A top-down approach for implementation of Environmental Product Declarations in Mexico’s housing sector

  • Victor Alberto Arvizu-PiñaEmail author
  • Albert Cuchí-Burgos
  • Itzia Gabriela Barrera-Alarcón



A solid legislative framework and a strong sense of environmental sensitivity by the government are some of the elements that have contributed to a sustained development of Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) in developed countries, especially within the building sector. In Mexico, a big portion of the sustainability strategy from this sector has been focused on social housing. For this reason, the main objective of this research is to analyze a possible path to incorporate EPDs as part of this sustainability strategy, determining its possible reach and limitations in the current context of Mexican environmental legislative framework for housing sector.


General information about the legislative framework supporting the government strategy for sustainability in the housing sector is presented. The main instruments and programs that have been developed to accomplish this strategy are analyzed. This analysis is made mainly through the National Strategy for Sustainable Housing (NSSH) because it organizes and correlates most of these instruments. An analysis is made on how the life cycle approach and EPDs are considered within the NSSH.

Results and discussion

There are instruments contemplating the life cycle approach and even the use of EPDs to promote the sustainability of the housing sector; however, these instruments are not part of the NSSH. Despite this, the majority of housing developers know and use them during their housing design process, but they do not do it properly, since they are unaware of the LCA methodology and EPDs. So, a proposal is made to fully incorporate the use of EPDs as part of the government’s sustainability strategy for the Mexican housing sector. The Sisevive-Ecohouse (the only official instrument in Mexico for the housing evaluation) is proposed as a platform. Incorporating the instruments that already contemplate the life cycle approach and the use of EPDs as part of the NSSH is also part of the proposed strategy.


The strategy for housing sustainability in Mexico is mainly focused on the houses’ use phase, so a paradigm shift on this strategy has to be made, where life cycle approach must be included. There is feasibility for EPDs to be used for this purpose from existing instruments and programs. Nevertheless, the lack of legislative connection in addition to the obstacles for EPD implementation in an emergent economy as Mexico could slow down its development.


Emerging economy countries Environmental policies EPD Housing sector Life cycle assessment Mexico 



  1. Arvizu-Piña VA (2018) Las Declaraciones Ambientales de Producto como instrumento de mejora ambiental en el sector de la construcción en México. El sector de la vivienda como enfoque inicial. Universitat Politècnica de CatalunyaGoogle Scholar
  2. Arvizu-Piña VA, Cuchí Burgos A (2017) Promoting sustainability in Mexico’s building sector via environmental product declarations. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:1744–1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arvizu-Piña VA, Cuchí-Burgos A, Chargoy Amador JP (2019) A bottom-up approach for implementation of environmental product declarations in Mexico’s housing sector. Int J Life Cycle Assess.
  4. Braune A, Wittstock B (2011) Measuring environmental sustainability: the use of LCA based building performance indicators. In: Life Cycle Manag ConfGoogle Scholar
  5. CADIS (2014) EPD Rolan Rockwool insulation board. 1–20Google Scholar
  6. CADIS, ADDERE (2015) EPD Latin America. In: Hub Lat. Am. Int. EPD® Syst. Accessed 30 Jul 2016
  7. CCA (2008) Edificación Sustentable en América del Norte. Oportunidades y Retos, Quebec, CanadáGoogle Scholar
  8. Chevalier J, Lebert A, Schiopu N et al (2010) ELODIE : a tool for the environmental assessment of building, pp 67–77Google Scholar
  9. CIDOC, SHF (2015) Estado Actual de la Vivienda en México 2015Google Scholar
  10. CONAVI (2007) Código de Edificación de Vivienda, 2nd edn, pp 301–303Google Scholar
  11. CONAVI (2008) Criterios e indicadores para desarrollos habitacionales sustentables. 1–65Google Scholar
  12. CONAVI (2014) Programa Nacional de Vivienda (PNV) 2014-2018. 1–33Google Scholar
  13. Del Borghi A (2013) LCA and communication: environmental product declaration. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:293–295. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franzitta V, La Gennusa M, Peri G et al (2011) Toward a European Eco-label brand for residential buildings: holistic or by-components approaches? Energy 36:1884–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frischknecht R, Wyss F, Knöpfel SB, Stolz P (2015) Life cycle assessment in the building sector: analytical tools, environmental information and labels. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:421–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fundación IDEA (2013) Estrategia Nacional para la Vivienda Sustentable. British Embasy in Mexico, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  17. Gazulla C, Oregi X (2015) SOFIAS: uso de Declaraciones Ambientales de Producto ( DAP ) para el análisis de ciclo de vida de edificios. In: World SB 2014, pp 0–15Google Scholar
  18. González A, Sánchez A, Domenico DS (2014) Ecómetro, collaborative work project to develop a design and measure tool of ecology in architecture. In: World SB14, pp 1–36Google Scholar
  19. González-Colin M, Suppen Reynaga N, Felix-Acuña R (2011) The Mexican life cycle inventory database - MEXICANIUH. In: CILCA 2011, México. Veracruz, México, pp 257–259Google Scholar
  20. Haapio A, Viitaniemi P (2008) A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environ Impact Assess Rev 28:469–482. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ingwersen WW, Stevenson MJ (2011) Can we compare the environmental performance of this product to that one? An update on the development of product category rules and future challenges toward alignment. J Clean Prod 24:102–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Isasa M, Gazulla C, Zabalza I et al (2014) EnerBuiLCA: life cycle assessment for energy efficiency in buildings. In: World SB 2014, Barcelona, pp 1–32Google Scholar
  23. ISO (2006) ISO 14025: Environmental labels and declarations-type III environmental declarations-principles and proceduresGoogle Scholar
  24. Jönsson K (2000) Communicating the environmental characteristics of products. The use of environmental product declarations in the building, energy and automotive industries. Lund UniversityGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaineg R, Kraft G, Neuhauss W et al (2013) NAMA Apoyada para la Vivienda Sustentable en México – Acciones de Mitigación y Paquetes FinancierosGoogle Scholar
  26. Lasvaux S, Gantner J, Wittstock B, Bazzana M, Schiopu N, Saunders T, Gazulla C, Mundy JA, Sjöström C, Fullana-i-Palmer P, Barrow-Williams T, Braune A, Anderson J, Lenz K, Takacs Z, Hans J, Chevalier J (2014) Achieving consistency in life cycle assessment practice within the European construction sector: the role of the EeBGuide InfoHub. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1783–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Minkov N, Schneider L, Lehmann A, Finkbeiner M (2015) Type III environmental declaration programmes and harmonization of product category rules: status quo and practical challenges. J Clean Prod 94:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nemry F, Uihlein A, Colodel CM, Wetzel C, Braune A, Wittstock B, Hasan I, Kreißig J, Gallon N, Niemeier S, Frech Y (2010) Options to reduce the environmental impacts of residential buildings in the European Union—potential and costs. Energy Build 42:976–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. OJEU (2011) Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EECGoogle Scholar
  30. Passer A, Kreiner H, Maydl P (2012) Assessment of the environmental performance of buildings: a critical evaluation of the influence of technical building equipment on residential buildings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:1116–1130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Passer A, Lasvaux S, Allacker K, de Lathauwer D, Spirinckx C, Wittstock B, Kellenberger D, Gschösser F, Wall J, Wallbaum H (2015a) Environmental product declarations entering the building sector: critical reflections based on 5 to 10 years experience in different European countries. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1199–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Passer A, Wall J, Kreiner H, Maydl P, Höfler K (2015b) Sustainable buildings, construction products and technologies: linking research and construction practice. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo (2013) Plan Nacional de Desarrollo (PND) 2013-2018Google Scholar
  34. Schenck R (2010) A roadmap to environmental product declarations in the United States. United States of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  35. Secretaría de Economía (2013) Norma Mexicana NMX-AA-164-SCFI-2013 Sustainable Building.-Criteria and Minimal Environmental RequirementsGoogle Scholar
  36. SEDATU, CONAVI (2016) Política de Vivienda Sustentable en México. La NAMA como parte de la transformación del sector de viviendaGoogle Scholar
  37. SEMARNAT, SHF, INFONAVIT, CONAVI (2011) Vivienda Sustentable en MexicoGoogle Scholar
  38. SOFTEC (2012) Mexican housing overview. México, D.FGoogle Scholar
  39. Sunyer P, del Valle Isla AEP (2008) Quince años de Desarrollo Sostenible en México, Sripta Nov XII, pp 1–19Google Scholar
  40. Wallhagen M, Glaumann M (2011) Design consequences of differences in building assessment tools: a case study. Build Res Inf 39:16–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wallhagen M, Glaumann M, Eriksson O, Westerberg U (2013) Framework for detailed comparison of building environmental assessment tools. Buildings 3:39–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Arquitectura, Urbanismo e Ingeniería CivilUniversidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de MéxicoMexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Barcelona School of Architecture, Department of Architectural TechnologyUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations