7th, Nov. 2012 World Town Planning Day
Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) in Japan Development of Comprehensive City Assessment Tool: CASBEE-City
Toshiharu Ikaga Prof., Keio University, Japan
CASBEE: Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency supported by MLIT* since 2001 Chair: Dr S. MURAKAMI, Secretary General: T. IKAGA
Enclosed space by the virtual boundary
Quality BEE =
Site boundary
Load
* 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）
★★★☆☆ 1.5 BEE=3.0
Q (Quality)
100
S
1.0
B+
A
S Excellent
B53 50
A Very Good
BEE=1.2
0.5
B+ Good
BRather Good 0
0
44 50
C
C Poor
100
L (Environmental Load) Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
2
Low Carbon Ranking based on LCCO2
Repair, Const- Renovation and ruction Demolition
Operation
100%
Reference Building Energy saving, Eco-material and Long life + Onsite Assessed Renewable Building Energy + Offsite Renewable Energy
75% 66% 61% 0
40 80 120 160 Life Cycle CO2(kg-CO2/year/m2)
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
200
3
CASBEEs are adopted by 24 authorities for building control and 8,700 results are declared on their website (as of Mar. 2012) 45
Sapporo
40
35 Osaka
Nagoya Tokyo
Fukuoka
30
25 120 E
125
130
135
140
145
1. Nagoya City Apr. 2004 2. Osaka City Oct. 2004 3. Yokohama City Jul. 2005 4. Kyoto City Oct. 2005 5. Osaka Pref. Apr. 2006 6. Kyoto Pref. Apr. 2006 7. Kobe City Aug. 2006 8. Kawasaki City Oct. 2006 9. Hyogo Pref. Oct. 2006 10. Shizuoka Pref. Jul. 2007 11. Fukuoka City Oct. 2007 12. Sapporo City Nov. 2007 13. Kitakyushu City Nov. 2007 14. Saitama City Apr. 2009 15. Saitama Pref. Oct. 2009 16. Aichi Pref. Oct. 2009 17. Kanagawa Pref. Apr. 2010 18. Chiba City Apr. 2010 19. Tottori Pref. Apr. 2010 20. Niigata City Apr. 2010 21. Hiroshima City Apr. 2010 22. Kumamoto Pref. Oct. 2010 23. Kashiwa City Nov. 2011 24. Sakai City Aug. 2011
With incentive programs : Volume incentive, subsidy, low-interest finance, etc. Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
4
1400 CASBEE results are declared on the website of Nagoya City as of Mar 2012 100
S
90
BEE=1.0
1.5
3.0
100
B+
A
80 70
Q
60
50 50 40 30 20
(April 2004 – July 2011) 事務所
Offices 学校 Schools 物販店 Retailers 事務所 飲食店 B Restaurants 学校 病院 Hospitals 物販店 ホテル Hotels 0.5飲食店 病院 集会所 ホテル Halls 集会所 工場 Factories 工場 集合住宅 Apartments 集合住宅 C
10
00 20
00
30
10
40
20
30
50
40
60
50 50
L
60
70
70
80
80
90
90
100 100 100
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 100 100
BEE=1.0
1.5
3.0
S
B+
A
90
(April 2004 – July 2011)
Offices 事務所 Schools 学校
80
Retailers 物販店
B-
70
事務所
Restaurants 飲食店
学校
Hospitals Hotels 0.5 飲食店ホテル 病院 Halls 集会所 ホテル Factories 集会所 工場 工場 Apartments 集合住宅 病院 物販店
Q
60
50 50 40 30
C
集合住宅
20
10
00
20
0 0
30
10
40
20
30
50
40
50 50
60
60 L 70
70
80
80
90
90
100 100
100
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
6
CASBEE family （as of Oct 2012） New RenoLife-stage Const- Existing vation ruction Housing scale Building scale
CASBEE-Home DH
Standard version
CASBEE-Dwelling Unit Standard version Standard version CASBEE-Building Brief version Offices, Apartments, Schools, Retailers, Hospitals, Hotels, etc. Very brief version (Market promotion ver.)
Urban scale City scale
CASBEE-Urban Development
Standard version
Brief version Standard version
CASBEE-City Brief version : Already developed
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
: Under Development 7
7
History of CASBEE-City Housing & Building scale
Urban scale
City scale
CASBEE-Home CASBEE-Building 2002-
CASBEE-Urban Development 2006-
CASBEE-City 2011-
Tools are developed for a broader context after experience has been gained in assessing individual buildings Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
8
Comparison of assessment tools in the world Housing & Building scale
GBI (Malaysia)
Urban scale
LEED (U.S.)
BREEAM (U.K.) CASBEE (Japan)
City scale
GN (Malaysia)
MURNInet (Malaysia)
LCCF (Malaysia) 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.) Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
9
Objectives of developing CASBEE-City 1) Objectives of developing a city-scale assessment tool To figure out the current condition of municipalities and to assess various measures implemented in local governments To revitalize every municipalities through identifying problems which should be solved for sustainable city development 2) Development principals
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 Visualization of the actual status of a city Supporting city-led measures for sustainable development Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
10
Assessment structure of CASBEE-City
都市 City Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency
Score for Quality (Q)
Environment Efficiency (BEE)※
（Q: Quality, 0< Score for Q<100）
＝ BEE： Built Environment Efficiency
Score for Load (L) （L: Load, 0< Score for L<100）
Virtual boundary
Reduction of Load (L) on the surrounding area
Improvement of Quality (Q) in a city
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
11
Assessment items for CASBEE-City ・Nature Conservation ・Local environmental quality ・Resource recycling ・CO2 sinks
Quality of a city (Q)
Environmental aspects
・Industrial vitality ・Financial vitality ・Emission trading
・Living environment ・Social services ・Social vitality
Social aspect
Economic Aspect
Assessment based on Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
Load of a city (L) ・CO2 emissions from energy sources （CO2 from industrial, residential, commercial, transport sectors)
・CO2 emissions from non energy sources （CO2 from waste disposal sectors, etc.)
←
Virtual boundary
12
Assessment items for Q (Q1 Environmental aspects)
Main category
Middle category Q1.1 Nature conservation
Q1.2 Local Q1. Environmental environment quality aspect Q1.3 Resources recycling Q1.4 CO2 sinks
Minor category Q1.1.1 Ratio of green and water spaces Q1.2.1 Air Q1.2.2 Water Q1.3.1 Recycling rate of general waste 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 Q2.1.1 Adequate quality of housing
Q2.1 Living environmental
Q2.1.2 Traffic safety Q2.1.3 Crime prevention Q2.1.4 Disaster preparedness Q2.2.1 Adequacy of education service
Q2. Social aspect
Q2.2.2 Adequacy of cultural services Q2.2 Social service
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 Q3.1 Industrial vitality
Q3. Economic Q3.2 Financial viability aspects Q3.3 Emission trading
Minor category Q3.1.1 Amount equivalent to gross regional product Q3.2.1 Tax revenues
Q3.2.2 Outstanding local bonds 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 L1.1 Industrial sector
L1. CO2 emissions from energy sources
L1.2 Residential sector L1.3 Commercial sector L1.4 Transportation sector
L2. CO2 emissions from L2.1 Waste disposal sector non energy sources
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
16
Poor
Score for Quality (Q)
Good
Assessment image by CASBEE-City BEE 3.0 3.0 100 100 S Good Sustainable
1.5
BEE=1.0
1.5
BEE Score for Q
B+
A
＝
B－
BEE
70
1.0
＝1.8（=70/40） Rank A
50 50
0.5 0.5
C
00 0 Good
Score for L
Poor Unsustainable 50
100
Score for Load (L)
Poor
40
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
S A B+ BC
： ★★★★★ ： ★★★★ ： ★★★ ： ★★ ：★
17
Score for Quality (Q)
Good
Presentation of future goal to citizens by municipality BEE 3.0 3.0 100 100 S Good Sustainable
1.5 B+
A
Route from the current situation to the future if no specific measures are taken
Present 1
50 50
1.0 Route 1:
B－
Future target 3
Route 2: 0.5 If sufficient measures are 0.5 taken
Δ Q
2
ΔL Poor
BEE=1.0
1.5
C
BAU
Poor Unsustainable
00 0
50
100
Good
Score for Load (L)
Poor
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
Route 3: Effectiveness of city policies (ΔQ and ΔL)
18
Utilization image of the CASBEE-City brief version Assessment tool
Database
100 Good100
BEE = 3.0
1.0
Excellent S
2) Refer
1.5 B+
A
Bďź?
Present quality
3) Respond 1) Query
50 50
Past
GIS
C
Output 2 Poor
User
0.5
Output 1
00
0 0 Good
Poor 50
50 environmental load
100 100 Poor
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 S. Kawakubo, S. Murakami and T. Ikaga at World Conference SB11, Helsinki, Oct. 2011
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
19
Assessment items in the CASBEE-City brief version Category Subcategory Original Tool Brief Version L. Environmental load
GHG emissions Nature conservation
Net CO2 emissions Green and water spaces Air Water Local environmental quality Q1. Environmental Noise aspects Chemicals Resource recycling Recycling of waste Environmental measures Policy efforts Quality of housing Parks and open spaces Sewage systems Living environment Traffic safety Crime prevention Disaster preparedness Education services Cultural services Q2. Social aspects Medical services Social services Child care services Services for the disabled Services for the elderly Population change due to births and deaths Population change due to migration Social vitality IT environment Policy efforts Gross regional products Industrial vitality Number of employees Number of visitors Q3. Economic Economic exchanges aspects Public transportation Tax revenues Financial viability Outstanding local bonds S. Kawakubo, S. Murakami and T. Ikaga at World Conference SB11, Helsinki, Oct. 2011
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
Included but highly simplified Included Removed Removed Removed Removed Included Removed Included Removed Included Included Included Removed Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Included Removed Removed Included Removed Removed Removed Included Included
20
BEE values of 1750 Cities in Japan (2005) 45N 45N
Japan 45S
Sapporo
30N 0
40N 0
500km
500km Sendai
Naha 25N
35N BEE value (=Q/L)
Tokyo Kyoto Nagasaki
Hiroshima
0.0≦BEE＜0.5 Poor 0.5≦BEE＜1.0 1.0≦BEE＜1.5 1.5≦BEE＜3.0 3.0≦BEE Good
30N S. Kawakubo, S. Murakami and T. Ikaga at World Conference SB11, Helsinki, Oct. 2011
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
21
Q and L Score of 1750 Cities in Japan (2005) Score for Q Good
Poor
70-80 60-70 50-60 40-50 30-40 20-30
Score for L Good
Poor S. Kawakubo, S. Murakami and T. Ikaga at World Conference SB11, Helsinki, Oct. 2011
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100
22
Time series assessment of Kobe（past – present - future） World Business Council for Sustainable Development/ Urban Infrastructure Initiative
Objective： To monitor the progress of recovery since 1995, and to support future city planning
Target city： City of Kobe Population: 1.5 million Area: 550km2
Target period： From 1990 to 2025 Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
23
Devastating earthquake occurred in Kobe in 1995
â&#x2014;&#x2020;Detail information: Magnitude of the earthquake: 7.3 Number of death: over 6,434 Number of injuries: 43,792 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
Super aging measures
Others
b)Water, Air c)Natural environment, biodiversity d)3R
e)Health care industry f)Community health care
i)Disaster prevention, reconstruction support
g)Care, Welfare of community
j)Intelligence network, internationalization
Ex.） ・ Recycling rate of general waste 24％ → 35％ ・ CO2 emissions 8.2 →6.9
h)Child care, Education
a)Low-Carbon, saving energy
[t-CO2/person]
Ex.) Number of the home for the elderly 153 → 171
[t-CO2/person]
Promotion of welfare a)High quality life
d)Protection of environment
b)Creating welfare c)Llife cycle health
Creation of a comfortable city
g)Nationalization of economy h) “sea”, “land”, “sky”
e)Resilience city
etc.
Nationalization
f)Low- Carbon society
etc.
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
Ex.) Population change due to migration2143 →4239[people]
26
Discussion with governmental officer of Kobe
Poor
Score for Quality (Q)
Good
Data collection for CASBEE-City assessment 100
BEE
3.0
3.0
1.5
BEE=1.0
1.5
1.0
100
S Good Sustainable
A
B+ Bďź?
50 50
0.5 0.5
C
00 0 Good
Poor Unsustainable 50 100 Poor Score for Load (L)
Data necessary for CASBEE-City assessment was obtained through discussion with governmental officers of Kobe Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
27
Time series assessment of Kobe （past – present - future） 100 S:★★★★★ A:★★★★ Good
B+:★★★ BEE
＝
Score for Q
（Score for Q）
Score for L
50
2010
2025 LCS
2000
2025 1990 2005
BAU
B-:★★
1995
Huge Earth Quake in Jan. 1995 Poor
C:★
00
50
S ： ★★★★★ A ： ★★★★ B+ ： ★★★ B－ ： ★★ C ：★
100
Good Poor （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 Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
28
Outline of Iskandar Malaysia NORTHERN CORRIDOR ECONOMIC REGION
MPKU Kuala Terengganu
MPPG
MBJB MBJBT MDP Singapore
Outline Gross area 2,216[km2]
GREATER KUALA LUMPUR
・12% of Johor State ・3 times the size of Singapore Johor Bahru Singapore
Population 1,614,447[people]
・50% of Johor State
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
29
Initiatives example in Iskandar Malaysia There are 5 flagship zones FLAGSHIP A where economic clusters growth are promoted. FLAGSHIP B FLAGSHIP A : JB City Centre • Financial Advisory and Consulting • Cultural and Urban Tourism
FLAGSHIP D
FLAGSHIP C
FLAGSHIP D: Eastern Gate Development • Manufacturing (Electronics, Petrochemicals, Oleochemicals, etc) • Oil Storage Terminals • Education
FLAGSHIP B : Nusajaya • Education & Medical Tourism • Entertainment & Recreation • State Administration • Financial Advisory and Consulting • Biotechnology
FLAGSHIP E
FLAGSHIP E: Senai - Skudai
FLAGSHIP C : Western Gate Development • Logistics • Regional Distribution , International Procurement • Oil Storage Terminal Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
• Logistics • Manufacturing (esp. High Tech and Aerospace related) • Tourism (Luxury Destination Shopping) • Cybercity
30
Comprehensive Development Plan 2006-2025 CDP (Comprehensive Development Plan) The formulated framework in order to promote the environmental, social and economic aspects in Iskandar Malaysia • 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 Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP)2006-2025
Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
31
Iskandar Malaysia Blueprints Blueprints Iskandar 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 â&#x20AC;˘ To guide local authorities and agencies within Iskandar Malaysia in implementation and development controls â&#x20AC;˘ To be used for monitoring purposes, project implementation and to assist in resource allocation â&#x20AC;˘ 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 NORTHERN CORRIDOR ECONOMIC REGION
Kuala Terengganu
GREATER KUALA LUMPUR
Outline Gross area 49.31[km2] Population 79,400[people]
Johor Bahru
・Malaysia's new capital city ・located 25km south of Kuala Lumpur
Singapore 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 1. Low-carbon construction has become an urgent issue It is required to improve quality and reduce environmental load Assessment of Quality (Q) and Load (L) at the same time
2. It is required to figure out the current condition of municipalities and assess various measures implemented in local governments Development of a city assessment tool to understand problems to be solved for a sustainable city development The city assessment tool â&#x20AC;&#x153;CASBEE-Cityâ&#x20AC;? enables us to share the future vision by visualizing the expected effects of various measures.
Toward development of sustainable cities Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
35
Perbadanan Putrajaya Technical University of Malaysia
NIES National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan IBEC Institute for Building Environment and Energy Saving, Japan , Japan
Thank you for your kind attention Ikaga Lab., Dept. of System Design Engineering, Keio University
36