Search for: All records

How can global megacities respond to increased threats from natural hazards? Looking at hazard events that produced drinking water crises in Bogota, Colombia, and Mexico City, Mexico, we compare these cities’ efforts to decrease potable water consumption. We ask how and why the socioeconomic and biophysical contexts shape city policymakers’ responses to water crises and consider the immediate and lasting impacts of technical and behavioral interventions. Leveraging our 2 case studies in Latin America, we identify how the unique policy contexts affected the interventions used and helped determine their outcomes. Four factors are identified as particularly relevant as follows: the differential roles of scientific and technical perspectives in each context, the role of ideology, the complexity of the environmental policy problems in each setting, and the varied roles of policy entrepreneurs in Bogota and Mexico City. 

The complexities of many environmental problems make the task of identifying potential solutions daunting. We present a diagnostic framework to help guide environmental policy analysts and practitioners to think more systematically about the major types of environmental problems and their possible policy responses. Our framework helps the user classify a problem into 1 of the 3 main problem categories, and then for each of the problem types think about contextual factors that will influence the choice of policy responses. The main problem types are (1) common-pool resource (CPR) problems (e.g., overfishing, groundwater depletion, and forest degradation); (2) pollution problems (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions, eutrophication, acid rain, and smog); and (3) hazards (natural and human-made hazards, including hurricanes, wildfires, and levy collapse). For each of these problems, the framework asks users to consider several contextual factors that are known to influence the likely effectiveness of different policy responses, particularly fast-thinking behavior. The framework is a heuristic tool that will help novice analysts develop a deeper understanding of the problems at hand and an appreciation for the complexities involved in coming up with workable solutions to environmental challenges. The proposed framework is not prescriptive but analytical in that it asks users guiding questions to assess multiple aspects of a problem. The resulting problem assessment helps to narrow down the number of viable options for environmental policy responses, each of which may, in turn, be assessed with an eye toward their legal, political, and social viability.