Statistics Explained

Archive:SDG 11 - Sustainable cities and communities (statistical annex)

Revision as of 11:08, 20 November 2017 by Verdodo (talk | contribs)

Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable (statistical annex)

Data extracted in October 2017. Most recent data: Further Eurostat information, Main tables and Database. Planned article update: September 2018.

This article provides an overview of statistical data on SDG 11 ‘sustainable cities and communities’ in the European Union (EU). It is based on the set of EU SDG indicators for monitoring of progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in an EU context.

This article is part of a set of statistical articles, which are based on the Eurostat publication ’ Sustainable development in the European Union — Monitoring report on progress towards the SDGs in an EU context (2017 edition)’. This report is the first edition of Eurostat’s future series of monitoring reports on sustainable development, which provide a quantitative assessment of progress of the EU towards the SDGs in an EU context.

Overcrowding rate

Overcrowding rate.png

The share of people living in overcrowded conditions in the EU has been reduced by three percentage points since 2005. Progress in the past five years has continued but at a slower rate.

Figure 1: Overcrowding rate, EU-27 and EU-28, 2005–2015 (% of population)
Source: Eurostat (sdg_11_10)
Figure 2: Overcrowding rate, by country, 2010 and 2015 (% of population)
Source: Eurostat (sdg_11_10)

A person is considered to be living in an overcrowded household if the house does not have at least one room for the entire household as well as a room for a couple, for each single person above 18, for a pair of teenagers (12 to 17 years of age) of the same sex, for each teenager of different sex and for a pair of children (under 12 years of age). The data used in this section are derived from micro-data from EU statistics on income and living conditions (EU SILC). The EU-28 aggregate is a population-weighted average of individual national figures.

In 2015, overcrowding by the above definition was more widespread in the EU than housing deprivation [1], with almost one in six Europeans (16.7 %) living in a densely populated home. The situation has improved slightly since 2005 [2], but much of this progress was achieved before 2010.

There is a clear income gradient in available living space in the EU, with the prevalence of overcrowding being more than two times higher for the population below 60 % of the median equivalised income (29.6 %) compared to the population above (14.0 %)[3]. Interestingly, the incidence of overcrowding in EU rural areas in 2015 was 17.2 %, which is only slightly below the level observed in cities (18.0 %) [4]despite rural dwellings tending to be larger in size [5]. This similarity might partly be explained by rural areas tending to have larger households [6]. The lowest rate of overcrowding was observed in towns and suburbs (14.6 %).

Overcrowding rates vary widely among Member States, ranging in 2015 from 1.4 % to almost 50 %. This reflects a variety of factors, including population density and housing concentration, the price of land and housing, income distribution and the stock of housing available for rent or purchase. Overcrowding seems to be widespread in eastern European countries with low average household incomes and a legacy of housing stock composed of many small dwellings [7]. At the extreme, every second Romanian was living in conditions considered to be overcrowded. In contrast, most northern and western Member States, characterised with higher average incomes and larger average dwellings[8], displayed much lower overcrowding rates (15 % or less).

Population living in households considering that they suffer from noise

Population-households-noise.png

Self-perceived exposure to noise pollution from neighbours or from the street has been reduced by almost five percentage points in the EU since 2007.

Figure 3: Population living in households considering that they suffer from noise, EU-27 and EU-28, 2007–2015 (% of population)
Source: Eurostat (sdg_11_20)
Figure 4:Population living in households considering that they suffer from noise, by country, 2010 and 2015 (% of population)
Source: Eurostat (sdg_11_20)

Apart from housing conditions, noise pollution from the wider residential area can also affect overall quality of life. Self-perceived noise pollution is assessed using data on the proportion of the population living in households considering that they suffer from noise from neighbours or from the street, which stem from the EU statistics on income and living conditions (EU SILC). It should be noted because the assessment of noise pollution is subjective, the indicator accounts for both the levels of noise pollution as well as people’s standards of what level they consider to be acceptable. Therefore, an increase in the value of the indicator may not necessarily indicate a similar increase in noise pollution levels but also a decrease of the levels that European citizens are willing to tolerate and vice versa. In fact, there is empirical evidence that perceived environmental quality by individuals is not always consistent with the actual environmental quality assessed using ‘objective’ indicators, particularly for noise [9].

In 2015, 18.0 % of the EU population lived in a dwelling where noise from neighbours or from the street was perceived as a problem, compared to 23.0 % in 2007 [10]. According to a recent assessment by the European Environment Agency (EEA), road traffic is by far the major cause of noise pollution in Europe, with at least 100 million people being exposed to levels of traffic noise above the EU’s threshold of 55 decibels (dB) for daily exposure [11]. Railways, airports and industry are also important sources of noise pollution.

Population density is an important determinant of the perceived level of noise pollution. In 2015, people living in EU cities were more likely to report noise from neighbours or from the street (23.3 %) compared to those living in towns and suburbs (17.8 %) or in rural areas (10.7 %). For all three types of settlements there was an income gradient in the incidence of noise pollution, with lower income groups (below 60% of median equivalised income) reporting outdoor noise as a problem more often than higher income groups (above 60 % of median equivalised income). This could be explained by differences in rent and property prices, which might force poorer individuals to reside in dwellings near environmental stressors such industrial sites or roads with high traffic density [12]. The difference in perceived exposure to noise pollution between income groups was highest in cities (7.2 percentage points) and almost negligible in rural areas (0.6 percentage point) [13].

The distribution of the Member States in terms of perceived disturbance by noise shows a moderate variation between countries, ranging from 8 % to almost 26 %. Country differences in perceived level of noise pollution might reflect the distribution of the population living in cities and rural areas, housing type and density, urban planning, land use and traffic management as well as cultural and personal factors. Interestingly, a number of Member States, in particular Latvia, Romania and Slovakia, reported a higher incidence of noise pollution for higher income groups. In Cyprus the difference in self-perceived noise from the street or from neighbours between cities and rural areas was negligible, whereas in Norway people living in rural areas reported higher self-perceived noise pollution compared to those living in cities.

Difficulty in accessing public transport

Difficulty in accessing public transport.png

In 2012, about one in five Europeans (20.4 %) reported experiencing ‘high’ or ‘very high’ levels of difficulty in accessing public transport. Luxembourg and Spain had the lowest barriers in access to public transport in the EU.

Figure 5: Difficulty in accessing public transport by level of difficulty, by country, 2012 (% of population)
Source: Eurostat (sdg_11_30)

Disadvantaged groups such as the young, the elderly, those at risk of poverty and those with disabilities are likely to be the most affected by barriers to accessing public transport. Access is also particularly important for people with low incomes because they are less likely to afford to buy and maintain a personal vehicle. Convenient public transport could also improve their access to jobs [14]. EU SILC data on the distribution of population by level of difficulty in accessing public transport by income quintile and degree of urbanisation reveal which population groups are most affected by limited accessibility in EU countries.

Across Member States between 10 % and 30 % of the population are limited in their use of public transport. Despite having a greater need for access to public transport, people with low incomes in the EU appear to have less access. In 2012, 21.7 % of the population with the lowest income reported high or very high difficulty compared to 17.7 % of the population with the highest income [15]. Some eastern Member States report very high inequality in access to public transport across income groups. In Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland, the rate of people experiencing ‘high’ or ‘very high’ difficulty in access to public transport was about 20 percentage points higher for people with the lowest income compared to those with the highest. The level of urbanisation appears to have a major influence on people’s experience of catching public transport. Cities tend to provide the best access, with only 9.7 % of city dwellers reporting high or very high level of difficulty. This share increases by more than three times (37.4 %) when people in rural areas are asked about their experience. Remote and rural areas can face particular challenges in providing good access to public transport because of distribution of dwellings across large areas, low density of potential passengers and often unpredictable level of demand.

Across EU countries, the share of the population reporting difficulty in gaining access to public transport in 2012 ranged from 9.8 % to 30.8 %. Country variations tend to reflect differences in population density, investment in transport infrastructure and urban sprawl, among other factors.

People killed in road accidents

People killed in road accidents.png

European roads are becoming safer, but further progress is needed to ensure the 2020 target on road fatalities will be met.

Figure 6: People killed in road accidents, EU-28, 2001–2015 (number of killed people)
Source: Eurostat (sdg_11_40)
Figure 7: People killed in road accidents, by country, 2000 and 2015 (per 100 000 inhabitants)
Source: Eurostat (sdg_11_40)

Road accident data presented in this section stem from the Community database on road accidents resulting in death or injury (CARE), which is managed by Directorate-General Mobility and Transport (MOVE). CARE comprises detailed data on individual accidents as collected by the Member States through their own national collection systems.

In 2015, about 72 people lost their lives on EU roads every day. This equalled 26 100 people for the entire year — a loss equivalent to the size of a medium town. This figure represents a long-term fall in road casualties of 52 % and is broadly in line with the 2020 target of halving the total death toll on EU roads compared to 2010. National regulations applying to vehicles and drivers and improvements to road infrastructure have largely contributed to this trend. However, the deceleration in the reduction of road fatalities since 2010 has pushed the EU off its path to reaching the 2020 target in the short term.

In 2014, the incidence of road traffic fatalities was highest on non-motorway roads outside urban areas (54 %), followed by roads inside urban areas (38 %) [16]. There seems to be a strong gender aspect, with 76 % of all road casualties in 2015 being male. Young people still face the highest risk of traffic accidents. Although they did not account for the majority of road deaths in 2015, young people aged between 15 and 24 years were overrepresented in road casualties, making up 11 % of the population but 16 % of all road fatalities [17]. However, fatalities among young road users have been falling compared with a growing share of the elderly in road deaths. Drivers were the main victims of road accidents (62 %), followed by pedestrians (21 %) and passengers (17 %)[18].

Compared to other continents, Europe has the lowest rate of road traffic fatalities. The African continent leads the ranking in road casualties, with victims reaching 26.6 per 100 000 persons in 2013. This was 2.5 times higher than the rates registered in the United States and 5.2 higher than those in the EU for the same year[19]. However, by looking at road traffic deaths per 100 000 persons in 2013, several economically advanced non- European countries performed better than the EU (5.1) in saving lives on the road, namely Israel and Singapore (3.6 each) and Japan (4.7)[20]. All the EFTA countries also recorded lower road fatalities rates than the EU[21].

In general, road fatalities show both a northsouth divide and east-west divide across Europe, although there are a number of exceptions [22]Country variations in road fatalities can be explained by a number of factors, including the volume of car transport, the extent and quality of the road infrastructure, the characteristics of the vehicle stock, climatic and geographic conditions, population density, national regulations that apply to vehicles and driver behaviour.

European capital regions, in particular Stockholm (0.6), Vienna (0.7), Oslo (1.1), Berlin (1.4), London (1.6) and Madrid (1.7), tend to have a relatively low rate of road fatalities [23]. The lower fatality rates in major urban regions could be explained by the wider availability and use of public transport and other transport modes such as cycling and walking. Although the heavy traffic in cities generally increases the likelihood of road accidents, lower average speed reduces the probability of serious injuries. On the other hand, there is a higher chance that pedestrians and more vulnerable users are involved in a road accident within urban areas.

Exposure to air pollution by particulate matter

Exposure to air pollution.png

Exposure of the urban population to air pollution by fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which is especially damaging to human health, increased by 6 % between 2000 and 2014. This negative trend in air quality was reversed in the short term, with the 2.2 μg/m3 decrease in the population-weighted concentration of PM2.5 between 2009 and 2014.

Figure 8: Exposure to air pollution by particulate matter, EU-28, 2000–2014 (μg/m3)
Source: Eurostat (sdg_11_50)
Figure 9:Exposure to air pollution by particulate matter (PM2.5), by country, 2009 and 2014 (μg/m3)
Source: Eurostat (sdg_11_50)

The indicator of urban population exposure to air pollution shows the population weighted annual mean concentration of particulate matter at urban background stations in agglomerations. Fine and coarse particulates (PM10) — particulates less than 10 micrometers in diameter — can be carried deep into the lungs where they can cause inflammation and exacerbate the condition of people suffering heart and lung diseases. Fine particulates (PM2.5) — less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter — are a subset of PM10. Their health impacts are even more serious than PM10 because they can be drawn further into the lungs and may be more toxic. The indicator is published by Eurostat based on data from the European Environment Agency (EEA).

In 2014, the EU urban population exposure to air pollution by particulate matter (PM2.5) stood at 15.2 μg/m3. This was 14 % below the population-weighted concentration of PM2.5 in 2009, but 5 % above the 2000 value, indicating that European cities have made only partial progress in managing the environmental pressure on their air quality.

The EU average urban population exposure to PM2.5 concentration in 2014 was below the limit value established by the EU from 2015 onward (25 μg/m3 annual mean) [24]. However, substantial air pollution hotspots remain and the annual mean for fine particular matters continues to be above the levels recommended by the World Health Organization (10 μg/m3 annual mean). The EU standard is set at the national level and is based on the average exposure indicator (AEI). The AEI is an averaged level of concentrations (over a three-year period), measured at urban background monitoring stations (representative of general urban population exposure), selected for this purpose by every national authority. Emissions from coal and biomass combustion in households and from commercial and institutional buildings are the main source of air pollution from PM2.5 in the EU, accounting for 56 % of total primary PM2.5 emissions[25]. However, a significant proportion of total particulate matter can subsequently form in the atmosphere from other gaseous pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides and ammonia.

Urban population exposure to PM10 in the EU has developed in a more positive direction. The population-weighted concentration of PM10 has been reduced by 22 % since 2000, reaching a decade low of 22.5 μg/m3 in 2014. Despite recent improvements, a large proportion of the European population, especially people in cities, are still exposed to air pollution that exceeds European standards and, especially, World Health Organization (WHO) Air Quality Guidelines (AQGs). According to recent European Environment Agency’s estimates, 8–12 % of the EU urban population was exposed to levels above the EU PM2.5 limit value between 2012 and 2014. If the more stringent WHO AQG is considered (10 μg/ m3 as annual mean for PM2.5), about 85–91 % of city inhabitants were exposed to PM2.5 concentration levels deemed harmful by WHO[26]. Air pollution remains one of the largest environmental health hazards. According to estimates, exposure to PM2.5 was responsible for about 436 000 premature deaths in the EU in 2013 [27], which is almost 17 times more deaths than from traffic road accidents in that year.

Compared to other countries in the world, the EU and its Member States have a relatively low level of annual mean concentrations of PM2.5 in urban areas. In 2014, countries in the Middle East and South East Asia recorded the highest annual mean concentrations of fine PM2.5 in urban areas, with Saudi Arabia (131.6 μg/m3), Qatar (105.3 μg/ m3) and Egypt 101.8 μg/m3) leading the global ranking. The annual concentration of PM2.5 in urban areas in India (73.6 μg/m3) and China (61.8 μg/ m3) was five and four times the EU average, respectively. However, several advanced economies outperformed the EU in terms of air quality. The annual mean concentration of PM2.5 in New Zealand (5.3 μg/m3) was three times lower than the EU average, in Canada and the United States it was almost half the EU average (7 μg/m3 and 8.5 μg/ m3, respectively), and in Brazil and Japan it was slightly below the EU value (11.9 μg/ m3 and 13 μg/ m3, respectively) [28]. Despite these variations, 90 % of the global population living in cities in 2014 were exposed to particulate matter in concentrations exceeding WHO air quality guidelines (10 μg/m3) [29].

The urban population in two Member States, namely Bulgaria and Poland, had average exposure to PM2.5 concentrations exceeding the EU standard, at 26.1 μg/m3 each. The lowest populationweighted concentration of air pollution by PM2.5 — three times or more below the annual limit value — was recorded for urban areas in northern Member States. In contrast, cities in most eastern European countries tended to have higher concentrations.

Recycling rate of municipal waste

Recycling rate of municipal waste.png

The EU recycled or composted 45.0 % of its municipal waste in 2015, up from just 25.3 % in 2000 and 38.3 % in 2010, indicating that the EU is clearly shifting towards more environmentally friendly modes of municipal waste management both in the long term and the short term.

Figure 10: Recycling rate of municipal waste, EU-27 and EU-28, 2000–2015 (% of total waste generated)
Source: Eurostat (sdg_11_60)
Figure 11: Recycling rate of municipal waste, by country, 2000 and 2015 (% of total waste generated)
Source: Eurostat

The recycling rate is the tonnage recycled from municipal waste divided by the total municipal waste arising. Recycling includes material recycling, composting and anaerobic digestion. Municipal waste consists mostly of waste generated by households, but may also include similar wastes generated by small businesses and public institutions and collected by the municipality. This latter part of municipal waste may vary from municipality to municipality and from country to country, depending on the local waste management system. For areas not covered by a municipal waste collection scheme the amount of waste generated is estimated.

The waste hierarchy is an overarching logic guiding EU policy on waste, which prioritises waste prevention, followed by re-use, recycling, other recovery and finally disposal, including landfilling, as the last resort. Although municipal waste accounts for only 10 % of total waste generated in the EU, it is highly visible, closely linked to consumption patterns and its prevention has the potential to reduce the environmental impact not only during the consumption and the waste phases but also throughout the whole life cycle of the products consumed [30].

In 2015, each EU citizen generated on average 1.3 kilograms of waste per day, which was just 0.1 kg below the 2000 figure. Although the EU has not substantially reduced its municipal waste generation in the past 15 years, it has clearly shifted to more sustainable modes of managing a large bulk of it. Since 2000, the recycling rate has been increasing continuously by almost 4 % per year. EU and national strategies prioritising efficient waste management through various instruments have largely contributed to this movement up the ‘waste hierarchy’.

Central and northern Member States with dedicated and diverse policy instruments and strict regulations on waste management tend to recycle a relatively high share of their municipal waste. Important policy measures, which have stimulated recycling in these countries include ‘landfill bans on biodegradable waste or nonpre- treated municipal waste; mandatory separate collection of municipal waste types, especially biowastes; and economic instruments such as landfill and incineration taxes and waste collection fees that strongly encourage recycling’ [31]. Germany, which has a long tradition of national waste strategies and waste management plans in its federal states, has by far the highest recycling rate in the EU (66.1 %)[32].

In contrast, several Mediterranean and eastern Member States recycle less than 20 % of their municipal waste, with Malta and Romania recording the lowest rates, 6.7 % and 13.1 %, respectively. The main challenge for recycling expansion in Romania is the development of the infrastructure for separate collection and recycling of municipal waste [33], whereas in Malta the major obstacle lies in the inherently small scale of the Maltese market and the need to achieve economies of scale in recovery and recycling of waste compared to other Member States [34].

See also

Further Eurostat information

Database

Socioeconomic Development

Dedicated section

Methodology

More detailed information on EU SDG indicators for monitoring of progress towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as indicator relevance, definitions, methodological notes, background and potential linkages, can be found in chapter 11 of the publication ’ Sustainable development in the European Union — Monitoring report on progress towards the SDGs in an EU context (2017 edition)’.

Notes

  1. ↑ Source: Eurostat (online data code: tessi291).
  2. ↑ 2005 data refers to the EU-27 and are estimates.
  3. ↑ Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_lvho05a). Data are estimates.
  4. ↑ Source: Eurostat (online data code: tessi174). Data for rural areas are estimates.
  5. ↑ See: Average size of dwelling by household type and degree of urbanization. Source: Eurostat (online code: ilc_hcmh02).
  6. ↑ For instance, see Households characteristics by degree of urbanisation. Source: Eurostat (online data code: hbs_car_t315).
  7. ↑ Soaita, A. M. (2014), Overcrowding and ‘under-occupancy’ in Romania: a case study of housing inequality, Environment and Planning A, 46(1), 203–221.
  8. ↑ See Average size of dwelling by income quintile and tenure status. Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_hcmh01).
  9. ↑ For instance see: Raw, G. J. and Griffiths, D., Individual differences in response to road traffic noise, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 1988, Volume 121, Issue 3, page 463–471 and Waye K. P., Öhrström E., Psycho-acoustic characters of relevance for annoyance of wind turbine noise, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2002, 250(1), page 65–73.
  10. ↑ 2007 data refers to the EU-27.
  11. ↑ European Environment Agency, Road traffic remains biggest source of noise pollution in Europe, 2017, p.4.
  12. ↑ Dale,L., et. al., Socioeconomic status and environmental noise exposure in Montreal, Canada, 2015, BMC Public Health, 15:205.
  13. ↑ Source: Eurostat (online data code: ilc_mddw04).
  14. ↑ European Centre for social Welfare policy and research, Housing problems and access to basic local services in the EU27. How does Austria compare?, Policy Brief, April 2012.
  15. ↑ Source: Eurostat (ilc_hcmp06).
  16. ↑ European Commission, Annual Accidents Report, 2016, p.73.
  17. ↑ Eurostat (online data code: demo_pjanind).
  18. ↑ Own calculations based on European Commission, Mobility and Transport. Statistics — accidents data.
  19. ↑ World Health Organization (WHO), Global Status Report on Road Safety 2015, Summary, 2015, p.1 and European Commission services,Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, CARE database (sdg_11_40).
  20. ↑ World Health Organization (WHO), Global Health Observatory (GHO) data, Number of road traffic deaths.
  21. ↑ Ibid.
  22. ↑ European Commission, Traffic Safety. Basic Facts 2015: Main Figures, 2015, p.5.
  23. ↑ Source: Eurostat (online data code: tran_r_acci).
  24. ↑ For PM2.5, the Ambient Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC introduced a target value to be attained by 2010, which became a limit value starting in 2015. For more information on EU air quality standards see: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/quality/standards.htm
  25. ↑ European Environment Agency, Air Quality in Europe 2016 Report, 2016, p.23.
  26. ↑ Id., p.55.
  27. ↑ European Environment Agency, Premature deaths attributable to air pollution in 2013, 2013.
  28. ↑ WHO, World Health Statistics 2016. Monitoring Health for the Sustainable Development Goals, 2016, pp. 103–119.
  29. ↑ Id., pp. 94.
  30. ↑ European Environment Agency, Municipal waste management across European countries. Briefing, 2016.
  31. ↑ European Environment Agency, Recycling of municipal waste, Last modified on 11 April 2017.
  32. ↑ European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials in a Green Economy, Country fact sheet: Municipal waste management Germany, 2016.
  33. ↑ European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials in a Green Economy, Country fact sheet: Municipal waste management Romania, 2016.
  34. ↑ European Topic Centre on Waste and Materials in a Green Economy, Country fact sheet: Municipal waste management Malta, 2016.
Retrieved from "https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:SDG_11_-_Sustainable_cities_and_communities_(statistical_annex)&oldid=361919"