## 3 Results  
Initially, the requirements to evaluate the four evaluated categories were selected: urban quality, design and comfort, energy efficiency, and water management. Moreover, 21 requirements of the Casa Azul Label were detected, 10 of them were attended by [PERSON]. The categories of \"conservation of material resources\" and \"social practices\" were not included, respectively, due to the lack of access to information regarding the applied materials and the waste destination. Furthermore, there was no information and documentation that could prove the existence of educational programs involving workers and future residents during the construction period, as the label recommends as criteria. The Paraisopolis Buildings E and G results, adopted as a reference, were assimilated with the highest score proposed by the SBTool methodology, while the case study, Laura Molina SH, was scored by comparing it with the presented values by the benchmark. After the score was established, and the normalization formula was applied, the weights for each category were calculated considering the influence of the indicators' impacts in the region where [PERSON] is located [10,30]. The urban quality category exemplified the adopted process in the others for which the same steps were repeated. Step 2-Phase 2--Initially, the benchmark survey was carried out and then the case study. The following table (Table 5) gathers information from Paraisopolis Buildings E and G and Laura Molina SH regarding the requirements of the Casa Azul Label of the urban quality category. It is possible to check through the checklist which requirements were or were not met by both projects. Figure 3: Flowchart of the study. Step 2--Phase 3--After checking the list, the appropriate scores were assigned according to the international SBTool Urban instrument. As this was an assessment focused on the categories, the method for assigning values from the SBTool tool was adapted to the number of met requirements, similar to the Casa Azul Label. * Unacceptable practice (<25%) = \(-1\)
* Acceptable practice (\(\geq\)25% \(\times\) <50%) = 0
* Good practice (\(\geq\)50% \(\times\) \(\leq\)75%) = 3
* Best practice (>75% \(\times\)\(\leq\)100%) = 5 Results of both sets:
* Paraisopolis Building E/G = met 4 criteria (best practice) = 5
* Laura Molina SH = met 2 criteria (50%) = 3  
Step 2--Phase 4--Calculation of normalization and association of values, as presented in Equation (1). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Evaluation Requirements and Criteria**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Paraisopolis**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Laura [PERSON]**} \\ \hline Electrical network & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline Drinking water supply & & ✓ \\ network & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline Paving & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline Street lighting & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline Sewerage & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline Leisure equipment & & \\ neighborhood—infrastructure (MANDATORY) & ✓ & X \\ \hline Drainage & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline Public transportation & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline Health posts (at 2.5 km & ✓ & ✓ \\ maximum) & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline Trading points & ✓ & ✓ \\ \hline Schools and & & \\ kindergartens (with a & ✓ & ✓ \\ maximum of 2.5 km) & & \\ \hline In general: & Met & Met \\ \hline
1.2 Quality of & No sources of excessive & \\ neighbourhood—Impacts & noise, smell, and air & Met & Met \\ (MANDATORY) & pollution. & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{1.3 Neighborhood improvements} & Recuperation of & \\ \cline{2-2}  & sidewalks, public & \\ \cline{2-2}  & equipment, afforestation, & \\ \cline{2-2}  & squares, etc. & \\ \hline
1.4 Recuperation of degraded & & \\ areas & & \\ \cline{2-2}  & & \\ \cline{2-2}  & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{1.5 Property rehabilitation} & Property & \\ \cline{2-2}  & rehabilitation/filling & X & X \\ \cline{1-1}  & urban voids & \\ \hline Total & & 4 & 2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Urban quality category—the evaluation of Paraisopolis E and G \(\times\) Laura Molina social housing (SH).