comprehensive assessment system for built environment efficiency (casbee) in japan

Comprehensive Assessment System for Built

Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) in JapanDevelopment of Comprehensive City Assessment Tool: CASBEE-City

Toshiharu Ikaga

Prof., Keio University, Japan

7th, Nov. 2012

World Town Planning Day

CASBEE: Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency

supported by MLIT* since 2001

Enclosed space by

the virtual boundary

BEE =

Site boundary

Quality

Load

Chair: Dr S. MURAKAMI,

Secretary General: T. IKAGA

* Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Japan

Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 1

Sustainability ranking based on BEE（Q/L）

BEE=1.2

C

B-

B+S A

44

53

0

50

100

0 50 100

L (Environmental Load)

Q (

Qu

ali

ty)

BEE=3.0 1.5 1.0

0.5

SExcellent

AVery Good

B+

Good

B-

Rather Good

CPoor

★★★☆☆


Low Carbon Ranking based on LCCO2

Const-ruction

Repair, Renovation and Demolition Operation

Reference Building

Life Cycle CO2(kg-CO2/year/m2)

+ Onsite Renewable

Energy

+ Offsite Renewable

Energy

Energy saving, Eco-material and

Long life

Assessed

Building

0 40 80 120 160 200

100%

75%

66%

61%


1. Nagoya City Apr. 20042. Osaka City Oct. 20043. Yokohama City Jul. 20054. Kyoto City Oct. 20055. Osaka Pref. Apr. 20066. Kyoto Pref. Apr. 20067. Kobe City Aug. 20068. Kawasaki City Oct. 20069. Hyogo Pref. Oct. 2006

10. Shizuoka Pref. Jul. 200711. Fukuoka City Oct. 200712. Sapporo City Nov. 200713. Kitakyushu City Nov. 200714. Saitama City Apr. 200915. Saitama Pref. Oct. 200916. Aichi Pref. Oct. 200917. Kanagawa Pref. Apr. 201018. Chiba City Apr. 201019. Tottori Pref. Apr. 201020. Niigata City Apr. 201021. Hiroshima City Apr. 201022. Kumamoto Pref. Oct. 201023. Kashiwa City Nov. 201124. Sakai City Aug. 2011

25

30

35

40

45

120 E 125 130 135 140 145

TokyoOsaka

Nagoya

Sapporo

Fukuoka

CASBEEs are adopted by 24 authorities for building control

and 8,700 results are declared on their website (as of Mar. 2012)

With incentive programs : Volume incentive, subsidy, low-interest finance, etc.


0

50

100

0 50 100

Q 0.5

3.0 1.5 BEE=1.0

L

(April 2004 – July 2011)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

事務所

学校

物販店

飲食店

病院

ホテル

集会所

工場

集合住宅

1400 CASBEE results are declared on the website of

Nagoya City as of Mar 2012

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

事務所

学校

物販店

飲食店

病院

ホテル

集会所

工場

集合住宅

OfficesSchools

RestaurantsHospitalsHotelsHallsFactoriesApartments

Retailers

A B+S

B-

C


1400 CASBEE results are declared on the website of

Nagoya City as of March 2012

0

50

100

0 50 100

Q

0.5

3.0 1.5 BEE=1.0

L

(April 2004 – July 2011)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

事務所

学校

物販店

飲食店

病院

ホテル

集会所

工場

集合住宅

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

事務所

学校

物販店

飲食店

病院

ホテル

集会所

工場

集合住宅

Offices

Schools

Restaurants

Hospitals

Hotels

Halls

Factories

Apartments

Retailers

A B+S

B-

C


CASBEE family （as of Oct 2012）

Life-stage

Standard version

Standard version

Standard version

Brief version

Very brief version

(Market promotion ver.)

Standard version

Brief version

Standard version

Brief version

CASBEE-Home DH

CASBEE-Dwelling Unit

CASBEE-Building

Offices, Apartments, Schools,

Retailers, Hospitals, Hotels, etc.

CASBEE-Urban

Development

CASBEE-City

Building scale

Housing scale

Urban scale

City scale

7: Under Development: Already developed

NewConst-ruction

ExistingReno-vation


History of CASBEE-City

Housing & Building scaleCASBEE-Home

CASBEE-Building

2002-

Urban scale CASBEE-Urban

Development

2006-

Tools are developed for a broader context after experience has been gained in

assessing individual buildings

City scale CASBEE-City

2011-


BREEAM

(U.K.)

CASBEE

(Japan)

GBI

LEED

(U.S.)

GN

LCCF

BREEAM: BRE Environmental Assessment Method (U.K.), GBI: Green Building Index (Malaysia), GN: Green

Neighborhood (Malaysia), LCCF: Low Carbon City Framework (Malaysia), Malaysian Urban Indicators Network

(MURNInet) (Malaysia), LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (U.S.)

Housing & Building scale

Urban scale

City scale

(Malaysia)

(Malaysia)

(Malaysia)

(Malaysia)

MURNInet

Comparison of assessment tools in the world


Objectives of developing CASBEE-City

1) Objectives of developing a city-scale assessment tool

2) Development principals

Visualization of the actual status of a city

Low carbonization must be achieved without suffering socioeconomic activities and the quality of life of citizens

Assessment Quality (Q) and Load (L) at the same time

Supporting city-led measures for sustainable development

To figure out the current condition of municipalities and toassess various measures implemented in local governments

To revitalize every municipalities through identifying problems which should be solved for sustainable city development


Assessment structure of CASBEE-City

＝

BEE： Built Environment Efficiency

Environment Efficiency

(BEE)※

Virtual boundaryReduction of Load (L)

on the surrounding area

Score for Load (L)

（L: Load, 0< Score for L<100）

Score for Quality (Q)

（Q: Quality, 0< Score for Q<100）

Improvement of Quality (Q) in a city

都市Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency

City都市Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency


Assessment items for CASBEE-City

・CO2 emissions from

energy sources

（CO2 from industrial,

residential, commercial,

transport sectors)

・CO2 emissions from

non energy sources

（CO2 from waste

disposal sectors, etc.)

Load of a city (L)Quality of a city (Q)

Environmental

aspects

Economic

AspectSocial

aspect

Assessment based on

Triple Bottom Line (TBL)

Virtual boundary←

・Nature Conservation

・Local environmental

quality

・Resource recycling

・CO2 sinks

・Industrial vitality

・Financial vitality

・Emission trading

・Living environment

・Social services

・Social vitality


Assessment items for Q (Q1 Environmental aspects)

Main category Middle category Minor category

Q1.

Environmental

aspect

Q1.1 Nature

conservationQ1.1.1 Ratio of green and water spaces

Q1.2 Local

environment quality

Q1.2.1 Air

Q1.2.2 Water

Q1.3 Resources

recyclingQ1.3.1 Recycling rate of general waste

Q1.4 CO2 sinks Q1.4.1 CO2 absorption by forests


Assessment items for Q (Q2 Social aspects)


Q2. Social

aspect

Q2.1 Living

environmental

Q2.1.1 Adequate quality of housing

Q2.1.2 Traffic safety

Q2.1.3 Crime prevention

Q2.1.4 Disaster preparedness

Q2.2 Social

service

Q2.2.1 Adequacy of education service

Q2.2.2 Adequacy of cultural services

Q2.2.3 Adequacy of medical services

Q2.2.4 Adequacy of childcare services

Q2.2.5 Adequacy of services for the elderly

Q2.3 Social

vitality

Q2.3.1 Rate of population change due to births & deaths

Q2.3.2 Rate of population change due to migration


Assessment items for Q (Q3 Economic aspects)


Q3. Economic

aspects

Q3.1 Industrial vitalityQ3.1.1 Amount equivalent to gross regional

product

Q3.2 Financial viability

Q3.2.1 Tax revenues

Q3.2.2 Outstanding local bonds

Q3.3 Emission trading Q3.3.1 Amount of emission trading


Assessment items for L

Main category Minor category

L1. CO2 emissions from

energy sources

L1.1 Industrial sector

L1.2 Residential sector

L1.3 Commercial sector

L1.4 Transportation sector

L2. CO2 emissions from

non energy sourcesL2.1 Waste disposal sector


Assessment image by CASBEE-City

0

50

100

3.0

0.5

1.5 BEE=1.03.0 1.5

0.5

100500

50

0

100

Sco

re f

or

Qu

ali

ty (

Q)

Goo

dP

oo

r

Good PoorScore for Load (L)

Poor

1.0BEE

S A B+

C

B－

BEE

Unsustainable

＝1.8（=70/40）

Rank A

40

70

Good

Sustainable

： ★★★★★

： ★★★★

： ★★★

： ★★

： ★

S

A

B+

B-

C

BEE

Score for Q

Score for L＝


0

50

100

3.0

0.5

1.5 BEE=1.03.0 1.5

0.5

100500

50

0

100

Sco

re f

or

Qu

ali

ty (

Q)

Goo

dP

oo

r


Poor

1.0BEE

S A B+

C

B－

Unsustainable

Good

Sustainable

Presentation of future goal to citizens by municipality

1

Present

BAU

Future target

ΔL

Δ

Q 2

3

Route 1:

Route from the current

situation to the future if no

specific measures are taken

Route 2:

If sufficient measures are

taken

Route 3:

Effectiveness of city

policies

(ΔQ and ΔL)


0 50 100

0

50

1003.0 1.5

100500

50

0

100

qualit

y

Good

Poor

Good Poorenvironmental load

Excellent

Poor

C

B－

BEE =

0.5

1.0

S A B+

Past

Present

1) Query

2) Refer

3) Respond

Assessment tool Database

User

GISOutput 2

Output 1

Utilization image of the CASBEE-City brief version

Diagram of framework and utilization of CASBEE City brief version

Tool users themselves do not have to collect original data on the city

(Data were collected from the public source and a database was developed)

Tool immediately conducts an assessment and shows the results in

two easy-to-understand formats

Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 19S. Kawakubo, S. Murakami and T. Ikaga at World Conference SB11, Helsinki, Oct. 2011

Assessment items in the CASBEE-City brief versionCategory Subcategory Original Tool Brief Version

L. Environmental load GHG emissions Net CO2 emissions Included but highly simplified

Q1. Environmentalaspects

Nature conservation Green and water spaces Included

Local environmental quality

Air Removed

Water Removed

Noise Removed

Chemicals Removed

Resource recycling Recycling of waste Included

Environmental measures Policy efforts Removed

Q2. Socialaspects

Living environment

Quality of housing Included

Parks and open spaces Removed

Sewage systems Included

Traffic safety Included

Crime prevention Included

Disaster preparedness Removed

Social services

Education services Included

Cultural services Included

Medical services Included

Child care services Included

Services for the disabled Included

Services for the elderly Included

Social vitality

Population change due to births and deaths Included

Population change due to migration Included

IT environment Removed

Policy efforts Removed

Q3. Economicaspects

Industrial vitalityGross regional products Included

Number of employees Removed

Economic exchangesNumber of visitors Removed

Public transportation Removed

Financial viabilityTax revenues Included

Outstanding local bonds Included


Sendai

Sapporo

Tokyo

Kyoto

HiroshimaNagasaki

45N

40N

35N

30N

Naha

0 500km

30N

25N

0 500km

BEE values of 1750 Cities in Japan (2005)

21

0.0≦BEE＜0.5

0.5≦BEE＜1.0

1.0≦BEE＜1.5

1.5≦BEE＜3.0

3.0≦BEE

BEE value (=Q/L)

Poor

Good

Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University

Japan

45S

45N

S. Kawakubo, S. Murakami and T. Ikaga at World Conference SB11, Helsinki, Oct. 2011

20-30

30-40

40-50

50-60

60-70

70-80

70-80

60-70

50-60

40-50

30-40

20-30

80-90

90-100

Score for L

Score for Q

Good

Poor

Good

Poor

Q and L Score of 1750 Cities in Japan (2005)


Target period：From 1990 to 2025

Target city：City of Kobe

Population: 1.5 million

Area: 550km2

Objective：To monitor the progress

of recovery since 1995,

and to support future

city planning


Time series assessment of Kobe（past – present - future）

World Business Council for Sustainable Development/

Urban Infrastructure Initiative

◆Detail information:

Magnitude of the earthquake: 7.3

Number of death: over 6,434

Number of injuries: 43,792

Devastating earthquake occurred in Kobe in 1995


Picture of Kobe before and after the recovery process

Photo taken soon after the earthquake

in Kobe

Photo taken after the recovery process

in Kobe

Recovery Project

Guideline


Future City Initiative & New Fundamental Strategy

Environment measures

a)Low-Carbon, saving energy

b)Water, Air

c)Natural environment,

biodiversity

d)3R

Super aging measures

e)Health care industry

f)Community health care

g)Care, Welfare of

community

h)Child care, Education

Others

i)Disaster prevention,

reconstruction support

j)Intelligence network,

internationalization

Promotion of welfare

a)High quality life

b)Creating welfare

c)Llife cycle healthetc.

Creation of

a comfortable cityd)Protection of

environment

e)Resilience city

f)Low- Carbon society

Nationalization

g)Nationalization of economy

h) “sea”, “land”, “sky”

etc.

Ex.）・ Recycling rate of general

waste

24％ → 35％

・ CO2 emissions

8.2[t-CO2/person]→6.9[t-CO2/person]

Ex.)

Number of the home

for the elderly

153 → 171

Ex.) Population change due

to migration2143→4239[people]


Discussion with governmental

officer of Kobe0

50

100

3.0

0.5

1.5 BEE=1.03.0 1.5

0.5

100500

50

0

100

Sco

re f

or

Qu

ali

ty (

Q)

Go

od

Po

or


Poor

1.0BEE

S A B+

C

B－

Unsustainable

GoodSustainable

Data collection for CASBEE-City assessment

Data necessary for CASBEE-City assessment was obtained through

discussion with governmental officers of KobeIkaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 27

Time series assessment of Kobe （past – present - future）（S

core

for

Q）

Good

Poor

Good Poor（Score for L）

： ★★★★★

： ★★★★

： ★★★

： ★★

： ★

S

A

B+

B－

C

BEE

Score for Q

Score for L＝

The tool helps to monitor the progress of recovery from the devastating earthquake and to support city planning by predicting the beneficial impact in the future

1990

1995

2000 2005

20102025 BAU

2025 LCS

100500

S:★★★★★ A:★★★★ B+:★★★

B-:★★

C:★

Huge Earth Quake

in Jan. 1995

50

0

100


Outline of Iskandar Malaysia

Kuala Terengganu

NORTHERN

CORRIDOR

ECONOMIC

REGION

GREATER

KUALA

LUMPUR

Johor Bahru

Singapore

Outline

Gross area 2,216[km2]

・12% of Johor State

・3 times the size of Singapore

Population 1,614,447[people]

・50% of Johor State

MPKU

MPPGMBJB

MBJBTMDP

Singapore


Initiatives example in Iskandar Malaysia

FLAGSHIP A : JB City Centre

• Financial Advisory and

Consulting

• Cultural and Urban Tourism

FLAGSHIP B : Nusajaya

• Education & Medical Tourism• Entertainment & Recreation• State Administration• Financial Advisory and Consulting• Biotechnology

FLAGSHIP C : Western Gate Development

• Logistics• Regional Distribution , International Procurement• Oil Storage Terminal

FLAGSHIP D: Eastern Gate Development

• Manufacturing (Electronics,

Petrochemicals, Oleochemicals,

etc)

• Oil Storage Terminals

• Education

FLAGSHIP E: Senai - Skudai

• Logistics

• Manufacturing (esp. High

Tech and Aerospace related)

• Tourism (Luxury Destination

Shopping)

• Cybercity

FLAGSHIP A

FLAGSHIP B

FLAGSHIP CFLAGSHIP D

FLAGSHIP E

There are 5 flagship zones where economic clusters growth are promoted.


Comprehensive Development Plan 2006-2025

The formulated framework in order to promote the environmental, social and

economic aspects in Iskandar Malaysia

CDP (Comprehensive Development Plan)

Iskandar Malaysia

Comprehensive Development Plan

(CDP)2006-2025

• Function of authority

• Enhancement of quality of living environment

• Management of the use of land

• Management and promotion of urbanization

• Protection, preservation and enhancement of

natural environmental resources, agricultural

resources, parks and open spaces

• Protection of the natural coastal environment

• Revitalization of JB City Centre;

• Provision, integration and coordination of

urban

• Infrastructure and utility services

• Improvement of urban linkages

• Promote of Transit-Oriented Development

• Targeted commercial development


Iskandar Malaysia Blueprints

BlueprintsIskandar Malaysia blueprints enhanced the policies and strategies established in

the CDP 2006-2025 and set actions, measures, milestones and standards to guide

the implementation of development initiatives in Iskandar Malaysia

Objectives of Blueprints

• To guide local authorities and

agencies within Iskandar Malaysia

in implementation and

development controls

• To be used for monitoring

purposes, project implementation

and to assist in resource allocation

• To address physical issues and

gaps found during analysis and

benchmarking related to

development in an integrated and

holistic manner.


Outline of Putrajaya

Kuala Terengganu

NORTHERNCORRIDORECONOMICREGION

GREATER KUALALUMPUR

Johor Bahru

Singapore

Outline

Gross area 49.31[km2]

Population 79,400[people]

・Malaysia's new capital city

・located 25km south of Kuala Lumpur


Putrajaya Green City 2025

Sustainable PUTRAJAYA 8 policies

・ Elevating Putrajaya as an Excellent

Federal Government Administrative

Centre

・ Building a Progressive and Diverse

Urban Economy

・ Strengthening Tourism as Key Economic

Function

・ Enhancing Community Living

Environment

・ Moving Putrajaya Towards Green City

・ Implementing Integrated Transportation

System

・ Employing Adaptable and Responsive

Land Use Management

・ Adopting Effective Partnership and

Good Governance


Conclusion

Low-carbon construction has become an urgent issue1.

2. It is required to figure out the current condition of municipalities and assess various measures implemented in local governments

It is required to improve quality and reduce environmental load

The city assessment tool “CASBEE-City” enables us to share the

future vision by visualizing the expected effects of various measures.

Assessment of Quality (Q) and Load (L) at the same time

Development of a city assessment tool to understand problems

to be solved for a sustainable city development

Toward development of sustainable cities


Thank you for your kind attention


IBEC Institute for Building Environment and Energy Saving, Japan

NIES National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan

Technical University of Malaysia

, Japan

Perbadanan Putrajaya

comprehensive assessment system for built environment efficiency (casbee) in japan

Documents

osaka city

kyoto city

saitama city

sakai city

yokohama city

kobe city

kawasaki city

fukuoka city