**5. Evolution of sustainable actions in certified buildings**

The underlying design of the certification program is the main antecedent of the decisions made by facility owners to obtain the necessary scores. However, as already noted, the large number of possible points gives owners room to decide on the actions that they can easily enable depending on their specific conditions.

The present section analyzes these actions based on the classification previously presented for the certification program criteria. Again, this analysis will be analyzed by category and on a temporary basis in order to identify trends during the study period. Our aim is to determine whether these actions are linked to users' actions toward sustainability or they are limited to the use of green technologies in the design of these buildings.

As noted in the previous section, the relative weight of the criteria associated with the organizational aspects of building users was 22.3% of the total possible points. This categorically determines the type of action decided by the owners in favor of sustainability in order to obtain the certification and emphasize actions associated with the adequacy of the facility. However, as shown by graphic 2, the total number of actions associated with users' organization is higher than the proportion shown by the program design.

The proportion of actions associated with users' organization is consistently lower than the proportion associated with the features of the facility, which is 28.2% higher than the reference in all years except for 2018, when, only 27% of the registered actions concerned organizational strategies involving the users. This downward trend could be explained by the availability of economic resources that building owners can use to acquire green technologies and incorporate them into their design, which is certainly opposed to organizational measures involving the users, which until recently appeared as a feasible alternative to expensive technological solutions.

The effect of this trend can be appreciated in each of the five categories. Despite such downward trend, the Water category includes more actions focused on users' organization. Particularly, more than half of the actions carried out in 2012 were of this type. This shows the potential of water-related sustainability actions that can be transferred to the rest of the spaces in which the user interacts with the space.

In the case of the solid waste category, the strongest downward trend was observed in 2011, when 60% of the actions were associated with users' organization, but the percentage had reduced to 20% by 2018 (**Figure 1**). It is necessary to highlight this condition, since waste separation must formally be carried out by the user when generating them. Although infrastructure contributes to such activity, there are no automated systems to carry out such work. Therefore, it is essential to promote a culture of waste separation and reduction so that this category meets the objectives adequate solid waste management.

The rest of the categories are in line with the general trend, i.e., a downward trend, which emphasizes the importance of using technology in buildings over the implementation of actions that encourage changes in user behavior toward more sustainable patterns. This tendency weakens the actions in favor of favor sustainability that people can carry out and reduces accountability because people assume that the introduction of green technology will be enough to achieve sustainable objectives.

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

**factors**

**Points % Points % Points %**

20 69.0 9 31.0 29 100

24 72.7 9 27.3 33 100

**Total**

**Category Features of the facility Organizational** 

makes certification easy to comply with. On the other hand, 26% of the evaluated buildings achieved an efficiency level, and 24% remained undefined in certification

Organizational capacity depends on actions to control and mitigate environmental contamination inside and outside the building. For that reason, the study of different types of buildings shows how specific actions have been selected to favor

**Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019\* 2020\*** Buildings 3 8 8 17 13 21 11 14 5 3

*Total 168 75.8 53.5 24.2 221.5 100*

Energy 93 92.1 8 7.9 101 100 Water 26 56.5 20 43.5 46 100 Solid waste 5 40.0 7.5 60.0 12.5 100

*Certification is granted for a period of three years; therefore, the facilities that obtained it in 2017 and 2018 will* 

*Synthesis of scores by category, facility features, and organizational factors in Mexico City's Sustainable* 

*Mexico City: evolution of properties registered by Mexico City's Sustainable Buildings Certification Program,* 

Most of the evaluated facilities (62%) are office buildings; this observation can be associated with the economic advantages offered by the program in terms of tax exemptions and the socially responsible image that a company acquires when it shows an interest in the environment. The remaining 29% of the facilities corresponds to condo towers that seek to reduce operational costs and provide a highvalue offer to a population segment interested in environmental preservation. **Table 4** shows that the number of buildings included in the certification program increased gradually until a peak in 2016. After that year, the interest in obtaining certification has declined from 20 buildings to only three in 2020. Despite

the lack of cost–benefit advantages identified by the owners, as reflected by the lack of renewed interest in additional certifications after the initial three-year period.

<sup>2</sup> The two main benefits of sustainable actions are property and payroll tax breaks, an option available to private companies [5], however, these breaks must be processed independently from certification, which

Document what bases the analysis [2, 5, 13, 15, 20] the documents governmental with a time-periodic

This could be possibly associated with

resolutions, but it can be inferred that they achieved compliance level.

user dynamics and environmental comfort [23].

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

*Source: Prepared by the authors based on SEDEMA [5].*

Quality of life and social

Environmental impact and

*Buildings Certification Program.*

responsibility

other impacts

*have a valid certification until 2019 and 2020, respectively.*

the economic benefits of certified buildings.<sup>2</sup>

increases bureaucracy costs for building owners.

**58**

*\**

**Table 4.**

**Table 3.**

*2011–2020.*

publication.

As can be observed, each building owner focuses on different actions. It is interesting to observe the territorial differentiation expressed in **Table 5**. Considering all the facilities, a total of 526 actions in favor of sustainability were identified during the period from 2011 to 2018. A third of these actions are associated with users' organization, which is a relatively high percentage in comparison with the score granted by the program's criteria.

The borough where most organization-related actions were registered was Cuajimalpa, with a percentage of 45%, followed by Cuauhtémoc, with 42%. In contrast, only 22% of the actions in certified Tlalpan properties were associated with users' organization, and only 27% in Benito Juárez. A larger number of actions associated with facility features was found in the south part of the city, as opposed to the center-west, where more actions related to users' organization were observed.

Mexico City's boroughs are quite heterogeneous; therefore, there is no simple explanation for this territorial phenomenon. For example, many of them contain

#### **Figure 1.**

*Mexico City: evolution of environmental actions according to facility features and organizational factors (2011–2018). Source: Elaborated by the authors based on SEDEMA [22].*


**61**

**5.2 Water**

office buildings.

**5.1 Energy**

percentage of all boroughs (**Table 7**).

*Organizational Analysis of Sustainable Building Certifications in Mexico City*

18% of the actions are associated with this category (**Table 6**).

most activities were focused on quality of life and social responsibility.

areas of high purchasing power as well as marginalized sectors, which would require a more detailed analysis that exceeds the scope of the present chapter.

As could be expected due to the way in which the program was designed, most actions (45.1%) have to do with the energy category. However, the types of actions show a different proportion: 26% of the actions address criteria associated with energy, followed by quality of life and social responsibility, addressed in 24% of cases, which is high considering that the certification program allocates 13.5% of the score in this category to actions related to users' organization. The solid waste category also stands out; it represents only 5.6% of points of the certification, and

Concerning differences by borough, energy-related actions predominate in four of them; however, in all cases, the proportion is lower than the score in this category; the largest proportion was found in Benito Juárez, where these actions account for 43% of the total (**Table 6**). Actions associated with environmental impact predominate in Cuajimalpa; this trend can be associated with the concern about not damaging the protected natural areas present in the borough. Finally, in Álvaro Obregón and Tlalpan,

Interestingly, actions tend to be heterogeneous depending on the territorial conditions of each borough, that is, depending on the most pressing issue at the local level (e.g., water distribution, energy consumption, solid waste management, social responsibility, or environmental impact). This analysis sets the tone for future studies to discuss this behavior in more detail, focusing for instance on building type; in this case, for example, the studied facilities consisted mostly of urban condos and

On the other hand, these territory-related decisions reflect a positive attitude among building owners, who align their action plans with local sustainable goals instead of focusing on obtaining a good score and being certified. This attitude is possible because building users are made aware of the environment where they interact and act in solidarity to build their right to a healthy life. We will now broaden the analysis by discussing the five categories in more detail to identify temporal trends and actions specifically related to organizational factors.

In terms of score, this category has the highest weight on the score and on the criteria associated with the features of the facility; 92% of the score in this category can be obtained by meeting such criteria, and an average of 70% of the actions in all boroughs are focused on these features. Buildings located in Miguel Hidalgo account for 34% of the actions associated with how users organize, which is the highest

Most reported actions concern the use of technological equipment, whereas organizational factors are clearly disregarded. Motion control and automation systems, such as hydro-pneumatic pumping, and in some cases, emergency generators and physical fire protection systems were among the most frequent technological actions. Other initiatives are energy consumption measurement programs, light and refraction control logs, use of natural lighting, solar cells, and adaptations to

The lack of available water resources is associated with poor consumption habits, excessive social consumption, and a lack of environmental culture. As a consequence, the recharge of aquifers is often compromised because the natural water cycle is

improve the habitability of common areas are other examples.

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

#### **Table 5.**

*Mexico City: classification of actions to achieve certification.*

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

areas of high purchasing power as well as marginalized sectors, which would require a more detailed analysis that exceeds the scope of the present chapter.

As could be expected due to the way in which the program was designed, most actions (45.1%) have to do with the energy category. However, the types of actions show a different proportion: 26% of the actions address criteria associated with energy, followed by quality of life and social responsibility, addressed in 24% of cases, which is high considering that the certification program allocates 13.5% of the score in this category to actions related to users' organization. The solid waste category also stands out; it represents only 5.6% of points of the certification, and 18% of the actions are associated with this category (**Table 6**).

Concerning differences by borough, energy-related actions predominate in four of them; however, in all cases, the proportion is lower than the score in this category; the largest proportion was found in Benito Juárez, where these actions account for 43% of the total (**Table 6**). Actions associated with environmental impact predominate in Cuajimalpa; this trend can be associated with the concern about not damaging the protected natural areas present in the borough. Finally, in Álvaro Obregón and Tlalpan, most activities were focused on quality of life and social responsibility.

Interestingly, actions tend to be heterogeneous depending on the territorial conditions of each borough, that is, depending on the most pressing issue at the local level (e.g., water distribution, energy consumption, solid waste management, social responsibility, or environmental impact). This analysis sets the tone for future studies to discuss this behavior in more detail, focusing for instance on building type; in this case, for example, the studied facilities consisted mostly of urban condos and office buildings.

On the other hand, these territory-related decisions reflect a positive attitude among building owners, who align their action plans with local sustainable goals instead of focusing on obtaining a good score and being certified. This attitude is possible because building users are made aware of the environment where they interact and act in solidarity to build their right to a healthy life. We will now broaden the analysis by discussing the five categories in more detail to identify temporal trends and actions specifically related to organizational factors.

#### **5.1 Energy**

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

granted by the program's criteria.

As can be observed, each building owner focuses on different actions. It is interesting to observe the territorial differentiation expressed in **Table 5**. Considering all the facilities, a total of 526 actions in favor of sustainability were identified during the period from 2011 to 2018. A third of these actions are associated with users' organization, which is a relatively high percentage in comparison with the score

The borough where most organization-related actions were registered was Cuajimalpa, with a percentage of 45%, followed by Cuauhtémoc, with 42%. In contrast, only 22% of the actions in certified Tlalpan properties were associated with users' organization, and only 27% in Benito Juárez. A larger number of actions associated with facility features was found in the south part of the city, as opposed to the center-west, where more actions related to users' organization were observed. Mexico City's boroughs are quite heterogeneous; therefore, there is no simple explanation for this territorial phenomenon. For example, many of them contain

*Mexico City: evolution of environmental actions according to facility features and organizational factors* 

**Facility features**

Cuauhtémoc 5 77 45 58 32 42 15 Azcapotzalco 3 34 21 62 13 38 11 Benito Juárez 2 30 22 73 8 27 15 Cuajimalpa 2 22 12 55 10 45 11 Tlalpan 1 18 14 78 4 22 18 *Total 34 526 350 67 176 33 15*

**% Organizational factors**

13 211 145 69 66 31 16

8 134 91 68 43 32 17

**% Average actions per facility**

*(2011–2018). Source: Elaborated by the authors based on SEDEMA [22].*

**Total actions**

**60**

**Table 5.**

**Figure 1.**

Miguel Hidalgo

Álvaro Obregón

**Borough Total of** 

**facilities**

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

*Mexico City: classification of actions to achieve certification.*

In terms of score, this category has the highest weight on the score and on the criteria associated with the features of the facility; 92% of the score in this category can be obtained by meeting such criteria, and an average of 70% of the actions in all boroughs are focused on these features. Buildings located in Miguel Hidalgo account for 34% of the actions associated with how users organize, which is the highest percentage of all boroughs (**Table 7**).

Most reported actions concern the use of technological equipment, whereas organizational factors are clearly disregarded. Motion control and automation systems, such as hydro-pneumatic pumping, and in some cases, emergency generators and physical fire protection systems were among the most frequent technological actions. Other initiatives are energy consumption measurement programs, light and refraction control logs, use of natural lighting, solar cells, and adaptations to improve the habitability of common areas are other examples.

#### **5.2 Water**

The lack of available water resources is associated with poor consumption habits, excessive social consumption, and a lack of environmental culture. As a consequence, the recharge of aquifers is often compromised because the natural water cycle is


**Table 6.**

**63**

**5.3 Solid waste**

**Table 8.**

**Table 7.**

*Organizational Analysis of Sustainable Building Certifications in Mexico City*

**Features of the facility**

Miguel Hidalgo 56 37 66 19 34 Álvaro Obregón 31 22 71 9 29 Cuauhtémoc 21 16 76 5 24 Benito Juárez 13 9 69 4 31 Azcapotzalco 10 7 70 3 30 Tlalpan 4 3 75 1 25 *Total 135 94 70 41 30*

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.

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

**Features of the facility**

Miguel Hidalgo 44 29 66 15 34 Álvaro Obregón 21 12 57 9 43 Cuauhtémoc 13 6 46 7 54 Azcapotzalco 8 3 38 5 63 Cuajimalpa 6 2 33 4 67 Benito Juárez 5 3 60 2 40 Tlalpan 2 1 50 1 50 *Total 99 56 57 43 43*

**% Organizational** 

**% Organizational factors %**

**factors**

**%**

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.

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.

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

**actions**

**Borough Total** 

**Borough Total** 

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

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

**actions**

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

*Mexico City: total actions by environmental category by borough, 2011–2018.*


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

#### **Table 7.**

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

**62**

**Borough** Álvaro Obregón

Azcapotzalco Benito Juárez

Cuajimalpa Cuauhtémoc Miguel Hidalgo

Tlalpan

*Total*

56

4 *135* *Source: Prepared by the authors based on SEDEMA [22].*

**Table 6.**

*Mexico City: total actions by environmental category by borough, 2011–2018.*

*26*

*99*

*19*

*97*

*18*

*126*

*24*

*69*

*13*

*526*

*100*

22

2

11

3

17

6

33

3

17

18

100

27

44

21

33

16

48

23

30

14

211

100

31 10 13 0 21

27

13

17

17

22

18

23

8

10

77

100

0

6

27

4

18

4

18

8

36

22

100

43

5

17

5

17

4

13

3

10

30

100

29

8

24

5

15

9

26

2

6

34

100

23

21

16

30

22

37

28

15

11

134

100

**Energy**

**%**

**Water**

**%**

**Solid** 

**%**

**Quality of** 

**%**

**Environmental** 

**%**

**Total** 

**%**

**actions**

**impact**

**life and social** 

**responsibility**

**waste**

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

