Social Life Cycle Assessment of Mexico City's Water Cycle
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract There is a need to generate micro‐scale indicators to measure progress towards meeting Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 6 and 8. In this sense, this study applies Social Life Cycle Assessment, including Quality of Employment (QoE) and Adequate Public Water Supply (AWS) indicators to assess the social performance of Mexico City's water cycle to identify the level (low, medium and high) of the potential risk of social impact (PR). The results show that the labor hours (WH) required by 1m3 of water in Mexico City is equivalent to 0.062 WH. The QoE indicator shows that 94% of WH are associated with high PR due to low wages. For AWS, 5% is associated with a high PR for local communities in the Cutzamala system due to poor water quality and consumption of bottled water. This case study demonstrates that progress on QoE and AWS indicators can significantly contribute to achieving SDGs 6 and 8 in the water management of communities involved in Mexico City's water cycle.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Wastewater Treatment and Reuse · Environmental Impact and Sustainability · Child Nutrition and Water Access
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Instituto de Ingeniería Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Av. Universidad 3000, Coyoacán Mexico City 04510 Mexico
School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape University of Calgary Calgary Alberta 2500 Canada
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. A.Bahri inTEC Background Papers. Vol. 16.Global Water Partnership Stockholm Sweden 2012.
2. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.12497710.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124977 ↗
3. United Nations Making every drop count in Waterlines High‐Level Panel on Water Vol. 11 2018.
4. http://www3.contraloriadf.gob.mx/prontuario/resources/normatividad/65266.pdf(accessed: January 2019).
5. https://www.sacmex.cdmx.gob.mx/storage/app/media/Proyectos/programa‐estrategico‐2020‐2024.pdf(accessed: December 2020).
6. Naciones Unidas México. Agua limpia y saneamiento https://mexico.un.org/es/sdgs/6(accessed: May 2021).
7. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/514075/EN‐A2030Mx_VF.pdf(accessed: July 2019).
8. 10.3390/w1323335510.3390/w13233355 ↗
9. https://www.sedeco.cdmx.gob.mx/storage/app/media/uploaded‐files/reporte‐economico‐1t2019‐final.pdf(accessed: Jun 2020).
10. 10.17561/at.v0i7.296110.17561/at.v0i7.2961 ↗
11. D. P.Montero‐Contreras Instituciones y actores Un enfoque alternativo para entender el consumo de agua embotellada en México. Edit. Tirant Humanidades México2019.10.28928/omp/ebook/2019/instidmontero ↗
12. Mendoza‐Cota E. · Econ. Soc. Territ. · 2017 · 53 · 35
13. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.10473810.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104738 ↗
14. Organización Mundial de la Salud UNICEF.Progresos en materia de agua para consumo saneamiento e higiene en los hogares: 2000–2017.Nueva York 2019.
15. A.Urquiza M.Billi “Seguridad hídrica y energética en América Latina y el Caribe: definición y aproximación territorial para el análisis de brechas y riesgos de la población” Santiago 2020.
16. https://sidh.cdmx.gob.mx/storage/app/media/Docs/Informes/2021/Diagnosticos_DH‐Agua_28MAYO.pdf(accessed: May 2021).
17. M.Perló R. A.González ¿Guerra por el agua en el Valle de México? Estudio sobre las relaciones hidráulicas entre el Distrito Federal y el Estado de México. México 2005.
18. BID.Casos de estudio en asociaciones público‐privadas en América Latina y el Caribe: Centro Administrativo Tlajomulco (México). México 2019.
19. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.12150610.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121506 ↗
20. 10.1007/s11367-013-0594-010.1007/s11367-013-0594-0 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.eiar.2015.11.00710.1016/j.eiar.2015.11.007 ↗
22. 10.4236/jep.2019.10201410.4236/jep.2019.102014 ↗
23. 10.4136/ambi-agua.237110.4136/ambi-agua.2371 ↗
24. 10.1007/s11367-018-1469-110.1007/s11367-018-1469-1 ↗
25. García‐Sánchez M. · Sci. Total Environ · 2019 · 693
26. 10.1007/s11367-021-01942-w10.1007/s11367-021-01942-w ↗
27. C.Benoit M.Traverso S.Neugebauer E.Ekener T.Schaubroeck S. R.Garrido M.Berger S.Valdivia A.Lehmann M.Finkbeiner G.Arcese United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2020.
28. 10.1007/s10098-014-0841-510.1007/s10098-014-0841-5 ↗
29. Wu R. · J. Social Life Cycle Assessment Revisited. Sustainability · 2014 · 6 · 4200
30. 10.3390/w812059510.3390/w8120595 ↗
31. 10.1039/C7EW00175D10.1039/C7EW00175D ↗
32. Rebello T. · Environ. Rev. · 2022 · 31 · 23
33. J.Fontes Handbook‐for‐Product‐Social‐Impact‐Assessment‐3.0 2016.10.1007/s11367-016-1125-6 ↗
34. 10.1007/s11367-016-1168-810.1007/s11367-016-1168-8 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.23410.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.234 ↗
36. https://issuu.com/helios_comunicacion/docs/libro_blanco‐sacmex_2018(accessed: July 2020).
37. https://desigualdades.colmex.mx/inequalities‐in‐mexico‐2018.pdf(accessed: March 2023).
38. 10.3389/fenvs.2019.0016910.3389/fenvs.2019.00169 ↗
39. 10.5751/ES-09712-23010110.5751/ES-09712-230101 ↗
40. https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/enigh/nc/2020/(accessed: March 2021).
41. https://www.plataformadetransparencia.org.mx(accessed: January 2020).
42. https://www.transparencia.cdmx.gob.mx/sistema‐de‐aguas‐de‐la‐ciudad‐de‐mexico/articulo/121(accessed: August 2020).
43. https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/enigh/nc/2018(accessed: January 2019).
44. https://www.evalua.cdmx.gob.mx/storage/app/media/DIES20/ciudad‐de‐mexico‐2020‐un‐diagnostico‐de‐la‐desigualdad‐socioterritorial.pdf(accessed: August 2021).
45. Mazabel D. · Rev. Antropol. Exp. · 2012 · 12 · 395
46. Campos‐Cabral V. · Agric. Soc. Desarr. · 2015 · 12 · 147
47. R. A. E.González La región hidropolitana de la Ciudad de México. Conflicto gubernamental y social por los trasvases Lerma y Cutzamala. México 2016.
48. Giménez C. · Provincia · 2016 · 35 · 99
49. UNESCO · 2016
50. https://www.transparencia.cdmx.gob.mx/sistema‐de‐aguas‐de‐la‐ciudad‐de‐mexico/articulo/121(accessed: July 2020).
51. https://www.plataformadetransparencia.org.mx/(accessed: May 2021).
52. https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LFT.pdf(accessed: August 2022).
53. J. A. C.Corzo PhD. Thesis London School of Economics and Political Science2019.
54. 10.1007/s11367-009-0147-810.1007/s11367-009-0147-8 ↗
55. 10.1007/s11367-011-0266-x10.1007/s11367-011-0266-x ↗
56. 10.1007/s11367-012-0442-710.1007/s11367-012-0442-7 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.04410.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.044 ↗
58. 10.1007/s11367-009-0146-910.1007/s11367-009-0146-9 ↗
59. Martínez‐Licerio K. A. · Anal. Econ. · 2019 · 34 · 113
60. M. R.Cárdenas F. A.Cortés A. E.Latapí S. N.Sittón J. R.Scott G. M.Teruel Principales retos en el ejercicio del derecho al trabajo. Ciudad de México Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social (CONEVAL) 2019.
61. OECD · 2018
62. OECD · 2020
63. OECD · 2020
64. https://www.plataformadetransparencia.org.mx/(accessed: January 2021).
65. https://www.evalua.cdmx.gob.mx/storage/app/uploads/public/5d5/2ef/613/5d52ef6138d95302216150.pdf(accessed: August 2020).
66. https://evalua.cdmx.gob.mx/storage/app/media/uploaded‐files/files/Atribuciones/inf‐est/evo_pobreza_vfinal.pdf(accessed: July 2020).
67. https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=2063863&fecha=22/11/2000#gsc.tab=0(accessed: May 2020).
68. https://agua.org.mx/wp‐content/uploads/2017/11/Indicadores‐de‐gestión‐prioritarios‐en‐Organismos‐Operadores.pdf(accessed: September 2020).
69. https://www.infomexdf.org.mx/InfomexDF/Default.aspx(accessed: May 2021).
70. https://www.plataformadetransparencia.org.mx/(accessed: April 2021).
71. https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/enigh/nc/2018(accessed: August 2019).
72. https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/enigh/nc/2014/(accessed: July 2018).
73. https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/mohoma/2017/(accessed:January 2019).
74. https://www.jobapscloud.com/CT/sup/bulpreview.asp?R1=220324%26R2=0264TC%26R3=00(accessed: October 2022).
75. https://www.mtpleasant.org/departments/city_manager/human_resources/full_time/water_plant_operator.asp(accessed: October 2022).
76. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/production/water‐and‐wastewater‐treatment‐plant‐and‐system‐operators.htm(accessed: October 2022).
77. 10.3390/waste101000710.3390/waste1010007 ↗
78. https://washmatters.wateraid.org/wwtp‐functionality(accessed: March 2023).
79. https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/enoe/15ymas/doc/enoe_nota_ingresos.pdf(accessed: March 2023).
80. WHO, UNICEF · 2021
81. WHO · 2022
82. 10.1038/s41545-020-00085-z10.1038/s41545-020-00085-z ↗
83. 10.1038/s41545-020-0074-610.1038/s41545-020-0074-6 ↗
84. 10.1038/s41545-020-0070-x10.1038/s41545-020-0070-x ↗
85. Desye B. · J Environ Public Health · 2021
86. https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2021‐07/VF_CDMX.pdf(accessed: December 2022).
87. 10.1038/s41545-020-0068-410.1038/s41545-020-0068-4 ↗
88. 10.3390/w902014210.3390/w9020142 ↗
89. ONU‐HABITAT Índice básico de ciudades prósperas. Villa Victoria. Estado de México México 2018.
90. ONU‐HABITAT · 2018
91. https://datamexico.org/es/profile/geo/villa‐de‐allende?povertySelector=deprivationOption(accessed: October 2022).
92. Gómez‐Fuentes A. C. · Agua y Territorio · 2014 · 21
93. G.Yáñez https://en15dias.com/reportajes/sistema‐cutzamala‐un‐despojo‐historico‐para‐michoacan(accessed: October 2022).
94. 10.1038/s41893-018-0098-910.1038/s41893-018-0098-9 ↗
95. UNDP.Trapped: high inequality and low growth in Latin America and the Caribbean United Nations Development Programme2021.
96. The Sustainable Development Goals Report. 2022. United Nations.
97. 10.1007/s11367-020-01789-710.1007/s11367-020-01789-7 ↗
98. 10.1111/jiec.1328310.1111/jiec.13283 ↗
99. 10.1016/j.nexus.2022.10011210.1016/j.nexus.2022.100112 ↗
100. 10.1007/s11367-015-0964-x10.1007/s11367-015-0964-x ↗