The document discusses the Urban Ecosystem Europe (UEE) indicators, which provide an integrated assessment of European cities' urban environments. It then [1] presents data on 53 cities that applied the UEE indicators, dividing them by size and location. [2] It analyzes the availability of data for different environmental indicators like air quality, water, waste, urban design, mobility, energy, and noise. [3] It identifies 4-5 key indicators and links to a web platform for further benchmarking of cities.

1. Urban Ecosystem Europe
Lorenzo Bono

2. Urban Ecosystem Europe
Urban Ecosystem Europe is a
core set of environmental
sustainability indicators
which provides an integrated
assessment of European
cities’ urban environment.

3. 53 cities applied UEE
19 Big
(> 500,000)
20 Medium
(150,000-500,000)
14 Small
(<150,000)

4. 53 cities applied UEE
Stockholm 847.073 Praha 1.249.026
Helsinki 588.941 Poznań 554.200
Northern Europe
Eastern Europe
Kobenhavn 528.208 Bydgoszcz 356.637
Vantaa 197.636 Timisoara 311.428
Aalborg 192.000 Valjevo 96.761
Odense 190.245 Vranje 87.288
Turku 178.000 Liepaja 83.415
Helsingborg 123.000 Sfintu Gheorghe 62.300
Kuopio 96.800 Knurow 38.706
Vaxjo 83.005 Chrudim 22.950
Amsterdam 747.290 Barcelona 1.621.537
Rotterdam 592.939 Torino 907.563
Glasgow 584.240 Napoli 959.574
Nantes 580.502 Zaragoza 700.808
Bremen 547.685 Genova 609.822
Western Europe
Southern Europe
Sheffield 547.000 Bologna 380.181
Dresden 511.138 Firenze 371.282
Dublin 506.211 Vitoria Gasteiz 240.580
Nürnberg 503.673 Granada 234.325
Antwerpen 482.456 Porto 221.800
Bristol 433.100 Parma 184.467
Leicester 304.700 Oeiras 172.000
Münster 282.718 Ravenna 155.548
Augsburg 267.221 Ferrara 135.369
Plymouth 252.800 Bolzano 104.029
Bordeaux 230.000 Granollers 60.012
Faro 58.675

5. Data availability

6. Data availability
Air PM10 daily exceedances traffic stations 90,0%
daily exceedances background stations 62,0%
annual mean traffic stations 90,0%
annual mean background stations 64,0%
NO2 annual mean traffic stations 90,0%
annual mean background stations 74,0%
O3 exceedances 85,0%
Water wastewater connected inhabitants 94,0%
treatment 78,0%
network 78,0%
potable water per capitaconsumption 92,0%
distribution network leakages 88,0%
Waste production production (municipal and household) 96,0%
separated collection municipal and household 88,0%
municipal 76,0%
household 45,0%

7. Data availability
Urban Design green areas parks and garden 88,0%
urban green areas 96,0%
natural areas 86,0%
trees trees along roads 67,0%
cycling paths and lanes 88,0%
cycling network 64,0%
pedestrian paths length 54,0%
areas 45,0%
Mobility modal split modal split (general) 83,0%
all trips city by car 68,0%
public transport passengers (general) 77,0%
urban passengers 64,0%
total network km travelled 51,0%

8. Data availability
Energy CO2 CO2 or CO2 equivalent emissions 80,0%
consumption households elecrtricity consumption 60,0%
district heating connected inhabitants 53,0%
renewables solar thermal installed in PB 38,0%
solar photovoltaic installed in PB 47,0%
GPP paper recycled paper purchased 62,0%
food organic food purchased 32,0%
local authority green fleet 68,0%
ISO and EMAS certificated departments 52,0%
Noise exposed population den 60,0%
night 55,0%

9. Key indicators
4-5 INDICATORS showed
Link to the web platform……

10. Benchmarking cities: air quality
• Indicatori usati da: green capital award, urban audit, green city index
(economist), citeair (index)
• Monitoring station network: esempio di due italiane, se possibile con
mappa
• PM10: le diverse possibilità (1° scelta: media annua vs superamenti;
2°scelta: centralina peggiore, media centraline traffico, media
centraline background, media tutte centraline)
• PM10 grafici e classifiche a confronto (possiamo segnare in rosso
una città e vedere come cambiano le posizioni in classifica….)
Image from: EGC – catalogue of best practice

11. Benchmarking cities: air quality
• single parameters/index
• exceedances/annual mean
• traffic/background stations

12. Benchmarking cities: air quality
Air quality monitoring network
Amsterdam Kobenhavn
http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/airbase/map-stations

13. Benchmarking cities: air quality
Air quality assessment
Monitoring stations 
• Traffic and background
• Traffic
• Background
Amsterdam

14. Benchmarking cities: air quality
Air quality assessment
Monitoring stations  Pool of pollutants  Type of value 
• Traffic and background • PM10 • Concentration
• Traffic • NO2 • Limit exceedances
• Background • O3 • Stations’ average
• Others • Worst station

15. Benchmarking cities: air quality
PARAMETERS – European Green Capital Award
Traffic/background
PM10/NO2/O3
Mean/exceedances
Average/worst station
(maximum value)
Analysis of the European Green Capital Award 2010 & 2011 application round

16. Benchmarking cities: air quality
INDEX – Citeair air quality index
PM10 exceedances_traffic
traffic index
PM10 annual mean_traffic
annual air quality index
NO2 annual mean_traffic
O3 exceedances_traffic
SO2
Benzene
PM10 exceedances_background
background
PM10 annual mean_background
index
NO2 annual mean_background
O3 exceedances_background
SO2
Benzene
Detected values weightened
Worst station considered
Index based on “distance to target” (EU legislation)
http://www.airqualitynow.eu/comparing_year_average.php

17. Benchmarking cities: air quality
INDEX – European Green City Index
PM10 annual daily mean of emissions scored EU target
European Green City Index
NO2 annual daily mean of emissions scored EU target
air quality
O3 annual daily mean of emissions scored EU target
SO2 annual daily mean of emissions scored EU target
policies
European Green City Index - Siemens

18. 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Torino
Napoli
Poznań
Barcelona
Bydgoszcz
Firenze
Bologna
Parma
Ferrara
Liepaja
Granada
Dresden
Ravenna
Praha
Stockholm
Antwerpen
Bordeaux
Munster
Porto
Amsterdam
Aalborg
Faro
Augsburg
Zaragoza
Helsinki
Nuremberg
Bremen
Granollers
Nantes
Genova
PM10 excedances - traffic average of of
Bolzano
Kuopio
Plymouth
Glasgow
PM10 exceedances – traffic stations’ stations mean (n(n days)days)
Kobenhavn
Leicester
Helsingborg
Turku
Vantaa
Vaxjo
Bristol
Vitoria Gasteiz
Chrudim
Dublin
Odense
Benchmarking cities: UEE air quality

19. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Torino
Napoli
Barcelona
Bydgoszcz
Firenze
Parma
Granada
Bologna
Ferrara
Poznań
Aalborg
Liepaja
Praha
Antwerpen
Ravenna
Dresden
Granollers
Plymouth
Chrudim
Kobenhavn
Munster
Amsterdam
Rotterdam
Augsburg
Nantes
Bordeaux
Bremen
Faro
Odense
Porto
Zaragoza
PM10 annual mean - traffic stations mean (µg/m3)
Genova
Nuremberg
PM10 annual mean – traffic stations’ average (µg/m3)
Stockholm
Helsinki
Leicester
Bolzano
Glasgow
Bristol
Dublin
Vitoria Gasteiz
Helsingborg
Kuopio
Turku
Vantaa
Vaxjo
Benchmarking cities: UEE air quality

20. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Torino
Barcelona
Napoli
Praha
Bydgoszcz
Firenze
Bordeaux
Granada
Genova
Parma
Poznań
Bologna
Chrudim
Ferrara
Rotterdam
Aalborg
Antwerpen
Liepaja
Bremen
Augsburg
Dresden
Glasgow
Ravenna
Amsterdam
Granollers
Kobenhavn
Plymouth
Stockholm
Munster
Leicester
Nantes
Porto
PM10 annual mean – worstannual meanstation (µg/m3)
Faro
PM10 traffic - worst traffic station (µg/m3)
Helsinki
Nuremberg
Odense
Zaragoza
Oeiras
Bolzano
Sheffield
Bristol
Dublin
Vitoria Gasteiz
Sfintu Gheorghe
Helsingborg
Kuopio
Turku
Vantaa
Vaxjo
Benchmarking cities: UEE air quality

21. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Torino
Napoli
Barcelona
Bydgoszcz
Firenze
Parma
Granada
Bologna
Ferrara
Poznań
Aalborg
Liepaja
Praha
Antwerpen
Ravenna
Dresden
Granollers
Plymouth
Chrudim
Kobenhavn
Munster
Amsterdam
Rotterdam
Augsburg
Nantes
Bordeaux
Bremen
Faro
Odense
Porto
Zaragoza
PM10 annual mean - traffic stations mean (µg/m3)
Genova
PM10 annual mean – traffic stations’ average (µg/m3)
Nuremberg
Stockholm
Helsinki
Leicester
Bolzano
Glasgow
Bristol
Dublin
Vitoria Gasteiz
Helsingborg
Kuopio
Turku
Vantaa
Vaxjo
Benchmarking cities: UEE air quality

22. Benchmarking cities: cycling network
• Differenza tra paths and lanes e tutto il resto (anche come valore
assoluto o percentuale….)
• Differenti classifiche su 3 indicatori diversi: piste/abitante;
piste/superficie; piste/strade
Image from: EGC – catalogue of best practice

23. Benchmarking cities: cycling network
• Paths and lane and the cycling network
• Paths and lanes: rate to inhabitants
• Paths and lanes: rate to municipal area

24. 0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
70,00%
80,00%
90,00%
100,00%
Bordeaux
Faro
Firenze
Genova
Knurow
Nantes
Nuremberg
Odense
Poznań
Sfintu Gheorghe
Turku
Vaxjo
Kobenhavn
Dublin
Glasgow
Plymouth
Bremen
Vitoria Gasteiz
Bolzano
Kuopio
Bologna
Antwerpen
Parma
Bristol
Zaragoza
Ravenna
Aalborg
Helsinki
Vantaa
to total cycling network (%)
Paths and lanes, rate Paths and lanes, rate to total cycling network
Porto
Torino
Oeiras
Amsterdam
Ferrara
Granada
Dresden
Munster
Helsingborg
Leicester
Praha
Bydgoszcz
Barcelona
Granollers
Stockholm
Liepaja
Benchmarking cities: cycling network

25. 0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
Odense
Vantaa
Turku
Kuopio
Vaxjo
Aalborg
Bremen
Antwerpen
Munster
Helsinki
Stockholm
Amsterdam
Kobenhavn
Ravenna
Nuremberg
Nantes
Dresden
Bordeaux
Helsingborg
Bolzano
Parma
Dublin
Glasgow
Vitoria Gasteiz
Ferrara
Faro
Bologna
Bristol
Zaragoza
Plymouth
Poznań
Knurow
Cycling paths and lanes, rate to inhabitants (m/inh)
Cycling paths and lanes, rate to inhabitants (m/inh)
Torino
Firenze
Bydgoszcz
Sfintu Gheorghe
Leicester
Granada
Barcelona
Praha
Porto
Granollers
Oeiras
Genova
Liepaja
Napoli
Valjevo
Benchmarking cities: cycling network

26. 0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
Antwerpen
Stockholm
Kobenhavn
Bordeaux
Helsinki
Bremen
Amsterdam
Vantaa
Odense
Dublin
Nuremberg
Barcelona
Turku
Glasgow
Torino
Munster
Bolzano
Dresden
Bristol
Bologna
Nantes
Plymouth
Firenze
Leicester
Parma
Poznań
Vitoria Gasteiz
Granada
Aalborg
Bydgoszcz
Helsingborg
Knurow
Cycling paths to municipal area (m/km2)
Porto
Praha
Zaragoza
Cycling paths and lanes, rate and lanes, rate to municipal area (m/km2)
Ravenna
Kuopio
Granollers
Ferrara
Sfintu Gheorghe
Vaxjo
Faro
Oeiras
Genova
Liepaja
Napoli
Valjevo
Benchmarking cities: cycling network

27. 0,00
50,00
100,00
150,00
200,00
250,00
300,00
350,00
400,00
450,00
500,00
Helsinki
Odense
Vaxjo
Antwerpen
Vantaa
Bolzano
Kuopio
Munster
Dresden
Dublin
Bologna
Vitoria Gasteiz
Barcelona
Helsingborg
Bristol
Parma
Knurow
Sfintu Gheorghe
Ravenna
Plymouth
Bydgoszcz
Cycling paths and lanes, paths and lanes, rate to total street network (m/km)
Firenze
Leicester
Cycling rate to total street network (m/km)
Granada
Ferrara
Praha
Aalborg
Faro
Oeiras
Genova
Benchmarking cities: cycling network

28. Benchmarking cities: green urban areas
Image from: EGC – catalogue of best practice

29. Benchmarking cities: green urban areas
• Parks and garden and green urban areas
• Parks and garden: rate to inhabitants
• Parks and garden: rate to municipal area

30. 0,00%
10,00%
20,00%
30,00%
40,00%
50,00%
60,00%
70,00%
80,00%
90,00%
100,00%
Granollers
Helsingborg
Liepaja
Sfintu Gheorghe
Turku
Genova
Bolzano
Odense
Vantaa
Bristol
Firenze
Bremen
Zaragoza
Antwerpen
Plymouth
Ferrara
Glasgow
Leicester
Nuremberg
Dublin
Bydgoszcz
Amsterdam
Nantes
Torino
Chrudim
Porto
Parma
Vitoria Gasteiz
Praha
Bordeaux
Knurow
Barcelona
Granada
Munster
Parks to total rate to total green areas
Helsinki
Bologna
Poznań
Parks and gardens, rate and gardens,green urbanurban areas (%)
Napoli
Vranje
Faro
Oeiras
Vaxjo
Dresden
Valjevo
Kuopio
Ravenna
Aalborg
Augsburg
Kobenhavn
Rotterdam
Sheffield
Benchmarking cities: green urban areas

31. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Vantaa
Helsingborg
Odense
Aalborg
Bremen
Bristol
Plymouth
Dublin
Praha
Vitoria Gasteiz
Vaxjo
Turku
Sfintu Gheorghe
Antwerpen
Glasgow
Ferrara
Helsinki
Genova
Amsterdam
Nantes
Porto
Munster
Firenze
Nuremberg
Liepaja
Parma
Bologna
Bolzano
Parks inhabitants (m2/inh)
Bordeaux
Poznań
Torino
Parks and gardens, rate to and Gardens, rate to inhabitants (m2/inh)
Granada
Kuopio
Leicester
Bydgoszcz
Dresden
Granollers
Barcelona
Zaragoza
Oeiras
Chrudim
Faro
Knurow
Napoli
Ravenna
Valjevo
Benchmarking cities: green urban areas

32. 0,00%
1,00%
2,00%
3,00%
4,00%
5,00%
6,00%
7,00%
8,00%
Bristol
Dublin
Barcelona
Vantaa
Plymouth
Porto
Bremen
Torino
Glasgow
Praha
Bordeaux
Amsterdam
Helsinki
Firenze
Odense
Antwerpen
Genova
Leicester
Nuremberg
Bologna
Granollers
Helsingborg
Granada
Poznań
Bolzano
Vitoria Gasteiz
Oeiras
Parks and gardens, rate area (%)
Sfintu Gheorghe
Bydgoszcz
Nantes
Liepaja
Parks and gardens, rate to municipalto total municipal area (%)
Munster
Dresden
Turku
Napoli
Parma
Ferrara
Zaragoza
Knurow
Chrudim
Vaxjo
Faro
Kuopio
Ravenna
Valjevo
Benchmarking cities: green urban areas

33. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
For any further information, please contact us:
ecosystem.eu@ambienteitalia.it