)WHDYIP+742591)
9784990742591

CASBEE for Cities

1

Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

Contents
Introduction・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

2

PART Ⅰ. Outline of CASBEE-City・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

4

1. What is CASBEE?・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

4

2. Framework of CASBEE-City・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

6

3. Assessment method・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

10

4. Assessment procedure・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

20

PART Ⅱ. Case study・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

23

1. Assessment of major world cities・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

23

2. Assessment of entire municipalities in Japan・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

24

3. Assessment of Kobe after huge disaster in 1995・・・・・・・・・・・・・ 25
Afterword・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

26

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

2

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

Introduction
Today, more than half of the world’s population lives in cities and approximately 70% of the GDP is
produced from activities in those cities. According to the UN’s world urbanization prospects, thepercentage of people living in cities will keep increasing and reach 70% by 2050. City-related
activities will grow bigger, and thus the role of cities in creating a sustainable future is becoming more
important. A city is the core of economic, cultural and other human activities and whether a city can
thrive or not greatly depends on city policy led by local governments.
Various international organizations, research institutes and private companies are now trying toassess the effectiveness of implemented city policies, and to understand the current real conditions ofcities in the world by taking the abovementioned circumstances into account. These city-scaleassessments can be conducted by various stakeholders such as governmental officers andresearchers with citizens supporting their decision-making, understanding the real conditions of theircities, finding problems to be solved and pursuing livable and sustainable cities.
There are many studies focusing on city-scale assessment; however, many of them only focus on
megacities in developed countries as it is easier to collect data for assessment than small cities andcities in developing countries. In other words, at this moment, the application of city-scaleassessment is very limited in many cases.
Consequently, the Committee for the Development of an Environmental Performance Assessment
Tool 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 Japanesesystem that is widely known as an environmental performance assessment tool for the built
environment.
The city assessment tool “CASBEE-City” also focuses on evaluating cities from two perspectives:
quality inside a city (Q = quality) based on the triple bottom line perspectives of environmental, socialand economic aspects, and environmental load emitted from a city on the external environment (L =load), in accordance with the principle of the conventional CASBEE. These are the uniquecharacteristics of CASBEE, and the Japanese government started to utilize the tool to monitor the
status and assess the effectiveness of implemented city measures in 2013.
The Committee for the Development of an Environmental Performance Assessment Tool for Cities,
decided to develop the new city assessment tool “CASBEE-City (Pilot version for worldwide use)”that can be applied to various types of cities in both developing and developed countries around theworld after experience has been gained through assessing a large number of cities throughout thecountry.
Assessment items and indicators are carefully studied from various aspects in a comprehensive
manner, in light of the urgent and important task of promoting a sustainable future. The UN’s SDGs
(Sustainable Development Goals) and ISO 37120 were reviewed as important references whendeveloping the tool.

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

3

Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

In view of the global trend in environmental issues and with the discussions by IPCC
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and COP-FCCC (Conference of Parties - Framework
Convention on Climate Change), environmental load emitted from a city (L) is assessed based on
greenhouse gas emissions. Other environmental aspects such as nature conservation and resource
recycling are considered in the quality inside a city (q) aspect.
We have now compiled and released the “CASBEE-City (pilot version for worldwide use, 2015
Edition)” brochure. Assessment indicators in the tool consist of publicly available statistics bymunicipalities. While the original tool was developed for cities in Japan, the newly developed tool isuniversally applicable and relevant in any region or country.
We hope that this tool will be utilized in various fields and will help enhance urban environmental
improvement in harmony with global environmental issues.
October 2015
Shuzo Murakami
Chairman of the Committee for the Developmentof an Environmental Performance Assessment Tool for Cities

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

4

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

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 quality (Q) and environmental load (L) and (3) Evaluating a built environment
according to the “Built Environment Efficiency (BEE),” an assessment index, which was newly
developed based on the idea of eco efficiency. The rating system has five grades; Excellent (S), Very
Good (A), Good (B+), Fairly Poor (B-) and Poor (C), with each grade represented by a certain BEE
value. CASBEE, for which development began in 2001, used to consist of environmental
performance assessment tools used for individual buildings including “CASBEE-New Construction.”
Currently, CASBEE is comprised of various tools tailored to specific purposes, such as CASBEE for
Urban Development for building block assessment and CASBEE-City for environmental assessment
at the city scale. These are collectively known as the CASBEE Family.

CASBEE Family
Housing-scale
CASBEE-Home (Detached House)
Completed in Sep. 2007, revised in 2014

CASBEE-Home (Existing Housing)Completed in July 2011, revised in 2014

Building-scale
CASBEE-Temporary Construction

Basic Tools

CASBEE-Pre-Design
Under development

Exhibition facility edition published in 2004
revised in 2008

CASBEE-New Construction
Office edition completed in 2002, revised in 2014

CASBEE-Existing Building

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

Completed in July 2004, revised in 2014

CASBEE-Renovation
Completed in July 2005, revised in 2014

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

CASBEE-School
Completed in September 2010

CASBEE-Market Promotion
Published in May 2012, revised in 2014

Neighborhood-scale
CASBEE-Neighborhood Development
Published in July 2006, revised in 2014

City-scale
CASBEE-City (Japanese version)
Published in March 2011

CASBEE-City (Pilot version for worldwide use)
Published in October 2015

FigureⅠ.1. CASBEE Familyc 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

5

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

Moving Cross-Scale: The major environmental assessment tools were initially developved to assess
individual buildings. Recently, these tools have introduced versions that address a broader context
e.g., LEED for Neighbourhood Development, BREEAM Communities, Green Star – Communities.
CASBEE has also expanded its tools to a broader context after experience has been gained inassessing individual buildings. As shown in the following figure, CASBEE-Housing and
CASBEE-Building are applied for individual houses and buildings to assess their environmental
performance. CASBEE-Urban Development is used to evaluate environmental performance of urban
blocks and town development. CASBEE-City evaluates environmental performance on a local
government scale. These are assessed based on BEE indicators by CASBEE.

Housing & Building scale

BREEAM(U.K.)

LEED(U.S.)

Green Star
(Australia)

CASBEE(Japan)(1990)(2001)(2003)(2001)(2008)(2007)(2012)(2006)

Urban scale

City scale(2011)

FigureⅠ.2. Cross scale structure of CASBEE and other tools in the world

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

6

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

2. Framework of CASBEE-City
2.1

Basic policy for development

2.1.1

Basic principles

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

Virtual boundary

Environmental Load (L)on the surrounding area

Quality (Q) and activities in a city

FigureⅠ.3. Concept of a hypothetical closed space in CASBEE-City

2.1.2
Assessment items and indicators for CASBEE-City (Pilot version forworldwide use)
CASBEE-City (Pilot version for worldwide use) is a tool specifically developed for city-scaleassessment applicable to various types of cities in both developing and developed countries aroundthe world. Thus assessment items and indicators for the tool were carefully selected by referring toprevious studies and documents published by international organizations such as the UN’s
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) indicators and ISO 37120 (Sustainable development ofcommunities – Indicators for city services and quality of life). As most of the indicators implemented in
CASBEE are based on SDGs indicators and ISO 37120 indicators, the tool users such as local
governmental officers, citizens and other stakeholders can understand the actual conditions of theircities and progress toward achieving global SDGs. Such visualization of city status would help toolusers in detecting the problems to be urgently solved in their cities and to make their cities morelivable and sustainable.

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

7

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)-City

Assessment Result

SDG (candidate) indicatorsTokyo- Worldwide use version -Gross area: 621km 2 Population: 9,077,177

1. Location

Goal 1. No Poverty

2. Built Environment Efficiency (BEE chart)

Indicator1-1, Indicator1-2, …

★★★★★ 3.0

100

S

Goal 3. Good Health

Score for Quality (Q)75Goal 2. No Hunger

Indicator2-1, Indicator2-2, …
Indicator3-1, Indicator3-2, …

★★★★

1.5 ★★★ BEE=1.0

Present

B+

A

BEE= 1.0
★★

1.9

B61

Future1.0

BEE= 1.9

0.5

50

C

★

…

0
0

50

Tokyo（Japan）

100

Score for Load (L)BEE= (Score for Q) / (Score for L)

3. Assessment results for main items (bar chart)

Goal 17. Partnerships Indicator17-1, Indicator17-2, …
for the Goals

0

25

50
41

Q1 Environment

75

74

Q2 Society
65

Q3 Economy
41

LR(Load Reduction)
Present

ISO37120 indicators

100

61
88

75

60
FutureLR = 100 – (Score for L)

4. Assessment results for each goal (radar chart)
Goal1. END POVERTY

Sustainable development of communities– Indicators for city services and quality of life

Goal.1
Goal.17
Goal.16

5

Goal2. END HUNGER

Goal.2

Goal3. WELL-BEING
Goal.3

4

Goal4. QUALITY EDUCATION
Goal5. GENDER EQUALITY

Core indicators

Supporting indicators

3

Goal.15

Goal.4

Indicator 1 (Core)
Indicator 2 (Core)
Indicator 3 (Core)

Indicator 1 (Supporting)
Indicator 2 (Supporting)
Indicator 3 (Supporting)Goal6. WATER AND SANITATION FOR ALL
Goal7. AFFORDABLE AND
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

2Goal.14

Goal.5

Goal8. DECENT WORK FOR ALL
Goal9. TECHNOLOGY TO BENEFIT ALL

1

Goal10. REDUCE INEQUALITY
Goal.13

Goal.6

Goal11. SAFE CITIES AND COMMUNITIES
Goal12. RESPONSIBLE CONSUMPTION BY ALL
Goal13. STOP CLIMATE CHANGE…

…

Goal.12

Total 100 indicators

Goal.7

Goal14. PROTECT THE OCEAN
Goal15. TAKE CARE OF THE EARTH

Goal.11

Goal.8Goal.10

Goal.9Goal16. LIFE IN PEACE
Goal17. MECHANISMS AND PARTNERSHIPSTO REACH THE GOALS

FigureⅠ.4. CASBEE-City tool based on SDGs and ISO 37120 indicators
Tip 1: What are Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an intergovernmental set of goals (17 goals) with 169 targets. The 17
goals are as follows: 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere, 2. End hunger, achieve food security andimproved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture, 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at
all ages, 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all, 5.
Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls, 6. Ensure access to water and sanitation for all, 7.
Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all, 8. Promote inclusive and sustainableeconomic growth, employment and decent work for all, 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote sustainableindustrialization and foster innovation, 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries, 11. Make cities inclusive,
safe, resilient and sustainable, 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns, 13. Take urgent
action to combat climate change and its impacts, 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine
resources, 15. Sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, halt
biodiversity loss, 16. Promote just, peaceful and inclusive societies, and 17. Revitalize the global partnership forsustainable development

Tip 2: What is ISO 37120?
ISO 37120 is the group of indicators for city services and quality of life. It became an IS (International standard) in
May 2014. It consists of 100 indicators including 46 Core indicators and 54 Supporting indicators. These 100
indicators are categorized into the following 17 themes: 1. Economy, 2. Education, 3. Energy, 4. Environment, 5.
Finance, 6. Fire and Emergency Response, 7. Governance, 8. Health, 9. Recreation, 10. Safety, 11. Shelter, 12.
Solid Waste, 13. Telecommunication and Innovation, 14. Transportation, 15. Urban Planning, 16. Wastewater, and
17. Water and Sanitation. It is expected to be a common language for reporting city services and quality of life.

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

8

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

2.2 Assessment structure
The assessment procedure consists of the following five major steps:(1) Current assessment of Q and L
Quality (Q) within the hypothetical enclosed space and load (L) on the external environment of thespace are each clearly defined, and the assessment is carried out from both the Q and L aspects.
It is also based on multiple assessment items set according to the individual characteristics of Q
and L. Results are expressed as scores rated and counted in line with a certain method andstandard.
(2) Comprehensive assessment of environmental performance by BEE
The BEE value with the concept of environmental efficiency is derived from the results of step (1)by dividing the score for Q by the score for L, in order to express the environmental performanceof the city in a comprehensive manner. When starting a calculation, total Q and L scores are first
converted to a scale of 0 to 100, respectively. BEE is expressed as the gradient of a straight line
on a graph having 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 islabeled and color-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(=average score) or higher. The higher the Q value and the lower the L value, the higher the BEE
value becomes, indicating that the city is highly regarded in the assessment in terms of the overall
environmental performance.
Because of the calculation systems, the BEE value may be close to +∞ (infinity). However, from apractical perspective of the assessment, the BEE value can be as high as 10 (even when thevalue of Q/L far exceeds 10, the result is shown as BEE = 10).
(3) Assessment of the future estimated value and target value for Q and L(Please refer to 2.3 regarding purposes of future assessment.)(4) Calculation of the future BEE value(5) Comparison of the current Q, L and BEE values in Steps (1) and (2) with the future values in Steps(3) and (4). These comparisons are intended to determine the feasibility of improvements forachieving the city's long-term goals.

★★★★★ 3.0

100

★★★★

1.5 ★★★ BEE=1.0

100 ★★★★★ BEE= 3.0
S (Sustainable) A

Present
BEE= 1.0
★★

1.9

B61

Future

1.0
0.5

50

★

C
0
0

50

100

Score for Load (L)BEE= 1.9
BEE=
Score for Q
Score for L

Score for Q

Score for Quality (Q)

75

B+

A

Poor

S

★★★★

1.5
B+

Cities withCities withHigh Quality

High Quality

Low LoadHigh Load

1.0

★★

B-

50

Cities withCities with

Low Quality

Low Quality

Low LoadHigh Load

0.5★

(Unsustainable) C

0
0

50

100

Good

Score for L

Poor

FigureⅠ.5. Visualization of assessment results on BEE chart (Image)c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○★★★

CASBEE for Cities

Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)9

2.3 Current assessment and future assessment
As seen in arguments made in the UN (United Nations), COP-FCCC (Conference of Parties Framework Convention on Climate Change) and IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change),
individual countries have been seeking ways to substantially reduce their environmental load and to
improve their city conditions over the medium and long term, while implementing measures having an
immediate effect on the current situation. Consequently, CASBEE-City adopts an assessment
method focusing on future predictions. Specifically, CASBEE-City is a system designed to evaluate
the current situation with absolute accuracy, while also estimating the future environmental
performance in order to evaluate the effectiveness of measures (i.e., the degree of future
expectations) in a visible manner by comparing the current situation with future projections. Figure
I.2.3 shows this assessment system covering the current and future situations expressed on a BEE
chart.

FigureⅠ.6. Positions of the current assessment and future assessment on a BEE chart(1) Current assessment value: The Q, L and BEE values on this point represent the current
assessment of the city.
(2) Tendency value: Future assessment in cases when no special additional measures are taken(BAU = Business As Usual)(3) Future assessment value with appropriate measures in place: The Q, L and BEE values on thispoint represent the future assessment of the city.
On the BEE chart, Route 1 represents the change from the current situation to the BAU, and Route 2
is for the change from the current situation to the future, whereas Route 3 leading from (2) to (3) via
the BAU represents the policy effect. Consequently, the difference between (2) and (3) in values on
the x axis and the y axis, respectively, indicate the improvement in quality (Q) and reduction ofenvironmental load (L), which represent the policy assessment. Therefore, the 2D display with Q
and L enables the assessment of an urban policy effect from two separate aspects of Q and L.
The following are formulae expressing the above chart:
Estimated future value of Q → Q Future value ＝ QBAU + Q
Estimated future value of L → L Future value ＝ LBAU + L
QBAU, LBAU: Future values in cases when no special additional measures are taken (BAU)Q: Expected increase or reduction in quality by implementing urban policies
L: Expected increase or reduction in environmental load by implementing urban policies(Positive values indicate increase; negative values indicate reduction)c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

10

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

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

3.1.1 Year of the current assessment
The "current" status in this case indicates the city's recent performance. However, as it also serves as
the base year for assessing future performance, an assessor may adjust the appropriate year for
current assessment to suit specific circumstances of each assessment.

3.1.2 Year of future assessment
An assessor may establish an appropriate year for future assessment, generally between 2015 and2035 (short- to mid-term future).

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

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

Qi

: Target increase (a negative value for target reduction) in Item i, an assessment itemof Q, set by individual cities

Xi: Degree of operability of a measure regarding Item i (0-1.0)

j: Number corresponding to mid-level item in L

Lj

: Target increase (a negative value for target reduction) in Item j, an assessment itemof L, set by individual cities

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

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 Q differs from that for L, the details of which will be describedlater in sections 3.4 and 3.5.

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

11

Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

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.

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

3.4.2 Structure of Q assessment items
The overall structure consists of the major category with the classifications of Q1 Environmental
aspect, Q2 Social aspect and Q3 Economic aspect, and sub-category under the major category. The
actual assessment is conducted at the sub-category level, the results of which are totaled in terms ofthe major category items, and all items, respectively, in order to derive assessment values. In cases
where data for sub-category items is not available, national average values are applied. Assessment
items and corresponding indicators are selected from SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals)
candidate indicators and ISO 37120 indicators by taking data availability into account that is
applicable to city-scale assessment. Candidate assessment items and corresponding indicators
considered in the development stage of CASBEE-City (Pilot version for worldwide use) are shown in
the following table.

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

12

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

TableⅠ.1. Candidate of assessment indicators for Q at the stage of pilot version (2015) based on SDGs and ISO 37120
Items
Major Sub
Q1
Q1.1
Env.
Q1.2
Q1.3
Q1.4
Q1.5
Q1.6
Q1.7
Q1.8
Q1.9
Q1.10
Q1.11
Q1.12
Q1.13
Q1.14
Q1.15
Q1.16
Q1.17
Q1.18
Q1.19
Q1.20
Q1.21
Q1.22
Q1.23
Q1.24
Q1.25
Q1.26
Q1.27
Q1.28
Q1.29
Q1.30
Q1.31
Q1.32
Q1.33
Q1.34
Q1.35
Q2
Q2.1
Soc.
Q2.2
Q2.3
Q2.4
Q2.5
Q2.6
Q2.7
Q2.8
Q2.9
Q2.10
Q2.11
Q2.12
Q2.13
Q2.14
Q2.15
Q2.16
Q2.17
Q2.18
Q2.19
Q2.20

Indicators
Mean urban air pollution of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5)
Area of public and green space as a proportion of total city space
Percentage of urban solid waste regularly collected and well managed
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentration
Particulate matter (PM10) concentration
NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) concentration
SO2 (sulphur dioxide) concentration
O3 (Ozone) concentration
Noise pollution
Percentage of city population with regular solid waste collection
Total collected municipal solid waste per capita
Percentage of the city's solid waste that is recycled
Percentage of the city's solid waste that is disposed of in a sanitary landfil
Percentage of the city's solid waste that is disposed of in an incinerator
Percentage of the city's solid waste that is burned openly
Percentage of the city's solid waste that is disposed of in an open dump
Percentage of the city's solid waste that is disposed of by other means
Hazardous Waste Generation per capita (tonnes)
Percentage of the city's hazardous waste that is recycled
Green are (hectares) per 100,000 population
Annual number of trees planted per 100,000 population
Disclosure of Natural Resource Rights Holdings
Global Food Loss Indicator
Consumption of ozone-depleting substances (MDG Indicator)
Aerosol optical depth (AOD)
Share of companies valued at more than [$1 billion] that publish integrated monitoring]Number of businesses per 100,000 population
Share of coastal and marine areas that are protected
Percentage of fish tonnage landed within Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)
Annual change in forest area and land under cultivation (modified MDG Indicator)
Area of forest under sustainable forest management as a percent of forest area
Annual change in degraded or desertified arable land (% or ha)
Red List Index
Protected areas overlay with biodiversity
Percentage change in number of native species
Percentage of urban population living in slums or informal settlements (MDG Indicator)
Percentage of people within 0.5km of public transit running at least every 20 minutes
Ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate, at comparable scale
Losses from natural disasters, by climate and non-climate-related events (in US$ and lives lost)
Number of fire related deaths per 100,000 population
Number of natural disaster related deaths per 100,000 population
Square meters of public indoor recreation space per capita
Square meters of public outdoor recreation space per capita
Number of police officers per 100,000 population
Number of homicides per 100,000 population
Crimes against property per 100,000 population
Response time for police department from initial call
Percentage of city population living in slums
Number of homeless per 100,000 population
Percentage of households that exist without registered legal titles
Areal size of informal settlements as a percentage of city area
Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption (MDG Indicator)
Percentage of women of reproductive age (15-49) with anemia
Prevalence of stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age
Percentage of children less than six months old who are fed breast milk alone (no other liquids or food)c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

13

Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

Q2.21
Q2.22
Q2.23
Q2.24
Q2.25
Q2.26
Q2.27
Q2.28
Q2.29
Q2.30
Q2.31
Q2.32
Q2.33
Q2.34
Q2.35
Q2.36
Q2.37
Q2.38
Q2.39
Q2.40
Q2.41
Q2.42
Q2.43
Q2.44
Q2.45
Q2.46
Q2.47
Q2.48
Q2.49
Q2.50
Q2.51
Q2.52
Q2.53
Q2.54
Q2.55
Q2.56
Q2.57
Q2.58
Q2.59
Q2.60
Q2.61
Q2.62
Q2.63
Q2.64
Q2.65
Q2.66
Q2.67
Q2.68
Q2.69

Percentage of women, 15-49 years of age, who consume at least 5 out of 10 defined food groups
Crop yield gap (actual yield as % of attainable yield)
Number of agricultural extension workers per 1000 farmers [or share of farmers covered by agriculturalextension programs and services
Nitrogen use efficiency in food systems
Crop water productivity (tons of harvested product per unit irrigation water)
Maternal mortality ratio (MDG Indicator) and rate
Neonatal, infant, and under-5 mortality rates (modified MDG Indicator)
Percent of children receiving full immunization (as recommended by national vaccination schedules)
HIV incidence, treatment rate, and mortality (modified MDG Indicator)
Incidence, prevalence, and death rates associated with all forms of TB (MDG Indicator)
Incidence and death rates associated with malaria (MDG Indicator)
Probability of dying between exact ages 30 and 70 from any of cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes,
chronic respiratory disease, [or suicide]
Percent of population overweight and obese, including children under 5Road traffic deaths per 100,000 population
Consultations with a licensed provider in a health facility or the community per person, per year
Percentage of population without effective financial protection for health care
Proportion of persons with a severe mental disorder (psychosis, bipolar affective disorder, or
moderate-severe depression) who are using services
Contraceptive prevalence rate (MDG Indicator)
Current use of any tobacco product (age-standardized rate)
Average life expectancy
Number of in-patient hospitals per 100,000 population
Number of physicians per 100,000 population
Under age five mortality per 1,000 live births
Number of nursing and midwifery personnel per 100,000 population
Number of mental health practitioners per 100,000 population
Suicide rate per 100,000 population
Transportation fatalities per 100,000 population
Percentage of children (36-59 months) receiving at least one year of a quality pre-primary education program
Early Child Development Index (ECDI)
Primary completion rates for girls and boys
Percentage of girls and boys who master a broad range of foundational skills, including in literacy andmathematics by the end of the primary school cycle (based on credibly established national benchmarks)
Secondary completion rates for girls and boys
Percentage of girls and boys who achieve proficiency across a broad range of learning outcomes, including
in literacy and in mathematics by end of lower secondary schooling cycle (based on credibly establishednationalbenchmarks)
Tertiary enrollment rates for women and men
Percentage of students completing primary education : survival rate
Percentage of students completing secondary education : survival rate
Primary education student / teacher ratio
Percentage of male school-aged population enrolled in schools
Percentage of school-aged population enrolled in schools
Number of higher education degrees per 100,000 population
Prevalence of girls and women 15-49 who have experienced physical or sexual violence [by an intimate
partner] in the last 12 months
Percentage of referred cases of sexual and gender-based violence against women and children that areinvestigated and sentenced
Percentage of women aged 20-24 who were married or in a union before age 18
Percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 years who have undergone FGM/C
Average number of hours spent on paid and unpaid work combined (total work burden), by sex
Percentage of seats held by women and minorities in national parliament and/or sub-national elected officeaccording to their respective share of the population (modified MDG Indicator)
Met demand for family planning (modified MDG Indicator)
Percentage of female school-aged population enrolled in schools
Women as a percentage of total elected to city-level officec 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

14

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

Q2.70
Q2.71
Q2.72
Q2.73
Q2.74
Q2.75
Q2.76
Q2.77
Q2.78
Q2.79
Q2.80
Q2.81
Q2.82
Q2.83
Q2.84
Q2.85
Q2.86
Q2.87
Q2.88
Q2.89
Q2.90
Q2.91
Q2.92
Q2.93
Q2.94
Q2.95
Q2.96
Q2.97
Q2.98
Q2.99
Q2.100Q2.101Q2.102Q2.103Q2.104Q2.105
Q2.106
Q2.107
Q2.108
Q2.109Q2.110Q2.111Q2.112Q2.113Q2.114
Q2.115
Q2.116
Q2.117
Q2.118
Q2.119Q2.120Q2.121Q2.122Q2.123Q2.124Q2.125
Q2.126Percentage of women employed in the city government workforce
Percentage of population using safely managed water services, by urban/rural (modified MDG Indicator)
Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services, by urban/rural (modified MDG Indicator)
Percentage of wastewater flows treated to national standards [and reused]
Indicator on water resource management
Proportion of total water resources used (MDG Indicator)
Percentage of city population served by wastewater collection
Percentage of the city's wastewater that has received no treatment
Percentage of the city's wastewater receiving primary treatment
Percentage of the city's wastewater receiving secondary treatment
Percentage of the city's wastewater receiving tertiary treatment
Percentage of city population with potable water supply service
Percentage of city population with sustainable access to an improved water source
Percentage of population with access to improved sanitation
Total domestic water consumption per capita (litres / day)Total water consumption per capita (litres / day
Average annual hours of water service interruption per household
Percentage of water loss (unaccounted for water)
Access to all-weather road (% access within [x] km distance to road)
Mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by urban/rural
Index on ICT maturity
Manufacturing value added (MVA) as percent of GDP
Total energy and industry-related GHG emissions by gas and sector, expressed as production anddemand-based emissions (tCO2e)
Personnel in R&D (per million inhabitants)
Average number of electrical interruptions per customer per year
Average length of electrical interruptions (in hours)
Number of firefighters per 100,000 population
Number of volunteer and part-time firefighters per 100,000 population
Response time for emergency response services from initial call
Response time for fire department from initial callNumber of internet connections per 100,000 population
Number of cell phone connections per 100,000 population
Number of landline phone connections per 100,000 population
Kilometres of high capacity public transport system per 100,000 population
Kilometres of light passenger public transport system per 100,000 population
Annual number of public transport trips per capita
Number of personal automobiles per capita
Percentage of commuters using a travel mode to work other than a personal vehicle
Number of two-wheel motorized vehicles per capita
Kilometres of bicycle paths and lanes per 100,000 population
Commercial air connectivity (number of non-stop commercial air destinations
Violent injuries and deaths per 100,000 population
Number of refugees
Proportion of legal persons and arrangements for which beneficial ownership information is publicly available
Revenues, expenditures, and financing of all central government entities are presented on a gross basis in
public budget documentation and authorized by the legislature
Percentage of children under age 5 whose birth is registered with a civil authority
Existence and implementation of a national law and/or constitutional guarantee on the right to information
Perception of public sector corruption
Debt service ratio (debt service expenditure as a percentage of a municipality's own-source revenue)
Capital spending as a percentage of total expenditureOwn-source revenue as a percentage of total revenues
Tax collected as a percentage of tax billed
Voter participation in last municipal election (as a percentage of eligible voters)
Number of convictions for corruption and / or bribery by city officials per 100,000 population
Citizens' representation : number of local officials elected to office per 100,000 population
Number of registered voters as a percentage of the voting age population
Violent crime rate per 100,000 population

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

15

Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

Q3
Eco.

Q3.1
Q3.2
Q3.3
Q3.4
Q3.5
Q3.6
Q3.7
Q3.8
Q3.9
Q3.10
Q3.11
Q3.12
Q3.13
Q3.14
Q3.15
Q3.16
Q3.17
Q3.18
Q3.19
Q3.20
Q3.21
Q3.22
Q3.23
Q3.24
Q3.25
Q3.26
Q3.27
Q3.28
Q3.29
Q3.30
Q3.31
Q3.32

Q3.33
Q3.34
Q3.35
Q3.36

Domestic revenues allocated to sustainable development as percent of GNI - by sector
Assessed value of commercial and industrial properties as a percentage of total assessed value of allproperties
Proportion of population below $1.25 (PPP) per day (MDG Indicator)
Proportion of population living below national poverty line, by urban/rural (modified MDG Indicator)
Multidimensional Poverty Index
Percentage of eligible population covered by national social protection programs
Percentage of women, men, indigenous peoples, and local communities with secure rights to land, property,
and natural resources, measured by(i) percentage with documented or recognized evidence of tenure, and(ii) percentage who perceive their rights are recognized and protected.
Losses from natural disasters, by climate and non-climate-related events (in US$ and lives lost)
Total fertility rate
Percentage of city population living in poverty
Share of the population using modern cooking solutions, by urban/rural
Share of the population using reliable electricity, by urban/rural
Implicit incentives for low-carbon energy in the electricity sector (measured as US$/MWh or US$ per ton
avoided CO2)
Rate of primary energy intensity improvement
Total residential electrical energy use per capita (kWh / year)
Percentage of city population with authorized electrical service
Energy consumption of public buildings per year (kWh / m2)
The percentage of total energy derived from renewable sources, as a share of the city's total energy
consumption
Total electrical energy use per capita (kWh / year)
GNI per capita (PPP, current US$ Atlas method)
Country implements and reports on System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) accounts
Youth employment rate, by formal and informal sector
Ratification and implementation of fundamental ILO labor standards and compliance in law and practiceCity's unemployment rate
Percentage of persons in full-time employment
Youth unemployment rate
Jobs / housing ratio
Indicator on inequality at top end of income distribution: GNI share of richest 10% or Palma ratio
Percentage of households with incomes below 50% of median income ("relative poverty")
Domestic revenues allocated to sustainable development as percent of GNI, by sector
Official development assistance and net private grants as percent of GNI
Private net flows for sustainable development at market rates as shareof high-income country GNI, by sector
Annual report by Bank for International Settlements (BIS), International Accounting Standards Board (IASB),
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO), and World Trade Organization (WTO) [other organizations to be added] on
the relationship between international rules and the SDGs and the implementation of relevant SDG targets
Share of SDG Indicators that are reported annually
Evaluative Wellbeing and Positive Mood AffectNumber of new patents per 100,000 population per year

Reference: 1) SDSN: Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals, 2015
2) ISO 37120:2014(E): Sustainable development of communities - Indicators for city services and quality of life, 2014

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

16

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

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

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

3.4.5 BAU of Q (tendency value)
As many assessment items of Q are expressed by indices on a per-capita basis, the calculation isbased 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. Assessors are also able to set their own BAU value if
they have a more specific BAU value based on their own calculations.

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

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

3

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

Degree ofoperability
0.5

1
2

1.0

CASBEE for Cities

17

Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

3.5 Assessment items for L
3.5.1

Basic idea regarding L

Assessment of environmental load (L) in CASBEE-City is limited to greenhouse gas emissions.
Greenhouse gas emissions are converted into their carbon dioxide equivalents and evaluated basedon annual greenhouse gas emissions per capita (t-CO2/person/year) in order to ensure a fairassessment regardless of the population size.

3.5.2 Structure of L assessment items
Assessment of L is conducted based on the assessment item shown in Table I.3.
TableⅠ.3. Assessment items for L
Items
Major Sub
L-

Indicators
Annual CO2 emissions per capita

3.5.3 BAU value of L (tendency value)
LBAU is estimated on the assumption that the efficiency of energy-consuming devices is generally
maintained at the current level.

3.5.4 Degree of operability for future environmental load assessment
The degree of operability for the future load target  L (Xj value described in 3.2) is determined byevaluating the number of low-carbon measurements and actions in two categories: government
commitments and non-government commitments listed in Table I.3.5.1. The total number ofapplicable items on the list that are in place or under development is then converted to a score on ascale of 0.0 to 1.0 using Table I.3.5.2 to express the degree of operability (Xj).
Each action that has been implemented is counted as 1, and those that have been planned but have
yet to be implemented are each given as 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 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

18

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

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

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

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

TableⅠ.5. Correspondence table of the number of measures, policies, efforts and the degree of operability (Xj)
Number of actions implemented(Plans which are not yet implemented are given 0.5; the total number is rounded to
Xj
the first decimal place)
Implementing 9 or more actions in the relevant section
1.0
Implementing 7 actions in the relevant section
0.7
Implementing 5 actions in the relevant section
0.5
Implementing 3 actions in the relevant section
0.3
Number of actions implemented is less than 30c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

19

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

3.6 Calculations of Q and L scores and BEE
3.6.1 Calculation of quality (Q) score
CASBEE adopts a “relative assessment system” and a city is assessed by each indicator on a 1-5
points scale. 1 point is given to the city with the worst level in the world, 3 points for the city with anaverage level and 5 points for the city with the best level in the world. These scores are thenmultiplied by a weighting coefficient and SQ (Score for Q, 1-5 points scale) is obtained. Calculation of
the total built environmental efficiency (BEE) score requires Q scores on a scale of up to 100 for thenumerator and the denominator. To do this, the SQ value is first subtracted by 1 and then multipliedby 25.

1.00 point3.00 points

5.00 points(worst in the world)(average level in the world)(best in the world)

FigureⅠ.7 Calculation of quality (Q) score

3.6.2 Calculation of environmental load (L) score
Index values are obtained by calculating annual greenhouse gas emissions per capita(t-CO2/person/year). Then a total score for L on a scale of 0 to 100 is calculated by applying a logistic
function where the global emissions average per capita (approximately 5t-CO2/person/per year) isrepresented as a median value of 50.
The score for LR (Load Reduction=100-Score for L) is also calculated on a scale of 1.0 to 5.0 andrepresented in a bar chart along with the Q item scores.

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

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

20

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

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

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

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

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

FigureⅠ.8. Overall configuration of Assessment Tool

4.2 Main sheet
The Main sheet is used to enter information required for the assessment including the city overview
by the assessor. After the appropriate region is selected, the assessor selects the municipality to beassessed and enters the year of assessment.

4.3 Score sheet
The Score Sheet is used to enter various data and assessment results for Q1 to Q3 and to preview L
by the assessor. Index values entered in white cells are used to calculate scores per item.
The tool is linked to a statistical database that contains publicly available figures. To perform a current
status assessment, various index values are automatically filled by selecting a municipality. The
assessor may modify such default values in white cells if necessary. For future status assessment,
target values and BAU (Business As Usual: no particular measure taken) values should be inputted.

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

21

Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

4.4 Assessment results sheet
The Assessment results sheet shows figures and graphs representing the assessment results of Q
(the quality inside the city), L (the environmental load of the city) and BEE (the Built Environment
Efficiency of the city). The assessment results of CASBEE-City can be easily recognized at a glance,
as all the related information about the city subject to assessment is condensed into one sheet.
Under the top section, the outline of the city subject to assessment and its assessment results areshown, which is divided into the following four blocks of (1) to (4):(1) “1 Basic information including location of the city”
The city’s overall information, such as the name of the municipality, location, population and land area,
is automatically displayed.
(2) “2 Built Environment efficiency”
The current value and the future estimated value of BEE (Built Environment Efficiency) derived fromthe assessment results of Q (the quality inside the city) and L (the environmental load of the city) are
shown in section 2. The graph represents the BEE value by plotting Q on the y axis and L on the xaxis, the value of which is expressed by the gradient of the straight line connecting the origin (Q＝0, L＝0) and the coordinate point of the Q value and L value. The higher the total Q score and the lower
the total L score, the steeper the gradient becomes, which reflects the city's high propensity forsustainability.
Dividing the graph area into five zones, CASBEE ranks the city's overall environmental efficiency as
S (excellent), A, B+, B- or C (Poor). Each of the five ranks has the corresponding number ofsymbols, and the current value written in black on a dark blue background and the future value written
in red on a light blue background are arranged one above another so that the information on thescreen can be easily recognized at a glance.
(3) “3 Assessment results for main items”
A bar chart collectively representing the scores of Q1 to Q3 and L is placed in section 3, in whichfeatures of the city’s environment-related efforts can be recognized immediately. The color scheme
for the current and future values is the same as that of section 2.
(4) “4 Assessment results for each goal”
Assessment results are aggregated for each of the UN’s 17 SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals)
and presented on a radar chart, so that the assessors can easily understand the progress of theircities toward achieving a real sustainable future.

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

22

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

Assessment Result

Tokyo

-

City

- Pilot version for worldwide use -Population: 9,077,177

1. Location

2. Built Environment Efficiency (BEE chart)★★★★★ 3.0

100

★★★★

1.5 ★★★ BEE=1.0

Present

S

B+

A

75

BEE= 1.0★★

1.9

BQuality (Q)61

Future

1.0
0.5

50

Increase of Q
Decrease of L
★

C
0

0

50

Tokyo（Japan）

BEE= 1.9
BEE=
Score for Q
Score for L

100

Load (L)

3. Assessment results for main items (bar chart)
0

25

50

41

Q1 Environment

75

61
74

Q2 Society
65

Q3 Economy
41

LR(Load Reduction)

100

L(Load): CO2 emissions per capita per year

88

75

60

Present

FutureLR = 100 – L

4. Assessment results for each SDG (radar chart)

SDG 17
SDG 16SDG 1
5

SDG 1. NO POVERTY
SDG 2. ZERO HUNGER

SDG 2

SDG 3. GOOD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING4

SDG 5. GENDER EQUALITY3

SDG 15

SDG 4. QUALITY EDUCATION

SDG 3
SDG 4

SDG 6. CLEAN WATER AND SANITATION
SDG 7. AFFORDABLE AND CLEAN ENERGY
SDG 8. DECENT WORK AND ECONOMICGROWTH2

SDG 14

SDG 5
1

SDG 9. INDUSTRY, INNOVATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
SDG 10. REDUCED INEQUALITIESSDG 13

SDG 6

SDG 11. SUSTAINABLE CITIES ANDCOMMUNITIESSDG 12. RESPONSIBLE CONSUMPTION AND
PRODUCTION

SDG 12

SDG 7

SDG 13. CLIMATE ACTION
SDG 14. LIFE BELOW WATER

SDG 11

SDG 8
SDG 10SDG 9

Note: Each SDG corresponds to UN’s Sustainable Development Goals

SDG 15. LIFE ON LAND
SDG 16. PEACE AND STRONG INSTITUTIONS
SDG 17. PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE GOALS

FigureⅠ.9 Assessment results sheet

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

23

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

PARTⅡ Case study
Assessments of major world cities
Assessments of major world cities were conducted using CASBEE-City (Pilot version for worldwideuse) to validate the tool’s effectiveness and its feasibility. The following figure shows the assessed
cities and the results. Assessors can use the tool to understand the actual condition of their cities incomparison with other cities in the world.

Europe11 countries,
11 cities

North America
3 countries,
12 cities

East Asia
3 countries,
10 cities
Africa1 country,
2 cities

South andSouth-east Asia
2 countries,
7 cities

South America
1 country,
3 cities

Oceania
1 country,
2 cities

World 47 cities (22 countries) are assessed using CASBEE-City
BEE（Q / L） 3.0

Good 100

S★★★★★

1.5

1.0
East Asia （n=10）

B+★★★

A★★★★

South-east Asia （n=7）

Sustainable
B- ★★

Africa （n=2）
South America （n=3）
North America （n=12）

Score for Q

1.

Europe （n=11）

0.5

50

Oceania （n=2）* A single plot represents a city

Unsustainable

Poor

C★

0
0

50

100

Good

Score for L

Poor

FigureⅡ.1 Assessment results of cities around the world using CASBEE-City (Worldwide use version)c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

24

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

2.

Assessment of entire municipalities in JapanCASBEE-City (Pilot version for worldwide use) can be customized (localized) to reflect local context.
The following figure shows an example of assessing entire municipalities in the country using
CASBEE-City (localized version for Japanese cities). Such assessment supports assessors in
identifying which parts of their country are facing difficulties and require support for sustainable
development.

Results
90-100% Good
80-90%
70-80%
60-70%
50-60%
40-50%
30-40%
20-30%
10-20%
Poor
0-10%
FigureⅡ.2 Assessment results of entire municipalities in Japan using CASBEE-City (Japanese standard version)c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

25

Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

Assessment of Kobe after huge disaster in 1995
CASBEE-City can be used to monitor the effort and progress toward achieving a sustainable future byenabling assessors for time series assessment. The following figure shows the example time series
assessment by using the CASBEE-City tool. A catastrophic earthquake, the Great Hanshin-Awaji
Earthquake, hit Kobe in 1995 and caused widespread damage to the city. However, the city of Kobe
implemented various recovery measures soon after the earthquake and achieved a great recovery.
This recovery process was assessed and visualized by using CASBEE-City tool. Assessors can use
the tool to monitor the change in city conditions in this manner as shown in the case study.

S
Good 100

★★★★★

B+

A
3.0

★★★★

1.5

★★★

1.0

（BEE）

(Best)（Sustainable）

B★★

（Q（Quality））

3.

2025 （Future target）
2010 （current）
50
1990 （pre-disaster situation）

0.5

1995 （post-disaster situation）
C
★

Poor

0

1) Decrease in GDP: 2.7%
2) Percentage of area heavily affected by earthquake: 2.3%
3) Percentage of area affected by earthquake: 10%

0

Good

50

（L（Environmental load））(Worst)100
Poor

English report available at:
http://www.wbcsd.org/
uiikobereport.aspx(CO2 per capita per year)

FigureⅡ.3 Results of time series assessment for Kobe city using CASBEE-City (Japanese standard version)c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

26

CASBEE for Cities
Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)

Afterword
This publication is developed by the Committee for the Development of an Environmental
Performance Assessment Tool for Cities (chaired by Shuzo Murakami, Chief Executive of theInstitute of Building Environment and Energy Conservation), established with the support of the
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and led by the Institute for Building Environment andEnergy Conservation (IBEC). We hope this information will be used in a wide range of fields andmakes an important contribution in building a sustainable society.
List of committee members<The Development of an Environmental Performance Assessment Tool for Cities>
Chair: Shuzo Murakami (Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation); Members:
Yasushi Asami (The University of Tokyo), Toshiharu Ikaga (Keio University), Haruo Ishida (Universityof Tsukuba), Katsunori Inoue (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism), Kazuo
Iwamura (Tokyo City University), Yoichi Ogawa (Organization for Landscape and Urban GreenInfrastructure), Takao Kashiwagi (Tokyo Institute of Technology), Masao Kita* (Regional
Revitalization Bureau of Cabinet Secretariat), Hiroshi Imanaga* (City of Kitakyushu), Takeshi
Kurokawa (The Institute of Behavioral Sciences), Shigenori Kobayashi (Tokyo City University),
Hidetoshi Nakagami (Jyukankyo Research Institute), Kimihiro Hashimoto (Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism), Yoshitsugu Hayashi (Nagoya University), Tsuyoshi Fujita(Toyo University, National Institute for Environmental Studies); Specialized Members: Hideo Matsuno,
Atsuhito Oshima (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism); Administrators: Shinichi
Kaburagi (Taisei Corporation), Nobuhaya Yamaguchi (Shimizu Corporation), Kiyohisa Oine,
Nobufusa Yoshizawa (Japan Sustainable Building Consortium) (* as of March 2012)<Task Force on the Development of an Environmental Performance Assessment Tool for
Cities>Chair: Yasushi Asami (The University of Tokyo); Secretaries: Shinichi Kaburagi (Taisei Corporation),
Nobuhaya Yamaguchi (Shimizu Corporation); Members: Toshiharu Ikaga (Keio University), Hirokazu
Kato (Nagoya University), Shun Kawakubo (Keio University), Ken Kodama (Nikken Sekkei ResearchInstitute), Satoru Sadohara (Yokohama National University), Tatsuya Hayashi (Nikken Sekkei
Research Institute), Tsuyoshi Fujita (Toyo University, National Institute for Environmental Studies),
Atsuhito Oshima, Hideo Matsuno (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism);
Specialized Members: Ryota Kuzuki (Tokyo Gas), Tadashi Kohno (Tokyo Electric Power Company);
Support Committee Member: Kazuhiko Okamoto (Shimizu Corporation); Administrators: Kiyohisa
Oine, Nobufusa Yoshizawa (Japan Sustainable Building Consortium) (* as of July 2012)<Task Force on the Dissemination of an Environmental Performance Assessment Tool for
Cities>Chair: Shuzo Murakami (Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation); Secretaries:
Shun Kawakubo (Keio University), Ryota Kuzuki (Tokyo Gas); Members: Yasushi Asami (The
University of Tokyo), Toshiharu Ikaga (Keio University), Shinichi Kaburagi (Taisei Corporation), Kohei
Nakano (Shimokawa Town), Tatsuya Hayashi (Nikken Sekkei Research Institute), Nobuhaya
Yamaguchi (Shimizu Corporation); Administrators: Kiyohisa Oine, Nobufusa Yoshizawa (Japan
Sustainable Building Consortium) (* as of July 2012)

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities

27

Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)<The Development of an Environmental Performance Assessment Tool for Cities (Pilot
version for worldwide use) >Chair: Shuzo Murakami (Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation); Members:
Yasushi Asami (The University of Tokyo), Toshiharu Ikaga (Keio University), Tomohiro Uchiike (Taisei
Corporation), Shinichi Kaburagi (Taisei Corporation), Shun Kawakubo (Hosei University), Takahiro
Kawayoke (Nikken Sekkei Research Institute), Ryota Kuzuki (Tokyo Gas), Noriaki Takai (Takenaka
Corporation), Akira Nakamura (Japan International Cooperation Agency), Takashi Otsuka (ICLEI),
Takashi Hashimoto (Shimizu Corporation), Junichi Fujino (National Institute for Environmental
Studies), Nobuhaya Yamaguchi (Polytech ADD Inc.); Specialized Member: Junya Yamasaki (Keio
University); Cooperating Members: Takeo Fukui (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport andTourism), Tadashi Inoue (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism), Koji Yamada(Japan International Cooperation Agency); Administrators: Kiyohisa Oine, Nobufusa Yoshizawa(Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation) (* as of October 2015)

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○

CASBEE for Cities ●Pilot version for worldwide use (2015)
First Edition

Published October 31, 2015

E d i te d b yCommittee for the Development of an Environmental Performance
Assessment Tool for Cities

Published by

Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
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.

ISBN 978-4-9907-4259-1
All rights reserved.

c 2015 Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation (IBEC)
Copyright○)WHDYIP+742591)
9784990742591