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
★★★☆☆
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 2
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%
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 3
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.
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 4
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 5
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 6
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 7
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-
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 8
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 9
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 10
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 11
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 12
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 13
Assessment items for Q (Q2 Social aspects)
Main category Middle category Minor category
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 14
Assessment items for Q (Q3 Economic aspects)
Main category Middle category Minor category
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 15
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 16
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=
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 17
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-
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)
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 18
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 20S. Kawakubo, S. Murakami and T. Ikaga at World Conference SB11, Helsinki, Oct. 2011
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)
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 22S. Kawakubo, S. Murakami and T. Ikaga at World Conference SB11, Helsinki, Oct. 2011
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 23
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 24
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 25
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]
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 26
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
Good PoorScore for Load (L)
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 28
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 29
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.
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 30
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 31
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.
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 32
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 33
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 34
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
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 35
Thank you for your kind attention
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University 36
IBEC Institute for Building Environment and Energy Saving, Japan
NIES National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan
Technical University of Malaysia
, Japan
Perbadanan Putrajaya