Keynote 1 - Prof. Dr. Shuzo Murakami

22nd January, 2013 International Seminar on Sustainable Cities in Asia

Assessment of Malaysian and Japanese cities with CASBEE-city Shuzo Murakami President, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation Professor emeritus (Dr.), The University of Tokyo 1 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

Assessment of sustainability of various countries based on Q and L Low 0 1.0 Best

Low

0.9 0.8

High 10

12

Developed Countries

Sustainable for both humans and earth

Border of Q

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3

Limitation of L

Quality of Life (Q)

High

Environmental Load (L) 4 6 8

2

Developing Countries

Q ďźš Human Development Index

(Reference) UNDP: Human Development Report 2011

Worst L ďźš Ecological Footprint

Global Footprint Network: Global Footprint Network Annual Report 2010

Quality (Human Development Index) of life in Malaysia is expected to improve in the near future

2

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

Objective of Malaysia-Japan joint research project 1) Assessment of environmental-performance of cities, using CASBEE 2) Promotion of low-carbonization in municipalities while achieving Green-growth and improving QOL The study is supported by the following Malaysian & Japanese organizations.

Putrajaya Corporation

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

Iskandar Regional Development Authority

Keio University

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

National Institute for Environmental Studies

Japan International Cooperation Agency

Kyoto University 3

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

Outline 1. Outline of CASBEE 2. CASBEE-City for assessing performance of municipalities 3. Application of CASBEE-City for assessment of Malaysian cities 4. Initiatives for promotion of Green-cities implemented by the Japanese government 4 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

1.1 Basic concepts for developing CASBEE 1) Cross-scale design 2) Cross life-stage design 3) Consideration of both aspects, Q(Quality) and L (Load) 4) Introduction of eco-efficiency BEE (= Q / L) 5) Setting virtual boundary for assessment (CASBEE: Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency, BEE: Built-Environment Efficiency)

5

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

1.2 Cross-scale structure of CASBEE (Housing & Building scale)

(Urban scale)

CASBEEHome

CASBEEBuilding

CASBEEUrban Development

(City scale)

CASBEE-City 6 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

1.3 Life-stage structure of CASBEE

New Construction

Existing

Renovation

(CASBEE – Building)

(CASBEE – Building)

(CASBEE – Building)

7 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

1.4 CASBEE family Life-stage Housing scale

CASBEE-Home DH

Standard version

CASBEE-Dwelling Unit

Standard version

Building scale

CASBEE-Building

New Construction

Existing

Renovation

Standard version Offices, Apartments, Schools, Retailers, Hospitals, Hotels, etc.

Brief version Very brief version (Market promotion ver.)

Urban scale City scale

CASBEE-Urban Development

Standard version Brief version Standard version

CASBEE-City Professional version : Already developed

: Under Development

8 8

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

1.5 CASBEE-Buildings：Tool to make information concerning Green buildings “visible” to the public, in order to promote the spread of Green buildings Categorization of Assessment items into Q（Quality） and L（Load）

4 major items Q1: Indoor environment

・Energy efficiency

Q2: Quality of Service

・Resource efficiency ・Local environment ・Indoor environment

Categorize 100 sub-items into Q and L

（about 100 sub-items in total ）

Q3: Outdoor environment (on site)

= BEE

L1: Energy L2: Resources and materials L3: Off-site environment

Evaluating Q and L independently Clarifying performance of Green buildings CASBEE: Comprehensive Assessment System for Built-Environment Efficiency

9

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

1.6 Assessment by CASBEE based on BEE Virtual boundary

Q BEE =

(Environmental Quality)

L (Environmental Load)

Site boundary

Q

L1: Energy L2: Resources & materials

Q3: Outdoor environment

L3: Off-site environment

(on site)

1.

2.

L

Q1: Indoor environment Q2: Quality of service

Considering both aspects: L (Environmental Load) & Q (Environmental Quality) Assessment by BEE (Built Environment Efficiency) = Q / L

Higher Q with Lower L BEE: Built-Environment Efficiency 10 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

1.7 2-D rating based on Q / L ( = BEE) BEE= 3.0

Rank S

1.5

1.0

B+

A

Example

Score for Q: 56 Score for L : 40

(Excellent)

56

B-

Score for Q

BEE=1.4

0.5

(Poor)

40

C

Rank S: Excellent 素晴らしい A: Very 大変よい Good よい B+: Good やや劣る B-: Fairy Poor C: Poor 劣る

Score for L 11

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

1.8 Utilization of CASBEE by local governments: Assessment results of newly-constructed buildings in Nagoya city 1.5

3.0

100

S

BEE=1.0

B+

A

Q

B0.5

50

C 0

0

50

L

Offices Schools Retailers Restaurants Hospitals Hotels Halls Factories Apartments S rank: B+ rank： C rank:

100 (Number registered: 1,300) (Registration period: April 2004 – July 2011)

Performance-display using 2-D diagram of Q and L is very effective.

Make “visible” the distribution of “★” to “★ ★ ★ ★ ★”.

12

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

1.9 Spread of CASBEE-Utilization by local governments Sapporo city Tottori pref.

Kyoto pref.

Osaka pref.

Niigata city Hiroshima city

Osaka city

Kyoto city

Saitama pref.

Kita Kyushu city

Saitama city

Fukuoka city

Kawasaki city

Kumamoto pref.

Kashiwa city

Hyogo pref.

Chiba city

Kobe city

Sakai city

Nagoya

Aichi pref.

Shizuoka pref.

Kanagawa pref.

Yokohama city

Many local governments require the CASBEE assessment when applying for a permit for construction of a new building（2004～).

The number of local governments that require this is increasing.

Disclosure of assessment results on websites of respective local governments The registered number of CASBEE assessment at local governments： 8,708 （as of March, 2012） 13 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

1.10 Certification system of CASBEE 1) Certification Certification of CASBEE ranking is given based on assessments by third-parties, designated by IBEC (quasi-governmental agency).

This system is supported by MLIT.

2) Examiner-designation system (1) Lectures on CASBEE and examination for selecting examiners (2) Objective: to choose people who can perform reliable assessments (3) ･ Number of designated examiners : CASBEE-Buildings : about 6000, as of Nov, 2012.

CASBEE-Homes : about 6200, as of Nov, 2012.

(MLIT: Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism)

14

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

Outline 1. Outline of CASBEE 2. CASBEE-City for assessing performance of municipalities 3. Application of CASBEE-City for assessment of Malaysian cities 4. Initiatives for promotion of Green-cities implemented by the Japanese government 15 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

2.1 Framework of CASBEE-City Reduction of load (L) on the surrounding area

Virtual boundary

Improvement of quality (Q) in the city

BEE of a city =

Score for Q Score for L

City boundary

1) Evaluation of L (Environmental Load) Focusing on CO2 emission reductions

2) Evaluation of Q (Quality) Assessment of not only environmental aspects, but also social and economic aspects 16 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

2.2 Assessment items for CASBEE-City based on the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) ・Nature conservation ・Local environmental Quality of a City quality ・Resource recycling Q1 ・Environmental measures Environmental ・CO2 sinks ・Industrial vitality ・Economic exchanges ・Financial vitality ・Living environment ・Social services ・Social vitality ・Emission trading

aspects

Q2

Social aspects

Q3

Economic aspects

Environmental Load ・CO2 emissions from fuel combustion ・CO2 emissions from other processes

← Virtual boundary 17

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

2.3 Assessment items for Q: Q1 (Environmental aspects) Major category

Minor category

Sub-category

Q1.1 Nature conservation

Q1.1.1 Percentage of green space and water area to total area Q1.2.1 Air

Q1.2 Q1.2.2 Water Local environmental Q1.2.3* Noise quality

Q1： Environmental aspects Q1.3

Resource recycling Q1.4 Environmental measures Q1.5 CO2 Sinks

Q1.2.4* Chemicals Q1.3.1 Recycling rate of general waste Q1.4.1* Efforts and policies to improve the environment and the biodiversity Q1.5.1 Amount of CO2 sinks in the forest

Note: Assessment items with asterisk are not taken into account in after-mentioned nationwide assessment of local governments

18

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

2.4 Assessment items for Q: Q2 (Social aspects) Major category

Minor category

Sub-category Q2.1.1 Adequate quality of housing Q2.1.2*

Q2.1 Living environment

Adequate provision of park & open spaces

Q2.1.3* Adequate sewage systems Q2.1.4 Traffic safety Q2.1.5 Crime prevention Q2.1.6 Disaster preparedness

Q2: Social aspects

Q2.2.1 Adequacy of education services Q2.2.2 Adequacy of cultural services

Q2.2 Social services

Q2.2.3 Adequacy of medical services Q2.2.4 Adequacy of child-care services Q2.2.5* Adequacy of services for the disabled Q2.2.6 Adequacy of services for the elderly

Q2.3 Social vitality

Q2.3.1

Rate of population change due to births & deaths

Q2.3.2

Rate of population change due to migration

Q2.3.3*

Progress towards an information society

Q2.3.4*

Efforts and policies for vitalising society

Note: Assessment items with asterisks are not taken into account in after-mentioned nationwide assessment of local governments.

19

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

2.5 Assessment items for Q: Q3 (Economic aspects) Major category

Minor category

Q3.1 Vitality of industry

Q3: Economic aspects

Q3.2 Economic exchanges

Sub-category Q3.1.1 Amount equivalent to gross regional product Q3.1.2* Ratio of change in the number of employees Q3.2.1* Index equivalent to number of people visiting city Q3.2.2* Efficiency of public transportation

Q3.3 Financial viability

Q3.3.1 Tax revenues

Q3.4 Emission trading

Q3.4.1* CO2 emission trading

Q3.3.2 Outstanding local bonds

Note: Assessment items with asterisks are not taken into account in after-mentioned nationwide assessment of local governments.

20 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

2.6 Assessment items for L Major category

Minor category L1.1 Industrial sector

L1: Greenhouse gas emissions from fuel combustion

L1.2 Residential sector L1.3 Commercial sector L1.4 Transportation sector L1.5 Energy conversion sector L2.1 Industrial processes

L2: Greenhouse gas emissions from other processes

L2.2 Waste disposal sector L2.3 Agriculture sector L2.4 Other GHSs (HFCs, PFCs, SF6)

（Unit of L： CO2 emissions / person / year ) 21 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

2.7 Case study for Cities of Toyota and Kyoto: assessment result of Q Score for Q [-]

1) Toyota City 5

Environmental aspects （Q1）

Social aspects （Q2）

Economic aspects （Q3）

4 3 2 1

Nature Local Resource conservation environmental recycling quality

2) Kyoto City Score for Q [-]

(Industrial city)

5

CO2 sinks

Living environment

Social services

Social vitality

Industrial vitality

Financial vitality

CO2 trading

(Commercial city)

Environmental aspects （Q1）

Social aspects （Q2）

Economic aspects （Q3）

4 3 2 1

Nature Local Resource conservation environmental recycling quality

CO2 sinks

Living environment

Social services

Social vitality

Industrial vitality

Financial vitality

CO2 trading

The advanced aspects and weak aspects of each city can be clearly understood from the bar-charts.

22 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

2.8 Case study: assessment result of L

CO2 emissions [t-CO2/(person*year)]

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Toyota

Kyoto

(Industrial city)

(Commercial city)

L is evaluated as per capita CO2 emissions per year.

Enables us to recognize how much load we are emitting.

23 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

2.9 Case study for Eco-Model Cities Good 100

★★★★★

BEE =3.0

★★★★

1.5

A

Excellent

1.0

★★★

B+

S

Quality (Q)

15 14

50

B－ 6 12 7 5 102

1

★ ★

0.5

3

9 8 4 11 13

C

★

Worst Poor

0

0 Good

50 Load (L)

100 Poor

Japanese Eco-Model Cities 1： Obihiro 2： Shimokawa 3： Chiyoda 4： Yokohama 5： Toyama 6： Iida 7： Toyota 8： Kyoto 9： Sakai 10： Yusuhara 11： Kitakyusyu 12： Minamata 13： Miyakojima Compact European cities 14： Barcelona 15： Madrid

BEE=

Score for Q Score for L 24

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

2.10 Assessment results of Q for all municipalities in Japan 45N

In general, Q is highly valued in areas with low population-density.

Sapporo 40N

Sendai

Tokyo Kyoto Nagasaki

Hiroshima

0

500km

Quality

（Percentile ranking） 90-100% Good 80-90% 70-80% 60-70% 50-60% 40-50% 30-40% 20-30% 10-20% Poor 0-10%

(Total number of municipalities in Japan: 1750)

35N

25

30N

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

2.11 Assessment results of L 45N

In general, L is highly valued in industrialized areas with high population-density.

(L : per capita CO2 emissions)

Sapporo 40N

Sendai

Tokyo Kyoto Nagasaki

Hiroshima

0

500km

Load

（Percentile ranking） 90-100% Good 80-90% 70-80% 60-70% 50-60% 40-50% 30-40% 20-30% 10-20% Poor 0-10%

35N

26

30N

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

2.12 Assessment results of BEE 45N

In general, the difference of BEE evaluation is small throughout Japan. BEE values in the central part of Japan are pretty high.

Sapporo 40N

Sendai

Tokyo Kyoto Nagasaki

Hiroshima

0

500km

BEE value Over 1.50 Good 1.25-1.50 1.00-1.25 0.75-1.00 0.50-0.75 Below 0.50 Poor

35N

27

30N

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

2.13 Assessment results of Q for Toyota and Kyoto

Quality

Kyoto:

ďźˆPercentile ranking 90-100% Good 80-90% 70-80% 60-70% 50-60% 40-50% 30-40% 20-30% 10-20% Poor 0-10%

20-30% Toyota: 80-90% Q of Toyota city is very high.

Q of Kyoto is lower than the national average.

28

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

2.14 Assessment results of L for Toyota and Kyoto

Load

Kyoto: 80-90% Toyota: 50-60% L of Toyota is same as the average. （L: CO2 emissions/ person/ year）

（Percentile ranking） 90-100% Good 80-90% 70-80% 60-70% 50-60% 40-50% 30-40% 20-30% 10-20% Poor 0-10%

L of Kyoto is very high.

29

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

2.15 Assessment results of BEE for Toyota and Kyoto

Kyoto: 1.15 ( 1.00-1.25 ) Toyota: 1.33 ( 1.25-1.50) BEE of Toyota is very good, because Q is much better than the average.

BEE of Kyoto is slightly better than the average, because L is high, but Q is low.

BEE value Over 1.50 Good 1.25-1.50 1.00-1.25 0.75-1.00 0.50-0.75 Below 0.50 Poor

30

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

Outline 1. Outline of CASBEE 2. CASBEE-City for assessing performance of municipalities 3. Application of CASBEE-City for assessment of Malaysian cities 4. Initiatives for promotion of Green-cities implemented by the Japanese government 31 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

3.1 Case study1: Assessment of Putrajaya NORTHERN CORRIDOR ECONOMIC REGION

Kuala Terengganu

Outline GREATER KUALA LUMPUR

Johor Bahru

Iskandar Malasia

Singapore

Total area: 49.31[km2] Population: 79,400[people] ・New capital city of Malaysia ・Located 25km south of Kuala Lumpur 32

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

3.2 “Future plan of Putrajaya” Putrajaya Green City 2025 This report outlines scenarios and a pathway for low-carbonizing Putrajaya within the next 15 years, based on quantitative integrated modeling of the future environment, society and economy.

There are many plans toward a low-carbon society.

Also, there are plans for the improvement of Quality.

These plans are assessed by CASBEE-City.

33 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

3.3 Data collection for assessment Cooperation is in progress between Malaysian team and Japanese team regarding assessment of Malaysian cities.

Discuss intensively to understand the current status of Putrajaya.

Assess and clarify the current status and make the future plan “visible”.

34 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

3.4 Assessment results of three items of Q for Putrajaya Environmental aspects （Q1）

Score for Q [-]

5

Social aspects （Q2）

Economic aspects （Q3）

4 3 2 1 Nature Local conservation environmental quality

Resource recycling

CO2 sinks

Living environment

Social services

Social vitality

Industrial vitality

Financial vitality

CO2 trading

Environmental aspects: Result for resource recycling is poor compared with other items.

Social aspects: Putrajaya has good overall performance of social aspects.

Economic aspects: Industrial vitality should be developed further.

35 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

3.5 Assessment results of L for Putrajaya

10.27

Total emissions

GHG emissions [t-CO2/capita ・year]

GHG emissions [t-CO2/capita ・year]

Malaysian average =7 [t-CO2/capita ・year]

12 10 8 6 4 2 0

12 10 8 6 4 2 0

4.83

0.00

0.36

Industrial

Residential

Commercial

2.80

2.29

Transportation

Waste disposal

L is evaluated as per capita CO2 emissions: Emissions of almost 10 (t-CO2/ person/ year), which exceeds the Malaysian national average of 7 (t-CO2 /person / year) CO2 emissions from commercial and transportation sectors are large in Putrajaya 36 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

Good

3.6 Assessment of Putrajaya for present and future stages（tentative） 100

★★★★★

BEE = 3.0

Rank S

★★★★

1.5

1.0

★★★

B+

A

Score for Q: 48.5 Score for L: 51.6

(Excellent)

Score for Q

★ ★

2011 (Present) (BEE = 0.94) B-

50

2025 (Future target) (BEE = 2.46)

Poor

0.5

★

(Poor) 0

C

0

50

100

Good

Score for L

Poor

1. Environmental Load will be greatly reduced by promoting plans for the future.

2. Future plans to improve Quality is necessary toward sustainable development 37

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

3.7 Assessment of sustainability for various countries, based on Q and L Environmental Load (L)

Good 0 1.0 Best

Good

Poor

4

6

8

Poor 10

12

Developed Countries

Sustainable for both humans and earth

Border of Q

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3

Limitation of L

Quality of Life (Q)

0.9

2

Developing Countries

Q ： Human Development Index

(Reference) UNDP: Human Development Report 2011

Worst L ： Ecological Footprint

Global Footprint Network: Global Footprint Network Annual Report 2010

Quality (Human Development Index) of Malaysia is expected to be improved in the near future.

38

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

3.8 Importance of considering individual characteristics of Malaysia Present evaluation： Tentative assessment results for Putrajaya are slightly low at this stage.

This is because CASBEE-City is specifically developed for assessing Japanese cities.

It is not yet customized to Malaysian conditions for the environment, society and economy.

Next stage evaluation： Assessment results are sure to be improved if assessment criteria are customized to Malaysian conditions.

39 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

Good

3.9 Direction of regeneration towards sustainable cities 100

★★★★★

BEE = 3.0 ★★★★ 1.5

Rank S

★★★

1.0

B+

A

Score for Q

(Excellent) ★ ★

Sustainable City

City A

B-

50

0.5

City B ★

Poor

City C (Poor) 0

C

0

50

100

Good

Score for L

Poor

City A： Necessary to reduce L City B： Necessary to improve Q, without increasing L City C： Necessary to improve Q 40

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

3.10 Case study2: Assessment of Iskandar Malaysia MPKU NORTHERN CORRIDOR ECONOMIC REGION

MBJB MDP Kuala Terengganu

GREATER KUALA LUMPUR

Johor Bahru

Iskandar Malasia

MPPG

MBJBT Singapore

Outline Total area: 2,216[km2] ・12% of Johor State ・3 times the size of Singapore Population: 1,614,447 ・50% of Johor State

Singapore

41

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

3.11 Future plan for Iskandar Malaysia Sustainable Iskandar Malaysia 1. This report aims to show the

possibility of developing Iskandar Malaysia into a lowcarbon region.

There are many plans for a lowcarbon society, similar to those for Putrajaya.

2. In order to assess Iskandar

Malaysia by CASBEE-City, data collection is not enough at present.

Malaysian and Japanese teams are now collecting data.

42 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

Outline 1. Outline of CASBEE 2. CASBEE-City for assessing performance of municipalities 3. Application of CASBEE-City for assessment of Malaysian cities 4. Initiatives for promotion of Green-cities implemented by the Japanese government 43 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

4.1 Eco Model-City project

(Since FY2008, by the Government)

4.1.1 Outline of Eco Model-City project

1） Objective: promotion of low-carbonization in cities distribution of best practices to other cities nationwide 2） Selection: 13 cities were selected among 89 cities that applied.

1) Large-scale: Yokohama city, Kyoto city, Sakai city,

Kita-Kyushu city, Chiyoda ward (in Tokyo)

2) Middle-scale: Obihiro city, Toyama city, Iida city, Toyota city 3) Small-scale: Shimokawa cho, Yusuhara cho, Minamata city, Miyakojima city

Source: Eco Model-city concept～Urban development for the future （Website URL: http://ecomodelproject.go.jp/）

44

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

4.1.2 Eco Model-cities of various scales Shimokawa 4,000 people

Kyoto

Obihiro

1.47 mil. people

50,000 people

Sakai

Toyama

840,000 people

420,000 people

Yokohama

Yusuhara

3,65 mil. people

5,000 people

Miyakojima

Chiyoda

55,000 people

45,000 people

Kita-kyushu

Iida

990,000 people

110,000 people

Minamata

Toyota

30,000 people

420,000 people

Large -scale

Middle-scale

Small-scale 45

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

4.1.3 Assessment results of actions promoted by Eco-Model Cities (FY 2009) Shimokawa A Kyoto

A

Sakai

B

Yusuhara

B

Miyakojima B Minamata

C

Kitakyushu A

Obihiro

B

Toyama

A

Chiyoda

B

A: Excellent progress B: Good progress C: Must be improved

Yokohama C Iida Toyota

B B

Referenceďźš Regional Revitalization Bureau of the Cabinet Secretariat, Result of follow-up on the progress of actions led by EMCs in FY 2009

Three-grade assessment and disclosure of results

46

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

4.2 “Green Future-City “ initiative (Since FY2011, by the Government) 4.2.1 (Rio + 20) and Official side event hosted by the Japanese government

Title: “Future Cities We Want” <Greeting by Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Koichiro Genba>

<Presentation by Shuzo Murakami (Chairman of expert committee)> “Green Future-City” Initiative （Rio＋20：The World Summit on Sustainable Development）

47

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

4.2.2 “Green Future-City”: aiming for green innovation 1) 21 Strategic national projects in “New growth-strategy” by the Government （June, 2010） (1) Introducing FIT (2) “Green Future-City” Initiative ・・ (11) Creating “Less-regulated specific-district system” ・・

2) Concept of “Green Future-City” New growth and low-carbonization in Japan, utilizing cities with green innovation as engines towards economic growth (“Reconstruction support to affected area was added as an object after the Great East-Japan Earthquake” ) Source: Office of PM: New growth strategy; Scenario to restore “Vivid Japan”: （Website URL: http://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/sinseichousenryaku/）

48

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

4.2.3 Creating 3 values toward Green innovation Environmental value, social value and economic value

Creating

・ Response to super-aging society

・ Health & nursing ・ Prevention of disasters, Safety & Relief efforts ・ Social capital

・ Social solidarity,

environmental value Creating

social value

fair society, etc.

Creating

・ Low carbon ・ Environmental diversity ・ 3R: reduce, reuse, recycle ・ Water / Air environment ・ Super energy-efficient society, etc.

economic value

・ Accumulation of knowledge ・ Knowledge economy

・ Employment

& income

・ New industry ・ Minimization of social welfare costs, etc.

“Environment” & “Super-aging” as key words 49 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

4.2.4 Eleven Selected “Green Future-Cities” Shimokara cho

Kamaishi city

Toyama city

Rikuzen-Takata city, Sumita cho, Ohfunato city

Kashiwa city

HigashiMatsushima city

Yokohama city Kita-kyushu city

(Cities in non-disaster region)

Iwanuma city Shinchi cho MinamiSoma city (Cities in disaster region)

The best practices of each city will be distributed to every country throughout the world.

Follow-up assessment of each city is planned to be conducted by using CASBEE-City.

50

Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

Concluding remarks Quality (Q)

Presentation of future goal to citizens by municipality Excellent

Future goal (after the implementation of city policies)

Route 1:

3

Route 2 1

Q Route 3

Current situation

Route 2: If sufficient measures are taken

Route 1

Route 3:

2

L

Route from the current situation to the future if no specific measures are taken

Effectiveness of city policies (( LL and and Q) Q)

BAU Poor

Environmental Load (L)

Making “visible” the effectiveness of city-policies to citizens Co-possession of future goal by citizens and municipalities (BAU: Business As Usual) 51 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation

Thank you for your attention.

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for the great cooperation of T. Ikaga (Prof. Keio University) and S. Kawakubo (Ph.D. Keio University) for editing this report.

Bibliography： 1) Shuzo Murakami; Shun Kawakubo; Yasushi Asami; Toshiharu Ikaga; Nobuhaya Yamaguchi, Shinichi Kaburagi (2011) “Development of a comprehensive city assessment tool: CASBEE-City”, Building Research & Information, 39(3), 195-210. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09613218.2011.563920

2) Shun Kawakubo, Toshiharu Ikaga, Shuzo Murakami, Yasushi Asami: Nationwide Assessment of City Performance Based on Environmental Efficiency, International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, Vol.2, No.4, pp.293-301, 2011.12 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.5390/SUSB.2011.2.4.293

52 Shuzo Murakami, Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation