01.16 Potentials for the Removal of
Impervious Soil Coverage (Soil Desealing) (2015 Edition)
Overview
The consumption of land by construction leads to a loss of soil functions with permanently negative
effects on the efficacy of the natural balance. Soils have a large variety of functions which need to be
protected: they provide habitats for plants and animals, they store and filter the groundwater, they act
as buffers against pollutants, they are the foundation for agriculture and for healthy living, and they are
an archive of natural and cultural history. These fundamental functions of the soil must be secured by
adequately taking the needs of soil protection into account when planning for the future.
The importance of the soil is of all the greater importance to society in view of climate change and
biodiversity. As a result, national measures and regulations have been implemented to reduce land
consumption, and provide sustainable land management in cities and municipalities.
Under the federal government’s National Sustainability Strategy, the increase in the amount of new
land rendered impervious is to be cut to 30 ha per day by 2020. In the annual report for 2011 of the
Federal/State Soil Protection Commission (LABO) the instrument of land management was
ascertained as an important precondition for the initiation of a fundamental change, a turnaround in
the tendency of land consumption. Soil imperviousness (“sealing”) is one of the 16 core indicators by
which sustainable development in the State of Berlin is measured. These actions have initiated a
process in the State of Berlin with the goal of permanently taking the limited resource soil into account
in the contentious area of construction and planning processes, on the basis of legally established
regulation options.
The goal of the Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment is therefore to
provide instruments for an active, practice-oriented land management system. This will particularly
facilitate soil protection authorities in carrying out their duties as the representatives of the public
interest, e.g. in the context of urban development planning, and of undertaking a qualified integration
of aspects of soil-protection in the environmental impact assessment process.
One problem that appears regularly in planning practice is that it is hardly possible to materially
compensate for the imperviousness of an area that necessarily results from construction activity. In
principle, the best compensation would involve the removal of impervious coverage (“de-sealing”) of
another area. However, due to the restrictions of availability of most land for such measures, it is
difficult to find areas in Berlin which might in fact be “de-sealed”, so that it is then not possible, using
the Environmental Impact Assessment, to effect the realization of such measures, due to the lack of
any adequate available land. Proposals for removing impervious coverage usually have a chance
to be realized if the areas available for “de-sealing” are already known, have been checked for
suitability, and are listed in a register.
An initial step was the compilation of Environmental Atlas Map 01.13 Planning Notes for Soil
Protection, an important planning instrument for soil protection assessment. The weighing of the
various functions and sensitivities of the Berlin soils permitted a differentiated evaluation of urban
development planning. For example, in the case of soils which, from a scientific viewpoint, were
classed as particularly valuable, the search for alternative sites for relevant construction planning
projects was recommended.
The project “Potentials for Impervious Coverage Reduction in Berlin” was initiated to improve the
availability of land areas for impervious coverage removal. The goal of the project is the ascertainment
and evaluation of land which could potentially have its impervious coverage permanently removed in
the foreseeable future. To the extent possible, the efficacy of the soil is to be restored, and habitats
valuable from a conservationist point of view developed for plants and animals. Moreover, the goal is
to support a spatial linkage between the places of impact and the places of upgrade by means of a
uniform system for the citywide recording and evaluation of land areas. For this purpose,
1
particularly the instrument of impact mitigation regulation is an obvious option – both with respect to
construction law and with respect to conservation law.
In the context of the project phases during 2010-12, research was carried out in all 12 boroughs, all
four Berlin forestry agencies, and among private owners. The most recent update was carried out
between March 2014 and October 2014. The data obtained during this research process were
compiled in a centrally administered database, into which further information and suggestions for
areas can in future continually be introduced by the various actors in the public administration.
Moreover, private landowners are to be able to not only obtain information on potential “de-sealing”
areas, but also, if they wish, to propose their own areas which cannot be used for construction
purposes and which, after examination for suitability, can be incorporated into the portfolio.
In order to continue to support the implementation of impervious coverage removal, a tool for the
derivation of simplified cost approaches for the expected dismantling costs has been prepared, and,
based on the review of the literature, proposals for a guide to action regarding technical and qualitative
standards for the regeneration of soil functions after removal of impervious coverage have been
developed. All three of these documents (cost approach tool, literature review, action guide on
regeneration of soil functions) are available for download (German only).
Database
By means of a survey of staff members of the borough administrations and forestry agencies familiar
with the material and with the areas involved, specific information on land areas was researched, with
respect to:
-
the location of areas (borough, neighborhood, address/location description, coordinates)
the property situation, and contact data if appropriate
existing (or former) and planned land use
type of imperviousness, and extent of its possible removal, and
outstanding issues to be solved, obstacles to the planning process, etc.
On this basis, an initial compilation of potential “de-sealing” areas was obtained. This newly gathered
land area data was linked to other relevant information by merger with various geo-data existing in the
State of Berlin, so that this information is available at a glance. In addition, the following available
digital information was used:
-
Plots of land as per the Automated Properties Map (ALK), as of 2013
The Automated Properties Register (ALB; only for properties owned by the state of Berlin) as of
2013
Block geometries of the City and Environment Information System (ISU 5), as of 2010
Planning Guidelines on Soil Protection (2012)
Areas of application of current and concluded construction planning procedures, as of 2013
The Land-Use Plan (FNP), work map as of 2013
The landscape plan procedure (2013)
Protected areas under conservation law (Landscape Protection Law, Conservation Law, Habitat
Directive, large-scale natural monuments) as of 2013
List of neighbourhoods (2011).
Areas were visually examined, and, where where those limits did not coincide with lot boundaries,
potential imperviousness removal areas were delimited, primarily on the basis of
-
Digital ortho-photos, aerial photography flights 2009 through 2014, and
the Map of Berlin, scale 1:5000 (K5), as of 2010.
In particular cases an on-site inspection was carried out.
Methodology
The procedure was structured as a multistage concept, including a combination of research and
compilation of information of local and other experts, and an evaluation based on available geo-data of
the State of Berlin.
In the context of the pilot phase of the project “Potentials for Impervious Coverage Reduction in
Berlin”, the question arose as to the extent to which a purely automated area search based on the
extensive geo-data of the State of Berlin could yield usable results by being merged with those data,
2
and by the use of filters. In spite of extensive attempts, no usable results could be obtained, so that
the decision was made to continue with the research process using local experts, and to refine it.
Land Area Research
The research was conducted during the years 2010 and 2014, in the borough offices of the 12 Berlin
boroughs. Whenever possible, representatives of the borough agencies responsible for urban
planning, landscape planning and environment and conservation were brought into the process. First,
those boroughs with a high proportion of sites characteristic of the outskirts of the city were
investigated. The assumption that these boroughs would contain the greatest potential for the removal
of impervious coverage was confirmed by the research.
Moreover, the survey was carried out at the four Berlin forestry agencies (Grunewald, Köpenick,
Pankow, and Tegel. During the research in the areas of the Grunewald, Pankow and Tegel Forestry
Agencies, a total of 21 areas were included which are outside the Berlin border. The impervious
coverage removal potential on areas belonging to the Berlin Forestry Service, but located in
Brandenburg has not been researched and recorded yet completely.
Also, public and private land owners of large properties which, from their portfolios, seemed to be
likely to have such properties in their inventories, were contacted.
The goal of the research was to identify areas which could be considered to be permanently no
longer required for construction use, and are also not planned for urban development with impervious
coverage. The requisite local, planning and other information could primarily be obtained from the
interview partners in the urban and/or landscape planning authorities in the boroughs. On the other
hand, a conclusive planning policy preparation of measures for the removal of imperviousness was not
the purpose of the investigation. The remaining requirements for clarification or coordination were
incorporated into the data compiled on the areas.
Ascertainment of Factual Data
For particular potential imperviousness removal areas, a variety of information was compiled which is
to aid in the evaluation of the suitability of potential “de-sealing” areas, and for the further planning (cf.
Table 1). This involves primarily information on:
the location of areas (borough, neighborhood, address/location description, coordinates),
the property situation, and contact data if appropriate,
existing (or former) use,
planned use or changes in use, and
type of imperviousness, and extent of its possible removal.
Moreover, there is a space for comments, where unspecified information can be entered.
In order to permit a more precise assessment of the extent and cost of possible impervious coverage
removal measures, a total of 72 of the areas contained in the database have additionally been
photographically documented to date. A selection of these photos is contained in the factual data on
the respective areas, as a link.
Soil pollution of the ascertained areas is basically possible. With regard to further handling, a caseby-case decision by the responsible soil protection authority is to be carried out. For this purpose, the
ascertained date is subjected to a special comparison with the soil pollution record. If necessary,
impervious coverage removal on parts of an area is possible.
Merger with Land Referenced Data
By merger with the extensive available digital land referenced data existing in the State of Berlin,
information on current or concluded construction plan and landscape plan procedures, as well as
information from the maps, and the map Planning Guidelines on Soil Protection were linked to the
potential “de-sealing” areas, so that this information is available at a glance (cf. Table 2).
Prioritization
Moreover, there were four fields with criteria which are to serve as an orientation for prioritizing the
potential imperviousness removal areas:
-
property rights,
expert assessment,
technical effort, and
time required for implementation.
3
This prioritization is to be carried out according to a three-stage process in each case. In cases in
which an evaluation is not possible, a “?” is to be entered; if appropriate, remarks can be entered into
the comments associated with the evaluation (cf. Table 3).
In the evaluation of property rights/area availability, those areas are to be classed as “high” which are
the property of the State of Berlin, or which can generally be considered available for other reasons
(e.g., agreement with the private owner has already been reached). Areas are classed as “medium”
which are predominantly the property of the Berlin Properties Fund (LSF), or, to the extent that this is
known, can be attributed to the Institute for Federal Real Estate (BIMA), or some other federal agency
(e.g. the Federal Waterways). Areas the property situation of which is unknown, which generally
means either that they are in private ownership or that they are federal assets, are classified as “low”.
With respect to expert assessment, those areas are classified as “high” in which impervious coverage
can be completely removed, and where the resulting pervious surface will be connected with already
existing or planned green and open-space. A “medium” assessment applies to areas which do not
have any continuous, large-scale “de-sealing” potential, but rather relatively extensive partial “desealing” measures, or where diffuse, scattered potentials exist. Finally, areas which have a potential
for small-scale isolated measures, or where only very limited partial “de-sealing” is possible, are
classified as “low”. Additional information on expert assessment is provided by the so-called hydraulic
“de-sealing”. This refers to areas mainly characterized by a change in coverage from areas with (fully)
impervious coverage towards a type of coverage pervious to water and air, as these areas often still
serve a development function (paths, courtyards, parking spaces, etc.). Essentially this is about
increasing the infiltration of precipitation water. It is usually not possible to specify the “de-sealing”
concretely in m2.
The ascertainment of technical effort is oriented toward the type of imperviousness, or the degree of
construction on the area concerned. A high degree of building demolition or a high degree of
multistory buildings accordingly implies a high level of effort, while simple removal of impervious
coverage, such as pathway or roadways, means a low level of effort. In between, there are
demolition measures of a medium level of effort, involving the removal not only of the coverage itself,
but also of small structures, such as cottages, garages with such special structural facilities, or
greenhouses.
With regard to the evaluation of the time required for implementation, a rough assessment of the
necessary planning effort/preliminary work was undertaken, and the implementability classed as
short-term (1 to 2 years), medium term (up to approx. 5 years), and long-term (more than 5 years).
Implementation
After the process of the removal of impervious coverage has been completed, the areas are retained
in the register, and marked on the map with a specific shading (with a gray background in the profile).
Moreover, information on the measures carried out on the contact, etc. are entered into the data table
(cf. Table 4).
Tabular Overview of the Data
The following table listseach field in the data table, with a brief description showing the following:
-
Newly gathered data
Data obtained by merger or manual comparison with geo-data existing in the State of Berlin
Data fields containing evaluations of the areas, and
Data fields containing information on the completed implementation of measures for removing
impervious coverage.
The data on each field can be accessed via the map in the Geoportal/FIS-Broker, or as a separate
data table. Moreover, there is the possibility to filter the data sets for particular data fields in order to
obtain an individualized selection of areas. In the following tables, the data fields for which this filter
function can be used are marked with a green X.
Table 1: Data on impervious coverage removal (“de-sealing”) cases –Newly gathered data
Content
Sequential number
Information source
Comments/ description
Unmistakable numbering, sorted by borough
Usually, a section of the borough office, forestry agency, or
owner
Address / situation description
4
Filters
x
x
Type of imperviousness
Use/existing structure
Planning/development goal
Hydraulic “de-sealing”
Need for further information
Comments
Info on type of coverage, built-up/non-built-up, etc.
Info on current and/or historic use
Info on possible future use, depending on the
concretization of planning
Mainly potential for change in coverage (yes, no)
Indications of the need for information or agreement
Other comments, e.g., on required
authorizations/exemptions, currently valid lease contracts,
existing concepts, etc.
x
Total area (digitalized, in sq m) Digitalized area; query of characteristics of property
x
Removable built-up impervious Estimate of built-up areas where impervious coverage can
coverage in sq m
be removed; precision in accordance with degree of
concretization of planning; the value "-1" is used if no
estimate is possible
Share of removable built-up
Calculation of built-up impervious removal area divided by
impervious coverage in %
the total area; the value "-1" is used if no estimate is
possible
Removable non-built-up
Estimate of non-built-up areas where impervious coverage
impervious coverage in sq m
can be removed; precision in accordance with degree of
concretization of planning; the value "-1" is used if no
estimate is possible
Share of removable non-built- Calculation of non-built-up impervious removal area divided
up impervious coverage in %
by the total area; the value "-1" is used if no estimate is
possible
Total share of removable built- Calculation of total areas share: impervious removal, built
up and non-built-up impervious up, and impervious removal, non-built-up; the value "-1" is
coverage in %
used if no estimate is possible
x
First entry
Last entry
x
x
x
Entry date
Date of the last modification
Coordinates, geographic
WGS84
Coordinates, ETRS89 33N,
EPSG:25833
Profile
Photo1
Photo2
Photo3
Photo4
Photo5
Photo6
Photo7
Only if available
Only if available
Only if available
Only if available
Only if available
Only if available
Only if available
Table 1: Data on Impervious Coverage Removal (“De-sealing) Cases - Newly Gathered Data
Table 2: Data on Cases of Impervious Coverage Removal – Use of secondary data
Content
Comments / description
Borough / state
Neighbourhood /
community
Number of lots
Name of borough / state; Selection (12 boroughs, 1 state)
Name of neighbourhood; Selection (100 neighbourhoods /
communities); merged with RBS
Number of lots which this area partially covers
5
Filters
x
x
Compatibility with
Land Use Plan
Construction plan
numbers
Landscape plan
(biotope area factor)
Planning indications
on soil protection
Comparison with Land Use Plan (FNP): Compatible (FNP description
corresponds to development goal); Incompatible (FNP description
does not correspond to development goal); ? (unclear, not assessed)
Merged with the map "Construction plans; project-referenced
construction plans", from the Geodata Catalogue of the State of
Berlin; if several construction plans are affected, all descriptions are
to be provided
Merged with the map "Construction plans", from the Geodata
Catalogue of the State of Berlin; if several landscape plans are
affected, all descriptions are to be provided. If the biotope area factor
has been established, it is shown at the end in parentheses.
Merged with the map "Construction plans", from the Environmental
Atlas Berlin (01.13); if several landscape plans are affected, the
highest assessment is to be used. Streets and bodies of water were
not assessed.
x
x
Table 2: Data on Cases of Impervious Coverage Removal - Use of Secondary Data
Table 3: Data on Cases of Impervious Coverage Removal –Prioritization of potential
imperviousness coverage removal areas
Content
Comments / Description
Assessment: High (Availability certain, property of the state of
Prioritization Property
Berlin); Medium (Property primarily of LSF or BIMA);
rights / Area availability
Low (private property with use intent); ? (Not assessed)
Assessment: High (Complete coverage removal of a large
Prioritization
contiguous area; location in biotope or green space complex);
Expert assessment
Medium (Small-scale coverage removal); Low (Partial removal);
? (Not assessed)
Assessment: Low (minor effort, e.g. removal only of surface
Prioritization
coverage); Medium (medium-level effort, e.g. minor structures,
Technical effort
sheds and etc.); High (major effort, e.g. large buildings/basement);
? (Not assessed)
Prioritization
Assessment: Short (implementation within 1-2 years; Medium (up
Time required for
to approx. 5 years); Long (more than 5 years; ? (Not assessed)
implementation
Prioritization
Comments on four assessments, if necessary
Comments
Filters
x
x
x
x
Table 3: Data on Cases of Impervious Coverage Removal – Prioritization of Potential
Imperviousness Coverage removal areas
Table 4: Data on Cases of Impervious Coverage Removal – Implementation of imperviousness
coverage removal
Content
Comments / description
Implementation of imperviousness
coverage removal
Has the impervious coverage already been removed
from the area? (yes, no, other use)
Implementation of imperviousness
coverage removal – comments
E.g., which procedure applied; ordered by whom;
contact, etc.
Filters
x
Table 4: Data on Cases of Impervious Coverage Removal - Implementation of Imperviousness
Coverage Removal
Map Description
Currently, 238 areas are listed in the Register of Potential Imperviousness Removal Areas. Figure 1
shows how many areas have been taken into the list in each of the boroughs and the state
Brandenburg, together with their sizes in hectares.
6
The vast majority of the areas is in the category “diffusely impervious”. These are areas in which the
size of the potential imperviousness removal surface cannot be quantified with sufficient precision.
This has generally been the case wherever such potential areas were identified as located diffusely
scattered across a larger area, such as in the case of partial impervious coverage removal. In other
cases, the reason that such potentials could not be qualified was that they could neither be precisely
identified by administrative officials nor concretely delimited using aerial photography (e.g. bunker
facilities). Since in these areas, varying proportions of the total area are available, the concrete size of
the potential impervious coverage removal area cannot be estimated. Figure 2 therefore shows only
the concretely delimitable potential impervious coverage removal area.
Number of cases of impervious coverage removal, size of area, by borough / state
No. of cases of impervious coverage removal, size of area [ha]
450
401.0
400
No. of cases
Size of impervious coverage removal areas ha
350
324.6
300
250
200
161.6
150
127.6
100
54
46.6
41
50
21
6.8
13
26.5
23.1
1
5.1
2
0.3
0
0.0
7.9
5
19.4
30
16
5
15
21
TreptowKöpenick
SteglitzZehlendorf
Spandau
TempelhofSchöneberg
Borough / state
Reinickendorf
Pankow
Neukölln
Mitte
MarzahnHellersdorf
Lichtenberg
FriedrichshainKreuzberg
CharlottenburgWilmersdorf
Brandenburg
0
Fig. 1: Number of cases of impervious coverage removal and size of removal area, by borough/state
Sizes of types of imperviousness by borough / state
(not. incl. diffusely impervious areas)
30
Built-up, impervious ha
Non-built-up, impervious ha
20
15
10
5
7
TreptowKöpenick
TempelhofSchöneberg
SteglitzZehlendorf
Spandau
Reinickendorf
Borough / state
Pankow
Neukölln
Mitte
MarzahnHellersdorf
Lichtenberg
FriedrichshainKreuzberg
CharlottenburgWilmersdorf
0
Brandenburg
Size of imperviousness removal area [ha]
25
Fig. 2: Imperviousness coverage removal areas, by borough/state (not incl. diffusely impervious areas)
In the Environmental Atlas, these areas are shown in a differentiated manner and in varying coloured
shades, in accordance with expert evaluation of the potential for imperviousness removal (cf. chapter
on Methodology, section on Prioritization). In addition already unsealed surfaces are mapped.
Only those locations are shown in the respective solid color if there the actual “de-sealing” potential
is estimated that more than 50 % of the digitalized area. Areas in which the actual“de-sealing”
potential is estimated that less than 50 % of the digitalized area are shown with cross-hatching.
Cases in which the “de-sealing” potential cannot be precisely quantified in terms of total area (see
above “diffusely impervious areas”) are shown with simple hatching.
The impervious coverage removal areas are shown in the map with various hatching. Under the menu
item “Map structure”, there is a possibility to switch off the level with the solid color or hatching, and to
reduce the identification of potential imperviousness removal areas to the border around the
respective areas. Under the menu item “Change maps”, various maps, e.g. aerial photography, can be
switched on to provide background information. In these representation modes, the background maps
added are readable.
Moreover, the Geoportal/FIS Broker has the possibility under the item “marking for details” to view
depictions or photos linked to the particular “de-sealing” areas. Furthermore, within each of these
potential areas, a so-called “Profile” is linked which contains, on a DIN A4 sheet a picture with a
section from aerial photography, the delimitation of the potential “de-sealing” area, and the lot
boundaries in the ALK, as well as a table with excerpts from the respective data base.
Literature
[1]
Berlin Appropriate Soil Protection Working Group, D. Blaschke, W. Siewert (Cassens +
Siewert Planning Group), J. Gerstenberg 2010:
Entsiegelungspotenziale in Berlin – Pilotstudie 2010, [Potentials for removal of impervious
coverage in Berlin, Pilot study, 2011], prepared for the Senate Department for Health, the
Environment and Consumer Protection, Division VIII C Soil Protection and Remediation of Soil,
Contaminated Sites and Groundwater, unpublished.
[2]
Berlin Appropriate Soil Protection Working Group, D. Blaschke, W. Siewert (Cassens +
Siewert Planning Group), J. Gerstenberg 2011:
Entsiegelungspotenziale in Berlin – Hauptstudie 2011 [Potentials for removal of impervious
coverage in Berlin, Main study, 2011], prepared for the Senate Department for Health, the
Environment and Consumer Protection, Division VIII C Soil Protection and Remediation of Soil,
Contaminated Sites and Groundwater, unpublished.
[3]
Berlin Appropriate Soil Protection Working Group, D. Blaschke, W. Siewert (Cassens +
Siewert Planning Group), J. Gerstenberg 2012:
Entsiegelungspotenziale in Berlin – Hauptstudie 2012 [Potentials for removal of impervious
coverage in Berlin, Main study, 2012], prepared for the Senate Department for Urban
Development and the Environment, Division VIII C Soil Protection and Remediation of Soil,
Contaminated Sites and Groundwater, unpublished.
[4]
Berlin Appropriate Soil Protection Working Group, D. Blaschke, W. Siewert (Cassens +
Siewert Planning Group), J. Gerstenberg 2013:
Entsiegelungspotenziale in Berlin 2013 [Potentials for removal of impervious coverage in Berlin
2013], prepared for the Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment,
Division VIII C Soil Protection and Remediation of Soil, Contaminated Sites and Groundwater,
unpublished.
[5]
Berlin Appropriate Soil Protection Working Group, D. Blaschke, W. Siewert (Cassens +
Siewert Planning Group), J. Gerstenberg 2014:
Entsiegelungspotenziale in Berlin 2014 [Potentials for removal of impervious coverage in Berlin
2014], prepared for the Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment,
Division VIII C Soil Protection and Remediation of Soil, Contaminated Sites and Groundwater,
unpublished.
8
[6]
Blaschke, D., W. Siewert (Cassens + Siewert Planning Group), J. Gerstenberg, HVB
Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH 2013:
Arbeitshilfe Orientierende Kostenschätzung für Entsiegelungsmaßnahmen [Tool for orientation
on cost estimation for implementation of impervious coverage removal], prepared for the Senate
Department for Urban Development and the Environment, Division VIII C Soil Protection and
Remediation of Soil, Contaminated Sites and Groundwater.
Internet:
http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/bodenschutz/de/vorsorge/download/arbeitshilfe1kostenansaetze.pdf
(accessed May 13, 2015)
[7]
Blaschke, D., W. Siewert (Cassens + Siewert Planning Group), J. Gerstenberg 2013:
Teil 1: Literaturrecherche - Wiederherstellung der natürlichen Bodenfunktionen nach einer
Entsiegelung [Part 1: Literature review - regeneration of the natural soil functions after removal
of impervious coverage], prepared for the Senate Department for Urban Development and the
Environment, Division VIII C Soil Protection and Remediation of Soil, Contaminated Sites and
Groundwater.
Internet:
http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/bodenschutz/de/vorsorge/download/arbeitshilfe2literaturrecherche.pdf
(accessed May 13, 2015)
[8]
Blaschke, D., W. Siewert (Cassens + Siewert Planning Group), J. Gerstenberg 2014:
Teil 2: Arbeitshilfe - Wiederherstellung der natürlichen Bodenfunktionen nach einer
Entsiegelung [Part 2: Tool - regeneration of the natural soil functions after removal of
impervious coverage], prepared for the Senate Department for Urban Development and the
Environment, Division VIII C Soil Protection and Remediation of Soil, Contaminated Sites and
Groundwater.
Internet:
http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/bodenschutz/de/vorsorge/download/arbeitshilfe1wiederherstellung.pdf
(accessed May 13, 2015)
[9]
Federal/State Soil Protection Commission (LABO) 2011:
Jahresbericht 2011 [Annual Report].
Internet:
http://www.labo-deutschland.de/documents/LABO-Jahresbericht_2011_e73.pdf
(accessed May 16, 2012)
Digital Maps
[10]
SenStadt (Senate Department for Urban Development, Berlin) (ed.) 2013:
Berlin Environmental Atlas, 2013 Edition, Map 01.13 Planning Notes for Soil Protection,
1: 50,000, Berlin.
Internet:
http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/umwelt/umweltatlas/eib113.htm
9