出力用.indd

1

2013/01/11

15:19:56

Indemnity
This manual and the software shall be used at user’s own responsibility.
Japan Sustainable Building Consortium and Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation
bear no responsibility for the assessment results of this manual and the software and for any damages
caused by their use.

CASBEE for Cities

1(2012 Edition)

Contents
Introduction・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 2[Main Section]
PART Ⅰ. Outline of CASBEE-City・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 3
1. What is CASBEE?・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 3
2. Framework of CASBEE-City・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

4

3. Assessment Method・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 7
4. Assessment Procedure・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 15
PART Ⅱ. Assessment Method and Criteria・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 19
1. City’s Quality (Q)・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 19
Q1 Environmental aspect・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 20
Q2 Social aspect・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 25
Q3 Economic aspect・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 36
2. Environmental load of Cities (L)・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 41[Commentaries and data]
Information on Q (Quality) ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 48
Information on L (Environmental Load) ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 50
Afterword・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 59

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

2

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)

Introduction
In view of the global trend in environmental issues and with the Conference of Parties (COP)“Countermeasures against greenhouse gases and promotion of a society-wide effort toward a
low-carbon future” as a yardstick, many countries are facing serious policy challenges. In order todeal with these challenges, a method for a comprehensive assessment of environmental
performance at the municipal level is considered effective, but such a method has yet to beestablished.
In Japan, the government-led Eco Model City Project began in 2008. In addition to the eco model
cities, other motivated communities and related organizations have also participated in theestablishment of the Promotion Council for the Low Carbon Cities in December 2008, in which
individual cities and communities are seeking a way toward eco-friendly future development while
demonstrating their own potential. Examples of such movements can be found in cities selected for
the FutureCity Initiatives in December 2011.
In this regard, a framework for measuring and evaluating the effectiveness of the policies andactivities taken by the individual cities would be very helpful for the many people who are involved in
activities relating to citizens, public administration and other cities, in order to share a sense of
purpose in creating the ideal future city.
Consequently, the Committee for the Development of an Environmental Performance Assessment
Tools for Cities was launched in November 2008 for the purpose of contributing to the improvement ofcity-wide comprehensive environmental performance by developing and utilizing an environmental
performance assessment tool tailored to cities, in which a framework for a city evaluation suitable forthe era of the global environment will be studied.
The Committee adopted the principle and method of the Comprehensive Assessment System for
Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) for the basic assessment tool in view of clarity, fairness,reliability and usefulness. CASBEE is a unique Japanese system that is widely known among people
engaged in construction-related businesses as an environmental performance assessment tool forbuildings.
The new city assessment tool also focuses on evaluating cities from two perspectives; quality inside acity (Q = quality) and environmental load emitted from a city on the external environment (L = load), in
accordance with the principle of the conventional CASBEE. Assessment items are carefully studied
from various aspects in a comprehensive manner, whereas, in light of the urgent and important taskof promoting a low-carbon society, L consists of items particularly focusing on a clear assessment of
low-carbon policies of individual cities.
In developing this tool, the Committee has been working closely with the Working Group for
Promotion of Measures for Low-carbon City or Region established under the aforementioned
Promotion Council for the Low Carbon Cities in order to thoroughly review implementation issues (thecouncil was renamed the Committee for the Promotion of the FutureCity Initiative in May 2012).
We have now compiled and released the “CASBEE-City (2012 Edition)” assessment manual to be
used as a technical guideline.
Assessment indicators in this manual consist of publicly-available statistics by municipalities. While
the manual focuses on cities in Japan, its basic concept is universally applicable and relevant in any
region or country.
We hope that this tool will be utilized in various fields and will help enhance urban environmental
improvement in harmony with global environmental issues.
July 2012
Shuzo Murakami
Chairman of the Committee for the Developmentof an Environmental Performance Assessment Tools for Cities

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities3(2012 Edition)

PARTⅠ Outline of CASBEE-City
1. What is CASBEE?
CASBEE is a method of assessing and rating the environmental performance of a built environment
Assessment tools for CASBEE were developed in accordance with the following three concepts: (1)Evaluating a built environment through its entire lifecycle, (2) Evaluating a building from the two
aspects of environmental quality (Q) and environmental load (L) and (3) Evaluating a built
environment according to the “Built Environment Efficiency (BEE),” an assessment index, which was
newly developed based on the idea of eco efficiency. The rating system has five grades; Excellent (S),Very Good (A), Good (B+), Fairly Poor (B-) and Poor (C), with each grade represented by a certain
BEE value. CASBEE, for which development began in 2001, used to consist of environmental
performance assessment tools used for individual buildings including “CASBEE-New Construction.”
Currently, CASBEE is comprised of various tools tailored to specific purposes, such as CASBEE for
Urban Development for building assessment and CASBEE-City for environmental assessment at theurban scale. These are collectively known as the CASBEE Family.

CASBEE Family
Housing

CASBEE-Home (Detached House)
Completed in September 2007, revised in 2010

CASBEE-Home (Existing Housing)Published in November 2011

建築系

CASBEE-Temporary Construction

Basic Tools

CASBEE-Pre-Design

Exhibition facility edition published in 2004,
revised in 2008

Under development

CASBEE-New Construction

CASBEE-New Construction (Brief version)

Office edition completed in 2002, revised in 2010

CASBEE-Existing Building

Published in July 2004, revised in 2010
CASBEE-Existing Building (Brief version)

Completed in July 2004, revised in 2010

CASBEE-Renovation

Published in April 2009, revised in 2010
CASBEE-Renovation (Brief version)

Completed in July 2005, revised in 2010

Completed in April 2009, revised in 2010

CASBEE-Heat Island

CASBEE-Local Government edition*

Completed in July 2005, revised in 2010

* CASBEE-Nagoya, CASBEE-Osaka,
CASBEE-Yokohama Tools partially revised
in individual municipalities

CASBEE-School
Completed in September 2010

CASBEE-Property Appraisal (Abridged) Version)
Under development

CASBEE-Neighborhood and Buildings

NeighborhoodCompleted in November 2007

CASBEE-Neighborhood
Published in July 2006, revised in 2007

CASBEE-Neighborhood (Abridged)
Completed in November 2007

Urban Area

CASBEE-City (Detailed)

CASBEE-City

Published in March 2011

Published in July 2012

FigureⅠ.1.1 CASBEE Familyc 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

4

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)

2. Framework of CASBEE-City
2.1

Basic policy for development

2.1.1

Basic Principles

CASBEE-City is a system that comprehensively evaluates the environmental performance of a city.
When evaluating environmental performance, environmental concern is a major perspective, but
ensuring a convenient and comfortable life for city dwellers and the development of the local
economy should not be overly restricted, simply due to the higher priority on the reduction ofenvironmental burden. Accordingly, CASBEE-City looks multilaterally at the quality and performanceof a city from a triple bottom line perspective of the environment, society and the economy.
The assessment is conducted at the municipal level, the foundation of a society. In order to clearly
define the assessment target, a hypothetical boundary is set around the city (municipality) to beevaluated, so that a hypothetical closed space in three dimensions is created around the city. The
higher the Q value representing quality and the lower the L value representing environmental load on
the external environment are, the higher the BEE (the Built Environment Efficiency=Q/L) value
becomes, which indicates that the city is highly regarded for its excellent environmental efficiency.
Hypothetical closed spacearound the city

Reductionof L on the
都市の外へのexternal
environment
環境負荷Lの低減

都市を囲む仮想空間

Increase in Q within the city
都市内部の環境品質Qの向上

City都市境界
boundary

City都市境界
boundary

FigureⅠ.2.1 Concept of a hypothetical closed space in CASBEE-City

2.1.2 CASBEE-City Manuals: Standard Version and Detailed Version (published in
March 2011)
Since the publication of the first CASBEE-City in March 2011, there has been a steady increase inusers, such as municipalities participating in the Promotion Council for the Low Carbon Cities(administered by the Cabinet Secretariat Office for Promotion of Regional Revitalization). As a result,the following improvements have been implemented:(1) Simplified administration through use of publicly-available statistics and database compilation(2) Improved profiling of quality data analysis (⊿Q: changes in quality before/after an implementationof initiatives by the municipality)(3) Accurate assessment of CO2 reductions regardless of fluctuation in CO2 absorption assessed
under L performanceWith these improvements, the new CASBEE-City manual is considered to be the standard version,and the existing 2011 manual is now used as the detailed version.

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

5(2012 Edition)

2.2 Assessment structure
The assessment procedure consists of the following five major steps:(1) Current assessment of Q and L
Quality (Q) within the hypothetical enclosed space and load (L) on the external environment of thespace are each clearly defined, and the assessment is carried out from both the Q and L sides. It
is also based on multiple assessment items set according to the individual characteristics of Q
and L. Results are expressed as scores rated and counted in line with a certain method andstandard.
(2) Comprehensive assessment of environmental performance by BEE
The BEE value with the concept of environmental efficiency is derived from the results of step (1)by dividing Q by L, in order to express the environmental performance of the city in acomprehensive manner. When starting calculation, total scores of L and Q are first converted to ascale of 0 to 100, respectively. BEE is expressed as the gradient of a straight line on a graphhaving L plotted on the x axis and Q on the y axis as shown in Figure I.2.2. According to the value
corresponding to the gradient, the degree of the environmental performance is labeled andcolor-coded in five grades; S rank, A, B+, B- and C. Even if the gradient is 3.0 or higher, the BEE
value will not be ranked as S, the highest grade, unless the Q value is 50 or higher. The higher the
Q value and the lower the L value, the higher the BEE value becomes, indicating that the city ishighly regarded in the assessment in terms of the overall environmental performance.
Because of the calculation systems, the BEE value may be close to +∞ (infinity). However, from apractical perspective of the assessment, the BEE value can be as high as 10 (even when thevalue of Q/L far exceeds 10, the result is shown as BEE = 10).
(3) Assessment of the future estimated value and target value for Q and L(Please refer to 2.3 regarding purposes of future assessment.)(4) Calculation of the future BEE value(5) Comparison of the current Q, L and BEE values in Steps (1) and (2) with the future values in Steps(3) and (4)These comparisons are intended to determine the feasibility of improvements for achieving thecity's long-term goals.

Q (Quality)

環境品質・活動度 Q

1.5

3.0

100

S

BEE=1.0

Current
現状

B+A（現状） =BEE
BEE(Current)

67

B-

2.0

0.5

50

0.9

45

=

0.9

67.4
32.5

=

2.0

Future将来
BEE（将来） =
BEE(Future)

C

44.9
49.5

凡例： S： ★★★★★
Legend:
33

0

0

50

50

100

環境負荷 L load)
L (Environmental

A： ★★★★
B+： ★★★
B-： ★★
C： ★

FigureⅠ.2.2 BEE chartc 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

6

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)

2.3 Current assessment and future assessment
As seen in arguments made in conferences including COP, individual countries have been seeking a
way to substantially reduce CO2 emissions over the medium and long term, while implementing
measures having an immediate effect on the current situation. CASBEE-City adopts an assessment
method focusing of future prediction in consideration of a proper response to arguments on theframework of the Kyoto Protocol and the Post-Kyoto Protocol. Specifically, CASBEE-City is a systemdesigned to evaluate the current situation with absolute accuracy, while also estimating the futureenvironmental performance in order to evaluate the effectiveness of measures (i.e. the degree of
future expectations) in a visible manner by comparing the current situation with future projections.
Figure I.2.3 shows this assessment system covering the current and future situations expressed on a
BEE chart.
Q 活動度(Quality)
環境品質,
Q

Environmental
Efficiency=3.0
環境効率＝3.0

1.5

1.0

最良
ExcellentAppropriate
measures十分な都市政策をin 施した場合
place
3

Route
to the future with
十分な対策を施した場合のappropriate
measures
現状から将来へのルート

Route2
Quality
環境品質
Improveme
活動度
nt (⊿Q)
向上分⊿Q

Route3

現状
Current
1
特段の対策を施さな
Routeto the future with 0.5
noい場合の現状から将particular measures
来へのルートEffectof urban
都市政策のpolicies
効果を表す

Route1

Environmental
環境負荷
load
reduction
低減分⊿L
(⊿L)

particular
特 段の対策を
2 No
measures
施 さ な い in場place合(BAU:（BAU）business as
usual)
Poor
最悪

0.0

L (Environmentalload)L
環境負荷
FigureⅠ.2.3 Positions of the current assessment and future assessment on a BEE chart(1) Current assessment value: The Q, L and BEE values on this point represent the current
assessment of the city.
(2) Tendency value: Future assessment in cases when no special additional measures are taken(BAU = Business As Usual)(3) Future assessment value with appropriate measures in place: The Q, L and BEE values on thispoint represent the future assessment of the city.
On the BEE chart, Route 1 represents the change from the current situation to the BAU, and Route 2
is for the change from the current situation to the future, whereas Route 3 leading from (2) to (3) via
the BAU represents the policy effect. Consequently, the difference between (2) and (3) in values on
the x axis and the y axis respectively indicate the improvement in quality (⊿Q) and reduction ofenvironmental load (⊿L), which represent the policy assessment. Therefore, the two-dimensional
display with Q and L enables the assessment of an urban policy effect from two separate aspects of
Q and L.
The following are formulae expressing the above chart:
Estimated future value of Q → Q Future value ＝ QBAU + ⊿Q
Estimated future value of L → L Future value ＝ LBAU + ⊿L
QBAU, LBAU: Future values in cases when no special additional measures are taken (BAU)∆Q: Expected increase or reduction in quality by implementing urban policies∆L: Expected increase or reduction in environmental load by implementing urban policies(Positive values indicate increase; negative values indicate reduction)c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities7(2012 Edition)

3. Assessment method
3.1 At the time of assessment
In order to conduct a predictive assessment of the effect of future measures, policies and efforts, aswell as the current assessment of the city, in CASBEE-City, as described above, it is necessary toobtain estimated future values of Q and L and the estimated difference between the respective future
value and the BAU value (∆Q and ∆L).
Assessment items, as described below, usually focus on the amount of accumulation generated byan activity over a certain period of time in a city. Therefore, the assessment is basically conductedannually.

3.1.1 Year of the current assessment
The "current" status in this case indicates the city's recent performance, generally that of 2010.
However, as it also serves as the base year for assessing future performance, an assessor may
adjust the appropriate year for current assessment to suit specific circumstances of each assessment.
The tool contains a statistical database in order to perform current assessment automatically.

3.1.2 Year of future assessment
An assessor may establish an appropriate year for future assessment, generally between 2015 and2035 (short- to mid-term future).
Note 1: Please refer to 3.3 regarding how to address current and future situations in terms of
population data.
Note 2: Please refer to 3.4 and 3.5 regarding the BAU value. As methods to establish BAU values
vary depending on assessment items, the operational procedures for the assessment tool
should be followed (for further details, please refer to Commentaries and Information).

3.2 Degree of operability used for future assessment
Whether or not a city's future target is actually achieved depends on the extent of systematic
implementation of the appropriate measures in each city.

As such, CASBEE-City now includes anindex of operability.
As mentioned above,
Q Future value ＝ QBAU + ⊿Q
L Future value ＝ LBAU + ⊿L
Furthermore,⊿Q = Σ⊿Qi × Xi
⊿L = Σ⊿Lj × Xj
i: Number corresponding to minor items in Q

⊿Qi : Target increase (a negative value for target reduction) in Item i, an assessment itemof Q, set by individual cities
Xi: Degree of operability of a measure regarding Item i (0-1.0)

j: Number corresponding to mid-level items in L

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

8

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)⊿Lj: Target increase (a negative value for target reduction) in Item j, an assessment item

Xj

: Degree of operability of a measure regarding Item j (0.0-1.0)

of L, set by individual cities

The value of the degree of operability (Xi or Xj) is determined within the range of 0.0 to 1.0 dependingon the number of corresponding items on a list of prepared check items in terms of measure, policy
and approach. The actual procedure for Q differs from that for L, the details of which will be describedlater in sections 3.4 and 3.5.

3.3

Population data

Many assessment items in CASBEE-City are expressed by an index on a per-capita basis in order toensure neutrality of the assessment in spite of the differences in scale among various cities.
Conventionally, the various performances and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a city are
expressed as the product of the amount of activity and a basic unit per activity. The amount of activity
and the basic unit per activity are based on a variety of indices including the population, number ofhouseholds, product output, gross floor area and duration of activity, depending on each field. Strictly
speaking, there is another possible method using different indices for each field and totaling theamount of activity calculated separately for each field with the weighting coefficient in mind, but themethod used in CASBEE-City uses the population as a representative value for the amount of activity
in view of simplicity and feasibility.

3.3.1 Adjusted population
When using an index on a per-capita basis, it is necessary to take account of the fact that, if the total
population (= the nighttime population) is used, the values calculated per capita will be extremely highin inner urban areas of large cities with a large day and nighttime population ratio. On the other hand,the various activities of a city are obtained as a sum of economic activities mainly conducted during
the day and everyday activities mainly in the nighttime. In order to define the amount of activities
representing the day and nighttime activities in a simple manner, the daytime population and thenighttime population are obtained separately, and the adjusted population is defined as shown in theformula below, which is the basis of per-capita emissions.
[Adjusted population] = ([Daytime population] + [Nighttime population])/2
Daytime and nighttime (i.e. total) population figures are as per the national census.
Latest indices for the numerator in the calculation of per-capita value of the adjusted population may
not be available for some items. In order to simplify the process, the adjusted population based on
the most recent census data is used.

3.3.2 Estimated future population
Future nighttime population (i.e. total population) is estimated based on the estimated future
population (the average variant) per municipality for specific years calculated by the Japanese
National Institute of Population and Social Security Research. Future daytime population is estimatedby multiplying the estimated future total population by the current daytime-to-nighttime population
ratio of the most recent census data).

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

9(2012 Edition)

However, a unique calculation method of the city may be used under certain conditions including
cases in which the city has set its own future population target.

3.4 Assessment items for Q
3.4.1 Basic idea regarding Q
Q, quality, is, in principle, the sum of unique added values of the city created by the operation andmaintenance of the urban area. In order to express the Q value by a simple and precise index, asingle economic index may be adopted, which includes the city’s gross regional product (GRP) or theland price of a representative location.
However, economic indices sometimes depend greatly on elements with a tenuous connection with
global environmental issues. Moreover, assessment in terms of the quality of life (QOL) of the people
cannot be fully expressed by the economic index only.
Accordingly, based on a triple bottom line of the environment, society and the economy, which is oneof the major ideas when understanding the sustainability of a region, assessment items are selected
in order to represent a group of explanatory variables of the city’s added values.

3.4.2 Structure of Q assessment items
The overall structure consists of the major category with the classifications of Q1 Environmental
aspect, Q2 Social aspect and Q3 Economic aspect, and minor category and sub-category under the
major category. The actual assessment is conducted at the sub-category level, the results of which
are totaled in terms of the minor category items, the major category items, and all items, respectively,in order to derive assessment values. In cases where data for sub-category items are not available,
national average values are applied.
TableⅠ.3. 1 Q Assessment Items
Major category
Q1 Environmental
aspects

Q2 Social aspects

Minor category
Q1.1 Nature conservation
Q1.2 Local environmental
quality
Q1.3 Resources recycling
Q1.4 CO2 absorption
Q2.1 Living environment

Q2.2 Social services

Q2.3 Social vitality
Q3
Economic aspects

Q3.1 Industrial vitality
Q3.2 Financial viability
Q3.3 Emission trading

Sub-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
Q2.1.1 Adequate quality of housing
Q2.1.2 Traffic safety
Q2.1.3 Crime prevention
Q2.1.4 Disaster preparedness
Q2.2.1 Adequacy of education services
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
Q2.3.1 Rate of population change due to births and deaths
Q2.3.2 Rate of population change due to migration
Q3.1.1 Amount equivalent to gross regional productQ3.2.1 Tax revenues
Q3.2.2 Outstanding local bonds
Q3.3.1 Contribution in CO2 reduction in other regions

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

10

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)

3.4.3 Weighting coefficient
In the standard version of CASBEE-City, based on the universal concept that any city seeks abalanced, triple bottom line sustainability, weighting coefficients for the major assessment items (i.e.
Q1: Environment, Q2: Society and Q3: Economy) are equally set.
In cases where multiple mid-level/minor items exist, weighting coefficients within such groups areequally set.
However, weighting coefficients may be adjusted to suit specific circumstances of each city.

3.4.4 Scoring method
Minor items are evaluated on a scale of 1.0 to 5.0 using an assessment index established for each
item based on data such as statistics. The score scale, either in ascending or descending order, isset based on item-specific assessment results from all municipalities. As a general rule, each level(1-2, 2-3, 3-4 and 4-5) includes 25 percent of the number of municipalities.

3.4.5 BAU of Q (Tendency value)
As many assessment items of Q are expressed by indices on a per-capita basis including theadjusted population and the population by age bracket, the calculation is based on the idea that QBAU
is equal to QCurrent value. This means that the basic unit stays constant in the future unless special
measures are taken.
However, as for assessment items of Q2 expressed in an index on a per-capita basis, representing
data related to the size of the facility, in the medium term, QBAU is calculated based on the idea thatthe size of the facility stays the same unless special measures are taken, which is realistic. In thiscase, the result of QBAU differs from the QCurrent situation as the future population fluctuates dependingon the forecast.
Some of the economic indices of Q3 calculate QBAU, reflecting the nationwide decreasing tendency of
the working-age population, because the total amount is expected to decrease nationwide as theworking-age population decreases toward the future.

3.4.6 Degree of Operability used in Future Q Assessment
Degree of operability for the future quality target ⊿Q for each item (Xi value described in in 3.2) isdetermined by evaluating the degree of conformance in a municipality for three items shown in Table
Ⅰ.3.2.
TableⅠ.3.2 Degree of operability of the future target value
Number of items
Check item
checked(1)Specific policies are established for achieving
goals.
(2)Simple and comprehensible explanatory materials
regarding the credibility of the target values fromthe perspective of a third party are prepared.

0(3)Target values have been or will be made public.

3

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

Degree ofoperability
0.5

1
2

1.0

CASBEE for Cities11(2012 Edition)

3.5 Assessment items for L
3.5.1

Basic idea regarding L

Assessment of environmental load (L) in CASBEE-City is limited to greenhouse gas emissions.
Greenhouse gas emissions are converted into their carbon dioxide equivalents and evaluated basedon annual greenhouse gas emissions per capita (t-CO2/person/year) in order to ensure a fairassessment regardless of the population size. The adjusted population described in 3.3.1 is applied
for this calculation.
Assessment items are selected in view of the policy trend of the government regarding GHG
emissions including the following:(1) Mid- to long-term targets for GHG emission reduction set by the Government(2) Kyoto Protocol Target Achievement Plan
(3) Eco-Model City/FutureCity Initiatives led by the Cabinet(4) The Ministry of the Environment "Action Plan Manual for Global Warming Initiatives for Local
Govenments: Regional Policies, First Edition" published in June 2009 (hereinafter "New Action
Plan Manual")(5) The Ministry of Environment "Action Plan Manual for Global Warming Initiatives for Local
Governments: Regional Policies, First Edition: Abridged Version" published in August 2010
(hereinafter "New Action Plan Manual: Abridged Version")

3.5.2 Structure of L Assessment Items
This tool is basically in accordance with the new action planning manual, as shown in Table I.3.3.
Please refer to 3.5.3 regarding the “Redistribution type” in the Table.
TableⅠ.3.3 Assessment items for L
Major item

L1 CO2 emissions from energy sources

L2 CO2 emissions from non-energy
sources

Minor item

Redistribution-type item

L1.1 Industrial sector-○

L1.2 Residential sector-

L1.3 Commercial sector-

L1.4 Transportation sector-

L2.1 Waste and others-

Middle item

3.5.3 Emitter-pays Principle and Beneficiary-pays Principle
When evaluating environmental load (L) in terms of GHG emissions, industrial cities are likely toreceive a low score. It is certainly important that these industrial cities accept this fact and work on
further reducing such emissions. On the other hand, the output of industrial cities is indispensable, as
it contributes to the benefit of not only the cities themselves, but also the whole country. As such, acombination of two methods are used for assessment in CASBEE-City: method by emitter-pays
principle, emissions calculated by geographic source where the emissions occur, while method bybeneficiary-pays principle, emissions calculated by the consumption source of the products/services
Please refer to PartⅡ.2.2.3 Emissions of industry-related sectors.

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

12

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)

3.5.4 BAU value of L (Tendency Value)
LBAU is estimated on the assumption that the efficiency of energy-consuming devices isgenerally maintained at current level.
3.5.5 Degree of Operability for Future Environmental Load Assessment
The degree of operability for the future load target ⊿L (Xj value described in in 3.2) is determined byevaluating the number of low-carbon measurements and actions in two categories: government
commitments and non-government commitments listed in Figure I.3.4.

The total number ofapplicable items on the list that are in place or under development is then converted to a score on ascale of 0.0 to 1.0 using Table I.3.5 to express the degree of operability (Xj).
Each action that has been implemented is counted as 1, and those that have been planned but have
yet to be implemented are each given 0.5. Those that fall under neither of the two are placed in a
separate free description space in which the city’s unique efforts can be described.

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

13(2012 Edition)

TableⅠ.3.4 List of measures, policies and efforts to be implemented for achieving goals
Item
Commitment of the local government(1) Completing the new action plan
(2) Formulating a master plan and a mid- andlong-term vision for achieving mid- andlong-term goals stipulating a budget, timing andorganization in charge(3) Setting controllable numerical targets, conducting
ongoing monitoring and publishing it once or morea year(4) Establishing a promotion committee or town
meeting consisting of public administration,
citizens, companies and universities, andholding them twice or more a year(5) Holding an environmental seminar for citizens
and businesses twice or more a year
(6) Lessons or programs regarding environmental
education are included in curriculum forelementary schools, junior high schools andhigh schools.
(7) Setting a public comment period before majordecisions regarding budget or timing(8) Other (unique measures that reflect local
characteristics)
Commitment of nongovernmental organizations(1) Having an accurate monitoring system including
direct data collection from each household andthe promotion of BEMS and HEMS
(2) Personal goals and action plans for privatecompanies, NPOs and individuals in the city areincluded(3) Intellectual contributions from research institutes
and universities in the city are included(4) Having commitments of nonlocal organizations
including energy-saving activities and thepromotion of carbon sinks by companies andNPOs operating in a wide area(5) Other (Special efforts utilizing characteristics ofthe local area)

Policy- The implementation period of the plan includes the assessment year.
- The implementation period of the plan must include the assessment
year AND the plan is to stipulate appropriate details.

- The system, staff and budget required for implementing the target
management, monitoring and publication should be secured.
- Items subject to the monitoring should account for a certain
proportion of the total emissions or the total reduction (i.e. 50% ormore).
- The group should be well balanced, the members of which include
people from different major backgrounds including the government,
citizens, companies, universities and NPOs.
- Environmental seminars and workshops are held with appropriate
frequency- Learning opportunities for environmental issues and corporate efforts
are provided.
- Environmental education lessons with people from outside theschool such as companies or local communities as lecturers should
be organized.
- A public comment period for global warming initiatives has been held
during the past few years, or is being planned for the assessment
year.
- To be specified if available (shown in "Environmental considerationsin policymaking" on the Assessment Results Sheet included in thetool)- Items subject to monitoring account for a set percentage of GHG
emissions targeted for reduction (e.g. 30% or more).
- Objectives of the new action plan reflect independent targets andaction plans of residents and businesses.
- A collaborative framework with research institutes or universities is inplace and a project review and follow-up are conducted.
- A framework for cooperation with organizations having a baseoutside the city should be established, such as companies and NPOs
conducting activities in a wide area, the activities of which include
energy-saving campaigns and the promotion of carbon sinks.
- To be specified if available (shown in "Environmental considerationsin policymaking" on the Assessment Results Sheet included in the
tool)

TableⅠ.3.5 Correspondence table of the number of measures, policies, efforts and the degree of operability (Xj)
Number of actions implemented(Plans which are not yet implemented are given 0.5; the total number is rounded to
Xj
the first decimal place)
Implementing 9 or more actions in the relevant section
1.0
Implementing 7 actions in the relevant section
0.7
Implementing 5 actions in the relevant section
0.5
Implementing 3 actions in the relevant section
0.3
Number of actions implemented is less than 30c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

14

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)

3.6 Calculations of Q and L scores and BEE
3.6.1 Calculation of Quality (Q) Score
Distribution of the original index values are used to draw a cumulative relative frequency curve foreach minor Q item. A base score is determined based on the continuous curve. An individual
score on a scale of 1.0 to 5.0 is calculated by multiplying the base score by 4 and then adding 1.
Scores of mid-level and major items are each obtained by weighting the corresponding minor item
scores. Finally, an overall Q score (SQ) on a scale of 1.0 to 5.0 is calculated by multiplying the basescore by 4 and then adding 1.
Calculation of the total built environmental efficiency (BEE) score requires Q scores on a scale of up
to 100 for the numerator and the denominator. To do this, the SQ value is first subtracted by 1 andthen multiplied by 25 (for details, refer to PART II 1.1).

3.6.2 Calculation of Environmental Load (L) Score
For all mid-level L items described in 3.5.2 (i.e. emission sectors and area), index values are obtainedby calculating annual greenhouse gas emissions per capita (t-CO2/person/year) using the adjusted
population. However, adding all the mid-level item values as is may result in the total L scores
becoming too wide according to the city's characteristics.

As such, a total score on a scale of 0 to

100 is calculated by applying a logistic function where the national emission average per capita(10t-CO2/person/per year) is represented as a median value of 50.
Scores of the L items are also calculated on a scale of 1.0 to 5.0 and represented in a radar chart
along with the Q item scores. While the median value corresponds to the 3.0 score, the L scores are
represented on the reverse axis so to ensure the high scores' superiority.

3.6.3 Calculation of Built Environmental Efficiency (BEE)
Built environment efficiency (BEE) is calculated using the following formula containing the
aforementioned total Q and L scores on a 100-point scale.
BEE＝

Q
L

＝

25×（SQ－1）
L

3.7 CO2 Emissions including Reduction Contributions in Other Regions
In addition to CO2 emissions evaluated in L, the CASBEE-City assessment also uses CO2 absorption
and contributions to CO2 reduction in other regions as index values (both represented in
t-CO2/person/year).
Total emissions, taking into account of such absorption and reduction, are calculated and included in
the Assessment Results Sheet as additional information on local characteristics.

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities15(2012 Edition)

4. Assessment procedure
4.1 Structure of Assessment Tool
A general-purpose spreadsheet tool for CASBEE-City allows users to enter wide-ranging data easily
and then automatically generates assessment results. The Main Sheet, Score Sheet andAssessment Results Sheet are some of the key sheets included in the tool.

Main Sheet- City's basic information (Name of the city, assessment year, population, etc.)

Score Sheet- Values per assessment index, degree of feasibility(assessment results per item can be previewed in the same sheet)

Assessment Results Sheet-City's basic information- BEE and ranking- Graph representation of results- Absorption and CO2 emissions including reduction contributionsin other regions

FigureⅠ.4.1 Overall configuration of Assessment Tool

4.2 Main sheet
The Main sheet is used to enter information required for the assessment including the city overview
by the assessor, as shown in Figure 1.4.2.
After the appropriate prefecture is selected, the assessor selects the municipality to be assessed andenters the year of assessment. Once the assessment year is entered, a future population estimate
is automatically filled in based on the forecast calculated by the Japanese National Institute ofPopulation and Social Security Research. If needed, the appropriate corrections may be made.

-City
Municipality
Assessment Service Using Published Data
公表データに基づく全国自治体の評価サービス
1)１）Assessment
Item
評価項目を設定して下さい①①Selectcountry (currently only available in Japan)
国を選択して下さい（現時点では国内評価に限定）
地域を選択して下さい（都道府県）②②Selectregion (Prefecture)

Japan
日本
Region code
地域コード

#N/A
Selectmunicipality0
自治体選択

評価する基礎自治体を選択して下さい（市区町村）③③Selectmunicipality (City/Town/Village)

自治体コードMunicipality Code
自治体名
Municipality Name

2)２）Assessment
評価年次を設定して下さいYear①①Enter
assessment year of current status
現状の評価年次
将来の評価も実施する場合はその年次をご入力下さい
Enter
assessment year of future status if planned
将来の評価を実施する場合は、②②Enter
estimated future population if planned
将来の推定人口をご入力下さい

2010

年度
Year

年度
Year

Reference
data (current population)※参考データ（現状の人口）

昼間人口
Daytime population
Nighttime population
夜間人口
Adjusted population
補正人口

昼間人口
Daytime population
Nighttime population
夜間人口
Adjusted population
補正人口

Reference
data (breakdown of current population) Reference
data (breakdown of future population)※参考データ（現状の人口構成）※参考データ（将来の人口構成）

Underage
年少人口
Productive age
生産年齢人口Elderly
老年人口

年少人口
Underage
生産年齢人口Productive age
Elderly
老年人口

FigureⅠ.4.2 Main Sheetc 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

16

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)

4.3 Score sheet
The Score Sheet is used to enter various data and assessment results for Q1 to Q3 and to preview L
by the assessor.

Index values entered in white cells are used to calculate scores per item.

The tool is linked to a statistical database which contains publicly available figures. To perform acurrent status assessment, various index values are automatically filled by selecting a municipality.
The assessor may modify such default values in white cells if necessary.

For future statusassessment, target values are entered using current status values and automatically-calculated BAU(Business As Usual: no particular measure taken) values as reference.

Furthermore, the futureassessment also allows a degree of feasibility per item determined according to the check item list
mentioned in 3.4.6 and 3.5.5.

CASBEE都市（2012年版）
A市

スコア表示シート
現状 (2 0 1 0年度)
評価項目

指標値

評価指 標

単位

Q 都市の環境品質・活動度の総合スコア
Q 都市の環境品質・活動度のスコア
Q1 環境
Q1 .1 自然保全
Q 1 .1 .1 自然的土地比率60.7(林野面積 + 主要 湖沼面積 )／ 総面積(％)

Q1 .2 環境質

スコア

将来 (20 3 0 年度)
重み係数

BAUの将来値

将来目標値

実現可能度

実現期待値

単位

67.4

2.8

3.7

2.57

0.33

3.14

0.25

3.14

1.00

3.10

0.25

60.7

70.0

0.5

65.4

(％)

Q 1 .2 .1 大気質

光化学 オキ シダン ト（ 平均 値） の 昼間1 時 間値が0 .1 2 ppm以上の 日数

0

(日)

5.00

0.50

-

0

0.5

0.0

(日)

Q 1 .2 .2 水質

河川B O Dの日 間平均 値の7 5 % 値

9.9(mg/L)

1.20

0.50

9.9

3.0

1.0

3.0

(mg/L)

1.97

0.25

1.97

1.00

2.06

0.25

2.06

1.00

2.59
1.91

Q1 .3 資源循環
Q 1 .3 .1 一般廃棄物のリサイクル率

ご みの リサイク ル 率

14.5

(％)

森林面 積(h a)×吸収 原単位 ((2 .9 2 t - CO 2 / h a))／ 補正人口0.1

(t-CO2／人)

Q1 .4 CO 2 吸収源対策
Q 1 .4 .1 森林によるCO2 吸収源対策

Q2 社会
Q2 .1 生活環境

スコア

44.9

14.5

40.0

1.0

40.0

(％)

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.2

(t-CO2 ／人)

重み係数

3.45

0.33

3.35

0.25

3.35

1.00

3.57

0.25

5.00

0.50

2.13

0.50

4.68

0.25

4.68

1.00

2.20

0.25

2.20

1.00

0.33

3.38

0.33

0.33

2.41

0.33
0.25

Q 2 .1 .1 住居水準充実度

1 住宅 あたり延べ床面 積

80.5

(㎡)

1.67

0.25

80.5

82.0

0.5

81.2

(㎡)

1.68

Q 2 .1 .2 交通安全性

交通事 故発生 件数／補 正人口

4.9(件／千人)

2.78

0.25

4.9

2.0

0.5

3.5

(件／千人)

3.71

Q 2 .1 .3 防犯性

刑法犯 認知件 数／補正 人口14.5(件／千人)

1.76

0.25

14.5

7.0

0.5

10.8

(件／千人)

2.42

0.25

Q 2 .1 .4 災害対応度

二次医 療圏内 の災害拠 点病院数 ／二次医 療圏域 人口0.2(箇所／10万人)

1.45

0.25

0.2

0.3

1.0

0.3

(箇所／10万人)

1.80

0.25

2.34

0.33

3.61

0.33

Q2 .2 社会サービス

0.25

Q 2 .2 .1 教育サービス充実度

小中学 校生徒 数／小中 学校教員 数

18.6

(人／人)

1.37

0.20

18.6

15.0

0.5

16.8

(人／人)

1.88

0.20

Q 2 .2 .2 文化サービス充実度（ 公民 館数+ 図書館数 ） ／総 面積

0.1

0.20

0.1

0.2

1.0

0.2

0.20

3.0

4.73

0.20

3.0

5.0

0.5

4.0

(数／10km 2 )(人／千人)

1.94

医師数 ／補正 人口(数／10km2 )(人／千人)

1.59

Q 2 .2 .3 医療サービス充実度

4.89

0.20

Q 2 .2 .4 保育サービス充実度

保育所 数／5 歳未満人 口

0.3(箇所／百人)

1.55

0.20

0.4

1.2

1.0

1.2

(箇所／百人)4.42

Q 2 .2 .5 高齢者サービス充実度

介護老 人福祉 施設数／ 6 5 歳以 上人口

0.4(箇所／千人)

2.47

0.20

0.2

1.5

1.0

1.5

(箇所／千人)

4.91

0.20

3.52

0.33

4.12

0.33

Q2 .3 社会活力
Q 2 .3 .1 人口自然増減率
Q 2 .3 .2 人口社会増減率（ 出生 数－死 亡者数） ／総人口

0.0

(％)

4.04

0.50

0.0

(0.2)

0.5

(0.1)

(％)

3.72

（ 転入 者数－ 転出者数 ） ／総人 口

データ欠損

(％)

3.00

0.50

データ欠損

0.1

0.5

0.1

(％)

4.53

0.50

3.23

0.33

4.26

0.33

3.81

0.33

3.77

0.33

3.81

1.00

Q3 経済
Q3 .1 産業力
（ 農業 産出額 + 製造品 出荷額等 + 商業 年間商品 販売額） ／補正 人口5.0(百万円／人)

4.2

4.8

0.5

4.9

(百万円／人)

2.87

0.33

Q 3 .2 .1 地方税収入額

地方税 ／補正 人口15.0(万円／人)

3.89

0.50

12.8

14.0

0.5

14.5

(万円／人)

Q 3 .2 .2 地方債残高

公債費 比率

17.7

(％)

1.86

0.50

17.7

10.0

1.0

10.0

(％)

3.00

0.33

3.00

1.00

Q 3 .1 .1 １人あたりGRP相当額

Q3 .2 財政基盤力

Q3 .3 CO 2 取引力
Q 3 .3 .1 他地域でのCO2 排出抑制支援

CO 2 取 引の有 無（ 有 o r 無）

無(－)

Ｌ 環境負荷の総合スコア
Ｌ 環境負荷のスコア

無

有

1.0

5.0

(－)

産業部門

産業部 門起因 の温室効 果ガス排出 量／補正 人口3.3(t-CO2／人)

3.3

2.8

0.7

3.0

(t-CO2 ／人)

民生家庭部門民生家 庭部門 起因の温 室効果ガス 排出量／ 補正人口2.1

(t-CO2／人)

2.1

1.0

1.0

1.0

(t-CO2 ／人)民生業務部門民生業 務部門 起因の温 室効果ガス 排出量／ 補正人口2.0

(t-CO2／人)

2.0

0.8

0.7

1.2

(t-CO2 ／人)L 1 .4

運輸部門

運輸部 門起因 の温室効 果ガス排出 量／補正 人口1.4(t-CO2／人)

1.4

0.6

0.7

0.8

(t-CO2 ／人)

1.1(t-CO2／人)

1.1

1.0

0.5

1.0

(t-CO2 ／人)L2 エネルギー起因以外の温室効果ガス 排出量

FigureＩ.4.3 Score Sheetc 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

0.50

4.26

0.50

5.00

0.33

5.00

1.00

7.0

L 1 .3

廃棄物 部門起 因の温室 効果ガス排 出量／補 正人口

1.00
0.33

3.76

32.5

L 1 .2

廃棄物分野その他

3.77

9.9

L 1 .1

0.50

4.01

49.5

L1 エネルギー起因温室効果ガス 排出量

L 2 .1

0.20

CASBEE for Cities

17(2012 Edition)

4.4 Assessment results sheet
The Assessment results sheet shows figures and graphs representing the assessment results of Q
(the quality inside the city), L (the environmental load of the city) and BEE (the Built Environment
Efficiency of the city). The assessment results of CASBEE-City can be easily recognized at a glance,
as all the related information about the city subject to assessment is condensed into one sheet.
However, the assessment results of L require one sheet for each of the two different assessment
methods; the “Emitter-pays principle” and the “Beneficiary-pays principle.” An overview of theAssessment results sheet is shown in Figure I.4.4
Under the top section, the outline of the city subject to assessment and its assessment results areshown, which is divided into the following four blocks of (1) to (4):(1) “1 Basic information about the city”
The city’s overall information, such as the name of the municipality, population and land area, isautomatically displayed.
(2) “2-1 Environmental efficiency of the city” and “2-2 Assessment results of the main item (BEE chartand radar chart)”
The current value and the future estimated value of BEE (the Built Environment Efficiency) derived
from the assessment results of Q (the quality inside the city) and L (the environmental load of the city)
are shown in section 2-1. The graph represents the BEE value by plotting Q on the y axis and L on
the x axis, the value of which is expressed by the gradient of the straight line connecting the origin (Q＝0, L＝0) and the coordinate point of the Q value and L value. The higher the total Q score and thelower the total L score, the steeper the gradient becomes, which reflects the city's high propensity forsustainability.
Dividing the graph area in five zones, CASBEE ranks the city's overall environmental efficiency as S
(excellent), A, B+, B- or C (Poor). Each of the five ranks has the corresponding number of ★symbols,
and the current value written in black on a dark blue background and the future value written in red ona light blue background are arranged one above another so that the information on the screen can beeasily recognized at a glance.
A radar chart collectively representing the scores of Q1 to 3 and L is placed in section 2-2, in whichfeatures of the city’s environment-related efforts can be recognized immediately. The color scheme
for the current and future values is same as that of section 2-1.
(3) “2-3 Breakdown of Q” and “2-4 Breakdown of L”
The environmental assessment results of the city are expressed by individual assessment items in
sections 2-3 and 2-4. These sections show bar charts representing the results of individual rating
items counted on the Score sheet. Both the current and future values are shown using the same color
scheme as section 2-1.
The assessment results of Q (the quality inside the city) are expressed as bar charts, each
representing one of the three assessment items. Total city emissions (total emissions with andwithout absorption and traded emissions) are shown on the left, while the breakdown per sector isshown on the right.
(4) “3 Environmental considerations in policymaking”
At the bottom of the Assessment Results Sheet, the city's unique quality improvement and load
reduction policies and measures can be entered. The right half of the section is for arbitrary use,
including drawings or pictures demonstrating the gist of such efforts.

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities18(2012 Edition)-City

Assessment results■使用評価ソフト：
BEE- Cit y_2 0 1 2 v1 .0 0 .xls
■Software: CAS
CASBEE-City_2011v.1.00.xls■使用評価マニュアル：
CAS BEE都市（■Manual:CASBEE-City (2012
Edition) 2 0 1 2 年版）

1 Cityoutline
評価都市の基礎情報

2-1
environmental efficiency (BEE chart)
都市の環境効率（BEEチャート）
2-1 City’s

AA市
City
Fiscal year
2030 年度

Daytimepopulation
昼間人口

○○○

People○○○ 人

Nighttime
population
夜間人口

○○○

○○○ 人
PeopleAdjusted
population
補正人口

○○○
○○○

○○○ 人
Peoplekm2

Total area
総面積

大項目の評価（レーダーチャート）
2-2 Assessment
2-2
results of major items (Radar chart)
Q2 SocialaspectQ 2 社会
5
4
3

Quality Q
環境品質・活動度
Q

2010

1.5

3.0

100

Current
Future status
現状 status 将来
Assessment
year
評価年度

S

BEE=1.0

BEE(Current value)
BEE（現状）=

67

B-

2.0

0.5

50

0.9

45

BEE
(Future value)
BEE（将来）=Q3
Economic
Q
3 経済

1

44.9
49.5

=

0.9

67.4
32.5

=

2.0

Future将来

C

2

Q1 Environmental
Q 1 環境aspect

Now
現状

B+

A

凡例：: S： ★★★★★
Legendaspect0

A： ★★★★
B+： ★★★
B-： ★★
C： ★

50

33

0

50

100

Environmental
環境負荷 Lload L

L 環境負荷load L
Environmental

Total
score of Q=
Q の総合スコア=2-3
of Q (Quality) assessment(Now→Future)
環境品質・活動度（Q）の評価の内訳（現状→将来）2-3 Breakdown
各大項目のスコア:
Q1 環境
Scoresof major items Q1 Environmental
aspect 2 .6 →

3 .4

Q2
社会
Q2 Socialaspect 2 .6 →Q3Economic
経済aspect 3 .2 →
Q3

社会

4

4

4

4.68
3.14

2

3.35

3.10

3.57

3
3.61

2
2.06

1.97

2.20

1.91

1

2.41

4.12
3.52

4.01

3.77

3.00

2.87

1
Q3.1
Q3.2
Q3.3
Q3.1
Q3.2
Q3.3
Industrial
vitality Financial
viability CO
産業力
財政基盤力
CO2取引力2 trading

Total
score of L=
L の総合スコア=49.5→ 32.5

[t-CO2 /人・年]

10

15
10
9.92

7.00

9.82

6.84

0
-5
-10

Total総排出量
emissionsTotalemissions
吸収量等をwith/withoutabsorption
加味した総排出量
and traded emissions

温室効果ガス排出量[t-CO2 /人・年]
Greenhousegas emissions [t-CO2/Person]

20

5

5.00
3.81

2

Q2.1
Q2.2
Q2.3
Q2.1
Q2.2
Q2.3
vitality
Livingenvironment Social
services Social
生活環境
社会サービス
社会活力

2-4
of L (Environmentalload) (CO emissions) assessment (Now→Future)
環境負荷（L）（CO
2-4 Breakdown
2 排出量）の評価の内訳 2 （現状→将来）
Greenhousegas emissions: 9 .9 → 7.0
温室効果ガス総排出量:

3

2.34

1
Q1.1
Q1.2
Q1.3
Q1.4
Q1.1
Q1.2
Q1.3
Q1.4
Natureconservation Local envi
ronmental quality Resources
conservation CO
自然保全
環境質
資源循環
CO2吸収源対策
2 absorption

温室効果ガス排出量[t-COGreenhousegas emissions [t-CO22/人・年]/Person]

スコア[－]
Score[－]

5

スコア[－]

5

3

44.9→ 67.4
4 .3
経済

5

Score[－]

スコア[－]
Score[－]

環境

3 .4

7.5
5
2.5
3.32

2.96

2.10

1.00

2.02

1.17

1.42

0.85

1.05

L1.1
L1.1
Industrial
sector
産業部門

施策上の配慮事項considerations in policymaking
3 Environmental

L1.2
L1.2
Residential
sector
家庭部門

L1.3
L1.4
L2.1
L1.3
L1.4
L2.1
Commercial
and others
業務部門sector Transportation
運輸部門sector Waste
廃棄物分野その他(Drawings or pictures)（説明図等）

Q 環境品質・活動度向上の取組み
Efforts
toward the improvementof qualityAlt+EnterQ（ セル中の改行はで可能です ）

Alt+Enter で可能です
Efforts
toward the reductionof environmental
load
L
L 環境負荷削減の取組み（ セル中の改行は）必要に応じて説明図、写真等をこの欄に貼り付けて下さい。
Attach drawings or pictures as appropriate

FigureⅠ.4.4 Assessment results sheet

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

1.03

0

CASBEE for Cities

19(2012 Edition)

PARTⅡ Assessment Method and Criteria
City's Quality (Q)1.1 Basic Principle of Q Assessment
Q Assessment Guideline
As the quality (Q) assessment requires a multi-faceted approach, CASBEE-City provides
wide-ranging assessment points to ensure a comprehensive examination of municipality performance.
In order to accurately reflect the outcome of various efforts made by a municipality, appropriate
functions for each minor Q item, rather than a uniform, across the board rating function are set basedon distribution of original index values.
As shown in Figure II.1.1, a histogram is created for each minor item, showing statistical data from all
municipalities.

The graph is used to obtain a cumulative relative frequency curve, which determines

a base score per item on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0. An individual Q score on a scale of 1.0 to 5.0 is
calculated by multiplying the base score by 4 and then adding 1.
Next, scores of mid-level and major items are each obtained by applying weight coefficients
mentioned in 3.4.3 to the minor item scores in order to obtain an overall Q score (SQ). Lastly, theSQ on a scale of 1.0 to 5.0 is converted to the final figure on a 100-point scale by first subtracting 1,
then multiplying by 25.
Raw
Point
素点

・・・

90
80

・・・

60

・・・

50
40

・・・

30
20

・・・

10
0

・・・

1.0

180

0.9

160

0.8

140

0.7

120

0.6

100

0.5

80

0.4

60

0.3

40

0.2

20

0.1

0

0.0
55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

・・・ 5.0・・・ 4.0=

3.4

・・・ 3.0

スコア［
－］

累積［％］

70

200

Score [－]

度数
（自治体数）
Degree(Number of Municipalities)
100

Cumulative [%]1.

・・・ 2.0

・・・ 1.0

95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145
2

Index
Value2、人、など］[m , number of people, etc.]
指標値［mFigureⅡ.1.1 Individual Score Calculation of Minor Q Item

1.2 Assessment Approach per Item
In order to accurately and comprehensively evaluate multi-faceted efforts by municipalities,
assessment items are organized into the three triple-bottom-line categories: environment, society andeconomy.

Corresponding indices, reference data and assessment approaches for each item are

explained in the following pages.

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

20

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)

Q1 Environmental aspect●1.1 Nature conservation●1.1.1 Ratio of green and water spaces
Degree of nature conservation is evaluated by the percentage of green and water spaces of the total
land area of the municipality.
□Assessment index(Forest area + Major lake area) / Total land area [%]□Reference data
(1) “Census of Agriculture and Forestry,” the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries(2) Major lake area: “Land Survey of Prefectures, Shi, Ku, Machi and Mura,” (municiparity) the
Geographical Survey Institute(3) Total land area: “Land Survey of Prefectures, Shi, Ku, Machi and Mura,” (municiparity) the
Geographical Survey Institute□Explanation of index- Green and water spaces are regarded as an index representing the degree of the nature
conservation directly related to the natural water circulation, environmental purification and thegreen network.
- Natural land consists of forest area (the total area of current forest areas and native grassland
other than forests) and aquatic environment including lake areas and mudflats serving as
habitats for a variety of life forms.
□Notes- Nature conservation measures should preferably be evaluated by both quantity and quality
aspects. However, a convenient method to objectively and accurately evaluate quality as
applicable in the CASBEE-City assessment has not yet been established.

Development of sucha method is under ongoing review.

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [%]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

21(2012 Edition)●1.2 Local environmental quality
The assessment is based on the following 2 indices representing the level of basic environmental
elements.

●1.2.1 Air
Concentration level of photochemical oxidants (Ox), a key indicator of air quality, is evaluated.
□Assessment index
The number of days which hourly photochemical oxidant concentrations during the day are
0.12ppm or higher (average)[day(s)]□Reference data
Environmental GIS by the National Institute for Environmental Studies□Explanation of index- For air quality management, continuous monitoring stations to measure target substances are
installed in many municipalities.

Photochemical oxidants are key indicators of air quality.

Inthis assessment, air quality is determined by the number of days which the hourly oxidant
concentration during the day is 0.12ppm or higher, one of the criteria for an oxidant alert issued
under the Air Pollution Control Act.
- The hourly concentration is a per-hour value obtained at a continuous air-pollution monitoring
station. In cases where multiple stations are located within a municipality, an average value
indicates the averaged number of applicable days at all stations, and a maximum value indicatesthe maximum number of applicable days at all stations.

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [%]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

22

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)●1.2.2 Water
The biological oxygen demand (BOD) levels in rivers (public water) are evaluated.
□Assessment index
75 percent of daily BOD average in a river[mg/L]□Reference data
Environmental GIS by the National Institute for Environmental Studies□Explanation of index- The quality of public water such as rivers is measured annually by municipalities. Biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) values, which measure the degree of organic pollution in the water, arethen reported to the Ministry of the Environment.
- A lower BOD indicates less pollution and healthier water quality.
- In this assessment, the water quality is determined by the 75% value of the daily BOD average(i.e. if 100 daily averages are obtained, counting from the smallest number until the 75th value ofthe 100 daily averages is used).

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [mg/L]

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

23(2012 Edition)●1. 3Resource recycling●1.3.1

Recycling rate of general waste

The assessment focuses on the recycling rate of general waste representing the most basic resource
recycling.
□Assessment index
Recycling rate of general waste [%]□Reference data
Survey on General Waste Processing, Waste Management and Recycling Department, Ministry of
the Environment□Explanation of index- The assessment is based on the recycling rate of general waste representing the most basic
resource recycling. The rate is defined as the percentage of processed waste and groupcollection to the total recycling volume (direct recycling + recycling after intermediate processing +group collection).
- The recycling after intermediate processing includes waste processed at facilities such as
incineration plants, bulk waste disposal plants, composting plants, feed conversion plants,methane production plants and waste-derived fuel plants.
□Notes- Resource recycling is related to the “3R” elements, “Reuse,” “Reduce,” and “Recycle.” However,as the assessment index for “Reuse” has not yet been determined and “Reduce” is easier tounderstand when assessed in the L (Environmental load) section, assessment in this section
currently considers only the recycling rate.

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [%]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

24

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)●1. 4 CO2 Absorption●1.4.1 CO2 Absorption by Forests
CO2 absorption is evaluated based on the total forest area of a municipality.
□Assessment index
Current forest area X unit of absorption/adjusted population [t-CO2/person/year]□Reference data
(1) Forest area: Agriculture and Forestry Census, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries ofJapan(2) Unit of absorption (2.92［t-CO2/year/ha]): National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report of Japan
2010, National Institute for Environmental Studies(3) Adjusted population (= (Total population + Daytime population) / 2): Census Report, Statistics
Bureau of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index- CO2absorption by forests is evaluated by an estimated total absorption volume using a formulaconsisting of three values: forest area, absorption unit and adjusted population.

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [%]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

25(2012 Edition)

Q2 Social aspect●2.1 Living environment
The assessment is based on the following 4 indices representing the degree of safety and security ofthe municipality and the basic living amenity.

●2.1.1 Adequate quality of housing standard
The assessment focuses on the level of the housing standard according to the size of the existing
housing stock.
□Assessment index
Total floor area per dwelling unit [m2]□Reference data
Housing and Land Survey, Statistics Bureau of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index- The total floor area per dwelling unit, as shown in the Housing and Land Survey by the Statistics
Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, is used as the assessment index.
- While the per-capita dwelling area depends on family structure, a higher index values indicate
better dwelling standards and amenity levels.

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [%]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

26

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)●2.1.2 Traffic safety
The assessment focuses on the frequency of traffic accidents related to regional safety and security□Assessment index
Number of traffic accidents / Adjusted population [Number of cases/year/1,000 persons]□Reference data
(1) Number of traffic accidents: “Traffic Statistics,” National Police Agency(2) Adjusted population (= (Total population + Daytime population) / 2): “Census returns,” Statistics
Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index- The index value is obtained by dividing the annual total number of traffic accidents, as shown in
the Traffic Statistics by the National Police Agency, by the adjusted population.
- Traffic accidents in the Traffic Statistics refer to accidents on roads specified in the Road Traffic
Act, caused by the traffic of vehicles (including lightweight vehicles such as bicycles), streetcars
and trains, involving death or injury. Therefore, accidents involving only property damage areexcluded.

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [%]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities27(2012 Edition)●2.1.3 Crime prevention
The assessment focuses on the crime rate related to regional safety and security.
□Assessment index
Number of crimes recorded / Adjusted population [The number of cases/year/1,000 persons]□Reference data
(1) Number of crimes recorded: “Criminal statistics,” National Police Agency(2) Adjusted population (= (Total population + Daytime population) / 2): “Census returns,” Statistics
Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index- The value of the annual total number of crimes as shown in the Criminal Statistics by the National
Police Agency, divided by the adjusted population, is used as the assessment index.
- Crimes in the Criminal statistics refer to crimes specified under 13 laws and regulations including
the Criminal Code (excluding those regarding road traffic accidents prescribed in Article 211 of the
Criminal Code) and the Explosives Control Act. The number of crimes recorded is the number ofcommitted crimes recognized by the police through offense reports, indictments, accusations andother related means.

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [%]●2.1.4 Disaster preparedness
Local disaster preparedness is evaluated based on the availability of local emergency medical
facilities.
□Assessment index
Number of disaster response hospitals per 100,000 persons based on adjusted population[Number of hospitals/100,000 persons]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

28

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)□Reference data
Disaster Response Hospital Database (Web version), National Research Institute for Earth
Science and Disaster Prevention□Explanation of index- The value of the total number of disaster response hospitals within the secondary medical zone towhich a municipality belongs, divided by 100,000 persons based on the adjusted population in thezone, is used as the assessment index.
- The secondary medical zone is a geographical unit designed to meet complete medical needs
related to common diseases, excluding special needs such as psychiatric concerns, infectious
diseases and tuberculosis.

Under the Medical Service Act, the country is currently divided into

349 zones, established by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, based on area-specificconcerns such as geographical networks and traffic systems.

As a general rule, the primary

medical zone is the area of a community (i.e. city/town/village) and the tertiary medical zone isthat of a prefecture.
- Disaster response hospitals have been established based on the Notice on Implementation ofDisaster Response Hospital System issued by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in May
1996. Taking lessons from the Great Hanshin Earthquake that occurred in January 1995, these
hospitals are equipped to provide necessary medical services at the time of disaster. Suchbuildings must be built with seismic resistance, have ample infrastructure for a steady supply ofwater and electricity, and have a heliport.
- As a general rule, each prefecture must have a core disaster medical center, while eachsecondary medical zone must have a regional disaster medical center.
□Notes- In the CASBEE-City assessment, the number of disaster response hospitals is considered as the
key index representing the level of preparedness in case of various disasters at a municipality level.
This is due to the fact that the number can be improved through various efforts by a municipality
and that the data on the number of such hospitals, where response to natural disasters such as
earthquakes is critical, are readily available.

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [%]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities29(2012 Edition)●2.2 Social services
The level of social services is evaluated based on the following five aspects, which reflect the levelsof education, culture, medical care and welfare.

●2.2.1 Adequacy of education services
The assessment focuses on the enrichment of the compulsory education system based on thenumber of students per teacher at elementary and junior high schools.
□Assessment index
The number of students at elementary and junior high schools / Number of teachers at elementaryand junior high schools□Reference data
The number of students and teachers at elementary and junior high schools: Basic School Survey,
Lifelong Learning Policy Bureau, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology□Explanation of index- The value used as the index is obtained by dividing the total number of students at elementaryand junior high schools shown in the report on the “School Basic Survey” prepared by the Ministryof Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, by the number of teachers at elementaryand junior high schools.

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [%]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

30

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)●2.2.2 Adequacy of cultural services
The adequacy of cultural services is evaluated based on the availability of community centers andlibraries.
□Assessment index(Number of community centers + number of libraries) /Land area of municipality [Number offacilities/10km2］□Reference data
(1) Number of community centers/libraries: Survey on Social Education, Lifelong Learning Policy
Bureau, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(2) Land area of municipality: Municipal and Prefectural Land Survey, Geographical Survey
Institute□Explanation of index- The value of the total number of public community centers and libraries, divided by the land areaof a municipality, is used as the assessment index.
- Facilities owned or controlled by prefectures that are located within the municipality are includedin the assessment.
- In order to evaluate accessibility to cultural services within the municipality, the physicaldistribution of such facilities is considered by dividing the total number of facilities by the land
area.

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [%]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

31(2012 Edition)●2.2.3 Adequacy of medical services
The adequacy of medical services is evaluated based on the number of physicians available percapita.
□Assessment index
The number of physicians/adjusted population [Number of physicians/1,000 persons]□Reference data
(1) The number of physicians: Survey on Physicians, Dentists and Pharmacists, Statistics andInformation Department, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare(2) Adjusted population (= (Total population + Daytime population) / 2): “Census returns,” Statistics
Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index- The value of the number of physicians shown in the Survey on Physicians, Dentists andPharmacists published by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, divided by the adjusted
population, is used as the assessment index.
□Notes- Preferably, adequacy of medical services should be assessed in terms of both the number ofphysicians and the level of preventive healthcare. However, an appropriate index to evaluate
the latter has not yet been established. Inclusion of such a method is under ongoing review.

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [%]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

32

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)●2.2.4 Adequacy of childcare services
Adequacy of childcare services is evaluated based on the number of childcare facilities available per
infant.
□Assessment index
The number of childcare facilities/infant population (aged 0 to 4)[Number of facilities/100

persons]□Reference data
(1) The number of childcare facilities: Survey on Social Welfare Facilities, Statistics andInformation Department, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare(2) Infant population (aged 0 to 4): Census Report, Statistics Bureau□Explanation of index- The value of the total number of childcare facilities shown in the Survey on Social Welfare
Facilities by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, divided by the infant population (aged 0 to4) shown in the Census, is used as the assessment index.

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [%]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

33(2012 Edition)●2.2.5 Adequacy of services for seniors
Adequacy of senior services is evaluated based on the availability of senior care facilities.
□Assessment indices
The number of senior care facilities/senior population (aged 65 and over)[Number offacilities/1,000 persons]□Reference data
(1) Ratio of barrier-free railway stations: “Information on Barrier-Free Access by Prefectures:
Development of Barrier-Free Facilities for Passenger Transport,” Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism(2) Ratio of bus companies introducing low-floor buses: “Information on Barrier-Free Access by
Prefectures: Introduction of Low-Floor Buses by Bus Companies,” Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism□Explanation of index- The value of the total number of senior care facilities shown in the Survey on Care Service
Institutions and Establishments by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, divided by thesenior population (aged 65 and over) shown in the Census, is used as the assessment index.
- In contrast with other indices, the availability of senior services for residents of the municipality isevaluated using the senior population (aged 65 and over), rather than the adjusted population, as
the denominator.

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [%]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

34

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)●2.3

Social vitality

The following two demographic indices, which are sources of social vitality, are evaluated.

●2.3.1 Rate of population change due to births and deaths
The rate of increase/decrease in the natural population, according to the difference between the numbersof births and deaths, to the total population, is evaluated as part of the demographic trend assessment.
□Assessment index
Rate of increase/decrease in the natural population = increase/decrease of the natural population(number of births - number of deaths) / total population [%]□Reference data
(1) The number of the natural increase-decrease of population: “Vital Statistics,” Statistics andInformation Department, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare(2) Total population: “National Census,” Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
The rate of population change due to births and deaths of the national population is automaticallycalculated on the data entry sheet.
□Explanation of index- The rate of increase/decrease in the natural population (the difference between the number of births
and deaths) shown in the Vital Statistics by the Statistics and Information Department of the Ministry of
Health, Labour and Welfare, to the total population shown in the Census Report by the Statistics
Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications is used as the assessment index.
- The higher the value of the index is, the higher the rate of population change due to births anddeaths becomes, which would lead to the improvement of social vitality.
□Notes- “Vital Statistics” represents only births and deaths of Japanese nationals living within the country,
and excludes Japanese nationals living outside the country and foreign nationals living within the
country. Therefore, separate consideration is required when the population of those excluded has
a significant impact on the municipality.

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [%]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

35(2012 Edition)●2.3.2 Rate of population change due to migration
The assessment focuses on the proportion of the social increase-decrease of population, thedifference in the number of move-ins and move-outs, to the total population, as part of thedemographic trend.
□Assessment index
Rate of population change due to migration = Number of social increase-decrease of population(Number of move-ins – Number of move-outs) / Total population□Reference data
(1) Number of move-ins and move-outs: “Annual Report on the Internal Migration in Japan Derived
from the Basic Resident Registers,” Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications / Prefecture data compiled by Prefectural Offices(2) Total population: “Census returns,” Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications□Explanation of index- The value used as the index is the proportion of the social increase-decrease of population (thedifference in the number of move-ins and move-outs) according to the “Annual Report on theInternal Migration in Japan Derived from the Basic Resident Registers” prepared by the Statistics
Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and Prefecture data compiled by
Prefectural Offices, to the total population shown in the “Census returns” prepared by theStatistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications.
- The higher the value of the index is, the higher the rate of population change due to migration
becomes, which would lead to the improvement of social vitality.
□NotesThe number of move-ins and move-outs does not include Japanese nationals who lived overseas
and have returned to Japan or those moving to another country. Those who changed addresses
within the same municipality and foreign nationals are also excluded. Therefore, separate
consideration is required when the population of those excluded has a significant impact on themunicipality.

Score

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

Index Value [%]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

36

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)

Q3

Economy●3.1 Industrial vitality
The industrial vitality represented by industrial output is evaluated.

●3.1.1 Amount equivalent to gross regional product
The assessment focuses on the sum of the annual output of agriculture, manufacturing andcommerce, selected from among the production output by industrial classification, as an alternativeindex to the GRP (output of all industries) of the municipality.
□Assessment index(Agricultural output + Value of manufactured goods shipments + Annual sales of commercial
goods) / Adjusted population [Million yen/person]□Reference data
(1) Agricultural output: “Statistics of Agricultural Income Produced,” Statistics Department, Ministryof Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries(2) Value of manufactured goods shipments: “Census of Manufactures,” Economic and Industrial
Policy Bureau, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry(3) Annual sales of commercial goods: “Census of commerce,” Economic and Industrial Policy
Bureau, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry(4) Adjusted population (= (Total population + Daytime population) / 2): “Census returns,” Statistics
Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index- The sum of the annual total output of agriculture, manufacturing and commerce per municipality
based on the industry classification is used as a gross regional product (GRP) alternative. For
the assessment, the value is divided by the adjusted population in order to obtain the
production/sales values per capita.
- The adjusted population is used for the denominator instead of total population in view of the factthat the daytime population is associated with creating added value.
- A higher value indicates healthier economic activities of the municipality.
□Q Score and Index Value

3.0
2.0
1.0
0

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

2

4
6
Index Value [%]

8

10

Score

4.0

ス コア

累積（％）

Cumulative [%]

5.0

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

CASBEE for Cities37(2012 Edition)●3.2 Financial viability
The assessment of the financial viability of the municipality is based on the following indicesrepresenting the financial situation●3.2.1 Tax revenues
The assessment focuses on the scale of the annual revenue of the municipality according toper-capita tax revenues for local governments in the adjusted population.
□Assessment index
Tax revenues of the local government / Adjusted population [10,000 yen/person]□Reference data
(1) Tax revenues for local governments: “Annual Statistics on Local Government Finance” and“State of Account Settlement by Municipalities,” Local Public Financial Bureau, Ministry ofInternal Affairs and Communications(2) Adjusted population (= (Total population + Daytime population) / 2): “Census returns,” Statistics
Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index- Tax revenues of the local government refer to the taxation paid by residents and companies
registered in the municipality, which hold a key position in the annual revenue of the local
government, in terms of sharing expenses of the local government. They also account for amajor part of the annual revenues and the use is left up to the discretion of the local government.
- A higher index value, obtained by dividing the tax revenues by the adjusted population, indicates
better economic infrastructure and wide-ranging measures, resulting in healthier economic
activity generated mainly by the daytime population.
- Local tax revenues are the total of the annual municipal taxes paid by individuals andcorporations, property tax and city planning tax.

The per capita value is used as theassessment index.
- The local taxation system in the special wards of Tokyo differs from that of other municipalities,
making comparisons difficult. Thus, the score for these wards is adjusted to 5.0.

5.0

20%
10%
0%

4.0
3.0

Score

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%

ス コア

累積（％）

Cumulative [%]□Q Score and Index Value

2.0

0

1.0
10
20
Index Value [%]30

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

38

CASBEE for Cities(2012 Edition)●3.2.2 Outstanding local bonds
The financial impact of outstanding municipal loans is evaluated.
□Assessment index
Real debt service ratio□Reference data
(1) Real debt service ratio: Survey on Finance Results per Municipality, Local Public Finance
Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index- The index is generally calculated as the past three-year average of the percentage of generalrevenue sources appropriated for annual repayment (expenditures) of municipality debts (local
loans).
- A lower figure indicates a stronger financial structure and thus a greater likelihood of achieving
economic improvements within the municipality.
□Q Score and Index Value

3.0
2.0
1.0
0

5

10

15

Index Value [%]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

20

25

Score

4.0

ス コア

累積（％）

Cumulative [%]

5.0

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

CASBEE for Cities

39(2011 Edition)●3.3 CO2 trading●3.3.1 CO2 reduction contributions in other areas□Assessment index
Based on the New Action Plan Manual, a 5.0 score is given in cases where a measure that
contributes to CO2 reduction in other areas is in place.

A 3.0 score is given where no particularmeasure is taken.
□Notes- The New Action Plan recommends calculation of GHG emissions by adding together amunicipality's emissions, absorption and reduction contributions in other areas.

Contributions

to CO2 reduction in other areas for this calculation is obtained according to the following
methods.
(1) Given that international carbon trading at the municipality level is unlikely, and that domestic
systems such as CDM credits are well developed, the following programs that focus ondomestic trading are evaluated.
(2) Purchase of these credits is commonly done by business entities, and is therefore difficult toreflect as municipality-based figures.

Although some data are published, comprehensive

figures are unlikely to become available.
currently established.

A calculation guideline for GHG trading is not

While carefully avoiding double or triple counting of the figures ofsellers (i.e. emission right holders) and buyers (i.e. municipalities that purchase credits or
where actual reduction occurs), the following factors should be considered.
○ Credit-purchasing municipality
Include all emissions in the calculation of CO2 absorption and CO2 emissions including reduction
contributions in other areas (do not include reduction in the L assessment)）○ Credit-selling municipality
Include sold emissions in the calculation of CO2 absorption and CO2 emissions including
reduction contributions in other areas only(3) Industrial cities are expected to have measures to promote local production of low-carbon
products.

Such measures can be evaluated based on the condition that quantitative

assessment of the impact and effectiveness is available and also that products from other cities
can be assessed in the same manner. While carefully avoiding double counting, this can be
included in the calculation of CO2 absorption and CO2 emissions including reduction
contributions in other areas.
(4) Efforts conducted by an organization based in the municipality but has a wide area of operation
outside of the municipality can be included, according to the availability of a quantitative
assessment of impact. While carefully avoiding double counting, this can be included in thecalculation of CO2 absorption and CO2 emissions including reduction contributions in otherareas.

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

40

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)(5) On the assumption that the above considerations are met, based on notifications to suchmunicipality, the following assessment conditions should be confirmed.
a. Credits are certified as part of Emissions Trading and J-VER programs.
b. In intercity trading, half of the traded emissions is applied to each city.
c. Credit holders are corporations/organizations that operate only within the municipality ,with the exception of the following organizations:- Governmental or auxiliary organization- Corporation or NPO with offices only in the municipality- Community-based association or organization- The 2012 edition of CASBEE-City does not include awarding a score (1.0 to 5.0) based on theamount of CO2 reduction contributions in other areas, as applicable municipal statistics for such anevaluation are not currently available. Reviews for future revision of the assessment tool basedon target values, and performance data established by municipalities as part of the New Action
Plan Manual, are expected.

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

41(2011 Edition)

2.

Environmental Load of Cities (L)
2.1 Basic principle of L assessment
2.1.1 L assessment guideline
The following methodologies provided in the New Action Plan Manual (both complete and abridged
versions) are applied as a common means of practical and reasonable assessment at the municipal
level.
(1) Estimate of current GHG emissions
GHG emissions obtained in accordance with the Action Plan Manual for Global Warming
Initiatives for Local Governments: Regional Policies, First Edition: Abridged Version(2) Target setting in an action plan(3) Method of estimating future GHG emissions(4) Countermeasure options required for formulating discharge control measures and policies

2.1.2 Reduction measures, policies and efforts led by organizations other than thecity’s public administration
Reduction measures, policies and efforts led by organizations other than the city’s (municipality’s)
public administration, such as state regulations and voluntary efforts by private businesses, will behandled as appropriate.
(1) In view of reducing GHG emissions, reduction targets are set for individual fields including
industry, business and households, and even for individual industrial sectors and products.
Sectoral approaches – efforts toward achieving the targets – are also being studied andpromoted in various areas. These efforts are dealt with in the L assessment, when they are
regarded as the city’s efforts.
(2) The reduction of GHG emissions through measures led by organizations other than the city’s
public administration, such as the direct effect of state regulations, improvement in the efficiency
of equipment and the reduction of the system power consumption rate are excluded from the Lassessment.

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

42

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

2.2 Individual assessment items
The structure of assessment items for L is basically in accordance with the new action planning
manual, as shown in Table II.2.1. The gross annual emissions of the city ((t-CO2/Year) for each item isfirst calculated, followed by the calculation of per-capita CO2 emissions of the adjusted population(t-CO2/People/Year).
TableⅡ.2.1 Assessment items for L (same as Table I.3.3)
Major item

Middle item

Minor item

L1 CO2 emissions fromenergy sources

L1.1 Industrial sector
L1.2 Residential sector
L1.3 Commercial sector
L1.4 Transportation
sector-

L2 CO2 emissions from
non-energy sources

L2.1 Waste and others

Redistribution-type item○-

Outlines of individual items are described in the following paragraphs:

2.2.1 L1: CO2 emissions from energy sources
CO2 emissions attributed to energy consumption account for the majority of human-caused
greenhouse gases, which are evaluated in four mid-level categories.
L1.1 Industrial sector
The industrial sector addresses CO2 emissions attributed to energy consumption through production
activities in various industries, such as manufacturing, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, mining andconstruction.
L1.2 Residential sector
This sector addresses CO2 emissions for home energy use other than for transportation purposessuch as private cars.
L1.3 Commercial sector
This sector addresses CO2 emissions attributed to energy consumption in office buildings and otherbusiness premises in which corporate administration departments are located, and that of thetertiary industries including hotels, department stores and other service businesses.
L1.4 Transportation sector
This sector addresses CO2 emissions attributed to energy consumption in office buildings and otherbusiness premises in which corporate administration departments are located, and that of thetertiary industries including hotels, department stores and other service businesses.
In accordance with the New Action Plan Manual (both complete and abridged versions), thefollowing conditions apply when calculating local emissions.

As a general rule, emission

redistribution between municipalities is not applicable.
○Cars: Emissions are recorded at the place where the car is registered.
○Railways: Emissions are recorded at the place where the train passes through.
○Ships: Emissions are recorded where the ship arrives.

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

43(2011 Edition)○Airplanes: Emissions are recorded where the plane lands..

2.2.2 L2: CO2 emissions from non-energy sources
GHGs which are not attributed to energy consumption (i.e. CO2, CH4, N2O and HCFC) areevaluated in the following mid-level category, according to classification by the New Action Plan
Manual (both complete and abridged versions).
L2.1 Waste and others
GHG emissions in the waste disposal sector fall roughly into four categories; waste incineration,
waste landfill, effluent treatment and the utilization of waste as an alternative fuel, the details of which
are described as follows:- CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions attributed to the incineration disposal of general waste including
waste plastic and waste synthetic fabric, and industrial waste including waste oil, various types ofwaste plastic and specially controlled industrial waste- CH4 generated at waste landfill sites- CH4, N2O generated during the effluent treatment process- CO2, CH4, and N2O generated through the utilization of waste as an alternative fuel.

2.2.3 Emissions from industrial sector
GHG emissions tend to be higher in cities where many industrial offices and facilities are located.

In

assessing emissions, consideration must be given to the fact that products and services supplied
from such areas provide significant benefits to other cities.
Therefore, CASBEE-City adopts the following two indices to reflect a city's environmental load moreaccurately.

For both indices, emissions related to electricity, city gas and district heat are counted at

the point of consumption in line with criteria commonly used in guidelines including the New Action
Plan Manual.
○Point-of-origin emissions: CO2 emissions from the industrial sector are considered as belonging to
the place of production (the point of origin) and applied to the city where industry activities take place.
Emissions are calculated in accordance with the New Action Plan Manual.
○ Point-of-demand emissions: CO2 emissions from the industrial sector are considered as belonging
to the place of final consumption (the point of demand). In this assessment, emissions from theindustrial sector for each city are deducted and replaced with a national average of industrial-sector
emissions.
In terms of the point-of-demand emissions, the national average of industrial-sector emissions isused because, unlike electricity, city gas and district heat, consumption data per municipality for
products from the industrial sector (including agricultural products) is not available.

The averagevalue is applied as a practical method to equally distribute the overall impact of emissions from theindustrial sector to the whole population.
There was an idea in which the redistribution applies to certain industries with particularly high CO2emissions, and a preliminary study thereon as a replacement was conducted. However, as the resultsof the study show that it is necessary to understand emissions of the industry in every city nationwide,
data of which are difficult to obtain, and that it is also hard to select certain industries to which theredistribution applies. Consequently, the idea was not adopted as a replacement. (For details of thec 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

44

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

preliminary study, please refer to the Commentaries and Data.)
Calculation procedure for L (Beneficiary-pays principle)[L (Beneficiary-pays principle) (t-CO2/Person/Year)]= [L (Emitter-pays principle) (t-CO2/Person/Year)]- [Emissions of industry-related sectors in the city (t-CO2/Year)] / [Adjusted population of the city
(Person)]*1+ [Total national emissions of industry-related sectors (t-CO2/Year)]*2/ [Total population (Person)]*1 Adjusted population (Person) = {[Total population] + [Daytime population]} / 2*2 Total of estimated emissions from industrial sectors nationwide as per Action Plan Manual for
Global Warming Initiatives for Local Governments: Regional Policies, First Edition: Abridged
Version published by Ministry of the Environment

Commercial Residential Transportation
sectorsectorsectorIndustry sector

City A

Subtract(Point-of-origin)

City B

Subtract(Emitter-pays principle)

Commercial
sector*Each represents the per-capita emissions of adjusted population

Industry sector

Redistribution value ofindustry sector
City A(Point-of-demand)

Add

City B(Point-of-demand)

FigureⅡ.2.1

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

Divide by the total
population to get theindustry emissions per
capitaCalculation of Pont-of-Demand Emissions

Sectoral total
annualemissions
nationwide

Residential
sectorTransportation
sectorCASBEE for Cities

45(2011 Edition)

2.3 L assessment standards
2.3.1 Total L score
For BEE calculation (Q/L) where the actual per-capita CO2 emissions (t-CO2/person/year) of amunicipality are applied as the total L score, the point-of-origin scenario results show large variationin per-capita CO2 emissions among cities, while the point-of-demand scenario results show mostcities performing similarly near the national average.

In many cases, municipal environmental

measures are conducted based on the performance of the latter.

In this assessment, therefore, thefollowing logistic function is applied to calculate the total L score in order to reflect local BEE withmore accuracy. In this method, instead of the actual value of per-capita CO2 emissions per year,
which varies widely, the total L score on a scale of 0 to 100, with values near the average (50) being amore accurate representation, is applied. Values are rounded up to the nearest whole number.

L  100 *1
1  exp( a * ( X  m))

X: Annual CO2 emissions per capita in the city (t-CO2/Person/Year)
m: National average of the annual CO2 emissions per capita, Japan (t-CO2/Person/Year)･･･ 10 t-CO2/Person/Yeara: Gain (A coefficient that increases the sensitivity of near-average values)･･･ 0.2432 (= 1/8*ln(7))
When the X value is 2 (t-CO2/person/year), the gain value is set with a reference point of L=12.5,
which is the point when a city achieves an 80-percent reduction over the current national average inaccordance with the long-term reduction target for developed countries.

100

60
50

40

(2) 80% reduction over the②全国平均の8割減
national average

Total L score (0-100)(1)①現状の全国平均
Current national average

Lの総合スコア（0～100）

80

12.5

0

2

10

20

30

0

Index value: annual per-capita CO2 emissions [t-CO2/person/year]

指標値 年間一人あたりCO2排出量 [t-CO2/人・年]
FigureⅡ.2.2 Assessment and conversion of L

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

46

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

2.3.2 L score conversion for radar charts
The L score represented in radar charts is the value obtained when the following formula is applied tothe converted value of the total L score as described above (0 to 100), which is further rounded off to
one decimal place.

Score used in radar charts
レーダーチャートで用いるLのスコア

L score for radar charts = 5 - L / 25

5.0
4.0

L ＝ 5 as:– [Lの総合スコア]／25
ConvertL = 5 - [total L score] / 25
（小数点第二位で四捨五入）(round off to one decimal place)
により換算する

3.0
2.0
1.0

50

0

100

Total L score (0 – 100)
FigureⅡ.2.3 Total L score and converted L score for radar charts

2.3.3 CO2 absorption and emissions including reduction contributed in other regions
The New Action Plan Manual calculates GHG emissions by adding together a municipality's
emissions, absorption and reduction contributions in other areas. In accordance with the manual,
CO2 emissions are calculated as the sum of the values obtained in the following categories:
1) L: actual CO2 emissions (t--CO2/person/year)
2) Q1.4.1: CO2 absorption by forests (t-CO2/person/year)3) Q3.3.1: CO2 reduction contributions in other regions (t-CO2/person/year)c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

47(2011 Edition)[Commentaries and Data]c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

48(2011 Edition)

Information on Q (Quality)
Calculation methods for Q items are described below:(1) Indices not in the form of "Numerator / Denominator"⇒The BAU is same as the current value.
Major item

Middle item

Minor item

Corresponding index

Q1 Environmental aspect

Q1.2 Local environmental
qualityQ1.2.1 Air

Number of days which hourly photochemical
oxidant concentrations during the day are
0.12ppm or higher (average)

Q1 Environmental aspect

Q1.2 Local environmental
qualityQ1.2.2 Water

75 percent of daily BOD average in a river

Q1 Environmental aspect

Q1.3 Resource recycling

Q1.3.1 Recycling rate ofgeneral waste

Recycling rate of general waste

Q2 Social aspect

Q2.1 Living environment

Q2.1.1 Adequate quality of
housing standard

Total floor area per dwelling unit

Q3 Economic aspect

Q3.2 Financial viability

Q3.2.2 Current balance ofmunicipal bonds

Debt expenditure ratio

Q3 Economic aspect

Q3.3 CO2 trading

Q3.3.1 CO2 reduction
contributions in otherregions

Carbon trading (traded/not traded)(2) Indices for which the denominator is something other than population-related figures⇒The BAU is same as the current value. (Neither the numerator nor denominator is a variable.)
Major item

Middle item

Minor item

Corresponding index

Q1 Environmental aspect

Q1.1 Nature conservation

Q1.1.1 Ratio of natural
land(Forest area + Major lake area) / Total landarea

Q2 Social aspect

Q2.2 Social services

Q2.2.1 Adequacy of
education services

The number of students/Number of teachers
at elementary and junior high schools

Q2 Social aspect

Q2.2 Social services

Q2.2.2 Adequacy of
cultural services(The number of community centers +number of libraries) /Total land area

(3) The index is obtained by using population data as the denominator and data not related tosize of facilities as the numerator⇒The BAU is same as the current value. (The denominator representing the population varies depending on the future
estimate, and the numerator also varies in proportion thereto.)
Major item

Middle item

Minor item

Corresponding index

Q2 Social aspect

Q2.1 Living environment

Q2.1.2 Traffic safety

The number of traffic accidents / adjusted
population

Q2 Social aspect

Q2.1 Living environment

Q2.1.3 Crime prevention

The number of crimes / adjusted population

Q2 Social aspect

Q2.2 Social services

Q2.2.3 Number of beds at
medical facilities

The number of physicians / adjusted
population

Q2 Social aspect

Q2.3 Social vitality

Q2.3.1 Rate of population
change due to births anddeaths(The number of births - number of deaths) /total population

Q2 Social aspect

Q2.3 Social vitality

Q2.3.2 Rate of population
change due to migration(The number of move-ins - move-outs) / total
population

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities49(2011 Edition)(4) The index is obtained by using population data as the denominator and data related to sizeof facilities as the numerator⇒The numerator of the BAU is same as the current value. The denominator varies depending on the future estimate.
Major item

Middle item

Minor item

Corresponding index

Q1 Environmental aspect

Q1.4 CO2 absorption

Q1.4.1 CO2 absorption by
forests

Forest area x absorption unit / ajusted
population

Q2 Social aspect

Q2.2 Social services

Q2.2.4 Adequacy ofchildcare services

The number of childcare facilities /
population aged less than 5*

Q2 Social aspect

Q2.2 Social services

Q2.2.5 Adequacy ofservices for the elderly

The number of senior care facilities /
population aged 65 and over(5) Economy-related indices⇒The numerator used in the BAU calculation is obtained by multiplying the current value by [estimated future
population of productive age / current population of productive age].

The denominator is subject to variation

depending on future estimates.
Major item

Middle item

Minor item

Corresponding index

Q3 Economic aspect

Q3.1 Industrial vitality

Q3.1.1 Amount equivalent
to gross regional product(Agricultural output + value of manufactured
goods shipments + annual sales ofcommercial goods) / adjusted population

Q3 Economic aspect

Q3.2 Financial viability

Q3.2.1 Tax revenues for
local governments

Local tax revenues / adjusted population(6) Other
The BAU is represented by the current value, and is considered more appropriate than estimating future value basedon complex hypothesis
Major item
Q2 Social aspect

Middle item
Q2.1 Living environment

Minor item
Q2.1.4 Disaster
preparedness

Corresponding index
The number of disaster response hospitals inthe secondary medical zone / population insecondary medical zonec 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

50

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Information on L (Environmental Load)
1. Review of deduction methods for emissions by specific high-carbon businesses whencalculating total redistributed CO2 emissions from the industrial sector
CASBEE-City (Low-carbon Edition) redistributes the emissions of all sectors in industry. During theprocess of preliminary studies, a method of deducting the CO2 emissions of specific manufacturers
with a high degree of carbon aggregation from the total emissions of the municipality was discussed.
Outlines of the studies are described below.

1) Methods discussed(Method 1) Deducting CO2 emissions attributed to specific sectors of the manufacturing industry fromthe total emissions of the municipality(Method 2) Classifying sectors of the manufacturing industry nationwide into 2 groups in a unified
manner (1: High-aggregation sectors; 2: Low-aggregation sectors), and calculating CO2
emissions from the difference in the basic unit according to the structure of the
manufacturing industry in the municipality

2) Conditions for calculation (Common to 1 and 2)(1) Assessment year: Fiscal 2003
The top 5 sectors (steel, chemicals, ceramics and soil/stone, petroleum and coal products, pulp
and paper) account for 86%.

CO2 emissions by manufacturing industry for fiscal 2003

2%
2%

2%

5%
6%
57%

7%
11%

Steel
Chemicals
Ceramics, soil and stone products
Petroleum and coal products
Pulp, paper and processed paper products
Foodstuff preparation
Transport machinery and appliances
Nonferrous metal products
Plastic products (excluding those mentioned elsewhere)
General machinery and appliances
Metallic productsElectric machinery and appliances
Textiles (Apparel)
Information and communications equipments and tools
Electronic components and devices
Beverages, animal feed, tobacco products
Rubber products
Printing and related products
Precision machinery and appliances
Lumber and wooden products (excluding furniture)
Other manufacturing
Apparel and other textile products
Furniture and fitments
Leather products and fur goods

Figure1: CO2 emissions of the manufacturing industry nationwide by sector for fiscal 2003
(2) Municipalities subject to the assessment: 19 cities- 13 Eco model cities (A preliminary calculation has not been conducted in some cities due to thedifficulty in obtaining data.)- 6 cities other than the above, with heavy industries as the major industries(3) Both methods are based on the premise that data, obtained in accordance with the “Manual forplanning local government’s action plan to address the issue of global warming (Regionalc 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

51(2011 Edition)

policies), First edition” prepared by the Ministry of Environment, are available, upon the practicalapplication to municipalities. (Provisional data prepared for preliminary studies are used in the
preliminary calculations described below.)c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

52

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)3) Understanding the difference in CO2 emissions per basic unit by sector of
the manufacturing industry
CO2 emissions per basic unit (CO2 emissions per unit of raw materials used) by sector of the
manufacturing industry were calculated and the results are shown in Figure2.
(1) Calculating the national average of CO2 emissions per unit of raw materials used by medium
industrial classifications＜Example: Steel Industry＞[National average of CO2 emissions per unit of raw materials used in the steel industry (t-CO2/Yen)]= [Total CO2 emissions in the steel industry nationwide (t-CO2)] / [Total national amount of raw
materials used in the steel industry (Yen/Year)]
Statistics of the consumption structure of oil, etc. (Fiscal 2001)*1

Census of manufactures(Fiscal 2003)
Adding the amount of raw
materials used in the steel
industry by municipality[Petroleum consumption (kl)] × [Basic unit of petroleum (t-CO2/kl)]+ [Town gas consumption (m3)] × [Basic unit of town gas (t-CO2/m3)]+ adding fuels used in the steel industry by type*2)*1 As the “Statistics on the consumption structure of oil, etc.” report has not been preparedsince 2001, the data used above are from the 2001 survey.
*2 The basic units of individual fuels are in accordance with the calculation of GHG emissions
and report manuals by the Ministry of Environment.
Steel
Ceramics, soil and stone products
Pulp, paper and processed paper products
ChemicalsPetroleum and coal products
Textiles (excluding apparel and other textile products)
Average of all sectors
Nonferrous metal products
Rubber products
Plastic products (excluding those mentioned elsewhere)
Foodstuff preparation
Beverages, animal feed, tobacco products
Metallic productsElectronic components and devices
Lumber and wooden products (excluding furniture)
Apparel and other textile products
Printing, publishing and related products
Furniture and fitments
Precision machinery and appliances
Electric machinery and appliances
General machinery and appliances
Leather products and fur goods
Transport machinery and appliances
Other manufacturing
Information and communications equipments and tools

The basic units of CO2 emissions of high-ranking
sectors are extremely large.

Average

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

[1,000t-CO2/Billion yen (Amount of raw materials used, etc.)]
Figure2: Basic unit of CO2 emissions by sector of the manufacturing industryc 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

53(2011 Edition)4) Calculation methods and results of preliminary calculation[Method 1: Deducting CO2 emissions attributed to specific sectors of the
manufacturing industry from the total emissions of the municipality]
The following is the procedure proposed during the study for deducting CO2 emissions of the top 3
sectors in the emissions ranking such as steel, ceramics and soil/stone and chemicals. (The same
applies to cases in which the number of sectors subject to the deduction increases.)(1) Estimating CO2 emissions for individual municipalities by the medium industrial classifications＜Example: Steel Industry＞[CO2 emissions attributed to the steel industry in the municipality (t-CO2/Year)]= [Amount of raw materials used in the municipality (Yen/Year)] × [National average of CO2 emissions
per unit of raw materials used (t-CO2/Yen)]*CO2 emissions in the steel industry are classified into 2 groups; CO2 emissions of municipalities witha shaft furnace and those of municipalities without a shaft furnace. The calculation of CO2
emissions is conducted using the basic unit of CO2 emissions in terms of the “Steel industry with ashaft furnace” and the “Steel industry without a shaft furnace,” respectively.
(2) Calculating the proportion of CO2 emissions of the 3 sectors to those of the municipalities (2)calculated by the medium industrial classifications
Example: CO2 emissions by the medium industrial classifications in a municipality
Medium industrial classifications

1. Steel○○t- CO2

2. Ceramics, soil and stone △△t- CO2
3. Chemicals
4．・・・・・・△○％

Proportion of the
3 sectors◇◇t- CO2◆◆t- CO2・・
24．・・・・・■■t- CO2

Total○○○t- CO2

１００％(3) Multiplying CO2 emissions of the manufacturing industry listed in the “Environmental White
Papers of Local Governments 2007” by the proportion calculated in the previous section(2), thendeducting them from the total emissions of the municipality[CO2 emissions of the municipality after deducting those of the 3 sectors (t-CO2/Year)]= [CO2 emissions of the manufacturing industry of the municipality listed in the Environmental White
Papers of Local Governments (t-CO2/Year)] × (1-[Proportion calculated in (3)])

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

54

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)[Result of preliminary calculation based on Method 1]
Table1: CO2 emissions, deduction rates and adjustment results of the manufacturing industries according to
Method 1
A
Total of the
Manufacturingindustry
Chemicals

City A
City B
City C
City DCity ECity F
City G
City H
City I
City J
City K
City L
City M
City NCity OCity PCity Q
City R
City S(t-CO2)
5,517,296
138,620B(t-CO2)36,4596,270-

31,453
3,082
7,723,293
387,758
17,276,356 3,908,316
1,827,122
508,029
189,35306,457,116
7,964
4,949,900 2,712,502
1,689,199
234,997
10,944,627
572,541
4,874,884
747,681
19,684,023 3,117,294
1,815,312
815,549
11,316,563
641,040
119,655
74,066-

Ceramics,
soil andstone(t-CO2)64,51334,412
0839,637
419,634
136,40936,449154,446
243,202239,387
265,662
79,576211,951
345,830
807,745
2,320
-

Steel

D
C＝－B/A
Deduction
Adjusted
population in
rate
2005

(t-CO2)
5,326,536
22,710％-98.4%-45.7%-

0
1,352,676
9,400,390
463,09102,507,579
104,576
104,197
7,395,907
3,458,111
12,217,879
452,522
9,244,171
21,707--9.8%-33.4%-79.5%-60.6%-19.2%-41.3%-61.8%-34.3%-75.2%-87.9%-79.0%-88.9%-94.5%-82.0%

E＝A/D
E＊（1+C）
Per-capita CO2
Per-capita CO2
emissions ofemissions of
the adjusted
the adjusted
population (Before population (After
adjustment)
adjustment)
People(t-CO2/People) (t-CO2/People)
102,45953.8
0.9
174,0800.8
0.4
4,149 447,580
0.1
0.1
3,392,386
2.3
1.5
1,240,724
13.9
2.9
433,9144.2
1.7
110,9111.7
1.4
428,697
15.1
8.8
308,626
16.0
6.1
1,528,896
1.1
0.7
801,273
13.7
3.4
383,17212.7
1.5
464,01742.4
8.9
180,009
10.1
1.1
4,678 1,006,986
11.2
0.6
29,6654.0
0.7
53,512 -N/B) “-” indicates “Not applicable”

100%

90.1%

90%

86.2%
79.0%

78.0%

80%

68.8%

70%

62.1%
55.7%

60%

49.1%

50%

38.4%

40%
30%

20.1%

Before deduction

控除前

After deduction

控除後

Figure3: Adjustment rate of L in individual municipalities according to Method 1

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

City S
都市S

City R
都市R

2.1%
City Q
都市Q

City P
都市P

City O
都市O

City N
都市N

City L
都市L

City K
都市K

City J
都市J

City I
都市I

City H
都市H

City G
都市G

City F
都市F

City E
都市E

City D
都市D

都市C
City C

0.6%
都市A
City A

0%

10.2%

都市B
City B

10%

13.8%
9.8%
5.2%
City M
都市M

20%

CASBEE for Cities

55(2011 Edition)[Method 2: Classifying the manufacturing industry nationwide into 2 groups
in a unified manner (1: High-aggregation sectors; 2: Low-aggregation
sectors), and calculating CO2 emissions from the difference in the basic unit
according to the structure of the manufacturing industry in the municipality]
The method of calculating CO2 emissions attributed to the manufacturing industry by municipality isshown in Figure2. In this preliminary calculation, the top 4 sectors in the ranking of CO2 emissions
per amount of activity (Steel, ceramics and soil/stone, pulp/paper/paper processing and chemicals)
are classified as high-aggregation sectors, and sectors other than the top 4 are low-aggregation
sectors. Per-capita CO2 emissions of the adjusted population from the manufacturing industry in themunicipality were calculated using weighted average basic unit 1 according to the amount of activity
in the top 4 sectors, and weighted average basic unit 2 according to the amount of activity in sectors
other than the top 4.
(1) Calculating the weighted average basic unit ofCO2 emissions per amount of activity in the top 4
sectors and those other than the top 4(2) Assessment of CO2 emissions of the
manufacturing industry in a municipality:Shaded area represents CO2 emissions
Weighted average basic unit 1

Steel
Ceramics, soil and stone products

Weighted average basic
unit 1 in the top 4 sectors

Pulp, paper and processed paper
products
Chemicals

Total amount of activity inthe top 4 sectors

Petroleum and coal products
Textiles (excluding apparel and other textile products)

Weighted average basic
unit 2 in sectors otherthan the top 4

Average of all sectors
Nonferrous metal products

Total amount of activity insectors other than the top 4

Rubber products
Plastic products (excluding those mentioned elsewhere)
Foodstuff preparation
Beverages, animal feed, tobacco products
Metallic products

Weighted average basic unit 2

Electronic components and devices
Lumber and wooden products (excluding furniture)(3) Projected difference from CO2 emissions
obtained by detailed calculations (image)

Apparel and other textile products
Printing, publishing and related products
Furniture and fitments

In the top 4 sectors

Precision machinery and appliances＞

Electric machinery and appliances
General machinery and appliances

In sectors other than t
he top 4

Leather products and fur goods
Transport machinery and appliances＜

Other manufacturing
Information and communications equipments and tools0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40[1000t-CO2/Billion yen]

Cities in which high-aggregation
manufacturing industries are mainly
located are expected to reduce
emissions after adjustment.

Figure4: Proposed method of calculating per-capita CO2 emissions of the adjusted population in
individual municipalities according to Method 2

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

56

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)[Result of preliminary calculation based on Method 2]
Table2: Result of preliminary calculation of CO2 emissions in individual municipalities
according to Method 2

City A
City B
City C
City DCity ECity F
City G
City H
City I
City J
City K
City L
City M
City NCity OCity PCity Q
City R
City SA
Total emissions Total emissionsof theof themanufacturing manufacturingindustry (Before industry (After
adjustment)
adjustment)(t-CO2)(t-CO2)
5,517,296 2,745,617
138,620140,070
31,45359,665
7,723,293 6,067,569
17,276,356 16,437,847
1,827,122 2,078,965
189,353
268,737
6,457,116 9,376,029
4,949,900 7,910,824
1,689,199 2,193,303
10,944,627 6,386,107
4,874,884 3,907,770
19,684,023 15,446,444
1,815,312 2,791,170
11,316,563 7,471,875
119,655
213,901
-

C
D=A/C
E=B/C
(B-A)/A
Per-capita CO2
Per-capita CO2
Adjusted
Increaseemissions ofdecrease population in emissions of
the adjusted
the adjusted
2005
rate bypopulation (Before population (After
adjustment
adjustment)
adjustment)％
People(t-CO2/People) (t-CO2/People)-50.2%
102,459
53.8
26.8
1.0%
174,0800.8
0.8
4,149 89.7%
447,5800.1
0.1-21.4%
3,392,386
2.3
1.8
-4.9%
1,240,724
13.9
13.2
13.8%
433,914
4.2
4.8
41.9%
110,911
1.7
2.4
45.2%
428,697
15.1
21.9
59.8%
308,626
16.0
25.6
29.8%
1,528,896
1.1
1.4-41.7%
801,273
13.7
8.0-19.8%
383,172
12.7
10.2-21.5%
464,017
42.4
33.3
53.8%
180,009
10.1
15.5
4,678 -34.0%
1,006,986
11.2
7.4
78.8%
29,6654.0
7.2
53,512 -B
Sectorsother than
the top 4(t-CO2)
41,97456,807
34,9782,496,423
1,694,264
352,901
145,185
7,982,212
818,132
1,015,086
1,033,371
267,624
1,629,647
94,351
531,628
18,083-Top 4
sectors(t-CO2)
2,703,643
83,263
24,687
3,571,136
14,743,583
1,726,065
123,552
1,393,817
7,092,692
1,178,218
5,352,736
3,640,147
13,816,767
2,696,819
6,940,247
195,818-N/B) “-” indicates “Not applicable”

189.7%

200%

159.8%

180%

145.2%
141.9%

160%
140%
120%
100%

113.8%
95.1%

101.0%

178.8%
153.8%

129.8%

80.2%
78.5%

78.6%

80%

66.0%

58.3%

60% 49.8%40%

Before deduction

控除前

After deduction

控除後

Figure5: Adjustment rate of L in individual municipalities according to Method 2

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

City S
都市S

City R
都市R

City Q
都市Q

City P
都市P

City O
都市O

City N
都市N

都市M

City M

City L
都市L

City K
都市K

City J

都市J

City I

都市I

City H
都市H

City G
都市G

City F
都市F

City E
都市E

City D都市DCity C
都市C

City B
都市B

City A
都市A

20%
0%

CASBEE for Cities57(2011 Edition)

2. Advisability of emissions redistribution in commercial sectors
Activities in commercial sectors, especially those in cities with a concentration of businesses, provide
benefits not only to the city subject to assessment, but also to other cities through governmentalorganizations and business activities in a wide area. Therefore, some people think that CO2 emissions
attributed to the activities in commercial sectors should be redistributed just like those in industrial sectors.
However, in view of the effectiveness in the practical utilization of this assessment tool, the redistribution
will not apply to commercial sectors in the CASBEE-City (2011 Edition) for the following 3 reasons.
(1) Unlike CO2 emissions in industrial sectors, which are basically linked to the quantity of the
production output, those in commercial sectors are regarded as mainly being linked to thedaytime population expressed by the number of people who commute to work or school in themunicipality. Therefore, CO2 emissions in commercial sectors are counted at the place ofemission, instead of being redistributed. The calculation of per-capita CO2 emissions is based on
the adjusted population, expressed as [(Nighttime population + Daytime population) / 2], taking
into account the daytime population, instead of the permanent population (the nighttime
population) of the municipality, in which reasonable corrections are presumably made.
(2) Regardless of the location, the company-wide efforts of individual companies or activities of theindustry group for reducing CO2 emissions make a large contribution in industrial sectors. On theother hand, efforts and policies implemented in all parts of the municipality, including individual
areas, city blocks and buildings, have a great impact in commercial sectors. Therefore, rather
than counting the reduction effect of these efforts in other municipalities due to the redistribution,
counting it in the same municipality, the source of the emissions, is considered appropriate, as it
will serve as an incentive for the municipality to further reduce CO2 emissions.
(3) Based on actual estimated figures of municipalities designated as Eco model cities, per-capita
CO2 emissions in commercial sectors were studied and the results indicated that there would be
no major problems in the overall findings without redistribution.

【Analysis based on actual city data】
1) CO2 emissions of Eco cities by sector
Estimated per-capita figures of CO2 emissions in individual municipalities from fiscal 2004 to 2007

CO2 emissions per person (ton-CO2/Person)

are shown in the figure below.
70.0
20.0

(Reference)
Per-capita emissions of
the nighttime population

Energy conversion
sector, etc.

Residential sector→ 0.2

Residential sector
Source-of-emission type

Commercial sector

Commercial sector→ 4.6

Transportation sector

15.0

Industrial sector

10.0
5.0
0.0

City A City B City C City D City E City F City G City H
Beneficiary-pays principle (Redistributed emissions in industrial sectors)

City I

City J

City K

City L

City M

Figure6: Assessment and CO2 emissions of Eco model cities by sector (Per-capita emissions of theadjusted population, redistributed emissions in industrial sectors)
c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

58

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)2) Study about cities with a high percentage of daytime population
In Chiyoda ward where CO2 emissions in commercial sectors account for 74% of all emissions, thepercentage of the daytime population is expressed as “Daytime population / Nighttime population(Total population) = 20.5 (times).” Per-capita CO2 emissions in commercial sectors (t-CO2/Person)
are greatly reduced by using the adjusted population in the calculation as in “49.4 (Per person of thenighttime population)→4.6(t-CO2/Person Per person of the adjusted population).”In the same manner, regarding residential sectors in which the connection with the daytime
population is relatively tenuous, per-capita CO2 emissions decrease (“2.6→0.2” in Chiyoda ward),
which may be a gross underestimation. However, it is regarded acceptable in terms of the entire
residential and commercial sector or all emissions, as CO2 emissions in commercial sectors accountfor the majority (74%) of the total emissions.
As shown in Table 3, cities with a high ratio of day-night population to nighttime population arebasically business accumulation areas. As is the case in Chiyoda ward described above, by using thevalue of per-capita emissions of the adjusted population in the calculation, the overall assessment
becomes reasonable.
Table3: Cities with a high ratio of daytime population to nighttime population (Top 10 cities)

Tokyo Chiyoda
Osaka Chuo
Tokyo Chuo
Nagoya Naka
Tokyo Minato
Osaka Kita
Aichi Tobishima
Osaka Nishi
Tokyo Shibuya
Tokyo Shinjuku

Ratio of daytime population to nighttime
population (times)
20.5
7.6
6.6
4.9
4.9
4.3
3.1
2.7
2.7
2.5

*Calculated using the total population and the daytime population shown in
the “Census returns” (2005), Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs
and Communications3) National institutions
In cases in which test and research institutions classified into commercial sectors are concentrated,
and CO2 emissions are not reduced despite the use of the adjusted population, emissions will not be
redistributed.
This is because the test and research institutions located in one area actually form a framework of themunicipality, which indicates that the municipality itself cannot function without them. In some cases,
the existence of these institutions has a rather good influence on the municipality’s environment.
However, when deducting CO2 emissions attributed to these institutions from the total emissions of
the municipality at the discretion of the assessor, regardless of the above principle, corresponding Q
should require certain adjustments as appropriate according to the L deduction (i.e. Q3.1.1: Reducing
per-capita GRP equivalent, Q3.2.1: Reducing exchange population equivalent index).

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

59(2011 Edition)

Afterword
This publication is developed by the Committee for the Development of Environmental Performance
Assessment Tools for Cities (chaired by Shuzo Murakami, Chief Executive of the Institute of Building
Environment and Energy Conservation), established with the support of the Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure and Transport and led by the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium. We hope thisinformation will be used in a wide range of fields and make an important contribution in building asustainable society.
List of the committee members (As of July 2012, No particular order)<The Development of an Environmental Performance Assessment Tool for Cites>
Chair: Shuzo Murakami (Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation), Member:
Yasushi Asami (The University of Tokyo), Toshiharu Ikaga (Keio University), Haruo Ishida (Universityof Tsukuba), Katsunori Inoue (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism), Kazuo
Iwamura (Tokyo City University), Yoichi Ogawa (Organization for Landscape and Urban GreenInfrastructure), Takao Kashiwagi (Tokyo Institute of Technology), Masao Kita* (Regional
Revitalization Bureau of Cabinet Secretariat), Hiroshi Imanaga* (City of Kitakyushu), Takeshi
Kurokawa (The Institute of Behavioral Sciences), Shigenori Kobayashi (Tokyo City University),
Hidetoshi Nakagami (Jyukankyo Research Institute), Kimihiro Hashimoto (Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism), Yoshitsugu Hayashi (Nagoya University), Tsuyoshi Fujita(Toyo University, National Institute for Environmental Studies), Specialized Member: Hideo Matsuno,
Atsuhito Oshima (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism), Administrator: Shinichi
Kaburagi (Taisei Corporation), Nobuhaya Yamaguchi (Shimizu Corporation), Kiyohisa Oine,
Nobufusa Yoshizawa (Japan Sustainable Building Consortium) (* as of March 2012)<Task Force on the Development of an Environmental Performance Assessment Tool for
Cities>Chief: Yasushi Asami (The University of Tokyo), Secretary: Shinichi Kaburagi (Taisei Corporation),
Nobuhaya Yamaguchi (Shimizu Corporation), Member: Toshiharu Ikaga (Keio University), Hirokazu
Kato (Nagoya University), Shun Kawakubo (Keio University), Ken Kodama (Nikken Sekkei ResearchInstitute), Satoru Sadohara (Yokohama National University), Tatsuya Hayashi (Nikken Sekkei
Research Institute), Tsuyoshi Fujita (Toyo University, National Institute for Environmental Studies),
Atsuhito Oshima, Hideo Matsuno (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism),
Specialized Member: Ryota Kuzuki (Tokyo Gas), Tadashi Kohno (Tokyo Electric Power Company),
Support Committee Member: Kazuhiko Okamoto (Shimizu Corporation), Administrator: Kiyohisa
Oine, Nobufusa Yoshizawa (Japan Sustainable Building Consortium)<Task Force on the Dissemination of an Environmental Performance Assessment Tool for
Cities>Chair: Shuzo Murakami (Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation), Secretary:
Shun Kawakubo (Keio University), Ryota Kuzuki (Tokyo Gas), Member: Yasushi Asami (The
University of Tokyo), Toshiharu Ikaga (Keio University), Shinichi Kaburagi (Taisei Corporation), Kohei
Nakano (Shimokawa Town), Tatsuya Hayashi (Nikken Sekkei Research Institute), Nobuhaya
Yamaguchi (Shimizu Corporation), Administrator: Kiyohisa Oine, Nobufusa Yoshizawa (Japan
Sustainable Building Consortium)

c 2012 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities Technical Manual (2012 Edition)
Not for SaleFirst Edition

Published July 31, 2012

E d i te d b y

The Committee for the Development of an Environmental Performance
Assessment Tools for Cities

Editorial
Assistance
Published by

Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Zenkyouren Building Kojimachi-kan, 3-5-1 Kojimachi, Chiyoda-ku,
Tokyo 102-0083 Japan
phone +81-3-3222-6391 facsimile +81-3-3222-6696
e-mail casbee-info@ibec.or.jp URL http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/

Printed byRengo Printing Center Co.,LTD*ALL rights reserved.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

出力用.indd1

2013/01/11

15:19:56