Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion: The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey,

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion: The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the MSc Building and Urban Design in Development

10615 words

MarĂ­a Cristina Mena Arjona

The Bartlett Development Planning Unit University College London 01 September 2017

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

acknowledgements This dissertation is for all those who made it possible for me to study the MSc BUDD at UCL, and especially to all those who accompanied me along the way.

I would like the thank the Government of Mexico and the State of Nuevo Leรณn, CONACYT, and I2T2 for making this possible, and to my supervisor Ruth McLeod for her interest, support and valuable feedback.

I dedicate this work to my classmates and professors from whom I learned the most, to my family for their love and support, and above of all to Lorenzo, this dissertation is all thanks to you

3

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

4

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

Table of contents Introduction 7 Chapter 1. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

11

1.1 Urban Sprawl as a Mode for Social Exclusion

11

The costs of sprawl and social exclusion

13

1.4 Agents and Causes of Social Exclusion

25

Sprawl 11 Causes of Sprawl 13

1.2 The Multiple Dimensions of Social Exclusion 1.3 The Relationship Between Poverty, Inequality and Social Exclusion

19 23

Chapter 2. Analytical Framework 27 Chapter 3. Mexico and Monterrey 31 3.1 National Context 31 3.2 Monterrey 35

Chapter 4. Analysis and Results 39 4.1 Analysis 39 Housing Patterns in Monterrey 39 Mobility Patterns in Monterrey 43

4.2 Results 48

Conclusion and Recommendations 51 List of Figures 55 Acronyms 57 References 59 Appendix 67

5

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

6

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

Introduction Introduction In Mexico, the second half of the twentieth century marked a rapid growth shift from a rural to an urban nation. According to data from the National Population Commission (CONAPO, 2007), 20% of the population lived in 55 cities in the 1940’s, whereas, by 2010, the percentage of the population living in 384 cities is of 72.3%. More significantly, from 1980 until 2010, the land extension of Mexican cities (which have over 50.000 inhabitants) has expanded 6 times its size. Compared to the population increase by only 1.9 times over the same period, the dramatic result is a 67% decrease in population density (ITDP, 2013).

The combination of low population density and large extensions of urban surface has led Mexican cities into a dangerous cycle of sprawl and disconnection. The main causes of this cycle have been: a weak and contradictory legal framework, neoliberalist policies that deregulate planning in cities and strong incentives towards private transportation and car ownership. Thus, cities in Mexico have grown in a dispersed and disintegrated way that causes social segregation and confinement, fosters the proliferation of the informal sector and limits the possibility of social and economic participation for its residents. More particularly, deregulation policies and market-enabling strategies related to housing and mobility have resulted in the exclusion of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable sectors of the population.

Social exclusion is often referred to as the preclusion of an individual or a group from the prevailing social system and its rights and privileges, typically as a result of poverty or the fact of belonging to a minority social group. Thereon, Sergio Zermeño (2005) remarks: “Mexico is segregated between the included and the excluded, between the rich and the poor, and what once was characterized by a an inclusive policy and social space, today is separated by a virtual wall”. Even when topics such as inequality, poverty and margination are recurrent in research and policy development, it appears as if no room is left for addressing different concepts that can capture the living conditions of people beyond factors restricted by material issues (García Romo, 2013). Therefore, the approach on social exclusion can provide a new focus to complement studies related to material precariousness in Mexico; and can identify, in a more holistic way, the living conditions of its citizens. This way, a focus on social exclusion can complement current urban social studies in margination and poverty.

This dissertation aims to discover what is the relationship between sprawl and social exclusion in Monterrey, Mexico. It looks at the way in which housing and mobility play a relevant role in the city and explores the question by examining to what degree does policy address the relationship between sprawl and social exclusion.

This dissertation is divided in four chapters. The first chapter provides an analysis of sprawl as a mode of social exclusion, and explores the multiple approaches to social exclusion in relation to ‘poverty’ and ‘inequality’. The second chapter proposes an analytical framework that unpacks the modes of social exclusion into distributional material and non-material exclusion and relational social and cultural exclusion. The third chapter will give an insight into the urban transformation processes of Monterrey and the multiple manifestations of sprawl development. It will also apply the analytical framework proposed to Monterrey, analyzing to what extent housing and mobility are being drivers of social exclusion through distributional and relational modes. The fourth chapter provides and analysis of the case and discusses the results obtained from the data collected. Finally, this dissertation will propose some conclusions and alternatives to reverse the processes of exclusion identified before.

7

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

There are a number of limitations that this dissertation had to take into account, such as the limited time available to conduct a in depth research and analysis of a relatively new, but equally discussed topic, and the constraints related to availability and reliability of data. The concept of sprawl as a creator of social exclusion is at the same time an interesting and debated subject to analyze. The newness of the matter is represented by the fact that affects urban development from a large number of angles, which are not only related to urban planning, but also to social, civil, political and economic norms and dynamics. This is also why, it might be difficult to summarize and present such a broad spectrum of underlying practices in a completely thorough manner and without being generic. In order to tackle these issues, this dissertation concentrates of a few elements related to sprawl and social exclusion and applies the theory to the case of Monterrey to show the practicalities of an extended literature. This dissertation wants to provide valuable inputs and suggest a holistic approach to urban development in modern cities

8

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

9

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

10

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

chapter 1: literature review 1.1 sprawl as a mode of social exclusion This section will first give an insight on the literature around the phenomenon of sprawl and its characteristics and will be followed by the causes of sprawl (and the ways in which systems are involved) and finally, the effects of sprawl. Two modes in which sprawl causes social exclusion will be analyzed: housing and mobility.

Sprawl

‘Urban sprawl’ is a concept which has been discussed widely, but has no agreed definition. The difficulty in creating a definitive definition is rooted in the fact that the term is usually described by a combination of its causes, effects or characteristics. Sprawling cities are the opposite of compact cities (EEA, 2006) and “typify an increasing trend of undesirable effects” (Inostroza, Baur, & Csaplovics, 2013).

This dissertation will consider urban sprawl as a specific pattern of scattered or leapfrog and horizontally unbounded urban expansion towards the fringes of a city that is characterized by low density1, single and segregated land uses, commercial strip development and high (or total) dependency on the automobile (Bruegmann, 2005; Bullard, Johnson, & Torres, 2000; Burchell & Mukherji, 2003; Chin, 2002; Ewing & Hamidi, 2015; Galster et al., 2001; Gillham, 2002; Schneider & Woodcock, 2008). This pattern of development, which can be residential or nonresidential, is typically manifested by the expansion of urban areas over surrounding rural or exurban areas.

In order to frame sprawl, Lewyn (2012, 2017) identifies two main patterns of sprawl: where cities grow and how cities grow. On one side, where cities grow is determined by real estate development that turns peripheral rural areas into housing estates or suburbs. On the other side, how cities grow is determined by development fueled by intense car use rather than public transport, bicycles or pedestrians (ibid). Thus, social exclusion is manifested through these two patterns of sprawl: peripheral housing and car-oriented development.

A similar concept, suburbanization is defined either as the spread of suburban development patterns, or the proliferation of sprawl forms of urbanization, across a region or nation (Gillham, 2002).

The terminology is relevant since, many times, the literature uses the terms sprawl and suburbanization interchangeably.

To understand the dimensions of sprawl graphically and comparatively, fig 1 illustrates a comparison of various city diagrams showing the relation between density levels and land expansion. The figure helps to set density in context: “place-oriented differences factor into the definition of sprawl. Densities in the United States overall are roughly one-tenth of those in Western Europe; in turn, Western European density is much lower than that of Japan and only a fraction of Hong Kong” (TRB, 1998).

To identify sprawl from other forms of city growth, a set of indicators exist: lack of functional open public space, poor accessibility between residences and out-of-home activities, and inadequate accessibility to essential land uses such as housing, jobs, and public services like schools, hospitals, and mass transit (Bullard et al., 2000; Ewing, 1997).

1 Density in terms of sprawl represents the relationship between the number of people living in or using an area and a given land area, which gives some indication of the intensity of land use (Chin, 2002).

11

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

hong kong

peak 111,065 pp/km2

new york city

peak 58,530 pp/km2

london

peak 17,324 pp/km2

mexico city

peak 49,088 pp/km2

sao paulo

peak 29,704 pp/km2

shanghai

peak 74,370 pp/km2

istambul

peak 77,267 pp/km2

mumbai

peak 121,312 pp/km2

johannesburg

peak 42,398 pp/km2

Figure 1 – Density comparison (Source: LSE Cities, 2011)

12

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

Causes of sprawl

The causes for the proliferation of sprawl across the world seem, as varied as its characteristics. Scholars and planners (Bruegmann, 2005; Bullard et al., 2000; Chin, 2002; Ewing, 1997; P. Gordon & Richardson, 2000, 2001; Inostroza et al., 2013) blame the lack of urban planning and control; the technological innovation which allowed a shift in transportation patterns and a larger consumption and use of vehicles; or the demand of consumers for suburban land1. However, alongside, there is an overarching cause that most of the literature suggests as the trigger of urban sprawl: the capitalist system specifically reflected in neoliberalist policies and intervention.

Neoliberalism is the term used to refer to the implementation of classic liberal economic principles such as individualism, freedom of choice, rationality, self-interest, utilization of market mechanisms, and non-intervention of the state into the social service sector (Caplan & Ricciardelli, 2016). These principles are manifest through several political strategies, which include: welfare capitalism, privatization, contract service delivery, individual savings strategies, voucher systems, consumer-directed spending and labor market activation (ibid).

Despite the idea that markets are self-corrective capable of providing optimal social outcomes in which neoliberalism is rooted (Filion, Kramer, & Sands, 2016), many support the argument that sprawl is a form of market failure. As an example, the land market meets none of the requirements that a perfectly functioning market requires2 (Ewing, 1997).

Peck and Tickell (2010) argue that neoliberalism unfolds in a ‘roll-back’ and a ‘roll-out’ stage. The first entails constraining government responsibilities to enable markets in the provision of social goods such as housing and transportation. The second consists of using the remaining state resources to support the operation of markets (Filion et al., 2016). This involves the creation of subsidies in gasoline; government expenditure in roads and highway infrastructure promoting the use of private cars (Lewyn, 2017); the segregation of land uses (zoning); and setting maximum densities in neighborhoods (Gough et al., 2006).

It is precisely these ‘roll-back’ and ‘roll-out’ factors (or lack of market regulation and free market-enabling measures) which have led to the proliferation of the sprawl phenomenon in cities.

The costs of sprawl and social exclusion

The Transportation Research Board (1998) differentiates the ‘costs’ of sprawl as physical, economic, temporal, environmental and social, as it can involve impacts on individuals, communities and society.

Drawing from the literature (Ewing, 1997; Ewing, Meakins, Hamidi, & Nelson, 2014; Gillham, 2002; Jargowsky, 2001; Lewyn, 2017; Power, 2001; TRB, 1998) the most common effects of sprawl are presented below: 1. Abandonment, depopulation and economic decay of the city center caused by the displacement of people to the suburb. Decay includes physical deterioration and the proliferation of crime and social problems.

2. High costs of infrastructure (roads, water and sewer systems) and maintenance caused by large extensions of urban area in relation to low densities and segregated land uses.

3. Higher taxes are needed to cover the previous expenses and compensate the lack of a stable tax base per capita due to low densities.

4. Environmental costs resulting from the loss of agricultural and resource land, and the excessive use of motorized vehicles such as: air pollution, water degradation, and high-energy consumption.

1 In contexts such as the European, some authors suggest that sprawl is a product of new modes of transport networks (such as the light railway) which enable access to undeveloped areas outside the city (Chin, 2002).

2 “Many buyers and sellers, good information about prices and quality, homogeneous products, and no external costs or benefits” (Ewing, 1997).

13

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

5. Health problems related to forceful use of cars: obesity, stress and anxiety problems (Novaco, Stokols, & Milanesi, 1990; TRB, 1998) and automobile-related death rates.

6. Social exclusion is caused since “sprawl fueled growth pushes people further and further apart geographically, politically, economically, and socially” (Bullard et al., 2000).

Figure 2 - Drivers and impacts of sprawl (Source: author) As mentioned before, the two main patterns of sprawl are where and how cities grow, namely housing towards the periphery and car-oriented development. The ways in which social exclusion is manifest in both patterns will be explained next in more depth.

The process of suburbanization or residential expansion towards the peripheries is characterized by single-use low density urban expansions. While in the US suburbanization of high class neighborhoods (and inner city poverty enclaves) constitute the common development trend (Violich, 1987), in the Latin American context this process is driven by both the poor and the rich. Low-income parts of the population seek low cost housing alternatives, while high-class groups pursue protection, exclusivity and contact with the natural environment (Mier y Terán, Vázquez, & Ziccardi, 2012). In particular, poor peripheral expansions can be presented as formal developments or informal and irregular settlements.

On one hand, irregular-informal settlements have become for many the only possibility to access land and shelter. The low income of families, together with the lack of viable supply both from the formal market and the state, forces people to find solutions settling down in illegal land devoid of services (Iracheta, 2015). While this phenomenon is not intrinsic of fringe zones, it is true that far removed, un-urbanized and often risky zones result in land encroachment due to the lack of feasibility to be urbanized by legal mechanisms (García Ortega, 2001). The ‘no city’ of the excluded is a clearly planned medium to delegate to the poor the construction of the urban extension (Acosta & Bonfiglio, 2015).

14

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

On the other hand, the market and market-enabling policies have been a decisive factor in determining where people live (Lee et al., 1995) by influencing the concentration of single-income groups (poor or rich) in particular areas (Gough et al., 2006). Either in the form of social or high-class residential developments, this leads to residential segregation1 and the enforcement of social inequalities.

Rich and poor residential developments have similar manifestations with different social outcomes. On one side, the rich tend to isolate themselves inside ‘edge cities’ and gated communities which represent exclusionary enclaves separated from other parts of the city by social, economic, and physical barriers forbidding access to undesirable elements (Barry, 2001; Borsdorf & Hidalgo, 2008; Le Goix, 2005; Marcuse, 1997). Discrimination, housing costs, and walls and gates which constitute an undeniable sign of exclusion (Barry, 2001). “Sprawl is related to poverty and inequality mainly because it creates a greater degree of separation between income classes” (Jargowsky, 2001).

On the other side, gated middle-and-low-income social housing developments may also be found, especially in Latin American (Borsdorf & Hidalgo, 2008). However, people move in such developments out of necessity and lack of choice. Neoliberalist housing policies generate deprivation by pushing middleand-low-income groups to the fringes of the city in developments difficult to access and with poor quality housing allocations (Lee et al., 1995).

Figure 3 - Housing developments in Mexico (Source: Repogle, 2014 Available at: https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/mexicans-areabandoning-their-suburban-dreams-and-their-birdcage-homes )

1

Residential segregation, in the process of urban sprawl, is the degree to which racial or class groups live separately form one another and is marked by poor concentrations in some areas and wealthy in others (Jargowsky, 2001; Massey & Denton, 1988; Zhao, 2013)

15

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

Geographic location plays a role by creating a barrier to access employment and basic public services such as healthcare, transport and education (Cáceres-Seguel, 2017; Lee et al., 1995), denying the opportunity of residents to participate in the social, economic, political, and cultural life of the city (Burchardt et al., 2002b). Whereas the rich can afford buying a car to reach daily activities, the bestpositioned of the poor are forced into investing large proportions of their already limited income on car ownership2 (Banister, 1994; Delbosc & Currie, 2011). For those who cannot afford owning a private vehicle the lack of access to jobs and transport infrastructure generates a separation between housing and employment and therefore leads to a spatial mismatch (Blumenberg & Manville, 2004; Kain, 1992).

Peripheral housing developments have intrinsic characteristics which are difficult to change (location, transport infrastructure, housing and economic base), which consequently lead to a process of residential sorting in which the most disadvantaged people are concentrated in the least advantaged neighborhoods (Lupton & Power, 2001). Once the concentration of disadvantage is established, neighborhoods acquire even more damaging characteristics (ibid) such as “vacant and dilapidated housing units, unemployment, gangs and violence, and widespread drug and alcohol abuse” (Jargowsky, 2001). Peripheral housing estates usually develop into ghettos where the people are “isolated in depopulated urban wastelands” (ibid).

Suburbanization contributes to the generation of social exclusion by blocking access to basic opportunities and forbidding participation in society and leads to deprivation and increasing poverty (Gough et al., 2006).

Regarding the second pattern of sprawl development, car-oriented development is a relevant factor in the generation of social exclusion because it implies the possibility of mobility for only a sector of society, and leads to the detriment of their life chances and well-being (Lucas, 2012). Thus, transport-related social exclusion is “the process by which people are prevented from participating in the economic, political and social life due to insufficient mobility in an environment built around the assumption of high mobility” (Kenyon et al., 2002). Transport poverty occurs when the most socially disadvantaged also experience transport disadvantages (Lucas, 2012).

Transport-related social exclusion is determined by geographical location, physical barriers, affordability of transport costs, and time constraints (Church et al., 2000). The excluded are those who cannot or do not use a car to transport, namely the poor, elderly, children, pedestrians and public transport users.

These forms of exclusion are caused by neoliberal policies which prioritize, incentivize and induce the ownership of cars (Bullard et al., 2000; Lewyn, 2017) and discourage public transport use. Incentives include: subsidies in fuels, access to automotive credits, and large investments in roads and road infrastructure.

Meanwhile, less money is invested in public transport resulting in inefficiency and decrease in quality (Ewing, 1997; Zhao, 2013). Low population densities, large land extensions, and low demand for public transport (result of increased car use) also mean that cities cannot sustain a system efficiently due to the high investments required in relation to low use, hence quality further declines (Gough et al., 2006; Power, 2001). In Latin America, inefficiency in public transport services is caused by franchised multiple management which complicates the task of metropolitan administration and seeks profit before efficacy (Violich, 1987). Low quality is shown in the irregularity of the services long travel times, high costs, insecurity and lack of signalization and infrastructure (Gough et al., 2006; Violich, 1987; Zhao, 2013).

Beyond transport modes, car-oriented development comes with a set of social impacts. First, “transportation inequity concerns inequality and unfairness in the distribution of transport-related impacts” (Zhao & Li, 2016). When public transport is inconvenient, expensive and inaccessible, it creates 2 In these areas, the necessary ownership of a car, rather than a sign of affluence, is a cause of deprivation because of the financial burden that it implies (Gray, 2004).

16

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

a burden for people who have no choice meaning “a trade-off between satisfying personal needs and overcoming spatial and social constraints” (ibid). In many contexts, such as Latin America, car use is linked to status, while cars hold a high-status, public transport has a low-status (Gough et al., 2006).

Second, social relations are deteriorated by the increment in hours spent inside vehicles and the minimization of social contact3 (Power, 2001). This isolation puts people in a condition of competition with others (including pedestrians) where traffic is congested, leading to ‘road rage’ and a decline in standards of civility (Barry, 2001).

Third, the widening of roads allowing an increase in speeds causes traffic accidents, cuts through communities and threatens pedestrians’4 security (Jacobs, 1972; Lewyn, 2017; Oliva Serrano, 2011).

Despite the fact that half of traffics accident deaths each year concern pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and public transport users , even the measures to reduce them are oriented to protect the occupants of the vehicles (WHO, 2009). As in the case of transport, no investment is done on pedestrian infrastructure resulting in a lack of sidewalks, pedestrian traffic lights and crossings and ultimately in a threat to their security and exclusion.

Figure 4 - Theoretical approach (Source: Author) 3 Car users have begun to perceive themselves ‘dwelling-in-the-car’ rather than ‘dwelling-on-the-road’, starting to believe they have the right to use cars unrestricted of any social consideration, almost as if the car were an extension of their own body (Gough et al., 2006; Urry, 2000).

4 Those who by preference or necessity walk as a mode of transportation.

17

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

18

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

1.2 the multiple dimensions of social exclusion Social Exclusion The concept of “social exclusion” became popular in the latter part of in the twentieth century. The expression is attributed to the French republican René Lenoir who made reference in the 70s to the elderly, the disabled, and the social ‘misfits’ as ‘the excluded’ (‘les éxclus’) (Lenoir, 1974; Sen, 2000). This broad definition aimed to view social exclusion “as a threat to France’s Republican model of integration based on the ideas of citizenship and social solidarity” (Peters & Besley, 2014).

The concept has since had a mayor foray in the political environment of the developed world. During the 1990’s, exclusion became a key priority to address in the government policy of European Union members (Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman, 2007; Sen, 2000), and “shifted the debate away from class inequality and income redistribution at large” (Peters & Besley, 2014). By contrast, in Latin America, most research on the matter has been conducted by international organisms (such as ILO, UNDP, and IDB), and it has seldom been addressed by governments for the creation of policies, as opposed to concepts such as poverty and inequality (García Romo, 2013). Nonetheless, the study of exclusion maintains the same crucial relevance to tackle today’s most pressing social challenges.

Among the literature, different approaches to define social exclusion are found. The three most common ones are barriers to access, failure of participation and deprivation of opportunities.

The first definition refers to barriers affecting access to rights, opportunities and resources, such as housing, healthcare, education, childcare, transport and employment. A special focus is placed on the position of citizens in relation to such services (Lee, National Federation of Housing Associations, & NFHA, 1995). This definition is also linked to the rights to social citizenship described by the European Commission (2000) as follows: “the extent of social exclusion calls on the responsibility of society to ensure equal opportunities for all. This includes equal access to the labor market, education, healthcare, and to decision-making and participation”. Therefore, having equal access to such opportunities should be a universal right.

The barriers that block accessing basic opportunities lead to a failure to participate in society and therefore to the second common definition of social exclusion. This definition of exclusion refers to four levels of participation: economic, political, cultural and social. More in detail, social participation divides into interaction and activities. Likewise, Burchardt, Le Grand and Piachaud (2002a) identify four dimensions of participation: Consumption (the capacity to buy goods and services), Production (the participation in economically or socially valuable activities), Political engagement (the involvement in local or national decision making), and Social interaction (the integration with family, friends and community).

In this sense, an individual is socially excluded if (for reasons beyond control) he or she cannot participate in the social activities of his or her geographic place of residence, regardless of his or her intention to participate (Burchardt, Le Grand, & Piachaud, 1999).

Other approaches related to participation, explore the issues of relation and connectivity. The former relate to “inadequate social participation, lack of integration and lack of power” (Lee et al., 1995). The

19

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

latter concern the “ability to connect with the services and facilities” in order to fully participate in society (Church, Frost, & Sullivan, 2000). Both approaches raise an awareness of people’s geographic location in the process and impact of exclusion. Later in this chapter the concrete ways in which this condition becomes manifest will be described.

The third definition of social exclusion turns towards an approach on deprivation and disadvantage.

On one hand, Peter Lee (1995) defines social exclusion as “persistent and systematic multiple deprivation”.

He identifies four aspects of social exclusion: Compound nature of disadvantage, which creates exclusion; Persistence of disadvantage over time; Concentration of disadvantage on population groups or areas and; Resistance of problems to existing or traditional policy solutions.

The four elements combined form an insuperable barrier that divides the life chances of the disadvantaged and those of the rest of the population (ibid). This approach is also related to Sen’s (2000) idea of capability deprivation as “the lack of the ability to live a minimally decent life”. It considers inclusion to social relations as a valuable dimension, since exclusion leads to exponential deprivations and limitations of living opportunities. Hence, it also implies a connection with exclusion as a failure of participation.

Drawing from the three common approaches to social exclusion, this dissertation will consider it as a “multidimensional concept that is operationalized as a combination of material deprivation, insufficient access to social rights, a low degree or lack of participation and a lack of normative integration” (Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman, 2007).

Beyond the definition, it is relevant to note as well other concepts that are intrinsic or strongly related to social exclusion: Social Inclusion

Social inclusion can be defined in terms of reintegration (Lenoir, 1974; Peters & Besley, 2014) of a group or individual to society. Together with exclusion forms a dichotomy that is linked to a conception of in-out. However, there are also some forms of inclusionary exclusion since, “the discourse of inclusion avoids confronting the question of justice: one can be included in any social arrangement in an unjust fashion” (Gough et al., 2006).

Social Isolation

Social Isolation is defined as “the absence of social cohesion” (Barry, 2001) that occurs when a particular group or individual is isolated from the rest of society. Social isolation can occur when low or high income groups inhibit or prevent themselves from participating in mainstream institutions (ibid). It is said that the wealth of high income groups allows them to keep out fellow citizens through barriers (ibid). An example of high income social isolation are gated communities. Therefore, the issue “is one in which a minority is in a position to exclude a majority” (Barry, 2001). As in this example, when isolation is done voluntarily, it can also be linked to the idea of self-exclusion.

Marginalization

20

Marginalization is “the social and economic process of individuals or groups being pushed to the margins or excluded from society. These processes can work discursively and materially, and operate implicitly or explicitly, to stigmatize and discriminate against people, and to deny them equal positioning and rights in society.” (Castree, Kitchin, &

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

Rogers, 2013). Marginality differs from social exclusion in its European sense (Roberts, 2004). For example, it implies that people are outside of formal welfare institutions such as education, healthcare and the formal labor system. Thus, social exclusion derives then from a differentiated inclusion in the social system (ibid).

Social Segregation

Segregation is a spatial outcome of spatial processes (Harris, 2011). Social segregation refers to the isolation or clustering of some groups within some places more than others.

This is an outcome of social rules, processes and institutions acting upon different economic, cultural or ethnic groups (ibid). In any case, segregation is “a pejorative term to describe a spatial patterning that is socially divisive and which social policy should seek to remedy� (ibid). Weather voluntarily or not, self-inflicted or against another, it can contribute to deepen social exclusion in society.

21

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

22

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

1.3 The relationship between Poverty, Inequality and Social Exclusion Social exclusion is a concept that is commonly related to and confused with poverty and inequality.

Even for some, social exclusion “is simply a fashionable way of talking about poverty or even about a subset of the poor” (Burchardt et al., 2002b).

In the case of poverty, different sources of literature make a distinction between three types: Absolute, Relative and Hybrid or Overall (D. Gordon & Townsend, 2000; Gough et al., 2006; Sen, 1983, 2000; UN, 1995). First, absolute poverty refers to deprivation of basic human needs (food, water, sanitation, shelter, etc.) (Gough et al., 2006; UN, 1995). Second, relative poverty focuses on the distribution of income between different social groups, rather than its absolute level (Gough et al., 2006).

Thirdly, poverty has been recently considered as “relative to the demands society makes on the individual” (Gough et al., 2006). Therefore, overall and hybrid poverty relate to the “minimum resources needed to participate in the main social practices of society” (ibid). This approach on poverty is strongly related to Sen’s (2000) idea of poverty as capability deprivation described above.

The literature on social exclusion differentiates itself from the literature on poverty by affirming that while the former is qualitative, the latter is quantitative (Gough et al., 2006; Saraceno, 2001). It considers lack or level of material resources as the only indicator for inequality, absolute and relative poverty (Barry, 2001; Burchardt et al., 2002b; Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman, 2007; Lee et al., 1995; Room, 1995). In opposition, hybrid/overall poverty and social exclusion are considered to have a multiple range of indicators of which low income is only one component. These indicators include aspects such as geographical location, cultural identification, discrimination, political participation and access to housing, education, health, and employment.

Notwithstanding, the literature on poverty assures differently. Satterthwaite (2003) raises awareness that the scale and nature of urban poverty have been underestimated because indicators are based only on consumption or income levels and take no account for deprivations such as poor basic conditions and lack of basic services. He argues that absolute poverty in an urban context involves a set of interrelated deprivations such as: inadequate income and indebtedness, unstable asset base (nonmaterial and material such as education and housing), inadequate shelter (poor quality, overcrowded and insecure), inadequate provision of public infrastructure (water, sanitation, etc.), inadequate provision of basic services (day care, schools, health care, public transport etc.), and poor group’s voicelessness and powerlessness within political systems.

Therefore, the indicators of poverty and social exclusion appear to have more similitudes than what the literature in social exclusion recognizes. The difference between both concepts may lie on the fact that while poverty relates to a living condition at a certain moment, exclusion has to do with the processes through which people become excluded (Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman, 2007). While both concepts concern economic distribution as an indicator, “social exclusion also concerns relational and cultural aspects such as levels of solidarity, social bonds, participation, integration, engagement, discrimination, and norms of social citizenship” (ibid). Furthermore, one’s poverty level is not a determinant for social exclusion: it is possible to be socially excluded and still enjoy of a good socioeconomic position (Barry, 2001; Gough et al., 2006; Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman, 2007; Kenyon, Lyons, & Rafferty, 2002; Saraceno, 2001). Yet, the accumulative character of disadvantages related to precariousness and its spatial concentration is what makes certain groups more vulnerable to experience social exclusion (Bayón, 2008).

23

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

In terms of inequality, some authors agree that social exclusion is a broader conception that includes polarization, differentiation and inequality (Burchardt et al., 2002b). Saraví (2008) argues that the spatial distribution of population, the concentration levels of determinate groups in certain areas of the city, and the degree of social homogeneity remit to differentiation, inequality and exclusion processes. Deepening inequalities and the spatial accumulation of disadvantages hinders the possibilities of the urban poor to overcome privation (Bayón, 2008)2008. By contrast, others “reject any identification of social exclusion with class or inequality, arguing that the latter concerns people’s position on a vertical axis (‘up’ or ‘down’) whereas the former is about not being in or out of a circle” (Tourraine, 1991 in (Burchardt et al., 2002b).

Despite the differences discussed between poverty, inequality and social exclusion, according to Burchardt (2002b) “all three reflect forms of non-participation in society, arising from constraint rather than choice”.

Figure 5 - Levels of social exclusion (Source: Burchardt et al., 2002)

24

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

1.4 agents and causes of social exclusion Agents of social exclusion It is important to differentiate between who excludes and who is excluded. Rather than being a relatively homogeneous group, identity of the ‘socially excluded’ implies a multiplicity of different levels and categorizations.

On one hand, social exclusion can be directed towards particular individuals or groups and can be effectuated by any of the following reasons: beliefs, class, ethnicity, gender, preferences (LGBT), age (elderly, children, teenagers), migratory status, employment or disability (Burchardt et al., 2002b; Gough et al., 2006).

Asking ‘who does the exclusion?’ may result in a variety of answers that correspond to different modes of agency, a key attribute in the debate of social exclusion (Atkinson et al., 1998). First, the literature centered on moral values and behavioral explanations suggests that exclusion can be self-inflicted, thus resulting in voluntary exclusion or social isolation. Second, a common approach suggests that civil and economic institutions and systems (governments, the welfare state, capitalism and globalization) inflict exclusion by constraining opportunities for citizens (Burchardt et al., 2002b; Gough et al., 2006; Lee et al., 1995). This assertion “suggests a lack of agency on both sides: exclusion is the outcome of a system (unintended or at least beyond the control of any individual or organization) while the socially excluded lack the opportunity to remedy their situation” (Burchardt et al., 2002b). Thirdly, due to economic, cultural or social drivers, exclusion can be effectuated by one group upon another. Depending on the context, exclusion may also be conducted by a majority towards a minority and by a minority towards a majority (Barry, 2001). The exercise of agency by some to protect their own interest, invariably results in the exclusion of others (Burchardt et al., 2002b).

Causes of social exclusion

Due to the multidimensional nature of social exclusion, not a single cause can be attributed to it. Gough et al. (2006) claim that the forms of social power which create exclusion are constructed across relations between different spatial scales of economy, state, social life and culture, “from the global to the workplace to the home”.

Similarly, Burchardt et al. (2002b) propose an integrated approach as an alternative to understand social exclusion (Fig. 5). Using an ‘onion diagram’, they show the different levels of social exclusion and how there is never a single cause for any exclusion outcome. Each level is influenced by the broader levels and at the same time is influencing the inner ones.

25

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

Figure 6 - Theoretical framework (Source: Author adapted from Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman, 2007)

26

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

chapter 2: analytical framework Introduction This dissertation will analyze the urban development of the city of Monterrey and policies related to housing and mobility to determine the relationship between sprawl and social exclusion. It will consider social exclusion as a concept which encompasses two main dimensions: distributional and relational (Jehoel-Gijsbers & Vrooman, 2007).

Distributional - refers to economic and structural exclusion associated to:

1. material deprivation: deficiencies related to income, goods, and basic needs

2. non-material deprivation: structural exclusion related to access or impediments to social rights, government provisions and healthcare, education, housing, social security, and employment.

Relational - refers to social and cultural exclusion associated to:

1. social disintegration related to lack of participation in social relations and networks (leisure activities, social support, and social isolation) 2. cultural disintegration related to lack of values and norms associated with citizenship (delinquent behavior, and no involvement in society).

Figure 6 frames the indicators related to peripheral housing and car-oriented development discussed in the previous section, and associates them to the two dimensions.

Based on the relational and distributional dimensions, the following research questions are proposed to achieve a better approximation: -How is the neoliberal model related to housing and mobility policies in Mexico? Are national and local urban policies in housing and mobility triggering a process of social exclusion in Monterrey?

-What does mobility development reveal about distributional (material and immaterial) forms of social exclusion in Monterrey?

-What does mobility development reveal about relational (social and cultural) forms of social exclusion in Monterrey?

-What does housing development reveal about distributional (material and immaterial) forms of social exclusion in Monterrey?

-What does housing development reveal about relational (social and cultural) forms of social exclusion in Monterrey?

-What measures can be taken to achieve social inclusion in Monterrey?

From these questions, a matrix was designed to structure the analysis of the case study (fig. 7). It aims to identify to what extent housing and mobility are causes of exclusion in Monterrey using the indicators categorized previously. To do so, four levels are proposed: inclusion, weak inclusion, vulnerability and exclusion (Castel, 1997; GarcĂ­a Justicia, 2014).

27

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

-Inclusion occurs when conditions allow people to develop and participate in society, and fully exercise their social rights.

-Weak inclusion occurs when people cannot be considered vulnerable or excluded, but whose social conditions holds them in a weak space between inclusion and vulnerability.

-Vulnerability occurs when precarious situations prevent people to have access to social rights.

An accumulation of vulnerabilities leads to social exclusion.

-Exclusion occurs when people are outside the limits, experiencing social welfare problems in a way that they cannot exercise their social rights.

In turn, the level column categorizes which level is a predominant cause for each indicator: individual, family, community, local (city), national, and global.

28

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

Sprawl modes

Variables

LEVEL

INCLUSION

WEAK INCLUSION

VULNERABILITY

EXCLUSION

DISTRIBUTIONAL Income & Goods Social Rights

Social housing affordability

Availability of public services near place of residence

RELATIONAL

HOUSING

Soc. Relations & Networks

Values & Norms

Spatial distribution of social segregation and marginality Relation between housing and employment centers House inoccupancy levels

Acquired characteristics: Crime and violence statistics

DISTRIBUTIONAL

Income & Goods

MOBILITY

Social Rights

Transportation costs relative to income Modes of transportation

Number of cars per capita (Motorization index)

Quality of transport services Access to transport facilities

RELATIONAL

Soc. Relations & Networks Values & Norms

Average commute distance Average commute time

Pedestrian and cyclist accidents index

Figure 7 Analytical Framework (Source: author)

29

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

Figure 8 – Map of Mexico NL and MTY (Source: author)

Figure 9 - Monterrey Metropolitan Area – Surface and Municipalities (Source: author)

30

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

CHAPTER 3: MEXICO AND MONTERREY 3.1 NATIONAL CONTEXT Product of the intense industrialization process generated by the import substitution model in the 40’s in Mexico and the resultant massive urban migrations, the twentieth century marked a rapid change from a rural to an urban nation (ITDP, 2013; Leal Iga, 2012). The lack of planning1 and the government’s inability to cope with the migratory exodus were important factors in the generation of huge territorial expansions, an startling 67% decrease in national population density and consequently the proliferation of sprawl patterns of development across cities (ITDP, 2013).

Institutionally, the issue of urban planning is removed from the national agenda. Housing and mobilityrelated issues are normally not considered in urban development planning, usually reduced to a local problem (ibid). Currently, the ruling neoliberalist approach allows the private franchise of the provision of housing and transport services. The private sector in turn, seeks to maximize profits rather than ensure the social welfare of citizens.

Housing

The Law of Housing in Mexico (2017) states that every person has the constitutional right to dignified housing regardless any socioeconomic circumstance, and that access will be promoted preferably to those in conditions of poverty, marginalization and vulnerability. It ensures the principles of equity and social inclusion through the access to housing subsidies. However, the law is not clear regarding the location of housing and, in practice, the private sector builds large scale housing development in the cheapest land outside the city without any state control or consideration for the offer of nearby jobs or the accessibility of services and transport facilities (ITDP, 2013; Leal Iga, Sáenz López, López Estrada, & Hinojosa Cruz, 2013).

The requirements of profitability enforced by the World Bank imply that only families with an income 5 times superior to the national minimum wage can be candidate to get a housing loan, excluding more than 75% of the families with the lowest income in the country (Boils, 2004). This means that even the market’s cheapest house is out of reach for the most vulnerable and leave them without the possibility of obtaining a house. Despite the law, housing in Mexico is a commodity, rather than a social right (ibid). Not being able to access a social house, poor families turn to the establishment in slums and informal settlements. Informality represents for many families the most rational way of appropriating the urban space (Acosta & Bonfiglio, 2015).

For those who can afford social housing2, 31% of their income is gone in monthly loan payments, and 19% in transport costs leaving the remaining 50% for home and family maintenance, housing repairing costs3, and transport costs (Leal Iga, 2016; UN-HABITAT, 2015). Product of the location, they need to withstand long commute distances4 and times.

The massive housing developments are usually walled, isolated communities of single-type cookiecutter houses seldom equipped with services and recreation areas. The houses supplied do not correspond to the diversity, needs and interests of the users and neither are in line with social development requirements (Leal Iga & López Estrada, 2012). The obsolescence of the model is reflected in 5 million unoccupied homes across the country5 (ITDP, 2013).

1 See Appendix 1 for a brief history of housing policies in Mexico 2 Considering they earn the minimum wage required.

3 Due to the bad construction quality of mass-produced houses 4 According to Eibenschutz and Goya (2009) the average distance of housing developments to the city center increased from 6.8 km in 2001 to 21.9 km in 2006.

5 Most of which are financed by the national housing loan schemes.

31

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

Figure 10 - The evolution and urbanization of Mexico’s population 1900-2010 (Source: ITDP (2013) with information of INEGI)

Figure 11 - Average annual population growth, surface vehicle population density and park major cities to 50 thousand people 1980-2010 (Source: ITDP (2013) with information of SEDESOL)

32

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

Mobility Regarding mobility, neoliberal policies allow the increase of car use6 and the decentralization of services allows the fragmentation, and reduction of the efficiency and productivity of high-capacity collective transport (Navarro Benitez, 2006). Incentives for car use include: “gasoline subsidy, the elimination of car property tax, the lack of mandatory national third party insurance policies, open trade policies that facilitate the import of used cars, and the financial mortgage and automotive credit policies, along with the prioritization in public expense in road infrastructure for private transportation” (ITDP, 2013).

The result has been an increase of 300% in car use over the last thirty years and an annual growth rate of 8.5% in the largest cities (Medina Ramírez, 2012). The motorization index doubled from 2000 to 2012 to 300 vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants (INEGI, 2012b). Dispersion, high car use, make the provision of quality public transport unfeasible and walking and cycling extremely difficult (ITDP, 2013). The most severely impacted by these trends are the poor who lose the most hours in traffic and need to pay the highest price7 (UN-HABITAT, 2015). Making use of public transport services represents a high cost for the urban poor, who use the transportation the most (in average 70% use against 8% of the high-income population) (UN-HABITAT, 2015).

6 While the oil boom in the 80’s promoted the purchase of cars, the signature of NAFTA treaty in the 90’s meant an explosive increase in car assembly and commercialization (Navarro Benitez, 2006). Considering the economic expansion of the country product of the automotive industry, 3% of the country’s GDP came from it between 2004 and 2009 (Medina Ramírez, 2012).

7 Making use of public transport services represents a high cost for the urban poor, who use the transportation the most (in average 70% use against 8% of the high-income population) (UN-HABITAT, 2015).

33

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

METROPOLITAN AREA OF MONTERREY SUBDIVISIONS

9 Municipalities

Total surface POPULATION METROPOLITAN ZONE DENSITY REGISTERED MOTORIZED VEHICLES MOTORIZATION INDEX

6,794 km2

2°

4,106,054 inhabitants

3°

52 inhabitants per hectare

11°

1,966,926 vehicles

2°

0.47 vehicles per inhabitant

4°

(2.12 inhabitants per vehicle)

Figure 12 - Monterrey Metropolitan Area in numbers (Sources: INEGI, 2010, 2012 and UN-Habitat, 2015)

Figure 13- Urban spread of the city: 1970, 2000, 2007 (Source: ADUNL in CETYV, 2009)

Figure 14- Map of geographical slopes

(Source: BICIPLAN MTY & IDOM, 2014)

34

National ranking

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

3.2 monterrey Located in the northeast part of Mexico, in the state of Nuevo León, the metropolitan area of Monterrey (MMA) is composed of nine municipalities: Monterrey, Apodaca, García, General Escobedo, Guadalupe, San Pedro Garza García, San Nicolás de los Garza, Santa Catarina, and Juárez. It is currently the third most populated city in the country and the second with the largest surface extension (UN-HABITAT, 2015). Comprising 80% of the urban population of the state of Nuevo León, and being the largest city in the north of Mexico, the strategic importance of the MMA is stressed.

From 1980 to 2010 the metropolitan population doubled from 2 million to 4.1 million inhabitants while its urban area multiplied by 4.9 times (UN-HABITAT, 2015) (fig.13). Relatively, the population density is currently of 52 inhabitants per hectare, and has been in constant decrease for the past 40 years8. At present, 11,459 hectares of void land exist inside the urbanized area (Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León, 2017), evidencing the dispersion of the city.

Its rapid expansion is due to the industrial development of secondary goods9 begun during the 1940’s and to the following demand for workforce which induced an exponential demographic growth (Garza, 1998). This implied rapid urban transformations: extensions of the urban area and an increased number of informal and low-income settlements (Ward, 2015).

Aiming to give a solution, the government introduced the FOMERREY site-and-services and regularization program and has ever since increased the number of INFONAVIT social housing loans provided10. Both measures contributed to the horizontal expansion of the city.

Institutional failures have also been important factors for the sprawl and density drop of the city. Failure in urban planning is manifest in the lack of consistency in metropolitan urban regulation: minimal interaction between municipalities, and the lack of monitoring of urban plans beyond the three years of municipal administration (García Ortega, 2001). Furthermore, each of the nine municipalities is responsible for the creation and implementation of its own urban development plans and regulations. Issues concerning metropolitan urban development are addressed at the regional level by an undersecretary inside the Sustainable Development Secretary. Nonetheless, urban planning is a relatively new activity, considering that the first urban development plan was created in 1988 (ibid).

The patterns of sprawl and socio economic distribution are strictly linked. On one hand, the geographical conditions of the city, surrounded by mountains, have constrained its urban expansion to the west and east, while enabling it to spread towards the north and south (fig. 14). On the other hand, while the high-income populations live in the south and west of the city (and some parts surrounding the city center), the poor, marginalized population is concentrated in the city center and in the outmost regions predominantly in the north and east (fig. 15, 16 & 17). This same pattern corresponds with the geographic concentrations of population and housing density (fig. 18 & 19). While the highest-income areas have the lowest density, the lowest-income areas are the ones with the highest density.

8 See appendix 2 9 Glass, cement, steel, beer and chemicals.

10 According to data from INFONAVIT (2016), since 2014, Nuevo León has been the state with the largest number of housing subsidies in the country. In 2016, 14% of the total national housing subsidies were granted to the state.

35

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

Figure 15 – Socioeconomic level in the MMA 2010

(Source: Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo LeĂłn, 2008)

Figure 17- Pockets of urban poverty in the MMA

(Source: Consejo de Desarrollo Social, 2009)

36

Figure 16- Urban marginalization degree

(Source: CONAPO, 2010)

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

Figure 18- Total population in the MMA 2010

(Source: INEGI, 2010)

Figure 19- Total number of houses in the MMA 2010

(Source: INEGI, 2010)

37

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

Figure 20- Peripheral municipalities and the MMA

Figure 21- Urban containment perimeters

Figure 22- Urban containment perimeters and Housing supply

Figure 23 – Social housing supply June 2017

(Source: Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León, 2012)

(Source: CONAVI, 2017)

38

(Source: CONAVI, 2017)

(Source: CONAVI, 2017)

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

chapter 4: exclusion & sprawl in monterrey?

4.1 analysis Analyzing in detail the socio-spatial patterns in the light of the current housing and mobility regulation, puts in evidence processes of social exclusion.

Housing patterns in Monterrey

The Regional Urban Development Program Nuevo León 2030 (RUDPNL) establishes social inclusion as a priority, acknowledging the “progressive increase of social exclusion in the peripheral areas of Monterrey” as one of the current trends that result from the lack of planning (Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León, 2012)11. Both the RUDPNL (2012) and the Sectoral Housing and Land Tenure Regularization Program 2004-2009 (SHLP) (2004) establish as priorities (1) the densification and containment of the inner city to control the peripheralization; and (2) the consolidation of the municipality centers surrounding the MMA (Leal Iga et al., 2013). The SHLP also mentions the incorporation of land reserves of rural origin which can be susceptible for urbanization (Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León, 2004).

Despite the wish to contain and densify, none of them mention how far away can the residential expansion be effectuated (Leal Iga et al., 2013) or where and how the inner city should be contained. The RUDPNL denominates as part of the ‘peripheral region’ some municipalities which are removed from the MMA, while considering the actual peripheral region as the ‘second ring’ of the city (fig. 20). Ambiguities like this allow the continuous adjoining of rural land into the urban area.

Similarly, the National Housing Commission (CONAVI, 2015), aims to locate the provision of housing loans in areas proximate to employment and public facilities through a scoring system. To allocate the housing subsidies, it establishes three types of urban perimeter (UCP), according to different criteria (fig.

21): U1- first perimeter: proximity to sources of employment U2- second perimeter: access to water and sanitation and density larger than 20 houses per hectare U3- third perimeter: 900-meter buffer around previous contours, also ‘virtual growth containment border’ of cities.

In MMA, 67% of the supply units of Nuevo León by June 2017 are located in the last perimeter and in areas beyond the designated perimeters (CONAVI, 2017). Meantime, 26% are in the second perimeter, which only considers accessibility to water and sanitation services and not to education, employment, transport and commerce. When looking at the housing supply and UCP together (fig. 22), it is evident how most of the former is located in areas difficult to reach and far removed from employment and urban facilities. The location of nearly all the current social housing supply matches the location of the marginalized areas identified in section 2.2 evidencing how socioeconomic segregation is enforced by the market and housing policies. Living in the periphery is not a choice but the only viable option for most low-income people.

As housing developments are located in rural areas further away from activity centers, the Urban Development Law of the State of Nuevo León (2016) declares that any new development that produces urban growth in the fringe of the city must grant unconditionally the 17% of its salable area for the construction of urban public equipment. Nonetheless, 60% of such granted area must be destined for green areas and only 40% for the equipment of public squares, education, sports, health, security and 11

However, it only points out an increase in employment as an indicator to achieve it.

39

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

Figure 24- Fragmentation of social housing developments

(Source: Google maps)

Figure 25- Unoccupied dwellings in MMA

(Source: BICIPLAN MTY & IDOM, 2014)

Figure 26- Unoccupied dwellings in a peripheral development

(Source: Sรกnchez, 2012)

40

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

public assistance facilities (HCNL, 2016). This means that only 6.8% of the granted area is used for any kind of urban equipment, which logically results insufficient for the large population living in the outskirts.

For developments with less than 1,000 housing units, the municipal authority is responsible for the provision of the necessary urban equipment, by joining contiguous portions of granted land (ibid).

However, this depends on the governmental agency to provide public services, and the granted plots of land are generally left undeveloped and abandoned (Eibenschutz Hartman & Goya Escobedo, 2009).

The city is built in a sort of confined spaces with low population levels which negatively influence the habitability and social integration of its residents. Housing developments are designed as gated single-use isolated residential enclaves (fig.24). Usually the access is through a single vehicular security checkpoint.

While securitization measures sell the concept of an idealized secured community, they generate instead further security problems at the interior.

Due to long distances and travel costs, many families are forced to leave their homes and move to more central areas, leading to high levels of house vacancy. The highest concentrations of unoccupied houses are located in the center of the city and in the peripheries (fig. 25 & 26). According to data from INEGI (2010) Nuevo LeĂłn is the third state with the highest house inoccupancy rates.

Furthermore, the inadequacy of dwellings and the lack of personal space12 turn houses into inhabitantexpellers, mainly of young people who consequently turn to gangs and delinquency (Leal Iga & LĂłpez Estrada, 2012). House and vehicle theft, drug trafficking, and criminal gangs are some of the most recurrent problems in low-income neighborhoods. This pinpoints how closed urbanism fragments the city and society and far from providing security, hinders the appropriation of public spaces (Eibenschutz Hartman & Goya Escobedo, 2009).

As shown in figure 27, a great part of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Monterrey are located in the peripheral zones. While the drivers that originated these neighborhoods are varied (social housing developments, informal settlements and site-and-services programs) the relationship between the periphery, the lack of access to urban facilities and public space and crime is suggested.

Figure 27- 4o of the most dangerous neighborhoods in MMA

(Source: Cerda PĂŠrez, 2014)

12 According to the classification of housing by average price of the CONAVI (2010), the following house denominations exist by their squared meters: economic 30 m2, popular 42.5m2, traditional 62.5m2, medium 97.5m2, residential 145m2, and residential plus 225m2.

41

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

Figure 28- Modal share by number of trips

(Sources: (CETYV, 2012; ITDP, 2015)

Figure 29- Modal share by socioeconomic level

(Sources: CETYV, 2012; IAPNL, 2008; ITDP, 2015)

Figure 30- Distribution of income relative to public transport use and percentage of travel cost

(Sources: C贸mo vamos Nuevo Le贸n, 2016)

Figure 31- Distribution of income relative to car use and percentage of travel cost

(Sources: C贸mo vamos Nuevo Le贸n, 2016)

42

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

Mobility patterns in Monterrey In terms of mobility, the existing institutional and legal model anticipates (rather than controls) the dispersion of the population and activities. It conceives the function ‘housing-displacement-activities’ as separate administrative tasks and by excludes any mobility solution different from investment in road infrastructure (López Cantú, 2008). The continuous sprawl in Monterrey is manifest in the increased use of private-motorized modes of transport and has brought many negative impacts for the population.

Out of the 50% of the federal funds that the local government spent in mobility infrastructure in 2014, 89% was destined to roads and vehicular infrastructure, while only 1.1% to the construction or improvement of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure and none to public transportation (ITDP, 2015).

This fact, in addition to the national incentives discussed in section 2.2, has caused an alarming increase in the vehicular population, and detriment in the infrastructure of other modes of transportation. Statistics show that in MMA, 2.15 persons exist for each car (equal to a motorization index of .47 cars/person) (Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León, 2017; INEGI, 2010, 2012b).

These trends have severe consequences for commuters, especially for those who cannot afford to own a private vehicle. In 2012, 45% of the population traveled by car, 38% by public transport, and only 7.6% and 0.5% displaced walking or cycling respectively (fig. 28) (CETYV, 2012). By looking at the modal share by socioeconomic level (fig. 29), the use of private transportation across socioeconomic levels is inversely proportional to the use of public transportation (CETYV, 2012). This means that low-income families are the ones who use public transport more frequently, and consequently are the most affected by the private transport incentives. Furthermore, either by public or private transport, travelling results an economic burden for the poor. Figures 30 and 31 show the distribution of income relative to the mode of transportation, and the percentage of the income necessary to travel. Thus, transportation implies a higher cost for the poorest and imposes further limitations in mobility for those who inhabit settlements or housing developments located in the periphery of the city (Eibenschutz Hartman & Goya Escobedo, 2009).

The sprawl of the city towards the fringes increments the travel distances between residences and daily activities. According to an origin-destination survey conducted by CETYV (2012), the main reasons for commuting in Monterrey are to reach jobs, schools and commerce centers (42%, 12%, and 15% respectively). Figure 32 shows the location of commercial, education, health and labor centers in the city.

Figure 30 shows the origin-destination desire lines for MMA and highlights the importance of the city center and San Pedro municipality as main attractors of the 8.5 million trips that are realized in a typical working day (ibid). When comparing both figures to the areas of the city with the highest density seen in section 2.2, it is evident how a large proportion of the population needs to travel long distances to reach daily activities.

Long distances and high car-use logically have led to increments in traffic congestions and in the time needed to reach destinations. Consequently, most travels in MMA take between one and one-anda-half hours by public transport (46 minutes in average) and from one to 40 minutes by car (28 minutes in average) (fig. 34 & fig. 35). Travelling by public transport takes twice as private transport to reach destinations.

Comparatively, it can be assumed that while public transport is not positioned as a competitive mode, nonetheless it keeps a high percentage of use. This means that public transport represents a general necessity to which insufficient attention is payed by authorities (BICIPLAN MTY & IDOM, 2014). The tendency to prioritize private transportation has generated a fragmented city that is difficult to travel in any other way that is not a car. Thus, public transport users (38% of the population) are segregated and forced to use a complicated and non-efficient transport system.

43

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

Figure 32- Location of daily activities in the MMA

(Source: (BICIPLAN MTY & IDOM, 2014; INEGI, 2012a)

Figure 33- Origin-destination desire lines in the MMA

(Source: (BICIPLAN MTY & IDOM, 2014; INEGI, 2012a)

44

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

Figure 34- Commute times in Public Transport

(Source: (BICIPLAN MTY & IDOM, 2014; CETYV, 2012)

Figure 35- Commute times in Private Transport

(Source: (BICIPLAN MTY & IDOM, 2014; CETYV, 2012)

45

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

Figure 36- Bus route system and spatial coverage

(Source: (CETYV, 2009)

46

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

Besides the time of travel, evaluating the quality of public transport in Monterrey results somewhat paradoxical. On one hand, the public transport service provides 98% of coverage available at less than 500 meters (fig. 36) (CETYV, 2009). This means that travelling by public transport requires walking less than three blocks in average to reach a stop or station (BICIPLAN MTY & IDOM, 2014). While two lines of light railway and one BRT line exist, still 94.2% of the public transport journeys are done by bus lines. Following a recent renewal, the average age of the bus fleet is less than three years old and the number of units are sufficient for the total population (CETYV, 2009).

On the other hand, other aspects indicate an opposite trend. The average speed by which buses travel decreased from 19.8 km/hour in 2003 to 17.6 km/hour in 2007 (CETYV, 2009). Yet, the reality is that this average is a combination of very low speeds in some areas (11 km/hour in the city center) and high speeds in other streets (38 km/hour) (ibid).

However, the aspect that perhaps has a greater impact on the quality of the bus transportation service is that its management and provision has been multiply franchised. As stated in the Law of Transportation for Sustainable Mobility of the State of Nuevo León (HCNL, 2017), any private sector enterprise or individual can have permissions to contribute to the “rationalization, modernization and appropriate use of road communications in benefit of society”. Besides bringing a variability of prices and quality, the franchised bus network has caused an oversupply in which many buses compete for fares, in many cases even from the same route (IAPNL, 2008). This has also caused a decrease in the individual demand for buses and thus, a rise in fare costs.

In addition, there is a lack of signalization and organization of bus stops. Drivers usually stop every block to pick up more passengers. While interconnectivity and efficiency are principles in the law, in practice there is no coordination between the different transport systems, neither facilities to pass from one unit to another (ibid), even when most people need to take more than one bus to commute. As evidence of its lack of productivity and profitability, from 1967 to 2003, the index of passengers per kilometer travelled decreased from 4.04 to 2.4713, while the average length of bus routes doubled from 20 to 40 km over the same period (CETYV, 2009). Furthermore, even when the law declares that vulnerable groups must have preference, transport units are not equipped to assist people with disabilities or elderly (IAPNL, 2008).

Regarding other externalities of car use, in 2015 Nuevo León was the second state with the highest percentage of car accidents in Mexico (9%) (INEGI, 2015). In the MMA 37.5% of death accidents involved a collision with a pedestrian and 4% with a cyclist. This statistics gain more relevance considering that only 3% and 0.5% of the journeys are realized walking or cycling respectively (BICIPLAN MTY & IDOM, 2014). Therefore, long and wide avenues and high-speeds turn MMA in a city difficult and dangerous to walk. From all this it is clear that non-car users are systematically and legally being excluded from fully participating in society.

Both housing and mobility are important factors that contribute to the generation of vulnerability and social exclusion conditions in Monterrey (fig.35). The following table summarizes how the variables of social exclusion in housing and mobility are manifest in Monterrey, though which levels are caused (mainly the national, local and community levels) and which are the outcomes of each variable. This analysis can be useful to detect the areas in which social exclusion conditions need attention from authorities and the areas in which inclusion can be incentivized. Both housing and mobility are important factors that contribute to the generation of vulnerability and social exclusion conditions in Monterrey (fig.35).

The following table summarizes how the variables of social exclusion in housing and mobility are manifest in Monterrey, though which levels are caused (mainly the national, local and community levels) and which are the outcomes of each variable. This analysis can be useful to detect the areas in which social exclusion conditions need attention from authorities and the areas in which inclusion can be incentiv13

When in Mexico City is of 12.5 passengers per kilometer travelled.

47

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

Sprawl modes

Variables

LEVEL

DISTRIBUTIONAL Income & Goods Social Rights

HOUSING

Social housing affordability

Availability of public services near place of residence

RELATIONAL

Soc. Relations & Networks

Values & Norms

Spatial distribution of social segregation and marginality Relation between housing and employment centers House inoccupancy levels

Acquired characteristics: Crime and violence statistics

DISTRIBUTIONAL

Income & Goods

MOBILITY

Social Rights

Transportation costs relative to income Modes of transportation

Number of cars per capita (Motorization index)

Quality of transport services Access to transport facilities

RELATIONAL

Soc. Relations & Networks Values & Norms

48

Average commute distance Average commute time

Pedestrian and cyclist accidents index

NATIONAL COMMUNITY

Only accesible to less are outcasts away.

Authorities only c development's ar

LOCAL

Poorest people liv

COMMUNITY

High house innoc

LOCAL

COMMUNITY

Social housing su urban facilities w

Closed developm expellers favor th

Expensive service transportation Public transport a LOCAL use by the rich High car use. Prio LOCAL + and pedestrian in NATIONAL modes.

No interconnectiv LOCAL conditions High access to bu COMMUNITY rural areas LOCAL

Long. People livin distances Traffic congestion LOCAL than by car COMMUNITY + High percentage o LOCAL despite the low n LOCAL

r

nd

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

4.2 results

LEVEL

NATIONAL COMMUNITY LOCAL LOCAL

COMMUNITY COMMUNITY

Both housing and mobility are important factors that contribute to the generation of vulnerability and social exclusion conditions in Monterrey (fig.37). The following table summarizes how the variables of social exclusion in housing and mobility are manifest in Monterrey, though which levels are caused (mainly the national, local and community levels) and which are the outcomes of each variable. This analysis can be useful to detect the areas in which social exclusion conditions need attention from authorities and the areas in which inclusion can be incentivized.

INCLUSION

WEAK INCLUSION VULNERABILITY

Only accesible to those earning 5 times the minimun wage, those earning less are outcasts of the system. Cheaper houses are located further away.

● ●

Authorities only consider water and drainage. Only 6.8% of housing development's area is destined to urban equipment proving insufficient

●

Poorest people living in the periphery

Social housing supply is far removed from activities, employment and urban facilities which are predominantly in the city center.

High house innocupancy levels in the center and peripheries

●

Closed developments with no public areas and houses as inhabitant expellers favor the formation of gangs.

Expensive service. Low-income families destine 11.6% of income to transportation Public transport as the mode of transportation of the poor. Intense car LOCAL use by the rich High car use. Prioritization of car infrastructure over public transport LOCAL + and pedestrian infrastructure. No incentives to travel by nonmotorized NATIONAL modes.

No interconnectivity, slow service, expensive, bus fleet in good LOCAL conditions High access to bus system in metropolitan area but not in far removed COMMUNITY rural areas

●

LOCAL

Long. People living in the peripheries are forced to long commute distances Traffic congestions. It takes twice the time to travel by public transport LOCAL than by car COMMUNITY + High percentage of accidents concern pedestrians and cyclists (41.5%) LOCAL despite the low number of trips by these modes.

LOCAL

EXCLUSION

●

●

● ●

● ●

● ● ● Figure 37- Analysis results

(Source: Author)

49

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

50

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

CONCLUSIONs and recommendations Drawing attention to the concept of social exclusion is important to disclose social processes, institutional mechanisms and policies, even when following a good reason are creating negative social economic and cultural impacts.

In the Latin American context, using the concept along others such as inequality and poverty can be useful to find new ways to improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable populations. This can help to deeply understand the scale and nature of urban poverty beyond a pure material need or consumption pattern, but as a set of deprivations that deny the possibility of people to fully participate in society. Social exclusion concerns both income, goods and rights distribution; and social relations, networks and norms.

This dissertation sought to throw light upon the ways in which sprawl can be an important factor in the exclusion of many, especially of the poor, and how the enabling of free markets overlooks this fact. Sprawl creates barriers to access basic rights, opportunities and resources as public services such as transport and education. It prevents people from fully participating in society by creating a gap between homes and daily activities and it also creates conditions of deprivation and disadvantage which deny them of living opportunities. Sprawl creates the conditions to alienate people: the poor from the rich, pedestrians and public transport users from car users.

Analyzing the case of Monterrey showed the multiple ways in which sprawl can influence the creation or intensification of social exclusion processes, namely through the location of the social housing supply towards the periphery and through mobility development oriented to private modes of transportation. In both cases, the deregulation and market enabling strategies characteristic of the neoliberal state play an important role in the generation of sprawl and social exclusion.

As shown in the results, many conditions related to housing and mobility are currently creating processes of exclusion and vulnerability which mainly affect the poorest sectors of the population. The fact that low-income people are forced to move to areas far removed from their work and devoid of any kind of urban amenities and services constitutes by itself a reason of exclusion. But the consequences of this fact puts in evidence the systemic exclusion dynamic in which these people are implicated: long commute times and distances, high costs and low quality of transport, danger of accidents, and crime and insecurity.

Besides, the intense use of the car characteristic of sprawl implies that only those able to afford or to a use one can participate in society.

What can be done to avoid social exclusion in Monterrey?

This dissertation can serve as an initial approach to the problematic of exclusion and identify the key points in which it is being exerted on the population. However, much of the nature of social exclusion processes identified here needs to be understood in more depth and still the current data available result insufficient to develop an accurate diagnosis. For instance, a more profound research of all the peripheral housing developments could be conducted to asses in more detail how the location affects residents in a qualitative way. Involving academic institutions in this process is fundamental.

On the other hand, incentivizing the densification of the city is important to decrease the dependency on the automobile, to make public transport use more viable and cost-effective, and to turn the city into a livable, walkable one. However, densification must start from the inmost parts of the city and then replicate outwards. This process can be a good opportunity to regenerate and re-densify the historical center.

At the same time, development plans should be more specific concerning where urban expan-

51

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

sion must be contained. Aiming the development objectives of the RUDPNL to the second ring instead of the peripheral region would make the equipment of public services and containment of the city more economic and feasible (Leal Iga et al., 2013). Creating denser housing developments in these areas and ensuring the connectivity with labor and education centers is vital.

Concerning mobility, authorities should promote non-motorized modes of transportation for daily commuting through investment in infrastructure and regulation to protect pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.

Additionally, including participation in the decision-making processes concerning social housing and mobility development, and considering the whole range of social diversity is a fundamental step to move towards processes of social inclusion.

After showing the threats that sprawl generates in relation to social exclusion, this dissertation hopes that the recommendations mentioned above are taken into account by the government of Nuevo Leรณn.

Having a strong political will from authorities and clear development goals is important to generate a process of social inclusion instead of exclusion.

52

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

53

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

54

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Density comparison 12 Figure 2 – Drivers and impacts of sprawl

14

Figure 3 – Housing developments in Mexico 15 Figure 4 – Theoretical approach 17 Figure 5 – Levels of social exclusion 24 Figure 6 – Theoretical framework 26 Figure 7 – Analytical Framework 29 Figure 8 – Map of Mexico NL and MTY 30 Figure 9 – Monterrey Metropolitan Area – Surface and Municipalities

30

Figure 10 – The evolution and urbanization of Mexico’s population 1900-2010

32

Figure 11– Average annual population growth, surface vehicle population density

and park major cities to 50 thousand people 1980-2010

32

Figure 12 – Monterrey Metropolitan Area in numbers

34

Figure 13 – Urban spread of the city: 1970, 2000, 2007

34

Figure 14 – Map of geographical slopes 34 Figure 15 – Socioeconomic level in the MMA 2010

36

Figure 16 – Urban marginalization degree 36 Figure 17 – Pockets of urban poverty in the MMA

36

Figure 18 – Total population in the MMA 2010

37

Figure 19 – Total number of houses in the MMA 2010

37

Figure 20 – Peripheral municipalities and the MMA

38

Figure 21 – Urban containment perimeters 38 Figure 22 – Urban containment perimeters and Housing supply

38

Figure 23 – Social housing supply June 2017 38 Figure 24 – Fragmentation of social housing developments

40

Figure 25 – Unoccupied dwellings in MMA 40

55

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

Figure 26 – Unoccupied dwellings in a peripheral development

40

Figure 27 – 4o of the most dangerous neighborhoods in MMA

41

Figure 28 – Modal share by number of trips

42

Figure 29 – Modal share by socioeconomic level

42

Figure 30 – Distribution of income relative to public transport use and percentage of travel cost

42

Figure 31 – Distribution of income relative to car use and percentage of travel cost

42

Figure 32 – Location of daily activities in the MMA

44

Figure 33 – Origin-destination desire lines in the MMA

44

Figure 34 – Commute times in Public Transport

45

Figure 35 – Commute times in Private Transport 45 Figure 36 – Bus route system and spatial coverage Figure 37 – Analysis Results

46 48-49

Figure 38 – Evolution of density in MMA 68 Figure 41 – Motorization and density in different metropolitan zones in Mexico

56

69

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

ACRONYMS ADUNL

Agency for the Urban Development Planning of Nuevo León

Agencia para la Planeación del Desarrollo Urbano de Nuevo León

CETYV

State Council of Transportation and Roads

Consejo Estatal de Transporte y Vialidad

BICIPLAN MTY

CONAPO CONAVI EC

EEA

FOMERREY GOB NL HCNL

IAPNL IDB ILO

INEGI

INFONAVIT ITDP

LGBT MMA

NFHA

RUDPNL

SEDESOL

Masterplan for Cycle Pathways in the Metropolitan Area of Monterrey National Population Commission National Housing Commission European Commission

European Economic Area

Monterrey Metropolitan Development Government of the State of Nuevo León

Plan Maestro de Ciclo Vias en el Area Metropolitana de Monterray Consejo Nacional de Población

Comisión Nacional de Vivienda Comisión Europea Área Económica Europea

Fomento Metropolitano de Monterrey Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León

Honorable Congress of the State of Honorable Congreso del Estado de Nuevo Nuevo Leon León Public Administration Institute of the State of Nuevo León

Instituto de Administración Pública del Estado de Nuevo León

National Institute of Statistics and Geography

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía

Interamerican Development Bank International Labor Organization Institute of the National Housing Fund for Workers Institute for Transportation and Development Policy

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Monterrey Metropolitan Area

National Federation of Housing Associations

Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo

Organización International del Trabajo

Instituto del Fondo Nacional de la Vivienda para los Trabajadores Instituto de Transporte y Políticas de Desarrollo

Lesbianas, Gay, Bisexuales, Transexuales Área metropolitana de Monterrey

Federación Nacional de Asociaciones de Vivienda

Regional Urban Development Pro- Programa Regional de Desarrollo Urbano gram Nuevo León Nuevo León Secretariat of Social Development

Secretaría de Desarrollo Social

57

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

SHLP TRB UCP UN

UNDP WHO

58

Sectoral Housing and Land Tenure Programa Sectorial de Regularización de Regularization Program la Vivienda y la Tenencia de la Tierra Transportation Research Board

Junta de Investigación de Transporte

United Nations Development Program

Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo

Urban Containment Perimeter United Nations

World Health Organization

Perímetro de Contención Urbana Naciones Unidas

Organización Mundial de la Salud

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

references Acosta, Y., & Bonfiglio, J. (2015). Regularización y derecho a la vivienda: Un caso del área metropolitana de Monterrey/Regularization and the Right to Housing: The Case of the Monterrey Metropolitan Area. Frontera Norte, 27(53), 63-87.

Atkinson, A. B., Hills, J., Atkinson, A. B., Atkinson, T., Economic, amp, . . . Sticerd. (1998). Exclusion, employment and opportunity / A. B. Atkinson, John Hills (editors). London: London : London School of Economics, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion.

Banister, D. (1994). Equity and Acceptability Question in Internalising the Social Costs of Transport. In OECD & ECMT (Eds.), INTERNALISING THE SOCIAL COSTS OF TRANSPORT.

Barry, B. (2001). Social Exclusion, Social Isolation and the Distribution of Income. In J. Hills, J. Le Grand, & D. Piachaud (Eds.), Understanding social exclusion (pp. 13-29). Oxford: Oxford : Oxford UP. Bayón, M. C. (2008). Desigualdad y procesos de exclusión social. Concentración socioespacial de desventajas en el Gran Buenos Aires y la Ciudad de México. Estudios demográficos y urbanos, 23(1), 123-150.

BICIPLAN MTY, & IDOM. (2014). Plan maestro de cicliovías en el Área Metropolitana de Monterrey, Diagnóstico integral, Primera Entrega. In. Monterrey: CETYV/ SEDATU NL/ SEDESU NL. Blumenberg, E., & Manville, M. (2004). Beyond the spatial mismatch: Welfare recipients and transportation policy. Journal of Planning Literature, 19(2), 182-205.

Boils, G. (2004). El Banco Mundial y la política de vivienda en México. Revista mexicana de sociología(2), 345-367.

Borsdorf, A., & Hidalgo, R. (2008). New dimensions of social exclusion in Latin America: From gated communities to gated cities, the case of Santiago de Chile. Land Use Policy, 25(2), 153-160. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.04.001 Bruegmann, R. (2005). Sprawl : a compact history.

Chicago ; London: Chicago ; London : University of Chicago Press.

Bullard, R. D., Johnson, G. S., & Torres, A. O. (2000).

Sprawl city : race, politics, and planning in Atlanta / edited by Robert D. Bullard, Glenn S. Johnson and Angel O. Torres. Washington, D.C.: Washington, D.C. : Island Press.

Burchardt, T., Le Grand, J., & Piachaud, D. (1999).

Social Exclusion in Britain 1991— 1995.

Social Policy & Administration, 33(3), 227-244. doi:10.1111/1467-9515.00148

Burchardt, T., Le Grand, J., & Piachaud, D. (2002a).

Degrees of Exclusion: Developing a dynamic, multidimensional measure. In T. Burchardt, J. Le Grand, & D. Piachaud (Eds.), Understanding social exclusion (pp. 30-43).

Oxford: Oxford : Oxford UP.

Burchardt, T., Le Grand, J., & Piachaud, D. (2002b).

Introduction. In J. Hills, J. Le Grand, & D. Piachaud (Eds.), Understanding social exclusion (pp. 1-12). Oxford: Oxford : Oxford UP.

Burchell, R. W., & Mukherji, S. (2003). Conventional Development Versus Managed Growth: The Costs of Sprawl. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1534-1540. doi:10.2105/ AJPH.93.9.1534

59

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

Caplan, M. A., & Ricciardelli, L. (2016). Institutionalizing Neoliberalism: 21st‐Century Capitalism, Market Sprawl, and Social Policy in the United States. Poverty & Public Policy, 8(1), 20-38. doi:10.1002/pop4.128 Castel, R. (1997). La metamorfosis de la cuestión social: una crónica del salariado. In. Buenos Aires: Paidós

Castree, N., Kitchin, R., & Rogers, A. (2013). marginalization. In (1 ed. ed.): Oxford University Press.

Cerda Pérez, P. L. (2014). Prisión y familia: Retos para la cohesión social y el desarrollo del siglo XXI. In: Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León.

CETYV. (2009). Plan Sectorial de Transporte y Vialidad 2008-2030 (Anteproyecto para consulta pública). In. Monterrey, NL: Desarrollo Urbano de Nuevo León.

CETYV. (2012). Encuesta Origen y Destino 2012. In G. d. E. d. N. León (Ed.), Plan Estatal de Desarrollo. Nuevo León: Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León.

Chin, N. (2002). Unearthing the roots of urban sprawl: a critical analysis of form, function and methodology. In: Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis (UCL).

Church, A., Frost, M., & Sullivan, K. (2000). Transport and social exclusion in London. Transport Policy, 7(3), 195-205. doi:10.1016/ S0967-070X(00)00024-X Commission of the European Communities. (2000).

Communication from the Commission, Building an Inclusive Europe. In. Bruxelles European Commission.

CONAPO. (2007). Proyecciones de la Población de México 2005-2050. In. México: Consejo Nacional de Población.

CONAVI. (2015). Modelo geoestadístico para la actualización de los perímetros de contención

60

urbana 2015. In. Mexico: SEDATU.

CONAVI. (2017). Consulta dinámica de vivienda vigente: Datos al 30 de junio de 2017. In: SEDATU.

Consejo de Desarrollo Social. (2009). Mapas de pobreza y rezago social: Area Metropolitana de Monterrey. In. Monterrey: Consejo de Desarrollo Social del Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León.

Cáceres-Seguel, C. (2017). Vivienda social periurbana en Santiago de Chile: la exclusión a escala regional del trasurbanita de Santiago de Chile. Economía, 17(53), 171-198. doi:10.22136/est002017664

Cámara de Diputados (2017) LEY DE VIVIENDA, Nueva Ley publicada en el Diario Oficial de la Federación el 27 de junio de 2006, Últimas reformas publicadas DOF 23-06-2017v Cómo vamos Nuevo León. (2016). Así vamos 2016: Encuesta de percepción ciudanana. In. Nuevo León: Cómo vamos Nuevo León.

Delbosc, A., & Currie, G. (2011). The spatial context of transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well- being. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1130-1137. doi:10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2011.04.005 EEA, E. E. A. (2006). Urban sprawl in Europe : the ignored challenge / European Commission, Directorate-General Joint Research Centre, European Environment Agency. Copenhagen: Copenhagen : European Environment Agency.

Eibenschutz Hartman, R., & Goya Escobedo, C. (2009). Estudio de la integración urbana y social en la expansión reciente de las ciudades en México, 1996-2006: dimensión, características y soluciones Mexico: Miguel Ángel Porrúa Ewing, R. (1997). Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable? Journal of the American

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

Planning Association, 63(1), 107-126. doi:10.1080/01944369708975728

Ewing, R., & Hamidi, S. (2015). Compactness versus Sprawl. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(4), 413-432. doi:10.1177/0885412215595439 Ewing, R., Meakins, G., Hamidi, S., & Nelson, A. (2014). Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity – Update and refinement. Health and Place, 26, 118-126. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.12.008

Filion, P., Kramer, A., & Sands, G. (2016). Recentralization as an Alternative to Urban Dispersion: Transformative Planning in a Neoliberal Societal Context. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 40(3), 658678. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12374

Galster, G., Hanson, R., Ratcliffe, M. R., Wolman, H., Coleman, S., & Freihage, J. (2001). Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate, 12(4), 681-717. doi:10.1080/1051 1482.2001.9521426 García Justicia, J. J. (2014). La exclusión social en el Área Metropolitana de Monterrey: procesos sociales y trayectorias vitales/ Social exclusion in the Metropolitan Area of Monterrey: social process and life paths. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, 27(1), 175-186,249.

García Ortega, R. (2001). Asentamientos irregulares en Monterrey, 1970- 2000. Divorcio entre planeación y gestión urbana. Frontera Norte, 13.

García P, B. (2010). Vivienda social en México ( 1940- 1999): actores públicos, económicos y sociales/ Social Housing in Mexico ( 19401999): public actors, economic and social.

Cuadernos de Vivienda y Urbanismo, 3(5), 34-49.

García Romo, G. (2013). La exclusión social: una propuesta conceptual y metodológica aplicada

al contexto socio-económico de México. (PhD in Social Sciences), Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey, Monterrey. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11285/619497

Garduño Arredondo, J. (2013). Invertir para movernos, prioridad inaplazable: Diagnóstico de fondos federales para transporte y accesibilidad urbana enMéxico, 2012. Retrieved from México: http://mexico.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/Invertir-para-movernos1.pdf Garza, G. (1998). El Área Metropolitana de Monterrey en el año 2020. Estudios Demográficos y Urbanos, 13(3 (39)), 667-673.

Gillham, O. (2002). The limitless city : a primer on the urban sprawl debate. Washington, DC ; London: Washington, DC ; London : Island Press.

Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León. (2004). Programa Sectorial de Vivienda y Regularización de la Tenencia de la Tierra 20042009/ Sectoral Housing and Land Tenure Regularization Program 2004-2009. In G. d.

E. d. N. León (Ed.). Monterrey, NL: Secretaría de Desarrollo Sustentable.

Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León. (2008). Plan de desarrollo urbano de la zona conurbada de Monterrey: Anteproyecto para consulta pública. In. Monterrey: Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León.

Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León. (2012). Programa Estatal de Desarrollo Urbano Nuevo León 2030/ Regional Urban Development Program Nuevo. In. Monterrey: Secretaría de Desarrollo Sustentable / Subsecretaría de Desarrollo Urbano Nuevo León.

Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León. (2017). Estrategia de desarrollo urbano del estado: Instalación del consejo estatal de ordenamiento territorial y desarrollo urbano. In. Monterrey: Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León.

61

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

Gordon, D., & Townsend, P. (2000). Breadline Europe : the measurement of poverty. Bristol: Bristol : Policy Press.

Gordon, P., & Richardson, H. (2000). Defending Suburban Sprawl. Public Interest(139), 65-65.

Gordon, P., & Richardson, H. (2001). The Sprawl Debate: Let Markets Plan. 31(3), 131149. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof. a004901 Gough, J., Eisenschitz, A., & McCulloch, A. (2006).

Spaces of social exclusion. Abingdon: Abingdon : Routledge.

Harris, R. (2011). Measuring social segregation between London's secondary schools, 2003 - 2008/9<span class="frbrsuppress"> / Richard Harris. Bristol: Bristol : Centre for Market and Public Organisation.

HCNL. (2016). Ley de desarrollo urbano del estado de Nuevo León, Decreto Núm. 418. In. Monterrey: Honorable Congreso del estado de Nuevo León (septuagésima tercera legislatura).

HCNL. (2017). Ley de transporte urbano para la movilidad sustentable del estado de Nuevo León / Decreto Núm. 429. In: Honorable Congreso del Estado de Nuevo León (septuagésima tercera legislatura).

IAPNL. (2008). El sistema de transporte público de la Zona Metropolitana de Monterrey: Diagnóstico del problema y propuesta de política pública. In. Monterrey, México: Instituto de Administración Pública del Estado de Nuevo León.

INEGI. (2010). Censo de población y vivienda 2010.

In. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía.

INEGI. (2012a). Directorio estadístico nacional de unidades económicas. In. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía.

62

INEGI. (2012b). Sistema Estatal y Municipal de Bases de Datos: Estadísticas de Transportes: Vehículos de Motor Registrados en Circulación. México. In. Mexico INEGI. (2015). Accidentes de tránsito terrestre en zonas urbanas y suburbanas. In. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía.

Inostroza, L., Baur, R., & Csaplovics, E. (2013). Urban sprawl and fragmentation in Latin America: A dynamic quantification and characterization of spatial patterns. Journal of Environmental Management, 115, 87-97. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.007

Iracheta, A. (2015). Ciudad informal y precaria: la otra cara de la urbanización mexicana. In G. Olivera (Ed.), La urbanización social y privada del ejido. Cuernavaca: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

ITDP. (2013). DESARROLLO ORIENTADO AL TRANSPORTE: REGENERAR LAS CIUDADES MEXICANAS PARA MEJORAR LA MOVILIDAD Retrieved from Mexico:

ITDP. (2015). Invertir para movernos: Diagnóstico de inversión en movilidad en las zonas metropolitanas de México 2011-2015. Retrieved from http://invertirparamovernos. itdp.mx/#/mapa Jacobs, J. (1972). The death and life of great American cities. Harmondsworth: Harmondsworth : Penguin.

Jargowsky, P. A. (2001). Sprawl, Concentration of Poverty, and Urban Inequality. . In. Jehoel-Gijsbers, G., & Vrooman, C. (2007). Explaining Social Exclusion: A theoretical model tested in the Netherlands In. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research/scp.

Kain, J. F. (1992). The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis: Three Decades Later. Housing Policy Debate, 3(2), 371-460. doi:10.1080/10511482.199

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

2.9521100

Kenyon, S., Lyons, G., & Rafferty, J. (2002). Transport and social exclusion: investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility. Journal of Transport Geography, 10(3), 207-219. doi:10.1016/S09666923(02)00012-1 Le Goix, R. (2005). Gated Communities: Sprawl and Social Segregation in Southern California.

Housing Studies, 20(2), 323-343. doi:10.108 0/026730303042000331808 Leal Iga, J. (2012). La política de vivienda social en México desde la perspectiva funcional gubernamental. Innovaciones de Negocios, 18(9), 341-365.

Leal Iga, J. (2016). La vivienda unifamiliar de interés social en el Área Metropolitana de Monterrey [AMM] México y el bienestar social del usuario; la vivienda VITAL. Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social, 6, 174-195. Retrieved from Leal Iga, J., & López Estrada, R. E. (2012). Política de vivienda social en México: el caso de una colonia periférica de Monterrey; Social Housing Policy in Mexico: The Case of a Neighborhood in Monterrey Peripheral.

Cuadernos de Vivienda y Urbanismo, 5(10), 262-277.

Leal Iga, J., Sáenz López, K., López Estrada, R., & Hinojosa Cruz, A. (2013). La política pública para la vivienda social ubicada en la periferia de la ciudad de Monterrey, Nuevo León, México In (Vol. 1, pp. 33-42). Spain: Azarbe, Revista Internacional de trabajo social y bienestar.

Lee, P., National Federation of Housing Associations, & NFHA. (1995). The Price of social exclusion. London: London : National Federation of Housing Associations.

Lenoir, R. (1974). Les Exclus: Un Francais sur Dix. In. Paris: Editions du Seuil. .

Lewyn, M. (2012). Sprawl in Canada and the United States. The Urban Lawyer, 44(1), 85-133.

Lewyn, M. (2017). Government intervention and suburban sprawl : the case for market urbanism. New York, USA: Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan.

LSE Cities. (2011). Urban Age cities compared.

Urban Age: Hong Kong: Cities, Health and Well-being.

Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy, 20, 105113. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.013 Lupton, R., & Power, A. (2001). Social Exclusion and Neighborhoods. In J. Hills, J. Le Grand, & D. Piachaud (Eds.), Understanding Social Exclusion (pp. 118-140). Oxford: Oxford: UP.

López Cantú, M. (2008). Plan Sectorial de Vialidad y Transporte del Área Metropolitana de Monterrey. Una oportunidad para crear valor. Rizoma: Revista Trimestral de la Agencia para la Planeación del Desarrollo Urbano de Nuevo León.

Marcuse, P. (1997). The ghetto of exclusion and the fortified enclave: New patterns in the United States. American Behavioral Scientist(3), 311-326.

Medina Ramírez, S. (2012). La importancia de la reducción del uso del automóvil en México.

Tendencias de motorización, del uso del automóvil y de sus impactos. Retrieved from Mexico: http://mexico.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/Importancia-de-reduccion-de-uso-del-auto.pdf

Mier y Terán, A., Vázquez, I., & Ziccardi, A. (2012).

Pobreza urbana, segregación residencial y mejoramiento del espacio público en la Ciudad de México. Sociologias, 14(30), 118-155. doi:10.1590/S1517-45222012000200005 Navarro Benitez, B. (2006). Congestion at the Limits? . In Mexico City: Growth at the Limit? :

63

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

LSE.

Novaco, R. W., Stokols, D., & Milanesi, L. (1990). Objective and subjective dimensions of travel impedance as determinants of commuting stress. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(2), 231-257. doi:10.1007/ BF00931303

Oliva Serrano, J. (2011). La ciudad autoflexible: Narrativas de la prisa y la exclusión.

The auto-flexible city: Social narratives about the rush and exclusion, 69(1), 33-37. doi:10.3989/ris.2009.08.27 Peck, J. a. (2010). Constructions of neoliberal reason (First edition. ed.): Oxford, United Kingdom : Oxford University Press.

Peters, M. A., & Besley, T. A. C. (2014). Social Exclusion/ Inclusion: Foucault’s analytics of exclusion, the political ecology of social inclusion and the legitimation of inclusive education. Open Review of Educational Research, 1(1), 99-115. doi:10.1080/2326550 7.2014.972439 Power, A. (2001). Social Exclusion and Urban Sprawl: Is the Rescue of Cities Possible? Regional Studies, 35(8), 731-742. doi:10.1080/00343400120084713 Roberts, B. R. (2004). From Marginality to Social Exclusion: From Laissez Faire to Pervasive Engagement. Latin American Research Review, 39(1), 195-197.

Room, G. (1995). Beyond the threshold : the measurement and analysis of social exclusion / edited by Graham Room. Bristol: Bristol : The Policy Press.

Saraceno, C. (2001). Social Exclusion: Cultural Roots and Diversities of a Popular Concept.

In: University of Turin.

Saraví, G. (2008). Segregación, sociabilidad urbana y escuela en la Ciudad deMéxico: la coexistencia de mundos aislados. Revista Eure, Vol.

64

XXXIV, pp. 93-110. Retrieved from

Satterthwaite, D. (2003). The links between poverty and the environment in urban areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 590, 73-92.

Schneider, A., & Woodcock, C. (2008). Compact, Dispersed, Fragmented, Extensive? A Comparison of Urban Growth in Twenty-five Global Cities using Remotely Sensed Data, Pattern Metrics and Census Information. Urban Studies, 45(3), 659. doi:10.1177/0042098007087340 Sen, A. (1983). Poor, relatively speaking. Dublin: Dublin : Economic and Social Research Institute.

Sen, A. (2000). SOCIAL EXCLUSION: CONCEPT, APPLICATION, AND SCRUTINY Asian Development Bank.

Sánchez, J. (2012). La vivienda “social” en México: Pasado, presente y futuro. In. Mexico DF: JSa. TRB, T. R. B. (1998). The Costs of Sprawl—Revisited.

Retrieved from Washington, D.C.:

UN. (1995). The Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of ActionThe Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action. Retrieved from New York: UN-HABITAT. (2015). Reporte Nacional de Movilidad Urbana en México 2014-2015. In.

Violich, F. (1987). Urban planning for Latin America : the challenge of metropolitan growth. Boston, Mass.: Boston, Mass. : Gunn & Hain in association with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Ward, P. M. a. (2015). Housing policy in Latin American cities : a new generation of strategies and approaches for 2016 UN-Habitat III<span class="frbrsuppress"> / Peter M. Ward, Edith R. Jiménez

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

Huerta and Mercedes Di Virgilio: New York : Routledge.

WHO. (2009). Global status report on road safety Time for action. In. Washington DC. Zermeño, S. (2005). La desmodernidad mexicana y las alternativas a la violencia y la exclusión en nuestros días. In. Mexico: Océano de México.

Zhao, P. (2013). The Impact of Urban Sprawl on Social Segregation in B eijing and a Limited Role for Spatial Planning. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 104(5), 571-587. doi:10.1111/tesg.12030

Zhao, P., & Li, S. (2016). Restraining transport inequality in growing cities: Can spatial planning play a role? International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 00-00. doi:10.1 080/15568318.2016.1191693

65

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

66

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

appendices appendix 1: brief context of housing policy in mexico At the national level, strong institutional weaknesses contribute to the uncontrolled expansion of cities. Since the enactment of the General Law of Human Settlements in 1976, the issue of urban planning has been removed from the national agenda.

The absence of a National Urban Development Agency (and its relegation to an undersecretary in the Social Development Ministry) proves the lack of importance given to urban development (ITDP, 2013).

Furthermore, housing and mobility-related issues are normally not considered in urban development planning, and, in the case of mobility, usually reduced to a local problem (ibid).

In the case of housing policies, institutional weaknesses have largely contributed to the horizontal expansion of Mexican cities. Since the first migration waves of the 40s, the state introduced (rather timidly) housing construction programs which resulted extremely insufficient for the magnitude of the problem and which never reached the national policy level (Leal Iga, 2012; Leal Iga & López Estrada, 2012). Thus, by the 1980’s, pushed by the World Bank’s structural adjustment guidelines, the Mexican government was interested in bolstering the housing market by including the participation of the financial and private construction sectors (Boils, 2004; Leal Iga & López Estrada, 2012). Since then, public organisms abandoned their role in the design, construction and regulation of housing to become funders and facilitators of private construction companies.

Therefore, the production of social housing turned into a financial business. This led to the commodification of housing, the disappearance of quality supervision and hence, to the detriment of the quality of housing and its urban impact (García P, 2010). Without quality control, and seeking to maximize their profits, housing developers were able to purchase the cheapest land outside the city without any consideration for the offer of nearby jobs or the accessibility of services and transport facilities (ITDP, 2013). Figure 7 shows the levels and actors involved in the social housing development process.

67

Sprawl as a creator of Social Exclusion

appendices appendix 2: evolution of density in monterrey

Figure 39- Evolution of density in Monterrey

(Source: Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo Leรณn, 2012)

68

The relationship between housing and mobility in Monterrey, Mexico

appendices appendix 3: motorization degree and density in different metropolitan zones in mx, 2010

Figure 39- Motorization degree and density in Mexican metropolitan zones

(Source: ITDP, 2012)

69