Sustainability Assessment in Housing Building Organizations for the Design of Strategies against Climate Change

One of the biggest problems facing humanity is climate change and the construction industry is one of the sectors causing the greatest impact, therefore, design strategies accompanied by new methodologies is necessary. In this sense, this paper aims to assess sustainability for the design of organizational strategies against climate change, based on a holistic and systemic approach to sustainability development, in order to contribute the decision-making in housing building organizations. The assessment was based on: 1) climate change indicators were selected from a case study; 2) a survey based on climate change indicators was designed and applied to 21% of the total organizations under study and; 3) critical indicators were identified. The result shows that 58% of the climate change indicators are critical and give evidence of the negative outlook that housing building organizations has in in terms of sustainability. The 69% of these indicators belong to the cultural dimension, it demonstrates the lack of knowledge, customs, habits and commitment to implement sustainable strategies against climate change in this organizations. Finally, the results can contribute to designing strategies to promote sustainable building by the local government, and thus achieve more sustainable organizations that contribute to reducing their impact on climate change.


Introduction
At present, one of the biggest environmental problems on a world scale that humans face is climate change caused by the high concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere from fossil fuels and industrial processes [1]. According to the Kyoto Protocol [2], the GHG of anthropogenic origin that must be reduced are 6: Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC), Perfluorocarbons (PFC) and Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6). In this sense, CO2 is the main anthropogenic GHG with an approximate 76% of the total GHG considered by the Kyoto Protocol [1].
The energy sector contributes with the most GHG emissions worldwide, with approximately the 35% of the total [1]; in Mexico, the energy sector contributes with the 70% of the total GHG [3]. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the total final energy consumption in 2015 was 9,384 Mtoe (Megatons of oil equivalent), and the industrial sector was the biggest consumer of energy worldwide with the 37% of the total, followed by the transport (29%), residential (22%), agriculture (2%) and other unspecified sectors (2%) [4]. In Mexico, the industry is the second sector with the highest consumption (31.4%), below the transport sector (46.4%) [5].
In this sense, the construction sector, considered as a large organization belonging to the industrial sector, is responsible for the 30% to 40% of energy consumption worldwide [6]. Approximately 10% of world energy consumption is used for the manufacture of construction materials [7]. In Mexico, the construction sector was responsible for the 17% of the total final energy consumption in 2013 [8], which leads the construction industry to be one of the biggest consumers of energy [7], and to be one of the sectors with the greatest environmental impact, contributing significantly to climate change due to the big amounts of energy that it demands mainly from norenewable energies [9].
The GHG emissions from the burning of fossil fuels as a result of the energy consumption of the construction industry represented the 19% of the total GHGs worldwide in 2010 [10] and in Mexico this emissions represented the 13% of the total GHGs emitted in 2010 [3]. Regarding CO2 emissions, as mentioned at the beginning, these represent the 76% of GHGs of anthropogenic origin and until today, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels continue to increase and accumulate mostly in the atmosphere [11].
In addition to emitting big amounts of GHG and CO2 mainly, the construction sector is a big consumer of raw materials [9], for example, natural aggregates used as a raw material for the manufacture of concrete and mortars are some of the materials that are most used in construction [12], as well as Portland cement [13] and concrete [14]. In this sense, in addition to the impacts, the construction sector generate millions of tons of construction and demolition waste (RCD), for example, only in Europe, the construction industry is responsible for the 36% of the total waste generated [15]. Finally, the construction sector is also responsible for other environmental problems such as water and air pollution, which arise from the use of harmful materials and unsustainable processes [7].
Based on the above, these impacts have led to the generation of new changes in the construction industry, such as the adoption of sustainable techniques to replace traditional construction techniques [7]. This change has also been promoted by international agreements such as the Paris Agreement, established in 2015. It forces to keep the global average temperature below 2º C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the increase in temperature at 1.5º C. Following this agreement, a growing number of organizations are adopting carbon reduction objectives in their projects. Current scenarios such as until now project global temperatures increases of 3.2º C to 5.4º C by the year 2100, and even the fulfillment of all strategies determined in the Paris Agreement would imply a median warming of 2.6º C to 3.1º C in 2100 [16].

Sustainable Assessment and Management Strategies in Building Organizations
Many researchers have developed strategies based on frameworks, methods and models to assess sustainability in different areas of the construction sector, with the aim that these organizations in the construction sector can determine and design the best practices to reduce its impact on climate change and the environment in general.
Among these strategies, the following stand out: the framework to assess the sustainability of residential buildings [17]; the framework for sustainability assessment of construction materials [18]; the framework for sustainability assessment of urban neighborhoods [19]; the framework for sustainability assessment of cities [20]; the simplified method for the assessment in the rehabilitation of old buildings in urban centers [9]; the framework for sustainability assessment in the construction sector based on a Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment [21]; the analysis framework based on a SWOT-ANP analysis [22]; and the Nature-Organization-Product methodology based on the NOP model [23]. The NOP methodology serves as an instrument to carry out a holistic and systemic diagnosis in organizations from a four-dimension approach of sustainable development (economic, environmental, social and cultural), which can be visualized in organizations through four subsystems: Nature, Resources, Human Factor and Ideology, each subsystem accompanied by for components.
Finally, among the different alternatives that stand out for the design of strategies in organizations in the construction sector is the Design of Organizational Strategies for Climate Change methodology (DEO-CC, by its acronym in Spanish) [24], which is based on the NOP methodology. The DEO-CC methodology considers new sections that facilitate the diagnosis; in other words, the DEO-CC methodology considers a specific section to design indicators and parameters of climate change, in addition to considering their application to assess the organizations under study, and thus obtain results that help to design strategies from a holistic and systemic approach to sustainable development. The DEO-CC methodology us based on the product of an organization, visualized throughout its life cycle: extraction, transport, manufacture, use and disposal (from cradle to grave); it considers the ISO 14040 Standard and the objective 13 Climate action, which belongs to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) adopted by the United Nations. The DEO-CC methodology considers in a general way, four steps: 1) Objective and scope; 2) Approach to the organization; 3) Analysis of interrelationships and, 4) Assessment.
However, after analyzing the frameworks, methods and models mentioned above, it is inferred that they do not make an holistic and systemic sustainability assessment, so, the do not use sustainability approach conceptualized in four dimensions (environmental, economic, social and cultural) [25], except for the NOP methodology [23], the simplified method [9] and the DEO-CC methodology [24]. However, one of the limitations of the NOP methodology is that it does not have indicators to assess organizations, and the simplified method ceases to be holistic as it does not consider ideological factors of the organizations such as: mission; vision; values; standards, policies, guidelines; knowledge and worldview (customs and traditions).
So, if global warming is limited to the Paris Agreement, substantial reductions in GHG emissions are required in the coming decades [26]. That is why organizations in the construction sector must have a methodology that considers a different approach to the traditional one, in such a way that it allows them to obtain a diagnosis and a sustainability assessment of the organization and contribute to making the best decisions to significantly reduce CO2 emissions; a possible solution to this could be to consider actions or strategies that arise from a holistic and systemic approach. Therefore, this paper aims to assess the sustainability of the single-family housing building sector in the state of Nayarit, Mexico, based on a holistic and systemic approach to sustainable development, to the design of organizational strategies against climate change in order to contribute the decision-making in housing building organizations. The object of study for this research and to carry out the analysis is the product of this kind of organizations: a single-family house of social interest of 54 square meters of construction surface, considering traditional construction processes: foundations, brick walls, concrete structure, flattened with mortars, and 50 years of useful life. The object study is limited only to the construction phase of the life cycle and it considers only CO2 emissions.

Materials and Methods
To accomplish the objective, the framework of 45 climate change indicators for housing building organizations was used [25]. These climate change indicators and the methodological process of this research were designed based on the DEO-CC methodology [24] (Figure 1). The DEO-CC methodology consist of including new adaptions to the NOP methodology. As mentioned above, the NOP methodology remains at very general level and does not have a specific indicators for assess the organizations under study, therefore, new sections are included that are more specifics and that facilitate the realization of a diagnosis, mainly a new section to design indicators and parameters, it also includes the application of the indicators to assess the organizations under study and thereby obtain results that help to design strategies from a holistic and systemic approach to sustainable development.
The DEO-CC methodology is based on the product of the organization, visualized throughout its life cycle: extraction, transport, manufacture, use and disposal (from cradle to grave); it considers the ISO 14040 Standard and the objective 13 Climate change action, which belongs to SDG adopted by the United Nations. The DEO-CC methodology considers in a general way, four steps: 1) Objective and scope; 2) Approach to the organization; 3) Analysis of interrelationships and, 4) Assessment.
The new sections included in the DEO-CC methodology are: section two, called Approach to the organization, which includes the description of the four subsystems of the NOP model (Nature, Resources, Human Factor and Ideology). In section three called Analysis of interrelationships, it is proposed to include indicators and parameters to assess organizations. The NOP methodology originally does not have any type of indicators or parameters.
In section four called Assessment, it is proposed as a new adaptation to apply the 45 indicators considering the following: 44 indicators trough the design of a survey and one indicator to determine and analyze the CO2 emissions, in order to find opportunities for improvement in the organization that promote the design strategies.
In this sense, the present case study is only limited to considering the four-section called Assessment and the application of the 44 indicators from the design and application of the survey. The other missing indicators (CO2 emissions) has already been applied and analyzed for the same case study [27]. Therefore, it is important to highlight and remember that the general Assessment section aims to: a) assess the climate change indicators from the design of a survey and, b) analyze the CO2 emissions associated with the consumption of fossil fuels in the phase or phases of the life cycle of the product or functional unit. Figure 2 shows in a general way the methodological process that will be used in this case study: the housing building organizations in Nayarit [24].

Selection of Climate Change Indicators
The framework of climate change indicators is made up to 45 indicators distributed as follows: 2 indicators for the Nature (Environmental) subsystem; 6 indicators for the Resources (Economic) subsystem; 12 indicators for the Human Factor (Social) Subsystem; and 25 indicators for the Ideology (Cultural) subsystem ( Table 1). As mentioned above, this case study is only limited to considering the application of 44 indicators (from 2 to 45).

Sustainability assessment for the case study: The housing building organizations in Nayarit, Mexico
Select the climate change indicators considered for the case study.
Design and apply a survey based on the climate change indicators.

2
Identify critical climate change indicators based on the results of the survey.

Design and Application of the Survey
The survey was designed from multiple-choice questions, with five possible responses each accompanied by five performance levels, which range from scale: very good, fair, poor and very poor [19]. They survey was aimed at owners, directors or managers of each of the organizations and aims to know the current situation of the housing building organizations, in this case, in a context of sustainability and climate change.
The population of interest is 76 organizations and with statistical methods [28] a sample of 16 organizations to be surveyed was obtained.
Once the sample size was obtained, the organizations were randomly selected. Once the organizations were identified, contact was established in person which each one of them, in order publicize the objective of the survey and explain how to fill it out. Finally, the surveys were distributed to each of the organizations via email. The survey was designed in a practical way through the forms offered by the Google platform.

Identification of Critical Climate Change Indicators
Once the survey is applied, the criteria to be used to identify the critical climate change indicators is to classify the indicators according to their results obtained in the survey and according to their level or performance. The indicators that are in the performance levels: poor and very poor are considered critical.

Survey
The results for each of the climate change indicators that were considered in this case study are presented below. The results for each indicator are classified in the four dimensions of sustainable development: Environmental, Economic, Social and Cultural.   The economic benefit that organizations have or expect to have from implementing recycling, reuse and material optimization policies tends to be very poor (No. 5). The 63% of the total organizations surveyed do not consider the use of sustainable materials for building construction (No. 7). The trend in the volume variation in the transfer of materials is good in most organizations (No. 8). Figure 5 shows the results of the social dimension indicators, so, there is a responsibility with a negative trend in most organizations. The 75% of the total tend not to establish commitments with sustainability (No. 9), as well as, the 63% of the organizations show a negative tendency to establish collective bargaining agreements on the use of sustainable materials (No. 10). On the other hand, it is observed that there is a good tendency for the hiring of local origin by the organizations surveyed. The management of salaries by the organizations also has a very good trend, as well as the regular payment of workers (No. 14), their salary satisfaction (No. 15) and punctual payment in time to suppliers and subcontractors (No. 16). The presence of minors on the construction site is very low in the vast majority of the organizations (No. 17), it means, the 94% of the total do not hire minors. The encouragement for the reduction of overtime work at the construction site is positive in most organizations (No. 18). Figure 6 shows the results of the indicators of the cultural dimension, there is a clarity in the lack of training and education, and of environmental commitment and transparency related to climate change and sustainability. The 81% of the organizations do not publish a sustainability report (No. 21), as well as, the 100 of the organizations do not have any certification related to climate change or sustainability (No. 23). There is also a low level of knowledge of the workers of the organizations in the use of sustainable materials (No. 24). The 38% of the total organizations are not trained in any program related to sustainable materials, plus another 38% that hardly train in some kind of related program.

Figure 3. Social dimension indicators
The 69% of the total organizations do not establish partnerships with academic or research institutions in order to manage CO2 emissions (No. 31). Also, the 44% of the organizations do not commit to comply with the Principles of the Global Compact, much less to communicate their progress (No. 32). There is also a negative tendency for organizations to train and become aware of social responsibility issues (No. 34). The 71% of the organizations follow a negative trend in the lack of implementation of standards related to the disposal and recycling of materials (No. 35), for example, the 69% of the total organizations do not implement any action and another 31% barely manages to implement any standard.
The 63% of the total organizations do not implement technological innovation criteria in materials and construction processes (No. 39), as well as, the 88% does not invest in any type of certification related to climate change (No. 40). On the other hand, a negative trend is also observed by suppliers, subcontractors and external organizations in attitudes and preferences regarding sustainability (No. 44 and No. 45).

Identification of Climate Change Critical Indicators
The results of the sustainability assessment of the housing building organizations in Nayarit show that 26 out of a total of 44 climate change indicators turned out to be critical (Table 2).  Investment in environmental sponsorship or advertising activities.
 Benefit for the implementation of recycling, reuse and optimization policies of products, materials and resources.
 Investment in public-private partnerships.
 Presence of publicly available documents such as promises or collective bargaining agreements on the use of sustainable materials.
 Pertinence of ecotechnologies in the region.  Transparency to communicate mechanisms and sources of financing funds for climate change.
 Climate change certifications.
 Participation in technical training programs for workers in the use of sustainable materials.
 Participation in training programs in the use of technologies (equipment and machinery).
 Participation in training programs that promote environmental behaviors.
 Environmental education workshops related to sustainability and climate change (suppliers and subcontractors).
 Environmental education workshops and meetings with clients related to sustainability and climate change.
 Inter-institutional agreements disseminated for the execution of environmental education programs and projects.
 Association for research and development related to the management of CO2 emissions.
 Commitment to comply with the principles of the United Nations Global Compact and to present an annual communication on its progress.
 Commitment to training and awareness on social responsibility.
 Implementation of standards and/or regulations for the disposal and recycling of construction products or materials.
 Polices implemented for technological development.
 Integration of ethical, social, environmental and gender equality criteria in distribution policies and contract signing.
 Technological innovation in materials and construction processes.
 Customs and habits to invest in a climate change certification system.
 Attitudes and preferences regarding sustainability (home users and builders).

Discussions
The housing building organizations in Nayarit present a significant lack of aspects related to factors that have to do with culture within the context of sustainability and climate change, it means, in relation to a mission, vision, values; standards, policies and guidelines; worldview and knowledge.
In this sense, the results show 26 climate change critical indicators out of a total of 46, which will serve as the basis for the designing strategies against climate change. It also considers important to highlight that most of the critical indicators are in the cultural dimension (Ideology subsystem), it means, 18 out of a total of 26, which represents the 69% of the total. From the economic dimension there were 4 critical indicators which represents the 15% of the total; from the social dimension there were 3 critical indicators which represents the 11% of the total and finally, from the environmental dimension 1 critical indicator resulted which represents the 5% of all the critical indicators. From the economic dimension (Resources subsystem), all critical indicators lean towards the Financial component, it means, 4 critical indicators out of a total of 4. In this sense, it can be inferred that the housing building organizations in Nayarit do not invest financial resources in research for innovation purposes, much less do they invest financial resources to establish partnerships with public-private institutions to find innovate solutions related to climate change mitigation. Furthermore, the majority of these organizations (63%) are completely unaware of the economic benefits that can be achieved by reducing competition for renewable resources and raw materials; it means, reduce their economic dependence which can well be achieved by replacing the linear economy model with a circular economy model, which has to do with recycling, reuse and optimization of products, materials and resources in the housing construction processes.
Therefore, based on the results described above, it is demonstrated that the housing building organizations in Nayarit do not have an adequate culture in terms of sustainability and climate change, it means, there are no strategies or good practices that contribute to increasing knowledge further; the mission, vision and values; awareness and the habits and traditions in these organizations. In addition, at the state and local government level, there are no standards, policies and guidelines that force organizations to change the habits and customs in their unsustainable housing building processes for sustainable housing building processes, trough the implementation of strategies or good practices that help reduce CO2 emissions and consequently reduce their impact on climate change.

Conclusion
At the end of the present study, it can be concluded that the objective of this paper was achieved, it means, to assess the sustainability for the design of organizational strategies against climate change, based on a holistic and systemic approach to sustainable development, in order to contribute the decision-making in housing building organizations in Nayarit, Mexico, to reduce its impact on climate change.
The results of the sustainability assessment of the housing building organizations in Nayarit show a negative outlook in terms of climate change and sustainability. The foregoing is clearly attributed to the cultural aspects that exist in the state of Nayarit, which are: the lack of knowledge about sustainability and climate change by these organizations, as the result of the lack of standards, policies, guidelines and strategies for housing at the estate and local government level, which means that these organizations hardly get involved and feel commitment to the environment, much less show interest in investing in training or certifications programs that increase their knowledge and awareness of the topic. Therefore, this study calls for the design of new policies and guidelines on climate change and sustainability in the housing building industry at the state and municipal level, as well as suggest other studies towards other building areas, such as other kind of housing, commercial buildings, services, schools, among others, and in construction subsectors, such as civil engineering works or specialized works for construction.
In order to establish future lines of research, it is recommended to expand the scope and the system boundaries of this study, using the same DEO-CC methodology and considering the rest of the phases of the life cycle of the house (extraction of raw materials, transportation, construction, usage, demolition) or another phase different from construction, in order to have multiple results that contribute to the design of strategies that are related to the rest phases of the housing life cycle.
Finally, it is also recommended to carry out a study focused on systematizing the DEO-CC methodology, based on a software or digital application that simulates the CO2 emissions generated depending on the strategies applied to housing building projects in Nayarit, so the organizations could know their environmental performance in a faster way.

Funding and Acknowledgements
Author of this document acknowledge the management of the Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit, the Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa and the Universidad Juarez del Estado de Durango in Mexico. This work was supported and funded by the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT, by its acronym in Spanish) to carry out academic programs of doctoral studies.