some
750 companies are already Environmental
Partners.
37.40
27.21
19.00
2008
HVV
Length of bike path network (km/km2)
1.39
1.93
2.25
2004
Eurostat – Urban Audit; Federal Statistical Office, Germany
Length of public transport network (km/km2)
2.44
2.61
1.85
2004
Eurostat – Urban Audit; Federal Statistical Office, Germany
Annual water consumption per capita (m3/head)
93.12
59.21
58.82
2007
Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein
Water system leakages (%)
18.88
8.36
10.85 e
2007
EIU estimate on the basis of data from the Statistics Office
for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein
Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein
Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%)
96.25
99.53
100.00
2007
516.77
527.8
482.24
2007
Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein
Recycling rate (%)
25.93
47.48
25.44
2007
Statistics Office for Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein
Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
33.98
30.51
26.08
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3)
40.49
40.97
42.33
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3)
31.30
21.92
20.53
2008
EEA Airbase
6.44
5.05
4.24
2008
EEA Airbase
Waste and
land use
Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head)
Air quality
Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities.
* If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate
42
43
is 6.5 tons. But the figure looks rather different
when referred to the city’s economic output:
Hanover emits 261 grams per euro of GDP,
while the group of European cities averages
326 grams. The city is taking considerable steps
to reduce its CO2 emissions. It has joined forces
with the municipal utility company and about
80 partners from numerous companies and
organizations to found the “Hanover Climate
Alliance.” This campaign to protect the climate
aims to attract as many players as possible,
including trade businesses, chambers of architects, commercial property owners and homeowners. For CO2 emissions, Hanover has set
itself the ambitious goal of reducing its emissions 50% from 1990 levels by 2030.
Hanover
German Green City Index
H
Background indicators
Population
GDP per person (PPP) in €
Administrative area in km2
Share of industry / gross value added in %
Average temperature in °C
518,000
46,800
204
23
7
anover, the capital of the state of Lower
Saxony, is one of the world’s largest trade
fair sites, with more than 60 domestic and international trade fairs and exhibitions each year.
The city of 518,000 is also an important university center. Leibniz University and the Medical
University, among others, enjoy a prestigious
reputation. Its most important employers include automotive manufacturers and suppliers,
but several major companies in the service sector are headquartered here as well. Hanover
generates a gross domestic product (GDP) of
€46,800 per resident, and is thus slightly above
the average for the twelve German Cities studied. The city calls itself the “Business Location in
Nature.” Hanover is known for its expansive
green spaces, including the Eilenriede urban forest, the Maschsee lake, the Royal Gardens in
Herrenhausen, extensive landscaped grounds,
and many small gardens.
Hanover rates above average in its overall
assessment. Specifically, it scores above average
in five of the eight individual categories – buildings, transport, water, waste and land use, and
air quality. One remarkable feature is the very
low energy consumption of its residential buildings, about one-third lower than the average for
the 41 European cities, and the third best in Germany. Hanover also scores especially well in the
transport category, in comparison with both all
of Europe and the rest of Germany. It has Germany’s densest network of alternative means of
transportation – bike paths, bus routes and rail
lines taken all together. In the categories for CO2
emissions, energy and environmental governance, the city scores average, in part because
of its relatively high CO2 emissions per capita
and relatively high per capita energy consumption.
CO2 emissions: Hanover ranks average in
CO2 emissions, particularly because of its relatively high per capita CO2 emissions of 11.5 metric tons. The average for the 41 European cities
Green initiatives: The “Hanover 2020 Climate
Alliance” is an all-inclusive climate-protection
program for the years 2008 through 2020. The
city government is setting a good example, and
hopes to save significant amounts of CO2 by renovating all municipal buildings and heating systems to make them more energy-efficient. A further emphasis is in commercial areas with
especially energy-intensive businesses. Yet
another contributor toward saving CO2 is the
expansion and modernization of combined gas
and steam turbine systems at the Hanover-Linden heating and power plant, which will be
completed by the end of 2011. The combined
generation of heat and electricity makes more
efficient use of natural gas as a fuel. Two more
components of the climate protection program:
an electricity-saving campaign with numerous
new advice services for private households, and
a campaign to expand the use of combined heat
and power, which advises businesses, hotels
and government agencies in using new district
heating connections and combined heat and
power stations.
Energy: Hanover scores average in the energy category. One reason is its relatively high
energy consumption of 105 gigajoules per capita, well above the average of 85 gigajoules for
the 41 European cities. Moreover, the use of
renewable energy sources, at 1.2%, is lower
than in the studied European cities, which
derive an average of 6.3% of their energy
demand from renewable sources. But this may
change soon, because Hanover has set an example in promoting clean energy. Some of the most
significant measures in this area are financial aid
for the use of renewable energy sources in
homes, and plans for the construction of new
wind turbines. When Hanover’s energy consumption is referred to the city’s economic
output, the picture is already positive today: At
2.4 megajoules per euro of GDP, the city’s ener-
gy consumption is only about half the European
average of 4.5 megajoules.
ProKlima
Green initiatives: Hanover has a variety of
programs to improve the energy supply, including the expansion of combined heat and power
generation and district heating. The goal is to
increase the share of electricity from combined
heat and power plants and renewable sources to
a total of 30% by 2020. Hanover is also planning
to modernize its coal-fired power plants and to
invest extensively in wind power systems. For
example, 60 more wind turbines will be added
in the Hanover region, and 100 existing turbines
will be replaced with larger models. The city
decided to stop using nuclear power some years
ago. Since the city’s utility companies generate
more electricity than Hanover itself consumes,
the city is nuclear power-free on balance. The
construction of the gas-fired power plant in
Hanover-Linden made a particular contribution
here.
The “proKlima” “enercity” fund was founded by
the municipal utility company Stadtwerke
Hannover in 1998 as Europe’s first climate
protection fund. ProKlima offers advice and
financial grants for implementing climate
protection projects, such as energy-efficient
construction and modernization, energysavings consultations, or installing solar heating
systems and combined heat and power plants.
The fund approved assistance funding of some
€ 44 million between 1998 and 2009.
The grants are awarded on the basis of specific
criteria like CO2 efficiency and reduction, or
the project’s level of innovation.
Buildings: In the buildings category,
Hanover comes out above average in comparison to the other cities in the study. The crucial
factor for this result is the low energy consumption of the city’s residential buildings. Hanover
consumes only 560 megajoules per square
meter – more than one-third less energy than
the average used by residential buildings in all
the European cities (857 megajoules). In fact,
this is the fourth best figure in Europe, after
Stuttgart, Berlin and Copenhagen. Another positive factor here is that the “proKlima” climate
protection fund makes financial grants available
for implementing climate protection measures
in the construction and modernization of buildings (see the box on the “proKlima” exemplary
project).
Performance
Green initiatives: In keeping with the Climate
Alliance’s requirements, the Hanover city government intends to complete energy upgrades
in all municipal buildings by 2020. It has set
aside €60 million for the period from 2008 to
2012 alone. Additionally, all new municipal
facilities are to be built to the “passive house”
standard. A passive house includes such features as efficient building insulation and heating
technology, triple-glazed windows with superinsulated frames, and mechanical ventilation
systems with heat recovery. When combined
with other features, a passive house design can
cut a household’s average energy consumption
by about 90%. The passive house standard has
Hanover
well below
average
Other German cities
below
average
average
Other European cities
above
average
well above
average
CO2
Energy
Buildings
Transport
Water
Waste and land use
Air quality
Environmental governance
Overall results
The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.
44
45
already been applied in Hanover in the construction of two new childcare centers and a new fire
station.
Transport: In transport, Hanover comes in
above average. The city has extensively developed both its local public transport network and
its network of bike paths. The bus and rail network measures 3.6 km per square kilometer,
compared with the average of only 2.4 km for
the other European cities. And the bike path network, at 2.6 km per square kilometer, is almost
twice as long as in the other European cities
(average 1.4 km). If the lengths of the bike paths
and local public transportation routes are added
together, Hanover has Germany’s densest network of alternative means of transportation. Yet
although both networks are comparatively well
developed, the number of residents who do
without cars for the commute to work is relatively low: only 19% walk or bike to work, compared
to the European average of 22%. The difference
is even sharper with local public transportation:
only 21% of the population takes the bus or train
Environmental education
for business – Ecoprofit
In 1999, Hanover was one of the first German
cities to introduce an Ecoprofit program.
Ecoprofit stands for “Ecological Project for
Integrated Environmental Technology,” and is a
cooperative project that brings environmental
agencies and groups together with local private
enterprise. The project also finances workshops,
and encourages exchanges of professional
expertise about matters of the environment and
costs. More than 100 major-name companies
have become involved in Ecoprofit in Hanover
over the past ten years.
46
to work, compared to an average of 37% for the
other European cities.
Green initiatives: At the end of 2010,
Hanover adopted the “Mobility Master Plan for
2025,” laying a conceptual basis for transportation development. By promoting local public
transportation, biking and walking, the program
intends to make it easier for residents to switch
from cars to alternative modes of transportation. Biking is a particular emphasis in the concept: by expanding the network of bike paths
and the biking infrastructure, and with special
public relations work, the city hopes to increase
the proportion of bike traffic to 25% by 2025. It’s
also working on public transport: to lower buses’
and trains’ CO2 emissions even further, hybrid
vehicles and other measures are being introduced, with financial support from the Federal
Ministry of the Environment. Ten new hybrid
buses are to go into operation within the city by
mid-2011.
Water: Hanover scores above average in
water. The Lower Saxony capital’s per capita
water consumption, at 58 cubic meters, is well
below the European average of 93 cubic meters.
The picture with water loss due to leaks in the
distribution system is similar: nearly 19% of the
water leaks out in the 41 European cities studied, but in Hanover the figure is just 4%. This is
the second best showing in Germany, after
Berlin, and the third best in Europe, after Berlin
and Amsterdam.
Green initiatives: Hanover has had a program
in place since 1995 to reduce water consumption in municipal properties. Since then, a variety of municipal departments and the Hanover
waste processing facility have implemented
some 170 projects for efficient water use and
wastewater treatment. According to the city,
this has saved 35% over the water consumption
figure from 1990. Stadtentwässerung Hanover,
the city’s sewer and drainage utility, is also particularly committed to environmental education, to make children more aware of how to
handle water responsibly. The programs include
guided tours of sewage treatment plants, a kids’
page on the website, and extensive age-appropriate informational material that is made available to schools at no charge.
Waste and land use: Hanover is also
above average in the waste and land use category. Waste generated, at 475 kg per capita, is less
than in the other studied European cities (average 517 kg). Fifty percent of the waste is recycled – almost twice the European average
(26%). Similarly to the city of Leipzig, Hanover
has now expanded its waste separation program
to include household and commercial electric
appliances. A further positive factor for the overall results was that the city has set up incentives
for the recovery of empty lots, expanding and
maintaining green space, and the containment
of urban sprawl.
meter, is not even half the average for the
41 European cities (6.4 micrograms). Ozone,
however, at 45 micrograms per cubic meter,
is slightly above the European average of
40 micrograms. But these figures come from
Hanover’s only ozone measuring station, which
was installed in an inner-city area with heavy
traffic. Consequently there is no way to compensate for peak values with comparable measurements from less polluted areas, as is often the
case in other cities.
Green initiatives: Hanover has had an air
purification plan since 2008, with an emphasis
on road traffic. The plan includes a whole package of projects – such as introducing a 40 kmph
speed limit on selected routes, prohibiting
through-traffic for trucks with a gross weight of
more than twelve metric tons, and optimizing
traffic flow. Speeds are also to be limited with
optical narrowing of lanes. This applies both for
planning new streets and reconditioning old
ones. Like many other German cities, Hanover
has set up an environmental zone in the city center, where only vehicles that meet especially
stringent exhaust standards are allowed.
Environmental governance: Hanover
rates average in environmental governance. The
city publishes an environmental report every
three years. The emphasis in the 2008 report
was on assessing the environmental situation
on the basis of an “environmental barometer”
that represents change in terms of sustainability
indicators in various aspects of the environ-
Air quality: Hanover scores above average in
air quality. Except for the ozone concentration,
the city can point the lowest or second lowest
figures in Germany for all air pollutants. For
example, Hanover’s average annual sulfur dioxide concentration, at 3.0 micrograms per cubic
Green initiatives: Hanover has a number of
projects to encourage residents to help configure their residential and living space. For example, in the “Hannover City 2020” pilot project,
the city has been in dialogue with the population for two years about future developments in
the city center. It intends to attract input from
every conceivable interest group, including residents, architects, planning experts, businesses,
public-sector entities, and nongovernmental
organizations. The project includes a number of
public forums, workshops and other events, as
well as an international competition seeking
ideas for the design of the inner city.
Quantitative indicators
CO2
Eur. avg.
Ger. avg.
Hanover
Year*
6.52
9.79
11.52
2005
City of Hanover, Department of Environment and
City Greenery
326.46
249.77
261.22
2005
City of Hanover, Department of Environment and
City Greenery; Lower Saxony State Statistics Office
CO2 reduction target by 2020
18.64
30.83
40.00
2010
Hanover Climate Protection Region
Energy consumption per capita (GJ/resident)
85.22
95.46
104.74
2005
City of Hanover, Department of Environment and
City Greenery
Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP)
4.48
2.47
2.37
2005
City of Hanover, Department of Environment and
City Greenery; Lower Saxony State Statistics Office
Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%)
6.30
3.43
1.19 1
2005
City of Hanover, Department of Environment and
City Greenery; City of Hanover CO2 Balance Sheet
856.97
702.18
560.42
2005
City of Hanover, Department of Environment and
City Greenery; Statistics Office of Capital City of Hanover
Mobility in Germany 2002
CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/resident)
CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€)
Green initiatives: Since new construction projects constantly cut down green space, the city
government has pledged to reactivate and use
unused business and industrial areas, rail yards,
military installations and other idle space.
According to the city government, some 62 idle
lots, with a total area of 210 hectares, are available for restructuring, many of them suitable for
residential or business buildings. In the Limmer
district, for example, the 20-hectare site of a former automotive parts factory will be transformed into a residential neighborhood. The city
is also working to expand green space in its
existing districts: Stöcken, with 11,900 residents, is one of Hanover’s most densely populated areas, and is being renovated as a district
with a special need for development. The urban
renewal goals for the area, with its large industrial facilities, include expanding and upgrading
green space and open space that can particularly be used as play areas for children.
ment. Aside from its clear goals for CO2 reduction, however, the report is sometimes vague in
setting targets for other environmental factors.
On the other hand, Hanover gained points for its
membership in the Covenant of Mayors, and for
signing the Aalborg Charter in 1995 and the Aalborg Commitments in 2004.
Energy
Source
Buildings
Energy consumption by residential buildings (MJ/m2)
Transport
Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%)
21.98
24.02
19.00
2002
Share of population that takes public transport to work (%)
37.40
27.21
21.00
2002
Mobility in Germany 2002
1.39
1.93
2.60
2008
Capital City of Hanover
Length of bike path network (km/km2)
Length of public transport network (km/km2)
Water
Waste and
land use
2.44
2.61
3.61
2009
Region of Hanover – Department of Transportation
Annual water consumption per capita (m3/resident)
93.12
59.21
58.47
2008
Hanover Statistics Office; City of Hanover, Department
of Environment and City Greenery
Water system leakages(%)
18.88
8.36
4.00
2008
Stadtwerke Hannover
Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%)
96.25
99.53
99.84
2008
Stadtentwässerung Hannover
516.77
527.88
474.79 2
2008
Region of Hanover Waste Management District;
Lower Saxony State Statistics Office
25.93
47.48
49.62 2
2008
Region of Hanover Waste Management District
33.98
30.51
21.00
2008
Lower Saxony Ministry of the Environment and
Climate Protection
Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3)
40.49
40.97
45.00
2008
Lower Saxony Ministry of the Environment and
Climate Protection
Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3)
31.30
21.92
19.00
2008
Lower Saxony Ministry of the Environment and
Climate Protection
6.44
5.05
3.00
2007
Lower Saxony Ministry of the Environment and
Climate Protection
Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head)
Recycling rate (%)
Air quality
Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration
(µg/m3)
Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities.
* If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate
1) This value includes consumption of renewable energy in transportation.
2) Figure for the Region of Hanover.
47
Germany’s peaceful revolution in the fall of
1989. It was here that the Monday demonstrations took place and citizens sowed the seeds of
democracy. The city has changed greatly since
then: Most of the open-pit lignite mines around
Leipzig, which in East Germany once accounted
for ten percent of worldwide lignite production,
were closed in 1990. Many buildings have been
renovated and waterways cleaned. Infrastructure projects have made Leipzig into a transportation and logistics hub. Today, Leipzig is
home to various businesses in the service and
industrial sectors, including automotive companies. Industry contributes only 23% to gross
value added, however, slightly below the average of 25% in the German Index cities. Leipzig
still enjoys an excellent reputation in what have
traditionally been its strengths: art, music, education, and research.
In the German Green City Index, Leipzig scores
an overall grade of above average – an excellent
result given its comparatively low GDP. This
shows that good environmental performance is
not at all dependent solely on a city’s financial
resources. A closer look shows that Leipzig scores
above average in five categories and average in
three. Worthy of special mention are the very low
per capita volume of waste and the highest recycling rate among all the German and European
cities. If you compare Leipzig only with those
European cities that have a comparable average
GDP (€21,000 to €31,000 per capita per year),
the city actually has the highest overall score in
the category of waste and land use. Leipzig also
distinguishes itself through its markedly low per
capita energy consumption, the second-lowest
water consumption in Europe, and the densest
local transport network of any German city.
CO2 emissions: Leipzig ranks average in
Leipzig
German Green City Index
L
Background indicators
Population
GDP per person (PPP) in €
Administrative area in km2
Share of industry / gross value added in %
Average temperature in °C
515,000
23,300
297
23
9
eipzig, with a population of 515,000 and an
important convention center, is one of the
largest cities in the former East Germany but the
third-smallest in the German Green City Index.
With a per capita gross domestic product (GDP)
of €23,300, it is one of the economically weaker
German cities in the Index. Only Berlin has a
lower GDP. Leipzig played a critical role in East
the category of CO2 emissions. The city emits
some 6.2 metric tons of CO2 per capita per year,
slightly below the average of 6.5 metric tons
among the 41 European cities. The per capita
CO2 emissions right after German reunification
in 1990 were still 11.3 metric tons. The collapse
of the industrial and commercial sectors and the
closure of power plants, most of which still relied
on lignite, brought about a rapid decline in
Leipzig’s CO2 emissions to 7.0 metric tons by
1998. This fell further to 6.2 metric tons by 2005,
though the rate of decline was slower than in the
earlier years. Due to a renewed increase in energy demand for industry, the city expects CO2
emissions in 2010 to be at roughly the same level
as at the time of the last CO2 balance sheet in
2005. If you compare the city’s emissions to its
economic output, Leipzig’s 278 grams of CO2 per
GDP unit is still below the European average of
326 grams.
Green initiatives: To reduce CO2 emissions in
public transport, the Leipzig transportation
authorities have committed to gradually replacing its fleet of older vehicles with green buses by
2015. Hybrid buses, which have two electric
engines and one diesel engine and emit 20% less
CO2 than the older vehicles, have been used on a
trial basis since 2007. A total of 58 standard
buses with the EEV standard (Enhanced Environmentally Friendly Vehicle) had been deployed by
2010. The second phase will see 50 articulated
buses with hybrid technology introduced by
2015.
Buildings: Leipzig ranks above average in
Energy: Leipzig ranks above average in the
energy category. One reason for this is Leipzig’s
markedly low per capita energy consumption of
50 gigajoules per year. This is the lowest level of
all twelve of the German cities in the Index
and much lower than the European average of
85 gigajoules. This positive result is attributable
in part to the city’s low level of industrialization
but also to successful efforts to increase the efficiency of the power production and supply grid.
The city also scores relatively well in energy consumption relative to economic output: Leipzig
uses 2.2 megajoules per euro of GDP compared
to the European average of 4.5 megajoules.
Green initiatives: The renovation of an elevenstory prefab building on Hans-MarchwitzaStrasse in 2005 was funded as a showcase project. To lower the energy needs, the focus was on
better heat insulation, thermal-insulated windows, ventilation systems, and a heating system
using combined heat and power. Solar collectors
in the balcony balustrades also provide hot water
for the 167 residential units. With the work com-
the buildings category. At 603 megajoules per
square meter, the energy consumption of
Leipzig’s buildings is significantly below the average of 857 megajoules in European cities. Renovation of Leipzig’s building stock began after
reunification under a federal-state partnership
program “Urban Renewal East,” dedicated to
rapid renovation of the older and prefabricated
buildings. Funds for the renovation projects
came from the state of Saxony and the Bank for
Reconstruction. The city had no programs of
its own.
Performance
Green initiatives: The city launched the
“Leipzig City of Energy” network with the objective of bundling common interests and efforts.
Business, academic, and political leaders join
forces here in search of innovative ideas and
solutions for sustainable energy and climate policies. Members include Leipzig-based businesses
and leading energy research institutes. Expert
roundtables and events are held each year to promote the exchange of ideas. An example of a current project is the “Energy-Efficient City,” which is
developing a sustainable strategy for energyoptimized urban development in East Leipzig.
The aim is to reduce energy consumption even
while meeting the business, environmental, and
social needs of the city.
“Leipzig Environment
Days” and “Ecofestival”
“Leipzig Environment Days” and “Ecofestival”
are events held to coincide with World
Environment Day and sponsored by “Ökolöwe
Umweltbund Leipzig e.V.,” a non-profit
organization for environmental protection and
education run by the city of Leipzig. “Leipzig
Environment Days” aims to sensitize the citizens
of Leipzig to environmental topics, solutions,
and initiatives. The two-week program includes
environmental events, discussions, and guided
tours in and around Leipzig presented by
associations, grass-roots initiatives, the city,
research institutions, and businesses.
“Ecofestival” is a springtime event for the entire
family that takes place during “Leipzig
Environment Days” and offers some 100 booths
and a stage program for a hands-on celebration.
With over 10,000 visitors, it is also the largest
environmentally themed festival in the city.
plete, the building uses 44 kilowatt hours per
square meter, 75% less than before and nearly
40% less than a comparable new building. This
makes it the largest “low-energy legacy building”
in Germany. This showcase project of Leipziger
Wohnungs- und Baugesellschaft mbH (LWB)
and Deutsche Energie-Agentur GmbH (dena) is
intended to blaze the trail for energy-saving
housing.
Leipzig
well below
average
Other German cities
below
average
average
Other European cities
above
average
well above
average
CO2
Energy
Buildings
Transport
Water
Waste and land use
Air quality
Environmental governance
Overall results
The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.
48
49
Transport: Leipzig ranks average in the
transport category. The city’s local public transport network is the densest in any German city
with 4.4 km per square kilometer of urban area,
well above the European average of 2.4 km. The
fares and transfer options also received high
marks in a European-wide public transportation
survey conducted by the German automobile
association ADAC. Public transport is used relatively little, however: only 24% of Leipzig residents take the bus or light rail to work, compared
to 37% on average in the other European cities.
Some 22% of Leipzig residents walk or bicycle to
work, which is exactly the European average.
One reason that more residents don’t bicycle
may be the relatively underdeveloped bike path
network of 1.0 km per square kilometer in
the urban area. The European average here is
“For a leafy city”
In 1996, the city of Leipzig launched the
program “For a leafy city,” which encouraged
city residents and those with ties to the city to
donate funds to plant trees. Some 2,250 people
have taken part to date, raising more than
€500,000 for the program and “adopting” more
than 2,100 new trees throughout the entire city
– in parks, recreational areas, and green spaces,
and along Leipzig’s streets. The trees improve
the city’s climate and absorb a portion of CO2
emissions. Everyone who donates receives
a certificate, and those who donate more than
€250 have their name placed on a plaque on
their adopted tree.
1.4 km. To make transportation more environmentally friendly in the future, Leipzig has set socalled modal split targets and spearheaded a
series of corresponding initiatives: promoting
bicycling, building and expanding the local transportation network, and reducing car traffic in the
city center (see “green initiatives”). Automobile
traffic is also managed using a state-of-the-art
traffic control system.
Green initiatives: In 2009, Leipzig launched a
“low-car city center” initiative, part of an overall
transportation concept to reduce motorized individual transport and lower the number of cars in
the city center. Measures intended to reach this
goal include redirecting the flow of traffic,
restricting traffic into the city center, changing
road markings and signage, introducing retractable bollards, and increasing parking fees. The
city would also like to motivate its citizens to
cycle. City administrators have created a multidepartmental “bicycle working group” that
includes consultants from Germany’s national
bicycle coalition ADFC. Thanks to the efforts of
the working group, the bike path network has
doubled in size since reunification and the laws
have been changed to allow cyclists to ride
against traffic on one-way streets. Today, the city
has 60 km of designated bike routes, and there
are plans to add new bike racks by 2012. An environmental zone was also introduced this year in
the city center in which only low-emission vehicles are allowed.
Water: Leipzig ranks above average in the
water category. With per capita annual consumption of 51 cubic meters, the city is well
below the European average of 93 cubic meters.
With this score, Leipzig is not only the leader in
Germany but only slightly behind Tallinn, which
at 50 cubic meters has the lowest per capita
annual water consumption of any city in the
European Green City Index. Water loss of 13%
from leakage in the water pipelines is also below
the European average of 19%. This is the highest
figure among the German cities, however.
Green initiatives: In 1993, the city’s waterworks launched a project to convert the former
Podelwitz sludge drying plant into a wetland
biotope. The area was heavily contaminated with
toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, chromium,
and nickel, posing a threat to groundwater. But
since rare communities of plants and animals
had found a home in this marshland over time,
the decision was made to maintain the area
while removing the contaminants from the toxic
sludge. The level of contaminants has since fallen thanks to special plant cultures that can
absorb heavy metals, nitrogen, and phosphorous
from the sludge. The area is the site of frequent
school projects and guided tours.
Waste and land use: Leipzig earns a
grade of above average in the waste and land use
category. The city generates 356 kg of waste per
person per year, much less than the European
average of 517 kg. Leipzig also has a state-of-theart waste recycling system and recycles an
astounding 81% of waste, far above the European average of just 26%. This makes Leipzig the
leader both in Germany and throughout Europe.
Green initiatives: Leipzig’s outstanding recycling program is no coincidence. In 2002, the city
formed a public-private partnership with a Berlin
waste management and recycling specialist that
helped develop Leipzig’s recycling system. A twoyear pilot project launched in 2004 under the
“Recycling Plus” initiative expanded the regular
recycling system for household waste. The new
“Recycling Plus” bins accepted not only packaging but also small electronics, plastic toys, and
metal pots and pans.
Air quality: Leipzig ranks above average in
the air quality category. The levels for three of the
four air pollutants are well below the average for
the 41 European cities. Only ozone levels of
46 micrograms per cubic meter exceeded the
European average of 40 micrograms. Leipzig’s
sulfur dioxide concentrations of 2.3 micrograms
per cubic meter are actually much lower than the
European average (6.4 micrograms). Sulfur dioxide concentrations have fallen sharply since the
decline of industrial and commercial activities in
the early 1990s. Automobile traffic is now the
primary source of air pollutants. But Leipzig’s
nitrogen dioxide concentrations of 19 micrograms per cubic meter are still below the European average of 34 micrograms. The ratio of
average particulate levels is similar, with 19 micrograms in Leipzig compared to a European
average of 31 micrograms.
Green initiatives: In December 2009, Leipzig
adopted a new clean air program with 48 measures to reduce air pollution. The program focuses on combating traffic-related pollution and
introducing an environmental zone in the city
center in 2011. Since March 2011, as in the over
30 other German cities that have already introduced such a concept, Leipzig’s environmental
zone has been restricted to vehicles that meet
strict emission criteria.
energy, and climate protection. The public has
easy access to information on the subject of environmental protection, but the city could allow its
citizens to play a more active role in environmental policy decisions.
Environmental governance: Leipzig
Green initiatives: The environmental information center, founded in 1993 and located in
Leipzig City Hall, offers citizens and educational
institutions comprehensive information on environmental topics and hosts exhibitions and
events.
ranks average in the environmental governance
category. The city worked very hard to develop
an environmental plan, establishing environmental quality targets as far back as 1996. Environmental reports were published in 2000 and
2007, an interval that is less regular than that of
the leading cities. Leipzig gets high marks for its
annual assessments based on a range of environmental indicators relating to air quality, noise,
traffic, water, soil, waste, nature conservation,
Quantitative indicators
CO2
Eur. avg.
Ger. avg.
Leipzig
Year*
6.52
9.79
6.15
2005
CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/resident)
CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€)
Energy
Source
City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections
326.46
249.77
277.70
2005
City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections
CO2 reduction target by 2020
18.64
30.83
20.00
2010
City of Leipzig – Office of the Environment
Energy consumption per capita (GJ/resident)
85.22
95.46
50.36
2006
City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections
Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP)
4.48
2.47
2.15
2006
City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections
Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%)
6.30
3.43
5.55 1e 2008
856.97
702.18
602.85
2006
City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections
City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections
(MJ/m2)
Leipzig City Utility Company
Buildings
Energy consumption by residential buildings
Transport
Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%)
21.98
24.02
22.00
2008
Share of population that takes public transport to work (%)
37.40
27.21
24.00
2008
City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections
1.39
1.93
1.00
2008
City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections
City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections
Length of bike path network (km/km2)
Length of public transport network (km/km2)
Water
2.44
2.61
4.39
2008
Annual water consumption per capita (m3/resident)
93.12
59.21
51.40
2007
City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections
Water system leakages(%)
18.88
8.36
13.10
2008
Leipzig Municipal Waterworks; City of Leipzig –
Office of Statistics and Elections
Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%)
96.25
99.53
98.30
2007
City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections
516.77
527.88
355.99
2008
Leipzig Office of Environmental Services
Recycling rate (%)
25.93
47.48
81.33
2008
Leipzig Office of Environmental Services
Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
33.98
30.51
19.00
2008
City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections
Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3)
40.49
40.97
46.25
2008
City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections
Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3)
31.30
21.92
19.00
2008
City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections
6.44
5.05
2008
City of Leipzig – Office of Statistics and Elections
Waste and
land use
Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head)
Air quality
Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
2.33 2
Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities.
* If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate. 1) Estimate based on the
share of renewable energy sources in electrical production. 2) Measurement station in a central urban location close to traffic.
50
51
sions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. The city
already managed to reduce CO2 emissions by
15% from 1990 to 2010.
Green initiatives: To rein in CO2 emissions,
Mannheim signed three-year alternative energy
contracts with its energy suppliers in July 2008.
The city has since begun drawing on power from
renewable energies for many municipal functions such as schools, streetlights, and traffic
lights. The city calculates that this changeover
will result in savings of 80,000 metric tons of
CO2 by 2011.
Energy: Mannheim also ranks average in the
energy category. Per capita energy consumption
2030. For now, district heating lines will be
extended into two more neighborhoods by
2012. In addition, a subsidy program was
launched in July 2010 that offers customers
financial assistance to install combined heat and
power (CHP) microplants. The subsidy applies to
installations with an output of up to 11 kilowatts
in residential or small commercial buildings. The
subsidized CHP installations must run on natural
gas or biogas. The subsidy varies from €4,500 to
€10,000, depending on the capacity of the plant
(estimated from 2 to 11 kilowatts) and annual
service time (1,500 to 5,000 hours). In the
future, consumers will be able to feed energy
from the micro-CHP generators back into the
local power grid.
Buildings: Mannheim ranks above average
in the buildings category. The average energy
consumption of 714 megajoules per square
meter is below the average of 857 megajoules in
the 41 European cities. High marks are also
earned for subsidies for energy efficiency initiatives in buildings. The city grants financial assistance for insulating residential buildings or
installing energy-saving windows. The subsidies
require a so-called “Mannheim heat passport”
issued by the Mannheim climate protection
agency, which assesses the quality of the building’s insulation and identifies any energy- or
cost-saving opportunities. This allows citizens to
obtain financial assistance to improve energy
efficiency.
Monthly initiatives
To strengthen environmental awareness among
its citizens, Mannheim launched the “12 months
– 12 climate protection projects” initiative in
2009. A new project was introduced to the
public each month – the renovation of the city
nursery, free environmental consultations, a
trade-in program for old bicycles, etc. The city
believes these initiatives helped sensitize the
public to environmental issues. After its
successful debut in 2009, the city extended
the program for another twelve months. Projects
in 2010 include opening a photovoltaic facility
on the site of a former dump, retrofitting
streetlights with LED bulbs, and another trade-in
incentive, this time for old refrigerators.
Mannheim
German Green City Index
W
Background indicators
Population
GDP per person (PPP) in €
Administrative area in km2
311,000
43,600
145
Share of industry / gross value added in %
39
Average temperature in °C
10
ith a population of 311,000, Mannheim is
the smallest city in the German Green City
Index. Mannheim lies in northwestern BadenWuerttemberg and is highly industrialized.
Industry here accounts for 39% of gross added
value, the highest rate among the German cities
in the Index, and this has a profound impact on
the city’s environmental ranking. Many businesses in the technology, pharmaceutical,
chemical, and automotive sectors are headquartered or operate plants in Mannheim. With a
per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of
€43,600, Mannheim is somewhat above average among the twelve German cities studied.
Mannheim ranks above average in five categories and earns an overall ranking in the German Green City Index of above average. With a
relatively low per capita water consumption of
58 cubic meters, the city is well below the European average of 93 cubic meters. Whereas an
average of nearly 19% of water is lost to pipeline
leakage in the 41 European cities studied, the
rate of loss in Mannheim is just 5%. Mannheim
also ranks favorably when it comes to renewable
energies, with the second-highest share among
the industrialized cities of Europe. In the categories of CO2 emissions, energy, and waste and
land use, Mannheim ranks average.
of 93 gigajoules is a bit higher than the average
in the 41 European cities (85 gigajoules). But the
city ranks higher when you compare consumption to economic output: Mannheim consumes
2.3 megajoules per euro of GDP, and the average
in the European cities is nearly twice as high at
4.5 megajoules. The share of renewable energies in overall energy consumption is 5.9%, just
below the European average of 6.3% – but still
the third-highest among the twelve German
cities.
CO2 emissions: Mannheim ranks average in
the category of CO2 emissions. Industry is a
major source of CO2 emissions. Mannheim emits
11.0 metric tons of CO2 per capita per year, well
above the average of 6.5 metric tons in the
41 European cities. The city would like to change
this and has set a target of reducing CO2 emis-
Performance
Mannheim
well below
average
Other German cities
below
average
average
Other European cities
above
average
well above
average
CO2
Energy
Buildings
Transport
Water
Green initiatives: The district heating grid,
which currently supplies some 12,000 households in Mannheim, is set to expand more rapidly in the coming years: the city utility company
expects to increase the number of households
on the grid from 59% currently to about 70% by
Waste and land use
Air quality
Environmental governance
Overall results
The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.
52
53
Green initiatives: City administrators are aggressively promoting energy efficiency initiatives in municipal buildings. In the past year, for
example, the old natural gas furnace system in
the city offices in Mannheim-Friedrichsfeld was
replaced by a pellet furnace system. The old
1970s-era heating system used 220 megawatts
of energy each year. The new system – planned,
installed, and financed by the city utility company – uses only 130 megawatts. It has been up
and running since November 2009. Similar systems are to be installed in other city administration buildings in the coming years.
Transport: Mannheim also ranks above average in the transport category. One reason for
this is the bike path network, which at 1.8 km per
Smart grid
Mannheim’s local utility company recently
launched the “Mannheim Model City” project.
At the heart of the project is a field test for the
construction of a smart grid. The initiative is
designed to give researchers insight into how
smart grids and smart meters can help make
the energy provider more efficient and reduce
CO2 emissions. Customers can use their online
accounts to access detailed information on
their energy use, benefit from flexible rate
structures and lower their overall energy costs.
The smart meters can also automatically
switch household appliances on or off.
In the future, this will make it possible to have
electric vehicles charge when the electricity rate
is low and feed back into the grid during peakrate hours.
square kilometer is longer than the average
in the 41 European cities (1.4 km). Nearly onethird of Mannheimers (29%) walk or bicycle to
work; the European average is 22%. Another reason for Mannheim’s favorable ranking in the
transport category is its extensive pedestrian
zones and a dynamic parking control system that
displays the current capacity of parking garages
on the main approach routes leading into the
city. The public transport network measures
2.3 km per square kilometer, slightly less than
the European average (2.4 km). The share of the
population that commutes to work on public
transport is only 20%, however, well below the
European average of 37%.
trators also promote green roofs by lowering the
water fees for their irrigation. The benefits of
green roofs are clear: they insulate the building
against heat and cold and store rainwater, which
alleviates the load on sewer systems, especially
during heavy rain.
Waste and land use: Mannheim ranks
average in the waste and land use category.
This can be attributed primarily to the relatively
high volume of waste of 641 kg per capita per
year compared to the average of 517 kg in the
41 European cities. The recycling rate of 43%, on
the other hand, is well above the European average (26%).
tions of 4.3 micrograms are also relatively low
compared to the average in the other European
cities of 6.4 micrograms.
Green initiatives: The clean air program that
Mannheim adopted in 2006 calls for 19 different
primarily traffic-related measures, including modernized infrastructure to improve traffic flow,
an expanded public transport network, and a
retrofitted bus fleet. Since 2008, the city center
has also had an environmental zone in which
only low-emission vehicles are allowed. Nontraffic-related measures include reducing dust
during construction projects.
Environmental governance: MannGreen initiatives: Mannheim’s city council
developed an incentive program for exchanging
old bicycles. It is very similar to the trade-in program for old cars that the federal government
adopted in 2009: any citizen willing to replace an
old bicycle with a new one receives €50. The program is designed to help raise the level of bicycle
usage from 16% in 2007 to 20% in 2014. Unlike
the car trade-in program, however, the old bicycles are not scrapped but given to unemployed
bike mechanics, who repair them for re-use.
Now there are plans to replicate the Mannheim
project around the country.
Water: Mannheim earns a grade of above
average in the water category. The rate of water
loss due to leakage in the supply system stands
at just 5% compared to 19% on average in
Europe. This figure is impressive even in Germany, where the average stands at 8%. Annual
water consumption in Mannheim is 59 cubic
meters per resident, more or less on a par with
the average in Germany and well below the
European average (93 cubic meters).
Green initiatives: Like other cities in the German Green City Index, Mannheim also supports
the capture of rainwater for use in toilets, yard
irrigation, and washing machines. City adminis-
Green initiatives: Mannheim operates a consultation center to help businesses and individuals get all the information they need about recycling and waste prevention. The center has a
special program to educate schoolchildren on
the topic of waste and recycling. On the subject
of land use, the city is unrolling the big urban
development project “Mannheim 21” from now
until 2012. Mannheim 21 will transform old
industry and railroad property adjacent to the
main station into a mixed residential-commercial neighborhood. Plans for the 28-hectare
space include open and green spaces and generously proportioned bike and pedestrian paths.
Air quality: Mannheim earns a grade of
above average in the air quality category.
Among Germany’s six “industrial cities” in which
industry’s share of gross added value exceeds
25%, only Mannheim, Stuttgart, and Bremen
score above average. Aside from ozone concentrations, which are at the average level of the
41 European cities, Mannheim’s levels of the
measured air pollutants are below the European
averages. The difference in particulate concentration is especially stark: Mannheim has an
average concentration of 22 micrograms compared to the European average of 31 micrograms. Mannheim’s sulfur dioxide concentra-
heim earns a grade of above average in the envi-
ronmental governance category. The city earned
points in 2010 for joining both the EU Covenant
of Mayors and the EUROCITIES network. The
public is informed about the city’s climate protection and environmental policies through programs such as the “Mannheim Environment
Forum,” an initiative of several environmental
protection associations with the support of the
city of Mannheim. The forum solicits opinions
and viewpoints from various non-governmental
organizations on environmental issues and provides citizens with information, including a carbon footprint for 2004 and 2007.
Green initiatives: In 2009, Mannheim established the climate protection agency to provide
unbiased consulting services on environmental
and climate protection issues. The agency is
open to citizens, businesses and associations
and offers financial assistance for green projects
such as the installation of solar collectors. Its aim
is to sensitize the population to environmental
issues through targeted initiatives, such as the
competition “Mannheim’s oldest heating pump”
in 2011 in which contestants with the oldest
heating pumps have the chance to win one of
three high-efficiency pumps. The initiative is
intended to raise awareness of energy efficiency
issues and call attention to available subsidies for
energy efficiency upgrades. Those who trade in
an old heating pump, for example, are reimbursed for 25% of the costs by the climate protection agency through a climate fund.
Quantitative indicators
CO2
Eur. avg.
Ger. avg.
Mannheim
Year*
6.52
9.79
11.00
2007
CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/resident)
CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€)
Energy
326.46
249.77
260.95
2007
BW State Office of Statistics
CO2 reduction target by 2020
18.64
30.83
40.00
2010
City of Mannheim, Department of Building Code and
Environmental Protection
Energy consumption per capita (GJ/resident)
85.22
95.46
93.36
2005
City of Mannheim; Mannheim City Office of Statistics
4.48
2.47
2.25
2005
City of Mannheim; BW State Office of Statistics
Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP)
Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%)
5.89 1e 2007
6.30
3.43
856.97
702.18
713.59
2005
BW State Office of Statistics; City of Mannheim
Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%)
21.98
24.02
29.00
2007
City of Mannheim, Climate Protection Agency
Share of population that takes public transport to work (%)
37.40
27.21
20.00
2007
City of Mannheim, Climate Protection Agency
Length of bike path network (km/km2)
1.39
1.93
1.77
2008
City of Mannheim; BW State Office of Statistics
Length of public transport network (km/km2)
2.44
2.61
2.33
2008
BW State Office of Statistics; City of Mannheim
Annual water consumption per capita (m3/resident)
93.12
59.21
58.46
2007
City of Mannheim, Climate Protection Agency
Water system leakages(%)
18.88
8.36
4.50
2009
City of Mannheim, Climate Protection Agency
Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%)
96.25
99.53
99.87
2007
City of Mannheim, Climate Protection Agency
516.77
527.88
640.79
2008
BW State Office of Statistics
Buildings
Energy consumption by residential buildings (MJ/m2)
Transport
Water
Source
BW State Office of Statistics; Mannheim City Office
of Statistics
Interstate Working Group for Energy Balance Sheets
Waste and
land use
Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head)
Recycling rate (%)
25.93
47.48
43.40
2008
BW State Office of Statistics
Air quality
Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
33.98
30.51
30.37
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3)
40.49
40.97
40.05
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3)
31.30
21.92
21.50
2008
EEA Airbase
6.44
5.05
4.31
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities.
* If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate. 1) Figure for Baden-Wuerttemberg.
54
55
Germany and the highest share of the population that commutes to work by bus or light rail.
CO2 emissions: Munich ranks average in
the category of CO2 emissions. Annual per capita emissions of 7.3 metric tons are above the
European average (6.5 metric tons) but still well
below the average in Germany (9.8 metric tons).
When the city’s economic output is taken into
account, Munich achieves the best results in
Germany: Munich emits just 147 grams of CO2
per euro of GDP – less than half the European
average of 326 grams. In 2008, the city of
Munich adopted a plan to gradually reduce its
CO2 emissions. The aim is to cut CO2 emissions
by 10% every five years. This should reduce CO2
emissions to 50% of 1990 levels by 2030.
Munich
German Green City Index
W
Background indicators
Population
GDP per person (PPP) in €
Administrative area in km2
Share of industry / gross value added in %
Average temperature in °C
1.4 million
49,100
310
28
8
ith a population of about 1.4 million,
Munich is Germany’s third-largest city
after Berlin and Hamburg. Munich has one of
the lowest unemployment rates in the country
and is among the wealthier cities in the German
Green City Index. The per capita gross domestic
product (GDP) of €49,100 is topped only by
Frankfurt and Stuttgart. As the economic center
of southern Germany, Munich has a mixed economic structure. Several major industrial enterprises are based here from sectors such as
machinery, automotive, and technology. Industry alone generates some 28% of gross value
added. The city is also regarded as a center for
biotechnology, microelectronics, IT, media, and
services. Banks and insurance companies are
also headquartered here. Only Frankfurt ranks
ahead of Munich as a financial center.
Munich ranks above average overall in the comparison among the twelve German cities in the
Index. In the breakdown, the city ranks above
Green initiatives: Munich’s “Climate Protection Program 2010” was published in May 2010.
The program outlines a total of 55 initiatives to
be implemented from 2010 to 2012 with the
aim of reducing CO2 emissions by 10% every five
years. The first package of initiatives deals with
buildings, urban development, mobility and
transportation, energy efficiency in industry,
energy production and distribution, and energy
use in municipal buildings. The climate protection program is to be updated every two years.
average in five of eight individual categories.
The city, for example, scores particularly well in
CO2 intensity – the ratio of CO2 emissions to economic output – where it takes the top spot in
Germany. Munich also scores high in energy
intensity – energy consumption per unit of real
GDP – ranking second in Germany behind
Stuttgart. The achievements in the transport
category are also worth noting: Munich has the
most highly developed network of bike paths in
The European average is over three times as
high (4.5 megajoules). The share of renewable
energies is relatively low at 2.1%, below the
European average of 6.3%. This topic is already
on the agenda as a result of the climate protection program, however, and the city has set itself
ambitious goals.
Green initiatives: Munich’s utility company
wants to meet all the city’s energy needs
through renewables by 2025. Production of
renewable energies has already been ramped up
through a series of environmental projects such
as the new hydroelectric plant on Prater Island,
which has been providing green energy to
4,000 households since June 2010. The utility
company plans to begin operations by year’s
end at a new geothermal plant in the community of Sauerlach south of Munich that will harness
geothermal energy to produce heat and electricity for 16,000 households. Beyond the city’s borders, Munich’s utility company has invested in
the construction of an offshore wind farm in the
North Sea that will go live in 2013.
To create further incentives for the use of renewable energies, the Munich city council has long
offered financial support to homeowners who
wish to move to renewable energy sources. As
one of the sunniest spots in Germany, the city is
also studying what role solar energy can play.
One example is Ackermannbogen, a neighborhood of 319 households that meets 50% of its
heating needs through solar energy. Excess
solar energy generated in the summer is fed into
a storage unit for use at a later time.
Buildings: Munich also scores above average
in the buildings category. An average residential
building in Munich uses some 783 megajoules
per square meter, below the European average
Performance
Munich Environmental
Award
Since 1994, the Bavarian capital has awarded
the “Munich Environmental Award” to honor
exemplary commitment to the environment on
the part of businesses, associations, educational
institutions, and individuals. The €10,000 prizes
are awarded primarily for innovative climate and
environmental protection projects such as
environmentally friendly production methods or
outstanding energy conservation or production
programs. The prize money must be reinvested
in environmental programs or projects.
of 857 megajoules. The city is also recognized
for providing energy efficiency incentives:
granting financial support and loans for developers that replace windows, insulate their buildings, utilize district heating, install solar collectors, or otherwise make their construction
project more environmentally friendly.
Green initiatives: As of July 1, 2009, an energy
consumption statement with information on
energy use must be submitted for all non-residential buildings in Munich. Public agencies
must make this information available online.
This same requirement has been in effect since
January 1, 2009, for all residential buildings
built after 1965, and since July 2008 for residential buildings built before 1965. A penalty is
charged if no energy consumption statement
is available when the building is sold or leased.
Munich has teamed up with the non-
Munich
well below
average
Other German cities
below
average
average
Other European cities
above
average
well above
average
CO2
Energy
Buildings
Energy: The city earns a grade of above average in the energy category. One of the decisive
factors here is the relatively low annual energy
consumption of 65 gigajoules per resident compared to the European average of 85 gigajoules.
The results are even better when economic output is taken into consideration: the people of
Munich consume 1.3 megajoules per euro of
GDP. In Germany, only Stuttgart scores better.
Transport
Water
Waste and land use
Air quality
Environmental governance
Overall results
The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.
56
57
governmental organization co2online to present
“Munich Heat Monitor 2010,” which provides
citizens with a free tool for analyzing their energy and heating consumption. Participants need
only submit their most recent heating bill, which
co2online uses to create a report outlining how
the energy efficiency of the building can be
improved. Participants also learn how their heating costs measure up to city-wide averages. Consumers are then notified of incentive programs
for environmentally friendly renovations.
Transport: Munich scores above average
in the transport category. Some 41% of the population commutes to work with public transportation. This is above the 37% average in the
41 European cities and the best result in Germany. The city has a relatively dense network of
bike paths. Its citizens enjoy 3.9 km of bike paths
per square kilometer of the city, more than in
Reinventing Riem
On Munich’s east side, a new community is
arising on the site of the old Munich-Riem
airport. The project, slated for completion in
2013, will realize the concept of combined
living and working in the countryside. Plans for
the 560-hectare site, situated adjacent to the
Munich exhibition and trade fair center, call for
combining new office buildings with more than
6,100 residential units and generous amounts
of open space. The concept follows the ten
guidelines of the “Munich Perspective” plan for
strategic urban development. These guidelines
are based on the interplay of three core ideas:
compact, urban, and green. Compact means
the efficient use of space.
any other Germany city and nearly three times
the European average (1.4 km). Despite this,
only 17% of residents walk or cycle to work, less
than the European average (22%). The public
transport network of 2.0 km per square kilometer is close to the European average (2.4 km).
Green initiatives: In 2007, the city of Munich
launched a campaign to promote car-free mobility in certain population groups. The project,
entitled “Munich – Clever Mobility,” provides
new residents, children and youths, businesses,
and seniors with information on alternatives to
owning a car. The programs and workshops are
designed to reduce automotive traffic in the city
by some 80 million kilometers annually.
The “Mobi-Race” project aims to teach children
environmental awareness and safety when it
comes to mobility. The project is a joint effort by
Munich’s public transit system operator MVG
and the city’s regional administration offices.
The goal is to teach children how to use
Munich’s public transport system on their own
and generate interest in green transportation
options with buses and light rail. “Mobi-Race” is
directed at fourth- and fifth-grade students and
has reached 4,500 children in 181 classes since
2005. The children learn to find their way
around in an urban environment and eventually
get around safely and independently using public transportation while developing the key skills
of taking responsibility, making decisions and
working with others. The winning teams receive
prizes at the end of the project.
Water: In the category of water, Munich again
ranks above average. Water use in the Bavarian
capital, as in the other cities in Germany, is also
well below the levels elsewhere in Europe. The
people of Munich consume 63 cubic meters of
water per capita per year, compared to 93 cubic
meters on average in the 41 European cities.
Water loss of 8% from pipeline leakage is also
well below the European average (19%).
which offers financial assistance to organic agricultural business on the outskirts of Munich with
the aim of protecting the city’s water reserves.
So far, more than 100 farmers have converted
their operations to organic practices. Together,
they maintain the largest organic farming zone
in Germany, encompassing some 2,500 hectares.
Waste and land use: Munich also
scores above average in the waste and land use
category. One key reason for this is the relatively
high recycling rate of 43%, compared to just
26% on average in the other European cities.
Munich’s waste volume of 557 kg per capita per
year is higher than the European average, however (517 kg). The city’s score is hurt by the fact
that it does not have any subsidy programs to
revitalize unused land.
58
Green initiatives: In the fight against particulates, Munich introduced a truck-free zone at the
beginning of 2008 so that through traffic is now
redirected onto highway A99 around the city.
This closed off the city to most of the trucks that
used to drive through Munich.
Environmental governance: Munich
ranks average among European cities in the
Green initiatives: The city is continuing its
efforts to renaturalize the Isar from a canal-like
state to a natural-growth river bed. The last section in the city center around the Weideninsel is
scheduled for completion this year. The project
is a joint effort by Munich’s public works office
and water management bureau. The costs for
renaturalizing the Isar are split between the
state of Bavaria and the city. Associations, organizations and private citizens have been involved in the planning throughout all phases of
the project.
Since 2008, Munich’s office of waste management has operated a dry fermentation plant
in Freimann in the north of the city. Some
25,000 metric tons of kitchen and yard waste
from the area are converted there each year into
1.8 million cubic meters of biogas, a volume sufficient to power some 1,600 households in
Munich. The facility also produces 9,000 metric
tons of compost annually that is used as fertilizer and soil conditioner in agriculture and landscaping.
Air quality: Munich ranks average in the
Green initiatives: Munich’s public utility company has launched the “Eco-Farmers” initiative,
grams per cubic meter, which is above the average of 34 micrograms measured in the 41 European cities. The ozone levels of 41 micrograms
are more or less in line with the European average (40 micrograms). The particulate matter
concentration of 22 micrograms, on the other
hand, is below the European average of 31 micrograms. Munich’s 4.8 micrograms of sulfur
dioxide also compares favorably with the other
European cities (6.4 micrograms).
category of air quality. One reason for this is the
nitrogen dioxide concentration of 35 micro-
environmental governance category. A negative
factor was that only limited information on the
city’s environmental performance is public: the
city’s CO2 balance sheet and end energy consumption, for example, are not published. Citizens are actively involved, however. Public input
was a factor in the draft of the “Ecological Guideline – Climate Change and Climate Protection,”
published in late 2010 by the city of Munich (see
under “green initiatives”). The city also gets
bonus points for joining the Covenant of Mayors
and signing the Aalborg Charter.
Green initiatives: Under the campaign
“Working Together for the Climate,” the city
council decided in 2008 to involve the public in
further developing and updating the “Ecological
Guideline – Climate Change and Climate Protection.” The guideline lays out the challenges,
objectives, and strategies for climate change
and climate protection in five different categories: energy supply; buildings; urban planning
and mobility; land use and ecosystem; and user
behavior, lifestyles, and health. The aim was
to gain new ideas and insights into these fields
by tapping into the community. Drawing upon
numerous events, the exhibition “Munich: Controlling the Climate,” and a wealth of information on the Internet, a draft guideline was
finally published in 2010 – the result of a broadbased consensus, according to the city council.
The website www.gemeinsam-fuer-das-klima.de
served as a forum for soliciting public input in
the revision of the guideline. The result was presented to the city council in late 2010 for final
deliberations.
Quantitative indicators
CO2
Eur. avg.
Ger. avg.
Munich
Year*
6.52
9.79
7.28
2006
City of Munich
147.30
2006
City of Munich
2010
City of Munich
CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/resident)
CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€)
Energy
Source
326.46
249.77
CO2 reduction target by 2020
18.64
30.83
25.00 1
Energy consumption per capita (GJ/resident)
85.22
95.46
64.78 2e 2008
Munich City Utility Company
Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP)
4.48
2.47
1.34 3e 2008
Munich City Utility Company
Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%)
6.30
3.43
2.10
2008
Munich City Utility Company
856.97
702.18
783.19
2008
Munich City Utility Company
Eurostat – Urban Audit
Buildings
Energy consumption by residential buildings (MJ/m2)
Transport
Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%)
21.98
24.02
17,30
2004
Share of population that takes public transport to work (%)
37.40
27.21
41.30
2004
Eurostat – Urban Audit
1.39
1.93
3.87
2009
City of Munich; Munich Office of Statistics
Length of bike path network (km/km2)
Length of public transport network (km/km2)
Water
2.44
2.61
2.00
2008
Munich Office of Statistics
Annual water consumption per capita (m3/resident)
93.12
59.21
62.60
2007
Bavarian State Office of Statistics and Data Processing;
Munich Office of Statistics
Water system leakages(%)
18.88
8.36
2007
Bavarian State Office of Statistics and Data Processing
Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%)
96.25
99.53
99.80
2004
Eurostat – Urban Audit
516.77
527.88
556.93
2008
Munich Office of Statistics
7.81 e
Waste and
land use
Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head)
Recycling rate (%)
25.93
47.48
42.95
2008
Munich Office of Statistics
Air quality
Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
33.98
30.51
35.35
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3)
40.49
40.97
40.52
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3)
31.30
21.92
21.67
2008
EEA Airbase
6.44
5.05
4.83
2006
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities.
* If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate. 1) Current CO2 reduction
target is 50% by 2030. 2) City data does not include energy consumption for transportation – an estimate of 30% has therefore been added. 3) City data
does not include energy consumption for transportation – an estimate of 30% has therefore been added; GDP figure from 2007.
59
energies is still relatively low, though it is comparable to that of the other German cities. The
European average is 6.3%. Nuremberg has
launched a series of initiatives to make its energy supply more environmentally friendly. Households that switch to district heating receive cash
awards of up to €2,000, for example.
Smart subways
As part of its climate protection program
2010/2020, Nuremberg added a new,
automated line to its subway system. The
five-kilometer stretch is the first to use centrally
controlled, driverless trains. Full automation
allows the trains to operate at high energy
efficiency, optimizes braking and acceleration,
and places less strain on the system.
The system was also designed so that the
energy accumulated when one train brakes
can be used to accelerate the next train.
The system operator reports that subway
ridership has grown by some 100,000 since
the U3 line opened in 2008.
Green initiatives: Nuremberg participates in
the so-called “Solar National League,” a national
competition to track the progress made by cities
and communities in installing photovoltaic systems. According to city calculations, Nuremberg
holds first place in the competition with other
cities of 500,000 or more. The environmental
office reports that installed capacity in Nuremberg has nearly doubled since 2004, from 2.0 to
3.8 megawatts. Overall, Nuremberg now has
some 18,000 square meters of photovoltaic
area. One factor at play here is the city’s decision
to lease the roof space of municipal buildings to
private investors.
Buildings: Nuremberg ranks above average
Nuremberg
German Green City Index
W
Background indicators
Population
GDP per person (PPP) in €
Administrative area in km2
Share of industry / gross value added in %
Average temperature in °C
60
504,000
39,300
186
25
8
ith a population of about 500,000, the city
of Nuremberg in Franconia is the second
smallest city in the German Green City Index.
Nuremberg is home to numerous enterprises
from the automation and energy sector and the
medical technology industry. A total of 75% of
city employees work in the service sector, and
industry contributes some 25% to gross added
value. The geographic location and accessibility
make the city a logistics hub for trade with Eastern Europe, which is conducted predominantly
by road transport. With a per capita gross
domestic product (GDP) of €39,300, Nuremberg
is just below average among the twelve German
cities studied.
Nuremberg ranks above average overall in the
German Green City Index, scoring above average in five of the eight individual categories as
well. Among cities in which industry accounts
for 25% or more, Nuremberg is actually the only
city in Germany that ranks above average in the
category of CO2 emissions. The results in the
transport category are also noteworthy. The percentage of citizens who commute to work using
public transportation, for example, is relatively
high compared to the other cities in Germany,
with Nuremberg showing the third-highest level
behind Munich and Berlin. Nuremberg scores
average in the categories of energy, air quality,
and environmental governance.
CO2 emissions: Despite the high volume of
traffic in and around Nuremberg and the CO2
emissions that this brings, the city scores above
average in the category of CO2 emissions. The
high score can be attributed to a series of initiatives aimed at reducing CO2 emissions.
Although the city’s per capita annual emissions
of 7.4 metric tons of CO2 are above the average
of the 41 European cities (6.5 metric tons), that
figure is still well below the German average of
9.8 metric tons. Nuremberg compares very
favorably when it comes to CO2 intensity, with
CO2 emissions of 184 grams per euro of GDP far
below the European average of 326 grams. In
Germany, that is the second-lowest level after
Munich. And what’s more, by 2008 the city had
already achieved its goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 27% from 1990 to 2010. Now the city
aims to reduce its CO2 emissions by 40% below
1990 levels by 2020. This matches the targets of
the other German Index cities and the requirements set by the federal government.
Green initiatives: Since 1996, the local energy company has provided citizens with financial
assistance for steps taken to lessen their carbon
footprint. A total of €850,000 in program grants
for CO2 reduction have been promised for 2010.
Residents receive vouchers or cash to purchase
an electric vehicle, install solar cells on residential buildings, or receive an energy consultation.
The utility company claims that this program has
eliminated 4,600 metric tons of CO2 in 2010.
Energy: Nuremberg scores average in the category of energy. Per capita energy consumption
of 91 gigajoules is a bit higher than the average
in the 41 European cities (85 gigajoules), but relatively low compared to the economic output of
the city: at 2.3 megajoules per euro of GDP, the
city consumes only half as much as the European average of 4.5 megajoules. Nuremberg
also gets points for promoting the use of clean
energy. Nuremberg’s 2.3% share of renewable
in the buildings category. At 815 megajoules
per square meter, the energy consumption of
Nuremberg’s residential buildings is slightly below the average of 857 megajoules in the
41 European cities. The city is trying hard to improve the energy efficiency of its buildings.
Nuremberg’s climate protection program includes an initiative designed to reduce the energy consumption of commercially used buildings
by 2020, for example. The reason: only 30% of
the office buildings in Nuremberg were built in
the last ten years. Most are much older and
therefore require much more energy for heating
and lighting. For this reason, Nuremberg offers
an energy conservation consultation for small
Performance
and medium-sized businesses as well as assistance and subsidies to improve energy efficiency.
Green initiatives: The local housing industry
business group has committed to improving
energy efficiency in its buildings through the
“Innovative Housing” modernization program.
The group manages some 18,000 residential
buildings, some 10% of the total building stock
in Nuremberg. About half are new construction,
the rest were built before 1960. The group aims
to retrofit all its buildings by 2012 to the sevenliter standard, meaning seven liters or less of
fuel oil per square meter and year. The city
Nuremberg
well below
average
below
average
Other German cities
average
Other European cities
above
average
well above
average
CO2
Energy
Buildings
Transport
Water
Waste and land use
Air quality
Environmental governance
Overall results
The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.
61
joint project among the three cities to confront
the challenges of future urban development.
These challenges are divided into the three categories of economic innovation and creative
milieus, urban quality of life, and regional cooperation. In Nuremberg, six neighborhoods with
development potential were identified, including the West City, a former industrial area and
the site of social tensions. Following the identification and concept phase, selected projects will
be implemented in close cooperation among
the three cities starting in 2012. The aim is to
exchange experience and insights in order to
learn from one another.
Air quality: Nuremberg ranks average in the
hopes this will save costs and bring it a bit closer
to its environmental targets.
Transport: Nuremberg scores above average
in the transport category. The city has a welldeveloped public transport network with 2.9 km
per square kilometer. One in three residents
(33%) commutes to work each day using public
transportation – the third-highest level in Germany. The average among the 41 European
cities is higher still, however, with 37% of citizens commuting by bus and light rail. The bike
Solar roof exchange
Nuremberg set up a so-called “solar roof
exchange” with the objective of increasing
the share of renewable energies. This online
platform brings together the owners of rooftop
surfaces – private, public, or commercial-use
buildings – with potential investors and solar cell
manufacturers. The owner leases the roof to
an investor and receives a fixed rent or a percentage of the proceeds from the photovoltaic
installation in exchange. The online forum is
free to use. The solar roof exchange collects a
brokerage fee when a deal is signed between
a roof owner and investor.
path network of 1.6 km per square kilometer is
longer than the European average (1.4 km), but
only one in five residents commutes to work on
foot or by bicycle – more or less on a par with the
European average. The city’s expansive pedestrian zone received favorable marks, as did the
“Intelligent Mobile” program (see “green initiatives”) that seeks to encourage citizens to get
out of their cars in favor of alternative modes of
transportation. The city also emphasizes the
importance of the automatic traffic control system introduced in 2004 that guides traffic flows
toward the stadium and convention center. The
traffic control system is intended to minimize
the negative effects of special-event traffic on
city streets and keep the burden to those living
near the event sites as low as possible.
approximately 93 cubic meters that is the average in the 41 European cities. Nuremberg’s rate
of water loss from pipeline leakage is, at 7%, also
much lower than the European average of 19%.
Green initiatives: To teach elementary school
students how drinking water makes its way from
its source to the water faucet, the regional student radio station “school+radio” has, with the
support of Bavarian State Radio and local energy
company NERGIE, produced a water-themed
program. Three fictional sisters – Mirella, Lara,
and Laura – explore the key stations of Nuremberg’s drinking water supply in a radio play for
children. The piece was subsequently posted to
the school radio station website.
category of air quality. One reason for this is the
relatively high concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in the city, which at 36 micrograms per cubic
meter is slightly above the European average of
34 micrograms. This can be attributed at least in
part to intense industrial activity. The average
concentrations of particulates and sulfur dioxide
are better: both lie below the average in the 41
European cities. Nuremberg actually has the
lowest levels of any German city in the Index
when it comes to ozone, the indicator most
closely linked to (automobile) traffic.
Green initiatives: The city of Nuremberg has
continued its clean air program. The plan came
Water: Nuremberg ranks above average in the
water category. The annual per capita water
consumption of 57 cubic meters is, as in the
other German cities in the Index, well below the
Green initiatives: In 2007, Nuremberg joined
Bremen and Leipzig in founding “co-op city,” a
berg ranks average in the category of environmental governance. Although the city updated
its CO2 balance sheet from 2006 in the latest climate protection plan for 2010 and identified
areas in need of action, the environmental
report does not include a comprehensive assessment of the current situation in each category
with detailed targets. Nuremberg does get high
marks, however, for providing easy public
access, especially online access, to information
on the city’s environmental performance and
initiatives.
Green initiatives: The “Keep Energy in Mind”
project gets schoolchildren actively involved in a
water and energy conservation project that is
designed to raise awareness of the threats posed
by climate change and the scarcity of resources.
One class designed stickers to put on light
switches to remind children to turn off the light
when no one is in the room.
Eur. avg. Ger. avg.
CO2
Nuremberg
Year*
6.52
9.79
7.40
2008
Nuremberg’s application for European Green Capital Award
326.46
249.77
184.30
2008
Nuremberg’s application for European Green Capital Award;
Nuremberg Statistical Almanac
CO2 reduction target by 2020
18.64
30.83
40.00
2010
City of Nuremberg, Office of the Environment
Energy consumption per capita (GJ/resident)
85.22
95.46
90.75
2007
Nuremberg’s application for European Green Capital Award
4.48
2.47
2.26
2007
Nuremberg’s application for European Green Capital Award
CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/resident)
CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€)
Energy
a grade of above average in the waste and land
use category. The volume of waste is 506 kg per
capita per year, below the average of 517 kg in
the 41 European cities. The recycling rate of 56%
is noteworthy, over twice the European average
of 26% and also above the German average of
47%. Nuremberg has launched various programs to try to make its citizens more acutely
aware of household waste and reduce overall
waste. The waste management companies provide residents with information on how to avoid
waste, including online information and an
“Infomobile” that stops at various locations
throughout the city several days a month.
Environmental governance: Nurem-
Quantitative indicators
Waste and land use: Nuremberg earns
Green initiatives: Since April 2000, Nuremberg has run the “Intelligent Mobile” information
campaign to induce people to leave their car at
home more often. The initiative highlights the
value of green alternatives such as public transport, carpooling, cycling, and walking. The campaign emphasizes that doing without a car can
actually offer a better quality of life. Cycling and
walking, for example, reduce stress and promote good health. At the same time, such choices reduce air pollution and lessen the daily traffic volume.
into effect in December 2010 and is focused primarily on traffic. The objective is to expand the
availability of public transportation and bicycling incentives. In the short term, the plan also
seeks to improve traffic flow by optimizing traffic lights, for example, or striping extra bus
lanes. The long-term goals include the expansion of the subway network.
Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP)
Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%)
6.30
3.43
2.28
2008
City of Nuremberg, Office of the Environment
856.97
702.18
814.97
2007
Energy Agency of Northern Bavaria
Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%)
21.98
24.02
19.50
2007
Urban Research and Statistics, Nuremberg and Fürth (2007)
Share of population that takes public transport to work (%)
37.40
27.21
33.10
2007
Urban Research and Statistics, Nuremberg and Fürth (2007)
1.39
1.93
1.56
2010
City of Nuremberg, Traffic Planning Office; Nuremberg
Statistical Almanac
Nuremberg Statistical Almanac
Buildings
Energy consumption by residential buildings (MJ/m2)
Transport
Length of bike path network (km/km2)
Length of public transport network (km/km2)
Water
1e
Source
2.44
2.61
2.87
2008
Annual water consumption per capita (m3/resident)
93.12
59.21
57.20
2008
Nuremberg’s application for European Green Capital Award
Water system leakages(%)
18.88
8.36
7.00
2008
Nuremberg’s application for European Green Capital Award
Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%)
96.25
99.53
99.85
2004
Eurostat – Urban Audit
516.77
527.88
506.45
2008
Nuremberg Statistical Almanac
Recycling rate (%)
25.93
47.48
55.90
2008
City of Nuremberg, Office of the Environment
Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
33.98
30.51
36.39
2
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3)
40.49
40.97
34.04
2
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3) 31.30
21.92
23.30
2007
EEA Airbase
5.05
4.08
2008
EEA Airbase
Waste and
land use
Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head)
Air quality
Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
6.44
Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities.
* If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate. 1) GDP figure from 2007.
2) Measurement station is not away from road traffic and therefore meets the criteria only to a limited extent.
62
63
and public buildings; 20% for industry; and 20%
for transportation. However, Stuttgart’s level
of 202 grams of CO2 emissions per unit of GDP
is much lower than the European average
(326 grams). The reason for this is that the standard of living in Stuttgart is relatively high, and
the city has a high per capita GDP.
Green initiatives: The Stuttgart Climate Protection Concept is the main basis for reducing
CO2 emissions in the city. The city council has
ruled that CO2 emissions should be reduced
10% by 2010 and, in keeping with the EU target,
20% by 2020. Both these targets are relative to
levels from the year 2000. The Climate Protec-
lower when compared to economic output: at
1.1 megajoules per euro of GDP, it is less than
one-fourth of the European average (4.5 megajoules). This puts Stuttgart at the very top in
Germany, with only Zurich and Oslo scoring
higher in the European Index. The city has the
lowest share of renewable energies among all
the German Index cities, however: only 0.6% of
Stuttgart’s total energy needs are currently met
by renewable energies – a figure far below the
European average of 6.3%.
25% in 2008 and is expected to rise to 67% by
2011. The share of renewable energies in
municipal buildings is also supposed to grow
from 11% to 20% by 2020. Stuttgart has also
decided to no longer compost the 18,000 cubic
meters of wood scraps that accumulate each
year as a result of forest maintenance. Instead,
the city has begun feeding the leftover wood
into biomass heating systems. This is used to
heat seven municipal buildings, which in turn
increases the share of renewable energies.
Green initiatives: Stuttgart has set a goal to
use more energy from renewable sources in city
properties. The percentage of green energy was
Buildings: Stuttgart’s above average ranking
in the buildings category is due primarily to the
markedly low energy consumption in residential
Integrated traffic control
center
Stuttgart began operating an integrated
traffic control center in 2006. The center collects
and provides real-time analysis of information
on the current traffic situation. Using this data,
the city can control traffic as needed through
illuminated road signs, parking guidance
systems, flexible traffic light controls, etc.
This helps avoid traffic jams, which in turn
reduces pollutants. Data is fed in from various
city agencies: the public policy office, the office
of civil engineering, a municipal transportation
company, and police headquarters.
Stuttgart
German Green City Index
S
Background indicators
Population
GDP per person (PPP) in €
Administrative area in km2
Share of industry / gross value added in %
Average temperature in °C
600,000
52,200
207
36
9
tuttgart, with a population of 600,000, is
the capital of the state of Baden-Wuerttemberg. Stuttgart’s per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of €52,200 is well above the German
average. Only Frankfurt has a higher per capita
GDP among the cities in the German Green City
Index. Industry contributes 36% to the gross
value added, making Stuttgart a relatively industrialized city in the Index compared to the
nationwide average of 25%. Stuttgart is an
important production site in the European automotive industry. It is also home to many hightech, technology, and electronics companies,
along with their research and development centers. Stuttgart also has a vibrant service sector
and is home to several major financial service
providers.
Stuttgart earns an overall grade of above average in the German Green City Index, scoring
above average in each individual category
except CO2 emissions. Of special note are the
high marks in the categories of energy and
buildings: Stuttgart stands out in Germany for its
very low energy consumption and is also the
European leader in energy-efficient housing.
There is room for improvement in the city’s
waste volume and the share of renewable energies.
CO2 emissions: The category of CO2 emissions is the only category in which Stuttgart
ranked average. Although the CO2 emissions of
10.1 metric tons per capita per year are more
or less on a par with the German average of
9.8 metric tons, they are much higher than the
average in the 41 European cities of 6.5 metric
tons. The city’s CO2 emissions can be broken
down to 60% for private households, offices,
tion Concept includes numerous programs
designed to reduce CO2 emissions caused by
vehicles, households, and businesses. The programs include transportation advice for residents, visitors, tourists, and business travelers;
financial assistance to optimize heat insulation
of all types of buildings; better coordination of
the city’s energy efficiency programs; carpools;
and the creation of an energy consulting
agency.
Energy: Stuttgart scores above average in the
energy category. Only two other German cities,
Leipzig and Munich, equal Stuttgart in this category. The main reason for this is the low per
capita energy consumption of 56 gigajoules, the
second-best score in Germany after Leipzig.
The average among the 41 European cities is
85 gigajoules. The energy consumption is even
Performance
Stuttgart
well below
average
Other German cities
below
average
average
Other European cities
above
average
well above
average
CO2
Energy
Buildings
Transport
Water
Waste and land use
Air quality
Environmental governance
Overall results
The order of the dots within the performance bands has no bearing on the cities’ results.
64
65
buildings, which at 388 megajoules per square
meter is far below the average of 857 megajoules in the 41 European cities. This makes the
city number one both in Germany and in the
European Index. One key reason for this success
is that the city offers energy-conscious property
owners a broad portfolio of financial assistance
for energy-efficient upgrades. Stuttgart also
wins praise for ensuring that all new municipal
buildings are constructed according to the latest
low-energy and efficiency standards.
Green initiatives: Stuttgart has set out to
reduce the energy consumption of municipal
institutions by at least 1% annually. An “energy
service” is dealing with the building stock, which
Concept
Stuttgart Four-Pack
Stuttgart has introduced a “Four-Pack” concept
aimed at promoting electromobility through
four different projects. The first project involves
revamping the call-a-bike rental system run
by Deutsche Bahn, which has 400 bicycles and
450 electric bicycles at 45 locations. The plan
is to integrate this system into the local
transportation network. The second project is
a comprehensive pilot program with electric
scooters to be conducted in collaboration with
the regional power company. The plan is to
introduce 500 e-scooters that will be able to
recharge at some 200 gas stations. City
administrators have been using 25 e-scooters
in various offices for several months. The third
project calls for testing various electric vehicles
as part of the Stuttgart model region.
The city is reviewing options for deploying
such vehicles for test purposes. Finally, the
fourth project involves the local transportation
company testing several hybrid buses in
day-to-day operations.
accounts for 60% of energy consumption in the
city. City administrators use a computerized system to monitor energy consumption in the properties, teach operators to optimize the use of
their facilities, and develop concepts for optimizing energy use in buildings. One example of an
“energy service” project: The city’s Hans-RehnStift retirement home underwent an energy
overhaul in 2009, reducing its primary consumption by some 25% and CO2 emissions by
70% compared to 2005 levels. These energy savings were achieved by combining a heat pump
with a combined heat and power unit, a lowtemperature natural gas boiler, and a solar thermal system.
“Triple zero” is a concept developed in Stuttgart
that seeks to achieve zero emissions, zero energy and zero resource consumption for buildings
in the city. The goal is to develop housing that
produce their own power and heat for heating
purposes. The “triple zero” idea is part of a research project conducted by the city in collaboration with the Association for Sustainable Construction. The concept will initially run on a trial
basis in public buildings such as schools and
retirement homes before it is broadly implemented in five years. A current example is the
Uhlandschule in Stuttgart-Rot, the first so-called
“energy plus” school in Germany that will produce more energy than it consumes.
Transport: Stuttgart also scores above average in the transport category, thanks primarily
to programs that promote the use of alternative
transportation and reduce traffic and to the relatively expansive public transport network,
which at 2.8 km per square kilometer is more
developed than the average of 2.4 km in the
41 European cities. The 32% share of the population that uses public transportation to commute to work is slightly above the German average but below the European average of 37%.
Stuttgart’s bike path network, on the other
hand, is much less developed than in the other
European cities. The city has 0.6 km of bike
paths per square kilometer, compared to an
average of 1.4 km in Europe and 1.9 km in Germany. Only 17% of city residents walk or bicycle
to work each day compared to the European
average of 22%, though this is certainly related
to Stuttgart’s especially hilly topography.
Green initiatives: Stuttgart is participating
in the nationwide bicycle initiative 2002–12,
dedicated to promoting the use of bicycles.
Stuttgart is also working to make the bicycle
more popular in general as more than just a way
to get to work. The city seeks to increase the
share of bicycles in urban traffic to 20% in the
next ten years. To this end, the city is following
a ten-point plan to improve bicycle infrastructure, including bike paths, bike racks, and appropriate signage. Plans also call for developing a
comprehensive approach to allowing bicycles
on trains.
Water: Stuttgart also earns a grade of above
average in the water category. The main reason
for this is moderate water use of 61 cubic meters
per capita per year, far below the average of
93 cubic meters in the 41 European cities. The
11% rate of water loss from pipeline leakage, on
the other hand, is relatively high compared
to the other German cities but still below the
19% average of all the European cities studied.
Stuttgart, like the other German cities in the Index, monitors its water quality and water levels,
promotes water-saving practices, and treats all
its wastewater prior to disposal.
Green initiatives: Since 2007, Stuttgart has
broken down its wastewater fees by household
wastewater and storm runoff. The aim is to
motivate homeowners to let rainwater seep naturally into the ground rather than diverting it
into the sewer system, which ultimately leads to
high costs. This is also intended to help maintain
groundwater levels, lessen the burden on wastewater treatment plants, and prevent storm drain
overflows during heavy rain.
Waste and land use: Stuttgart also
scores above average in the category of waste
and land use. Although the city has a very high
waste volume per capita per year of 737 kg, the
highest in Germany, it makes up for this with a
relatively high recycling rate of 57%, more than
double the European average of 26%. Among
the German cities, only Leipzig and Bremen
score better. Stuttgart plans to further increase
its recycling rate by providing different types of
recycling containers and opening new recycling
centers.
Green initiatives: Stuttgart has responded to
its shortage of new building sites with a program to identify and systematically compile data
on idle properties. The aim is to push the construction of the housing that is urgently needed
in the short term. The city acts as a broker
between investors and property owners to find
construction and financing solutions. The more
successful the program, the fewer the valuable
open spaces that will have to be sacrificed for
new housing.
Air quality: Stuttgart also rates above average when it comes to air quality. Stuttgart’s average sulfur dioxide concentration of 3.1 micrograms per cubic meter is less than half the
average of 6.4 micrograms in the 41 European
cities. The level of 19 micrograms per cubic
meter of particulates is also well below the European average of 31 micrograms. The ozone and
nitrogen dioxide levels, on the other hand, are
close to the average levels found in the other
European cities.
Green initiatives: The city has joined the city
council in passing a clean air plan designed to
further reduce nitrogen dioxide and particulates. One focus here is on automobile emissions. The plan calls for such measures as a ban
on heavy vehicle traffic through the city, environmental zones in the city center, and speed
limits on heavily trafficked transit roads. Calcium
magnesium acetate is also used in winter to help
bind the particulates in the air. A temporary ban
on vehicles that exceed certain levels of emissions has been in place in the city center since
2008, and a general ban on vehicles with a red
particulate sticker has been in place in designated zones since July 2010.
Environmental governance: Stuttgart
ranks above average in the environmental governance category. In 2007, the city updated a
comprehensive environmental report from
1997. The concept includes ten areas of focus
ranging from sustainable urban development to
wastewater, waste management, consulting,
and public relations. The city is also active on the
transregional stage: it is a member of the
Covenant of Mayors and has joined “Energy
Cities,” an association of 1,000 European cities
and towns. It is also taking advantage of EU subsidies available to help finance environmental
projects and studies.
Green initiatives: The ten-point program initiated by Stuttgart’s mayor sets the direction for
environmental protection in the city for the
coming ten years. The program calls for expanding the energy consulting agency and further
improving the energy efficiency of public buildings such as schools and older buildings. Projects that promote renewable energies and
energy-efficient mobility are also supported.
Other initiatives include offering rooftop space
for the installation of solar collectors and improving the exchange of information with other
cities on environmental issues. Also, environmental aspects are to be taken into greater
account by urban developers from now on.
Quantitative indicators
CO2
CO2 emissions per capita (metric tons/resident)
CO2 emissions per unit of real GDP (g/€)
Energy
Eur. avg.
Ger. avg.
Stuttgart
Year*
6.52
9.79
10.05
2007
Source
BW State Office of Statistics
326.46
249.77
201.59
2006
BW State Office of Statistics
CO2 reduction target by 2020
18.64
30.83
20.00
2009
City of Stuttgart
Energy consumption per capita (GJ/resident)
85.22
95.46
56.32
2008
City of Stuttgart
Energy consumption per unit of real GDP (MJ/€ GDP)
4.48
2.47
1.06
2006
City of Stuttgart
Share of renewable energies in total energy consumption (%)
6.30
3.43
0.60
2008
City of Stuttgart
856.97
702.18
388.45
2008
City of Stuttgart; BW State Office of Statistics
Buildings
Energy consumption by residential buildings (MJ/m2)
Transport
Share of population that walks or bikes to work (%)
21.98
24.02
16.80
2004
Eurostat – Urban Audit
Share of population that takes public transport to work (%)
37.40
27.21
32.00
2004
Eurostat – Urban Audit
Length of bike path network (km/km2)
1.39
1.93
0.60
2004
Eurostat – Urban Audit
Length of public transport network (km/km2)
2.44
2.61
2.76
2008
SSB
Annual water consumption per capita (m3/resident)
93.12
59.21
60.70
2008
Stuttgart Office of Statistics
Water system leakages(%)
18.88
8.36
11.21
2004
BW State Office of Statistics
Dwellings connected to the sewage system (%)
96.25
99.53
99.91
2004
Eurostat – Urban Audit
516.77
527.88
736.58
2008
BW State Office of Statistics
Water
1e
Waste and
land use
Annual municipal waste generated per capita (kg/head)
Recycling rate (%)
25.93
47.48
57.10
2008
BW State Office of Statistics
Air quality
Daily mean for annual nitrogen dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
33.98
30.51
33.50
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual ozone concentration (µg/m3)
40.49
40.97
40.10
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual particulate matter concentration (µg/m3)
31.30
21.92
19.20
2008
EEA Airbase
6.44
5.05
3.10
2008
EEA Airbase
Daily mean for annual sulfur dioxide concentration (µg/m3)
Eur. avg. = Average of a total of 41 European and German cities studied; Ger. avg. = Average for only the 12 German cities.
* If a variety of data sources were consulted, the year indicated here refers only to the most important source; e = EIU estimate. 1) Estimate of the City of Stuttgart.
66
67
Published by: Siemens AG
Corporate Communications and Government Affairs
Wittelsbacherplatz 2, 80333 Munich
For the publisher: Stefan Denig
[email protected]
Phone: +49 89 636 83110
Project management: Karen Stelzner
[email protected]
Phone: +49 89 636 31321
Editorial office: Emily Jackson, Aviva Freudmann, Jason Sumner, Economist Intelligence
Unit, Frankfurt, London
Research: Jan Friederich, Harald Langer, Economist Intelligence Unit, Frankfurt, London
Picture editing: Irene Kern, Publicis Munich, branch office of PWW GmbH
Layout: Rigobert Ratschke, Gabriele Schenk, Seufferle Mediendesign GmbH, Stuttgart
Graphics: Jochen Haller, Seufferle Mediendesign GmbH, Stuttgart
Photography: Ronald Frommann (Bremen, Hamburg, Hanover), Simon Katzer (Munich),
Birgitta Kowsky (Leipzig), Uwe Mühlhäusser (Nuremberg), Rupert Oberhäuser (Essen,
Cologne), Klaus Ohlenschläger (Frankfurt), Jan Potente (Mannheim, Stuttgart),
Andreas Schoelzel (Berlin).
Photo credits: Ulrich Wirrwa (p. 40), Sven Grundmann (p. 60), Christian Höhn (p. 62),
GKK + Architekten (p. 59)
All other pictures: Copyright Siemens AG
Any exploitation and usage which is not explicitly allowed by copyright law, in particular
reproduction, translation, storage in electronic database, on the internet and copying onto
CD-ROMs of this print work requires prior consent of the publisher.
While every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in
this document, neither the Economist Intelligence Unit nor Siemens AG nor its affiliates can
accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this information.
Munich, Germany, 2012
© 2012, Siemens AG. All rights reserved.
www.siemens.com/greencityindex