22nd January, 2013 International Seminar on Sustainable Cities in Asia
Assessment of Malaysian and Japanese cities with CASBEE-city Shuzo Murakami President, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation Professor emeritus (Dr.), The University of Tokyo 1 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
Assessment of sustainability of various countries based on Q and L Low 0 1.0 Best
Low
0.9 0.8
High 10
12
Developed Countries
Sustainable for both humans and earth
Border of Q
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3
Limitation of L
Quality of Life (Q)
High
Environmental Load (L) 4 6 8
2
Developing Countries
Q ďźš Human Development Index
(Reference) UNDP: Human Development Report 2011
Worst L ďźš Ecological Footprint
Global Footprint Network: Global Footprint Network Annual Report 2010
Quality (Human Development Index) of life in Malaysia is expected to improve in the near future
2
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
Objective of Malaysia-Japan joint research project 1) Assessment of environmental-performance of cities, using CASBEE 2) Promotion of low-carbonization in municipalities while achieving Green-growth and improving QOL The study is supported by the following Malaysian & Japanese organizations. Putrajaya Corporation
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism
Iskandar Regional Development Authority
Keio University
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
National Institute for Environmental Studies
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Kyoto University 3
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
Outline 1. Outline of CASBEE 2. CASBEE-City for assessing performance of municipalities 3. Application of CASBEE-City for assessment of Malaysian cities 4. Initiatives for promotion of Green-cities implemented by the Japanese government 4 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
1.1 Basic concepts for developing CASBEE 1) Cross-scale design 2) Cross life-stage design 3) Consideration of both aspects, Q(Quality) and L (Load) 4) Introduction of eco-efficiency BEE (= Q / L) 5) Setting virtual boundary for assessment (CASBEE: Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency, BEE: Built-Environment Efficiency)
5
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
1.2 Cross-scale structure of CASBEE (Housing & Building scale)
(Urban scale)
CASBEEHome
CASBEEBuilding
CASBEEUrban Development
(City scale)
CASBEE-City 6 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
1.3 Life-stage structure of CASBEE
New Construction
Existing
Renovation
(CASBEE – Building)
(CASBEE – Building)
(CASBEE – Building)
7 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
1.4 CASBEE family Life-stage Housing scale
CASBEE-Home DH
Standard version
CASBEE-Dwelling Unit
Standard version
Building scale
CASBEE-Building
New Construction
Existing
Renovation
Standard version Offices, Apartments, Schools, Retailers, Hospitals, Hotels, etc.
Brief version Very brief version (Market promotion ver.)
Urban scale City scale
CASBEE-Urban Development
Standard version Brief version Standard version
CASBEE-City Professional version : Already developed
: Under Development
8 8
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
1.5 CASBEE-Buildings：Tool to make information concerning Green buildings “visible” to the public, in order to promote the spread of Green buildings Categorization of Assessment items into Q（Quality） and L（Load）
4 major items Q1: Indoor environment
・Energy efficiency
Q2: Quality of Service
・Resource efficiency ・Local environment ・Indoor environment
Categorize 100 sub-items into Q and L
（about 100 sub-items in total ）
Q3: Outdoor environment (on site)
= BEE
L1: Energy L2: Resources and materials L3: Off-site environment
Evaluating Q and L independently Clarifying performance of Green buildings CASBEE: Comprehensive Assessment System for Built-Environment Efficiency
9
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
1.6 Assessment by CASBEE based on BEE Virtual boundary
Q BEE =
(Environmental Quality)
L (Environmental Load)
Site boundary
Q
L1: Energy L2: Resources & materials
Q3: Outdoor environment
L3: Off-site environment
(on site)
1. 2.
L
Q1: Indoor environment Q2: Quality of service
Considering both aspects: L (Environmental Load) & Q (Environmental Quality) Assessment by BEE (Built Environment Efficiency) = Q / L
Higher Q with Lower L BEE: Built-Environment Efficiency 10 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
1.7 2-D rating based on Q / L ( = BEE) BEE= 3.0
Rank S
1.5
1.0
B+
A
Example
Score for Q: 56 Score for L : 40
(Excellent)
56
B-
Score for Q
BEE=1.4
0.5
(Poor)
40
C
Rank S: Excellent 素晴らしい A: Very 大変よい Good よい B+: Good やや劣る B-: Fairy Poor C: Poor 劣る
Score for L 11
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
1.8 Utilization of CASBEE by local governments: Assessment results of newly-constructed buildings in Nagoya city 1.5
3.0
100
S
BEE=1.0
B+
A
Q
B0.5
50
C 0
0
50
L
Offices Schools Retailers Restaurants Hospitals Hotels Halls Factories Apartments S rank: B+ rank： C rank:
100 (Number registered: 1,300) (Registration period: April 2004 – July 2011)
Performance-display using 2-D diagram of Q and L is very effective. Make “visible” the distribution of “★” to “★ ★ ★ ★ ★”.
12
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
1.9 Spread of CASBEE-Utilization by local governments Sapporo city Tottori pref.
Kyoto pref.
Osaka pref.
Niigata city Hiroshima city
Osaka city
Kyoto city
Saitama pref.
Kita Kyushu city
Saitama city
Fukuoka city
Kawasaki city
Kumamoto pref.
Kashiwa city
Hyogo pref.
Chiba city
Kobe city
Sakai city
Nagoya
Aichi pref.
Shizuoka pref.
Kanagawa pref.
Yokohama city
Many local governments require the CASBEE assessment when applying for a permit for construction of a new building（2004～). The number of local governments that require this is increasing. Disclosure of assessment results on websites of respective local governments The registered number of CASBEE assessment at local governments： 8,708 （as of March, 2012） 13 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
1.10 Certification system of CASBEE 1) Certification Certification of CASBEE ranking is given based on assessments by third-parties, designated by IBEC (quasi-governmental agency). This system is supported by MLIT.
2) Examiner-designation system (1) Lectures on CASBEE and examination for selecting examiners (2) Objective: to choose people who can perform reliable assessments (3) ･ Number of designated examiners : CASBEE-Buildings : about 6000, as of Nov, 2012. CASBEE-Homes : about 6200, as of Nov, 2012.
(MLIT: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism)
14
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
Outline 1. Outline of CASBEE 2. CASBEE-City for assessing performance of municipalities 3. Application of CASBEE-City for assessment of Malaysian cities 4. Initiatives for promotion of Green-cities implemented by the Japanese government 15 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
2.1 Framework of CASBEE-City Reduction of load (L) on the surrounding area
Virtual boundary
Improvement of quality (Q) in the city
BEE of a city =
Score for Q Score for L
City boundary
1) Evaluation of L (Environmental Load) Focusing on CO2 emission reductions
2) Evaluation of Q (Quality) Assessment of not only environmental aspects, but also social and economic aspects 16 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
2.2 Assessment items for CASBEE-City based on the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) ・Nature conservation ・Local environmental Quality of a City quality ・Resource recycling Q1 ・Environmental measures Environmental ・CO2 sinks ・Industrial vitality ・Economic exchanges ・Financial vitality ・Living environment ・Social services ・Social vitality ・Emission trading
aspects
Q2
Social aspects
Q3
Economic aspects
Environmental Load ・CO2 emissions from fuel combustion ・CO2 emissions from other processes
← Virtual boundary 17
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
2.3 Assessment items for Q: Q1 (Environmental aspects) Major category
Minor category
Sub-category
Q1.1 Nature conservation
Q1.1.1 Percentage of green space and water area to total area Q1.2.1 Air
Q1.2 Q1.2.2 Water Local environmental Q1.2.3* Noise quality
Q1： Environmental aspects Q1.3
Resource recycling Q1.4 Environmental measures Q1.5 CO2 Sinks
Q1.2.4* Chemicals Q1.3.1 Recycling rate of general waste Q1.4.1* Efforts and policies to improve the environment and the biodiversity Q1.5.1 Amount of CO2 sinks in the forest
Note: Assessment items with asterisk are not taken into account in after-mentioned nationwide assessment of local governments
18
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
2.4 Assessment items for Q: Q2 (Social aspects) Major category
Minor category
Sub-category Q2.1.1 Adequate quality of housing Q2.1.2*
Q2.1 Living environment
Adequate provision of park & open spaces
Q2.1.3* Adequate sewage systems Q2.1.4 Traffic safety Q2.1.5 Crime prevention Q2.1.6 Disaster preparedness
Q2: Social aspects
Q2.2.1 Adequacy of education services Q2.2.2 Adequacy of cultural services
Q2.2 Social services
Q2.2.3 Adequacy of medical services Q2.2.4 Adequacy of child-care services Q2.2.5* Adequacy of services for the disabled Q2.2.6 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
Q2.3.3*
Progress towards an information society
Q2.3.4*
Efforts and policies for vitalising society
Note: Assessment items with asterisks are not taken into account in after-mentioned nationwide assessment of local governments.
19
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
2.5 Assessment items for Q: Q3 (Economic aspects) Major category
Minor category
Q3.1 Vitality of industry
Q3: Economic aspects
Q3.2 Economic exchanges
Sub-category Q3.1.1 Amount equivalent to gross regional product Q3.1.2* Ratio of change in the number of employees Q3.2.1* Index equivalent to number of people visiting city Q3.2.2* Efficiency of public transportation
Q3.3 Financial viability
Q3.3.1 Tax revenues
Q3.4 Emission trading
Q3.4.1* CO2 emission trading
Q3.3.2 Outstanding local bonds
Note: Assessment items with asterisks are not taken into account in after-mentioned nationwide assessment of local governments. 20 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
2.6 Assessment items for L Major category
Minor category L1.1 Industrial sector
L1: Greenhouse gas emissions from fuel combustion
L1.2 Residential sector L1.3 Commercial sector L1.4 Transportation sector L1.5 Energy conversion sector L2.1 Industrial processes
L2: Greenhouse gas emissions from other processes
L2.2 Waste disposal sector L2.3 Agriculture sector L2.4 Other GHSs (HFCs, PFCs, SF6)
（Unit of L： CO2 emissions / person / year ) 21 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
2.7 Case study for Cities of Toyota and Kyoto: assessment result of Q Score for Q [-]
1) Toyota City 5
Environmental aspects （Q1）
Social aspects （Q2）
Economic aspects （Q3）
4 3 2 1
Nature Local Resource conservation environmental recycling quality
2) Kyoto City Score for Q [-]
(Industrial city)
5
CO2 sinks
Living environment
Social services
Social vitality
Industrial vitality
Financial vitality
CO2 trading
(Commercial city)
Environmental aspects （Q1）
Social aspects （Q2）
Economic aspects （Q3）
4 3 2 1
Nature Local Resource conservation environmental recycling quality
CO2 sinks
Living environment
Social services
Social vitality
Industrial vitality
Financial vitality
CO2 trading
The advanced aspects and weak aspects of each city can be clearly understood from the bar-charts. 22 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
2.8 Case study: assessment result of L
CO2 emissions [t-CO2/(person*year)]
30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Toyota
Kyoto
(Industrial city)
(Commercial city)
L is evaluated as per capita CO2 emissions per year. Enables us to recognize how much load we are emitting. 23 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
2.9 Case study for Eco-Model Cities Good 100
★★★★★
BEE =3.0
★★★★
1.5
A
Excellent
1.0
★★★
B+
S
Quality (Q)
15 14
50
B－ 6 12 7 5 102
1
★ ★
0.5
3
9 8 4 11 13
C
★
Worst Poor
0
0 Good
50 Load (L)
100 Poor
Japanese Eco-Model Cities 1： Obihiro 2： Shimokawa 3： Chiyoda 4： Yokohama 5： Toyama 6： Iida 7： Toyota 8： Kyoto 9： Sakai 10： Yusuhara 11： Kitakyusyu 12： Minamata 13： Miyakojima Compact European cities 14： Barcelona 15： Madrid
BEE=
Score for Q Score for L 24
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
2.10 Assessment results of Q for all municipalities in Japan 45N
In general, Q is highly valued in areas with low population-density.
Sapporo 40N
Sendai
Tokyo Kyoto Nagasaki
Hiroshima
0
500km
Quality
（Percentile ranking） 90-100% Good 80-90% 70-80% 60-70% 50-60% 40-50% 30-40% 20-30% 10-20% Poor 0-10%
(Total number of municipalities in Japan: 1750)
35N
25
30N
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
2.11 Assessment results of L 45N
In general, L is highly valued in industrialized areas with high population-density. (L : per capita CO2 emissions)
Sapporo 40N
Sendai
Tokyo Kyoto Nagasaki
Hiroshima
0
500km
Load
（Percentile ranking） 90-100% Good 80-90% 70-80% 60-70% 50-60% 40-50% 30-40% 20-30% 10-20% Poor 0-10%
35N
26
30N
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
2.12 Assessment results of BEE 45N
In general, the difference of BEE evaluation is small throughout Japan. BEE values in the central part of Japan are pretty high.
Sapporo 40N
Sendai
Tokyo Kyoto Nagasaki
Hiroshima
0
500km
BEE value Over 1.50 Good 1.25-1.50 1.00-1.25 0.75-1.00 0.50-0.75 Below 0.50 Poor
35N
27
30N
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
2.13 Assessment results of Q for Toyota and Kyoto
Quality
Kyoto:
ďźˆPercentile ranking 90-100% Good 80-90% 70-80% 60-70% 50-60% 40-50% 30-40% 20-30% 10-20% Poor 0-10%
20-30% Toyota: 80-90% Q of Toyota city is very high. Q of Kyoto is lower than the national average.
28
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
2.14 Assessment results of L for Toyota and Kyoto
Load
Kyoto: 80-90% Toyota: 50-60% L of Toyota is same as the average. （L: CO2 emissions/ person/ year）
（Percentile ranking） 90-100% Good 80-90% 70-80% 60-70% 50-60% 40-50% 30-40% 20-30% 10-20% Poor 0-10%
L of Kyoto is very high.
29
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
2.15 Assessment results of BEE for Toyota and Kyoto
Kyoto: 1.15 ( 1.00-1.25 ) Toyota: 1.33 ( 1.25-1.50) BEE of Toyota is very good, because Q is much better than the average. BEE of Kyoto is slightly better than the average, because L is high, but Q is low.
BEE value Over 1.50 Good 1.25-1.50 1.00-1.25 0.75-1.00 0.50-0.75 Below 0.50 Poor
30
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
Outline 1. Outline of CASBEE 2. CASBEE-City for assessing performance of municipalities 3. Application of CASBEE-City for assessment of Malaysian cities 4. Initiatives for promotion of Green-cities implemented by the Japanese government 31 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
3.1 Case study1: Assessment of Putrajaya NORTHERN CORRIDOR ECONOMIC REGION
Kuala Terengganu
Outline GREATER KUALA LUMPUR
Johor Bahru
Iskandar Malasia
Singapore
Total area: 49.31[km2] Population: 79,400[people] ・New capital city of Malaysia ・Located 25km south of Kuala Lumpur 32
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
3.2 “Future plan of Putrajaya” Putrajaya Green City 2025 This report outlines scenarios and a pathway for low-carbonizing Putrajaya within the next 15 years, based on quantitative integrated modeling of the future environment, society and economy. There are many plans toward a low-carbon society. Also, there are plans for the improvement of Quality. These plans are assessed by CASBEE-City. 33 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
3.3 Data collection for assessment Cooperation is in progress between Malaysian team and Japanese team regarding assessment of Malaysian cities. Discuss intensively to understand the current status of Putrajaya. Assess and clarify the current status and make the future plan “visible”.
34 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
3.4 Assessment results of three items of Q for Putrajaya Environmental aspects （Q1）
Score for Q [-]
5
Social aspects （Q2）
Economic aspects （Q3）
4 3 2 1 Nature Local conservation environmental quality
Resource recycling
CO2 sinks
Living environment
Social services
Social vitality
Industrial vitality
Financial vitality
CO2 trading
Environmental aspects: Result for resource recycling is poor compared with other items. Social aspects: Putrajaya has good overall performance of social aspects. Economic aspects: Industrial vitality should be developed further. 35 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
3.5 Assessment results of L for Putrajaya
10.27
Total emissions
GHG emissions [t-CO2/capita ・year]
GHG emissions [t-CO2/capita ・year]
Malaysian average =7 [t-CO2/capita ・year]
12 10 8 6 4 2 0
12 10 8 6 4 2 0
4.83
0.00
0.36
Industrial
Residential
Commercial
2.80
2.29
Transportation
Waste disposal
L is evaluated as per capita CO2 emissions: Emissions of almost 10 (t-CO2/ person/ year), which exceeds the Malaysian national average of 7 (t-CO2 /person / year) CO2 emissions from commercial and transportation sectors are large in Putrajaya 36 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
Good
3.6 Assessment of Putrajaya for present and future stages（tentative） 100
★★★★★
BEE = 3.0
Rank S
★★★★
1.5
1.0
★★★
B+
A
Score for Q: 48.5 Score for L: 51.6
(Excellent)
Score for Q
★ ★
2011 (Present) (BEE = 0.94) B-
50
2025 (Future target) (BEE = 2.46)
Poor
0.5
★
(Poor) 0
C
0
50
100
Good
Score for L
Poor
1. Environmental Load will be greatly reduced by promoting plans for the future. 2. Future plans to improve Quality is necessary toward sustainable development 37
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
3.7 Assessment of sustainability for various countries, based on Q and L Environmental Load (L)
Good 0 1.0 Best
Good
Poor
4
6
8
Poor 10
12
Developed Countries
Sustainable for both humans and earth
Border of Q
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3
Limitation of L
Quality of Life (Q)
0.9
2
Developing Countries
Q ： Human Development Index
(Reference) UNDP: Human Development Report 2011
Worst L ： Ecological Footprint
Global Footprint Network: Global Footprint Network Annual Report 2010
Quality (Human Development Index) of Malaysia is expected to be improved in the near future.
38
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
3.8 Importance of considering individual characteristics of Malaysia Present evaluation： Tentative assessment results for Putrajaya are slightly low at this stage. This is because CASBEE-City is specifically developed for assessing Japanese cities. It is not yet customized to Malaysian conditions for the environment, society and economy. Next stage evaluation： Assessment results are sure to be improved if assessment criteria are customized to Malaysian conditions. 39 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
Good
3.9 Direction of regeneration towards sustainable cities 100
★★★★★
BEE = 3.0 ★★★★ 1.5
Rank S
★★★
1.0
B+
A
Score for Q
(Excellent) ★ ★
Sustainable City
City A
B-
50
0.5
City B ★
Poor
City C (Poor) 0
C
0
50
100
Good
Score for L
Poor
City A： Necessary to reduce L City B： Necessary to improve Q, without increasing L City C： Necessary to improve Q 40
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
3.10 Case study2: Assessment of Iskandar Malaysia MPKU NORTHERN CORRIDOR ECONOMIC REGION
MBJB MDP Kuala Terengganu
GREATER KUALA LUMPUR
Johor Bahru
Iskandar Malasia
MPPG
MBJBT Singapore
Outline Total area: 2,216[km2] ・12% of Johor State ・3 times the size of Singapore Population: 1,614,447 ・50% of Johor State
Singapore
41
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
3.11 Future plan for Iskandar Malaysia Sustainable Iskandar Malaysia 1. This report aims to show the
possibility of developing Iskandar Malaysia into a lowcarbon region. There are many plans for a lowcarbon society, similar to those for Putrajaya.
2. In order to assess Iskandar
Malaysia by CASBEE-City, data collection is not enough at present. Malaysian and Japanese teams are now collecting data. 42 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
Outline 1. Outline of CASBEE 2. CASBEE-City for assessing performance of municipalities 3. Application of CASBEE-City for assessment of Malaysian cities 4. Initiatives for promotion of Green-cities implemented by the Japanese government 43 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
4.1 Eco Model-City project
(Since FY2008, by the Government)
4.1.1 Outline of Eco Model-City project
1） Objective: promotion of low-carbonization in cities distribution of best practices to other cities nationwide 2） Selection: 13 cities were selected among 89 cities that applied. 1) Large-scale: Yokohama city, Kyoto city, Sakai city,
Kita-Kyushu city, Chiyoda ward (in Tokyo)
2) Middle-scale: Obihiro city, Toyama city, Iida city, Toyota city 3) Small-scale: Shimokawa cho, Yusuhara cho, Minamata city, Miyakojima city
Source: Eco Model-city concept～Urban development for the future （Website URL: http://ecomodelproject.go.jp/）
44
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
4.1.2 Eco Model-cities of various scales Shimokawa 4,000 people
Kyoto
Obihiro
1.47 mil. people
50,000 people
Sakai
Toyama
840,000 people
420,000 people
Yokohama
Yusuhara
3,65 mil. people
5,000 people
Miyakojima
Chiyoda
55,000 people
45,000 people
Kita-kyushu
Iida
990,000 people
110,000 people
Minamata
Toyota
30,000 people
420,000 people
Large -scale
Middle-scale
Small-scale 45
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
4.1.3 Assessment results of actions promoted by Eco-Model Cities (FY 2009) Shimokawa A Kyoto
A
Sakai
B
Yusuhara
B
Miyakojima B Minamata
C
Kitakyushu A
Obihiro
B
Toyama
A
Chiyoda
B
A: Excellent progress B: Good progress C: Must be improved
Yokohama C Iida Toyota
B B
Referenceďźš Regional Revitalization Bureau of the Cabinet Secretariat, Result of follow-up on the progress of actions led by EMCs in FY 2009
Three-grade assessment and disclosure of results
46
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
4.2 “Green Future-City “ initiative (Since FY2011, by the Government) 4.2.1 (Rio + 20) and Official side event hosted by the Japanese government
Title: “Future Cities We Want” <Greeting by Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Koichiro Genba>
<Presentation by Shuzo Murakami (Chairman of expert committee)> “Green Future-City” Initiative （Rio＋20：The World Summit on Sustainable Development）
47
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
4.2.2 “Green Future-City”: aiming for green innovation 1) 21 Strategic national projects in “New growth-strategy” by the Government （June, 2010） (1) Introducing FIT (2) “Green Future-City” Initiative ・・ (11) Creating “Less-regulated specific-district system” ・・
2) Concept of “Green Future-City” New growth and low-carbonization in Japan, utilizing cities with green innovation as engines towards economic growth (“Reconstruction support to affected area was added as an object after the Great East-Japan Earthquake” ) Source: Office of PM: New growth strategy; Scenario to restore “Vivid Japan”: （Website URL: http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/sinseichousenryaku/）
48
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
4.2.3 Creating 3 values toward Green innovation Environmental value, social value and economic value
Creating
・ Response to super-aging society
・ Health & nursing ・ Prevention of disasters, Safety & Relief efforts ・ Social capital
・ Social solidarity,
environmental value Creating
social value
fair society, etc.
Creating
・ Low carbon ・ Environmental diversity ・ 3R: reduce, reuse, recycle ・ Water / Air environment ・ Super energy-efficient society, etc.
economic value
・ Accumulation of knowledge ・ Knowledge economy
・ Employment
& income
・ New industry ・ Minimization of social welfare costs, etc.
“Environment” & “Super-aging” as key words 49 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
4.2.4 Eleven Selected “Green Future-Cities” Shimokara cho
Kamaishi city
Toyama city
Rikuzen-Takata city, Sumita cho, Ohfunato city
Kashiwa city
HigashiMatsushima city
Yokohama city Kita-kyushu city
(Cities in non-disaster region)
Iwanuma city Shinchi cho MinamiSoma city (Cities in disaster region)
The best practices of each city will be distributed to every country throughout the world. Follow-up assessment of each city is planned to be conducted by using CASBEE-City.
50
Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
Concluding remarks Quality (Q)
Presentation of future goal to citizens by municipality Excellent
Future goal (after the implementation of city policies)
Route 1:
3
Route 2 1
Q Route 3
Current situation
Route 2: If sufficient measures are taken
Route 1
Route 3:
2
L
Route from the current situation to the future if no specific measures are taken
Effectiveness of city policies (( LL and and Q) Q)
BAU Poor
Environmental Load (L)
Making “visible” the effectiveness of city-policies to citizens Co-possession of future goal by citizens and municipalities (BAU: Business As Usual) 51 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
Thank you for your attention. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for the great cooperation of T. Ikaga (Prof. Keio University) and S. Kawakubo (Ph.D. Keio University) for editing this report. Bibliography： 1) Shuzo Murakami; Shun Kawakubo; Yasushi Asami; Toshiharu Ikaga; Nobuhaya Yamaguchi, Shinichi Kaburagi (2011) “Development of a comprehensive city assessment tool: CASBEE-City”, Building Research & Information, 39(3), 195-210. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09613218.2011.563920
2) Shun Kawakubo, Toshiharu Ikaga, Shuzo Murakami, Yasushi Asami: Nationwide Assessment of City Performance Based on Environmental Efficiency, International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, Vol.2, No.4, pp.293-301, 2011.12 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.5390/SUSB.2011.2.4.293
52 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation