Beyond Just Light Bulbs: The Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas

Emissions in the Housing Sector in Mexico City

Ariadna I. Reyes-Sanchez, University of Texas at Austin, ariadna.reyes@utexas.edu
Abstract.
Climate change is a serious global challenge that urgently demands comprehensive mitigation
policies, including in the housing sector. However, GHG emissions assessment in the housing
sector is particularly challenging because urban planning factors such as location of jobs and
transit services influence GHG emissions. Therefore, for mitigation strategies in the housing
sector to be effective, they must be based on a comprehensive understanding of the complex
nature of GHG emissions associated with housing development and use.
In Mexico, the Federal Government has implemented strategies for mitigating GHG emissions
through the promotion of energy efficient technologies such as electricity-efficient bulbs.
However, these strategies do not address GHG emissions stemming from the rapid growth of
housing developments on the urban periphery. Recently, federal government-financed dwelling
units have been developed on a massive scale in the urban fringe, without sufficient attention to
public transportation and job creation.
In order to assess the impact of location and transportation on GHG emissions in the housing
sector in Mexico City, a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was conducted to assess GHG emissions
related to both construction and use of dwelling units. It was found that the use of gasoline for
private transport is the principal contributor to GHG emissions, followed by the use of electricity.
These findings suggest that the most effective mitigation strategy in the housing sector may be
the promotion of resource-efficient dwelling units in urban locations. This calls into question the
federal governments focus on technologies to mitigate GHG emissions instead of encouraging
housing policies that support government financing of urban dwelling units.

Beyond Just Light Bulbs: The Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Housing Sector in Mexico City

Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technologies (ISSN 2329-9169) is
published annually by the Sustainable Conoscente Network. Jun-Ki Choi and Annick Anctil, co-editors 2015.
ISSSTNetwork@gmail.com.
Copyright 2015 by Reyes Licensed under CC-BY 3.0.
Cite as:
Beyond Just Light Bulbs: The Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Housing Sector in Mexico City
Proc. ISSST, Reyes. Doi information v3 (2015)

Reyes

Introduction.
Climate change is a serious global challenge that urgently demands comprehensive mitigation
policies to address the contribution of the housing sector to climate change (Fuller & Crawford,
2011a; Stephan, Crawford, & de Myttenaere, 2012). Nevertheless, greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions assessment in the housing sector is particularly challenging because in addition to
construction and daily use of housing units, urban planning factors such as density, location of
jobs, and transit services also influence their occupants energy use and GHG emissions
(Breheny, 1997; Ewing & Rong, 2008; Fuller & Crawford, 2011b; Guerra, 2014; Lee & Lee,
2014; Norman, Maclean, Asce, & Kennedy, 2006). Therefore, for mitigation strategies in the
housing sector to be effective, they must be based on a comprehensive understanding of the
complex nature and extent of GHG emissions associated with housing development and use
(Ramesh, Prakash, & Shukla, 2010; Stephan et al., 2012).
Mexico City is one of the largest cities in the world, with a relatively higher level of economic
development than other developing-world cities. Therefore, Mexico City could enable a better
understanding of appropriate climate change policies in the housing sector that could serve as
reference to other developing-world cities as their economies grow (Guerra, 2014) . As a matter
fact, Mexico has been recognized as one of the international leaders in developing GHG
emissions mitigation policies (Lankao, 2007; The World Bank, 2013). The Mexican federal
government has implemented housing-related strategies for mitigating GHG emissions by
promoting, subsidizing, and financing the purchase of energy efficient technologies such as
electricity-saving bulbs and solar water heaters (SEMARNAT, 2012). However, these mitigation
strategies do not address GHG emissions stemming from the rapid growth of housing
developments on the urban periphery. In the last two decades, federal government-financed
dwelling units have been developed on a massive scale in the urban fringe of Mexico City,
unaccompanied by public transportation services or nearby jobs (Pradilla Cobos, 2005; UN,
2011). This has led to increasing automobile use and an attendant increase in GHG emissions,
as residents in these distant housing developments are required to commute to central locations
that offer services and employment opportunities.
In order to assess the impact of location and transportation on GHG emissions in the housing
sector in Mexico City, a pioneering Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was conducted to compare
energy use related to both construction and use of dwelling units. The LCA reveals that the use
of gasoline for private transport is the principal contributor to GHG emissions generated by
housing, followed by the use of electricity and gas, respectively. These results call into question
the Mexican federal governments focus on energy efficient technologies to mitigate GHG
emissions instead of promoting housing policies that support government financing of dwelling
units in the central city. The problem is not the promotion of energy-efficient technologies so
much as making them the federal governments sole climate policy focus. The failure was
relying on energy-efficient technologies to mitigate GHG emissions in housing developments
placed on the urban periphery while effectively ignoring the resulting increases in car usage and
accompanying GHG emissions.
One possible avenue for GHG emissions mitigation in the housing sector that integrates
planning tools and technological innovations is implementing energy-efficient technologies in
housing developments placed in central locations. Beyond the case of Mexico City, this
investigation suggests that LCA represents a powerful methodological approach to develop
comprehensive GHG emission baselines for the housing sector, which in turn can serve to
encourage effective urban planning policies for mitigating GHG emissions in the housing sector.
Climate Change Policymaking in the Housing Sector
In cities, more than three quarters of the worlds energy is consumed as a result of the use of
housing units and commercial buildings, due to transportation and purchasing activities
developed by large populations, according to Hoornweg et al (Hoornweg, Sugar, & Trejos

Beyond Just Light Bulbs: The Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Housing Sector in Mexico City

Gomez, 2011; Prez-Lombard, Ortiz, & Pout, 2008). In households, residents use nearly 40% of
the worlds energy but also influence energy use in the transport sector (Prez-Lombard et al.,
2008). Hence, a holistic assessment of the contribution of the housing sector in developed and
developing-world cities is necessary to more effectively mitigate global GHG emissions.
However, the vast majority of GHG assessments in the housing sector have been carried out in
developed-world cities (Guerra, 2014; Prez-Lombard et al., 2008; Ramesh et al., 2010). Thus,
there is a poor understanding of the contribution to GHG emissions in developing-world cities,
which are projected to embrace most global population growth in the following decades to come
(Guerra, 2014; Stephan et al., 2012). By examining Mexico City, this investigation could enable
a better understanding of appropriate climate change policies in the housing sector in
developing world-cities.
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions assessment in the housing sector is particularly challenging
because in addition to construction and daily use, urban planning factors such as density and
location of jobs influence energy use and GHG emissions (Norman et al., 2006). According to
Hoornweg, denser cities have lower per capita energy consumption. Moreover, within urban
territories, per capita energy use is lower in denser areas (Hoornweg et al., 2011). For example,
Norman argues that low-density suburban development in Toronto is more energy and GHG
emissions intensive by a factor of 2.02.5 than high-density urban core development (Fuller &
Crawford, 2011b; Lee & Lee, 2014; Stephan et al., 2012). By comprehensively assessing
energy use dwelling units in Belgium, Stephan et al. found that transportation energy accounts
for 34-51% of the total life cycle energy consumption, followed by household operating energy
of appliances, space heating and embodied energy, which account for 24%, 23% and 20%,
respectively (Stephan et al., 2012). Therefore, it can be inferred from previous GHG
assessments in the housing sector that urban density, which is largely influenced by the spatial
location of housing developments, drives the extent to which residents use energy to commute
from residential locations to job-rich areas (Fuller & Crawford, 2011b; Lee & Lee, 2014; Stephan
et al., 2012).
Despite the fact that urban density significantly influences energy use, the vast majority of GHG
emissions assessments in the housing sector completely disregard it (Ramesh et al., 2010). As
a matter of fact, most GHG assessments in the housing sector examine dwelling embodied
energy stage or household energy use stage, but neglect residents transportation-related
energy consumption. Embodied energy in dwellings includes the manufacture of building
materials, transportation of building materials to the construction site, and construction
processes. Household energy use includes cooling and heating of interior dwelling spaces, and
the operation of domestic water heating and appliances. Residents transport includes
automotive transportation activities, such as cars and buses (Stephan et al., 2012). To illustrate
the common exclusion of transportation costs from GHG assessments, Mexicos National
Inventory of GHG attributed a 7% share of nationwide GHG emissions to the housing sector in
2010 (SEMARNAT, 2012). However, this GHG emissions assessment in the housing sector in
Mexico included only electric and gas usage in the post-occupancy stage, but neglected
dwelling embodied energy and energy use of residents transportation. Stephan et al. argue that
a more holistic approach to assess energy use of dwellings is indispensable to more effectively
mitigate GHG emissions in the housing sector. Stephan et al. propose widening the current
typical scope of analysis, currently restricted to household energy use, to also account for
dwelling embodied energy, but more importantly to account for residents transportation energy
(Stephan et al., 2012).

Reyes

Figure 1 A comprehensive approach to assess energy use and associated GHG emissions in housing units
Adapted by (Stephan, Crawford, & de Myttenaere, 2011).

The Mexican federal government developed the National Strategy for Climate that delineated
general guidelines to mitigate GHG emissions in various economy sectors, including the
housing sector. The Special Program for Climate Change sought, as fulfillment of its GHG
mitigation goal in the housing sector, to reduce GHG emissions by promoting energy-efficient
technologies financed by green mortgages in 800,000 newly constructed housing units
(SEMARNAT, 2012). The Institute of the National Fund for Workers Housing (INFONAVIT, in
Spanish), on behalf of the federal Mexican government, has implemented the Green Mortgage
Program since 2008 in order to encourage energy efficiency in the housing sector. The Green
Mortgage Program addresses energy efficiency of new housing developments by promoting and
financing energy-efficient technologies dealing with three resources: natural gas, electricity, and
water. Reducing their consumption allows savings on energy usage, utility expenses, and
attendant GHG emissions (Corona Suarez & May-Yam, 2013). According to Borras, the
Mexican federal government fulfilled its proposed GHG mitigation goal since more than one
million green mortgages were implemented in new housing units between 2007 and 2012
(Borras, 2012).
In order to address the housing demand of low and middle-income formal workers, the federal
government has implemented ambitious national programs for housing. To illustrate this, in the
previous presidential term almost six million families received government credits to buy newly
constructed dwelling units situated on the urban periphery between 2006 and 2012
(Bredenoord, Lindert, & Smets, 2014; UN, 2011). Major housing developers acquired huge
amounts of inexpensive rural land and developed housing developments on a massive scale in
the last two decades (Bredenoord et al., 2014). As a matter fact, housing policies were the
vehicles to promote peripheral housing developments that lack any sort of transit service,
infrastructure, employment and educational opportunities. Ironically, these peripheral housing
developments were the sites selected to implement INFONAVITs green mortgages. The failure
was not to promote energy efficient-technologies on massive scale in the housing sector, the
failure was to assume that these technologies are themselves sufficient to mitigate GHG
emissions and to disregard urban planning factors that account for the lions share of energy
use.
The remarkable misalignment between housing and climate change policies has exacerbated
GHG emissions associated with increasing automotive transportation in the urban periphery of
Mexico City. Life-cycle assessment (LCA) provides a thorough approach to assess the complex
nature and extent of energy use associated with dwelling embodied energy, household energy
use and residents transport energy. A holistic GHG emissions baseline in the housing sector is
essential to understand the nature and extent of effective mitigation (Stephan et al., 2012).

Beyond Just Light Bulbs: The Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Housing Sector in Mexico City

Moreover, a comprehensive GHG emissions baseline could serve to assess mitigation

outcomes over time.
A Life Cycle Assessment in Peripheral Housing Units in Mexico City.
Despite the fact that aggregate population growth rates in the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City
decreased in recent years, population in suburban areas have grown at an annualized rate of
more than 10 percent from 1990 to 2010 (Guerra, 2014). Despite rapid suburbanization of the
Metropolitan Area of Mexico City, jobs remained fairly centralized within the limits of Mexico City
(Guerra, 2014). This has led to increasing automobile use and an associated increase in GHG
emissions, as residents in suburban housing developments commute to a select few districts in
Mexico City that concentrate employment, educational institutions, and services. In order to
assess the impact of location and transportation on GHG emissions in the housing sector in
Mexico City, a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was conducted to compare the contribution to GHG
emissions of pre-use and use phases. The pre-use phase or dwelling embodied stage
aggregates the use of energy, resources, and materials that result from the manufacture of
building materials, materials transportation to the construction site, and housing units
construction. The use phase aggregates not only the use of energy, resources, and materials
that result from the stage of households use of the housing unit itself but also, crucially, the
stage of residents transportation over a fifty-year service life period.
This LCA examines the contribution to GHG emissions of the typical government-financed
housing unit located in the urban periphery of Mexico City between 2000 and 2012. The
characterization of the typical housing unit included three key methods: a review of literature;
four workshops with Mexican housing developers carried out between June and August 2011;
and 17 separate field visits in peripheral housing developments in Mexico City conducted
between July 2011 and December 2011. It was found that government-financed housing units
share various patterns in their mode of construction and in their urban fringe location. Although
these dwelling units are relatively small in their interior living area (from 30 to 60 square meter),
they are often equipped with a yard and a parking space (CONAVI, 2010). However, this small
housing unit is expected to grow over time as a result of a gradual self-help construction
process carried out by residents in order to address their housing requirements over time.
Some of the patterns of self-help observed in these housing developments include enlargement
of a house by adding residential extensions (either upward or toward the rear of the lot),
subdividing existing space to provide separate living spaces to some members of the family, as
well as paving front setbacks in order to provide automobile parking (Eibenschutz Hartman &
Benlliure B., 2009).
Housing developments usually have only one entry point, to which access is typically restricted
by a gate. In addition, housing developments are zoned as single residential land use areas,
which means that commercial land uses are officially prohibited from being added over time.
The exclusively residential land use in peripheral housing developments has two main
consequences. First, the lack of non-residential uses means that residents are required to travel
a considerable distance to meet basic needs such as buying food and other basic products, to
access to any sort of public service, activity or amenity. However, the lack of commercial uses in
these housing developments induce conversions of residential spaces into informal businesses
that sell basic products and services, such as groceries and clothes. In addition, streets are
appropriated by informal markets known as tianguis, a sort of temporary farmers market
(Eibenschutz Hartman & Benlliure B., 2009).
Considering the peripheral location and the lack of transit services in the urban fringe, it can be
argued that this suburban housing model is directly inducing the intensive use of motorized
means of transportation, particularly private passenger cars. The lack of efficient means of
transportation in these housing developments triggers informal means of transportation, such as

Reyes

illegal bus fleets that tend to use second-hand vans and low-capacity buses (Eibenschutz
Hartman & Benlliure B., 2009). These allow residents to move within the urban periphery and
beyond. Second, the horizontal construction pattern (ground floor-oriented houses) in the urban
fringe is inefficient in terms of land use, because it does not make efficient use of available
urban land in central locations. In addition, these suburban housing developments do not offer
green spaces such as parks or playgrounds. Instead, a relatively large proportion of land is
devoted to roads and parking lots that encourage the use of private cars.
This paper presents the Life Cycle Inventory of the typical housing unit located in the urban
fringe of the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City, promoted by the Mexican federal government
between 2000 and 2012. A typical housing unit was characterized by examining 17 housing
developments in the urban fringe of Mexico City. These housing developments lie within Mexico
Citys border municipalities of the State of Mexico: two are in Chalco, four in Ecatepec, three in
Ixtapaluca, five in Tecamac, one in Tlalnepantla, and two in Tultepec. Table 1 presents their
main urban and architectural characteristics. First, their urban fringe location means they arose
from the conversion of rural to urban land. Second, the average distance to the closest subway
station is 26 km, which helps explain why buses and private cars are the main modes of
transportation, and why these housing developments are spatially disconnected from transit
services. Third, average living area accounts for 40 m 2; however, the total area of the land
parcel accounts for 160 m2, which includes the front setback, sidewalk, and an on-street parking
space. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1 of this typical housing is only 0.25, suggesting an inefficient
use of urban land and available infrastructure. However, it is worth mentioning that floor area is
expected to increase as self-help construction activities emerge and living area is increased by
residents over time. Fourth, it was observed that 80% of housing developments do not have
sewage treatment plants on site, and thus waste water is sent to the municipal sewage
treatment plants. However, in the State of Mexico only 28% of wastewater runoff was treated in
2011, suggesting an explanation for the observable water pollution of the rivers near these
peripheral housing developments (Ducci, Plascencia, & De la Pea, 2013).

Table 1 Urban and architectural characteristics

Component

Finding

Previous land use

Rural in transition to suburban

Distance to the closest subway station

26.6 km

Accessibility to transport

Car and bus

Average daily commute

140 minutes

Land use

Residential

Area of dwelling unit

40m2

Area of land parcel

160 m2

Floor area ratio

0.25

The LCA was carried out for of the pre-use phase that includes building materials manufacture,
materials transportation, and construction, as well as the use phase that includes household
use and residents transportation. A fifty-year service life was considered. This period is based
1

The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) quantifies the extent to which housing units take
advantage of their available infrastructure; it is calculated by dividing the living area by total
area of parcel.

Beyond Just Light Bulbs: The Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Housing Sector in Mexico City

on the most common approaches in LCA in buildings (Ramesh et al., 2010; Stephan et al.,
2012), which enables comparison with previous LCAs. The housing unit (subject of the LCA)
was considered to include the following systems: a) the dwelling as residential structure, b) the
adjoining public realm, including the components of the street such as sidewalks and pipelines,
c) infrastructural elements, including sewage treatment plants, and d) the households resource
consumption, including electricity, natural gas, water, gasoline, and diesel. The environmental
impacts of the elements related to the housing units life cycle were estimated for the functional
unit: one square meter of habitable housing over a 50-year lifespan.

Figure 1 Housing Units Systems: dwelling unit, urban section, infrastructure systems,
and household use
The open LCA 1.2.6 program was used to process the inventories of LCA. The environmental
impact assessment method developed by the Center of Environmental Science of Leiden
University (CML 2001) was selected to estimate global warming impacts as a function of
estimated GHG emissions. The CML 2001 was regularly used in previous LCA assessments in
the housing sector. This study included environmental impacts found in previous LCA studies of
products elaborated and used in Mexico. For example, it included environmental impacts found
in an LCA of the manufacture of asphalt in the Metropolitan Area of Mexico. However, the main
LCA reference database was the US-based National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
Two workshops with major Mexican developers were conducted in July 2011, in order to
characterize urban and architectural patterns of the typical housing unit promoted by
INFONAVIT, on behalf of the federal government, between 2000 and 2012. This architectural
and urban characterization served to estimate flows of energy, building materials, and water for
constructing the housing unit and its systems. Housing developers provided plans and
databases that itemized earth-moving machinery to subdivide land and to build structures
foundations; the consumption of building materials, water, and energy to construct housing
units subsystems; and the generation of construction waste. Flows of energy, water, and
resources consumed during the household operating phase were determined from the results of
a survey with 1,414 responses from households. The survey was conducted on 17 housing
developments that collectively contain nearly 110,000 households. The sample is large enough
to ensure a 99% level of confidence with a standard error of 3%. The mode of the survey was
done by knocking on doors and asking residents a questionnaire in person. From field visits
reports, it was estimated that nearly 50% of total dwelling units in these housing developments
seemed to be vacant as housing units conditions were dilapidated. Therefore, surveys were
randomly conducted in dwelling units that were occupied by their residents. The total response
rate was 70%.

Reyes

The LCA inventory integrates flows of energy, resources, and materials required for the
stages of pre-use, household use, and residents transport. shows the LCA scope accompanied
by inputs and outputs associated with processes examined in this analysis. First, the
manufacture of building components requires raw materials, energy, and water, which result in
waste and GHG emissions. Second, transporting the components to the construction side
requires the use of diesel, resulting in further GHG emissions. Third, the construction stage
requires energy, water, and building materials, but generates GHG emissions and construction
waste. Last, household use of the dwelling unit post-occupancy demands diesel, electricity, gas,
gasoline, and water; these result in further GHG emissions and waste. It is worth mentioning
that a sensitivity analysis was carried out to ensure the validity of LCA assumptions, and thus
empirical data from surveys was compared with peer-reviewed articles and statistics developed
by federal and local institutions2.

Figure 2 Housing Units Life Cycle Assessment Scope

Researchers who are interested in the results of this analysis can directly
contact the author

Beyond Just Light Bulbs: The Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Housing Sector in Mexico City

In order to estimate electricity flows, residents were asked how much they pay for their
electricity bill and the frequency of this payment. After that, applicable electricity rates,
measured in Mexican Pesos/kWh, were used to estimate flows of electricity (measured in units
of kWh). It was estimated that the median value of annual electricity use accounts for 1,300
kWh, which was divided by dwelling construction area and then multiplied by 50 years of service
life. Thus, electricity flows account for 1,625 kWh per square meter of habitable housing in a
50-year lifespan. In order to estimate flows of gas, residents were asked the type of gas they
use (natural or Liquid Propane gas), how much they pay for their gas bill, and the frequency of
this payment. Water flows in the household operating stage were estimated by asking the
number of people living in the household; the type of water technologies used, such as high-flow
or low-flow toilet; and daily patters of water use, such as the number of baths residents take per
day. After that, the Water Use Calculator provided by INFONAVIT was used to estimate daily
water use.
In order to estimate flows of gasoline and diesel, an origin-destiny survey was carried out. It
included questions regarding the type and the number of means of transportation used to
commute to job locations. These means of transportation include: walking, biking, bus, Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT), subway, and private cars. Moreover, questions on the time spent in every
means of transportation were included. After that, typical rates of gasoline and diesel usage per
unit time were used to estimate flows of gasoline and diesel, in units of volume (NREL, 2012).
Those rates were 2.25 liters of gasoline per hourly use of private car and 0.36 liters of diesel per
hourly use of buses. Therefore, typical annual gasoline and diesel use accounts for 1,125 and
203 liters, respectively. In order to estimate flows of gasoline and diesel per square meter of
habitable household in a fifty-year lifespan, gasoline and diesel consumption were divided by
dwelling constructed area and then multiplied by household lifespan.

Table 2 LCA inventory: materials, resources, and energy flows per square meter of habitable
household in a fifty-year lifespan
Input

Stage

LCA Phase

Suburban household

Concrete

Dwelling embodied

Pre-use

980 kg

Steel

Dwelling embodied

Pre-use

18 kg

Asphalt

Dwelling embodied

Pre-use

6 kg

PVC

Dwelling embodied

Pre-use

5kg

Water

Dwelling embodied

Pre-use

79 liters

Water

Household operating

Use

413 m3

Gas

Household operating

Use

430 liters

Electricity

Household operating

Use

1625 kWh

Gasoline

Residents Transport

Use

962 liters

Diesel

Residents Transport

Use

173 liters

The origin-destiny survey helped identify four patterns of residents transportation activities to
commute to job locations. First, residents tend to use at least two means of transportation to
commute to job locations. Residents spend an average of 140 minutes for daily commuting
round trip. Second, buses seem to be the main transportation mode, in terms of time, since 53%

Reyes

of total commuting trips are done by bus. Therefore, residents use buses for 1.27 hours per day.
However, most residents walk for several minutes before taking a bus. It was found that
residents in peripheral housing developments are unable to access any high-capacity transit
service, such as BRTs and subway. Third, residents use informal means of transportation to
commute, such as second-hand vans and low-capacity buses. Fourth, 47% of total commuting
trips are done using cars. This finding suggest that households living on the periphery remain
less likely to drive. However, residents use private cars for, on average, 1.09 hours per day.
Peripheral housing developments are explicitly designed to encourage car ownership, since
they provide room for parking in the front setback and because they have only one entry point.
In order to reach some places, residents have to walk much further than the length of the most
direct route that would exist if there were an interconnected street network.
Results.
LCA revealed that the total contribution of the housing unit to GHG emissions accounts for
3,750 kg CO2 equivalent per square meter of habitable household in a 50-year lifespan. It was
found that 92% of total GHG emissions occurs during the use phase that aggregates household
use and residents transport. Dwelling embodied energy3, contributes 8% household-operating
stage 42%, and residents transport 50% of total GHG emissions. See Figure 4.

Figure 4 Housing Unit's Contribution to GHG emissions

The LCA revealed that the use of gasoline and diesel that result from residents transport is the
principal contributor to GHG emissions with 50%, followed by the use of electricity with 22% and
gas with 20%.
Conclusion.
LCA exposed that residents transportation is the main contributor to GHG emissions in
suburban housing developments promoted by the Mexican federal government between 2000
and 2012. LCA findings elucidated the remarkable disconnection between housing policies,
which largely promoted new housing developments in the urban fringe and climate change
3

The manufacture of concrete is the main contributor to GHG emissions of dwelling

embodied energy, and it contributes to 7% of total GHG emissions.

Beyond Just Light Bulbs: The Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Housing Sector in Mexico City

policies in the housing sector, which have a disproportionate focus on promoting energy-efficient
technologies in peripheral housing developments. It is apparent that these GHG emissions
mitigation policies in the housing sector effectively disregarded urban density, which is by far the
leading factor determining the extent to which residents use energy to commute to their jobs
(Fuller & Crawford, 2011b; Lee & Lee, 2014; Stephan et al., 2012).
One possible avenue for GHG emissions mitigation in the housing sector that comprehensively
integrates housing policies and technological innovations is affordable housing densification in
central areas. Despite assumptions that Mexico City is already densely developed, scholars
argue that numerous vacant lots and underutilized buildings in central locations offer
opportunities for urban densification (Sullivan & Ward, 2012; UN, 2011). While federal housing
policies continue to facilitate government-financed housing developments on the urban
periphery, privately financed high-rise residential building development is increasingly occurring
in central locations (Eibenschutz Hartman & Benlliure B., 2009). Unfortunately, while such
redevelopment of central locations may contribute significantly to GHG mitigation, these highrise developments are priced out of reach for low-income people. Since wealthier people have
smaller households but utilize more space, the result of this gentrification process may be a
decline in the number of lower-income residents in some areas of the central city.
In addition, rehab housing strategies with energy-efficient technologies in central
locations may be another effective GHG emission mitigation strategy in the housing sector.
First, consolidated informal settlements placed in central locations that offer a large housing
stock with high levels of urban density could serve to implement rehab strategies with energy
efficient technologies. Energy-efficient technologies, such as solar water heaters and solar
panels, could significantly reduce energy use and attendant GHG emissions without inducing
car usage (Ward, Jimnez Huerta, & Virgilio, 2014). Second, existing housing developments
promoted by the federal government placed in central locations in Mexico City similarly offer
exceptional opportunities for rehab with energy-efficient technologies to more effectively mitigate
GHG emission in the housing sector in Mexico City.
Beyond the case of Mexico City, this investigation suggests that LCA represents a
powerful methodological approach to develop comprehensive GHG emission baselines for the
housing sector, which in turn can serve to encourage effective housing policies for mitigating
GHG emissions in the housing sector. A comprehensive GHG emissions baseline in the
housing sector is essential to design, evaluate and verify GHG mitigation strategies in the
housing sector over time. Mexico City could enable a better understanding of appropriate
climate change policymaking in the housing sector that could serve as reference to other
developing-world cities that aim at reaching Mexico Citys levels of urban and economic
development.
Acknowledgements.
The research and text have benefited greatly from Ricardo Ochoa, Bjorn Sletto, Jake
Wegmann, and Barbara Brown. I would also like to thank Centro Mario Molina for financial
support and assistance.
References
Borras, V. (2012). Ms de 1 milln de hipotecas verdes otorgadas y 3.8 millones de familias
beneficiadas | El Economista. El Economista. Retrieved from
http://eleconomista.com.mx/columnas/columna-especial-valores/2012/11/01/mas-1-millonhipotecas-verdes-otorgadas-38-millones-fam
Breheny, M. (1997). Urban compaction: feasible and acceptable? Cities, 14(4), 209217.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-2751(97)00005-X

Reyes

CONAVI. (2010). Cdigo de Edificacin de Vivienda. Retrieved April 27, 2014, from
http://www.cmic.org/comisiones/sectoriales/vivienda/biblioteca/archivos/CEV PDF.pdf
Corona Suarez, G. A., & May-Yam, K. E. (2013). Sustainable Practices in Mexican Housing
Projects to Reduce Emissions Effecting Climate Change. Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2346575
Ducci, J., Plascencia, V. Z., & De la Pea, M. E. (2013). Tratamiento de aguas residuales en
Mxico. Banco Internado de Desarrollo. Retrieved from
idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=37783778?
Eibenschutz Hartman, R., & Benlliure B., P. (2009). Mercado formal e informal de suelo.
Ewing, R., & Rong, F. (2008). The impact of urban form on U.S. residential energy use. Housing
Policy Debate, 19(1), 130. http://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2008.9521624
Fuller, R. J., & Crawford, R. H. (2011a). Impact of past and future residential housing
development patterns on energy demand and related emissions. Journal of Housing and
the Built Environment, 26, 165183. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-011-9212-2
Fuller, R. J., & Crawford, R. H. (2011b). Impact of past and future residential housing
development patterns on energy demand and related emissions. Journal of Housing and
the Built Environment, 26(2), 165183. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-011-9212-2
Guerra, E. (2014). The Built Environment and Car Use in Mexico City: Is the Relationship
Changing over Time? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(4), 394408.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X14545170
Hoornweg, D., Sugar, L., & Trejos Gomez, C. L. (2011). Cities and greenhouse gas emissions:
moving forward. Environment and Urbanization, 23(1), 207227.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0956247810392270
Lankao, P. R. (2007). How do Local Governments in Mexico City Manage Global Warming?
Local Environment, 12(5), 519535. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/login?
url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27777179&site=ehost-live
Lee, S., & Lee, B. (2014). The influence of urban form on GHG emissions in the U.S. household
sector. Energy Policy, 68(0), 534549. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.024
Norman, J., Maclean, H. L., Asce, M., & Kennedy, C. A. (2006). Comparing High and Low
Residential Density: Life-Cycle Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
(March), 1021.
NREL. (2012). U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database. Retrieved from
https://www.lcacommons.gov/nrel/search
Prez-Lombard, L., Ortiz, J., & Pout, C. (2008). A review on buildings energy consumption
information. Energy and Buildings, 40(3), 394398.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2007.03.007
Pradilla Cobos, E. (2005). Zona metropolitana del Valle de Mxico: megaciudad sin proyecto.
Ciudades: Revista del Instituto Universitario de Urbanstica de la Universidad de Valladolid.

Beyond Just Light Bulbs: The Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Housing Sector in Mexico City

Servicio de Publicaciones. Retrieved from http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?

codigo=2230701&info=resumen&idioma=ENG
Ramesh, T., Prakash, R., & Shukla, K. K. (2010). Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An
overview. Energy and Buildings, 42(10), 15921600.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.007
SEMARNAT. (2012). Quinta Comunicacin Nacional ante la Convencin Marco de las Naciones
Unidas sobre el Cambio Climtico. Retrieved from
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/natc/mexnc5s.pdf
Stephan, A., Crawford, R. H., & de Myttenaere, K. (2011). Towards a more holistic approach to
reducing the energy demand of dwellings. Procedia Engineering, 21, 10331041.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.2109
Stephan, A., Crawford, R. H., & de Myttenaere, K. (2012). Towards a comprehensive life cycle
energy analysis framework for residential buildings. Energy and Buildings, 55, 592600.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.09.008
Sullivan, E., & Ward, P. M. (2012). Sustainable housing applications and policies for low-income
self-build and housing rehab. HABITAT INTERNATIONAL, 36(2), 312323.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.10.009
The World Bank. (2013). Mexico Seeks to Adapt to Climate Change and Mitigate its Effects.
Retrieved May 6, 2015, from http://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2013/04/17/mexicoseeks-to-adapt-to-climate-change-and-mitigate-its-effects
UN. (2011). Estado de las Ciudades de Mxico 2011. Mxico, D.F.
Ward, P. M., Jimnez Huerta, E. R., & Virgilio, M. M. Di. (2014). Intensive Case Study
Methodology for the Analysis of Self-Help Housing Consolidation, Household Organization
and Family Mobility. Current Urban Studies, 02(02), 88104.
http://doi.org/10.4236/cus.2014.220100
Ward, Peter; Jimnez, Edith; Di Virgilio, Mercedes. Housing Policy in Latin American Cities: A
New Generation of Strategies and Approaches for 2016 UN-Habitat III | Lyndon B. Johnson
School of Public Affairs. New York: Routledge, 2015.
http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/publications/6199.