European Green City Index

European Green City Index | Executive summary

6 7

Executive summary

ways, from increased use of public transport dueto greater population density to smaller citydwellings that require less heating and lighting.Many European cities have demonstrated theircommitment to reducing their environmentalimpact by joining the Covenant of Mayors, aEuropean Commission initiative launched inJanuary 2008 that asks mayors to commit to cut-ting carbon emissions by at least 20% by 2020.This is encouraging the creation — often for thevery first time — of a formal plan for how citiescan go about reducing their carbon impact,which bodes well for the future.

Of course, environmental performanceinevitably varies from city to city, but someencouraging trends are emerging. Of the 30diverse European cities covered by this study,nearly all had lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emis-sions per head than the overall EU27 average of8.46 tonnes1. Part of this success comes fromseveral advantages which European urban areasshare. Compared to other regions of the world,the continent has enjoyed remarkable political

stability, with only the Balkan wars breaking thegeneral peace of recent decades. Moreover, citi-zen awareness of the importance of protectingthe environment and of green objectives hasmarkedly increased in recent years. This is boost-ed in part by a growing body of environmentallyfocussed EU legislation.

But even in environmentally consciousEurope, problems abound. Across the cities profiled in this report, an average of one in three residents drive to work, contributing toincreased CO2 emissions and general air pollu-tion. The average proportion of renewable ener-gy consumed is just 7.3%, a long way short ofthe EU’s stated goal of increasing the share ofrenewable energy usage to 20% by 2020. Nearlyone in four litres of water consumed by cities islost through leakage. And less than one fifth ofoverall waste is currently recycled. Moreover,encouraging environmentally helpful behav-ioural change is not a straightforward matter:cities often have little leverage to induce citi-zens, companies, or even other levels of gov-

ernment to modify their actions or policies. Inparticular, increased costs or taxes are usuallymet with scepticism, if not hostility. In the cur-rent financial situation, this difficulty may wellgrow. Although many green technologies helpto reduce costs in the long run, immediate finan-cial concerns may impede the greater upfrontinvestment which they also frequently require.

How the study was conducted: To aid effortsand understanding in this field, the EuropeanGreen City Index seeks to measure and rate theenvironmental performance of 30 leading Euro-pean cities both overall and across a range ofspecific areas. In so doing, it offers a tool toenhance the understanding and decision-mak-ing abilities of all those interested in environ-mental performance, from individual citizensthrough to leading urban policymakers. Themethodology was developed by the EconomistIntelligence Unit in co-operation with Siemens.An independent panel of urban sustainabilityexperts provided important insights and feed-

back on the methodology. This study is not thefirst comparison of the environmental impact ofEuropean cities, nor does it seek to supplantother worthwhile initiatives, such as the Euro-pean Urban Ecosystem Survey or the EuropeanGreen Capital Award. Instead, its value lies in thebreadth of information provided and in the formin which it is presented. The index takes intoaccount 30 individual indicators per city thattouch on a wide range of environmental areas— from environmental governance and waterconsumption to waste management and green-house gas emissions — and ranks cities using atransparent, consistent and replicable scoringprocess. The relative scores assigned to individ-ual cities (for performance in specific categories,as well as overall) is also unique to the index andallows for direct comparison between cities.

Of course, numbers alone only give part ofthe picture. To complement the core data withinthe index, this study also seeks to provide con-text, with in-depth city portraits that not onlyexplain the challenges, strengths and weakness-

Why cities matter: More than one-half of theworld’s population now lives in urban areas, butthey are blamed for producing as much as 80%of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions. Fur-thermore, increasing urbanisation can negative-ly impact everything from the availability ofarable land and vital green spaces to potablewater and sanitary waste disposal facilities. Liv-ing in such close proximity tends to intensifythedemands that urban settlements impose ontheir surrounding environments.

It is clear, then, that cities must be part of thesolution if an urbanising world is to grapple suc-cessfully with ecological challenges such as cli-mate change. In concentrated urban areas, it ispossible for environmental economies of scaleto reduce the impact of human beings on theearth. This has already started to happen inEurope. According to the UN Population Divi-sion, 72% of the continent’s population is urbanbut the European Environment Agency (EEA)says that its cities and towns account for just69% of energy use. This is achieved in a range of

1) Based on the most recently available data, the majority of which was for 2006-07.

European Green City Index | Executive summary

8 9

es of each city, but also highlight emerging bestpractice and innovative ideas that others mightwish to emulate.

The index also differs from other studies inthe fact that it is independently researched,rather than being reliant on voluntary submis-sions from city governments. This has enabledus to cover 30 main cities — either political orbusiness capitals — from 30 European countries.

The goal of the index is to allow key stake-holder groups — such as city administrators,policymakers, infrastructure providers, environ-mental non-governmental organisations (NGOs),urban sustainability experts, and citizens — tocompare their city’s performance against othersoverall, and within each category. The index alsoallows for comparisons across cities clustered bya certain criteria, such as geographic region orincome group. In short, this tool is provided inthe hope that it will help European cities movetowards being a bigger part of the solution to cli-mate change and other environmental chal-lenges.

Highlights of the 2009 European GreenCity Index include the following:

� Nordic cities dominate the index top tier.Copenhagen leads the index overall, comingmarginally ahead of Stockholm, while third-place Oslo rounds out a trio of Scandinaviancities on the medal podium. Fellow Nordic capi-tal Helsinki follows in seventh place. Vienna,Amsterdam and Zurich occupy fourth, fifth andsixth places, respectively.

� There is a strong correlation between wealthand a high overall ranking on the index. Nine ofthe top 10 cities in the index have a GDP perhead (measured at purchasing power parity,PPP) of more than €31,000. In many ways, this is

unsurprising: wealthier cities can invest moreheavily in energy-efficient infrastructure andafford specialist environmental managers, forexample. Wealth isn’t everything, however: someindividual cities punch above their weight withinindividual sub-categories: low-income Vilnius, forexample, leads the air quality category; whileBerlin, with a relatively low GDP per head, topsthe buildings category and is ranked eighth overall.

� Among east European cities (which also rep-resent the low-income cities of the index, withGDP per head below €21,000), Vilnius performsbest of all, ranked in 13th place. It is followedmost closely by Riga, in 15th place. The rest ofthe east European cities rank at the bottom ofthe index. The wealth divide aside, these cities

also face the legacy of history, dealing withdecades of environmental neglect during thecommunist period. This is most visible in thepoorly insulated concrete-slab mass housing thatwas widely used, as well as the remains of highlypolluting heavy industry. Although many haveinnovative ideas regarding specific environmen-tal initiatives, such as a “lottery” in Ljubljana thatpromotes the sorting of waste for recycling,these cities must also balance with other press-ing issues, ranging from unemployment andeconomic growth to informal settlements.

� The index shows little overall correlationbetween city size and performance. However,the leading cities in both the East and the Westdo tend to be smaller, with populations of less than1 million. To some degree, this makes sense: physi -cally smaller cities make it easier for people tocycle or walk to work, for example. However,wealth, and more importantly experience, canovercome the difficulties of size as policies thattake advantage of environmental economies of

scale, such as district heating or large public trans-port networks, come into their own. According-ly, the index’s larger cities, with populations of 3million or more, perform relatively well, general-ly occupying the top half of the rankings. Berlindoes best overall (8th), followed closely by Paris(10th), London (11th) and Madrid (12th). Thisisn’t universal, though: Athens (22nd) and Istan-bul (25th) both perform relatively poorly.

� Cities with an active civil society perform wellin the index. Although it was beyond the scopeof this study to measure specific citizen engage-ment in environmental issues, a strong correla-tion exists between high-performing cities inthis index and other independent studies thatexplore the strength of civil society in Europeancountries. The rank of a country in the voluntaryparticipation of citizens in organisations—fromreligious groups to professional and charitablebodies — was a strong predictor of the perfor-mance of that country’s main city in the Euro-pean Green City Index. Of the applicable cities,

Copenhagen, Stockholm and Amsterdam fea-tured in the top places in both lists, whereasBucharest and Sofia fared poorly in both.

The complete results from the index, includ-ing both overall rankings and individual rank-ings within the eight sub-categories, followsnext. For insights into what some of the leadingcities have done to top the rankings within indi-vidual categories, specific case studies are avail-able from page 22. Finally, detailed insights intothe individual performances of all 30 citiesincluded in the European Green City Index areavailable within the city portraits section of thisreport, starting on page 40. These explore boththe current status within each city on all eightcategories, while also highlighting past, currentand planned future initiatives to improve theirrelative performance. The wealth and diversityof initiatives detailed here provide encouraginginsights into the current directions that Europe’smain cities are taking and their varying pathstowards a more sustainable future.

Key findings

More detailed city portraits can be found at www.siemens.com/greencityindex

12 13

European Green City Index | Analysis of city trends

Analysis of city trends

The European Green City Index makes aneffort to quantify and compare environmen-

tal performance. Analysing the results moredeeply reveals relationships and factors whichhelp to explain why some cities are more suc-cessful in a range of environmental areas thanothers. In particular, the data strongly suggestthe following key correlations:

Wealth matters: � The European Green CityIndex shows a close correlation between wealthand overall performance.� This link is not only evident in infrastructure,but also in policy: richer cities appear moreambitious with their goals.

One of the closest correlations in the datacollected for the index is that between the GDPper head of cities and their overall score — anaggregate figure between 0 and 100 reflectingperformance across all the environmental indi-cators measured. Although greater pollution isoften associated with economic development,at least in early stages, the reverse holds true in

urban Europe where most economic growth isoriented towards services-led industries. Here,an increase in average output per person of€1,000 seems to yield a gain of two-thirds of apoint in a city’s overall index score — a relation-ship that on its own explains up to two-thirds ofthe variance between cities.

At an infrastructure level, the link is obvious.High-quality green infrastructure typicallyinvolves up-front costs that wealthier govern-ments can better afford. Conversely, poorercities must simultaneously grapple with a widerrange of development issues, from unemploy-ment levels to growing informal settlements,which can easily distract from a green agenda.

But a further finding is that the link betweenGDP and the policy indicators within the index(which track environmental action plans andpublic participation in green policy, amongother things) is statistically even stronger. Inother words, wealthier cities are not only able toafford more sustainable infrastructure, they arealso setting more ambitious policy goals than

their less wealthy peers. To give but one exam-ple, two of the three cities that lack even a basicenvironmental plan are also two of the threepoorest.

“Money is extremely important,” says PedroBallesteros Torres, principal administrator at theEuropean Commission’s Directorate-General forEnergy and Transport and in charge of theCovenant of Mayors. “Normally, the mostadvanced cities in environmental terms inEurope are also the richest. When you have agood infrastructure, it is easier to implementthings.”

It need not be this way. As the city portraitslater in this report show, Berlin, with only a mid-level GDP per capita, has a score that benefitsfrom advanced policy in various areas, and War-saw, while in the bottom half of the wealthtable, is ranked in joint-fifth place in the environ-mental governance category. Moreover, whilecosts may constrain certain policy options, theydo not do so in general. “Money is in some waysvery difficult,” admits Outi Väkevä, part of

Helsinki’s Air Protection Group, “but it is possibleto do quite a lot without having to pay more.”She notes that energy efficiency, for example,can save money and cut emissions. Similarly,Guttorm Grundt, Environment Coordinator inOslo’s Department of Transport, Environmentand Business, agrees that Oslo’s relative wealthhelps, but notes that measures such as eco-certi-fication are not expensive, and that the city’sown efforts to lead by example in increasing theefficiency of buildings and vehicles “is saving usmoney, together with reducing consumptionand waste.” Mr Grundt adds that the link may beindirect. A relatively wealthy place like Oslo doesnot have certain policy concerns – there are noslums for example – which poorer cities need toaddress, drawing on time and resources whichricher peers might use elsewhere.

The tie between money and environmentalperformance, however, looks set to growstronger as a result of the current economicdownturn. Ms Väkevä notes that even relativelywell-off Helsinki has little money to devote to

The link between wealth and environmental performance

10,00020

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 European Green City Index Score

20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000

Vilnius

Berlin

Madrid

Riga

Prague

Ljubljana Athens

WarsawLisbon

BratislavaBudapest

IstanbulZagrebBelgrade

BucharestSofiaKiev

ViennaStockholm

ZurichAmsterdam

Paris

Dublin

London

Helsinki

CopenhagenOslo

GDP per person

(Euros)

actualfitted

Tallinn

Rome

Brussels

14 15

in the index’s building category — has hadtremendous success in retrofitting housingstock, including nearly halving the energy use of273,000 concrete-slab buildings in the easternpart of the city. Looking forward, Oslo’s effortsto provide charging points for electric cars andVienna’s to promote vehicles that run on naturalgas are both creative ways to use existing infra-structure — in this case roads — in a more envi-ronmentally friendly way.

More difficult to change than the physicalenvironment are the attitudes and aspirations ofindividual citizens. With so much of a city’s envi-ronmental performance reliant on how its resi-dents act individually, in groups and as a whole,winning hearts and minds is crucial (see nextsection). Accordingly, one area of concern ishow the legacy of suppressed demand in thecountries of eastern Europe, after decades ofbeing economically less well off than their west-ern neighbours, may play out. As these commu-nities get wealthier, some citizens may use new-found wealth to make choices that impact nega-

tively on the environment choices. For example,many eastern urban areas — including the topfive performers in this metric — score highly inthe index on the number of people taking publictransport to work while Copenhagen, Stock-holm and Oslo are amongst the lowest scorers.

This superior eastern performance, however,seems less a result of enlightened environmen-tal choice than a lack of alternatives, and thereare signs that the balance may be shifting.Bratislava is a case in point. The city has thehighest share of people taking public transportto work but has also seen a surge in newly regis-tered cars in the last decade. Tallinn, Zagreb,Ljubljana, and Prague all have similar news, andthe Mayor of Vilnius cites this increased carusage as his city's leading environmental chal-lenge.

People matter: � The individual decisions ofcities’ inhabitants are, collectively, more power-ful than their governments’ ability to intervene.� Accordingly, there is a correlation between

citizen engagement and environmental perfor-mance.

Good environmental results generally do nothappen by chance. European governments, forexample, have had to regulate private carbonuse through carbon trading because existingeconomic markets did not price the negativeexternalities of carbon emission. Even with suchefforts, green choices sometimes still have ahigher price tag than other options, especially inthe short term. Moreover, city administrations,on their own, have relatively limited power. Thesum of the individual decisions of their residents— from actions such as choosing to insulatetheir homes, to opting to commute to work viapublic transport — have a deeper impact on theenvironment than an army of policies. Accord-ing to a 2008 report produced by Siemens inconjunction with McKinsey & Company and theEconomist Intelligence Unit2, about three-quar-ters of the existing technological changes thatwould help London to meet its long-term carbonreduction targets depended on the decisions of

the expansion of current environmental efforts.The city portraits for this report note specificallythat cities as far apart as Dublin, Budapest andBelgrade are likely to scale back because of cur-rent economic troubles, and others will doubt-less be doing so as well. It remains to be seenhow cities will balance maximising the benefitsof enhanced environmental performance whileminimising the financial costs in the near term.

History matters: infrastructure and attitudes:� Cities in eastern Europe have a tougher chal-lenge to overcome, in terms of their relativelyaged and inefficient infrastructure.� Historical attitudes and aspirations are alsodifficult to overcome. For example, the adop-tion of consumer culture in the East has led,understandably, to greater demand for vehicles.

Twenty years ago, the Berlin wall fell andEurope moved toward binding the woundsinflicted from a turbulent century. While therehas been much progress on the political andeconomic levels, there remains a marked envi-

ronmental effect from the former dividebetween East and West. Thirteen of the top 15index performers are in western Europe; 11 ofthe bottom 15 were part of the old eastern bloc.

Aside from the wealth divide, this also has todo with legacy. As the city portraits show, various eastern cities are still dealing with thefallout from decades of environmental neglectduring the communist period: for example, eventhough polluting industries have mostly disap-peared in the face of market competition, poorlyinsulated, concrete-slab, mass housing remains.In Belgrade’s case, its relatively recent interna-tional isolation — it was embargoed for yearsand eventually bombed in 1999 — only adds tothe difficulty. Similarly, certain bureaucratichabits can also outlive the transition to democ-racy. “People (in the east) are ready to learn andchange things quickly, but the inertia is quiteheavy,” argues Mr Ballesteros Torres.

On the other hand, if three Nordic cities arejostling each other for the overall leading posi-tion in the index, it is because they have a legacy

that is the mirror image of the east. As the cityportraits note, Copenhagen has been takingenvironmental issues and sustainable energyseriously since the oil shock of the 1970s; Stock-holm also has a long tradition, and is now on itssixth consecutive environmental plan.

As with wealth, history has a variety ofimpacts, some less obvious than others. Infra-structure — whether building stock, transportfacilities, or water pipes — develops over thelong term, and is hard to change quickly.Longevity of systems does not seem to matter somuch as upkeep.

For example, Vienna’s and Ljubljana’s watersystems both date back to the late 1800s, butthe former city comes in second in the water cat-egory, and the latter 27th. Whatever the diffi-culties — practical and financial — of upgradingphysical assets, however, infrastructure age iscertainly not decisive. Co pen hagen’s buildings,for example, are among the most energy-effi-cient anywhere, even though only 7% were builtin the last 20 years, and Berlin — the joint leader


2) Sustainable Urban Infrastructure: London Edition – a view to 2025, Siemens AG, 2008.

16 17

citizens or companies, not of governments. As aresult, the engagement of individuals with soci-eties around them — or the strength of civil soci-ety in a city — has a strong link to environmentalperformance.

This link is underscored by comparing theresults of the European Green City Index with anindependent report from the European Founda-tion for the Improvement of Living and WorkingConditions (EFILWC)3. The Foundation’s 2006study looked specifically at participation in civilsociety, based on a wide-ranging survey of Euro-pean citizens. As part of this study, the Founda-tion created two indices. One was of voluntaryparticipation in organisations (based on theaverage number of voluntary organisations,such as religious groups, trade unions andsports, professional or charitable bodies that cit-izens belonged to), which is a useful proxy forthe strength of civil society.

The second was of political participation(based on the proportion of citizens engaging inpolitical activities, such as voting, attending

meetings or contacting officials). Twenty-threeof the countries in these indices contain citiesthat are included in the European Green CityIndex. A comparison between these indicesyields two interesting findings. The first is a rela-tively low correlation between the level of politi-cal participation and a city’s environmental per-formance. The second is a high correlationbetween voluntary participation and a city’senvironmental performance. In other words,while political engagement is not closely linkedto environmental strength, an active civil societyis extremely important. City leaders hoping toimprove their city’s overall performance woulddo well to explore ways of engaging more close-ly with their citizens.

Size matters — at first: � Although there islittle correlation between city size and perfor-mance in the index overall, the leading cities dotend to be smaller in both the East and the West� Among east European cities, however, thereis a correlation between larger populations and

poorer performance. Each additional 120,000inhabitants correlates, approximately, with ascore that is one point lower

Greater city size could be either a drawbackor an advantage in this index. All things beingequal, a given environment should be able tohandle the emissions and activities of a millionpeople more easily than those of ten million —the wind could blow the resultant air pollutantsaway more quickly and waste would build upmore slowly. On the other hand, larger cities canbenefit from economies of scale, having greatercollective resources to pursue policies or creategreener infrastructure.

At first glance, there seems to be little linkbetween the size and population of cities andtheir index performance, with smaller ones scat-tered between Copenhagen at number one(with a population of about half a million) andZagreb at twenty-six (with a population of aboutthree-quarters of a million). Individual metricsalso demonstrate few links with size, except thatthose cities with lower populations may be

slightly more likely to have people walk or cycleto work — the average distance obviously beingless in a physically smaller place. Even here,however, the correlation is weak.

Looking at eastern and western cities sepa-rately, however, it becomes clearer that smallurban areas have some advantage. The highestscores in the survey overall, belong to smallerwestern cities (Copenhagen, Stockholm andOslo), and the top performers in the old east, Vil-nius and Riga, are also on the small side for thatgrouping. All of these cities have populations ofless than one million people. For east Europeancities, there is an identifiable correlation bet weenhigher population and poorer index perfor-mance. Onehundred and twen ty thousand morepeople leads to, roughly, one less point. In par-ticular, an increase in population has a notice-able negative effect on scores for measures ofair pollutants and carbon dioxide intensity.Nature’s greater ability to cope with the environ-mental demands of small cities than of largeones remains relevant in these urban areas.

3) First European Quality of Life Survey: Participation in civil society, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin, 2006.


Comparison of rankings: EFILWC Voluntary Participation Index and European Green City Index

Best Rank (European Green City Index)

Best Rank(Index of Voluntary

Participation)

actualfitted

SofiaBucharest

Budapest

Vilnius

Warsaw

Lisbon

Athens

Riga

Madrid

Rome

PragueTallinn

Ljubljana

ParisLondon

Dublin

BerlinBrussels

Helsinki

Vienna

Copenhagen

Amsterdam

Stockholm

In western cities the effect, if still present, isresidual. The statistical significance of the link isvery low, and it takes nearly a million extra peo-ple before a city’s score goes down a point. Theexplanation for the strong correlation in eastEuropean cities is likely — again — to be histori-cal. Eastern cities have less experience with envi-ronmental policy.

The disadvantages of greater size, while pre-sent initially, may be possible to overcome aslarger cities gain more experience in environ-mental management. “Some smaller cities aredoing very well because at one moment oranother there were leaders who decided policyand there was a consensus among the popula-tion in order to make things exemplary,” says MrBallesteros Torres. “In absolute and statisticalterms, large cities have more resources, andsome are doing particularly well.”

Europe matters: public funding and cul-ture: � Accession to the EU has had a huge posi -tive impact in energising environmental policy.

ing a huge portion of the continent. Broad Euro-pean goals, such as the EU’s 20-20-20 goal ofcutting carbon emissions, increasing renew-ables and cutting energy consumption are alsodriving change. The requirements of accessionhave led to the adoption of much moreadvanced environmental legislation and policyin all of the newest eastern members of theUnion in recent years, as they did for south Euro-pean entrants before them. It is having a similareffect on candidate countries and it may be noaccident that the one eastern city whose coun-try is not yet an EU accession candidate scoresworst in the survey.

In addition to the force of law, voluntary insti-tutions have been developing that seek to har-ness and increase a growing sense that environ-mental stewardship is part of what is expectedfrom a modern European city. The EuropeanSustainable Cities and Towns campaign, forexample, dates back to 1994, and its 2004 Aal-borg Commitments on a series of sustainabilityissues have been signed by over 600 European

urban governments large and small. The EU isnow tapping into the same sentiment. In early2008 it launched the Covenant of Mayors, whichfocuses specifically on matters of climatechange and sustainable energy. The covenanttoo has over 600 signatories and, as several ofthe city portraits later in this report show, thevery fact of membership is committing a num-ber of cities to put forward sustainable energyplans for the first time.

Ultimately, although money spent on physi-cal infrastructure is important, it is this increas-ingly pervasive notion that responsible andeffective environmental governance ought to bethe norm for all European countries that couldprovide the long-term political foundationwhich green efforts need for success.

Location matters: � Environmental sustain-ability depends as much on the resources avail-able as how they are used.

A problem of any comparative environmen-tal index is that the natural resources available,

� EU funding is a crucial factor in enabling low-income cities to improve their environmentalperformance.

This study highlights ways in which Europe— both through its institutions and more amor-phously as a community — is having an impor-tant impact on urban environmental performance.The first, very practical contribution of Europeaninstitutions is cash. As noted above, there is animportant link between money, at the very leastfor investment, and environmental success. Asthe city portraits show, inter alia, the EU is pro-viding funding for water plants in Budapest andVilnius, as well as for Prague’s ring road; theEuropean Investment Bank (EIB) is helping withTallinn’s water supply and sewage systems; andthe European Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment is providing finance for the reha-bilitation of Zagreb’s largest landfill site. As thedownturn hits city budgets more deeply, suchassis tance will be more important.

The expansion of the EU is also having animpact, with EU environmental law now cover-

18 19


The link between population and environmentalperformance in east European cities

0.5

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Vilnius

Riga

Bratislava

Tallinn

Zagreb

Prague

BelgradeBucharest

Kiev

Sofia

Warsaw

Budapest

Ljubljana

20 Population (in millions)

actualfitted

European Green City Index Score

and the robustness of the local ecology, can dif-fer markedly from place to place. Sustainabilityinvolves, to quote the Brundtland Report4, astudy from the UN’s World Commission on Envi-ronment and Development on sustainabledevelopment, meeting “the needs of the presentwithout compromising the ability of future gen-erations to meet their own needs.” Behaviourthat might exhaust resources rapidly in one place,then, may be perfectly sustainable in another,making comparative scores harder to interpret.

Two examples from high performers in theindex illustrate the point. Stockholm, with thesecond-highest overall score, is ranked a surpris-ing 16th place when it comes to water. Theproblem is not sewage, which it treats and evenuses as a source of energy, nor leakages, whichare below average. Instead, residents simply usea lot of water, and the city makes little effort todiscourage them. While this behaviour might beproblematic in hot, dry cities, such as Madrid, oreven in London, which receives less rainfall perhead than Addis Ababa, it poses less of a con-

cern in Stockholm where fresh water is plentifuland therefore even the high levels of current useare sustainable.

In the related fields of carbon emissions andenergy use, location might seem less importantbecause released CO2 contributes to the globalproblem of climate change. However, someissues remain. Oslo, for example, is ranked joint24th in the index for the amount of energy used— one of several sub-indicators that go intoscoring the energy category, where the citycomes first overall. On the other hand, the over-whelming majority of this power, including allthe electricity and much of the district heating,comes from renewable sources, in particularhydroelectricity and waste. The city does havean energy efficiency fund, which seeks toreduce power usage, but the question does ariseof just how important it is to cut consumption ofentirely green energy rather than focussing onother areas. Mr Grundt agrees: “As long as Nor-way cannot export much of its abundant hydro-electricity, and we have enough, it is not a press-

ing problem. But when we get better integratedinto the European grid, it becomes important.”

Looking ahead: implementing sustainablecities: Cities have an array of options or levers attheir disposal when it comes to the task ofimproving their overall environmental perfor-mance. First, policy and good environmentalgover nance clearly play an important role. Thesehelp ensure that new buildings and infrastruc-ture are developed (or retrofitted) with certainminimum efficiency standards in mind, forexample. They also encourage (either throughincentives, or through penalties) citizens to changetheir behaviour, such as the establishment of acongestion charge to reduce traffic or a sub-sidised bicycle scheme to promote affordablealternative means of commuting. At a differentlevel, by ensuring that green spaces and otherareas are off limits to further development, cityleaders can ensure that the natural environmentremains preserved within the city’s boundaries.

Second, technology can help cities to reduce

their environmental impact. This encompassesareas where a city administration can lead theway, as well as measures which the residents ofa city will have to implement themselves. Theaforementioned Sustainable Urban Infrastruc-ture: London Edition study highlighted that sim-ply by improving building insulation, using ener-gy-efficient lighting and appliances, and instal lingmore advanced environmental controls in struc-tures, London could move over one-quarter ofthe way towards its overall aspiration of reduc-ing carbon emissions by 60% by 2025. Over a20-year lifecycle, the upfront investments requiredfor these technologies would more than payback in the form of reduced energy bills.

More advanced capabilities can go even fur-ther: Amsterdam’s state of the art waste-to-energy plant achieves high levels of energy effi-ciency that allow it to power more thanthree-quarters of the city’s households. It caneven profitably extract gold and other metalsfrom the resultant ash, while sending just 1% ofthe original waste to landfill.

Of course, not all technologies are cost-effec-tive. The study referenced above showed that inthe context of London hybrid cars and photo-voltaic panels on houses are expensive relativeto the impact they make on carbon reductions,for example. Also, the economics of some tech-nologies are often dependent on the policies thataccompany them, such as the subsidies requiredto support the generation of solar energy inmany countries.

Third, as shown above, engaging and moti-vating communities within cities is also criticalto delivering increased sustainability. Educationand public awareness are important here, givingpeople the necessary information to help themmake greener choices. This can come in manyforms and go well beyond the basics of publish-ing advice. For example, a number of cities inthe index have rolled out water meters andsmart electricity meters, thus giving consumersa means of quantifying their own consumptionand choosing to be more careful about howmuch they use.

This engagement isn’t necessarily a one-wayprocess: citizens often lead the way, encourag-ing city leaders and others to embrace change.In Oslo, for example, early adopters of electriccars banded together and lobbied the city government to waive tolls and parking fees and allow access to the city’s dedicated publictransport lanes. Whatever form it takes, thisengagement is critical. Ritt Bjerregaard, LordMayor of Copenhagen, the top ranked city in the index, points out that for the city to reach its climate change goals, citizens themselveshave to change their habits. “Campaigns to motivate lifestyle change are an important tool. We are also working hard to involve the citizens in developing solutions to the prob-lems.”

The next section of this report, Lessons fromthe leaders, highlights the work that Copen-hagen and other leading cities in the index aredoing across a range of key categories toimprove their relative environmental perfor-mance.

20 21


4) Brundtland Commission, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, 1987.

European Green City Index | Lessons from the leaders

22 23

CO2 emissions

It would be easy to be complacent aboutgreenhouse gas emissions in Oslo. The city’s

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per head, at 2.2tonnes, are less than one-half of the 30-cityaverage of about 5 tonnes — itself lower thanthe overall EU27 average of 8.46 tonnes. Thecity benefits from its local natural resources:high levels of rainfall, along with a mountainouscountryside, provide significant opportunity forclean hydroelectric power. This is a boon inOslo’s efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. As aresult, Oslo’s emissions per unit of GDP, at 20.2tonnes per million euros, are paltry comparedwith the average across the study of around 356tonnes or the broader European figure of morethan 339 tonnes. Simply put, if Europe as awhole were to perform as well as Oslo, it wouldsurpass its overall carbon reduction targets.

Nevertheless, Oslo is at the top of the CO2

emissions category because it has not been sat-isfied with its natural advantages, but hasinstead drawn on leadership initiatives and arange of sticks and carrots to increase its suc-

cess. To begin with, Oslo has set itself one of themost ambitious carbon reduction targets in theindex: aiming to reduce emissions by 50% from1990 levels by 2030, or a further 37.5% fromtoday. Guttorm Grundt, the environmentalaffairs co-ordinator in Oslo’s Department ofTransport, Environment and Business, remarksthat such long-term goals are very helpful inkeeping progress on track.

The city administration has also tried to putits own house in order. “To be credible we haveto act as a good example: 60 % of the city’s owncar fleet, for example, has no or very low (green-house gas) emissions,” says Mr Grundt. The cityis even planning to use of biofuels derived fromhuman waste in its buses in 2012.

To spur residents to reduce their CO2 emis-sions, Oslo provides both penalties and incen-tives. It has promoted district heating, use ofwhich expanded by 36% between 2000 and2006, and which relies largely on biofuels andthe city’s carbon-free electricity. Progress wasinitially the result of regulatory fiat: Oslo gave a

Ideas from other cities

Berlin’s renewable energy focus is on solar

power. Among the city’s many initiatives is

Europe’s largest photovoltaic system on a res-

idential building, which produces 25,000

kwh annually.

Helsinki now has the world’s largest heat

pump, under centrally located Katri Vala Park.

It uses heat from wastewater and seawater to

provide district heating and cooling.

In January 2008, Madrid approved a €14

million Ecobarrio project to revitalise several

run-down neighbourhoods. These will in-

clude a thermoelectric plant using biogas

from urban waste treatment and buildings

that capture solar power.

In Paris, Aéroports de Paris has launched an

intra-company car-sharing network. If just 5%

of airport employees use the network regu-

larly, it will save around 4,000 tonnes of CO2

emissions.

Copenhagen has set an ambitious goal of

becoming carbon neutral by 2025, building

on its existing climate plan which targets 50

specific initiatives in energy production,

transport, buildings and consumption.

monopoly to a district heating company, whichit largely owned, to provide all heat to any newor thoroughly renovated buildings by refusingpermits to any construction plan that had othersources of supply. At the same time, it requiredmunicipal buildings to convert to district heatingand exerted strong moral pressure on other pub-lic institutions such as hospitals and universities.Mr Grundt says that others are now seeking theservice for commercial reasons. “More and moreprivate owners and developers are joining,” henotes. “The prices are not much cheaper, but dis-trict heating involves a lot less maintenance.”

The city has also taken an active role in reduc-ing transport-related CO2 emissions. Here, thestick — in the form of Oslo’s congestion charge— has had some effect, cutting existing trafficby between 4% and 7% since its introduction.Moreover, the charge has stopped private vehi-cle travel from increasing in line with the city’sfast growing population.

For those residents who wish to continue dri-ving, despite Oslo’s good public transport,

another emission-reduction strategy is theswitching of fuels. The city is encouraging theuse of electric and hybrid cars through variousinducements, including the waiving of city tollsand parking charges, as well as the establish-ment of electric charging points. “It started withthe enthusiasts,” notes Mr Grundt. “They formedan association and put pressure on the politi-cians to change the rules.” One key step wasallowing commuters with electric or hybrid vehi-cles to drive in the city's dedicated public trans-port lanes. As a result, the Oslo region now hasabout 1,700 electric-only vehicles, excludinghybrid cars.

Other strategies have also made judicioususe of taxes and inducements. The city’s €100million Climate and Energy Fund, for example,was funded by a tax on local electricity. Amongother things, it now provides a 50% grant for theconversion of oil heaters to ones powered bybiofuels. With similar national grants in place,Mr Grundt argues that there is “no excuse leftnot to change.”


24 25

Buildings

When it comes to buildings, no city can startfrom scratch: each has to work with the

legacy of generations. An unattributed quote,meant for humorous effect, captures the prob-lem neatly: “Our problem is that the buildingsfrom 100 years ago were built to last 100 years;the buildings of 50 years ago were built to last50 years; and the buildings of 20 years ago werebuilt to last 20 years.”

private companies improving the energy effi-ciency of public buildings with both the contrac-tors and the city benefiting from the cost sav-ings. So far, the scheme has led to €60 million inprivate investment, saved the city €2.4 million incosts, and brought carbon emissions down by600,000 tonnes.

An even bigger effect has come from thecity’s efforts to improve what local experts callthe once “ramshackle” flats built of prefabricatedconcrete under the previous East Germanregime. Of the 273,000 apartments, the city hasfully refurbished about two-thirds of them, andpartially upgraded the other 35%, at an averagecost of €20,000.

Not all of this goes to better energy efficien-cy. It is a broad-ranging programme to increasethe attractiveness of these properties: about 5%of spending, for example, goes on the surround-ings. Energy efficiency is, however, an impor-tant consideration.

According to Peter Woll schläger of the BerlinSenate Department of Urban Development, the


From April 2010, London will start a trial

scheme for retrofitting homes to save energy,

providing some energy-efficiency equipment

for free, such as low-energy light bulbs and

standby switches, while charging for more

advanced measures.

Residents of Prague can benefit from a na-

tional Czech programme for retrofitting

buildings with a €1 billion budget, which is fi-

nanced from a sale of CO2 emission permits

to Japan.

In 2001, Vienna began permitting the con-

struction of multi-storey buildings made pri-

marily of timber. This has helped to bring

about the development of a new kind of en-

vironmentally friendly passive housing.

city has found that the optimal, cost-effectivemeasures for saving heat energy are insulationof the outer walls and top floor ceiling; new air-tight windows; and renovation of the building’sheating system. These three measures reduceannual carbon emissions by between 1 and 1.4tonnes per flat.

However, Mr Wollschläger points out thateven over the long term the energy savings donot pay the entire cost of the refurbishment ofthese flats. The benefits extend beyond energysavings, however, such as lower maintenancecosts for these flats given that the improve-ments reduce mould and mildew, as well askeeping temperatures more even. Quite simply,they are nicer places to live.

The lessons which the city has learned couldhave a substantial impact worldwide. Acrosscentral and eastern Europe, the city estimatesthat there are nearly 50 million flats of similarconstruction, and in China there are about 200million.

Between 2005 and 2007, through the Baltic

Energy Efficiency Network for Building Stock(BEEN), Berlin shared its knowledge with citiesin Poland and the Baltic states and worked withthem on understanding how best to financesuch renovation. Now the EU is funding the UrbEnergy project to take things further, looking notjust at individual buildings but at urban infra-structure and holistic rehabilitation of wholeresidential areas.

By contrast, Stockholm, the other joint leaderin the buildings category, has been at the fore-front of energy-efficient building standards forsome time. The city benefits from its extensiveuse of heat pumps, which make more efficientuse of electricity for heating. Insulation stan-dards are also high. All this pays off: Sweden hasyears of experience building homes with a totalannual energy consumption of well below2,000 kwh, despite its cold climate. By contrast,new houses built in the UK that comply with thecountry’s latest energy-related building stan-dards will consume an average of about 3,600kwh.

This highlights one of the key difficulties inreducing the environmental impact of buildings.Take Berlin, the category co-leader: since 1990,the reunified city has had to find ways to shiftthe carbon requirements of a host of buildingtypes towards a more sustainable level. Oneobvious place to start is not with the buildingsthemselves, but with the kind of energy power-ing them.

The city’s heating modernisation pro-gramme, for example, encouraged a substantialshift in fuel source through grants, advice andtighter regulation on new buildings. In 1990,over 400,000 apartments still had coal furnaces;by 2005, the number had dropped to just60,000. Most of the shift was towards cleaner,although still carbon releasing, natural gas.

While improving the energy mix, Berlin hasalso attempted to address the deficiencies ofsome of its buildings. It has not been so much acase of making do with existing infrastructure,but rather improving to make it greener. An“Energy Saving Partnership”, for example, has


26 27

Transport

City transport is one of the key areas wherecities have a direct ability to influence the

choices that residents make in how they com-mute. This is most obviously done through themake-up and extensiveness of public transport,but consumers can also be directly encouragedto do more walking and cycling (the greenestpossible options) through the provision of dedi-cated cycle paths, pedestrianised areas and bicy-cle subsidies. In Stockholm, the index’s leader inenvironmentally friendly transport, three impor-tant building blocks come together: the ability ofresidents to easily access public or private alter-natives that are green, safe and convenient;government policy that encourages use of suchalternatives; and the application of green tech-nology solutions to vehicles and infrastructure.

Opportunity: To begin with, in the promotionof walking and cycling, Stockholm excels. Forevery square kilometre, it has over four kilome-tres of cycle lanes, a figure second only toHelsinki. This, combined with Stockholm’s small

gestion tax on vehicles driving in the central partof the city in August 2007, with the support ofresidents there but over the objections of thoseliving in outer areas. It has certainly had aneffect on car use, reducing the number of carsentering or leaving the zone by about 20%.According to Mr Wallin, the tax also raised thenumber of daily travellers on SL by approximate-ly 5%. Income from the tax is used to reducecongestion and improve the environment in thecity. Equally important, the city does not just for-bid driving, there is universal political support forproviding a green public alternative so that peo-ple have a genuine choice. “Almost regardless ofpolitical colour,” Mr Wallin says, “politicians arequite keen to put their mark on sustainable devel-opment. We are continuously pushed by politi-cal pressure to come up with new solutions.”

Amsterdam, which came second in the trans-port category, also has a mix of restrictions andencouragements. There, geography and policycombine to make cycling one of the leadingways to get around. In addition to creating spe-


Budapest held a “Clever Commuting Race”

where local VIPs demonstrated the efficiency

of travelling via public transport, by “racing”

from a suburban district to the city centre.

Brussels supports “Voiture avec Passagers”, a

formalised hitch-hiking scheme.

Dublin’s “Bike to Work” scheme allows em-

ployers to divert up to €1,000 in wages on

behalf of employees for the purchase of a bi-

cycle. This money is subsequently not taxed,

leading to up to a 47% savings on the price of

a bicycle for the employee.

Tallinn is fitting buses with electronic equip-

ment to alert traffic lights to their approach

and give them speedier passage through in-

tersections.

cial cycling zones where cars are banned, the cityalso tries to make cycling easier. This includeseverything from giving cyclists information ontraffic flows to free, secure parking to preventbicycle theft — a serious problem in the city.

Technology: Other cities are using congestioncharges, and Mr Wallin notes that many of Stock-holm’s strategies to make travel easier, whileimportant, “are probably not very original.”What sets the city apart is its experimentationwith new technology. One of SL’s environmentalprinciples is to “actively participate in, initiateand push on the development of an eco-adaptedtransport system.” It is no accident that SL hasone of the largest fleets of ethanol buses in theworld: it has been using the technology since1989. Mr Wallin explains: “I have a picture on myoffice wall which shows ten different bus typeswe have tested — battery buses, flywheel buses,fuel cell buses, old versions of ethanol buses. SLhas been almost an engineer’s playground.” Itscurrent targets include having one-half of its

buses running on renewable fuel by 2011, andall of them by 2025. Meanwhile, the city’s TrafikStockholm system constantly gathers data froma wide range of sources about the state of traf-fic. It then not only provides the analysed infor-mation to drivers to help them choose theirroutes, it also adjusts traffic lights or uses vari-able road signs to reduce congestion. Advancedtechnology can be expensive. Mr Wallin notes thatpioneering is particularly costly. “You have topay the prices for problems you could not fore-see when you start up.” Over time, the relativecost premium of green technology has beencoming down and will continue to do so as itmatures, he adds, but in Stockholm’s case it hasstill not completely disappeared. Even with 20years' experience, for example, it remains moreexpensive to run ethanol than standard dieselbuses. Being a public company, however, givesSL the opportunity to pursue green solutionsbecause such spending is a political choice, and,says Mr Wallin “so far the political view is that weare ready to pay that premium.”

size, allows an astonishing 68% of people tocycle or walk to work, even though it has the sec-ond-lowest average temperature of any city inthe index. Nor does a relatively small publictransport network unduly restrict use: intelli-gent city planning has created a network whichtakes one-quarter of people to work each day,leaving only about 7% using private vehicles.This is even more marked at peak times: Stock-holm Public Transport (SL), the county council-owned transport company, reports that overthree-quarters of rush hour journeys into Stock-holm’s centre use its services. Looking forward,the €1.7 billion Citybanan project will double railcapacity. At the same time, Stefan Wallin, SL’senvironmental manager, explains that it is try-ing to make travel easier for customers withefforts to provide real-time information on wait-ing times for buses and trains and a commit-ment to make all of SL’s vehicles accessible forthe handicapped by next year.

Policy: Stockholm made permanent a trial con-


28 29

Waste

Amsterdam and Zurich come in first and sec-ond respectively in the waste category of

the index (which also encompasses land use).The reasons for their success in waste manage-ment, however, differ greatly and show how com-munities can take various paths to the same end.

Zurich’s strength in recent decades has beenwaste reduction. As early as 1985, the city decid-ed that it could not continue to incinerate all thegarbage that it was producing. It chose to placethe cost of dealing with waste on producers.

explains: “We always say ‘garbage is gold.’ Wasteis not a problem but a valuable raw material.”This begins with recycling: the city recycles 43%of all its waste, second only to Helsinki, and MsGehrels notes that for household waste theoverall Dutch and Amsterdam figure is 64%. Shesees three reasons for success here. One is thecity’s ongoing efforts to raise public awareness.A second is tradition: given how long it takes toreform people’s habits, Ms Gehrels believes thefact that the Dutch have been separating theirgarbage already for decades is important forachieving consistently high levels of participa-tion. A third is ensuring that sorting and recy-cling is very easy, with collection points on near-ly every street corner.

Other cities have similar, if less successful,recycling efforts. But what really sets Amster-dam apart is its use of non-recyclable waste. Thecity has been incinerating waste for over 90years, and Amsterdam’s Waste and Energy Com-pany (AEB) has become a leader in waste-to-energy technology. Its newly built power plant,


The recently established London Waste and

Recycling Board has created a “dating

agency” to attract companies interested in

using different kinds of waste for either fuel

or recycling.

Ljubljana introduced a lottery in late 2008

to encourage recycling. A household or office

recycling bin is randomly selected to win

money—if it contains the correct type of

waste.

Vienna has created the Vienna Repair Net-

work, a group of over 50 repair shops which

people are encouraged to visit rather than

throwing away broken goods. “Frequent user”

cards give customers a discount on every

fourth item repaired.

with some 30 process innovations developed in-house, has the world’s highest energy efficiencyfor a waste-powered facility, at 30%. The compa-ny produces enough energy to power more thanthree-quarters of Amsterdam’s households, andprovide 300,000 gigajoules of district heat,reducing CO2 production in the city by 470 kilo-tonnes. The resultant ash is richer in mineralsthan most mine ore, and AEB is able to profitablyrecover various metals, including iron and gold,and sell most of the rest as raw material forbuildings. Only 1% of the 1.4 million tonnes ofwaste entering the system goes to landfill. Thecity eventually hopes to go further, and movefrom a waste management approach to sustain-able material and energy cycles. Ms Gehrels saysthat it is important for AEB to be at the cuttingedge of technology to give it a competitiveadvantage. However, she argues that what isreally needed now to allow such development toflourish is a level playing field in Europe, with anopen market and a common European standardfor energy from waste. AEB, she notes, makes a

good, profitable return using its technology andapproach (despite high upfront investmentcosts), yet it is not allowed to compete for pro-cessing waste generated in Germany, for exam-ple, while German companies can take Dutchwaste. Everyone needs to play by the same rulesto have an “honest chance that your investmentwill have the right return.”

Amsterdam and Zurich are not polar oppo-sites: the former is increasing its use of waste-powered district heating, and the latter still seeswaste prevention as the most environmentallyfriendly approach to the issue. Nevertheless, thedifferent emphasis by each may be no accident.Ms Gehrels notes that scale is important in get-ting energy from waste, although she adds thatsmaller municipalities can work with otherswithin the same region. It is likely to be easier forsmaller cities to make an impact by focusing onreduction. Nevertheless, the two examples doshow that treating waste as a problem and as aresource both have their place in urban environ-mental management.

Since the early 1990s residents have had to usespecially purchased “Zueri-sacks” to dispose ofall rubbish or face substantial fines. The sacksare sold in local stores, with costs varying on thesize of the sack, giving a significant incentive tothrow out as little as possible and to use one ofthe many free collection points across the cityfor recyclable materials. Within three years,waste production in the city dropped by 24%.Now Zurich creates only 406 kg of garbage perresident, well below the index average of 511 kgand putting the city in fourth place among thosein the index. At the same time, it recycles 34% ofwaste, the fourth best figure in that category.

Despite various public information cam-paigns, Amsterdam does only modestly well atwaste reduction: its actual levels of waste pro-duction per resident, at 487 kg, is below aver-age, but it still ranks 17th out of the 30 cities inthe index. Instead, the city’s strength is in what itdoes with the garbage. As Carolien Gehrels, anAmsterdam City Council Alderwoman whose areasof responsibility include waste management,


30 31

Water

water lost to seepage, tiny compared with theoverall index average of nearly 23%. Jan van derHoek, executive officer at Waternet, Amster-dam’s water company, explains that this low ratehas been achieved through the use of goodmaterials, and intensive maintenance, as well asthe city’s beneficial geography, which allows forrelatively low pressure in its pipes thanks to thelimited height variation. Berlin, the third-placedcity in the water category, shows the impor-tance of leak management. Its overall leakage isnot far behind Amsterdam’s at 5.2%. This is aresult of significant efforts to address the prob-lems which surfaced in the eastern part of thecity before unification and in the years immedi-ately afterwards. Burst pipes there tripledbetween 1965 and 1995, but since that yearhave dropped by nearly one-half. This helps toexplain how total supply requirements havegone from about 292 million cubic metres in1991 to about 196 million in 2007.

Another strategy in both cities is meteringwater usage. Mr van der Hoek says that over


By 2013, waste water will be used to clean all

of Lisbon’s streets and water all of its green

spaces.

Sofia is carrying out an integrated water im-

provement plan addressing a range of issues,

including purification, leakage and treat-

ment.

Tallinn’s water company is “biomanipulat-

ing” Lake Ulemiste — the city’s water source

— to improve the quality of drinking water.

This long-term project involves increasing na-

tive fish diversity, and re-establishing a

healthier ecological balance in the lake.

Warsaw’s new sewage works will be able to

provide not only biogas for heat, but also fer-

tiliser for sale to farmers.

one-half of households in Amsterdam aremetered, a process that started in 1998. Com-pleting the job will take much longer, as the easylocations have been hooked up and the moredifficult ones, such as rooms within houses,remain. It is worth the effort, however. The priceitself may not make water use prohibitive, butawareness of the extent of consumption in itselfhas a positive effect and nobody wishes to payfor wasted water. Mr van der Hoek explains thatthe very fact of installing a meter leads to anaverage reduction in household water use of 10-15%. He adds that people are happy withmetering: “They see that they pay for what theyuse.”

In fact, Amsterdam’s position illustrates howwater consumption is an area where city govern-ments and companies can do relatively littlebeyond public education and the use of chargesto give an incentive to reduce consumption. Mrvan der Hoek explains that his organisation doesnot have many instruments to affect consumerbehaviour.

Prices are kept low for what is a humannecessity and, he says, making the link to sus-tainable development in the popular mind is dif-ficult as there is no mental tie between waste orover-consumption and the consumer’s carbonfootprint, even though water transport andwastewater treatment do cause a carbonimpact.

Even so, Amsterdam is not resting on its lau-rels. During 2009, it is instituting differentialpricing, based on the time of day, to encouragemore evenly distributed water use. Waternet isalso looking to water’s contribution to broadersustainability issues, reducing the emissionsassociated with pumping water around the cityand processing waste water.

“One of the main challenges is to make thewhole water system climate neutral,” adds Mrvan der Hoek.

To achieve this goal, Waternet is seeking touse renewable sources of energy, while alsogenerating energy from the sludge from sewagetreatment.

Water management has been central toAmsterdam’s existence for centuries. At an

elevation of just two metres and with some sur-rounding countryside below sea level, the areahas been shaped for centuries by its associationwith the sea and, more recently, the Ijsselmeer, alake. As a result, the city’s relationship withwater is deeply ingrained, and is reflected in itsoverall first place ranking in the index. One of its

obvious strengths is its low water consumption.It uses just 53.5 cubic metres per person, thesecond-lowest figure among cities in the indexand half the overall per head average of 105cubic metres.

There is, however, no single easy answer asto why this figure is so low. An obvious start issimply keeping control of leaks. Here the Dutchcity comes first in the survey with only 3.5% of

European Green City Index | Methodology

36 37

Methodology

The European Green City Index measures thecurrent environmental performance of major

European cities, as well as their commitment toreducing their future environmental impact byway of ongoing initiatives and objectives. Themethodology was developed by the EconomistIntelligence Unit in cooperation with Siemens.An independent panel of urban sustainabilityexperts provided important insights and feed-back on the methodology.

The Index scores cities across eight cate-gories — CO2 emissions, energy, buildings,transport, water, waste and land use, air qualityand environmental governance — and 30 indi-vidual indicators. Sixteen of the index’s 30 indi-cators are derived from quantitative data andaim to measure how a city is currently perform-ing — for example, its level of CO2 emissions,the amount of energy it consumes, how muchwaste it produces or levels of air pollution. Theremaining 14 indicators are qualitative assess-ments of cities’ aspirations or ambitions — forexample, their commitment to consuming morerenewable energy, to improving the energy effi-ciency of buildings, to reducing congestion or torecycling and reusing waste.

Data sources: A team of in-house and externalcontributors from the Economist IntelligenceUnit collected data for the index over the periodFebruary to August 2009. Wherever possible,publicly available data from official sources havebeen used. Primary sources included national sta -

tis tical offices, local city authorities, and city andnational environmental bureaux. In most casesdata are for the year 2007, which is the latestyear available for most indicators, given the timeneeded to collect, record and publish official data.

Where gaps in the data existed, the Econo-mist Intelligence Unit produced estimates fromnational averages. The CO2 and energy cate-gories deserve special mention here. Owing to alack of statistical resources, around one-third ofthe 30 cities do not measure the full amount ofenergy consumed in their city, or the associatedCO2 emissions. In most cases, the cities calculateonly how much energy is consumed from elec-tricity, gas and district heating (if applicable),since such data are fairly easily attainable fromdistribution companies. But on average, suchdata miss around 30% of energy consumed, par-ticularly from liquid fuels consumed in the trans-port sector. However, as part of their Kyoto com-mitments, all countries included within thestudy must report national data on energy con-sumption across all sources, as well as associat-

ed CO2 emissions. For those cities with missingdata, the Economist Intelligence Unit tooknational per-head averages of other types ofenergy consumption, and used the city’s popula-tion data to create an estimate for overall energyconsumption. To calculate associated CO2 emis-sions for the city, the project team adopted awidely accepted (albeit crude) technique ofusing national CO2 emissions factors associatedwith the combustion of each energy source.

Indicators: In order to be able to compare datapoints across countries, as well as to constructaggregate scores for each city, the project teamhad first to make the gathered data comparable.

To do so, the quantitative indicators were“normalised” on a scale of 0 to 10, where 10points were assigned to cities that met orexceeded certain criteria on environmental per-formance. Cities were scored either against anupper benchmark or lower benchmark. Bench-mark targets were chosen from international orEuropean directives. For example, an upper

Clusters

In order to conduct deeper analysis of the city

trends, the 30 cities in the index were clus-

tered into a series of groups, calculated on in-

come, temperature and size. These included:

� Income: “low income”, with GDP per head

of less than €21,000; “middle income” of

€21,000 to €31,000; and “high income” of

more than €31,000;

� Temperature: “cold”, with an average tem-

perate of 4-8 degree Celsius; “temperate”,

with an average temperature of 9-12 degrees

Celsius; and “hot”, with an average tempera-

ture of more than 13 degrees Celsius;

� Size: “small”, with a population of less than

1 million; “middle-sized”, with a population of

between 1 million and 3 million; and “large”,

with a population of more than 3 million.

European Green City Index | Methodology

38 39

Category

CO2

Energy

Buildings

Trans-port

Water

Waste

and

land use

Air

quality

Environ-

mental

gover-

nance

Indicator

CO2 emissions

CO2 intensity

CO2 reduction strategy

Energy consumption

Energy intensity

Renewable energy

consumption

Clean and efficient energy policies

Energy consumption of residential buildings

Energy-efficient buildings standards

Energy-efficientbuildings initiatives

Use of non-car transport

Size of non-car transport network

Green transport promotion

Congestion reduction policies

Water consumption

Water system leakages

Wastewater treatment

Water efficiency

and treatment

policies

Municipal waste production

Waste recycling

Waste reduction

and policies

Green land use policies

Nitrogen dioxide

Ozone

Particulate matter

Sulphur dioxide

Clean air policies

Green action plan

Green management

Public participation in green policy

Normalisation technique

Min-max.

Min-max; lower benchmark of 1,000 grams inserted to prevent outliers.

Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts on a scale of 0 to 10.

Min-max.

Min-max; lower benchmark of 8MJ/€GDP inserted to prevent outliers.

Scored against an upper benchmark of 20% (EU target).


Min-max.



Converted to a scale of 0 to 10.

Min-max. Upper benchmarks of 4 km/km2 and 5 km/km2 inserted to prevent outliers.



Min-max.

Scored against an upper target of 5%.

Scored against an upper benchmark of 100%

and a lower benchmark of 80%.

Scored by Economist Intelligence Unit analysts

on a scale of 0 to 10.

Scored against an upper benchmark of 300 kg (EU target). A lower benchmark of 1,000 kg inserted to prevent outliers.

Scored against an upper benchmark of 50% (EU target).




Scored against a lower benchmark of 40 ug/m3 (EU target).










Description

Total CO2 emissions, in tonnes per head.

Total CO2 emissions, in grams per unit of real GDP (2000 base year).

An assessment of the ambitiousness of CO2 emissions reduction strategy.

Total final energy consumption, in gigajoules per head.

Total final energy consumption, in megajoules per unit of real GDP (in euros, base year 2000).

The percentage of total energy derived from renewable

sources, as a share of the city's total energy consumption,

in terajoules.

An assessment of the extensiveness of policies promoting the use of clean and efficient energy.

Total final energy consumption in the residential sector, per square metre of residential floor space.

An assessment the extensiveness of cities’ energy efficiencystandards for buildings.

An assessment of the extensiveness of efforts to promoteenergy efficiency of buildings.

The total percentage of the working population travelling to work on public transport, by bicycle and by foot.

Length of cycling lanes and the public transport network, in km per square metre of city area.

An assessment of the extensiveness of efforts to increase the use of cleaner transport.

An assessment of efforts to reduce vehicle traffic within the city.

Total annual water consumption, in cubic metres per head.

Percentage of water lost in the water distribution system.

Percentage of dwellings connected to the sewage system.

An assessment of the comprehensiveness of measures

to improve the efficiency of water usage and the treatment

of wastewater.

Total annual municipal waste collected, in kg per head.

Percentage of municipal waste recycled.

An assessment of the extensiveness of measures

to reduce the overall production of waste,

and to recycle and reuse waste.

An assessment of the comprehensiveness of policies to containthe urban sprawl and promote the availability of green spaces.

Annual daily mean of NO2 emissions.

Annual daily mean of O3 emissions.

Annual daily mean of PM10 emissions.

Annual daily mean of SO2 emissions.

An assessment of the extensiveness of policies to improve air quality.

An assessment of the ambitiousness and

comprehensiveness of strategies to improve and

monitor environmental performance.

An assessment of the management of environmental issues

and commitment to achieving international environmental

standards.

An assessment of the extent to which citizens may participate in environmental decision-making.

Type

Quantitative

Quantitative

Qualitative

Quantitative

Quantitative

Quantitative

Qualitative

Quantitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Quantitative

Quantitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Quantitative

Quantitative

Quantitative

Qualitative

Quantitative

Quantitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Quantitative

Quantitative

Quantitative

Quantitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Qualitative

Weighting

33%

33%

33%

25%

25%

25%

25%

33%

33%

33%

29%

14%

29%

29%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

25%

20%

20%

20%

20%

20%

33%

33%

33%

List of categories, indicators and their weightings

benchmark of 50% was set for the amount ofwaste cities should aim to recycle, which is inline with the EU’s 2020 target for recyclingwaste. Cities that met or exceeded this bench-mark scored 10 points, and the rest received ascore between 0 and 10, based on their distanceaway from the target. For other indicators, lowerbenchmarks were set, such as for the maximumamount of pollutants cities should emit on anaverage daily basis (for example, 40 ug/m2 in thecase of nitrogen dioxide). In such cases, any cityscoring the same or higher than the benchmarkreceiv ed a score of 0, while the city furthestbelow the benchmark scored 10. Remainingcities received a score according to their dis-tance away from the best-performing city.

Where no targets existed, the cities werescored instead using a min-max calculation,where the score is the standard deviation fromthe mean, with the best city scoring 10 pointsand the worst scoring 0 points. In some cases,reasonable benchmarks were inserted to pre-vent outliers from skewing the distribution of

indicators assigned to the other cities. Qualita-tive indicators were scored by Economist Intelli-gence Unit analysts with expertise in the city inquestion, based on objective scoring criteriathat considered concrete actions, strategies andtargets being taken and set by cities. The qualita-tive indicators were again scored on a scale of 0to 10, with 10 points assigned to cities that metor exceeded the check-list of criteria. In the caseof the “CO2 reduction strategy” indicator, forexample, cities were assessed according towhether they actively and regularly monitor CO2

emissions, what targets have been set and howambitious they are, given the time period withinwhich they are supposed to be met. The inde-pendent expert panel provided input into thecriteria assigned to each indicator.

Index construction: The index is composed ofaggregate scores of all of the underlying indica-tors. The index is first aggregated by category —creating a score for each area of infrastructureand policy (for example, energy) — and finally,

overall, based on the composite of the underly-ing category scores. To create the categoryscores, each underlying indicator was aggregat-ed according to an assigned weighting. In gen-eral, most indicators receive the same weighting— or importance — in the index. The categoryscores were then rebased onto a scale of 0 to 10.To build the overall index scores, the EconomistIntelligence Unit assigned even weight ings oneach category score — that is, no category islent greater importance than another, and theindex is essentially the sum of all categoryscores, rebased out of 100. This equal weightingreflects feedback from the expert panel, as wellas wider research on measuring environmentalsustainability, which indicated that all cate-gories in this index merit equal weighting.

European Green City Index | City Portrait

40 41

Select city data

Waste and land use: Amsterdam ranks first forwaste and land use. The city recycles around43% of its waste, second only to Helsinki, and isonly a moderate producer of waste. In terms ofland use, Amsterdam is a compact city. TheNetherlands is densely populated and greenspaces are highly protected; in Amsterdam thisis covered by the Main Green Structure urbanplan. A ”wedge structure“ provides green spacesthat reach deep into the city from the surround-ing green belt. The waterways around the cityare another type of green space. Initiatives: Much of the city bus network usesfuel from the Waste and Energy Company that isproduced from waste.

Air: Amsterdam performs relatively poorly in thiscategory for a city so committed to clean air, rank-ing 11th. The main pollutants are fine dust andnitrogen oxides. Amsterdam suffers particularlyfrom its proximity to heavy industry in the Nether-lands, Germany and Belgium, as well as fromtraffic congestion in the wider Randstad area. Initiatives: The 2009 action plan on air qualityaims to reduce transport bottlenecks, extendpark-and-ride facilities and encourage electric

Population: 743,000

GDP per head, PPP: € 41,443

CO2 emissions per head: 6.66 tonnes

Energy consumption per head: 74.51 gigajoules

Percentage of renewable energy consumed by the city: 5.8 %

Total percentage of citizens walking,cycling or taking public transport to work: 62 %

Annual water consumption per head: 53.47 m3

Share of waste recycled: 43 %

Amsterdam is the Netherlands’ largest city,with just 750,000 inhabitants. The city is

the business and financial centre of the coun-try, with a wide range of business services.There is little manufacturing in Amsterdamitself, but there is considerable industry beyondthe city borders. Amsterdam is ranked fifth

Energy: Amsterdam ranks fifth in energy. TheNetherlands’ primary energy sources are naturalgas, coal and oil, although the country also hassignificant installed wind capacity. Amsterdam’senergy consumption per head per year (at 74.5gigajoules) is slightly below the average of 81gigajoules. The city performs better in terms ofenergy consumption per unit of GDP, at 1.7 me -ga joules per euro (compared with an average of5.2 megajoules), and it is among the top scorersfor policies promoting clean and efficient energyuse. Nearly 6% of the energy that the city con-sumes is sourced from renewables, just belowthe average of 7.3%. Initiatives: Amsterdam has one of the mostenergy-efficient district heating networks inEurope. Most of the heat is produced by theWaste and Energy Company, by converting bio-mass and biogas derived from waste andsewage into heat and electricity.

Buildings: Amsterdam ranks sixth for buildings.The city’s stock is old, but it is providing incen-

0

2

4

6

8

10

BuildingsAir Quality

Waste and Land Use Transport

Water

CO2

Environmental governance Energy

AmsterdamBestAverage

Smart City Amsterdam

In mid-2009 Amsterdam launched Smart City

Amsterdam, a collaborative project with its

inhabitants and businesses. It will launch a

series of environmental pilot schemes over a

two year period, which if successful could be

translated to national and European level.

The schemes are intended to reduce energy

consumption and reduce CO2 emissions. The

initial schemes include:

� for businesses, the establishment of a ”cli-

mate street“ in the city centre, which will

combine smart meters, an energy feedback

display, energy scans and smart plugs to en-

courage lower energy use; and

� shore power units that allow cargo vessels

and river cruisers to connect to the electricity

grid when in port, rather than using on-board

diesel generators.

Amsterdam_Netherlands

tives for renovation to a higher level of energyefficiency. There are also energy-efficiency re -quirements for new constructions. In terms ofthe energy consumption of residential build-ings, Amsterdam ranks 12th, with a consump-tion of 720 megajoules per square metre (belowthe average of 909 megajoules), a level that thecity is working to reduce. Initiatives: Amsterdam runs an alliance in co-operation with local housing corporations. The -se are required to employ energy-saving andenergy-efficient measures across their housingportfolios, and especially in new-build housing.

Transport: Amsterdam ranks second for trans-port. As the city is criss-crossed by canals, thereis little heavy road traffic and a large number ofpedestrian zones and cycle paths. Public trans-port is provided by bus, tram, canal boat andlocal trains. Amsterdam boasts 3.2 km of publictransport network per square km and 2.8 km ofcycle lanes per square km. Walking or cycling isused for 38% of journeys and public transportfor 24%.

Water: The city is ranked number one for water.

Amsterdam is served by numerous canals and isprotected from the sea only by a system of pold-ers (dams). But despite an abundance of water,consumption per head is low, at about 53 cubicmetres per inhabitant per year, one-half of theaverage consumption level of 105 cubic metres.In terms of leakages Amsterdam is the best-per-forming city, losing just 3.5% of water, com-pared with an average of 22.6%. Initiatives: The city is working to fit every homewith water meters, in order to make water usemore efficient and equitable. The goal is to fit300,000 homes by 2010, leaving 100,000homes that are unsuitable for water meters — for these, alternative solutions are being sought.

vehicles, among other targets, to enable Ams-terdam to meet legal standards for particulatematter by 2010 and those for nitrogen dioxideby 2015.

Environmental governance: Amsterdam rankstenth in green environmentalgovernance, but iswithin reach of the best performers. The city isstrongly committed to improving its environ-mental performance, despite already leadingthe way in some fields. Amsterdam has a highlydeveloped environmental action programmewith measurable environmental goals and regu-lar reviews. It suffers slightly on the level of pub-lic participation in developing and adoptingthese goals.

overall in the European Green City Index, with ascore of 83.03 out of 100. It ranks highest outof all cities for water and also for waste and landuse. Even in its weaker categories its perfor-mance is still strong. Like many of the index’sbest performers, Amsterdam has a fairly smallpopulation, allowing it to address environmen-tal concerns with a tighter focus.

CO2 emissions: Amsterdam’s worst perfor-mance is in the category carbon dioxide (CO2)emissions, at 12th out of 30. The city’s mainweak spot is CO2 emissions per head, which at6.7 tonnes per inhabitant per year is among thehighest levels measured and well above theaverage of 5 tonnes. Most emissions are causedby transport, with industry and building heatingalso contributing. Initiatives: The city is targeting an aggressivereduction of 40% in its emissions by 2025 (com-pared with 1990 levels), equivalent to a reduc-tion of 34% by 2020, far beyond the EU target ofa 20% reduction by 2020.


56 57

Select city data

the best-scoring cities in this subcategory. How-ever, Copenhagen claimed joint top spot forwater system leakages, wastewater treatmentand water efficiency. Initiative: The municipality has a target toreduce household water consumption from 114litres per person per day in 2007 to 100 litres perperson in 2012. The city council spends aroundDkr2 million (€270,000) each year on water-sav-ing initiatives.

Waste and land use: Copenhagen ranks sev-enth for waste and land use. However, the city isplaced joint first for its green land use policies,thanks to the ongoing redevelopment of brown-field sites and the widespread availability ofgreen spaces (almost 80% of residents in themunicipality of Copenhagen live within 300metres of a park or recreation area). Some 55%of all waste is recycled, although the proportionfor household waste is lower, at 24%. Initiative: The vast majority (80%) of newdevelopments during the current decade have

Population: 504,000



Energy consumption per head: 80.63 gigajoules*



Annual water consumption per head: 147 m3

Share of waste recycled: 23.61 %

The City of Copenhagen is small by Europeanstandards, being home to just over 500,000

people, or around one-tenth of Denmark’s popu-lation. Copenhagen is the country’s main busi-ness and financial centre, and is also one ofwestern Europe’s leading locations for interna-tional company headquarters and distributioncentres. Copenhagen achieves the highest rank-ing in the European Green City Index, with ascore of 87.31 out of 100. The city performs wellin all eight categories of the index, and is rankedjoint first in the environmental governance sub-category. Successive governments at both nation-al and municipal level have strongly supportedthe promotion of sustainable development.

CO2 emissions: Copenhagen is ranked fourthfor carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, thanks togood scores in the CO2 intensity and CO2 reduc-tion strategy subcategories. The city’s primary

fuel sources are coal, oil and natural gas. A driveto improve energy efficiency has contributed toa significant fall in emissions over the pastdecade or so. The city now produces about 5.4tonnes of CO2 emissions per head per year,slightly above the index average. Initiative: The city’s 2009 climate change planincludes a target to reduce CO2 emissions by a further 20% by 2015 relative to their 2005 levels. The plan also sets an ambitious long-termgoal for the city to become carbon neutral by2025, which, if achieved, would make it the firstlarge carbon-neutral city in Europe.

Energy: Copenhagen is ranked in second placefor energy. Denmark’s energy policy has soughtto reduce the country’s dependence on coal andoil in favour of natural gas and renewable ener-gy sources. Renewable energy sources play anincreasingly important role in the country,

* Estimate

0

2

4

6

8

10



Water

CO2


CopenhagenBestAverage

Carbon-neutral neighbourhoods

In partnership with energy companies, archi-

tects, construction firms and other interested

parties, the municipality has launched two

flagship urban development projects to create

“carbon-neutral neighbourhoods”, charac-

terised by low-energy buildings, sustainable

energy networks and environmentally friend-

ly transport. One such development is in the

Amager Faelled district, south of central

Copenhagen, where it is expected that some

300,000 square metres of residential and

commercial buildings will be built. Before a fi-

nal development plan for the area is adopted

in 2012, the city authorities will conduct an

analysis of the technologies required to en-

sure that the district’s energy supply, build-

ings, transport and waste management sys-

tems can be operated on a carbon-neutral

basis. Another major new urban development

will take place at Nordhavn, a 200-hectare

site situated at the northernmost part of the

city’s docks. Following a public consultation,

an international competition was launched in

2008 to elicit plans, with the winning propos-

al developed into a comprehensive plan dur-

ing 2009-10. It is envisaged that a first phase

of development will begin in 2011, with a

second phase scheduled for 2018.

accounting for 17% of total energy consumptionin 2008 and for 27% of electricity consumption.Initiative: The national government’s climatechange strategy aims to raise the share ofrenewable energy to 30% of total consumptionby 2025.

Buildings: Copenhagen is ranked fourth in thebuildings category. Danish buildings are amongthe most energy-efficient in the world, despitethe ageing housing stock. The annual energyconsumption of residential buildings, at 554megajoules per square metre, is the lowest ofthe 30 cities in the survey, being marginally bet-ter than that of Berlin. Almost all buildings in theDanish capital are connected to the district heat-ing system. Initiative: The Copenhagen municipality aimsto achieve 10% of its CO2 reductions throughconstruction and renovation projects. Themunicipality intends to upgrade all municipalbuildings to ensure compliance with the highestenergy-efficiency standards.

been on brownfield sites, including the redevel-opment of the harbour front. The municipalityactively seeks to use urban development as atool to minimise transport requirements andenergy consumption.

Air quality: Copenhagen is ranked fifth for airquality, with a score that is broadly similar tothose of several other north European cities. Thegreat bulk of air pollutants measured in Copen-hagen come from traffic.

Environmental governance: Copenhagen isranked joint first for environmental governance.The municipality has recently taken steps toensure integrated environmental managementacross all of its departments, appointing envi-ronmental co-ordinators for each administrativeunit, who meet regularly to exchange experi-ences. There is already a dedicated team withinthe city council to which citizens can direct theircomplaints or concerns on environmental mat-ters.

Transport: Copenhagen is ranked third in thetransport category. The city has an extensivepublic transport system — including a metrosystem, a suburban railway and bus networks —with the result that virtually all residents livewithin 350 metres of public transport services.Copenhagen is also famous for the ease withwhich its residents can cycle in the city. Initiative: Copenhagen has set itself the objec-tive of becoming the “world’s best cycle city”,and aims to raise the share of the capital’s inhab-itants who regularly use a bicycle to get to theirplace of work or education from 36% currentlyto 50% by 2015.

Water: Ranked in joint fifth place in the watercategory, along with Zurich, Copenhagen’sscore is dragged down by high levels of waterconsumption which, at 147 cubic metres perinhabitant per year, is almost three times that of

Copenhagen_Denmark


60 61

Helsinki_Finland

Select city data

eral wind-energy plants in Finland, in order toraise its share of renewables and move awayfrom the use of fossil fuels, which adverselyaffects the air quality of the city.

Environmental governance: Helsinki is rankedjoint first (with three other cities) for environ-mental governance. Its Sustainability Strategyand Action plan 2002-10 made Helsinki the

Population: 569,000




Percentage of renewable energyconsumed by the city: 3.51 %

Total percentage of citizens walking,cycling or taking public transport to work: 44.7 %



first capital city in Europe to complete a full-scale sustainable development action planningprocess.Initiative: Since 1995 Helsinki has taken a col-laborative approach to planning the use anddevelopment of municipally owned urbanforests, allowing residents to help set goals forthe use of green areas and minimising conflictsover space.

With a population of 570,000, the Finnishcapital, Helsinki, has an economy domi-

nated by the services sector, with a particularlyhigh concentration of jobs in information tech-nology and the public sector. The Helsinki Metro-politan Area consists of four municipalities,Helsinki, Vantaa, Espoo and Kauniainen, thetotal population of which is around 1 million.This area accounts for one-third of Finland’s GDPand is accordingly wealthy: its inhabitants’ aver-age annual income is the second-highestamong the cities reviewed in this study, afterthat of Oslo. Helsinki ranks in seventh place inthe European Green City Index, with a score of79.29 out of 100. Helsinki is ranked fourthamong the Nordic cities, largely because of itsrelatively high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissionsand energy consumption, even though the cityis a leader in energy efficiency.

CO2 emissions: Helsinki ranks 11th in the indexfor CO2 emissions, as a result of its relatively high

emissions per head of 6 tonnes, well above the30-city average of 5 tonnes. This results from thecity’s high need for heating in buildings and itsrising electricity consumption. Initiative: Helsinki’s first, and the world’slargest, heat pump plant, Katri Vala, was com-pleted in 2006. The plant uses heat pumps andproduces both district heat and cooling, signifi-cantly reducing Helsinki’s CO2 emissions.

Low2No

In March 2009 Sitra, the Finnish Innovation

Fund, and the City of Helsinki launched an in-

ternational competition for the construction

of a sustainable and innovative block in the

western harbour area of Helsinki. The

Low2No competition seeks comprehensive

solutions to the problems of low- or zero-car-

bon and energy-efficient building design. The

competition aims to show that national and

international targets for reductions in CO2

emissions and improvements in energy effi-

ciency can be reached and surpassed, at the

same time producing an economically sus-

tainable and architecturally high-quality envi-

ronment. Some 74 entries were received, and

five were selected for the final round, with a

winner announced in September 2009. In the

long-term, Sitra and the City of Helsinki hope

that the competition process will help in the

implementation of an innovative sustainable

urban development solution in Helsinki, in

developing a sustainable-development frame-

work applicable to other contexts, and in

spurring innovation in the field of energy effi-

ciency and sustainable development.

0

2

4

6

8

10



Water

CO2


HelsinkiBestAverage

Initiative: An extension of the Helsinki metrosystem to the city of Espoo received officialapproval in September 2006 and will be com-pleted by 2013 at the earliest.

Water: Helsinki is ranked 11th in the water cate-gory, largely because of its limited water-effi-ciency policies. Although the city encouragesthe installation of water meters in individual

Energy: Helsinki ranks 19th for energy, which isits weakest category in the index. At around 89gigajoules per year, energy consumption perhead is high (the 30-city average is 81 giga-joules), largely because of the city’s cold climateand its high standard of living. Initiative: Helsinki Energy, which is municipallyowned, is to build two large offshore wind-power parks with a generating capacity of 500-1,000 mw.

Buildings: Helsinki does well in the buildingscategory, ranking fifth as a result of its energy-efficient building standards and incentives andthe below-average energy consumption of itsresidential buildings (at 683 megajoules persquare metre in 2007, compared with the 30-city average of 909 megajoules). Initiative: Eko-Viikki is an ecological suburblocated 8 km from the centre of Helsinki. Eko-Viikki was the first ecological neighbourhood tobe built in Finland, and in 2010 the area isexpected to support 6,000 jobs and to providehomes for 13,000 people.

Transport: Helsinki ranks ninth in the transportcategory. Its public transport network is theshortest in Europe. However, the city ranks firstwith regard to the length of its cycling network,and is a leader in green transport promotion.

houses, the municipally owned Helsinki Water isnot particularly active in promoting water sav-ing. Initiative: In order to improve the state of theGulf of Finland (one of the most polluted partsof the Baltic Sea) and the entire Baltic Sea,Helsinki is actively participating in internationalco-operation projects such as wastewater treat-ment in St Petersburg, Russia.

Waste and land use: Helsinki ranks third in thewaste and land use category, in large partbecause of its high level of waste recycling andreuse, and also thanks to its waste-reductionpolicies. New construction takes place onbrownfield sites rather than green areas, so thatexpansion into green areas is now minimal. Initiative: The construction of a gas enginepower plant in the area of Ammassuo, which isintended to recover landfill gases and will pre-dominantly produce electricity, began in 2009.The plant is due to open in 2010.

Air quality: Helsinki ranks third for air quality.The city’s air quality has improved substantiallyin recent decades as a result of the introductionof district heating and, more recently (from1991), with the replacement of coal by naturalgas as a fuel for energy production.Initiative: Helsinki Energy has invested in sev-


68 69

Ljubljana_Slovenia

Select city data

Waste and land use: Ljubljana is ranked 18thin the waste and land use category, bolstered bya strong score for municipal waste production,where it comes joint sixth overall. The city’sinhabitants produce about 441 kg of waste peryear, well below the 30-city average of 511 kg.However, Ljubljana performs poorly on recy-cling, which pulls down its overall score. A newwaste-management site, to help to raise theshare of recycled waste, is currently being built. Initiative: Ljubljana introduced a lottery in late2008 to encourage recycling. It involves a fort-nightly draw in which a household or officerecycling bin is randomly selected, with a cashprize awarded if it contains the correct type ofwaste.

Population: 271,000





Total percentage of citizens walking,cycling or taking public transport to work: 36.4 %



CO2-reduction policy, but has pledged to drawup such a strategy during 2009 as part of itsmembership of the Covenant of Mayors. Thisstrategy would aim to reduce CO2 emissions byat least 20% by 2020.

Energy: Ljubljana is ranked just 27th for energy,mainly because of its high energy consumptionand low use of renewable energy. At nationallevel oil products account for 34% of energy con-sumption, coal for 22%, nuclear power for 20%,natural gas for 14% and renewable sources for10%. Initiative: In early 2009 Ljubljana built its firstsolar power generating unit, which will provideenough energy for 25 households.

There are plans to install additional solar pan-els on the roofs of several buildings from 2010onwards.

Buildings: Ljubljana ranks 19th in the buildingscategory, as the energy consumption of mostbuildings in the city is relatively high. The cityscores particularly poorly for energy consump-tion by residential buildings: it uses an estimated

The city of Ljubljana is Slovenia’s capital andthe hub of the country’s political, economic

and financial activities. With 24.5% of Slovenia’spopulation, in 2006 Ljubljana contributed36.1% of national GDP.

Ljubljana ranks 19th place in the EuropeanGreen City Index, with a score of 56.39 out of100. Its score is adversely affected by poor per-formances in the water, energy and buildingscategories. These reflect Ljubljana’s antiquatedwater and sewage network; its scant use ofrenewable sources of energy; and the poor qual-ity of insulation of its buildings.

CO2 emissions: Ljubljana ranks 14th for CO2

emissions, among its better results, and is thethird-greenest city in terms of direct emissionsper head (at 3.4 tonnes per year), being outper-formed only by Oslo and Istanbul. Although itsemissions are low compared with those of big-ger cities, the amount of CO2 produced by thecity’s traffic increased by 73% in 1989-2004,reflecting greatly increased use of private trans-port. Initiative: Ljubljana does not have an official

1,653 megajoules per square metre per year,well above the index average of 909 mega-joules. Ljubljana has no specific standards relat-ing to the upgrading of older buildings, al -though efficiency standards do exist for newbuildings. Initiative: The city hopes to reduce the use ofenergy in public buildings by 15% by 2013 com-pared with the level in 2004. It also plans toincrease the availability of renewable energysources in general.

Transport: Ljubljana ranks in 13th place in thetransport category. Although the city does rela-tively well in transport when compared to othercategories, it is still set back to some degree by the

0

2

4

6

8

10



Water

CO2


LjubljanaBestAverage

Cycle sightseeing

From April to October, the main cycling sea-

son in Ljubljana, there are 80 bicycles avail-

able to the public for hire from eight loca-

tions in the city centre. Charges are €1 for

two hours or €5 for a day, but hire is free of

charge for anyone with a Ljubljana tourist

card. The scheme is targeted primarily at

tourists rather than local residents. Accord-

ingly, most of the bicycles are rented during

the peak tourist season from July to August.

As an indication of the popularity of the

scheme, at one location bicycles were hired

out more than 400 times for two-hour peri-

ods in July alone, and around one-half of that

number were used for full-day rental. The city

authorities are planning to increase the net-

work of locations and the number of bicycles

in the scheme.

Air quality: Ljubljana ranks 14th for air quality.It performs particularly well on sulphur dioxideemissions, with lower levels than many larger,wealthier cities.

So far Ljubljana has been unsuccessful inreducing traffic volumes in the city centre, andthis contributes to high volumes of particulatematter, although overall pollution levels areabout average. Initiative: The opening of the Sentvid tunnel in2008 has made it possible for motorists drivingfrom the seaside to the north of Slovenia tobypass Ljubljana, thus reducing traffic and relat-ed air pollution.

Environmental governance: Ljubljana ranksjoint 15th with London in the environmentalgovernance category, mainly thanks to a highscore in the green management subcategory.Over the past decade Ljubljana has paid evermore attention to green policies, and has recent-ly suggested plans to design a sustainable ener-gy action plan and to set a target for the reduc-tion of CO2 emissions, as well as subscribing tothe Covenant of Mayors.

relatively low usage of non-car transport. Althoughthe city has a vast bus network, buses moveslowly because of the general lack of dedicatedbus lanes.

As a consequence, the number of bus pas-sengers has been decreasing steadily for thepast 15 years, and commuters tend to use theirown cars for reasons of speed and comfort. Initiative: In 2007 Ljubljana closed a large partof its city centre to traffic, and plans to introducefurther pedestrian areas during 2009.

Water: Ljubljana ranks 27th in the water cate-gory. This is mainly owing to poor scores forwater system leakages and the proportion ofdwellings connected to the sewage system, asthe city’s per-head water consumption level isbelow the average (at 84 cubic metres per year,compared with a 30-city average of 105 cubicmetres). Initiative: The city authorities are planning afurther increase in the number of wastewaterconnections in the next few years, along withrepairs to the existing system in order to improvethe water supply and reduce pollution.


70 71

London_United Kingdom

Select city data within London, and the city’s overall recyclingrate is about 20%. Initiative: A London Waste and Recycling Boardwas set up in July 2008, with a budget to 2011of £84 million. In February 2009 it established a“dating agency” to attract companies interestedin utilising different kinds of waste for energyreuse or recycling.

Air quality: London is ranked 12th for air quali-ty. The UK government has a national Air QualityStrategy that sets out policies on local air quality.Normally this is done in line with EU law, butLondon is applying for extensions to certain EU-reduction requirements. Initiative: In October 2009 a draft Air QualityStrategy was published, which sets out a frame-work for delivering improvements to London’sair quality.

Environmental governance: London ties in15th place with Ljubljana in the category forenvironmental governance. Environmentalreporting by the city is not systematic, althoughin December 2008 the city published an inven-

Population: 7.6 million




Percentage of renewable energyconsumed by the city: 1.20 %*



Share of waste recycled: 20 %

Adaptation Strategy, published in 2008, aims toreduce London’s emissions by 60% from their1990 levels by 2025.Initiative: In September 2009 ten boroughswere chosen to be low-carbon zones, and willreceive funding to help meet a targeted 20%reduction in emissions by 2012.

Energy: London is ranked tenth in the energycategory, with annual energy consumption perhead almost equal to the 30-city average, atabout 78 gigajoules. At just 1.2%, the city’s useof renewable energy as a proportion of totalenergy consumption is well below the averageof about 7%. Initiative: London aims to generate enoughenergy from renewable sources to power theequivalent of 100,000 homes by 2010.

Buildings: London is ranked tenth in the build-ings category, a position that is boosted by itsstrong performance on energy-efficient build-ing incentives, many of which originate atnational level.

Energy consumption per square metre in

London is the UK’s largest city and its capital.It has also come to be recognised as a global

centre for financial and professional services, aswell as a major tourist destination. The city has apopulation of 7.6 million and is the headquar-ters for more than one-half of the UK’s largestcompanies, as well as being a hub for multina-tional companies establishing a foothold in theEuropean market.

London is ranked 11th overall in the Euro-pean Green City Index, with a score of 71.56 outof 100. The city has been actively promoting itsefforts on climate change, with a range of initia-tives and plans that target various aspects of theenvironment.

CO2 emissions: London ranks tenth overall inthe category for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.Its inhabitants were each responsible for anaverage of 5.8 tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2006,slightly above the 30-city average of 5.2 tonnes.However, the city has significant reduction tar-gets in place, and is therefore ranked seventh forthe ambition and credibility of its CO2-reductionstrategy. The draft London Climate Change

*Estimate

0

2

4

6

8

10



Water

CO2


LondonBestAverage

London’s Array of power

One of London’s key energy ambitions is the

London Array, a planned 1,000 mw offshore

wind-turbine project in the Thames estuary.

When completed, it will be the largest off-

shore wind farm in the world, occupying 233

square km. The project will supply enough

power for 750,000 homes — about one-quar-

ter of the homes in the Greater London area

— and will save 1.9 million tonnes of CO2

emissions each year. The project will cost an

estimated £2.2 billion, and aims to contribute

as much as 10% to the UK’s renewable-energy

targets, with London becoming a major con-

sumer of such energy. It is hoped that the ar-

ray will start supplying electricity to the na-

tional grid by 2012, although 2013 is a more

likely date for completion of the first phase,

following initial planning and financing delays.

Transport: London ranks 16th in the transportcategory, largely because of its poor scores onthe relative length of its cycle lanes and publictransport network.

A ten-year-plus programme is under way to upgrade track, signalling, trains and stationson London’s underground rail system, with the aim of increasing capacity and reducingjourney times. London was one of the first citiesto adopt a congestion-charging zone for roadtraffic; the zone covers the central area of thecity. Initiative: A cycle hire scheme is planned forthe summer of 2010, with around 400 cycledocking stations and some 6,000 cycles.

Water: London is ranked eighth in the watercategory, one of its strongest areas. London’sdrinking water is of high quality, given that one-half of its water mains are over 100 years old,and its leaky Victorian-era pipes are in theprocess of being replaced.

Annual water consumption per head is only57.6 cubic metres, the fifth-lowest among the30 cities.

resi dential homes is slightly higher than averageand well above that in a number of cities withcolder climates, such as Berlin and Copenhagen.However, new building standards are higher,and significant efforts are being made to retrofitolder buildings. Initiative: New homes will have to meet Level 3of the Code for Sustainable Homes by 2010 andLevel 6 by 2016. The code sets minimum stan-dards for energy and water usage levels, on ascale of 1-6, helping to rate the sustainability ofnew homes.

Initiative: Thames Water has a £6.5 billioninvestment programme planned for 2010-15,which plans to cut system leakages by nearlyone-fifth. By 2010 it aims to have reduced leak-age rates to 690 megalitres per day, from 850megalitres in 2003.

Waste and land use: London ranks 11th in thewaste and land use category. It produces 558 kgof municipal waste per inhabitant per year, com-pared with a 30-city average of 511 kg. Aboutone-half of this waste is currently managed

tory of energy use and green house gas emis-sions in 2004-05.

The fact that some authority is devolved tothe city’s 33 boroughs and some is concentratedat national government level causes difficultiesin terms of co-ordination on environmental gov-ernance. Initiative: London’s 2012 Olympic Games havebeen touted as the first sustainable Olympics.Commitments include using at least 20% localrenewable energy sources and operating a zero-landfill policy on waste during the games.


72 73

Madrid_Spain

Select city data

strong water-efficiency and water-treatmentpolicies. Residents consume an average of 71cubic metres per head per year, below the 30-city average of 105 cubic metres. Water leakagesare also substantially lower than average.Madrid, like most of Spain, is subject to uncer-tain water resources because of high tempera-tures and low rainfall.Initiative: Madrid’s water-treatment and water-reuse plan for 2005-10 involves the improve-ment of existing water-treatment systems andthe reuse of purified effluents and sludge foragricultural purposes.

Waste and land use: Madrid ranks 19th forwaste and land use. Just 10% of solid waste isrecycled, lower than the index average of 18%.Around 40% of waste is sent to landfill. Municipalwaste per head, at 551 kg per day, is above theaverage of 511 kg. The waste sector has reducedits emissions in the past decade by installingdegasification systems and recovering biogasfrom landfill. Madrid’s green surface area makesup 43% of the city’s total area, including thecity’s urban parks, gardens and forested areas,and there are measures in place to protect them.However, a decade-long construction boom hascontributed to a significant amount of sprawl.Initiative: The City of Madrid aims to recover all

Population: 6.1 million




Percentage of renewable energyconsumed by the city: 2.78 %




Environmental governance: In 13th place inthe environmental governance category, Madridties with Budapest. Sustainable development isrelatively new to Madrid, but it has set itself anambitious range of targets. Its recent Sustain-able Use of Energy and Climate Change Preven-tion Plan for the City of Madrid was approved byMadrid’s government in June 2008. While citi-zens are not usually involved in any initial cityplanning, there is occasional participation laterin the process.

sions-reduction strategy. Emissions per head, at4 tonnes per year (2004), are below the 30-cityaverage of approximately 5 tonnes per year.Road transport accounts for just under one-halfof all CO2 emissions, followed by residentialhomes and then the commercial and industrialsectors. Initiative: As part of the Sustainable Use ofEnergy and Climate Change Prevention Plan forthe City of Madrid 2008, the city has a target of a14% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2012, com-pared with the level of emissions in 2004.

Energy: Madrid ranks 12th for energy con-

Spain’s capital, Madrid, covers 0.12% of thenation’s territory but is home to 7% of the

total population. The city’s economy is dominat-ed by the services sector and is Spain’s financial,administrative and transport nerve-centre.Madrid accounts for around one-tenth of Spain’sGDP. In terms of average annual income, Madridis at the lower end of the scale among westEuropean cities but ranks above all east Euro-pean cities.

Madrid ranks 12th overall in the EuropeanGreen City Index, with a score of 67.08 out of100. Among larger cities Madrid occupies a mid-dle ranking, below Berlin, Paris and London butabove Rome, Athens and Istanbul. Its ranking isbuoyed by good performances in carbon dioxide(CO2) emissions and water. While sustainabledevelopment is newer to Madrid than to manyof its west European neighbours, the city has setambitious targets to catch up.

CO2 emissions: Madrid does relatively well inthis category, ranking ninth for CO2 emissions,in large part because of its ambitious CO2 emis-

0

2

4

6

8

10



Water

CO2


MadridBestAverage

Regenerating the Manzanares river

The Manzanares River Project, Madrid’s main

urban-regeneration project, is under way to

transform the banks of the capital’s river.

Water flow in the river, which runs to the

west and south of the city centre, will be im-

proved and more public spaces will be creat-

ed, helping to stabilise the river’s ecosystem.

Nine new pedestrian walkways over the river

will link some of Madrid’s poorer neighbour-

hoods and will give a boost to a run-down

area. The land reclamation along the river

was made possible by the construction of a

new and controversial motorway, the M-30,

which has rerouted traffic. The area will be

planted with 25,000 trees, include 42 km of

pedestrian paths and 32 km of cycling tracks,

and will provide a riverside beach, new chil-

dren’s playgrounds and quiet areas designed

to attract elderly visitors. The project began

in 2008, and will cost an estimated €250 mil-

lion. The first phase will be completed by

2011.

sumption, with energy consumed per head marginally lower than the 30-city average of 81gigajoules. Energy consumption is centred mainlyon electric power, oil-based fuels and naturalgas. Renewables account for less than 3% oftotal energy consumed; however, solar poweruse in particular is expected to increase consid-erably. The use of coal has fallen substantially. Initiative: Madrid’s Climate Change PreventionPlan includes a target of a 20% reduction in fossilfuel use by 2020 compared with the 2004 level.

Buildings: Madrid ranks 17th for buildings. Itsaverage annual energy consumption in residen-tial buildings, at 614 megajoules per squaremetre in 2007, is lower than the index averageof 909 megajoules. However, the city’s overallrank is not as strong as it could be, mainlybecause of its lack of high-level energy efficien-cy standards, although solar panels are nowrequired in all new buildings. Initiative: The city has a target of issuing ener-gy certifications for 30% of new constructionsby 2012. Its long-term target is to make energycertification mandatory.

Transport: Madrid ranks 15th for transport.The proportion of people walking or cycling towork (14%) is under the 30-city average (21%),

while the proportion of those taking publictransport to work is about average, at 40%. Still,Madrid is well connected, with an extensive andgrowing metro system and a high-speed trainnetwork that is extending its reach. Madridhopes to reduce motorised, and particularly pri-vate, transport use. It has a number of ambitioustargets, such as increasing the use of biofuels to10% of the total by 2012 and lowering privatetransport use by 10% by 2012 and by 20% by2020.

Water: Madrid ranks seventh for water, its bestperformance in the index, mainly due to its

organic matter contained in urban waste gener-ated in the city by 2011, preventing it frombeing sent to landfill.

Air quality: Madrid ranks 18th for air quality.Particulate matter stood at 38 micrograms percubic metre in 2007, above the 30-city averageof 35 micrograms, mainly due to the high num-ber of vehicles on the roads and heavy depen-dence on fossil fuels for heating. Madrid’s nitro-gen dioxide emissions and sulphur dioxideemissions are also above average.Initiative: The city has a plan for low-emissionzones.


74 75

Oslo_Norway

Select city data

city’s low rate of residential water metering.Daily use of water per head fell from 208 litres in1997 to 172 litres in 2007; by contrast, Amster-dam, the top-scoring city in this category, con-sumes just 53 litres per person per day. Initiative: The new Oset water treatment plantuses coagulation and filtration as the firsthygienic barrier in water treatment. The secondhygienic treatment is UV disinfection with atrace residue of chlorination being retained.

Waste and land use: Oslo ranks sixth in thewaste and land use category, surpassing otherhigh-income cities, such as Copenhagen andStockholm. The city’s position is bolstered by itspolicies on green land use and waste reduction,but is held back by lower rankings for waste

Population: 549,000





Total percentage of citizens walking, cycling or taking public transport to work: 57 %

Annual water consumption per head: 172 m3


Oslo is ranked third overall in the EuropeanGreen City Index, with a score of 83.98 out of100. It is also the best-performing city in termsof carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, largelybecause of the use of hydroelectricity to powerrail-based public transport.

CO2 emissions: Oslo’s top ranking for CO2

emissions is the result of its use of renewableand alternative energy sources for public trans-port and its reduction of landfill emissions. Thefocus on transport has had a significant impact,as pollution from private and public transportcombined accounts for one-half of the city’s CO2

emissions. Initiative: From 2009, rather than allowing gasfrom its sewage plant to burn off and release its

Norway’s capital, Oslo, is a relatively smallcity, and with fewer than 550,000 inhabi-

tants it is home to just 12% of the country’s pop-ulation. The city contributes about 17% of Nor-way’s GDP but one-quarter of its tax revenue.Accordingly, it is a wealthy place: as of 2008, itsGDP per head was the highest in Europe. Busi-ness services provided one-fifth of Oslo’s grossvalue added (GVA) in 2006. The wholesale andretail trade (which accounts for 14.5% of GVA)and the financial sector (nearly 11%) are alsostrong. By contrast, the city’s manufacturingsector is small, accounting for less than 7% ofGVA, and this is a boon to Oslo’s environment.However, the population is growing by some 2%per year, faster than any of the other Nordic capitals.

0

2

4

6

8

10



Water

CO2


OsloBestAverage

Powered by leftovers

In 2009 the Waste to Energy Agency awarded

contracts to build a biogas facility at Klemet-

srud that will transform food waste into bio-

gas and bio-fertiliser, producing about 6 mil-

lion cubic metres of biogas annually, which

when upgraded to fuel is equivalent to about

4 million litres of diesel. The facility will be

able to receive about 50,000 tonnes of food

waste a year, with the possibility of extending

this to 80,000 tonnes. Together with biogas

from the wastewater treatment plant, it will

guarantee a steady stream of biogas for the

operation of vehicles, including 230 buses

that are currently being adapted to use this

fuel. Production of biogas from Klemetsrud

will begin once a system for the separation of

household organic waste is under way by

2011. The renewable-energy and wastewater

project known as EGE 2010, of which

Klemetsrud forms a part, has a budget of

Nkr2.3 billion (about €264 million).

12,000 tonnes of CO2 a year, Oslo plans to har-ness one-half of it and convert it into bio-methane to run 80 of the city’s public buses.

Energy: Oslo is ranked first in the energy cate-gory, despite ranking joint 24th with Zurich inthe energy consumption subcategory. This isbecause the city receives full marks for itsrenewable-energy consumption and its cleanand efficient energy policies, and also becauseof its number-two ranking in the energy intensi-ty subcategory.Initiative: Oslo has adopted an energy actionplan to improve energy efficiency and replacefossil fuels with renewable sources, and toreduce greenhouse gas emissions from munici-pal buildings by 95% by 2030.

Buildings: Oslo is ranked third overall in thebuildings category. The city is ranked sixth in thesubcategory for energy consumption of residen-tial buildings. Energy-efficient building stan-dards are also strong, with the city ranking injoint fourth place in that subcategory. Initiative: Following a city council ruling, ener-gy efficiency assessments are being carried outon existing municipal buildings, with energymanagement of buildings being part of localcertifications.

Transport: Oslo is ranked fifth overall in thetransport category, behind several other high-income, small cities. While the city does well ongreen transport promotion and congestion-reduction policies, it performs relatively poorlyin terms of the size of its non-car networks anduse of non-car transport. Initiative: Buses running on fossil fuels will bereplaced by vehicles using biofuels and bio-gas— the latter consisting of methane generatedfrom the city’s wet organic waste in a systemthat is to be introduced in 2011.

Water: Oslo is ranked a relatively poor 20th inthe water category, reflecting its high waterconsumption, a fairly high leakage rate and the

recycling and reuse and for municipal wastereduction.Initiative: The Marka forested hill area to thenorth and east of Oslo encircles part of the city.The part of Marka owned by the city has beencertified with a local “Living Forest” standard.

Air quality: Oslo ranks only 15th in the indexfor overall air quality, primarily because of itspoor performance on nitrogen dioxide. Its mid-dling performance on particulate matter resultsfrom pollution in the winter months resultingfrom wood-burning stoves and temperatureinversions. Initiative: Since 2005 the city council hasimplemented schemes including a charge onstudded tyres (which produce road dust and par-ticulate matter), grants to replace old wood-burning stoves, an increase in the use of envi-ronmentally friendly public transport, andtraining for bus drivers in eco-friendly tech-niques.

Environmental governance: Oslo is ratedjoint fifth with Warsaw for environmental gover-nance. Oslo’s environmental planning is co-ordi-nated by the city council, which is both the cityand the county authority for Oslo.