A decade of Development and Applicationof an Environmental Assessment System
for the Built Environment

Shuzo MURAKAMI,
Kazuo IWAMURA & Raymond J. COLE

Edited by
Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Published by
Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)・A decade of Development and Applicationof an Environmental Assessment System
for the Built Environment

Shuzo MURAKAMI,
Kazuo IWAMURA & Raymond J. COLE

Edited by
Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Published by
Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)A decade of Development and Application of an Environmental Assessment System for the Built Environment
Edited by Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Published by Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright ©Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC), 2014
Designed by Kazuo IWAMURA
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permissionof the publisher.
Printed in Japan by Rengo Printing Center Co., Ltd., 20142

Contributors(Affiliations as of August 2013)

1. Representative Authors:
Shuzo MURAKAMI, President, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Kazuo IWAMURA, Professor, Tokyo City University (TCU)
Raymond J. COLE, Professor, University of British Columbia (UBC)
2. Contributors on the Editorial Board:
Shuzo MURAKAMI, President, IBEC
Kazuo IWAMURA, Professor, TCU (Chair of the Board)
Raymond J. COLE, Professor, UBC
Takashi AKIMOTO, Professor, Shibaura Institute of Technology
Toshiharu IKAGA, Professor, Keio University
Masato ITO, Director, Sumitomo Mitsui Trust Bank
Shun KAWAKUBO, A-Professor, Hosei University
Takeshi MIYAMORI, Housing Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism
Tsuyoshi SEIKE, A-Professor, The University of Tokyo
Hiroaki TAKAI, Director, Takenaka Corporation
Nobuhaya YAMAGUCHI, Director, Shimizu Corporation
Junko ENDO, IBEC
Nobufusa YOSHIZAWA, IBEC
3. Invited contributors from abroad
Martin TOWNSENT, Director, BRE, UK
Scot HORST, Senior Vice President, LEED, USGBC, USA
Gretchen SWEENEY, Director, LEED, USGBC, USA
Thomas LÜTZKENDORF, Professor, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
Frank HOVORKA, Head of sustainable real estate policy, Caisse des Dépôts
Co-chair, UNEP FI Property Working Group, FranceDavid LORENZ, Professor, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
Serge SALAT, President, Urban Morphology and Complex Systems Institute, France
ZHU, Yingxin, Professor, Tsinghua University, China
HO Chin Siong, Professor, Faculty of Built Environment, UTM, Malaysia

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contributors
Preface: by Shuzo MURAKAMI...........................................................................................................8
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. Situating CASBEE within a broader context .............................................................................12by Raymond J. COLE		 1.1.1. CASBEE within a historical context.....................................................................................12
		 1.1.2. CASBEE within a global context.........................................................................................14
		 1.1.3. CASBEE within a changing context....................................................................................19
		 1.1.4. CASBEE within a future context..........................................................................................21
1.2. Background of CASBEE development......................................................................................26
by Shuzo MURAKAMI		 1.2.1. Global environment issues as a Background.......................................................................26
		 1.2.2. Summary from a historical perspective of environmental assessment
			and research in the building sector.....................................................................................27
		 1.2.3. The importance and effect of environmental assessement tools..........................................28
		 1.2.4. The features of the assessment tools system and methods................................................29
		 1.2.5. Conclusions........................................................................................................................31<Column-1> Sustainability and Trust..................................................................................................34<Column-2> LEED and CASBEE: Transformation in a Global Context................................................37
Chapter 2: Basic Concept of CASBEE
2.1. R&D structure: Academy+Industry+Governments (supported by MLIT).....................................422.2. Space-scale classification from a single home to a whole city...................................................43
2.3. Time-process classification according to the life-stage of the built environment........................44
2.4. Virtual enclosed space boundary..............................................................................................46
2.5. From Eco-efficiency to Built Environment Efficiency (BEE).........................................................47
2.6. Unique rating index: Built Environment Efficiency (BEE).............................................................48
		 2.6.1. Assessment category: Q (Quality) & L (Load)......................................................................48
		 2.6.2. BEE=Q/L............................................................................................................................49
		 2.6.3. Excluded aspects from the CASBEE assessment items......................................................50
2.7. Graphic indication system of the rating rresults for dissemination..............................................51
		 2.7.1. BEE chart...........................................................................................................................51
		 2.7.2. Radar Chart of 6 major categories......................................................................................52
		 2.7.3. LCCO2 emission bar chart (for housing and building scale).................................................52
		 2.7.4. Bar charts of credits...........................................................................................................54
2.8. Input operation & output results................................................................................................55
		 2.8.1. Composition of the Assessment Tools................................................................................55
		 2.8.2. Input process.....................................................................................................................56
		 2.8.3. Output results.....................................................................................................................60<Column-3> Assessment Systems and LCCO2..................................................................................65

4

Chapter 3: CASBEE Family of Tools
3.1. Overall Structure.......................................................................................................................70
		 3.1.1. For housing scale...............................................................................................................70
		 3.1.2. For building scale...............................................................................................................71
		 3.1.3. For urban scale...................................................................................................................73
		 3.1.4. For city scale......................................................................................................................74
		 3.1.5. Supporting Documents other than Assessment Tools.........................................................74
		 3.1.6. Assessment tools under development................................................................................75
3.2. CASBEE for Housing................................................................................................................76
		 3.2.1. CASBEE for New Detached Houses...................................................................................76
		 3.2.2. CASBEE for New Housing Units.........................................................................................90
		 3.2.3. CASBEE Health Checklist.................................................................................................101
3.3. CASBEE for Buildings.............................................................................................................109
		 3.3.1. CASBEE for New Construction (CASBEE-NC)..................................................................109
		 3.3.2. CASBEE for Existing Buildings (CASBEE-EB)...................................................................114
		 3.3.3. CASBEE for Renovation (CASBEE-RN).............................................................................119
		 3.3.4. CASBEE for Heat Island Relaxation (CASBEE-HI).............................................................124
3.4. CASBEE for Market Promotion (CASBEE-MP)........................................................................133
		 3.4.1. CASBEE for Market Promotion assessment tool...............................................................133
		 3.4.2. Basic concept for property appraisal and CASBEE assessment.......................................138<Column-4> Sustainable assessment as a tool for translating sustainability features into value........144<Column-5> Linkage between environmental performance assessment and property appraisal......146
3.5. CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD).....................................................................149
		 3.5.1. CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD)...............................................................149
		 3.5.2. CASBEE Community Health Checklist..............................................................................158
3.6. CASBEE for Cities (CASBEE-City)...........................................................................................163
		 3.6.1. Assessment of stocks and flows.......................................................................................163
		 3.6.2. Overview of CASBEE-City tool..........................................................................................164
		 3.6.3. CASBEE-City (Standard version).......................................................................................167
		 3.6.4. CASBEE-City (Professional version)..................................................................................171<Column-6> Towards green cities...................................................................................................173
3.7. CASBEE Connector to BIM....................................................................................................175
Chapter 4: CASBEE Promotion and Support Systems
4.1. CASBEE accredited professional registration system..............................................................184
		 4.1.1. CASBEE Accredited Professional for housing...................................................................184
		 4.1.2. CASBEE Accredited Professional for buildings..................................................................184
		 4.1.3. CASBEE Accredited Professional for market promotion....................................................185
4.2. CASBEE certification system..................................................................................................186
		 4.2.1. Reporting system by local governments..........................................................................186
		 4.2.2. Certification for buildings..................................................................................................186
		 4.2 3. Certification for housing....................................................................................................186
		 4.2 4. Certification for CASBEE for market promotion.................................................................186

5

4.3. Building administration systems..............................................................................................188
		 4.3.1. CASBEE as a policy instrument at national government level............................................188
		 4.3.2. CASBEE as a policy instrument at local government level.................................................189
Chapter 5: Benefits through CASBEE usage
5.1. Relationship between BEE Index, Energy/CO2e conservation and cost...................................194		 5.1.1. Green government buildings and CASBEE.......................................................................194		 5.1.2. Performance improvement effects
			of CASBEE in government buildings, hospitals and schools..............................................195
5.2. Incentives provided by local governments...............................................................................197
		 5.2.1. Subsidies, an increase in the floor area ratio, etc..............................................................197
		 5.2.2. Implementation of award systems utilizing CASBEE.........................................................198
		 5.2.3. Implementation of certification and financial systems in individual municipalities................198
		 5.2.4. Collaborative incentive with financial sector.......................................................................199
5.3. Health promotion in housing and community..........................................................................200
		 5.3.1. Health promotion in housing.............................................................................................200
		 5.3.2. Health promotion by improving local community environment...........................................206
Chapter 6: Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE
6.1. Overview.................................................................................................................................212
		 6.1.1. Efforts made in 3 areas.....................................................................................................212
		 6.1.2. Political efforts..................................................................................................................212
		 6.1.3. Practical efforts.................................................................................................................213
		 6.1.4. Educational efforts............................................................................................................213
6.2. Utilization in governmental policies..........................................................................................214.
6.2.1. Practical utilization...............................................................................................................214
		 6.2.2. Examples of utilization by the government........................................................................215
		 6.2.3. Utilization by local governments........................................................................................227
6.3. Practical application................................................................................................................239
		 6.3.1. Upstream ulilization...........................................................................................................239
		 6.3.2. Downstream utilization......................................................................................................239
		 6.3.3. Others..............................................................................................................................2406.4. Utilization in education............................................................................................................247
6.5. Publicity and academic releases.............................................................................................253
		 6.5.1. Books about CASBEE......................................................................................................253
		 6.5.2. Manuals of CASBEE.........................................................................................................255
		 6.5.3. Electronic publicity (website, etc.).....................................................................................257
		 6.5.4. International academic release..........................................................................................258
		 6.5.5. Domestic academic release..............................................................................................260
6.6. Overseas collaborations..........................................................................................................262
		 6.6.1. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) FI PWG...............................................262
		 6.6.2. Korea...............................................................................................................................263
		 6.6.3. China................................................................................................................................263<Column-7> The Chinese green building labeling systems and CASBEE.........................................264		 6.6.4. Malaysia...........................................................................................................................272

6

<Column-8> CASBEE-City in Putrajaya, Malaysia............................................................................277
6.7. CASBEE evaluation of vernacular houses...............................................................................280
		 6.7.1. Vernacular houses evaluated from a sustainability viewpoint.............................................280
		 6.7.2. Vernacular houses around the world.................................................................................280
		 6.7.3. Performance assessment of vernacular houses based on assessment tool CASBEE........283
		 6.7.4. From mass-consumption housing to post-materialism housing.........................................283

AppendixA-1. Glossary.................................................................................................................................286
A-2. Organizational Structure.........................................................................................................291
A-3. Members of the CASBEE boards and committees since 2001...............................................292

Postscript and Acknowledgement, by Kazuo IWAMURA

7

Preface
CASBEE-Systemized Assessment Tools
Shuzo MURAKAMI,
President,
Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)

Building construction is an extremely energy-intensive process and takes a heavy toll on
the environment. As such, it is the responsibility of the industry to promote environmentally-friendly, sustainable buildings. In the 1990s, in order to effectively achieve this goal,
there was a growing movement among developed countries toward the development ofassessment tools such as BREEAM (BRE* Environment Assessment Method) in the UK.
Today, a variety of environmental assessment tools developed around the world havebecome crucial components in social movements for the advancement of sustainablebuildings.
The development of CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency) began in 2000. A decade later, the assessment system known as the
CASBEE Family now includes over twenty tools specific to fields ranging from buildings
to urban areas.
Recognized for its clear concept, CASBEE generated strong interest among government agencies, industries and academics. This prompted further diversification of thetools that allow the assessment of various building types, endpoints, and objectives.
Ranging from administrative support to design support, property appraisal and building
branding, the systemized CASBEE tools enable broad applications. The most significant
characteristic of CASBEE is that all the tools are developed and organized consistently
with a unified concept. It is clear that without such a concept, the creation of a systemized
group of tools would be difficult to achieve.
In promoting sustainable buildings, CASBEE has become an industry-standard toolwith societal significance. However, the corresponding growth in its user base has resulted
in some first-time users finding the CASBEE system and its numerous tools somewhat
complex and difficult to understand.
Meanwhile, CASBEE has garnered considerable global interest and been actively promoted overseas.
To address such issues, and also for the benefit of global users, this document isintended to offer an easy-to-understand introduction to the CASBEE system structure.
Building assessment tools are used by diverse stakeholders in a variety of applica-*BRE: Building Research Establishment

8In addition, the tools may be applied for a variety of purposes such as administrative support, design support and property appraisal.
CASBEE has been developed by a research committee as part of a joint industrygovernment-academia project with the support of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure
and Transport. This partnership has been instrumental in developing CASBEE’s clear andsolid concept to the benefit of a broad spectrum of users in Japan.
Environmental assessment as tool for promoting sustainable buildings has become
an important social movement. Amidst such a global trend, we hope CASBEE will makea meaningful contribution to solving global environmental issues. As the movement for
the advancement of sustainable buildings continues to evolve, we will strive to further
improve the contributions and offerings of CASBEE in this effort.◾

9

1. Introduction

tions. Users include designers, tenants, building users, property owners, building managers, administrators, developers and financial institutions. The systemized CASBEE tools
are designed to offer ease of use to users with diverse purposes. As noted, CASBEE tools
are developed and systemized consistent with a comprehensive and unified concept,
rather than being created independently. Such systemization is the basic element in easily
understanding the CASBEE Family.
Unlike other tools, CASBEE offers systemized tools that can be applied to a variety ofspatial scales such as resindential and other buildings, urban districts and cities. CASBEE
can also be used for the assessment of various temporal scales such as planning, designing, construction, building use and renovation.
The two core components of environmental planning on which the CASBEE tools werebased are: the reduction of environmental load (L) and the improvement of environmental
quality (Q). Furthermore, Q/L values are used to define Built Environmental Efficiency(BEE) as the basis of CASBEE’s 5-level assessment indicator. Tools designed based onthese components are the most defining characteristic of CASBEE.
CASBEE can be applied to a wide range of buildings including residential housing,office buildings and schools.

1. Introduction

1.1. Situating CASBEE within a broader context
1.2. Background of CASBEE development<Colunm-1> Sustainability and Trust<Colunm-2> LEED and CASBEE: Transformation in a Global Context

A decade of Development and Applicationof an Environmental Assessment System
for the Built Environment

1. Introduction

1.1 Situating CASBEE within a broader context
Raymond J. COLE,
Professor, University of British Columbia, Canada

1.1.1. CASBEE within a historical context
Until the 1990 release of the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method (BREEAM) in the United Kingdom (Baldwin, et. al., 1990) little, if any, attempt
had been made to establish an objective and comprehensive means of simultaneously
assessing a broad range of environmental considerations against explicitly declared criteria and offer a summary of overall building performance. BREEAM can now be viewed
as the beginning of a culture of building performance assessment that has spurred thedevelopment numerous other systems worldwide and, to varying degrees, all building
environmental assessment methods have drawn on the collective knowledge and experience of other systems.
An underlying premise of the voluntary assessments and certifications offered bythese systems is that if the market is provided with improved information and mechanisms, a discerning client group can and will provide leadership in environmental responsibility, and that others will follow suit to remain competitive. Building environmental ratings have provided building owners with a credible and objective means to communicate
to prospective tenants the environmental qualities of the building they are leasing and, byemphasising more demanding performance goals and the benefits over typical practice,
have begun to reframe expectations.
Over the past twenty plus years, building environmental assessment has matured
into a legitimate area of research and study. Not only has environmental performanceassessment been a category of almost every major green building conference over the
past fifteen years or so, but the 1st International Conference on Building Sustainability
Assessment in Porto, Portugal in 2012 (Amoeda, et al., 2012) devoted exclusively to the
topic is testimony to this claim.
The emphasis of the discussion and research regarding building environmental
assessment methods has changed significantly over this period. (Cole and Valdebenito,2013) Initially, concerns and efforts were primarily related to a host of technical featuresand requirements of assessment tools: scope, structure, weighting protocols, performance indicators, etc. (Nibel, 2000; Andresen, 1999) As more systems were developed
and used, the emphasis shifted to their side-by-side comparison: what is included, differences in assigned weightings within the respective systems, assessment and certification fees, number of buildings registered/certified, etc., often with the aim of offeringa basis for selecting one method over another. (Yokoo and Oka, 2000; IEA, 2001; Kaatz,
2002; Ding, 2008; Haapio and Viitaniemi, 2008; Kajikawa, Inoue and Goh, 2011; Reed,et al., 2011) Again with greater application, the development of versions of the methods
for different building types – residential, or aspects - existing buildings, core and shell,etc., – initially as separate systems and later, as for example in the case of LEED in North
America, harmonizing them into a coherent and recognizable suite of tools. More recently,
given that several of the methods have existed for more than ten years and matured into
established industry systems, the focus is shifting toward their application – where andwhy are assessment tools being used and by whom – particularly beyond their countryof origin (Cole, 2011; Todd and Tufts, 2012) and on explicit comparisons of BREEAM and12

Assessment tools in use worldwide generally fall into two general categories:• Those developed by an organization within a country that maintains and manages it
and provides the associated educational support and operational infrastructure. All
the major recognized systems – BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE, Green Star in Australia,
etc., – fall into this category.
• Those developed by academics either for research purposes or in hopes that they
could become a certification system but to date have yet to gain widespread adoption in their respective countries. The difficulties in generating the necessary organizational and financial resources required to support the attendant educational, management and certification programs means that the number of assessed buildings
assessed by using these methods remains modest.
Organisational Context
While the technical characteristics of the assessment systems have enjoyed widespreadattention, their origins and organisational settings are less discussed and there are scant
records on the roles and contributions of the individuals and organizations that createdand shaped them. Indeed, this history is often unrecorded and subsequently at risk ofbeing lost.
Assessment systems are initiated through the actions of individuals and organisations,for example:• In the UK, ECD Architects and Energy Consultants, Stanhope Properties and the
Building Research Establishment (BRE) initiated efforts in 1988 to encourage theconstruction industry to take environmental issues seriously. Following 18 monthsof identifying and debating what they considered the most significant global, neighbourhood and indoor environmental considerations, the first BREEAM for offices waslaunched 1990 through the BRE. Since 1999, the BRE has certified and approved
products through BRE Certification. This was renamed BRE Global in 2006 in recognition of its offering of its services worldwide and environmental certification andrating – including BREEAM – were also “brought under the BRE Global brand” 1 at
this time.
• The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) was co-founded by three private sector
individuals - Mike Italiano, David Gottfried and Rick Fedrizzi - in 1993. This membership-based non-profit organization - formed to promote sustainability in howbuildings are designed, built, and operated - developed Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design (LEED) as its primary vehicle for market transformation. Whilethe development continues to be shaped through a broad range of technical committees, approval is required by the collective USGBC membership. Developmentof LEED began in 1994, spearheaded by Natural Resources Defense Council’s(NRDC) senior scientist Robert Watson who served as the founding chairman of the
LEED Steering Committee. The first draft version of the US Green Building Council’s
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) was piloted in 1999 (Todd1

BRE: Our History, Downloaded January 15th 2013 from www.bre.co.uk/page/jsp?id-1721

13

1. Introduction

LEED. (Rivera, 2009; Julien, 2009; Reed, et al., 2010; Sleeuw, 2011) From its introduction
in 2001, CASBEE has been increasingly evidenced in this discussion.

1. Introduction / 1.1 Situating CASBEE within a broader context

and Lindsey, 1999), but the widely used version – LEED Version 2.0 – was released in
2000. An important development was the creation of the Green Building Certification
Institute (GBCI) in 2008. The GBCI became responsible for the administration of
LEED certification and professional credentialing, permitting the USGBC to focus ondeveloping and refining the LEED standards.
• The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) was co-founded by three private sector
individuals - Mike Italiano, David Gottfried and Rick Fedrizzi - in 1993. This membership-based non-profit organization - formed to promote sustainability in howbuildings are designed, built, and operated - developed Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design (LEED) as its primary vehicle for market transformation. Whilethe development continues to be shaped through a broad range of technical committees, approval is required by the collective USGBC membership. Developmentof LEED began in 1994, spearheaded by Natural Resources Defense Council’s(NRDC) senior scientist Robert Watson who served as the founding chairman of the
LEED Steering Committee. The first draft version of the US Green Building Council’s
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) was piloted in 1999 (Toddand Lindsey, 1999), but the widely used version – LEED Version 2.0 – was released in
2000. An important development was the creation of the Green Building Certification
Institute (GBCI) in 2008. The GBCI became responsible for the administration of
LEED certification and professional credentialing, permitting the USGBC to focus ondeveloping and refining the LEED standards.
• In Australia, the strategic consulting, engineering and project delivery company Sinclair Knight Merz - through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Building
Research Establishment, developed Australian BREEAM in 2000. This was sold to
the Australian Green Building Council (GBCA) in 2002 and subsequently developed
as the Green Star Environmental Rating System for Buildings in 2003. Green Staris considered pivotal in meeting GBCA’s key objective “to drive the transition of
the Australian property industry” towards sustainability by promoting green building programs, technologies, design practices and operations and the integrationof green building initiatives into mainstream design, construction and operation ofbuildings.
All of the above voluntary building environmental assessment systems are used and/orreferenced internationally and are considered as major systems. These, like many others
operating within their respective countries, are now viewed as the single most potent
approach to market engagement and transformation. Certainly, to some extent, this has
occurred and it is reasonable to argue that they have institutionalized the range of environmental performance issues deemed important in green buildings and have played asignificant role in mainstreaming green building practices. The major systems have been
increasingly referenced and adopted by institutions and authorities in their respective
countries as a required building environmental performance “standard.”

1.1.2. CASBEE within a global context
CASBEE has provided a unique role and contribution within the evolving theory and practice of building environmental assessment, primarily in respect to its structural and operational features relative to those of other major systems.
14Building environmental assessment methods typically consists of three major components (Cole, 1999; Cole, 2005):• A declared set of environmental performance criteria organized in a logical fashion –the structure.
• The assignment of a number of possible points or credits for each performanceissue that can be earned by meeting a given level of performance – the scoring.
• A means of showing the overall score of the environmental performance of a building
or facility – the output.
The development of assessment methods has, for the main part, been driven by the scoping and structuring of performance criteria. Although it is generally accepted that environmental criteria must be organized in ways that facilitate meaningful dialogue and application, the structuring of criteria within the assessment method is perhaps most importantduring the output of the performance evaluation, when the “story” of the performancemust be told in a coherent and informative way to a variety of different recipients. While
CABSEE addresses the range of environmental considerations evident in the other major
systems, their organisation and emphasis is qualitatively different and implicitly embody
Japanese cultural traits, e.g., the value placed on a predetermined set of rules and groupconscious interdependency, the emphasize on continuums rather than binary divisionsof opposite poles, and Japan’s emphasis on technical prowess and, especially, service.
(Blaviesciunaite, 2012) More importantly, the conceptual underpinnings of CASBEE offer
important distinctions in each of the above three areas.
The structure of environmental assessment methods is shaped by a number of considerations and practicalities. The majority of systems organize performance criteria or
credits in distinct categories – site, water, energy, materials, indoor environmental quality,
etc., and, with the exception of CASBEE, rely on the simple addition of points attained
within these to derive an overall score. A key distinction lies between those methods that
adopt a hierarchical framing of the issues (main categories with criteria and sub-criteria
wherein score at this lower level are weighted and aggregated to attain an overall score)
and those that have credits (with implicit or explicit weightings) that are simply added.
• The South African Sustainable Building Assessment Tool (SBAT), for example,
explicitly introduced performance criteria that acknowledge social and economic
issues. (Gibberd, 2001; Gibberd, 2005) A total of 15 performance areas are identified,equally divided within the overarching sustainability framework of environmental,social and economic categories, each described through five performance criteria.
(See Figure 1.1.1) Further, SBAT considers how it could become an integral part of,and subsequently influence, the building production process by relating its application to a nine-stage process based on the typical life cycle of a building: Briefing,
Site Analysis, Target Setting, Design, Design Development, Construction, Handover,15

1. Introduction

All green building assessment systems are primarily directed at the twin goals of
improving indoor environmental quality and ‘doing less harm’ or, more generally, reducing
the degenerative consequences of human activity on the health and integrity of ecologicalsystems (McDonough and Braungart, 2002; Reed, 2007). Their scope and structure represent their developer’s understanding and priorities of these environmental performanceissues and are clearly influenced by a host of unique cultural and capability considerations.

1. Introduction / 1.1 Situating CASBEE within a broader context

Operation, Reuse/Refurbish/Recycle. Weighting the three respective social, environmental and economic categories offer an overall performance score.
• The more recent Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB) Certification
System comprises of five general sustainability “quality” categories are assessed
and form the overall aggregate building score: Ecological; Economic; Socio-cultural& Functional categories with Technical; and Process categories conceptually crosscutting them. A sixth quality with 6 sub-criteria – location – is evaluated and presented separately. (See Figure 1.1.2) Criteria within these performance areas areevaluated individually and aggregated to determine an overall performance designation of gold, silver or bronze.

Figure 1.1.1: Sustainable Building Assessment Tool (SBAT) (Gibberd, 2001; Gibberd, 2005)

Figure 1.1.2: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB) Certification System

16

Other systems desiring to shift from “green” assessment to “sustainability” assessment have typically simply added an additional set of social and economic performancerequirements to the key environmental ones in green building assessment.

• The use of the hypothetical boundary to explicitly distinguish the evaluation of
Building Environmental Quality (Q) which relates to the “…improvement in living
amenity for the building users within the hypothetical enclosed space” and the evaluation of Building Environmental Load (L) which relates to the “…negative aspects ofenvironmental impact which go beyond the hypothetical enclosed space to outside”(JSBC, 2010). By scoring these separately to determine the Building Environmental
Efficiency, i.e., the ratio of Environmental Quality and Performance to Environmental
Loading, the structure of the CASBEE itself embodies and conveys an eco-efficiency
view of assessment. This is important because it illustrates how the structure is,itself, educational. In CASBEE, the BEE explicitly conveys the environmental impacts
associated by offering human amenity and illustrates a variety of permutations of Q
and L can offer a similar overall measure of performance. (See Figure 1.1.3)

Figure 1.1.3: Deriving Overall Performance Score in Major Assessment Methods

17

1. Introduction

Some of the key unique conceptual distinctions offered by CASBEE related to the structure and definition of the performance assessment criteria are:

1. Introduction / 1.1 Situating CASBEE within a broader context• In contrast to many other systems wherein there is typically no specific order as to
how the requirements are to be met and where the importance of the credit entirely
relies on the weightings, the distribution of the credits in CASBEE imply a hierarchical relationship, i.e., Q1 evaluates separate categories of the indoor environment, Q2– how well the separate categories are integrated and Q3 aims to relate the building
with its surroundings. (Blaviesciunaite and Cole, 2012) This nesting of performance
criteria again provides a conceptual clarity for the framing of environmental considerations that is less evident in other assessment systems.
• The credits are assessed on a five scale, where “1 is earned for satisfying the minimum conditions required by laws, regulations and other standards of Japan… and abuilding at what is judged to be general, typical level earns 3” (JSBC, 2010). Levels
4 and 5 then are assigned to performance levels that exceed the standard practice. Herein, the specific performance requirements in CASBEE are consciously
less clearly specified than in other systems but are framed to equally account for
the range of efforts that are invested in the achieving performance requirements.
Thus, rather than assigning points for achieving specific performance requirements,
CASBEE distributes points in a way that corresponds to the level achieved andacknowledges how the context affects this possibility. (Blaviesciunaite and Cole,2012)• Building environmental assessment methods were initially conceived, and stilllargely function, as voluntary, market place mechanisms by which owners striving for
improved performance would have a credible and objective basis for communicating
their efforts. Within this context, ensuring that the methods are simple, practical andinexpensive in both use and maintenance was deemed paramount in their design.
At a practical level, the accommodation of complexity relates to the relationshipbetween the structure of the assessment method (i.e., the range and organizationof the performance issues) and the specificity of the constituent criteria requirements. Whereas a key ambition of other assessment methods is to strive for simplicity, CASBEE, especially in the process of scoring, weighting and presenting theevaluation results, is more accepting of complexity.
• As a direct response to Japan’s declared commitment to significant carbon emissions reductions, a separate evaluation process for Lifecycle CO2 is used in CASBEE.
CASBEE offers an equally significant conceptual distinction by explicitly distinguishing
between the way that performance information is organized during the assessment process and how it is transformed to communicate a variety of different outputs. As mentioned earlier, while employing an additive/weighting approach, it breaks away from thesimple addition of points achieved in all performance areas to derive an overall buildingscore, which has been the dominant feature of all previous methods.
The Building Environmental Efficiency (BEE) score is represented on a plane with Q
on the Y-axis and L on the X-axis and which is delineated into five distinct performance
designations ranging from “S” – the highest level, through “A”, “B” down to “C”. Moreover,stars are assigned according to the obtained S~C level. Most importantly, this graphic
provides the ‘landscape’ on which the BEE values of multiple projects or shifts in performance can be readily communicated.
18

1.1.3. CASBEE within a changing context
Whereas early in the history of building environmental assessment systems there werefewer systems and developments occurred relatively slow, today it is a rapidly developing
field and they are in continual states of evolution and development. Therefore not only
does information on the various systems become quickly dated, trying to assess future
directions is equally problematic. Nonetheless, several possible ways in which CASBEE isable to respond to this changing context as well as offer positive direction:• Moving Cross-Scale: The major environmental assessment methods were initiallyconceived to assess individual buildings, and performance issues are bounded bythose factors that influence and are influenced by them. The sequence in the development of assessment methods is important in revealing the increasing acknowledgment of a broader context. The majority of the systems began with a version
for new office buildings and then subsequently expanded the range of products toinclude existing office buildings, multi-unit residential and then other broader applications – schools, homes, etc. Now, the major building environmental assessment
methods offer a suite of products, each targeted at a specific building type or situation and, more recently, have introduced versions that address a broader context
e.g., LEED for Neighbourhood Development (LEED-ND®), BREEAM Communities,
etc. While these versions reference performance issues at the buildings scale, they
are typically distinct tools. From the outset, CASBEE has conceptually set its “family” of tools within a framework defined by scale and lifecycle. CASBEE for Urban
Development (CASBEE-UD®), by retaining the use of the BEE determined by Q/L,
permits the expansion or reduction of the hypothetical boundary. Individual buildings
are therefore set within a logical and hierarchical framework. Perhaps the most significant recent advance in the ongoing development of CASBEE has been to extend
assessment beyond the neighbourhood scale to embrace the city. Retaining thesame conceptual framing of Q and L within the previous scales, these performance
dimensions focus primarily on Social and Economic factors, and CO2 emissions
respectively. (See Figure 1.1.4)

19

1. Introduction

CASBEE is therefore based on a more diverse approach to both assigning points
and presenting the results. By using several types of graphical representations, CASBEE
therefore permits a variety of “stories” to be communicated – an overall performance aswell as more detailed descriptions – rather than the single score-sheet used in many othersystems.

1. Introduction / 1.1 Situating CASBEE within a broader context

Figure 1.1.4: Assessment Tools for Various Scales

CASBEE-City is designed to assess Japan’s effort toward low carbonization and to provide an equitable assessment system for all cities – be they small, medium or larges commercial and industrial. While industrial cities invariably have higher greenhouse gas emissions than commercial and cultural cities, they produce goods that are exported to andused in other cities. CASBEE-City provides the opportunity to contrast two approaches
for assessing and presenting the greenhouse gas emissions:
1. Emitter-pays: All greenhouse gas emissions are allocated to the industrial areas
producing areas.
2. Beneficiary-pays: Greenhouse gas emissions as a result of industrial production are
reallocated to those areas consuming industrial products and thereby sharing theburden of associated greenhouse gas emissions.
The importance of this is two-fold. Firstly, it points not only to the necessity to understand resource flows and production impacts within developments – be they buildings,
neighbourhoods or cities – but also the exchanges between them. Secondly, the ability
to represent the shifts and exchanges on the CASBEE Q-L graphic, is illustrative of theversatility of CASBEE’s powerful conceptual underpinnings.
• Building Valuation: The need to establish a business case for the development of‘green’ commercial properties within the real estate industry has paralleled the technical development and application of building environmental assessment methods.
(Lorenz and Lützkendorf, 2008) Although the possible capital cost premiums associated with attaining higher building environmental performance has been a recurringissue over the past twenty years, the emphasis of these economic considerations
20

These and other features permit CASBEE to more readily respond to and accommodatechanging issues and priorities.

1.1.4. CASBEE within a future context
There are several emerging trends that will shape the future design, roles and use of
assessment tools:• Voluntary & Mandatory Mechanisms: The majority of current “green” environmental
assessment methods is voluntary in their application and has the primary objective of stimulating market demand for buildings with improved environmental performance. Indeed, the “acceptance” of current assessment methods currently derives
largely from their voluntary application. However, the voluntary nature of existing
methods significantly compromises both their comprehensiveness and rigor. Higher
environmental performance requirements are increasingly being mandated bringing
into question the ways that voluntary assessment methods will have to be cast within
a broader array of mechanisms for creating necessary change. As such, the relationship between building environmental assessment methods and other change instruments both regulatory and incentive based, will likely gain in importance. Historically,
regulation provided minimal acceptable performance requirements and the voluntary mechanisms offer the complementary high performance aspiration. Recently,
the mandates of far reaching performance requirements such as carbon neutrality will profoundly change these roles. In Europe, for example, demanding energy
and carbon emissions standards for buildings are now being introduced requiring
phased reductions to net-zero energy performance. (Dyrbøl, et. al. 2010; Kolokotsa,
et. al. 2011) Although the structure and specific performance requirements of theassessment systems will be important in this regard, the organizational context of
the JSBC may permit a more effective integration of CASBEE with other mandatory
mechanisms in Japan.
• Achieved Performance: The assessment of building environmental performance of
new buildings is typically made at the design stage and based on default patterns ofoccupant behaviour, systems efficiencies and building operation. There is sufficientevidence to show that a building’s performance in use is often markedly different21

1. Introduction

has also changed considerably. Initially the business case was framed around theadded benefit and reduced revenue costs to the building owner. Today, however, thebusiness case is increasingly rooted in the added value associated with higher building environmental performance and the demonstration that green buildings may
be ‘worth more’ to investors, owner and tenants. (Sayce et. al., 2009) Whereas thecost arguments have consistently referenced building environmental assessments,
e.g., the cost of LEED (Kats, 2003; Matthiessen, 2004), very little attention has been
directed at connecting green rating to value. CASBEE is the first system to introducea version explicitly linking building environmental performance assessment with realestate appraisal. CASBEE for Property Appraisal (CASBEE, 2009) is an “appraisal
support tool that measures the impact degree of [design for the environment] on theproperty value” that when widely applied will significantly increase the demand forgreen buildings.

1. Introduction / 1.1 Situating CASBEE within a broader context

from that anticipated or predicted during design and this discrepancy has initiateda shift towards basing assessments on achieved performance. The International
Living Building Institute’s Living Building Challenge, for example, requires one-year
energy and water use data to be submitted before certification is granted. It is anticipated that the owners and developers the major assessment systems will be actively
seeking to base assessments on the actual performance of buildings, particularly
energy and water use, and energy-related emissions.
• Regionalization: The past decade or so has witnessed many countries worldwide
now either having or in the process of developing domestic systems. This carries
the implicit expectation for domestic systems to encourage green building practices appropriate to their specific climatic and cultural contexts. Within many countries, there can be significant regional differences and environmental priorities thatmust be recognised and accounted for in an assessment system. Currently, thisis accomplished either by permitting changes to the relative weightings of performance criteria or offering additional points if credits of specific regional significancehave been achieved. One can anticipate that the notion of regionalization will eventually be infused more effectively throughout the assessment methods. Japan has awide range of regional differences and thereby faces a number of challenges whenaiming to adequately adopt a singular framework. CASBEE is currently being incorporated into governmental programs depending on the willingness of the administrative regions to adopt the system. Each regional authority is permitted to makelocally determined adaptations within CASBEE and thereby ensure that a balanceis achieved between the priorities of regional and national levels. (Blaviesciunaite,
2012)• Simplified Certification Procedures: Although assessment systems may begin withsimple organizations, credit and performance requirements, this invariably changes
as they mature. With greater use and greater understanding of the evaluation of
specific performance criteria in different contexts, typically more requirements areplaced on the assessment process. Perceived improvements are typically by adding
more requirements rather than reducing them. CASBEE is the only system that has“brief” versions of its basic suite of tools to support consensus building between
owners, designers and builders at the early stages of design, setting performancetargets and establishing reporting systems for local governments. In contrast to the
3-7 days required to complete a full CASBEE assessment for New Construction, thebrief version takes only a couple of hours.
• Branding: The demand for “brand recognition” in a global market, the desire forinternational standards and the motivation of the owners of the systems to expand
the adoption of their assessment systems abroad, are among many of the forces
driving toward the increased international use of some of the most established methods. (Cole, 2010; Cole and Valdebenito, 2013) Although this branding can, in one
sense, be seen as a measure of their success, there are several problems associated with this development. Issues here relate to the protection and maintenanceof the brand which can constrain making major structural changes to the system.
Moreover, since all assessment tools have their roots in the culture and organizational practices that operate within their respective countries, the ability to nurture or22• Multiple Certifications: While building owners have been striving for and achieving the highest level of performance offered by the assessments systems in theircountries (e.g., LEED Platinum in North America, BREEAM Outstanding in the UK,
CASBEE “S” rank in Japan or 6 Stars in Australia), a new phenomenon is emerging
particularly in several Asian countries. The notion of achieving “double” or “triple
platinum” wherein building owners are having their buildings assessed with both thedomestic system and one or two other systems – one of which is typically an international “brand”. It can be anticipated that such a phenomenon will occur in Japan.
In summary, the conceptual underpinnings that have shaped the design, development
and application of CASBEE provide a consistent, scientifically-based and qualitatively
robust way of framing building environmental performance assessment. The expandability of the Building Environmental Efficiency (BEE) across scale – from buildings to cities– and the flexibility of the CASBEE scoring graphic to represent the performance of either
individual buildings or portfolios, individual cities or a range of cities, are enormously
powerful attributes. Such characteristics in and of themselves offer considerable education value in representing and communicating the performance of buildings individuallyand collectively. What is perhaps equally significant in situating CASBEE within a broader
context is that it is a reflection of its organizational and cultural setting. Many lessons canbe learned from CASBEE’s structure and content, but these must necessarily be viewed
through a cultural lens. Such is the case with all assessment systems.

Acknowlgdement
The author would like to thank Ms Aiste Blaviesciunaite for her valuable insights and critique of thecultural references made in the work.

References
Amoeda, R., Mateus, R., Braganca, L., and Pinheiro, C., (2012) Proceedings of 1st International
Conference on Buildings Sustainability Assessment, Green Lines Institute for Sustainable
Development, Portugal, 1st Edition, May 2012
Andresen, I. (1999). Multi-criteria Decision-making. A Survey of Methods. Trondheim, Norway:
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Dep. of Building Technology
Baldwin, R., S.J. Leach, J. Doggart, and M. Attenborough. (1990) BREEAM Version 1/90: An
Environmental Assessment for New Office Designs, Building Research Establishment, Garston,
Watford (England)
Blaviesciunaite, A., and Cole, R.J., (2012) The Cultural Values Embedded in Building Environmental
Assessment Tools: A Comparison of LEED®- Canada and CASBEE, International Journal of
Sustainable Construction, 1(1) pp7-16
CASBEE, Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency, Japan
Sustainable Building Consortium Corps.
CASBEE for Property Appraisal, Japan Sustainable Building Consortium Corps. December 2009
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green building rating System, US Green
Building Council.

23

1. Introduction

retain approaches to green building assessment that support culturally and climatically appropriate design practices within this emerging context of globally deployed“brand” systems remains a major concern.

1. Introduction / 1.1 Situating CASBEE within a broader context

Cole, R.J., (1999) Building Environmental Assessment Methods: Clarifying Intentions, Building
Research and Information, Vol. 27 (4/5), pp 230-246
Cole, R.J., (2005) Building Environmental Assessment Methods: Redefining Intentions and Roles,
Building Research & Information, 35:5, pp455–467
Cole, R.J., (2006) The Coexistence of Building Environmental Assessment Methods in Common
Markets, Building Research & Information, 34:4, pp357-371
Cole, R.J., (2010) Building Environmental Assessment in a Global Market, International Journal of
Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 1:1, 11-14
Cole, R.J., & Valdebenito, M-J., (2013) The importation of building environmental certification systems: international usage of BREEAM and LEED, Building Research and Information, Vol. X (X/X),
pp X-X
Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Code for Sustainable Homes: A stepchange in sustainable home building practicewww.communities.gov.uk
Ding, G.K.C., (2008) Sustainable construction—The role of environmental assessment tools, Journalof Environmental Management, 86 (3) 451-464
Dyrbøl, S., Thomsen, K.E., Albæk, T., & Danfoss, A.S., (2010) European Directive on the Energy
Performance of Buildings: Energy Policies in Europe – Examples of Best Practice. In Proceedingsof American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Pacific Grove, California, 2010.
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Gibberd, J., (2001) The Sustainable Building Assessment Tool – Assessing how buildings can support sustainability in Developing Countries, Continental Shift 2001 - IFI International Conference,
11 – 14 September 2001, Johannesburg, South Africa
Dirlich, S., 2011: A Comparison of Assessment and Certification Schemes for Sustainable Building
and Suggestions for an International Standard System. The IMRE Journal, 5 (1). Available at:
http://wordpress.hrz.tu-freiberg.de/wordpress-mu/journal/files/2010/11/dirlich.pdf.
Dixon, T., A. Colantonio, D. Shiers, R. Reed, S. Wilkinson, and P. Gallimore. A Green Profession?
(2008) A Global Survey of RICS Members and Their Engagement with the Sustainability Agenda,
Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 26(6), 460–81
Gibberd, J., (2005) Paper 04-001, Assessing Sustainable Buildings in Developing Countries – The
Sustainable Building Assessment Tool (SBAT) and The Sustainable Building Lifecycle (SBL) The
2005 World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo, 27-29 September 2005, Tokyo, Japan
Haapio, A., and Viitaniemi, P., (2008) A critical review of building environmental assessment tools.
Environmental Impact Assess Review, 28 (7) 469–482
Houvilla, P., and Bourdeau, L., (2000) Construction related sustainability indicators – setting targets
and monitoring performance in the built environment, Proceedings of International Conference on
Sustainable Buildings - 2000, Maastricht, The Netherlands 22-25 October, 2000, pp 231-33
Julien, A., (2009) Assessing the assessor: BREEAM VS LEED. Sustain Magazine, (6) 9, 30-33
IEA (2001). Directory of tools. A survey of LCA Tools, Assessment Frameworks, Rating Systems,
Technical Guidelines, Catalogues, Checklists and Certificates. Annex 31. Paris: IEA
Kaatz, E., (2002) A comparative evaluation of building environmental assessment methods: suitability for the South African context, Proceedings of International Conference on Sustainable Buildings- 2002, Oslo, Norway, 23-25 September, 2002, pp 376
Kajikawa, Y., Inoue, T., and Goh, T. N., (2011) Analysis of building environment assessment frameworks and their implications for sustainability indicators, Sustainability Science, 6 (2), 233-246
Kats, Gregory 2003b. The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Building: A Report to California’s
Sustainable Building Task Force. California: Capital E. October.
www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/News477.pdf
Kolokotsa, D., Rovas, D., Kosmatopoulos, E. & Kalaitzakis, K. 2011. A roadmap towards intelligent
net zero- and positive-energy buildings. Solar Energy, 85(12): 3067-3084.
Lorenz, D. and Lützkendorf, T. (2008 [a]) Sustainability in Property Valuation - Theory and Practice.
Journal of Property, Investment and Finance. Vol. 26 No, 6 pp: 482-521
McDonough, W. and Braungart, M. (2002) Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make, North
Point.
Matthiessen Lisa F, Peter Morris, (2004) Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database andBudgeting Methodology. Davis Langdon Adamson, July.
Nibel, S., (2000) Methodological concepts and related difficulties when developing building environmental assessment tools, Proceedings of International Conference on Sustainable Buildings - 2000,

24

Maastricht, The Netherlands 22-25 October, 2000, pp259-61
Todd, J.A., and Lindsey, G.A., (1998) LEEDTM Reference Guide, Pilot Version 1.0, April 1999, US
Green Building Council.
Reed, T., Clouston, P., Hoque, S. and Fisette, P., (2010) An Analysis of LEED and BREEAM
Assessment Methods for Educational Institutions. Journal of Green Building, 5 (1) 132-154

Reed, R., Wilkinson, S., Bilos, A., and Schulte, K., (2011) A Comparison of International Sustainable
Building Tools – An Update. Presented at 17th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference,
Gold Coast, Australia, 16-19 January 2011. Available at:
http://deakin.academia.edu/SaraWilkinson/Papers/931324/A_Comparison_of_International_
Sustainable_Building_Tools_An_Update.
Rivera, A., (2009) International Applications of Building Certification Methods: A Comparisonof BREEAM and LEED. Proceedings PLEA2009 - 26th Conference on Passive and Low Energy
Architecture, Quebec City, Canada, 22-24 June 2009
Sayce, S., Sundberg, A., & Mohd, A., (2009) Sustainable Property: A Premium Product? A Working
Paper, Paper presented at ERES Conference 2009 Stockholm 24- 27th June 2009
Sleeuw, M., (2011) A Comparison of BREEAM and LEED Environmental Assessment Methods, A
report to the University of East Anglia Estates and Buildings Division, November 2011https://www.uea.ac.uk/estates/environmentalpolicy/BREEAM+vs+LEED
Todd, J.A., and Tufts, R., (2012) Patterns in Green Building Practice, Proceedings of BSA 2012 1st
International Conference on Building Sustainability Assessment, Porto, Portugal, May 23-25th 2012,
Porto, Portugal, May 23-25th 2012, pp.365-373
USGBC (2012) LEED International, http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2346
Access July 24th 2012
USGBC (2013) LEED is Global, http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=2628
Yokoo, N., and Oka, T., (2000) A study on modified weighting value of BREEAM, BEPAC and GBToolin Japan, Proceedings of International Conference on Sustainable Buildings - 2000, Maastricht, The
Netherlands 22-25 October, 2000, pp 207-925

1. Introduction

Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S., and Schulte, K., (2009) International Comparison of Sustainable
Rating Tools, Tools, Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, 1 (1), 1-22

1. Introduction

1.2. Background of CASBEE development
Shuzo MURAKAMI,
President, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC), Japan

1.2.1. Global environment issues as a backgroundThe seminal book – “The Limit to Growth” (Meadows, et. al., 1972) – that presented thepotential cosnsequences of human demands on the earth’s resources was publishedby the Club of Rome in 1972. The following year’s oil shock inspired Amory Lovins, et.
al. to publish “Soft Energy Paths” in 1979 and appeal to public sentiments. At the end of
the 20th century, the whole concept of civilization and mass consumption started to beseriously debated, and a sense of emerging problems regarding the global environment
became more tangible. With such trends, the United Nations’ Brundtland Commission
released “Our Common Future” in 1987 (WECD, 1987) which introduced the concept of“Sustainable Development.” This notion has susbsequently served as a significant paradigm for society, the economy and politics.
Large amounts of resources and energy are consumed in the building sector. However,in response to the growing awareness of global environment problems, those in the building sector also recognized the necessity of making contributions toward the mitigationof environmental problems. The development of BREEAM was spurred by such circumstances. Its innovative scope and method attracted worldwide attention and eventually
led to the global movement for developing assessment tools. Following BREEAM, otherassessment tools for building environmental performance such as LEED were also developed and used around the world (BRE, 2013; USGBC, 2013), significantly contributing to
the reduction of building-related environmental loads. Figure 1.2.1 shows the assessment
tools developed worldwide.

Figure 1.2.1: Assessment tools developed worldwide (as of September 2012)26

1.2.2. Summary from a historical perspective of environmental assessment
and research in the building sector
1.2.2.1. Three stages of environmental assessment
The environmental assessment of buildings, while seemingly a new topic, had been
discussed and practiced several years before global environment problems surfaced.
However, earlier environmental assessments of performance of buildings focussed on
evaluating their indoor environment quality - that is to say, the environmental assessment
conducted for the “amenity improvement for everyday life of building users.” This type ofassessment exclusively dominated the traditional environmental assessment methods inthe discipline of architectural environmental engineering, which can be regarded as thefirst stage of building environmental assessment. At that time, environment problems did
not exist on the global scale that they do today. The environmental loads on the natural
systems related to building construction and operation were hardly taken into consideration in perfprmance assessment. Incidentally, it was in the late 1950s when the discipline called “Principles of Architectural Planning” was renamed “Environmental Control
Engineering” in the University of Tokyo’s Department of Architecture. and research onindoor environmental assessment has remained a major topic in this discipline.
In the 1960s, pollution became a problem throughout Japan and other industrializedcountries. In urban areas, the so-called neighborhood environment became an importantsocial issue and an administrative procedure for evaluating the influence on the environment was widely accepted by the public as the “Environmental Impact Assessment”.
This can be described as the second stage of environmental assessment wherein only
the negative aspects of a building against its surroundings (i.e., pollution) were included
for assessment as environmental influence (i.e., environmental load). A typical example
is acceleration of wind caused by interaction with a building. The stance at the second
stage is quite explicit and is opposite to that of the first stage, because environmentalloads on the outside were exclusively assessed. The administrative procedure for theenvironmental assessment has stayed in effect to date.
The third stage is defined by the environmental assessment starting between the endof the 1980s and the early 1990s when global environmental issues became high on theinternational political agenda. This stage is characterized by the explicit inclusion of thehealth of the “Earth” as a relevant subject for the assessment. Although the reductionof “environmental loads” remained a primary issue, the aspect of amenities was also
considered to improve the quality of life (QOL). Two different aspects represented by anincompatible vector (environmental load reduction and environmental quality improvement) were included for the assessment which, to some extent. resulted in less clarity
than at the first or second stage.
The assessment of the third stage is currently of the primary interest worldwide andthe term “environmental performance assessment,” now simply means this type of environmental assessment. This book also addresses the tools for the third-stage assessment.

27

1. Introduction

In Japan, under the leadership of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport andTourism (MLIT), a committee was established inside IBEC, and in 2001, initiated thedevelopment of tools to evaluate the environmental performance of buildings. The term
Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) wascoined through the activities of this committee. (Murakami, 2004)

1. Introduction / 1.2. Background of CASBEE development

1.2.2.2. The word “environment” – its versatility and ambiguity
The word “environment” is quite versatile and today is used in a variety of contexts. As
described in the previous section of the history of environmental studies, what are known
as “living environment” and “global environment” represent entirely different dimensionsof “environment” in terms of the relation to external diseconomies. The idea of environmental loads and associated problems created a broad public and political sentimentsufficient to demand a paradigm shift away from the culture of the 20th century where
people were encouraged to consume more and more.
When the “living environment” is considered, its goal is the improvement of so-called
QOL. On the other hand, the word “global environment” entails the demand for reductionof environmental loads. Despite their fundamentally different essence, according to conventional logic, therefore, there is frequently a trade-off between these two environments.
Finding a solution to the conflict between these two is a critical challenge in the field ofenvironmental engineering. In CASBEE, as is described later, this problem is handled
by associating each assessment item with either Q (Quality: environmental quality) or L
(Load: environmental load), thus separately assessing these two categories. Of numerous
discussions about “environmental issues,” few were carried out with a definite awarenessof the difference between the two, which is a cause of confusion about how to deal withenvironmental issues. (Murakami, 2004)

1.2.3. The importance and effect of environmental assessment tools
1.2.3.1. Visualization of performance and the positioning of environmental performance assessment
When traveling, hotel rankings displaying a number of stars such as the Michelin Guide
are useful in making choices regarding where to stay. These rankings are called the visualization of performance wherein specialized information is quantified by experts in thecontext of quality of service in society and the results are released to the public. Having
better information accessibility for the public in the form of performance visualization canmake a considerable difference from the viewpoint of abatement of information asymmetry to general users who are isolated from and may struggle to understand specialized
information. In addition to the rankings in the service industry initiated by Michelin, there
are also ranking systems in such fields as Japanese artistic skills or martial arts (dan rank)or the handicaps in golf, which started in the UK. These are individual skill rankings, but
the intention and effect of visualization are the same.
The building or city performance assessment tools also intend to visualize performance. This visualization is especially important, because the buildings and cities are,in themselves, social assets. The goals of developing the assessment tools include thereduction of building-induced environmental loads and the performance improvementby making the information on building performance visible and accessible to the public
as global environment problems become more serious. As mentioned before, this formof contribution has been welcomed worldwide. At present, almost every country whereconstruction is a major industrial activity has developed its own assessment tools or
adopting ones that have been developed elsewhere, producing profound reduction of theenvironmental loads associated with the building sector.
1.2.3.2. Environmental information share and market reform through visualization
Visualized performance not only benefits users by making performance information accessible to the public, but also gives incentives for better performance to owners/designers/
28

Vicious circle of blame games
Owners and users

Preference forgreen buildings,
but the availability
is limited
Blame games
among stakeholders
Investors
and developers
Willingness toinvest in green
buildings, but thedemand is limited

Architects
and builders
Able to constructgreen buildings,
but orders are
fewer

Conversion into a virtuous circle
for increased popularityof green buildings
Owners and users
Choose green
buildings because of
their positive image,better productivity,
and reduced
operational costs
Shared information
about green buildings
Investors
Invest in green
buildings withexpectations of
extra value, higher
returns, andincreased demandArchitects
and builders
Construct green
buildings because
of increased
demandNecessity of assessment tools fromthe viewpoint of the real estate market

Figure 1.2.2: Reforming the real estate market to gain wider popularity for green buildings
and the role of assessment tools (RICS, 2008)

1.2.4. The features of the assessment tool system and methods
Compared to other tools available worldwide, CASBEE exhibits a unique and simple
structure. The key characteristics of CASBEE are as follows:29

1. Introductionbuilders or those in local government. Following the development and increased popularity of assessment or rating tools, revolutionizing the market in construction/urban industries through such visualization is the next emerging challenge in the building sector andurban development. Publicized ranking results consequently encourages stakeholders
such as building owners, designers and local governments to design and construct a cityor building with superior environmental performance. This effect is the linchpin for market
reform. Figure 1.2.2 shows the reformed market structure. It is essential to collect the dataon green buildings assessed by the tools in order to demonstrate the benefits of buildings
with superior environmental performance and thereby, increase the number of construction orders or investment opportunities and creating an excellent selection of high-quality
buildings in the market.
The importance of market reform through visualization lies in the performance being
improved by publicly available information and the subsequent autonomous decisions,
not solely by the enforcement of the laws. Such movement of the market change resulting
from performance assessment has already surfaced in Japan and North America and isgaining momentum across the world. Significant contributions toward the reduction of
global environmental loads are being realized in the building sector and urban development.

1. Introduction / 1.2. Background of CASBEE development

1.2.4.1. Clear definition of spatial boundaries to be assessed
In many tools in use worldwide, the subject of assessment is often vaguely defined as abuilding or a location. However, the clear definition of spatial zones to be assessed should
never be omitted before conducting an assessment. In this regard, of the assessment
tools available throughout the world, only CASBEE is explicit on this issue. In CASBEE,
the virtual enclosed space boundary is introduced as an area surrounding the building concerned and is treated as a site boundary. The inside and the outside of the virtual enclosed space boundary are specifically framed to be evaluated separately. The
key here is that the surrounding area of the building is explicitly included for the on-site
assessment. (Murakami, 2004) This concept is illustrated in Figure 1.2.3.

Virtual Enclosed
Space Boundary

BEE=

Q (environmental quality)
L (environmental load)

Site
Boundary

Q (environmental quality)
Q1 (Indoor Environment)
Q2 (Quality of Service)
Q3 (Outdoor environment)

L (environmental load)
L1 (Energy)
L2 (Resources and Materials)
L3 (Off-side Environment)

Figure 1.2.3: Setting of the spatial boundary for CASBEE assessment and the definition of
Built Environment Efficiency (BEE)

With the exception of CASBEE, no other tools give a clear definition describing the sitefrom the perspective of an area to be evaluated.
1.2.4.2. Clear definition of environments to be assessed
As already mentioned, a pair of different aspects represented by an incompatible vector,
that is, improvement of Q (environmental quality) and reduction of L (environmental load)
are included for building environmental assessment in this global environment era. Only
the CASBEE tool system was designed with this point of view. In CASBEE, as shown in
Figure 1.2.3, each item to be evaluated is first associated with either Group Q or Group
L and is further assigned to the respective sub-group for more detailed categorization.
1.2.4.3. Scoring method
Many assessment tools have adopted the simple addition of scores attained from therespective assessment items. However, as shown in Figure 1.2.3, the originality of the
CASBEE assessment method stems from use of the aforementioned Q and L to obtain ascalar indicator determined by Q/L (referred to as the Built Environment Efficiency; BEE).
The BEE is a concept akin to Factor Four proposed as the efficiency of resources use by
Weizsäcker in Germany. (von Weizsäcker, et. al., 1998)

30

(Housing & Building scale)

CASBEE-House
CASBEE-Building(Urban scale)
CASBEE-Urban
Development(City scale)
CASBEE-City

Figure 1.2.4: Stratified structure of a scale of defined areas for CASBEE assessment

1.2.4.5. Inclusion of time scale for assessment
Initially, almost all the assessment tools dealt with the new construction of buildings.
The subsequent development of tools to assess the existing buildings occurred in manycases. In evaluating the existing buildings, it is not easy to collect the data necessary
for the assessment. Considering the vast number of existing buildings and their often
low environmental performance, the promotion of environmental assessment of existingbuildings is a policy that is challenging but meaningful.
In CASBEE for Cities, urban environment can be assessed in the context of past,present and future. Urban development is usually planned and executed over a long time
span. The outcomes of urban environment policy can be better presented by comparing
how the city was in the past, how it is in the present, and how it would be in the future. Aspart of the campaign of urban environment policy, it is useful for municipal authorities toshare such assessment results with their citizens. (Murakami, et. al., 2011)

1.2.5. Conclusions
Since the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power station, the necessity of energy conservation in the building sector has become a matter of increased urgency. The environmental load produced in the building sector is so huge that it accounts for 30 to 40%
of either the total consumed energy or total CO2 emissions. Therefore, the reduction ofbuilding-induced environmental loads is one of the greatest challenges in this field. As an
anticipated effective means of alleviating the current situation, the environmental perfor31

1. Introduction

1.2.4.4. Stratified structure of a scale of defined areas for assessment
All the assessment tools starting from BREEAM were initially developed to assess officebuildings and/or multi-unit residential buildings. The applicability of several tools such as
BREEAM, LEED and CASBEE gradually expanded so as to perform the assessment on ascale of a district (or local area or neighborhood). (Cole, Brown & McKay, 2010) CASBEE
for Cities, which was released recently, is the only tool enabling city-scale assessment.
(Murakami, et. al., 2011)

1. Introduction / 1.2. Background of CASBEE development

mance assessment incorporated in social/administrative systems has proved appealing
to the world. In Japan, as indicated in Figure 1.2.5, many local governments have madeit mandatory to include the CASBEE assessment result in the application for building
permits. (IBEC, 2013) This way of popularizing green buildings, in cooperation with local
governments regarding the use of building assessment tools, is unique to Japan.
The experts and specialists in the building sector have a great responsibility for
improving the contents or applicability of assessment tools to attain further acknowledgement of the tools, whereby more contributions toward the mitigation of global environmental problems can be made.

Sapporo City: 2007
Niigata City: 2010

Name: Year of adoption

Shizuoka Pref.: 2007
Osaka Pref.: 2006
Osaka City: 2004
Sakai City: 2011
Hyogo Pref.: 2006
Kobe City: 2006
Tottori Pref.: 2010

Saitama Pref.: 2009
Saitama City: 2009

Kitakyushu City: 2007
Kumamoto pref: 2010
Fukuoka City: 2007
Kashiwa City: 2011
Chiba City: 2010
Kanagawa Pref.: 2010
Kawasaki City: 2006
Yokohama City: 2005
Hiroshima City: 2010

Aichi Pref.: 2009
Nagoya City: 2004
Kyoto Pref.: 2006
Kyoto City: 2005

Figure 1.2.5: CASBEE utilization by local governments for new buildings32

1. Introduction
References
BRE (2013) Building Research Establishment (BRE), BREEAM: The World’s Leading Design andAssessment Method for Sustainable Buildings (available at http://www.breeam.org/).Downloaded
December 4th 2013
Cole, R.J., Brown, Z., and McKay, S., (2010) Building Human Agency: A Timely Manifesto, Building
Research & Information 38(3), 339-350.
IBEC (2013) Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation, CASBEE Utilization by
Japanese Local Governments (available at http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/statistics.htm ).
Lovins, A.B., (1979) Soft Energy Paths: Towards a Durable Peace, Japanese version, Jiji Press Ltd.,
Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers J., and Behrens III W.W., (1972) The Limit to Growth: A
Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind, Japanese version, Diamond,Inc.,
Murakami, S., et al., An Introductory Guide to CASBEE, Nikkei Business Publications, Inc., 2004 (inJapanese).
Murakami, S., Kawakubo, S., Asami, Y., Ikaga, T., Yamaguchi, N., and Kaburagi, S., (2011)
Development of a comprehensive city assessment tool: CASBEE-City, Building Research &Information 39(3), 195–210.
RICS (2008) Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), Breaking Vicious Circle of Blame –Making the Business Case for Sustainable Buildings.
von Weizsäcker, E.U., Lovins, A.B., and Lovins, L.H., (1998) Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving
Resource Use, Japanese version, The Energy Conservation Center, Japan.
USGBC (2013) U.S. Green Building Council, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED(http://new.usgbc.org/leed) Downloaded December 4th 2013
WCED (1987) Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford
University Press.

33

1. Introduction / 1.2. Background of CASBEE development<Column-1>

Sustainability and Trust
Martin TOWNSEND,
Director of BREEAM, Building Research Establishment, UK

It is a great privilege to be asked to write a short article to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the launch of CASBEE. In the 10 years since it was created, our knowledge
and awareness, has changed considerably the way in which we design, use andspecify our buildings. Such changes, owes much to the work of the various rating
tools across the world with CASBEE being the important ingredient in the Japanesemarket. But this debate now extends beyond just the envelope of the building, to thecommunity and the supply chain which support it.
However, the choices we make when specifying products and services anddesigning and developing buildings, have major impacts on both the sustainabilityof our projects and their success. In order to make the best choices we need information that we can trust.
It would be very easy to talk about a wide range of current and emerging topics
around green buildings, but one thread spans them all. The need for transparency
and trust, which I feel is worthwhile exploring further in the few short paragraphs of
my contribution.
The increasing demands from regulators and the market for greater sustainability in building developments has, perhaps inevitably, led to a rash of ‘green’ claims
for building products and services. The fact that many of these are not backed up
with any credible scientific data or third-party certification can make selecting themfor use in a development project something of a lottery. Achieving a more sustainable built environment depends on specifiers being able to trust the claims made forbuilding products, systems and services. Providing impartial, authoritative information that the industry can trust is a key element of the work that Japan Sustainable
Building Consortium (JSBC) and BRE do.
Trusted product and services
One way that specifiers can be assured that products and services can be trusted
to perform as claimed, is to select those that have been appropriately certified.
Expert, independent approval and certification schemes will ensure not only thatsustainability claims are substantiated, but also that the products and services
meet performance standards appropriate for their intended use. It is important toremember, however, that there are different degrees of certification offering different levels of assurance.
With first-party certification, for example, it is the organisation providing thegoods that offers the assurance that they meet certain claims. In second-party certification, an association to which the organisation belongs may provide this assurance. But in third-party certification an assessment is carried out by an independent
body – which declares that the product or service will perform as required.

34

Responsible sourcing
Another important and growing issue is the Customer concerns about construction
product sourcing which often extends beyond purely environmental issues. In fact
the responsible sourcing of materials is often in the headlines. A number of exposéshave revealed poor working conditions and in the extraction of raw materials withlittle regard for the environment or the people that live nearby.
The wellbeing of the local workforce is just one of the wide-ranging ethical, environmental and social issues that must be considered throughout the supply-chain
when determining if a product has been responsibly sourced. A number of schemes,such as Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance and Marine Stewardship Council, have been
established to enable specifiers to identify responsibly sourced materials.
Better buildings and developments
There is, of course, more to developing sustainable buildings than specifying appropriately certified building products. A wide range of environmental, economic andsocial issues must be integrated in the design, construction and use of the buildings.
And this is the great space that CASBEE, BREEAM and other rating tools occupy,
to help deal with these complexities. Since its launch CASBEE has expanded fromits original focus on individual new buildings at construction stage, to encompass
many of the life cycle stages of buildings. Providing such a thread to ensure a building can be certified at the various stages of a buildings life, has become an important step change in how we now look at assessment of development.
Sustainability and quality
Along with quantifiable improvements – for example in carbon emissions, resource
consumption, waste reduction – less tangible improvements in quality are increasingly being noted in buildings designed with a strong focus on sustainability.
Achieving the standards required by a scheme such as CASBEE requires careful planning, design, specification and detailing, and a good working relationshipbetween the client and project team. These are also the very qualities that can
produce better buildings and better conditions for building users. The greater effi-

35

1. Introduction

This independent assessment allows third-party certification to objectively distinguish products and services from others on the market, and gives customers
confidence about their performance.
It is also important to distinguish certification from testing. Certification should
ensure that products and services it certifies meet – and continue to meet – appropriate standards, through a robust combination of regular company audits and aschedule of on-going tests. While testing can deliver a valuable measure of a product’s performance at a given time, certification monitors that performance for as
long as the product remains certified.
Whether a product is just tested or fully certified, it must be done against arobust and scientifically based standard. The output of research needs to be usedboth in publications to help industry, consumers and users but also as the basis forsound, technically robust standards. If is often these standards that create the realdifference.

1. Introduction / 1.2. Background of CASBEE development

ciency and quality associated with sustainability are also helping to make suchbuilding more commercially successful. There is growing evidence, for example,
that certified and rated buildings provide increased rates of return for investors, andincreased rental rates and sales premiums for developers and owners.
A study carried out by Maastricht University and published by the RoyalInstitution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) in March 2012, entitled Supply, Demand
and the Value of Green Buildings, provides empirical evidence of the value ofcertified buildings. The study used a sample of office buildings in London, using
data from transactions over the 2000-2009 period and found that these buildings
achieved a premium on transaction prices and on rents.
Looking ahead
By its very nature sustainability is all encompassing – not limited to any particular sets of products, buildings or issues. Our assessment and certification systems
must be widened accordingly if the momentum for greater sustainability in the built
environment is to be maintained.
CASBEE has already been expanded from a scheme able to assess single buildings, to one that can be used on almost any type of building in any location. The
range of issues addressed by the Scheme has also grown, but many more environmental, social and economic aspects need to be considered. The challenge is tobroaden the Scheme without increasing its complexity – expansion must go hand-in
hand with efforts to make assessments more accessible and transparent. The support and feedback from the industry that we have enjoyed to date will be vital in thisprocess.
The eventual goal is to make sustainability mainstream and routine – involving
everybody. We will need to link tools such as CASBEE and BREEAM to BIM and awide range of other databases to allow sustainability information to be quickly andeasily accessed.
We are living in exciting times, and I believe the next 10 years will see even moresignificant change than the past 10, with rating tools enabling the change in thisdebate, but with them changing as well to ensure we make better and quicker decisions on the nature of components, buildings and communities. ◾

36

<Column-2>

LEED and CASBEE:
Transformation in a Global Context
Scot HORST,
1. Introduction

Senior Vice President, LEED, USGBC, USA

Gretchen SWEENEY,
Director, LEED, USGBC, USA

In this century it is becoming clearer than ever that humans are connected everywhere on this planet. The United States and Japan are leading economies, andthe way building occurs in these nations can profoundly impact the methods used
to design and operate buildings in the rest of the world. Voluntary building rating
systems such as CASBEE and LEED help to guide decision-making related to buildings as the global economy becomes increasingly interconnected. Therefore it isessential to learn from each other’s experience and build on each other’s strengths.
In the first decade of the 21st century, the U.S. Green Building Council, a notfor-profit based in the United States, established the Leadership in Energy andEnvironmental Design (LEED) green building rating system and embarked on a path
toward transforming the way people imagine and shape the built environment. The
impact of LEED was more profound. By collecting best practices from the U.S.
design and construction market into one 37-page document, LEED gave people anaccessible tool for realizing their best intentions for their building projects.
Use of LEED began growing quickly in the United States, as did the amount of
information in the rating system and the community of people interested in supporting sustainable building. USGBC soon found that project teams outside theU.S. were starting to use LEED, despite very little marketing or investment effort by
USGBC. From 2007 on, the number of LEED projects outside the U.S. grew at anannual rate of over 50%.
In a global economy, building owners discovered that the best way to attract
investors and tenants from around the world to high-profile commercial buildings
was to achieve LEED certification. But achieving LEED was not a simple task forteams working within a cultural, regulatory or environmental context that LEED did
not address. USGBC started receiving requests from other countries for permission and support to create their own adaptations of LEED.
The result was LEED rating systems specifically adapted for Canada, India, andItaly. However, ensuring that each system was consistent with the principles of
LEED took substantial amounts of time and attention. In 2009, USGBC adopted adifferent approach to international use of LEED based on global consistency. The
new approach re-envisioned LEED as a global benchmark that would allow people
to compare a building in Tokyo to one in New York City.
This approach was not without controversy. Some argued that green buildings
should be measured differently in different parts of the world. But USGBC sought
to create a shared understanding of what it means to achieve a better building. Thismodel also ensured consistency for organizations using LEED in multiple countries,37

1. Introduction / 1.2. Background of CASBEE development

and better supported LEED project teams wherever they worked.
Design Locally, Benchmark Globally
USGBC took a variety of initial steps toward realizing a global system, including
removing U.S-centric approaches to credit achievement in the draft of the newest version of the rating system, LEED v4, and balancing those with approaches
that were applicable around the world. Other steps included introducing theInternational System of Units (SI) into LEED v4, revising sections of the LEED v4
Reference Guides to focus on special considerations for projects outside the U.S.,
and working toward offering LEED credential exams, certification reviews, rating
systems and reference guides in languages other than English.
The next step was to allow for design that was specific to local cultures andgeographies. LEED would use metrics that were consistent around the world whileembracing local solutions. USGBC began seeking the help of carefully selected
experts who could propose new approaches to credit achievement – called
Alternative Compliance Paths (ACPs) – for their regions. The new model would
produce a global set of core LEED rating systems enhanced by ACPs that suited
regional contexts.
ACP development began in earnest in 2012 under the auspices of the LEEDInternational Roundtable, an advisory group of green building councils and organizations that currently represents 30 countries. The Roundtable connects USGBC tolocal professionals who propose equivalent regional or local standards and ACPs.
Roundtable activity started in Europe, where the effort had a head start thanks to
the work done by the Italy Green Building Council (GBC Italia) to identify appropriate
European standards while creating LEED Italia.
The original country-by-country approach positioned LEED as a direct competitor with other local rating system initiatives. This competition stimulated innovation but also created confusion. The best approach appeared to be a hybrid
one. Now USGBC is collaborating with other system developers by establishingcommon metrics and criteria for use in multiple programs. In certain instances, itis working towards mutual recognition of compliance with some of the more challenging requirements. This new approach has unleashed the creativity of professionals everywhere, and directed it towards making LEED useful and transformativein every region. Instead of a frustrating conversation about which country is next inline for their own version of LEED, people all over the world are now improving theimpact of LEED in parallel.
LEED and CASBEE
CASBEE is a set of smart solutions. LEED addresses some of these solutions,but many of them reflect regional priorities, such as CASBEE’s earthquake resistance standards. The community of LEED users has much to learn from CASBEE.
For example, CASBEE specifies Quality of Service standards such as encouraging
spaces for rest and refreshment, and planning interior décor, durable interior building components , and spaces where it is easy to rearrange the layout . The draft
version of CASBEE for Market Promotion takes a collaborative approach similar tothat of LEED, seeking to be compatible with other systems, and to incorporate common metrics.

38

A New Language for a New Era
The nature of the global economy has changed the nature of buildings. In this era,a skyscraper built in Tokyo likely will be very similar to a skyscraper built in New
York City. USGBC has acknowledged this reality by shaping LEED into a global
system, i.e., a common language for project teams around the world. This language
is a starting point for collaboration – it does not express every good idea, nor does
it use every dialect. Instead, the “language of LEED” seeks to embrace the valueof local expressions by creating points of connection with local rating systems andtools. CASBEE offers ideas and context-appropriate solutions that a global systemcannot. Together, LEED, CASBEE and other assessment methods can source anabundance of local expertise while building bridges among people with a shared
resolve to improve their buildings and their lives.◾

References
LEED for Healthcare v2009 includes a credit for places for respite, Sustainable Sites credit
9.1 (Connection to the natural world – places of respite), which the LEED v4 draft includes as
Sustainable Sites credit 7 (Places of respite).
LEED v4 begins to deal with durability of building structure and enclosure via the Materials
and Resources (MR) credit 1 (Building life-cycle impact reduction), Option 4 (whole building
life-cycle assessment).
With LEED v4, the LEED for Interior Design & Construction rating system begins to address
design for adaptability.

39

1. Introduction

USGBC continues to encourage shared learning and collaboration between
CASBEE and LEED. In June 2013, LEED International Roundtable members basedin Japan, China, Taiwan and South Korea began the work of identifying ACPs for
LEED 2009 for new construction in East Asia. This is just the first step toward collaborating with Japan and its neighbors. We anticipate finding new ways for LEED
to recognize project teams when they accomplish certain requirements in CASBEE.
We may also find common criteria, and better align our understanding of the best
ways to build sustainably.

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

2.1. R&D structure: Academia + Industry + Governments (supported by MLIT)
2.2. Cross-scale classification from a single home to a whole city
2.3. Time-process classification according to the life-stage of built environment
2.4. Virtual enclosed space boundary
2.5. From Eco-Efficiency to Built Environment Efficiency (BEE)
2.6. Unique rating index: Built Environment Efficiency (BEE)
2.7. Graphic indication system of the rating results for dissemination
2.8. Input operation and output results<Column-3> Assessment Systems and LCCO2

A decade of Development and Applicationof an Environmental Assessment System
for the Built Environment

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

2.1. R&D structure:
Academy + Industry + Governments(supported by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport & Tourism: MLIT)

Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) is amethod for evaluating and rating the environmental performance of buildings and the built
environment. It is a comprehensive assessment of the quality of a building, evaluating
features such as interior comfort and scenic aesthetics, in consideration of environment
practices that include using materials and equipment that save energy or achieve smaller
environmental loads. The CASBEE assessment is ranked in five grades: Superior (S), Very
Good (A), Good (B+), Slightly Poor (B-) and Poor (C).
CASBEE was developed by a research committee established in 2001 as part of a
joint industrial/government/academic project. The first assessment tool, CASBEE for
Office, was completed in 2002, followed by CASBEE for New Construction in July 2003,
CASBEE for Existing Building in July 2004 and CASBEE for Renovation in July 2005. The
CASBEE assessment tools were developed on the basis of the following three principles:[1] Comprehensive assessment throughout the life cycle of the building,[2] Assessment of the Built Environment Quality and Built Environment Load and[3] Assessment based on the newly developed Built Environment Efficiency (BEE) indicator.

Industry

PeopleGovernments

Academia

Figure 2.1.1: Organizational Composition of JSBC

42

2.2. Space-scale classificationfrom a single home to a whole city

CASBEE is comprised of assessment tools tailored to different scales: construction(houses and buildings), urban (town development) and city management. These tools arecollectively known as the CASBEE Family (see, Chapter 3).

(Housing & Building scale)

CASBEE-Housing(Urban scale)
CASBEE-Urban
Development(City scale)
CASBEE-City

Figure 2.2.1: Stratified structure of a scale of defined areas for CASBEE assessment

As shown in figure 2.2.1, CASBEE-Housing and CASBEE-Building are applied for individual houses and buildings to assess their environmental performance. CASBEE-Urban
Development is used to evaluate environmental performance of urban blocks and town
development. CASBEE-City evaluates environmental performance on a local government
scale. These are assessed based on BEE indicators by CASBEE.

43

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

CASBEE-Building2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

2.3. Time-process classification according
to the life-stage of the built environment
CASBEE was developed in the suite of architectural design processes, starting from thepre-design stage and continuing through design and post design stages as shown below.

Pre-design
This is the stage at which the preconditions that form the background to the plan,such as natural, social, cultural and business environment, are subjected to a
multi-faceted, three-dimensional investigation and analysis. In the process, theparties involved identify design themes and build shared concepts and policies.

DesignThe concept and policies distilled in the pre-design stage are examined further atthe design stage to define their ecological, technical, social, cultural, esthetic andeconomic aspects. The design also passes through a self-evaluation process at
this stage to integrate the design as best practice.

Post-design
When a design that has been integrated through the design stage is put into
practice, it is subjected to an overall verification followed by ongoing retrospective
verification through its life cycle, to evaluate sustainability. The results of theverification are constantly reflected in improvements to the implemented designand concept.

Figure 2.3.1: The cyclical process of building design

Corresponding to the building lifecycle, CASBEE is composed of four assessment tools
for building scale: CASBEE for Pre-design, CASBEE for New Construction, CASBEE for
Existing Buildings and CASBEE for Renovation, and to serve at each stage of the design
process.

44Design
New
Construction

Buildinglife cycle

Planning

Preliminary
designExecution
designConstruction
completion

CASBEE for
Pre-design,

Pre-design
assessment ofbuilding planning,site selection etc.

Post-design
Renovation
Operation

Construction

Pre-design

DesignDesign Process

Operation

CASBEE for
New Construction

CASBEE for
Existing Building

CASBEE for
Renovation

Assessment of
new construction (Assessment of design
specification
and anticipatedperformance)

Labeling

Labeling

Assessment ofexisting buildings(Evaluate theactual specificationand performancerealized at the timeof assessment)

Assessment ofexisting buildings(Evaluate theactual specification and performance realized at
the time of assessment)

Labeling
Assessment of renovation (Evaluate improvement of specificationand performance)

Figure 2.3.2: Four tools of CASBEE for building scale corresponding to the building lifecycle

45

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

Labeling

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

2.4. Virtual enclosed space boundary

The development of CASBEE started from the perception that the above situation required
the reconstruction of the current environmental performance assessment framework into
a new system clearly based on the perspective of sustainability. Therefore, a virtual
enclosed space bounded by the borders of the building site, as shown in Figure 2.4.1, is
proposed here in making environmental assessments of buildings. The on-site spacebounded by these virtual boundaries can be controlled by the parties involved in thebuilding, including the owner and planner, but the space beyond is public (non-private)space, which is largely beyond control.
The environmental load can thus be defined as “the negative environmental impactthat extends outside to the public environment beyond the virtual enclosed space.” The
improvement of environmental performance within the virtual enclosed space is definedas “the improvement in living amenities for building users.” Dealing with both factors,
environmental assessment clearly defines these two factors, and distinguishes one fromthe other as defined by BEE in Equation 1 of the following section. This makes the philosophy of assessment of CASBEE much clearer, and it has been used to form the framework for CASBEE, and it is the basis of the CASBEE framework.

Virtual Enclosed
Space Boundary

Resource
consumption,
embodied CO2
emission, etc.

Neighboring
Building

Emission of
air pollutants,noise, heat, etc.

Neighboring
Building

Site boundary

Figure 2.4.1: Virtual enclosed space set out by the site boundary46

2.5. From Eco-efficiency
to Built Environment Efficiency (BEE)

Definition of the environmental efficiency:

Definition of the environmental efficiency
in building assessment:

Definition in the CASBEE
assessment:

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

The concept of eco-efficiency has been introduced for CASBEE to enable the integrated
assessment of two factors: inside and outside the building site. Eco-Efficiency is normallydefined as “Value of products and services per unit environmental load.”* Efficiency iscommonly defined in terms of input and output quantities, so a new model can be proposed for an expanded definition of eco-efficiency, as “(beneficial output)/(input + nonbeneficial output).” As Figure 2.5.1 shows, this new model of environment efficiency canbe extended to define Built Environment Efficiency (BEE), which CASBEE uses as its
assessment indicator.

Economic value of products and services
Environmental load unit

Productive output
Input + non-productive output

Environmental quality of the building
Environmental load of the building

Figure 2.5.1: Development from the Eco-efficiency concept to BEE* From the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)

47

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

2.6. Unique rating index:
Built Environment Efficiency (BEE)

2.6.1. Assessment category: Q (Quality) & L (Load)
Under CASBEE, there are two spaces: internal and external, divided by the virtual
enclosed space boundary, which is defined by the site boundary and other elements, with
two factors related to the two spaces. Thus, we have put forward CASBEE in which the“negative aspects of environmental impact which go beyond the virtual enclosed space
to the outside (the public property)” and “improving living amenity for the building users”
are considered side by side. Under CASBEE, these two factors are defined below as Q
and L, the main assessment categories, and evaluated separately.
Q (Quality): Built Environment Quality :Evaluates “improvement in living amenity for the building users, within the virtual enclosed
space (the private property).”
L (Load): Built Environment Load:
Evaluates “negative aspects of environmental impact which go beyond the virtual
enclosed space to the outside (the public property).”

Inside the boundary
evaluated by
Q: Built Environment
Quality
Resource
consumption,
embodied CO2
emission, etc.

Neighboring
Building

Virtual Enclosed
Space Boundary

Outside the boundary
evaluated by
L: Built Environment
Load

Emission of
air pollutants,noise, heat, etc.

Neighboring
Building

Site boundary

Figure 2.6.1: Division of the assessment categories for Q: Built Environment Quality and L:
Built Environment Load based on the virtual enclosed space boundary48

(1) Energy efficiency(2) Resource efficiency(3) Local environment(4) Indoor environment(Approx. 90 sub-items in total)

Recategorizedinto
Q (Quality)andL (Load)

Q1 Indoor environment
Q2 Quality of service
Q3 Outdoor environment

Numeratorof BEE

L1 Energy
L2 Resources and materials
L3 Off-site environment

Denominatorof BEE

Figure 2.6.2: Classification and rearrangement of assessment items into Q (Built environment quality) and L (Built environment load)

2.6.2. BEE=Q/L
As explained above, BEE (Built Environment Efficiency), using Q and L as the two assessment categories, is the core concept of CASBEE. BEE, as used here, is an indicator calculated from Q (Built environment quality) as the numerator and L (Built environment load)as the denominator.
Built Environment Efficiency (BEE) =Q (Built environment quality)
L (Built environment load)<Equation 1>

The use of BEE enabled simpler and clearer presentation of building environmental performance assessment results. BEE values are represented on the graph by plotting L on
the x axis and Q on the y axis. The BEE value assessment result is expressed as thegradient of the straight line passing through the origin (0,0). The higher the Q value and thelower the L value, the steeper the gradient and the more sustainable the building is. Using
this approach, it becomes possible to graphically present the results of built environment
assessments using areas bounded by these gradients. The figure shows how the assessment results for buildings can be ranked on a diagram as rank C (poor), rank B-, rank B+,
rank A, and rank S (excellent), in order of increasing BEE value.

49

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

CASBEE covers the following four assessment fields: (1) Energy efficiency (2) Resource
efficiency (3) Local environment (4) Indoor environment. These four fields are largely thesame as the target fields for the existing assessment tools described above in Japan andabroad, but they do not necessarily represent the same concepts, so it is difficult to deal
with them on the same basis. Therefore, the assessment categories contained withinthese four fields had to be examined and reorganized. As a result, the assessment categories were classified as shown in Figure 2.6.2 into BEE numerator Q (Built environment
quality) and BEE denominator L (Built environment load). Q is further divided into three
items for assessment: Q1 Indoor environment, Q2 Quality of service and Q3 Outdoor
environment on site. Similarly, L is divided into L1 Energy, L2 Resources and Materials
and L3 Off-site Environment.

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE / 2.6. Unique rating index: Built Environment Efficiency (BEE)

BEE=3.0100

Q: Built Environment Quality

S

BEE=1.5

A

BEE=1.0

B+: Ordinary buildingB-: Sustainable building
BEE=0.5

50

C
0
0

50

100

L: Built Environment Load
Figure 2.6.3: Environmental labeling based on Built Environment Efficiency (BEE)

2.6.3. Excluded aspects from the CASBEE assessment items
CASBEE is a comprehensive tool originally focused on evaluating the environmental performance of buildings. Therefore, it is not intended to evaluate all aspects of building
performance and quality. In particular, specialized assessment systems already exist forfields such as aesthetic and economic performance, so they are excluded from consideration by CASBEE.
1) Aesthetic aspect
CASBEE emphasizes living amenity and working convenience for building users as the
key aspects of the environmental quality of buildings. Scenic consideration in matterssuch as building position, form and exterior materials, and efforts to adapt to regional
character are considered here, but we have decided not to evaluate aesthetic design
characteristics, such as building beauty, which are difficult to evaluate objectively.
2) Cost and profitability aspects
CASBEE is intended to be an assessment tool applicable to a wide range of building
types in both the public and private sectors. As such we have decided that assessmentof cost-effectiveness should be left for building owners to judge according to their individual business situations. The market value of the completed building, the profitability ofbusiness conducted in the building and other aspects less related to global environmental
problems play a large part in the project client’s judgment of how much to invest in
improving a building’s environmental performance.
CASBEE serves as an indicator for considering the “best balance of quality and theenvironment,” based on the assumption of broadly economic buildings, and its assessment items include social perspectives such as consideration for regional character.

50

2.7. Graphic indication system of
the rating results for dissemination

Built Environment Efficiency (BEE), which is calculated from the assessment results of Q
(Built Environment Quality) and L (Built Environment Load), is shown here. The values for
Q and L are derived from SQ (the total score for the Q categories) and SLR (the total score
for the LR categories). First the numerator Q is defined as Q = 25(SQ-1) to convert the SQ(from 1 to 5) for the built environment quality into the Q scale of 0 to 100. Then the denominator L is defined as L = 25(5-SLR) to convert the SLR (from 1 to 5) for load reduction into
the L scale of 0 to 100.
BEE is presented as a graph with Q on the Y axis and L on the X axis, so that BEE isthe gradient of the line joining the point with coordinates equal to the Q and L values tothe origin (Q = 0, L = 0). The higher the Q value and the lower the L value, the steeper thegradient and the more sustainable the building is. CASBEE labels buildings with an overall environmental performance assessment rating ranging from C through B-, B+, A andS, corresponding to areas divided according to the line gradient. The ranks correspond to
the assessment expressions shown in Figure 2.7.1 and Table 2.7.1, using a number of stars
for clarity.

2-1 Built Environment Efficiency (BEE Ranking Chart)

BEE = 1.7

Q:Built Environment Quality

★

S

A

B+
B-

C

L: Built Environment Load

Figure 2.7.1: BEE Chart51

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

2.7.1. BEE chart

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE / 2.7. Graphic indication system of the rating results for dissemination

Table 2.7.1: BEE Ranking according to the BEE value in CASBEE
Ranks

Valuation

BEE value, etc.

Indication

S

Excellent

BEE = 3.0 or more and Q = 50 or moreVery Good

BEE = 1.5-3.0
BEE = 3.0 or more and Q is less than 50



B+

Good

BEE = 1.0-1.5



B-

Fairy Poor

BEE = 0.5-1.0



C

Poor

BEE = less than 0.5

A

2.7.2. Radar Chart of 6 major categories
The points for the six major categories from Q1 to LR3 are shown together in a radar chart(Figure 2.7.2) on the upper right of the second column, to give an immediate clear presentation of the characteristics of environmental considerations in the target building.

2-3 Assessment
resultsﾚofｰ Major
大項目の評価（ﾀ ﾞｰ ﾁ categoriesｬｰ ﾄ） (radar chart)
Q2 Quality of Service
Q1
IndoorEnvironment

Q3 Outdoor
Environment
On-SiteLR3
Off-Site
Environment

LR1
EnergyLR2Resources& Materials

Figure 2.7.2: Rader Chart of 6 major categories

2.7.3. LCCO2 emission bar chart (for housing and building scale)
Lifecycle CO2 is presented as a global warming impact chart in CASBEE for housing andbuildings.
Since 2008, CASBEE has included LCCO2 assessment, which evaluates CO2 emissions during the entire building life cycle from construction and operation to demolitionand disposal. A new “Standard Calculation” method automatically provides a simplified
estimation of LCCO2 based on data already entered in a CASBEE spreadsheet. The feature is especially beneficial to assessors who are not familiar with the LCCO2 evaluation.
Additionally, the “Individual Calculation” method can be selected for buildings with more
extensive CO2 reduction measures.
In the 2010 edition, LCCO2 performance is indicated more precisely by awarding 1 to
5 green stars based on LCCO2 emissions together with the existing BEE assessment (e.g.,
S: 5 red stars). Specifically, the emissions rate (%) for the assessment target is evaluatedrelative to the LCCO2 emission level of a reference building (one that satisfies evaluation
standards for building owners according to the Energy Conservation Law).
52

The reference values and LCCO2 for the evaluated building are indicated on a bar
chart. The emission rate (%) for the assessment subject is displayed, relative to the reference value of LCCO2 emission as 100%.

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

1. Reference value (LCCO2 emissions of a standard building that satisfies the standard forbuilding owners as referred to in the Energy Conservation Law)
2. LCCO2 emissions of subject building: assessment of building-related initiatives (e.g.,energy efficiency improvement, use of ecological materials and extended building lifespan)
3. Assessment of above initiatives + other on-site measures (e.g., on-site solar power
generation)
4. Assessment of above initiatives + off-site measures (e.g., procurement of green power
certificates and carbon credits)

2-2
CO 2 (Global
Warming Impact ）Chart )
2-2 Lifecycle
ライフサイクルC
O (温暖化影響チャート☆☆☆☆☆ 60% ☆☆☆☆ 80%: ☆☆☆

: ☆☆ Over
100%超
110% : ☆

Construction
Repair/Upgrade/Demolition
Operation
Standard
建設
修繕・更新・解体
運用
オン サイ ト オフサイ ト
標
準 計Calculation
算On-siteOff-site①参照値
1.
Reference value100%

2. Building-related②建築物の取組み
initiatives
3. Above initiatives③上記+②以外の+ other on-site
オンサイト手法
measures4.
Above initiatives④上記++ other off-site
オフサイト手法
measures

86%
79%
79%
2
(kg-CO（ kg-CO/年・m）
2/year m )このグラフは、中の「地球温暖化への配慮」の内容を、一般
The building'sLR3
LCCO2
emissions are assessed under LR3的な建物（参照値）と比べたライフサイクル
CO2 排出量の目安
Consideration of Global Warming with relation
to thereference building.
で示したものです

Figure 2.7.3: LCCO2 emission bar chart53

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE / 2.7. Graphic indication system of the rating results for dissemination

2.7.4. Bar charts of credits
Assessment results for Q (Environmental quality) are presented as a bar chart per
medium-level categories on the upper column for each major category. And the assessment results for LR (Environmental load reduction) are presented likewise.
Figure 2.7.4 shows an assessment result for CASBEE–Building presenting assessment results of Q1 Indoor Environment, Q2 Quality of Service and Q3 Outdoor Environmenton Site on the upper column, and R1 Energy, LR2 Resources and Materials and LR3 Offsite Environment on the lower column.
2-4 Assessment results of Medium-level categories (bar chart)
Q Environmental Quality
Q1 Indoor Environment
Score of Q1 = 3.6
54

Q Score =Q2 Quality of Service
Score of Q2 = 3.0
5
4

4.1

4
4.0

3.7

3

3

3.4

3.5

3.0
2

1

2.6

1
ThermalComfortLighting &Illumination

Air Quality

LR Environmental Load Reduction
LR1 Energy
Score of LR1 = 4.1
5Service
Ability

3.5

3
2.9

2

Noise &
Acoustics

3.4

Q3 Outdoor Environment on Site
Score of Q3 = 3.4
5

Durability
Reliability &Flexibility& Adaptability

3.0
2
1

Preservation& Creation of
BiotopeTownscape &LandscapeLR Score =LR2 Resources & Materials
Score of LR2 = 3.2
5

Local
Characteristics &3.6

LR3 Off-site Environment
Score of LR3 = 3.4
5

5.0
4
3

4

4

4.5
3.5

3.5

3

3.4

2.7

2

2

1

1
Building
ThermalLoadNaturalEnergyUtilizatio

Efficiency in
Building Service
SystemEfficientOperation
System

Water
Resources

Reduction of
Non Renewable
Material use

Figure 2.7.4: Bar charts of credits

54

3

3.4

1/1

Materials
with Low
Health

3.8

3.5
3.0

2
1
GlobalWarming

Local
environment

Surrounding
Environmen

2.8. Input operation & output results

CASBEE has been developed to allow simple data entry from general-purpose spreadsheet software for various usage of assessment results. This section explains CASBEE
assessment software of CASBEE for New Construction as an example to present a basic
assessment process of CASBEE in practice.
There are the Main Sheet and Score Entry Sheet for data entry and the Score Sheetand Assessment Results Sheet for output. The basic information on the building (building
type, floor area, etc.), necessary for assessment, is entered on the Main Sheet. The scoring criteria for the building under assessment are presented on the Score Entry Sheet,and the scoring results for each assessment item are input with reference to criteria. The
Energy Calculation Sheet for data input for the LR1 Energy assessment, and theConsideration Record Sheet for detailed statements and the Emission Coefficient Sheetfor LCCO2 assessment are also available.
Input Items
Main Sheet

Score Entry Sheet- Building information (type, floor space, etc.)- Scoring results (Q1-LR3)- Five Assessment levels (1-5)

Energy Calculation
Sheet (LR1)- Data from existing energy-saving plans or housing
performance assessments (details in LR1Score Entry
Sheet)

Emission Coefficient
Sheet- Emissions coefficient applied for standard LCCO2
calculation

Consideration
Record Sheet- Description of the building’s environmental
considerations

Weighting Coefficient
Sheet- Type-specific weighting coefficient databasefor score calculation

CO2 Database Sheet- Type-specific CO2 database for LCCO2
calculation

Output items
LCCO2 Calculation
Sheet
LCCO2 Calculation
Conditions Sheet

Score Sheet

Assessment Results
Sheet- Simplified LCCO2 calculation process- Reference for LR3.1 Consideration of Global Warming- Assessment criteria for LCCO2 calculation- Scores and weighting coefficients for each assessment
item- Overall scores per category- Graphic representation of results- BEE calculation/red-star ranking- Graphic representation/green-star ranking of estimated
LCCO2 values- Environmental design concept

Figure 2.8.1: Assessment Sheet Overview

55

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

2.8.1. Composition of the Assessment Tools

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE / 2.8. Input operation & output results

2.8.2. Input process
2.8.2.1 Main Sheet
Figure 2.8.2 shows the Main Sheet. The Main Sheet is the sheet where the assessor
makes the first input. Enter the information necessary for the assessment, such as basic
information on the subject building (name, type, size, etc.). For the assessment of residential-type buildings, enter the floor area ratio between <Entire Building and Common
Properties> and <Residential and Accommodation Sections>.

Figure 2.8.2: Main Sheet screen (date entry example)

56

The basic information entered in the Main Sheet is transferred to the Assessment Results
Sheet.
Enter the average occupancy and the annual occupancy time where possible. These
are for reference only and do not directly affect the CASBEE assessment.
Table 2.8.1: Entry items for Main sheet of CASBEE for New Construction
ExampleEntry item

Example(squre meter)

Building Name

XX building

Total floor area *Location/Climate

XX city, XX pref.

Building type

Office, school, apartment

Area/Zone

Commercial area

(Building type) *3

City hall, college

Regional Category

Area category V *1

Number of floor+XXF

Completion

2011.12Structure

S

Site area(square meter)

Average(number of people)(square meter)

Annual occupancy time(in hours)(hours)Construction area

2

*1 Select the regional category from among six regions (I to VI) in the Appendix Table I Evaluation Standards
for Clients and Owners of Specified Buildings Concerning Rational Use of Energy in Housing (Ministryof Economy, Trade and Industry/Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, 2009 DirectiveNo.1). This is only applicable to apartments.
*2 Total floor area is automatically entered as the sum of the previously entered floor space in all usage
areas.
*3 Building type is automatically entered from the types selected in the column for the usage-specific floorarea, based on the CASBEE building-type categories. More specific information on the building typecan be entered in the additional Building Type column above (optional).

2.8.2.2. Score Entry Sheet
The Score Entry Sheet is where the assessor records the actual scores, evaluating gradesof level 1-5 for each assessment item on the sheet, according to the stated assessment
criteria. There are individual Score Entry Sheets for each assessment category, Q1 to 3
and LR1 to 3.
1 Sonic Environment
1.1 Noise
1.1.1 Indoor Background Noise Level
Entire building and common properties

Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.50
Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.50

Level 3.0
Level 1
Level 2
■Level3
Level 4
Level 5Sch(Elementary/JuniHal
or High/High Schools)
40< [Background60< [Backgroundnoise level]
noise level]
50< [Background(No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level) (No corresponding level)
noise level] =<60
45< [Background40< [Background50< [Background35< [Background45< [Backgroundnoise level] =<50
noise level] =<45
noise level] =<55
noise level] =<40
noise level] =<50
40< [Background35< [Background45< [Background30< [Background35< [Backgroundnoise level] =<45
noise level] =<40
noise level] =<50
noise level] =<35
noise level] =<45
[Background noise[Background noise[Background noise[Background noise[Background noiselevel] =<40level] =<35level] =<45level] =<30
level] =<35
Sch(Universities,
Off, Hsp(Waiting
Rtl, Rst
Room), Htl, Apt, Fct etc.), Hsp(Examining
50< [Background45< [Background55< [Backgroundnoise level]
noise level]
noise level]

Residential and Accommodation Sections
Weighting coefficients(default)= 0.00
Level 3.0

Hsp, Htl, Apt

Level 145< [Background noiselevel]

Level 2
■Level3
Level 4
Level 5(No corresponding level)
40< [Background noiselevel] =<45
35< [Background noiselevel] =<40
[Background noise level]=<35

Figure 2.8.3: Score Entry Sheet

57

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

Entry item

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE / 2.8. Input operation & output results

Table 2.8.2: Entry items for Score Sheet of CASBEE for New Construction
Element

Description

Scoring

Choose level 1-5 from pull-down menu.

Scoring Criteria

Display assessment criteria for each item.

Efforts to be evaluated

A scoring method used for some items. Points which should beconsidered for the environment are listed, and can be selected
for scoring.

Weighting coefficients (default)

Displays weighting coefficients stipulated for the application(cannot be altered)As shown in Figure 2.8.3, Score Entry Sheet displays a list of scoring criteria for eachbuilding type, and the assessor should assign points accordingly. The scoring criteria of“Entire Building and Common Properties” should be scored for all types in common.
However, for residential building, the scoring criteria of “Residential and Accomodation
Sections” should be scored as well.
Scoring criteria are set for levels 1-5, and the number for the level (e.g., “3” for level 3)
should be chosen from the pull-down menu in the assessment column. If it is not possible
to apply the scoring criteria as they stand, due to individual conditions in the target building, “Exclude” can be selected for some assessment items (items which can be excluded
are listed in the commentary in the manual). If “Exclude” is selected, the excluded scoring
items are assigned a weighting of “0” unless otherwise specified, and distributed according to the weighting of other scoring items.
When evaluating a building complex, enter the average of the levels (points) for all
applicable building types, weighted for relative floor areas of each. Obtain the areaweighted average for each assessment item, and select the corresponding values fromthe pull-down list in the Score Entry Sheet. The averaged results are rounded to the nearest whole integer. For a more detailed assessment, the weighted averages in decimal
form can be manually entered in the corresponding columns.
2.8.2.3. Consideration Record Sheet
State measurements considered in the Design for Environment, so that it is easy for athird party to gain an overview of environmental considerations in the evaluated building.
The content of such statements is indicated in “3. Design consideration” in the Assessment
Results Sheet. Make statements (free content) in each space for General, Q1-LR3 andOther in the Consideration Record Sheet. State the concept of the building as a whole in
the General space, and make any statements related to assessment items in the relevant
columns Q1-LR3. Use the Other column to describe other environment-oriented efforts
not evaluated under Q1-LR3.

58

2.8.2.4. Emissions Coefficient Sheet
Select the appropriate CO2 emissions coefficient for electricity use specific to the assessment objective. The assessment software for the 2010 edition allows use of the mostrecent actual emissions coefficient and alternative values. These values are based on
Article 2-4 of the Ordinance on Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Business
Activities of Specified Emitters. The assessor may also choose and apply other appropriate emissions coefficients (optional). Figure 2.8.4 Emission Coefficient Sheet shows thecoefficient selection form for electricity use.

Emissions Coefficient

Emissions coefficient for electricity use (standard calculation)
Name of PPS
Coefficient
t-CO 2/kWh

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE(1) Using a designated emissions coefficient:
PPS/Reasons, etc.
Coefficient(t-CO 2/kWh)(2) Using a coefficient based on the calculation method for greenhouse gas
emissions as referred to in the Basic Law for Prevention of Global
Warming:
A: Electricity supplied by general and specified power producers/suppliers(PPS)
Name of PPS
Coefficient(t-CO 2/kWh )B: Other:
PPS/Reasons, etc.

Coefficient(t-CO 2/kWh )C: Alternative coefficient value
Reasons, etc.
Alternative value

Coefficient(t-CO 2/kWh )(3) Other:
PPS/Reasons, etc.

Coefficient(t-CO2/kWh)

CO 2 Emission Coefficient per PPS published in 2008
Coefficient per PPS and alternative value based on Ordinance on Calculationsof Greenhouse Gas Emissions[1] Actual emissions coefficient
Hokkaido Electric Power Co., Inc.
Tohoku Electric Power Co., Inc.
Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc.
Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc.
Hokuriku Electric Power Co., Inc.
Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc.
Chugoku Electric Power Co., Inc.
Shikoku Electric Power Co., Inc.
Kyushu Electric Power Co., Inc.
Okinawa Electric Power Co., Inc.
eREX Co., Ltd.
Eneserve Corp.
Ennet Corp.
F-Power Co., Ltd.
Oji Paper Co., Ltd.
Summit Energy Corp.
GTF Green Power Co., Ltd.
Showa Shell Sekiyu K.K.
Nippon Steel Engineering Co., Ltd.
Nippon Oil Corporation
Diamond Power Corp.
Japan Wind Development Co., Ltd.
Panasonic Corp.
Marubeni Corp.
[2] Alternative value
Alternative value

0.000588
0.000469
0.000418
0.000455
0.000550
0.000355
0.000674
0.000378
0.000374
0.000946
0.000462
0.000422
0.000436
0.000352
0.000444
0.000505
0.000767
0.000809
0.000759
0.000433
0.000482
0.000000
0.000679
0.000501 (t-CO 2/kWh)
0.000561 (t-CO 2/kWh)Figure 2.8.4: Emissions Coefficient Sheet

59

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE / 2.8. Input operation & output results

2.8.3. Output results
2.8.3.1. Life Cycle CO2 Calculation Sheet
Figure 2.8.5 shows the Life Cycle CO2 (LCCO2) calculation sheet. The sheet displays theautomatic calculation process for LCCO2 (the standard calculation) based on data enteredin the Score Entry Sheet and the Energy Calculation Sheet.
Under each category of the building’s life cycle stages (i.e., construction, maintenance/upgrade/demolition and operation), the reference value (for a building rated as level
3 in all assessment categories except Energy and equivalent to the evaluation standard
for building owners as specified in the Energy Conservation Law) and the CO2 emissions
for the subject building are displayed in kg-CO2/year-m2.

CASBEE for New Construction (2010 Edition)
xx Building

Manual: CASBEE for New Construction (2010 Edition)
Software: CASBEE-nc_2010(v.1.5)

Life Cycle CO2 Calculation Sheet (Standard Calculation)
1. CO 2 Emissions Related to Construction
1-1. Conversion of Assessment Results to CO 2 Emissions
Q2 2.2.1 Service Life of Structural Materials
OfficeSchoolRetailer
Restaurant
Hall
Factory
Hospital
Hotel
Apartment

Area/Total Floor Area
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

StructureLR2 2.2 Use of Existing Structural Frame
LR2 2.3 Recycled Materials for Structural Components (Blast Furnace Cement)

Level 3
13.57
10.21
16.07
16.07
10.93
18.12
10.36
10.88
15.88

kg-CO 2/year mLevel 4
Level 5
13.57
13.57
10.21
10.21
16.07
16.07
16.07
16.07
10.93
10.93
18.12
18.12
10.36
10.36
10.88
10.88
8.04
5.45

2

Reference2
kg-CO 2/year m
Score Results CO 2 Emissions
3.0
13.61
3.0
10.24
3.0
16.13
3.0
16.13
3.0
10.96
3.0
18.18
3.0
10.39
3.0
10.92
3.0
15.93

S
0
5

0
0

1-2. Total

13.57

2. CO 2 Emissions Related to Maintenance & Demolition
2-1. Conversion of Assessment Results to CO 2 Emissions
Q2 2.2.1 Service Life of Structural Materials

OfficeSchoolRetailer
Restaurant
Hall
Factory
Hospital
Hotel
Apartment

2

Area/Total Floor Area
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

Level 3
20.23
16.68
12.20
12.20
17.39
13.62
20.24
18.11
13.58

13.61

2

kg-CO2/year m
kg-CO2/year mLevel 4
Level 5
Score Results CO 2 Emissions
20.23
20.23
3.0
20.23
16.68
16.68
3.0
16.68
12.20
12.20
3.0
12.20
12.20
12.20
3.0
12.20
17.39
17.39
3.0
17.39
13.62
13.62
3.0
13.62
20.24
20.24
3.0
20.24
18.11
18.11
3.0
18.11
14.94
16.22
3.0
13.58

2-2 Total

2

kg-CO2/year m
Score Results CO 2 Emissions
3.0
20.23
3.0
16.68
3.0
12.20
3.0
12.20
3.0
17.39
3.0
13.62
3.0
20.24
3.0
18.11
3.0
13.58

20.23

3-2 Above initiatives + other on-site measures (3)Solar Power Generation

20.23

kg-CO2/year m 2
68.21

3. CO 2 Emissions Related to Operation Energy
3-1 Building-related Initiatives (2)KWh/year
110,000

Emission
Coefficient Reduction
0.418 45,980.00

4. LCCO 2 Calculation (Standard Calculation)
Construction
Maintenance & Demolition
Operation
Total

Figure 2.8.5: LCCO2 Calculation Sheet (output example)

60

Target2
kg-CO 2/year m
Score Results CO 2 Emissions
3.0
13.57
3.0
10.21
3.0
16.07
3.0
16.07
3.0
10.93
3.0
18.12
3.0
10.36
3.0
10.88
3.0
15.88

Reference Value (1)kg-CO2/year m 2
85.09

59.70
8.51
kg-CO2/year m
CO 2 Emissions
13.57
20.23
59.70
93.49

2

kg-CO2/year m
CO 2 Emissions
13.61
20.23
85.09
118.932

61

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

2.8.3.2. Score Sheet
The Score Sheet is shown in Figures 2.8.6 and 2.8.7. The Score Sheet tabulates the results
entered in the Score Entry Sheet. The corresponding weighting coefficients are applied tothe score for each item, and the weighted values are combined. All scores, the total ofeach category from Q1 to Q3 (SQ1 to SQ3) and from LR1 to LR3 (SLR1 to SLR3), thecombined total of all categories under Q (SQ) and the combined total of all categories
under LR (SLR) are displayed automatically.
If the building under assessment is a residential-type building, the Score Sheet presents score results for <Entire Building and Common Properties> and for <Residential
and Accommodation Sections> in parallel. The results are calculated as a weighted average according to the ratio of floor areas for each section to produce a score for the building as a whole. The scores weighted on a pro-rata basis entered in ratio of <Residential
and Accommodation Sections> under building outline entry on the Main Sheet are displayed in the “Total” column as the final score for the evaluated building.
In the “Summary of Environmental Conscious Efforts in Design” column, state thespecific details of the efforts on which the score is based, particularly for when over 3
points (level 3) is awarded.

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE / 2.8. Input operation & output results

CASBEE for New Construction (2010 Edition)enter figures and comments.

XX building

Execution design stage

Score Sheet
Concerned items

Summary of environmentally conscious efforts indesignManual :CASBEE for New Construction (2010 Edition)

software :CASBEE-NCe_2010(v.1.0)

Entire Building and Common
Properties

Score

w eighting
coefficientsScore

w eighting
coefficients

3.0

0.15

-

-

3.0

0.40

-

-

3.0

0.50

3.0

-

3.0

0.50

-

3.0

0.40

-

-

3.0

0.60

3.0

-

3.0

0.40

3.0

-

Q Environmental Quality of the building

Q1 Indoor Environment
1 Sonic Environment
1.1 Noise
1
2

Background noise level
Equipment noise

1Sound Insulation of Openings
2
Sound Insulation of Partition Walls
3 Sound Insulation Performance of Floor Slabs (light-weight impact source)
4 Sound Insulation Performance of Floor Slabs (heavy-weight impact source)
1.3 Sound Absorption

1
Room Temperature setting
Variable Loads and Following-up Control
2
3
Perimeter Performance4
Zoned Control
5Temperature and Humidity Control
6
Individual Control
7
Allowance for After-hours Air Conditioning
8
Monitoring Systems
2.2 Humidity Control

2.3 Type of Air Conditioning System
3 Lighting & Illumination
3.1 Daylighting

1
Daylight Factor
2
Openings by Orientation
3
Daylight Devices
3.2 Anti-glare Measures
1
Glare from Light Fixtures
2
Daylight Control
3
Reflection Control
3.3 Illuminance Level

3.0

At 25 degree in summer, 22 degree in winter
Double skin

Floor vented system

3.0

-

-

3.0

-

3.0

0.20

3.0

-

4.1

0.35

-

4.0

0.50

-

-

5.0

0.30

3.0

-

-

3.0

-

-

-

5.0

0.20

3.0

-

3.0

0.30

-

-

3.0

0.10

3.0

-

-

-

3.0

-

3.0

0.10

-

-

3.0

-

-

-

3.0

0.20

3.0

-

5.0

0.30

3.0

-

3.6

0.25

-

5.0

0.30

-

-

5.0

0.60

3.0

-

-

-

3.0

-

Light shelf

5.0

0.40

3.0

-

3.0

0.30

-

-

3.0

0.40

3.0

-

3.0

0.60

3.0

-

3.0

0.15

3.0

-

3.0

0.25

3.0

-

4 Air Quality
4.1 Source Control

3.4

0.25

-

3.0

0.50

-

-

1
2
3
4

3.0

0.33

3.0

-

Chemical Pollutants
Asbestos
Mites, Mold etc
Legionella

-

3.0

-

-

-

3.0

0.33

3.0

-

3.0

0.33

3.0

-

4.2 Ventilation

3.0

0.30

-

-

1
2
3
4

3.0

0.25

3.0

-

3.0

0.25

3.0

-

3.0

0.25

3.0

-

3.0

0.25

3.0

-

Ventilation Rate
Natural Ventilation Performance
Consideration for Outside Air Intake
Air Supply Planning

5.0

0.20

-

-

1

CO2 Monitoring

CO2 monitoring system

5.0

0.50

-

-

2

Control of Smoking

Smoking prohibited in the building

5.0

0.50

-

-

1
2
3

Provision of Space & Storage
Use of Advanced Information System
Barrier-free Planning

0.30

-

-

3.0

-

-

3.5

3.6

0.40

-

-

0.33

3.0

-

4.0

0.33

3.0

-

4.0

0.33

-

1.2 Amenity

4.0

0.30

-

-

1
2
3

3.0

0.33

3.0

-

Provision of space for refreshment

5.0

0.33

-

-

Mockup verification

4.0

0.33

-

-

3.0

0.30

-

-

Design Which Considers Maintenance Management

3.0

0.50

-

-

Securing Maintenance Management Functions

3.0

0.50

-

-

2.9

0.31

-

-

3.2

0.48

-

-

3.0

0.80

-

-

4.0

1.3 Maintenance Management

2 Durability & Reliability
2.1 Earthquake Resistance
Earthquake-resistanceVibration Damping Systems

1
2
3
4
5
6

-

0.20

-

-

3.0

0.33

-

-

Service Life of Structural Frame Materials

3.0

0.23

-

-

Necessary Refurbishment Interval for Exterior Finishes

3.0

0.23

-

-

Necessary Renew al Interval for Main Interior Finishes

3.0

0.09

-

-

Necessary Replacement Interval for Air Conditioning and Ventilation Ducts

3.0

0.08

-

-

Necessary Renewal Interval for HVAC and Water Supply and Drainage Pipes

3.0

0.15

-

-

Necessary Renewal Interval for Major Equipment and Services

Seismic Isolation & Vibration Damping Systems

2.2 Service Life of Components

3.0

0.23

-

-

2.4 Reliability

2.2

0.19

-

-

1
2
3
4
5

1.0

0.20

-

-

1.0

0.20

-

-

3.0

0.20

-

-

3.0

0.20

-

-

3.0

0.20

-

-

HVAC System
Water Supply & Drainage
Electrical Equipment
Support Method of Machines & Ducts
Communications & IT Equipment

Figure 2.8.6: Score Sheet (output example 1/2)

3.4

0.40

3.0

1
2

3.6

－

Mobiilty guidance standards

1
2

4.1

3.5

Power supply 40VA/m2 or higher

Perceived Spaciousness & Access to View
Space for Refreshment
Décor Planning

3.0

3.0

Q2 Quality of Service
1 Service Ability
1.1 Functionality & Usability

62

-

3.0

-

3.6

-

25%

3.4 Lighting Controllability

4.3 Operation Plan

Total

3.4

0.40

1.2 Sound Insulation

2 Thermal Comfort
2.1 Room Temperature Control

Residential andAccomodation sections

2.9

1
2

2.6

0.29

3.0

0.31

-

-

3.0

0.60

3.0

-

3.0

0.40

3.0

-

3.0

0.31

3.0

-

2.0

0.38

-

-

Ease of Air Conditioning Duct Renewal

2.0

0.17

-

-

Ease of Water Supply and Drain Pipe Renew al

2.0

0.17

-

-

Ease of Electrical Wiring Renewal
Ease of Communications Cable Renewal
Ease of Equipment Renewal
Provision of Backup Space

1.0

0.11

-

-

3.0

0.11

-

-

1.0

0.22

-

3.0

0.22

-

-

－

0.30

-

-

3.4

4.0

0.30

-

-

4.0

3.0

0.40

-

-

3.0

3.5

0.30

-

-

3.5

-

-

-

-

Allowance for Floor-to-floor Height
Adaptability of Floor Layout

3.2 Floor Load Margin
3.3 System Renewability
1
2
3
4
5
6

Q3 Outdoor Environment on Site
1 Conservation & Creation of Biotope
2 Townscape & Landscape
3 Local Characteristics & Outdoor Amenity
3.1 Attention to Local Charcter & Improvement of Comfort
3.2 Improvement of the Thermal Environment on Site

Biotope1
2

Rainwater Use System
Gray Water Reuse System

4.0

0.50

－

-

-

-

－
3.5

0.40

-

-

PAL=270 MJ/yr-m2

4.1

0.30

-

-

3.5

3.0

0.20

-

-

5.0

3.0

-

-

-

3.0

-

-

-

4.5

0.30

-

-

4.5

3.5

0.20

-

-

3.5

4.0

0.50

-

-

3.0

0.50

-

-

－
3.4

0.30

-

-

3.2

0.15

-

-

3.4

3.0

0.40

-

-

3.6

0.60

-

-

4.0

0.67

-

-

3.0

0.33

-

-

3.4

0.63

-

-

3.0

0.07

-

-

3.0

0.24

-

-

5.0

0.20

-

-

3.0

0.20

-

-

3.0

0.05

-

-

3.0

0.24

-

-

2.7

0.22

-

-

3.0

0.32

-

-

2.6

0.68

-

-

2.0

0.33

-

-

3.0

0.33

-

3.0

0.33

-

-

－
3.8

0.30

-

-

3.4

0.33

-

-

3.8

3.5

0.33

-

-

3.5

3.0

0.25

-

-

4.0

0.50

-

-

3.0

0.25

-

-

3.0

0.33

-

-

3.0
3.0

0.33
0.33
0.33
0.40

-

-

1.00

-

-

ERR=17.1
Introduction of BEMS

Rainwater use system

Energy saving efforts

Planting on site

1
Reduction of Rainwater Discharge Loads
2
Sewage Load Suppression
3
Traffic Load Control
4
Waste Treatment Loads
3 Consideration of Surrounding Environment
3.1 Noise, Vibration & Odor
1
Noise
2
Vibration
3Odor

3.2 Wind Damage & Daylight Obstruction

3.0
3.0
3.0
-

-

-

-

0.40

-

-

0.70

3.0
3.0

-

3

Restriction of Daylight Obstruction

3.0

0.30

3.4

2.7

3.0

-

-

Restriction of Wind Damage
Sand and Dust

3.3 Light Pollution

-

3.6

-

3.0

1
2

1
2

-

3.0

Fire RetardantFoaming Agents (Insulation Materials, etc.)
Refrigerants

LR3 Off-site Environment
1 Consideration of Global Warming
2 Consideration of Local Environment
2.1 Air Pollution
2.2 Heat Island Effect
2.3 Load on Local Infrastructure

2.6

Planting on site

2 Reducing Usage of Non-renewable Resources
2.1 Reducing Usage of Materials
2.2 Continuing Use of Existing Structural Frame etc.
2.3 Use of Recycled Materials as Structural Frame Materials Blast fumace cement (concret)
2.4 Use of Recycled Materials as Non-structural Materials －2.5 Timber from Sustainable Forestry
2.6 Efforts to Enhance the Reusability of Components and Materials
3 Avoiding the Use of Materials with Pollutant Content
3.1 Use of Materials without Harmful Substances
3.2 Elimination of CFCs and Halons
1
2
3

-

0.50

LR Environmental Load Reduction of the building

LR1 Energy
1 Building Thermal Load
2 Natural Energy Utilization
2.1 Dirct Use of Natural Energy
2.2 Converted Use of Renewable Energy
3 Efficiency in Building Service System
4 Efficient Operation
4.1 Monitoring
4.2 Operation & Management System
LR2 Resources & Materials
Water
Resources1
1.1 Water Saving
1.2 Rainwater & Grey water

-

-

3.0

0.20

Outdoor Illumination and Light that Spills from Interiors

3.0

0.70

-

Measures for Reflected Solar Glare from Building Walls

3.0

0.30

-

-

-

Figure 2.8.7: Score Sheet (output example 2/2)

63

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

3 Flexibility & Adaptability
3.1 Spatial Margin2. Basic Concept of CASBEE / 2.8. Input operation & output results

2.8.3.3. Assessment Results Sheet
The Assessment Results Sheet is shown in Figure 2.8.8. The assessment results of Q
(Environmental Quality of the building), LR (Environmental Load Reduction of the building), BEE (Building Environmental Efficiency) and LCCO2 emission rates are shown ingraph and numerical formats.

Figure 2.8.8: Assessment Result Sheet of CASBEE-NC (2010 edition) / Output example

64

<Column-3>

Assessment Systems and LCCO2
Towards an integration of LCCO2 into
the environmental performance assessment
Thomas LÜTZKENDORF,

The way of approaching the design, implementation and management of buildings
can have a significant impact on sustainable development. In doing so, the buildings
affect the health and comfort of their users on the one hand and contribute with theirurban design solutions to the quality of the built environment on the other hand.
Thereby, they affect the quality of life, satisfaction and productivity of people. Thenagain, buildings cause significant energy and mass flows across their life cycle,
leading to the depletion of resources and adverse effects on the environment.
Therefore, already during the planning phase it is important to ensure that a highquality of use can be achieved with a minimum consumption of resources and reasonable effects on the environment.
To support the planning process tools are required that can describe and assess
both the benefits and loads related to the building. Figure C3.1 presents a systematic approach developed by the author.

1 as part of economic performance (and whole life cost WLC)

Figure C3.1: Concept of performance measurement and cost-benefit assessment[Lützkendorf]

Through the development and application of assessment tools, building optimization during the design phase can be achieved and the result of this assessment canbe signaled at the time of completion of the building to third parties. Among others,65

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

Professor, Karlsruhe Institute Technology, Germany2. Basic Concept of CASBEE / 2.8. Input operation & output results

this has a positive effect on motivating the investors, who are therefore enabled, if
they wish to demonstrate their responsible business practices regarding the environment and society.
In Japan, 10 years ago a tool was developed and has been successfully useduntil now that fulfills this task; the Comprehensive Assessment System for Built
Environment Efficiency (CASBEE). As the world’s first and unique assessment system, it compares consistently the benefit categories (environmental quality of thebuilding) with the load categories and the possibilities of its reduction (Environmentalload reduction of the building). Therewith, the optimization task of securing andmaximizing the building quality while minimizing resources consumption and environmental load, which is to be solved during the design, is represented and supported in an especially appropriate manner. In addition to that, for the task ofdescription, evaluation and optimization of the built environment efficiency an excellent tool is made available. Since the environmental quality of the building affects
the quality of life and satisfaction of the users, at the same time some aspects of thesocial dimension of sustainability are taken into account. A connection to the economic dimension is made beyond the actual system through a division of labor andan information exchange with the valuation (property appraisal) – see also section
3.4.1 in this book.
In recent years, the requirements in regard to the description and assessment of
the environmental performance of buildings have evolved. A transition from a predominantly qualitative to a predominantly quantitative approach took place thattakes into account the full life cycle and includes results of a life cycle assessment.
Internationally led standards such as ISO 21931-1:2010 Sustainability in building
construction – Framework for methods of assessment of the environmental performance of construction works – Part 1: Buildings and ISO 21929-1:2011 Sustainability
in building construction – Sustainability indicators – Part 1: Framework for the development of indicators and a core set of indicators for buildings formulate requirements for assessing the environmental performance and provide criteria to be used.
At the same time the assessment of the environmental performance was integrated
into the sustainability assessment.
The developers of CASBEE have responded quickly to these new requirements.
Already in 2008, a simplified method for evaluating LCCO2 was introduced. This
makes it possible to determine the CO2 emissions in the life cycle of the building,resulting from the construction, maintenance, demolition and operation and toassess them by comparing them with a reference building. Through the preparationand publication of a calculation method, tool and database conditions for the calculation of LCCO2 were created.
With the introduction of an LCCO2 calculation the possibilities of CASBEE haveonce again been extended. On the one hand, the effects on the environment – here
the contribution to global warming – can now be integrated into the assessment ofenvironmental impact and improve the quality of the statement. On the other hand,
the result of the determination and assessment of LCCO2 can be presented separately. Thus, with this an important precondition is fulfilled, which is to show the66

The requirements regarding the quality of construction work continue to increase.
This also impacts the required tools for planning and assessment. Also, after a successful 10-year period, new questions are being posed to CASBEE. For example,
can a transition from an environmental performance assessment to a sustainability
assessment be achieved? Should the determination of LCCO2 be translated into anassessment of GWP? Can other impact categories such as ODP or ADP be integrated? The research project SuPerBuildungs (http://cic.vtt.fi/superbuildings/) was
developed with the support of the author’s recommendations for the further development of existing assessment systems.
The author of this article has for many years been in close contact with thedevelopers and users of CASBEE. The further development of the CASBEE and
BNB/DGNB systems, which are used in Japan and Germany, respectively, allows
the continuous exchange of ideas as well as collegial-level cooperation.◾

67

2. Basic Concept of CASBEE

carbon footprint of the building throughout its life cycle. This topic is currently connected with the development of the future ISO14067 greenhouse gases – the carbon
footprint of products – requirements and guidelines for quantification and communication that are intensively discussed and attract considerable attention in the realestate industry. The developers of CASBEE made with the elaboration of low-carbon performance, which was introduced in 2010, is a major step in this direction.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

3.1. Overall Structure
3.2. CASBEE for Housing
3.3. CASBEE for Buildings
3.4. CASBEE for Market Promotion (CASBEE-MP)<Column-4> Sustainable assessment as a tool for translating sustainability
features into value<Column-5> Linkage between environmental performance assessment
and property appraisal
3.5. CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD)
3.6. CASBEE for Cities (CASBEE-City)<Column-6> Towards Green Cities
3.7. CASBEE Connector to BIM

A decade of Development and Applicationof an Environmental Assessment System
for the Built Environment

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

3.1. Overall Structure
CASBEE is comprised of assessment tools tailored to different scales: construction(housing and buildings), urban (town development) and city management. These tools arecollectively known as the CASBEE Family.

Figure 3.1.1: Overall Structure of CASBEE Family

3.1.1 For housing scale
3.1.1.1. CASBEE for Home (Detached House)
1) CASBEE for New Detached House
This tool is used to assess the environmental performance of detached houses. The scoring criteria are simplified in anticipation of use by residents or small- and medium-sizedbuilding contractors.
CASBEE for New Detached Houses was developed in 2007. There are various stakeholders in the housing construction industry such as clients, architects, contractors, andbuilders. Therefore, “CASBEE for New Detached Houses” especially focuses on making
its structure easy for users to understand. Among CASBEE tools, CASBEE for New
Detached Houses was the first to introduce a new indicator of the five BEE ranks using thecorresponding number of stars, in addition to the BEE chart. It includes 54 sub-criteriathat have been modified from the other standards in Japan. These items for comprehensive assessment cover not only the house itself but also the outdoor space of the house,home appliances, information provided to the occupants from house suppliers, and theenvironmental strategies at the material production and construction stages.

702) CASBEE for Existing Detached Houses
This is a tool for the assessment of existing detached houses. It was developed to enable
a resident, an architect, etc., to check the environmental performance of the house inwhich the resident is living, and to perform effective renovations.
3.1.1.2. CASBEE for Housing Unit
This assessment tool is for a unit in an apartment building.
It was developed as a tool that can be utilized when trading or renting a unit and bywhich the environmental performance of each unit of the apartment can be evaluated.
3.1.1.3. CASBEE Health Checklist
CASBEE Health Checklist is a type of software used to assess the health of residences.
Answering 50 questions allows residents to identify the aspects of their home that
affect their health. The health ranking is also available for comparing the result with 6,000
other houses across Japan.

3.1.2.1 CASBEE for Buildings
1) Basic CASBEE tools for buildingsa) CASBEE for New Construction (CASBEE-NC)
CASBEE-NC is mainly used by architects and engineers to increase the BEE value ofa building during the design process. This can be used as a design support tool as well
as a self-checklist. This tool, formerly called the DfE (Design for Environment) tool, makes
assessments based on the design specifications and the anticipated performance.
Rebuilding projects are also assessed by CASBEE-NC. At any phase of the Preliminary
Design, Execution Design or Construction Completion, the environmental quality andperformance of the building and its load reduction performance can be evaluated. As
environmental performance and scoring criteria change over time, the results of assessments remain valid only for three years after the completion of construction.
b) CASBEE for Existing Building (CASBEE-EB)
CASBEE-EB targets a number of existing buildings with an operational record for at least
one year after completion. The tool was also developed to be applicable to the asset value
assessment. With this tool, the performance achieved at the time of assessment is evaluated. The result is valid for 5 years and should be updated using the latest version of theassessment tool, because the condition of the building may change over time. It can beused as a labeling tool to declare the environmental performance of buildings. CASBEE-EB
is also utilized to support building maintenance. Building owners, such as real estateagencies and large enterprises, may use it as a self-evaluation tool for mid- to long-term
management plans.
c) CASBEE for Renovation (CASBEE-RN)
CASBEE-RN was designed to evaluate the performance of existing buildings based on
specifications for renovation and the predicted performance. It can be used in renovating
existing buildings or making proposals for building-operation monitoring, commissioning
and upgrade designs with a view to ESCO (Energy Service Company) projects. It is valid
for three years after the completion of renovation work, and assessment should be
repeated with the latest version of CASBEE-RN available. This tool can be used to evalu71

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

3.1.2 For building scale3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.1. Overall Structure

ate the degree of improvement of environmental performance relative to the level preceding renovation. CASBEE-RN may also assess the improvement of specific performance inrelation to the purpose of renovation. For instance, the BEE for energy saving can also be
evaluated; this is determined by scores for the assessment categories especially related
to energy saving renovation, such as Energy (LR1) and Indoor environment (Q1).
2) Brief version
Brief versions of CASBEE tools were developed to meet the growing need for a tool thatcan more easily set goals for BEE and prepare documents for submission to government
agencies. Abridged versions are available for most CASBEE tools, such as CASBEE-NC,
CASBEE-EB, CASBEE-RN and CASBEE-UD.
3) Locally Customized Edition for Municipalities
A flexible response to regional characteristics is a common feature of all the tools of the
CASBEE family. CASBEE-NC (brief version) can be used by local authorities for construction administration. Local authorities using this tool can tailor it to local conditions, suchas climate and prioritized policies. Changes are generally made by modifying the weighting coefficients. Building owners have to report the CASBEE assessment result to the
local authority in the same way as an Energy Saving Plan and the building approval application. This system is introduced to the local authorities as a way to improve the environmental efficiency of buildings in the respective regions. One example is “CASBEENagoya,” which began in April 2004 under the building environmental consideration
system of the City of Nagoya .
4) Derivative Tools for Building Scalea) CASBEE for Temporary Construction (CASBEE-TC)
CASBEE for Temporary Construction was developed as an extension to CASBEE-NC for
evaluating temporary buildings constructed specifically for short-term use, such as expo
pavilions. Buildings of this type have short-term lifecycles and therefore consideration
should concentrate largely on material use and recycling in the construction and demolition phases. The scoring criteria and weighting reflect the features of temporary buildings.
b) CASBEE for Heat Island Relaxation (CASBEE–HI)
Assessment of the heat island effect is essential in major urban areas such as Tokyo andOsaka. CASBEE-HI is a tool aimed for more detailed quantitative assessment of heatisland reduction measures in building design. In CASBEE-HI, the criteria deal with moredetailed conditions in the outdoor thermal environment and heat island load on the surroundings. (These are also addressed in CASBEE-NC.)c) CASBEE for Schools
CASBEE for Schools was developed to assess primary schools and junior high or highschools. In Japan, there are an enormous number of old school facilities built in the 1960s
or earlier waiting for renovation. CASBEE for Schools is designed for use especially at theplanning and operation stages of buildings. Main target users are administrative officers
in charge of the planning of educational facilities. To promote eco-friendly schools,
CASBEE for Schools was modified from the CASBEE abridged versions for easy assessment of the schools.

723.1.2.2 CASBEE for Market Promotion (CASBEE-MP)
Originally, the CASBEE tools were intended mainly for design support use and were notwidely used to promote green buildings in the property market. Recently, UNEP-SBCI,
United Nations Environment Programme - Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative,
proposed global common metrics called “the Sustainable Building Index.” A simple, comparable and compatible system is crucial to decision-making regarding investment ingreen buildings. For investors, it is also necessary to cover the common metrics proposed by UNEP-SBCI. Thus, we decided to have CASBEE tools connected with property
appraisal.
With this in mind, a very simple version of CASBEE was developed and launched inJapan. This tool has two aspects: the evaluation of environmental performance and thedisclosure of environmental performance value (Index). A clear indication of environmental performance value is required in the property market, and it is important to disseminate such ideas.
The five issues, namely energy/GHG, water, materials, biodiversity/sustainable site,
and indoor environment, compose the main categories of the tool, which also includes
five from the Sustainable Building Index. With 21 assessment items in total, each of thefive categories contains the prerequisite item. In regard to energy/GHG, the item “Public
transportation access” is taken into account. “Soil Environmental Quality / Regenerationof Brown Field Sites” and “Measures Regarding Risk of Natural Disaster” contribute tobiodiversity/sustainable site, as assessment items related to the site quality.

1) CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD)
CASBEE-UD covers groups of buildings; it considers the human effort involved andeffects of groups of buildings that improve the environmental performance of an urban
area as a whole. For convenience, CASBEE tools used for housing and buildings arereferred to as “building-scale CASBEE” to distinguish them from CASBEE-UD.
CASBEE-UD is based on the concept of building-scale CASBEE and is one of the
expanded CASBEE tools, developed with reference to the Q3 (Outdoor Environment onSite) and LR3 (Off-site Environment) assessment items of CASBEE-NC. However,
CASBEE-UD is developed for partial or whole groups of buildings and it focuses on thephenomena that can occur as a result of building conglomeration. It is also a standalone
system, independent of the building-scale CASBEE. CASBEE-UD excludes the interior ofbuildings from assessment (although there are exceptions in some assessment items).
Therefore, this configuration makes it possible to use CASBEE-UD to assess a development area as a whole, while building-scale CASBEE assesses the environmental performance of individual buildings within the designated area.
2) CASBEE Community Health Checklist
CASBEE Community Health Checklist is a type of software used to assess the healthiness of communities. The checklist conforms to the assessment system based on theInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) of the World HealthOrganization (WHO). Communities are evaluated from the viewpoints of both “removal offunction-disabling factors” and “sufficiency of encouraging factors for activities and participation.”73

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

3.1.3. For urban scale3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.1. Overall Structure

3.1.4. For city scale
3.1.4.1 CASBEE for Cities
Conducting city assessments and disclosing those results to the public are important for
supporting citizens’ understanding of the actual condition of their city. Such assessment
and disclosure could introduce a market mechanism that can be expected to provide city
governments with strong incentives to improve their city conditions and also recognizethat local policy and strategy can be the most appropriate way to address specific urban
and environmental problems.
CASBEE for Cities is a system for comprehensively evaluating the environmental performance of cities, using a triple bottom-line approach of “environment,” “society” and“economy.” We have developed this new tool with the cooperation of the Promotion
Council of Low Carbon Cities (PCLCC) (Secretary: The Regional Revitalization Bureau of
Cabinet Secretariat). The PCLCC consists of Eco-Model Cities and other local governments, government-related organizations, relevant ministries and agencies, private companies and other bodies in Japan.
CASBEE for Cities measures the current BEE of the city concerned and estimates the
future BEE after the implementation of policies. By comparing the two values, CASBEE
for Cities quantitatively evaluates (estimates) the effectiveness of city policies and presents the results in an easy-to-understand format. We hope this new tool will help administrative officers and other stakeholders to share a common understanding of the current
state of cities and cooperate in setting and pursuing goals in order to create a low-carbon
society.

3.1.5. Supporting Documents other than Assessment Tools
3.1.5.1. CASBEE BIM Guideline
Building Information Modeling (BIM), a three-dimensional digital representation constructed with a link to a database of project information, is one of the most powerful tools
supporting Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). Gradually, it is getting widely used for building design and construction management, and affecting a wide range of job sectors indesign and construction industries.
We have made guidelines for embedding CASBEE in BIM software, which describes
the rules and methods for evaluation of CASBEE in the software. The first product towhich the guidelines were applied was released in 2009. Autodesk Revit Extension for
CASBEE is an extension module for the software, and it can automatically evaluate someassessment items of CASBEE that usually require laborious work from assessors. We
hope that it can make CASBEE an easier and more powerful tool to use in building designand construction industries.
3.1.5.2. CASBEE Property Appraisal Manual
In current transactions in the property market, green buildings ranked high by CASBEE
are not necessarily traded at better prices. This indicates that the assessment itself does
not work as an incentive to promote the construction of green buildings in the market.
One reason for this is that there have been no tools available for bridging the gap between
CASBEE developed in the construction industry and the property appraisal system usedin the property transaction market.
CASBEE Property Appraisal Manual has been developed to cope with this issue. In
short, it is an appraisal support tool to measure the building’s specifications and provisions for eco-friendliness, which affect the property value.
743.1.6. Assessment tools under development
3.1.6.1. CASBEE for Site Selection (CASBEE for Sites)
CASBEE for Sites is a support tool for building owners and planners when making preliminary planning for projects. Taking factors such as basic environmental influences into
consideration, it helps to choose an appropriate site. It is included in CASBEE-MP as an
assessment item for site evaluation.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

3.1.6.2. CASBEE for Commercial Interiors (CASBEE for Tenants)
With regard to the construction areas executed by tenants, CASBEE for Tenants will be
developed as a tool used to assess the environmental performance of the designatedarea in a building.

75

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

3.2. CASBEE for Housing

3.2.1. CASBEE for New Detached Houses
3.2.1.1. Outline of CASBEE for New Detached Houses
1) Objectives of CASBEE for New Detached Houses
Detached houses account for almost half of all the existing residences in Japan andapproximately 500,000 houses are newly constructed every year. If these houses provide
a better living environment, are used over a longer period and are built from the viewpointof energy/resource conservation, the total environmental load on the country can be significantly reduced, simultaneously improving the quality of our residential lifestyle. The
introduction of CASBEE for New Detached Houses is intended to increase the number ofsuch superior houses available across the country.
In order to facilitate further reduction of CO2 emissions from detached houses, stricter
scoring criteria regarding CO2 emissions have been introduced. In addition to the conventional ranking of the comprehensive assessment results, the tool has been equipped witha function to rate the Lifecycle CO2 (LCCO2) performance of detached houses.
2) What to evaluate(1) Comprehensive environmental performance of detached houses
In CASBEE for New Detached Houses, the comprehensive environmental performance of
detached houses is assessed separately from the two different viewpoints of Q (Quality:
environmental quality of a detached house itself) and L (Load: house-induced environmental load on the outside). Either category (Q or L) consists of three sub-categories forassessment, as shown below. Each sub-category is evaluated based on the measurestaken for the respective purpose.
Q (Assessment is conducted to measure how high the Q level is)
Q1: Provide a comfortable, healthy and secure indoor environment
Q2: Able to be used over a long period
Q3: Contribute to the townscape or ecosystem
L (Assessment is conducted to measure LR or environmental load reduction, by evaluating the measures taken for reducing L)
LR1: Conserve energy and water
LR2: Conserve resources and reduce waste
LR3: Contribute to the global, local and surrounding environment
All the sub-categories are assessed to determine the BEE score of a detached house,
which is defined as [Quality of Environment (Q) / Load on Environment (L)]. The comprehensive environmental performance is rated based on the obtained BEE score (red-starranking).
Because the assessment is conducted according to the above sub-categories, having
a high rank in the comprehensive results attained by CASBEE for New Detached Houses
means the house assessed is “a residence which assures comfort, health and security(Q1), is durable for long-term use (Q2), conserves energy and water (LR1), has been76

designed to reduce environmental load, (for example, less waste being produced at theconstruction or demolition stage; LR2), and contributes to the creation of a better local
environment (Q3 and LR3).”
With regard to QH and LH (the subscript H denotes “home,” that is, these Q and L values are the results for detached houses), the spatial zones to be assessed are defined asin Figure 3.2.1.

BEEH =QH (Environmental quality)
LH (Environmental load)

Virtual enclosed space boudary(2) Low-carbon performance for detached houses
In CASBEE for Homes (Detached Houses), which is a forerunner of CASBEE for New
Detached Houses, the LCCO2 assessment besides BEE, etc., was introduced to evaluate
the low-carbon performance of a house throughout its lifecycle starting from construction
through use as a residence until demolition/disposal. The results were displayed in a waythat made it easy for building owners, architects, builders, etc., to understand the levelsof their contribution toward the prevention of climate change.
In 2009, the Japanese Government announced a new target of “25% reduction of CO2
emissions by 2020, compared with the 1990 level,” increasing the importance of dealing
with climate change issues in the country. In CASBEE for New Detached Houses, we
reviewed the assessment method in order to encourage more initiatives to be taken forincreased reduction of house-induced CO2 emissions. The ranking based on the LCCO2
assessment results (green-star ranking) has been newly introduced, thus enabling thetool to be used for the labeling of houses with superior low-carbon performance such as
zero energy houses (ZEHs) and life cycle carbon minus (LCCM) houses.
3) Assessment principles
In CASBEE for New Detached Houses, the environmental performance of detachedhouses is assessed “comprehensively.” Therefore, houses with a good balance in handling various relevant issues are ranked higher than those specializing in measuresagainst a specific problem. There is no intention to deny the effect of focusing on selectedissues, but we emphasize the importance of boosting environmental measures in general.
The subjects of CASBEE for New Detached Houses include not only the houses themselves, but also outdoor facilities, residents’ choice of home appliances, the information
provided to residents from house suppliers, maintenance plans or systems, and environmental strategies at the architectural components production and construction stages.
Some are difficult for the house supplier to get involved directly in the decision-making
process, but are nonetheless included for assessment as it is our principle to evaluate
77

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Figure 3.2.1: Defined space boundary for the assessment of QH and LH

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housing

everything that can potentially have a considerable influence on the environment.
4) System for improved reliability of assessment results
Anyone can conduct the environmental performance assessment of detached houses
using CASBEE for New Detached Houses. It therefore can be referred to as an assessment on a voluntary basis. However, the reliability of assessment results becomes crucial
when they are presented and explained to other parties such as house buyers. As supporting systems to improve reliability, the “Accredited Professional for housing Registration
system” and the “Certification System for Housing” have been established.
3.2.1.2. Assessment system of CASBEE for New Detached Houses
1) Basic assessment structure(1) Comprehensive assessment of environmental performance(1-1) Scoring of assessment items
In CASBEE for New Detached Houses, the comprehensive assessment of environmental
performance of detached houses is conducted by separately evaluating Q (living environment quality in the house) and L (house-induced environmental load on the outside).
Either category (Q or L) consists of three sub-categories called Major Items. Each “Major
Item” employs a hierarchical system for more detailed categorization, which is comprisedof one to three levels (Middle Items, Minor Items, and Scoring Items, respectively). The
total number of 54 assessment items, all of which are assigned to the respective detailed
categories, are marked in a range of one to five (the five being full scores). The scoresattained from each level of hierarchy are separately processed to indicate which categories are handled well or poorly.
(1-2) Calculation of the BEEH score
The scoring results are further processed separately for QH and LH, and their final score istaken as points out of 100.
In CASBEE for New Detached Houses, any house with higher (points of) QH and lower(points of) LH is valued highly. In assessment, this correlation between QH and LH is indicated by the ratio given below (i.e., BEEH). Therefore, the results of comprehensive environmental assessment are interpreted according to the level of the BEEH score.
Built environment efficiency by CASBEE for New Detached Houses[*The subscript H of BEEH, QH and LH represents “home,” indicating these are assessment
results of “Detached Houses” in the CASBEE family.]
BEEH = QH/LH
BEEH : Built environment efficiency of the house
QH: Quality of living environment of the house
LH: House-induced load on the environment
When being plotted with QH on the Y-axis and LH on the X-axis, the BEEH score falls upona point on the straight line with the slope of QH/LH crossing the origin of the coordinate.

78

(1-3) Ranking according to the BEEH score
Based on the obtained BEEH score, the rank of the detached house concerned is indicated by one of the five levels ranging from the highest “S (with five red stars)” down to
the lowest “C (with a single red star).” The results are displayed using the proprietary
software. Although these ranks with red stars are basically determined by the slope of
BEEH lines, the QH score has to reach at least 50 points to be ranked S. Figure 3.2.2 gives
an example of an S-rank house (five red stars) with the BEEH score being 3.7.
The assessment using the BEEH scores is characterized by the results reflecting thecorrelation between QH and LH, that is, with the doubled QH and the halved LH, the BEEH
score quadruples.
For example, if less energy is used for heating and cooling, resulting in reduced environmental load but simultaneously leading to living in hot or cold conditions, the qualityof the living environment will be degraded. The assessment result therefore is not sogood. On the other hand, improved energy efficiency without compromising amenities or
improved amenities without an increase in energy consumption can yield a better assessment result. Finally, better amenities with improved energy efficiency are valued evenhigher in this assessment system.
(2) Assessment of low-carbon performance(2-1) Estimation of LCCO2 emissions
When the assessment is conducted using CASBEE for New Detached Houses, CO2 emissions throughout the house lifecycle consisting of construction, operation, repair, upgradeand demolition are also estimated as a measure against climate change, in addition to the
BEEH score. Whereas there are 54 assessment items in total, the scores attained fromthose related to house lifespan and energy conservation are automatically used for calculation. The result is compared with the “reference value,” that is, the LCCO2 emissions ofa typical house being ranked Level 3 in all the relevant items, and is expressed as a percentage of the reference value (called the “emissions rate”) to show how well the issue isaddressed.

79

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Figure 3.2.2: An example of how to rate the BEEH score

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housing(2-2) Ranking according to the LCCO2 performance
Based on the obtained emissions rate, the house concerned is assigned to one of the fiveranks with the corresponding number of green stars. Below are the specific criteria used
for the ranking according to the emissions rate.

Table 3.2.1: Ranking system based on the LCCO2 emissions rate
Emissions rate

How to interpret from a low-carbon performance perspective

Rank

Above 100%

Not energy efficient☆
(1 green star)

100% or below≈ Generally acceptable, based on the current standards☆☆
(2 green stars)

75% or below≈ As good as actively taking initiatives for house/facility energy
saving, improved durability, etc.

☆☆☆
(3 green stars)

50% or below≈ As good as initiating general-scale photovoltaic power☆☆☆☆
generation, plus taking most initiatives for house/facility energy(4 green stars)
saving, improved durability, etc.

0% or below≈ As good as initiating large-scale photovoltaic power generation, etc., (can be achieved, for example, by LCCM houses)☆☆☆☆☆
(5 green stars)

2-2 Lifecycle CO2 (Global Warming Impact Chart)≥ 0%:★★★★★, ≥ 50%:★★★★, ≥ 75%:★★★, ≥ 100%:★★, 100% < :★

Standard calculation for detached houses
Construction,
On-site,Repair/upgrade/demolition,
Off-siteOccupancy,① Reference value

100%
85%

② Architectural initiatives③ Above initiatives +other on-site methods④ Above initiatives +off-site methods

73%
73%
0

20
(kg-CO2/year·m2)

40

The bars show an estimate of LCCO2 emissions in relation to thatof typical houses (reference value), based on the scores obtained
from the relevant assessment items (LR3, Consideration for
Global Warming).

Figure 3.2.3: An example of ranking results based on the LCCO2 emissions rate(2-3) How to read the LCCO2 results (Global Warming Impact Chart)
As shown in Figure 3.2.3, the LCCO2 assessment results are indicated by a bar chart(Global Warming Impact Chart) with four discrete categories described below. The resultof “④” (i.e., ③+ off-site methods ) is used to determine the LCCO2 performance rank
(green-star ranking).
80

① Reference value: Emission levels at three stages of typical houses (i.e., “construction,”“repair/upgrade/demolition,” and “occupancy”) amount to the LCCO2 emissions.
② Architectural initiatives: Based on the architectural initiatives taken for the house concerned (to achieve a long life and improved energy efficiency), LCCO2 emissions are estimated according to the three stages of “construction,” “repair/upgrade/demolition” and“occupancy.”③ ② + other on-site methods: In addition to ②, the effects of other on-site methods suchas photovoltaic power generation are included in the estimation.
④ ③ + off-site methods: The effects of off-site methods such as purchased carbon credits and Renewable Electricity Certificates are included in the estimation.

b. Off-site methods
As a measure against climate change, carbon offsetting through means of obtaining
Renewable Electricity Certificates, carbon credits, etc., has been promoted. Use of thesemeans can not be necessarily associated with the house or on-site environmental performance, but is nonetheless a valuable action to take for Japan’s commitment to mitigatingclimate change and should be encouraged. In the 2010 edition, therefore, these initiatives
taken outside the premises (off-site) are defined as “off-site methods” and are also
included in the LCCO2 assessment. Specifically, such carbon offsetting means include
the acquisition of Renewable Electricity Certificates or carbon credits by the owner/resident of a house, as well as the acquisition of carbon credits by the company that supplies
power to the house.
(2-5) LCCO2 “standard” and “independent” calculations for detached houses
In CASBEE for New Detached Houses, there are two options available for estimating
LCCO2 emissions: “standard calculation” in which LCCO2 emissions are automaticallyestimated by the assessment software and “independent calculation” in which the assessors themselves perform the estimation.
a. Standard calculation for detached houses
Based on the scores attained from the relevant assessment items, LCCO2 emissions areautomatically calculated by the assessment software to evaluate the LCCO2 performance.
The LCCO2 performance results obtained by the standard calculation for detachedhouses are used to determine the BEEH score, because the same assessment conditions
have to be maintained. Therefore, the results obtained by the independent calculation are
not usable for this purpose.
In the standard calculation, the effect of reduced CO2 emissions owing to off-site methods is not counted. The result given in “④” (i.e., ③ + off-site methods) is the same as “③”(i.e., ②+ other on-site methods) and therefore, the green-star ranking excludes the effect81

3. CASBEE Family of Tools(2-4) What are on-site and off-site methods?
a. On-site methods
In the 2010 edition, the effect of reduced impact due to photovoltaic power generation
systems is assessed separately from the other on-site low-carbon initiatives taken for ahouse itself such as the realization of better thermal insulation and the installation ofenergy-saving facilities.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housingof off-site methods. This is because the off-site methods are not commonly taken for
detached houses at present and for most users of CASBEE for New Detached Houses it
is difficult to set the calculation conditions and interpret the result.
b. Independent calculation for detached houses
Without use of the assessment software, the assessors themselves perform the LCCO2
estimation by other methods available such as life-cycle assessment (LCA) and input theresults for the assessment of LCCO2 performance.
However, the BEEH score does not reflect these results. Even if the option for independent calculation is selected, the BEEH score is calculated using the “standard calculation” results obtained through the automatic estimation by the assessment software.
In the independent calculation, the effect of reduced CO2 emissions owing to off-sitemethods can be counted and be also included for the green-star ranking result.
Table 3.2.2: Summary of “standard calculation” and “independent calculation” for detachedhouses82

Standard calculation

Independent calculation

Calculation
methodUsing the scores attained from the
LCCO2-related assessment items, theassessment software automaticallyconducts the estimation to assess the
LCCO2 performance.

Without use of the assessment software,
the assessors themselves conduct theestimation by other methods available
such as LCA and input the results toassess the LCCO2 performance.

The effectof off-sitemethods

The effect of off-site methods is notcounted. Therefore, the same results
are shown in “③” (i.e., ② + other onsite methods) and “④” (i.e., ③ + off-sitemethods).

The effect of off-site methods can becounted. It therefore is included for the
calculation to obtain the result shown in“④” (i.e., ③ + off-site methods).

The BEEH(red star)rank

The result of “③” (i.e., ② + other on-sitemethods) is used to determine the rank.

Despite the option for “independentcalculation” being selected, the BEE
score is determined based on the resultof “③” (i.e., ② + other on-site methods)
obtained through automatic estimationby the assessment software.

The LCCO2(green star)rank

The result of “④” (i.e., ③ + off-sitemethods) is used to determine the rank.
However, as the result used is the sameas “③” (i.e., ② + other on-site methods),
the effect of off-site methods is notincluded for the assessment.

The result of “④” (i.e., ③ + off-sitemethods) is used to determine the rank.
Therefore, the effect of off-site methods
is included for the assessment.

2-2 Lifecycle CO2 (Global Warming Impact Chart)

2-2 Lifecycle CO2 (Global Warming Impact Chart)≥ 0%:★★★★★, ≥ 50%:★★★★, ≥ 75%:★★★, ≥ 100%:★★, 100% < :★

≥ 0%:★★★★★, ≥ 50%:★★★★, ≥ 75%:★★★, ≥ 100%:★★, 100% < :★

Standard calculation

Independent calculation for detached houses

Construction
Repair/upgrade/demolition
Use as residence

On-siteOff-site

Construction
Repair/upgrade/demolition
Use as residence

On-siteOff-site① Reference value

100%① Reference value

100%② Architectural initiatives③ Above initiatives +other on-site methods④ Above initiatives +off-site methods

85%② Architectural
initiatives③ ②+ other on-sitemethods④ ③ + off-sitemethods

85%

54%
54%
0

20
(kg-CO2/year·m2)

40

54%
48%
0

20
(kg-CO2/year·m2)

40

The bars show an estimate of LCCO2 emissions in relation to thatof typical houses (reference value), based on the scores obtained
from the relevant assessment items (LR3, Consideration for
Global Warming).

The bars show an estimate of LCCO2 emissions in relation to thatof typical houses (reference value), based on the results obtainedby the assessors (independent calculation). Please see the “CO2Calculation Conditions Sheet” for details such as the calculation
conditions of LCCO2.

[Standard calculation][Independent calculation]2) Assessment items(1) Conceptual foundation for scoring criteria
As mentioned earlier, CASBEE for New Detached Houses is characterized by the separate assessment of QH and LH and the subsequent use of these QH and LH values to determine the BEEH score as the final indicator. The first step to evaluate LH is to conduct theassessment in terms of LRH (Load Reduction), that is, how much reduction of houseinduced environmental load can be achieved. This is because, as a performance assessment system of houses, it is easier to understand when “the improved QH and LRH values”
are associated with better results, rather than “the improved QH value and the reduced LH
value” are considered better. Based on this concept, the result of each assessment item
for QH and LRH is expressed by one of the five levels (ranging from Level 5 down to Level
1) according to how well the issue concerned is addressed. Those assigned to higher
levels attain higher scores. (In some assessment items, however, the two-, three- or fourlevel scale may be applied.)
Below is the conceptual foundation adopted when establishing the scoring criteria.
As an indicator of levels for scoring, typical detached houses currently constructed inJapan are basically assigned to Level 3.
However, Level 3 requires measures to be taken against some special issues, forwhich we think more public awareness is necessary, even if these are considered relatively advanced at present.
Assuming the minimum requirement for earning a score is “to comply with the BuildingStandard Law,” the lowest level that can be assigned is determined accordingly (forexample, if Levels 2 to 5 should be assigned to earn a score, Level 2 is set as the lowest
level), and lower levels are not created because of their lack of legality.
Similarly, with regard to the frequently-cited “Japanese Housing Performance
Indication Standard,” its grades are also assigned to the scoring levels in such a way thattypical detached houses are evaluated as Level 3.
83

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Figure 3.2.4: Difference between the global impact charts obtained by “standard” and“independent” calculations for new detached houses3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housing

Therefore, commonly constructed houses get Level 3 in almost all the assessment
results and their BEEH score approximates 1. Based on this concept, if the average levelsof detached houses in Japan are improved in the future, the scoring criteria of CASBEE
for New Detached Houses will also become stricter accordingly.
The calculation of BEEH after obtaining the levels for scoring can be easily performed
using the aforementioned assessment software.
(2) Contents of assessment items
The three Major Items of either QH or LRH are as follows:
QH1 is devoted to the assessment regarding the “comfortable, healthy and secure indoor
environment.” The measures taken are assessed in terms of “heat and cold,” “health,safety and security,” “brightness,” and “quietness.”
QH2 is devoted to the assessment of the “durability for long-term use.” The measurestaken are assessed in terms of “basic performance for the duration of long-term use,”“maintenance and management,” and “service ability.”
QH3 is devoted to the assessment of “contribution toward the townscape or ecosystem.”
The measures taken are assessed in terms of “consideration for townscape and view,”“creation of biological environment,” “local safety and security,” and “utilization of local
resources and preservation of the architectural/dwelling cultural heritage.”
LRH1 is devoted to the assessment of “energy and water conservation.” The measurestaken are assessed in terms of “energy conservation by means of improvements to thehouse,” “energy conservation by means of improvements to facilities,” “water conservation,” and “improvements to the maintenance, management and operation system.”
LRH2 is devoted to the assessment regarding the “conservation of resources and reduction of waste.” The measures taken are assessed in terms of “use of resource-saving
materials and less waste-producing materials,” “waste reduction at the production/construction stages,” and “recyclability.”
LRH3 is devoted to the assessment of “contribution toward the global, local and surrounding environment.” The measures taken are assessed in terms of “consideration for the
global environment,” “consideration for the local environment,” and “consideration for thesurrounding environment.”
Given below is the list of assessment items.

84

Table 3.2.3: List of assessment items of CASBEE for New Detached Houses*Weighting coefficients are given in angle brackets (< >).
QH1: Provision of comfortable, healthy and secure indoor environment
Medium Item
1. Heat/Cold <0.50>

Minor Item

Scoring Item

1.1 Basic performance <0.50>

1.1.1 Securing/maintaining ofthermal insulation performance<0.65>
1.1.2 Insulation control <0.35>

1.2 Abatement of summer heat
<0.25>

1.2.1 Ventilation and release of
hot air <0.50>
1.2.2 Appropriate cooling system <0.50>

1.3 Abatement of winter cold <0.25>
2. Health, safety andsecurity <0.30>

1.3.1 Appropriate heating system <1.00>

2.1 Measures against chemical pollutants <0.33>
2.2 Appropriate ventilation system<0.33>
2.3 Precautions against crime<0.33>

3. Brightness <0.10>

3.1 Use of daylight <1.00>

4. Quietness <0.10>

QH2: Durability for long-term use
Minor Item

Scoring Item

1.1 Skeleton <0.30>
1.2 External wall materials<0.10>
1.3 Roof materials and flat
roofs <0.10>
1.4 Precautions against natural
disasters <0.30>
1.5 Precautions against fire
<0.20>

2. Maintenance andmanagement <0.25>

1.5.1 Fireproof structure <0.65>
1.5.2 Early detection of fire <0.35>

2.1 Easiness of maintenanceand management <0.65>
2.2 Maintenance/management
plans and system <0.35>

3. Service ability <0.25>

3.1 Room layout and size
<0.50>
3.2 Barrier-free measures<0.50>

85

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Medium Item
1. Basic performance forthe duration of longterm use <0.50>

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housing

QH3: Contribution towards the townscape or ecosystem
Medium Item

Minor Item

Scoring Item

1. Consideration fortownscape and view<0.30>
2. Creation of biologicalenvironment <0.30>

2.1 On-site greening <0.65>
2.2 Securing of natural habitat forliving organisms <0.35>

3. Local safety and security <0.20>
4. Utilization of local
resources and preservation of the architectural/dwelling cultural
heritage <0.20>

LRH1: Energy and water conservation
Medium Item

Minor Item

1. Energy conservation
by means of improvements to the house<0.35>

1.1 Thermal load control <0.50>

2. Energy conservation
by means of improvements to facilities<0.40>

2.1 Air-conditioning systems <0.27>

Scoring Item

1.2 Utilization of natural energy<0.50>
2.1.1 Heating equipment<0.80>
2.1.2 Cooling equipment<0.20>
2.2 Hot-water supply facilities<0.37>

2.2.1 Hot-water suppliers<0.80>
2.2.2 Thermal insulation ofbathtub <0.10>
2.2.3 Hot water-saving equipment and piping system <0.10>

2.3 Lighting, kitchen and household
appliances <0.25>
2.4 Ventilation equipment <0.05>
2.5 Facilities for efficient use ofenergy <0.06>

2.5.1 Home cogeneration system <1.00>
2.5.2 Photovoltaic power generation system86

3. Water conservation<0.15>

3.1 Water-saving facilities <0.75>

4. Improvements to themaintenance, management and operation system <0.10>

4.1 Information about the way of living in a detached house <0.50>

3.2 Use of rainwater <0.25>

4.2 Energy management and control<0.50>

LRH2: Conservation of resources and reduction of waste
Medium Item
1. Use of resourcesaving materials andless waste-producing
materials <0.60>

Minor Item
1.1 Structural frames <0.30>

Scoring Item
1.1.1 Wooden house <->1.1.2 Steel house <->1.1.3 Concrete house <->1.2 Ground reinforcing materials andfoundation work <0.20>
1.3 Exterior materials <0.20>
1.4 Interior materials <0.20>
1.5 Outdoor facility materials <0.10>
2. Waste reduction at the
production/construction stages <0.30>

2.1 Production stage (structural
frame materials) <0.33>
2.2 Production stage (other materials) <0.33>
2.3 Construction stage <0.33>

3. Recyclability <0.10>

3.1 Provision of information onmaterials used <1.00>

LRH3: Contribution towards the global, local and surrounding environment
Medium Item

Minor Item

1. Consideration for the
global environment<0.33>

1.1 Consideration for global warming <1.00>

2. Consideration for the
local environment<0.33>

2.1 Reduction of load on the local
infrastructure <0.50>

3. Consideration for thesurrounding environment <0.33>

3.1 Reduction of noise, oscillation, and release of exhaust or heat
<0.50>

Scoring Item

3.2 Improvement of the surrounding
thermal environment <0.50>

The environmental performance of houses is not necessarily assessable quantitatively.
Some assessment items such as thermal insulation performance and earthquake resistance performance can be calculated, while others are evaluated, for example, based on
the number of measures taken for environmental issues. These assessment items do notcover all the aspects of environmental performance.
(3) Conceptual foundation for weighting
Considering the varying importance among assessment items, “weighting coefficients”
have been introduced to the scoring system. The weighting coefficients of Major Items(QH1, QH2, QH3, LRH1, LRH2 and LRH3) were determined according to the results obtainedby a statistical method of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). In this edition, the weighting coefficients of QH1, QH2 and QH3 are 0.45, 0.30 and 0.25, respectively, whereas thoseof LRH1, LRH2 and LRH3 are 0.35, 0.35 and 0.30, respectively. On the other hand, theweighting coefficients of Medium, Minor and Scoring Items, which are positioned lower inthe categorization hierarchy, were determined through discussions with experts in the87

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

2.2 Protection of the existing naturalenvironment <0.50>

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housing

respective fields. In table 3.2.3, the weighting coefficients used in this edition are given inangle brackets.
The determination of weighting coefficients is based not only on the scientific perspectives, but also on how various interested parties involved such as building owners,
house suppliers and related officials value the assessment items. Such values will change
as the situation or other factors change, and therefore we consider it necessary to revise
the weighting coefficients accordingly.
*A questionnaire regarding the relative importance among Major Items was completed
by the parties with a vested interest in CASBEE for New Detached Houses (building owners, house suppliers, related officials, academic authorities, etc.). The results were statistically processed to determine the weighting coefficients. Therefore, the obtained weighting coefficients reflect their differences in values from different perspectives.
3.2.1.3. Utilization of CASBEE for New Detached Houses
1) Who uses it?
The expected users of CASBEE for New Detached Houses include building owners,
house buyers, architects, house suppliers, municipalities, non-profit organizations (NPOs)
and financial institutions.
2) When or how to use, and why?
Because of the diversity of ideas and measures regarding the environment of detachedhouses, it is not easy for the aforementioned interested parties to share the same values.
This is a source of difficulty in realizing a DfE (Design for Environment) tool for detachedhouses and improving the popularity of such houses.
CASBEE for New Detached Houses is a tool developed to encourage the interested
parties to share the same environmental values. It enables the environmental quality/
performance and the measures to reduce environmental loads, which should be taken
into consideration when a detached house is constructed, to be rated on the uniform
scale among the interested parties. The following are the five major examples for utilization.
(1) Use as an environmentally friendly design tool when a new house is constructed
Using CASBEE for New Detached Houses to comprehensively evaluate the environmental
performance of the house being designed, designers can check the environmental performance targets that have been set and the levels that their design can achieve, thus
enabling them to design a house with adequate environmental consideration.
(2) Use as a communication tool among building owners, architects, builders, etc.
CASBEE for New Detached Houses is expected to be mainly used by building owners,
designers and builders when they discuss the design and measures for better environmental performance of the detached house. Not only house specifications but also theinformation provided to the occupants and their choice of electrical appliances, etc., areincluded for the assessment. Therefore, imagining the future life in the house, building
owners and designers can discuss the environmental performance that is optimum forthe house.
Other examples include house suppliers using it to establish common understandingat the design stage and designers using it as a means of clarifying the purpose/intentionof their design to builders.
88(3) Use as a tool for environmental performance labeling
When house suppliers or other organizations such as municipalities and NPOs intend tosell or popularize houses with superior environmental performance, the presentation of
the ranking results by CASBEE for New Detached Houses can make it easier for consumers to understand the environmental performance of detached houses.
(4) Use as standard indicators in housing policy
Because CASBEE for New Detached Houses assesses a wide range of house environment-related measures, municipalities can use it to indicate standard levels when they
make guidelines on house/residential area improvements in their administrative regions.
In addition to the comprehensive assessment of performance, some assessment itemswith increased importance in a specific area can be prioritized and emphasized in the
result display. For example, Aichi Prefecture has adopted its tailored version, CASBEEAichi for Detached Houses. The nationwide application of CASBEE is exemplified by the“leading projects for housing/building energy conservation.”(5) Use by private financial institutions, etc.
Because CASBEE for New Detached Houses assesses a wide range of house environment-related measures, financial institutions can use it to set requirements to obtain
advantageous financing conditions such as better interest rates for their customers (e.g.,
those who are planning to buy a house). As the housing LCCO2 performance is assessedand displayed, utilization from a viewpoint of measures against climate change is also
possible.

For communicating
at the design stage orwhen making
an agreement
House suppliers
For setting environmental performance targets
when designing, andchecking the levels
that can be achieved

Local
communities,
NPOs, etc.

For requesting
consideration
for the local
environment

For discussing ecofriendly designs

Figure 3.2.5: CASBEE for New Detached Houses – users and utilization examples

89

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

For discussing ecofriendly designs

For improving
consumerawareness
For promoting the constructionof houses with superior
environmental performanceLocal
goverments,
etc.

For setting environmental performancetargets when ordering/designing, andchecking the levels
that can be achieved

For encouraging specificenvironmental measures

Financial
institutionsetc.

For encouraging and promoting the construction of houses
with superior environmental performance

Building owners(buyers, etc.)

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housing

3) Rules for the presentation of assessment results
In CASBEE for New Detached Houses, a variety of subjects (not only house specifications
but also location, planning, outdoor facilities, residents’ choice of home appliances, etc.)
are included for the assessment. Therefore, the final assessment can be conducted only
when all the conditions are finalized, that is, after the residents move into the constructedhouse. The conduct of assessment, however, may be requested prematurely even if not
all conditions are determined (e.g., at the early stage of design). For this reason, CASBEE
for New Detached Houses accepts the provisional conditions for assessment.
There is, of course, the possibility for the results obtained at this stage to vary later.
Therefore, when the assessment results of CASBEE for New Detached Houses are presented to a third party, it is necessary to clearly note at which stage assessment was
conducted and what conditions were used for the assessment, in addition to the results.
Especially if the results are meant to be seen by any third persons via a publication suchas brochures and fliers, at least an additional comment such as “The assessment results
are based on the assumed conditions such as land use, family members, their way of living, and outdoor facilities” should be accompanied by the results in order not to give
readers the wrong impression.

3.2.2. CASBEE for New Housing Units
3.2.2.1. Outline of CASBEE for New Housing Units
1) Objectives of CASBEE for New Housing Units
Considering an apartment building as a whole, the environmental performance of a housing complex can be assessed by “CASBEE-NC.”
However, when it comes to housing units within a complex, the conditions are notuniform. Specifically, the configuration of openings and areas in contact with the outside
air depends on the position of a unit on the floor (corner or middle) and the floor numberof the unit in the apartment building. Such differences also create differences in factors
such as natural lighting, ventilation, and thermal insulation performance. The same can beapplied to facility specifications. Therefore, even being located within the same apartment building, each unit is unique and it can be problematic if their environmental performances are evaluated collectively.
Furthermore, housing complexes are generally traded per housing unit, not by thewhole apartment building. For trading of units, the CASBEE assessment can be utilized to
add extra value from the environmental viewpoint. As mentioned above, however, theresults of CASBEE-NC are not always suitable for this purpose because the assessment
is conducted in terms of environmental performance of the whole apartment building.
When a housing unit is evaluated, it is considered more appropriate to conduct theassessment based on the concept of CASBEE for Housing series.
To deal with such background issues, “CASBEE for New Housing Units” is intended toassess the environmental performance of housing complexes from the CASBEE for
Housing series perspectives, thus enabling each of the housing units to be evaluatedseparately.
2) What to evaluate(1) Comprehensive environmental performance of housing units
In CASBEE for New Housing Units, the comprehensive environmental performance ofeach housing unit of a complex is assessed separately from the two different viewpointsof Q (Quality: environmental quality of a housing unit itself) and L (Load: housing unit90

induced environmental load on the outside). Either category (Q or L) consists of three
sub-categories for assessment, as shown below. Each sub-category is evaluated basedon the measures taken for the respective purpose.
Q (Assessment is conducted to measure how high the Q level is)
QHU1: Provide comfortable, healthy and secure indoor environment
QHU2: Able to be used over a long period
QHU3: Contribute to the surroundings of a housing unit
L (Assessment is conducted to measure LR or environmental load reduction, by evaluating the measures taken for reducing L)
LRHU1: Conserve energy and water
LRHU2: Conserve resources and reduce waste
LRHU3: Contribute to the global/local environment and the surroundings of a housing unit
Because the assessment is conducted according to the above sub-categories, being
high in rank in the comprehensive results attained by CASBEE for New Housing Unitsmeans that the housing unit assessed is “a residence that assures comfort, health andsecurity (QHU1), is durable for long-term use (QHU2), conserves energy and water (LRHU1),
has been designed to reduce environmental load (for example, less waste being produced at the construction or demolition stage; LRHU2), and contributes to the creation ofa better local environment (QHU3 and LRHU3).”

In CASBEE for New Housing Unit, the virtual enclosed space boundary is, in principle,
defined as the contour of “privately owned area + exclusively private use area.” However,the performance of common space that directly affects the performance of the housing
unit concerned is included for the assessment of the performance. Influence on neighboring units (including those on the same floor as well as on the upper and lower floors) isalso evaluated.

91

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

With regard to QHU and LHU, the spatial zones to be assessed are defined as in Figure 3.2.6.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housing

Virtual enclosed space boundary(a) CASBEE-NC

Virtual enclosed
space boundaryof the “housing unit”

Exclusively private
use space

Privately owned space

Common space(b) CASBEE for New Housing Units
Figure 3.2.6: Conceptual differences in virtual enclosed space boundary between
CASBEE-NC and CASBEE for New Housing Units(2) Low-carbon performance of housing units
In CASBEE for New Housing Units, in addition to BEE, etc., the LCCO2 assessment isconducted to evaluate the low-carbon performance of a housing unit during its lifecycle
starting from construction through use as a residence until demolition/disposal. The rankof a housing unit based on the LCCO2 performance results is displayed (green-star ranking).
In the LCCO2 assessment of CASBEE for New Housing Units, the following assessment methods used in the conventional CASBEE series have been adopted.
92

<CO2 emissions at the operation stage>
Same assessment method as CASBEE for Detached Houses<CO2 emissions at the construction, upgrade or demolition/disposal stage>
Same assessment method as CASBEE for New Constructions (Housing Purposes)(3) Assessment principles
In CASBEE for New Housing Units, the environmental performance of a housing unit in acomplex is assessed “comprehensively.” Therefore, housing units with a good balance inhandling various relevant issues are ranked higher than those specializing in measuresagainst a specific problem.
The subjects of assessment include not only the unit itself, but also outdoor facilities,
residents’ choice of home appliances, data management regarding the unit and facilities,
maintenance plans and conditions of their execution, and the past strategies such as
resource conservation at the production stage of architectural components or on thebuilding site during new construction or renovation. Some are difficult for the housing
supplier to get involved directly in decision-making, but are nonetheless included forassessment as it is our principle to evaluate everything that can have potentially considerable influence on the environment.
In addition to the units in a newly constructed housing complex, the existing or renovated units can also be assessed.

3.2.2.2. Assessment system of CASBEE for New Housing Units
1) Basic assessment structure(1) Comprehensive assessment of environmental performance(1-1) Scoring of assessment items
In CASBEE for New Housing Units, as described in the previous section, the comprehensive assessment of environmental performance of a housing unit is conducted by separately evaluating Q (living environment quality in the housing unit) and L (housing unitinduced environmental load on the outside). Either category (Q or L) consists of three
sub-categories called Major Items. Each “Major Item” employs a hierarchical system for
more detailed categorization, which is comprised of one to three levels (Middle Items,
Minor Items, and Scoring Items, respectively). The total number of 54 assessment items,
all of which are assigned to the respective detailed categories, are marked in a range of
one to five (the five being the full scores). The scores attained from each level of hierarchy
are separately processed to indicate which categories are handled well or poorly.
(1-2) Calculation of the BEEHU score
The scoring results are further processed separately for QHU and LHU and their final scoreis taken as points out of 100.
In CASBEE for New Housing Units, any unit with higher (points of) QHU and lower
93

3. CASBEE Family of Tools(4) Regarding the assessment items
Since the Great East Japan Earthquake, people are keener than ever before to adopt
measures against natural disasters. In CASBEE for New Housing Units, the assessmentof such precautionary measures has been added. Specific examples include: QHU1.2.5
Preparation for evacuation, QHU2.1.3.2 Precautions against other disasters, and QHU3.2
Safety and security of the surroundings of the housing unit.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housing(points of) LHU is valued highly. In assessment, this correlation between QHU and LHU isindicated by the ratio given below (i.e., BEEHU). Therefore, the results of comprehensive
environmental assessment are interpreted according to the level of the BEEHU score.
BEEHU =

QHU/LHU

BEEHU
QHU
LHU

Environmental efficiency of the housing unit
Quality of living environment in the housing unit
Housing unit-induced load on the environment:::[*The subscript HU of BEEHU, QHU and LHU represents “housing unit,” indicating that these are assessment
results of CASBEE for “Housing Units.”]

2-1 Buit Environment Efficiency (BEE Ranking Chart)

S

62

BEE=1.0
B+

A

1.3

B-

50

0.5

47
0

Figure 3.2.7: An example of how to rate the
BEEHU score

1.5

3.0

100
Q: Environmental Quality

When being plotted with QHU on the Y-axis
and LHU on the X-axis, the BEEHU score falls
upon a point on the straight line with theslope of QHU/LHU crossing the origin of thecoordinate (Figure 3.2.7 gives an example of
the BEEHU score = 62/47 = 1.3)

0

50

C
100

L: Environmental Load(1-3) Ranking according to the BEEHU score
Based on the obtained BEEHU score, the rank of a housing unit is indicated by one of thefive levels ranging from the highest “S (with five red stars)” down to the lowest “C (with asingle red star).” The results are displayed using the proprietary software. Although theseranks with red stars are basically determined by the slope of BEEHU lines, the QHU score
has to reach at least 50 points to be ranked S. Figure 3.2.7 gives an example of a B+rank
housing unit (three red stars) with the BEEHU score being 1.3.
The assessment using the BEEHU scores is characterized by the results reflecting thecorrelation between QHU and LHU, that is, with the doubled QHU and the halved LHU, the
BEEHU score quadruples.
For example, if less energy is used for heating and cooling to result in reduced environmental load but the reduction is a result of living in hot or cold conditions, the qualityof living environment will be degraded. The assessment result therefore is not so good.
On the other hand, improved efficiency without compromising amenities or improved
amenities without an increase in energy consumption can yield a better assessment
result. Finally, better amenities with improved energy efficiency are valued even higher inthis assessment system.

94

(2) Assessment of low-carbon performance(2-1) Estimation of LCCO2 emissions
As in the case of CASBEE-NC, when the assessment is conducted using CASBEE for
New Housing Units, CO2 emissions throughout the housing unit lifecycle consisting of
construction, operation, repair, upgrade and demolition are also estimated as a measureagainst climate change, in addition to the BEEHU score. Whereas there are 52 assessment
items in total, the scores attained from those related to housing unit lifespan and energy
conservation or the other data necessary for assessment are automatically used for calculation. The result is compared with the “reference value,” that is, the LCCO2 emissionsof a typical housing unit in a newly constructed complex and is expressed as a percentage of the reference value (called the “emission rate”) to show how well the issue isaddressed.
(2-2) Ranking according to the LCCO2 performance
Based on the obtained emission rate, the housing unit concerned is assigned to one of
the five ranks with the corresponding number of green stars. Below are the specific criteria used for the ranking according to the emission rate.

Emission rate

How to interpret from a low-carbon performance perspective

Rank indication

Above 100%

Not energy efficient☆
(1 green star)

100% or below≈ Satisfies the current energy-saving standards☆☆
(2 green stars)

80% or below≈ Saves 30% of energy at the operation stage☆☆☆
(3 green stars)

60% or below≈ Saves 50% of energy at the operation stage☆☆☆☆
(4 green stars)

30% or below≈ Achieves net zero energy consumption at the operation
stage

☆☆☆☆☆
(5 green stars)(2-3) How to read the LCCO2 results (Global Warming Impact Chart)
The LCCO2 performance results are indicated by a bar chart (Global Warming Impact
Chart) with four discrete categories described below. The result of “④” (i.e., ③ + off-sitemethods) is used to determine the LCCO2 performance rank (green-star ranking).
① Reference value: Emission levels at three stages of typical housing units (i.e., “construction,” “repair/upgrade/demolition,” and “operation”) amount to the LCCO2 emissions.
② Architectural initiatives: Based on the architectural initiatives taken for the housing unit
concerned (to achieve a longer lifespan and improved energy efficiency), LCCO2 emissions are estimated according to the three stages of “construction,” “repair/upgrade/demolition” and “operation.”③ ② + other on-site methods: In addition to ②, the effects of other on-site methods suchas photovoltaic power generation are included in the estimation.
④ ③ + off-site methods: The effects of off-site methods such as purchased carbon credits and Renewable Electricity Certificates are included in the estimation.
95

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Table 3.2.4: Ranking system based on the LCCO2 emission rate

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housing(2-4) What are on-site and off-site methods?
a. On-site methods
The effect of reduced impact due to photovoltaic power generation systems is assessed
separately from the other on-site low-carbon initiatives taken for a housing unit itself suchas the realization of better thermal insulation and the installation of energy-saving facilities.
b. Off-site methods
As a measure against climate change, carbon offsetting through means of obtaining
Renewable Electricity Certificates, carbon credits, etc., has been promoted. Use of thesemeans cannot be necessarily associated with the housing unit or on-site environmental
performance, but is nonetheless a valuable action to take for Japan’s commitment to
mitigating climate change and should be encouraged. Therefore, these initiatives taken
outside the premises (off-site) are defined as “off-site methods” and are also included in
the LCCO2 assessment. Specifically, such carbon offsetting means include the acquisition of Renewable Electricity Certificates or carbon credits by the owner/resident of a
housing unit, as well as the acquisition of carbon credits by the company that supplies
power to the housing unit.
(2-5) LCCO2 “standard” and “independent” calculations for housing units
In CASBEE for New Housing Units, there are two options available for estimating LCCO2
emissions: “standard calculation” in which LCCO2 emissions are automatically estimatedby the assessment software and “independent calculation” in which the assessors themselves perform the estimation.
2) Assessment items(1) Conceptual foundation for scoring criteria
As mentioned earlier, CASBEE for New Housing Units is characterized by the separate
assessment of QHU and LHU and the subsequent use of these QHU and LHU values to determine the BEEHU score as the final indicator. The first step to evaluate LHU is to conduct theassessment in terms of LRHU (Load Reduction), that is, how much reduction of housing
unit-induced environmental load can be achieved. This is because, as a performanceassessment system of housing units, it is easier to understand when “the improved QHUand LRHU values” are associated with better results, rather than “the improved QHU value
and the reduced LRHU value” are considered better. Based on this concept, the result ofeach assessment item for QHU and LRHU is expressed by one of the five levels (ranging fromLevel 5 down to Level 1) according to how well the issue concerned is addressed. Those
assigned to higher levels attain higher scores. (In some assessment items, however, thetwo-, three- or four-level scale may be applied.)
Below is the conceptual foundation adopted when establishing the scoring criteria.
As an indicator of levels for scoring, typical housing units in a complex currently constructed in Japan are basically assigned to Level 3.
However, Level 3 requires measures to be taken against some special issues, forwhich we think more public awareness is necessary, even if these are considered relatively advanced at present.
In the assessment of new construction, if the setting of levels is based on the assumption that the minimum requirement for earning a score is “to comply with the BuildingStandard Law,” the lowest level that can be assigned is determined accordingly.
96

When the “Japanese Housing Performance Indication Standard” is used as the minimum requirement for earning a score in the level setting, its grades are assigned to thescoring levels in such a way that typical housing units of the current standards are evaluated as Level 3.
Therefore, if the subject of assessment is an existing housing unit with equivalent
performance of a typical unit of the current standards, almost all the assessment results
are given as Level 3 and the BEEHU score approximates 1. Based on this concept, if theaverage levels of housing units in newly constructed complexes in Japan are improved in
the future, the assessment criteria of CASBEE for New Housing Units will also become
stricter accordingly.
(2) Contents of assessment items
The three Major Items of either QHU or LRHU are as follows:
QHU1 is devoted to the assessment regarding the “comfortable, healthy and secure indoor
environment.” The measures taken are assessed in terms of “heat and cold,” “health,safety and security,” “brightness,” “quietness,” and “extra features.”
QHU2 is devoted to the assessment of the “durability for long-term use.” The measurestaken are assessed in terms of “basic performance for the duration of long use,” “maintenance and management,” and “functionality.”

LRHU1 is devoted to the assessment of “energy and water conservation.” The measurestaken are assessed in terms of “comprehensive energy conservation,” “energy conservation by means of improvements to equipment,” “water conservation,” and “improvements
to the maintenance, management and operation system.”
LRHU2 is devoted to the assessment regarding the “conservation of resources and reduction of waste.” The measures taken are assessed in terms of “use of resource-saving andless waste-producing interior materials,” “waste reduction at the production and construction stages,” and “recycling and appropriate arrangement.”
LRHU3 is devoted to the assessment of “contribution towards the global/local environment
and the surroundings of the housing unit.” The measures taken are assessed in terms of“consideration for the global environment,” “consideration for the local environment,” and“consideration for the surrounding environment.”
The list of assessment items is given from the next page onwards.
The environmental performance of housing units is not necessarily assessable quantitatively. Some assessment items such as thermal insulation performance and earthquake
resistance performance can be calculated, while others are evaluated, for example, basedon the number of measures taken for environmental issues. These assessment items do
not cover all the aspects of environmental performance.

97

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

QHU3 is devoted to the assessment of “contribution toward the surroundings of the housing unit.” The measures taken are assessed in terms of “consideration for the housing unit
and its surroundings,” and “safety and security of the surroundings of the housing unit.”3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housing

Table 3.2.5: List of assessment items of CASBEE for New Dwelling Units*Weighting coefficients are given in angle brackets (< >).
QHU1: Provision of comfortable, healthy and secure indoor environment
Medium Item
1. Heat/cold<0.40>

Minor Item
1.1 Basic performance<0.50>

1.2 Abatement of summer
heat <0.25>

Scoring Item

Note*

1.1.1 Securing/maintaining ofthermal insulation performance<0.65>

DH(revised)

1.1.2 Insulation control <0.35>

DH

1.2.1 Ventilation and release of
hot air <0.50>

DH(revised)

1.2.2 Appropriate cooling system DH<0.50>

2. Health, safety
and security<0.25>

1.3 Abatement of winter cold
<0.25>

1.3.1 Appropriate heating system DH<1.00>

2.1 Measures against chemical pollutants <0.20>

DH

2.2 Appropriate ventilation
system <0.20>

DH

2.3 Measures against dew
and mold <0.20>

NC(revised)

2.4 Precautions against crime<0.20>

2.4.1 Measures against crime for New
the housing unit <0.50>
2.4.2 Measures against crime forthe common space <0.50>

New

2.5 Preparation for evacuation 2.5.1 Evacuation from the hous<0.20>
ing unit to the outside <0.50>

New

2.5.2 Evacuation via the balcony/ New
front door to a safer place <0.50>
3. Brightness<0.05>

3.1 Use of daylight <1.00>

DH

4. Quietness<0.25>

4.1 (Tentative) Backgroundnoise level and sound insulation at openings <0.10>NC(revised)

4.2 Sound insulation of partition walls <0.30>

NC(revised)

4.3 Sound insulation of floorslabs <0.40>

5. Extra features<0.05>

98

4.3.1 Sound insulation against
light impact sounds <0.50>

NC(revised)

4.3.2 Sound insulation against
heavy impact sounds <0.50>

NC(revised)

4.4 Measures against equipment noises, etc. <0.20>

NC(revised)

5.1 Consideration for view,
space, convenience, etc.
<1.00>NewQHU2: Durability for long-term use
Minor Item

1.2 Interior versatility <0.25>

New

1.3 Precautions against natural disasters <0.30>

1.3.1 Improvement of earthquake DH
resistance (incl. seismic isolationand vibration damping) <0.80>

2.1 Easiness of maintenanceand management <0.65>

1.3.2 Precautions against otherdisasters <0.20>

New

1.4.1 Fireproof structure <0.60>

DH

1.4.2 Early detection of fire (forown housing unit) <0.20>

DH

1.4.3 Early detection of fire (forother housing units, etc.) <0.20>

New

2.1.1 Maintenance and management of the housing unit <0.30>

New

2.1.2 Adaptability of facility andequipment<0.70>

DH(revised)

2.2 Maintenance/management plans and system<0.35>
3.Functionality<0.25>

Note
DH(revised)

1.4 Precautions against fire
<0.20>

2. Maintenanceandmanagement<0.25>

Scoring Item

1.1 Building framework<0.25>

3.1 Size and space <0.50>

3.2 Barrier-free measures<0.50>

New

3.1.1 Housing unit size and room
configuration<0.60>

New

3.1.2 Spatial capacity for equipment <0.40>

New

3.2.1 Barrier-free measures inthe exclusively private use space<0.50>

DH

3.2.2 Barrier-free measures in thecommon space <0.50>

New

QHU3: Contribution towards the surroundings of the housing unit
Medium Item

Minor Item

1. Consideration
for the housing unit and its
surroundings<0.70>

1.1 Measures for corridors,
balconies, etc. <0.50>

Scoring Item

New

Note

1.2 Greening in the private/exclusive use or common
space <0.50>

New

2. Safety andsecurity of thesurroundings ofthe housing unit
<0.30>

Measures for the common
space <0.70>

New

2.2 Measures from the operational perspective <0.30>

New

99

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Medium Item
1. Basic
performancefor theduration of longuse <0.50>

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housing

LRHU1: Energy and water conservation
Medium Item

Minor Item

1. Comprehensive
energyconservation<0.75>

1.1 Energy conservation by
the building framework andequipment <0.80>

Scoring Item

New

Note

1.2 Energy conservation bykitchen and household appliances <0.10>

DH(revised)

1.3 Other energy-saving
methods <0.10>

New

2. Water conservation <0.15>

2.1 Water-saving equipment<1.00>

DH(revised)

3. Improvements
to the maintenance,
management
and operation
system <0.10>

3.1 Information about the wayof living in the housing unit
<0.50>

DH(revised)

3.2 Energy management andcontrol <0.50>

DH(revised)

LRHU2: Conservation of resources and reduction of waste
Medium Item

Minor Item

1. Use ofresource-saving
and less wasteproducing
interior materials <0.60>

1.1 Interior materials <1.00>

DH(revised)

2. Waste reduction
at the production and construction stages<0.30>

2.1 Production stage <0.25>

DH

2.2 Construction stage<0.25>

DH

2.3 Continued use of theexisting structural frame, etc.
<0.25>

NC

2.4 Use of recycled materials for the structural frame<0.25>

NC

3.1 Avoidance of use ofpollutant-containing materials<0.80>

NC

3.2 Provision of information ofmaterials used <0.20>

DH

3. Recycling andappropriatearrangement<0.10>

Scoring ItemNote

LRHU3: Contribution towards the global/local environment and the surroundings of the housing unit

100

Medium Item

Minor Item

1. Consideration
for the global
environment<0.33>

1.1 Consideration for global
warming <1.00>

Scoring ItemDH
(revised)Note

2. Consideration
for the local
environment<0.33>

2.1 Reduction of load on thelocal infrastructure <1.00>

DH(revised)

LRHU3: Contribution towards the global/local environment and the surroundings of the housing unit
Medium Item

Minor Item

3. Consideration
for the surrounding
environment<0.33>

3.1 Reduction of noise, oscillation, odor, and release of
exhaust or heat <1.00>

Scoring ItemNoteDH(revised)* The relevant assessments are given in the column for notes.
DH: CASBEE for New Detached Houses (2010 edition), NC: CASBEE for New Construction (2010), DH (revised):
modified from CASBEE for New Detached Houses (2010), NC (revised): modified from CASBEE for New
Construction (2010), and New: newly-added assessment[Determination of the weighting coefficients of Major Items]
Use the weighting coefficients of Major Items in CASBEE for New Detached Houses,
which are also intended for the assessment of residences like CASBEE for New
Housing Units, as the base for calculation. Therefore, we can assume QHU1:QHU2:QHU3= 0.45:0.30:0.25 and LRHU1:LRHU2:LRHU3 = 0.35:0.35:0.30.
Reduce the weighting coefficient of QHU2, QHU3, LRHU2 and LRHU3 by a factor of 2.
The results are QHU2:QHU3 = 0.150:0.125 and LRHU2:LRHU3 = 0.175:0.150.
Correct the weighting coefficients of QHU1 and LRHU1 so that the total of the weighting coefficients of three Major Items in each category amounts to 1.00 (i.e., QHU1 +QHU2 + QHU3 = LRHU1 + LRHU2 + LRHU3 = 1.00).
Thus obtain QHU1: QHU2: QHU3 = 0.725: 0.150: 0.125 and LRHU1: LRHU2: LRHU3 = 0.675:
0.175: 0.150.

3.2.3. CASBEE Health Checklist
3.2.3.1. Outline“CASBEE Health Checklist” is a simple diagnostic tool designed for residents themselvesto check the negative health effects of their residences. It is intended to prompt awarenssof potential health-related problems in the living environment, producing changes in theirliving practices at residences or a reason for taking action such as renovation and renewal
in consultation with experts.
The health checklist is comprised of 50 simple questions related to current environmental conditions experienced in their residences. The diagnosis is made based on the101

3. CASBEE Family of Tools(3) Conceptual foundation for weighting
Considering the varying importance among assessment items, “weighting coefficients”
have been introduced to the scoring system.
In CASBEE for New Housing Units, the housing unit concerned and its surrounding
structural frame are mainly evaluated. As these are especially relevant to the results of
QHU1 and LRHU1, the assessments are considered more important than in the case of
CASBEE for Detached Houses and the weighting coefficients of Major Items in CASBEE
for New Housing Units were determined accordingly.
Specifically, the weighting coefficients of QHU2, QHU3, LRHU2 and LRHU3 were reduced
by a factor of 2, compared with those of CASBEE for Detached Houses.
The weighting coefficients of Medium, Minor and Scoring Items, which are positioned
lower in the categorization hierarchy, were determined through discussion with experts in
the respective fields.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housing

answers to these questions. Questions are given in such a way that the results are independent of user’s knowledge on housing specifications. Residents can answer by reflecting on past experiences during ordinary days as in a question like “In summer, are there
occasions when you feel hot because the air conditioning (for cooling) is not effective?”
The obtained results indicate not the assessment of “housing performance” but theexamination of “living environment that may affect residents’ health.” The living environment is a consequence of “housing performance” and “residents’ living practices,” butthe exact causes are not identified by CASBEE Health Checklist. The emphasis should beplaced on the checklist being a tool to raise awareness that can lead to the improvementof residential conditions. If changes in the living practice can not improve the situation,
residents are advised to consult with experts (such as architects and building contractors)
because there may be a problem with the residence itself.
3.2.3.2. Questions in the checklist
In order to make it easy to recall their living contidions each season, 50 questions aregrouped into eight categories by rooms and areas (Table 3.2.6). For each specified space,in association with scenes from everyday life, questions are asked about six elements
related to residence health: thermal environment, acoustic environment, light environment, hygiene, safety and security (Table 3.2.7).
Table 3.2.6: List of specified rooms/areas, and their assigned scores
Room/area

Score[1] Living room

21[2] Bedroom

21[3] Kitchen

15[4] Bathroom, dressing room, washroom

21[5] Toilet

9[6] Entrance hall

9[7] Corridors, stairs, storage

21[8] Surroundings of the residence

15[9] Design for nursing care

Reference

Table 3.2.7: List of elements of health and their assigned scores
Element of health[1] Thermal environment

102

Score
36

[2] Acoustic environment

6[3] Light environment

12[4] Hygiene

27[5] Safety

45[6] Security

6

Table 3.2.8: CASBEE Health Checklist – Assessment items[1] Living room[2] Bedroom[3] Kitchen

Question

Check

Element ofhealth (*3)

1

In summer, are there occasions when you stay in theroom with all the windows closed without switchingon an air-conditioner or electric fan?

(T)

2

In summer, are there occasions when you feel hot
because the air conditioning for cooling is not effective?

(T)3

In winter, are there occasions when you feel cold
because the air conditioning for heating is not effective?

(T)4

Are there occasions when you are bothered byindoor/outdoor sounds or vibrations even after thewindows and doors are closed?

(T)

5

At night, are there occasions when you feel it is dark
because of insufficient lighting?

(T)

6

Are there occasions when smells linger in the room?

(T)

7

Are there occasions when you slip on the floor?

(SF)

8

In summer, are there occasions when you can not
sleep because it is hot?

(T)

9In summer or during the rainy season, are there
occasions when you can not sleep because it ishumid and damp?

(T)

10

In summer, are there occasions when you sleep withthe windows closed without switching on an airconditioner or electric fan?

(T)

11

In winter, are there occasions when you can not
sleep because it is cold?

(T)

12

In winter, are there occasions when you find yournose/throat dry when you wake up?

(T)

13

Are there occasions when you cannot sleep
because you are bothered by indoor/outdoor
sounds or vibrations even after the windows anddoors are closed?

(A)

14

At night, are there occasions when you can not
sleep because your surroundings are too bright?

(L)

15

Are there occasions when steam or smells linger inthe room while cooking?

(H)

16

Is there mold on/around the kitchen counter? (*1)

(H)

17

Are there occasions when you find a foul taste orodor in tap water?

(H)

18

Are there occasions when you have to take anunnatural posture because of mismatched layouts(e.g., too narrow or too high)?

(SF)

19

Are there occasions when you feel it is dangerous
because you may get burnt?

(SF)*1 & 2: The options for answers to these marked questions are different from the rest.
*1: Excessively (0 point); partially (1 point); scarcely (2 points); and not at all (3 points).
*3: The abbreviations of elements of health represent: T (thermal environment), A (acoustic environment), L (Light environment), H (hygiene), SF (safety), and SC (security).

103

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Room/area

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housing

Room/area[4] Bathroom,
dressingroom
andwashroom[5] Toilet[6] Entrance hall

[7] Corridors,
stairs andstorage

Question

Check

Element ofhealth (*3)

20

In winter, are there occasions when you feel the
dressing room is cold?

(T)

21

In winter, are there occasions when you feel thebathroom is cold?

(T)

22

Is there mold? (*1)

(H)

23

Are there occasions when you smell odors?

(H)

24

Are there occasions when you feel it is dangerous
because you may trip over a step?

(SF)

25

Are there occasions when you slip on the floor of
the bathroom?

(SF)

26

Are there occasions when you lose your balance
when getting in/coming out of the bathtub?

(SF)

27

In winter, are there occasions when you feel the
toilet is cold?

(T)

28

Are there occasions when you feel foul odors lingering?

(H)

29

Are there occasions when you have to take anunnatural posture because of mismatched layouts(e.g. too narrow or too high)?

(SF)

30

Are there occasions when you feel it is dangerous
because you may trip over a step?

(SF)

31

Are there occasions when you lose your balance
while putting on your shoes?

(SF)

32

Are there occasions when you feel it is dark near
your feet even after the light is turned on?

(L)

33

In winter, are there occasions when you come out ofa room and feel cold?

(T)

34

Are there occasions when you stumble upon a step
while entering/coming out of a room?

(SF)

35

Are there occasions when you feel it is dark near
your feet while walking even after the light is turned
on?

(L)

36

Are there occasions when you slip while walking?

(SF)

37

Are there occasions when you feel it is dangerous
because the stairs are too steep?

(SF)

38

Are there occasions when the storage smells ofmold or chemical substances?

(H)

39

Are there occasions when indoor breeding ofinsects occurs?

(H)*1 & 2: The options for answers to these marked questions are different from the rest.
*1: Excessively (0 point); partially (1 point); scarcely (2 points); and not at all (3 points).
*3: The abbreviations of elements of health represent: T (thermal environment), A (acoustic environment), L (Light environment), H (hygiene), SF (safety), and SC (security).

104

Room/area[8] Surroundingsof theresidence[9] Design for
nursing care

Question

Check

Element ofhealth (*3)

40

Are there occasions when you slip or stumble
around your home?

(SF)

41

Are there occasions when you feel it is dangerous
while opening/closing the gate, shutters, etc.?

(SF)

42

Are there occasions when you feel anxious about
the precautions against crime?

(SC)

43

Are there occasions when you are at home and feelanyone can easily see you from the outside?

(SC)

44

Are there occasions when you slip on the floor of
the veranda or terrace?

(SF)

45

Are the corridors and doorways wide enough for theeasy use of wheelchairs? (*2)—

46

Is there also a slope wherever there is a step, sothat wheelchairs can be used easily? (*2)—

47

Is the layout arranged in a suitable way so as not tohave to use the stairs for everyday life? (*2)—

48

Is the toilet large enough for a helper to assist without difficulty? (*2)—

49

Is the bathroom large enough for a helper to assist
without difficulty? (*2)—

50

Is the number of plugs available in rooms sufficientso that nursing equipment can also be used? (*2)—

Each question asks about the frequency of “environmental conditions that may affectresident’s health.” As an indicator of the degree of influence on health, scores are assigned
according to answers to the questions: 1 point for “Frequently,” 2 points for “Sometimes,”
3 points for “Rarely,” and 4 points for “Not at all.” All the obtained scores are added up
and thus, lower total scores indicate higher health risks.
Considered from the perspective of the elderly, six out of 50 questions are related to
the “design for nursing care,” but the total scores do not reflect these results. This isbecause the requirements differ depending on the individual’s condition. These items areintended to give residents an opportunity to examine their home in terms of suitability fornursing care.
3.2.3.3. Assessment results
The assessment using CASBEE Health Checklist can be conducted at the following website: http://www.jsbc.or.jp/CASBEE/health_check/index.html
A list of 50 questions is given based on the rooms/areas, and answers to questions suchas “Frequently” and “Not at all” can be selected from the pull-down menu.
The assessment results are also displayed either according to rooms or elements ofhealth. With the given radar charts, it is possible to identify the rooms/elements that
require special attention for improvement (Figure 3.2.8).
105

3. CASBEE Family of Tools*1 & 2: The options for answers to these marked questions are different from the rest.
*2: Yes; No; Not sure. (These are not subject to scoring.)*3: The abbreviations of elements of health represent: T (thermal environment), A (acoustic environment), L (Light environment), H (hygiene), SF (safety), and SC (security).

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housing

The results can also be compared with the average scores obtained through the survey of 6,000 residences across Japan. The ranking results provide the relative position of
the resident’s home regarding the living environment (Figure 3.2.9). It is also possible toshow the rankings based on rooms/elements of health. These help residents to interpretthe results.
1-1 Radar charts of health characteristics of your residence① Living room
⑧ Surroundingsof residence① Thermal environment② Bedroom⑥ Security⑦
Corridors,
stairs andstorage②
Acoustic
environment③ Kitchen⑥ Entrance hall
⑤ Toilet⑤ Safety④ Bathroom,
dressing room andwashroom(1) Health characteristics of rooms/areas③ Light
environment④ Hygiene(2) Healthiness characteristics interms of elements of healthiness

Note 1) Indicates that 100% scores have been achieved in the respective category.
Note 2)Your residence scores
Note 3)National average scores
Figure 3.2.8: Checklist diagnosis results – radar charts of health characteristics

1-2 Total score ranking of your residence health

Ratio of relevant residences to the total, basedon the national survey results (%)

Ranking among the 100 residences nationwide 80th/100
Your residence’s rank

BetterTotal scores of health checklist results (points)
Figure 3.2.9: Checklist diagnosis results – total score rankings

106The past survey results have demonstrated that residents staying in the living environment with higher total scores in the health checklist give statistically higher points on thesubjective well-being*. It is highly probable that improved total scores can lead to better
health conditions of the assessor and his/her family (Figure 3.2.10).

Subjective well-being(points)

Better* Expressed as points out of 100, regarding the perception of own health. This indicator has
been introduced to the “Japanese Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions (by the Ministry of
Health, Labour and Welfare)” since 1986. Positive perception of subjective well-being is known to
be associated with higher survival rates.

(Points)

Health checklist scores

Better

The analytical results about the influence of the living environment on health are presented using the incidence rate of common colds (which people most frequently comedown with), as an example. Compared with the residences with poor thermal insulation
performance (built based on the standards before 1980), those with better thermal insulation performance (built in compliance with the 1999 standards) significantly improved thescores for the element of “warmness” by 2.9 points (Figure 3.2.11).
Based on these data, logistic regression analysis was conducted regarding the relationship between “warmness” scores and the incidence rate of common colds. The analysis results indicate that, among males in their 30s or 40s living in the temperate-climate
regions (III to V), the incidence rate of common colds in winter was reduced by 18.4%
when residences with the pre-1980 standards were renovated according to the 1999
standards of thermal insulation (Figure 3.2.12).

107

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Figure 3.2.10: Relationship between the total scores of health checklist and the perception of subjective well-being (Questionnaire participants: 6,000.
Surveyed by JSBC)

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.2. CASBEE for Housing*** : p<0.001

Thermal insulation
performancebad

Pre-1980(Pre-“old”)

8.7

1980 (Old)

9.4

Temperate-climate regions N=4,793

**
*
**
*
**
*

2.9 points
2.2 points

1992 (New)

10.2
1.4 points

1999
good (Next generation)

11.6
0

3

6

Cold

9

12

15

18

“Warmness” scores (points)

21
Warm

Figure 3.2.11: Relationship between the thermal insulation performance of residences
and scores for the element of “warmness”

Incidence rate of common
colds in winter [%]

bad

good

Temperate-climate regions / males / 30s to 40s

100%
80%

Pre-1980

60%
18.4% reduction

1999

40%
20%
0%

2.9-point increase
0

Cold

3

6

9

12

“Warmness” scores [points]

15

18

21
Warm

Figure 3.2.12: Beneficial effect of thermal insulation renovation on the incidence rateof common colds in winterFor residents who are considering renovation, etc., a book titled “Guidebook for Housingthat Promotes Health and Well-Being – 9 Keywords for Residents to Live Healthily” waspublished by IBEC (available in Japanese). It gives health-related measures that can be
introduced at residences and is suitable for non-professionals. For professionals in design
or construction, “Housing that Promotes Health and Well-Being – 9 Keywords – Design
Guide Map” (published by Kenchikugijutsu, Inc.) is available (also in Japanese).
In summary, CASBEE Health Checklist is intended to improve the health of Japanese
residences by encouraging residents to perform self-diagnosis, and become aware anddeal with housing-related issues (e.g., by changing their way of living or renovating theirresidences).

1083.3. CASBEE for Buildings

DesignNew
Construction

Buildinglife cycle

Planning

CASBEE for
Pre-design

Pre-design
assessment ofbuilding planning,site selection etc.

Post-design
Renovation
Operation

Construction

Pre-design

DesignDesign process

Preliminary
designExecution
designConstruction
completion

Corresponding to the building lifecycle, CASBEE for Buildings is composed of four
assessment tools, CASBEE for Pre-design, CASBEE for New Construction, CASBEE for
Existing Building and CASBEE for Renovation, to serve at each stage of the design process (Figure 3.3.1). “CASBEE Family” is the collective name for these four tools and the
expanded tools for specific purposes, which are listed below. Each tool is intended for aseparate purpose and target user, and is designed to accommodate a wide range of uses
(offices, schools, apartments, etc.) in the evaluated buildings.

Operation

CASBEE for
New Construction

Assessment of
new construction (Assessment of design
specification
and anticipatedperformance)

CASBEE for
Existing Building

CASBEE for
Renovation

Labeling

Labeling

Assessment ofexisting buildings(Evaluate theactual specificationand performancerealized at the timeof assessment)

Assessment ofexisting buildings(Evaluate theactual specification and performance realized at
the time of assessment)

Labeling
Assessment of renovation (Evaluate improvement of specificationand performance)

Figure 3.3.1: CASBEE overall composition

3.3.1. CASBEE for New Construction (CASBEE-NC)
3.3.1.1. The position of CASBEE-NC within the four basic tools
CASBEE for Buildings offers four basic tools for the planning, construction, existing building and renovation stages of a building’s life cycle. CASBEE-NC is a tool for use whenbuildings are newly constructed. Therefore, the system is able to make assessments ateach stage of building design and construction (i.e., Preliminary Design, Execution
109

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Labeling

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.3. CASBEE for Buildings

Design, and Construction Completion) on the basis of target performance, design specifications and anticipated performance, enabling consideration of improvements at eachstage. As CASBEE-NC performs predictive assessments based on design specifications,the results remain valid for three years after the completion of construction. After that
period, if necessary, the building concerned should be re-evaluated using the latest edition of CASBEE for Existing Buildings.
3.3.1.2. Assessment targets of CASBEE-NC
CASBEE-NC evaluates Q (environmental quality) and LR (environmental load reduction)
based on design specifications of a building to be constructed. It also covers assessmentof remodeling (i.e., new construction involving partial reuse of existing buildings) andreconstruction.
3.3.1.3. When and how to use CASBEE-NC
The following are the four main examples for utilization of CASBEE-NC.
(1) Design for Environment (DfE) tool for building designers
Building designers can use CASBEE-NC at the design stage to check environmental performance, set various goals, establish consensus with parties involved in design (e.g.,architecture, structure and facility service system) and demonstrate design performanceto the client.
(2) Environmental performance labeling tool
Third-party certification (labeling) by experts based on the CASBEE assessment results
can also be used for property value assessment from an environmental perspective. (See
Section 4.2)
(3) Construction administration tool
Used as a PR tool for construction and environmental administration, CASBEE-NC can bea construction administration tool that enables a building’s environmental attributes to be
publicized.
(4) Selection of contractors for design competitions, proposals and PFI projects
Clients from public or private sectors can use the tool to indicate overall environmental
performance targets to participating designers, assigning high grades to the designs thatdeliver optimal environmental efficiency within a budget. It can also be used for both
domestic and overseas projects.
3.3.1.4. Points to be noted on CASBEE-NC(1) Assessment at Preliminary Design, Execution Design, and Construction Completion
Stages
It is important to start making efforts to produce environmentally conscious designs fromthe preliminary design stage. Detailed specifications are determined at the execution
design/construction stages during which design details are finalized. In the process,changes may be made to the original specifications. Therefore, CASBEE-NC can be used
for assessment in three phases:

110

Execution design

Execution design▼
Design resolution= Contract documents

Preliminary design▽
Application forbuilding
permission

Construction

Assessment 1

Assessment 2▼
Construction
completion

Design changes

TargetConstruction
completion stage

Preliminary design

Assessment 3
StatusFigure 3.3.2: Assessment stages of CASBEE for New Construction(3) Provision of a simplified edition
We have produced a simplified edition that can be used to make assessments in a shortperiod. It can be used for purposes such as the following:- Simplified setting of the Built Environment Efficiency level (as a tool for forming consensus between owners, designers and builders, etc.).
- Setting environmental design targets and evaluating attainment (as a proposal management tool etc. under ISO14001).
- Preparing documents for submission to government agencies, etc. (building environmental plans, etc.).
(4) Provision of an assessment system for buildings intended for short-term use
In some cases, buildings are constructed to be used for a short period of time, such as
exhibition facilities, theaters and commercial facilities. Environmental consideration insuch buildings differs from those intended for permanent use. Therefore, different assessment criteria are necessary. We have developed CASBEE for Temporary Construction tocover such buildings.

111

3. CASBEE Family of Tools(2) Use of existing assessment systems
The evaluation criteria make maximum use of existing, established evaluation methods,
such as the energy-saving standards and the Housing Performance Indication System,
and aim for conformity with those methods, in order to save time and work in the evaluation process.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.3. CASBEE for Buildings

3.3.1.5. Assessment items of CASBEE for NC
Table 3.3.1: Assessment items included in Q (Environmental Quality of the building)

Q1. Indoor Environment

1. Sound Environment

1.1 Noise
1.2 Sound Insulation
1.3 Sound Absorption

2. Thermal Comfort

2.1 Room Temperature Control
2.2 Humidity Control
2.3 Type of Air Conditioning System

3. Lighting & Illumination

3.1 Daylight
3.2 Anti-glare Measures
3.3 Illuminance Level
3.4 Lighting Controllability

4. Air Quality

4.1 Source Control
4.2 Ventilation
4.3 Operation Plan

Q2. Quality of Service

1. Service Ability

1.1 Functionality & Usability
1.2 Amenity
1.3 Maintenance Management

2. Durability & Reliability

2.1 Earthquake Resistance2.2 Service Life of Components
2.4 Reliability

3. Flexibility & Adaptability

3.1 Spatial Margin
3.2 Floor Load Margin
3.3 System Renewability

Q3. Outdoor Environmenton Site

1. Preservation & Creationof Biotope
2. Townscape & Landscape
3. Local Characteristics &Outdoor Amenity

3.1 Attention to Local Character &Improvement of Comfort
3.2 Improvement of the Thermal
Environment on Site112

Table 3.3.2: Assessment items included in LR (Environmental Load Reduction of thebuilding)

LR1 Energy

1. Building Thermal Load
2. Natural Energy Utilization
3. Efficiency in Building
Service System
4. Efficient Operation

4.1 Monitoring
4.2 Operation & Management
System

LR2 Resources& Materials

1. Water Resources

1.1 Water Saving
1.2 Rainwater & Greywater

2. Reducing Usage ofNon-renewable
Resources

2.1 Reducing Usage of Materials
2.2 Continuing Use of Existing
Structural Frames etc.
2.3 Use of Recycled Materials as
Structural Frame Materials
2.4 Use of Recycled Materials as
Non-structural Materials
2.5 Timber from Sustainable Forestry

3. Avoiding the Use ofMaterials with Pollutant
Content
LR3 Off-site
Environment

3.1 Use of Materials without Harmful
Substances
3.2 Elimination of CFCs and Halons

1. Consideration of Global
Warming
2. Consideration of Local
Environment

2.1 Air Pollution
2.2 Heat Island Effect
2.3 Load on Local Infrastructure

3. Consideration of
Surrounding Environment

3.1 Noise, Vibration & Odor
3.2 Wind/Sand Damage & Daylight
Obstruction
3.3 Light Pollution

113

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

2.6 Efforts to Enhance theReusability of Components andMaterials

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.3. CASBEE for Buildings

3.3.1.6. Example of CASBEE-NC evaluation
Assessment Result:Rank S (BEE：3.7)

Evaluation Results of Environmental Functions(Radar chart)
Q2 Quality of Service
Q1
IndoorEnvironment

Q3 Outdoor
Environment
On-SiteLR3
Off-Site
Environment

LR1
EnergyAssessment Summary
This building is situated on an exceptional location on
the Kusatsu side of Omi Ohashi Bridge, across from
Otsu on Lake Biwa. It was designed as an "ecoshopping mall" that coexists with the local communities
and blends in with the surrounding nature.
The exterior of the building was designed to fit thelandscape of Lake Biwa and rustic scenery of thesurrounding area, and energy efficiency wasincorporated in the interior design features such as anenvironmentally friendly lighting system.
Furthermore, a variety of environmental technologies,
including an ice thermal storage system, natural energy,
and greenery utilization, were introduced. The mall also
promotes the importance of environmental efforts
among visitors by offering information on its initiatives
through eco-info terminals and panel displays.
Also, BEMS-based optimal operation of the building andlife cycle planning was included in the building design.
3.8
Q1 Score = 3.8
Q1 のスコア=

5

4.0

4.3

3
2

Thermal
温熱環境
ComfortLighting &光･視環境
Illumination

Air Quality
空気質環境

Q: Environmental Quality

5
5.0
4

1

4.4

Building
建物のthermalload
熱負荷

Natural
自然エネ
energyルギー

Efficient
効率的Operation
運用

Q2
Quality of Service
Q3
OutdoorEnvironment On Site

LR1
EnergyLR2Resources &Materials
LR3
Off-site Environment

160

200

240

4.1

4.5

2

Service
機能性Ability

Durability
耐用性 &Reliability
・信頼性

Flexibility
対応性 &Maintenance
・更新性1

Preservation &生物環境
Creationof Biltotope

Townscape
まちなみ &
Landscape・景観

LR3
Environment
LR3 Off-Site
敷地外環
境

4.1
Score = 4.1
LR3LR3
のスコア=

4.5
4.0

3.4

3.5

Community/
地域性・
Amenities
アメニティ

4.1

LR
= 4.1
LRScore
=
のスコア

4

3.8

3
2

Water
水資源
conservation
保護

Reductionof non-recycled
非再生材料のmaterialuse
使用削減

Elimination
汚染物質ofpollutants
回避1

Consideration
地球温暖化ofglobalwarmingへの配慮

Consideration
地域環境ofregional
environment
への配慮

Considerationof surrounding
周辺環境
environment
への配慮

Assessment results for CASBEE-NC_2010 (Ver.1.0)

Items considered in planning

Q1
Indoor Environment

120

4.0

5

1

80

5.0

4.0

Efficient
設備システ
Service
System
ム効率化

40

4

4

2

61%
61%

0

(kg-CO
m22)）（ kg-CO2/year
2 /年・m

5

3

62%

3

3.3

&リ
Materials
LR2 Resources
資源・マテ
アル
3.5
LR2 Score = 3.5
LR2のスコア=

2

100%

5

5.0

3

1

General2. Building-related②建築物の取組み
initiatives
3. Above initiatives③上記+②以外の+ other on-site
オンサイト手法
measures4.
Above initiatives④上記++ other off-site
オフサイト手法
measures

Construction
Repair/Upgrade/Demolition
Operation
建設 Off-site
修繕・更新・解体
運用
オン サイ トオフサイ トOn-site

4.5
Q3 のスコア=
Q3 Score = 3.6

4.1

4.0

Design Consideration

Calculation①参照値
1.
Reference value

Q のスコアScore = 4.1
Q=

2

Noise &
音環境
Accoutics

LR
環境負荷低減性
LR Environmental
Load Reduction
LR1 エEnergyLR1
ネルギー
4.6
Score = 4.6
LR1LR
のスコア=

L: Environmental Load

30%: ☆☆☆☆☆ 60%: ☆☆☆☆ 80%: ☆☆☆ 100%: ☆☆ 100%超:
Over 110%☆

Standard
標準計算

Q3
Environment
On-SiteQ3 Outdoor
室外環境
（敷地内）

4.1
Score = 4.1
Q2 Q2
のスコア=

4.7

4
3

3.0

1

Q2 Quality
サ ー ビofスService
性能
5

4.5

4

Building Environmental Efficiency (BEE)

LCCO2 (Global Warming Impact Chart)

Q
Q Environmental
環境品質
Quality
Q1 室
Indoor
Q1
内 環Environment
境

LR2 Resources& Materials

Building outline
Building type(s): Retailers(restaurants/movie theaters)
Location: Kusatsu City, Shiga
Prefecture
Site area: 41,915.96 m2
Total floor area: 165,238.10 m2
Floors: 6 floors (above ground) & 1
floor (basement)

The building, designed as an "eco shopping mall" which fits thelandscape of Lake Biwa, contributes to global environment
protection through CO2 emissions reduction.
Measures for energy conservation and improvement of the thermal
environment include the combined use of central and individual A/C
systems. Light wells are used for daylight utilization. Smoking
sections are completely closed off.
Ample floor and ceiling heights were provided. For improvement inreliability, multiple devices were installed as backup for equipment
failure. Also, the high level of maintenance management, as well asease of equipment upgrade, was achieved.
The site has an extensive green area with native trees. The low-risebuilding design, locally-available materials and reduced light levelfor signs and illumination systems were incorporated in order toenhance integration with the surrounding landscape. Also, biotopes
were created in order to contribute to biological resources.
Reduction of solar radiation load was achieved by establishment of
a non-air-conditioned area around the building and installation ofsmaller windows with the exception of the north side of the building.
A large temperature difference A/C system with ice thermal storage
and a high-efficiency lighting system were used as energy efficiency
measures. Furthermore, 200 kW solar panels were installed.
Recycled materials, forest thinning and laminated lumber were used
extensively. The water resource management system uses
groundwater and rainwater.
Segregated garbage collection is established. Ample parking spaceand multiple entrance/exit points are provided in order to reduce
traffic congestion. Also, the water processing capacity at the facility
exceeds the level set under the sewage discharge standards.

Key environmental measures- Landscape consideration- Light wells, occupancy sensors for stairs and washrooms- Use of materials with low chemical content.
- Interior design for enhanced ease of cleaning andmaintenance- Universal design- Electricity and communication systems placed on the 2nd
floor or above.
- Restoration of the on-site rice field using natural
resources such as flora and topsoil harvested prior toconstruction.
- Local forest thinning from Shiga Prefecture area, art
objects using subsoil from Lake Biwa
- Eco-stations- Large temperature difference A/C system with ice thermal
storage- High-efficiency lighting, LED- Solar power generation- Energy data collection and commissioning using BEMS
- Louvers with recycled lumber, recycled interlocking
blocks- Use of groundwater and rainwater- On-site bus depots for public transportation- Rooftop and wall greenery (moss tiles)- Kitchen water processing system

Figure 3.3.3: An example of CASBEE-NC evaluation

3.3.2. CASBEE for Existing Buildings (CASBEE-EB)
3.3.2.1. The position of CASBEE-EB within the four basic tools
CASBEE-EB is an assessment tool for existing buildings at the operation stage.
Whereas CASBEE-NC is used for the assessment of design specifications and anticipated performance, CASBEE-EB evaluates the specifications and performance achievedat the time of assessment, specifically based on the operational records of one or more
years after the completion of construction.
It is becoming increasingly necessary for the existing building stock to undergo reno114

vations for realization of better energy efficiency. Improvements to eco-friendliness or
CO2 reduction are required through major renovation work, etc. It is therefore necessary
to make the tools for existing buildings or renovation better known to the public so thatthey can be utilized more frequently. The assessment of environmental performance ofexisting buildings (using CASBEE-EB) or renovated buildings (using CASBEE-RN) is conducted from the perspective of a building being an asset, and the results can be used todecide whether an existing building of interest needs to be renovated.
As the environmental performance of a building changes because of repair work or
deterioration with time, etc., and building usage may also change, the results of
CASBEE-EB assessment are valid for five years after the assessment. After that period,
the building concerned should be accordingly re-evaluated using the latest edition of
CASBB-EB available.

3.3.2.3. When and how to use CASBEE-EB(1) Use as an environmental performance labeling tool
Based on the assessment results, experts issue authorized third-party certificates (labeling), which can be used in property value assessment of buildings from an environmental
perspective, etc.
(2) Use as a tool to indicate environmental performance
The CASBEE-EB results can be used as an indicator of building environmental performance and may be useful on occasions such as producing an advertisement to attract
tenants.
(3) Use for the mid- to long-term planning of facility management
Real estate agencies or companies that own many facilities can use CASBEE-EB for selfevaluation of buildings under their management or ownership, making mid- to long-termplans for facility management. Specific renovation plans should be assessed using
CASBEE-RN.
(4) Use in the property appraisal system
CASBEE-EB can be useful for the property appraisal system because it associates theenvironmental performance assessed with the property values.

115

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

3.3.2.2. Assessment targets of CASBEE-EB
CASBEE-EB evaluates Q (environmental quality) and LR (environmental load reduction) ofexisting buildings.
Owing to its assessment system, CASBEE-EB can deal with not only the buildings
designed/constructed with use of CASBEE-NC but also any of the large stock of existingbuildings.
What is assessed is the present performance of an existing building that has passed
several stages such as new construction, repair and renovation. Therefore, the obtained
results are the performance levels at the very moment that can be achieved as an outcome of past upgrading and deterioration. Remodeling (i.e., new construction involving
partial reuse of existing buildings) and reconstruction should be assessed using
CASBEE-NC.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.3. CASBEE for Buildings

3.3.2.4. Points to be noted on CASBEE-EB(1) Assessment criteria of CASBEE-EB
The criteria to be used are those prescribed at the time of assessment, not the criteria
when a building concerned was constructed. The CASBEE assessment criteria will beaccordingly updated with technical innovation or conceptual change regarding environment. It is necessary for the assessment to be conducted based on the latest criteria
available at the time of assessment.
(2) CASBEE-EB assessment based on operational records
In CASBEE-EB, the building performance that can be achieved at the time of assessment
is in principle evaluated within the parameters of operational records and measured data.
However, considering the feasibility of conduct of assessment in a practical sense, aframework for the assessment has been established as follows:a. If the performance at the time of assessment can be evaluated based on the design
drawings and specifications etc., the criteria of CASBEE-NC can be used for the assessment.
b. When measurement is difficult, the assessment item concerned is evaluated using thecriteria of CASBEE-NC. The same can be applied to cases in which prediction based on
the design specifications is considered more accurate than measurement.
c. When deterioration of buildings with time should be included for consideration, assessment will be performed accordingly.
d. In principle, if measurement is considered simpler and more accurate than prediction,measurement is conducted (e.g. luninance setting levels, background noise, etc.).
e. If the data measured in accordance with laws (such as the Act on Maintenance ofSanitation in Buildings, and pollution control ordinances) are available, these can be used.
f. It is very important to appropriately operate and manage a building to allow it to function
at the maximum performance levels. Therefore, with regard to operation/managementrelated assessment items such as tolerability and durability, the requirements for better
assessment results include the submission of recorded data and information to prove thatthe management levels are sufficiently high.
g. In the assessment of buildings of the typical performance levels or below (i.e., Level 3
or lower), requirements such as the submission of large amounts of data/information andthe undertaking of laborious measurements can be exempted, and the criteria of
CASBEE-NC can be used to the extent possible.
(3) Provision of a brief version of CASBEE-EB
A brief version of CASBEE-EB, which requires only a short time to conduct the assessment, has become available. The positioning of CASBEE-EB (brief version) is the same as
CASBEE-EB. Unlike CABEE-EB, however, CASBEE-EB (brief version) exhibits the following characteristics, making assessment relatively easy.

116

a. Assessment item Q1 (indoor environment), for which measured data had to be assessed,
has been omitted.
b. With regard to thermal or air environment, if the regularly measured data on the indoor
environment in accordance with the Act on Maintenance of Sanitation in Buildings areavailable, these can be used for the assessment.
c. In CASBEE-EB, the acquisition of better assessment results, especially regarding LR1(3.Efficiency in building service system) requires energy consumption data of each of the
facilities for air-conditioning, ventilation, lighting, hot water supply, and elevators. However,as it is very difficult to obtain such measurement data if a building is not equipped withthe building energy management system (BEMS), a simplified assessment method has
been adopted.
3.3.2.5. Assessment items of CASBEE-EB
Table 3.3.3: List of assessment items for Q (environmental quality of buildings)
Q1. Indoor
environment

1. Sound environment

1.1 Noise
1.2 Sound insulation
1.3 Sound absorption

2. Thermal environment

2.1 Room temperature control
2.2 Humidity
2.3 Air-conditioning system

3. Lighting and illumination

3.1 Use of daylight
3.2 Anti-glare measures
3.3 Illuminance level
4.1 Source control
4.2 Ventilation
4.3 Operation plan

Q2. Quality ofservice

1. Service ability

1.1 Functionality and usability
1.2 Amenities and comfort
1.3 Maintenance management

2. Durability and reliability

2.1 Earthquake resistance and seismic
isolation
2.2 Service life of components
2.3 Renewal with suitable frequency
2.4 Reliability

3. Adaptability and upgrading

3.1 Spatial margin
3.2 Floor load margin
3.3 System upgrading

Q3. Outdoor
environment(on-site)

1. Preservation of biologicalenvironment
2. Consideration for townscapeand view
3. Consideration for regional
characteristics and amenities

3.1 Consideration for regional characteristics and provision of improved comfort
3.2 Improvement of thermal environment
on-site117

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

3.4 Lighting control
4. Air quality

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.3. CASBEE for Buildings

3.3.2.6. Example of CASBEE-EB evaluation
Assessment Results: Rank A (BEE：2.1)
Assessment Summary
This building, a branch office, is situated in front of parkwith water pond. The plan considerd the linkage
between the bulding openspace and the park. It
facilitate gallery and tea room for public use. Officerooms spread out large column less space that provides
frexibility. Refresh spaces in stairway are also
encouradge communications between workers.
<Confort indoor environment>
Offices are conditioned by floor HVAC system, PMV
contrall, VAV, semi-indirect lighting and task-ambient
lighting. Pre-wireing is also considerd for futer
upgrading.
<Energy>
環境性能評価結果（レーダーチャート）
Assessmentof major items (Radar chart) It introduced the hybrid heat sorce system with gas andelectricity for efficient energy use. Heat strage is low
Q2 Quality of service
water level temperature stratification type. Operation of5
thesystem considers thermal loads and energy saving
Q3
4
Q1
OutdoorIndoorcontinuously.
environment
3
environment

Building Outline
Building type(s): Ofiice
Location: Fukuoka City
Site area: 1,751 m2
Total floor area: 10,632 m2
Floors: 11 floors (above ground) & 1
floor (basement)
Completion: April 1992

ライフサイクル CO2（温暖化影響チャート）

Lifecycle CO2 (Climate change impact chart)

30%:☆☆☆☆☆ 60%:☆☆☆☆ 80%:☆☆☆ 100%:☆☆ over 100%:☆

Standard
Calculation

Construction
Repair/Upgrade/Demolition
On-siteOff-site

Operation

1. Reference value
2. Building-related
initiatives
3. Above initiatives+ other on-sitemeasures
4. Above initiatives+ other off-sitemeasures040(On-site)

80
120(kg-CO2/Year･m2)

2
1

LR3
Outdoorenvironment(Off-site)

LR1
EnergyLR2Resources/Materials

Q1 Indoor environment
Q1 score=

5

建築物の環境性能効率
BEE (BEE rank & chart)
Built Environment Efficiency

Q Score =Q Environmental Quality
3.4

4

Q2 Quality of service

5

4

4

4.1

3.8
3.4

3

3.4
3.0

2
1

3.6

3.4

3

ThermalLight/Visual

Air quality

Environmental quality Q

LR1 Energy

LR1 score= 3.6

1

Service
Ability

Durability/
Reliability

Flexibility &Adaptability

4.5

4

1

3.5
3.0

Environmental load L

LR2 Resources/Materials
LR2 score= 3.9

3.7
LR3 score= 3.4

5
4.4

4

4

3.4

3

3

3.0

NaturalenergyEfficient Service Efficient
operation
System

1

3.3

3.1

2

Water resource
protection

Reduced use of
non-renewable
resources

Avoidance ofpollutants

1

Consideration
for global
warming

Consideration
for Local
environment

Consideration forsurrounding
environment

Assessment results for CASBEE-NC_2010 (ver1.0)

Design Consideration

Items considered in planning
GeneralHuman Creative Office.
Q1
Confort environment for occupants
Indoor environment
Q2
Large column less space that provides frexibility. It gives enough ceiling hight, floor
Quality of Service
hight for confort
Q3
Linkage between the bulding openspace and the park. Gallery and tea room for
Outdoor Environment
public use.
on SiteHybrid heat sorce system with gas and electricity for efficient energy use. water heatLR1
strage. Operation fot energy saving continuously
EnergyLR2Resources & Materials

Townscape/
Local
view
characteristics/Amenity

LR3 Off-site environment

22

Building
thermal load

Conservation &Creation of
Biotope

3.9

3.8
3

3.5
3.0

LR Score =

5

5

3.9

5.0

2

LR Environmental load reduction

1

Water conservation

LR3
Off-site Environment

Figure 3.3.4: An example of CASBEE-EB evaluation

118

3

2

Sound

3.7

Q3 Outdoor environment (On-site)
Q3 score=

Q2 score= 3.8

5Key environmental measures
Floor HVAC, zone contrall, task-ambient
lighting
Confertable apace (ceiling hight 2.9m,
floor hight 3.9m)
Consideration for town scape and land
scape
Hybrid heat sorce system + water heatstrage, VAV, VWV, task-ambient lighting.
Himan sensor for light contrall.
Water saving toilet,
Blast furnace cement, reuse of existing
structure underground
Low NOx equipment, heat exaust fromroof top.

3.3.3. CASBEE for Renovation (CASBEE-RN)
3.3.3.1. The position of CASBEE-RN within the four basic tools
CASBEE-RN is a tool for the assessment of the renovation of existing buildings at theoperation stage.
In CASBEE-RN, the performance after renovation is predicted. The assessment
results are valid for three years after the completion of renovation. After that period, thebuilding concerned should be accordingly re-evaluated using the latest edition of
CASBEE-EB available.
It is becoming more necessary for the existing building stock to undergo renovations
for realization of better energy efficiency. Improvements to eco-friendliness or CO2 reduction are required through major renovation work, etc. It is therefore needed to make thetools for existing buildings or renovation more known to the public so that these can beutilized more frequently. The assessment of environmental performance of existing buildings (using CASBEE-EB) or renovated buildings (using CASBEE-RN) is conducted fromthe perspective of a building being an asset, and the results can be used to decide
whether an existing building of interest needs to be renovated.

a. Functional improvement of building service systems, and energy-saving measures(e.g., switch to high-efficiency heat sources or high-efficiency lighting systems, and adoption of clean energy use)b. Improvement of interior functions (e.g., installation of OA raised access floors, removalof asbestos, and measures against VOCs or volatile organic compounds)
c. Improvement of building envelope functions (e.g., improvement of durability or thermal
insulation performance, and provision of rooftop greenery)d. Improvement of the whole building functions (e.g., retrofitting)e. Change of building usage (e.g., conversions)
Note 1) Earthquake-resistant renovations are evaluated according to assessment item Q2 (quality ofservice; earthquake resistance)
Note 2) Simple repair for maintaining the present functioning levels is not assessed by CASBEE-RN.
However, remodeling (i.e., new construction involving partial reuse of existing buildings) canbe evaluated by CASBEE-RN.
Note 3) In the case of building extension work, CASBEE-NC can also be used for the assessment of
the extended area if it can be evaluated separately from the existing area. If not, CASBEE-RN
should be used to assess the whole building.

119

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

3.3.3.2. Assessment targets of CASBEE-RN
CASBEE-RN evaluates Q (environmental quality) and LR (environmental load reduction) ofrenovated existing buildings.
According to the purpose of assessment, the relevant performances between preand post-renovation can be compared (optional).
Functional upgrading after the commencement of building operation is described byvarious terms such as repair, upgrading, renewal, renovation and retrofitting. The BuildingStandard Law of Japan gives definitions of terms such as large-scale repair. In
CASBEE-RN, these are collectively handled as renovations.
Specifically, CASBEE-RN covers a wide range of renovations as mentioned below.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.3. CASBEE for Buildings

3.3.3.3. When and how to use CASBEE-RN
The four main examples for utilization of CASBEE-RN are as follows:a. Use as a Design for Environment (DfE) tool at the renovation planning stage
CASBEE-RN can be used, for example, to examine the renovation design from the environmental performance perspective, to set target levels, to establish consensus among
the design divisions involved (regarding architecture, structure and building service system) and to indicate performance at design phase to clients.
b. Use as an environmental performance labeling tool
Based on the assessment results of environmental performance after renovation, experts
issue authorized third-party certificates (labeling), which can be used in property value
assessment of renovated buildings from an environmental perspective, etc.
c. Use as a tool to evaluate the improvement of environmental performance efficiency
after renovation
CASBEE-RN can be used to assess the beneficial effect of renovation on environmental
performance efficiency, whereby renovation for environment improvement can be promoted.
d. Use as a tool to evaluate renovations from the energy-saving perspective
CASBEE-RN can be used to specifically assess the energy-saving performance that canbe improved by renovation, whereby acquisition of better energy efficiency in existingbuildings can be promoted as a measure against climate change.
3.3.3.4. Assessment criteria of CASBEE-RN(1) Fundamental principles
The fundamental principles of CASBEE-RN assessment criteria are as follows:a. The existing part is evaluated based on the latest assessment criteria, not the thencriteria when the building to be renovated was constructed.
b. In principle, the measured data assessment by CASBEE-EB is considered as pre-renovation assessment.
c. In principle, the post-renovation assessment is conducted based on the design specifications and anticipated performance in accordance with the CASBEE-NC assessment
framework.
d. The part that is not subject to renovation is assessed by CASBEE-EB.
e. Because some of the assessment items or criteria are different between the predictive
assessment of CASBEE-NC and the CASBEE-EB assessment based on the operational
records, adjustments were made in order to enable the performance improvement before/
after renovation to be evaluated (e.g., in some assessment items, one tool’s criteria were
adjusted to the other’s).

120

f. In some cases, a building for renovation is such an old construction that it is difficult toget sufficient data to evaluate its performance, and therefore simple assessment has
been made acceptable. However, appropriate pre-renovation assessment is essential
when it comes to the items allocated to the assessment of performances improved byrenovation. Limited but thorough research and collection of necessary data is a prerequisite.
(2) Change of building usage
If the renovation involves change of building usage, pre-renovation assessment should be
conducted based on the usage before renovation. Likewise, conduct of post-renovationassessment should be in accordance with the usage after renovation.
3.3.3.5. Assessment of performance improvement as a result of renovation
The improvement of BEE by renovation (ΔBEE) is accordingly estimated using the following equation:
ΔBEE = BEE (post-renovation) – BEE (pre-renovation)
For example, if the BEE (pre-renovation) score of a building is 0.9 (B- rank) and the BEE(post-renovation) score is raised to 1.8 (A rank) as a result of renovation, ΔBEE will be 0.9.

2-2 Lifecycle CO2 (Global warming impact chart)

BEE Before RN = 0.9

Before RN=

BEE After RN =2-3 Assessment results of Major categories (rader chart)
Q2
Quality ofService

After RN=

1.8

5

Q: Environemtal Quality

S: ★★★★★ A: ★★★★ B+: ★★★ B-: ★★ C: ★ 30%: ☆☆☆☆☆ 60%: ☆☆☆☆ 80%: ☆☆☆ 100%: ☆☆ over 100%: ☆
Standard Calculation
1.5
3.0
BEE=1.
On-siteOff-site
100
+

50

S

A

61

1.8

49

B

3.Above initiatives+ other on-sitemeasures

B-

0.9

0.5

After RN

91%

Before RN

100%

4.Above initiatives +other off-site
After RN

C
0

32

0

100%

Before RN

Q1IndoorEnvironment

20

40

60

50

100

0.9

2-4 Assessment results of Medium-level categories (bar chart)
Q Environmental Quality
Q1 Indoor Environment
Q2 Quality of Service
Score of Q1 = 2.9→3.4 5
Score of Q2 = 2.8→3.5
5
4
3

4
2.7

3.0

3.0

3.0

3.5

3.3

3.7

3.4

4.0

3

3.0
2.4

3.3

2.6

2

ThermalComfortLighting &Illumination

Air Quality

Service
Ability

Durability
Reliability &

3.0

3.0

Flexibility& Adaptability

LR Environmental Load Reduction
LR1 Energy
LR2 Resources & Materials
Score of LR1 = 3.0→4.0
Score of LR2 = 2.5→3.2
5
5

3.0

3.0

4.0

Preservation& Creation of
BiotopeTownscape &Landscape211Noise &
Acoustics

3.0→3.3

3
2.9

1

Q Score = 2.9→3.4

Q3 Outdoor Environment on Site
Score of Q3 =
5
4

3.0

2

LR3
Off-site
Environment
LR2
Resources &Materials

80

The building's LCCO2 emissions are assessed under LR3
Consideration of Global Warming with relation to the referencebuilding.

L: Environmental Load2
1

（kg-CO2/yr・㎡）⊿BEE= 1.8－0.9＝

Q3
OutdoorEnvironment

3

LR1
Energy

91%

0

54

4

Local
Characteristics &Outdoor Amenity

LR Score = 2.8→3.7

LR3 Off-site Environment
Score of LR3 =2.9→3.7

5

5.0
4

4
3.0

4.0

3.0

3.0

3.0

3
3.0

3.0

2.3

3.7

3.1

2

2
1

4
3.0

3.0
3.5

3

NaturalEnergyUtilizatio

Efficiency in
Building Service
SystemEfficientOperation
System

3.9

3.1

3.9
3.3

2.5

2

1
Building
Thermal
Load

3.1
3

Water
Resources

Reduction of
Non Renewable
Material use

Materials with
Low Health
Risks

1
GlobalWarming

Local
environment

Surrounding
Environment

Figure 3.3.5: Assessment of performance improvement as a result of renovation

121

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

2-1 Built Environment Efficiency (rank & chart)3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.3. CASBEE for Buildings

3.3.3.6. Assessment of renovation specifically from an energy-saving perspective
As a measure to reduce climate change, energy conservation of existing buildings has
become a crucial issue.
Although the indoor environment having been improved by renovation may increaseenergy consumption, provision of better thermal insulation contributes to a better indoor
thermal environment as well as more energy saving. For renovation, therefore, simultaneous assessment of improvement from the viewpoints of energy saving and indoor environment is important and, in the assessment of CASBEE-RN, use of the following indicators has been made possible.
The built environment efficiency of renovation for better energy-saving performance(BEEES) is defined by the equation below. The improvement of BEEES is assessed as
ΔBEEES. (ES stands for energy saving.)
BEEES = QES / LES
ΔBEEES = BEEES (post-renovation) – BEEES (pre-renovation)
Where QES and LES are provisionally calculated as shown below:(SQ1: Score of Q1 or indoor environment)
QES = 25 x (SQ1 – 1)		(SLR1: Score of LR1 or energy)
LES = 25 x (5 – SLR1)		
3.3.3.7. Points to be noted on CASBEE-RN(1) Assessment of environmental actions taken in the process of renovation
In CASBEE-RN, environmental actions in the process of renovation are not included forthe assessment of post-renovation environmental performance of buildings.
For example, recycling of waste produced during renovation work is an important
issue in terms of consideration for the environment, but it does not improve the building’s
post-renovation performance. In order to maintain the compatibility with the results of
CASBEE-EB assessment after renovation, the Q, LR or BEE score does not reflect such
effects.
(2) Assessment of the extended area
If it is possible to evaluate the extended area separately from the existing area, CASBEE-NC
can also be used for the assessment of the extended area. If not, CASBEE-RN should be
used to assess the whole building.
(3) Change of building usage
If the renovation involves change of building usage, a pre-renovation assessment should
be conducted based on the usage before renovation. Likewise, the conduct of post-renovation assessment should be in accordance with the usage after renovation.

122

3.3.3.8. Example of CASBEE-RN evaluation
Assessment Results: After Renovation: Rank A (BEE:2.2) Before Renovation: Rank B- (BEE:0.8)
Assessment Summary

Built Environment Efficiency (BEE rank & chart)
Before renovation
BEE= 0.8
After renovation
BEE= 2.2

This building as a hospital had been build for over 40
years, is converred for community welfare facility of theprefecture. This conversion plan considerd number ofmeasures not only for reinforcement of structure andupgrading but also for improvement of indoor quality,
service quality, outdoor environment, energy saving andrecycling of materials.
It resulted improvement of overall BEE score, and BEEES
that increased from 0.8 to 2.7 through renovation also
reduced CO2 emmission significantry.

S: ★★★★★ A: ★★★★ B+ : ★★★ B- : ★★ C: ★
3.0
1.5
BEE=1.0
+

2.2

64

50

B

A

S

B

-

0.8

46

Renovation outline
Structure: Using existing structures
Exteriors: renovated overall
Interiors: renovated overall
Equipments: renovated overall

0.5

Q Score = 2.8→3.5

Q Environmental Quality
Q1 Indoor environment

C
0

29

0

5

55

50

100

Environmental load L⊿BEE= 2.2－0.8＝

1.4

3.0

100

A

Environmental quality QES

S
66

1.5

BEE=1 0

B

3

1

3.0

2.8

4.0

2.9

3.2

2.5

B

-

Light/Visual

5.0

4.7

4

3.0

67

24

1

50

100

Environmental load LES

2.0

3.0

4.0

2.9

Building
thermal load

NaturalenergyEfficient Service
SystemEfficient
operation

2

LR2 Resources/Materials
LR2 score= 3.3→3.9
5
4

4.2

3.4

3.0

3

1

LR2
Resources & Materials
LR3
Off-site Environment

3.0

3Flexibility &Adaptability

Durability/
Reliability

1.0Conservation &Creation of
BiotopeTownscape/
Local
view
characteristics/Amenity

LR Score = 2.7→3.8

LR3 Off-site environment
LR3 score=

2.9→3.4

5
4

4.1

3.0
3.2

3

2.8

3.5

3.0

2.9

3.6

3.2

2

Water resource
protection

Reduced use of
non-renewable
resources

Avoidance ofpollutants

1

Consideration
for global
warming

Consideration
for Local
environment

Consideration forsurrounding
environment

Assessment results obtained by CASBEE-RN_2010v1.0

Items considered in planning
Q1
Indoor environment
Q2
Quality of Service
Q3
Outdoor Environmenton SiteLR1
Energy3.2

2

Design Consideration
General

4.5
3.0

2.9

3.4

3.2

3.0
1.6

2.4→3.6

5.0

3.1

Service Ability

Air quality

LR1 score= 2.3→4.0

52

Q3 Outdoor environment (On-site)
Q3 score=
5
4

4

2

ThermalLR1 Energy

Before 0.5
renovation

Q2 score= 3.0→3.3

1.0

Sound

3

0

5

3

3.3

LR Environmental load reduction

C
0

4.2

Q2 Quality of service

+

After
renovation

51

4

2

Energy Saving Assessment by BEEES

Q1 score= 3.0→3.6

Conversion from Old hospital into new office imcorperate withseismic retrofitting, machine replacement.
Zone contrall by introducing Individual HVAC. Shading byreinforcement frame.

Key environmental measuresseismic retrofitting, machine replacement forenergy saving
Zone contrall for air condition, day lightcontrall

Improved dur atio n b y seismic ret r ofitting

Structureal reinforcement by outer frame

Improvement of Outdoor thermal environment by “Cool bond”

Cool Pond

Shading by reinforcement outer frame. Iced thermal strage.
BEMS

Shading by reinforcement outer frame.PV
panel. Iced thermal strage. BEMS
Rainwater usage. Reuse of Existing
structure.

Rainwater usage. Reuse of Existing structure.
No change

Figure 3.3.6: An example of CASBEE-RN evaluation

123

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Environmental quality Q

100

Building Outline
Building type(s): Office (after
renovation)
Hospital (before renovation)
Location: Okayama City, Okayama
Prefecture
Site area: 14,703.98 m2
Total floor area: 20,816.11 m2
Floors: 7 floors (above ground) & 1
floor (basement)
Completion: 2005 (Renovation)
1961 (Completion)

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.3. CASBEE for Buildings

3.3.4. CASBEE for Heat Island Relaxation (CASBEE-HI)
3.3.4.1. Background of CASBEE-HI development
In Japan, temperature in urban areas is rising several times faster than the averageincrease of temperature on a global scale, because of the influence of the heat island
phenomenon. In a scorching summer like recent years, an extra temperature rise inducedby the heat island effect can have a huge detrimental influence. Effective measures areneeded urgently. In response to such a situation, the government formulated the “Outlineof the Policy Framework to Reduce Urban Heat Island Effects” in March 2004, and fourmonths later announced the “Guidelines on Architectural Design for Mitigation of Urban
Heat Island Effects” under the name of the Director General of the Housing Bureau of the
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT). In accordance with theguidelines, CASBEE-HI was developed and released in July 2005 as a tool to evaluatebuilding-related initiatives for the mitigation of heat island phenomenon.
In the year following its development and release, CASBEE-HI went through minor
revisions. Although direct use of CASBEE-HI for local government ordinances, etc., still
remains limited, its assessment criteria are rare standards applicable to the assessmentof building-related initiatives combating heat island effects and are used as a reference
domestically and overseas, especially in hot and humid places such as Taiwan and HongKong.
3.3.4.2. Positioning of CASBEE-HI
CASBEE-HI was developed from the viewpoint of augmenting the contents of assessment items related to the mitigation of heat island effects in other CASBEE tools such as
CASBEE-NC, specifically Q3 (Outdoor environment (on-site)) – “3.2 Improvement of thermal environment on site” and L3 (Off-site environment) – “2.2.2. Mitigation of thermal
environment deterioration.” The comprehensive assessment of buildings is conductedusing CASBEE-NC etc., whereas CASBEE-HI is specifically applicable to the assessmentof architectural design made for mitigating heat island effects.
3.3.4.3. What to evaluate by CASBEE-HI
1) Subjects of assessment
In other CASBEE tools such as CASBEE-NC, the BEE score is determined by the numerator Q consisting of the following three categories (Q1: Indoor environment, Q2: Quality ofservice, and Q3: Outdoor environment (on-site)) and the denominator L consisting of thefollowing three categories (L1: Energy, L2: Resources and materials, and L3: Off-site environment). Of these categories, Q3 and L3 include the contents related to the heat mitigation effects on hot outdoor environments and heat island loads, based on which
CASBEE-HI conducts more detailed assessment. As the assessment items such asindoor thermal environment and energy consumption are evaluated by CASBEE-NC, etc.,
these are not included for the assessment of CASBEE-HI.
2) Configuring of the virtual enclosed space boundary surrounding the site
In CASBEE-HI, an urban area is defined as an aggregate of individual buildings and theconcept of a Virtual Enclosed Space (V.S.) that surrounds the site has been introduced asin the case of CASBEE-NC, etc. (Figure 3.3.7). The inside of V.S. is considered as a spatial
area under control of the architects’ design and therefore, in this area, how the building isdesigned greatly affects the mitigation of hot environments or reduction of thermal loads
on the outside. In this virtual enclosed space boundary defined as V.S., QHI (i.e., Quality:124

quality of thermal environment in areas where people are present such as pedestrianareas) is assessed from the viewpoint of mitigating effects on hot environments. With
regard to the outside of V.S., on the other hand, LHI (i.e., Load: thermal environmentalloads on the outside or heat island loads on the outside of V.S.) is assessed from theviewpoint of producing the least impact on the outside. LHI reduction is defined as LRHI or
load reduction for heat island reduction.
The spatial area that is subject to the assessment of QHI (i.e., mitigating effects on a
hot environment inside V.S.) is up to 2 or 3 meters above ground where people are present, such as pedestrian areas. It also includes all the outdoor areas inside V.S. where
people are present (outdoor activity spaces) such as rooftop gardens and pilotis.
Virtual enclosed
space boundary(V.S.)

Inside the site boundary

LHI: Heat island loads
on the outside of V.S.

QHI: Improvement of thermal environment
quality in pedestrian areas, etc.
(Mitigation of hot environment)
Buildingheight: H

Outside space

Approx.
Hx2

Inside space(Designated site)

3.3.4.4. Examination of the virtual enclosed space from three different perspectives
in the assessment of CASBEE-HI
The effectiveness of measures against heat island effects is considered to vary depending on the location of a building of interest. It therefore is necessary to develop an assessment method that can deal with the characteristics of any location. The CASBEE-HI
framework enables [1] regional characteristics and [2] neighboring block conditions
around the designated site to be taken into consideration, before [3] possible measures
for mitigation are discussed at the architectural planning level.
[1] Consideration of regional characteristics
The wind or temperature in any local area exhibits strong individuality. Needless to say,regarding variations in cities, even within the same city, environmental factors such as
wind differ greatly. In the assessment system for mitigation of heat island effects, local
climate characteristics, especially those regarding wind, should be taken into consideration. In CASBEE-HI, the “Extensive Wind Characteristics Database” covering all theregions in Japan has been made available as a reference, allowing assessors to conduct
the assessment with understanding of the wind environment in an area of their interest.
[2] Consideration of the neighboring block conditions around the designated site (examining the location from the perspective of the wind environment)
Various conditions can characterize the neighboring blocks around the designated125

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Figure 3.3.7: Definition of the virtual enclosed space boundary for assessment

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.3. CASBEE for Buildingssite (examining the location in terms of the wind environment). There may be a wide street
in front, a large park or empty space upwind, or a skyscraper in the adjacent block. Suchneighboring conditions influence environmental factors such as wind velocity and temperature of air flowing into the designated site. As shown in Table 3.3.5, locations areclassified into three categories by the air temperature and condition of wind blowing into
the designated site, based on which the assessment can be performed accordingly.
For areas within the wards of Tokyo or Osaka city, the “Block-Level Wind Characteristics
Database” is available for understanding the wind environment around a designated site
in detail and can be used when selecting an applicable category of location.
[3] Consideration at the construction planning level
Using the assessment sheet, measures to be considered for the mitigation of heat islandeffects are examined and evaluated in the process of architectural planning. CASBEE-HI
assesses these measures at this planning level.
Table 3.3.5: Classification of locations from the viewpoint of wind environment
Temperature of inflowing air
Good (cool)

UpwindconditionManyblockages
upwind—Fewer
blockages
upwindLocation [2]E.g., on the waterfront or upwind
large green spaces or parks

Hot (hot air)Location [1]E.g., urban areas with fewer
empty spaces
Location [3]E.g., upwind large empty spaces
or highways

3.3.4.5. Indicators used for CASBEE-HI assessment
In order to comprehensively assess the mitigating effects on a hot environment during thedaytime in summer and the cooling effects on air temperature during the nighttime (forinfrequent occurrence of sultry nights, generally called “tropical nights” in Japan), theBEEHI score is determined using integrated values of LHI and QHI that cover the entire day.
LHI is assessed in terms of increase in air temperature outside V.S. (Figure 3.3.7) and environmental impact that increases the standard new effective temperature (SET*), whereas
QHI is evaluated in terms of SET* in spatial areas up to 2 or 3 meters above ground where
people are present (outdoor activity spaces such as pedestrian areas) inside V.S. andduring the hours when people are there. Because SET* is included for assessment, notonly the sensible heat emission that is increased by the execution of construction plansat the designated site but also the increase in latent heat emissions and decrease in windvelocity are considered as relevant impact factors. By defining the spatial area to beassessed for QHI as outdoor activity spaces such as pedestrian areas, the results canreflect differences in the position of exhaust heat release from building services or green
areas.
3.3.4.6. CASBEE-HI assessment tool
1) Outline
Ideally, a detailed numerical analysis on climate should be performed for an accurate
BEEHI calculation. In a practical sense, however, it is difficult to perform such an analysis
on every occasion at the planning stage of construction. As in the case of CASBEE-NC,
126etc., an assessment method is needed that enables simple estimation of BEEHI scores. In
CASBEE-HI, an assessment sheet is used to allow assessors to evaluate/check relevant
values such as BEEHI scores at the planning stage. In this assessment method, the heatisland load (LHI) is not obtained directly. Instead, its reducing effect, that is, LRHI (loadreduction for heat island reduction) is first assessed to calculate the LHI value.
2) CASBEE-HI users (assessors)
Like other CASBEE tools such as CASBEE-NC, expected users of CASBEE-HI include awide range of parties involved in construction projects such as construction clients,
architects and municipalities.
3) Buildings to be assessed by CASBEE-HI (categorized into 18 groups)
As in the case of CASBEE-NC, etc., the buildings to be evaluated by CASBEE-HI consistof two types: non-residential (mainly used for offices, schools, retailers, restaurants, hospitals, hotels, halls and factories) and residential (apartments). These buildings are categorized into 18 groups according to the building usage, location, and legal floor area
ratioNote) (Figure 3.3.8). Multi-purpose facilities (i.e., buildings with combined purpose for
non-residential and residential use) can also be evaluated.

Non-residential use
X
Residential use

Location [1]*Location [2]Location [3]X

Legal floor area ratio: above 400%
Legal floor area ratio: between 200% and 400%
Legal floor area ratio: 200% or below(* See Table 3.3.5 for the details of classified locations)Figure 3.3.8: Classification of buildings to be assessed by CASBEE-HI

4) Assessment items
The assessment items of CASBEE-HI are listed in Table 3.3.6. The Major Items are in fivecategories: [1] Flow of air, [2] Shade, [3] Ground surface coverage around the building(inside V.S.), etc., [4] Exterior materials, and [5] Release of exhaust heat from the building
services.

127

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Note) The legal floor area ratio is a ratio of floor to site area, which is specified by the city planningin a relevant district. However, relaxation measures applicable to each city planning within theparameters of the Building Standard Law (e.g., relaxation of the floor-space ratio owing to asecured public open space in accordance with the Planned Development Design System, anda floor area ratio increased in accordance with the Exceptional Floor Area Ratio District
System) are not included.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.3. CASBEE for Buildings

Table 3.3.6: Assessment Items of CASBEE-HI
Major Item

Middle Item

Minor Item

QHI-1: Creation of apath of air flowing
into pedestrian areas
inside V.S., etc., tomitigate hot environment[1] Understand wind characteristics in thesurroundings of V.S. and make suitable plans
about the building layout and configuration
to create a path of air flowing into pedestrianareas inside D.S., etc.

LRHI-1: Consideration
to allow the flow of
air into downwind
areas to reduce thethermal impact on
the outside of V.S.

[1] In planning the building layout/configuration,
do not block the downwind flow of air.

2. Shade

QHI-2: Formation of
the shade in summer to mitigate
hot environment inpedestrian areas
inside V.S., etc.

[1] Plant middle/high trees or construct pilotis,
eaves or pergolas, to allow more areas to be inshade.

3. Ground surface
coverage aroundthe building (inside
V.S.), etc.

QHI-3: Securingof green or water
surface areas, etc.,
inside V.S. to mitigate hot environment
in pedestrian areas
inside V.S., etc.

[1] Secure green or water surface areas to prevent increase in temperature (e.g., the groundsurface or the near ground surface temperature).

LRHI-3: Selection ofsuitable materials forground surface coverage to reduce thethermal impact on
the outside of V.S.

[1] Select suitablematerials for groundsurface coverage.

QHI-4: Selection ofsuitable exteriormaterials, etc., tomitigate hot environment in pedestrianareas inside V.S., etc.

[1] Provide as much greenery as possible on therooftop (where people are allowed to enter).

LRHI-4: Selectionof suitable exteriormaterials, etc., toreduce the thermal
impact on the outsideof V.S.

[1] Select high reflective materials andarrange as muchgreenery as possibleon the rooftop, etc.

1. Flow of air

4. Exterior materials

128[2] Secure the downwind flow of air by disposing of empty spaces such as passages andgreenery (e.g., lawn, grass and shrubs) in asuitable way.

[2] Decrease the building area exposed in theprevailing wind direction in summer.
[3] Determine a suitable building height, configuration and distance from other buildings to
let air resume flowing downwind.

[2] Keep the paved area inside V.S. as small as
possible.
Especially in the areas under strong influenceof direct sunlight (e.g., south or west to thebuilding), avoid the construction of large paved
areas such as a parking lot.
A. Secure green or
water surface areas,or select coveragematerials with highwater retention.
B. Select coveragematerials with highsolar reflectance.

[2] Select suitable materials for exterior walls.
Especially in areas under strong influence of
direct sunlight (e.g., the southern or eastern wallof the building), take suitable measures such asarranging as much greenery as possible.
A. Provide as muchgreenery as possibleon the rooftop, etc.
B. Select high reflective roof materials.

[2] Select suitable materials for exterior walls.

Major Item

Middle Item

Minor Item

5. Release of exhaust
heat from the building services

QHI-5: Determinationof a suitable position
for releasing exhaust
heat from the building services, etc., tomitigate the hot environment in pedestrianareas inside V.S., etc.

[1] Release the exhaust heat produced by airconditioners in operation from a higher positionof the building.

LRHI-5: Reduction of
exhaust heat released
from the building
services into air[1] Prevent thermal loss via windows or exterior
walls of the building and take measures for
efficient use of energy necessary for air-conditioners, etc., to reduce exhaust heat released
into air.

[2] Release the high-temperature exhaust heatproduced by combustion facilities in operationfrom a higher position of the building.

Reduction of building thermal loads:
Reduce exhaust heat released from air-conditioners (for cooling) in operation, by blocking
direct sunlight (e.g., with middle/high trees,
eaves or louvers) or providing better thermal
insulation.
Building service system with higher efficiency:
Introduce energy-saving air-conditioners, lighting equipment, ventilators and elevators.

Use of unused energy (utilization of urban
exhaust heat emissions in the surroundings ofthe building):
Reduce the exhaust heat emission by utilizing
exhaust heat released from garbage incinerators.
Reduce the exhaust heat emissions by utilizing
the remaining heat available at sewage treatment plants.
Utilize seawater, river water, groundwater, etc.
Introduce high-efficiency infrastructures.
Utilize district heating/cooling systems (theexhaust heat released from a district heating/cooling plant in the process of cooling a building of interest is included in the estimation of
exhaust heat released from the building).
[2] Prevent increase in air temperature by lowering the temperature of exhaust heat released
from the building services, etc.
[3] Shift the peak time for exhaust heat release.
Although there is a thermal storage system, etc.,
this item is subject only to the daytime assessment (not applicable to the all-day assessment).

129

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Use of natural energy (utilization of naturalenergy potential in the surroundings of thebuilding):
Reduce the exhaust heat emission by utilizing
natural ventilation.
Reduce the exhaust heat emission by utilizing
daylight.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.3. CASBEE for Buildings

The Middle Items are determined in accordance with the Major Items and regarded as thefundamental principles that should be taken into consideration at the architectural planning stage. These are separately assessed from the viewpoints of QHI (i.e., mitigating
effects on the hot environment in the outdoor areas inside V.S. such as pedestrian areas)and LRHI (i.e., reduction of heat island loads on the outside of V.S.). The Minor Items offer
important initiatives to be considered at the architectural planning stage in order toachieve the goals given by the Middle Items.
5) Assessment results
The summary of assessment results is given in the “Score Sheet” and the “Assessment
Result Sheet.”
Based on the scoring results of assessment items, the score of each Middle Item iscalculated and then multiplied by a weighting coefficient specified by the respective category according to location and legal floor area ratio. The QHI and LRHI scores are thencalculated.
In the “Assessment Result Sheet,” the results are presented by radar charts, barcharts and numerical values according to the assessment item of either QHI (mitigating
effects on hot environment inside V.S.) or LRHI (reduction of heat island loads on the outside of V.S.). The result of BEEHI score is shown by a numerical value and a graph. These
help to comprehensively understand the characteristics of a building of interest and also
examine them from multilateral perspectives.
The BEEHI score is defined as QHI/LHI and calculated using the following equation where
SQHI represents the QHI score (score of Q category for heat island reduction) and SLRHI
represents the LRHI score (score of LR category for heat island reduction).

BEEH =
		

QHI: Mitigating effect on hot environment=
LHI: Heat island load		

25×(SQH—1)
25×(5—SLRHI)(1)

Based on the coordinates of BEEHI score determined when plotting it with QHI on the Y axis
and LHI on the X axis, the BEEHI ranking (i.e., building ranking regarding the mitigation ofheat island effects) is expressed as one of the five levels ranging from the highest S rank
down to the lowest C rank.

1306) Assessment Results■Assessment Manual CASBEE-HI(2010 edition) ■Software CASBEE-HI_2010(v1.0)
2014/2/8

Assessment date○○○ Verification

Assessed by

2014/2/20○○○

Verified by(1) Building Outline
Building NameXX Building

Site Area

10,000 m 2

Building Type

OfficeConstruction Area

2,700 m 2

Location

Kagoshima city

Bu i l d i n g - t o - L a n d R a t i o

27.0 %

Appearance, views, etc.

Climate Zone

Area Category V

Total Floor Area

2,900 m2

When you paste a picture,

Floor Area Ratio

29.0 %

please cancel the Protect Sheet.

Number of Floors

2Structure
Average Occupancy
Annual Occupancy

0 persons
0 hrs/yr

2014/6/1

Completion

Scheduled

Floor Area Ratio lim 200 %[1] urban areas with fewer empty
Classified Location
spaces(2)-1 Assessment results of Medium-level categories (bar chart)
QHI Mitigating effects on hot environment inside V.S.
QHI-1 Air flow inside V.S.
QHI-2 Formation of
the shade
SQ HI 1 ＝ 4.0
SQ HI 2 ＝ 3.0
4
4

3

4

5

5

4

4

2

3

2

1

1

Neighboring wind Securing ofenvironment
empty space

1

Securing ofgreen/water
surface areas

5
5

4

3

3

3

2

2

Downwind
ﬂow of air

Exposedarea

1Distance fromother buildings(2)-2 Assessment Result (radar chart)
QHI-3

QHI-2

Securing ofgreen/water
surface areas

Formation of the
shade

QHI-1

Air flows inside
D.S.
Air flow into theoutside of D.S.
Ground surface
coveragematerials

LRHI-1

LRHI-3

5
4
3
2
1
0

QHI-5

Position for
release of exhaust
heat etc.

Reduction of
exhaust heatemission
Exterior finishing LRHI-5
materials

LRHI-41

1

Exterior wall
surface greenery

3

Position of
exhaustheat

High-temp.
exhaust heat

4.5

注1

LRHI-5 Reduction of exhaust heatemission
SLR HI 5 ＝ 4.3
5
5

4

4

3
3

1

Rooftop

Exterior wall
surface

QHI: Mitigating effect on hot
environment inside V.S.
LHI: Heat island load on theoutside of V.S.

=

25 × (SQHI - 1)
25 × (5 - SLRHI)

=

70.7
11.5

4

3

2

(2)-3 Built Environement Efficiency BEEHI
BEEHI =

QHI-4

Exterior finishingmaterials

Ground surface
coverage

2

SLR HI =5

3
1

Rooftopgreenery

5
5

4

4

3

LRHI-4 Exteriormaterials
SLR HI 4 ＝ 4.1

4

2

1

Reduction of
paved areas

3.8

QHI-5 Position for releaseof exhaust heat etc.
SQ HI 5 ＝ 3.5

432

LRHI Reduction of heat island loads on the outside of V.S.
LRHI-1 Reduction of heat island
LRHI-3 Ground surface
loads on the outside of V.S.
coverage materials
SLR HI 1 ＝ 4.3
SLR HI 3 ＝ 5.0
5

5

3

2

Shade
formation

5

4

4

3

3

5

5

5

Amount of Exhaust heat- Temperature Peak shiftexhaust heatreleasingof exhausttoreleasedtime
heat
nighttime

BEEHI=3.0 BEEHI=1.5

100
QHI: Mitigating effect on
hot environment inside

5

SQ HI =

QHI-3 Securing of green
QHI-4 Exterior materials/water surface areas
SQ HI 3 ＝ 4.5
SQ HI 4 ＝ 4.0

S
71

A

BEEHI=1.0

B+

6.1
B-

50

= 6.1

BEEHI=0.5

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Area / Zone

C
0

12

0
50
100
LHI: Heat island load on the outside of V.S.

Figure 3.3.9: An example of CASBEE-HI Assessment Result Sheet (excerpt)1313. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.3. CASBEE for Buildings

7) Example of CASBEE-HI evaluation
Assessment Result Rank S (BEEHI: 6.1)
Building outline
Type of building use: OfficeSite address: Kagoshima City
Site area; 10,162m2
Total floor area; 2,993m2
Number of floor levels: +2 F
Completion: May 2008
Legal floor area ratio; 200%
Floor area ratio; 29%
Prevailing wind direction; North West
Open space ratio; 73%
Ratio of Ground cover by plats; 39%

1F1F 平面図
Plan

Assessment Outline(1) Surrounding environment and air flow; Situated near the Kotsuki River, the building has placed and shaped to introduce river wind
into the site. It uses natural energy as natural air flow comes into the entrance.
(2) Sun shade; The site has relatively small shaded space as it gacilitates a large meeting space for events. However many tall trees
are planted surrounding the site to provide shadings.
(3) Green cover; open spaces are almost covered by plants except car passage.
(4) Exterior materials ; it creates “green earth” by covering almost all roof top by plants for public use.

QHI Mitigating effects on hot environment inside D.S.
QHI-1 Air flow inside D.S.

S Q1 ＝ 4.0

5

5

4
3

S Q2 ＝ 3.0

4

32
environment

1

empty space

5

S Q4 ＝ 4.0

4

4Reduction of
paved areas

Securing ofgreen/water
surface areas

Rooftopgreenery

4

3

3

1

S Q5 ＝ 3.5

4

2

1

QHI-5 Position for release of
exhaust heat etc.

5

5

3

2

Shade formation

QHI-4 Exterior materials

5

5

3

3

2

1 Neighboring wind Securing of

S Q3 ＝ 4.5

4

4

4

Radar Chart

QHI-2 Formation
QHI-3 Securing of green/waterof the shadesurface areas

3

1

QHI -1Air flows
inside D.S.

LR HI -5
Reduction of
exhaust heatemission

Air flow into theoutside of D.S.
LR HI -1

2

Exterior wall
surface greenery

QHI -3 Securing of green/water
surface areas
QHI -45
Exterior finishing4
materials
3
QHI -52
Position for1
release of
exhaust heat etc.
0

QHI -2Formation of theshade

Position of
exhaust heatreleaseLRHI Reduction of heat island loads on the outside of D.S.

S LR1 ＝ 4.3

543

S LR3 ＝ 5.0

5

5

3

3

5

Exposedarea

Distance fromotherbuildings

1

LRHI-5 Reduction of exhaust heatemission

S LR4 ＝ 4.1

S LR5 ＝ 4.3

53

Ground surface
coverage

1

5
4

5
3

2

2
Downwind
ﬂow of air

BEEH I

LRHI-4 Exterior materials

4

4

5

2
1

LRHI-3 Ground surface
coverage materials

Rooftop

Exterior wall
surface3

5Exhaust Temperature Peak shift
Amount oftoof exhaust
heatexhaust heatnighttime
released releasing time heat

Figure 3.3.10: An example of CASBEE-HI evaluation

132

4
3

2
1

4

BEEHI=3.0

100
QHI: Mitigating effect on hot
environment inside D.S.

LRHI-1 Air flow into the outsideof D.S.

Exterior finishingmaterials
LR HI -4

Ground surface
coverage materials
LR HI -3

High-temp.
exhaust heat

BEEHI=1.5

S

71 6.1B+

BEEHI=1.0
B-

50

BEEHI=0.5

12
0

A

C

0
50
100
LHI: Heat island load on the outside of D.S.

3.4 CASBEE for Market Promotion (CASBEE-MP)

3.4.1. CASBEE for Market Promotion assessment tool
3.4.1.1. Creation of a good circle in the real estate market for popularization ofgreen buildings
A vicious circle of blame games among stakeholders has been pointed out as one of thebiggest drawbacks to popularizing green buildings. In order to convert such a “vicious”
circle into a “good” one, it is essential to conduct appropriate assessment regarding theenvironmental performance of buildings, “visualize” the added property value and themechanism of such value improvement brought by a Design for Environment (DfE), andhave a shared understanding of the value among the parties involved.
CASBEE-MP was thus developed as a tool to establish a shared information system in thereal estate market.
Conversion into a good circle
Owners and users
Choose green buildings
because of their positive
image, better productivity,
and reduced operational
costs

Investors
Invest in green buildings
with expectations for extra
value, higher return, andincreased demand

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Shared information about
green buildings

Architects and builders
Construct green buildings
because of increased
demandNecessity of an assessment/ranking systemfrom the viewpoint of the real estate market
Figure 3.4.1: Creation of a good circle

3.4.1.2. Position of CASBEE-MP in the CASBEE family
In the CASBEE family, various tools are available for many building types and purposes.
CASBEE-MP is classified as CASBEE for Buildings and is a very brief version of existingbuilding assessments for the property market.
3.4.1.3. Background1) Background of CASBEE-MP development(1) The CASBEE family had been especially made as a DfE (Design for Environment) com133

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.4 CASBEE for Market Promotion (CASBEE-MP)

munication tool, and was not widely used for the promotion of green properties in theproperty market.
(2) We sometimes received inquiries about the evaluation compatibility between CASBEE
and other tools such as LEED, when overseas investors and foreign tenants examinedJapanese properties. It was desirable to make CASBEE evaluation compatible with othertools such as LEED and BREEAM based on common assessment items.
(3) UNEP SBCI or the United Nations Environment Program – Sustainable Buildings andClimate Initiative proposed global common metrics such as energy use, GHG emissions,water use, recycled waste, indoor environment, biodiversity and economics.
(4) In UNEP FI PWG (United Nations Environment Programme – Finance Initiative Property
Working Group), there is a movement to request every party making building environmental assessment tools develop a rating tool that is simple and compatible but not expensive.
<Designers><Local governments> <Builders><Manufacturers><Investors> <Financial institutions> <Tenants><Real estate companies> <Building owners> <Agencies><Licensed real estate appraisers>

A: Design/assessment tool
(Standard or brief version)

B: Promotion tool in thereal estate market(Very brief version)

CASBEE for New
Construction
CASBEE for Existing
Buildings
CASBEE for
Renovation
CASBEE for Site
Selection(tentative name)

C: Supplementarytools

For office buildings
Use of a minimal number of items by focusing on the important ones

CASBEE-MP<Features of CASBEE-MP>• Very brief version• Performance assessment and indicator• Developed in accordance with the common metrics proposed by UNEP
• Compatible with other tools such as LEED and BREEAM

Figure 3.4.2: Background of CASBEE-MP development

2) Features of CASBEE-MP
On the basis of the above, CASBEE-MP is characterized by:a. The coverage of the common metrics proposed by UNEP SBCIb. The compatibility of assessment items between CASBEE and other rating systems
such as LEEDc. The minimized number of assessment items
d. The established linkage to property appraisal
e. The effective utilization of frameworks of the existing laws and standards (e.g., building
health standards, housing performance indication systems and recycling laws)
f. The mechanism that can be widely used by property market players
g. Not necessarily requiring a full version of the CASBEE assessment
134h. The primary target being existing office buildings (It is expected to later also include
retailers and other building types for assessment)
3.4.1.4. Conceptual image of CASBEE-MP
The conceptual image of CASBEE-MP is as follows:- The common metrics proposed by UNEP SBCI being covered;- The assessment items important for property appraisal being selected from approximately 110 items of the current CASBEE family; and- The super simplified tool that can be used in the property market.

Figure 3.4.3: Image of CASBEE for Market Promotion

3.4.1.5. Outline of sustainable building index (UNEP SBCI)In 2009, the Common Carbon Metric (CCM) was launched at COP15, because, without aglobal consensus, confusion brought about in the market and the efforts to fully implement sustainable building practices were undermined. The UNEP Sustainable Building
Index provides a globally consistent framework to understand, measure, report, and verify the actual building performance regarding core sustainability issues. The Index is notintended to be a rating system, but rather intended to steer building industry stakeholders
towards focusing on the primary issues that have been agreed upon by the leaders anddecision-makers of this sector.
The Index shall focus on measurable, reportable and verifiable indicators, be applicable to existing residential and non-residential buildings and facilitate both top-down andbottom-up aggregation of the performance of building stock. The Index shall include theaspects of buildings’ impact and benefits with regard to:135

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Also, the other rating systems in the world (e.g., BREEAM, LEED, and Green Star) should
also cover the common metrics.
Ideally, all the rating systems should share the common metrics in the future as illustrated in the figure below and also include the assessment items that are particular toeach country, such as earthquake resistance in Japan. Every system can be connectedwith property appraisal. Furthermore, the rating systems for DfE and for investors cancoexist, as planners and contractors need elaborate systems while investors need simpler systems.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.4 CASBEE for Market Promotion (CASBEE-MP)- Energy/Greenhouse Gas Emissions- Water- Materials- Social Issues (Indoor environment quality)- Biodiversity and Land Use- Economics
3.4.1.6. Assessment items of CASBEE-MP
This CASBEE-MP tool has two aspects: 1) the evaluation of environmental performanceand 2) the disclosure of environmental performance value (Index).
Clear indication of environmental performance value is required in the property market and it is important to disseminate such ideas. The tool partially refers to the CASBEE
criteria, and furthermore aims to refer to the global common standard or index that will becommonly used by many building environment assessment tools.
Table 3.4.1 shows the assessment items of CASBEE-MP.
The five items (namely Energy/GHG, Water, Materials/Safety, Biodiversity/Site, and Indoor
Environment) compose the main assessment categories of the tool, thus including the fivecomponents of the Sustainable Building Index. Each of the five categories contains a
prerequisite item. “Soil Environmental Quality/Regeneration of Brown Fields,” “Public
Transportation Access,” and “Measures regarding Natural Disasters” contribute to
Biodiversity/Site, as these assessment items are related to the site quality.

CASBEE-MP assessment points

3.4.1.7. Case study
With regard to approximately 30 office buildings assessed by CASBEE tools over the past
few years, the correlation between the CASBEE-MP assessment points and the comprehensive environment efficiency (i.e., BEE value) obtained by the current edition of
CASBEE-NC or -EB is shown in Figure 3.4.4. As the BEE values given by the CASBEE
tools increase, the points by CASBEE-MP also increase, thus indicating there is a correlation between these two variables. The CASBEE-MP assessment points of 60, 66 and 78
correspond to the BEE value-based ranks of B+, A and S, respectively.

BEE values of CASBEE-NC or -EB
Figure 3.4.4: Relationship between the CASBEE-MP assessment points and the BEE valuesof CASBEE-NC or -EB

136

GroupItems
PrereqEnergyconsumption/
GHG
emissions

New item(evaluated by new simulation
tool, BEST(*1) et al.)15 - 25

2

Energy Intensity/Carbon Intensity(measured)

MJ/m2/year
kWh/m2/year
kg-CO2/m2/year

New item(total energy consumption data
evaluated by positioning on
DECC(*2) data et al.)1-5

Renewable energy%

Target setting and Monitoring

1

Water Intensity(calculated)

m3/m2/year

2

Water Intensity(measured)m3/m2/year

New item

1-5

New itemprereq

New item

1-5

New item

1-5

Earthquake-resistanceStandard for earthquake resistantafter 1981 or Seisimic Index of
Structure (Is) >0.6 or other Index

prereq1

Exceeds of earthquake-resistance
Seismic Isolation & Vibration
Damping Systems

Standard of present CASBEE

1-5

2

Recycled Materials Use (numberof items of structural and nonstructural recycled materials use forthe present)

Standard of present CASBEE

1-5

3

Service Life of Structure material

Standard of present CASBEE

1-5

4

Ease of MEP Renewal/ Increace
Self-sufficiency Rate of PowerStandard of present CASBEE
New item

1-5

Prereq

Avoiding from immigrant Fauna& Flora (specified, not specified,careful)

New itemprereqyear

1

Preservation & Creation of
Biodiversity (Conservation, restoration, management of Ecological
Resources, Quantity & Quality ofGreening for the present)%

Standard of present CASBEE

1-5

2

Soil Environmental Quality/
Regeneration of Brown Field

Y/N

New item (Standard draft of
CASBEE for Sustainable Site)

1-5

3Public transportation access

New item (Standard draft of
CASBEE for Sustainable Site)

1-5

Measures to Risk of Natural
Disaster

New item(Standard draft of CASBEE for
Sustainable Site: flood, subsidence, tsunami, landslide et. Al)

1-5

Indoor Environment Standard ofbuildings, offices, and Division ofsmoking andnosmoking areas

Confirmation of measurement
document isavailable

prereq1

DaylightingStandard of present CASBEE

1-5

2Natural Ventilation PerformanceStandard of present CASBEE

1-5

3

Perceived Spaciousness & Accessto View

Standard of present CASBEE

1-5

maximum

100
points4

PrereqIndoorEnvironment

prereq

MJ/m2/year
kWh/m2/year
kg-CO2/m2/
year

PrereqBiodiversity /Sitepointsmeets the requirements of Energy
conservation Law
Standard of present CASBEE

Energy Intensity/Carbon Intensity(calculated)

3

Material/
SafetyTarget setting and Monitoring

Method of Measuring andAssessment

1

Prereq
Water

Unit ofMeasurement*1

Items of Sustainable Building Index proposed by UNEP-SBCI (draft)
BEST: Building Energy Simulation Tool

*2

DECC: Detabase for Eenergy Consumption of Commercial buildings

References
Japan Sustainable Building Consortium: CASBEE for New Construction (2010 Edition)
Japan Sustainable Building Consortium: CASBEE for Existing Buildings (2010 Edition)
Japan Sustainable Building Consortium: CASBEE Property Appraisal Manual (2009 Edition)
UNEP SBCI: Sustainable Buildings & Climate Initiative, Draft Briefing on the Sustainable Building
Index, May 2010
UNEP FI PWG: Responsible Property Investing: Metrics for Performance Measurement, Second in
a Series of Toolkits on Responsible Property Investing
UNEP FI PWG: An Investors’ Perspective on Environmental Metrics for Property, May 2011137

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Table 3.4.1: Items of CASBEE for Market Promotion (Office version)3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.4 CASBEE for Market Promotion (CASBEE-MP)

3.4.2. Basic concept for property appraisal and CASBEE assessment
3.4.2.1. Reasons why the economic effects of green buildings were not analyzed inJapan
Unlike the building certification by LEED in the U.S. and Green Star, the economic effects
of green buildings and the effects of additional value have rarely been analyzed despite
the increasing popularity of CASBEE tools, including those designed for use by local governments. The possible reasons for this are as follows:
In 2001 when the R&D project for CASBEE tools started, the first property investmentcompany or Japanese Real Estate Investment Trust (J-REIT) was listed on the stock market in Japan. Following the listing, property securitization-related transactions became
active in the property market until around 2007 in the “fund boom.” Properties for investment traded in the market were subjected to due diligence to check overt risks for investors such as legality, structural safety, and environmental risks (asbestos, PCB, etc.) ofbuildings as well as risks such as soil contamination and earthquakes. Any insufficiencies
in averting overt risks were deemed as “devaluing factors.”
Meanwhile, environmental load factors such as CO2 emissions and waste generated
during construction, operation and demolition of buildings, and loss of biodiversity as aresult of development were not considered as the above-mentioned “overt risks.” Property
investment companies and private investors settled their accounts every six months or
shorter, and placed the emphasis on the improvement of short-term performance andconsidered that environmental load risks, against which there were no statutory regulations, were only potential factors with low priority.
3.4.2.2. Beginning of consideration of environmental added value and the theory
behind it
Against the above-mentioned backdrop, the special collection of academic reports incommemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Tokyo Association of Real EstateAppraisers, released in October 2005, carried an article titled “A note on environmental
value added for real estate” (Masato Ito) (Reference). The article attempted to theoreticallyexplain how extra value could be added by reducing “environmental risks,” improving theimage of assets, and improving cash flow through energy conservation, etc., none ofwhich were considered important for property investment in those days. The article canbe summarized as follows:
The value of a property, like other assets, is determined by three factors: “Expensecharacteristics” (how much cost is claimed for it), “Marketability” (how it is priced in themarket) and “Profitability” (how much profit is expected from it).
With regard to the “Expense characteristics,” sellers have a solid reason for considering this factor. If they have paid reasonable additional cost for properties with high environmental performance, they naturally want to add the cost to the sales prices. However,in the market, these properties cannot necessarily be traded at prices with such an additional factor in mind. Concerning the “Profitability,” properties may be accepted by areasonable market as long as they can generate profits in terms of investment. For thisreason, the “Profitability” is important for green properties.
The property value that reflects the “Profitability” or the “value indicated by the income
approach” can be calculated by dividing the “net income produced by the property”(deducting costs such as maintenance, taxes and insurance from the total revenues produced by the property including the rent) by the “capitalization rate of the property” (apercentage of the net income to the amount of investment in the property). Formula-1
138

defines the value indicated by the income approach (in the case of the direct capitalization method).
Value indicated by=
the income approach

Net income produced by the property
Capitalization rate of the property<Formula-1>

Utility costs
Other costs

Environmental added values related
to increased net income

Depreciation
Marketability
risks
Business risks
Other property
risks

Environmental
addedvaluesCap. Rate ofgeneral financial
assetsEnvironmental added values related toreduced risk premium

Figure 3.4.5: Illustration of added values represented by net income and capitalization rate(partial revision of reference 3)

As shown in the left-hand graph of Figure 3.4.5, reduction in utilities and repair costs as aresult of improved energy savings and durability can lead to increased net income, andincreased income as a result of improved productivity can also lead to increased net
income.
For the capitalization rate, as shown in the right-hand graph of Figure 3.4.5, risk premiums peculiar to the property and depreciation rate are added to the capitalization rateof general financial assets (long-term government bonds, etc.). For green properties,
future environment-related taxes and reduction in the risks related to environmental regulations as well as reduction in the depreciation rate as a result of improved service life canlead to reduction in the capitalization rate (the rate before depreciation). Furthermore,
green properties may also produce the effect of improved image and reduce their marketability risks.

139

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Maintenancecosts

Environmental
risks
Risk premium, etc. of a green

Repaircosts

Costs of green property

Taxes

Risk premium, etc. of an average property

Environmental
added values

Capitalization rate of property (before depreciation)

Net incomeof green
property

Net incomeof property
as usual

Cost of property as usual

Total revenue produced by property

According to the above formula, if a property can produce a higher net income, thevalue of the property becomes higher. It also suggests that the more stable the net income
is (i.e. the risk of change in the net income being low) the lower the capitalization rate
becomes for the property investment, leading to higher property value.
Thus, an increased “net income” can lead to an increased property value. The reduction in the “capitalization rate” in the denominator can also lead to an increase in theproperty value. The more stable the net income is, the lower the capitalization rate canbecome for investors.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.4 CASBEE for Market Promotion (CASBEE-MP)

3.4.2.3. Expansion of environmental added value theory
The above-mentioned environmental added value theory was later discussed by theSurvey and Research Committee of the Japanese Association of Real Estate Appraisal
and, in fiscal 2007, the committee launched the “Working Group on Environmental
Added Value (chaired by Masato Ito).” The activities of the group include research on themodel cases of environmental added values realized in Japan, and review of environmental regulation risks and environmental performance assessment systems associated with CASBEE tools. The group also performs, on a trial basis, environmental added
value assessment based on the model cases. The results of these activities are reported
in the “Value of Property with Consideration for the Environment Is Sure to Increase –Theory and Implementation of ‘Environmental Added Value’ of Property” (June 2009)(Reference 2).
To associate CASBEE tools with real estate appraisal, CASBEE (PA) WG was launched
in June 2008 and initiated joint discussions with the Japanese Association of Real EstateAppraisal. The studies conducted by the group were taken over by the Working Group for
CASBEE and Property Appraisal, which developed the manual.
3.4.2.4. Similarities between CASBEE and property appraisal
This section describes the property pricing theory based on which CASBEE can be used
for property appraisal and also addresses the related concepts.
As shown in Figure 3.4.6, the value that reflects the “profitability” of a property, or to
put it differently, the “value indicated by the income approach,” can be calculated by
dividing the “net income produced by the property (the income after deducting the costs
such as maintenance, taxes and insurance from the total income produced by the property including the rent)” by the “capitalization rate of the property (a percentage of the net
income to the amount invested in the property).” Formula 2 shows the calculation formulaof the value indicated by the income approach (for the direct capitalization method).

Value indicated by=
the income approach

Net income produced by the property
Capitalization Rate

<Formula-2>

The above formula and the “built environment efficiency (BEE)” formula used in
CASBEE tools are very similar (Figure 3.4.6).

140

[Property value in terms of profitability](1) Increased rent revenues(2) Reduced repair costs(3) Reduced utility risks costs

Value indicated by the income
approach of the property*

Net income produced by the property=
Capitarization Rate(2) Reduced depreciation(3) Reduced environmental risks* In the case of direct capitalization method(4) Effect of improved image[Built Environment efficiency (BEE)](1) Environmental quality improvement (Q1)
(2) Durability improvement (Q2)

Q (Environmental quality of the building)
BEE =L (Environmental load of the building)(4) Sustainability ranking of the building(3) Energy saving (LR1)

For example, improved environmental quality can lead to increased rent ((1) in the above
figure) while improved durability can lead to reduced repair costs and reduced depreciation ((2) in the above figure) and energy savings can lead to reduced utility costs andreduced environmental risks ((3) in the above figure). In addition, the sustainability rankingof the building can eventually be reflected in the effect of the improved image ((4) in theabove figure).
The CASBEE formula does not represent the monetary value itself, but it represents
the similarity of the value indicated by the income approach formula in which the property
value increases as the cash flow amount increases or risk premiums decrease.
Table 3.4.2 shows the relevance between CASBEE assessment items and property
appraisal items. Indoor environment items are mainly related to the increase in the total
revenues while Q2 “Quality of Service” items are mainly related to the reduction in costs
and the future reduction in environmental risks. Energy items that currently attract themost attention are related to the reduction in costs and the future reduction in environmental risks. Outdoor Environment on Site items and CASBEE ranking (BEE) contribute to
the improved image. It cannot be reflected in the present pricing but has potential for
future pricing.

141

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Figure 3.4.6: Conceptual images of value indicated by the income approach formula (fordirect capitalization method) and CASBEE environment efficiency formula(Revision of Reference 3)

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.4 CASBEE for Market Promotion (CASBEE-MP)

Table 3.4.2: Relevance between CASBEE assessment items and property appraisal items
Property appraisal items
CASBEE assessment items

Increased
total revenue

Q1-1 Noise & Acoustics



Q1-2 Thermal Comfort

Q1-3 Lighting & Illumination



Q1-4 Air Quality



Reducedcosts

Reducedrisks

Improvedimage

Q2-1 Service AbilityQ2-2 Durability &ReliabilityQ2-3 Flexibility & Adaptability

Q3 Outdoor Environment on Site

L1 EnergyL2 Resource & Material

L3 Off-site Environment

CASBEE Ranking

3.4.2.5. How to determine pricing factors from CASBEE assessment items
Table 3.4.3 summarizes the contents of Table 3.4.2 from the property appraisal point ofview. Figure 3.4.7 shows how detailed items for CASBEE assessment can be translated
into pricing factors and how they can be reflected in the property value from the property
appraisal perspective. The latest results of such ongoing analysis are given below.
Table 3.4.3: Viewpoint of CASBEE assessment items and property appraisal items
CASBEE assessment items
Q1

Many of the items could lead to increased total revenue

Q2

Many of the items could lead to both reduced costs and reduced
risks

L

The items are mainly related to reduced risks

L1

The items could lead to reduced cost

Q3
BEE Ranking

142

Viewpoint of property appraisal

The items could produce the effect of improved image as a resultof increased market recognition and could contribute to reduced
property investment risks

CASBEE assessment items

Increase/Decrease in
Expenditures
Increase/Decrease
in Revenues

Evaluate the cost
reduction per
item separately
Consider this whenevaluating rental
revenues

Increase/ Decrease incapitalization rate
Comparison

Consider this whenevaluating thecapitalization rate
Consider this whenevaluating thecomparative priceof the land/building
combined

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Figure 3.4.7: Image sheet to determine pricing factors based on CASBEE assessment items

References[1] “A note on environmental value added for real estate” (Masato Ito), Thesis report commemorating
the 10th anniversary of the Tokyo Association of Real Estate Appraisers
http: //www.tokyo-kanteishi.or.jp/sonota/rep10th.html[2] “Value of property with consideration for environment is sure to increase – theory and implementation of ’environmental added value’ of property” (Survey and Research Committee of Japanese
Association of Real Estate Appraisal), Jutaku-shimpo-sha[3] “Supplementary documents for the 8th CASBEE Open Seminar” by Ito and others, July 24th,
2008, IBEC

143

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.4 CASBEE for Market Promotion (CASBEE-MP)<Column-4>

Sustainable assessment as a tool
for translating sustainability features into valueFrank HOVORKA,
Head of sustainable real estate policy, Caisse des Dépôts
Co-chair, UNEP FI Property Working Group, France

Introduction
Different studies have highlighted the costs and benefits of sustainable buildings
compared to conventional properties1. These studies have focused on the financial
aspects of sustainable buildings as a whole. In addition, a recent but expanding
academic research area investigates the premium reflected in the market prices andrents of certified buildings2. While providing a good business case for sustainable
real estate as a whole, it is still unclear how each sustainability feature may impact
value.
Translation
Energy, health and environment performance is not the simple result of the intrinsic
quality of the building. The creation of green value depends on:
the performance of buildings (the responsibility of which lies with the owner,
investor or developer);the quality of operation (which largely depends on the facility manager);the conditions of use (which depend on tenants).
The Built Environment Efficiency was a very important step for a comprehensive
use of sustainable indicators. That was brought by Masato Ito to the Property Working
Group of the UNEP-FI initiSsutainability features
ative. This helps to connect
Comopose
Use and fonctionalityof components
Comparethe sustainable assessFilter
ment (as CASBEE) to thedecision makers following
Regulatory
Performancethe diagram right:
standard
Ssutainability
gap
performance
Labels can translate
Average market
performancethe complexity of physicalindicators. As such,
Demand forsustainability features
they could have a multiTrusted information onplier effect on the persustinability features
Ssutainability value
ceived value. To play sucha role, labels should reflect
effective performance for
Figure C4.1: Sustainability performance and value
specified use conditions.
These impacts (or benefits) may thus be translated into worth and value for the investors. Four main situations may be distinguished:
1 Langdon (2003), Kats (2005), WGBC (2013)
2 Kok, McAllister, ….

144

Figure C4.2: Translating sustainability features into value

Following that path, a sustainable assessment, such as CASBEE, can move from animage improvement and a benchmarking tool to a useful and valuable information
process for investors, insurers, bankers, asset managers and valuers in order tointegrate sustainable criteria into the daily work of each stakeholders. ◾

145

3. CASBEE Family of Tools- the impacts result in direct monetary gains for the building owner, or for thetenants who may thus accept to pay higher rents.
- the impacts also result in intangible gains for the building owner, such as reputation gains- the impacts result in a reduction of the financial risks (higher exit yield link tolower obsolescence, for example) and a higher resiliency to shifts in the regulatory context (see UK transaction constraints on the buildings with poor EPCs )- the impacts result in a worth creation in the long term, such as the indirect
positive spinoffs on the neighborhood which could, over time, be translated
into higher property prices in the neighborhood.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.4 CASBEE for Market Promotion (CASBEE-MP)<Column-5>

Linkage between environmental performanceassessment and property appraisal
Thomas LÜTZKENDORF,
Professor, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany

David LORENZ,
Professor, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany

Increasing the demand and competitive position of sustainable buildings (i.e. buildings which are energy and resource efficient, health-friendly, comfortable, andwhich combine high technical and functional quality with an appealing architecture
and urban design quality) requires, at least, the following: on the ohne hand, investors and other market participants need to realize and accept their responsibility
towards society and the environment. In order to do this, market participants need
to be vested/equipped with information and assessment results which highlight andevidence, amongst other issues, buildings’ environmental quality and performance.
On the ohter hand, however, a true shift in market participants’ behaviour anddecision making processes requires the ability to translate buildings’ environmental
performance into economic advantages. In this context, property valuation plays acrucial role. See the following Figure C5.1:

Figure C5.1: Towards sustainable property markets – loops of feedback and adaptation

Already at an early stage, the developers of CASBEE have realised, taken up andimplemented such considerations as they have always proposed a close linkage146

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

between environmental performance assessment and property valuation/appraisal.
As such, they supported and further advanced a worldwide trend which has, in themeantime, led to advances in valuation theory and practice.
Within the past years, real estate professionals have realized that property pricing is increasingly distinguishing between buildings that exhibit different sustainability-related building features and associated physical or operational performance.
There is recognition that buildings that are not resource efficient, low carbon interms of operation and location and are not equipped to be flexible to changing
occupier needs will not be future-proofed in market value terms. And this, in return
impacts on value stability and likely value development of all properties in the marketplace.
The valuation/appraisal profession has responded to this: for a considerable
period of time, the profession has been undertaking efforts to better integrate sustainability considerations into the valuation/appraisal process. A notable example ofthis trend is the publication of Valuation Information Paper 13, Sustainability and commercial property valuation by the world’s largest organization for property professionals, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).

Figure C5.2: Towards an integrated structure of information for describing buildings forvaluation purposes (Lützkendorf and Lorenz, 2011)

While basic valuation/appraisal methods remain unchanged, sustainability issues
are increasingly embedded into the traditional “canon” of value-relevant factors (seeFigure C5.2). For example, together with colleagues from Switzerland, Austria andGermany the authors have developed a guideline (in German only) on how to integrate sustainability issues into valuation practice (see: www.nuwel.ch). The guideline proposes and recommends the application of a “long-list” of information and147

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.4 CASBEE for Market Promotion (CASBEE-MP)

data that integrates “traditional” and sustainability-related factors that impact on
the economic value of buildings. The guideline is already being recommended for
application by Swiss valuation organizations.
As a consequence, valuation/appraisal professionals have a constantly increasing demand for reliable information on the environmental quality of buildings.
Possible sources for such information are the results of environmental performance/sustainability assessment systems. Therefore, such systems can become an information source for third parties, particularly for valuation/appraisal professionals.
However, new requirements emerge from this for the developers of assessment andcertification systems because valuation/appraisal professionals are usually not (ornot only) interested in the highly aggregated overall assessment result. This isbecause from a valuation perspective, actual performance and key building attributes/ characteristics matter. Consequently, the usability of sustainability assessment results as an information source for valuation/appraisal professionals depends
upon the disaggregation of the assessment results including the provision of thebasic information/data inputs. Developers of environmental performance/sustainability assessment systems may wish to react accordingly.
From the authors’ point of view, the aforementioned issue represents an excellent opportunity for increasing the collaboration between two formerly distinct disciplines (i.e., sustainability assessment of buildings and property valuation/
appraisal). It appears that these disciplines rely heavily on each other.◾

Source:Lützkendorf, T. and Lorenz, D. (2011), Capturing sustainability-related information for property
valuation, Building Research & Information, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 256–273

148

3.5 CASBEE for Urban Development(CASBEE-UD)

3.5.1. CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD)
3.5.1.1. What Is CASBEE-UD?
CASBEE-UD can be used to evaluate urban development projects on the ground where
there are several architectural constructions and other areas for various purposes such as
roads, public squares and green spaces. In CASBEE-UD, the environmental performanceof such constructions and areas is examined collectively.

Site

Pond

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Building

Site
Park

Development area
Road

Figure 3.5.1: Assessment subjects for CASBEE for Urban Development

3.5.1.2. Circumstances behind the development of the tool and its revision
The Japanese Act on Special Measures Concerning Urban Renaissance came into effectin 2002, because of which a large-scale and high-density development project in metropolitan areas can be allowed if the reasoning is sound enough to justify the project (e.g.,
sufficient contribution towards society can be made or appropriate environmental measures have been taken). Accordingly, the need for usable assessment/rating methods
regarding the environmental performance of urban development projects has emerged.
In addition, in 2005, the Kyoto Protocol came into effect and new measures for a lower
carbon society were expected to be initiated. Under such circumstances, the first versionof CASBEE-UD was released in 2006, and the following year, the current version of
CASBEE-UD, which can be used more widely and easily than the first version, was madeavailable to the public. CASBEE-UD has thus served as a useful tool to developers and149

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.5 CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD)

city/district planners.
Later, in 2011, the Great East Japan Earthquake struck our nation and since then thenecessity for more advanced local safety performance and improved stability in theenergy-related environment has been higher than ever. In 2012, the “Low Carbon City
Promotion Act (Eco-City Act)” was established, resulting in an increased demand forassessment tools that can organically fit and work together with the Act. In response tosuch a trend, drastic revision of the CASBEE-UD tool is currently underway in cooperation
with the Housing and City Bureaus of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport andTourism (MLIT). The outline of the drastic revision plan is given below.
3.5.1.3. Assessment method
As in the case of many other CASBEE family tools, the assessment of CASBEE-UD isconducted from two perspectives: QUD (environmental quality inside the virtual enclosed
space boundary) and LUD (environmental load on the outside of the boundary). The comprehensive assessment result is expressed as the built environment efficiency of an urban
area of interest (BEEUD), which is obtained by QUD/LUD. The subscript UD of QUD, LUD and
BEEUD indicates that these are the results of CASBEE-UD assessment.
What to assess is described in detail in the later sections, and the key concept here isthat the assessment of QUD is based on the triple-bottom-line approach and LUD is evaluated according to how effectively low-carbon initiatives are carried out. The scoring criteria have been established in such a way that better results are assigned to the projects
planned in accordance with the compact design of an urban structure, because it will be
increasingly important to efficiently utilize the land and social capital in our country, which
is now facing the situation of fewer children, an aging society and depopulation.
In the assessment, the boundary of an area concerned, which functions as the virtual
enclosed space boundary, is determined based on the regulations and systems of relevant laws on construction and urban development (for example, regarding urban redevelopment projects, specific blocks and district planning) to which a project of interest is
subject. As a natural consequence, any project for assessment is assumed to be executed under a certain defined policy for development. One or more districts can beaddressed by the project. The scale of areas to be assessed conforms to that of the“urban development project for integrated city functions” provided in the Eco-City Act(Figure 3.5.2).

150

3.5.1.4. Assessment of QUD (Environmental Quality of an urban area of interest)
The environment, society and the economy, all of which are together defined as the triple
bottom line, are designated as three Major Items in the assessment of QUD and each
assessment item is assigned to one of these three groups. Each “Major Item” consists ofseveral Middle Items, each of which consists of Minor Items. Table 3.5.1 gives the detailsof the assessment items. Regarding scoring, in accordance with the common method
among the CASBEE family tools, each Minor Item is marked in a range of five levels andtheir scores are added up to calculate the total assessment results of Middle Items, Major
Items, and QUD, respectively. Because the triple-bottom-line approach has become anorm when sustainability is discussed, it is used as the base for the QUD assessment.
However, it should be remembered that “realization of a lower carbon footprint,” which isa crucial issue in the field of the global environment, is addressed in the assessment of
LUD.

151

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Figure 3.5.2: Illustration of the concept of areas defined by the Eco-City Act(Source: “Example of areas defined by the urban development project for integrated city functions,”
available on the website of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism-modified by
the author)

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.5 CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD)

Table 3.5.1: Assessment items included in “QUD: Environmental quality and performance inurban development”
Middle Item

Minor Item

1 Environment

1.1 Resources

1.1.1
Water resources

Use of rain water, introduced level fora gray water system, sewage treatment level, permeation of rain water
through the ground, etc.

1.1.2 Resource
efficiency

Initiatives for re-use/utilization ofwaste, and use of locally-produced
materials or recycling products

1.2 Nature(greenery/biodiversity)

1.2.1 GreeneryGreenery on the ground, rooftop andwall surfaces

1.2.2 Biodiversity

Initiatives for creation of patches andcorridors, etc.,and conservation ofnatural resources, consideration ofgeographical characteristics

1.3 Man-madeobjects (constructions, etc.)

1.3.1 Buildings
designed forenvironment

Frequency of conduct of CASBEE
assessment on building

2.1 Fairness
and legality

2.1.1
Legal obligations(compliance)

Compliance of the relevant laws on
development, and the level of initiatives taken for voluntary conduct ofprediction and monitoring

2.1.2
Area management

Establishment of a management groupby parties involved, and the validity offoundation for its sustainable operation such as finance2.2.1 Desasterprevention

Understanding of disaster hazard
maps and precautions against them,and establishment of BCP or LCP on
the area

2.2.2 Traffic safety

Measures taken for road safety suchas secured sidewalks

2.2.3 Security

Measure taken for security of the area

2.3.1
Convenience/
WelfareDistance from retailers, medical facilities, etc.

2.3.2
CultureInitiatives for creation of new cultural
movement and preservation of historical/cultural heritage, creation of
townscape or view, and harmony withthe surrounding views

3.1.1
Transportation(flow of people
and goods/products)

Maintenance condition of transportation facilities, rationalization of physical distribution logistics, joint deliveries, etc.

3.1.2
Urban structure

Consistency with schemes such as
master plans for urban development,
handling of brownfield sites, etc.

2 Society2.2 Safety andsecurity

2.3 Amenities

3 Economy152

Key assessment points, assessment
method, etc.

Major Item

3.1
Transportation
and urban
structureMajor Item

Middle Item
3.2
Potential for
growth3.3
Efficiency andrationality

Minor Item

Key assessment points, assessment
method, etc.

3.2.1
Population

Estimated increase/decrease inpopulation compared with the previous level

3.2.2
Economic growth

Level of initiatives taken for creating
an active local economy

3.3.1 Information
systemFlexibility of district information environment, usability, etc.

3.3.2
Energy system

Expandability and flexibility of thesystem as a whole, etc.

1) Environment
The three Middle Items (i.e., Resources, Nature, and Man-made Objects) form the base of
the assessment of the environmental quality entailed by an urban development project. In
the first item, “Resources,” the key points for assessment may be considered to be associated with the measures for reduction of environmental load (L) rather than the quality ofenvironment (Q), despite which these are included in the assessment of Q. This is because
the emphasis is placed on an aspect of the “improvement of environmental quality” suchas conservation of water resources and creation of a society opting for recycling, which
can be achieved by each measure. In the second item, “Nature,” the substantiality ofnatural environment/space in an urban area of interest is evaluated in terms of greeneryand biodiversity. Lastly, with regard to “Man-made Objects,” the environmental performance of architectural constructions in an urban area of interest is used as a representative indicator. Specifically, the assessment is based on the frequency of use of CASBEE
tools for architectural/real estate market purposes and the results of such CASBEE
assessments.
2) Society
The assessment is conducted in terms of social performance that can be achieved
through a project of interest in itself as well as how much the project or its execution cancontribute to better social quality in the neighborhood of a local area designated by the
project. The base of the assessment is also formed by three Middle Items. In the first item,“Fairness and Legality,” the appropriateness according to the relevant laws on urban
development and the practicality of management systems (especially, to be in harmony
with the local community) are evaluated. The next item, “Safety and Security,” addresses
the anti-disaster or anti-crime performance of an urban area concerned, which has adirect connection with the sense of security of residents and visitors, and the strength orrobustness that supports the sustainability of local communities. The last item,“Amenities,” is assessed not only from the viewpoint of accessibility to various service
facilities for convenience of everyday life, but also from the viewpoint of improvement oflocal value such as utilization or creation of historical/cultural assets and contribution
toward a better townscape.

153

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Below is the supplementary explanation of the three Major Items, whereby the perspective and principles of the evaluation of assessment items are given.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.5 CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD)

3) Economy
The assessment is conducted in terms of economic potential which a project of interest
has in itself as well as the possible economic contribution of the project towards the value
and functionality of a local area designated by the project and the whole city in which thearea is located. As in the case of the previous Major Items of “Environment” and “Society,”
three Middle Items are used for assessment of “Economy.” In the first item, “Transportationand Urban Structure,” the effectiveness of transporting systems that underlie economic
activities and the utilization of location/site potential from the perspective of urban development are evaluated. Regarding the next item, “Potential for Growth,” the key points tobe assessed include the population (living population and visiting population including
employees) as a fundamental indicator of economic potential of the project and the practicality of schemes to activate economic activities. Lastly, “Efficiency and Rationality”
deals with information and energy systems in terms of effective management and services for users in an urban area of interest.
3.5.1.5. Assessment of LUD (Environmental Load of an urban area of interest)
In CASBEE-UD, CO2 emissions induced by a project of interest (on a scale of a district or
local area) are calculated and converted into an LUD score through a series of procedures
to obtain a standardized indicator. The outline of the procedures is given below.
i. Calculate the annual CO2 emissions induced by the execution/operation of a project ofinterest based on two scenarios: the case of business as usual (BAU) with no low-carbon
initiatives being taken and the non-BAU case in which the initiatives are in effect.
ii. Estimate the population after the project comes into effect, using the common equationthat has been defined in advance. Divide either of the above-obtained results by the estimated population to calculate annual CO2 emissions per person (i.e., LBAU and Lnon-BAU). →The difference between these two (ΔL = Lnon-BAU – LBAU) is considered as the CO2 reduction
attempted by the project.
iii. Express the obtained Lnon-BAU as a score ranging from 0 to 100 points. The Lnon-BAU score
should be determined according to the position of Lnon-BAU falling on a logistic curve that is
drawn on the assumption that 75 points in the score correspond with the obtained LBAU
and 25 correspond with the 20% reduced value of the obtained LBAU (i.e., 0.8 x LBAU).
In the assessment of Lnon-BAU, the “Manual on Low-Carbon District Planning,” which was
released in accordance with the enforcement of the Eco-City Act, is used as a reference
to consider effective low-carbon initiatives. That is, of the initiative examples provided in
the manual (see below), those regarded as being especially effective in a project of interest are selected for calculation.
[1] Improvement of an area to serve as a hub of integrated urban functions and appropriate locations of other urban functions[2] Encouragement of use of public transportation systems[3] Rationalization of freight transportation[4] Preservation of green spaces and promotion of greenery[5] Utilization of public facilities to install systems for the effective use of fossil fuels andthe adoption of non-fossil energy use154

[6] Promotion of lower-carbon buildings[7] Facilitation of reduced CO2 levels emitted through use of cars

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

3.5.1.6. Examples of the assessment trials
The framework of the tool is being polished up while it has been used on trial for several
projects. The example given below is a trial case regarding the assessment of an area
designated for a public welfare facility at the East-Exit North District of Tamachi Station in
Minato Ward, Tokyo (hereafter referred to as the “T Project”).
The T Project can be summarized as the designated area of 4.6 ha (of which 1.2 ha is
the green space), an aggregate of four buildings containing the cultural hall/theater, sports
center, medical clinics, nursery school, etc., and the total floor space of approximately
57,000 m2.
With regard to the QUD assessment, the score attained in “Environment” was 3.4
because of reasons such as appropriate consideration for biodiversity and a high greenery ratio achieved by securing a large green space in spite of the facility being locateddowntown. In “Society,” the facility itself serves as the disaster prevention base equippedwith various service functions, which was highly rated in terms of safety/security andamenities to produce a score of 3.8. When it came to “Economy,” potential for growth
remained average despite the effect of the introduced district heating/cooling system,
resulting in a score of 3.5. Thus, the obtained final score of QUD was 3.5.

Figure 3.5.3: Image of the exterior view of the facility inthe “T Project”

Figure 3.5.4 shows the whole process of calculation in the assessment of LUD. Regarding
all the buildings designed by the project, CO2 emissions in the case of BAU were estimated based on factors such as the floor area by building type and carbon intensity, toproduce the results of 4,920 t-CO2/year in the transportation sector and 5,310 t-CO2/yearin the household sector. On the other hand, the downward arrows in the figure represent
the reduced amounts of CO2. Using the initiatives listed above ([1] to [7]), these reductions
can be classified as follows:1553. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.5 CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD)

Initiatives [1] and [2]: Reducing effect on the volume of car traffic owing to the locationadjacent to a railway station – Transportation sector (1,026 t-CO2/year)
Initiatives [5] and [6]: Improvement of the building exterior performance and the district
heating/cooling system – Household sector (1,433 t-CO2/year)
Initiative [4]: CO2 absorbing effect of the green space in A – (23 t-CO2/year)
Therefore, the annual CO2 emissions in A are 10,243 (t-CO2/year) as BAU; the total reduced
amounts are 2,446 (t-CO2/year); and the total CO2 emissions when the initiatives are ineffect are 7,797 (t-CO2/year) as non-BAU. Either value of BAU and non-BAU is divided by
the estimated population of 2,482, thus producing the results of LBAU being 4.1, Lnon-BAU
being 3.1 and ΔL being -1.0.

LBAU =

Pre-initiativeemissions
Corrected
population[1] Improvement of an area to serve as a hubof integrated urban functions
Reduction by [1]Industrial CO2
emissions are
not calculated
Reducing effectof initiatives-1,026t-CO2/year

4,920

t-CO2/year

3,894

t-CO2/year

5,310

t-CO2/year

3,890

t-CO2/year

Before initiatives(BAU)-1,433

Corrected
population

t-CO2/year

-23

= ⊿L

t-CO2/year

Reductionby [5] and
[6]

7,761

t-CO2/year

After initiatives(non-BAU)

Post-initiativeemissions
Corrected
population= Lnon-BAU[4] Preservation of green spaces
and promotion of greenery[5] Utilization of public facilities to install systems
for the effective use of fossil fuels and the adoptionof non-fossil energy use[6] Promotion of lower carbon buildings
Figure 3.5.4: Example of calculation process for the estimation of LUD-reducing effect of
initiatives

Although the accurate estimation obtained through drawing a logistic curve is in progress, the LUD score in this case is expected to be around 20. Therefore, dividing the QUD
score by the LUD score (i.e., [25 x (3.5 – 1)]/20), the built environment efficiency of the urban
area designated by the project (i.e., the BEEUD score) will be 3.0, which is a value estimatedwith use of some provisional conditions.

156

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Figure 3.5.5: An example of CASBEE-UD evaluation (image)

References
1) Subcommittee on City and Local Environmental Assessment of the Architectural Institute ofJapan: City and Local Environmental Assessment.
2) Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism: Pamphlet on the Low Carbon City
Promotion Act (2012).
3) Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism: Manual on Low-Carbon City Planning(2012).
4) Minato Ward Office: The Outline of the Public Welfare Facility at the East-Exit North District of
Tamachi Station (2011).

157

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.5 CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD)

3.5.2. CASBEE Community Health Checklist
3.5.2.1. Community environment and health
Although a “healthy lifestyle” has been considered most important to maintain andimprove health, there is a certain limit to such improvement that can be achieved by individual efforts. Because of this, the living environment, which is the foundation of our life,
is receiving much attention.
In recent years, it has become more evident that a “residence,” whether it is good orbad, can considerably affect the health of the people living in it. On the other hand, theirlifestyle also depends greatly on the environment of the local “communities.”
For example, the outside air is polluted, or too many steps make walking troublesome,or there is often a near miss with a car because of narrow sidewalks, or no usable facilities
are available for local activities, or there is no convenient public transportation system. In
a community with such problems, it is necessary to improve the surrounding environment
to the maximum by means of “removal of safety/security compromise factors” and “provision of usable facilities and better services” and create a comfortable, safe and secureneighborhood, which simultaneously can help people to maintain and facilitate good
health.
3.5.2.2. Outline of CASBEE Community Health Checklist1) Objectives
CASBEE Community Health Checklist is a simple diagnostic tool used for residents tobecome aware of the health-related issues in their neighborhood in advance. It was developed as a community version of “CASBEE Health Checklist,” which is a tool intended forresidences (see Section 3.2.3.).
2) Assessment system
The checklist conforms to the assessment system based on the International Classificationof Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) of the World Health Organization (WHO).
Communities are evaluated from two perspectives: (1) “removal of function-disabling factors” and (2) “sufficiency of encouraging factors for activities and participation.”
3) Assessment items
The checklist comprises 36 assessment items (Table 3.5.2). These items have been determined in a way that can handle/evaluate any community despite its location, whether it isdowntown or in the countryside. The function-disabling factors are examined in terms of[1] Natural environment, [2] Safety and sanitation environment and [3] Traffic and transportation, while the encouraging factors for activities and participation are consideredfrom the viewpoints of [4] Local activities, [5] and [6] Facilities and services, [7] Healthcheck-up facilities and [8] Social capital. With regard to assessment items classified as
any of [1] to [3], questions are given to ask how frequently the assessor feels there is adanger or concern about issues concerned. In [4] and [5], the frequency of participationor usage is asked. The items of [6] and [7] assess the condition of a community environment from a specific perspective. In scoring, the adopted method of simple addition
makes the full score 115 points.

158

1. Removal of function-disabling factors

Heat/cold

Air pollution

2. Sufficiency of encouraging factors
for activities and participation

Service facilities
for everyday life

Public transportation
systems

Noise
Traffic accidents

Steps/barrier-freeParks/
public squares

Social gatherings/
local activities

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Figure 3.5.6: Elements in a community to be assessed159

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.5 CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD)

Table 3.5.2: Assessment items of CASBEE Community Health Checklist
I. Removal of function-disabling factors
Middle Item
[1] Naturalenvironment<Q Format: A>

Minor Item
1. Outdoor thermal
environment (summer)
2. Outdoor thermal
environment (winter)

II. Sufficiency of encouraging factors for
activities and participation
Middle Item

Minor Item

[4] Participation
in local
activities<Q Format: B>

19. Participation incommunity or neighborhood
activities

3. Outdoor odor
4. Outdoor sound andvibration environment
5. Environmental radiation[2] Safety andsanitation
environment<Q Format: A>[3] Traffic andtransportation<Q Format: A>

20. Walking and sports
21. Cultural or lifetime
activities[5] Use of
facilities andservices<Q Format: B>

22. Use of public
transportation systems
23. Use of exercise facilities

6. Aquatic environment

24. Use of meeting facilities
and libraries

7. Green space environment

25. Use of parks, public
squares and promenades

8. Waterworks
9. Garbage dump

[6] Practicalityof facilities andservices<Q Format: C>

26. Usability of public
transportation systems
27. Usability of exercise
facilities

10. Smoking/non-smoking
partition

28. Usability of meeting
facilities and libraries

11. Crowdedness or
population density

29. Availability of parks,
public squares andpromenades

12. Local safety (recognitionof danger)

30. Accessibility to financial
institutions

13. Precautions against
disasters

31. Aesthetic aspect of
townscape and view

14. Precautions against
falling

32. Accessibility andavailability of medical clinics

15. Traffic control[7] Healthcheck-up
facilities<Q Format: C>

16. Accessibility toneighboring areas[8] Social
capital34. Communication andinteraction with neighbors

33. Accessibility andavailability of dental clinics

35. Acquaitance withneighbors
36. Confidence in neighbors

1604) Checklist (online assessment through the website)
Each assessment item gives a question that is easy to understand and according to thegiven format of the question, the answer applicable to the assessor is selected by ticking
before the obtained scores are added up.
The checklist is available at the relevant website and the assessment can be conducted online.
<Q Format: A> Asking about the frequency of occasions when a feeling of danger or concern occurs
Ex: Outdoor air environment: Are there occasions when you feel the air outside is bad?

Bad

□ Frequently⬇
0 point□ Sometimes⬇
1 point□ Rarely⬇
2 points□ Not at all⬇
3 points

Good<Q Format: B> Asking about the frequency of participation or usage
Ex: Use of exercise facilities: Are there occasions when you use exercise facilities such as a
gymnasium, sports gym or athletic field?
□ Every day,□ Once a week, □ Once a month,or no lessor no less thanor no less than
than
a
few
a
few
times
a few times
Good
times a week
in a months
in a year⬇
⬇
⬇
4 points
3 points
2 points□ Once a year □ Not at all
or so
Bad
⬇
1 point⬇
0 points

Ex: Usability of exercise facilities: Are there exercise facilities that are easily available and usable(such as a gymnasium, sports gym and athletic filed)?

Good□ Very muchthe case⬇
3 points□ Agreeable
to some extent⬇
2 points□ Hardly think so⬇
1 point□ Not at all⬇
0 point

Bad

Figure 3.5.7: Examples of checklist answers and scores

3.5.2.3. How to present the assessment results
The aspects of a community, which may affect the health of the assessor, can be identified by answering the questions regarding the “obstacles and worries in the living/community environment” and “your everyday activities.”

161

3. CASBEE Family of Tools<Q Format: C> Asking about the condition of a community environment from a specific perspective

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.5 CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD)

1) Total scores
Based on the results of the questionnaire survey participated in by 10,000 people nationwide, the assessor can obtain the ranking of his/her community healthiness.
Community health checklist Total score
Your community healthiness ranking

65 points (Out of 115 points)
24th (Among 100 communities nationwide)

AnswerYour community’s rank

Score [points]
Figure 3.5.8: Example of the ranking results2) Scores presented according to the assessed aspects of a community
In addition to the total scores, the scores of each aspect of a community can be compared with the national average scores, enabling the identification of which aspect of thecommunity is fulfilling or requires more attention.

Scores according to the aspect of a community assessed by Community Health Checklist
1. Comfort, safety and security of theliving/community environment

2. Your everyday activities[4] Local activities[1] Natural environment[8] Communicationand interaction[3] Traffic andtransportation[2] Safety and sanitation
environment

Note 1) 100% indicate that the full scores have beenachieved in the respective aspect of a community.

Note 2)[5] Use of service
facilities for everyday life[7] Health check-up andprevention facilities
Your scores

Note 3)[6] Practicality of service
facilities for everyday life
National average scores

Figure 3.5.9: Example of scores presented according to the aspect of a community162

3.6 CASBEE for Cities (CASBEE-City)

3.6.1. Assessment of stocks and flows

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Generally speaking, city development entails a long time span. Social capital and various
types of infrastructure, which form the foundation of our everyday life, cannot be established overnight. This aspect of a city as a stock variable should be taken into consideration when cities are evaluated. On the other hand, although various measures are put into
effect in a city, many of them are planned on a yearly basis. Therefore, when it comes tothe assessment of these measures, the aspect of a city as a flow variable should also be
considered. It always needs to be remembered that the current condition of a city (i.e.,
stock) is realized as an accumulated result of various measures (i.e., flows) in the past.
Figure 3.6.1 shows the similarity between the urban/city environment assessment andthe corporate financial assessment from the flow-stock relationship perspective. It isnoteworthy that, from the time scale concerned, the assessments of stocks and flows
focus on entirely different aspects of the activities taking place in a city. CASBEE-City isa tool developed to assess the current condition of the whole area of a local government
as a stock.

Figure 3.6.1: Flow and stock perspective for urban assessment and forcorporate financial assessment

1633. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.6 CASBEE for Cities (CASBEE-City)

3.6.2. Overview of CASBEE-City tool
It is extremely important to assess the environmental performance of cities and widely
release the results to the public in terms of disclosing the hidden issues and facilitating
the understanding of the current situation of cities. Just like we humans have regular
medical checkups to make sure there is nothing wrong with our body, cities also needregular examinations to see if there are any problems. CASBEE-City was developed inorder to support the sustainable development of cities and is, so to speak, a health checkup tool for local governments (Murakami, et al. 2011). An overview of CASBEE-City, which
was domestically developed in 2011, is given below.
The CASBEE-City tool was developed to comprehensively evaluate the environmental
performance of local governments (on a scale of city, ward, town or village). In 2008, theCommittee for the Development of Environmental Performance Assessment Tools for
Cities was launched and discussions from various angles took place before the first edition of CASBEE-City was released in 2011. The tool is characterized by an extensive andcomprehensive assessment of the current condition of cities, which is conducted fromthe viewpoint of the environment, society and economy (i.e., a triple-bottom line approach).
After the release of the first edition in 2011, opinions from those such as local government
officials and experts were gathered to improve the tool, and in 2013, the tool was upgradedin cooperation with the Office for Promotion of Regional Revitalization, Cabinet Secretariat
of Japan. As is also described later, it has been decided that CASBEE-City will be used
as a follow-up tool for city environments in a national project of the “Future City” Initiative.
The framework of the CASBEE-City assessment is shown in Figure 3.6.2. As in thecase of other CASBEE tools, the concept of built environment efficiency (BEE) has been
introduced to CASBEE-City.

Virtual boundary

Reduction of Load (L)on the surrounding area

Improvement of Quality (Q) in a city

Built Environment
Efficiency (BEE)

BEE: Built Environment Efficiency

Score for Quality (Q)(Q: Quality, 0<score for Q<100)
Score for Load (L)(L: Load, 0<score for L<100)

Figure 3.6.2: Assessment structure of CASBEE-City tool164

In CASBEE-City, a virtual enclosed space boundary, which surrounds the entire local
government concerned, is defined as shown in Figure 3.6.2. The boundary is determinedat the discretion of local governments. It is relatively easy to collect the data on a city,ward, town or village boundary and therefore these boundaries are used in CASBEE-City.
As in the case of other CASBEE tools, CASBEE-City clearly distinguishes the inside fromthe outside of the virtual enclosed space boundary and comprehensively evaluates a
local government area of interest from two different perspectives: L (environmental loadon the outside of the boundary) and Q (environmental quality and societal activity inside
the boundary).
The CASBEE-City assessment items are outlined in Figure 3.6.3 and detailed information is listed in Table 3.6.1.

Nature conservation
Local environmental
quality
Resourcerecycling
CO2 sinks
Living environment

Environmental
aspects

Social servises
Social vitality
Industrial vitality

Socialaspects

Economic
aspects

CO2 emissions
from energy sources(CO2 from industrial,
residential, commercial,transport sectors)
CO2 emissions fromnon energy sources(CO2 from waste disposal
sectors, etc.)

Financial viability

Virtual boundary
3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Emission trading

Figure 3.6.3: Assessment items of CASBEE-City tool165

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.6 CASBEE for Cities (CASBEE-City)

Table 3.6.1: Assessment items of CASBEE-City (in detail)CategoryQ:
Environmental
quality andsocietal activity

Major Item
Q1
Environment

Q2. Society

Middle Item

Minor Item

Q1.1 Nature conservation

Q1.1.1 Ratio of natural land

Q1.2 Environmental
qualityQ1.2.1 Atmosphere quality

Q1.3 Resource efficiency

Q1.3.1 Recycling ratio of general waste

Q1.4 Measures for
CO2-absorbing sources

Q1.4.1 Measures concerning
carbon sink by forests

Q2.1 Living/city
environment

Q2.1.1 Residence standardlevel

Q1.2.2 Water quality

Q2.1.2 Traffic safety
Q2.1.3 Crime prevention
Q2.1.4 Disaster preparedness
Q2.2 Social services

Q2.2.1 Educational servicelevel
Q2.2.2 Cultural service levelQ2.2.3 Medical service levelQ2.2.4 Childcare service levelQ2.2.5 Elderly care service
level

Q2.3 Societal vitality

Q2.3.1 Population increase/decrease rate
Q2.3.2 Healthy life expectancy

Q3 Economy

Q3.1 Industrial
competence

Q3.1.1 Equivalent of GRP per
capitaQ3.2 Financial foundation

Q3.2.1 Local tax revenue

Q3.1.2 Workforce

Q3.2.2 Outstanding local
government bond debt
Q3.3 Carbon offsettingL:
Environmental
load

L1 Energyinduced CO2
emissions

Industry, household,business, transport

L2 CO2 emitted from othersourcesWaste, etc.

Q3.3.1 Support for limited CO2
emissions in other areas* The above-listed assessment items are based on CASBEE-City (Standard version) released in
2012.
* CASBEE-City (Professional version) contains more assessment items.

166

3.6.3. CASBEE-City (Standard version)
The measurement of environmental performance of local governments necessitates thecollection of various data in the respective fields. However, such demanding hurdles
including data gathering have been an obstacle to the conduct of local government environment assessment. CASBEE-City (standard version) was developed in order to reduce
the workload of tool users and facilitate urban assessment.
No matter how ideologically superior the assessment item is, it is impossible to conduct urban assessment with no relevant quantitative data available. In the standard version, therefore, the statistical data, which are widely released to the public, can be used
to calculate the scores of assessment items. In other words, if no public statistical information can be found within a range of publicly accessible data, these items are strictly
excluded.
The effectiveness and validity of the standard version CASBEE-City are being examined by a nationwide questionnaire survey. As indicated in Figure 3.6.4, there is a highcorrelation between the objective assessment results of local governments, which are
obtained by the standard version, and the subjective assessment results of local governments, which are produced by citizens across the country (Kawakubo, et al. 2013).

167

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

The environmental quality and societal activity of local governments (Q) are assessedfrom the triple-bottom line perspective, i.e., the environment, society and economy (theseare defined as three Major Items) and each assessment item is assigned to one of thesethree categories. With regard to the environmental load (L), the levels of CO2 emitted
through societal activities in a local government area are evaluated. Therefore, a local
government that depends on heavy industry naturally yields large amounts of environmental load, if estimated CO2 emissions are directly used as the CO2 emissions of thelocal government without correction. It should not be dismissed that these industrial cities
are struggling with external diseconomies of large CO2 emissions, whereas other local
governments are enjoying the benefits of products supplied by the former without emitting CO2. It is reasonable for these local governments benefiting from such situation to be
responsible for their share of external diseconomies. CASBEE-City, therefore, has also
adopted the assessment framework in which CO2 emissions involving industrial activities
are shared by both places of production and consumption. When the place of production
takes all the responsibility for industrial CO2 emissions, it is called the “Emitter-Pays
Principle.” On the other hand, in the “Beneficiary-Pays Principle,” the places of consumption also accept their share of industrial CO2 emissions. In CASBEE-City, these two methods for the assessment of L are available. The comparative advantages between thesetwo principles (the former focusing on the aspect of production with the latter emphasizing the aspect of demand) are considered to vary according to the purpose of use. If
either principle should be selected, the beneficiary-pays principle is considered appropriate.
In CASBEE-City, two tools (i.e., standard and professional versions) are available. In
the standard version, based on public statistical information, local governments acrossthe country can be assessed using uniform criteria and their environmental performancecan be obtained by a relatively simple procedure. The professional version employs moreassessment items than the standard version and was developed for use, for example,
when related officials and specialists make a plan for the future of respective local governments.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.6 CASBEE for Cities (CASBEE-City)

’

’

’

’

Figure 3.6.4: Relationship between CASBEE assessment result and citizens’ satisfaction

As of 2010, there are 1,750 basic municipalities (cities, wards, towns and villages) in total
in Japan, each of which has its own autonomous body. Below are the results of assessment on the environmental performance of all these local government areas using thestandard version of CASBEE-City (Kawakubo, et al. 2011 and 2012). In conducting theassessment, the required publicly available statistical data were first collected fromappropriate sources such as the database of the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry ofInternal Affairs and Communications, White Papers of each Ministry, and study results
released by national research centers, etc. Based on this vast amount of data, the environmental performance of each local government was evaluated. The assessment results
were output on a two-dimensional map with use of a geographical information system(GIS). Figure 3.6.5 shows the assessment results of Q1 (Environment), Q2 (Society) andQ3 (Economy), while figure 3.6.6 gives the results of Q (i.e., Q1 + Q2 + Q3), L and BEE.

168

3. CASBEE Family of Tools
Figure 3.6.5: Assessment results of all
local governments in Japan(top: results for Q1; middle: results for Q2;
bottom: results for Q3)

169

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.6 CASBEE for Cities (CASBEE-City)

Figure 3.6.6: Assessment results of all
local governments in Japan(top: results for Q; middle: results for L; bottom: results for BEE)170

As a rule, in the assessments of Q1 and Q2, local governments with a lower population
density produced better results. On the other hand, the results of Q3 exhibit the completely opposite tendency and local governments with a higher population density wererated higher. When it comes to the comprehensive result of Q1, Q2 and Q3 (i.e., Q or
environmental quality and societal activity), local governments with a lower population
density tend to gain better results. In the assessment of L, higher results were producedby major urban areas where the population density is high, because of advanced transportation systems with less energy intensity and a higher ratio of people living in apartments that are more energy conservative than detached houses. Lastly, the BEE results
indicate that the local governments located in the central regions of Japan earned wellbalanced scores for both Q and L and were highly evaluated for these better assessment
results.

171

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

3.6.4. CASBEE-City (Professional version)
The objectives of CASBEE-City development include helping to understand the current
condition of local government environments. Through provision of assessment results tounderstand the current condition of local governments and the consequent disclosure ofhidden issues, CASBEE-City also functions as a supporting tool for the discussion of
possible measures to be taken for a better future, which is a key aspect of CASBEE-City.
The local government trends can be roughly estimated by the aforementioned standard
version. However, when specific measures are discussed at the advanced level, moredetailed data on a local government of interest are needed. The professional version,
which is introduced in this section, is useful to obtain such detailed data.
The professional version of CASBEE-City was developed with the expectation of use
mainly by experienced individuals such as related officials and experts in the field of city
planning and covers a more extensive range of assessment items than the standard version. The data collection for the assessment is somewhat more difficult than the standard
version, but it will be rewarded by the advantageous features realized by its framework formore detailed assessment.
CASBEE-City allows not only the assessment of the current condition but also future
predictions. By inputting the data such as local government target scores for the coming
years, the tool can visualize future development compared with the present situation. The
results are plotted on a two-dimensional BEE chart, which is also useful when examining
which measure is most effective. Both standard and professional versions of CASBEECity can perform such assessment of chronological change. However, the results of theprofessional version can provide more detailed and useful information. Contribution
towards the sustainable development of local governments is considered to be made bysharing the assessment results among all the stakeholders including experts and citizens.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.6 CASBEE for Cities (CASBEE-City)

BEE=3.0

1.5

1.0

ExcellentRoute 1:
Route from the current situation
to the future (BAU) if nospecific measures are taken

Future goal
(Ro

ute

2)

(BAU: Business As Usual)

0.5

)

1
ute
(Ro

Q

Current
situation

L

Route 2:
If sufficient measures are
taken
Route 3:
Effectiveness of city policies( Q and L)

BAU
Poor

Figure 3.6.7: Utilization image of CASBEE-City for considering future action plans

Acknowledgements
The research results reported in this section were obtained in cooperation with members/officials of
the Committee for the Development of Environmental Performance Assessment Tools for Cities, theOffice for Promotion of Regional Revitalization of the Cabinet Secretariat of Japan, the Ministry ofLand, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, and local governments across the country, as well as
many other people involved in the project. The author would like to express his deepest gratitude tothem.

References:
1) Murakami, S., Kawakubo, S., Asami, Y., Ikaga, T., Yamaguchi, N., Kaburagi, S. (2011) Developmentof a comprehensive city assessment tool: CASBEE-City, Building Research and Information, Vol.
39 (3), pp 195-210
2) Kawakubo, S., Ikaga, T., Murakami, S. (2011) Nationwide Assessment of City Performance Basedon Environmental Efficiency, International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban
Development, Vol. 2 (4), pp 293-301
3) Kawakubo, S., Ikaga, T., Murakami, S., Asami, Y. (2012) Environmental performance assessmentof municipalities with the “CASBEE-CITY” tool, AIJ Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 78(683), pp 63-72
4) Kawakubo, S., Ikaga, T., Murakami, S. (2013) Questionnaire-based validation of environmental
performance assessment tool for municipalities, AIJ Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol.
78 (693), (forthcoming) (in press)172

<Column-6>

Towards green cities
Serge SALAT,
President,
Urban Morphology and Complex Systems Institute, France

While governments and municipalities are committing themselves to fostering urban
sustainability, they need tools to measure the current performance of their cities, tofind the levers to better them, and to assess the efficiency of the actions engaged.
The challenge that has been successfully addressed by CASBEE is to address the
key issues of urban sustainability while taking into account the complexity of thenumerous interactions occurring on the city scale.
Urban morphology provides a robust framework to encompass the complexityof interactions happening on the city scale. Urban form strategies that foster sustainability are to be based on the following triptych:- Economics: Fine grain, which is a characteristic of Japanese cities, maximizes
connections, interactions and inclusiveness, and as a result amplifies the economic benefits of agglomeration economies and supports economic growth- Social: High accessibility to a various range of urban amenities such as healthcare,childcare, education or green spaces ensures the proximity to daily services for
all the people and improves livability. This high accessibility is made possible
through optimal distributions with a long tail of small scale amenities
Robust methodologies and tools have been developed in the recent years to address
the complexity of urban sustainability. They have been fed by complex systems’
theory and build on spatial distributions, scale hierarchies and graph analysis tohelp optimizing urban spatial planning. Analyses of distribution and of scale hierarchy explain for instance how proximity to essential urban amenities is ensured on
the city scale. The following figure shows that the distribution of parks in Paris follows a Pareto distribution, with a long tail of very small parks that ensures that 80%
of Parisians reside less than 5 minutes’ walk from a park.

173

3. CASBEE Family of Tools- Environment: Cities that are at the same time more compact and with a finer grain
succeed in reducing transportation and operational building energy, and reduce
their environmental load.

Size of green spaces (ha)3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.6 CASBEE for Cities (CASBEE-City)

Figure C7.1: 80% of Parisians reside lessin Paris than 5 minutes’ walk from a
park.

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Frequency

Figure C7.2: Long tail distribution of parks(Source: Urban Morphology and Complex Systems Institute)

Methods and tools exist to measure in minute detail parameters influencing urban
sustainability. However, because of their level of detail, they are not appropriate fora nation-wide implementation. The great success achieved by CASBEE-City is to
strike a smart and finely tuned balance between science and policy. On the one
hand, it has been thought as a general assessment system of urban sustainability
which is an operational and pragmatic tool for mayors, developers and all urban
stakeholders eager to move toward greener cities. But on the other hand, the necessary simplified assessment framework encompasses the complexity or urban
issues, providing an accurate reflection of what detailed analysis methods would
conclude.
CASBEE succeeds in taking a step back from the complexity of urban issues on
the city scale by selecting key indicators providing an accurate estimation of urban
performance; even if what is measured by these key indicators results from complex
upstream mechanisms and interactions. In the case of urban amenities, where
detailed analysis would identify the imbalance in the distribution of physicians orchildcare facilities in the city, CASBEE-City rests upon an accurate first-order proxythat is the number of physicians or childcare facilities.
CASBEE is at the same time a systemic and strategic approach of urban sustainability. It is systemic as the very core of CASBEE is to assess the city as a system,with an inside and an outside, separated by a well-defined boundary; the systemhaving an intrinsic quality, and applying a load to the outside. Systemic also as thevariety of CASBEE tools makes it possible to assess the different scales, from thebuilding up to the city scale. It is strategic as it makes it possible to assess the current situation, set objectives, and supports the implementation of scenarios andtrajectories toward greener cities. As a robust method and tool to assess urban
sustainability and monitor the change towards more sustainable, inclusive and successful cities, CASBEE is a great achievement that helps cities move in the right
direction.◾

174

3.7. CASBEE Connector to BIM

3.7.1. Background“Integration of BIM with CASBEE –1” in 2009
Examining the background information (history and the current status of BIM) in detail, theexpected achievements and challenges for the development of connector were discussed
from multiple angles to clarify the positioning of the initiation of the research.
“Integration of BIM with CASBEE –2” in 2010
Focusing on the research/development update and progress, each stakeholder (including
providers, building design offices, construction companies, and educational architectural
institutions) reported the results and issues from their respective points of view.
Considering the latest movement inside/outside the country, possibilities regarding thelinkage to change in the processes for design, construction and operation and the market
reform for popularizing sustainable buildings were discussed.
In accordance with the initial plan, the connector developed has adopted a system inwhich CASBEE assessment is directly conducted using the BIM tool. However, for a longterm goal, it will be developed to be an independent tool as a “connector” in the original
sense.

3.7.2. Situations regarding BIM
BIM simultaneously integrates 3D image processing technology with a series of information on drawings/specifications in the field of architecture, landscape and civil engineer175

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

The rapidly spreading use of Building Information Modeling (BIM), which is based on thethree-dimensional computer-aided design (3D CAD) system, is considered to be transforming the style of work involved in all the processes of design, construction and operation of buildings. Especially in recent years, the degree of such change is reaching a rapid
level.
On the other hand, the development and use of comprehensive assessment tools forthe environmental performance of buildings, which can contribute to the establishment ofa sustainable society, have already become a worldwide trend. Now each country has
gone through all the phases of tool development, the focus is shifting to the establishmentof rational and international common criteria among the tools and their operation and thedevelopment of a flexible system that can reflect the regional characteristics and individuality of each tool.
Against such a global backdrop, in October 2010, after approximately two years’ preparation, Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC) developed and released the firstversion of “connector” by which BIM and CASBEE can work hand in hand with each otherand some of the CASBEE assessment items can be evaluated semi-automatically. It was
the world’s first connector product released in the market for the integration of BIM with
the Environmental Performance Assessment System of buildings to make its markdomestically as well as overseas. The progress of development had been continuallypresented on occasions such as panel discussions at the conference of the Architectural
Institute of Japan and can be summarized as follows:3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.7. CASBEE Connector to BIM

ing to create a digital database, whereby work-related data such as design, altered
design, finalized design, maintenance, and renovation history can continuously be stored,
processed and displayed. BIM therefore is an innovative and extremely speedy support
system for building design, construction and management, with high efficiency andreproducibility (Figure 3.7.1). It is also considered to be a very effective tool to enable
automatic assessment when a wide range of Design for Environment (DfE) systems are
examined. BIM has already been introduced in the field of industrial design such as shipbuilding and automotive industries. However, in the world of building design where every
product is individually constructed depending on the regional characteristics, use of BIM
was not so common except in a few cases.
However, recent situations such as large-capacity computers, high-speed processing, low prices, and development and availability of sophisticated software programs
have totally changed the conventions. BIM has rapidly gained popularity across the world
and its range of applications is also expanding, which affects the architectural curricula ofeducational institutions such as universities. Many recent seminars and workshops for
BIM indicate increasing interest from those in the field.

Figure 3.7.1: Conceptual image of how to utilize BIM through the lifecycle of buildings(© Autodesk)

3.7.3. Integration of BIM with CASBEE
As described above, there is high demand for further promoting the use and effective
operation of design support tools to improve comprehensive environmental performance.
It is therefore inevitable that these two sought-after systems of the times and society beconnected to each other and provide a framework to automatically conduct CASBEE
assessment and visualize the results by entering the data into design via the BIM tool (seeFigure 3.7.2).
176

BIM
StructuraldesignDesignIntegralmodel

Utilization at each stage of the lifecycle
and seamless information transactions

Building
equipment
designCost estimate
Catalytic tool/ Connector
CASBEE
1) Preliminary design stage
BIM

DesignStructuraldesignIntegralmodel

Building
equipment
designCost estimate
Catalytic tool/ Connector
CASBEE
2) Execution design stage
BIM

DesignStructuraldesignIntegralmodel

Building
equipment
designCost estimate
Catalytic tool/ Connector
CASBEE
3) Renovation design stage

As a preliminary trial, a U.S. assessment system LEED whose use is rapidly becoming
common especially in the Americas demonstrated a future model of the assessment system working together with BIM. The model was developed and released to the public in
2007 as part of “Project Chicago” named by the main developers of the U.S. Green
Building Council (USGBC) and Autodesk Inc. It was quite a futuristic and appealing demonstration video.
In response to such a movement, the Committee for CASBEE Research andDevelopment under the umbrella of JSBC, which is the main organization in charge of
CASBEE development, initiated the research and development for the establishment ofsuch a system and its commercialization, in cooperation with Autodesk Inc., which is theleading pioneer of BIM and is also a member of JSBC. The Working Group for CASBEEBIM (CASBEE-BIM WG), which consists of members such as national government officials, academic authorities, experienced individuals, and relevant committee members,
was launched and started its activities in September 2008.

3.7.4. Outline of connector development
3.7.4.1. Major effects expected from the development of connector(1) Time efficiency in CASBEE assessment- Semi-automatic calculation and summation of environmental indicator levels that are
estimated based on architectural drawing data
- Improved accuracy of calculated environmental indicator levels
177

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Figure 3.7.2: Conceptual image of how to utilize the CASBEE-BIM connector through thelifecycle of buildings

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.7. CASBEE Connector to BIM- Extraction of the relevant drawing data to calculate environmental indicator levels- Preparation for a set of printed administrative documents for submission to a local government(2) Contribution towards the construction of green buildings- Support for the Design for Environment by establishing an interactive connection
between drawing data and environmental performance- Support for the management of environmental performance by enabling environmental
indicator levels to be calculated at the planning stage- Support for the management of a project in which the results of CASBEE assessment
are used as management targets

BIM toolGroups of data on shapes and specifications
Space composition: volume, room area, room usage, floor load, etc.
Area data: floor area, wall area, opening area, ceiling area, etc.
Quantity: doors and windows, finishing materials, volume of structures, equipment
outlets, etc.
Material information: doors and windows, finishing materials, main structures, facility
outlets, etc.
Maintenance data: components, service life of the main structure, etc.

Data

Data

Computation/summation

Summation

Assessment items (marked by ◎)Assessment items (marked by ○)Summation of the CASBEE assessment results(Scoring criteria and weighting DB by use)
CASBEE-BIM connector (add-on)

CASBEE output
Figure 3.7.3: Conceptual image of how BIM and CASBEE tools are connected to each other

3.7.4.2. Basic concept for determination of which assessment items should be
included
Although there are several purposes for the integration of CASBEE with the BIM tool, themost important for the CASBEE developers is the assessment simplification that can leadto more common usage of the tool. In developing the connector, a questionnaire survey
on the levels of difficulty in handling the CASBEE assessment items was first conductedamong those in the field. Reflecting their opinions and focusing primarily on the simplification of CASBEE assessment, 13 assessment items (as listed in Table 3.7.1) were178

selected to be included in the assessment by the first version of connector.
Specifically, especially prioritized for inclusion were the assessment items requiring
complicated calculations in the environmental engineering field in spite of being categorized in the field of building design (e.g., heat transmission coefficient, sun-shading rate,
PAL, daylight factor, or those marked by in Table 3.7.1). The assessment items that needno complicated calculation but selection and addition of relevant numerical values
obtained by BIM were also included (those marked by in Table 3.7.1).

Prioritized items for inclusion in the assessment by the connector (13 items)
Q1 Indoor
environment

Q2 Quality ofservice

2. Thermal environment

2.1.3 Perimeter performance◎

3. Lighting & illumination

3.1.1 Daylight factor◎

3.1.2 Openings by orientation○

3.1.3 Daylight devices○

4. Air quality

4.2.2 Natural ventilation performance○

1. Service ability

1.1.1 Provision of space & storage○

1.2.1 Perceived spaciousness andaccess to view○

1.2.2 Space for refreshment○

3.1.1 Allowance for floor-to-floor height○

3.1.2 Adaptability of floor layout○

3.3.6 Provision of backup space○

3. Flexibility & adaptability

LR1 Energy

1 Perimeter annual load (PAL) for buildings◎

LR3 Off-siteenvironment

3. Consideration ofsurrounding environment○

3.2.2 Restriction of daylight obstructions: Assessment items to be examined by architects but require calculations in the environmental
engineering field○: Assessment items that demand a lot of time and effort, but can be calculated by selecting andadding up the relevant numerical values

3.7.4.3. Basic concept for defining a spatial area to be evaluated
In CASBEE assessment, the definition of a space to be evaluated varies depending on
assessment item and building usage. With regard to methods for spatial averaging andrepresenting, the current manual provides no more than a set of rules because of thepolicy that emphasis should be placed on the simplicity of assessment. There are no
detailed definitions yet.
On the other hand, when the BIM tool is used to perform averaging or representing,strictly defined rules are required. The conceptual system of room classification by theusage, which can be used for the assessment items in Table 3.7.1, was reviewed (applicable only to the whole building or the common areas). The currently used BIM tool has thecapability to handle the concept of “rooms” and each room can be named accordingly.
However, the BIM tool cannot recognize the difference among rooms from the perspective of their usage. It is therefore impossible to automatically calculate “the average of
office rooms.” In the present process of developing/upgrading the connector, wheneverassessment is conducted, the assessor has to select rooms to define a spatial area to be179

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

Table 3.7.1: Prioritized items for inclusion in CASBEE assessment

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.7. CASBEE Connector to BIM

evaluated. When considering the application to third-party certification, etc., which
necessitates detailed rules as a base for assessment, the “definition of rooms by use”
becomes a crucial issue because it takes an impractically long time to assess manyrooms and calculate their average. Such a definition is also essential for the process ofother applications including thermal load calculation.
3.7.4.4. Flow of the assessment
By enabling CASBEE assessment to be easily conducted using the BIM tool, the resultsof CASBEE assessment can be roughly obtained when the basic data of a building in a
project are determined (i.e., at the initial planning stage). This is useful for managing theenvironmental performance targets. Figure 3.7.4 is a flow chart of the assessment withuse of the connector, which has been discussed by CASBEE-BIM WG.
On the other hand, in the current BIM tool, necessary information and indicators for
CASBEE assessment are not prepared as a standard for the objects of construction
materials and components. It is also difficult for users to provide detailed data for suchinformation and indicators at the initial stage. However, if such data for such informationand indicators are available from the initial stage, the assessment and feedback ([1] and[2] in Figure 3.7.4, respectively) can be performed very smoothly. The establishment ofconsensus between the client and the assessor is considered to be facilitated from astage earlier than before. An advantage of BIM utilization is “front-loading.” It is therefore
essential to ask vendors to make sure that, as a standard, “construction materials” or“spaces” meet the level of the initial values of information or indicators necessary for theassessment.

Setting of target scoresfor environmental performance

Basic plan[2] Change in specs

Model creation (basic plan)[1]
CASBEE assessment

NO

If initial data are entered,
the feedback can be provided based on the data,
which makes it very easy
to examine whether thetarget scores are fulfilled.

Target levels
fulfilled

DesignChange in specs

YES

Model creation (design)
CASBEE assessment

NO

Target levels
fulfilled

The data used forassessment can becontinuously usedat design and construction stages.

YES
Figure 3.7.4: Flow chart of CASBEE assessment with use of the BIM tool180

3.7.5. Future challenges
Besides what has been described so far, the major issues discussed by CASBEE-BIM
WG at present are as follows:a. Securing of the reliability of calculation results obtained by the BIM toolb. In the process of the above-mentioned calculation, how to display the input items thatare at the discretion of individual assessors
c. Automatic preparation of application documents for authorized third-party certificatesof CASBEE assessment and application documents necessary for local government
applicationd. Simplification and rationalization of the CASBEE assessment system itself, to enable
automatic assessment by BIM
In the process of developing an add-on CASBEE connector to the BIM tool, the conceptof CASBEE assessment in the BIM tool was reviewed and challenges for developing theconnector were clarified. Based on CASBEE assessment results to be obtained in further
research, discussions will be conducted through case studies. The tool’s effectivenesswill also be improved by focusing on the two issues presented below.

b. Improve the reliability by showing the calculation sheet, indicator level calculation orsummation process check sheet, etc., in the CASBEE assessment and BIM tool.
Below is a summary of the general rules compiled through a series of work involved in theconnector development and expected to be needed for upgrading the connector(“Guidelines on the Introduction of CASBEE Assessment into the BIM Tool”).

181

3. CASBEE Family of Tools

a. Determine the initial values of data to be entered, which are necessary for CASBEE
assessment: with regard to performance levels of walls, materials of openings etc., discuss possible methods, for example, to set the default option as the performance levelroughly equivalent to Level 3 in the CASBEE assessment.

3. CASBEE Family of Tools / 3.7. CASBEE Connector to BIM

Data
Calculationof indicat or levels
for each space(Not defined
as integration)

Analytical engine

Computation

Summation of architectural data and calculationof indicator levels for each space
Calculation results

Data

Scoring of each CASBEE
assessment item
Summation of CASBEE assessment results
Summation for scoringof the obtained CASBEE
indicator levels→ Scoring

Scoring of CASBEE assessment items(Levels 1 – 5)‥‥

CASBEE assessment summation
BEE calculation, summation
for multiple-purpose facilities, etc.
Output of the summation
result file as CASBEE
assessment results

Output of CASBEE assessment results

A situation having the below-mentioned functions
is defined as “inter-related.”

BIM basic functions••BIM (management of architectural data groups)••Spatial composition: volume, room area, room
usage, floor load, etc.
••Area data: floor area, wall area, opening area, ceiling area, etc.
••Quantity: doors and windows, finishing materials,
volume of structures, facility outlets, etc.
••Material information: doors and windows, finishingmaterials, number of structures, facility outlets, etc.
••Maintenance data: components, service life of themain structure, etc.

Figure 3.7.5: Definition of the integration between CASBEE and BIM tool

In the gidelines, the “integration” of CASBEE and other tools such as BIM means that thefunctions described in the lower part of the figure are operable. That is, simple calculationof some of the indicator levels necessary for CASBEE scoring is not sufficient to be
regarded as integrated.

References
1) BIM Japan vol.1, X-Knowledge Co., Ltd. publisher, 2008 (in Japanese).
2) Iwamura, K., Development of CASBEE-BIM Connector, IBEC, 182, 10-14, 2011 (in Japanese).

182

4. CASBEE Promotion and Support Systems

4.1. CASBEE Accredited Professional Registration System
4.2. CASBEE Certification System
4.3. Building Administration systems

A decade of Development and Applicationof an Environmental Assessment System
for the Built Environment

4. CASBEE Promotion and Support Systems

4.1. CASBEE accredited professional
registration system

CASBEE is based on making assessment as quantitative as possible, but it includes
assessment items that are qualitative in nature. As such, it requires a specialized engineer
with expertise and knowledge in the comprehensive environmental performance evaluation of buildings. That is why the CASBEE Accredited Professional Registration System
was established. Those aiming to become accredited professionals must attend the training course, pass the examination and complete registration. Currently, the assessor training course and examination are held only in Japan.
The advantages of successful registration as an accredited assessor are as follows:a. Demonstrating the ability to conduct accurate assessments in accordance with
CASBEEb. When applying for the certification system, assessments conducted by a qualified
assessor are required.
c. When being entrusted by a third party to conduct CASBEE assessments as part ofsubcontracting work, an accredited professional should be involved in the assessments
as specified in the assessor system outline.
d. Regarding submitting assessment results to a local government, the trend of mandatory assessments by an accredited professional has been growing (e.g., CASBEE Osaka
Mirai).
e. The CASBEE assessment result is being requested in an increasing number of cases at
the time of competition proposal and placing an order for design work, which reflects agrowing need for accredited professionals.
There are 3 qualifications for a CASBEE Accredited Proffesional depending on the assessment tool the assessor is capable of using. Details of the individual assessor systems aredescribed below.

4.1.1. CASBEE Accredited Professional for housing
CASBEE Accredited Professional for Housing covers CASBEE for New Detached Houses
and CASBEE for Existing Detached Houses (for Existing Buildings). The qualification isnecessary when evaluating a detached house in accordance with CASBEE. A qualified
candidate for the examination should be one of the following: a first-class architect, asecond-class architect or a registered architect for wooden buildings.
- Objective: Foster and accredit competent professionals exclusively for CASBEE-Home- Course and Test: Twice a year, organized by IBEC
- Eligibility: First- and second-class architects, and architects for wooden buildings- Number of registrants: ca.6,800 (as of December 2013)

4.1.2. CASBEE Accredited Professional for buildings
CASBEE Accredited Professional for Buildings covers tools presented in CASBEE for184

New Construction, CASBEE for Existing Buildings and CASBEE for Renovation including
their abridged versions. This qualification is required when evaluating buildings other thandetached houses in accordance with CASBEE. The qualified candidates for the examination should be first-class architects.
- Objective: Foster and accredit competent professional of CASBEE-NC, EB, and RN- Course and Test: Twice a year, organized by IBEC
- Eligibility: First-class architects- Number of registrants: ca.7,100 (as of December 2013)

4.1.3. CASBEE Accredited Professional for market promotion
The CASBEE Accredited Professional for Market Promotion is a qualification required
when conducting assessments in accordance with CASBEE for Market Promotion. People
who are involved in management/operation or appraisal of real estate are supposed to
use CASBEE for Market Promotion. Therefore, unlike assessors for housing and buildings, CASBEE for Market Promotion has no eligibility requirements for the examination.
Process for successful registration:
Pass the examination after completing the CASBEE Accredited Professional for Market
Promotion course, and apply for registration. (Those who have already been registered as
CASBEE Accredited Professionals for Buildings are exempt from the examination as an
exception.)

4. CASBEE Promotion
and Support Systems- Eligibility: N/A (Candidates must be mainly specialized in the real estate industry including research, evaluation, effective utilization, management and operation.)- Number of registrants: 370 (as of December 2013)

Figure 4.1.1: Cumulative numbers of CASBEE Accredited professionals (as ofDecember 2013)

185

4. CASBEE Promotion and Support Systems

4.2. CASBEE certification system

4.2.1 Reporting system by local governments
Currently, 24 local governments in Japan employ the “Sastainable Building Reporting
System (SBRS). ” In the system, all of the CASBEE-assessed buildings reported to the
local governments’ assessment results (ranking) are available on the Internet. As of March
2013, the number of reported buildings exceeds 11,000 (see Section 4.3.2 & 6.2.3).
CASBEE is an assessment system applied to a great number of private buildings (otherthan detached houses), which makes CASBEE very special and unique and which is oneof its main features.

4.2.2. Certification for buildings
CASBEE Certification for Buildings is a system in which a third party examines and certifies assessment results provided by CASBEE for New Construction, Existing Buildings,
Renovation and their brief versions. An application for certification must be accompanied
by assessment results provided by a CASBEE Accredited Professional for Buildings
described above. Since the system started in 2004, over 230 buildings throughout Japan
have so far been certified. A certificate and the emblem shown below are issued to certified buildings.
- Target: CASBEE for New Construction, Existing Buildings, Renovation and their abridged
versions- Certification body: Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
and 14 private institutions approved by IBEC
- Number of certified buildings: 232 (as of December 2013)

4.2.3. Certification for housing
CASBEE Certification for Housing is a system in which a third party examines and certifies assessment results prepared in accordance with CASBEE for New Detached Houses.
An application for certification must be accompanied by assessment results provided bya CASBEE Accredited Assessor for Housing described above.
- Target: CASBEE for New Detached Houses- Certification body: Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
and 5 private institutions approved by IBEC
- Number of certified houses: 104 (as of December 2013)

4.2.4. Certification for CASBEE for market promotion
Certification for CASBEE for Market Promotion is a system in which a third party examines and certifies assessment results prepared in accordance with CASBEE for Market
Promotion. An application for certification must be accompanied by assessment results
provided by a CASBEE Accredited Professional for Market Promotion described above.
Since the first certification of this system in December 2013, 38 certificates have been
issued. The certificate is expected to be used when buying and selling real estate in the
future as evidence that clearly demonstrates the building’s environmental performance.
186認証番号 I B E C - C 0 0 0 0 - N C ( b )建築評価認証書
建築物総合環境性能評価認証制度要綱第５条の規定に基づき評価した結果、ＣＡＳＢＥＥによる建築物の総合
環境性能評価が的確であると認証する

評

価

Ａランク
物

建 物 名 称

: （建

申

請

者

:

建

設

名）

一般財団法人 建築環境・省エネルギー機構
理事長 村上 周三

地:

東京都千代田区麹町三丁目五番一号

評 価 段 階:実施設計段階評 価ツール:ＣＡＳＢＥＥ新築（2010年版）

有 効 期 限: ２０１２年４月１日

SQ = 3.6
Q-1:
SQ1 = 3.5

=0.3

=0.4

Q-2:
SQ2 = 3.2

Q-3:
SQ3 = 3.9

=0.3

=0.4

=0.3

=0.3

２０１２年４月１日

SLR = 3.3
LR-1:
SLR1 = 3.4

一般財団法人 建築環境・省エネルギー機構

Certificate

LR-2:
SLR2 = 3.6

LR-3:
SLR3 = 3.0

Assessment Result

築

境

･省

（
エネルギー機構

I

4. CASBEE Promotion
and Support Systems

新 築 2013

BE

建

環

C）

Figure 4.2.1: CASBEE-NC Certificate

Figure 4.2.2: CASBEE Certificate Emblem

187

4. CASBEE Promotion and Support Systems

4.3. Building administration systems
4.3.1. CASBEE as a policy instrument at national government level
Since the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) stipulated its
environmental action plan in 2004, when the importance, visibility and expression ofassessments of environmental performance of buildings were increasing, CASBEE has
been clearly positioned as a promotional tool for such governmental policies.
The importance of the popularization of CASBEE has been demonstrated in efforts for
improving environmental performance of governmental facilities such as the MLIT
Government Buildings Green Program and policies for nationwide measures to combat
climate change including the Evaluation and Review of the Kyoto Protocol Target
Achievement Plan and the Innovation Plan for Environmental Energy Technology. CASBEE
is also actually adopted as an indicator tool for determining the level of environmental
performance in the Leading Project for Promoting CO2 Reduction in Housing and Buildings
and the Certification of Low-Carbon Buildings in which the government provides subsidies to eco-friendly buildings.
The Certification of Low-Carbon Buildings is a system based on the Eco-City Act thatallows certified buildings to receive tax benefits or easing of requirements in the floor area
ratio. The determination based on comprehensive assessments of environmental performance varies depending on individual local governments. However, currently, 8 local governments have adopted CASBEE for conducting certification.

Environmental Action Plan of MLIT, enacted in June 2004

MLIT Government Buildings Green Program(MLIT Government Buildings Department, August 2006)
Fully adopting CASBEE as Standards for Planning Green Government Buildings
Fully adopting CASBEE as Standards for Green Assessment and Renovation Plan
Evaluation and Review of the Kyoto Protocol Target Achievement Plan
(Global Warming Prevention Headquarters, September 2007)
Noting the importance of widening the range of buildings covered by CASBEE tools
and promoting their use
Leading Project for Promoting CO2 Reduction in Housing and Buildings(MLIT, since April 2008)
Fully adopting CASBEE as an assessment index for selecting businesses in the subsidy system
Innovation Plan for Environmental Energy Technology(Council for Science and Technology Policy, Cabinet Office, May 2008)
Presenting CASBEE as a social system technology, the development of which is to be promoted
Low Carbon City Promotion Act (Abbreviation: Eco-City Act) (2012)
Local governments adopt CASBEE as standards for low-carbon building certification.
Figure 4.3.1: Governmental policies using CASBEE as an instrument188

4.3.2. CASBEE as policy instrument at local government level
4.3.2.1. Sustainable building reporting system
CO2 emissions from the private sector (commercial and households sectors) continue togrow in Japan. Especially after the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, governments arebeing pressured to take immediate action to reduce CO2 emissions and enhanced regulations in the abovementioned sectors. Now, 24 local governments employ the “Sustainable
Building Reporting System (SBRS)” regulation targeting the commercial sector and housing sectors. For buildings, planning is important as they exist for a very long time once
built. The system incorporates environmental performance assessment for buildings
before construction. Through the system, a number of buildings are assessed for environmental performance; therefore, the system is expected to drive the market toward further
sustainability.
The system requires large building owners to submit a building environmental planand the government to publish said plan on the website. The purpose of the system is toencourage building owners to carry out voluntary efforts to reduce environmental loadand create a market that will highly value environmentally sound and high-quality buildings and structures. The outline of SBRS is as follows:
Building owners themselves evaluate buildings in terms of measures they have carriedout to consider the environment in accordance with the guidelines provided by the government.
The government publishes the environment-conscious measures to be taken by building owners and their evaluation on its website.
The government may provide some incentives to help building owners carry out voluntary measures.
Table 4.3.1 shows local authorities that have introduced SBRS. Under the required
ordinances and guidelines, building owners are asked to carry out a comprehensive
assessment of their buildings’ environmental performance when a building above a certain size is newly constructed. Most local governments, except the Tokyo Metropolitan
Government and Chiyoda Ward, have adopted CASBEE for their SBRS.

(2) To build a mechanism by which market players appreciate and fairly value the buildings
with excellent environmental performance in the market.
(3) To encourage housing suppliers and developers to make voluntary efforts and cooperate in disseminating environmental protection measures.

189

4. CASBEE Promotion
and Support Systems

4.3.2.2 Built environment performance indication system
Although results of the self-evaluation of built environment performance are published on
the website, it is not easy for many people to actually find out this information for homepurchases. The Built Environment Performance Indication System is a program in which
environmental performance must be displayed in advertising medium, such as flyers,
websites, pamphlets and magazines. The objectives of the system are:(1) To provide potential buyers with a choice in relation to environmental performanceaccording to the self-evaluation through SBRS as common ground.

4. CASBEE Promotion and Support Systems / 4.3. Building administration systems

Table 4.3.1 Municipalities having adopted CASBEE in their policies

190

Subject Building

Indication
program

Municipals

Started

Nagoya City

2004.04

New construction or extension having over
2,000 m2 total floor area

Osaka city

2004.10

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor area New construction
applied for extra maximum floor-area ratio morethan 1,000 m2 site areaYokohama city

2005.07

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor areaKyoto city

2005.10

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor area

Kyoto prefecture

2006.04

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor area

Osaka prefecture

2006.04

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor area

Kobe city

2006.08

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor areaKawasaki city

2006.10

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor areaHyogo prefecture

2006.10

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor area

Shizuoka prefecture

2007.07

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor area

Fukuoka city

2007.10

New construction or extension having over
5,000 m2 total floor area

Sapporo city

2007.11

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor area

Kitakyushu city

2007.11

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor area

Saitama city

2009.04

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor area

Saitama prefecture

2009.10

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor area

Aichi prefecture

2009.10

New construction or extension having over
2,000 m2 total floor area

Kanagawa prefecture

2010.04

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor area

Chiba city

2010.04

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor area

Tottori prefecture

2010.04

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor area

Niigata city

2010.04

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor area

Hiroshima city

2010.04

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor areaKumamoto prefecture

2010.10

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor areaKashiwa city

2011.01

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor areaSakai city

2011.08

New construction or extension having morethan 2,000 m2 total floor area











Kawasaki City
Osaka City
Kanagawa Prefecture

Yokohama City

4. CASBEE Promotion
and Support Systems

Figure 4.3.2: Municipal indication systems of the built environment performance1915. Benefits through CASBEE usage

5.1. Relationship between BEE Index, Energy/CO2e Conservation and Cost
5.2. Incentives Provided by Local Governments
5.3. Health promotion in housing and community

A decade of Development and Applicationof an Environmental Assessment System
for the Built Environment

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage

5.1. Relationship between BEE Index,
Energy / CO2e conservation and cost

5.1.1 Green government buildings and CASBEE
In order to reduce environmental impact due to the development of public facilities by thegovernment, the Standards for and Commentaries on Green Government Buildings,edited by the Government Buildings Department, the Secretariat of the Minister of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, were published in 2006. (For details, please refer to“6.2.2. Examples of Utilization by the Government, <Case-1> Governmental Buildings”)
Regarding public facilities, environmental performance assessments during the planning stage have been requested. In addition to assessments on LCCO2 (CO2 emissions),
LCR (resource consumption), LCW (wastes) and LCC (costs), tools from CASBEE for New
Construction (brief version) are included. Figure 5.1.1 shows a BEE (Built Environment
Efficiency) chart on which the relationships between CASBEE, ∆LCCO2 (life-cycle reduction rate of CO2 emission) and ∆IC (increase rate of initial construction costs) are plottedin terms of various design specifications for a model government building having a total
floor area of 3,000 m2, presented in the Standards for and Commentaries on Green
Government Buildings. The BEE value for a model government building having the standard design specifications in 1990 was 0.9 (Rank B-), which is almost the same level as theaverage office buildings nowadays. If the model government building is designed using
the current standard specifications, the BEE value will increase to 1.4 (Rank B+); in addition, ∆LCCO2 will be reduced by 5% compared to the one using the standard design
specifications in 1990. On the other hand, ∆IC needs to increase by 1% as a budget forenvironmental measures. Further, regarding the current green government building sample having versatile environmental technologies, the BEE value will increase to 2.1 (RankA); in addition, ∆LCCO2 will be reduced by 15%. However, a 3% increase in ∆IC will benecessary in order to secure a budget for the environmental measures. In this manner, weare now able to study the relationships between CASBEE, the reduction rate of LCCO2
and a budget for environmental measures, which have never been very clear until now.
Green government building sample

Environmental quality Q

Government building of the current standards

Government building of the 1990 standards

Environmental load L

IC: Increase rate ofconstruction costs

Figure 5.1.1: Sample study of the relationship between CASBEE, reduction rate of LCCO2
and increase rate of construction costs in model government buildings

194

Figure 5.1.2 shows a chart in which the relationships between the BEE value of CASBEE
and the reduction rate of LCCO2 are plotted in terms of various design specifications formodel facilities representing buildings of the central government and the Tokyo
Metropolitan Government, hospitals and high schools.
Symbol ○ represents the study results for government buildings. According to theregression line, using the BEE value around zero (between Rank B- and B+) as a benchmark, we can see the relationship between the BEE value and the reduction rate of LCCO2
that indicates when the BEE value is around 1.5 (between Rank B+ and A), the reduction
rate of LCCO2 is 10%. Similarly, when the former is around 3 (top of Rank A), the latter isabout 30%. Hospitals and high schools are slightly different due to their specific purposes of use and the difference in standard design specifications. However, we can see
from the chart that the larger the BEE value is (the higher the CASBEE rank is), the more
the reduction rate of LCCO2 is expected.

Reduction rate of LCCO2 (%)

Government building(Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 3,000m2 class)
Government building(Central Government, 3,000m2 class)
Government building(Central Government, 15,000m2 class)HospitalHigh school

BEE value of CASBEE (–)

Figure 5.1.2: Relationship between the BEE value and the reduction rate of LCCO2 ingovernment buildings, hospitals and high schools

Figure 5.1.3 uses the same case study described above and shows the increase rate ofinitial construction costs due to the implementation of environmental measures, including
energy-saving, longer service life and the adoption of eco-materials, on the vertical axis.
For example, take the government building represented by ○, using the BEE value aroundzero (between Rank B- and B+) as a benchmark, we can see the relationship between the
BEE value and the increase rate of initial construction costs due to the implementation ofenvironmental measures that indicates when the former is around 1.5 (between Rank B+
and A), the latter is about 3%. Similarly, when the former is around 3 (top of Rank A), thelatter is about 15%. Hospitals and high schools are slightly different due to their specificpurposes of use and the difference in standard design specifications. However, we cansee from the chart that it is necessary to secure a sufficient budget for implementing
environmental measures in order to achieve a high BEE value (to advance in the CASBEErank).

195

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage

5.1.2: Performance improvement effects of CASBEE in government buildings, hospitals and schools

Increase rate of initial construction costs (%)

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage / 5.1. Relationship between BEE Index, Energy/CO2e conservation and cost

Government building(Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 3,000m2 class)
Government building(Central Government, 3,000m2 class)
Government building(Central Government, 15,000m2 class)HospitalHigh school

BEE value of CASBEE (–)

Figure 5.1.3: Relationship between the BEE value and the increase rate of construction
costs in government buildings, hospitals and high schools

References[1] Standards for Green Government Buildings and Commentaries, edited by the Government
Buildings Department, the Secretariat of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport andTourism, Public Buildings Association, January 2006
[2] Hayashi T., Fujiwara T., Ibe G., Tokita S., Ikaga T. and Endo J.: Development of LCA tool to evaluate the effect of environmental techniques for Tokyo Metropolitan Government facilities, AIJ J.
Technol. Des. No. 23, (2006), pp. 253-258 [in Japanese]196

Many Japanese local governments have introduced various types of incentives forencouraging building owners to build high ranked CASBEE buildings.
In the city of Osaka, the rating should at least reach the B+ rank, the third of CASBEE’s
five grades, if the approval for increased maximum floor area ratio is given to the building
being assessed. Many local governments have urban development schemes in whichdevelopers can obtain extra floor area ratio, and some utilize the Sustainable Building
Reporting System (SBRS) as a condition for approval. In Nagoya, a 250% maximum floorspace ratio will be given if the buildings are S-ranked by CASBEE, whereas 200% will begiven to the A-ranked buildings. Financial support can be provided for high score buildings based on SBRS. Tottori Prefecture uses SBRS to subsidize detached houses that are
A-ranked by CASBEE for housing. The city of Kitakyushu also subsidizes residentialbuildings selected that at least reach the B+ rank.
Some of the major incentives provided by local governments are described below.

5.2.1. Subsidies, an increase in the floor area ratio, etc.
Nagoya City:
Upon applying the Comprehensive Design System, a further increase in the floor area
ratio is allowed depending on the assessment based on CASBEE Nagoya. (The maximum
allowable ratio is usually 200%. However, for buildings rated as Rank S, the relaxing of theratio is extended up to 250%.)
Kitakyushu City:- Utilizing as requirements for adoption in the Project for Apartment Buildings Supply in
Major Urban Areas (Rank B+ and over)- Offering subsidies to households moving in from outside the city for buying and building
a house as part of the project for supporting and encouraging long-term residency in
Kitakyushu City (up to 1 million yen)
- Utilizing as requirements for adoption in the subsidy system for mortgage interest rates(Rank B+ and over)Fukuoka City:- Utilizing rankings of CASBEE Fukuoka as one of the requirements for an increased floorarea ratio in the measures concerning the promotion of renewal of inner-city functions inFukuoka City
Tottori Prefecture:- Buildings rated as Rank A or over in CASBEE Tottori (Detached Houses) are entitled toan extra 70,000 yen on top of the subsidy. (The subsidy program for eco-friendly wooden
housing)
Kumamoto Prefecture:- Utilizing as requirements for adoption in global warming countermeasures for small andmedium enterprises
197

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage

5.2. Incentives provided by local governments

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage / 5.2. Incentives provided by local governments

Saitama Prefecture:- Upon applying the Comprehensive Design System, a further increase in the floor area
ratio is allowed up to 20% depending on the score given to major items of CASBEE
Saitama.
Kashiwa City:- Upon applying the Comprehensive Design System, a further increase in the floor area
ratio is allowed for buildings rated as Rank S in CASBEE Kashiwa.

5.2.2. Implementation of award systems utilizing CASBEE
Osaka City:- CASBEE Osaka Mirai of the Year
Osaka Prefecture:- Osaka Sustainable Building Award
Saitama Prefecture:- Environmental Architecture Housing Award (General architecture section)
Kanagawa Prefecture:- Kanagawa Global Warming Countermeasures Award
Shizuoka Prefecture:- Eco-friendly Architecture Award of the Community and Envi-ronmental Affairs
Department, Shizuoka Prefecture
Kashiwa City:- Kashiwa City Eco-friendly Architecture Award

5.2.3. Implementation of certification and financial systems in individualmunicipalities
Yokohama City:- Applying Yokohama City’s unique certification system to applicants from owners of
newly built buildings registered in Yokohama City (8 buildings as of December 2013)
In addition, many local governments implement preferential interest rate systems incollaboration with financial institutions. Depending on the CASBEE score submitted toindividual local governments, they provide a preferential interest rate for people withmortgages and low-interest financing for small and medium-sized businesses throughfinancial institutions. Some of the examples are described below.
Nagoya City:- For people who bought a detached house, depending on the score of CASBEE Aichi(Detached House), a preferential mortgage interest rate is available through a financial
institution.

198

Kawasaki City, Sapporo City, Saitama Prefecture, Saitama City and Niigata City:- Depending on the CASBEE score, a preferential mortgage interest rate is available forpeople who bought a condominium.
Hiroshima City:- Depending on the CASBEE score, a preferential interest rate is available for people whobought a condominium.
- Providing a low-interest financing system financed by the Environmental Conservation
Fund (a special loan) for small and medium-sized businesses

5.2.4. Collaborative incentive with finantial sector
The financial sector, such as banks, may utilize such information to offer better interest
rates to consumers who purchase houses. In most cities that introduce SBRS and the
Building Environmental Performance Indication System, there are several banks offering
better interest rates for home-purchase loans according to environmental performancebased on the published building environmental plan or the displayed building environmental performance indication of their house. For instance, up to a 1.5% reduction in theinterest rate is available for consumers who bought units assessed as S-ranked by
CASBEE-Kawasaki.

●Financial Instruments●The Kawasaki City’s Policy related to this incentive●Execution date

* Labeling requirement on
advertisements and at places etc.
open to public

Figure 5.2.1: Collaborative incentive with a bank in Kawasaki City

199

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage

Yokohama City, Kitakyushu City, Aichi Prefecture, Tottori Prefecture and Kashiwa
City:- Depending on the CASBEE score, a preferential mortgage interest rate is available forpeople who bought a detached house or a condominium.

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage

5.3. Health promotion in housing and community

5.3.1. Health promotion in housing
5.3.1.1. Introduction
Housing serves as an important basis for human life, and the establishment of a living
environment that promotes the health of residents is a pressing issue. In this social context, numerous studies and research were conducted in the past, from which we gained
extensive knowledge about the relationship between the living environment and the healthcondition of the residents. (Ando, et.al. 2011, 2012) (Ikaga, et.al. 2011) (Takayanagi, et.al.
2011) (Hayama, et.al. 2011)
This chapter utilizes the checklist of CASBEE for Detached Houses described in
Chapter 3.2 and introduces results of a survey on the relationship between the actual living environment across the country and the health condition of residents. (Kawakubo,et.al. 2012)
5.3.1.2. Questionnaire overview
A large-scale questionnaire was conducted directed at residents of detached houses
across the country, from which we could understand the level of housing environmental
performance and the health condition of residents. In order to understand the housing
environmental performance, we utilized “CASBEE for Detached Houses Health Checklist,”
which enables a comprehensive assessment of housing health. The checklist consists ofa total of 44 check items. Each item is given 0 to 3 points depending on the answer andthe maximum score is 132 points, from which we can evaluate the housing health of ourown home. Using this checklist, we conducted a survey on the actual environmental performance of more than 5,000 households throughout the country at the end of 2010. An
additional survey was also conducted at the beginning of 2011 to understand the healthcondition of residents of respective houses. The overview of the 2 questionnaires isshown in Table 5.3.1. Health problems addressed in the additional survey are shown in
Table 5.3.2.
Table 5.3.1: Questionnaire overview
Target200

Residents of detached houses across the country

MethodOnline questionnaire

TermFirst survey Nov. 26, 2010-Nov. 29, 2010
Second survey Feb. 17, 2011-Feb. 21, 2011

Collection rate

First survey 97.0%
Second survey 93.5%

Quantity of final
valid responses

5,497 households (23,677 people including live-in family members)

Positioning offirst survey andquestionsPurpose: Assessment on the housing environment of detached houses acrossthe country using CASBEE for Detached Houses Health Checklist
1. Questions concerning attributes of respondents and their family members
2. Questions concerning housing environment (Health Checklist)

Residents of detached houses across the country
Purpose: Understanding of lifestyles of detached house residents and theirhealth conditions
1. Questions concerning attributes of respondents and their family members
2. Questions concerning lifestyles
3. Questions concerning health conditions of respondents and their family
members

Table 5.3.2: Health problems addressed in questionnaire
Disorder of endocrine
systemDiabetes mellitus E10–E14

Ophthalmopathy

Disorders of conjunctiva H10–H13

Circulatory condition

Hypertensive diseases I10–I15Heart diseases I20–
I52Cerebrovascular diseases I60–I69

Lung disease

Other diseases of upper respiratory tract J30-J39Chronic lower
respiratory diseases J40-J44:Asthma J45

Skin disease

Dermatitis and eczema L20–L30

Musculoskeletal disorder

Inflammatory polyarthropathies M05–M14

Table 5.3.3: Overview of questionnaire items (First survey)
Health Checklist①Living room
(7 questions)②Bedroom(7 questions)③Kitchen(5 questions)④Bathroom/Washroom(7 questions)⑤ Toilet(3 questions)⑥Hallway(3 questions)⑦Corridor/Stairs/
Storage (7 questions)⑧House surroundings(5 questions)⑨Nursing care service (6 questions) ※Maximum score: 132 points (Depending on the answer, each question
receives 0 to 3 points. The score consists of points gained from items ①
to ⑧, 44 questions in total. 6 questions of ⑨ are excluded from the scorecount for the time being.

Sex

Age

Number of family members living together

Number of family members aged 6 or younger

Number of family
members aged 65
or olderNumber offamily members
having poor health

Average number ofhours at home on
weekdays

Floor number

Housing structure

Materials forwindow sash in the
bedroom

Number of windowpanes in the bedroom

Postal code

Annual income ofthe head of household

Final academic
qualification of thehead of household

Efforts to stay healthy

Interest in the relationship between housing
and health

Current healthcondition

Concerns about
healthRooms in which heating is on in the winterand the frequency ofuse

Health condition in
winterRooms in which
air-conditioning is
on in summer andthe frequency of use

Health condition insummerOverall health condition of family members
living together

Enthusiasm for improving housing environment

Attributes and health conditions of respondents

201

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage

TargetPositioning of
second survey
and questions

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage / 5.3. Health promotion in housing and community

Table 5.3.4: List of questionnaire items (Second survey)
Respondent/Basic housing informationSex1) Male 2) FemaleAge1) 30s 2) 40s 3) 50s 4) 60s

Livingexpense(Utilities)

1) Less than 50,000 yen
2) 50,000 yen and over to lessthan 100,000 yen 3) 100,000 yen
and over to less than 150,000 yen
4) 150,000 yen and over to lessthan 200,000 yen 5) 200,000 yen
and over to less than 250,000 yen
6) 250,000 yen and over to lessthan 300,000 yen
7) 300,000 yen and over8) Don’t know

Livingexpense(Medicalcare)1) Less than 50,000 yen
2) 50,000 yen and over to lessthan 100,000 yen 3) 100,000
yen and over to less than
150,000 yen 4) 150,000 yen
and over to less than 200,000
yen 5) 200,000 yen and overto less than 250,000 yen 6)
250,000 yen and over to lessthan 300,000 yen 7) 300,000
yen and over 8) Don’t know

Residential
floor area

1) Less than 90m2 2) 90m2 andover to less than 110m2
3) 110m2 and over to less than
130m2 4) 130m2 and over to lessthan 150m2 5) 150m2 and overto less than 170m2 6) 170m2 andover to less than 190m2
7) 190m2 and over 8) Don’t know

Age ofbuilding

1) Less than 5 years2) 5 years and over to less than
11 years 3) 11 years and overto less than 19 years4) 19 years and over5) Less than 31 years
6) 31 years and over7) Don’t know

Daytimesunlight① Livingroom② Bedroom1) Large 2) Small 3) None

Bathing
method①Number of times taking a bathin a week②Number of times taking ashower in a week
1) 0 2) 1 3) 2 4) 3 5) 4 6) 5 7) 6
8) 7 and overBathtemperature①Tepid (below 40°C) ②Average(approx. 41°C to 42°C) ③Hot
(above 43°C) 1) 0 min. (not getting
into a bath) 2) 1~5 min. 3) 6~10
min. 4) 11~15 min.
5) 16~20 min. 6) 21~30 min.
7) 31 min. and more

Lifestyle /How to spend summer and winterPreparation
for summer
heat①Sunblind ②Ventilation throughopen windows ③Wearing summer clothes ④Water ingestion⑤Using an electric fan ⑥Using
air-conditioning during the day⑦ Using air-conditioning during
all the sleeping hours⑧ Using air-conditioning for the
first few hours while sleeping
1) Always 2) Sometimes3) NeverVentilation
whilebathing1) No ventilation
2) An electric fan only
3) An open window only
4) An electric fan and an open
window

Health conditions of family members

Chronic
diseasecondition

202①Respondent ②Spouse ③Firstchild ④Second child ⑤Third child⑥Father of respondent ⑦Motherof respondent ⑧Father of spouse⑨Mother of spouse⑩Others 1) Hypertensive diseases 2) Heart diseases 3)
Cerebrovascular diseases 4)
Diabetes mellitus 5) Asthma 6)
Atopic dermatitis 7) Pneumonia
8) Inflammatory polyarthropathies
9) Allergic rhinitis 10) Disorders ofconjunctiva 11) No chronic diseases 12) Don’t know 13) Don’t
like to answer 14) No applicablefamily members

Symptoms
experienced①Respondent ②Spouse ③Firstchild ④Second child ⑤Third
child ⑥Father of respondent ⑦Mother of respondent⑧Father of spouse ⑨Mother of
spouse⑩Others 1) Sick feeling whilebathing in winter (December
to February) 2) Heat stroke
at home in summer (June toAugust) 3) None 4) Don’t know

45

80

40

70

35

60

30

50

25

40

20

30

15
10

20

5

10

0

Percentage of healthy people
with no chronic diseases (%)

Percentage of ill health by disease (%)

0
1-33

34-66

67-99

100-132

Points in the Checklist (-)
LegendDiabetes mellitus
Hypertensive diseases
Cerebrovascular diseases
Pneumonia
Dermatitis
No chronic diseases

Inflammatory polyarthropathies
Heart diseases
Rhinitis
AsthmaDisorders of conjunctiva

Figure 5.3.1: Relationship between scores and the percentage of ill health (All samples)

The results above indicate there is the possibility to improve the health conditions ofresidents by creating a suitable living environment. However, there may be some cases inwhich elderly people whose health conditions are likely to deteriorate compared to young
people just happened to live in an old house in a bad living environment. Similarly, we also
cannot deny the possibility that people on a high income who are careful about theirhealth happened to live in a house in a favorable living environment. Accordingly, in orderto clarify the relationship between the living environment and health conditions of theresidents, we also ran another cross tabulation by age and income group. The age groups
are classified as follows: (1) Below 30 years old, (2) 30 years old and above to below 60
years old, and (3) 60 years old and above. The income groups are classified into 3 groups
as follows depending on the amount of equivalent income: (1) Less than 2 million yen, (2)2 million yen and more to less than 4 million yen, and (3) 4 million yen and more. Figures
5.3.2 to 5.3.4 show the results by age group, whereas Figures 5.3.5 to 5.3.7 show thoseby income group. We can see from any of the results in Figures 5.3.2 to 5.3.7 that, as withthe results from the first cross tabulation, groups with a high score in the Checklist havea low percentage of ill health in terms of respective health problems. This indicates that agood living environment serves as a basis for the good health of residents.
203

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage

5.3.1.3 Relationship between the living environment and health conditions of theresidents
Based on data obtained through questionnaires, we conducted a cross tabulation of theenvironmental performance of detached houses using the points scored in the CASBEE
for Detached Houses Checklist and health conditions of the residents. The results of thecross tabulation are shown in Figure 5.3.1. According to the scores of the Checklist, therespondents are classified into 4 groups. By calculating the percentage of people with illhealth in each group, we noticed that the group with the highest score has a low percentage of ill health in terms of respective health problems. At the same time, the percentageof healthy people having no chronic diseases is also high in the group with a high score.

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
67-99

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
67-99

67-99

100-132

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
34-66

67-99

100-132

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100-132

Points in the Checklist (-)

Figure 5.3.4: Relationship between scoresand the percentage of ill health(Age group 3)

Figure 5.3.6: Relationship between scoresand the percentage of ill health(Income group 2)

Percentage of ill healthby disease (%)

70

Percentage of healthy people
with no chronic diseases (%)

Percentage of ill healthby disease (%)

80

67-99

0
34-66

Points in the Checklist (-)

Figure 5.3.3: Relationship between scoresand the percentage of ill health (Age group 2)

34-66

10

1-33

Points in the Checklist (-)

1-33

20

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

100-132

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

30

Figure 5.3.5: Relationship between scoresand the percentage of ill health(Income group 1)

Percentage of ill healthby disease (%)

80

Percentage of healthy people
with no chronic diseases (%)

Percentage of ill healthby disease (%)

Figure 5.3.2: Relationship between scoresand the percentage of ill health(Age group 1)

34-66

40

Points in the Checklist (-)

Points in the Checklist (-)

1-33

50

1-33

100-132

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

60

Percentage of healthy people
with no chronic diseases (%)

34-66

70

80

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1-33

34-66

67-99

Percentage of healthy people
with no chronic diseases (%)

1-33

80

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Percentage of healthy people
with no chronic diseases (%)

70

Percentage of ill healthby disease (%)

80

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Percentage of healthy people
with no chronic diseases (%)

Percentage of ill healthby disease (%)

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage / 5.3. Health promotion in housing and community

100-132

Points in the Checklist (-)

Figure 5.3.7: Relationship between scoresand the percentage of ill health(Income group 3)

5.3.1.4 Conclusion
This survey indicated the possibility that improvements in the living environment would
prevent respective health problems. The first step for health promotion was to enable
residents to check their living environment by utilizing the CASBEE for Detached Houses
Health Checklist in order to make them aware of their existing issues. There is no doubtthat the housing industry has a large role in the establishment of a dynamic society
through public health promotion.
204

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage
Acknowledgement
This research was conducted as part of joint activities of the Health Maintenance and Housing
Improvement Research Committee (chaired by Shuzo Murakami), the Health Maintenance andHousing Improvement Research Consortium (chaired by Shuzo Murakami) consisting of private
enterprises and other organizations, and the Working Group for Economic Evaluation of the Health
Maintenance and Housing Improvement Research affiliated with the Committee. We would like toexpress herewith our sincere gratitude for the cooperation from all persons concerned.
References[1] S. Ando, Y. Shiraishi, T. Ikaga, T. Hoshi, “Health-related factors model of the middle-aged andelderly people based on structural equation modelling: health determinant factors of housing andregional environment in suburban residential section of the city of Kitakyushu (part 1)”, Journal ofEnvironmental Engineering: Transactions of AIJ, Vol. 76 (2011), No. 664, pp. 573-580[2] T. Ikaga, R. Eguchi, S. Murakami, A. Iwamae, T. Hoshi, T. Mizuishi, S. Kawakubo, K. Okumura,”Evaluation of investment in residential thermal insulation considering non-energy benefits delivered by maintaining health”, Journal of Environmental Engineering: Transactions of AIJ, Vol. 76(2011), No. 666, pp. 735-740[3] E. Takayanagi, T. Ikaga, S. Murakami, T. Seike, J. Nakano, “Validation of the effectiveness ofresidential environment assessment tool for maintaining and promoting health”, Journal ofEnvironmental Engineering: Transactions of AIJ, Vol. 76 (2011) No. 670, pp. 1101-1108[4] H. Hayama, Y. Kamazawa, A. Matsumura, H. Kikuta, “Impacts of climate condition and place ofdeath on the cause of death”, Health, Labour and Welfare Statistics Association, Journal ofhealth and welfare statistics, Vol. 58 (2011), No. 13, pp. 1-6[5] S. Ando, T. Ikaga, Y. Shiraishi, T. Hoshi, K. Kawamura, S. Kawakubo, K. Oshige, “Hierarchicalstructure analysis of middle-aged and elderly residents’ health by developing multiple indicatorsmodel / A comparative study among locales of health-related factors on structure of housing andregional environment”, Journal of Environmental Engineering: Transactions of AIJ, Vol. 77 (2012),
No. 675, pp. 389-398[6] S. Kawakubo, T. Ikaga, S. Murakami, T. Hoshi, “Impacts of Environmental Performance ofDetached Houses on the Health Condition of Residents”, the Society of Heating, Air-Conditioning
and Sanitary Engineers of Japan, Journal of Academic Conference (September 2012), pp.441444

205

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage / 5.3. Health promotion in housing and community

5.3.2 Health promotion by improving local community environment
5.3.2.1. Introduction
The CASBEE Health Community Checklist is a community health check tool for evaluating the environment of house surroundings. With a combination of this tool and the
CASBEE for Detached Houses Health Checklist, a housing health check tool, we will beable to create a healthy comfortable living environment. This chapter will introduce actual
surveys conducted utilizing the CASBEE Health Community Checklist.
5.3.2.2 Questionnaire overview
As the first step to clarify the correlation between the community environment and thehealth condition of the residents, a survey utilizing the CASBEE Health Community
Checklist has been promoted. In order to understand the actual situation of community
environment, we use the CASBEE Health Community Checklist in which assessments are
based on the points scored from 0 to 115 depending on the answers from residents. A
separate questionnaire is also conducted to understand the health condition of residents.
An analysis of the correlation between these two factors has been carried out. An overview of a nationwide Web-based questionnaire is shown in Table 5.3.5. The number ofvalid responses is 10,026 as indicated in Table 5.3.6. The numbers of valid responses inrespective groups by age and sex are more or less evenly distributed.
Table 5.3.5: Online questionnaire overview
Survey method

Online questionnaire

TargetMen and women aged 20 and above (Monitors from a Web survey company)

Target city

148 municipalities including all prefectural capitals, government-ordinancedesignated cities, core cities, special cities, future eco cities, and eco-model
citiesExtraction method

Random sampling by group (Age×Sex) in individual cities

Survey typeFirst half questionnaire

Second half questionnaire

Survey period

Nov. 20-26, 2012

Dec. 10-12, 2012

Survey items① Health condition of respondent,② Lifestyle of respondent,③ Attributes of respondent④ Health checklist (Community andhousing)⑤ Level of activity of respondent

Valid response

10,026 (Percentage of valid responses: 69.57%)

Table 5.3.6: Distribution of valid responses (Numbers in brackets are expressed in percentage)

206

Age

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-86

Total

Men

798
(8.0)

1,046
(10.4)

1,122(11.2)

1,088(10.9)

1,217(12.1)

5,271(52.6)

Women

774
(7.7)

954
(9.5)

998
(9.9)

1,029
(10.3)

1,010(10.1)

4,755(47.4)

Total

1,575
(15.7)

2,000(19.9)

2,110(21.0)

2,117(21.2)

2,227(22.2)

10,026(100.0)A histogram of the Checklist scores is shown in Figure 5.3.8. The median and averagevalues are both approximately 57. The histogram is in the form of a normal distribution
having the median value of full points at the top. Excluding 6 cities in which the number ofvalid responses was less than 20, the calculation of scores in 142 cities indicated that cities such as Tama City, Kobe City and Suita City where large-scale new towns are locatedranked high on the list. As shown in Table 5.3.7, the middle items indicate that indexes
relating to infrastructures are high in urban areas, whereas provincial cities obtained highscores in terms of other indexes. On the other hand, disaster-affected areas and cities
with a high crime rate ranked low on the list.

Frequency

Frequency:
10026
Average:
56.84
Standard deviation: 12.14
Median:
57.00
Mode:
54.00

Community Health Checklist Score

Figure 5.3.8: Histogram of checklist score

Table 5.3.7: Top 10 Scores by city
Overallscore⑤
Use offacilities andservices⑥
Maintenanceof facilities
andservices⑦
Medicalcheckupfacilities

ChiyodaChiyoda⑧
Socialcapital①
Naturalenvironment①
Safe andhygienic
environment③
Transport/
Travel④
Participation incommunity
activities

1 Takarazuka Takayama

KamaishiToyamaHamamatsu Chiyoda

2 TamaKushiroToyamaKushiro

Sakata3 Chiyoda

Fujiyoshida Tottori

Fukui

Kagoshima Yokohama Suita

Shinagawa

Higashimatsushima

4 KobeKitami

Yamaguchi Sakata

Takayama

Ofunato5 Suita

Izu

Kumamoto

6 OtsuTakarazuka Iida

7 Kagoshima Otsu
8 Toyama

MatsueShinagawa Nishinomiya

Takayama

Nishinomiya Kamaishi

Hachioji

Tama

Suita

Minamisoma Tottori

Ibaragi

ShinagawaMatsumoto

Iida

ObihiroHimejiShinjuku

Shinjuku

Shinjuku

Hamamatsu

TottoriToyodaTama

Kobe

Amagasaki

Suwa

Mito

NerimaHiroshima

ObihiroIzu

Yamaguchi Fujiyoshida Asahikawa

9 Hamamatsu Miyakojima Sakata

Iwanuma

Yamaguchi Toyonaka

Amagasaki

Hamamatsu Matsue

10 Takayama

Izu

OkazakiKawaguchi

Miyazaki

Tama

Izu

Kobe

Toyama207

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage

5.3.2.3. Relationship between community environment and health conditionof the residents

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage / 5.3. Health promotion in housing and community

Comprehensive health-related QOL(Straight lines)

Percentage of subjective symptoms(Polygonal lines)

Figure 5.3.9 shows the relationship between the percentage of people with subjective
symptoms and the average QOL relating to health by quartile in the Health Checklist
score. As the score goes up, we can see the percentage of people having subjective
symptoms in terms of all the health problems decreasing and the physical and mental
QOLs increasing. The Kruskal-Wallis Test, which demonstrates the one-way analysis ofvariance, identifies differences between the 4 groups (Significance level: 0.1%).
In addition to the community, the result of analysis in view of the Housing Checklist
scores is shown in Figure 5.3.10. The result indicates that the mental summary score of
the group having the lowest scores both in housing and community is 44.45, whereas thegroup having the highest scores in both factors obtained 51.30, which confirms the factthat as the scores of both factors increase, the number of healthy people is likely toincrease as well. The same observations are identified in the relationship between subjective symptoms and physical summary scores.

First quartile Second quartile Third quartile Fourth quartile
0-48 points
49-56 points 57-64 points 65-115 points
Community health checklist score (4 groups)
Insufficient sleep
Getting a cold
Heat stroke/Dehydration
Joint ache
Stiff shoulders
Backache
Swelling of feet
Eyestrain
Sense of isolation/emptinessNo sense of purpose in life

SF-8 Physical summary score
SF-8 Mental summary score

Figure 5.3.9: Correlation between community and subjective symptoms/QOL

208

5. Benefits through CASBEE usage

re
co
yh
ea

lth

ch
ec

kli
s

ts

: GoodSecond quartile
First quartile

mm
un
it

artiletile
Third quar
artileSecond qu rst quartileFi
Housing
health c
hecklist
score

Fourth quCo

Comprehensive health-related QOL,
Mental summary score

Fourth quartile
Third quartile: Bad

Figure 5.3.10: Correlation between housing/community and mental health5.3.2.4 Conclusion
The result of large-scale nationwide questionnaires indicates that residents are likely tostay healthy in communities having a favorable environment. The combined use of the
CASBEE for Detached Houses Health Checklist and the CASBEE Health Community
Checklist enables a comprehensive evaluation of the housing environment, the result of
which further indicates a significant correlation with the health condition of the residents.
Residents and the government are expected to take a major role in checking the housing
environment in order to create a favorable housing and community environment that contributes to the promotion of good health.
Acknowledgements:
Research outcomes introduced in this chapter were obtained as part of the joint activity of the
Health Maintenance and Housing Improvement Research Committee (chaired by Shuzo Murakami,
Chairman of IBEC), an institute of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, theHealth Maintenance and Housing Improvement Research Consortium (chaired by Shuzo Murakami,
Chairman of IBEC) consisting of private enterprises and other organizations, and the HealthCommunity Guideline Task Force (Director: Toshiharu Ikaga, Manager: Yasuyuki Shiraishi; Membersof committee: Fumiko Ito, Ryuichi Kato, Kenichi Kawamura, Momoyo Gota, Noriko Sakurai, Masayuki
Harada, Kimihiro Hino, Tanji Hoshi, Masako Yoneda, Kazufumi Ito, Kaoru Nakajima, Tsutomu
Nishio, Takaaki Nemoto, Yukiko Matsuoka; Associate members: Shinji Takami, affiliated with theCommittee. In addition, some part of the research outcomes provided in this chapter is thanks
to the assistance from Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A) (Main researcher: Toshiharu Ikaga,
Task No. 23246102). Finally, Mr. Shintaro Ando, affiliated with Ikaga Lab at Keio University, made asignificant contribution in terms of the preparation and distribution of questionnaires and analysesof the collected data. We would like to express herewith our sincere gratitude for the cooperationfrom all persons concerned.
References:[1] M. Deguchi, T. Ikaga, S. Murakami, Y. Shiraishi, T. Hoshi, R. Kato et al., “Development of Regional
Environment Assessment Tool for Maintaining and Promoting Health and Validation of theEffectiveness”, Journal of Environmental Engineering: Transactions of AIJ, No. 681 (November2012), pp. 837-846[2] S. Ando, T. Ikaga, S. Murakami, Y. Shiraishi, T. Hoshi, R. Kato, K. Hino, S. Kawakubo, “Housing
and Community for Promotion of Health and Well-Being : Part 71 Revision of Health Community
Checklist based on a Large-scale Web Survey”, Architectural Institute of Japan, Academic
Conference (Hokkaido) Papers Digest, September 2013209

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE

6.1. Overview
6.2. Utilization in governmental policies
6.3. Practical application
6.4. Utilization in education
6.5. Publicity and academic release
6.6. Overseas collaborations<Column-7> The Chinese Green Building Labeling Systems and CASBEE<Column-8> CASBEE-City in Putrajaya, Malaysia
6.7. CASBEE evaluation of vernacular houses

A decade of Development and Applicationof an Environmental Assessment System
for the Built Environment

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE

6.1 Overview

6.1.1. Efforts made in 3 areas
The CASBEE assessment system was designed to reduce environmental load and to
improve quality of life at the same time, the development of which was based on theassumption the system will be widely disseminated both in public and private buildings.
Meanwhile, recently, the social demand for improvement in environmental management
has been significantly increasing in every phase of a building’s lifecycle. The efforts currently seem to be divided into the following two major groups:(1) Establishment of a market foundation including the development of standards bypublic administrations, and efforts concerning policies relating to construction andthe environment by the central government and local governments such as regulations and guidance(2) Efforts made by companies and private businesses facing tough choices undermarket principles
The recent structural reforms promoted in the economy and society have been heading in
the direction of deregulation. In the medium and long term, as companies are held socially
responsible for their environmental ethics, and the significance of evaluation concerning
the comprehensive environmental performance of buildings has been increasing in themarket economy, the trend is expected to be based on (1) and to shift its focus on efforts
centering on (2). The actual situation seems to shift in the same manner.
In the process of forming such spirit of the times, professional architectural educationin universities and the Continuous Professional Development (CPD) for professional practitioners have become increasingly important. The efforts regarding practical use areclassified into 3 categories: 1) Policy, 2) Practice, and 3) Education. Some examples andpossible applications thereof will be described in the following section.

6.1.2. Political efforts
Various building regulations have recently been established in order to satisfy the needsof the economy and society, including the clarification of building standards and the regularization of performance in the Building Standard Law in response to globalization.
Introductions and revisions of policies relating to various laws, standards and guidance
for the purpose of enhancement of regulations concerning the building environment havebeen carried out one after another, examples of which include the Next Generation
Energy-Saving Standards (1999), the Construction Material Recycling Law (2002), revisions of the Building Standard Law in response to Sick Building Syndrome (2003), and the
Revised Energy-Saving Standards (2012). Especially in terms of the environment, we haveclearly come into the era in which tighter regulations are required such as compulsory
compliance with the Energy-Saving Standards. So, there seems to be the situation where
the related policies are currently being disseminated after the initial stage of establishment and introduction in the midst of boosting social interest in environmental issues. In
any case, experts engaged in the construction industry are expected to properly under212

stand the current trend and to make efforts in a proactive manner in order to address thesocial needs as well as benefits to clients under the competitive situation of the privatesector-led society.

A wide range of businesses are involved in the construction and operation of a building at
every stage of its lifecycle. These businesses are expected in the era of increased global
environmental awareness to clarify their efforts concerning environmental issues in society as part of their corporate philosophies or business policies. They should also takeaction in order to achieve their own objectives and to examine the results thereof.
As typified by the ISO 14001 series (the Environmental Management System), which
has become very popular recently in Japan, the environmental management of buildings
is also positioned as part of efforts made by private businesses. In order to promotesecuritization of buildings at home and abroad, implementation of the PFI, which encourages infusion of private-sector funds into public facilities, and the smooth development of
the secondhand trading market, it is an urgent task to organize and unify information andhistory relating to the performance and quality of buildings using IT skills, and to establish
a system in which such information may be retrieved whenever necessary. This kind of
demand is projected to grow rapidly in the future, when CASBEE is expected to serve as
a common scale.

6.1.4. Educational efforts
It is essential to acquire basic concepts and new technologies/programs relating to theplanning, construction and operation of eco-friendly buildings in order to firmly establish
the efforts described above in society. The essential actions are as follows:(1) Cultivation of the next generation through education, especially in architectural
education at universities(2) Organizing training courses and other programs based on the CPD for experts
engaged in actual practiceSome universities have already introduced the CASBEE assessment in their design education, which is utilized as practical course material in learning the way architecture
should be in the global environmental era. (See “6.4. Utilization in education.”)213

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

6.1.3. Practical efforts

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE

6.2 Utilization in governmental policies

6.2.1. Practical utilization
There are mainly 2 types of utilization of CASBEE by public administration, which are as
follows:(1) From the viewpoint of promoting the construction and environmental administration:
Cases relating to political guidance concerning buildings(2) From the viewpoint of public administration as a building owner: Cases in which public
administration is engaged in placing orders and operation of public works construction
For example, some government-led initiative projects have been implemented such as the
Guideline for Green Government Buildings by the Government Buildings Department, theSecretariat of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT), and theCO2 Saving Promotion Initiative Project by the Housing Bureau of the MLIT. In recent
years, we have seen a number of projects by local governments in consideration ofregional characteristics, based on CASBEE as a common national scale, actual examplesof which are provided in the following section.
6.2.1.1. Using Built Environment Efficiency level for general buildings
1) Mandatory requirements for submission and labeling of the comprehensive building environmental performance assessment
The United Kingdom and North America have launched various efforts to encourage
the dissemination of buildings focusing on environmental performance by asking for thesubmission and labeling of the environmental performance assessment result at thedesigning stage and at the time of final completion as a mandatory requirement for certain buildings. In Japan, initiated by the submission of an environmental consideration
plan in Tokyo, many local governments, including Nagoya City, Osaka City and Yokohama
City, prepared their CASBEE regional editions reflecting individual regional characteristics. They have also extended their efforts through a mandatory submission of assessment results of buildings with a certain scale specified in ordinances or regulations, a partof which is made available to the public.
2) Preferential treatment for quality buildings having a high level of comprehensive
environmental performance
On the other hand, it is possible to encourage dissemination of buildings having ahigher level of environmental performance by providing incentives to businesses. (See5.2. for details.)
6.2.1.2. Order placement and operation of public works construction
1) Examination items of building design competitions and proposals for public buildings
When the public administration selects an architect for a public building, an building
design competition or a proposal method is often used. Candidate architects provide214individual self-assessment results regarding environmental performance based on standards established by CASBEE in their proposals, which are subject to examination andwhich will secure a certain level of environmental performance of the building.

3) Establishment of standards for environmental performance in PFI businesses
In the Private Financial Initiative (PFI) business, providing standards for environmental
performance to private investors in terms of a building, which is the target of their investments, serves as their risk management. CASBEE may be used as a measure for determining the level of the target building.
4) Accountability to the public regarding public buildings
As public buildings are constructed by using a considerable amount of taxpayers’ moneyor public funds, it is highly desirable to disclose information about assessment results
regarding the environmental performance of the building in order to achieve accountability to the public. CASBEE can also be used as a tool facilitating such information disclosure and the establishment of accountability.
6.2.1.3. Utilization of Assessment Certification System by a third-party body andAccredited Professional Registration System
In all the cases described above, the fairness and reliability of assessment results by
CASBEE are extremely important. Though it depends entirely on the discretion of the parties concerned, the effective utilization of the CASBEE Assessment Certification Systemand the CASBEE Accredited Professional Registration System introduced for ensuring
the fairness and reliability is strongly recommended.

6.2.2. Examples of utilization by the government<Case-1> Governmental buildings
The Government Buildings Department of the Secretariat of the Minister of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) is a division responsible for the maintenanceof government facilities of all the ministries and agencies, having a total site area of 14
million square meters. In March 1998, the department prepared a guideline for the reduction of environmental load in the maintenance of governmental facilities: “Guideline forDevelopment of Environmentally Friendly Government Buildings and Facilities (Green
Government Building Development)”. For the existing governmental facilities, the“Guideline for Assessment of Environmental Friendliness and Renovation Plan for
Governmental Buildings and Facilities (Green Assessment and Renovation Plan)” wasintroduced in December 2000. Following this, in addition to assessments regarding
LCCO2, LCR (resource consumption), LCW (waste) and LCC (costs), new assessment systems incorporating CASBEE, “Green Government Buildings Standards and Commentaries” [1]and “Standards for Green Assessment/Renovation Plan and Commentaries” [2] were215

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE2) Utilization in requirements for order placement of public buildings
When the public administration places an order for construction work for a public building, they can ask for a submission of self-assessment results regarding environmental
performance in accordance with standards established by CASBEE as a mandatory
requirement for order placement in terms of the building’s comprehensive environmental
performance.

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.2 Utilization in governmental policies

released in 2006. The Green Contracts Act was issued in May 2007, and came into force
in November of the same year, which made it obligatory to include LCCO2 assessments
and CASBEE assessments in design outsourcing contracts in terms of designs for governmental facilities and independent administrative institutions.

Figure 6.2.1: Green Government
Buildings Standards
and Commentaries

Figure 6.2.2: Standards for Green
Assessment/Renovation Plan
and Commentaries

As a similar assessment system for public buildings managed by local governments,
Tokyo includes in its design outsourcing contracts the utilization of “Environmental andCost Evaluation System for Tokyo Metropolitan Government-run Facilities” [3] in terms of
public buildings run by the local government such as the Tokyo Metropolitan Government
Building, high schools and hospitals that utilize LCCO2, LCC and CASBEE in accordancewith the guideline for eco-friendly maintenance of Tokyo Metropolitan Government-run
facilities prepared to help prevent climate change. Fukushima Prefecture also released
the “Guideline for Environmental Coexistence Building Plan and Design in Fukushima” [4]for prefectural government buildings and public schools in November 2006, which indicates that the utilization of CASBEE has gradually become popular at the planning anddesign stage of public facilities run by local governments. Since the Green Contracts Act(described above), which came into force in November 2007, requires reasonable efforts
by local governments, the utilization of LCA in the building sector is expected to increase
rapidly in the future in addition to public buildings run by local governments and independent administrative institutions.
The Government Buildings Environmental Report, which has been issued by theGovernment Buildings Department of the Minister’s Secretariat of the MLIT since 2005,
provides in the form as shown in Figure 6.2.3 the environmental performance based on
CASBEE and the LCCO2 reduction performance in major governmental buildings acrossthe country, the construction of which were ordered by the central government. Figure
6.2.4 shows the relationship between the performance based on CASBEE and the LCCO2
reduction performance for 2 years disclosed in the Environmental Report, plotted on a216

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

chart having the BEE value on the horizontal axis and the LCCO2 reduction percentage on
the vertical axis. The BEE values for 15 governmental buildings range from 1.2 to 2.1 (Rank
B+ to A). The LCCO2 reduction percentages are distributed between 7% and 30%. If wehave more data regarding actual government buildings available in the future, the relationship between the BEE value and the LCCO2 reduction percentage is expected to becomemuch clearer.

Figure 6.2.3: Disclosure of performance based on CASBEE and LCCO2 reduction percentage in governmental buildings (Source: Government Buildings Environmental
Report 2006, Government Buildings Department, MLIT)217

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.2 Utilization in governmental policies

Komatsu Hinode Niigata Misaki
Miyakonojo Joint
Niigata East Port National
Government
National
Joint Government Government Building
Sub-Branch
Tsuruga Ekimae
Government
Building (Niigata(Miyazaki Prefecture)
Customs
Building
Prefecture)(Niigata Prefecture) Joint Office(Fukui Prefecture) (Ishikawa Prefecture)

Iida Takaha Joint
Government Building(Nagano Prefecture)

Kariya Joint
Government Office
Building(Aichi Prefecture)

LCCO2 Reduction Percentage (%)

Narita Airport Joint
Government Building(Extension)(Chiba Prefecture)

1999-2001
Naha Second
2002
Local Government
2003
Building (First stage)(Okinawa Prefecture)
2004
2005

Integrated Kizu
Regional Government
Office(Kyoto Prefecture)

Hanasaki Port
Joint Government
Office (Hokkaido)

Susaki Second
Joint Government
Building(Kochi Prefecture)

Honjo Joint
Tottori Marine
Government
Safety Station(Tottori Prefecture) Building(Akita Prefecture)

Asahikawa Joint
Government
Building(First stage)(Hokkaido)

Figure 6.2.4: CASBEE and LCCO2 reduction percentage of government buildings across the country presented in the Government Buildings
Environmental Report by the Government Building Department,
MLIT (Source: Environmental Report 2005 and 2006, Government
Buildings Department, MLIT)

References[1] “Green Government Buildings Standards and Commentaries 2005 Edition”, Public Buildings
Association, Tokyo, 2006
[2] “Standards for Green Assessment/Renovation Plan and Commentaries 2005 Edition”, Building
Maintenance & Management Center, Tokyo, 2006
[3] Hayashi T., Fujiwara T., Ibe G., Tokita S., Ikaga T. and Endo J.: Development of LCA tool to evaluate the effect of environmental techniques for Tokyo Metropolitan Government facilities, AIJ J.
Technol. Des. No. 23, (2006), pp. 253-258 [in Japanese][4] “Guideline for Environmental Coexistence Building Plan and Design in Fukushima, Commentaries
and Assessment Software” (available online), Public Works Department, Fukushima Prefecture,
2006, Source <http://www.pref.fukushima.jp/kenchiku/eizen/top.htm>

218

The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Scienceand Technology (MEXT) prepared CASBEE-School,an assessment method for the comprehensive environmental performance of school facilities, in order toachieve visualization and an efficient assessment ofenvironmental performance of individual school facilities, which would contribute to the promotion of “Ecoschools” in existing school buildings. The MEXT notified school boards across the country of the launch of
CASBEE-School in October 2011. The assessment
manual and software are available from the MEXT
website.
Figure 6.2.5: CASBEE-School
Assessment Manual(Front page)1) Background
The MEXT published a research study partners conference report “Establishment of Ecoschools” in March 1996. In order to promote eco-schools presented in the report, since1997, the MEXT has conducted an eco-school pilot model project for public schools incooperation with relevant ministries and agencies (currently the Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Ministry of
the Environment). In September 2004, a basic policy in accordance with the Act on
Enhancing Motivation on Environmental Conservation and Promoting of Environmental
Education was approved in a Cabinet meeting. The basic policy states that the enhancement of eco-schools development is extremely important.

Figure 6.2.6: An Eco-school view219

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE<Case-2> School buildings (CASBEE-School)

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.2 Utilization in governmental policies

Facilities
User- andeco-friendly
designManagement
Use wisely
for a long time

Education
Contribution
to learning

Figure 6.2.7: Basic idea of eco-school(1) Facilities:“User- and eco-friendly design” in consideration of users including small children, local
communities and the Earth- A healthy and comfortable space for learning and living- Harmonized with the surrounding environment- Design and construction with lower environmental load(2) Management:“Use buildings, resources and energy wisely for a long time”- Considering durability and flexibility- Making effective use of natural energy- Using efficiently with zero waste(3) Education:
Utilizing facilities, principles and systems so they “contribute to learning”- Utilization for environmental education
In the midst of the increasing awareness of climate change, the MEXT has conductedvarious research studies by organizing an advisory panel of experts since 2008 in orderto develop policies for further promotion of eco-schools. In March 2009, the MEXT finalized a report “Policy for future promotion of eco-schools – New school development for a
low-carbon society.” The report emphasizes the importance of continuously promoting
eco-schools in all school facilities including existing buildings. It also proposes that, aspart of practical measures for eco-school promotion, it is necessary to visualize energysaving effects achieved in school facilities. CASBEE-School was released as the visualization method in September 2010 after being reviewed by a separate advisory panel ofexperts.
2) What is CASBEE-School?
CASBEE-School is an assessment tool that mainly covers primary schools, junior highschools and high schools, and that enables officers from the school governing institutions
2203) CASBEE-School assessment system
CASBEE-School achieves a comprehensive assessment of the building environmental
performance in terms of the quality (Q), including the level of interior comfort in classrooms, and the environmental load (L), including the emission of greenhouse gases. The
assessment consists of the rating of 85 items for new construction and 29 items for existing buildings. In CASBEE-School, even if the environmental load is reduced, if the level ofcomfort in the classroom such as heat and cold is not improved and students have to livewith it, the school will not receive a high rating.
The assessment method for CASBEE-School is based on CASBEE for New
Construction (Brief edition), adhering fundamentally to the ideas therein. Additionally,
CASBEE-School introduces the following ideas in order to achieve simple assessments.
(1) The existing data have been made available including the result of the classroom environmental measurement conducted every year at individual schools in accordance with
School Sanitation Standards.
(2) In terms of school buildings and gymnasiums in general designs, the rating is available
based on the predetermined assessment value (level), omitting the field investigations
and the drawings confirmation process.
(3) The assessment items focus on the characteristics of public schools, including the factthat there are school buildings and gymnasiums on the school premises, each of which
requires a different level of environmental performance, and that the introduction rate offully air-conditioned buildings is quite low.
(4) CASBEE-School is designed to allow people without advanced technical knowledge to
conduct assessments by improving commentaries of the assessment manual.
4) How to use CASBEE-School
The assessment sheet for CASBEE-School is provided electronically, consisting of 3 programs such as new construction, renovation and existing buildings. New construction
and reconstruction are evaluated by the new construction program. The assessment ofexisting buildings is based on the existing building program. Though upgrading is evaluated in accordance with the renovation program, similar to CASBEE for Renovation, by
combining with an assessment according to the existing building program before upgrading, a comparison between the assessment results before and after upgrading will beavailable.

221

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

such as the school board of education in the local government, who are in charge ofschool facilities, to understand relatively easily the environmental performance of school
facilities including the school building and gymnasium and the entire school premises
such as the sports ground and green spaces. The utilization of CASBEE-School allows forthe accurate understanding of the current environmental performance of individual school
facilities. It also helps predict the situation after the planned eco-renovation, new construction or extensions. We can utilize this tool for the visualization of the effects throughimproved environmental performance depending on the details of a maintenance projectat the planning stage or the environmental measures.
We also expect that students will use the assessment method and its process demonstrated in CASBEE-School as course material in learning the application of the ecoschool concept to their own schools.

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.2 Utilization in governmental policies

5) Actual assessment by CASBEE-School
One actual renovation case is provided below. The school underwent an eco-renovationfrom 2006 to 2007.
<School outline>
Number of students: Approx. 90
Number of classes: 4Site area: 38,000 m2
Building coverage area: 2,800 m2
Total floor area: 3,600 m2
Building structure/Number of floors:(School building) Reinforced concrete construction/2 floors above ground,(Gymnasium) Steel construction/1 floor
Figure 6.2.8: Renovation to upgrade aabove ground
corridor into an atrium space
Major upgrading works:
in a glass open-ceiling style
Exterior thermal insulation, structural thermal storage (radiant heating system), natural lighting, ventilation caused by temperature
difference, highly efficient lighting equipment
This school removed the roof of a corridor and installed an atrium space with a glass
open ceiling. This renovation allowed ordinary classrooms to let in light from the north andsouth. The light environment in the corridor was also improved, providing an open spacefor communication. It also increased the ventilation performance in summer.
We conducted an assessment regarding this school building before and after the renovation using CASBEE-School. The assessment result of “Facilities utilizing daylight” of“Q1 Indoor environment” has improved from Level 3 to Level 5 due to the introduction of
two-sides lighting and high-side lighting after renovation.
Looking at the assessment result in terms of individual categories, the overall rating
has improved compared to the rating before renovation, due to the enhancement of heatinsulation, creation of barrier-free spaces, interior work plan, installation of a water-saving
toilet system and so on. The comprehensive assessment result has improved from
BEE=0.7 (★★) before renovation to BEE=1.9 (★★★) after renovation, upgrading from
Rank B- to Rank A. Especially, the ratings for “Q3 Outdoor environment” and “LR1Energy” have substantially improved, as indicated on a well-balanced radar chart.

222

Barrier-free design
Interior finishing design

Enhanced heat insulation
Natural lighting/Ventilation

Water-saving toilet

Greening of sports groundFigure 6.2.9: Assessment result by category6) Conclusion
The utilization of CASBEE-School is not a compulsory procedure in the school facilities
assessment. However, it is extremely important to understand the current situation of theenvironmental performance of school facilities and to predict the changes after maintenance work in order to promote environmental consideration in schools. Therefore, theutilization of CASBEE-School as an assessment tool is considered to be very effective.
We expect that persons in charge of facilities in individual schools will proactively utilize
CASBEE-School so the idea of eco-schools is further promoted.
2-1 Built Environment Efficiency (BEE rank & chart)

2-2 Lifecycle CO2 (Climate change impact chart)

Before renovation BEE=0.7

Before renovation

After renovation BEE=1.9

After renovation

Environmental quality Q

S: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ A: ★ ★ ★ ★ B+: ★ ★ ★ B-: ★ ★ C: ★ 30%: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ 60%: ★ ★ ★ ★ 80%: ★ ★ ★
100%: ★ ★ Over 100%: ★
30
1.5 BEE=1
Off-site
On-site
100
B+
0%
S
A
③ On-site method
other than efforts
1.9 B74
93%
concerning building
0%④ Off-site method
0.550
other than efforts
0.7
43
93%
concerning building
0
20
40
60
43
kg-CO2/Year･m2
0
0

38
61
50
Environmental load L∆BEE= 1.9-0.7=1.2

100This bar chart indicates a rough estimate of the lifecycle CO2
emissions in terms of contents addressed in “Consideration
for climate change” of LR3 in comparison with an ordinary
building (Reference value).

2-3 Assessment of major items (Radar chart)

Q2 Quality of service

Q3
Outdoorenvironment(On-site)

Q1
Indoorenvironment

LR3
Outdoorenvironment(Off-site)

LR1
EnergyLR2Resources/Materials

Figure 6.2.10: Assessment result (Overall rating)223

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEEHeat insulation
Daylight use

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.2 Utilization in governmental policies<Case-3> Utilization of CASBEE for Cities in the Eco-Future City Assessment
1) Outline of the Eco-Future City promoted by the Japanese Government
In response to Cabinet approval for the new growth strategy in June 2010, Japan has
promoted the Eco-Future City Project as a national project. This project aims to create an
unprecedented success in terms of common issues for society in the 21st century, suchas measures concerning the environment and the aging population, by designating alimited number of certain cities as eco-future cities. (Revitalization Bureau, Cabinet
Secretariat, Government of Japan, 2013)
2) Assessment method for Eco-Future Cities
In order to regularly monitor various efforts made in eco-future cities, carefully selectedfrom all over the country, and to measure their outcomes and ripple effects, the Regional
Revitalization Bureau, the Cabinet Secretariat, took the initiative in organizing a review
meeting for assessment methods for eco-future cities, in which methods for quantifying
the policy effects in individual cities are examined. After in-depth discussions for over a
year, assessment perspectives for eco-future cities are organized as shown in Table 6.2.1.
In addition to assessments concerning the Flow (the progress of efforts) and the Stock(the current city environment), an assessment concerning Governance as the implementation framework is to be included. The individual local governments conduct a selfassessment of the flow in areas subject to the assessment in light of the progress ofefforts specified in the city planning, the result of which will be reviewed by third-party
experts. The same procedure applies to the Governance assessment. Regarding thestock assessment of the entire local government, an objective third-party review inaccordance with CASBEE for Cities is to be conducted. The assessment manual of
CASBEE for Cities is already open to the public, and therefore, the utilization thereof willallow us to understand objectively the current city environment in the individual local governments. (The Committee for the Development of an Environmental Performance Tool
for Cities, 2012)
Table 6.2.1: Assessment perspectives for eco-future cities (Assessments are conducted interms of ①, ④, ⑤ and ⑥.)
District (Areas in which efforts
are undertaken)

Local government (Entire area)(1) Flow(Assessment on
the progress of efforts)① Progress on efforts specified
in the city planning④ Progress on efforts madein the entire local governmentarea (Not specified in the city
planning)(2) Stock(Assessment on
the city environment)② Assessment of the areas inwhich efforts are undertaken(Statistical data is unavailable.)⑤ Assessment of the entire
local government area
(Statistical data is available.)(3) Governance(Assessment on the project
implementation framework)③ Governance (District)⑥ Governance (Entire local
government)

As the effect of a single-year policy planned and implemented by each city (flow) accumulates, the city’s situation (stock) gradually improves. Therefore, even if we comparedassessment results of the flow and the stock by extracting a certain year, they may notcorrespond to each other in terms of the level of progress. This is due to the fact they
focus on a different time axis. However, in the long term, a city achieving a good result in2243) Temporary stock assessment result for eco-future cities utilizing CASBEE for
Cities
The result of the stock assessment of the entire local government area, the statistical dataof which is publicly available, has been already calculated based on CASBEE for Cities.
Figure 6.2.12 shows assessment results of eco-future cities (BEE chart). Table 6.2.2
shows detailed results in terms of major items. Data used for the assessments is basedon the national census in 2010, the result of which is obtained before the eco-future city
project was launched. It is very important to wait and see how the city environment is
improved by various measures promoted in individual cities.

Q1 Flow assessment of environmental value
125%
100%
75%
50%

Group 43

Group 41

Group 39

Group 37

Group 35

Group 33

Group 31Group 29

Group 27

Group 25

Group 23

Group 21

Group 19

Group 17

Group 15

Group 13

Group 11

Group 09

Group 07

Group 010%Group 05

25%
Group 03

Achievement rate[-]

150%

This year’s average achievement rate: 77.5%
Q1 Stock assessment of environmental value

Score[-]

5

National average

4
3
2
1

Q1.1
Natureconservation

Q1.2
Environmental
quality

Q1.3
Resource
recycling

Environmental index (Q1)Q1.4
CO2 sink
measuresAverage score: 3.18

Figure 6.2.11: Flow assessment and stock assessment in eco-future cities

225

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

the flow assessment every year is supposed to be also improving in the stock assessment. Therefore, when conducting a city environmental assessment, it is necessary to beaware of the difference in the characteristics of the flow assessment and the stock
assessment, and to follow up both of them. Based on such idea, as shown in Figure
6.2.11, the eco-future city project will enable us to compare and confirm assessment
results of the flow and the stock.

Good

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.2 Utilization in governmental policies

S

A

B+
B-

Environmental quality Q
Bad

Eco-future cities in Japan
1: Shimokawa Town
2: Kashiwa City
3: Yokohama City
4: Toyama City
5: Kitakyushu City
6: Kesen Region
7: Kamaishi City
8: Iwanuma City
9: Higashimatsushima City
10: Minamisoma City
11: Shinchi Town

C

Best

Environmental load L

Worst

BEE=

Q scoreL scoreFigure 6.2.12: Assessment result of Eco-Future Cities by CASBEE for Cities (BEEchart)(Based on data obtained from the 2010 national census)

Table 6.2.2: Assessment result of Eco-Future Cities by CASBEE for Cities (based on dataobtained from the 2010 national census)

BEE

Q(Maximumscore: 100
points)L(Maximumscore: 100
points)Q1(Maximumscore: 5
points)Q2(Maximumscore: 5
points)Q3(Maximum L (t-CO2/score: 5
Person)points)

Shimokawa
Town

1.1

60.6

50.8

4.4

3.4

2.5

10.1

Kashiwa City

1.0

46.1

43.8

2.4

3.1

3.1

9.0

Yokohama City

0.9

42.1

45.0

2.4

2.8

2.9

9.2

Toyama City

1.1

58.4

51.0

3.4

3.1

3.5

10.2

Kitakyushu City

1.0

50.8

50.1

3.4

2.4

3.3

10.0

Kesen Region

1.0

55.1

50.1

3.5

3.4

2.7

10.0

Kamaishi City

1.0

56.5

53.6

4.1

2.8

2.9

10.6

Iwanuma City

0.9

53.6

54.2

2.7

3.1

3.7

10.7

Higashimatsushima City

0.8

41.8

50.7

2.9

2.8

2.3

10.1

Minamisoma City

0.9

49.3

49.7

3.1

2.9

2.9

9.9

Shinchi Town

0.9

49.4

50.7

3.0

2.7

3.2

10.1

References[1] Revitalization Bureau, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of Japan (2013) “Future City Initiative”(available at: http://futurecity.rro.go.jp/) (Last access: 30th July, 2013)[2] The Committee for the Development of an Environmental Performance Tool for Cities (2012)
CASBEE for Cities Technical Manual (2012 Edition),(available at: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/download/CASBEE_City_manual_2012(E).
pdf) (Last access: 30th July, 2013)226

6.2.3. Utilization by local governments

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

Buildings in which CASBEE is actually utilized the most are those reported to local governments in Japan.
As of March 2014, 24 local governments in Japan have been utilizing CASBEE for theirenvironmental performance reporting systems. Since 2004, a number of building plansfor new construction and reconstruction have been evaluated based on CASBEE. In environmental administration, CASBEE is a unique assessment system, considering theapplication not only to public buildings but also to many private buildings (other thandetached houses) as its key feature.
Further, it is highly recommended to customize CASBEE programs adopted by local
governments depending on the individual regional characteristics.

Sapporo City: 2007
Niigata City: 2010

Name: Year of adoption

Shizuoka Pref.: 2007
Osaka Pref.: 2006
Osaka City: 2004
Sakai City: 2011
Hyogo Pref.: 2006
Kobe City: 2006
Tottori Pref.: 2010

Saitama Pref.: 2009
Saitama City: 2009

Kitakyushu City: 2007
Kumamoto pref: 2010
Fukuoka City: 2007
Kashiwa City: 2011
Chiba City: 2010
Kanagawa Pref.: 2010
Kawasaki City: 2006
Yokohama City: 2005
Hiroshima City: 2010

Aichi Pref.: 2009
Nagoya City: 2004
Kyoto Pref.: 2006
Kyoto City: 2005

Figure 6.2.13: Utilization of CASBEE for Construction in local governments (reprinted)

227

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.2 Utilization in governmental policies

Figure 6.2.14: Number of buildings reported to the local goverments inaccordance with CASBEE across the country (Cumulative
number as of March 2013)228

1) Background and details of the establishment of the system
Since around 1992, Nagoya City has implemented some programs regarding sustainablebuildings only in limited areas, including reduction of the use of building frames made oftropical timber, installation of photovoltaic facilities, and promotion of the use of the blastfurnace cement and recycled crushed stones in public buildings. After that, while publicawareness of global environmental protection is increasing, Nagoya City prepared the
Nagoya Agenda 21 in 1996, and the Basic Environment Plan in 1999, in order to support
various environmental consideration-related projects. In response to such attempts,
Nagoya City established the Guideline for Eco-Friendly Development of Public Buildings
in 2000, the following year, as part of their efforts concerning buildings, and started totake the leading role in the promotion of sustainable buildings.
Table 6.2.3: Assessment items based on the Eco-Friendly Development Index for publicbuildings
Consideration forthe surrounding environment

Understanding site factors, etc.

17

Energy-saving

Building arrangement, air-conditioning, etc.

25

EnergySolar power, high efficiency systems, etc.

10

Resource-saving

Reduction of use, promotion of recycling, etc.

14Long life

Standardized design, construction management, etc.

10

Eco-materials

Use of local materials and recycled products, etc.

9

Waste

Checking on recycling facilities, controlling the use of
specified substances, etc.

13

OthersConsensus development in environmental consideration

9

While Nagoya City promotes environmental consideration in public buildings, the private
sector has also started making voluntary efforts, including the acquisition of ISO certifications and the voluntary announcement of special measures for environmental consideration in buildings. In 2001, the city stated in the initial action plan of the Nagoya New
Century Plan 2010, specifying the basic policies of Nagoya City, that they “encourage
development of private buildings with less environmental load.” As an actual measureconcerning the statement, in 2003, the city incorporated the Environmental Consideration
System of Buildings in the Ordinance Concerning the Environmental Protection for
Securing Health and Safety of the Citizens, which is actually the fully revised Antipollution
Ordinance.
The ordinance and regulations specify the following:(1) Building owners are requested to take eco-friendly measures in accordance with the
Building Environmental Consideration Guideline stipulated by the mayor.
(2) Building owners who are constructing a new building or an extension, the total floor
space of which exceeds 2,000m2, are obliged to submit a Building Environmental
Assessment Plan 21 days before the start of construction.
(3) The outline of the Building Environmental Assessment Plan submitted is made availa229

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE<Case-1> CASBEE-Nagoya
In June 2004, Nagoya City was the first local government to introduce CASBEE.

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.2 Utilization in governmental policies

ble to the public on the Internet.
In Nagoya City, approximately 200 buildings exceeding 2,000m2 are constructed every
year. In other words, about 2% of new buildings are subject to the mandatory notification.
This system does not require specific measures for buildings, but simply asks for
efforts concerning environmental consideration based on the guideline. The system also
features an evaluation utilizing the assessment tool CASBEE Nagoya regarding the contents of such efforts, which is to be submitted as a Building Environmental Assessment
Plan. Nagoya City positions the system as a tool for the purpose of encouraging voluntary
efforts, by making the plan available to the public.
In October 2009, the outline was revised so that environmental assessment plans forbuildings less than 2,000 m2, including detached houses, may also be submitted on a
voluntary basis. Certain financial institutions have implemented a new system in which apreferential mortgage rate is available depending on the CASBEE assessment result. (Noactual example is available yet.)2) Outline of CASBEE Nagoya
CASBEE Nagoya is based on CASBEE for New Construction (Brief version) which wasdeveloped to evaluate the sustainability of buildings according to the environmental efficiency BEE. The BEE is calculated using the environmental quality Q (Numerator) and theenvironmental load L (Denominator) of a building. CASBEE Nagoya also introduced thefollowing changes:(1) Conducting a simple check at the design stage (24 items for the numerator and 20
items for the denominator on a 5-point scale)(2) Conducting an assessment of the building performance including sound isolation
using the standards based on the Housing Quality Assurance Act in the case of residential buildings(3) Adopting guidelines established in accordance with the city ordinance as criteria forQ3 and LR3, in which the on-site and off-site environments are evaluated3) System implementation
Nagoya City has received a total of 1,095 notifications over 6 years from when the systembegan at the end of fiscal 2009, which is one of the largest numbers among the local
governments that have introduced CASBEE. This is due to the fact that the city introduced the system at an early stage, and that it has also broadened the range of buildings
subject to the system, compared to the initial setting, so that it includes those exceeding
2,000m2.
Consequently, in many building plans, designers and building owners become awareof their ratings in terms of building sustainability through utilization of such tool, whichshould sufficiently achieve the purpose of the system implementation that was to increaseawareness in persons involved at the planning stage. Further, there have been 12 notifications of buildings in Rank S since 2007, positioning Rank S as one of the common targets
for all architects, which clearly indicates the effect of increasing the overall level of building plans.

230

Table 6.2.4: Past assessment results
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

C

0

2

2

1

0

1

Total
6

B-

49

89

94

91

55

24

402

B+

79

118

95

104

76

47

519

A

20

25

20

20

37

24

156

S

0

0

0

3

5

4

12

Total

148

234

211

229

173

100

1,096

Detailed breakdowns by rank for buildings notified in 2004 and 2009 indicate thatbuilding owners have gradually become aware of the importance of environmental consideration in buildings, as the percentage of buildings classified as between Rank S and
Rank B+ increased from 67% to 75%.
Nagoya City has established a preferential treatment for buildings in Rank S, allowing
increased relaxation in the floor area ratio required in the comprehensive design system.
The special treatment has actually been applied to one building so far.
We will provide detailed analysis of actual measures taken in 2 buildings classified as
Rank S.
75%
FY2009(100 buildings)

24

47

24

4

67%
FY2004(148 buildings)

49

79

20 0

Figure 6.2.15: Breakdowns of CASBEE Nagoya by rank

Assessment results of buildings notified in 2004 and 2009 are plotted respectively on a
BEE chart. In 2004, when the system was first introduced, most of the buildings wereclassified as B- and B+. On the other hand, we can see an improvement trend in the basic
level in 2009 as the number of buildings rated as Rank A and Rank S increased. The trend
in the average BEE by use shows that ratings for schools (1.3→2.0), retailers (1.1→1.7) andhotels (1.0→1.6) have improved.

100

Rank S

Rank A100

Rank B+

Rank S

Rank A

Rank B+

Rank B50

Rank B-

50

Rank C

Rank C0
Apartment building

0
OfficeSchoolRetailer

0

Hall

50
Hospital

Hotel

100
Factory

Restaurant

Figure 6.2.16: Ratings of notified buildings according to CASBEE Nagoya(Comparison between FY2004 and FY2009)231

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

Rank

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.2 Utilization in governmental policies<Case-2> CASBEE Yokohama
1) Background of establishment
The introduction of CASBEE in Yokohama City was initiated by positioning the promotionof building environmental friendliness as part of measures against climate change in the
Midterm Policy Plan, a basic guideline for local government administration policies, created in December 2002. Behind this background, there was the completion of CASBEE
for Office in 2002, an assessment tool for office buildings that had been developed
through collaboration between industry, government and academia. There was also theintroduction of the Building Environmental Assessment Plan System by Tokyo Metropolitan
Government in June 2002.
Yokohama began considering the introduction of CASBEE in 2003, and launched a
new system in July 2005 for reporting self-assessment results conducted when planning
construction for a large-scale building, utilizing CASBEE. Yokohama was the third city tointroduce a system based on CASBEE, after Nagoya and Osaka.
Since 2012, the city has also utilized CASBEE for New Detached Houses, introducing
the CASBEE system for detached houses. The utilization of the system is on a voluntarybasis; however, the city intends to promote detached houses in high ratings by releasing
assessment results of those highly rated by CASBEE.
2) Notification system structure
Similar to many other local governments, Yokohama also requires mandatory notificationof a self-assessment result (the Building Environmental Assessment Plan) based on
CASBEE to the local government at the planning stage of construction, which is latermade available to the public. CASBEE Yokohama software is mostly based on CASBEE
for New Construction (Brief version) with a few modifications, including priority items
applicable only to Yokohama. The city added 4 priority items without making modifications to the point allocation. Efforts concerning the 4 items are evaluated on a 5-point
scale on the publication sheet in which details of the efforts are also provided. The 4 priority items are measures for climate change, heat island effect, long life, and townscape/view. Each item is positioned as a field focusing on regional characteristics, in which thecity especially encourages further efforts.
Approximately 80% of all published buildings are rated as B+ and over. Especially,buildings for the purpose of “office-use” and “school-use” generally receive high ratings.
On the other hand, we can see that those for “factory-use,” including parking lots, tend toreceive low scores.
Table 6.2.5: Number of notifications

Number of notifications

232

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total

93

123

113

102

39

470

S

A

B+

B-

C

Total

Percentage%

Office

8

25

8

3

0

44

10

School

4

9

4

0

0

17

4

Retailer

0

7

6

11

0

23

6

Restaurant

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

Hall

0

3

4

6

0

13

3

Hospital

0

8

34

4

0

46

11

Hotel

0

2

7

3

0

12

3

Apartment

1

57

108

38

0

204

49

Factory

1

8

20

25

6

60

14

Total

14

119

192

90

6

421

100

Percentage %

3

28

48

22

1

100

-

3) Certification system
Apart from the mandatory notification system, in April 2006, Yokohama launched a certification system on a voluntary basis in which the city verifies the appropriateness ofassessment only for those who are interested. This certification system aims to encourage efforts concerning the environment, such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR),
by building owners. Yokohama is the only local government to implement this system inJapan. In this system, the city provides an objective evaluation after examining theassessment in accordance with the Outline for the Building Environmental Consideration
Assessment Certification System, and consulting the Building Environmental
Consideration Assessment Certification Committee consisting of academic experts. By
2013, 8 buildings had been certified as Rank S, the highest rating. The building owners of
those buildings are utilizing them as a public relations tool concerning their environmental
efforts. The city also features them as CASBEE best practices in public relations activities.
4) Environmental performance indicators
Since the energy performance of a building has a great impact on utilities costs and occupant comfort, it is one of the most important and useful pieces of information to be provided to the building owner and users. Further, if the information regarding energy performance was provided when buying a property, the consumer will be able to make a better
informed choice. We can also expect that, by promoting such market information, thenumber of energy-efficient buildings will increase.
Accordingly, Yokohama has introduced mandatory disclosure of environmental performance based on the CASBEE assessment result when advertising housing complexes
and office buildings for sale or for rent. Consequently, the public is now able to obtainproper information regarding building environmental consideration when they select ahouse.
Since the launch of this system in April 2010, we have received an increased numberof enquiries from designers of condominiums and estate agents, such as “Can we disclose information regarding properties built the year before?” and “What shall we do to
get higher ratings?” We are expecting that the increased number of properties appearing
in property advertisement magazines will have a ripple effect on consumers/the public.

233

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

Table 6.2.6: Ratings of published buildings by use

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.2 Utilization in governmental policies

Kawasaki, another city in Kanagawa Prefecture, had already launched the Environmental Performance Indicator for Condominium Apartments. Accordingly, Kanagawa
Prefecture, which introduced CASBEE Kanagawa and the building environmental performance indicator in 2010, and Yokohama City, have made mutual arrangements to use acommon design in some parts of the indicator so that consumers/the public can make aneasy comparison between multiple buildings.

Figure 6.2.17: Environmental performanceindicator in accordance with
CASBEE Yokohama

Figure 6.2.18: Environmental performance indicator by Kawasaki City (Left) and
Kanagawa Prefecture (Right)

5) Public relations for the system
In response to the change in the floor space subject to the system to include 2,000m2 andover, which used to be only 5,000m2 and over, we have an increased number of enquiries
from designers who have no experience in the CASBEE assessment, which indicates acertain effect in terms of the promotion of environmental consideration by designers. The
CASBEE system is covered in the examination for designers conducted by the central
government. While the system has gradually become popular in the building designindustry, the remaining issue for the future is its dissemination to the public.
In order to disseminate the system to the public, Yokohama publicly solicited names
for a poster child in 2007 and created “Kyasupippi” which looks like the personification ofa building combined with the letter “Y” from Yokohama. The city has made various
attempts to promote the system by utilizing the poster child in local government advertising media, including PR brochures and TV programs on the local TV station, and utilizing
the certified buildings for environment-related events. We expect the environmental performance indicator and “Kyasupippi” will both contribute to the further dissemination of
the system.
234

80%
60%

Assessment result by 2007 edition
Assessment result by 2009 edition

40%
20%
0%

C

BB+
A
CASBEE rank

S

Figure 6.2.19: Assessment results of
notified buildings in 2008

LCCO2 reduction percentage

Frequency distribution7) Outcomes of CASBEE system
The CASBEE system was originally introduced as a comprehensive environmental
assessment tool, which has been gradually changing to become an important climatechange measure. CASBEE Yokohama also made a shift from its 2009 edition to CASBEE
for New Construction (Brief version) 2008 in which LCCO2, the lifecycle CO2, can be calculated. The calculation of reduced greenhouse gases achieved by the introduction of the
CASBEE system, which used to be a longstanding problem, is now available by LCCO2 toa certain extent.
In cooperation with Ikaga laboratory of Keio University, we conducted further validation of notified buildings in 2008 (already evaluated by 2007-edition software) with the2009 edition, which is able to calculate LCCO2. Due to the difference in the software
specifications used for the notified buildings in 2008, we can see that the assessment
results of the 2009 edition are generally higher than those of the 2007 edition. The scattergram below indicates the correlation between the BEE value and LCCO2, which are thefactors of the CASBEE assessment. The correlation is not so strong; however, the gradient of the regression equation indicates the higher rating in CASBEE is contributing to
reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The total LCCO2 reduction of the notified buildings in2008 was 14,258t-CO2/Year.
50%
40%
R2= 0.08458

30%
20%
10%
0%
-10%

0

1

2

3

0

BEE in FY2009

Figure 6.2.20: BEE value and LCCO2
reduction percentage

235

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

6) Utilization in other systems
As another way of using the CASBEE system, the CASBEE ratings may be utilized as
requirements for other systems. Yokohama utilizes the ratings in the Comprehensive
Design Systems (the Urban Environmental Design System in Yokohama) and the City
Planning Proposal System. The Comprehensive Design System encourages the creationof a favorable urban environment through comprehensive regional contributions, including construction of sidewalks and open spaces, by allowing relaxation of requirements onbuilding height and floor area ratio. The city requires an assessment result of Rank A andover in CASBEE Yokohama. The City Planning Proposal System is part of the City PlanningLaw utilized for a large-scale development, in which land owners and NPOs can makeproposals regarding the utilization plan of a piece of land over a certain scale. Yokohama
requires a high rating (over B+) in CASBEE Yokohama as stipulated in the guideline for
evaluating the proposals.
For the future, we intend to expand collaboration with other systems, such as the utilization of CASBEE as requirements for a separate system that subsidizes a part of facility
maintenance costs, as already introduced in Osaka City and other local governments.

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.2 Utilization in governmental policies<Case-3> Resilience assessment by CASBEE-City after the earthquake andtsunami disaster1) Significance of post-quake recovery process assessment based on CASBEE for
CitiesDue to the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, people in a large area, mainlyin the Tohoku Region, were forced to face the situation in which they could no longer
perform normal daily activities. The Japanese archipelago is surrounded by the North
American Plate, the Eurasian Plate, the Pacific Plate and the Philippine Sea Plate, which
overlap one another. The pressure accumulated by the shifting of these 4 large plates hascaused numerous severe earthquakes in many parts of Japan, inflicting enormous damage both mentally and physically. However, after every earthquake, Japan has rebuilt
destroyed infrastructure in order to promote recovery of the disaster-affected cities,
achieving sustainable growth.
It is extremely important to look back on history and examine closely the recovery
process in order to prepare for future possible disasters, by studying what kind of efforts
were made during reconstruction, and which measure contributed to recovery the most.
It would be also very beneficial to keep a careful record of Japanese efforts and transmit
the information to the rest of the world in order to contribute to the sustainable development of all the Pacific Rim countries where the chances of major earthquakes are quite
high, just as in Japan. This chapter will introduce actual disaster-affected cities in which
a comprehensive assessment of environmental performance was conducted, in terms of
their past, present and future, utilizing the environmental performance assessment tool
CASBEE for Cities. (Kawakubo 2013) (Takigami 2013)
2) Outline of recovery process assessment utilizing CASBEE for Cities
Though Japan has been hit by numerous strong earthquakes, we will introduce a timeseries assessment conducted in terms of Kobe City, Hyogo Prefecture, which experienced the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995 and has been making a recovery
since then, and Higashimatsushima City, Miyagi Prefecture, which is currently undergoingrecovery from the tremendous damage caused by the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake
and tsunami. The locations of both cities and their overviews are provided in Figure 6.2.21
and Figure 6.2.22, respectively. We retrieved data from the past to present regarding the
2 cities from a statistical database. We also sorted out the future target score based on
an interview with each city. We conduct the time-series assessment in individual cities byentering such data into CASBEE for Cities.
3) Assessment result of recovery process utilizing CASBEE for Cities
The time-series assessments in Kobe City and Higashimatsushima City are shown in
Figure 6.2.23 and Figure 6.2.24, respectively. Firstly, regarding Kobe, we can see that theassessment result after the Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake in 1995 was significantly
deteriorated compared to the result of 1990 before the disaster. However, Kobe’s various
post-disaster recovery efforts helped achieve an improved city environment than that
before the disaster by 2010. If Kobe’s various future measures are implemented steadily
as planned, we can expect the city environment will be further improved by 2025.
Secondly, as for Higashimatsushima, we can also see that the assessment result of 2011
after the disaster indicates a dramatic drop compared to 2010, before the disaster, justlike Kobe. The environmental load L was slightly improved both in Kobe and Higashi­
236

Overview

Osaka Bay

Total area: 552.26 km2
Population: 1,541,089 people
Population density: 2,790 km2/Person
Area affected by the Great Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake (Designated as Eco-Model City in
March 2013)

Figure 6.2.21: Location of Kobe City, Hyogo Prefecture, and basic information

Overview

Sendai Bay

otal area: 101.86 km2
Population: 39,936 people
Population density: 392 km2/Person
Area affected by the 2011 Great East Japan
Earthquake and tsunami (Designated as EcoFuture City in December 2011)

Figure 6.2.22: Location of Higashimatsushima City, Miyagi Prefecture, and basic information

237

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

matsushima post-disaster. However, we assume this is due to the stagnation of economic
activity in the disaster-affected areas. Further, the decrease in the environmental quality
Q significantly exceeds the improvement in the environmental load L, indicating a significant drop of the Building Environmental Efficiency BEE after the disasters in both cities. It
is very important to review measures taken in local governments that have helped achievea successful recovery, such as in Kobe, and to share the findings with other areas currently undergoing recovery, such as Higashimatsushima.

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.2 Utilization in governmental policies

Good

100

S

B+

A

Environmental Quality (Q)Sustainable2025(Future target)
B2010 (Current state)1990 (Before disaster)

50

1995 (After disaster)

Unsustainable
Bad

C

0
0

Good

50

100

Environmental Load (L)Bad

Figure 6.2.23: Result of time-series assessmentof Kobe City, Hyogo Prefecture

Environmental Quality (Q)

Good
100

Bad

B+

A

S
Sustainable

2025 (Future target)
50

B-

2010 (Before disaster)
2011 (After disaster)

Unsustainable
C

0

Good

0

50

100

Environmental Load (L)Bad

Figure 6.2.24: Result of time-series assessmentof Higashimatsushima City, Miyagi
Prefecture

Acknowledgement
Research outcomes provided in this chapter were achieved thanks to the cooperation of Kobe City,
public administration officials in Higashimatsushima City, and member companies of the Urban
Infrastructure Initiative (UII) by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development(WBCSD). We would like to express herewith our sincere gratitude for all persons concerned.
References[1] Kawakubo, S., Ikaga, T., Murakami, S. (2013) Visualization of disaster recovery process based ona time-series assessment of urban environment, AIJ Journal of Technology and Design, Vol. 19(43), pp. 1011-1016[2] Takigami, M., Ikaga, T., Murakami, S., Kawakubo, S., Ushiro, T. (2013) Application of the CASBEECity Assessment Tool to Disaster-Affected Cities, Proceedings of International Conference on
Sustainable Building Asia, pp. 245-250

238

In current building practices, as shown in Figure 6.3.1 prepared by the Japan Institute ofArchitects, the importance of building management in accordance with the building lifecycle has been increasing, which includes the upstream, consisting of planning, designand construction, as well as the downstream that covers the operation and maintenanceafter construction is completed, and property management.
While an increased number of new constructions and renovations are expected, therole of building management, which is connected directly to asset management, is likely
to increase further. In this regard, we expect that CASBEE, a system that allows a comprehensive assessment of the building environmental performance, will be utilized in thefollowing situations.

6.3.1. Upstream utilization
1) Utilization as a design support tool
CASBEE may be used when a designer conducts a self-assessment of the environmental
performance at the design stage in order to check the design contents, which will help
bring the building close to the best practice under the given conditions.
2) Utilization as a communication tool between architects and contractees
CASBEE can be used as an objective communication tool between contractees anddesigners, in terms of environmental performance.
3) Voluntary utilization in the construction industry
The Japan Federation of Construction Contractors conducts a survey regarding the utilization of CASBEE by its affiliated companies on a regular basis, the result of which ismade available to the public.
4) Utilization for voluntary labeling by builders and contractees
CASBEE may be used when builders and contractees voluntarily disclose assessment
results of CASBEE in their labeling in order to show their corporate attitude and marketability.
5) Utilization as a self-risk management tool for builders and contractees
Many of the CASBEE assessment items are related to environmental risks. The objective
assessment of such items will help builders and contractees, who make large-scale
investments, avoid possible risks beforehand.

6.3.2. Downstream utilization
1) Utilization as a tool for asset valuation and rating
CASBEE may be utilized for an objective evaluation and rating regarding the environmental performance of assets.

239

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

6.3 Practical application

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.3 Practical application

2) Improvement of corporate image in the real estate market by voluntary labeling
Practical efforts concerning the environment as part of business ethics contribute to thesustainable enhancement of the corporate image.
3) Utilization in ESCO businesses
CASBEE may be used as a measure for new businesses such as Energy Service Company(ESCO) businesses, which are based on profits created by the improvement of environmental performance achieved through renovation of existing buildings.

6.3.3. Others
Utilization of CASBEE is expected to contribute to target setting in terms of the environmental performance and the validation of its achievement, both of which are closely
related to investment risk management in various services and business categories relating to construction, including PFI businesses relating to fund procurement for construction projects by public sectors, securitization of private building assets, and due diligencewhen the purchaser signs a contract.

Economic
growthBurst
bubbleEnvironmental
issuesPotential lackof conventionalcustomers

Globalization/
Outflow ofcompanies abroad

Changesin needs
and businessmethods

Changes inawarenessof projectcontractees

Urban
renaissance

Large-scale andcomplex projects

Changes inmacro-society(including low birthrate and aging)Complex andadvanced projectcomponents

Importance ofdetermining
responsibility

Possible conflicting
interests between
the building ownerand the architect

CASBEE utilization
Effective
project promotion

Transparent
project process

Secured andenhancedaccountability

Figure 6.3.1: Picture behind the increased awareness of the need for project management and CASBEE (Source: Information provided by the Japan Institute ofArchitects)

2401) Efforts concerning promotion of the use of CASBEE
The number of past CASBEE assessments (Figure 6.3.2) indicates that the total numberin this year’s survey increased by 26.7% from last year. (The number of data items from 7
companies that were newly added to those surveyed this year is 14 in total.) The numberof assessments by use indicates that the increase in apartment buildings is about 48%,and that in multi-purpose buildings it is about 97%. Housing complexes show a significant increase in the number of assessments.
indicates that the number of assessments submitted to local governments and its
percentage of the total number of assessments both increased compared to 2010 (from47.2% to 48.5%).
This seems to reflect an increased number of local governments that require a mandatory submission of CASBEE assessments, as well as the increase in the total number ofassessments submitted.
Buildings
700
520
600
540 547489
500
375 380
400 366
300
200
100
0
FY2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Buildings
700
600
500
400
301
300
231
142
200
132 141 124
100 600
FY2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Figure 6.3.2: Number of assessments byfinancial year (excluding
apartment buildings in2008)

Figure 6.3.3 Number of assessments
submitted to local governments (excluding apartmentbuildings in 2008).

2) Number of buildings assessed
Survey results regarding efforts concerning the promotion of CASBEE utilization by individual companies are shown below. The efforts are classified into 4 levels from the mostpositive answer, “Conducting CASBEE assessments in all buildings,” to the least, “Onlybuildings requested by local governments or contractees.” A total of 23 companies out of
30 actively conducted CASBEE assessments in accordance with respective internal
standards. (See Figure 6.3.4)
If we received multiple answers, the most positive one was selected as the company’s
attitude.

241

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE<Case-1> Promotion of CASBEE utilization andand a Design for Environment (DfE) by the Japan Federationof Construction Contractors

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.3 Practical application

All buildings regardlessof purpose and scale

10

Buildings selectedby purpose and scale

11

Designated buildings only

Positive internal
standards

2

Only buildings requested
by local governments
or contractees

Negative internal
standards

7

Others

0
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

(Number of companies)
Figure 6.3.4: Buildings subject to the assessment (30 companies)

3) Assessment rank classifications and BEE distribution
Next, in terms of data for all buildings surveyed for 4 years since 2008, a color-coding wasapplied to those evaluated with the 2010-edition CASBEE assessment tool. (Figure 6.3.6)
Data indicated in dark gray in the Figure represent buildings evaluated with the
2010-edition CASBEE tool. Data indicated in light gray include buildings assessed withtools other than the 2010 edition and those assessed with individual local governments’tools including the latest edition.

Buildings
0
OfficeSchoolRetailer

100
96

27 128
4 11

200
300
253
42

93

600

800

900

2

S

395

25

429

A

B+

B-

3

42

18

Figure 6.3.5: Number of assessments by use (from 2005 to 2011)

242

700

8

Restaurant (0,3,6,0,0)
5 47 27
Hall
5
330
34
Factory
12 11479
Hospital
2
2 35 49
Hotel
7
386
18
Apartment building
35
138
116
Multi-purpose building
Legend

400
500
134
11

C

1000

BEE=3.0

100

BEE=1.5

BEE=1.0

Avarage BEE(1.67) of data
based on the 2010-editionassessment tool50

Data based on assessment
tools other than the
2010-edition

BEE=0.50050
Building environmental load L

100

Avarage BEE(1.65) ofdata based on theassessment tools otherthan the 2010 edition(Note) Most of the survey data areexpressed as integer values. Therefore,
there are multiple values plotted on thesame point, which are not separately
indicated in the chart. Further, the total
average BEE line 1.66 is not indicated in
the chart since it overlaps with individual
average lines, and looks indistinctive.

Figure 6.3.6: BEE distribution for all purposes (from 2008 to 2011)<Case-2> Efforts by building owners
Information provided in this chapter was obtained from the Environmental Action Plan in
the Real Estate Industry published by the Real Estate Companies Association of Japan in
March 2013.
1) Environmental action goals concerning new office buildings
The building plan and design for construction of a new office building focus on the reduction of energy consumption in view of regional characteristics.
As a general rule, the target scoress are as follows: ERR =15% and over and PAL
reduction percentage=10% and over. Large-scale office buildings aim at a higher goal:
ERR=25% and over.
The achievement rate will be raised by 2020. The target scoress may also be raised asnecessary depending on the achivement rate.
Large-scale office buildings, which take a leading role in environmental measures,
also endeavor to acquire certification for low-carbon buildings specified in the Low
Carbon City Promotion Act.
2) Active utilization and promotion of environmental value assessment in real estate
Achieving “Compatibility with environment and economy” in real estate through the active
utilization and promotion of an environmetal value assessment of real estate in order toencourage proper evaluation of green buildings in the market.
Making efforts in actively conducting an environmental value assessment of officebuildings and disclosing the information thereof to concerned parties, in order to receive
higher ratings for environmentally friendly buildings.
243

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

Building environmental quality Q

Data based on the
2010-edition assessment
tool6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.3 Practical application(1) Actively utilizing environmental performance assessment tools including CASBEE(2) Actively utilizing and disclosing environmetal ratings provided by local governments
and financial insitutions(3) Widely disclosing assessment results to the public and providing sufficient information
to tenants and concerned parties
3) Environmental action goals concerning new condominium apartments
When supplying new condominium apartments, the building plan and design thereof
focus on the reduction of energy consumption in view of the regional characteristics.
Specifically, new condominium apartments aim at a higher level of environmental performance; for example, about 5% higher than the Reference Value provided in the
Operation Stage in CASBEE-NC.
Condominiums, which take a leading role in environmental measures, also endeavor
to acquire a certification for a low-carbon building specified in the Low Carbon City
Promotion Act.

<Case-3> New wave of CASBEE utilization in real estate investments
1) Project overview of promotion of creation of earthquake-resistant and green
buildings
The project for promoting the creation of earthquake-resistant and eco-friendly realestate was included in the government supplementary budget in 2012. This project
intends to promote urban development contributing to regional regeneration and revitalization, and measures preventing climate change by risk capital supplied by the government, serving as an incentive to encourage private investment, in terms of old and littleused or unused buildings, in order to utilize private funds and know-how in promoting thecreation of high-quality real estate (renovation, reconstruction and development projects)
having earthquake resistance and environmentally friendly performance.
There are many buildings that can turn into investment-grade real estate through theenhancement of value by renovation or refurbishment. On the other hand, we assume
there are also many cases in which actual renovation projects are too hard to carry out. In
order to support such cases, the government supplies a certain amount of risk capital forthe projects.
This project is based on a scheme in which a company subsidized by the government(hereinafter referred to as “a fund-raiser entity”) creates funds and invests them in a limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as “LPS”) that makes investments in businesses
engaged in renovation, reconstruction or development of old and little-used or unusedbuildings.
The project is under the joint jurisdiction of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism (MLIT) and the Ministry of the Environment (MOE), receiving a totalof 35 billion yen (30 billion yen from the MLIT and 5 billion yen from the MOE) in government subsidies. After open recruitment by the MLIT and the MOE, the Real Estate
Sustainability and Energy-Efficiency Diffusion (hereinafter referred to as “the institution”)
was elected as the fund-raising entity.

2442) Requirements for invested projects
Requirements for projects subject to investment by the LPS are summarized as follows:
1) Target area
Within the Densely Inhabited District (DID) according to the national census.

(1) The renovation of a building constructed under the former Earthquake-ResistanceStandards that is expected to achieve the seismic capacity equivalent to the current
standard after the project is completed(2) The renovation, reconstruction or development of a building expected to meet one of
the following standards concerning environmental performance after the project iscompleteda. The energy intensity of the entire building is reduced by approximately 15% or more,compared to the condition before the project is completed (limited to cases in whichrenovation work is conducted)
b. The assessment result by CASBEE is Rank A or overc. The number of green stars in the assessment result of the lifecycle CO2 by CASBEE
is 3 or mored. The building is certified as a low-carbon building as specified in the Low Carbon
City Promotion Act.
The important thing here is that CASBEE is utilized as the environmental performancestandard to be satisfied after the renovation, reconstruction or development projects.
This project is expected to contribute to regional revitalization through the regeneration and utilization of old and little-used or unused buildings, and the promotion of low
carbonization of existing buildings, which will result in overcoming asset deflation due toincreased asset value. We also expect this project will accelerate the establishment ofprivate funds and real estate investment trusts that adopt CASBEE as the environmental
performance standard.

245

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

2) Target project
Businesses engaged in one of the following projects, which includes the acquisition ofreal estate as part of their business operations. Apart from special services for the purposes of the sex industry, it is generally limited to buildings having a total floor space of
2,000m2 and over.

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.3 Practical application

Scheme overview

Government

Fund-raiser entity (Real Estate Sustainability
and Energy-Efficiency Diffusion)
Government funds

Earthquake resistant/Environmentallyfriendly real estate support fund
Dividend

Fund manager (FM)(Real estate management company)

GP
investment

LP investment

LPS (Investment limited
partnership)

Dividend/Profit on sale
AdviceInvestments

Special purpose companies
Projects relating to earthquake
resistant/environmentally friendly realestate (Renovation/Reconstruction/
Development)

Asset manager(AM)AM businessoutsourcing

Run-down realestateSelling off

Funds
depending on
the investor’srisk appetite(Investment/
Loan)

Vacant land

Selling off

Selling off
J-REIT

Companies/
Individuals/
Pension funds

Private Placement
REIT

Project requirements
Target area
The Densely Inhabited District (DID) according to the national census
Target project
Any of the following(1) Seismic retrofitting project(2) Renovation, reconstruction or development projects expected to meet any of the following environmental performance standards:
a. The energy consumption of the entire building is reduced by approximately 15% ormore compared to its condition before the projectb. The assessment result by CASBEE is Rank A or over, etc.
*The total floor space after the project is more than 2,000m2 in principle
Target entities
Tokutei Mokuteki Kaisha (TMK, meaning “special purpose company”), stock companies, limited companies and the like, which exclusively intend to implement the target project
Figure 6.3.7: Scheme overview

246

6.4 Utilization in education(1) A decent quality of life for all the inhabitants of human settlements(2) Technological application that respects the social, cultural and aesthetic needs ofpeople(3) Ecologically balanced and sustainable development of the urban, built and naturalenvironment including the rational utilization of available resources
Further, knowledge for students to acquire in environmental studies includes the following:- Ability to act with knowledge regarding natural systems and urban built environments- Understanding of resource conservation and waste management issues- Understanding of the life cycle of materials, issues of ecological sustainability, environmental impact, design for reduced use of energy, as well as passive systems and their
management- Awareness of the history and practice of landscape architecture, urban design, as well
as regional and national urban planning and their relationship in local and global demography and resources- Awareness of the management of natural systems taking into account natural disasterrisks
On the other hand, in June 2000, the Research Committee on Global Environment of theArchitectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) jointly enacted with 5 related organizations theArchitectural Charter for a Global Environment. In order to promote its practical application, the AIJ also published “Architecture for Global Environment Series, Introductory
Guide – Towards the Architecture for a Global Environment” (First edition: August 2002,
First English edition 2005, Second edition: August 2009), which provides, for the first time,in a systematic manner, the scope and knowledge regarding the architecture for the
global environment required in university architectural education. Meanwhile, it is anurgent task to determine the practical approach to offering related lectures as part ofarchitectural education, as well as the publication of the following volumes of the sameseries for the advanced level.

247

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEEUNESCO has established jointly with the International Union of Architects (UIA) the
UNESCO/UIA Charter for Architectural Education. In the preamble it states, “We feel
responsible for the improvement of architectural education and training of future architects to enable them to contribute to the sustainable development in every cultural heritage.“ A passage from the “General Considerations” in the Charter also states that “thevision of the future world, cultivated in architecture schools” should include the following
goals:

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.4 Utilization in education<Case study>
Utilization in professional architectural education in universities
and related institutions
The basic principles of sustainability in the era of a global environment present an idea of
fairness between regions and between generations. In other words, in order to secure therelationship between the environment contributing to the establishment of a sustainable
society and the architecture/cities, it is necessary to mutually educate and inherit continuous and creative efforts between different generations.
In architecture-related education in Japanese universities, lectures addressing environmental issues have been mainly classified as the Architectural Environmental
Engineering field, which has developed out of the building services program. However,
the environmental issues we are currently facing cover a very broad range of topics
including the global environment, communities and architecture. In order to address such
issues, we need, in addition to design, structure and building services, efforts based oninterdisciplinary understanding and collaboration, which could not be achieved in theconventional vertical-segmented education system. The CASBEE comprehensive assessment system directly reflects such needs.
In light of the situation above, many universities both at home and abroad, which offer
an architectural course, have been trying to add to or revise the existing curriculum andsyllabus. The following relates to a Japanese university that utilizes CASBEE as actual
course material in design education.
1) Environmental planning seminar utilizing CASBEE in the University of Kitakyushu
CASBEE is utilized in seminars for environmental planning in universities. As the firstmodel example, we introduce the overview of the “Environmental Planning Seminar” for
50 third-year students in the Department of Spatial Environmental Design, the Faculty ofEnvironmental Engineering, the University of Kitakyushu (Lecturer: Professor Yasuyuki
Shiraishi).
Third-year undergraduate students, who had learned basic architectural environmental engineering and had completed their design assignments, proved to be capable ofunderstanding the outline of CASBEE and making a proper presentation of the assessment results.
(1) Selecting a building subject to the assessment
The building to be assessed should be the same as housing complexes designed by individual students in Design Drawing II in their second year of the undergraduate course.
Each group, consisting of 4 students, selects one of their design pieces as the target
building.
(2) Assessment method<Assessment of draft design in the Design Drawing II>
It is permissible to mark “3.0” for items difficult to evaluate.
<Proposal for improved environmental performance and its assessment>
Assessment items listed in Table 6.4.1 are evaluated based on specific evidence including
a simple perspective drawing, a plan and numerical values. Other items may be evaluatedaccording to individuals’ subjective opinions within the realm of possibility. When marking
3.0 and over, a brief overview of the specific Design for Environment (DfE) should be pro248

vided.
(3) Role sharing between group members
Group members should share the assessment items.
(4) Performance evaluation criteria
The performance of each group is determined according to a comprehensive assessmentof the following 6 aspects.
(1) Preliminary studies, (2) Grounds for assessment, (3) Validity of efforts and theassessment result, (4) Observation contents, (5) Presentation, (6) Q&A.

Environmental quality/performance
Reduction of environmental load

Assessment field

Items requiring grounds for assessment

Q1
Indoor environment

1. Sound environment / 1.3 Acoustics absorption: Calculating the
average acoustic absorptivity in the principal living space
2. Thermal environment / 2.1.3 Outer layer performance: Providing
specifications for walls and windows in the principal living
space in order to determine the heat insulation grade
2. Thermal environment / 2.1.3 Outer layer performance: Providing
specifications for walls and windows in the principal living
space in order to determine the heat insulation grade
3. Lighting & illumination environment / 3.1.1 Daylight factor:
Calculating the daylight factor in the principal living space /3.1.3 Facilities using daylight: Indicating the facility overview
and location
4. Air quality environment / 4.1.1 Chemical pollutants: Indicatingbuilding materials used for the principal living space, parts(walls, floors and the ceiling), and the areas to which they areattached

Q2
Quality of service

1. Service ability / 1.1.3 Barrier-free design: Indicating the numberof related items using the standard for easing building use andthe guidance standard checklist / 1.2.3 Interior decoration:
Providing a brief overview of the interior decoration plan 3.
Flexibility & Adaptability / 3.1.2 Shape of space and its flexibility: Calculating based on the definitional equation of the ratio of
the wall length

Q3
Outdoor environment(On-site)

1. Conservation and creation of the biological environment:
Indicating practical efforts
2. Consideration for townscape and view: Indicating practicalefforts
3. Consideration for regional characteristics and amenities:
Indicating practical efforts

LR1
Energy2. Use of natural energy / 2.2 Conversion of natural energy into a
usable form: Indicating practical efforts

LR2
Resources/
Materials

2. Use of materials having a low environmental impact / 2.1.2
Recycling efficiency of non-structural materials: Indicating what isused and where it is used in the principal living space /2.6.2 Heat
insulation materials: Indicating the types of heat insulation materials / 2.6.3 Coolant: Indicating the types of coolant

LR3Off-siteenvironment

3. Control of wind damage and sun-shading: Indicating practicalefforts
4. Control of light pollution: Evaluating in accordance with the
Guidelines for Countermeasures against Light Pollution (on avoluntary basis)
5. Improvement of decreased thermal environment: Indicating
practical efforts

249

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

Table 6.4.1: Items requiring grounds for assessment based on calculations

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.4 Utilization in education

Table 6.4.2: Environmental planning seminar schedule (2003)
Date
November 17 (Mon)

Details
Lecture regarding the overview of CASBEE

January 5 (Mon)

Explanation of assignments/Explanation regarding CASBEE

January 19 (Mon)

Explanation regarding CASBEE/Training in groups(Selecting one design piece subject to the assessment/Preparation ofrequired data and materials)

January 26 (Mon)

Assessment training/Preparation of presentation materials

January 29 (Thu)

Submitting an assignment

January 31 (Sat)

Presentation/Feedback
Presentation for 10 min. per group + Q&A for 5 min.
4 Students/Group × 12 Groups(Note) One lecture consists of 2 slots (3 hours).

(5) Feedback from the lecturer: Utilizing CASBEE in a lecture
Yasuyuki Shiraishi, Full-time lecturer, the Department of Spatial Environmental Design,
the Faculty of Environmental Engineering, the University of Kitakyushu (as of 2003)
The environmental planning seminar conducts training for a comprehensive building
performance assessment utilizing CASBEE in terms of the housing complex assignment
students worked on in the Design Drawing II in the second year of the undergraduate
course. The Design Drawing II teaches techniques relating mainly to design aspects
including spatial structure, flow planning and expression. This lecture intends to makestudents review their building designs in light of a wide range of design requirements
covered by CASBEE (the indoor environment, off-site environment, etc.).
Since the number of lectures was not enough to conduct the assessment according
to the manual in terms of all items covered by CASBEE, we classified the assessment
items into 2 types: “Items requiring grounds for assessment” and “Items that may beevaluated based on subjective opinions.” In order to help students understand the actual
assessment details and methods, I prepared extra materials including a guideline and aglossary that are not provided in the manual, and explained them before the training.
For the future, I feel it is necessary to organize lectures by multiple lecturers with different areas of expertise, rather than focusing on the lecture timetable and the training
details such as how to discuss assessment methods.
(6) Student’s comments: Impressions of the environmental planning seminar utilizing
CASBEERie Kasai, Third year student, the Department of Spatial Environmental Design, theFaculty of Environmental Engineering, the University of Kitakyushu (as of 2003)
We conducted an assessment of one unit of a housing complex, considered and created an improvement plan, and reevaluated it, using CASBEE. The assessment itself was
simple and straightforward for anyone who could understand what we were supposed to
do. The assessment items were subdivided, however, and not very time-consuming.
Items that designers are likely to forget considering are all covered, allowing an assessment regarding how much we think about the environment in terms of various aspects
ranging from the indoor environment, energy/resources, service performance to the outdoor environment. I think if we used CASBEE in the planning stage or at the time of renovation, we would be able to produce more eco-friendly designs.

250

(1) Building subject to the assessment(2) Assessment result(Before and after improvement)

BeforeBuilding subject to the assessment

BEE=1.1
The main living room
subject to the assessment
this time is the LDK in one
ground-floor dwelling unit
located at the far west of
this five-story building.

Zoom

After
BEE=2.0(3) Grounds of assessment for Q-2
Quality of service (Before improvement)(4) Grounds of assessment for Q-2
Quality of service (After improvement)

Q-2 Quality of service

Q-2 Quality of service

1.1.3 Barrier-free design

Level 1

設計者のコンセプトでは、
この住戸は老人の一人暮
らしや、老夫婦を対象に計画したとのことであるが、住戸内の寸法に関しては、建築基準法で定められているバリアフリーの基準を満たしているが、この棟自体はハートビル法の基準を全く満たしていない。

廊下の幅は狭く、180cmを満たしておらず、また、蹴上げ・踏み面に関してもハートビル
法の利用円滑化基準チェック値をも満たしていない。

1.2.3 Interior decoration

1.1.3 Barrier-free design Level 5 (4up)1.2.3 Interior decoration Level 3 (2up)3.1.2 Form of space and its
flexibility Level 3 (2up)

バリアフリー計画に関しては、
ハートビル法の利用円滑化基準
チェックシートに基づき、階段の蹴上踏面とし、車椅子のための勾配のスロープを設け、廊下幅もと大改造

せっかくの角部屋なので、開口部を設け、採光も良Level 1

Kitchen の配置計画はなされているが、Living やDining に関しての具体的なイメージは計画されていない。

が狭いので、
収納はシンクの上部
冷蔵庫

3.1.2 Form of space and its
flexibility
Level 1After

壁長さ比＊1：壁の長さ13.0m÷専用面積15.61m2＝0.8

問題としては、Kitchen には窓がなく、また LivingやDining においては、隣接する住戸側に開口部を設けられないため、壁の長さが長くなっている。
*1

Before

壁長さ比率:（外周壁の長さ＋耐力壁の長さ）(m) ÷ 専用面積(m2)

床は車椅子でもスムーズに移動できるようにフローリングは狭く、開放感を出すため
玄関側に引き戸の出入り口を設置(5) Grounds of assessment for Q-3
Outdoor environment (Before improvement)(6) Grounds of assessment for Q-3
Outdoor environment (After improvement)

Q-3 Outdoor environment (On-site)

Q-3 Outdoor environment (On-site)

1. Conservation andcreation of the biologicalenvironment
Level 3

HERE!!
1F

外構の緑化は簡単にではあるが、考えられてはいるよ
うだが、植物の保全、生物環境、動植物の生態系に関しての計画はない。また、建物の緑化もない。

2. Consideration fortownscape and view

Level 3

広い敷地に５階建てを隣棟間隔も十分に３棟配置し、周辺地域の他の集合住宅とのバランスも良い。
また、歩車分離の計画もなされていて、道の配置も美しい。住戸はバルコニーも広く充実している。
ただ、共用部分の敷地の緑地面の具体的計画がなく、ランドスケープのデザインも景観に必要であろう。

3. Consideration for regional
characteristics and amenities

Level 3

Before

半戸外空間であるバルコニーが、広くとってあり、また南向きに広く開口部があることにより、居住者が、1棟に３タイプの住戸を設け、光や風を十分に採り入れることのできる空間が計画されている。また、建物
多世代の居住をコンセプトとしており、多世代の交流を促している。その工夫として、階段の踊場を広く取り、住民同士が顔を合わせる機会を増やすと共に、コミュニケーションの場所となるよう提案している。
ただ一方で、老人向けの居室としては、配慮にかけており、外部空間に対してのアメニティ等に関する具体的計画もなされていない。また、地域社会の交流拠点となるような施設や広場がない。

1. Conservation and creation
屋上緑化
of the biologicalenvironment Level 5 (2up)

元からある樹木を有効利用し、保全に努める。また、外構は積極的に緑化し、緑地の形状も工夫する。
樹木も高木、低木などを使い分ける。建物の屋上は、未利用なので、屋上緑化にする。また、住棟の間の緑地にビオトープを設ける。

2. Consideration fortownscape and view
Level 4 (1up)Level 5 (2up)

ビオトープ

HERE!!
1F

視線を遮る高木

住棟の配置は、視線を考えたものにし、また、駐車場
からの視線を遮るため、住棟との間に高木を植樹する。
共用の周辺の空き地にはビオトープや子供の遊べる砂場、人の集えるベンチ、コミュニティセンターなどを設け、積極的にコミュニケーションの場を設けた。また、駐車場は緑化舗装を施す工夫をした。

3. Consideration for regional
characteristics and amenities

コミュニティセンター
砂場

緑化舗装

幅
の
ハートビル法に基づく駐車場

After

ウッドデッキのついたコミュニティセンターを設置し、人が集い、ビオトープの側で、バーベキューを楽しんだりできる空間を計画した。また、住棟に囲まれた空き地は、積極的な緑化と供に、人々が気軽に使え憩えるようにベンチを設けた。また、住棟からの視線により、子供が安全に遊べる砂場を設け、また、ビオトープは子供の成長を考える上でも肌で学べる環境教育として考えて良いと思う。

Figure 6.4.3: Extracts from the group presentation in the environmental planning training

Further, CASBEE enables us to indicate levels of building performance, which would
serve as a straightforward index for the contractee who is not an expert in architecture.
The mandatory disclosure of the performance levels will help designers and builders
251

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

Ground floor plan view

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.4 Utilization in education

increase their sense of responsibility and be ambitious in terms of enhanced environmental performance. I think that we can utilize the CASBEE tool not only in building designs
but also in the real estate industry, since it can evaluate not just new construction but
existing buildings.
2) Utilization in Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for experts
Continuous training and education are also necessary not only for students who will leadthe next generation, but also for professional architects who have received an architectural education and are already engaged in the practical side of the business. As the spiritof the times changes, the professional skills required also keep changing. Especially,changes in the extensive environmental issues CASBEE covers, as well as politicalinducements, are fairly difficult to catch up with in the daily business routine. Consequently,
retraining and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for experts by professional
associations and academic societies in the architectural field are needed.
CASBEE organizes an annual workshop and adopts a system in which successful
candidates in the examination after the workshop are registered as CASBEE accredited
assessors. Including such opportunity, we expect that CASBEE will be widely utilized in
the CPD by affiliated organizations.

252

6.5. Publicity and academic releases

6.5.1. Books about CASBEE

CASBEE Introductory Guide
Edited by JSBC, Written by Shuzo MURAKAMI et al., 2004,
Nikkei BP, 198 pages
The first introductory guide gives a simple explanation about
CASBEE. This book includes many drawings, practical utilization
methods as well as assessment examples, so that it gives a
broad understanding of its contents not only to designers andrelated officials but also to ordinary building owners and citizens.
CASBEE in Practice
Edited by JSBC, Written by Shuzo MURAKAMI et al., 2005,
Nikkei BP, 272 pages
A compilation book with case examples of buildings thatreceived a high rating in CASBEE. This book illustrates key
points in achieving a sustainable building with a high level ofenvironmental performance in a comprehensible way, using alarge collection of pictures and drawings.
CASBEE for Homes (Detached Houses) Introductory Guide
Edited by JSBC, Written by Shuzo MURAKAMI et al., 2007,
Kenchiku Gijutsu, 240 pages
An introductory guide providing a simple explanation about
CASBEE for Homes (Detached Houses) in terms of its contents
and assessment methods, directed to as many users as possible including not only professional designers but also non-specialist users.

253

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEECASBEE provides information on various publications and its website both at home andabroad in order to promote the use of CASBEE tools. The publications include assessment manuals for individual tools as well as other related books as follows, in which theuse of CASBEE tools has been familiarized to the public. (The following publications are
all in Japanese.)6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.5. Publicity and academic releases

CASBEE for Detached Houses – Case Examples
Supervised by JSBC, CASBEE for Detached House Editorial
Working Group, Edited by Housing Tribune Editorial Department,
2010, Sohjusha, 188 pages
A compilation book with case examples of 39 eco houses
across the country, which introduces detailed environmental
technologies adopted in individual buildings, actual assessment
results based on CASBEE for Detached Houses, and usefulknow-how for architects and builders immediately serving toenhance the housing environmental performance.
Environmental Assessment of Vernacular Architecture
Written by Shuzo Murakami, 2008, Keio University Press, 183
pages
A groundbreaking discussion contributing to the development of
a paradigm for sustainable buildings through CASBEE assessments of the world’s traditional buildings such as igloos(Canada), cave dwellings (Turkey), houses with wind catchers(Iran), stilt houses (Indonesia) and water houses (Malaysia).
Smart & Slim Future City
Written by Shuzo Murakami, 2012, Energy Forum, 221 pages
This book takes a comprehensive view of ensuring the sustainability of the global environment and the enhanced environmental quality in which human beings can live their lives in a humanemanner, through an ideal course of buildings and cities basedon assessments by CASBEE for Cities, using “Smart” and “Slim”
as keywords.
House for Health Maintenance and Promotion – Case
ExamplesSupervised by Health Maintenance and Promotion Housing
Research Consortium, Health Maintenance and Promotion
Housing Research Committee, 2013, Sohjusha, 203 pages
This book introduces 47 buildings across the country focusing
on improved housing health and know-how relating thereto.

254

6.5.2. Manuals of CASBEE
Assessment manuals of individual CASBEE tools are bound up as proper books and soldon the website. As part of the international promotion activities, some of the manuals areprovided in English, which are available on the CASBEE website for free.
Table 6.5.1: List of published CASBEE manuals
Housing scale(1) CASBEE for New Detached House (2010 edition)

Availabilityof English version
Available (2007 edition)(2) CASBEE for Existing Detached House (2010 edition)(3) CASBEE Health Checklist
Building scale(4) CASBEE for New Construction (2010 edition)

Available
6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE(5) CASBEE for Existing Buildings (2010 edition)(6) CASBEE for Renovation (2010 edition)(7) CASBEE for New Construction (Brief version) (2010 edition)(8) CASBEE for Existing Buildings (Brief version) (2010 edition)(9) CASBEE for Renovation (Brief version) (2010 edition)(10) CASBEE for Temporary Construction (2006 edition)(11) CASBEE-HI for Heat Island Relaxation (2010 edition)(12) CASBEE for Schools(13) CASBEE-for Market Promotion (2012 edition)

Available

Urban scale(14) CASBEE for Urban Development (2007 edition)

Available(15) CASBEE for Urban Development (Brief version) (2007 edition)

Available(16) CASBEE for Urban Areas + Buildings (2007 edition)(17) CASBEE Community Health Checklist
City scale(18) CASBEE for Cities (2012 edition)

Available

2556. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.5. Publicity and academic releases<Housing scale>

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(15)

(16)

(17)

<Buildings scale><Urban scale>(14)<City scale>(18)
Figure 6.5.1: CASBEE Assessment Manuals

2566.5.3. Electronic publicity (website, etc.)

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEEThe CASBEE website is kept updated and provides the latest information regarding thedevelopment of individual tools, the information of CASBEE-AP’s training courses andexamination, and the information regarding certified buildings. For overseas users, wehave developed the English page of the CASBEE website and the Japan Sustainable
Building Database, in which highly rated buildings assessed by CASBEE are introduced.

Figure 6.5.2: English CASBEE website
http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/index.htm

Figure 6.5.3: Japan Sustainable Building Database
http://www.ibec.or.jp/jsbd/257

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.5. Publicity and academic releases

6.5.4. International academic release
In order to inform the international community of CASBEE’s research and development,
we actively publish articles in related journals and deliver them at international conferences. Major articles that were presented internationally are listed in the table below.
Table 6.5.2: List of major articles presented internationally
Title

258

Name of journalInternational
Journal of
Sustainable
Building
Technology
and Urban
Development

Authors

Publication
date

Details regarding
assessments oflocal governments
Decemberacross the country
2011
utilizing CASBEE
for Cities (Briefversion)1

Nationwide
Assessment ofCity Performance
Based onEnvironmental
Efficiency

2

Development of
a Comprehensive Building Research
City Assessment& Information
Tool: CASBEE-City

3

Time-Series
Assessmentof All Local
Governments inJapan in Terms of
Eco-Efficiency

International
Conference on
Sustainable
Building Asia
(SB13 Seoul)

Shun KAWAKUBO,
Toshiharu IKAGA,
Shuzo MURAKAMI

4

Application of
the CASBEE-City
Assessment Toolfor DisasterAffected Cities

International
Conference on
Sustainable
Building Asia
(SB13 Seoul)

Masaki TAKIGAMI,
Toshiharu IKAGA,
Shuzo MURAKAMI,
Shun KAWAKUBO,
Takuhei USHIRO

5

Sustainability
Assessmentof LocalGovernmentswith the CASBEECity Tool Using
Public Statistical
Information

The 10th
International
Conference on
Ecobalance

Shun KAWAKUBO,
Toshiharu IKAGA,
Shuzo MURAKAMI

6

Outline of theApproach to Low
Carbonization byStrengthening
CASBEE for New
Construction (2010
Edition)World Sustainable
Building
Conference (SB11
Helsinki)

Masaaki SATO,
Shuzo MURAKAMI,
Toshiharu IKAGA,
October
Takashi YANA,
2011
Tatsuya HAYASHI and
Junko ENDO

7

Linking Building
Environmental
Assessment
Tools to Property
Appraisal– CASBEE-MP(tentative version)

Hiroaki TAKAI,
Masato ITO,World Sustainable
Shuzo MURAKAMI,
October
Building
Toshiharu IKAGA,
2011
Conference (SB11
Kazuo IWAMURA,
Helsinki)Nobuhaya YAMAGUCHI,
Junko ENDO

Shun KAWAKUBO,
Toshiharu IKAGA,
Shuzo MURAKAMI

Contents

Shuzo MURAKAMI,
Shun KAWAKUBO,
Details regarding
Yasushi ASAMI,
April 2011
CASBEE for Cities
Toshiharu IKAGA,
Nobuhaya YAMAGUCHI,
Shinichi KABURAGI

July 2013

Details regarding time-series
assessments oflocal governments
across the country
utilizing CASBEE
for Cities

July 2013

Details regarding
assessments ofdisaster-affected
cities utilizing
CASBEE for Cities

November
2012

Details regarding
the developmentof assessment
tools for CASBEE
for Cities utilizing
public statisticalinformation

Details regarding
the assessment of
LCCO2 in CASBEE

Details regarding
CASBEE-MPName of journal

Authors

Publication
date

Contents

8

Incorporationof LCCO2
Assessment into
CASBEEWorld Sustainable
Building
Conference (SB08
Melbourne)

Masaaki SATOH,
Shuzo MURAKAMI,
Toshiharu IKAGA,
Hiroaki TAKAI

October
2008

Details regarding the introduction of LCCO2
assessments into
CASBEE

9Development ofComprehensive
Assessment
System for
Building
Environmental
Efficiency(CASBEE) for
Homes

Tsuyoshi SEIKE,
Shuzo MURAKAMI,World Sustainable Takashi AKIMOTO,
Building
Toshiharu IKAGA,
Conference (SB08 Kazuo IWAMURA,
Melbourne)
Toshiya CHIKADA,
Yuji YAMANAKA,
Kiyoshi MIISHOOctober
2008

Details regarding
the development of
CASBEE for Homes(Detached Houses)

World Sustainable
Building
Conference (SB05Tokyo)

Hisashi HANAZAWA,
Takashi SATO,
Motonori TOJIMA,
Ryozo SAKURAMA

Details regarding the CASBEE
September assessment of a2005
new college building of Hokkaido
University

Yukihiko KAWAZU,
Nobuhiro SHIMA,
Noriyoshi YOKOO,
Tatsuo OKA

A comparison
between assessment results of
September
BREEAM, LEED,2005
GB Tool and
CASBEE in termsof 4 buildings

Estimation for theEnvironmental
Performance of
10 a New College
Building at the
Preliminary Design
Phase
Comparisonof the assessment results of
11
BREEAM, LEED,
GB Tool and
CASBEEWorld Sustainable
Building
Conference (SB05Tokyo)

Communication
Method ofthe Building
Comprehensive
12 Environmental
Assessment for
Clients/Customers– Proposal and
Project Evaluation

World Sustainable
Building
Conference (SB05Tokyo)

Hiroaki TAKAI,
Akira MATUSKUMA,
Hiroshi SATO,
Shujirou FURUNO

Method for utilizing
building environmental performance assessSeptember
ments by assess2005
ment tools including CASBEE as acommunication toolwith clients

Extended
Frameworkof CASBEE:
Designing an
Assessment
13 System of
Buildings for all
Lifecycle Stages
Based on theConcept of EcoEfficiency

Junko ENDO,
Shuzo MURAKAMI,World Sustainable
Toshiharu IAKGA,
Building
Kazuo IWAMURA,
Conference (SB05
Yuzo SAKAMOTO,
Tokyo)
Tomonari YASHIRO,
Kazuaki BOGAKI

Development ofextended tools of
September CASBEE in accord2005
ance with the building lifecycle andpurposes259

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

Title

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.5. Publicity and academic releases

6.5.5. Domestic academic release
A large number of articles have been presented in Japan as well. Especially, theArchitectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) has so far delivered more than 100 articles at theirannual academic conference. The AIJ has also presented articles listed in the following
table.
Table 6.5.3: List of major articles presented in Japan (only in Japanese)
Title

260

Name of journal

Authors

Publication
date

Contents

November
2013

Details regarding a validation of
CASBEE for Cities
as an assessment
tool based ona questionnaire
surveyOctober2013

Details regarding
an assessment of
a disaster-affectedcity (Kobe City)
utilizing CASBEE
for Cities

October2013

Details regarding
the development of
CASBEE for Cities
combined with a
database and abasic GIS function

1

Validation ofcomprehensive
environmental
performanceassessment toolsof municipalities
based on a largescale questionnaire survey

2

Visualization of thedisaster recovery
AIJ Journal ofprocess based
Technology andon a time-series
Designassessment of city
environment

Shun KAWAKUBO,
Toshiharu IKAGA,
Shuzo MURAKAMI

3

Development ofan environmental performanceassessment tool
for local governments combinedwith a databaseand a basic GIS
function

Shun KAWAKKUBO,
Toshiharu IKAGA,
Shuzo MURAKAMI

4

Environmental
performanceassessments of
AIJ Journal of
local governments Environmental
across the country Engineeringby CASBEE for
CitiesShun KAWAKUBO,
Toshiharu IKAGA,
Shuzo MURAKAMI,
Yasushi ASAMI

January2013

Details regarding
assessment resultsof local governments across thecountry utilizing
CASBEE for Cities

5

Development of
CASBEE for Cities,
a comprehensive
environmental perAIJ Journal offormance assessTechnology andment tool for
Designcities – Principles
and a frameworkof an assessment
systemShuzo MURAKAMI,
Shun Kawakubo,
February
Yasushi Asami,
2011
Toshiharu Ikaga,
Nobuhaya Yamaguchi,
Shinichi Kaburagi

Overview of
CASBEE for Cities

6

Development ofa wind characteristics database
for CASBEE-HI,
an assessment
system concerning the reductionof the heat islandeffectShuzo Murakami,
Katashi Matsunawa,
Details regarding
Akashi Mochida,
December the wind characterYasushige Morikawa, 2007
istics database in
Hironori Hayashi,
CASBEE-HI
Masayuki Oguro

AIJ Journal ofEnvironmental
Engineering

AIJ Journal ofTechnology and
DesignAIJ Journal ofTechnology and
DesignShun KAWAKUBO,
Toshiharu IKAGA,
Shuzo MURAKAMI

TitleName of journal

Authors

Publication
date

Contents

Shuzo Murakami,
Nobuhaya Yamaguchi,
Yasushi Asami,
Overview ofToshiharu Ikaga,
June 2007 CASBEE for Urban
Shinichi Kaburagi,
Development
Akira Matsukuma,
Tomohiro Uchiike,
Takashi Hashimoto

8

Developmentof CASBEE-HI,
an assessment
system concerning reduction of
the heat islandeffect: Overview
and a frameworkof the assessment
system (for nonresidential buildings)

AIJ Journal ofTechnology and
DesignShuzo Murakami,
Katashi Matsunawa,
Akashi Mochida,
Hideharu Niwa,
Overview ofJune 2006
Ryuzo Ooka,
CASBEE-HI
Yasunobu Ashie,
Jun Tanimoto,Yasushige Morikawa,
Ryuji Yanagihara

9

Overview of
CASBEE for
Renovation tool:
Development of
AIJ Journal of
the comprehensive Technology andbuilt environment
Designperformanceassessment system (No. 4)

Masaaki Sato,
Shuzo Murakami,
Hiroaki Takai,
Overview ofToshiharu Ikaga,
June 2006 CASBEE for
Hisashi Hanzawa,
Renovation
Takashi Yanai,Junko Endo,
Nobufusa Yoshizawa

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

7

Overview of
CASBEE for Urban
Development tool:
Development of
AIJ Journal of
the comprehensive Technology andbuilt environment
Designperformanceassessment system (No. 5)

Overview of
CASBEE for local
governments:
Development of
AIJ Journal of
10 the comprehensive Technology andbuilt environment
Designperformanceassessment system (No. 3)

Junko Endo,
Shuzo Murakami,
June 2006
Toshiharu Ikaga,
Nobufusa Yoshizawa,
Masaaki Sato

Development of
the comprehensive
building environmental perforAIJ Journal ofmance assess11
Technology andment system
Design(No. 2): Overview
of CASBEE for
Existing Buildings
toolToshiharu Ikaga,
Shuzo Murakami,
Kazuo Iwamura,
Yuzo Sakamoto,Tomonari Yashiro,
Kazuaki Bogaki,
Masaaki Sato,
Junko Endo

Overview ofJune 2005 CASBEE for
Existing Buildings

Development of
the comprehensive
AIJ Journal of
built environment
12Technology andperformance
Designassessment
systemShuzo Murakami,
Kazuo Iwamura,
Yuzo Sakamoto,Tomonari Yashiro,
Kazuaki Bogaki,
Masaaki Sato,
Toshiharu Ikaga,
Junko Endo

Details regarding
December the framework
2004
and assessment
method of CASBEE

Details regarding
efforts introduced
in CASBEE for local
governments261

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE

6.6. Overseas collaborations

6.6.1. United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) FI PWG
In 2011, UNEP FI PWG published “An Investors Perspective on Environmental Metrics for
Property”.
Our activities behind launching a very simple version of CASBEE (“CASBEE-MP”)
were introduced in this publication.
Investors who are taking environmental issues into consideration will require such
concise systems.

Figure 6.6.1: UNEP FI PWGCASBEE-MP was also introduced in the UNEP Finance Initiative Newsletter.

Figure 6.6.2: UNEP FI Newsletter262

6.6.2. Korea

CASBEE-NC

CASBEE-EB

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEEThe Korean translations of 2008-edition assessment manuals for CASBEE for New
Construction, Existing Buildings, and Renovation were prepared and published by aresearch group of the research center for eco-friendly architecture led by Professor Shinof Hanyang University. JSBC Supported Korean insutiution to translate the complete
CASBEE manuals and to develop their own rating system.

CASBEE-RN

Figure 6.6.3: Korean translations of CASBEE for New Construction, Existing
Buildings, and Renovation (2008 edition)

6.6.3. China
The Chinese translation of CASBEE was published inJuly 2005 in response to cooperation in the development of the Green Olympic Buildings Assessment
System (GOBAS) by a group led by Professors Yi Jiang
and Yingxin Zhu of Tsinghua University, which wasapplied to the design, construction and operation of
Beijing Olympic facilities. The preamble for the Chinesetranslation by Chairman Shuzo Murakami appears at
the beginning of the Chinese manual.

Figure 6.6.4: Chinese translationof CASBEE (2003
edition)263

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.6. Overseas collaborations<Column-7>

The Chinese green building labeling system
and CASBEE
ZHU, Yingxin,
Professor, Tsinghua University, China

I am very pleased to learn that the 10th anniversary of Japan’s CASBEE (Comprehensive
Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency) has come. I believe the birthof CASBEE was not only a milestone in the history of green building in Japan, butalso a milestone for the development of green building worldwide. As one of theleading researchers in developing the Chinese green building rating system, I reallyappreciated the support the CASBEE committee brought to Chinese researchers inthis field.
In 2002, we were assigned a project sponsored by the Chinese Ministry of
Science and Technology (MOST) for developing the Green Olympic Building
Assessment System (GOBAS). It was one of the 10 key research projects sponsoredby MOST for the 2008 Olympics. The leader of the working group on this project
was Prof. Yi Jiang of Tsinghua University, a member of the Chinese Academy ofEngineering. The GOBAS group brought together over 40 researchers from 9 universities and research institutes, and I was one of the key researchers involved. On
the basis of our former research experience on green building rating systems, weestimated that the existing checklist system was not practical, and set out to findbetter examples and a more reasonable system configuration.
Fortunately, when I told my dear friend Prof. Nobuo Nakahara – an emeritus
professor at Nagoya University – about our questions, he introduced me to Prof.
Toshiharu Ikaga, a key researcher in the development of CASBEE. From thenonwards, the CASBEE committee lead by Prof. Shuzo Murakami provided us withstrong support, including sharing experience, attending joint seminars, providing
suggestions and research literature and prototypes of CASBEE at different stages.
We found the system configuration used in CASBEE was very reasonable and could
solve the main problems we had encountered, so finally adopted the scoring systemframework of CASBEE in GOBAS – 5-point scores and a hierarchical scoring system with weighting coefficients, as well as the 2-D chart for showing the relationshipbetween the quality of the internal environment and the load on the external environment. GOBAS was published in August 2003 and applied during the design andconstruction process of the Olympic buildings. I am sure that without the support of
the CASBEE committee, GOBAS could not have been completed in only one year
and two months.
After GOBAS, the framework used in GOBAS was used in some Chinese national
and local standards, such as the National Standard for Green Office Building
Evaluation (waiting for approval) and the Standard for Eco-housing Labeling by the
Chinese Environmental Protection Agency.

264

Picture C8.1: Chinese delegation visiting the
Housing Bureau, Ministry ofLand, Infrastructure, Transport
and Tourism, Tokyo, Japan,
October 2010

Picture C8.2: Japan-China joint workshop regarding
the actual CASBEE dissemination
at IBEC, Tokyo, Japan, October 2012

265

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEEIn October 2010, I joined a delegation organized by the Chinese Ministry of
Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MOHURD) to visit the Japanese Ministry ofLand, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) and the Japan Institute for
Building Environment and Energy Conservation. The purpose of this trip was tolearn how CASBEE was used in Japan for green building labeling, including thedevelopment of the rating system, related operation procedures, policies and regulations. We also visited Yokohama to learn how green building labeling could bepromoted in a city and visited some CASBEE-labeled projects as well. This trip wasextremely fruitful and instructive for the development of green building labeling systems in China.
Lastly, I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to the CASBEE committee andto my Japanese colleagues for their support and for our successful cooperation
over the years. I sincerely hope we can continue this collaboration in the future andopen it to the wider field of sustainable construction.◾

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.6. Overseas collaborations

GOBAS : China Green Olympic Building
Assessment System
Yingxin ZHU, Yi JIANG, Youguo QIN
Dept. of Building Science, School of Architecture, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Introduction‘Green Olympic’ is a promise made by the Beijing Olympic Organizing Committee tothe IOC (International Olympic Committee). Green building should be one of themost important tasks in ‘Green Olympic’. Furthermore, China has become the largest construction site in the world, and it is predicted that by 2015, more than half ofthe building floor area in China will have been built after 2000. Therefore, green
building development is significant to China’s sustainable development as well as toglobal environmental protection.
Although China has made great economic achievements in the past decade, it isstill a developing country. Development levels vary a lot in different areas. Even indeveloped areas, profit often is the only goal developers pursue. Even though ‘green
building’, ‘eco-building’, and ‘sustainable building’ have become buzz words andwell accepted by the public, some developers just use ‘green building’ as a fancy
logo on their products for generating bigger profit rather than a technique for global
environmental protection or commonweal. There is still considerable misunderstanding about ‘green building’ or ‘eco-building’ among the public. For example,
planting a large area of lawn or building a bio-circle pond is often considered as asymbol of green building and eco-building, although a lawn and the bio-circle pond
do contribute a little to the environment and energy saving.
Therefore, the urgent tasks for us are:
1. to clarify the concept of green building to the public
2. to issue an assessment system for green building
3. to teach the developers, designers, constructers and operators how to design,build and manage green buildings.
Before GOBAS (Green Olympic Building Assessment System), a Chinese Ecohousing Rating System (CERS)[1] was developed by Tsinghua University in cooperation with the Ministry of Construction and China Building Research Academy andissued in August 2001. The GOBAS project was launched from November 2002, andthe first version of GOBAS was published in August 2003[2]. This project was fundedby China’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MST) and 45 experts from 9 organizations were involved. Consigned by MST, Beijing Municipal Science andTechnology Commission (BMSTC) was the supervisor of the project, and Tsinghua
University took charge of the research. Beijing Municipal Construction Committee(BMCC) has issued official documents to adopt GOBAS as the Beijing local green
building standard. Supported by BMCC, Beijing Green Building Association isestablishing means to put GOBAS into practice.
During the development of GOBAS, Japan’s CASBEE (Comprehensive

266

Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency) Committee provided solid
support including experiences, suggestions, research literature, prototypes of
CASBEE in different stages, and joint seminars. The Natural Resource Defense
Council of the USA (NRDC) also offered suggestions and detailed data of their demobuilding—Administrative Center for China’s Agenda 21—for GOBAS’s case study.

Structure of GOBASGOBAS consists of four main parts: green building compendium, scoring system,
assessment items description, and assessment software.
The purpose of the Green Building Compendium is to show developers, designers, constructors, operators and owners what is involved in green building and whatshould be considered in green building design. Each item of the Green Building
Compendium includes purpose, requirements and measures. The method of
description in the Green Building Compendium is similar to US LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design)[4] but a score is absent. The scoring system
adopted the framework of CASBEE[3].
The purpose of the GOBAS project is to help or promote people to build green
buildings rather than awarding a label for existing buildings, because a mistake in anexisting building cannot be easily corrected after the construction is finished.
Therefore, assessment by stages is the best way according to the reality in China.
The assessment is divided into four stages in GOBAS: planning, detailed design,
construction and operation. In each stage, specific items should be assessed and a
specific type of data should be provided for assessment. For example, as to the
aspect of environment quality, in the planning stage, the original surrounding environmental quality of the building site and the impact of the project on the environment are assessed. In the detailed design stage, the consideration and measures
regarding the indoor/outdoor environment in the design document are assessed,
while in the operation stage, the measured environmental data are evaluated.
Construction stage assessment is especially important for the Olympic 2008
project, because a great number of buildings will be built in Beijing during the coming three to four years. The large area of construction sites in Beijing may have agreat impact on the urban environment including acoustics, discomfort glare atnight, dust and considerable energy/material/water consumption in the construction process.
Three types of buildings are considered in GOBAS according to the specialties of the
Olympic Park or Olympic buildings including gymnasiums, office buildings and residential buildings. The residential buildings consist of hotels and the athletes’ accommodation. The athletes’ accommodation will be used as apartment buildings after Olympic
2008. Both building clusters and single buildings can be evaluated by GOBAS.

267

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEEAs the follow-up project of GOBAS, MST sponsored another larger project:
Research on the pivotal technologies of green building. There are eight sub-projects
under this project. They are the green building assessment system (for different
types of buildings in different climate zones), building structure, building material,
fabrics and energy system, water resource and utilization, indoor environment quality, vegetation technology, and demonstration and research workshops. The new
project was launched in June 2004.

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.6. Overseas collaborations

Scoring and indexes of GOBAS rating
The scoring system adopts the framework of CASBEE – 5 scoring levels and a hierarchy scoring system with weighting coefficients. The assessment results are shownin the same way as CASBEE – a Quality-Load twin indexes chart. But different from
CASBEE, the zoning lines are not all from the origin (0, 0), see Figure C8.1. The reason is that classing in the area around the origin (0, 0) is considered too sensitive,
and higher class buildings should have increased environmental quality. Classes A,
B, C, D and E indicate the green class from high to low. A building with class D or E
cannot be considered as green.
5
A

4

B
C

3
Q

D

2
1
0

E
0

1

2

L

3

4

5

Figure C8.1: Quality-Load classing for a gym instage II: gym in detailed design stage

LR5: Water
resosuce
LR4: Material& resoures
LR3: Energy
Consumption

Q1: Outodore
Environ Quality
5
Q2: Indore
4
Phsical Enbiron.
3
2
1
Q3: IAQ
0
Q4: Service& function

LR2: Atmospherepollution

LR1: Influence toaround environ.

Figure C8.2 Radar chart for assessment resultsof a stage II

Figure C8.3 and Figure C8.4 show the hierarchy scoring system. Each Q (Quality) or
LR (Load Reduction, LR=5-L) item has its own layer number and specific weighting
coefficients for each layer.

268

Figure C8.4: The second scoring layer (a gym in stage II)

In each scoring hierarchy, an item of the building reaching the updated highest levelis scored at 5. The average score is 3. Score 1 is at the level of the basic mandatory
national code or standard. If there is an item that cannot meet the mandatory
national code or standard, the building is disqualified from being green.
Assessment indexes and items
In GOBAS, special assessment items and indexes have to be developed to meet therequirements of the current resource and environment situation of China. For example, wood and argillaceous bricks are not considered green material because they
consume exiguous resources in China.
Another example is in regard to the energy consumption assessment. Many
countries use primary energy consumption as the important index in energy evaluation. However, to heat 1 m3 of water from 20°C to 100°C and to heat 2 m3 water from
20°C to 60°C consume the same amounts of primary energy, but the former resultsin higher energy quality or energy than the latter. To provide 1 kWh of heat for spaceheating, burning coal and burning gas are very different because the energy provided by gas has higher quality than coal.
Energy composition in China is complicated. Coal accounts for more than 60%
of energy consumption and is the main resource for electricity generation. Besideconventional coal and electricity, more and more urban buildings are using gas toprovide heating and cooling. It is necessary to find a way to evaluate the total energy
efficiency of energy planning.
Hence, ECC (Energy Conversion Coefficient) is defined as an index for rating theefficiency of energy planning and energy plants:

269

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

Figure C8.3: Histogram presentation for the assessment result of a gym in stage II

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.6. Overseas collaborations

where
QC – the annual cooling demand of the building cluster or the single building, GJ;
QH – the annual heating demand of the building cluster or the single building, GJ;
E – the annual electric power output from the CCHP system, GJ;
WHVACi – the annual consumption of i-type energy for a HVAC system of the building site or single building, GJ; λC, λH, λE, λi – EQC (Energy Quality Coefficient) ofcooling demand, heating demand, electricity and i-type energy, dimensionless;
Table C8.1: EQC of different kinds of energy

EQC is crucial in describing the quality of different kinds of energy. λE of electricity
is defined as 1.0, and then EQC of other types of energy are decided according to
how difficult it is for them to be converted into electricity under the current technology level. Based on energy analysis, EQC of different kinds of energy are listed inTable C8.1.
From the point of view of energy analysis, some other energy utilization assessment indexes are derived, such as TDC (Transportation & Distribution Coe.), CEP(Callback Energy Proportion) and RERP (Renewable Energy Replacing Proportion).
Application and further development
GOBAS has been applied to about 10 projects including a gym, dining hall, officebuildings and residential buildings. During case studies, the scoring system andweighting coefficients are examined and adjusted. A low energy demonstrationbuilding – Tsinghua Green Building Research Center – and the Cubic Water, theNational Diving Hall, were designed under the guidance of GOBAS.
In the new MST project, a green building assessment system for different kindsof buildings in different climate zones will be developed based on GOBAS. There are
more important factors that should be studied for their peculiarities. For example,
water resources are critical in the northwest but there is plenty in the south. The new
green building assessment system is expected to play an important role in the sustainable development of both China and the world.◾

270

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Japan’s CASBEE committee, USGBC (US Green Building Council) and NRDC
for providing great support in the development of GOBAS.

References[1] Chinese Eco-housing Rating System, China Architecture & Building Publishing House,
Aug. 2001[2] Green Olympic Building Assessment System, China Architecture & Building Publishing
House, Aug. 2003
[3] Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE), Institutefor Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC), Japan, July 2003
[4] LEED, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, Rating System Version 2(LEEDTM2.0), US Green Building Council, June 2000

271

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.6. Overseas collaborations

6.6.4. Malaysia
Many cities around the world have gradually implemented monitoring of the city environment utilizing CASBEE for Cities. This chapter will introduce the outcome of a case study
conducted in Putrajaya, the new capital of Malaysia, as a pilot project for urban environmental monitoring.
6.6.4.1. Introduction
Recently, urban development has been rapidly carried out in Southeast Asia. The development raises concerns about increased environmental load and CO2 emissions associated with improved quality of life. We need to consider effective measures for achieving
the decoupling of the correlation between the economic growth/the improvement of quality of life, and the increase in environmental load. In this situation, the understanding of
the city’s conditions utilizing CASBEE for Cities, a comprehensive assessment tool for
urban environmental performance, may contribute to the sustainable growth of individual
cities. It is important to estimate the effect of various measures currently under review, by
clarifying existing issues of individual cities, utilizing CASBEE for Cities.
The assessment standard for CASBEE is originally based on the assumptions behind
the Japanese city environment. However, the method in which a comprehensive assessment is conducted in terms of the environmental load and environmental quality, and themethod for disclosing assessment results, are not necessarily limited to Japan. Rather,
they are sufficiently applicable to cities all over the world. Additionally, the assessment
standard is also established on the assumption that it may be tailored to fit the various
situations of Japanese local governments. Therefore, it is possible to create an independent version for a specific country by modifying the assessment items and standards inorder to utilize CASBEE overseas.
In order to achieve both economic growth and reduced environmental load, which are
likely to be inconsistent with each other in general, we have a long history of joint discussion on the practical measures between the National Institute for Environmental Studies
in Japan and related research institutions in Malaysia. During such discussion, somepeople suggested the possible beneficial effect of utilizing CASBEE, which had beendeveloped in Japan for the environmental management of buildings, urban areas and cities, with a slight modification in accordance with Malaysian culture and customs. This is
how mutual research cooperation between the Japanese and Malaysian governments
has been promoted.
The area in which the Malaysian government mainly focuses on development is the
Iskandar Malaysia District located near Singapore. The government has rapidly constructed infrastructure while attracting foreign investment. However, due to the increased
population, there has been growing concern about the drastic increase in environmental
load. Currently, Malaysia is internally discussing practical measures relating to urban
environmental management. (Ismail Ibrahim 2012) (Boyd Dionysius Joeman 2012) Though
there are multiple measures proposed for various regional comprehensive development
plans, environmental management utilizing CASBEE for Cities holds a prominent position
among them (Iskandar Malaysia 2012). In addition to CASBEE for Cities, the expanded
use of CASBEE construction series for building assessments is currently under consideration. Putrajaya, the new capital of Malaysia, has also conducted urban environmental
management utilizing CASBEE for Cities. (Putrajaya 2012) Thus, the utilization of CASBEE
is gradually expanding in Malaysia.

272

6.6.4.2. Designated area
As shown in Figure 6.6.6, Putrajaya is located in the suburbs of Kuala Lumpur. A largescale relocation of individual public administration functions from Kuala Lumpur, the oldcapital, has been planned and carried out. Putrajaya Corporation, engaged in town development, has already relocated the prime minister’s office, the official residence and mostof the federal offices. It started construction of the new capital in 1995, and the relocationof the capital has already been almost completed. The National Institute of Environmental
Studies in Japan has been holding advanced discussions regarding measures for low
carbonization as part of the feasibility study that aims at sustainable development andgrowth by 2025. Putrajaya is expected to become a successful example of sustainable
development.

Research designated area :Putrajaya (Malaysia)

Overview•Total area 49.31 km2•Population 79,400 people (Population density 1,610 km2/Person)•A city in which Malaysia’s capital functions are relocated•Located about 25 kilometers south of Kuala Lumpur

Figure 6.6.6: Overview and location of Putrajaya, Malaysia

273

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

Figure 6.6.5: Future plan for Iskandar Malaysia (Left) and for
Putrajaya (Right)

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.6. Overseas collaborations

Picture 6.6.1: Scenery in Putrajaya, Malaysia

6.6.4.3. Study overview
Data required for the assessment by CASBEE for Cities were mostly obtained from the
National Institute of Environmental Studies in Japan and the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
which have conducted advanced field investigations. Other information, which could not
be obtained from the field work, was acquired through interviews with officers from
Putrajaya Corporation in charge of public administration. We had to customize the assessment procedure in some respects in view of the local situation. For example, we needed
to determine the representative water source we chose to obtain data regarding water
quality. Initially, there were several issues relating to the definition and details of an index
such as how we should adjust prices of the gross regional product (GRP) adopted as an
economic activity index. Secondly, we also had to deal with fundamental issues including
whether we could simply compare the levels of a Japanese city and a Malaysian city,which could be quite different depending on the assessment items. Finally, we decided touse one accurately united definition as much as possible to address the initial issues. The
second issues still need to be discussed. However, for the time being, we decided tocompare the two cities at their current levels.
6.6.4.4. Conclusion
The urban environmental assessment of Putrajaya was conducted after various data
regarding the city was processed in terms of the population and the floor space, and wasentered into CASBEE for Cities. The assessment result is shown in Figure 6.6.7. Populationof Putrajaya is expected to keep increasing until 2025. In order to address such demographic trend, the city is planning development of various infrastructures. Therefore, thetotal Q score in 2025 will generally remain at the same level as of 2011. However, as shownin Figure 6.6.8, if we look at scores of individual Q items, the residence standard level,
disaster preparedness, educational services and childcare services are expected toslightly decrease in terms of the quality if no modifications are made to the current plan,
which may possibly need some revisions as necessary. The environmental load L is
expected to decrease due to a significant drop in CO2 emission per capita, in terms of thecivilian sector business, transport sector, and other waste treatment. The future scoresindicate that the establishment of an eco-friendly city is very likely to be achieved by thesteady implementation of the plan. (Ikaga 2013) (Takigami 2013)
As described above, the concept of CASBEE for Cities and its assessment framework
are applicable not only to Japanese cities but also cities in other countries having different
situations, through a slight modification to the original settings, which indicates possible
universal utilization all around the world. Currently, in view of findings from case studies274conducted in multiple countries, and taking into consideration the difference in climate
and culture in individual countries, a plan focusing on the enhancement of the concept of
CASBEE for Cities and its assessment framework is being developed. A system for supporting the establishment of the identities of individual cities has been gradually developed, which enables an accurate comparison between urban environments in the respective countries from a practical viewpoint.

Good

BEE

100

3.0

S

1.5

1.0
B+

A

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

Environmental quality (Q)Sustainable

B50

0.5

2011
Q:48.5
L:51.62025
Q:47.9
L:19.4Bad

Unsustainable
C

0
0

50

100

Good

Environmental load (L)Bad

Figure 6.6.7: Assessment result of Putrajaya by
CASBEE for Cities

Good

Year 2011

5 points: Japan’s highest score
3 points: Japan’s average score
1 point: Japan’s lowest score

Year 2025
SocialaspectEconomic
aspectSupport for limited CO2 emissions in other areas

Local bond balance

Local tax revenue

Equivalent of GRP per capita

Social population trends

Natural population trends

Childcare service level

Elderly care service level

Medical service level

Cultural service level

Disaster preparedness

Educational service level

Crime prevention

Transport safety

Residence standard level

Measures concerning carbon sink by forests

Recycling ratio of general waste

Water quality

Natural land ratio

Atmosphere quality

Bad

Score

Environmenta
aspectFigure 6.6.8: Assessment result of Putrajaya by CASBEE for Cities (Result of Q)

275

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.6. Overseas collaborations

Year 2007

Year 2025
Japan’s average= 10[t-CO2/Person]（L＝50 points）

9.9

8

10.3

10

0.3

1.1

2.3
Waste treatment and other sectors

Transport sector

2.8

4.8
Civilian business sector

2.4

0.4
0.4
Private household sector

Industrial sector 0
0

0

4.1

2

Total emission*

4

4.2

6

Total emission

CO2 emissions per
capita [t-CO2/Person]

12

Figure 6.6.9: Assessment result of Putrajaya by CASBEE for Cities (Result of L)

References[1] Boyd Dionysius Joeman (2012) A green-focused agenda for green growth: towards a sustainable
Iskandar Malaysia, Presentation material for world cities summit 2012 Singapore (available at:
http://worldcitiessummit.com. sg/sites/sites2.globalsignin.com.2.wcs-2014/files/Boyd_Dionysius_
Joeman.pdf) (Last access: 30th July, 2013)[2] Iskandar Malaysia (2012) Low Carbon Society Blueprint, Summary for Policy Makers, Iskandar
Malaysia official brochure (available at: http://2050.nies.go.jp/cop/cop18/SPM_LCS%20
Blueprint_Iskandar%20Malaysia.pdf) (Last access: 30th July, 2013)[3] Ismail Ibrahim (2012) Launching of low carbon society blueprint for Iskandar Malaysia, Presentationmaterial for COP18 side event (available at: http://2050.nies.go.jp/cop/cop18/ismail.pdf) (Last
access: 30th July, 2013)[4] Putrajaya (2012) Putrajaya Green City 2025, Baseline and Preliminary Study, Revised Edition,
Putrajaya city official brochure (available at: http://2050.nies.go.jp/report/file/lcs_asialocal/
Putrajaya_2012.pdf) (Last access: 30th July, 2013)[5] Ikaga, T. (2012) Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE)in Japan, Development of Comprehensive City Assessment Tool: CASBEE-City, Presentationmaterial for World Planning Day (available at: http://issuu.com/anwar_townplan/docs/000000
4705-presentation_1_for_the_wtp_day_seminar_) (Last access: 30th July, 2013)[6] Takigami, M., Ikaga, T., Fujino, J., Murakami, S., Kawakubo, S., Ushiro, T. (2013) Comprehensive
Assessment of Built Environment Efficiency on a City in Malaysia at Present and in the Future,
Proceeding of The AIJ Annual Convention 2013, Japan, pp. 739-740

276

<Column-8>

CASBEE-City in Putrajaya, Malaysia

Future perspective of implementing CASBEE in Malaysia
HO Chin Siong,Introduction
Most governments in the world have recognized the need to establish and implement national sustainable development programs that require high participatory
instruments intended to ensure environmentally, socially and economically responsible development.
Malaysia has experienced rapid growth in urbanisation. At the national level, thepopulation of Malaysia increased from 18 million in 1990 to 27.6 million in 2010.
Based on the Department of Statistics (DoS), the population of Malaysia is expected
to increase to about 34 million by 2020. The urban population in Peninsular Malaysia
reached 67% of the total population, and this is expected to grow to 75% by 2020.
(Census Data 2010 & 2011 RFN). The above data show that more people prefer tolive in urban areas. Thus, cities, sustainability and low carbon societies are inseparably linked. The high rate of urbanisation in Malaysia implies that cities are also
centers where most urban infrastructures are built to cater to the needs of housing,commerce, industries, recreation and other services.
Malaysian Government’s commitment
Malaysia’s commitment to international environmental standards is currently being
observed and implemented via its green initiatives and programs. A number of steps
have been undertaken by the government to integrate the principles of sustainable
and low carbon development into the country’s policies and programs to reverse theloss of environmental resources. The Malaysian government made a pledge at the
15th Conference of Parties – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(COP15) to voluntary reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 40% per GDP by 2020
as compared to the 2005 level. Malaysia took serious steps to promote green technology and climate change initiatives by unveiling the National Green Technology
Policy (NGTP) in 2009. This was the turning point in the country’s history of initiatives on sustainable growth and development. At present there are various documents encouraging green development in Malaysia. They are: National GreenTechnology Policy, National Policy on Climate Change, Low Carbon Cities andAssessment Framework, Green Neighbourhood Planning Guidelines, Green
Building Index, Green Building Index Township Tool and Low Carbon Society
Scenarios. Each of these look at different elements, strategies and spatial context
of the built environment.
In line with NGTP (2009), the Low Carbon Cities Framework was initiated to provide a framework to achieve sustainable development that would subsequently
reduce carbon emissions. This framework can be used by all stakeholders in settlements either new or old, to measure the impact of their development decisions in277

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

Professor, Faculty of Built Environment, UTM, Malaysia

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE

terms of carbon emissions and abatement.
Why are assessment tools important in Malaysia?
After the announcement by the Malaysian Prime Minister on carbon dioxide emissions reduction of 40% by the year 2020 (based on the year 2005), many agencies
adopt or use calculators or assessment tools to provide baseline studies of buildings, cities and regional levels. Some tools are purely used to calculate carbon footprints or CO2 in weight, whereas others rate from 1 star to 5 stars or by simple certification by class category (e.g., Gold or Platinum class). Stakeholders utilize themfor the sake of safeguarding the environment and due to incentives provided by thegovernment in terms of tax breaks or for a good marketing image. Comprehensive
Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) is a tool that evaluates and rates buildings in terms of their environmental performance. It is useful inlarge-scale projects and can be used together with building-scale CASBEE tools tocontribute to the promotion of sustainable urban development and city planning.
Benefits and strengths of CASBEE application in Malaysia
At the crossroads of the implementation of assessment tools, there are many pros
and cons for each rating and assessment system. Among the key benefits of
CASBEE are:a) Flexibility at all levels of development because the CASBEE family ranges
from building, housing, urban and city scalesb) It can be customized to local or Malaysian conditionsc) It is a free domain and costs less than other systemsd) It uses Global Benchmarking and methodologies using ratios instead of simple summation of marks based on given indicators.
e) It can assess various measures to be implemented by local authoritiesf) It can revitalize local authorities by identifying problems and finding solutions
for sustainable city development.
With the above advantages, the introduction of CASBEE promotes easier implementation due to lower cost and easier computation. In addition, with wider application, it contributes towards decreased energy consumption and hence lower carbon
emissions and higher sustainability.
How can CASBEE work and be used in Malaysia?
CASBEE Development and CASBEE City may incorporate LCCF criteria so that it
fulfils the objectives of green city development as envisaged by governments. Thisrequires a close working relationship with the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology
and Water (or ‘KeTTHA’, which is its abbreviation in Malaysian) and other related
ministries. At CASBEE City level, it may be incorporated as part of the criteria of
MURNINET in terms of CO2 emissions reduction. Alternatively, it can function independently as an independent tool for local authorities in Malaysia for benchmarking
their sustainability, as is done for all local authorities in Japan.
Future challenges
Based on several empirical cases in Malaysia, such as in Putrajaya and some of the

278

279

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

local authorities in Iskandar Malaysia, there are several challenges to implementing
CASBEE in Malaysia.
It is easier to implement CASBEE Building because the common criteria are thesame. This can be easily done by starting with state and federal government buildings in Iskandar Malaysia. CASBEE Building can also be promoted by involving private companies, especially local and Japanese companies, to start the accreditation of green buildings in Iskandar Malaysia.
The initiative of Green Building and implementing CASBEE Building is an excellent start by providing property developers with clear guidelines for achieving environmentally friendly neighborhoods and buildings. IRDA will need to have a clear
direction, policy and added incentives in order to monitor closely and effectively
green building implementation in Iskandar Malaysia.
Being a premier growth corridor in the country, it is appropriate that Iskandar
Malaysia is a test bed and pioneer leading the way in contributing to Malaysia’spledge to reduce its carbon emissions by 40% by 2020 as compared to 2005 levels.◾

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE

6.7. CASBEE evaluation of vernacular houses

6.7.1. Vernacular houses evaluated from a sustainability viewpoint
People living in the 21st century are given a postmaterialism challenge, namely the pursuitof a sustainable society with reduced environmental load. Under such circumstances, thehigh environmental symbiotic performance of vernacular houses, which is the basis ofsustainable buildings, attracts a great deal of interest. Behind this, we should note there
is a sustainability crisis in various lifestyles on the Earth. Vernacular houses here mean
traditional buildings designed in accordance with the local climate and culture, and constructed with local materials.
The special significance of vernacular architecture in the global environmental era is
its high environmental efficiency. That is, in other words, the high-quality living environment secured only by passive design without using any mechanical energy, which also
drastically reduces the environmental load on the Earth through utilization of local materials. Such advantages of vernacular architecture are something that’s forgotten in modern
architecture, which is actually the basis of sustainable buildings, providing a lot for us tolearn in the environmental design of the 21st century.
However, the level of environmental efficiency of vernacular architecture should beindicated quantitatively. We utilized the building environmental performance assessment
tool CASBEE for a quantitative performance evaluation. Environmental efficiency as
defined by CASBEE is (Environmental quality achieved) / (Environmental load produced
thereby), consistent with the ideas of Factor 10 and Factor 4. The incredible level of environmental efficiency of the vernacular architecture visualized by CASBEE actually exposes
defects in the environmental efficiency of modern architecture, offering numerous suggestions in terms of the course of modern building design in the future.

6.7.2. Vernacular houses around the world
Some of the world’s typical vernacular houses are shown in Figure 6.7.1. All of them areembodiments of individual ethnic identities reflecting the local climate and culture in theform of housing.
For example, igloos are houses made of just snow and ice, used for hunting in winterby Inuits who live in Northern Canada, a very cold region. The fact that the indoor environment of igloos is actually quite comfortable, contrary to most expectations, has been
revealed by researchers who stayed in igloos, which is also confirmed by a reproductionof the indoor environment by computer simulations.
There are several types of cave dwelling in the world; however, the most famous one
is in the Cappadocia region in Turkey. Some of them are still used today. Cave dwelling is
a form of architecture utilizing local materials in places where ordinary frame materials
such as wood are less commonly available.
Stilt houses in Indonesia are designed to deal with the hot and humid climate. Walls
and floors made of wood or bamboo provide sufficient openings, focusing strongly on
ventilation and cooling.

280

Dry region
Houses with windcatchers (Iran)Dry region
Houses with windcatchers (UAE)

Hot and humid
regionWater houses(Malaysia)

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

Dry region
Cave dwelling(Turkey)Dry region
Kasbah (Morocco)

Dry region
Compound(Cameroon)

Hot and humid region
Stilt houses (Indonesia)

Cold region
Hot and humid region
Stilt houses (Indonesia) Igloos(Northern Canada)

Figure 6.7.1: Vernacular houses around the world

The vernacular houses shown in Figure 6.7.1 have all reached new heights in ultimate
wisdom in terms of the so-called passive technology in environmental control. Every vernacular house represents the concentration of passive technologies at the time, aiming at
safety, hygiene, health, comfort, and the like, utilizing a limited range of technical methods, when there was no modern technology. This is why those vernacular houses excite
the interest of people living in the modern world.
While highly evaluating the excellent passive technologies and the sustainable performance of vernacular architecture, we also often hear praise for the physical environmentof vernacular architecture with no scientific grounding. Even if we used every means ofpassive technology, there are limitations to the level of indoor environment which could beachieved within the limited range of technical methods. In terms of the environmental
assessment of vernacular architecture, it is important to make informed considerations inthis respect. The next section will evaluate vernacular housing and modern housing utilizing CASBEE, a widely used assessment tool for building environmental performance, inorder to clarify the significance of vernacular housing in modern society.

281

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.7. CASBEE evaluation of vernacular houses

Figure 6.7.2 Quantitative mesurement of indoor thermal environment282

6.7.3. Performance assessment of vernacular houses based on assessment
tool CASBEE
The assessment tool CASBEE focuses on the evaluation of 2 aspects: the reduction ofenvironmental load (L) and the improvement of environmental quality (Q). The L and Q
define the Built Environment Efficiency (BEE) as Q/L. The larger value indicates the higher
level of environmental performance. Figure 6.7.3 shows results of the performanceassessment of multiple vernacular houses based on the environmental performance BEE.

BEE-30

S

15

A

10

❶ Houses with wind catchers (Iran)❷ Stilt houses (Indonesia)

B+❸ Stilt houses (Indonesia)❹ Houses with wind catchers (UAE)❺ Kasbah (Morocco)

B0.5

50

❻ Compound (Cameroon)

6. Utilization and Disseminationof CASBEE

Q (Environmental quality)100❼ Igloo (Northern Canada)❽ Water houses (Malaysia)❾ Cave dwelling (Turkey)❿ Modern housing complex (Vietnam)
Modern housing (Morocco)

C
0

0

50
L (Environmental load)

Modern housing (Turkey)

100❶~❿: Vernacular housing~: Modern housing

Figure 6.7.3: Performance assessment of vernacular housing by CASBEE

Vernacular houses indicated with • all achieved excellent ratings, receiving 4 stars.
Modern houses indicated with ▵ in this case example were rated as Rank B- (2 stars).
When focusing on the 2 aspects, namely, the reduction of environmental load and theimprovement of housing performance, vernacular architecture is not necessarily inferior
to modern housing in environmental efficiency. On the contrary, they are actually muchbetter than modern houses in many cases. It was a surprising outcome that CASBEE, atool originally developed for the assessment of modern architecture, revealed the highenvironmental efficiency of vernacular architecture. Just to be clear, please note the following 2 points. Firstly, in terms of Q, the level of vernacular architecture is lower thanmodern housing, which is far from adequate from the viewpoint of living environment
standards. Secondly, there are many modern Japanese houses rated as Rank S, whichindicates that modern housing is not always inferior to vernacular architecture in terms ofenvironmental efficiency.

6.7.4. From mass-consumption housing to post-materialism housing
An overview of the changing performance of various housing types from the viewpoint ofsustainability promotion is shown in Figure 6.7.4.
(1) represents the vernacular housing described above in which the level of environmental
quality Q is not very high; however, the environmental load L is quite low, resulting in Rank
A with 4 stars in the environmental efficiency BEE, a very good rating. Japanese traditional buildings including thatched houses also have the same level of environmental performance.

283

6. Utilization and Dissemination of CASBEE / 6.7. CASBEE evaluation of vernacular houses(2) represents mass-consumption-style housing. Postwar Japan worked very hard on
house building, utilizing new technologies learnt from American-style mass-consumption. Houses in this style have achieved slightly improved environmental quality; however,
the increase in the environmental load exceeded the amount of overall improvement. As
a result, these houses received only 2 stars, down by 2 ranks.
Based on the lessons above, Japan has also strived for the promotion of eco-friendly
housing indicated as (3) since the end of the 20th century. Consequently, recent Japanesehouses have gradually achieved improved environmental quality and reduced environmental load. Their environmental efficiency level has become equivalent to the vernacularhousing.
The postmaterialism housing indicated as (4) is an ideal form of future housing. In
order to allow both human society and the Earth to remain sustainable, it is necessary toachieve this level in housing environmental performance. The heavily slanted line at theupper left of Figure 6.7.4 indicates Factor 4 proposed by Weizsäcker of Germany. The
future post-materialism housing should sufficiently exceed Factor 4.

Factor 4

Figure 6.7.4: Promoting sustainable architecture based on theprinciple of built environment efficiency

The assessment introduced here demonstrates both the outstanding environmental performance of vernacular architecture from multiple perspectives and the effectiveness of
CASBEE as an environmental performance visualization tool. Looking ahead, we feelthere is a need to guide the construction market towards sustainability through concrete
initiatives and proposals for applying such knowledge of the merits of vernacular housing
to modern architecture.

284

Appendix

A-1. Glossary
A-2. Organizational Structure
A-3. Members of the CASBEE Boards and Committees since 2001

A decade of Development and Applicationof an Environmental Assessment System
for the Built Environment

Appendix

A-1. Glossary
BEE
BEE stands for Built Environment Efficiency, which is calculated as the ratio between theassessment result of Q (Built Environment Quality) and that of L (Built Environment Load).
In CASBEE, the Q value and the L value are obtained according to SQ, the total score of
the Q category, and SLR, the total score of the LR category, respectively. The numerator
Q is defined as Q=25×(SQ—1), in order to convert SQ, the score for the built environment
quality, ranging from 1 to 5, into the Q scale, which is a value from 0 to 100. On the other
hand, the denominator L is defined as L—25×(5—SLR), in order to convert SLR, the score
for the reduction of environmental load, ranging from 1 to 5, into the scale of the environmental load L, which is a value from 0 to 100. Consequently, the efficiency of environmental performance BEE is obtained by a formula expressed as BEE=Q—L.
BEPAC
BEPAC stands for Building Environment Performance Assessment Criteria, which is anassessment method for the building environmental performance, developed by a groupof researchers led by Professor Raymond J. Cole from the University of British Columbia
in Canada. Approximately 30 criteria are organized into 5 major environmental topics(ozone layer protection, energy use, indoor environment, resource saving, and location/transport), which are evaluated comprehensively.
BREEAMBREEAM stands for the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method, which is a building environmental performance assessment system announced
by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in the United Kingdom in 1990.
CASBEE accredited professional system
Though CASBEE is based on quantitative assessments as much as possible, it also
includes qualitative assessment items. Therefore, in order to conduct CASBEE assessments, professional knowledge and skills concerning the comprehensive building environmental performance assessment are required. Consequently, we cultivate “CASBEE
accredited professionals” who are professional engineers in CASBEE assessments, forthe purpose of facilitating proper CASBEE assessments and operation. Those who wish
to become a CASBEE accredited prefessional should take the Assessor Training Course,
pass the Assessor Examination, and go through the registration procedure.
Capitalization rate
Also known as “cap rate.” A rate used when producing a property price from the net profit
for a certain period of time (usually for one year). The rate includes the fluctuation estimateof factors having an impact on future earnings, and uncertainties (risks) accompanying
the estimate.
Coefficient of Energy Consumption (CEC)
An assessment index for efficient energy use specified in the Energy Conservation Law(the Act on the Rational Use of Energy) in terms of individual facility systems such as airconditioning (AC), ventilation (V), lighting (L), hot water supply (HW) and elevators (EV).
CEC is “a value obtained by dividing the annual energy consumption by either the hypo286

thetical annual load of the standard building or its hypothetical annual energy consumption” regarding respective facilities.
Comprehensive Design System
A system in which a specific administrative agency eases restrictions on the floor area
ratio, road oblique line, adjacent land oblique line and absolute height, in terms of building
plans for sites exceeding a certain size and having a certain percent thereof as an open
space, in accordance with the provisions of Part 2, Article 59 of the Building Standards
Law, for the purpose of creating sound urban areas.
Construction Waste Recycling Law
The official name is the Law on Recycling Construction-Related Materials, which wasenacted in 2000, in order to promote recycling in the construction industry, and to encourage the effective use of resources and proper waste disposal through the sufficient use ofrenewable resources and waste reduction. The Law requires building contractors todemolish and segregate waste and the recycling of such waste. It also specifies a measure in which contractees are required to notify the respective local governments of theirplans regarding the demolition and segregation work.

Energy-saving standard for buildings
A standard that was announced in 1980 based on the Law Concerning Rational Use ofEnergy, which specifies criteria for efforts to be made by building owners. The Standard
consists of 2 criteria, one applicable to residential buildings and the other to non-residential buildings. For non-residential buildings, a criterion concerning the Perimeter Annual
Load (PAL) and the annual primary energy consumption of the entire building has been
established. The Standard requires notifying the public administration of energy-saving
measures for a target building that has a total floor space exceeding 300m2.
Environmental Action Plan of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport andTourism (MLIT)
The Plan published in June 2004 indicates measures for “Green administration of land,
infrastructure, transport and tourism” as part of the environmental policies of the MLIT.
The Plan outlines six reform projects: (1) Introduction of life cycle management in theestablishment of social capital, (2) Shift to new forms of transport with less environmentalload, (3) Development of a market highly sensitive to the environment, (4) Formation ofsustainable national land, (5) Establishment of a recycling-oriented society, and (6)Promotion measures that help achieve the goals.
Environmental assessment
An environmental impact assessment that estimates and evaluates the influence of development activities including the construction of new facilities and buildings on the overall
287

Appendix

Direct reduction process
A method for calculating a property price by dividing the net profit for a certain period oftime (usually for one year) by the capitalization rate. The fluctuation risk of the net profit
needs to be taken into account in the capitalization rate. Accordingly, in terms of a property in which a fixed amount of net profit is expected, when the fluctuation risk is high(low), a high (low) capitalization rate is set, providing a low (high) property price.

Appendix / A-1. Glossary

environment. The assessment covers air quality, water pollution, noise and scenery.
Environmental efficiency
Environmental efficiency is a concept for pursuing efficiency through both environmental
and economic aspects. The concept is based on the idea that making the best use ofresources and energy minimizes the environmental impact and maximizes the production
value. Environmental efficiency is expressed as the environmental load per unit of economic activities (GDP, values of products and services, etc.), or the economic activity perunit of environmental load.
ESCO business
ESCO stands for Energy Service Company, a form of business in which organizations andcompanies having specialized expertise in energy conservation make proposals onenergy-saving measures to their clients, carry them out, and evaluate the results in orderto achieve energy conservation and reduced energy consumption. The ESCO businessprovides a comprehensive service based on energy-saving diagnosis, including proposals on operation improvement and a renovation plan, the actual construction, the operation and management after construction, and a guarantee on the energy-saving effectafter renovation.
Factor Four (4)Factor 4 was first proposed in the First Global Revolution (1992), a report prepared by theClub of Rome, established in 1970. Factor 4 is based on the concept that, in order to solve
the existing issues in developing countries, it is necessary to double the world’s current
level of affluence as well as to promote environmental measures. The concept calls for the
public to “double the affluence while placing half the load on the environment,” thus,increasing environmental efficiency by four times.
Guideline for planning green government buildings
Government buildings focusing on reduced environmental load through the entire life
cycle are called green government buildings, which are positioned as model facilities interms of the reduction of environmental load in the field of architecture. The guideline
specifies items to be considered from five viewpoints: consideration of the surrounding
environment upon planning and designing government facilities, energy saving andresource saving during the operation phase, long life, use of eco-materials, and proper
use/treatment.
ISO14001
ISO14001 is an international standard related to environmental management for organizations. An organization utilizes the environmental management system they selected inorder to reduce environmental impact and risks caused by their business activities, products and services, and to examine whether they can continuously improve their actions,thus preventing adverse effects.
Japanese Housing Performance Indication Standard
Standard contents to be disclosed specified by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism, as a common rule for performance indicators in the Japan Housing
Performance Indication System.
288

Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) was adopted at the third session of the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC(COP 3) held in Kyoto in December 1997. The Protocol sets numerical targets for all thedeveloped party countries to cut emissions of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, to more than 5% below 1990 levels between 2008 and2012 (6% cut for Japan). The Protocol introduced new mechanisms including emissions
trading among developed party countries, and new projects regarding emission reductions between developed countries and developing countries. Japan signed the Protocol
in April 1998, the following year.
LCA (Life Cycle Assessment)
LCA is a method for evaluating a product in terms of its environmental impact (environmental load) and costs through its entire life cycle (from manufacturing, use, renovation todisposal). Major LCA indexes include LCCO2 (Life Cycle CO2), LCE (Life Cycle Energy) andLCC (Life Cycle Cost).
LEEDLEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, which is an environmental performance assessment system developed by the U.S. Green Building Council(USGBC). The first edition was published in 1998. The assessment consists of a selfassessment by a trained expert and an examination of the assessment result by a third
party. A building is rated on a scale of 1 to 4 based on the result thereof.

Net profit
A profit attributed to a business transaction relating to real estate, after deducting all
costs incurred for maintenance, utilities, taxes and dues, damage insurance and the like,from gross receipts such as rent.
Passive design
A design method in which the indoor temperature control that includes cooling/heating
and daylighting is attempted without being over-dependent on equipment, and instead,makes the best of natural energy including solar heat, wind, temperature changes, geothermal heat and natural lighting, through an effective building plan.
Perimeter Annual Load (PAL)The Perimeter Annual Load (PAL) is an energy-saving index for buildings specified in the
Energy Conservation Law. A value obtained by dividing the sum of annual heating andcooling load (the processing heat required for air-conditioning) within the perimeter zonesuch as the top floor and the upper floor of buildings, by the total floor space of the perimeter zone, indicated as [MJ/(m2 · Year)]. The PAL also includes the heat insulation and sunshading performance of the building’s outer envelope (walls and windows). An announcement according to the Energy Conservation Law specifies the calculation method and the289

Appendix

Life Cycle CO2 (LCCO2)
LCCO2 is the sum of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions at every stage of the life cycle of abuilding, such as construction, operation, renovation and demolition. LCCO2 is recognized as one of the indexes that indicate the total environmental load of the building.

Appendix / A-1. Glossary

upper limit by purpose of the building (criteria of judgment for the building owners).
Primary energy consumption
An index for evaluating the energy consumption of electricity (kW), gas (kg), oil (liter), anddistrict heat supply (MJ), from the viewpoint of a drain on resources, by converting into
common crude oil heat consumption (MJ). The coefficient for converting energy consumption into primary energy consumption is defined in the Energy Conservation Law.
For example, the conversion coefficient of electricity is 9.76(MJ/kWh), taking into accountthe power generation efficiency and transmission efficiency. As for town gas, the latest
figure should be confirmed with gas companies as it varies depending on ingredients.
Q and LRCASBEE establishes a framework for a comprehensive assessment of building environmental performance, based on two factors pertaining to the inside and outside of a virtual
enclosed space boundary: taking into account the off-site environmental load and theimprovement of on-site amenities. The assessment field of the first factor is called Q(Quality: Built environment quality), and that of the second factor is LR (Load Reduction:
Reduction of environmental load).
Sick house
A residential building that has several factors causing the so-called sick house syndrome.
The sick house syndrome is not just a single form of medically established disease, but aterm representing various types of health disorders stemming from the housing environment. Major factors causing illness include chemical substances such as formaldehyde,
as well as molds and mites.
Standard New Effective Temperature (SET*)
Standard New Effective Temperature (SET*) is an index that expresses thermal environment properties using a thermal model based on a physiological and physical relationshipbetween human beings and the thermal environment. SET stands for Standard Effective
Temperature, proposed by Gagge, Stolwijk and Nishi in 1971. The SET is calculated basedon multiple factors, such as indoor temperature, radiation temperature, average windvelocity, humidity, clothing insulation and the intensity of activity of the worker. SET*=22.225.6 is a range in which more than 80% of people experience thermal comfort and whichis adopted as one of the standards published by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE).
Virtual enclosed space
A space concept specially defined in CASBEE, as the environmental performance assessment of a building requires a closed-space concept that allows a determination of environmental capacity. The building site boundary, the top height and the lower surface of afoundation batholith are called boundaries (virtual enclosed boundaries). Virtual enclosed
space is an enclosed space separated by such boundaries.

290

A-2. Organizational Structure
as of March 2014

Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Japan GreenBuild Council (JaGBC) /CASBEE Board of the Stakeholders
CASBEE Steering
Committee

CASBEE R&D Committee

Housing
Scale

Committee on CASBEE
Dissemination

Committee on JaGBC
International Affairs

Housing
Scale

Building
Scale
Building
Scale

Urban
Scale

City
Scale

MarketPromotion

Appendix

Urban
Scale

City
Scale

MarketPromotion

291

Appendix

A-3. Members of the CASBEE boards and committees since 2001
(as of March 2014)<CASBEE Board of the Stakeholders>
Chair: Shuzo MURAKAMI
Secretary General: Toshiharu IKAGA
Secretary: Tatsuya HAYASHIMember: Yasushi ASAMI, Kazuaki BOGAKI, Toshiya CHIKADA, Tomohiko FUKUSHIMA, Naoto
HAYASHI, Tetsuya HAYASHI, Takuya ICHIKAWA, Hiroyuki INOUE, Kazuo IWAMURA, Shinichi
KABURAGI, Daisuke KAWAMURA, Masahiro KIMURA, Hisataka KITORA, Yukio KOGA, Hiroshi
KOJIMA, Tatsushi KOZUKA, Masaya KUMAGAI, Junichi KURIHARA, Ryota KUZUKI, Katsumi
MATSUDA, Hideo MATSUNO, Takeshi MIYAMORI, Akihiro MIZUTANI, Ryoji MURANISHI, Takehiko
NISHIO, Tatsuo OKA, Masahiro ONO, Yasuhira SAKABE, Yuzo SAKAMOTO, Kuniharu SASAKI,
Masaaki SATO, Takao SAWACHI, Tsuyoshi SEIKE, Michiya SUZUKI, Takayuki SUZUKI, Hiroaki
TAKAI, Fujio TAMURA, Yasuo TANAKA, Toshiyuki WATANABE, Takashi YANAI, Tomonari YASHIRO,<CASBEE Steering Committee>
Chair: Shuzo MURAKAMI
Member: Takashi AKIMOTO, Kazuaki BOGAKI, Tatsuya HAYASHI, Toshiharu IKAGA,
Kazuo IWAMURA, Hideo MATSUNO, Takeshi MIYAMORI, Tsuyoshi SEIKE, Hiroshi YOSHINO<CASBEE R&D Committee>
Chair: Shuzo MURAKAMI
Secretary General: Toshiharu IKAGA
Secretary: Tatsuya HAYASHIMember: Kazuaki BOGAKI, Hisashi HANZAWA, Kazuo IWAMURA, Hideo MATSUNO,
Takeshi MIYAMORI, Akashi MOCHIDA, Tatsuo OKA, Yuzo SAKAMOTO, Masaaki SATO,
Tsuyoshi SEIKE, Hiroaki TAKAI, Nobuhaya YAMAGUCHI, Tomonari YASHIRO,
Expert Member: Takashi AKIMOTO, Hidemitsu KOYANAGI, Kiyoshi MIISHO,
Masayuki OGURO, Takashi YANAI<Working Group on LCCO2 Calculation Method Review >Chair: Toshiharu IKAGA
Secretary: Masaaki Sato
Member: Takashi AKIMOTO, Toshiya CHIKADA, Junko ENDO, Tatsuya HAYASHI,
Tetsuya HAYASHI, Norihiko KATO, Hisataka KITORA, Ryota KUZUKI, Atsushi ONO,
Masahiro OONO, Masaaki SATO, Tsuyoshi SEIKE, Kazunari SHIRAKI, Takayuki SUZUKI,
Ryuji YANAGIHARA, Takashi YANAI,<Sub-Committee on CASBEE for Detached Houses>
Chair: Tsuyoshi SEIKE
Secretary: Toshiya CHIKADA
Member: Takashi AKIMOTO, Toshiharu IKAGA, Hirokazu IKEDA, Hiroyuki INOUE, Kazuo IWAMURA,
Takeshi MATSUKAWA, Yuzo MINAMI, Takeshi MIYAMORI, Shiro NAKAJIMA, Masaki SAWADA,
Kazuhiro SENO, Yoshiyuki UEMURA, Nobuhaya YAMAGUCHI, Masaaki YAMAMOTO,<Working Group on CASBEE for Detached Houses Review>
Chair: Takashi AKIMOTO

292

Secretary: Toshiya CHIKADA,
Member: Tetsuji ABE, Motoya HAYASHI, Tetsuya HAYASHI, Hiroyuki INOUE, Atsushi IWAMAE,
Manabu KANEMATSU, Takashi KAWAKAMI, Kenzo MATSUMOTO, Masanori MINAMIJIMA,
Hisashi MIURA, Junta NAKANO, Natsumi NARITA, Noboru OHIRA, Tsuyoshi SEIKE, Hideki TANAKA,
Yasuo TANAKA, Yukio TSUJIMURA, Naoya WATANABE,
Support Member: Takashi HAYATSU, Kiyoshi MIISHO<Working Group on Housing Unit Review>
Chair: Tsuyoshi SEIKE,
Secretary: Hiroyuki INOUE, Masaaki YAMAMOTO
Member: Tetsuji ABE, Takashi AKIMOTO, Toshiya CHIKADA, Akihiro DOI, Katsuji HATA,
Tetsuya HAYASHI, Atsuo HIRAMITSU, Toshiharu IKAGA, Norihiko KATO, Hidemitsu KOYANAGI,
Kenzo MATSUMOTO, Masanori MINAMIJIMA, Takahito NAKAYAMA, Noboru OHIRA,
Masayuki OTSUKA, Masaaki SATO, Takashi YANAISupport Member: Takashi HAYATSU, Kiyoshi MIISHO<Sub-Committee on Energy Review>
Chair: Yuzo SAKAMOTO
Secretary: Takashi YANAIMember: Hiroshi ABE, Kenji FUJINO, Takehito IMANARI, Hisaya ISHINO, Norihiko KATO,
Hisataka KITORA, Shogo MURAKAMI, Michihiko NAKAMURA, Toshiyuki OKAMOTO,
Masahiro OONO, Jun OWADA, Kunihiro SATOMI, Hisao SEIKE, Masatomo SUZUKI,
Michiya SUZUKI, Takayuki SUZUKI, Ryuji YANAGIHARA
Support Member: Kenji KIMURA, Takeshi MIYAMORI<Sub-Committee on Indoor Environment Review>
Chair: Kazuaki BOGAKISecretary: Masayuki OGUROMember: Hisashi HANNZAWA, Hiroshi KOJIMA, Yasuhiro MIKI, Toshihiro OTSUKA,
Miho TANAKA, Masaaki YAMAMOTO
Support Member: Kenji KIMURA, Takeshi MIYAMORIAppendix<Sub-Committee on Local Environment Review>
Chair: Kazuo IWAMURA
Secretary: Kiyoshi MIISHOMember: Tomohiro ATAKU, Tomohiko FUKUSHIMA, Motoharu ITO, Hironori YAMASHITA,
Takeshi YAMASHITA, Shinji YOSHIZAKI
Support Member: Kenji KIMURA, Takeshi MIYAMORI<Sub-Committee on Resource Sustainability Review>
Chair: Tomonari YASHIROSecretary: Hidemitsu KOYANAGIMember: Tomohisa HIRAWAKA, Takuya ICHIKAWA, Tomomi KANEMITSU, Kensuke KOBAYASHI,
Wataru KURODA, Takashi MAMIYA, Yasushige MORIKAWA, Shiro NAKAJIMA, Takao SAWACHI,
Yasushi YUTANI,
Support Member: Kenji KIMURA, Takeshi MIYAMORI

293

Appendix / A-3. Members of the CASBEE boards and committees since 2001

<Working Group on Building Case Study>
Chair: Hisashi HANZAWA
Secretary: Takashi AKIMOTO
Member: Tatsuya HAYASHI, Takehito IMANARI, Toshimasa KAKEGAWA, Takashi MOMOSE,
Shogo MURAKAMI, Jun OWADA, Masato SASAKI, Rui TAKIZAWA<Working Group on BIM Connector Development>
Chair: Kazuo IWAMURA
Secretary: Tatsuya HAYASHIMember: Shohei HATAMIYA, Toshiharu IKAGA, Yasuhiko MORIYA, Kenji SAKAI,
Hisashi TOMOKAGE, Yuzo YAMADA, Shigeyuki YAMAGUCHISupport Member: Toshiya CHIKADA, Junko ENDO, Kenji KIMURA, Takeshi MIYAMORI,
Yohei NASU
<Sub-Committee on CABEE for Heat Island Relaxation Review>
Chair: Akashi MOCHIDA
Secretary: Tatsuya HAYASHI, Hideharu NIWA
Member: Yasunobu ASHIE, Eiji HOKI, Hisataka KITORA, Yasushi KONDO, Ryota KUZUKI,
Kiyoshi MIISHO, Takeshi MIYAMORI, Yasushige MORIKAWA, Masayuki OGURO, Shigeo OKABE,
Toshiyuki OKAMOTO, Ryozo OOKA, Taiki SATO, Hideki TAKEBAYASHI, Jun TANIMOTO,
Jun TESHIROGI, Ryuji YANAGIHARA, Takashi YANAI
Expert Member: Naoko KONNO, Takaaki KONO, Tsubasa OKAZE<Sub-Committee on Tenant Office Review>
Chair: Masaaki SATO
Member: Junko ENDO, Tatsuya HAYASHI, Toshiharu IKAGA, Masato ITO, Kazuo IWAMURA,
Nobuaki KOYAMA, Hidemitsu KOYANAGI, Masayuki OGURO, Hiroaki TAKAI, Takashi YANAI<Sub-Committee on Urban Development Review >Chair: Shuzo MURAKAMI
Member: Yasushi ASAMI, Takashi HASHIMOTO, Tatsuya HAYASHI, Tohiharu IKAGA,
Sinichi KABURAGI, Takaaki KATO, Shun KAWAKUMO, Takahiro KAWAYOKE, Masaaki KUWABARA,
Ryota KUZUKI, Hideo MATSUNO, Takeshi MIYAMORI, Yasunori MUROMACHI, Hideo NAKAMURA,
Satoru SADOHARA, Michihiko SHINOZAKI, Hiroaki TAKAI, Tomohiro UCHIIKE,
Nobuhaya YAMAGUCHI<Sub-Committee on City Assessment Review>
Chair: Shuzo MURAKAMI
Member: Yasushi ASAMI, Tsuyoshi FUJITA, Yoshitsugu HAYASHI, Toshiharu IKAGA,
Katsunori INOUE, Haruo ISHIDA, Akiko ITO, Kazuo IWAMURA, Takao KASHIWAGI,
Shigenori KOBAYASHI, Takeshi KUROKAWA, Hidetoshi NAKAGAMI, Yoichi OGAWA,
Support Member: Hieo MATSUNO, Takeshi MIYAMORI<Task Force on CASBEE for Cities Development>
Chair: Yasushi ASAMI
Secretary: Shinichi KABURAGI, Nobuhaya YAMAGUCHI
Member: Tsuyoshi FUJITA, Tatsuya HAYASHI, Toshiharu IKAGA, Kazushi ISHIZAKI,
Hirokazu KATO, Shun KAWAKUBO, Ken KODAMA, Hideo MATSUNO, Takeshi MIYAMORI,

294

Satoru SADOHARA
Expert Member: Masashi KONO, Ryota KUZUKI
Support Member: Kazuhiko OKAMOTO<Task Force on CASBEE for Cities Dissemination>
Chair: Shuzo MURAKAMI
Secretary: Shun KAWAKUMO, Ryota KUZUKI
Member: Yasushi ASAMI, Tatsuya HAYASHI, Toshiharu IKAGA, Shinichi KABURAGI,
Takahiro KAWAYOKE, Kohei NAKANO, Nobuhaya YAMAGUCHI<Sub-Committee on Site Review>
Chair: Shuzo MURAKAMI
Secretary: Nobuhaya YAMAGUCHI
Member: Tatsuya HAYASHI, Toshiharu IKAGA, Masato ITO, Kazuo IWAMURA, Shinichi KABURAGI,
Masaaki SATO, Hiroaki TAKAI
Support Member: Takeshi MIYAMORI<Working Group on CASBEE and Property Assessment Review>
Chair: Shuzo MURAKAMI
Secretary: Masato ITO, Hiroaki TAKAI
Member: Hiroyuki DEGUCHI, Hiroki HIRAMATSU, Toshiharu IKAGA, Takeshi IMADA,
Kazuo IWAMURA, Mamoru KANEKO, Koichi MATSUNAGA, Naoki NAKAMURA, Masaaki SATO,
Teruaki UCHIDA
Support Member: Yoshiki AOYAMA, Hideo MATSUNO<Working Group on CASBEE for Market Promotion Institutionalization>
Chair: Masato ITOMember: Yoshiki AOYAMA, Takeshi IMADA, Mamoru KANEKO, Hideo MATSUNO, Hiroaki TAKAI,
Teruaki UCHIDA<Committee on JaGBC International Affairs>
Vice-Chair: Kazuo IWAMURA
Member: Takashi AKIMOTO, Junko ENDO, Toshiharu IKAGA, Hideo MATSUNO, Junta NAKANO,
Tsuyoshi SEIKE, Masanori SHUKUYA, Hiroaki TAKAI, Tomonari YASHIRO, Noriyoshi YOKOO,
Hiroshi YOSHINO<Task Force on IPCC/IEA/GEA>
Chair: Shuzo MURAKAMI
Vice Chair: Hiroshi YOSHINO
Secretary: Takehito Imanari
Member: Tatsuya HAYASHI, Toshiharu IKAGA, Hideo MATSUNO, Tadashi MIZUISHI,
Yoshiyuki SHIMODA

295

Appendix

Chair: Shuzo MURAKAMIPostscript and Acknowledgement
Kazuo IWAMURA,
Professor, Tokyo City University

Ten years have passed since the first official edition of Comprehensive Assessment
System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) for New Construction of Buildings was
released in Japan in 2003, after elaborate preparation and the collaboration of academia,
industry and national and local governments. In 2001, the Japan Sustainable Building
Consortium (JSBC) was formed as the mother orgainzation, under the auspice of the
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT).
During this decade, tremendous efforts have been made by a great number of related
experts to develop a comprehensive, cross-scale approach to environmental performance assessment that includes new conceptual underpinnings and approaches. Fromthe very beginning, CASBEE has been designed to both enhance the quality of people’s
lives and to reduce the life-cycle resource use and environmental loads associated withthe built environment, from a single home to a whole city.
Consequently, a variety of CASBEE schemes are now deployed all over Japan andsupported by national and local governments. While specific innovative aspects of
CASBEE have been internationally acknowledged and referenced, JSBC, together withthe associated Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC), theorganizations responsible for the ongoing development and operation of CASBEE, hasdecided to compile and publish a complete book about CASBEE in English, simply titled“CASBEE.”
As stated above, CASBEE is the fruit of the collaboration of a large number of associated experts (see pp292-295) for more than ten years including the preparatory period
before the official issue in 2003. Along with the zeitgeist and the consequent change ofsocial, industrial and political requirements, CASBEE has been responding and developing accordingly. The comprehensive and flexible structure of the R&D organization madethis possible. This book shows the current results of such initiatives as a milestone of an
entire decade.
Looking back on this development process to date, it should be noted that the leadership of Dr. Shuzo MURAKAMI has been always pushing forward whatever related R&D
and application activities exist from the very beginning, and that the tireless efforts of the
R&D members from academia, industry and governments have been continually made.
To commemorate the 10th anniversary of CASBEE’s release, the editorial board asked
nine renowned experts from abroad to introduce specific and relevant topics. Their valuable contributions provide this book with global viewpoints and are very much appreciated.
In hoping this book will draw attention worldwide, we are all ready to progress further
in the next decade and beyond in both a domestic and global context.◾

296

築

境

･省

C）

新 築 2013

I

BE

建

環

（
エネルギー機構

CASBEE Certificate Emblem

297