1
Comparison of CASBEE-City assessment results and citizen
satisfaction with cities
Speakers:
Kawakubo, S.1; Ikaga, T.
2; Murakami, S.
3;
1 Hosei university, Tokyo, Japan
2 Keio university, Yokohama, Japan
3 Institute for building environment and energy conservation, Tokyo, Japan
Abstract: The Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE-
City) is a tool specifically designed for comprehensive city-scale assessment. CASBEE-City
was first published in Japan in 2011 and a revised version was published in 2012. This study
examines the effectiveness of the CASBEE-City tool by statistically examining the relation
between results of an objective CASBEE-City assessment, which was based on public
statistical information, and a subjective assessment, which was carried out by a nationwide
questionnaire survey of citizen satisfaction. Regression analysis reveals clear relations
between the subjective and objective assessment results. Scatter plots, with objective data on
the horizontal axis and subjective data on the vertical axis, were produced for each CASBEE-
City indicator. Most of the results showed a high coefficient of determination (between 0.5
and 0.8), which shows the tool’s effectiveness.
Keywords, CASBEE, sustainability assessment of cities, questionnaire survey, public
statistical information, citizen satisfaction
1. Introduction
Assessing the performance of municipalities is important for local governments in order to
understand the actual conditions of their cities, towns, and villages (hereinafter,
municipalities) and to assist in determining effective measures for sustainable development.
Many assessment indicators and tools for municipalities have been developed to support these
goals. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has also established a
technical committee to gather information about tools for urban sustainable development [1].
These assessment indicators and tools provide valuable information and facilitate
understanding of the actual local conditions. However, most of these indicators and tools are
published without confirming their effectiveness or comparing their actual and projected
performance. It is essential to verify these tools from an academic perspective to accelerate
sustainable development at the city level. Therefore, this study aims to examine the
effectiveness of one city-scale assessment tool and to judge whether it is of practical use.
2. Study method
This study focuses on the Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment
Efficiency (CASBEE) tool, also known as “CASBEE for Cities” (hereinafter referred to as
CASBEE-City). The tool was designed specifically for city assessment and developed in
close cooperation with the central government and local governments in Japan. The tool
supports local governments and other stakeholders in identifying environmental, social, and
2
economic characteristics of their cities and in quantifying the effectiveness of city policies.
Development of the initial version of the tool began in 2008 and it was released in 2011 after
extensive discussion among experts in the field [2][3]. A second, revised version was released
in 2012 offering improvements developed by incorporating suggested revisions [4]. One
result of these improvements is the organization of the assessment items as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Assessment items of CASBEE-City Major and minor categories Sub-categories Assessment indicators Unit
Qu
alit
y (
Q)
Q1. Environmental aspects
Q1.1 Nature conservation Q1.1.1 Ratio of green and water spaces (Forest areas + major lake areas)/
total land area %
Q1.2 Local environment
Q1.2.1 Atmosphere quality
Number of days in which the hourly
concentration of photochemicals during
the day is 0.12 ppm or higher (average)
day
Q1.2.2 Water quality 75% of average daily biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) in rivers mg/l
Q1.3 Resource recycling Q1.3.1 Recycling rate of general waste Recycling rate of general waste %
Q1.4 CO2 sinks Q1.4.1 CO2 absorption by forests (Current forest area ·unit of absorption)/
adjusted population t-CO2/person
Q2. Social aspects
Q2.1 Living environment
Q2.1.1 Quality of housing Total floor area per dwelling unit m2
Q2.1.2 Traffic safety Number of traffic accidents/
adjusted population
number/
1,000 people
Q2.1.3 Crime prevention Number of crimes recorded/
adjusted population
number/
1,000 people
Q2.1.4 Disaster preparedness Number of disaster response hospitals per
100,000 persons
number/
100,000 people
Q2.2 Social services
Q2.2.1 Adequacy of education services (Number of students/number of teachers)
at elementary and junior high schools -
Q2.2.2 Adequacy of cultural services (Number of community centres + number
of libraries)/land area of municipality number/10 km2
Q2.2.3 Adequacy of medical services Number of doctors/adjusted population number/
1,000 people
Q2.2.4 Adequacy of childcare services Number of childcare facilities/
pre-school population (aged 0– 4 years)
number/
100 people
Q2.2.5 Adequacy of services for the
elderly
Number of senior care facilities/
senior population (aged ≥65 years)
number/
1,000 people
Q2.3 Social vitality
Q2.3.1 Rate of population change due to
births & deaths
(Number of births – number of
deaths)/total population %
Q2.3.2 Rate of population change due to
migration
(Number of move-ins – number of move-
outs)/total population %
Q3. Economic aspects
Q3.1 Industrial vitality Q3.1.1 Amount equivalent to
gross regional product
(Agricultural output + value of
manufactured goods shipments + sales of
commercial goods)/adjusted population
1,000,000
Yen/person
Q3.2 Financial viability Q3.2.1 Tax revenue
Tax revenues of the local
government/adjusted population
10,000
Yen/person
Q3.2.2 Outstanding local bonds Real debt service ratio %
Q3.3 Emissions trading Q3.3.1 Emissions trading Presence or absence of an
emissions trading scheme -
Env
iro
nm
enta
l lo
ad (
L) L1. CO2 emissions from energy sources
L1.1 Industrial sector CO2 emissions from industrial sector/adjusted population t-CO2/person
L1.2 Residential sector CO2 emissions from residential sector/adjusted population t-CO2/person
L1.3 Commercial sector CO2 emissions from commercial sector/adjusted population t-CO2/person
L1.4 Transportation sector CO2 emissions from transportation sector/adjusted population t-CO2/person
L2. CO2 emissions from non-energy sources
L2.1 Waste disposal sector
and others CO2 emissions from waste disposal sector and others/adjusted population t-CO2/person
Note: Adjusted population is calculated as (nighttime population + daytime population) / 2
3
A feasibility study on CASBEE-City was conducted by applying the tool to a nationwide
municipality assessment in Japan [5]. Figure 1 shows the results of the assessment in terms of
the objective environmental, social, and economic conditions of whole municipalities in
Japan. Municipalities with darker shading have better assessment results compared with
municipalities with lighter shading. The questions that are likely to arise here are as follows.
Do citizens in cities with good assessment results feel comfortable about their cities? Do
citizens in cities with bad assessment results demand improvements in city performance? To
answer these questions, a questionnaire survey targeting citizens throughout Japan was
conducted and the collected subjective data were compared with the objective assessment
results delivered by the tool.
70-80%
60-70%
50-60%
40-50%
30-40%
20-30%
10-20%
0-10%
Results for Q1Good
Poor
90-100%
80-90%
(0.61 ≤ x < 0.67)
(0.54 ≤ x < 0.61)
(0.49 ≤ x < 0.54)
(0.43 ≤ x < 0.49)
(0.38 ≤ x < 0.43)
(0.31 ≤ x < 0.38)
(0.24 ≤ x < 0.31)
(0.06 ≤ x < 0.24)
(0.75 ≤ x < 0.92)
(0.67 ≤ x < 0.75)
70-80%
60-70%
50-60%
40-50%
30-40%
20-30%
10-20%
0-10%
Results for Q2Good
Poor
90-100%
80-90%
(0.53 ≤ x < 0.55)
(0.51 ≤ x < 0.53)
(0.49 ≤ x < 0.51)
(0.47 ≤ x < 0.49)
(0.44 ≤ x < 0.47)
(0.42 ≤ x < 0.44)
(0.39 ≤ x < 0.42)
(0.25 ≤ x < 0.39)
(0.59 ≤ x < 0.72)
(0.55 ≤ x < 0.59)
70-80%
60-70%
50-60%
40-50%
30-40%
20-30%
10-20%
0-10%
Results for Q3Good
Poor
90-100%
80-90%
(0.65 ≤ x < 0.72)
(0.59 ≤ x < 0.65)
(0.51 ≤ x < 0.59)
(0.44 ≤ x < 0.51)
(0.38 ≤ x < 0.44)
(0.31 ≤ x < 0.38)
(0.23 ≤ x < 0.31)
(0.02 ≤ x < 0.23)
(0.80 ≤ x < 0.99)
(0.72 ≤ x < 0.80)
Figure 1. Assessment results of all local governments in Japan. Top: Q1(environmental aspects); middle: Q2
(social aspects); bottom: Q3(economic aspects).
4
An online questionnaire survey was conducted during 20–26 November 2012. The
questionnaire was widely distributed across Japan to residents who were at least 15 years old.
To prevent data bias, the questionnaire was carefully distributed to males and females in a
wide age range. Individuals were divided into six groups by gender and age. The
questionnaire was also carefully distributed to municipalities of all different sizes across
Japan. Municipalities were divided into three groups by taking their administration level
(determined by the local autonomy law of Japan) into account. Large cities include
government ordinance cities and the 23 special wards of Tokyo. Medium cities include core
cities and special cities. Small municipalities include other small towns and villages.
Respondents were asked to list their satisfaction level with their municipality for each aspect
(based on the subcategory items of the CASBEE-City tool). Satisfaction level was provided
on a 100-point scale with 0 points representing extreme dissatisfaction, 50 points representing
a neutral option, and 100 points representing complete satisfaction.
Approximately 100 responses were collected from each municipality so that the results for
average citizen satisfaction obtained on the survey would be representative. In total, 12,630
valid responses were collected from the survey, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Overview of collected response
Age (years) Number of respondents (%)
Male / Female Size of municipalities Number of respondents (%)
15-29 1,180 / 1,260
(9.3%) (10.0%) Large 2,261 (17.9%)
30-49 2,517 / 2,556
(19.9%) (20.2%) Medium 8,101 (64.1%)
≥50 2,552 / 2,565
(20.2%) (20.3%) Small 2,268 (18.0%)
Total 12,630 (100%) Total 12,630 (100%)
Regression analysis was conducted to quantify the relation between citizen satisfaction level
and the actual performance of municipalities. The average satisfaction level was also
calculated for each assessment item for each municipality so that we can identify which
municipalities have succeeded or failed in satisfying their citizens. Scatter plots, with
objective data on the horizontal axis and subjective data on the vertical axis, were also
produced for each CASBEE-City indicator to visualize those relations.
3. Results
By regression analysis, clear relations were found between the subjective data (level of citizen
satisfaction with their municipalities) and the objective assessment results from the CASBEE-
City tool. Table 3 shows the results of the regression analysis for each assessment item. Most
of the results showed a high coefficient of determination (between 0.5 and 0.8), which
verified the tool’s effectiveness. Figure 2 shows examples of scatter plots produced. It is
clearly demonstrated that citizens who live in better circumstances, as measured on the
CASBEE-City tool, tend to have higher satisfaction levels with their municipalities.
5
Table 3. Results of regression analysis by each assessment item Major
category Minor category Sub-category Estimated regression equation
R2
value
Qu
alit
y (
Q)
Q1
.
Env
iro
nm
en
tal
asp
ects
Q1.1 Nature conservation Q1.1.1 Ratio of green and water spaces y = 0.245x + 44.9 0.681
Q1.2 Local environment Q1.2.1 Atmosphere quality y = 64.7e-0.108x 0.626
Q1.2.2 Water quality y = -10.8ln(x) + 61.8 0.610
Q1.3 Resource recycling Q1.3.1 Recycling rate of general waste y = 0.951x + 25.6 0.741
Q1.4 CO2 sinks Q1.4.1 CO2 absorption by forests y = -1.31x2 + 11.8x + 37.2 0.479
Q2
. S
oci
al a
spec
ts
Q2.1 Living environment
Q2.1.1 Quality of housing y = 0.387x + 9.49 0.744
Q2.1.2 Traffic safety y = -21.6ln(x) + 75.6 0.753
Q2.1.3 Crime prevention y = -22.7ln(x) + 94.3 0.776
Q2.1.4 Disaster preparedness y = 9.28ln(x) + 45.9 0.621
Q2.2 Social services
Q2.2.1 Adequacy of education services y = -20.4ln(x) + 95.5 0.274
Q2.2.2 Adequacy of cultural services y = 7.42ln(x) + 45.0 0.724
Q2.2.3 Adequacy of medical services y = 16.4ln(x) + 37.9 0.587
Q2.2.4 Adequacy of childcare services y = 27.4x + 27.4 0.576
Q2.2.5 Adequacy of services for the elderly y = 15.0ln(x) + 53.7 0.608
Q2.3 Social vitality
Q2.3.1 Rate of population change due to
births & deaths y = 19.5x + 46.0 0.636
Q2.3.2 Rate of population change due to
migration y = -4.38x2 + 9.03x + 49.9 0.530
Q3
.
Eco
no
mic
aspec
ts Q3.1 Industrial vitality Q3.1.1 Amount equivalent to GRP y = 15.6ln(x) + 20.1 0.680
Q3.2 Financial viability Q3.2.1 Tax revenue y = -0.0211x2+2.57x+11.8 0.633
Q3.2.2 Outstanding local bonds y = -23.5ln(x) + 103 0.705
Q3.3 Emissions trading Q3.3.1 Emissions trading - -
Total Quality Score y = 0.952x - 2.76 0.554
Good
Poor
Cit
ize
n s
ati
sfa
ctio
n
(Su
bje
ctiv
e d
ata
)
Value of indicator (Objective data) GoodPoor((Forest areas + major lake areas) / Total land area) [%]
y = 0.245x + 44.9
R² = 0.6810
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
A single plot represents a municipality
Good
Poor
Cit
ize
n s
ati
sfa
ctio
n
(Su
bje
ctiv
e d
ata
)
Value of indicator (Objective data) PoorGood(Number of crimes recorded / adjusted population) [number / 1,000 people]
y = -22.7ln(x) + 94.3
R² = 0.7760
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Good
Poor
Cit
ize
n s
ati
sfa
ctio
n
(Su
bje
ctiv
e d
ata
)
Value of indicator (Objective data) GoodPoor(Amount equivalent to gross regional products) [1,000,000 Yen / person]
y = 15.6ln(x) + 20.1
R² = 0.6800
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40
Good
Poor
Cit
ize
n s
ati
sfa
ctio
n
(Su
bje
ctiv
e d
ata
)
Value of indicator (Objective data) GoodPoor(Total Q score of CASBEE-City) [-]
y = 0.9518x - 2.756
R² = 0.5539
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Figure 2. Relation between CASBEE-City assessment result and citizen satisfaction (top left: survey result vs.
ratio of green and water spaces; top right: survey result vs. crime prevention; bottom left: survey result vs.
amount equivalent to gross regional product; bottom right: survey result vs. total Q score from CASBEE-City)
6
4. Conclusions
The study examined the effectiveness of the CASBEE-City tool by collecting citizen
satisfaction data and conducting regression analysis to quanity the relation between citizen
satisfaction and the objective performance of municipalities in Japan. The results show that
there is a high corelation between the subjective assessment (the level of citizen satisfaction
with their municipalities) and the objective assessment (the assessment indicator values of
CASBEE-City), which provides evidence of the tool’s effectiveness. This is the main finding
of the study.
The next step for this line of study is to quantify the influence rate (i.e., the weights) of each
assessment item on the overall citizen satisfaction level to further accerelate the transitions to
a sustainable society. There may be other background factors that affect the citizen
satisfaction level but are not included in the tool at this moment, and it is highly important to
identify those factors. These are future challenges to be solved in the next steps of the study.
References
[1] ISO (2012). ISO Technical Committees TC268. Sustainable development in
communities. [online] (Available at:
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee?commid=656906). (accessed on 10
April 2013).
[2] Murakami, S., Kawakubo, S., Asami, Y., Ikaga, T., Yamaguchi, N., and Kaburagi, S.
(2011). Development of a comprehensive city assessment tool: CASBEE-City. Building
Research and Information, 39 (3): 195-210.
[3] The Committee for the Development of an Environmental Performance Assessment
Tools for Cities (2011). CASBEE for Cities Technical Manual (2011 Edition). Tokyo.
Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC).
[4] The Committee for the Development of an Environmental Performance Assessment
Tools for Cities (2012). CASBEE for Cities Technical Manual (2012 Edition). Tokyo.
Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC).
[5] Kawakubo, S., Ikaga, T., and Murakami, S. (2011). Nationwide assessment of city
performance based on environmental efficiency. International Journal of Sustainable
Building Technology and Urban Development, 2 (4): 293–301.