**Table 8.**

*Water-related actions carried out to obtain certification in Mexico City, 2011–2018.*

disturbed. In this category, the possible points to be obtained due to organizationrelated actions represent 43.5% of the total and points related to building features represent 56.5%; therefore, this category was found to be the best balanced.

On average, the actions carried out by building owners to obtain certification are organized in practically the same way in this regard (43–56%). The cases of Azcapotzalco and Cuajimalpa stand out, since the actions carried out by building owners focused on users' organization are 63 and 67%, respectively (**Table 8**).

Integral water management policies have achieved a balance by incorporating the relationship between organizational factors and building features. Among our findings are internal campaigns carried out by companies and efficient water use programs in condos. In some cases, checks for leaks are conducted daily, and some owners have built treatment plants to irrigate green areas for use in common areas or domestic use. In addition, recent proposals have focused on distributive justice, such as rainwater collection and purification or reinstating traditional practices such as preserving natural waterways to allow for the infiltration of clean water into the soil.

#### **5.3 Solid waste**

The treatment of solid waste often requires structural changes to respond to the increasing numbers of residents and visitors in urban buildings. For that reason, infrastructure such as transfer stations and sorting, compaction, and recycling plants is currently used for processing 60% of the waste produced in Mexico City.

#### *Design of Cities and Buildings - Sustainability and Resilience in the Built Environment*


#### **Table 9.**

*Mexico City: actions associated with solid waste certification, 2011–2018.*

As previously mentioned, this category has a score ratio of 60–40 in favor of actions associated with users' organization, contrary to the previous cases, where the proportion of actions of this type was higher or equal to the score. Actions associated with facility features are clearly predominant (62–38) (**Table 9**).

In Cuauhtémoc 59% of the actions are related with user's organization. By contrast, in Tlalpan, all actions are associated with facility features, which raises questions about the efficiency of waste management actions in facilities where no actions requiring the users to separate waste have been put in place.

#### **5.4 Quality of life and social responsibility**

Social involvement in cross-sectional interventions focused on environmental management will be possible provided that users become aware of the importance of their commitment as agents responsible for the dissemination of sustainableoriented actions. Therefore, most of these actions would be expected to be associated with user's organization.

However, the proportion is very close to the score given by the certification program, that is, in which 69% of the actions are related to facility features. In other words, 71% of actions are associated with facility features, whereas only 29% are associated with users' organization. Cuauhtémoc represents a higher proportion of actions associated with activities carried out by users, accounting for 39% of the total actions (**Table 10**). In contrast, in Cuajimalpa, all actions are related with the design of the facility, which challenges the adequacy of this strategy on social responsibility.

A wide range of actions translates into better chances to improve social interaction; however, the user should find it easy to comply with sustainability-related actions. At the same time, building users should be rewarded with comfortable environments in terms of infrastructure, logistics, and enough space to engage in leisure activities. Therefore, the activities of a building's users are essential to foster social responsibility, an essential element in the transition to sustainability.

#### **5.5 Environmental impact and other impacts**

This section refers to environmental contamination and the impact of the construction itself on the environment, both of which must remain within permissible levels. The proportion of actual registered actions is similar to the score suggested by the program. Therefore, the highest possible score based on criteria associated users' organization represents only 27.3% of the total, and the remaining 72.7% represents actions associated with the design of the facility.

**65**

**Table 11.**

**Table 10.**

*Organizational Analysis of Sustainable Building Certifications in Mexico City*

Accordingly, 29% of the actual actions are related with user activities. The case of Cuajimalpa stands out: half of the actions carried out in this borough involve building users. In contrast, Benito Juárez, Tlalpan, and Azcapotzalco focused their

Environmental building safety is a result of environment-related regulations intended to guarantee the reduction of harmful and hazardous contaminants. These regulations allow suppliers to demonstrate that they are operating within current

In this regard, program design and actual actions are clearly related. The proportions are very similar in three of the five cases: water, quality of life, social responsibility, environmental impact, and other impacts. Concerning the energy category, the balance is relatively in favor of criteria associated with sustainable activities. However, most of the actions in this category are limited to facility design features. In the case of solid waste, again, most actions have to do with facility features, which demonstrates the preference for technological solutions over changing the population's behavior, an essential element to

> **Features of the facility**

*Mexico City: actions associated with Quality of life and social responsibility certification, 2011–2018.*

**Features of the facility**

*Mexico City: Actions for certification in the area of environmental impact and other impacts, 2011–2018.*

Miguel Hidalgo 30 19 63 11 37 Álvaro Obregón 15 13 87 2 13 Cuajimalpa 8 4 50 4 50 Cuauhtémoc 8 5 63 3 38 Benito Juárez 3 3 100 0 0 Tlalpan 3 3 100 0 0 Azcapotzalco 2 2 100 0 0 *Total 69 49 71 20 29*

Álvaro Obregón 37 27 73 10 27 Azcapotzalco 9 6 67 3 33 Benito Juárez 4 3 75 1 25 Cuajimalpa 4 4 100 0 0 Cuauhtémoc 18 11 61 7 39 Miguel Hidalgo 48 35 73 13 27 Tlalpan 6 4 67 2 33 *Total 126 90 71 36 29*

**% Organizational factors %**

**% Organizational** 

**factors**

**%**

legislation and that their emissions are permissible at the local level [5].

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95120*

actions entirely on facility features (**Table 11**).

promote environmental awareness.

*Source: Prepared by the authors based on SEDEMA [22].*

*Source: Prepared by the authors based on SEDEMA [22].*

**actions**

**City Halls Total** 

**actions**

**Borough Total** 

#### *Organizational Analysis of Sustainable Building Certifications in Mexico City DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95120*

Accordingly, 29% of the actual actions are related with user activities. The case of Cuajimalpa stands out: half of the actions carried out in this borough involve building users. In contrast, Benito Juárez, Tlalpan, and Azcapotzalco focused their actions entirely on facility features (**Table 11**).

Environmental building safety is a result of environment-related regulations intended to guarantee the reduction of harmful and hazardous contaminants. These regulations allow suppliers to demonstrate that they are operating within current legislation and that their emissions are permissible at the local level [5].

In this regard, program design and actual actions are clearly related. The proportions are very similar in three of the five cases: water, quality of life, social responsibility, environmental impact, and other impacts. Concerning the energy category, the balance is relatively in favor of criteria associated with sustainable activities. However, most of the actions in this category are limited to facility design features. In the case of solid waste, again, most actions have to do with facility features, which demonstrates the preference for technological solutions over changing the population's behavior, an essential element to promote environmental awareness.


#### **Table 10.**

*Design of Cities and Buildings - Sustainability and Resilience in the Built Environment*

**Features of the facility**

Miguel Hidalgo 33 25 76 8 24 Álvaro Obregón 30 17 57 13 43 Cuauhtémoc 17 7 41 10 59 Azcapotzalco 5 3 60 2 40 Benito Juárez 5 3 60 2 40 Cuajimalpa 4 2 50 2 50 Tlalpan 3 3 100 0 0 *Total 97 60 62 37 38*

**% Organizational factors %**

As previously mentioned, this category has a score ratio of 60–40 in favor of actions associated with users' organization, contrary to the previous cases, where the proportion of actions of this type was higher or equal to the score. Actions associated with facility features are clearly predominant (62–38) (**Table 9**). In Cuauhtémoc 59% of the actions are related with user's organization. By contrast, in Tlalpan, all actions are associated with facility features, which raises questions about the efficiency of waste management actions in facilities where no

Social involvement in cross-sectional interventions focused on environmental management will be possible provided that users become aware of the importance of their commitment as agents responsible for the dissemination of sustainableoriented actions. Therefore, most of these actions would be expected to be associ-

However, the proportion is very close to the score given by the certification program, that is, in which 69% of the actions are related to facility features. In other words, 71% of actions are associated with facility features, whereas only 29% are associated with users' organization. Cuauhtémoc represents a higher proportion of actions associated with activities carried out by users, accounting for 39% of the total actions (**Table 10**). In contrast, in Cuajimalpa, all actions are related with the design of the facility, which challenges the adequacy of this strategy on social responsibility. A wide range of actions translates into better chances to improve social interaction; however, the user should find it easy to comply with sustainability-related actions. At the same time, building users should be rewarded with comfortable environments in terms of infrastructure, logistics, and enough space to engage in leisure activities. Therefore, the activities of a building's users are essential to foster

social responsibility, an essential element in the transition to sustainability.

This section refers to environmental contamination and the impact of the construction itself on the environment, both of which must remain within permissible levels. The proportion of actual registered actions is similar to the score suggested by the program. Therefore, the highest possible score based on criteria associated users' organization represents only 27.3% of the total, and the remaining 72.7%

actions requiring the users to separate waste have been put in place.

**5.4 Quality of life and social responsibility**

*Source: Prepared by the authors based on SEDEMA [22].*

*Mexico City: actions associated with solid waste certification, 2011–2018.*

**Table 9.**

**5.5 Environmental impact and other impacts**

represents actions associated with the design of the facility.

ated with user's organization.

**Borough Total** 

**actions**

**64**

*Mexico City: actions associated with Quality of life and social responsibility certification, 2011–2018.*


#### **Table 11.**

*Mexico City: Actions for certification in the area of environmental impact and other impacts, 2011–2018.*
