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

CASBEE for Cities

1(2011 Edition)

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

4

3. Assessment Method・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 7
4. Assessment Procedure・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 15
PART Ⅱ. Assessment method and criteria・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 25
1. L; Environmental load of cities・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 25
2. Q; Quality of cities・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 34
Q1 Environmental aspect・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

34

Q2 Social aspect・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 43
Q3 Economic aspect・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 68[Commentaries and data]
PART Ⅲ. Preliminary studies and related data about L・・・・・・・ 75
PART Ⅳ. Preliminary studies and related data about Q・・・・・・ 84
Afterword・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 96

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

2

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Introduction
In view of the global trend in environmental issues and with the Conference of Parties (COP)“Countermeasures against greenhouse gases and promotion of a society-wide effort toward a
low-carbon future” as a yardstick, many countries are facing serious policy challenges. In order todeal with these challenges, a method for a comprehensive assessment of environmental
performance at the municipal level is considered effective, but such a method has yet to beestablished.
In Japan, the government-led Eco Model City Project began in 2008. In addition to the eco model
cities, other motivated communities and related organizations have also participated in theestablishment of the Promotion Council for the Low Carbon Cities in December 2008, in which
individual cities and communities are seeking a way toward eco-friendly future development while
demonstrating their own potential. In this regard, a framework for measuring and evaluating theeffectiveness of the policies and activities taken by the individual cities would be very helpful for the
many people who are involved in activities relating to citizens, public administration and other cities,
in order to share a sense of purpose in creating the ideal future city.
Consequently, the Committee for the Development of an Environmental Performance Assessment
Tools for Cities was launched in November 2008 for the purpose of contributing to the improvement ofcity-wide comprehensive environmental performance by developing and utilizing an environmental
performance assessment tool tailored to cities, in which a framework for a city evaluation suitable forthe era of the global environment will be studied.
The Committee adopted the principle and method of the Comprehensive Assessment System for
Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) for the basic assessment tool in view of clarity, fairness,reliability and usefulness. CASBEE is a unique Japanese system that is widely known among people
engaged in construction-related businesses as an environmental performance assessment tool forbuildings.
The next city assessment tool will also focus on evaluating cities from two perspectives; quality inside
a city (Q = quality) and environmental load emitted from a city on the external environment (L = load),in accordance with the principle of the conventional CASBEE. Assessment items are carefully studied
from various aspects in a comprehensive manner, whereas, in light of the urgent and important taskof promoting a low-carbon society, L consists of items particularly focusing on a clear assessment of
low-carbon policies of individual cities. Upon development of this new tool, the Committee has, since
May 2009, been in close cooperation with the WG for Promotion of Measures for Low-carbon City or
Region established under the aforementioned Promotion Council for the Low Carbon Cities, in orderto scrutinize issues relating to application of the tool.
The “CASBEE-City (2011 Edition)” assessment manual is herewith compiled and released as atechnical description of the results of its development. We hope that this tool will be utilized in various
fields and will help enhance urban environmental improvement in harmony with global environmental
issues.
March 2011
Shuzo Murakami
Chairman of the Committee for the Developmentof an Environmental Performance Assessment Tools for Cities

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

3(2011 Edition)

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

CASBEE Family
Housing scale

CASBEE- Detached House (Tool-11)
Completed in September 2007, revised in 2010
Building scale
Basic Tools

CASBEE-Pre-Design (Tool-0)

TC: Temporary Construction

CASBEE-Temporary Construction (Tool-1TC)

under development

Completed in 2004, revised in 2008
B: Brief version

CASBEE-New Construction (Tool-1)

CASBEE-New Construction (Brief version) (Tool-1B)

Office edition completed in 2002, revised in 2010

Completed in July 2004, revised in 2010

CASBEE-Existing Building (Tool-2)

CASBEE-Existing Building (Brief version) (Tool-2B)

Completed in July 2004, revised in 2010

Completed in April 2009, revised in 2010

CASBEE-Renovation (Tool-3)
Completed in July 2005, revised in 2010

CASBEE-Property Appraisal
Completed in December 2009

CASBEE-Heat Island
Completed in July 2005, revised in 2010

CASBEE-Renovation (Brief version) (Tool-3B)
Completed in April 2009, revised in 2010

CASBEE-Local Government edition※※CASBEE-Nagoya,CASBEE-Osaka,
CASBEE-Yokohama Tools partially revised inindividual municipalities

CASBEE-School
Completed in September 2010Urban development – city scales

CASBEE-Urban Area + Buildings (Tool-21+)

CASBEE-Urban Development (Tool-21)

Completed in November 2007

Completed in July 2006, revised in 2007

CASBEE-Urban Development (Brief version) (Tool-21B)
Completed in November 2007

CASBEE-City 2011
Completed in March 2011

FigureⅠ.1.1 Structure of the CASBEE Familyc 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

4

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

2. Framework of CASBEE-City
2.1

Basic policy for tool development

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

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

Hypothetical closed spacearound the city

都市を囲む仮想空間

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

City都市境界
boundary

City都市境界
boundary

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

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

5

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

2.2 Assessment structure
The assessment procedure consists of the following five major steps:(1) Current assessment of Load and Quality
Environmental load (L) on the external environment of the hypothetical enclosed space andquality (Q) within the space are each clearly defined, and the assessment is carried out from boththe L and Q sides. It is also based on multiple assessment items set according to the individual
characteristics of L and Q. Results are expressed as scores rated and counted in line with acertain method and standard.
(2) Comprehensive assessment of environmental performance by BEE
The BEE value with the concept of environmental efficiency is derived from the results of step (1)by dividing Q by L, in order to express the environmental performance of the city in acomprehensive manner. To start the calculation, the total scores of L and Q are first converted intoa scale of 0 to 100, respectively. BEE is expressed as the gradient of a straight line on a graphhaving L plotted on the x axis and Q on the y axis as shown in Figure I.2.2. According to the value
corresponding to the gradient, the degree of the environmental performance is labeled andcolor-coded in five grades; S rank, A, B+, B- and C. Even if the gradient is 3.0 or higher, the BEE
value will not be ranked as S, the highest grade, unless the Q value is 50 or higher. The lower the
L value and the higher the Q value, the higher the BEE value becomes, indicating that the city ishighly regarded in the assessment in terms of the overall environmental performance.
Because of the calculation systems, the BEE value may be close to +∞ (infinity). However, froma practical perspective of the assessment, the BEE value can be as high as 10 (even when thevalue of Q/L far exceeds 10, the result is shown as BEE = 10).
(3) Assessment of the future estimated value and target value for L and Q(Please refer to 2.3 regarding purposes of future assessment.)(4) Calculating the future BEE value(5) Understanding the possibility of improvement of the city for the future by comparing the current
value obtained in steps (1) and (2) with the future value obtained in steps (3) and (4) regarding L,
Q and BEE

3.0

Q (Quality)
環境品質,
活動度 Q

100

1.5
A

S

BEE=1.0

B+

72

2.4

B

-

1.3

58

50

0.5
BEE ofC→Rank A
BEE of30

00＝72/30＝2.4＝58/44＝1.3→Rank B+

4450
L (Environmental
環境負荷 Lload)

100

FigureⅠ.2.2 BEE chartc 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

6

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

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

BEE chart.

最良
Excellent

将来の目標（都市政策実施後）
of urban policy)
Futuretarget (after implementation
3

Route2

ルート2⊿Q

Route3
ルート3

1
ルート1
Route1

2⊿L

Current
situation
現状

BAU*
BAU※
Poor
最悪

※BAU:BusinessBusiness AsAs
Usual
*BAU:
Usual

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

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

7(2011 Edition)

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

3.1.1 Year of the current assessment
The “current situation” in this case means the recent situation of the city, however, the year of thecurrent assessment also serves as the base year of the entire procedure in view of futureassessment. Accordingly, the year of the current assessment can be set as appropriate by the body
conducting the assessment depending on the circumstances in each city.

3.1.2 Year of future assessment
The year of future assessment should be set as appropriate by the body conducting the assessment
approximately between 2020 and 2030, in the future medium term.
Note 1: Please refer to 3.3 regarding how to address current and future situations in terms of
population data.
Note 2: Please refer to 3.4 and 3.5 regarding the BAU value, and follow the operational procedure of
the assessment software because the method of setting the BAU value may vary dependingon the assessment items.

3.2 Degree of operability used for future assessment
Whether the future target value is actually achieved or not is thought to be varied depending on towhat extent the individual municipalities work on the implementation system toward the future target.
Accordingly, CASBEE-City adopts an index expressing the degree of operability.
As mentioned above,
L Future value ＝ LBAU + ΔL
Q Future value ＝ QBAU + ΔQ
Further,
ΔL = ΣΔLi × Xi
ΔQ = ΣΔQj × Xji

: A number corresponding to individual items ranging from L1.1.1 to L3

ΔLi: Target increase (a negative value for target reduction) in Item i, an assessment
item of L, set by individual cities

Xi: Degree of operability of a measure regarding Item i (0-1.0)j: A number corresponding to individual items ranging from Q1.1.1 to Q3.3.2

ΔQj: Target increase (a negative value for target reduction) in Item j, an assessmentc 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

8

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)item of Q, set by individual cities
Xj: Degree of operability of a measure regarding Item j (0-1.0)

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

3.3

Population data

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

3.3.1 Adjusted population
When using an index on a per-capita basis, it is necessary to take account of the fact that, if the total
population (= the nighttime population) is used, the values calculated per capita will be extremely highin inner urban areas of large cities with a large day and nighttime population ratio. On the other hand,the various activities of a city are obtained as a sum of economic activities mainly conducted during
the day and everyday activities mainly in the nighttime. In order to define the amount of activities
representing the day and nighttime activities in a simple manner, the daytime population and thenighttime population are obtained separately, and the adjusted population is defined as shown in theformula below, which is the basis of per-capita emissions.
[Adjusted population] = ([Daytime population] + [Nighttime population])/2
Currently, the most recent available data for the daytime population is as of 2005, as it is determinedby the national population census in Japan.
The various indices for the numerator used in the calculation of a per-capita value of the adjusted
population for each assessment item are not always based on the 2005 census data, however, inorder to give priority to practical convenience in the procedure, it is acceptable to uniformly define theadjusted population based on the 2005 census data as the population used in the assessment.

3.3.2 Estimated future population
The future estimate of the total population is based on the estimated future population (the averagevariant) of the year for individual municipalities calculated by the Japanese National Institute ofPopulation and Social Security Research. The future estimate of the daytime population is obtainedby multiplying the future estimate of the total population by the current day and nighttime population
ratio based on the most recent census data (i.e. the 2005 census data).

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

9CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

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

3.3.3 Setting the type of city according to the size of population
When assessing the quality (Q) of a city, different assessment standards are used for various
assessment items according to the size of population. For details, please refer to 3.5.4.

3.4 Assessment items for L
3.4.1

Basic idea regarding L

CASBEE-City limits the assessment of greenhouse gases in terms of environmental load (L). All
greenhouse gases are converted into carbon dioxide, and are assessed in terms of annual emissions
per capita (t-CO2/Year/Person) in order to ensure neutrality of the index in spite of the difference in thesize of populations among individual cities. The population in this case means the adjusted
population.
Assessment items are selected in view of the policy trend of the government regarding GHG
emissions including the following:(1) Midterm goals for the government in reducing GHG emissions(2) Kyoto Protocol Target Achievement Plan
(3) Eco-Model City Project by the Cabinet(4) Ministry of the Environment “Manual for planning local government’s action plan to address theissue of global warming (Regional policies), First edition,” June 2009.
(Hereinafter referred to as the “New action planning manual”)

3.4.2

Structure of Assessment items

This tool is basically in accordance with the new action planning manual, as shown in Table I.3.1.
Please refer to 3.4.3 regarding the “Beneficiary-pays principle” in the Table.
TableⅠ.3.1 Assessment items for L
Main category

L1 GHG emissions

L2 Environmental load reductions
and CO2 absorption

Middle category

Minor category

L1.1.1 Industrial sector
L1.1.2 Residential sector
L1.1 CO2 from energy
L1.1.3 Commercial sector
sources
L1.1.4 Transportation sector
L1.1.5 Energy conversion sector
L1.2 Industrial processes－
L1.3 Waste disposal sector－
L1.4 Agricultural sector－
L1.5 Other greenhouse gases－(HFCs, PFCs, SF6)
L2.1 Low-carbon energy
sources
L2.2 CO2 sinks

L3 Support to other regions forL3.1 Domestic trade, etc.
reducing CO2 emissions

Beneficiary-pays
principle items
○

○
○
○

－
－
－

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

10

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

3.4.3 “Emitter-pays principle” and “Beneficiary-pays principle”
When evaluating environmental load (L) in terms of GHG emissions, industrial cities are likely toreceive a low score. It is certainly important that these industrial cities accept this fact and work on
further reducing such emissions. On the other hand, the output of industrial cities is indispensable, as
it contributes to the benefit of not only the cities themselves, but also the whole country. Consequently,
CASBEE-City concurrently uses two assessment methods; the “Emitter-pays principle” in which GHG
emissions are calculated in the city – the source of emissions – and the “Beneficiary-pays principle,”in which the calculation is based on the final point of demand.

3.4.4 BAU of L (Tendency value)
The BAU of L is estimated basically in accordance with the new action planning manual. The manualexplains BAU as cases in which no additional measures are expected to be taken, assuming that theefficiency of energy consuming devices is equivalent to the current situation. The current situation inthis case includes the base year, the current year and the short-term target year.

3.4.5 Degree of operability regarding future assessment of L
Measures, policies, and efforts toward achieving goals are classified roughly into two categories;
commitments of the government and those of nongovernmental organizations. Table I.3.2 shows alist of actions to be implemented in order to create a low-carbon society. The operability (Xi) ofassessment item (i) is determined in a range of 0 to 1 based on this list depending on the number ofactions implemented or planned. Table I.3.3 shows Xi values corresponding to the number of actions
implemented.
Each action that has been implemented is counted as 1, and those that have been planned but have
yet to be implemented are each given 0.5. Those that fall under neither of the two are placed in a
separate free description space in which the city’s unique efforts can be described.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

11

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Table I.3.2 List of measures, policies and efforts to be implemented for achieving goals
Item
Commitment of the government
1) Completing the new action plan
2) Formulating a master plan and a mid- andlong-term vision for achieving mid- and long-termgoals stipulating a budget, timing and organizationin charge
3) Setting controllable numerical targets, conducting
ongoing monitoring and publishing it once ormore a year4) Establishing a promotion committee or town
meeting consisting of public administration,
citizens, companies and universities, andholding them twice or more a year5) Holding an environmental seminar for citizens
and businesses twice or more a year6) Lessons or programs regarding environmental
education are included in curriculum forelementary schools, junior high schools andhigh schools.
7) Setting a public comment period before majordecisions regarding budget or timing
8) Other (Special efforts utilizing characteristicsof the local area)
Commitment of nongovernmental organizations
9) Having an accurate monitoring system including
direct data collection from each household andthe promotion of BEMS and HEMS
10) Personal goals and action plans for privatecompanies, NPOs and individuals in the city
are included11) Intellectual contributions from research institutes
and universities in the city are included12) Having commitments of nonlocal organizations
including energy-saving activities and thepromotion of carbon sinks by companies andNPOs operating in a wide area
13) Other (Special efforts utilizing characteristics ofthe local area)

Policy- The new action plan should include the year in which the plan isformulated in its planned period.
- The new action plan should include the year in which the plan isformulated in its planned period.

- The system, staff and budget required for implementing the target
management, monitoring and publication should be secured.
- Items subject to the monitoring should account for a certain proportionof the total emissions or the total reduction (i.e. 50% or more).
- The group should be well balanced, the members of which include
people from different major backgrounds including the government,
citizens, companies, universities and NPOs.
- Environmental seminars and workshops should be held.
- Environmental education programs in which students learn about
environmental issues and efforts of companies should be conducted.
- Environmental education lessons with people from outside the school
such as companies or local communities as lecturers should beorganized.
- A period for public comments on environment-related policies shouldhave been set in the past year, or should be planned for the current
year.
- Special notes- Items subject to monitoring should account for a certain proportion of
the GHG emissions set in the reduction measure (i.e. 30% or more).
- Targets set in the new action plan should reflect the personal targets or
action plans of residents and businesses.
- A framework for cooperation with research institutes or universities
should be established, project verifications should be conducted and afollow-up mechanism should be established.
- A framework for cooperation with organizations having a base outside
the city should be established, such as companies and NPOs
conducting activities in a wide area, the activities of which include
energy-saving campaigns and the promotion of carbon sinks.
- Special notes

TableⅠ.3.3 Correspondence table of the number of measures,
policies, efforts and the degree of operability (Xi)
Number of actions implemented(0.5 is given to the actions planned but not yet implemented.)
Implementing 9 or more actions in the relevant section
Implementing 7 actions in the relevant section
Implementing 5 actions in the relevant section
Implementing 3 actions in the relevant section
Number of actions implemented is less than 3

Xi
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.3
0

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

12

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

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

3.5.2 Structure of assessment items
The overall structure consists of the main category with the classifications of Q1 Environmental
aspect, Q2 Social aspect and Q3 Economic aspect, and middle category and minor category underthe main category. The actual assessment is conducted at the minor category level, the results ofwhich are totaled in terms of the middle category items, the major category items, and all items,
respectively, in order to derive assessment values. Some of the minor category items are regarded
as “Not Applicable” (N/A) under certain conditions. A list of assessment items is shown in Table I.3.4.
TableⅠ.3.4 List of assessment items
Main category
Q1 Environmental
aspects

Q2
Social aspects

Middle category
Q1.1 Nature conservation
Q1.2 Local environmental
quality

Q1.3 Resources recycling
Q1.4
Environmental measures
Q2.1 Living environment

Q2.2 Social services

Q2.3 Social vitality

Q3
Economic aspects

Q3.1 Industrial vitality
Q3.2 Economic exchanges
Q3.3 Financial viability

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

Minor category
Q1.1.1 Ratio of green and water spaces
Q1.2.1 Air
Q1.2.2 Water
Q1.2.3 Noise
Q1.2.4 Chemicals substanceQ1.3.1 Recycling rate of general waste
Q1.4.1 Efforts and policies to improve the environment and biodiversity
Q2.1.1 Adequate quality of housing
Q2.1.2 Adequate provision of parks and open spaces
Q2.1.3 Adequate sewage systems
Q2.1.4 Traffic safety
Q2.1.5 Crime prevention
Q2.1.6 Disaster preparedness
Q2.2.1 Adequacy of education services
Q2.2.2 Adequacy of cultural services
Q2.2.3 Adequacy of medical services
Q2.2.4 Adequacy of childcare services
Q2.2.5 Adequacy of services for the disabledQ2.2.6 Adequacy of services for the elderly
Q2.3.1 Rate of population change due to births and deaths
Q2.3.2 Rate of population change due to migration
Q2.3.3 Progress towards an information society
Q2.3.4 Efforts and policies for vitalizing society
Q3.1.1 Amount equivalent to gross regional productQ3.1.2 Ratio of change in the number of employees
Q3.2.1 Index equivalent to number of people visiting city
Q3.2.2 Efficiency of public transportation
Q3.3.1 Tax revenues
Q3.3.2 Outstanding local bonds

CASBEE for Cities

13(2011 Edition)

3.5.3 Weighting coefficient
Weighting coefficients between different assessment categories are set as shown in Table I.3.5 inaccordance with the conventional method used in the CASBEE Family, by conducting aquestionnaire targeting public administrators, businesses and residents (Number of valid responses:
Public administrators 46, Businesses 332, Residents 2328), and by utilizing the Analytic Hierarchy
Process (AHP) method. In cases when multiple middle items and minor items or just multiple minor
items are set, the weighting coefficients of individual items are equally set. When some of the minor
items have “N/A” (Not Applicable), the weight is divided evenly between other minor items under thesame middle item.
TableⅠ.3.5 Weighting coefficients of main items
Main item

Weighting coefficient

Environmental aspects

0.45

Social aspects

0.30

Economic aspects

0.25

3.5.4 Rating standards and three city type classifications
The rating of minor items is on a five-point scale ranging from level 1 to 5, according to the value ofthe assessment index defined for individual items based on various data including statistics. The
standards for classification by level are designed so that the assessment results of all themunicipalities are evenly distributed in each level at approximately 20% each.
Some minor items have a wide range of values in the assessment index depending on thecharacteristics (size) of the city. Therefore, in terms of items that are regarded as possible andreasonable in view of data acquisition, cities are classified into three groups according to the size ofthe municipality’s permanent population; (1) Government-ordinance-designated cities or equivalentswith populations of approximately 500,000 or more, or Tokyo's 23 wards, (2) Major local cities withpopulations of 50,000 or more and less than 500,000 and (3) Small-scale cities, towns and villages
with populations of less than 50,000. Standards for classification by level are set for each group. Dueto population shifts, some cities may fall under a different classification group in the future, but inprinciple, the future assessment is based on the current classification.
Hereinafter, the aforementioned classifications are referred to as (1) = Ordinance-designated cities,(2) = General cities and (3) = Towns and villages, both in this manual and the accompanying
assessment software.

3.5.5 BAU of Q (Tendency value)
As many assessment items of Q are expressed by indices on a per-capita basis including theadjusted population and the population by age bracket, the calculation is based on the idea that QBAU
is equal to QCurrent value. This means that the basic unit stays constant in the future unless special
measures are taken.
However, as for assessment items of Q2 expressed in an index on a per-capita basis, representing
data related to the size of the facility, in the medium term, QBAU is calculated based on the idea thatthe size of the facility stays the same unless special measures are taken, which is realistic. In thiscase, the result of QBAU differs from the QCurrent situation as the future population fluctuates dependingon the forecast.
Some of the economic indices of Q3 calculate QBAU, reflecting the nationwide decreasing tendency ofc 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

14

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

the working-age population, because the total amount is expected to decrease nationwide as theworking-age population decreases toward the future.
Regarding the actual calculation methods for individual assessment items, please refer to “2.
Calculation of BAU for individual Q items” of Part Ⅳ. Preliminary studies and related data about Q in
Commentaries and Data.

3.5.6 Degree of operability regarding future assessment of Q
In order to determine the degree of operability in terms of the future target value in individual
assessment items, the degree of conformance of a municipality is assessed in terms of the three
check items shown in Table I.3.6.
Table I.3.6 Degree of operability of the future target value
Number of items
Check item
checked(1)Specific policies are established for achieving
goals.
(2)Simple and comprehensible explanatory materials
regarding the credibility of the target values fromthe perspective of a third party are prepared.

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

3

Degree ofoperability
0.5

1
2

1.0

3.6 Scores for L and Q, and BEE calculation
Environmental load L is expressed as per-capita annual GHG emissions of the adjusted population(t-CO2/Person/Year). The calculation and estimation of emissions are carried out individually for the
aforementioned sectors and fields, but the total score summing all the sectors and fields represents
the final assessment of L. This representative value may possibly be in a wide range of values
including negative values, depending on the characteristics of the city. Therefore, a conversion
formula is adopted, in which the scale of L is expressed within the range of 0 to 100, regardless of thevalues of the total emissions in individual cities. In this formula, coefficients are set in order to makethe national average (10 t-CO2/Person/Year) the median (50). At the same time, the level of thismedian is set as 3.0, giving the total score of L, rounded to one decimal place, which corresponds therange of Level 1 to 5. As when L is shown in parallel with Q, it is easy to understand if the higherscore (level) of L means that the performance of the city is better, so the formula is set to indicate ahigh score when the amount of emissions is lower (when the scale is close to 0). (Details of theconversion formula are explained in PART II.)
Quality Q is rated in accordance with rating standards within the range of Level 1 to 5 set forindividual minor items. Level 1 is counted as 1 point, whereas Level 5 means 5 points, and the scorefor each item is determined. After weighting adjustments in consideration of weights between
assessment items, scores ranging from 1 to 5 are given for middle items, major item, and the sum
total of Q. The total score of Q is expressed as SQ and is defined as Q = 25 x (SQ－1) in order toconvert the score into a value on a scale of 0 to 100.
Although it has been described that BEE, the environment efficiency of the city, is calculated as Q/L,
in order to express the numerator and denominator in the same dimension, both Q and L arecalculated on the aforementioned scale of 0 to 100.
BEE＝

Q
L

＝

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

25×（SQ－1）
LCASBEE for Cities15(2011 Edition)

4. Assessment procedure
4.1 Structure of assessment sheets
CASBEE-City adopts universal spreadsheet software so that a wide range of data can be easily
entered and the assessment results are automatically calculated. This spreadsheet software consistsof multiple sheets, the major assessment sheets of which include a “Main sheet” and a “Rating sheet”
used for data input, as well as a “Score sheet” and a “Assessment results sheet” for data output. The
basic data necessary for conducting the assessment are entered in the Main sheet. The Rating sheet
indicates the rating standards for each assessment item, which are referred to when entering therating result for each item.

＜Input item＞
Main sheet- City's basic information (city type, assessment year, area, population, etc.)

Consideration Record Sheet

Score Entry sheet- Policy's eco-friendly ideas and concepts- Scoring result (Q1, Q2, Q3, L)
5 scale (level 1-5), Current situation and future situation

Reference data sheet- Population data used for setting the BAU value in Q3

Weighting Coefficient sheet- Weighting coefficient database for score calculation (automatic calculation)＜Output item＞
Score sheet- List of scores and weighting coefficients for each assessment items(Current situation and future situation)- Total scores for individual assessment category

Assessment results sheet- Basic information about the city subject to assessment- BEE and red star ranking- Graphic representational results

FigureⅠ.4.1 Overall structure of assessment sheets

4.2 Main sheet
The Main sheet is the sheet on which the user first inputs information required for the assessment
including the city overview. Figure I.4.2 shows the Main sheet screen.
The “City type” in “1) City outline (1) Basic information about the city” refers to the threeclassifications according to the size of the population described in “3.5.4 Rating standards and threecity type classifications.” When one of the classifications is selected from the pull-down menu options,the corresponding rating criteria are automatically applied throughout the calculation software.
Data obtained from the latest National Census as of the base year is used for the current (the baseyear) values of the daytime population, nighttime population, infant population (0 to 4 years old) andelderly population (65 years old and over). In terms of the future (the year for comparison), if a local

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

16

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)community conducts a population forecast, the data obtained from the forecast can be used. If not,the estimated future population (the average variant) by municipality of the year provided by theJapanese National Institute of Population and Social Security Research is entered. The daytime
population is obtained by multiplying the future estimate of the nighttime population by the current
day and nighttime population ratio. These population data are commonly used in the assessment
calculations of L and Q.

‐City
Assessment Software
Version : CASBEE-City_2011(v.1.01)■Manual: CASBEE-City (2011 Edition)

1 . City ou tlin e(1 ) Basic in fo r m at io n abo u t t h e c it y su bje c t t o asse ssm e n t

Current status (Base year)

Future status (for comparison with the current status)■Name of municipality XX City
■City typeXX CityOrdinance-designated city

■Fiscal year of assessment

2005■Total area
■Daytime population■Nighttime population■Adjusted population

500.00 km 2
1,500,000 People
1,400,000 People
1,450,000 People
70,000 People
280,000 People■Infant population (0 to 4 years old)
■Elderly population (65 years old and over)■Fiscal year of assessment■Daytime population■Nighttime population■Adjusted population■Infant population (0 to 4 years old)
■Elderly population (65 years old and over)2030
500.00 km 2
1,500,000 People
1,400,000 People
1,450,000 People
70,000 People
280,000 People(2) Assessment details■Assessment date
■Assessor

October 1, 2010

■Date of approval■Approved by

July 2, 2008
XX

FigureⅠ.4.2 Main sheet screen
The Main sheet has a supplementary “Eco-friendliness points” sheet, in which special features of thecity’s environment-related policies and efforts, including those in the planning stage and those inpractice, are described from the two perspectives of Q and L.
The information entered in the Main sheet and the Eco-friendliness points sheet is automaticallydisplayed in the required fields in individual sheets and the assessment results sheet.

4.3 Score entry sheet
The Rating sheet is a sheet on which the user actually inputs scoring results and consists of four
sheets; Q1 to Q3, and L, each representing a different assessment category. The rating is madeaccording to criteria for each assessment item indicated on individual sheets on a five-point scale ofLevel 1 to 5.
Cells to be entered are shown in light blue on the sheet, and the input data are automaticallycalculated as they are entered according to the instructions on the screen. The operation procedures
are therefore quite straightforward. The L sheet has a special setting for certain cells in which thedata may be overwritten if necessary after reviewing the results of the automatic calculation.

4.3.1 L Score entry sheet
The L sheet consists of three tables arranged in tandem as shown in Figure I.4.3. Cells to be enteredare highlighted in light blue and appear in the middle and lower tables. The upper table provides
explanations regarding criteria and shows assessment results obtained from calculations based on

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

17(2011 Edition)

data entered in the middle and lower tables. The left half of the upper table covers the Emitter-pays
principle, whereas the right half corresponds to the Beneficiary-pays principle.
Amounts of emissions in L1.1.1 to L3.1 are entered in the middle table. This table consists of threecolumns of major items, middle items, and minor items starting from the left, as well as three more of(1) LCurrent, (2) LBAU, and (3) LFuture. Each of the columns of (1) to (3) is further divided into twoclassifications of the Emitter-pays principle and the Beneficiary-pays principle. When certain data areentered in the Emitter-pays principle column, the corresponding amount in the Beneficiary-pays
principle column will be automatically calculated. In terms of (3), ΔL (An increase or reduction target
set by individual municipalities) is entered instead of an actual Future L value.
The lower table calculates the operability X regarding the future values. When one of the items is
selected from the pull-down menu options (by entering ○), the value of X will be calculated
automatically. By multiplying the above ΔL by X, the value for (3) will be obtained.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

18

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

政令市■自治体名称 XX市

L 環境負荷
発生地型

再配分型

現状

将来

Lのスケール（0～100）

レベル 4.1

レベル 4.1

現状

将来

レベル 4.1

レベル 4.1

レベル 1

レベル 1

98.75 超

28 超

レベル 1

レベル 1

98.75 超

28 超

レベル 2

レベル 2

レベル 3

レベル 3

75

14.5

レベル 2

レベル 2

75

14.5

50

10

レベル 3

レベル 3

50

レベル 4

10

レベル 4

25

5.5

レベル 4

レベル 4

25

レベル 5

5.5

レベル 5

1.25 以下-8.0以下

レベル 5

レベル 5

1.25 以下-8.0以下

現状 L=

22.0

X: 当該都市の年間１人あたりCO2 排出量

将来 L=

22.1

現状 X=

4.8

［ t-CO2/人・年 ]

将来 X=

4.8

Lのスケール（0～100）
現状 L=

色欄について、プルダウンメニューから選択、または数値・コメントを記入のこと

22.1

中項目

4.8

［ t-CO2/人・年 ]将来 X=

1450000人 評価年度

2030年度 補正人口1450000人

LBAU（現状趨勢ケース）の計算

発生地型

L1.1.1 産業部門

L1 .1
エネルギー
起源CO2

再配分型

一人当たり
CO2排出量

CO2排出量(吸収量は、マイナ
ス値で入力)

t-CO2

t-CO2/人t-CO2

5,160,000(吸収量は、マイナ
ス値で入力)

発生地型

5,165,625

3.56

L1.1.2 民生家庭部門

0.00

0

L1.1.3 民生業務部門

0.00

L1.1.4 運輸部門

0.00

5,160,000

発生地型

再配分型

一人当たり
CO2排出量
一人当たりCO2排出量※ (吸収量は、マイナ
CO2排出量ス値で入力)
2
t-CO2/人
t-CO2
t-CO2/人

3.56

CO2排出量(吸収量は、マイナ
ス値で入力)

一人当たりCO2排出量△Li

Xi△Li×Xit-CO2

t-CO2/人

t-CO2

-

t-CO2

3.56

5,165,625

3.56

0.00

0.00

0

0

0.00

0.00

0

0.00

0.00

3.56

0.00

1.00

0

0

0.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

1.00

0

0

0.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

1.00

0

0

0.00

0

0.00

0.61

1.00

5,000

895,000

0.62

889,258

0.61

6,060,000

4.18

6,054,883

4.18

890,000

0.61

889,258（小計）

6,050,000

4.17

6,054,883

4.18

6,050,000

4.17

6,054,883

610,000

0.42

610,5860.42

610,000

0.42

610,586

0.42

0.00

0

0.00

0.00

0

0.00

0.21

310,391

0.21

0.21

310,391

0.21

0.00

0

0.00

0.00

0

0.00

4.81

6,975,859

4.81

4.81

6,975,859

0.00

0

0.00

0.00

0

0.00

0.00

0

0.00

0.00

0

0.00

0.00

0

0.00

0.00

0

0.00 ―

0.00

0

0.00

0.00

0

0.00

4 .81

6,975,859

4 .81

4.81

6,975,859

310,000

L1 .5 代替フロン等3ガス（合計）6,970,000

L2 .1 低炭素エネルギー源
L2 環境負荷低減・吸収 L2 .2 CO2吸収源
量
（合計）

0

L3 .1 国内取引等（合計）

6,970,000

310,000

6,970,000

06,970,000

t-CO2/人

5,165,625

0.61

L1 .4 農業分野

一人当たりCO2排出量

t-CO2

3.56

889,258

L1 .3 廃棄物分野(吸収量は、マイナ
ス値で入力)

5,165,000

0.61

L1 .2 工業プロセス分野

CO2排出量5,000

890,000

5,000

再配分型
L将来
一人当たり
(CO2排出量
CO2排出量等)
t-CO2
t-CO2/人

1.00

L1.1.5 エネルギー転換部門
L1 年間温
室効果ガス
排出量

4.8

（参考）
2005年度産業
関連部門温室効果ガス排出量*1

L将来の計算小項目

CO2排出量

L3 他地域
でのCO2排
出の抑制支
援量

現状 X=

将来

2005年度 補正人口
L現状の計算大項目

22.1

自動計算されます：原則として、修正不可

現状
評価年度

X: 当該都市の年間１人あたりCO2 排出量

将来 L=

5,000

4.18 ―

―
5,000

1,000

4.81 ―

4.81 ―

―
1.00

5,000

615,000

0.42

610,586

0.42

1.00

0

0

0.00

0

0.00

1.00

1,000

311,000

0.21

310,391

0.21

1.00

0

0

0.00

0

0.00

―

―
1.00
1.00

―

6,986,000

4.82

6,975,859

4.81

0

0

0.00

0

0.00

0

0

0.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

0

0.00

6,986,000

4.82

6,975,859

4.81

―

1.00

―

0

―

*1：環境省：2005年度の温室効果ガス排出量（確定値）について*2：全国の総排出量を配分する際の人口は、2005年国勢調査値（1.28億人）を用いている。
対策、施策、取組の項目数とXi
項目

採否

考え方

＜行政のコミットメント＞
新実行計画を策定

1

中長期目標実現に向けたマスタープラン、中長期ビジョンを策定（予算、時期、担当等が明記さ

1

・当該年度が計画期間に含まれる新実行計画が策定されていること
・当該年度が計画期間に含まれる新実行計画が策定されていること

管理可能な数値目標を設け、継続的なモニタリングを行い、年1回以上の頻度で公開

・目標管理・モニタリング・公開を実施するための体制、人員、予算等が確保されていること
1

・モニタリングの対象が総排出量あるいは総削減量の一定割合（例．1/2以上等）を占めていること
行政、市民、企業、大学等で構成する推進協議会やタウンミーティングを設置し、年2回以上の0.5

市民・事業者向けの環境セミナーを年2回以上の頻度で開催

1

・行政、市民、企業、大学、NPOの各主体が構成員に含まれている等、バランスのとれたメンバー構成になっていること
・環境セミナーや講習会を開催していること

小中高での環境教育に関する何らかの授業・プログラムが組み込まれている・環境問題や企業の取組を学ぶ環境教育プログラム等を実施していること
1

・環境に関する企業や自治体の出前教室等が開催されていること
予算や時期等の重要な決定ではパブリックコメントを実施

・過去1年以内に、温暖化関連施策に関してパブコメの実績があること、または、当該年度に温暖化関連施策に関してパブコメの予定があること

0.5

その他（地域特性を生かした特筆すべき取組）

・あれば特記すること＜行政以外の主体のコミットメント＞
高精度でモニタリングする仕組みがある（各世帯からの直接データ収集、BEMS、HEMSが普及

0.5

・モニタリング範囲が温室効果ガス排出量の削減対策の一定割合（例．３０％以上等）をカバーしていること

当該都市の民間企業やNPO、個人の自主目標・行動計画が含まれる

1

・新実行計画の目標想定に、住民・事業者による自主目標や行動計画が反映されている

当該都市の研究機関、大学等による知的貢献が含まれる

1

・研究機関、大学等との連携体制が構築され、事業の検証やフォローアップが実施されること

地元以外の主体のコミットメントがある（広域企業、広域NPO等による省エネ、吸収源普及活動

0.5

・地元以外の主体（広域企業、広域NPO等による省エネ、吸収源普及活動等）との連携体制が構築されていること

その他（地域特性を生かした特筆すべき取組）

0

合計

・あれば特記すること
9.0

Xi=

1

FigureＩ.4.3 L Score entry sheet screen (Japanese version)c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

億t-CO2
4.56

0.785

0.539

0.274

CASBEE for Cities

19(2011 Edition)

4.3.2 Q Score entry sheet
Sheets for Q1, Q2, and Q3 respectively include three tables in terms of individual minor items(detailed items for Q2.2); List of assessment criteria, Data entry table and Description space foractions, measures and efforts, as shown in Figure I.4.4. All the minor (detailed) items are arranged innumerical order. When certain data are entered into the middle one of the three tables on a screen in
the following steps, assessment results (the current and future levels) of the corresponding item areautomatically calculated and shown immediately in two columns from the left in the List ofassessment criteria of the upper table.
□Current situation: Data value Q of the latest available year for individual items
A data value of the latest available year as of the current assessment year (base year) set on
the Main sheet and its year are entered in individual data items.
□Tendency value QBAU: Calculated automatically. No data entry required.
□Estimated future value:
The target value of the future assessment year (year for comparison) set on the Main sheet isentered in individual data items. No entry is required unless a future target value is set.
□Future target value checking:In order to determine the operability of the future target value entered, either of Yes (Applicable)or No (Not applicable) is selected from the pull-down menu options in terms of three checking
items, based on the results of which the operability X will be automatically calculated.
□Future value QFuture:
QFuture used for the future assessment is calculated automatically in accordance with thefollowing formula.
QFuture = QBAU+ (Future target value－QBAU) x Operability X
QBAU replaces QFuture when no future target values are entered.
The bottom one of the three tables has only one row in which details of actions or efforts taken may
be freely described, including an explanation of assessment points and notes. (Not mandatory)c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

20

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Q1 環境

色欄について、プルダウンメニューから選択、または数値・コメントを記入のこと

1 自然保全
1.1 自然的土地比率
現状 重み係数(既定）＝

将来 重み係数(既定）＝

1.00

政令市

一般の市

1.00

現状

将来

町村

レベル 3.0

レベル 3.0

レベル 1

レベル 1

0.1 未満20.0 未満52.5 未満

レベル 2

レベル 2

0.1 以上
2.5 未満20.0 以上
40.0 未満52.5 以上
67.5 未満■レベル 3■レベル 3

2.5 以上15.0 未満40.0 以上
55.0 未満67.5 以上
80.0 未満

レベル 4

レベル 4

15.0 以上
45.0 未満55.0 以上
70.0 未満80.0 以上
87.5 未満

レベル 5

レベル 5

45.0 以上

70.0 以上

87.5 以上（林野面積＋経営耕地面積＋湖沼面積＋干潟面積）／自治体面積 [ ㎡ ]

現状

将来
将来目標値

QBAU

2030年

林野面積

㎡

2005年

20,000,000

20,000,000

20,000,000

○

×

×

1

耕地面積

㎡

2005年

5,000,000

5,000,000

5,000,000

○

○

×

1

5,000,000

湖沼面積

㎡

2008年

1,000,000

1,000,000

1,000,000

×

×

×

0.5

1,000,000

2005年

500,000,000

500,000,000

500,000,000

500,000,000

5.20

5.20

5.20

5.20

㎡
㎡

指標値

%

2030年

Q将来

単位

干潟面積

データ値Q

実現可能度Xデ ー タ項目

自治体面積

各項目最新年

将来目標値チェック
目標値の信頼性に
目標値を公表してい
目標達成に向けて具関して、他者に十分る、または今後公表
体的な施策が定めら理解されるような説を予定している
れている
明資料がある00.5

将来に向けた環境品質、活動度向上の取組みについて簡潔に記載して下さい。
(255文字以内。なお、先頭の30文字までがスコアシートに表示されます。)

FigureⅠ.4.4 Q Score entry sheet screen (Japanese version)c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

20,000,000

021CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

4.4 Score sheet
Figure I.4.5- shows the Score sheet screen. The Score sheet has a list of rating results entered in the
Score Entry sheet. Scores for individual items are multiplied by the respective weighting coefficient,
the results of which are sequentially and automatically totaled to display total scores for individual
assessment fields of Q1-3 and L, as well as those for assessment category Q and L.
CASBEE-City(2011 edition)
CASBEE都市（2011年版）■Manual:CASBEE-City(2011
edition)
CASBEE2011年版）■使用評価マニュアル：
都市（

xx
city
XX市

CASBEE-City_2011(v.1.0)
CASBEE-City_2011(v.1.0)■評価ソフト：■software:

Score
sheet
スコア表示シート
配慮項目
Concerned
items

政策の概要記入欄
Summary ofenvironmental policies

現状
Present
重みWeightingcoefficients
係数

評価点
Score

3.3

3.5

－

0.45

－

0.45

4.0

4.6

5.0

0.25

5.0

0.25

5.0

5.0

5.0

1.00

5.0

1.00

4.0

0.25

4.5

0.25

4.0

4.5

5.0
5.0

0.25
0.25

5.0
5.0

0.25
0.25

1.0

0.25

5.0

0.25

5.0

0.25

3.0

0.25

3.0

0.25

4.0

0.25

3.0

4.0

3.0

1.00

4.0

1.00

4.0

0.25

5.0

0.25

4.0

5.0

4.0

1.00

5.0

1.00

Q;
Quality of cities
Q 都市の環境品質、活動度
Q1 Environmental
環境
Q1
aspect1 Nature
conservation
自然保全
1.1
of green and water spaces －自然的土地比率
1 .1 Ratio
2 Local
環境質environmental quality
－
2.1
大気質
2 .1 Air－2.2
水質
2 .2 Water－
2.3
騒音
2 .3 Noise－2.4
化学物質 substance2 .4 Chemical
3 Resource
資源循環 recycling－
3.1
rate of general waste
一般廃棄物のリサイクル率
3 .1 Recycling
4 Environmental
policy環境施策
4.1
Proje環境・生物多様性向上への取組・政策
cts and policies for improvement of the environment and biodiversity －4 .1
Q2
Q2 Social社会
aspect1 Living
environment
生活環境
1.1
quality of housing standard －住居水準充実度
1 .1 Adequate
1.2
provision of parks and open spaces －公園等充実度
1 .2 Adequate－
1.3
sewage systems
下水道整備状況
1 .3 Adequate－
1.4
safety交通安全性
1 .4 Traffic－
1.5
防犯性prevention
1 .5 Crime－
1.6
preparedness
災害対応度
1 .6 Disaster
社会サービス
2 Social
services
2.1
of education services
教育サービス充実度
2 .1 Adequacyof education services (1) －教育サービス充実度（1）1 Adequacyof education services (2) －教育サービス充実度（2）2 Adequacy
文化サービス充実度
2.2
of cultural services
2 .2 Adequacy－of cultural services (1)
文化サービス充実度（1）1 Adequacy－of cultural services (2)文化サービス充実度（2）2 Adequacy－
2.3
of medical services
医療サービス充実度
2 .3 Adequacy
保育サービス充実度
2.4
of childcare services
2 .4 Adequacyof childcare services (1) －保育サービス充実度（1）1 Adequacyof childcare services (2) －保育サービス充実度（2）2 Adequacy
障害者サービス充実度
2.5
of services for the disabled
2 .5 Adequacyof services for the disabled (1) －障害者サービス充実度（1）1 Adequacyof services for the disabled (2) －障害者サービス充実度（2）2 Adequacy
高齢者サービス充実度
2.6
of services for the elderly
2 .6 Adequacyof services for the elderly (1) －高齢者サービス充実度（1）1 Adequacy
高齢者サービス充実度（2）of services for the elderly (2) －2 Adequacy
3
vitality
社会活力
3 Social
3.1
of population change due to births and deaths －人口自然増減率
3 .1 Rate
3.2
of population change due to migration －人口社会増減率
3 .2 Rate
3.3
towards an information society －情報化社会への対応
3 .3 Progress
3.4
社会活性化への取組・政策
and policies for vitalizing society －3 .4 Efforts
Q3
Q3 Economic
経済 aspect
産業力
1 Industrial
vitality
1.1
equivalent to gross regional product －１人あたりGRP相当額
1 .1 Amount1.2
of change in the number of employees －従業員数の増減率
1 .2 Ratio
2 Economic
経済交流力 exchanges
2.1
equivalent to number of people visiting city －交流人口相当指数
2 .1 Index
公共交通機関充実度
2.2
of public transportation －2 .2 Efficiency
財政基盤力viability
33 Financial－
3.1
revenues
地方税収入額3 .1 Tax－
3.2
local bonds
地方債残高
3 .2 OutstandingL;load of cities
Ｌ Environmental
環境負荷
LＬEnvironmentalload (Beneficiary-pays principle)
環境負荷＜再配分型＞
LＬEnvironmentalload (Emitter-pays principle)
環境負荷＜発生地型＞

Total
全体

将来
Future

評価点
Score

重み
Weighting現状
将来
Present
Futurecoefficients
係数

－

0.30

－

0.30

2.9

2.8

2.6

0.33

2.6

0.33

2.6

2.6

4.0

0.17

1.0

0.17

1.0

0.17

4.0

0.17

3.0
2.0

0.17
0.17

3.0
2.0

0.17
0.17

1.0

0.17

1.0

0.17

5.0

0.17

5.0

0.17

3.3

0.33

3.0

0.33

3.3

3.0

3.0

0.17

1.0

0.17

5.0

0.50

1.0

0.50

1.0

0.50

1.0

0.50

1.0

0.17

1.0

0.17

1.0

0.50

1.0

0.50

1.0

0.50

1.0

0.50

5.0

0.17

5.0

0.17

3.0

0.17

3.0

0.17

1.0

0.50

1.0

0.50

5.0

0.50

5.0

0.50

3.0

0.17

3.0

0.17

5.0

0.50

5.0

0.50

1.0

0.50

1.0

0.50

5.0

0.17

5.0

0.17

5.0

0.50

5.0

0.50

5.0

0.50

5.0

0.50

2.7

0.33

3.0

0.33

2.7

3.0

1.0
1.0

0.25
0.25

1.0
1.0

0.25
0.25

5.0

0.25

5.0

0.25

4.0

0.25

5.0

0.25

－

0.25

－

0.25

2.5

2.5

2.5

0.33

2.5

0.33

2.5

2.5

3.0

0.50

3.0

0.50

2.0

0.50

2.0

0.50

3.0

0.33

3.0

0.33

3.0

3.0

4.0

0.50

4.0

0.50

2.0

0.50

2.0

0.50

2.0

0.33

2.0

0.33

2.0

2.0

3.0
1.0

0.50
0.50

3.0
1.0

0.50
0.50

3

-

4

-

4

-

4

-

-

-

3.4
4.2

3.7
4.4

FigureＩ.4.5 Score Sheetc 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

22

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

4.5 Assessment results sheet
The Assessment results sheet shows figures and graphs representing the assessment results of Q
(the quality inside the city), L (the environmental load of the city) and BEE (the Built Environment
Efficiency of the city). The assessment results of CASBEE-City can be easily recognized at a glance,
as all the related information about the city subject to assessment is condensed into one sheet.
However, the assessment results of L require one sheet for each of the two different assessment
methods; the “Emitter-pays principle” and the “Beneficiary-pays principle.” An overview of theAssessment results sheet is shown in Figure I.4.6.
The name of the tool, the type of the assessment method for L and the version of the software used
for the assessment are clearly indicated at the top of the sheet. Under the top section, the outline of
the city subject to assessment and its assessment results are shown, which is divided into thefollowing four blocks of (1) to (4):Figure I.4.6 shows the Beneficiary-pays principle as an example, but the same structure applies tothe Emitter-pays principle.
(1) “1 Basic information about the city”
The brief overview of the city subject to assessment entered in the “1) City outline” section in theMain sheet is automatically shown, such as the name of the municipality, the city type, population andarea.
(2) “2-1 Environmental efficiency of the city” and “2-2 Assessment results of the main item (BEE chartand radar chart)”
The current value and the future estimated value of BEE (the Built Environment Efficiency) derived
from the assessment results of Q (the quality inside the city) and L (the environmental load of the city)
are shown in section 2-1. The graph represents the BEE value by plotting Q on the y axis and L on
the x axis, the value of which is expressed by the gradient of the straight line connecting the origin (Q＝0, L＝0) and the coordinate point of the Q value and L value. The higher the Q value and the lower
the L value are, the steeper the gradient becomes, which indicates that the city has a high propensity
for sustainability.
CASBEE labels the comprehensive assessment results of the city’s environmental efficiency by area
divided into five ranks according to the gradient; C (Poor), B-, B+, A and S (Excellent). Each of thefive ranks has the corresponding number of ★ symbols, and the current value written in black on adark blue background and the future value written in red on a light blue background are arranged one
above another so that the information on the screen can be easily recognized at a glance.
A radar chart collectively representing the scores of Q1 to 3 and L is placed in section 2-2, in whichfeatures of the city’s environment-related efforts can be recognized immediately. The color scheme
for the current and future values is same as that of section 2-1.
(3) “2-3 Breakdown of Q” and “2-4 Breakdown of L”
The environmental assessment results of the city are expressed by individual assessment items in
sections 2-3 and 2-4. These sections show bar charts representing the results of individual rating
items counted on the Score sheet. Both the current and future values are shown using the same color
scheme as section 2-1.
The assessment results of Q (the quality inside the city) are expressed as bar charts on the upper
half of the section, each representing one of the three assessment items; “Q1 Environmental aspect,”c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

23(2011 Edition)“Q2 Social aspect” and “Q3 Economic aspect.” In the lower half, the assessment results for L (theenvironmental load of the city) are shown in the same manner, the assessment items of which
include “L1 GHG emissions,” “L2 Environmental load reduction and CO2 absorption” and “L3Domestic trade, etc..”(4) “3 Environmental considerations in policymaking”
Section 3 automatically displays special features of the city’s administrative efforts written in the
Eco-friendliness Points Sheet, in terms of the improvement of Q (the quality inside the city) and the
reduction of L (the environmental load of the city). The right half of the section is for arbitrary use,
including drawings or pictures demonstrating the gist of such efforts.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

24

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)-City(Beneficiary-pays principle)（再配分型）■Manual: CASBEE-City
Edition)■使用評価マニュアル：
CA(2011
SB E E都市（2011年版）

評価都市の基礎情報
1 Cityoutline

XX
City
XX市

都市タイプ： 政令市
City type: Ordinance-designated city

1,600,000 人
People1,400,000

People1,500,000 人

People1,450,000
1,550,000 人
1000
km2

Total
area
総面積

A

S

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

Quality 活動度
Q
環境品質,
Q

1,500,000

1.5

3.0

100

Current status 将来
Future status
現状
2005
2030 年度
Fiscal year

Assessment
year
評価年度
Daytimepopulation
昼間人口Nighttime
population
夜間人口
Adjusted
population
補正人口

BEE=1.0

現状
Now

B+

（現状） =BEE
BEE(Current value)

67

B-

2.3
1.2

57

50

0.5

（将来） =BEE
BEE(Future value)C

Q 3 Economic
経済Q3
aspect

1

29

0

00

=

1.2

67.3
28.8

=

2.3

凡例：: S： ★★★★★
Legend4550
50

Environmental
環境負荷 L load L

L 環境 load L
Environmental

56.8
45.1

Future将来

2

Q1 Environmental
Q 1 環境aspect■Software: CASBEE-City_2011(v.1.0)■使用評価ソフト：
CA SB EE-Ci ty _ 2011(v .1.0)2-1 City’s
都市の環境効率（BEEチャート）
2-1
environmental efficiency (BEE chart)

A： ★★★★
B+： ★★★
B-： ★★
C： ★

100
100

負荷

Q
=
Score
of Q=
のスコア

2-3 Assessment
環境品質、活動度（Q）の評価の内訳（現状→将来）2-3of mid-items of Q (Present→Future)
Q1 Environmental
環境
Q1
aspectScore
of Q1= 3.7→ 4.3
環境のスコア=
5

5.0

4.5
4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

Q2 Social
社会 aspectQ2
Scoreof Q2= 2.9→ 3.3
社会のスコア=
5

5
4.1

4.0

4

4
3.0

4.0
3.3

2.6

3

3

3.2→ 3.6

Q3 Economic
経済Q3
aspect
経済のスコア=Score of Q3= 2.8→ 2.8
4

3.0

2.7

3.5

3.0
3

2.5

2.5

2.5
2.0

2

2
2

1

1
1

Natureconservation Local environmental
recycling
自然保全
環境質 quality Resources
自然循環

Environmental
policies
環境施策

Living environment

Social services

Social vitality

生活環境

社会サービス

社会活力

Industrial vitality

2-4of mid-items of L (Present→Future)
2-4 Assessment
環境負荷（L）（CO2排出量）の評価の内訳（現状→将来）合計排出量
Total
emissions

L1L1年間温室効果ガス排出量
GHG emissions

Annualemissions =年間排出量=
9.2→ 6.3 [t-CO/Person]
[t-CO
2 /人]
2

20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00

4.00

3.2→ 3.8

0.00 0.00

2[t-CO2/Person]

-0.07
-0.11

[t-CO[t-CO
2/Person]
2 /人]

1.00
0.80

-0.40

0.60

-0.60

0.40

-0.80

0.20

2.00
0.00

総排出量
Gross
emissions

0.00

-0.20

6.00

6.28

財政基盤力

L2 Environmental
L2 環境負荷低減・吸収量
load reduction L3L3
他地域で
のCO2
Domestic
trade,
etc..
and CO2 absorption
排出の抑制支援量
Annualcontrolled
Annual 年間低減・吸収量=
reduction and absorption =年間抑制= 0.1→0.1
discharge
Annual emissions= 9.3→6.4-0.1→-0.1
9.3→ 6.4-0.1→-0.1
年間排出量=
支援量= 0.0→ 0.0[t-CO /Person][t-CO /人]

8.00

9.18

Financial viability

経済交流

of L=
LScore
=
のスコア

2
[t-CO
2 /人]

10.00

Economic exchanges

産業力

Energy Industrial
Waste
greenhouse
Industry
産業 Residential
民生家庭 Commercial
民生業務 Transport
運輸
ｴﾈﾙｷﾞｰ
工業
廃棄物 Agriculture
農業分野 Other
代替フロン
-1.00
conversion processes disposalgases
CO2 absorption
転換 ﾌﾟﾛｾｽ分野
分野
等3ガス(HFCs,PFCs,SF6)
CO2吸収源CO2 emissions
from energy sources
エネルギー起源CO2

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

0.00 0.00

Low
carbon炭素
energy sources
ｴﾈﾙｷﾞｰ源

0.00

Domestic trade
国内取引等（説明図等）(Drawings or pictures)

Efforts
toward the improvement of quality Q
Q
環境品質、活動度向上の取組み

本市は、森林面積が市域の約6割をしめており、Q1.1の「自然保全」が高得点となっている。
- Regarding
Q1.1 Nature conservation, the ratio of green and water spaces is high, with forests
3R活動についても積極的に推進しており、Q1.3の「資源循環」、およびQ1.4の「環境施策」にの高得点
covering
90% of the local area.
に繋がっている。
- A wide range of unique efforts including subsidy programs are made in terms of Q1.3 Resources
recycling
and Q1.4 Environmental measures.

街灯の電力を太陽光発電と小型水力発電でまかなっており、景観と環境にも配慮した取り組みを実- Regarding Q2.1 Living environment, consideration for the environment as well as the
施している。また、防犯や災害に対するまちづくりについても積極的な対策を実施している。
preservationof scenery is given by laying power lines underground and managing electricity for
エコツーリズムの普及促進に力を入れており、農業体験ができる宿泊施設やイベントの開催など、観street lights with small hydroelectric generation, which is quite effective in terms of safety and光産業も盛んになりつつある。このような要因がQ3経済の点数アップに寄与している。
security, as it reduces blind spots.
- Regarding Q3, policies that focus on the development of ecotourism and associate the city’s
tourism industry with its designation as an Eco model city have been implemented, such as inns
at which farming can be experienced.

L
環境負荷削減の取組み
Efforts
toward the reduction of environmental load L

Attach 左のコメント説明する図、写真等をこの欄に貼り付けて下さい
drawings or pictures to further explain about the comments inthe column on the left
（貼り付ける際はシートの保護を解除して下さい）(Cancelthe sheet protection when attaching)- ゼロエミッション住宅の建設推進や、市内の庁舎の省エネ改修などを進めており、CO2排出削減に大CO2 emissions-free houses built with the support of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
きく貢献している。
Transport and Tourism, and newly-constructed government complexes built due to theof old buildings, contribute to the control of CO2 emissions from energy sources, by・deterioration
郊外に風力発電施設や太陽光発電施設を建設するなど、再生可能エネルギーの導入に力を入れて
adopting various environmentally-friendly technologies other than solar power generation,
いる。
including highly-efficient solar thermal air sampling instruments, super-insulating and airtight
・中長期の温室効果ガス削減目標として、2050年までに70％のCO2削減目標を立てており、総合的なmaterials meeting standards for next-generation energy-saving, ice thermal storage devices and
環境対策を立案している。
automatic energy measuring devices.
- Designing a system for the continuous utilization of abundant forest resources by establishing aframework in which profits from selling the electric power of a wind power station on a
mountaintop covers part of the costs for forest improvement- A mid- and long-term action plan created after application for designation as an eco model city
ensures and aims to achieve the target of 70% energy emissions reduction from energy sources,
provided that the maximum effort is made and by estimating GHG emissions over the next 40
years till 2050.

FigureⅠ.4.5 Assessment results sheet

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

25(2011 Edition)

PARTⅡ Assessment method and criteria
1.

L; Environmental load of cities
1.1 Basic principle of L assessment
1.1.1 L assessment guideline
The following methodologies from the “New action planning manual” are utilized as common practicaland reasonable assessment methods at the city level:(1) Method of estimating current GHG emissions(2) Target setting in an action plan(3) Method of estimating future GHG emissions(4) Countermeasure options required for formulating discharge control measures and policies
The new action planning manual suggests different methods, in terms of the types of greenhousegases subject to assessment when estimating the current GHG emissions, the estimation accuracy
and the need for estimating the future GHG emissions, depending on the type of city such as
government-ordinance-designated cities, core cities and special-ordinance cities, and othermunicipalities. However, CASBEE-City conducts calculation and estimation as accurately as possible
depending on the rater’s situation on a practical level, and does not adopt methods in which types of
GHG emissions subject to assessment or conditions may change according to the size or type of city.

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

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

26

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

1.2 Individual assessment items
The structure of assessment items for L is basically in accordance with the new action planning
manual, as shown in Table II.1.1. The gross annual emissions of the city ((t-CO2/Year) for each item
is first calculated, followed by the calculation of per-capita CO2 emissions of the adjusted population(t-CO2/People/Year).
TableⅡ.1.1 L assessment items (idmtical to TableⅠ.3.1)
Main category

Middle category
L1.1
CO2 from energy sources

L1 GHG emissions
L1.2 Industrial processes
L1.3 Waste disposal sector
L1.4 Agricultural sector
L1.5 Other greenhousegases (HFCs, PFCs, SF6)

Minor category

Beneficiary-pays
principle items

L1.1.1 Industrial sector○

L1.1.2 Residential sector
L1.1.3 Commercial sector
L1.1.4 Transportation sector
L1.1.5 Energy conversion
sector
－
－
－

○
○
○

－

L2 Environmental load
reduction and CO2
absorption

L2.1 Low-carbon energy
sources
L2.2 CO2 absorption－

L3 Support to other regions
for reducing CO2
emissions

L3.1 Domestic trade, etc.

－－

The main category items are mainly classified into three items; L1 GHG emissions, L2 Environmentalload reduction and CO2 absorption and L3 Domestic trade, etc.. Outlines of individual items aredescribed in the following paragraphs:

1.2.1 L1: GHG emissions
In accordance with the section structure of the new action planning manual, the L assessment
consists of assessment items for CO2 from energy sources (L1.1) and those for GHG emissions otherthan for energy purposes (L1.2 to L1.5).
CO2 emissions from energy sources (L1.1) consists of multiple sectors including Industrial sector(L1.1.1), Residential sector (L1.1.2), Commercial sector (L1.1.3), Transportation sector (L1.1.4) and
Energy conversion sector (L1.1.5).
Among these sectors, the Industrial sector (L1.1.1), Energy conversion sector (L1.1.5), Industrial
processes (L1.2) and Agricultural sector (L1.4) use the assessment method in which GHG emissions
are calculated within the municipality in combination with that in which GHG emissions are
redistributed to other municipalities, the details of which are described in section 1.2.4.
L1.1 CO2 emissions from energy sources
CO2 emissions attributed to energy consumption account for the majority of human-inducedc 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities27(2011 Edition)

greenhouse gases, which are further classified as follows:
L1.1.1 Industrial sector
The industrial sector addresses CO2 emissions attributed to energy consumption throughproduction activities in various industries, such as manufacturing, agriculture, forestry andfisheries, mining and construction.
L1.1.2 Residential sector
This sector addresses CO2 emissions for home energy use other than for transportation
purposes such as private cars.
L1.1.3 Commercial sector
This sector addresses CO2 emissions attributed to energy consumption in office buildings andother business premises in which corporate administration departments are located, and that of
the tertiary industries including hotels, department stores and other service businesses.
L1.1.4 Transportation sector
This sector is classified into two major groups; passenger transport including cars and buses,
and cargo transport including land, maritime and air transportation, and addresses CO2
emissions attributed to energy consumption in these groups. In accordance with the new action
planning manual, the place where emissions are recorded is, in principle, determined dependingon the transportation channel as follows and emissions redistribution between cities is notconducted:-Cars: Emissions are recorded at the place where the car is registered.
-Railways: Emissions are recorded at the place where the train passes through.
-Ships: Emissions are recorded where the ship arrives.
-Airplanes: Emissions are recorded where the plane lands.
L1.1.5 Energy conversion sector
This sector addresses CO2 emissions attributed to energy consumption in the process of
converting imported or produced energy sources into a more usable form, the classifications ofwhich include power generation, oil refinement, coke production and the captive consumption of
town gas.
L1.2 Industrial processes
This sector addresses the following GHG emissions in industrial processes other than those forenergy consumption purposes:- CO2 emissions attributed to the manufacturing of cement, quicklime and soda lime
- CH4 emissions attributed to the production of chemicals including carbon black- N2O generated in the production processes of adipic acid and nitric acid
- CH4 and N2O generated during fuel combustion- NH4 and N2O generated from running vehicles
L1.3 Waste disposal sector
GHG emissions in the waste disposal sector fall roughly into four categories; waste incineration,
waste landfill, effluent treatment and the utilization of waste as an alternative fuel, the details of
which are described as follows:- CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions attributed to the incineration disposal of general waste including
waste plastic and waste synthetic fabric, and industrial waste including waste oil, various types ofwaste plastic and specially controlled industrial waste

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

28

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)- CH4 generated at waste landfill sites- CH4, N2O generated during the effluent treatment process- CO2, CH4, and N2O generated through the utilization of waste as an alternative fuel.
L1.4 Agricultural sector
This sector addresses the following GHG emissions in Agricultural processes.
- CH4 emitted from rice paddies- CH4 generated through domestic animal rearing- CH4 and N2O emissions attributed to the treatment of domestic animal waste- CH4 and N2O emissions attributed to the incineration of agricultural waste- N2O emissions attributed to the use of fertilizers on farmland.
L1.5 Other greenhouse gases (HFCs, PFCs, SF6)
Other greenhouse gases include HFCs, PFCs and SF6, which are used as refrigerants and are
emitted into the air.

1.2.2 L2: Environmental load reduction and CO2 absorption (Reduction of GHG
emissions and CO2 absorption)
This section includes CO2 reduction by utilizing low-carbon energy sources such as renewableenergy sources (L2.1) and CO2 absorption by forests (L2.2).
L2.1 Low-carbon energy sources
a. Assessing the annual reduction of GHG emissions by utilizing renewable or unused energy
sources, conducted by individual municipalities as an effort toward the reduction ofenvironmental load.
b. As the utilization of renewable or unused energy sources by suppliers affect the GHG emissions
coefficient, the following should be taken into account in order to avoid double counting GHG
emissions between L2.1 and those of the annual emissions (L1):- Regarding the current assessment (i.e. the current estimate of GHG emissions), efforts ofconsumers to improve energy independence contributing to the reduction of CO2 emissions
from energy sources, including the utilization of solar power, solar heat, sewage channel heat,
atmospheric heat and exhaust heat from factories, shall be deemed to have already beenreflected in the annual emissions (L1). Therefore, they are not counted in L2.1.
- The reduction of environmental load by means other than those mentioned above, such as theutilization of excess renewable or unused energy sources, should be regarded as an effort ofthe municipality and will be assessed in this section (L2.1), on the premise of avoiding double
counting, if their impacts are quantifiable.
- Energies supplied to other municipalities are counted at the supplying municipality only, not in
the consuming municipality, according to the new action planning manual.
L2.2 CO2 absorption
a. Calculation of carbon absorption is based on the new action planning manual.
b. The calculation method of absorption by forests is in accordance with the “Ordinance for
Enforcement of the Offsetting Credit (J-VER) Scheme” and in the “Monitoring Guidelines for theOffsetting Credit (J-VER) Scheme (Ver.1.1) for Emissions Reduction Projects” introduced by the
Ministry of the Environment on October 13, 2009, and on September 9, 2009, respectively.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

29(2011 Edition)

1.2.3 L3: Support to other regions for reducing CO2 emissions
This section includes the municipality’s efforts for CO2 emissions control in other municipalities, suchas purchasing the domestic CDM credit. According to the Kyoto Protocol in which the CDM (*) is
regarded as a supplementary mean of achieving target figures in individual countries, CASBEE-City
also places the CDM as a supplementary mean of reducing actual GHG emissions andenvironmental load through the trading of low-carbon energy sources (L2.1) between municipalities.
When this tool is revised in the future, further subdivisions of this section will be discussed as various
certification schemes are established.
*CDM: Clean Development Mechanism(1) In view of the current situation in which the overseas trade at the local municipality level isunlikely to be carried out, and domestic schemes including the CDM trading are being
developed, the following items focusing on the domestic trade are addressed in theassessment:
a. Domestic CDM credit (certified)b. Offsetting credit (certified)c. Green electricity bond (certified)d. Emissions tradinge. Development of low-carbon products and goods
f. Efforts of NPOs
(2) The aforementioned credits are usually obtained at the company level, and are difficult to
distribute among municipalities. Though some of them have a public list, most of them areunlikely to be made public even in the future. Currently, the trading volume is not prescribed in
the Global Warming Solutions Act, however, the following should be noted in the calculation inorder to avoid double counting or even triple counting between those who acquire theemissions credits (the seller) and those who buy the credits from the seller to reduce
emissions:- Municipalities purchasing credits
Credits purchased are collectively counted in L3. (The emissions reduction is not counted in
L1 the GHG emissions.)- Municipalities selling credits
Credits sold are counted in L3.
(3) Industrial cities may set a goal of promoting the production of low-carbon goods in factories
located in the area, which can be regarded as the city’s own effort, and can be assessed in thissection (L3), if the impact and effects of the effort are quantifiable, and the same principle
applies to goods received from other cities, on the premise of avoiding double counting.
(4) Efforts made by organizations based on the city, conducting business activities in a wide area
can be assessed as the city’s efforts in this section (L3) on the premise of avoiding double
counting, if their impacts are quantifiable.
(5) In view of the above, the overall assessment is conducted, summarizing the following points inaccordance with the declaration by the municipality:c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

30

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

a. Credits are certified by the emissions trading system or the J-VER
b. A trading between two cities is counted at the both cities for 1/2 each.
c. The buyer of credits is an organization or a company conducting business within the city only,
excluding the following:- Local governments or semi-governmental organizations- Companies and NPOs with a business establishment within the city only
- Local communities such as neighborhood associations

1.2.4 Emissions of industry-related sectors
Cities with a number of industry-related companies, organizations and facilities etc. are likely to havemore GHG emissions than other cities. In this case, the fact that these cities greatly contribute to theconvenience or improvement of other cities through the product supply has to be considered.
The industry-related sectors include the following four sectors:
L1.1.1 Industrial sector
L1.1.5 Energy conversion sector

Captive consumption of electric power plants and town gas
stations

L1.2 Industrial process sector

Cement manufacturing and quicklime production

L1.4 Agricultural sector

CH4 emissions from rice paddies and cattle rearing

CASBEE-City is designed to assess environmental load (L) in consideration of the above factors
by indicating two values in accordance with the following ideas. In the both ideas, the supply ofelectricity, town gas, and district heat is counted at the place of consumption, in accordance withthe general calculation method adopted in the new action planning manual.
- Emitter-pays principle: Based on the calculation method in which CO2 emissions fromindustry-related sectors are counted at the place of emission (i.e. the principle source ofemissions), the emissions are included in the city’s inventory where the industry is located,the value of which is the same as that calculated in accordance with the new action
planning manual.
- Beneficiary-pays principle: Based on the calculation method in which CO2 emissions fromindustry-related sectors are counted at the place of final consumption (i.e. the place ofconsumption principle), industry-related emissions in individual cities are deducted fromtheir inventories, and instead, the national average of industry-related sectors is added in
the assessment.
The reason for adding the industry-related emissions as the national average in the
Beneficiary-pays principle is because, unlike the supply of electricity, gas, and district heat,products of the industry-related sectors including agricultural products do not have ameasurement value of consumption for each consuming area, and therefore, from a practicalpoint of view, the calculation is based on the idea in which all the people should bear an equalshare of the total emissions of the industry-related sectors.
There was an idea in which the redistribution applies to certain industries with particularly highCO2 emissions, and a preliminary study thereon as a replacement was conducted. However, as
the results of the study show that it is necessary to understand emissions of the industry in everyc 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

31

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)city nationwide, data of which are difficult to obtain, and that it is also hard to select certain
industries to which the redistribution applies. Consequently, the idea was not adopted as areplacement. (For details of the preliminary study, please refer to the Commentaries and data 1.)＜Calculation procedure for L (Beneficiary-pays principle)＞[L (Beneficiary-pays principle) (t-CO2/person/year)]= [L (Emitter-pays principle) (t-CO2/person/year)]－ [Emissions of industry-related sectors in the city (t-CO2/year)] / [Adjusted population of thecity (person)]*1＋ [Total national emissions of industry-related sectors(t-CO2/year)]*2/ [Total population(person)]*1 Adjusted population (person) ={(Daytime population)+(Nighttime population)} / 2*2 Possible figures include the definite value of GHG emissions released by the Ministry of theEnvironment and data regarding indirect emissions after electricity distribution and heatpartition announced by the Greenhouse Gas Inventory Office (GIO).

Commercial Residential Transportation l
sectorsectorsectorIndustry-related sector

City A

Subtract(Emitter-pays principle)

City B(Emitter-pays principle)

Subtract

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

Industry-related
sectorRedistribution value ofindustry-related sector
City A(Beneficiary-pays principle)

City B(Beneficiary-pays principle)

Add

Sectoral total
annualemissions
nationwide

Divide by the total
population to get theindustry-related
emissions per capita

Residential
sectorTransportation
sectorFigureⅡ.1.1 Calculation procedure of L (Beneficiary-pays principle)

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

32

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

1.3

L assessment criteria

1.3.1 Single-axis assessment combining L1, L2 and L3
After careful consideration, a single-axis assessment using a value totaling L1, L2 and L3 is adopted
for the L assessment for the following reasons:(A) Currently, efforts regarding L2 and L3 are made in very few cities and obtaining data for
individual cities nationwide is quite difficult. Therefore, setting proper and respective levels for L1,
L2 and L3 is also difficult. As for future assessment, the standards for level setting required to
conduct a fair assessment have not been completely established for the same reason.
(B) The results of the single-axis assessment combining L1, L2, and L3 are expressed as a bar
chart prepared for each of the three items, apart from a radar chart, in order to identify thefeatures of the city.

1.3.2 L assessment criteria
When calculating BEE (Q/L), if the actual value of CO2 emissions per capita of the city
(t-CO2/Person/Year) is used as L, there is a possibility that the L value is 0 or a negative number (e.g.,
in a city which is heavily forested and the amount of CO2 absorption is the same as or more than theamount of emissions of the city after implementing carbon

absorption measures), which isinappropriate for calculating BEE based on the “Efficiency” concept. Accordingly, in the L assessment
scale, the following logistic function is applied, in which the L value is converted from the actual valueof CO2 emissions having a wide range of possible values including negative numbers to values
between 0 to 100, and is used for the BEE calculation. In this case, the L value, which has beenscaled, will be rounded up to the closest whole number. (Therefore, in theory, the minimum L value on
the scale in this tool is 1, and the maximum is 100.)

L = 100 *1
1 + exp(− a * ( X − m))

X: Annual CO2 emissions per capita in the city (t-CO2/Person/Year)
m: National average of the annual CO2 emissions per capita (t-CO2/Person/Year) ･･･ 10 t-CO2/Person/Yeara: Gain (A coefficient that increases the sensitivity of near-average values) ･･･ 0.2432 (= 1/8*ln(7))
The Gain is designed to set a reference point at L=12.5 when a city achieves the long-term reduction
goal for developed countries of 80% from the national average in 2005, in other words, when X = 2(t-CO2/person/year). (See Figure II.1.2)

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

33(2011 Edition)

L Scale (0 to 100)L (used in the BEE calculation)(1) National average as of 2005

(2) 80% reduction fromthe national average

CO2 emissions (t-CO2/Person/Year)

FigureⅡ.1.2: Assessment and conversion of L
□Formula for conversion to L score
The L score used on the Score sheet or radar charts is a value obtained from the L scale (1 to 100)
based on the conversion described above, which is further converted using the following formula androunded off to one decimal place.
L score = 5－L/25

Level 5

L Score (1 to 5)

Level 4.5

Level 4The level is calculated using theformula “L score = 5－L/25 (rounded
off to one decimal place)”

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1
L Scale (0 to 100)

FigureⅡ.1.3: Relation between L score and scale

The reference point (Scale = 12.5 when X = 2 t-CO2/person/year) for setting Gain on the logistic
curve corresponds to 4.5 in the L score as shown in FigureⅡ.1.3. In other words, when reducing CO2
emissions at the 80% level from the national average, the L value of the city is assessed as Level 5,
equivalent to the highest level, supposing that it is rounded off to the closest whole number.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

34

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

2． Q; Quality of cities
Q1 Environmental aspect●1.1 Nature conservation●1.1.1 Ratio of green and water spaces
The assessment focuses on the degree of natural conservation by utilizing the ratio of green andwater spaces in the area of the municipality.
□Assessment index(Forest area + Farmer-owned cultivated area + Lake area + Mudflat area) / Area of the municipality□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages%

Unit
Less than 0.1

Level 1Less than 20.0

Less than 52.5

Level 20.1 or more to less than 2.5

20.0 or more to less than 40.0

52.5 or more to less than 67.5

Level 3

2.5 or more to less than 15.0

40.0 or more to less than 55.0

67.5 or more to 80.0

Level 415.0 or more to less than 45.0

55.0 or more to less than 70.0

80.0 or more to less than 87.5

Level 545.0 or more

70.0 or more

87.5 or more

□Reference data
(1) Forest area: “Census of Agriculture and Forestry,” the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries(2) Farmer-owned cultivated area: “Census of Agriculture and Forestry,” the Ministry of Agriculture,
Forestry and Fisheries(3) Lake area: Independent surveys conducted by individual municipalities(4) Mudflat area: Independent surveys conducted by individual municipalities(5) Area of the municipality: Total land area from the “Census of Agriculture and Forestry,” theMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Source: “Land Survey of Prefectures, Shi, Ku,
Machi and Mura,” the Geographical Survey Institute)□Explanation of index-Green and water spaces are regarded as an index representing the degree of the nature conservation
directly related to the natural water circulation, environmental purification and the green network.
-Natural land consists of forest area (the total area of current forest areas and native grassland
other than forests), farmer-owned cultivated area and aquatic environment including lake areas
and mudflats serving as habitats for a variety of life forms.
□Notes-Regarding Q1.1 Natural conservation in the middle items, opinions were expressed that theassessment should include not only quantity, but also quality. Development of an objective andaccurate index regarding quality is recognized as one of the items for continued discussion in the
future.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

35

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●1.2 Local environmental quality
The assessment is based on the following 4 indices representing the level of basic environmental
elements.

●1.2.1 Air
The assessment focuses on the degree of attainment of the environmental standard in terms of the 4
major substances representing air quality.
□Assessment index
The degree of attainment of the environmental standard in terms of the density of nitrogen dioxide(NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), suspended particulate matter (SPM) and photochemical oxidant (Ox),measured at the general air pollution monitoring stations.
□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Unit

Ratio of the number of substances, among 4 items (NO2, SO2, SPM, Ox), achieving
the environmental standard at every monitoring point (%)

Level 1Less than 20

Level 220 or more to less than 40

Level 340 or more to less than 60

Level 460 or more to less than 80

Level 580 or more

□Environmental standard
Source: “Environmental Quality Standards Regarding Air Pollution” based on the regulations of the
Basic Act for Environmental Pollution Control and the Environmental Basic Act(1) NO2 : The daily average value of the hourly value is less than 0.06 ppm.
(2) SO2 : The daily average value of the hourly value is 0.04 ppm or less and the hourly value is
0.1 ppm or less.
(3) SPM: The daily average value of the hourly value is 0.10 mg/m3 or less and the hourly value is0.20 mg/m3 or less.
(4) Ox : The hourly value is 0.06 ppm or less.
□Reference data
“Environmental Numerical Databases,” National Institute for Environmental Studies□Explanation of index
Regarding air quality control, a number of municipalities have established constant monitoring
stations in order to conduct monitoring of the object substances. Among the five major substances
representing air quality, excluding carbon monoxide (CO), for which the environmental standard
has been achieved in most parts of Japan, the assessment is conducted based on whether theenvironmental standard is achieved at every monitoring point in terms of nitrogen dioxide (NO2),

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

36

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

sulfur dioxide (SO2), suspended particulate matter (SPM) and photochemical oxidant (Ox).
□Exemption from the assessment-Municipalities in which no monitoring points for any of the 4 substances have been established are
exempt from assessment using this index.
-When monitoring points for only some of the 4 substances have been established within themunicipality, the assessment will exclude those without monitoring points and calculate thepercentage.

●1.2.2 Water
The assessment focuses on the degree of attainment of the environmental standard in terms of
public water areas including rivers and groundwater.
□Assessment index
Degree of attainment of the environmental standard in terms of the water quality of rivers (in termsof health or living environment) and groundwater (health).
□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Unit

Number of items, among the three items (River/Health, River/Living environment,
Groundwater/Health), that exceed the environmental standard at every monitoring
point along the river, and those which exceed the environmental standard at 95% ormore of the monitoring points for groundwater.

Level 10
There is at least one monitoring point where the River/
Health item is not above the standard.

Level 2-

Level 3

1
The River/Health item is above the standard at all monitoring points.

Level 4

Level 5

2
The River/Health item and River/
Living Environment item exceed the standard at all monitoring points.
3
Both of the River/Health item and River/Living Environment item exceed the standard
at all monitoring points, and the Groundwater/Health item is also above the standard
at 95% or more of the monitoring points.

□Environmental standard
Source: “Environmental Quality Standards Regarding Water Pollution” based on the regulations of
the Basic Act for Environmental Pollution Control and the Environmental Basic Act□Reference data
(1) Monitoring points where the environmental standard is achieved in terms of the River/Healthand River/Living environment item: “Environmental Numerical Databases,” National Institute forEnvironmental Studiesc 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

37(2011 Edition)(2) Monitoring points where the environmental standard is achieved in terms of the Groundwater/Health
item: Activity reports of the environmental bureau in individual municipalities□Explanation of index-Regarding the water quality, individual municipalities conduct annual water quality measurementin terms of public water areas including rivers. Many municipalities also conduct the same forgroundwater.
-The assessment is conducted in view of the degree of attainment in terms of 26 health items
relating to health protection, which are the standards of water quality in public water areas, theenvironmental standard relating to the conservation of the living environment prescribed in theEnvironmental Basic Act (the BOD value) and as for level 5, the degree of attainment of theenvironmental standard regarding the overall survey for understanding the state of thegroundwater quality of the entire municipality.
□Exemption from the assessment-Municipalities in which no monitoring points for the River/Health item have been established are
exempt from assessment using this index.
-When no monitoring points for the River/Living Environment and the Groundwater items havebeen established, the municipality will be assessed as not meeting the standards in terms of the 2
items.

●1.2.3 NoiseThe assessment focuses on the degree of attainment of the environmental standard for road traffic
noise.
□Assessment index
Number of houses which are below the environmental standard regardless of day or night in termsof motor vehicle traffic noise / Number of houses subject to the assessment□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Unit

%

Level 1Less than 88.0

Level 288.0 or more to less than 92.0

Level 392.0 or more to less than 94.0

Level 494.0 or more to less than 97.0

Level 597.0 or more

Towns and villages□Environmental standard
Source: “Environmental Quality Standards Regarding Noise” based on the regulations of theEnvironmental Basic Act

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

38

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)□Reference data
(1) Number of houses subject to the assessment: Results of the Motor Vehicle Traffic Noise Survey,
National Institute for Environmental Studies(Assessment results of the degree of attainment of the environmental standard)(2) Number of houses which are below the standard regardless of day or night: Results of theMotor Vehicle Traffic Noise Survey, National Institute for Environmental Studies(Assessment results of the degree of attainment of the environmental standard)□Explanation of index-Regarding noise issues, sources of noise include fixed sources such as factories, offices andconstruction sites, as well as mobile sources such as cars, trains and airplanes. As factories andoffices belong to the specific facilities category and are correlated with land use, data relating toroad traffic noise are selected as an assessment item in this section.
-The assessment is based on the degree of attainment of the environmental standard in terms of
two time periods during day and night at the monitoring points.
□Exemption from the assessment-Municipalities in which the number of houses subject to assessment is 0 are exempt fromassessment using this index.

●1.2.4 Chemical substance
The assessment focuses on the degree of attainment of the environmental standard for air and water
quality relating to the utilization of dioxins.
□Assessment index
Degree of attainment of the environmental standard for air and water quality relating to theutilization of dioxins.
□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Unit

Ratio of the number of items, among 2 items (air and water/sediment of public water
areas), achieving the environmental standard at every monitoring point (including
those of individual municipalities)(%)

Level 10

Level 2－

Level 350

Level 4－

Level 5100

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

39(2011 Edition)□Environmental standard
Source: “Environmental Quality Standards Regarding Air Pollution, Water Pollution and Soil
Pollution (including the pollution of bottom sediments) by Dioxins” based on the regulations of the
Act on Special Measures concerning Countermeasures against Dioxins□Reference data
Surveys conducted by the National Institute for Environmental Studies and activity reports of theenvironmental bureau in individual municipalities□Explanation of index
The environmental standard is set for each of the three major chemical substances such as the
Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR), dioxins and environmental endocrine disrupters.
The assessment focuses on the degree of attainment of the environmental standard for air andwater quality in terms of the utilization of dioxins and is based on a variety of results of past studies
conducted by individual municipalities.
□Exemption from the assessment-Municipalities in which no monitoring points for both items have been established are exempt fromassessment using this index.
-When monitoring points for only one of the two items have been established within themunicipality, the assessment will exclude the item without monitoring points and calculate thepercentage.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

40

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●1. 3Resource recycling●1.3.1

Recycling rate of general waste

The assessment focuses on the recycling rate of general waste representing the most basic resource
recycling.
□Assessment index(Direct recycling + Recycling after intermediate treatment* + Group collection) /(Solid waste disposal + Group collection)*The following are facilities for recycling after intermediate treatment:- Waste combustor- Bulk waste disposal facility- Waste composting facility- Waste processing facility for use as animal feed
- Methanation facility- Waste-derived fuel fabrication facility- Facilities conducting other recycling- Other facilities□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages%

Unit
Level 1Less than 11.5

Less than 15.0

Less than 12.5

Level 2

11.5 or more to less than 14.5

15.0 or more to less than 17.5

12.5 or more to less than 17.5

Level 314.5 or more to less than 17.5

17.5 or more to less than 22.5

17.5 or more to less than 22.5

Level 417.5 or more to less than 23.5

22.5 or more to less than 30.0

22.5 or more to less than 30.0

Level 523.5 or more

30.0 or more

30.0 or more

□Reference data
“MOE Information on waste management technology,” Office of Waste Disposal Management,
Waste Management and Recycling Department, Ministry of the Environment□Explanation of index-The assessment is based on the recycling rate of general waste representing the most basic
resource recycling.
-The numerator expressing net recycling consists of Group collection + Direct recycling + Recycling
after intermediate treatment. Recycling after intermediate treatment includes waste processed at
waste combustors, bulk waste disposal facilities, waste composting facilities, waste processing
facilities for use as animal feed, methanation facilities and waste-derived fuel fabrication facilities.
□Notes-“Reuse” and “Reduce,” elements of “3R” together with “Recycle,” are related to resource recycling.
However, as an assessment index regarding “Reuse” has not been determined so far and“Reduce” is easier to understand when assessed in the L (Environmental load) section, theassessment in this section adopts the recycling rate as the only index at the moment.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

41(2011 Edition)●1. 4 Environmental policy●1.4.1

Projects and policies for improvement of the environment and biodiversity

The assessment focuses on anthropogenic factors for the conservation and sustainable developmentof local environmental quality and biodiversity.
□Assessment index
Projects and policies for the conservation and sustainable development of local environmental
quality and biodiversity are assessed in accordance with a point rating system.
□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Unit

Number of projects and policies (in the following 10 items)

Level 1Less than 3

Level 23 or more to less than 5

Level 35 or more to less than 7

Level 47 or more or less than 9

Level 59 or more□Projects and policies subject to counting(1) The Basic Environment Regulation and the Basic Environment Plan (Local Agenda) areformulated.
(2) A framework for setting a numerical index and publicizing the progress and results ofenvironmental efforts (i.e. Environmental Reports and Environmental White Papers) has been
established.
(3) A series of ISO-14000 certifications has been obtained, or individual environment management
systems have been introduced.
(4) Specific guidelines for development projects planning in view of the environmental
consideration have been established.
(5) Support is provided for the environmental efforts of small-and-medium-sized businesses andindividual households through financial frameworks including environmental funds and tax
systems.
(6) Support is provided to NPOs which promote environmental education and activities in order toenhance the environmental activities of citizens.
(7) A framework for reflecting the opinions of citizens through providing information and promoting
exchanges in order to enhance daily cooperation among citizens, businesses and thegovernment has been established.
(8) A red data book containing special instructions according to the degree of danger of extinction
has been prepared.
(9) Policies for the proper management and exclusion of nonnative species have beenc 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

42

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

implemented.
(10) Monitoring of biodiversity is constantly conducted.
□Reference data
Basic Environment Plan for individual municipalities□Explanation of index-The efforts of individual municipalities for the improvement of the environment and biodiversity arecomprehensively assessed.
-The assessment includes the publication of the progress on the formulation of the Basic
Environment Plan and the result thereof, the introduction of environmental management, theformulation of environmental indices for development projects, support systems for citizen
participation and NPOs activities, and the progress on the policy implementation for ensuringbiodiversity.
□Notes-Items in this section focus on assessment in terms of the very efforts and policies of individualmunicipalities. Therefore, they have a different character from other assessment items regarding
the quality improvement of the municipality based on a numerical index as a result of its efforts
and policies. Instead, they adopt the so-called qualitative assessment. If it is possible to set
assessment items that are expressed using a numerical index in the future, items in this section
will be reviewed for reorganization when this tool is updated.
-As biodiversity is expected to attract increasing social attention in the future, whether it isregarded as an independent minor item will be discussed when this tool is updated.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

43

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Q2 Social aspect●2.1 Living environment
The assessment is based on the following 5 indices representing the degree of safety and security ofthe municipality and the basic living amenity.

●2.1.1 Adequate quality of housing standard
The assessment focuses on the level of the housing standard according to the size of the existing
housing stock.
□Assessment index
Per capita dwelling floor space□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

2

m / Person

Unit
Level 1Less than 28.0

Less than 32.0

Less than 38.0

Level 228.0 or more to less than 30.5

32.0 or more to less than 35.5

138.0 or more to less than 40.5

Level 330.5 or more to less than 31.5

35.5 or more to less than 37.5

40.5 or more to less than 43.0

Level 431.5 or more to less than 33.5

37.5 or more to less than 40.5

43.0 or more to less than 47.0

Level 533.5 or more

40.5 or more

47.0 or more

□Reference data
Per-capita dwelling floor space: “National Census,” Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs
and Communications□Explanation of index-“Per capita dwelling floor space” shown in the “Census returns” prepared by the Statistics Bureauof the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications is used as an index.
-The national census is statistics based on the number of people, not the number of houses, which
does not include empty houses. Therefore, houses built in excess of need are not included in theassessment.
-The higher the value of this index, the higher the housing standard becomes, and therefore, thedegree of living amenity is considered to be high.
□Notes-The census returns disclose both the floor space per household and the floor space per capita as
statistical information, but this assessment adopts the latter as the standard for the dwelling floor
space required for an affluent and comfortable life set by the government is proportional to thenumber of people per household.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

44

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●2.1.2 Adequate provision of parks and open spaces
The assessment focuses on the degree of development of parks related to the degree of living
amenity based on the area of city parks and similar facilities.
□Assessment index(Area of city parks + Area of other facilities similar to city parks) / Adjusted population□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Unit

m2 / Person

Level 1Less than 7.50

Level 27.50 or more to less than 9.50

Level 39.50 or more to less than 10.5

Level 410.5 or more to less than 13.0

Level 513.0 or more

Towns and villages□Reference data
(1) Area of city parks: “City Park Database,” City and Regional Development Bureau, Ministry ofLand, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism(2) Area of facilities similar to city parks: Independent surveys conducted by individualmunicipalities(3) Adjusted population (= (Daytime population + Nighttime population) /2): “Census returns,”
Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is obtained by dividing the area of city parks approved by the Parks,
Green Spaces and Landscape Division, the City and Regional Development Bureau, the Ministryof Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism and similar facilities approved by municipalities, by
the adjusted population.
-City parks refer to parks established by the national government or local government bodies under
the City Park Law within urban planning districts, and are classified into the following types:
Basic Parks for Community Use: City Block parks, Neighborhood parks, Community parks
Basic Parks for City Wide Use: Comprehensive parks, Sport parks
Large Scaled Parks: Regional Parks, Recreation Cities
National Government Parks
Buffer Green Belts: Specific Parks, Buffer Green Belts, Ornamental Green Spaces,
Greenways-Facilities similar to city parks refer to spaces with the openness, security and functionality of public
spaces such as green spaces, and may depend on the situations of individual municipalities.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

45

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)□Notes-Facilities similar to city parks are included in the area subject to assessment, in order tocompensate for cases in which there are very few parks falling under the above category of “Cityparks” indicated in the Explanation of index in some towns and villages.

●2.1.3Adequate sewage systems

The assessment focuses on the development of sewage systems related to the degree of living
amenity.
□Assessment index
Sanitation coverage (Population served by a sewage system / Total population) + Rural sanitation
coverage (Rural population served by a sewage system / Total population)□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages%

Unit
Level 1Less than 90.0

Less than 40.0

15.0 or more

Level 290.0 or more to less than 99.0

40.0 or more to less than 60.0

15.0 or more to less than 45.0

Level 399.0 or more to less than 99.8

60.0 or more to less than 80.0

45.0 or more to less than 60.0

Level 499.8 or more to less than 99.9

80.0 or more to less than 95.0

60.0 or more to less than 75.0

Level 599.9 or more

95.0 or more

75.0 or more

□Reference data
(1) Sanitation coverage: “Sanitation coverage,” Japan Sewage Works Association(2) Rural sanitation coverage: Independent surveys conducted by individual municipalities□Explanation of index-The sanitation coverage (the percentage of sewage treatment population in the total population)according to the Japan Sewage Works Association is used as an index.
-Regarding areas served by a rural community sewage system, the index includes its user
population in the entire population served by a sewage system.
-The higher the value of the index is, the higher the level of development in sewage treatment is
considered to be, and therefore, the degree of living amenity is considered to be high.
□Notes-Sewage treatment facilities include septic tanks for combined treatment as well as sewage
systems and rural community sewage systems. However, the assessment will be carried out interms of the latter two, considering the functionality thereof.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

46

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●2.1.4 Traffic safety
The assessment focuses on the frequency of traffic accidents related to regional safety and security.
□Assessment index
Number of traffic accidents / Adjusted population□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Number of accidents / 1,000 people

Unit
Level 1

7.25 or more

8.0 or more

7.0 or more

Level 2

5.25 or more to less than 7.25

6.5 or more to less than 8.0

5.0 or more to less than 7.0

Level 34.75 or more to less than 5.25

5.5 or more to less than 6.5

3.5 or more to less than 5.0

Level 44.0 or more to less than 4.75

4.5 or more to less than 5.5

2.0 or more to less than 3.5

Level 5Less than 4.0

Less than 4.5

Less than 2.0□Reference data
(1) Number of traffic accidents: “Traffic Statistics,” National Police Agency(2) Adjusted population (= (Total population + Daytime population) / 2): “Census returns,” Statistics
Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is obtained by dividing the number of traffic accidents shown in the“Traffic Statistics” prepared by the National Police Agency, by the adjusted population.
-The lower the value of the index is, the higher the level of traffic safety becomes, and therefore,
the level of regional safety and security is considered to be high.
-Traffic accidents in the Traffic Statistics refer to accidents on roads specified in the Road Traffic
Act, caused by the traffic of vehicles (including lightweight vehicles such as bicycles), streetcars
and trains, involving deaths or injuries. Therefore, accidents involving property damage only are
excluded.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

47

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●2.1.5 Crime prevention
The assessment focuses on the crime rate related to regional safety and security.
□Assessment index
Number of crimes recorded / Adjusted population□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Number of accidents / 1,000 people

Unit
Level 120.0 or more

19.0 or more

12.0 or more

Level 217.0 or more to less than 20.0

15.5 or more to less than 19.0

8.5 or more to less than 12.0

Level 314.5 or more to less than 17.0

12.0 or more to less than 15.5

6.0 or more to less than 8.5

Level 412.0 or more to less than 14.5

9.5 or more to less than 12.0

4.0 or more to less than 6.0

Level 5Less than 12.0

Less than 9.5

Less than 4.0□Reference data
(1) Number of crimes recorded: “Criminal statistics,” National Police Agency(2) Adjusted population (= (Daytime population + Nighttime population) / 2): “Census returns,”
Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is obtained by dividing the number of crimes recorded in the“Criminal statistics” prepared by the National Police Agency, by the adjusted population.
-The lower the value of the index is, the higher the level of regional security becomes, andtherefore, the level of regional safety and security is considered to be high.
-Crimes in the Criminal statistics refer to crimes specified under 13 laws and regulations including
the Criminal Code (excluding those regarding road traffic accidents prescribed in Article 211 of the
Criminal Code) and the Explosives Control Act. The number of crimes recorded is the number ofcommitted crimes recognized by the police through offense reports, indictments, accusations andother related means.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

48

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●2.1.6 Disaster preparedness
The assessment focuses on the progress on the seismic adequacy of public facilities related toregional safety and security.
□Assessment index
Rate of the seismic adequacy of public facilities owned or controlled by the local government,
serving as disaster-prevention centers (Proportion of earthquake-resistant buildings to all thebuildings).
□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Unit

%

Level 1Less than 55.0

Level 255.0 or more to less than 60.0

Level 360.0 or more to less than 62.5

Level 462.5 or more to less than 67.5

Level 567.5 or more

Towns and villages□Reference data
“Survey on the progress of the seismic adequacy of public facilities serving as disaster-prevention
centers,” Fire and Disaster Management Agency□Explanation of index-The rate of the seismic adequacy of public facilities owned or controlled by the local government,
serving as disaster-prevention centers, is used as the index.
-The higher the value of the index is, the higher the level of disaster management is considered tobe, and therefore, the level of regional safety and security is considered to be high.
-Public facilities serving as disaster-prevention centers refer to public buildings owned or controlled
by the local government such as prefectures and municipalities (Buildings for public or official use:
Buildings made of other than wood with a height of two or more stories or a total floor space of
200 m2 or more), that serve as disaster prevention centers when emergency response measures
are taken, including those owned or controlled by prefectures that are located within themunicipality, examples of which are the following:(1) Social welfare facilities: All(2) Educational facilities (School buildings and school gyms):
Those designated as shelters(3) Government office buildings: Those serving as disaster-prevention centers(4) Public halls and community centers: Those designated as shelters(5) Gymnasiums: Those designated as shelters(6) Medical facilities: Those designated as medical aid centersin the regional disaster prevention planc 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities49(2011 Edition)(7) Police headquarters and police stations: All(8) Fire headquarters and fire stations: All(9) Others: Those designated as shelters-The following are the criteria for determining seismic adequacy:(1) Buildings constructed with a building certification issued after June 1, 1981
(2) Buildings constructed with a building certification issued before May 31, 1981 thatwere determined as seismically adequate in the seismic diagnosis(3) Buildings renovated in order to enhance seismic adequacy□Notes-The index was adopted as the major index representing the level of disaster management,
because countermeasures against earthquake damage are regarded as most important when
considering various kinds of disaster management, and the index can be improved through theefforts of individual municipalities.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

50

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●2.2 Social services
The assessment is based on the following 6 minor items introduced in 2.2.1 to 2.2.6, indicating thelevels of education, culture, medical care and welfare, all of which make up the social services.
However, as the individual minor items include various social issues, and the assessment is carriedout preferably from various perspectives such as the size of the facility, the status of utilization andadequacy in terms of the software, the assessment will further add multiple detailed indices to thecurrent minor items when appropriate indices are newly found.

●2.2.1 Adequacy of education services (1)The assessment focuses on the enrichment of the compulsory education system based on thenumber of students per teacher at elementary and junior high schools.
□Assessment index
Number of students at elementary and junior high schools / Number of teachers at elementary andjunior high schools□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Number of students / Teacher

Unit
Level 119.0 or more

19.0 or more

16.0 or more

Level 218.5 or more to less than 19.0

17.5 or more to less than 19.0

13.0 or more to less than 16.0

Level 317.5 or more to less than 18.5

16.0 or more to less than 17.5

10.0 or more to less than 13.0

Level 417.0 or more to less than 17.5

14.0 or more to less than 16.0

7.0 or more to less than 10.0

Level 5Less than 17.0

Less than 14.0

Less than 7.0□Reference data
Number of students and teachers at elementary and junior high schools: Report on the “School
Basic Survey,” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is obtained by dividing the total number of students at elementaryand junior high schools shown in the report on the “School Basic Survey” prepared by the Ministryof Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, by the number of teachers at elementaryand junior high schools.
-The lower the value of the index is, the higher the level of educational services is considered to be
in terms of compulsory education.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

51(2011 Edition)●2.2.1 Adequacy of education services (2)The assessment focuses on the enhancement of lifelong learning based on the frequency of lecturesand courses held at social education facilities.
□Assessment index
Number of lectures and courses held at social education facilities / Total population
For the definition, please refer to the explanation of the index below.
□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Unit

Number of lectures / 1,000 people

Level 1Less than 2.0

Level 22.0 or more to less than 3.5

Level 3

3.5 or more to less than 5.0

Level 45.0 or more to less than 8.0

Level 58.0 or more

Towns and villages□Reference data
(1) Number of lectures and courses at social education facilities: “Social Education Survey,”
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(2) Total population: “Census returns,” Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is obtained by dividing the number of lectures and courses held atsocial education facilities by the total population.
-Social education facilities in the above survey refer to the following facilities:- Community centers- Community center-equivalent facilities- Lifelong learning centers-The higher the value of the index is, the higher the level of educational services is considered to
be in terms of lifelong learning.
-Unlike other indices, the index used in this section uses the total population (the nighttime
population) for the denominator instead of the adjusted population, as it is regarded as an index
for assessing the frequency of opportunities for lifelong learning provided mainly to the residentsof the municipality.
□Notes-The adequacy of education services is assessed in terms of 2 indices; (1) the enrichment of thecompulsory education system and (2) the enhancement of lifelong learning.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

52

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●2.2.2 Adequacy of cultural services (1)The assessment focuses on the enrichment of cultural services based on the development of cultural
facilities.
□Assessment index
Floor space of public cultural facilities / Adjusted population
For the definition, please refer to the explanation of the index below.
□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Unit

m2 / 100 people

Level 1Less than 20.0

Level 220.0 or more to less than 25.0

Level 325.0 or more to less than 32.5

Level 432.5 or more to less than 40.0

Level 540.0 or more

Towns and villages□Reference data
(1) Floor space of public cultural facilities: “Public Facility Survey,” Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications and independent surveys conducted by individual municipalities(2) Adjusted population (= (Total population + Daytime population) / 2): “Census returns,” Statistics
Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is obtained by dividing the total floor space of public cultural facilities
by the adjusted population.
-Public cultural facilities refer to the following facilities in the Public Facility Survey of the Ministry ofInternal Affairs and Communications:-Libraries-Museums (General museums, science museums, history museums, art museums,
other museums (outdoor museums, zoos, botanical gardens, zoo andbotanical gardens and aquariums))-Public halls, civic auditoriums and community centers-The floor space is defined as follows according to the definition in the Public Facility Survey:“Other museums” of “Museums”: Floor space
Facilities other than “Other museums”: Total site area
-Facilities owned or controlled by prefectures that are located within the municipality are includedin the assessment.
-The higher the value of the index is, the higher the level of facility development in the cultural
services field is considered to be, and therefore, the level of cultural services is considered to behigh.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

53(2011 Edition)□Notes-Initially, the number of facilities was considered as a possible index instead of the floor space offacilities, but opinions were expressed that the number of facilities alone was insufficient for
determining the level of services, and the floor space data was confirmed available. Consequently,
the assessment adopted the floor space as the index.

●2.2.2 Adequacy of cultural services (2)The assessment focuses on the enrichment of cultural services based on the status of utilization ofcultural facilities.
□Assessment index(Number of participants in events hosted or co-hosted by cultural halls + Number of visitors tomuseums) / Adjusted population□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Unit

Number of participants and visitors / Adjusted population

Level 1Less than 0.75

Level 20.75 or more to less than 0.95

Level 30.95 or more to less than 1.25

Level 41.25 or more to less than 1.65

Level 51.65 or more

□Reference data
(1) Number of participants in events hosted or co-hosted by cultural halls: “Social Education
Survey,” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology(2) Number of visitors to museums: “Social Education Survey,” Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology(3) Adjusted population (= (Total population + Daytime population) / 2): “Census returns,” Statistics
Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index-Cultural halls and museums are selected as cultural facilities subject to the assessment. The
value used as the index is obtained by dividing the total number of participants in events hosted or
co-hosted by cultural halls and visitors to museums by the adjusted population.
-The higher the value of the index is, the more frequently the facilities are used for cultural service
purposes, and therefore, the level of cultural services is considered to be high.
□Notes-The adequacy of cultural services is assessed in terms of 2 indices; (1) the development of
cultural facilities and (2) the status of utilization of cultural facilities.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

54

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●2.2.3 Adequacy of medical services
The assessment focuses on the development of medical services based on the number of beds at
medical facilities.
□Assessment index
Number of beds at medical facilities / Adjusted population□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Number of beds / 1,000 people

Unit
Level 1Less than 7Less than 9Less than 1

Level 2

7 or more to less than 99 or more to less than 12

1 or more to less than 6

Level 39 or more to less than 12

12 or more to less than 15

6 or more to less than 12

Level 412 or more to less than 18

15 or more to less than 20

12 or more to less than 22

Level 518 or more

20 or more

22 or more

□Reference data
(1) Number of beds at medical facilities: “Survey of Medical Institutions,” Ministry of Health, Labourand Welfare(2) Adjusted population (= (Total population + Daytime population) / 2): “Census returns,” Statistics
Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is obtained by dividing the number of beds at medical facilities (i.e.
hospitals and clinics) shown in the “Survey of Medical Institutions” prepared by the Ministry of
Health, Labour and Welfare, by the adjusted population.
-The higher the value of the index is, the higher the level of development of medical institutions is
considered to be, and therefore, the level of medical services is considered to be high.
□Notes-The adequacy of medical services is assessed preferably in terms of not only the adequacy of thenumber of beds, but also the development of preventive healthcare. However, as an appropriate
assessment index for preventive healthcare has not been determined so far, it will be a task to beconsidered toward updating this tool in the future.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

55(2011 Edition)●2.2.4 Adequacy of childcare services (1)The assessment focuses on the development of childcare services based on the proportion ofchildren on waiting lists to the capacity of nursery schools.
□Assessment index
Number of children waiting to get in nursery schools / Capacity of nursery schools□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Unit

Number of children on waiting lists / 1,000 children

Level 114.0 or more

Level 27.0 or more less than 14.0

Level 33.0 or more to less than 7.0

Level 4

1.0 or more to less than 3.0

Level 5Less than 1.0□Reference data
(1) Number of children waiting to get in nursery schools: “Survey on the Number of Children on
Waiting Lists for Nursery Schools,” Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare(2) Capacity of nursery schools: “Survey of Social Welfare Institutions,” Ministry of Health, Labourand Welfare□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is obtained by dividing the number of children on waiting lists fornursery schools shown in the “Survey on the Number of Children on Waiting Lists for Nursery
Schools” conducted by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) by the capacity ofnursery schools shown in the “Survey of Social Welfare Institutions” conducted by the MHLW.
-The lower the value of the index is, the higher the level of facility improvement for nursery schools
is considered to be, and therefore, the level of childcare services is considered to be high.
□Notes-Initially, the value obtained by dividing the capacity of nursery schools by the total population wasconsidered as a possible effective index, but during the process of deliberation, there was adebate over whether using the number of children waiting to get in nursery schools may beappropriate rather than the capacity of nursery schools. After taking into consideration theopinions of municipalities, the value obtained by dividing the number of children waiting to get innursery schools by the capacity of nursery schools was ultimately adopted as a suitable index for
expressing the degree of surplus or shortfall of childcare facilities.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

56

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●2.2.4 Adequacy of childcare services (2)The assessment focuses on the development of childcare services based on the improvement ofregional child-support centers.
□Assessment index
Number of child-support centers / Population of infants from 0 to 4 years old□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Unit

Number of centers / 10,000 infants

Level 1Less than 7

Level 2

7 or more to less than 9

Level 39 or more to less than 11

Level 411 or more to less than 14

Level 514 or more

Towns and villages□Reference data
(1) Number of regional child-rearing support centers: “Project on Regional Child-Rearing Support
Centers,” Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare(2) Population of infants from 0 to 4 years old: “Census returns,” Statistics Bureau, Ministry ofInternal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is obtained by dividing the number of regional child-rearing support
centers based on the “Project on Regional Child-Rearing Support Centers” conducted by the
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, by the population of infants from 0 to 4 years old in thenational census.
-The higher the value of the index is, the higher the level of improvement of regional child-rearing
support centers is considered to be, and therefore, the level of childcare services is considered tobe high.
-The number of regional child-rearing support centers is equal to the sum of facilities falling under
one of the following: Plaza-type, Center-type, Children’s house-type.
□Notes-The adequacy of childcare services is assessed in terms of 2 indices; (1) the lack of nurseryschools and (2) the development of child-rearing support as a countermeasure to the fallingbirthrate.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

57

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●2.2.5 Adequacy of services for the disabled (1)The assessment focuses on the development of services for people with disabilities based on thedevelopment of facilities for disabled.
□Assessment index
Capacity of facilities for the disabled / Total population
For the definition, please refer to the explanation of the index below.
□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Number of slots at facilities / 1,000 people

Unit
Level 1Less than 0.4

Less than 0.5

0Level 20.4 or more to less than 0.8

0.5 or more to less than 1.25－

Level 30.8 or more to less than 1.1

1.25 or more to less than 2

More than 0 to less than 2

Level 4

1.1 or more to less than 1.4

2 or more to less than 3

2 or more to less than 5

Level 5

1.4 or more

3 or more

5 or more□Reference data
(1) Capacity of facilities for people with disabilities: “Survey of Social Welfare Institutions,” Ministryof Health, Labour and Welfare(2) Total population: “Census returns,” Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is obtained by dividing the capacity of facilities for the disabled shownin the “Survey of Social Welfare Institutions” conducted by the Ministry of Health, Labour andWelfare, by the total population shown in the national census.
-Facilities for people with disabilities refer to the following facilities specified in the “Survey ofSocial Welfare Institutions:”
Rehabilitation support facilities for people with physical disabilities
Rehabilitation facilities for people with intellectual disabilities
Social rehabilitation facilities for people with mental disabilities-The higher the value of the index is, the higher the level of development of facilities for people withdisabilities is considered to be, and therefore, the level of services for people with disabilities is
considered to be high.
-Unlike other indices, this index uses the total population (the nighttime population) for thedenominator instead of the adjusted population, as it is regarded as an index for assessing thelevel of services for the disabled, focusing mainly on residents of the municipality.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

58

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●2.2.5 Adequacy of services for the disabled (2)The assessment focuses on the adequacy of services for the disabled, in terms of the developmentof barrier-free access to railway stations and buses, from the viewpoint of promoting barrier-freefacilities, in order to provide independence for the disabled, help them lead a communal life, andestablish a safe society.
□Assessment indices(1) Ratio of barrier-free railway stations(2) Ratio of bus companies introducing low-floor buses
The decision over which index to adopt is left up to the discretion of individual municipalities.
□Criteria(1) Ratio of barrier-free railway stations
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Unit

%

Level 10

Level 2－

Level 3More than 0 to less than 12.5

Level 412.5 or more to less than 25.0

Level 525.0 or more

Towns and villages(2) Ratio of bus companies introducing low-floor buses
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Unit

%

Level 1Less than 4.0

Level 24.0 or more to less than 9.0

Level 39.0 or more to less than 15.0

Level 415.0 or more to less than 25.0

Level 525.0 or more

Towns and villages□Reference data
1) Ratio of barrier-free railway stations: “Information on Barrier-Free Access by Prefectures:
Development of Barrier-Free Facilities for Passenger Transport,” Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism(2) Ratio of bus companies introducing low-floor buses: “Information on Barrier-Free Access by
Prefectures: Introduction of Low-Floor Buses by Bus Companies,” Ministry of Land,c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

59(2011 Edition)

Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism□Explanation of index-Development of barrier-free access to public transportation shown in the “Information on
Barrier-Free Access by Prefectures” prepared by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport
and Tourism is used as an index.
(1) Regarding the ratio of barrier-free railway stations, stations in conformity to Articles 4 to 28 of
the “Standard for passenger facilities, the structure and equipment of vehicles required for thesmooth transportation,” the Barrier-Free Transportation Act, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism, are regarded as “barrier-free.” The proportion of barrier-free stations tostations with more than 5,000 users per day that have been undergoing construction work inaccordance with the Barrier-Free Transportation Act is obtained.
(2) Regarding the ratio of bus companies introducing low-floor buses, buses with a floor level ofapproximately less than 30 cm-high above the ground that are in conformity to Article 34 to 39of the “Standard for passenger facilities, the structure and equipment of vehicles required forthe smooth transportation,” the Barrier-Free Transportation Act, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism, are regarded as “Non-step buses.” The proportion of non-step buses toall the buses is obtained.
-The higher the value of the index is, the higher the level of barrier-free access to public
transportation is considered to be, and therefore, the level of services for people with disabilities is
considered to be high.
-As every municipality has a different degree of dependence on each type of public transportation,
two kinds of indices, one for railways and the other for buses, have been prepared so that
individual municipalities can choose one as appropriate.
□Municipalities exempt from the assessment-Municipalities, in which no stations with more than 5,000 users per day are located and non-stepbuses cannot be adopted for special reasons including regional weather characteristics, areexempt from the assessment of this section.
□Notes-The adequacy of services for the disabled is assessed in terms of 2 indices; (1) the developmentof facilities for the disabled and (2) the enhancement of barrier-free access to railway stations andbuses.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

60

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●2.2.6 Adequacy of services for the elderly (1)The assessment focuses on the development of services for the elderly based on the improvement oflong-term care insurance facilities.
□Assessment index
Capacity of long-term care insurance facilities / Elderly population (65 years old and older)
For the definition, please refer to the explanation of the index below.
□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Number of slots at facilities / 100 people

Unit
Level 1Less than 1.5

Less than 2.5

Less than 2.25

Level 2

1.5 or more to less than 2.0

2.5 or more to less than 3

2.25 or more to less than 3.25

Level 32.0 or more to less than 2.75

3 or more to less than 3.5

3.25 or more to less than 4.25

Level 42.75 or more to less than 3.25

3.5 or more to less than 4.25

4.25 or more to less than 6

Level 5

3.25 or more

4.25 or more

6 or more□Reference data
(1) Capacity of long-term care insurance facilities: “Survey of Institutions and Establishments forLong-term Care,” Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare(2) Elderly population (65 years old and older): “National Census,” Statistics Bureau, Ministry ofInternal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is obtained by dividing the capacity of long-term care insurance
facilities shown in the “Survey of Institutions and Establishments for Long-term Care” conductedby the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, by the elderly population (65 years old and older) in
the national census.
-Long-term care insurance facilities refer to the following establishments in the above Survey:-Facilities Covered by Public Aid Providing Long-Term Care to the Elderly-Long-Term Care Health Facilities-Medical Long-Term Care Sanatoriums-The higher the value of the index is, the higher the level of improvement of long-term care facilities
for the elderly is considered to be, and therefore, the level of services for the elderly is considered
to be high.
-Unlike other indices, the index in this section uses the elderly population (65 years old and older)for the denominator instead of the adjusted population, in order to assess the development ofservices focusing mainly on the elderly residents of the municipality.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

61(2011 Edition)●2.2.6Adequacy of services for the elderly (2)The assessment focuses on the development of services for the elderly based on the improvement offacilities for in-home services.
□Assessment index
Number of facilities for in-home services / Elderly population (65 years old and older)
For the definition, please refer to the explanation of the index below.
□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Unit

Number of facilities / 1,000 people

Level 1Less than 2.75

Level 22.75 or more to less than 3.1

Level 3

3.1 or more to less than 3.5

Level 4

3.5 or more to less than 3.8

Level 5

3.8 or more

Towns and villages□Reference data
(1) Number of facilities for in-home services: “Survey of Institutions and Establishments forLong-term Care,” Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare(2) Elderly population (65 years old and older): “National Census,” Statistics Bureau, Ministry ofInternal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is obtained by dividing the number of facilities for in-home services
shown in the “Survey of Institutions and Establishments for Long-term Care” conducted by the
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, by the elderly population (65 years old and older) in thenational census.
-Facilities for in-home services refer to the following establishments in the above Survey:-Facilities for home-visit long-term care-Facilities for home-visit bathing long-term care-Home-visit nursing stations-Facilities for outpatient long-term care-Facilities for outpatient rehabilitation-Facilities for short-term admission for daily life long-term care-Facilities for short-term admission for recuperation-Facilities for daily life long-term care admitted to a specified facility-Facilities for rental service of equipment for long-term care covered by public aid-Facilities for the sale of specified equipment covered by public aid-The higher the value of the index is, the higher the level of services for housebound seniors is
considered to be, and therefore, the level of services for the elderly is considered to be high.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

62

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)-Unlike other indices, the index in this section uses the elderly population (65 years old and older)for the denominator instead of the adjusted population, in order to assess the development ofservices focusing mainly on the elderly residents of the municipality.
□Notes-The adequacy of services for the elderly is assessed in terms of 2 indices; (1) the development oflong-term care insurance facilities and (2) the development of facilities for in-home services.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

63

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Social vitality●2.3

The assessment is based on the following 4 indices representing the demographic trend, which is thesource of social vitality, progress towards an information society and governmental efforts towardsocial vitalization.

●2.3.1 Rate of population change due to births and deaths
The assessment focuses on the proportion of the natural increase-decrease of population, thedifference in the number of births and deaths, to the total population comparing with the national
avarage, as part of the demographic trend.
□Assessment index
Rate of population change due to births and deaths in the municipality – Rate of population change
due to births and deaths of the national population*Rate of population change due to births and deaths = Number of the natural increase-decrease of
population (Number of births – Number of deaths) / Total population□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Percentage points (PP)

Unit
Level 1Less than 0.32

Less than 0.1

Less than -0.6

Level 20.32 or more to less than 0.38

0.1 or more to less than 0.3-0.6 or more to less than -0.3

Level 30.38 or more to less than 0.46

0.3 or more to less than 0.45

-0.3 or more to less than -0.05

Level 40.46 or more to less than 0.6

0.45 or more to less than 0.6-0.05 or more to less than 0.25

Level 5

0.6 or more

0.6 or more

0.25 or more

□Reference data
(1) Number of the natural increase-decrease of population: “Vital Statistics,” Statistics andInformation Department, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare(2) Total population: “National Census,” Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications※The rate of population change due to births and deaths of the national population is
automatically calculated on the data entry sheet.
□Explanation of index-The value of the index is the difference between the proportion of the natural increase-decrease of
population (the difference in the number of births and deaths) shown in the “Vital Statistics”
prepared by the Statistics and Information Department, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare,to the total population shown in the “Census returns” prepared by the Statistics bureau of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, and the national average.
-The higher the value of the index is, the higher the rate of population change due to births anddeaths becomes, which would lead to the improvement of social vitality.
□Notes-“Vital Statistics” deals only with figures regarding births and deaths of Japanese people within thec 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

64

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

country, excluding those occurring outside the country and those of foreign nationals within the
country. Therefore, separate consideration is required when those excluded have a significant
impact on the municipality.

●2.3.2 Rate of population change due to migration
The assessment focuses on the proportion of the social increase-decrease of population, thedifference in the number of move-ins and move-outs, to the total population, as part of thedemographic trend.
□Assessment index
Rate of population change due to migration in the municipality.
*Rate of population change due to migration = Number of social increase-decrease of
population (Number of move-ins – Number of move-outs) / Total population□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages%

Unit
Level 1Less than -0.35

Less than -0.85

Less than -1.3

Level 2-0.35 or more to less than 0-0.85 or more to less than -0.6

-1.3 or more to less than -0.95

Level 30 or more to less than 0.4-0.6 or more to less than -0.35-0.95 or more to less than -0.65

Level 40.4 or more to less than 0.9-0.35 or more to less than 0-0.65 or more to less than -0.2

Level 50.9 or more

0 or more-0.2 or more

□Reference data
(1) Number of move-ins and move-outs: “Annual Report on the Internal Migration in Japan Derived
from the Basic Resident Registers,” Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications(2) Total population: “Census returns,” Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is the proportion of the social increase-decrease of population (thedifference in the number of move-ins and move-outs) according to the “Annual Report on theInternal Migration in Japan Derived from the Basic Resident Registers” prepared by the Statistics
Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, to the total population shown in the“Census returns” prepared by the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications.
-The higher the value of the index is, the higher the rate of population change due to migration
becomes, which would lead to the improvement of social vitality.
□Notes-The number of move-ins and move-outs does not include people who lived abroad before
moving-in and those moving out to other countries. Those who changed addresses within thec 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

65

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)same municipality and those who do not possess Japanese citizenship are also excluded.
Therefore, separate consideration is required when those excluded have a significant impact on
the municipality.

●2.3.3 Progress towards an information society
The assessment focuses on the implementation of measures for the cultivation of human resources
suitable for an information society based on the supply of computers for educational use.
□Assessment index
Number of computers for educational use in elementary and junior high schools / Number ofstudents in elementary and junior high schools□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Number of computers / 100 people

Unit
Level 1Less than 7.5

Less than 7Less than 11

Level 2

7.5 or more to less than 9

7 or more to less than 9

11 or more to less than 15

Level 39 or more to less than 10

9 or more to less than 11

15 or more to less than 20

Level 410 or more to less than 12

11 or more to less than 14

20 or more to less than 30

Level 512 or more

14 or more

30 or more

□Reference data
(1) Number of computers for educational use in elementary and junior high schools: “Survey of theActual State of Informatization in Schools,” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology(2) Number of students in elementary and junior high schools: “Survey of the Actual State ofInformatization in Schools,” Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is obtained by dividing the number of computers for educational use
at elementary and junior high schools shown in the “Survey of the Actual State of Informatizationin Schools” conducted by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, by
the number of students in elementary and junior high schools.
-The higher the value of the index is, the higher the level of measures for an information society is
considered to be in terms of compulsory education.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

66

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●2.3.4 Efforts and policies for vitalizing society
The assessment focuses on measures and policies for social revitalization.
□Assessment index
Rating measures and policies for social revitalization, including frameworks in which local residents
can actively participate in public administration or communities.
□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Unit

Number of measures and policies (in the following 7 items)

Level 1Less than 3

Level 23 or more to less than 4

Level 34 or more to less than 6

Level 4

6 or more to less than 7

Level 5

7

□Assessment items for measures and policies to be counted(1) Establishing regulations in which a public comment period is guaranteed at the planning stageof important policies(2) Accepting candidates of committee members for policy making from among local residents(3) Providing a free space including an electronic forum on a website on which local residents can
exchange messages and opinions freely(4) Establishing and promoting an information disclosure system as regulations including
extra-governmental organizations(5) Either establishing regulations for supporting NPOs or implementing 5 or more actual
measures for supporting them(6) Promoting the community business operated mainly by local residents by taking specificsupport measures(7) Establishing and promoting regulations regarding gender equality□Reference data
Independent surveys of individual municipalities□Explanation of index-The efforts of municipalities for social revitalization are comprehensively assessed. The
implementation statuses of various measures are subject to the assessment, which include
setting a public comment period, the acceptance of candidates of committee members for policy
making from among citizens, inviting public opinions on a website, information disclosure systems
and support for NPOs.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

67(2011 Edition)□Notes-Items in this section focus on assessment in terms of the very efforts and policies of individualmunicipalities. Therefore, they have a different character from other assessment items regarding
the quality improvement of the municipality based on a numerical index as a result of its efforts
and policies. Instead, they adopt the so-called qualitative assessment. If it is possible to set
assessment items that are expressed using a numerical index in the future, items in this section
will be reviewed for reorganization when this tool is updated.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

68

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Q3 Economic aspect●3.1 Industrial vitality
The assessment focuses on industrial input and output, the major components of industrial vitality.

●3.1.1 Amount equivalent to gross regional product
The assessment focuses on the sum of the annual output of agriculture, manufacturing andcommerce, selected from among the production output by industrial classification, as an alternativeindex to the GRP (output of all industries) of the municipality.
□Assessment index(Agricultural output + Value of manufactured goods shipments + Annual sales of commercial
goods) / Adjusted population□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

One million yen/Person

Unit
Level 1Less than 3.5

Less than 3.0

Less than 1.3

Level 2

3.5 or more to less than 4.5

3.0 or more to less than 4.0

1.3 or more to less than 2.0

Level 3

4.5 or more to less than 6.5

4.0 or more to less than 5.5

2.0 or more to less than 3.0

Level 4

6.5 or more to less than 13

5.5 or more to less than 8.5

3.0 or more to less than 5.0

Level 513 or more

8.5 or more

5.0 or more

□Reference data
(1) Agricultural output: “Statistics of Agricultural Income Produced,” Statistics Department, Ministryof Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries(2) Value of manufactured goods shipments: “Census of Manufactures,” Economic and Industrial
Policy Bureau, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry(3) Annual sales of commercial goods: “Census of commerce,” Economic and Industrial Policy
Bureau, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry(4) Adjusted population (= (Total population + Daytime population) / 2): “Census returns,” Statistics
Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index-The assessment uses the sum of the annual output of agriculture, industry and commerce,
selected from among the production output by industrial classification, the data of which areavailable at the municipal level, as a GRP (Gross Regional Product) alternative, which is divided
by the adjusted population in order to obtain the value added per capita.
-The adjusted population is used for the denominator instead of total population in view of the factthat the daytime population is associated with creating added value.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

69

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●3.1.2 Ratio of change in the number of employees
The assessment focuses on the ratio of change in the number of employees, which is regarded as
one form of industrial input.
□Assessment index(Number of employees – Number of employees 5 years ago) / Number of employees / 5□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages%

Unit
Level 1Less than -0.9

Less than -1.4

Less than -2.6

Level 2-0.9 or more to less than -0.5

-1.4 or more to less than -0.8

-2.6 or more to less than -1.8

Level 3-0.5 or more to less than -0.3

-0.8 or more to less than -0.2

-1.8 or more to less than -1.0

Level 4-0.3 or more to less than 0.0-0.2 or more to less than 0.6-1.0 or more to less than 0.0

Level 50.0 or more

0.6 or more

0.0 or more

□Reference data
Number of employees: “Establishment and Enterprise Census,” Statistics Bureau, Ministry ofInternal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index-The ratio of change in the number of employees in the last 5 years shown in the “Establishment
and Enterprise Census” prepared by the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications is used as an index (It represents the annual average rate by dividing thenumber of employees by 5.)-The higher the value of the index is, the more industrial vitality is considered to be enhanced.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

70

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●3.2 Economic exchanges
The assessment of regional economic exchanges is based on two indices of the index equivalent tonumber of people visiting city and the efficiency of public transportation.

●3.2.1 Index equivalent to number of people visiting city
The assessment focuses on the number of employees in retail trades, restaurants and hotels in the
total population, as an alternative index to the exchange population representing the number ofvisitors to the region.
□Assessment index
Number of employees in retail trades, restaurants and hotels / Total population□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages%

Unit
Level 1Less than 8.75

Less than 8.25

Less than 5.75

Level 28.75 or more to less than 9.75

8.25 or more to less than 9.5

5.75 or more to less than 7.25

Level 39.75 or more to less than 11.25

9.5 or more to less than 10.5

7.25 or more to less than 8.75

Level 411.25 or more to less than 14.0

10.5 or more to less than 12.0

8.75 or more to less than 11.0

Level 514.0 or more

12.0 or more

11.0 or more

□Reference data
(1) Number of employees in retail trades, restaurants and hotels: “Establishment and Enterprise
Census,” Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications(2) Total population: “Census returns,” Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications□Explanation of index-The assessment is based on the exchange population, which is a major element of the economic
vitality of the municipality. The exchange population represents the number of visitors to themunicipality. However, it is difficult to obtain data which directly express the exchange population.
Accordingly, the value obtained by dividing the sum of employees in retail trades, restaurants andhotels, by the total population, is used as a surrogate variable, the classifications of which are
based on the “Establishment and Enterprise Census” prepared by the Statistics Bureau, Ministryof Internal Affairs and Communications.
-When the value of this variable is relatively high, the number of people who come from outside themunicipality to buy products or services of the municipality is considered to be high.
-The industrial classification “Retail Trade” in the “Establishment and Enterprise Census”
represents the sum of the middle classifications from “55 Retail trade, general merchandise” to“60 Miscellaneous retail trade” in the major classification “J. Wholesale and Retail Trade,”
whereas, “Restaurants and Hotels” represents the major classification “M. Eating and Drinking
Places, Accommodations” in the Census.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

71

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●3.2.2 Efficiency of public transportation
The assessment focuses on the development of public transportation according to the percentage ofthe commuting population using public transportation.
□Assessment index
Number of people aged 15 and older who use railways, electric trains or buses for commuting toand from school or work outside the house / Number of people aged 15 or older who commute to
and from school or work outside the house*Buses include shared-ride buses, company-owned buses and school buses.
□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages%

Unit
Level 1Less than 20.0

Less than 4.5

Less than 4.0

Level 220.0 or more to less than 32.5

4.5 or more to less than 8.5

4.0 or more to less than 6.0

Level 332.5 or more to less than 42.5

8.5 or more to less than 15.0

6.0 or more to less than 8.0

Level 442.5 or more to less than 50.0

15.0 or more to less than 27.5

8.0 or more to less than 12.5

Level 550.0 or more

27.5 or more

12.5 or more

□Reference data
(1) Number of people aged 15 and older who use railways, electric trains or buses for commuting
to and from school or work outside the house: “Census returns” (in years ending with zero inwhich a large-scale census was conducted), Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications(2) Number of people aged 15 or older who commute to and from school or work outside thehouse: “Census returns” (in years ending with zero in which a large-scale census was
conducted), Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is the percentage of people in individual municipalities aged 15 orolder who use public transportation including railways and trains, share-ride buses,
company-owned buses and school buses for commuting to and from school or work outside thehouse, shown in the “National Census” conducted by the Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications.
-The higher the value of the index is, the higher the level of public transportation in the municipality
is considered to be.
□Notes-In reality, public transportation in neighboring municipalities is included as some people commute
outside the municipality. The newest data available as of 2011 regarding the assessment item inthis section is from the 2000 survey, as this item is included only in large-scale censuses
conducted in years ending with zero.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

72

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●3.3 Financial viability
The assessment of the financial viability of the municipality is based on the following 2 indicesrepresenting the financial situation.

●3.3.1 Tax revenues
The assessment focuses on the scale of the annual revenue of the municipality according toper-capita tax revenues for local governments in the adjusted population.
□Assessment index
Tax revenues for local governments / Adjusted population□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

10,000 yen / Person

Unit
Level 1Less than 9.0

Less than 12.0

Less than 8.0

Level 29.0 or more to less than 13.0

12.0 or more to less than 14.0

8.0 or more to less than 10.0

Level 313.0 or more to less than 17.0

14.0 or more to less than 16.0

10.0 or more to less than 12.0

Level 417.0 or more to less than 19.5

16.0 or more to less than 18.0

12.0 or more to less than 15.0

Level 519.5 or more

18.0 or more

15.0 or more

□Reference data
(1) Tax revenues for local governments: “State of Account Settlement by Municipalities,” Local
Public Financial Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications(2) Adjusted population (= (Total population + Daytime population) / 2): “Census returns,” Statistics
Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index-The value used as the index is obtained by dividing tax revenues for local governments, shown in
the “State of Account Settlement by Municipalities” prepared by the Local Public Financial Bureauof the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, by the adjusted population.
-Tax revenues for local governments refer to the taxation paid by residents and companies
registered in the municipality, which hold a key position in the annual revenue of the local
government, in terms of sharing expenses of the local government. They also account for a majorpart of the annual revenues and the use is left up to the discretion of the local government. The
taxable income includes the income of people working outside the municipality. When the value
obtained by dividing tax revenues by the adjusted population is high, the economic infrastructureof the municipality is likely to be developed.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

73

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)●3.3.2 Outstanding local bonds
The assessment focuses on the independence of local government finances according to thepercentage of outstanding municipal bonds among internal revenue sources.
□Assessment index
Current outstanding municipal bonds / Balance of internal revenue sources
For the definition, please refer to the explanation of the index below.
□Criteria
Ordinance-designated cities

General cities

Towns and villages

Ratio

Unit
Level 1

2.4 or more

2.8 or more

5.5 or more

Level 2

1.7 or more to less than 2.4

2.0 or more to less than 2.8

4.0 or more to less than 5.5

Level 30.9 or more to less than 1.7

1.6 or more to less than 2.0

2.8 or more to less than 4.0

Level 4

0.5 or more to less than 0.9

1.2 or more to less than 1.6

1.8 or more to less than 2.8

Level 5Less than 0.5

Less than 1.2

Less than 1.8□Reference data
(1) Current outstanding municipal bonds: “State of Account Settlement by Municipalities,” Local
Public Financial Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications(2) Internal revenue sources: “State of Account Settlement by Municipalities,” Local Public
Financial Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications□Explanation of index-Internal revenue sources refer to financial resources raised by the municipality independently,
including local taxes, contributions, fees and charges, property revenues, donations, moneytransferred, balances brought forward and other income.
-This index represents the proportion of outstanding municipal bonds to internal financial resources
procurable by the municipality independently, the amount of which is determined by themunicipality. The lower the proportion is, the more independent the municipality becomes, which
would be likely to lead to the enhancement of the municipality’s economic foundation.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

74

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)[Commentaries and Data]c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

75(2011 Edition)

PARTⅢ．Preliminary studies and related data about L
1. Results of study regarding method of deducting emissions of specific sectors with highdegree of carbon aggregation in industry
CASBEE-City (Low-carbon Edition) redistributes the emissions of all sectors in industry. During theprocess of preliminary studies, a method of deducting the CO2 emissions of specific manufacturers
with a high degree of carbon aggregation from the total emissions of the municipality was discussed.
The outline of the studies are described below.

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

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

CO2 emissions by manufacturing industry for fiscal 2003

2%
2%

2%

5%
6%
57%

7%
11%

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

FigureⅢ.1: CO2 emissions of the manufacturing industry nationwide by sector for fiscal 2003
(2) Municipalities subject to the assessment: 19 cities- 13 Eco model cities (A preliminary calculation has not been conducted in some cities due to thedifficulty in obtaining data.)- 6 cities other than the above, with heavy industries as the major industriesc 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

76

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)(3) Both methods are based on the premise that data, obtained in accordance with the “Manual forplanning local governement’s action plan to address the issue ofglobal warming (Regional
policies), First edition” prepared by the Ministry of Environment, are available, upon the practicalapplication to municipalities. (Provisional data prepared for preliminary studies are used in the
preliminary calculations described below.)c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

77

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)3) Understanding the difference in CO2 emissions per basic unit by sector of
the manufacturing industry
CO2 emissions per basic unit (CO2 emissions per unit of raw materials used) by sector of the
manufacturing industry were calculated and the results are shown in FigureⅢ.2.
(1) Calculating the national average of CO2 emissions per unit of raw materials used by medium
industrial classifications＜Example: Steel Industry＞[National average of CO2 emissions per unit of raw materials used in the steel industry (t-CO2/Yen)]= [Total CO2 emissions in the steel industry nationwide (t-CO2)] / [Total national amount of raw
materials used in the steel industry (Yen/Year)]
Statistics of the consumption structure of oil, etc. (Fiscal 2001)*1

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

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

Average

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

[1,000t-CO2/Billion yen (Amount of raw materials used, etc.)]
FigureⅢ.2: Basic unit of CO2 emissions by sector of the manufacturing industryc 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

78

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

1. Steel○○t- CO2

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

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

Total○○○t- CO2

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

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

79

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

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

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

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

Steel

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

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

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

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

100%

90.1%

90%

86.2%
79.0%

78.0%

80%

68.8%

70%

62.1%
55.7%

60%

49.1%

50%

38.4%

40%
30%
20%
10%

20.1%
13.8%
9.8%
5.2%
2.1%

10.2%
0.6%

Before deduction

控除前City S
都市S

City R
都市R

City Q
都市Q

City P
都市P

City O
都市O

City N
都市N

City M
都市M

City L
都市L

City K
都市K

City J
都市J

City I
都市I

City H
都市H

City G
都市G

City F
都市F

City E
都市E

City D
都市D

都市C
City C

都市B
City B

都市A
City A

0%

After deduction

控除後

FigureⅢ.3: Adjustment rate of L in individual municipalities according to Method 1

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

80

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

Steel

Weighted average basic
unit 1 in the top 4 sectors

Ceramics, soil and stone products
Pulp, paper and processed paper
products
Chemicals

Total amount of activity inthe top 4 sectors

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

Weighted average basic
unit 2 in sectors otherthan the top 4

Average of all sectors
Nonferrous metal products

Total amount of activity insectors other than the top 4

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

Weighted average basic unit 2

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

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

In the top 4 sectors

Precision machinery and appliances＞

Electric machinery and appliances
General machinery and appliances

In sectors other than t
he top 4

Leather products and fur goods
Transport machinery and appliances＜

Other manufacturing
Information and communications equipments and tools0

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

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

FigureⅢ.4: Proposed method of calculating per-capita CO2 emissions of the adjusted population in
individual municipalities according to Method 2

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

81

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

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

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

189.7%

200%

159.8%

180%

145.2%
141.9%

160%
140%
120%
100%

113.8%
95.1%

101.0%

178.8%
153.8%

129.8%

80.2%
78.5%

78.6%

80%

66.0%

58.3%

60% 49.8%40%

Before deduction

控除前City S
都市S

City R
都市R

City Q
都市Q

City P
都市P

City O
都市O

City N
都市N

都市M

City M

City L
都市L

City K
都市K

City J

都市J

City I

都市I

City H
都市H

City G
都市G

City F
都市F

City E
都市E

City D都市DCity C
都市C

City B
都市B

City A
都市A

20%
0%

After deduction

控除後

FigureⅢ.5: Adjustment rate of L in individual municipalities according to Method 2

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

82

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

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

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

CO2 emissions per person (ton-CO2/Person)

are shown in the figure below.
70.0
20.0

(Reference)
Per-capita emissions of
the nighttime population

Energy conversion
sector, etc.

Residential sector→ 0.2

Residential sector
Source-of-emission type

Commercial sector

Commercial sector→ 4.6

Transportation sector

15.0

Industrial sector

10.0
5.0
0.0

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

City I

City J

City K

City L

City M

FigureⅢ.6: Assessment and CO2 emissions of Eco model cities by sector (Per-capita emissions of
the adjusted population, redistributed emissions in industrial sectors)
c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

83(2011 Edition)2) Study about cities with a high percentage of daytime population
In Chiyoda ward where CO2 emissions in commercial sectors account for 74% of all emissions, thedaytime population is 20.5 times that of nighttime. Per-capita CO2 emissions in commercial sectors
are greatly reduced by using the adjusted population, like 49.4 (t-CO2/person of the nighttime
population)→4.6 (t-CO2/person of the adjusted population).
In the same manner, regarding residential sectors in which the connection with the daytime
population is relatively tenuous, per-capita CO2 emissions decrease (“2.6→0.2” in Chiyoda ward),
which may be a gross underestimation. However, it is regarded acceptable in terms of the entire
residential and commercial sector or all emissions, as CO2 emissions in commercial sectors accountfor the majority (74%) of the total emissions.
As shown in TableⅢ.3, cities with a high ratio of daytime population to nighttime population arebasically business accumulation areas. As is the case in Chiyoda ward described above, by using thevalue of per-capita emissions of the adjusted population in the calculation, the overall assessment
becomes reasonable.
TableⅢ.3: Cities with a high ratio of daytime population to nighttime population (Top 10 cities)

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

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

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

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

84

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

PART Ⅳ．Preliminary studies and related data about Q
1. Assessment standard and setting of individual assessment items
The data of individual indices entered are rated on a 5-point scale in accordance with the assessment
standard set for individual items. Indices are essentially based on statistical data available for all themunicipalities, and are classified into three groups depending on the size of the population of themunicipality as mentioned in 3.5.4 of Part I; Ordinance-designated cities (Population of 500,000 ormore), General cities (Population of 50,000 or more to less than 500,000) and Towns and villages(Population of less than 50,000). The distribution of index values for each item is identified (FigureⅣ.1), in which the assessment is conducted on a 5-point scale, such that approximately the top 20%
is classified as level 5, the next 20% is level 4, the next 20% is level 3, the next is level 2 and thebottom 20% is level 1.
Frequency(Number of municipalities)

Accumulation (％)

Less than 55

145 or more

Level 1

Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Level 5(m2/Household)

FigureⅣ.1: Example of setting an assessment standard
In some indices, in which only statistical data at the prefecture level are available to the public, theassessment standards are based on data from 47 prefectural governments, which will require further
reviews when data based on the size of municipalities are adequately accumulated in the future.
The statistical data used as the basis of the assessment standards for individual assessment items
are shown as follows.

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

85

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Q1.1 Ratio of green and water spaces((Forest area + Farmer-owned cultivated area + Lake area + Mudflat area) / Area of municipality in 2005)
General cities((Forest area + Farmer-owned cultivated area + Lake area + Mudflat area) / Area of municipality in 2005)
Ordinance-designatedcities(林野面積+経営
耕地面積+湖沼面積+干潟面積)/自治体
面積(2005) 政令市
14(林野面積+経営耕地面積+湖沼面積+干潟面積)/自治体面積(2005) 一般の市

120%

30

100%

25

100%

20

80%

((Forest area + Farmer-owned cultivated area + Lake area + Mudflat area) / Area of municipality in 2005)
Towns
and
(林野面積+経営耕地面積+湖沼面積+干潟面villages
積)/自治体面積(2005) 町村

120%

120%
120

12

100%

(Frequency)
（頻度）

(頻度)

(Frequency)

80%

8
60%
6
40%

15

60%

10

40%

5

20%

0

0%

(Frequency)
(頻度)

100

10

80%

80

60%

60

40%

40

4

92.5-95

87.5-9082.5-8577.5-80

72.5-75

67.5-70

62.5-65

57.5-60

52.5-55

47.5-50

30-35

42.5-45（㎡）

37.5-40

0%
20-25

0
10-15

87.5-9082.5-8577.5-80

72.5-75

67.5-70

62.5-65

57.5-60

52.5-55

47.5-50

42.5-4530-35

37.5-40

20-25

20%

5未満
Less than
5

(㎡）

10-15

0%

Less 0.1未満
than 0.1
0.1-0.5
0.5-0.75
0.75-11-1.25
1.25-1.5
1.5-2
2-2.5
2.5-3
3.5-4
4-4.5
4.5-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65 65以上
or more0Less 5未満
than 5

20%

2

20

（㎡）

Q1.2.1 Air
Achievement rateSPM
of environmental
standard for SPM2 (Short-term assessment) in 2007
2[短期的評価]環境基準達成率（2007）
56 municipalities

Achievement rate NO2[長期的評価]環境基準達成率（2007）of environmental standard for NO2 (Long-term assessment) in 2007
59 municipalities
59市町村

120%

56市町村

50

120%

70
100%

60

80%

40

60%

30
40%

80%
(Frequency)(頻 度 )(Frequency)(頻 度 )

50

100%

40
30

60%
20
40%

20
10
0

20%

10

0%

0

80%

50

40%
20
20%
0%

(Frequency)(頻 度 )(Frequency)(頻 度 )

90 or more
90以
上

80-90

70-80

60-70

50-60

40-50

60

60%

0

30-40

100%

30

10

20-30

40

120%

70

70

50

( ％)

Achievement rateof environmental standard for OX (Short-term assessment) in 2007
OX[短期的評価]環境基準達成率（2007）
55 55市町村
municipalities

120%
60

10-20

Achievement rate SO2[短期的評価]環境基準達成率（2007）of environmental standard for SO2 (Short-term assessment) in 2007
57 municipalities
57市町村

100%
80%

40

60%

30
40%
20
20%

10

0%

0

( ％)

90 or more
90以
上

80-90

70-80

60-70

50-60

40-50

30-40

20-30

10-20

Less than
10以
下 10

90 or more
90以
上

80-90

70-80

60-70

50-60

40-50

30-40

20-30

10-20

Less than
10以
下 10

( ％)

0%
Less than
10以
下 10

90 or more
90以
上

80-90

70-80

60-70

50-60

40-50

30-40

20-30

10-20

Less than
10以
下 10

( ％)

20%

Q1.2.2 Water
Achievement
rate of environmental standard for rivers (Health) in 2007
河川[健康項目]環境基準達成率（2007）
43 municipalities

40市町村

環境基準達成率（2007） 40市町村

120%

40

120%
30

60%

20

40%

10

20%
0%

0

100%
80%

20

60%

10

40%
20%

0

0%
90 以
or 上
more
90

80 -9 070 -8 0(％)

60 -7 050 -6 040 -5 030 -4 0

20 -3 0

10 -2 0

Less
10
以than
下 10

90 or more
90以
上

80-90

70-80

60-70

50-60

40-50

30-40

20-30

10-20

Less than
10以
下 10

(％)

(頻 度 )

80%(Frequency)

100%

30
(Frequency)(頻 度 )

Achievement rate河川[生活環境項目]（ＢＯＤ又はＣＯＤ）のof environmental standard for rivers (Living environment) (BOD or COD) in 2007
43 municipalities

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

86

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Q1.2.3 Noise(Frequency)(頻 度 )

Achievement rate of environmental standard for motor vehicle traffic noise (Day and night)
36 municipalities
自動車交通騒音（昼夜とも）の環境基準達成度
36市町村
10
120%
9
100%
8
7
80%
6
5
60%
4
40%
3
2
20%
1
0%
0
99.5
or more9 9 .5 以上
9 9 - 9 9 .5
98-99
97-98
96-97
95-96
94-95
93-94
92-93
91-92
90-91
88-90
86-88
84-86
82-84
80-82
8Less
0 以 than
下 80

( ％)

Q1.3.1 Recycling rate of general waste

60

100%

60%

30
40%

80
60%
60
40%

40

(％)

8 7 .5 - 9 0

8 2 .5 - 8 5

7 7 .5 - 8 0

7 2 .5 - 7 5

6 7 .5 - 7 0

6 2 .5 - 6 5

5 7 .5 - 6 0

5 2 .5 - 5 5

4 7 .5 - 5 0

4 2 .5 - 4 5

3 7 .5 - 4 0

0%
3 2 .5 - 3 5

20%0
2 7 .5 - 3 0

20

0%

未 満5
Less 5than

20%

6 7 .5 - 7 0

6 2 .5 - 6 5

5 7 .5 - 6 0

5 2 .5 - 5 5

4 7 .5 - 5 0

4 2 .5 - 4 5

3 7 .5 - 4 0

3 2 .5 - 3 5

2 7 .5 - 3 0

2 2 .5 - 2 5

1 7 .5 - 2 0

1 6 .5 - 1 7

1 5 .5 - 1 6

7 .5 - 1 0

1 2 .5 - 1 55 未 満5Less than

2 9 .5 - 3 1

(％)

20

以上
31 3or1more

2 8 - 2 9 .5

2 6 .5 - 2 8

2 5 - 2 6 .5

2 3 .5 - 2 5

2 2 - 2 3 .5

2 0 .5 - 2 2

1 9 - 2 0 .5

1 7 .5 - 1 9

1 1 .5 - 1 3

1 6 - 1 7 .5

0

1 4 .5 - 1 6

100%
1 3 - 1 4 .5

20%

0
8 .5 - 1 0

1

1 0 - 1 1 .5

40%

(Frequency)(頻 度 )(頻 度 )(Frequency)

40

2Less than
8 .5 未8.5
満(頻 度 )(Frequency)

60%

80%

80%

80%

3

100%

100

50
4

120%

120

2 2 .5 - 2 5

100%

140

7 .5 - 1 0

5

120%

70

1 7 .5 - 2 0120%

1 2 .5 - 1 5

6(Direct recycling + Recycling after intermediate treatment + Group collection) / (Solid waste disposal + Group collection) × 100 (2008)(直接資源化量+中間処理後再生利用量+集団回収量)/(ごみ処理量+集団回収量)*100(2008)
Towns
町村and villages(Direct recycling + Recycling after intermediate treatment + Group collection) / (Solid waste disposal + Group collection) × 100 (2008)(直接資源化量+中間処理後再生利用量+集団回収量)/(ごみ処理量+集団回収量)*100(2008)
Generalcities
一般の市(Direct recycling + Recycling after intermediate treatment + Group collection) / (Solid waste disposal + Group collection) × 100 (2008)(直接資源化量+中間処理後再生利用量+集団回収量)/(ごみ処理量+集団回収量)*100(2008)
Ordinance-designatedcities
政令市(％)

Q2.1.1 Adequate quality of housing standard
Per capita gross floor space (2005)
Ordinance-designated
１人当たり延べ面積(2005) cities
政令市

6

120%

40%

80%

30

60%

100%

40%

20

2

80%
100

(頻 度 )

40(Frequency)

3(頻 度 )

60%(Frequency)(頻 度 )

4

60%

80
60

40%
40

1

20%

10

20%

0%

0

0%

20%

Per capita parks space (2009)
Prefectures 都道府県
1人当たり公園面積(2009)

6

120%

1 4 .5 - 1 5

1 4 - 1 4 .5

1 3 .5 - 1 4

1 3 - 1 3 .5

1 2 .5 - 1 3

1 2 - 1 2 .5

15以
上
15 or
more

2
(m（㎡/人）/ Person)

1 1 .5 - 1 2

1 1 - 1 1 .5

1 0 .5 - 1 1

1 0 - 1 0 .5

0%9 - 9 .5

0
9 .5 - 1 0

20%

8 .5 - 91

8 - 8 .5

40%

7 .5 - 8

60%2

7 - 7 .5

3

6 .5 - 7

80%

6 - 6 .5

4

5 .5 - 6100%

5.55 .5
or以less
下5

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

2(m / Person)
（㎡/人）

54-55

52-53

50-51

48-49

46-47

44-45

42-43

4 0 .5 - 4 1

39-40

37-38

35-36

33-34

0%
31-32

54-55

52-53

50-51

48-49

46-47

44-45

0
下
303 0or以less(m2 /（㎡/人）
Person)42-43

4 0 .5 - 4 1

39-40

3 7 .5 - 3 8

36-37

33-34

Q2.1.2 Adequate provision of parks and open spaces

3 5 - 3 5 .5

31-32

下
28 2or8 以less

35 or
more
35以
上

3 5 .5 - 3 6

3 5 - 3 5 .5

3 4 .5 - 3 5

3 4 - 3 4 .5

3 3 .5 - 3 4

3 3 - 3 3 .5

3 2 .5 - 3 3

3 2 - 3 2 .5

3 1 .5 - 3 2

3 1 - 3 1 .5

3 0 .5 - 3 1

3 0 - 3 0 .5

2 9 .5 - 3 0

2 9 - 2 9 .5

2 8 .5 - 2 9

2 8 - 2 8 .5

2 7 .5 - 2 8

2 7 - 2 7 .5

27 2or7 以less下（㎡/人）(m2 / Person)

29-30

20

0

(頻 度 )

120%

140
120

80%

(Frequency)

Per capita gross floor space (2005)
Towns and villages
１人当たり延べ面積(2005)
町村

160

100%

50

100%

5

(Frequency)

Per capita gross floor space (2005)
General cities一般の市
１人当たり延べ面積(2005)

60

120%

7

Number of buildings not yet renovated / Total number of buildings
Prefectures都道府県
未改修の棟数/全棟数

8

7

5

3

2

0

（件/千人） / 1,000 people)(Number of accidents（件/千人） / 1,000 people)(Number of accidents

19-20

20 or2 0more
以上

0%

18-19

0

17-18

10

9 - 9 .5

8 .5 - 9

8 - 8 .5

7 .5 - 8

7 - 7 .5

6 .5 - 7

6 - 6 .5

5 .5 - 6

5 - 5 .5

4 .5 - 5

4 - 4 .5

3 .5 - 4

3 - 3 .5

11.51 or
1 .5more以上

1 1 .0 - 1 1 .5

1 0 .5 - 1 1 .0

1 0 .0 - 1 0 .5

9 .5 - 1 0 .0

(Number of accidents/ 1,000 people)（件/千人）

16-17

40%

15-16

60%

14-15

20

13-14

80%

12-13

100%

11-12

40

10-11

120%

9-10

刑法犯認知件数（2008）/補正人口（2005） 一般の市

8 .5 - 9

Number of crimes recorded (2008) / Adjusted population (2005)
General cities
2 .5 - 3

0%
5-10

95以 上

90-95

85-90

80-85

75-80

70-75

65-70

60-65

55-60

50-55

45-50

40-45

35-40

30-35

25-30

20-15

15-20

10-15

0%

2 - 2 .5

0

1 .5 - 2

10

1 - 1 .5（％）

Less 5than
未 満5(頻 度 )(Frequency)

40%

6
60
120%

120

100%
50
100%

100
100%

80%
40
80%

80
80%

30
60%

60
60%

20
40%

40
40%

10
20%

20
20%

0
0%

0
0%

(Frequency)(頻 度 )

95以 上

90-95

85-90

80-85

20

1 or1 less以下

以上
11.51 1or.5more

1 1 .0 - 1 1 .5

1 0 .5 - 1 1 .0

75-80

70-75

65-70

60-65

55-60

50-55

45-50

40-45

35-40

30-35

30

8 - 8 .5

0%
25-30

6

7-8

0
60%

6-7

20%
40

5-6

1
50

4-5

40%
60

3 .5 - 4

2100%

3 - 3 .5

100%
20-25

90

2-3

60%

70

80

1-2

40

80%

3
50
1 0 .0 - 1 0 .5

9120%

Number of traffic accidents (2008) / Adjusted population (2005)
General cities
交通事故発生件数（2008）/補正人口（2005）
一般の市

120%

1 or1 以
less
下

30

4
80

(頻 度 )

5
120%

Sanitation coverage (Population served by a sewage system / Total population) in 2007
General cities 一般の市
下水道普及率（下水処理人口/総人口）(2007)(Frequency)

Number of crimes recorded (2008) / Adjusted population (2005)
Ordinance-designated cities
刑法犯認知件数（2008）/補正人口（2005） 政令市(Number of accidents（件/千人） / 1,000 people)
9 .5 - 1 0 .0

09 - 9 .5

1

8 .5 - 920%

8 - 8 .5

2

7 .5 - 8

340%

7 - 7 .5

4

6 .5 - 7

60%

6 - 6 .5

5

5 .5 - 6

7

5 - 5 .5

8

4 .5 - 5

Number of traffic accidents (2008) / Adjusted population (2005)
Ordinance-designated cities
交通事故発生件数（2008）/補正人口（2005）
政令市

4 - 4 .5

0%

3 .5 - 42

3 - 3 .5

20%

2 .5 - 3

40%

5-10

80%

15-20

18

10-15

100%

2 - 2 .5

22

1 .5 - 20(頻 度 )

60%(Frequency)

10

100

1 - 1 .5

4120%

3 - 3 .5
3 .5 - 4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
9 - 9 .5
9 .5 - 1 0
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15
1 5 - 1 5 .5
1 5 .5 - 1 6
16-17
17-18
18-19
19-20
20-21
21-22
22-23
23-24
2 4more
以上
24 or

8

Less 5than
未 満5

12

(頻 度 )

14(Frequency)16

下1 or1 以less20

(頻 度 )

99.99 or
9 .9more以上

9 9 .8 - 9 9 .9

9 9 .7 - 9 9 .8

9 9 .6 - 9 9 .7

9 9 .5 - 9 9 .6

9 9 .3 - 9 9 .5

9 9 - 9 9 .3

98-99

97-98

96-97

95-96

90-95

85-90

80-85

75-80

70-75

65-70

60-65

(頻 度 )

Sanitation coverage (Population served by a sewage system / Total population) in 2007
Ordinance-designated cities
下水道普及率（下水処理人口/総人口）(2007)
政令市(Frequency)

9.5 9or.5 more
以上

9 .0 - 9 .5

8 .5 - 8 .7 5
8 .7 5 - 9 .0

8 .2 5 - 8 .5

8 .0 - 8 .2 5

7 .7 5 - 8 .0

7 .5 - 7 .7 5

7 .0 - 7 .2 5
7 .2 5 - 7 .5

6 .7 5 - 7 .0

6 .5 - 6 .7 5

6 .2 5 - 6 .5

5 .7 5 - 6 .0
6 .0 - 6 .2 5

5 .5 - 5 .7 5

5 .2 5 - 5 .5

5 .0 - 5 .2 5

4 .7 5 - 5 .0

4 .2 5 - 4 .5
4 .5 - 4 .7 5

4 .0 - 4 .2 5

Less6than0 未 60
満(Frequency)
24

3 or3 以
less
下

24 or
2 4 more
以上

23-24

22-23

21-22

20-21

19-20

18-19

17-18

16-17

15-16

1 4 .5 - 1 5(Number of （件/千人）
accidents / 1,000 people)

8 7 .5 - 9 0 .0

8 5 .0 - 8 7 .5

8 2 .5 - 8 5 .0

8 0 .0 - 8 2 .5

（件/千人） / 1,000 people)(Number of accidents

1 4 - 1 4 .5

13-14

12-13

11-12

10-11

4 or4 以less下(頻 度 )(Frequency)（％）

7 7 .5 - 8 0 .0

7 5 .0 - 7 7 .5

7 2 .5 - 7 5 .0

7 0 .0 - 7 2 .5

6 7 .5 - 7 0 .0

6 5 .0 - 6 7 .5

6 2 .5 - 6 5 .0

6 0 .0 - 6 2 .5

5 7 .5 - 6 0 .0

5 5 .0 - 5 7 .5

10

5 2 .5 - 5 5 .0

6

5 0 .0 - 5 2 .5

10 or
less
10以
下

(頻 度 )(Frequency)
104 7 .5 - 5 0 .0

(頻 度 )(Frequency)(2011 Edition)
CASBEE for Cities

87

Q2.1.3 Adequate sewage systems
Sanitation coverage (Population served by a sewage system / Total population) in 2007
Towns and villages 町村
下水道普及率（下水処理人口/総人口）(2007)

70

80%

40

20%

0

Number of crimes recorded (2008) / Adjusted population (2005)
Towns and villages
刑法犯認知件数（2008）/補正人口（2005） 町村

120

100

80

20%

20

0

120%

60
100%

50
80%

30

60%

20
40%

10
20%

0%

（％）

Q2.1.4 Traffic safety

Number of traffic accidents (2008) / Adjusted population (2005)
交通事故発生件数（2008）/補正人口（2005）
Towns and villages 町村
120%

Q2.1.5 Crime prevention

140
120%

100%

80%

60
60%

40%

20%

0%

Q2.1.6 Disaster preparedness

9

120%

100%

6

80%

4

60%

40%

1

20%

0%

（％）

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

(Number of lectures(講座数/千人)
and courses / 1,000 people)
20 or
2 0more以上

1 9 .0 - 2 0 .0

1 8 .0 - 1 9 .0

1 7 .0 - 1 8 .0

1 6 .0 - 1 7 .0

1 5 .0 - 1 6 .0

1 4 .0 - 1 5 .0

1 3 .0 - 1 4 .0

1 2 .0 - 1 3 .0

1 1 .0 - 1 2 .0

1 0 .0 - 1 1 .0

9 .0 - 1 0 .0

8 .0 - 9 .0

7 .0 - 8 .0

6 .0 - 7 .0

5 .0 - 6 .0

4 .0 - 5 .0

3 .5 - 4 .0

3 .0 - 3 .5

2 .0 - 3 .0

1 .0 - 2 .0

(頻 度 )(Frequency)

Number of lectures and courses held at social education facilities (2007)
Prefectures
社会教育施設における学級・講座数（2007）
都道府県

8

7

5

3

2

0

Floor space of public cultural facilities / Adjusted population (2005)
Prefectures
公共文化施設の施設面積/補正人口（2005）
都道府県

8

7

5

3

2

0

Number of participants in events hosted or co-hosted by cultural halls+ number of visitors to museums / Adjusted population (2007)
文化会館主催・共催の参加人数+博物館入館者数/補正人口（2007）
Prefectures
都道府県

6

1

0

Q2.2.1 Adequacy of education services (2)

9
120%

100%

6
80%

4
60%

40%

1
20%

0%

Q2.2.2 Adequacy of cultural services (1)

9
120%

100%

6
80%

4
60%

40%

1
20%

0%

(㎡/百人）(m2 / 100
people)Q2.2.2 Adequacy of cultural services (2)

120%

5

100%

4

80%

3

60%

2

40%

20%

0%

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○
2 1 .0 以 上

2 0 .0 - 2 1 .0

100%

50

40
60%

30
40%

20%
20
20%

10

0
0%

(頻 度 )

70(Frequency)

Number of students at elementary and junior high schools / Number ofteachers at elementary and junior high schools (2008)
General cities 一般の市
小・中学校児童・生徒数/同教員数（2008）
120%

100

100%

80%

5 .0 未 満
5 .0 - 5 .5
5 .5 - 6 .0
6 .0 - 6 .5
6 .5 - 7 .0
7 .0 - 8 .0
8 .0 - 8 .5
8 .5 - 9 .0
9 .0 - 1 0 .0
1 0 .0 - 1 0 .5
1 0 .5 - 1 1 .0
1 1 .0 - 1 2 .0
1 2 .0 - 1 3 .0
1 3 .0 - 1 3 .5
1 3 .5 - 1 4 .0
1 4 .0 - 1 5 .0
1 5 .0 - 1 6 .0
1 6 .0 - 1 6 .5
1 6 .5 - 1 7 .0
1 7 .0 - 1 8 .0
1 8 .0 - 1 9 .0
1 9 .0 - 2 0 .0
2 0 .0 - 2 1 .0
2 1 .0 - 2 2 .0
2 2 .0 以 上(Number of students(人/人) / Teacher)

1 9 .5 - 2 0 .0

0%
1 9 .0 - 1 9 .5

0
1 8 .0 - 1 9 .0

1

1 7 .5 - 1 8 .0

2

1 7 .0 - 1 7 .5

340%

1 6 .5 - 1 7 .0

4

1 6 .0 - 1 6 .560%

1 5 .0 - 1 6 .0

80%

1 4 .0 - 1 5 .0

6

1 3 .0 - 1 4 .0

9

1 2 .0 - 1 3 .0

5
120%
80

1 1 .0 - 1 2 .0

7

(頻 度 )

8(Frequency)

Q2.2.1 Adequacy of education services (1)1 0 .0 - 1 1 .0

(頻 度 )(Frequency)

Number of students at elementary and junior high schools / Number ofteachers at elementary and junior high schools (2008)
小・中学校児童・生徒数/同教員数（2008）
政令市
Ordinance-designatedcities

1 0 .0 未 満

21.02 or
1 .0more
以上

2 0 .5 - 2 1 .0

2 0 .0 - 2 0 .5

1 9 .5 - 2 0 .0

1 9 .0 - 1 9 .5

1 8 .7 5 - 1 9 .0

1 8 .5 - 1 8 .7 5

1 8 .0 - 1 8 .5

1 7 .5 - 1 8 .0

1 7 .2 5 - 1 7 .5

1 7 .0 - 1 7 .2 5

1 6 .0 - 1 7 .0

Less1than
6 .0 未16.0
満(Number of students/ Teacher)(人/人)2.05 2or.0 5more
以上(Number of participants and(人/人）
visitors / Adjusted population)

1 .9 5 - 2 .0 5

1 .8 5 - 1 .9 5

1 .7 5 - 1 .8 5

1 .6 5 - 1 .7 5

1 .5 5 - 1 .6 5

1 .4 5 - 1 .5 5

1 .3 5 - 1 .4 5

1 .2 5 - 1 .3 5

1 .1 5 - 1 .2 5

1 .0 5 - 1 .1 5

0 .9 5 - 1 .0 5

0 .8 5 - 0 .9 5

0 .7 5 - 0 .8 5

0 .6 5 - 0 .7 5

7

0 .5 5 - 0 .6 5

10

1 5 .0 - 1 7 .5
1 7 .5 - 2 0 .0
2 0 .0 - 2 2 .5
2 2 .5 - 2 5 .0
2 5 .0 - 2 7 .5
2 7 .5 - 3 0 .0
3 0 .0 - 3 2 .5
3 2 .5 - 3 5 .0
3 5 .0 - 3 7 .5
3 7 .5 - 4 0 .0
4 0 .0 - 4 2 .5
4 2 .5 - 4 5 .0
4 5 .0 - 4 7 .5
4 7 .5 - 5 0 .0
5 0 .0 - 5 2 .5
5 2 .5 - 5 5 .0
5 5 .0 - 5 7 .5
5 7 .5 - 6 0 .0
6 0 .0 - 6 2 .5
6 2 .5 - 6 5 .0
6 5 .0 - 6 7 .5
6 7 .5 - 7 0 .0
7 0 .0 - 7 2 .5
7 2 .5 - 7 5 .0
7 5 .0 - 7 7 .5
以上
77.57 7or.5more

1 or1 以less下

10

0 .4 5 - 0 .5 5Less than
1 5 未15
満(頻 度 )(Frequency)
10

0 .3 5 - 0 .4 5

0 .3 5 未満Less than0.35(頻 度 )(Frequency)

88
CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Number of students at elementary and junior high schools / Number ofteachers at elementary and junior high schools (2008)
Towns and villages 町村
小・中学校児童・生徒数/同教員数（2008）

90

80

70

50

30

20

0

(人/人)
(Number of students/ Teacher)

120%

60

100%

60

80%

40

60%

40%

10

20%

0%

89

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Q2.2.3 Adequacy of medical services
Number of beds at medical facilities / Adjusted population (2005)
Ordinance-designatedcities
医療病床数/補正人口（2005） 政令市

120%

40

Number of beds at medical facilities / Adjusted population (2005)
General cities一般の市
医療病床数/補正人口（2005）

120%

450

9

100%

100%
350

30
80%

80%

40%

3

60%

20

40%
10

2

80%

300

(頻 度 )

4(頻 度 )

60%

5(Frequency)

6(Frequency)

7

250
60%
200
40%

150
100

20%

20%

20%
50

1

34-35

32-33

40 or
4 0more以上(Number of(床/千人）
beds / 1,000 people)

30-31

28-29

26-27

24-25

22-23

20-21

18-19

16-17

14-15

8-9

12-13

6-7

10-11

Less 1than
未 満1

34-35

32-33

30-31

28-29

26-27

24-25

22-23

20-21

18-19

16-17

14-15

12-13

8-9

10-11

6-7

4-5

(床/千人）(Number of beds
/ 1,000 people)

0%

0

40 or
4 0more以上(Number of(床/千人）
beds / 1,000 people)

2-3

Less 1than
未 満1

1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
9-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15
15-16
16-17
17-18
18-19
19-20
20-21
21-22
22-23
23-24
24-25
25-26
26 or
2 6 more
以上

Less 1than
未 満1

0%

0

0%

0

4-5

(頻 度 )

120%

400

100%

8

(Frequency)

Number of beds at medical facilities / Adjusted population (2005)
Towns and villages
医療病床数/補正人口（2005）
町村

2-3

10

Q2.2.4 Adequacy of childcare services (1)Number of children waiting to enter nursery schools / Capacity of nursery schools (2009)
Ordinance-designated cities
保育所入所待機児童数/保育所定員数（2009）
都道府県

120%

100%

4

80%

3

60%

2

40%

1

20%

0

0%
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15
15-16
16-17
17-18
19-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60 or
6 0more以上

5

0 .5
0 .5 - 1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
9-10
10-11

(頻 度 )(Frequency)

6(Number of beds
（千人） / 1,000 people)

Q2.2.4 Adequacy of childcare services (2)7Number of child-support centers (Plaza-type, Center-type,Children’s house-type) / Number of infants (2005)
地域子育て支援拠点（ひろば型・センター型・児童館型）/乳幼児数（2005）
都道府県
Ordinance-designated cities

6

120%

100%

5

(頻 度 )(Frequency)

80%
4
60%
3
40%
2
20%

1
0
16-17

15-16

(Number of centers/ 10,000 people)(箇所/万人）17 or1 7more
以上

14-15

13-14

12-13

11-12

8-9

9-10

10-11

7-8

6-7

5-6

4-5

3-4

2-3

1-2

Less
1 万 人than
未 満1

0%

Q2.2.5 Adequacy of services for the disabled (1)8Capacity of facilities for the disabled / Total population (2008)
Ordinance-designatedcities
障害者施設定員数/総人口(2008) 政令市

120%

80

Capacity of facilities for the disabled / Total population (2008)
General cities
障害者施設定員数/総人口(2008) 一般の市

Capacity of facilities for the disabled / Total population (2008)
Towns and villages
障害者施設定員数/総人口(2008)
町村

120%

600
100%

6

60

2

40

60%

40%
20
20%

10
0
10-15

9 .5 - 1 0

15 or1 5more
以上(Numberof slots / 1,000 people)(人/千人)

9 - 9 .5

8 .5 - 9

8 - 8 .5

7 .5 - 8

7 - 7 .5

6 - 6 .5
6 .5 - 7

5 .5 - 6

5 - 5 .5

4 .5 - 5

4 - 4 .5

3 .5 - 4

3 - 3 .5

2 - 2 .5
2 .5 - 3

1 .5 - 2

1 .2 5 - 1 .5

1 - 1 .2 5

0 .7 5 - 1

0 .5 - 0 .7 50%Less 0than.5 未0.5
満

1.951 or
.9 5more
以上

1 .7 - 1 .9 5

1 .5 5 - 1 .7

1 .5 - 1 .5 5

1 .4 - 1 .5

1 .2 5 - 1 .4

1 .1 - 1 .2 5

1 .0 - 1 .1

0 .9 - 1 .0

0 .8 - 0 .9

0 .5 5 - 0 .7

0 .4 - 0 .5 5

0 .2 5 - 0 .4

0 .7 - 0 .8

(Number of slots/ 1,000 people)(人/千人)

20%

100
50

0%

0

40%

200
150

20%
1

60%

300
250

30

0

0%
0
0 - 0 .2 5
0 .2 5 - 0 .5
0 .5 - 0 .7 5
0 .7 5 - 1
1 - 1 .2 5
1 .2 5 - 1 .5
1 .5 - 2
2 - 2 .5
2 .5 - 3
3 - 3 .5
3 .5 - 4
4 - 4 .5
4 .5 - 5
5 - 5 .5
5 .5 - 6
6 - 6 .5
6 .5 - 7
7 - 7 .5
7 .5 - 8
8 - 8 .5
8 .5 - 9
9 - 9 .5
9 .5 - 1 0
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40 4or0 more
以上

(頻 度 )

40%

80%

400
350

(Frequency)

3Less 0than
0.25.2 5 未満(頻 度 )(Frequency)

80%
50

60%

4

100%

500
450

80%

5

120%

550

70

100%

(Frequency)(頻 度

7(人/千人)(Number of slots / 1,000 people)

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

0 .7 4 - 0 .7 6

0 .6 8 - 0 .7
0 .7 - 0 .7 2
0 .7 2 - 0 .7 4

0 .6 - 0 .6 2
0 .6 2 - 0 .6 4
0 .6 4 - 0 .6 6
0 .6 6 - 0 .6 8

3
60%

2
40%

1
20%

0
0%

8

100%

5

60%

4

40%

120%

(人/百人)(Number ofslots / 100 people)

Q2.3.1 Rate of population change due to births and deaths

Rate of population change due to births and deaths of municipal population – Rateof population change due to births and deaths of national population (2008)
General cities
当該都市の人口自然増減率-全国の人口自然増減率(2008)
一般の市

30

80%

20%

0

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

（PP）

120%

100%

80%

60%

2

10

40%

0%

3 .7 5 - 4

（PP）

18-19

20 or
2 0more以上(人/百人)(Numberof slots / 100 people)

16-17

14-15

12-13

10-11

8-9

6-7

4 .7 5 - 5

0%

4 .2 5 - 4 .5

0

2 .7 5 - 3

10
20%

3 .2 5 - 3 .5

40%

1 .7 5 - 2

20

2 .2 5 - 2 .530

Capacity of long-term care insurance facilities + Number ofbeds / Elderly population (2007-2008)
Towns and villages
介護保険施設定員数+病床数/高齢者人口(2007/2008)
町村

110

90

70

60

40

20

0

1 or1 以
more
上

80%

60%

0 . 6 - 0 .6 5
0 . 7 - 0 .7 5
0 . 8 - 0 .8 5
0 . 9 - 0 .9 5

100%

4

80%

- 0 . 1 - 0 .0 5
0 - 0 .0 5
0 . 1 - 0 .1 5
0 . 2 - 0 .2 5
0 . 3 - 0 .3 5
0 . 4 - 0 .4 5
0 . 5 - 0 .5 5

5

100%

1 .2 5 - 1 .5

0%

Less1than
未 満1

1
40

130

- 1 .4 - 1 .3
- 1 .2 - 1 .1
- 1 .0 - 0 .9
- 0 .8 - 0 .7
- 0 .6 - 0 .5
- 0 . 4 - 0 .3 5
- 0 . 3 - 0 .2 5
- 0 . 2 - 0 .1 5

120%

50

20

60

80%

(頻 度 )

6

60
120%(Frequency)

20%

60.06or
0 .0more以上

5 5 .0 - 6 0 .0

5 0 .0 - 5 5 .0

4 5 .0 - 5 0 .0

4 0 .0 - 4 5 .0

3 5 .0 - 4 0 .0

3 0 .0 - 3 5 .0

2 5 .0 - 3 0 .0

2 0 .0 - 2 5 .0

1 5 .0 - 2 0 .0

1 0 .0 - 1 5 .0

9 .0 - 1 0 .0

8 .0 - 9 .0

7 .0 - 8 .0

6 .0 - 7 .0

5 .0 - 6 .0

4 .0 - 5 .0

3 .0 - 4 .0

2 .0 - 3 .0

Ratio of bus companies introducing low-floor buses
Prefectures
乗合いバス事業者のノンステップバス導入比率
都道府県- 1 than.5 未 -1.5
満
Less

2

Capacity of long-term care insurance facilities + Number ofbeds / Elderly population (2007-2008)
General cities
介護保険施設定員数+病床数/高齢者人口(2007/2008)
一般の市(頻 度 )

80%(％)(Frequency)100%

1 or1more
以上6

0 .9 - 0 .9 5

40%
70

0 .8 - 0 .8 57

0 .7 - 0 .7 5

120%

0 .6 - 0 .6 5(％)

0 .5 - 0 .5 5

0

0 .4 - 0 .4 5

0%0%

0 .3 - 0 .3 501

0 .2 - 0 .2 5

60%
(頻 度 )

80%

1 .0 - 2 .040%

(Frequency)

15

0 .1 - 0 .1 5

3

6

0 - 0 .0 5

6

100%

- 0 .1 - 0 .0 5

Rate of population change due to births and deaths of municipal population – Rateof population change due to births and deaths of national population (2008)
当該都市の人口自然増減率-全国の人口自然増減率(2008)
Ordinance-designated cities政令市
7- 0 .2 - 0 .1 50120%

- 0 .3 - 0 .2 5

3
20%

Less1than.0 未 1.0
満(頻度)(Frequency)

60%

1 - 1 .2 5
1 .2 5 - 1 .5
1 .5 - 1 .7 5
1 .7 5 - 2
2 - 2 .2 5
2 .2 5 - 2 .5
2 .5 - 2 .7 5
2 .7 5 - 3
3 - 3 .2 5
3 .2 5 - 3 .5
3 .5 - 3 .7 5
3 .7 5 - 4
4 - 4 .2 5
4 .2 5 - 4 .5
4 .5 - 4 .7 5
4 .7 5 - 5
5-6
6-7
7-8
8-9
9-10
10-11
11-12
12-13
13 or
1 3more
以上

55 or
more
55以上

52.5-55.0

50.0-52.5

47.5-50.0

45.0-47.5

42.5-45.0

40.0-42.5

37.5-40.0

35.0-37.5

32.5-35.0

30.0-32.5

27.5-30.0

25.0-27.5

22.5-25.0

20.0-22.5

17.5-20.0

15.0-17.5

12.5-15.0

10.0-12.5

7.5-10.0

5.0-7.5

2.5-5.0

0-2.5

0

20

- 0 .4 - 0 .3 5

4

(頻 度 )

5(Frequency)

Q2.2.6 Adequacy of services for the elderly (1)Capacity of long-term care insurance facilities + Number ofbeds / Elderly population (2007-2008)
Ordinance-designated cities政令市
介護保険施設定員数+病床数/高齢者人口(2007/2008)

未 満1
Less 1than(頻 度 )
0(頻 度 )

4.254 .2
or5more以上

4 - 4 .2 5

3 .7 5 - 4

3 .5 - 3 .7 5

3 .2 5 - 3 .5

3 - 3 .2 5

2 .7 5 - 3

2 .5 - 2 .7 5

2 .2 5 - 2 .5

2 - 2 .2 5

1 .7 5 - 2

1 .5 - 1 .7 5

1 .2 5 - 1 .5

1 - 1 .2 5

Less 1than
未 満1(Frequency)
10(Frequency)(頻 度 )(Frequency)

Ratio of barrier-free railway stations (2005)
Prefectures 都道府県
バリアフリー化した鉄道比率(2005)

Less-than
0 .5 未-1.5
満

2 .5 - 2 .5 5
2 .5 5 - 2 .6
2 .6 - 2 .6 5
2 .6 5 - 2 .7
2 .7 - 2 .7 5
2 .7 5 - 2 .8
2 .8 - 2 .8 5
2 .8 5 - 2 .9
2 .9 - 2 .9 5
2 .9 5 - 3
3 - 3 .1
3 .1 - 3 .2
3 .2 - 3 .3
3 .3 - 3 .4
3 .4 - 3 .5
3 .5 - 3 .6
3 .6 - 3 .7
3 .7 - 3 .8
3 .8 5 - 3 .8
3 .9 - 3 .8 5
3 .9 - 4 .0
4 .0 - 4 .1
4 .1 - 4 .2
4 .2 - 4 .3
4 .3 - 4 .4
4.4 or
4 .4more
以上

Less2than.5 未2.5
満(Number of slots(人/百人)/ 100 people)

0.760 or
.7 6more
以上（PP）

0 .5 2 - 0 .5 4
0 .5 4 - 0 .5 6
0 .5 6 - 0 .5 8
0 .5 8 - 0 .6

0 .4 6 - 0 .4 8
0 .4 8 - 0 .5
0 .5 - 0 .5 2

0 .3 8 - 0 .4
0 .4 - 0 .4 2
0 .4 2 - 0 .4 4
0 .4 4 - 0 .4 6

9

0 .3 2 - 0 .3 4
0 .3 4 - 0 .3 6
0 .3 6 - 0 .3 8

(頻 度 )(Frequency)
80 .3 - 0 .3 2

Less0than.3 未 0.3
満90
CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Q2.2.5 Adequacy of services for the disabled (2)
120%

5

100%

4
80%

3
60%

5

2
40%

20%

0%

120

120%

100

100%

80

80%

50

60%

30
40%

10
20%

0%

Q2.2.6 Adequacy of services for the elderly (2)Number of facilities for in-home services / Elderly population (2008)
居宅サービス事業所数/高齢者人口(2008)
都道府県Prefectures(Number of (事業所数/千人)
facilities / 1,000 people)

Rate of population change due to births and deaths of municipal population – Rateof population change due to births and deaths of national population (2008)
Towns and villages
当該都市の人口自然増減率-全国の人口自然増減率(2008)
町村

80

120%

7

100%

60%

40

20%

20

40%

1

0

20%

0%

91

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Q2.3.2 Rate of population change due to migration
Rate of population change due to migration of municipal population - Rateof population change due to migration of national population (2007-2005)
Ordinance-designated cities 政令市
当該都市の人口社会増減率-全国の社会増減率(2007･2005)

10

Rate of population change due to migration of municipal population - Rateof population change due to migration of national population (2007-2005)
Towns and villages
当該都市の人口社会増減率-全国の社会増減率(2007･2005)
町村

Rate of population change due to migration of municipal population - Rateof population change due to migration of national population (2007-2005)
General cities
当該都市の人口社会増減率-全国の社会増減率(2007･2005)
一般の市

120%

70

120%

30

9
100%

4

40%

10

40%

3

80%
40

60%

(頻 度 )

60%(頻 度 )

5

100%

50

80%

20

80%

6

60

100%

(Frequency)

60%
30
40%
20

20%
0%

0

Q2.3.3 Progress towards an information society
Number of computers for educational use / Number of students
in elementary and junior high schools (2005)
Ordinance-designated cities 政令市
同教育用コンピュータ台数/小・中学校の児童・生徒数(2005)

7

50

120%

6

0 .9 - 1

0 .7 - 0 .8

0 .5 - 0 .6

0 .3 - 0 .4

- 0 .1 - 0

0 .1 - 0 .2

- 0 .2 5 - 0 .2

- 0 .3 5 - 0 .3

- 0 .4 5 - 0 .4

- 0 .5 5 - 0 .5

- 0 .6 5 - 0 .6

- 0 .7 5 - 0 .7

- 1 .1 - 1 .0

- 0 .8 5 - 0 .8

- 1 .3 - 1 .2

- 1 .5 - 1 .4（％）

Number of computers for educational use / Number of students
in elementary and junior high schools (2005)
Towns and villages
同教育用コンピュータ台数/小・中学校の児童・生徒数(2005)
町村

Number of computers for educational use / Number of students
in elementary and junior high schools (2005)
同教育用コンピュータ台数/小・中学校の児童・生徒数(2005)
一般の市
General cities

120%

120%

160

100%

100%

40

100%

140
120

5

100

(頻 度 )(Frequency)

60%

3
40%

60%

20
40%

(Frequency)(頻 度 )

30

4(頻 度 )

80%

80%

80%

2

60%

80
60

40%

40
20

(Number of computers(台/百人) / 100 people)

45-50

35-40

25-30

2 4 - 2 4 .5

2 3 - 2 3 .5

2 2 - 2 2 .5

2 1 - 2 1 .5

2 0 - 2 0 .5

1 9 - 1 9 .5

1 8 - 1 8 .5

1 7 - 1 7 .5

1 6 - 1 6 .5

1 5 - 1 5 .5

1 4 - 1 4 .5

1 3 - 1 3 .5

1 2 - 1 2 .5

1 1 - 1 1 .5

1 9 .5 - 2 0

1 8 .5 - 1 9

1 7 .5 - 1 8

1 6 .5 - 1 7

1 5 .5 - 1 6

1 4 .5 - 1 5

1 3 .5 - 1 4

1 2 .5 - 1 3

1 1 .5 - 1 2

1 0 .5 - 1 1

8 .5 - 9

9 .5 - 1 0

7 .5 - 8

0%

0

0%

Less than
6 未 満6

1 3 .5 - 1 4

1 3 - 1 3 .5

(Number of computers/ 100 people)(台/百人)

014 or
1 4more以上

1 2 .5 - 1 3

1 2 - 1 2 .5

1 1 .5 - 1 2

1 1 - 1 1 .5

1 0 .5 - 1 1

1 0 - 1 0 .5

9 - 9 .5

9 .5 - 1 0

8 .5 - 9

8 - 8 .5

7 .5 - 8

7 - 7 .5

6 .5 - 7

6 - 6 .5

Less than
6 未 満60%

6 .5 - 7

0

20%

20%

Less8 than
- 8 .5 8-8.5
未満

20%

1

9 - 9 .5

10

1 0 - 1 0 .5

(Frequency)- 0 .9 5 - 0 .9

（％）

（％）

- 1 .7 - 1 .6

0%Less-than-22未満

0 .5 - 0 .6
0 .7 - 0 .8
0 .9 - 1- 0 .2 5 - 0 .2
- 0 .1 - 0
0 .1 - 0 .2
0 .3 - 0 .4

-0 .7- 0.6 5-0 .65 -0 .6-0 .6- 0.5 5-0 .55 -0 .5-0 .5- 0.4 5-0 .45 -0 .4-0 .4- 0.3 5-0 .35 -0 .3-0 .3- 0.2 5-0 .25 -0 .2-0 .2 -0.1
-0 .1- 0
0 -0.1
0 .1 -0 .2
0 .2 -0 .3
0 .3 -0 .4
0 .4 -0 .5
0 .5 -0 .6
0 .6 -0 .7
0 .7 -0 .8
0 .8 -0 .9
0 .9- 1
1以 上

Less-0.7未
than -0.7
満- 0 .6 5 - 0 .6
- 0 .5 5 - 0 .5
- 0 .4 5 - 0 .4
- 0 .3 5 - 0 .3

0%- 1 .1 - 1 .0
- 0 .9 5 - 0 .9
- 0 .8 5 - 0 .8
- 0 .7 5 - 0 .7

Less- than
-2
2未 満

0

0

20%

10

20%

1

- 1 .9 - 1 .8

2

- 1 .9 - 1 .8
- 1 .7 - 1 .6
- 1 .5 - 1 .4
- 1 .3 - 1 .2

(Frequency)(頻 度 )

7(Frequency)

8

120%

(Number of computers(台/百人) / 100 people)

Q3.1.1 Amount equivalent to gross regional product(Agricultural output + Value of shipments of manufactured goods+ Annual sales of commercial goods) / Adjusted population (2005)（農業産出額＋製造品出荷額等＋商業年間商品販売額）/補正人口(2005)
政令市
Ordinance-designated cities

10(Agricultural output + Value of shipments of manufactured goods+ Annual sales of commercial goods) / Adjusted population (2005)（農業産出額＋製造品出荷額等＋商業年間商品販売額）/補正人口(2005)
一般の市
General cities

50

120%

120%

160

9
100%

8

120%

100%

120

80%

4

30
60%

(頻 度 )

60%

5

80%

(Frequency)

6

20
40%

40%

3
2

20%

80%

(Frequency)(頻 度 )

7

100
60%

80
60

40%

40

10

20%

20%
20

1

0%
190-200

170-180

150-160130-140

110-120(100,000（十万円）yen)

95-100

85-90

75-80

65-70

55-60

45-50

35-40

25-30

1 7 .5 - 2 0

Less than
5 未 満513-15

02002or
0 0more以上

180-190160-170

140-150

120-130

90-95(100,000（十万円）yen)

100-110

80-85

70-75

60-65

50-55

40-45

30-35

5未 満
Less than
5

20-25

0%

1501 or
5 0more以上

140-150130-140120-130

110-120100-11090-95

95-100

85-90

80-85

75-80

70-75

65-70

60-65

55-60

50-55

45-50

40-45

35-40

30-35

25-30

20-25

Less than
2 0 未 20
満(100,000（十万円）yen)

0
10-15

0%

0

10-12

(Frequency)(頻 度 )

140

100%

40

(Agricultural output + Value of shipments of manufactured goods+ Annual sales of commercial goods) / Adjusted population (2005)
Towns and villages（農業産出額＋製造品出荷額等＋商業年間商品販売額）/補正人口（2005)
町村Q3.1.2 Ratio of change in the number of employees(Number of employees – Number of employees 5 years ago)
/ Number of employees / 5 (2006-2001)(従業者数ー5年前従業者数）/従業者数/5(2006･2001)
一般の市
General cities

120%

40%

10

40%
20%

（％）

0%
2 .6 - 2 .8
3 or3 more
以上

2 .2 - 2 .4

1 .8 - 2 .0

1 .4 - 1 .6

1 .0 - 1 .2

0 .6 - 0 .8

0 .2 - 0 .4

- 0 .2 - 0- 0 .6 - 0 .4

- 1 .0 - 0 .8

- 1 .4 - 1 .2

- 1 .8 - 1 .6

- 2 .2 - 2 .0

- 2 .6 - 2 .4

2 .6 - 2 .8
3 or3 以more
上2 .2 - 2 .4

1 .8 - 2 .0

1 .4 - 1 .6

1 .0 - 1 .2

0 .6 - 0 .8

- 0 .2 - 0

0 .2 - 0 .4

- 0 .6 - 0 .4

- 1 .0 - 0 .8

- 1 .4 - 1 .2

- 1 .8 - 1 .6

- 2 .2 - 2 .0

- 2 .6 - 2 .4

- 3 .0 - 2 .8

- 3 .4 - 3 .2

0%0
- 3 .0 - 2 .8

0
- 3 .8 - 3 .6

0 .5 - 0 .6

0 .4 - 0 .5

0 .3 - 0 .4

0 .2 - 0 .3

0 .1 - 0 .2

0 - 0 .1

- 0 .1 - 0- 0 .2 - 0 .1

- 0 .3 - 0 .2

0.60or.6more
以上（％）- 0 .4 - 0 .3

- 0 .5 - 0 .4

- 0 .6 - 0 .5

- 0 .7 - 0 .6

- 0 .8 - 0 .7

- 0 .9 - 0 .8

- 1 .0 - 0 .9

- 1 .1 - 1 .0

- 1 .2 - 1 .1

- 1 .3 - 1 .2

- 1 .4 - 1 .3

- 1 .5 - 1 .4

0%

60%

40

20%

4 .0 未-4.0
満Less- than

0

80%

20

20%

1

- 1 .6 - 1 .5

(頻 度 )(Frequency)(頻 度 )

40%

Less-than
1 .6 未-1.6
満(Frequency)

60%

20

2

100%

80%
30

60%

120%

60

80%

3

(Number of employees – Number of employees 5 years ago)
/ Number of employees / 5 (2006-2001)(従業者数ー5年前従業者数）/従業者数/5(2006･2001)
町村Towns and villages

100%

40

5
4

80

- 3 .4 - 3 .2

100%

50

- 3 .8 - 3 .6

6

120%

Less- than
4 .0 未-4.0
満(Number of employees – Number of employees 5 years ago)
/ Number of employees / 5 (2006-2001)
Ordinance-designated cities 政令市(従業者数ー5年前従業者数）/従業者数/5(2006･2001)(Frequency)(頻 度 )

7（％）

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

(Ratio)
（倍率）

1

0

20%

10

0%

0

(％)

Tax revenues for local governments / Adjusted population (2005)
General cities 一般の市
地方税収入額/補正人口(2005)

30

80%

5

0

80%

40

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○(Ratio)
（倍率）
120%

100%

80%

60%

15

10
40%

0%

（万円）yen)(10,000

Current outstanding municipal bonds / Balance of internal revenue sources (2008)
General cities 一般の市
地方債現在高/自主財源高(2008)

120%

10

8

30

20

60%

3

40%

（倍率）
(Ratio)8 .5 - 92
1 .0 - 2 .0
2 .0 - 3 .0
3 .0 - 4 .0
4 .0 - 4 .5
4 .5 - 5 .0
5 .0 - 6 .0
6 .0 - 7 .0
7 .0 - 7 .5
7 .5 - 8 .0
8 .0 - 9 .0
9 .0 - 1 0 .0
1 0 .0 - 1 2 .5
1 2 .5 - 1 5 .0
1 5 .0 - 1 7 .5
1 7 .5 - 2 0 .0
2 0 .0 - 2 2 .5
2 2 .5 - 2 5 .0
2 5 .0 - 2 7 .5
2 7 .5 - 3 0 .0
3 0 .0 - 3 2 .5
3 2 .5 - 3 5 .0
3 5 .0 - 3 7 .5
3 7 .5 - 4 0 .0
40.0
more
4 0 or.0 以
上0

9 .5 - 1 0

40%

10

7 .5 - 8

60%

20

Less than
1 .0 未1.0
満2

6 .5 - 7

460%

5 .5 - 6

5
60
60%

40%
40
40%

20%
20
20%

0%
0
0%

(頻 度 )

Number of people aged 15 or older who use railways or buses for commuting to and from school or work outside
15歳以上自宅外就業・通学者で鉄道・電車・バスを利用している人数/15歳以上自宅外就業・通学者
thehome / Number of people aged 15 or older who commute to and from school or work outside the home
一般の市 cities
General

4 .8 - 5650
7 .7 5 - 8

9 .7 5 - 1 0

9 .2 5 - 9 .5

8 .7 5 - 9

8 .2 5 - 8 .5

3 .5 - 4
4 .5 - 5
5 .2 5 - 5 . 5
5 .7 5 - 6
6 .2 5 - 6 . 5
6 .7 5 - 7
7 .2 5 - 7 . 5
7 .7 5 - 8
8 .2 5 - 8 . 5
8 .7 5 - 9
9 .2 5 - 9 . 5
9 .7 5 - 1 0
1 0 .2 5 - 1 0 .5
1 0 .7 5 - 1 1
1 1 .2 5 - 1 1 .5
1 1 .7 5 - 1 2
1 2 .5 - 1 3
1 3 .5 - 1 4
1 4 .5 - 1 5
1 5 .5 - 1 6
17-18
19-20

Less3than
未 満3

19-20

17-18

1 5 .5 - 1 6

1 4 .5 - 1 5

1 3 .5 - 1 4

1 2 .5 - 1 3

1 1 .7 5 - 1 2

1 1 .2 5 - 1 1 .5

1 0 .7 5 - 1 1

0%

4 - 4 .2

（万円） yen)(10,000
6 .7 5 - 7

0%

4 .4 - 4 .6

100%
(頻 度 )(頻 度 )(Frequency)

40%

3 .6 - 3 .8

7

120%
10

2 .8 - 3

935
7 .2 5 - 7 .5

2

3 .2 - 3 .4

Current outstanding municipal bonds / Balance of internal revenue sources (2008)
Ordinance-designatedcities
地方債現在高/自主財源高(2008) 政令市
60%

2 - 2 .2

0%
15

2 .4 - 2 .6

080%

1 .6 - 1 .8

20%20

1 .2 - 1 .4

40%

40

5 - 7 .5
7 .5 - 8 .0
8 .0 - 9 .0
9 .0 - 1 0
1 0 - 1 1 .0
11-12
1 2 - 1 2 .5
1 2 .5 - 1 5
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-35
35-40
40-45
45-50
50-55
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
80-85
85-90
90-95
95-100100
1 0or0 more
以上

2
100%

1 - 1 .1

3
25

0 .8 - 0 .9

450

0 .6 - 0 .7

530

（頻 度 ）

80%(Frequency)

100%

Less than
5
5未満

1
0

（頻 度 ）

60%
5(Frequency)

100%

120%

Number of employees in retail trades, restaurants and hotels / Total population (2006)
General cities
小売店・飲食店・宿泊業の従業者数/総人口(2006)
一般の市

Less than
0 .5 未0.5
満

6
120%

24-25

(％)

22-23

0%

20-21

1

18-19

20%

1 7 - 1 7 .540%

1 6 - 1 6 .560%

1 5 - 1 5 .5

4

1 0 .2 5 - 1 0 .5（％）

1 4 - 1 4 .5

5

1 3 - 1 3 .5

7

1 2 - 1 2 .5

Tax revenues for local governments / Adjusted population (2005)
地方税収入額/補正人口(2005) 政令市
Ordinance-designatedcities120%

1 1 - 1 1 .5

8

1 0 - 1 0 .5（％）
6 .2 5 - 6 .5

20%

8-9

0

80%

2 .0 - 3 .0
3 .0 - 4 .0
4 .0 - 4 .5
4 .5 - 5 .0
5 .0 - 7 .5
7 .5 - 8 .5
8 .5 - 9 .5
9 .5 - 1 0 .0
1 0 .0 - 1 2 .5
1 2 .5 - 1 5 .0
1 5 .0 - 1 7 .5
1 7 .5 - 2 0 .0
2 0 .0 - 2 2 .5
2 2 .5 - 2 5 .0
2 5 .0 - 2 7 .5
2 7 .5 - 3 0 .0
3 0 .0 - 3 2 .5
3 2 .5 - 3 5 .0
3 5 .0 - 3 7 .5
3 7 .5 - 4 0 .0
4 0 .0 - 4 2 .5
4 2 .5 - 4 5 .0
4 5 .0 - 4 7 .5
4 7 .5 - 5 0 .0
50.0
or以
more
5 0 .0
上

3

100%

6-7

6

30

4-5

Number of people aged 15 or older who use railways or buses for commuting to and from school or work outside
the15歳以上自宅外就業・通学者で鉄道・電車・バスを利用している人数/15歳以上自宅外就業・通学者
home / Number of people aged 15 or older who commute to and from school or work outside the homeOrdinance-designatedcities
政令市(Frequency)

6120%

0 .5 - 0 .6
0 .6 - 0 .7
0 .7 - 0 .8
0 .8 - 0 .9
0 .9 - 1
1 - 1 .1
1 .1 - 1 .2
1 .2 - 1 .4
1 .4 - 1 .5
1 .5 - 1 .6
1 .6 - 1 .8
1 .8 - 2
2 - 2 .2
2 .2 - 2 .4
2 .4 - 2 .6
2 .6 - 2 .8
2 .8 - 3
3 - 3 .2
3 .2 - 3 .4
3 .4 - 3 .6
3 .6 - 3 .8
3 .8 - 4
4 - 4 .2
4 .2 - 4 .4
4 .4 - 4 .6
4 .6 - 4 .8
4 .8 - 5
5 - 5 .5
5 .5 - 6
以上
6 or6 more

0
6 未 満6
Less than40%(頻 度 )

1

Less 2than.0 未2.0
満60%（頻 度 ）

3(Frequency)(Frequency)(頻 度 )
4

未 満3
Less 3than

19-20

17-18

1 5 .5 - 1 6

1 4 .5 - 1 5

1 3 .5 - 1 4

1 2 .5 - 1 3

1 1 .7 5 - 1 2

1 1 .2 5 - 1 1 .5

1 0 .7 5 - 1 1

1 0 .2 5 - 1 0 .5

9 .7 5 - 1 0

9 .2 5 - 9 .5

8 .7 5 - 9

8 .2 5 - 8 .5

7 .7 5 - 8

7 .2 5 - 7 .5

6 .7 5 - 7

6 .2 5 - 6 .5

Less 6than
未 満6

5（頻 度 ）

50.0
or 以
more
5 0 .0上

4 7 .5 - 5 0 .0

4 5 .0 - 4 7 .5

4 2 .5 - 4 5 .0

4 0 .0 - 4 2 .5

3 7 .5 - 4 0 .0

3 5 .0 - 3 7 .5

3 2 .5 - 3 5 .0

3 0 .0 - 3 2 .5

2 7 .5 - 3 0 .0

2 5 .0 - 2 7 .5

2 2 .5 - 2 5 .0

2 0 .0 - 2 2 .5

1 7 .5 - 2 0 .0

1 5 .0 - 1 7 .5

(頻 度 )(Frequency)
7(Frequency)

242or4 以more
上

2 3 - 2 3 .5

2 2 - 2 2 .5

2 1 - 2 1 .5

2 0 - 2 0 .5

1 9 - 1 9 .5

1 8 - 1 8 .5

1 7 - 1 7 .5

1 6 - 1 6 .5

1 5 - 1 5 .5

1 4 - 1 4 .5

1 3 - 1 3 .5

1 2 - 1 2 .5

1 2 .5 - 1 5 .0

1 0 .0 - 1 2 .5

7 .5 - 1 0 .0

5 .0 - 7 .5

Less than
5 .0 未5.0
満Number of employees in retail trades, restaurants and hotels / Total population (2006)
Ordinance-designated cities
小売店・飲食店・宿泊業の従業者数/総人口(2006)
政令市

Less than
0 .5 未0.5
満11
1 1 - 1 1 .5

7

1 0 - 1 0 .5

（頻 度 ）(Frequency)
98-9Less than
7
7未 満

8

0 .5 - 0 .6
0 .6 - 0 .7
0 .7 - 0 .8
0 .8 - 0 .9
0 .9 - 1
1 - 1 .1
1 .1 - 1 .2
1 .2 - 1 .3
1 .3 - 1 .4
1 .4 - 1 .5
1 .5 - 1 .6
1 .6 - 1 .7
1 .7 - 1 .8
1 .8 - 1 .9
1 .9 - 2
2 - 2 .1
2 .1 - 2 .2
2 .2 - 2 .3
2 .3 - 2 .4
2 .4 - 2 .5
2 .5 - 2 .6
2 .6 - 2 .7
2 .7 - 2 .8
2 .8 - 2 .9
2 .9 - 3 .0
3 or3 以more
上Less than
0 .5 未0.5
満（頻度 ）(Frequency)

92
CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Q3.2.1 Index equivalent to number of people visiting city
Number of employees in retail trades, restaurants and hotels / Total population (2006)
小売店・飲食店・宿泊業の従業者数/総人口(2006)
町村Towns and villages

10
0

350

300

20%

50

0

Current outstanding municipal bonds / Balance of internal revenue sources (2008)
地方債現在高/自主財源高(2008)
町村Towns and villages

100%

80%

30

20

120%

100%

30
80%

20

60%

40%

20%

20%

0%

（％）

Q3.2.2 Efficiency of public transportation

60

50
120%

120

100%
100
100%

80%
80
80%

Number of people aged 15 or older who use railways or buses for commuting to and from school or work outside
the15歳以上自宅外就業・通学者で鉄道・電車・バスを利用している人数/15歳以上自宅外就業・通学者
home / Number of people aged 15 or older who commute to and from school or work outside the home
Towns and
町村 villages
120%

40

(％)

Q3.3.1 Tax revenuesTax revenues for local governments

Tax revenues for 地方税収入額/補正人口（2005)
local governments / Adjusted
population (2005)
町村Towns and villages
120%

25

250
100%

20

200
80%

150

60%

100
40%

20%

0%

（万円）yen)(10,000

Q3.3.2 Outstanding local bonds

60

120%

50

100%

40

80%

60%

20%

40%

10

20%

0%

0

0%

CASBEE for Cities

93(2011 Edition)

2. Calculation of BAU for individual Q items(1) Indices not in the form of "Numerator / Denominator"⇒The BAU is same as the current value.

№ Major item

Middle item

Q1.3
Q1
1 Environme Resource
ntal aspect recycling

Minor item

Numerator

Recycling rate of general waste

Denominator
Recycling rate

Q1.4
Q1
Efforts and policies to improve
2 Environme Environmental theenvironment and biodiversity
ntal aspect measures
Q2
SocialQ2.1
LivingQ2.1.1Adequate quality of
3 aspectenvironment housing standard
Q2 Social Q2.1 Living
Q2.1.3 Adequate sewage
4 aspectenvironment systemsSewage
Q2 Social Q2.2 Social
5 aspect
services

Q2.2.5 Adequacy of services forthe disabled(2)Q2 Social Q2.3 Social
6 aspect
vitality

Q2.3.4 Efforts and policies forvitalizing society

Corresponding index(Direct recycling + Recycling after
intermediate treatment + Group
collection) / (Solid waste disposal +Group collection)

Number of measures and policies

Rating of measures and policies

Per-capita dwelling floor space

Per-capita dwelling floor space

Sanitation coverage + Rural
Sanitation coverage + Rural sanitation coverage sanitation
coverage
Ratio of barrier-free railway stations
Ratio of barrier-free railway stations or ratio ofor ratio of bus companies
bus companies introducing low-floor buses
introducing low-floor buses
Number of measures and policies

Rating of measures and policies(2) Indices for which the denominator is something other than population-related figures⇒The BAU is same as the current value. (Neither the numerator nor denominator is a variable.)№ Major item

Middle item

Minor item

Numerator

Denominator

Q1
Q1.1 Nature
7 Environme conservation
ntal aspect

Ratio of natural
land

Forest area + Farmer-owned
cultivated acreage + Lake area + Area of the municipality
Mudflat area

Q1.2 Local
Q1
8 Environme environment
ntal aspect al quality

Q1.2.1 Air

Number of places achieving theenvironmental standard

Number of monitoring
stations

Q1.2 Local
Q1
9 Environme environment Q1.2.2 Water
ntal aspect al quality

Number of places achieving theenvironmental standard

Number of monitoring
stations

Q1.2 Local
Q1
10 Environme environment
ntal aspect al quality

Q1.2.3 Noise

Number of houses below theenvironmental standard

Number of houses subject
to the assessment

Q1.2 Local
Q1
11 Environme environment
ntal aspect al quality

Q1.2.4 Chemicals

Number of places achieving theenvironmental standard

Number of monitoring
stations

Social
12 Q2
aspectQ2.1 Living
environment

Q2.1.6 Disaster
preparedness

Public facilities serving as
disaster-prevention centers thatare earthquake-resistantTotal number of public
facilities serving as
disaster-prevention centers

Social
13 Q2
aspectQ2.2 Social
services

Q2.2.1 Adequacyof education
services (1)Number of students atelementary and junior highschools

Number of teachers atelementary and junior highschools

Social
14 Q2
aspectQ2.2 Social
services

Q2.2.4 Adequacyof childcare
services(1)Number of children waiting toenter nursery schools

Capacity of nurseryschools

Social
15 Q2
aspectQ2.3 Social
vitality

Number of computers forQ2.3.3 Progresseducational use in elementary
towards aninformation society and junior high schools

Q3.1
Q3
16 Economic Industrial
vitality
aspectQ3.1.2 Ratio ofchange in thenumber of
employees

Q3.2
Q3
17 Economic Economic
exchanges
aspectQ3.2.2 Efficiencyof publictransportation

Q3.3
Q3
18 Economic Financial
viability
aspectQ3.3.2Current balance of municipal
Outstanding local bonds
bonds

Number of students inelementary and junior highschools

Corresponding index(Forest area + Farmer-owned
cultivated acreage + Lake area +Mudflat area) / Area of themunicipality
Degree of attainment of theenvironmental standard in terms ofthe density of NO2, SO2, suspended
particulate matter (SPM) and Ox
measured at general air pollution
monitoring stations
Degree of attainment of theenvironmental standard in terms of
the water quality of rivers (healthand living environment) andgroundwater (health)
Proportion of houses below theenvironmental standard regardlessof day or night in terms of the motor
vehicle traffic noise to the number ofhouses subject to the assessment
Degree of attainment of theenvironmental standard for air andwater quality in terms of utilization ofdioxins
Rate of seismic adequacy of public
facilities serving as
disaster-prevention centers
Number of students at elementaryand junior high schools / Number ofteachers at elementary and juniorhigh schools
Number of children waiting to enter
nursery schools / Capacity ofnursery schools
Number of computers foreducational use in elementary andjunior high schools / Number ofstudents in elementary and juniorhigh schools

Number of employees – Number Number of employeesof employees 5 years ago(Number of employees – Number of
employees 5 years ago) / Number of
employees / 5

Number of people aged 15
Number of people aged 15 orolder who use railways or buses or older who commute tofor commuting to and from school and from school or workoutside the homeor work outside the home

Rate of people aged 15 or older who
commute to and from school or workoutside the home by train or bus

Balance of internal
revenue sources

Current balance of municipal bonds/ Balance of internal revenue
sourcesc 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

94

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)(3) Indices with the total population or the adjusted population as the denominator that do notdepend on the size of the facility⇒The BAU is same as the current value. (The denominator representing the population varies depending on the future
estimate, and the numerator also varies in proportion thereto.)№ Major item Middle item
Social Q2.1 Living
19 Q2
aspectenvironment
Social Q2.1 Living
20 Q2
aspectenvironment
Social Q2.2 Social
21 Q2
aspectservices
Social Q2.2 Social
22 Q2
aspectservices
Social Q2.3 Social
23 Q2
aspectvitalitySocial Q2.3 Social
24 Q2
aspectvitality

Minor item
Q2.1.4 Traffic
safetyQ2.1.5 Crime
prevention
Q2.2.1 Adequacyof education
services (2)Q2.2.2 Adequacyof cultural services(2)
Q2.3.1 Rate of
population change
due to births anddeathsQ2.3.2 Rate of
population change
due to migration

Numerator
Number of traffic accidents

Denominator
Adjusted population

Number of crimes recorded

Adjusted population

Number of lectures and courses
held at social education facilities
Number of participants in events
hosted or co-hosted by culturalhalls + number of visitors tomuseums

Total population
Adjusted population

Number of natural
increase-decrease of population

Total population

Societal population
increase-decrease amount

Total population

Corresponding index
Number of traffic accidents / Adjusted
population
Number of crimes recorded / Adjusted
population
Number of lectures and courses held atsocial education facilities / Total population(Number of participants in events hosted or
co-hosted by cultural halls + number ofvisitors to museums) / Adjusted population
Number of natural increase-decrease(Births – Deaths) / Total population - Natural
increase-decrease rate of national
population
Amount of societal population
increase-decrease (Move-ins – Move-outs)/ Total population

BAU differs from the current value in terms of No. 23, as the index value is the difference compared with the Rate of population
change due to births and deathse of the national population.

(4) Indices with the total population or the adjusted population or the population by age bracket
as the denominator that are related to the size of the facility⇒The BAU is same as the current value. (The denominator representing the population varies depending on the future
estimate, and the numerator also varies in proportion thereto.)№ Major item

Middle item

Minor item
Q2.1.2 Adequate
Social Q2.1 Living
provision of
25 Q2
aspectenvironment parks and open
spacesQ2.2.2Q2SocialQ2.2
SocialAdequacy of
26 aspect
services
cultural services(1)Social Q2.2 Social Q2.2.3
27 Q2Adequacy of
aspectservices
medical services
Q2.2.5Social Q2.2 Social Adequacy of
28 Q2
aspectservices
services for thedisabled (1)Q2.2.4Social Q2.2 Social Adequacy of
29 Q2
aspectserviceschildcareservices (2)Q2.2.6
Q2
SocialQ2.2
SocialAdequacy of
30 aspect
services
services for theelderly (1)Q2.2.6Social Q2.2 Social Adequacy of
31 Q2
aspectservices
services for theelderly (2)Numerator
Area of city parks + Area ofother facilities similar to city
parks

Denominator

Corresponding index(Area of city parks + Area of other
Adjusted population facilities similar to city parks) / Adjusted
population

Floor space of public cultural
facilities

space of public cultural facilities /Adjusted population Floor
Adjusted population

Number of beds at medical
facilities

of beds at medical facilities /Adjusted population Number
Adjusted population

Capacity of facilities for thedisabled

Total population

Capacity of facilities for the disabled /Total population

Number of child-support
centers

Infant population

Number of child-support centers / Infants
population

Capacity of long-term carefacilities

Elderly population

Capacity of long-term care facilities /Elderly population

Number of facilities forin-home services

Elderly population

Number of facilities for in-home services/ Elderly population(5) Economy-related indices⇒The numerator of the BAU is obtained by multiplying the current value by the coefficient below. The denominator varies
depending on the future estimate.
Coefficient (Year X) = (Estimated national working-age population in year X) / (Current national working-age population):
See next page

№ Major item Middle item
Q3
Q3.1
32 Economic Industrial
aspectvitality
Q3
Q3.2
33 Economic Economic
aspectexchanges
Q3
Q3.3
34 Economic Financial
aspectviability

Minor item
Numerator
Denominator
Corresponding index
Q3.1.1 Amount
Agricultural output + Value of(Agricultural output + Value of shipments
equivalent toshipments of manufactured
manufactured goods + Annual sales
Adjusted population ofgross regional
goods + Annual sales ofof commercial goods) / Adjusted
product
populationcommercial goods
Q3.2.1 Index
Number of employees in retail
Number of employees in retail trades,
equivalent torestaurants and hotels / Total population
number of people trades, restaurants and hotels Total population
visiting city
Q3.3.1 Tax
Tax revenues for local
revenues for local governments /Adjusted population Tax
revenues
governments
Adjusted population

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

95

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Reference: Coefficients in proportion to the working-age population (for item (5) on the previous page)
Table: The total population, the population in 3 age brackets (0-14 years old, 15-64 and 65 or older) and age structure
coefficient: Birth (Death) medium variant
Current year＝Coefficient
Population (1,000 people)
value in 2005
Year
Working-age
Elderly population
Ratio of working-age
Youngpopulation
Total
population 15-64
65 years old or
population
0-14 years oldyears old
older(Year X / 2005)
Heisei 17 (2005)
18 (2006)
19 (2007)
20 (2008)
21 (2009)
22 (2010)
23 (2011)
24 (2012)
25 (2013)
26 (2014)
27 (2015)
28 (2016)
29 (2017)
30 (2018)
31 (2019)
32 (2020)
33 (2021)
34 (2022)
35 (2023)
36 (2024)
37 (2025)
38 (2026)
39 (2027)
40 (2028)
41 (2029)
42 (2030)
43 (2031)
44 (2032)
45 (2033)
46 (2034)
47 (2035)
48 (2036)
49 (2037)
50 (2038)
51 (2039)
52 (2040)
53 (2041)
54 (2042)
55 (2043)
56 (2044)
57 (2045)
58 (2046)
59 (2047)
60 (2048)
61 (2049)
62 (2050)
63 (2051)
64 (2052)
65 (2053)
66 (2054)
67 (2055)

127,768
127,762
127,694
127,568
127,395
127,176
126,913
126,605
126,254
125,862
125,430
124,961
124,456
123,915
123,341
122,735
122,097
121,430
120,735
120,015
119,270
118,502
117,713116,904
116,074
115,224
114,354
113,464
112,555
111,627
110,679
109,714108,732
107,733
106,720
105,695
104,658
103,613
102,560
101,503
100,443
99,382
98,321
97,261
96,205
95,152
94,102
93,056
92,01390,97189,93017,585
17,436
17,23817,023
16,763
16,47916,193
15,88015,542
15,201
14,841
14,486
14,13313,803
13,488
13,201
12,892
12,622
12,381
12,15911,956
11,76911,597
11,438
11,290
11,15011,017
10,888
10,762
10,637
10,512
10,384
10,253
10,118
9,978
9,833
9,682
9,526
9,366
9,202
9,036
8,868
8,701
8,535
8,373
8,214
8,061
7,914
7,774
7,641
7,516

84,422
83,72983,01082,334
81,644
81,28581,01579,98078,85977,72776,80776,02575,34674,732
74,19973,63573,141
72,67872,14471,54970,96070,36369,72869,02868,274
67,404
66,83565,89664,942
63,94962,91961,832
60,69959,52858,38757,33556,35855,45554,58953,77953,00052,26851,54150,79250,03849,297
48,58847,89447,224
46,57745,951

25,761
26,59727,44628,211
28,987
29,412
29,70430,74531,85232,93433,781
34,45034,97735,38035,65535,89936,06436,131
36,21036,30736,35436,371
36,38836,43836,51036,67036,502
36,68136,85137,041
37,24937,49837,77938,08738,35438,527
38,61938,63238,60538,52238,407
38,24538,07937,93437,79437,64137,45337,24837,01436,75336,463

99.2%
98.3%
97.5%
96.7%
96.3%
96.0%
94.7%
93.4%
92.1%
91.0%
90.1%
89.2%
88.5%
87.9%
87.2%
86.6%
86.1%
85.5%
84.8%
84.1%
83.3%
82.6%
81.8%
80.9%
79.8%
79.2%
78.1%
76.9%
75.7%
74.5%
73.2%
71.9%
70.5%
69.2%
67.9%
66.8%
65.7%
64.7%
63.7%
62.8%
61.9%
61.1%
60.2%
59.3%
58.4%
57.6%
56.7%
55.9%
55.2%
54.4%

Population as of October 1 of each year (Regarding 2005, the population shown in the "Census returns" prepared by the Statistics Bureau of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications was used, in which adjustments for prorating the population of uncertain age was made.)
Source of the table on the left: National Institute of Population and Social Security Researchc 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

96

CASBEE for Cities(2011 Edition)

Afterword
This publication was developed by the Committee for the Development of Environmental
Performance Assessment Tools for Cities (chaired by Shuzo Murakami, Chief Executive of the
Building Research Institute) established in the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium with thesupport of the Housing Bureau of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. We
hope this achievement will be used in various fields and make an important contribution in building asustainable society.
List of members (as of March 2011, no particular order)<The Development of an Environmental Performance Assessment Tool for Cites>
Chair: Shuzo Murakami(Building Research Institute), Member: Yasushi Asami (The University ofTokyo), Toshiharu Ikaga (Keio University), Haruo Ishida (University of Tsukuba), Katsunori Inoue(Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism), Kazuo Iwamura (Tokyo City University),
Yoichi Ogawa (Organization for Landscape and Urban Green Infrastructure), Takao Kashiwagi(Tokyo Institute of Technology), Masao Kita (Regional Revitalization Bureau of Cabinet Secretariat),
Hiroshi Imanaga (City of Kitakyushu), Takeshi Kurokawa (The Institute of Behavioral Sciences),
Shigenori Kobayashi (Tokyo City University), Hidetoshi Nakagami (Jyukankyo Research Institute),
Kimihiro Hashimoto (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism), Yoshitsugu Hayashi(Nagoya University), Tsuyoshi Fujita (Toyo University, National Institute for Environmental Studies),
Specialized Member: Shinji Takami, Masayuki Tanaka (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport andTourism), Secretariat: Shinichi Kaburagi (Taisei Corporation), Nobuhaya Yamaguchi (Shimizu
Corporation), Kiyohisa Oine, Nobufusa Yoshizawa (Japan Sustainable Building Consortium)<Task Force on the Development of an Environmental Performance Assessment Tool for
Cities>Chief: Yasushi Asami (The University of Tokyo), Secretary: Shinichi Kaburagi (Taisei Corporation),
Nobuhaya Yamaguchi (Shimizu Corporation), Member: Toshiharu Ikaga (Keio University), Kazushi
Ishizaki (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism), Hirokazu Kato (Nagoya University),
Shun Kawakubo (Keio University), Ken Kodama (Nikken Sekkei Research Institute), Satoru
Sadohara (Yokohama National University), Shinji Takami, Masayuki Tanaka (Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism), Akio Tanaka (Jyukankyo Research Institute), Tatsuya Hayashi(Nikken Sekkei Research Institute), Tsuyoshi Fujita (Toyo University, National Institute forEnvironmental Studies), Specialized Member: Yasuhide Okamoto (Tokyo Electric Power Company),
Ryota Kuzuki (Tokyo Gas), Support Committee Member: Kazuhiko Okamoto (Shimizu Corporation),
Taichi Nakamura (Taisei Corporation), Secretariat: Kiyohisa Oine, Nobufusa Yoshizawa (Japan
Sustainable Building Consortium)<Task Force Working Group on the Development of an Environmental Performance
Assessment Tool for Cities>
Chief: Yasushi Asami (The University of Tokyo), Secretary: Shinichi Kaburagi (Taisei Corporation),
Nobuhaya Yamaguchi (Shimizu Corporation), Member: Toshiharu Ikaga (Keio University), Kazushi
Ishizaki (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism), Hirokazu Kato (Nagoya University),
Shun Kawakubo (Keio University), Ken Kodama (Nikken Sekkei Research Institute), Satoru
Sadohara (Yokohama National University), Shinji Takami, Masayuki Tanaka (Ministry of Land,c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

97(2011 Edition)

Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism), Akio Tanaka (Jyukankyo Research Institute), Tatsuya Hayashi(Nikken Sekkei Research Institute), Tsuyoshi Fujita (Toyo University, National Institute forEnvironmental Studies), Specialized Member: Yasuhide Okamoto (Tokyo Electric Power Company),
Ryota Kuzuki (Tokyo Gas), Support Committee Member: Kazuhiko Okamoto (Shimizu Corporation),
Taichi Nakamura (Taisei Corporation), Michinobu Furukawa (Tokyo Gas), Secretariat: Kiyohisa Oine,
Nobufusa Yoshizawa (Japan Sustainable Building Consortium)<Sub WG for Q&A on the Development of an Environmental Performance Assessment Tool for
Cities>Chief: Yasushi Asami (The University of Tokyo), Member: Shinichi Kaburagi (Taisei Corporation),
Nobuhaya Yamaguchi (Shimizu Corporation), Akio Tanaka (Jyukankyo Research Institute), Ryota
Kuzuki (Tokyo Gas), Secretariat: Nobufusa Yoshizawa (Japan Sustainable Building Consortium)<Sub WG for Weighting on the Development of an Environmental Performance Assessment
Tool for Cities>
Chief: Toshiharu Ikaga (Keio University), Member: Yasushi Asami (The University of Tokyo), Hirokazu
Kato (Nagoya University), Shun Kawakubo (Keio University), Taichi Nakamura (Taisei Corporation),
Michinobu Furukawa (Tokyo Gas), Secretariat: Nobufusa Yoshizawa (Japan Sustainable Building
Consortium)

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities Technical Manual (2011 Edition)
Not for SaleFirst Edition

Published October 5, 2011

E d i te d b y

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

Editorial
Assistance
Published by

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

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

c 2011 Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC)
Copyright○