Imperviousness and imperviousness change in Europe

Imperviousness means the covering of the soil surface with impermeable materials because of urban development and infrastructure construction. Imperviousness negatively affects biodiversity, carbon storage and sequestration, soil hydrological properties, ecosystem services and nature conservation. In 2018, sealing affected 97,744 km² (2.23%) of EU plus United Kingdom territories. Almost half the area of cities is sealed and about 4% of the EU's coastal regions and floodplains are impermeable, jeopardising adaptation to heatwaves and floods and decreasing carbon sequestration.

Areas	Cropland	Cropland_%	Grassland	Grassland_%	Woodland and forest	Woodland and forest_%	Woodland and forest_%_annotation	Rivers and lakes	Rivers and lakes_%	Rivers and lakes_%_annotation	Heathland and shrub	Heathland and shrub_%	Heathland and shrub_%_annotation	Marine inlets and transitional waters	Marine inlets and transitional waters_%	Marine inlets and transitional waters_%_annotation	Sparsely vegetated land	Sparsely vegetated land_%	Sparsely vegetated land_%_annotation	Inland wetlands	Inland wetlands_%	Inland wetlands_%_annotation
Floodplains	1715.4	0.5	517.4	0.1	220	0.1	0.1	181.6	< 0.1	*	18	< 0.1	*	15.6	< 0.1	*	9.6	< 0.1	*	9.3	< 0.1	*
Coastal zones	2693.5	15.5	458.6	2.2	339.1	1.9	1.9	101.2	0.7	0.7	62.2	0.5	0.5	45.4	0.2	0.2	22.1	0.3	0.3	12.6	0.1	0.1
Protected Areas	1842.3	0.1	854	0.1	554.8	< 0.1	*	83.8	< 0.1	*	81.4	< 0.1	*	44.8	< 0.1	*	24.4	< 0.1	*	15.8	< 0.1	*

The continuing rapid expansion of sealed surfaces — often improperly planned and unjustified by the population's needs — leads to hydrological impacts, which influence run-off in urban catchments, and the loss of crop production, which affect the global carbon cycle. Sealing is also a key driver of the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The European Commission’s roadmap to a resource efficient Europe introduced a ‘no net land take by 2050’ initiative that aims to ensure that either all new urbanisation occurs on brownfields or any new land take is compensated for by reclaiming artificial land. Land take and sealing are also relevant to several targets of the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030, aimed at protecting and restoring nature . As sealing hampers nature’s ability to deliver a wide range of environmental, climate change adaptation and biodiversity benefits, it also affects the implementation of the EU strategy on green infrastructure and the long-term objectives of the common agricultural policy (CAP) — viable food production, the sustainable management of natural resources, climate action and balanced territorial development .

In 2018, 97,903 km² of soil was sealed in the 27 Member States plus the United Kingdom (EU-27 + UK), amounting to 522 inhabitants per km². Cities and towns are most affected by sealing (42% and 30% sealed, respectively), contributing to the development of urban heat islands, floods and impacts on human health. Croplands sealing amounted to almost 14%, which is important given their role in Europe’s food and fibre production. Grassland ecosystems — highly important for biodiversity and ecosystem services — were sealed on average in 3% of the EU, whereas approximately 2% of forests — important sources of food, fibre, habitats and important carbon sinks — were sealed.

Coastal areas are increasingly exposed to climate change and urbanisation. In the EU-27 + UK region, 16,000 km² (4%) of coastal zones were sealed in 2018, jeopardising their role in carbon sequestration, climate change adaptation and coastal ecosystem protection. Floodplains are also important for climate change adaptation, acting as buffers during flooding events. Despite this, 3% (11,367 km²) of floodplains were sealed in the EU-27 + UK region in 2018. Even protected areas are not free from sealing, with 0.6% of all protected areas (7,013 km²) affected.

Countries	Cropland	Grassland	Woodland and forest	Heathland and shrub	Rivers and lakes	Sparsely vegetated land	Marine inlets and transitional waters	Inland wetlands	sum	Cropland_km2	Grassland_km2	Woodland and forest_km2	Heathland and shrub_km2	Rivers and lakes_km2	Sparsely vegetated land_km2	Marine inlets and transitional waters_km2	Inland wetlands_km2
Netherlands	1.33	0.61	0.09	0.01	0.07	0.01	0.01	0.01	2.13	528.93	243.92	36.1	1.75	26.68	0.59	2.11	3.19
Malta	1.56		0.01	0.24		0.01	0.02		1.85	4.92		0.01	0.77		0.01	0.07
Belgium	1.08	0.24	0.1	0.02	0.04	0.01	0.01	0.01	1.51	332.06	72.74	30.56	7.45	11.84	0.33	1.88	0.26
Germany	0.57	0.47	0.14	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	1.23	2.052.99		506.27	4.51	41.96	0.62	8.05	3.11
Portugal	0.86	0.01	0.2	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	1.13	798.46	13.56	186.1	17.12	2.03	4.94	5.1	0.06
Italy	0.98	0.02	0.05	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	1.1	2.956.77	71.33	152.01	24.36	14.74	18.21	7.46	0.93
Luxembourg	0.58	0.32	0.16		0.02			0.01	1.08	15.03	8.22	4.06		0.58			0.01
Denmark	0.97	0.01	0.04	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	1.08	430.17	5.76	19.85	1.44	0.66	0.51	1.24	1.9
Switzerland	0.59	0.15	0.09	0.01	0.02	0.01		0.01	0.87	242.11	60.35	35.74	0.38	9.81	0.28		0.49
Slovenia	0.61	0.07	0.06	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.78	123.11	14.07	11.95	0.01	1.65	0.02	0.68	0.01
France	0.51	0.16	0.06	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.77	2.820.53	867.99	306.61	42.76	46.33	9.16	20.01	3.51
United Kingdom	0.35	0.34	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.75	857.20	835.36	63.59	14.52	9.21	1.71	13.7	7.57
Liechtenstein	0.48	0.07	0.15	0	0.05	0		0.01	0.75	0.77	0.11	0.23	0	0.07	0		0.01
Czechia	0.52	0.07	0.05	0.01	0.01	0.01		0.01	0.67	410.82	52.96	40.18	0.06	4.37	0.01		0.13
Austria	0.39	0.13	0.06	0.01	0.01	0.01		0.01	0.62	323.29	111.53	47.83	0.1	12.07	0.36		0.68
Ireland	0.09	0.41	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.56	62.00	291.28	6.9	0.89	0.85	0.42	2.18	8.09
Spain	0.38	0.05	0.04	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.54	1.937.41	247.62	195.04	126.1	7.98	23.14	8.16	0.42
Poland	0.37	0.03	0.04	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.5	1.162.99	102.71	137.25	0.01	11.3	0.28	0.13	0.66
Cyprus	0.36	0.01	0.03	0.05	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.49	33.18	0.91	2.55	4.68	0.31	0.35	0.07	0.05
Croatia	0.34	0.03	0.05	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.47	193.94	19.1	28.31	2.97	2.39	0.97	0.4	0.29
Kosovo*	0.33	0.02	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.01		0.01	0.41	35.67	1.87	3.31	0.01	0.02	0.18		0.01
Greece	0.29	0.02	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.38	384.55	19.94	14.57	24.64	1.78	2.52	1.38	0.42
Lithuania	0.26	0.02	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.36	169.12	12.43	18.63	0.1	1.3	0.03	0.41	0.15
Serbia	0.28	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01		0.01	0.34	213.23	3.94	12.96	0.01	2.97	0.07		0.48
Bosnia and Herzegovina	0.26	0.02	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01		0.01	0.33	134.03	7.71	9.35	1.85	2.28	0.65		0.03
Slovakia	0.26	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01		0.01	0.33	127.63	6.33	9.86	0.01	2.42	0.01		0.14
Hungary	0.24	0.03	0.02		0.01	0.01		0.01	0.32	221.61	31.87	19.08		4.24	0.01		1.2
North Macedonia	0.21	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01		0.01	0.27	52.74	2.44	2.53	0.28	0.49	0.15		0.02
Turkey	0.18	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.26	1.411.47	115.79	85.65	9.64	19.36	68.71	1.13	1.81
Finland	0.07	0.01	0.1	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.23	242.68	0.03	342.44	0.39	10.47	0.24	0.13	1.86
Latvia	0.13	0.02	0.04		0.01	0.01		0.01	0.23	86.99	15.08	27.13		2.12	0.07		0.46
Romania	0.13	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.2	301.28	41.22	15.7	0.02	13.61	0.53	0.02	2.31
Estonia	0.1	0.02	0.04	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.2	45.11	7.14	16.27	0.29	0.61	0.09	0.01	0.89
Bulgaria	0.13	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.2	147.89	10.93	12.87	0.02	2.34	0.65	0.32	0.36
Sweden	0.07	0.01	0.07	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.2	335.67	25.27	301.32	2.4	15.51	2.83	2.13	7.27
Albania	0.11	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.18	31.92	2.97	3.09	2.23	0.62	1.09	0.13	0.07
Montenegro	0.07	0.01	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.16	10.02	1.22	3.5	0.33	0.04	0.63	0.09	0.07
Norway	0.05	0	0.03	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.13	162.24	1.2	102.3	12.14	7.29	13.76	1.12	5.71
Iceland	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.08	0.10	5.79	0.85	17.43	0.15	4.25	0.42	0.91

In 2018, ecosystems in Malta (19% sealed), the Netherlands and Belgium (both 8% sealed) were the most impervious (link to dashboard). When not considering urban ecosystems, croplands were the most sealed ecosystems in these countries together with Denmark and Italy.

Sealing in forests was minimal in 2018, affecting less than 500 km² (1%) of forests in each country. However, pasture and grasslands, important for carbon sequestration and biodiversity, were more affected, with over 1,700 km² of these land types being sealed in Germany and almost 900 km² in France and the United Kingdom. Belgium’s grasslands were most affected by sealing in relative terms, with 4% affected, followed by Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg (3-3.4%). In Switzerland, 4.4% of floodplains were sealed, more than in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (3%). Thirty per cent of Malta’s coastal region, mostly wetlands, was sealed, as were over 15% of the Belgian and Slovenian coastlines.

Supporting information

DefinitionMethodology

Methodology for indicator calculation

• The 100-m imperviousness product of 2018, aggregated from the 10-m 2018 imperviousness data set for analytical performance, is the basis for this indicator.
• The calculation used to obtain the data presented in the indicator is performed by ingesting the 100-m imperviousness data set into the EEA’s integrated data platform to create harmonised results with other indicators based on spatial data sets and using a similar methodology.
• The data cube approach used for the data platform enables the extraction of statistics based on a system of grid cells with a side length of 100 m (an area of 100 ha).
• Statistics are calculated in the data cube as regional aggregates, such as NUTS-0 to NUTS-3, land cover classes, protected areas, floodplains and coastal zones.
• All data sets used for the aggregation are registered in the EEA’s Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) under the reference layers node of the integrated data platform:

Policy/environmental relevance

The main policy-relevant objective of this indicator is to measure the extent and dynamics (change) of soil sealing, resulting from the development of urban and other artificial land.

At the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development held in Rio in 2012 (Rio+20), world leaders identified land and soil degradation as a global problem and committed to ‘strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world in the context of sustainable development’. At the EU level, the Seventh Environment Action Programme (7th EAP) includes a strong focus on the unsustainable use of land and soil, including the issue of soil sealing explicitly (EU, 2013a). In this context, the 7th EAP refers to the Commission Staff Working Document ‘Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing’ .

In addition, land take is explicitly mentioned in Chapter 23 of the 7th EAP:

‘Every year more than 1,000 km² of land are taken for housing, industry, transport or recreational purposes. Such long-term changes are difficult or costly to reverse, and nearly always involve trade-offs between various social, economic and environmental needs. Environmental considerations including water protection and biodiversity conservation should be integrated into planning decisions relating to land use so that they are made more sustainable, with a view to making progress towards the objective of 'no net land take', by 2050’ .

In recognition of the importance of land in safeguarding natural resources, the Commission is considering publishing a communication on ‘land as a resource’.

Other important references can be found in the Communication from the Commission ‘A sustainable Europe for a better world: a European Union strategy for sustainable development’ and the thematic documents related to it , as well as the concept of territorial cohesion.

Targets

Although there are no quantitative targets for soil sealing/imperviousness at EU level, different documents reflect the need for better planning to control urban growth and the extension of infrastructure. Policies relating explicitly to land use issues, and especially physical and spatial planning, have, until now, generally been the responsibility of authorities in individual Member States. The European Commission’s roadmap to a resource efficient Europe (EC, 2011) introduced, for the first time, a ‘no net land take by 2050’ initiative that aims to ensure that either all new urbanisation occurs on brownfields or any new land take is compensated for by reclaiming artificial land.

EU policy, although not establishing requirements for spatial planning directly, provides a framework for planning. At the EU level, the 1999 European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) , a non-binding framework that aims to coordinate various European regional policy impacts, advocates the development of a sustainable, polycentric and balanced urban system with compact cities and the strengthening of partnerships between urban and rural areas, as well as parity of access to infrastructure and knowledge, and evidence-based management of natural areas and cultural heritage. The 2008 Green Paper on territorial cohesion and the 2007 EU territorial agenda and action plan by the Territorial Agenda of the EU and the action programme for its implementation (COPTA, 2007) build further on the ESDP. Specific, relevant actions in the field of land in particular are Action 2.1d ‘Urban sprawl’ and Action 2.2 ‘Territorial impact of EU policies’.

Demand for new urban areas may be partly satisfied by brownfield remediation. The environmental advantages of this are clear: relieving pressure on rural areas and greenfield sites, reducing pollution costs, enabling more efficient energy use and natural resource consumption, and facilitating economic diversification and emerging habitat (housing) requirements. There are several examples of European regional strategies for economic regeneration and brownfield development (The OECD Territorial Outlook 2001). On average, land recycling increased steadily between 1990 and 2012 on an annual basis, with considerable variation between and within countries. Stronger links between EU urban and soil policies could encourage this further (e.g. following up relevant 6th EAP thematic strategies).

Accuracy and uncertainties

Methodology uncertainty

The methodology for deriving the indicator is simple and introduces very little uncertainty. However, it needs to be fully understood that the yearly averages are valid for only the 3-year reference period under consideration. Possible variation within the 3-year period (for individual years) is currently not captured.

Data sets uncertainty

This indicator is based directly on the mapping of soil sealing/imperviousness using Earth observation data at about 10-m spatial resolution. Real sealing will differ from the values derived in this way for various reasons:
• The spatial resolution of the input imagery means that very small sealed surfaces will sometimes not be captured, e.g. small buildings and small paved roads, and other sealed surfaces with a very small footprint. This can lead to an underestimation of sealing.
• As with all Earth observation-derived products, the data contain omission errors (sealed surfaces not detected) and commission errors (areas wrongly classified as sealed). The distribution of these errors depends on the quality of the input data, calibration during production and local differences in spectral contrast (which makes sealing in some locations ‘easier’ to detect than in other locations, depending on the context).

Rationale uncertainty

No uncertainty has been identified.

Data sources and providers

Metadata

DPSIRTopicsTagsTemporal coverageGeographic coverage

TypologyUN SDGsUnit of measureFrequency of dissemination

References and footnotes

EC, 2011, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe, COM(2011) 571 final.

^↵
EC, 2021, 'Biodiversity strategy for 2030', European Commission (https://ec.europa.eu/environment/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en) accessed December 22, 2021.

^↵
EC, 2013, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Green infrastructure (GI): enhancing Europe’s natural capital, COM(2013) 249 final.

^a^b^c
EC, 2021, 'Common agricultural policy', European Commission (https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy_en) accessed December 13, 2021.

^↵
EC, 2012, Commission Staff Working Document — Guidelines on best practice to limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing, SWD(2012) 101 final.

^↵
EC, 2001, Communication from the Commission ‘A sustainable Europe for a better world: a European Union strategy for sustainable development’, COM(2001) 264 final.

^↵
EC, 2004, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Towards a thematic strategy on the urban environment, COM(2004) 60 final.

^↵
EC, 2006, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament — Cohesion policy and cities: the urban contribution to growth and jobs in the regions, COM(2006) 385 final

^↵
EC, 2010, Communication from the Commission — Europe 2020: a European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020.

^↵
EU, 2013, Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320-469., 1303/2013

^↵
^a^b
EC, 1999, 'European spatial development perspective — towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the EU: agreed at the informal Council of Ministers responsible for spatial planning in Potsdam, May 1999',

^↵

Imperviousness and imperviousness change in Europe

Figure 1. Imperviousness in MAES ecosystems — floodplains, coastal zones and protected areas — 2018

Download

Formats suitable for human consumption

Formats suitable for machine-to-machine communication

Figure 2. Imperviousness in MAES ecosystems by country, 2018