## 3 Results  
### Total Citywide Energy-Related CO\({}_{2}\) Emissions  
Using the GPC method, the average energy-related CO\({}_{2}\) emissions in Chiang Mai in 2015 and 2019 was determined to be 2,146,060 tCO\({}_{2}\)eq (maximum = 2,270,460 in 2019 and minimum = 2,042,584 in 2015) (Figure 3a). In 2015, under the BAU scenario, the residential building sector was the largest contributor to citywide energy-related CO\({}_{2}\) emissions (650,983 tCO\({}_{2}\)eq or 31.87% of the total CO\({}_{2}\) emission) (Figure 3b). This result is supported by a previous study [19] that reported that residential buildings were considered an important source of GHG emissions and represent approximately 20% of the total energy consumption in the US. Interestingly, in this study, industrial energy consumption was considered the second largest CO\({}_{2}\) emitter, accounting for 27.69% of the total emissions (565,597 tCO\({}_{2}\)eq). More specifically, as depicted in Figure 4a, food preservation and ice production industries were by far the largest contributor of GHG emissions attributable to industrial energy consumption in Chiang Mai (27-33%). Meanwhile, fish and seafood preservation and rice milling factories accounted for only 6-8% of the total emissions from industrial energy consumption. Similarly, food-related production accounted for roughly 29% of all consumption-derived GHG emissions in the European Union [20]. It could be presumed that electricity utilized for food production processes (i.e., used for operating cooling and freezing equipment) is one of the largest sources of energy-related CO\({}_{2}\) emissions. For instance, the climate impact of seafood factories is dominantly due to GHG emissions from onboard cooling equipment and diesel combustion [20]. In this research, the remainder of citywide energy-related CO\({}_{2}\) emissions in Chiang Mai were from commercial and governmental buildings (15.10%; 308,393 tCO\({}_{2}\)eq), energy use in agriculture activities, and unidentified activities (Figure 3b). As the third-largest emitter of citywide energy-related CO\({}_{2}\) emissions, the primary sources of GHG emissions from commercial and governmental buildings in Chiang Mai were shopping malls (51.7%), universities and hospitals (32%), and hotel and apartment services (16.3%) (Figure 4b).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Aspects of Sustainability** & **Indictors** & **References** \\ \hline Environmental performance & \(\bullet\) Direct contribution to environmental benefits & [13] \\  & \(\bullet\) Direct contribution to climate benefits as GHG reduction & [13,18] \\ Political, technical and economic feasibility & \(\bullet\) Costs and benefits of implementing climate mitigation measures & [13] \\  & \(\bullet\) Policy possibility/stringency for non-compliance & [13] \\  & \(\bullet\) Technological feasibility of implementing climate mitigation measures & [13] \\  & \(\bullet\) Added value creation from energy efficiency measures in households & [13] \\ Human and social dimensions & \(\bullet\) Participation in societal decision-making processes & [13,18] \\  & \(\bullet\) Society’s ability of self-organization & [13] \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Indicators for assessing the sustainability of developing low-carbon policies and the most preferred climate mitigation measures.  
Figure 4: Percentage of GHG emissions from (**a**) industrial energy consumption and (**b**) energy consumption in commercial and governmental buildings in Chiang Mai, Thailand.  
Figure 3: Average energy-related CO2 emissions in Chiang Mai, Thailand from 2015 to 2019 defined as (**a**) emissions by sector (tCO2e) and (**b**) proportion of emissions (%).