University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Environmental equity and urban sustainability: an analysis of untreated household wastewater in Tijuana, Mexico

(USC Thesis Other)

Environmental equity and urban sustainability: an analysis of untreated household wastewater in Tijuana, Mexico

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content ENVIRONMENTAL EQUITY AND URBAN SUSTAINABILITY:
AN ANALYSIS OF UNTREATED HOUSEHOLD WASTEWATER IN TIJUANA, MEXICO

by

Rachel Russell

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(GEOGRAPHY)

December 2013

Copyright 2013 Rachel Russell

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my adviser Jennifer Wolch for her many years of guidance,
dedication, and patience as I worked through my qualifying exam, dissertation proposal,
and dissertation. I have learned a great deal from her about writing and self-confidence.
I would like to thank the other members of my dissertation guidance committee, Andrew
Curtis, Carol Wise and Meredith Franklin, for their time and intellectual guidance. In
addition, I am indebted to other faulty at University of Southern California that offered
professional or intellectual support during different stages of my degree progress,
including Michael Dear, Jacqueline Mills, Laura Pulido, Manuel Pastor and John Wilson.
I am particularly grateful for the support that made completing this dissertation in
a timely manner possible. My fieldwork was made possible by financial support from the
University of Southern California, in particular the USC Summer International Fieldwork
Fellowships and the Final Year Fellowship. I wish to thank my interview participants for
taking the time to speak openly with me. I would also like to thank those individuals who
offered their skills to expedite my progress including Marlene Martell, for her
transcription of interviews in Spanish, and Louisa Holmes, for her statistical suggestions
and support. Pat Alford-Keating kept me balanced over the last six years. Thank you to
Kate Kelsey, Billie Shotlow, Robert Alvarez, Lelani Banks, and Melissa Salido for their
administrative and technological support.
Writing a dissertation can be a long, challenging process. I owe an enormous debt
to my colleagues and friends who provided the years of laughter, strength, and wine that
sustained me through this process. In particular, I would like to thank Julienne Gard,
iii

Daniel Goldberg, Christine Lam, Jennifer Mapes, Elizabeth Sedano, Mona Seymour, and
Daniel Warshawsky for always lending a sympathetic ear. Ann Fletchall, Bryan Paris,
Megan Resch, Darren Ruddell, Marissa Smith, Lindsey Sutton, and Elowyn Yager
continued to provide camaraderie and encouragement even after I moved on from
Arizona State University. I must also recognize the support and structure provided by my
many writing partners Lorien Hunter, Claire Nettleton, Ayana McNair, and Cecelia
Stepp. Their friendship and encouragement are in many ways responsible for the
following pages.
I must thank my family for their constant love and support. My parents, Pat and
Judy, my siblings, Noah and Kate, and my new family members, Debbie, John,
Stephanie, Evan, Lisa, and Olivia, have been my unceasing champions from beginning to
end. Finally, I deeply appreciate the six years of partnership, love, confidence, and
proofreading provided by Jason Karegeannes. I look forward to many more.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Dissertation 1
Constructing Wastewater Riskscapes in Tijuana 5
Research Objectives and Chapter Structure 8
Chapter 2: The Impact of Socioeconomic Marginality,
Settlement Formality, and Geographic Marginality on
Access to Wastewater Infrastructure in Tijuana, Mexico 13
Constructing and defining wastewater riskscapes 17
The case of Tijuana- Conceptual Framework 21
Spatial distribution of wastewater infrastructure in Tijuana 33
Conclusion 56
Chapter 3: Transborder Flows of Untreated Wastewater:
Comparing Media Discourse in Tijuana and
San Diego from 2007-2011 62
Management of untreated wastewater in the
Tijuana-San Diego border region 65
Discursive Contexts: Framing the wastewater problematic 68
Analyzing Media Communications and Discourse 71
Newspaper Storylines 82
Mapping Discourse 86
Deconstructing the framing of the wastewater problematic 92
Discussion 103
Conclusion 109
Chapter 4: Evaluating Urban Sustainability Contributions of
Centralized and Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment in Tijuana, Mexico 112
Sustainable wastewater treatment 114
Centralized wastewater treatment: controlling
urban water flows 115
Decentralized wastewater treatment: maximizing
resource recovery and reducing environmental impacts 117
Wastewater treatment in Tijuana 126
v

Methodology 131
Sustainable Indicator Analysis 133
Introducing alternative wastewater treatment in
Tijuana: A case study of Ecoparque 147
Discussion 162
Conclusion 168
Chapter 5: Conclusion to the Dissertation 171
Review of research findings 172
Implications of research 176
Possibilities for future research 182
Bibliography 186
Appendices
Appendix A: Correlation Matrix 206
Appendix B: Tukey’s Test Mean Difference 209
Appendix C: Problem and Solution Term Lists English 214
Appendix D: Problem and Solution Term Lists Spanish 218
Appendix E: Number of articles containing
framing key words 223
Appendix F: Interview Questions 226

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Causal Processes for Tijuana's Wastewater Riskscapes 22
Table 2: Geographic and Social Marginality Variables 37
Table 3: Geographic Factors 39
Table 4: Class levels for percent piped, indoor water 45
Table 5: Class levels for average years of education 46
Table 6: Summary statistics of variables used in global linear model 48
Table 7: ANOVA results 48
Table 8: Tukey's test results for Average Years Education 50
Table 9: Tukey's test results for Piped Water 51
Table 10: Tukey's test results for Geomorphology 52
Table 11: Wastewater Indicators 136
Table 12: Wastewater Indicators (cont’d) 137
Table 13: Ecoparque stakeholders interviewed 149

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Tijuana River Watershed 4
Figure 2: Map of Tijuana Delegaciones (Administrative Boroughs) 35
Figure 3: Proportion homes without wastewater infrastructure 36
Figure 4: Proportion homes with piped, indoor water 45
Figure 5: Average years of education 46
Figure 6: Geomorphology class level 47
Figure 7: Comparing spatial distribution of ANOVA factors 54
Figure 8: Wastewater newspaper articles by year 74
Figure 9: Typology of untreated wastewater framing 79
Figure 10: Newspaper articles by time period 88
Figure 11: Correspondence map of problem and solution terms 89
Figure 12: Driveway into Ecoparque through reforestation project 152
Figure 13: Looking northeast across Ecoparque with trickling filter
in the background 152
Figure 14: White trailer serves as Ecoparque’s environmental education
offices 154
Figure 15: Welcome signs at Ecoparque credit COLEF,
its current funding source 156
Figure 16: Ecoparque's trickling filter 159

viii

ABSTRACT
The global population is increasingly urban. This rapid urbanization and
accompanying industrial growth has forced cities to draw on increasingly distant
environments for resources and waste sinks. At the same time, the quality of life in urban
areas has declined, leaving the urban poor without access to basic urban services,
including adequate housing and water, waste, and sanitation services. This dissertation
explores the human and environmental implications of inadequate sanitation collection
and treatment infrastructure in Tijuana, and in the larger transborder Tijuana River
Watershed. This study investigates the political, social, economic, and geographic
contexts that have produced inequitable distribution of wastewater infrastructure in
Tijuana and degraded the binational ecosystem. Qualitative and quantitative research
methods are employed to examine the discursive, environmental justice, and urban
sustainability aspects of untreated wastewater in this rapidly urbanizing border city.
This dissertation has three research objectives. The first objective examines and
identifies the socioeconomic and geographic factors that influence a lack of access to
wastewater collection infrastructure. This analysis reveals the areas of Tijuana most
susceptible to insufficient infrastructure, and discusses the social, political, economic, and
geographic processes that have affected the city’s distribution of wastewater
infrastructure. Findings suggest that areas of Tijuana with low levels of piped water
service, low levels of education, and a physical geography of steep slopes are most likely
to also lack wastewater service. The second objective of this dissertation examines media
communications surrounding transborder untreated wastewater flows in Tijuana and San
ix

Diego. This research objective seeks to understand the complex process of discourse
formation surrounding a transborder environmental issue. Media discourse in Tijuana
and San Diego are markedly different. Residents of Tijuana are exposed to a positive
discourse focused on government infrastructure improvements. Alternatively, residents
of San Diego are presented with a problem-focused discourse, highlighting the ongoing
quality of life and environmental challenges caused by untreated wastewater. Lastly, the
final research objective investigates two sustainable wastewater treatment technologies
used in Tijuana, a large-scale centralized facility and a small-scale, alternative facility, to
better understand the contributions of these technologies to the city’s economic, social,
and environmental sustainability. A sustainable indicator analysis reveals that while
Ecoparque, the small-scale alternative facility, makes important contributions to
reforestation, slope stabilization, and community education programs, it lacks the
capacity and treatment standards to meet the current and future needs of Tijuana. This
chapter also employs a case study to reveal the difficult and complicated processes of
introducing Ecoparque to a rapidly developing city.
This dissertation suggests that historic and contemporary processes shape and
reshape the uneven distribution of wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure.
This in turn has created the city’s wastewater riskscapes, where urban poor and recent
migrants bear the most risk and vulnerability to the untreated wastewater. Extending a
more equitable wastewater collection and treatment network would mitigate and protect
the regional environment from future degradation caused by untreated wastewater. In
addition, incorporating sustainable treatment technologies to new and existing wastewater
x

treatment facilities would protect the region’s limited potable water resources while
promoting resource recovery and reuse.

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE DISSERTATION
The United Nations announced in 2008 that the world’s population had reached
50 percent urban for the first time (UNPD 2008). By 2025, the urban population is
expected to surpass 75percent (UNPD 2008). The pace of urbanization has increased
since the early 1970s as industrialization, decolonization, and globalization shifted
patterns of human settlement. The sustainability of the urban system inherently is linked
with the health of the local and distant environment, as cities depend on the environment
for resources and waste absorption. As human society continues to urbanize, cities
depend on increasingly distant resources and waste sinks to support urban residents’ basic
demands for urban services and preserve their quality of life. This practice has drawn
attention to the interconnectedness of local, regional, and global environments as
environmental degradation and ecosystem collapse spreads further afield from the source
of environmental resource consumption and waste disposal. In addition, the reach of
urban and industrial hazards has impacted the quality of life, public health, and
livelihoods of populations located downstream of urban areas or proximate to toxic
extractive industries or waste sinks.
In the global south, rapidly urbanizing areas faced additional challenges of
meeting sustainability and development goals. These cities often lacked the planning
controls and environmental regulations that protect residents of cities in the global north
and the environment from exposure to wastes. In Mexico, economic strategies of the
1980s encouraged foreign investment and export-oriented growth, further commodifying
the country’s natural resources (Goldrich and Carruthers 1992). Concurrently, social and
2

environmental programs were cut, leaving residents and the environment subjected to
further unregulated exploitation for economic growth purposes (Goldrich and Carruthers
1992). The economic and development priorities of lower-income countries like Mexico
during the 1980s and 1990s were often carried out with little enforcement of
environmental regulation or incorporation of sustainable development objectives.
The environmental degradation caused by economic and industrial growth was
further exacerbated by the rapid population growth in urban areas. This growth
throughout the global south outpaced urban areas’ ability to provide adequate housing,
infrastructure, or basic urban services. Fueled by an urbanization of poverty, the rural
poor migrated to urban centers seeking employment and economic opportunity offered by
the growing industrial and manufacturing sectors. With limited choices for housing or
land for development, informal settlements developed on marginal land within the city or
at the urban periphery to house poor urban residents. These settlements lacked basic
planning controls and access to core urban services, such as water, electricity, or
sanitation. As a result, wastes from these communities entered the ecosystem directly
without passing through treatment facilities, placing residents and ecosystems at risk for
exposure to pathogens.
Along the United States-Mexico border, the population of Mexican border cities
exploded in response to the expansion of the border manufacturing industry that began in
the 1970s. Cities such as Tijuana, Mexico, struggled to provide basic urban infrastructure
to its rapidly growing population despite its geographic proximity to the eighth largest
city in the U.S., San Diego, California. Tijuana’s complex economic, political, social,
3

and geographic histories contributed to the uneven distribution of urban services, most
notably wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure. The city managed to provide
nearly 93 percent of the city with potable water services, but in 2000, 12.6 percent of
homes still had no access to wastewater services (SEDESOE 2008, INEGI 2000).
The combination of poor construction, inadequate building materials, and
insufficient services characteristic of Tijuana’s informal settlements increased the
residents’ vulnerability to environmental and public health hazards. Without access to
adequate sanitation collection and treatment services, residents of informal settlements
were at risk for contracting parasitic, infectious, and respiratory diseases. Marginalized
residents had little power to direct infrastructure expansion and often constructed their
own systems that drained untreated into the Tijuana River.
Furthermore, Tijuana’s current and planned wastewater infrastructure threatened
the city’s urban sustainability goals. Aging pipelines and pumping stations were
susceptible to rupture, spewing untreated wastewater throughout the local and regional
environment. Tijuana’s location in an arid environment forced planners to depend on
imported water from the Colorado River to supply its growing residential and industrial
population. The city’s Colorado River allotment would be challenged by a changing
climate, leading planners to urge conserve of existing water resources and find new water
sources. Tijuana made efforts to address this problem through a program to use treated
wastewater for irrigation, thus reducing the potable water used and furthering
sustainability goals through water recycling.
4

Figure 1: Tijuana River Watershed
Tijuana’s shared geography with San Diego further complicated the city’s
wastewater collection and treatment. The twin border cities shared the transborder
Tijuana River Watershed, a 1,750 square mile area of which Tijuana occupied about two-
thirds of the upstream land area (Figure 1). San Diego and the surrounding communities
occupied one-third of the watershed, including the sensitive Tijuana River Estuary where
the Tijuana River drains into the Pacific Ocean. Located downstream from Tijuana, San
Diego residents and environments were exposed to Tijuana’s uncontrolled flows of
untreated wastewater that travel north across the border and into the estuary and ocean.
Despite new treatment plant construction on both sides of the border, recent failures of
5

wastewater infrastructure indicated that the related environmental and public health
concerns continue.

Constructing Wastewater Riskscapes in Tijuana
Tijuana’s economy, politics, society, and geography shape the existing
wastewater riskscapes. The term riskscape is used within political ecology,
environmental justice, and hazards research. Originating from hazards and vulnerability
research, riskscapes or hazardscapes identify spatial or temporal trends of natural and
artificial hazards in a particular place (Cutter 2001). Researchers examine the patterns of
hazards and the underlying physical and social processes that give rise to risk or create
social or biophysical vulnerability (Cutter 1995, Cutter 2001). In environmental justice
literature, scholars assess the spatial variation in exposure and vulnerability to air toxics,
industrial hazards, wastewater hazards (Jerrett and Finkelstein 2005, Morello-Frosch et
al. 2001). This chapter examines the disparity in spatial exposure to untreated household
wastewater as well as the social, political, economic, and geographic processes that create
vulnerability (or susceptibility) to untreated household wastewater. Ideas drawn from
urban political ecology, Latin American environmental justice, and sustainable
development scholarship provide a theoretical foundation to explore how Tijuana’s
wastewater riskscapes have been biophysically and socially constructed.
Urban political ecology research is concerned with the critical examination of the
economic, political, social, and geographic causal processes that produce uneven and
inequitable urban environments (Blakie and Brookfield 1987, Heynen et al. 2006, Bryant
6

1997, Keil 2003, Swyngedouw 2004). These processes interact to create the urban
landscape and determine access to urban amenities and disamenities. In the global south,
urban areas are linked to the global economy as neoliberal economic reforms open the
economies of developing countries to the rest of the world. To attract additional foreign
investment, many cities in the global south have tried to extend their control over nature
in the city with new infrastructure projects, such as paved roads, water networks, or
sewage systems (Gandy 2003, Swyngedouw 2004).
As economic and political processes change, social relations are impacted by the
emerging uneven patterns of urbanization. The ability to access the benefits of recent
neoliberal economic reforms, such as improved quality of life, housing, and access to
infrastructure, is not uniform across the city. Politically, economically, and socially
marginalized residents bear a larger environmental and public health burden associated
with urban and industrial growth. These residents lack a political voice and are excluded
from urban infrastructural and environmental improvement decision-making. Urban
political ecology seeks to unpack power relations to improve social and environmental
injustices that result from neoliberal or other types of economic reforms.
The combination of rapid growth and increased urban economic inequality deepen
Tijuana’s urban stratification and environmental inequity. Complex urbanization patterns
in Latin America have compelled scholars to redefine traditional environmental justice
theories based in the U.S. and Western Europe’s experiences. Environmental injustice is
understood as the disproportional location of environmental hazards in socially
marginalized neighborhoods (Pulido 1996, Pastor et al. 2004, Grineski and Collins 2008).
7

In the U.S., environmental justice scholars recognize the historical trend of systematic
exposure of persons of color and lower-income to a disproportionate level of
environmental hazards (Pulido 1996, Pastor et al. 2004, Pastor et al. 2005, Pastor et al.
2006, United Church of Christ 1987).
Latin American environmental justice analysis suggests that the region’s growth
patterns have disproportionately exposed marginalized residents to environmental
hazards (Carruthers 2008, Roberts and Thanos 2003). Rapid and unregulated
development characteristic of the regions’ informal settlements have created dense
neighborhoods that lack green space or infrastructure. This uneven geography of
development has positioned marginalized residents in substandard housing with
insufficient infrastructure. Due to their living conditions and economic status, residents
of informal settlements are at an increased risk of exposure to urban, industrial, and
environmental hazards (Grineski and Collins 2008, 2010, Finco and Hepner 1999).
Along the U.S.-Mexico border, scholars have attempted to better define, analyze,
and mitigate environmental injustices in heavily industrialized border cities. What is
absent from these analyses is an understanding of how the physical landscape impacts
resident’s exposure to hazards. Informal settlements often occupy land at the urban
periphery that is unsuitable for development, characterized by steep hillsides, riverbeds,
sensitive ecosystems, or toxic lands adjacent to industrial zones. This challenging
physical geography of land available to the urban poor and recent migrants complicates
expansion of urban infrastructure, and needs further investigation to understand the
influence of geographic marginality on exposure to hazards.
8

Globalization has highlighted the interconnected nature of environmental systems
and the challenge of negotiating environmental protections across borders. Tijuana’s
population and industrial growth demand more natural resources and spread
environmental impacts beyond the local ecosystem. The provision of basic sanitation
infrastructure is viewed as a necessary element to achieve urban sustainability and avoid
overburdening it’s the local and regional environments (Choguill 1996). Untreated
domestic wastewater creates critical environmental and public health problems, polluting
surface and groundwater sources as well as exposing residents to dangerous pathogens.
Sustainable wastewater treatment technologies integrate human activity into natural
cycles, improve equitable distribution of services, limit the use of water, and eliminate
the release of wastes into the environment (Swyngedouw 2004, Kaika and Swyngedouw
2000, Kaika 2005, Heynen et al. 2006, Butler and Parkinson 1997, Otterpohl, Grottker,
and Lange 1997, Jettern, Horn and van Loordrect 1997). These technologies promote a
more beneficial relationship with water resources and the surrounding environment by
respecting the limits of the ecosystem. Adoption of sustainable wastewater treatment
technologies promote the core sustainable development philosophy of using resources in
a way that meets human needs while preserving the environment.
Each of these theoretical traditions alone provides insight into the challenges of
human-induced changes to the physical landscape as well as environmental equity.
These three theoretical traditions share a focus on the impacts of urban development on
the environment, including the unequal distribution of environmental risks and benefits,
access and control of environmental resources, control over discourse, and poverty as an
9

environmental problem. Drawing from each tradition, this dissertation articulates a
theoretical approach that supports an investigation of the political, social, economic, and
environmental causal processes that have influenced urban environmental inequity as
well as local and regional efforts to better understand and manage environmental
degradation within the Tijuana River Watershed.

Research Objectives and Chapter Structure
This dissertation investigates the political, economic, social and environmental
contexts that have produced inequitable distribution of wastewater infrastructure and
related risks in Tijuana, and that degrade the binational watershed ecosystem. The
project harnesses qualitative and quantitative research methods to examine the discursive,
environmental justice, and urban sustainability aspects of untreated wastewater in this
rapidly urbanizing border city. Three sets of research questions frame this study:
1) How has Tijuana’s history and geography influenced the current distribution of
wastewater services and infrastructure? Related, what is the spatial relationship between
insufficient wastewater service and geographic and socioeconomic marginality in
Tijuana? While it is clear that socioeconomic factors have contributed to the availability
and quality of service, the role of geographic marginality has not been fully analyzed in
urban service provision research.
2) How does geography influence media discourse on transborder wastewater
issues? Examining discourse related to wastewater in Tijuana and Mexico provides an
10

opportunity to investigate how understandings of a complex environmental, political,
economic and social issue are shaped across multiple publics.
3) Do sustainable wastewater treatment plants in Tijuana balance adding needed
treatment capacity and preserving the local and regional environment, and if so, how?
This quantification of sustainability costs and benefits demonstrates the contributions of
centralized and decentralized sustainable wastewater treatment to improving public and
environmental health within the Tijuana River Watershed.
Three research objectives structure this dissertation. The first research objective,
addressed in Chapter 2, is to define the factors that influence deficits in wastewater
infrastructure in Tijuana. This chapter reviews Tijuana’s wastewater services and
outlines the socioeconomic, geographic, and settlement formality factors to answer the
initial set of research questions, how has Tijuana’s history and geography influenced the
current distribution of wastewater services and infrastructure? Specifically, this chapter
defines and identifies the socioeconomic and geographic factors that are most associated
with lack of wastewater infrastructure. This chapter provides context for the following
chapters through a thorough review of the economic, political, social, and geographic
place-based histories that have contributed to the city’s uneven landscape of basic urban
service provision.
This analysis uses a three-way analysis of variance and GIS to analyze and
visualize the relationship between the lack of access to wastewater infrastructure and
socioeconomic, settlement formality, and physical geography factors. Data for this
analysis are provided by the 2000 Mexican Census of Population and the Tijuana River
11

Watershed GIS Clearinghouse. Additionally, a historical review of the region’s
economic, political, social, and geographic development provides contextual information
to better interpret statistical findings.
The second objective is to analyze the impact of wastewater discourse on
environmental and infrastructural policy. Tijuana’s location in the transborder Tijuana
River Watershed means that flows of untreated wastewater negatively impacts both sides
of the border. Chapter 3 tackles this research objective, to determine how specific local
contexts produce different and sometimes competing discourses that influence
policymaking and public understanding of wastewater issues. Significant themes and
specific language used in newspapers can influence or shape readers perception of
wastewater and programs to end the transborder transfer of wastes. This chapter is framed
by the research question, how has media discourse contributed to perceptions of
transborder wastewater issues?
The analysis of discourse and framing of wastewater includes Tijuana and San
Diego newspapers of record, The San Diego Union-Tribune and El Sol de Tijuana. The
combination of correspondence analysis and content analysis provides a complete picture
of wastewater and environmental degradation representations in media communications
from 2007-2011. This chapter also offers perspective on the long-term battle over
untreated wastewater, regional environmental protection efforts, and binational policy
decisions.
The third objective of this dissertation is to investigate the growth, manifestations,
and impacts of sustainable wastewater treatment in Tijuana. Chapter 4 investigates the
12

contributions of a centralized, large-scale wastewater treatment plant, Arturo Herrara, and
a small-scale, decentralized treatment plant, Ecoparque, in Tijuana in reducing public
health concerns and mitigating local and regional environmental degradation caused by
untreated wastewater exposure. Centralized and decentralized treatment facilities that
incorporate sustainable treatment technologies reduce Tijuana’s overreliance on imported
potable water and return treated wastewater to the water cycle with minimal impact on
the environment. This chapter also examines how the two diverse facilities address
regional concerns regarding water use and urban environment and public understanding
of the impact of urban water use on the water cycle.
This objective is supported by a sustainable wastewater treatment indicator
analysis. Indicators seek to define the functional, economic, environmental, and social
contributions of Arturo Herrera and Ecoparque. Indicators assist in the comparison of
different treatment technologies to determine the effectiveness of each technology
(Balkema et al. 2002, Muga and Mihelcic 2008). Data are obtained from official facility
documents and government reports. A series of semi-structured interviews with core
Ecoparque stakeholders add context to the indicator analysis and provide a window into
the challenges of introducing small-scale alternative treatment facilities to a rapidly
urbanizing area. This final empirical chapter addresses the challenges of providing
wastewater treatment infrastructure to meet growing demand for basic services, while
balancing transborder ecosystem preservation demands.
The final chapter offers a conclusion to the dissertation. This chapter reviews the
findings of the research and discusses policy implications and future research directions.
13

CHAPTER 2: THE IMPACT OF SOCIOECONOMIC MARGINALITY,
SETTLEMENT FORMALITY, AND GEOGRAPHIC MARGINALITY ON ACCESS
TO WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE IN TIJUANA, MEXICO

The expansion of neoliberal economics to developing economies in the 1980s and
1990s initiated a growth of urban political ecology and environmental justice research in
cities outside of the United States and Western Europe. Emerging economic hubs
experienced exceptional economic and population growth, generating increased
inequality and decreased urban environmental quality. Outlining the causal processes
behind the complex urbanization patterns of developing cities illustrated the inherent
connections between economic and political transitions and uneven social and
environmental outcomes. Investigation into the marginalization of disadvantaged groups
in Latin America revealed residents without political, economic, or social power faced
unequal exposure to environmental hazards associated with growing cities, such as air
toxics, industrial hazardous wastes, and untreated household wastewater (Grineski and
Collins 2010, Kopinak and Barajas 2002, Checkley et al. 2004, Downs et al. 1999).
The expansion of the maquiladora manufacturing industry in Mexico’s Northern
border cities draws numerous migrants from the country’s rural areas and interior states.
The twin cities of Tijuana, Baja California and San Diego, California are the most
densely populated and economically prosperous region along the U.S.-Mexico border
(Pezzoli 2006). This growing transfrontier metropolis shares not only a market and labor
economy but also the Tijuana River Watershed, a 1,750 square mile area that crosses the
Baja California-California border and discharges south of San Diego into the Tijuana
14

River Estuary and the Pacific Ocean. Tijuana’s rapid, unplanned urbanization generates
growing informal settlements with inadequate infrastructure and poor environmental
quality (Pombo 2000, Pezzoli 2006, Peña 2005). While the city continues to improve the
extent and capacity of basic infrastructure for residents, the provision of wastewater
collection infrastructure to informal settlements has not kept pace with expansion of
potable water networks (Hazin 1997). Insufficient wastewater infrastructure exposes
residents to disease and deposits untreated wastewater into the sensitive transborder
ecosystem.
Tijuana’s economy, politics, society, and geography shape the existing
wastewater riskscapes, or the spatial variation in exposure and vulnerability to
wastewater hazards (Jerrett and Finkelstein 2005, Morello-Frosch et al. 2001). This
chapter uses a theoretical foundation based in urban political ecology and Latin American
environmental justice literature to investigate the social construction Tijuana’s
wastewater riskscapes. Urban political ecologists attempt to break down the city-
environment binary in favor of a more critical examination of the political, economic,
social, and geographic causal processes that produce uneven and inequitable urban
environments (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987, Heynen et al. 2006, Bryant 1997, Bryant and
Brookfield 1998, Keil 2003, 2005, Swyngedouw 2004). The combination of rapid
growth and increased urban inequality deepen Tijuana’s urban stratification and
environmental inequity. The broad literature of the Latin American urban development
experience examines rising levels of urban inequality, extreme poverty, and declining
environmental quality. The expansion of Latin American environmental justice theory
15

redefines conditions of marginality and hazard exposure based on the region’s
urbanization patterns and includes variables not traditionally used in environmental
justice analysis in the Global North (Grineski and Collins 2010, Grineski et al. 2010,
Collins 2009, Kopinak and Barajas 2002).
Wastewater infrastructure includes both collection and treatment systems. For
this analysis I focus on the domestic collection system that transports used household
water to a treatment plant. The World Health Organization defines sufficient sanitation
as ‘improved sanitation’, or the hygienic separation of human wastes from human contact
through technologies such as a domestic connection to public sewers, a septic system,
pour-flush latrines, and ventilated improved pit latrines within 1 km of the home (WHO
2003:4). This analysis considers areas of Tijuana without formal wastewater sanitation
infrastructure, exploring what the WHO calls unimproved sanitation. Although the
WHO’s definition does not account for the condition, maintenance, or terrain of these
facilities, this definition aligns with Mexican Census categories of household wastewater
and sanitation.
In this chapter, I examine the human and environmental impact of socioeconomic
and environmental marginality through the study of household wastewater infrastructure
in Tijuana. The availability and adequacy of wastewater connections and drainage pipes
varies based on the socioeconomic status, formality, and physical geography of Tijuana
neighborhoods. At the confluence of susceptibility and exposure to untreated household
wastewater are Tijuana’s informal settlements, suggesting an intricate history of the
formation and distribution of the city’s wastewater riskscapes (Jerrett and Finkelstein
16

2005, Morello-Frosch et al. 2001). Tijuana’s informal settlements have insufficient or
nonexistent wastewater collection infrastructure (Pombo 2000, Pezzoli 2006, Peña 2005).
As a result, this wastewater does not reach treatment facilities and drains into the
watershed.
This analysis is designed to identify the place-specific causal processes and
factors that influence the disparity in access to wastewater infrastructure. Specifically,
how has Tijuana’s complicated history and geography contributed to the current
distribution of wastewater services? A review of Tijuana’s urbanization history uncovers
the interwoven processes that shape and reshape the urban landscape to produce a city
with dramatic social, environmental, and economic inequalities.
Second, what is the relationship between insufficient wastewater service and
geographic, socioeconomic, and settlement formality variables? While it is clear
socioeconomic factors contribute to the availability and quality of service, the role of
geographic marginality has not been fully analyzed in urban service provision research.
This chapter uses a quantitative analysis of socioeconomic, settlement formality, and
geographic marginality variables to understand the relationship between these factors and
lack of access to wastewater infrastructure (Grineski et al. 2010, Grineski and Collins
2008). A three-way analysis of variance examines the interaction between the percent of
homes without access to wastewater infrastructure and the marginality factors. Maps of
each variable provide a visual representation of the disparity of infrastructure adequacy
throughout the municipality.
17

This chapter fills two empirical gaps, the first by providing a quantitative analysis
of the relationship between insufficient wastewater infrastructure and marginality factors
and the second through the inclusion of a geographic term in the analysis. Research into
the provision and equitable distribution of basic urban services in Latin America is well-
established, investigating the specific historical legacies and contexts that create current
distribution patterns (Pezzoli 1998, Swyngedouw 2004, Hardoy et al. 1992). However,
the focus of these studies tends to be potable water, municipal solid waste disposal, and
electricity services. Domestic wastewater service is not well represented in the literature
despite its vital role in urban public health as a critical barrier against parasitic, infectious,
and respiratory diseases. Additionally, despite the well-documented limited land
availability for poor and new migrants, these studies neglect to quantify and analyze
geographic marginality. The geography and physical landscape greatly influence hazard
exposure, vulnerability to risk, and availability of basic urban services.

Constructing and defining wastewater riskscapes

Urban political ecology
Urban political ecology developed out of political ecology theory, wherein
researchers seek to explain the relationships between the environment and society.
Merging broadly defined political economy and human ecology theories, political
ecology suggests that the costs and benefits of environmental change are unequally
distributed (Bryant 1992, Robbins 2012). Additionally, political ecology also rejects the
18

assumptions that nature and society are discrete entities, instead critically examining “the
relationships between environmental change, socio-economic impact, and political
process” to expose how these processes are intertwined and reinforcing (Bryant 1992:
27). Therefore, research often focuses on linked environmental and social justice themes
that address the unequal exposure to environmental degradation and empowerment of the
urban and rural poor (Pezzoli 1998:27, see Swyngedouw 2004, Moore 2008).
Urban political ecology literature investigates how these processes play out in the
social production of urban environments. As cities became increasingly dependent on
the global economy, urbanization patterns shape and reshape how cities are built,
organized, and lived. Urban areas traditionally are represented as the antithesis of the
natural environment. However, urbanization creates more complex relationships between
nature and society as cities become centers for economic, political, and social processes
that produce new environmental conditions (Keil 2003, Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003).
These processes produce uneven, unjust, and unsustainable urban environments and
transform social relations within the city (Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003).
The spread of capitalist globalization and the commodification of nature compel
urban areas to depend more on local and distant environments for valuable natural
resources and disposal of urban wastes. Urban development requires more resources for
public and industry uses, forcing cities to establish complex infrastructure networks
designed to ease the flow of resources into and out of the city. The implications of the
new urban system include environmental inequality and the marginalization of socially
disadvantaged groups (Bryant 1998, Sassen 1994, Pezzoli 1998).
19

Imbedded in these urban economic, social, political, and environmental changes
are unequal power relations (Swyngedouw and Heynen 2003). The combination of
political struggles, economic concerns, and environmental changes results in conflict over
the access and use of environmental resources (Bryant 1998, Hecht and Cockburn 1990,
Moore 2008, Pezzoli 1998). Urban political ecology research exposes power
relationships and examines urban environmental and social injustice outcomes of the
uneven distribution of environmental advantages and disadvantages (Swyngedouw and
Heynen 2003). The structure of social relations manipulates who benefits and who
suffers (and in what ways) from spatially differentiated urban socio-environmental
changes (Desfor and Keil 2004). While marginalization of disadvantaged groups is not
uniform across urban areas, urban political ecology aims to improve the quality of
citizenship, empower the urban poor, and create just urban environments (Heynen et al.
2006, Pezzoli 1998).

Latin American Environmental Justice
Neoliberal economic and political shifts produce dramatic socioeconomic changes
that restructure urbanization patterns and increase urban inequality. Geographers and
other social scientists use the complex urbanization patterns throughout the Global South
to amend traditional environmental justice theories and evaluate exposure to industrial
and household hazards (Carruthers 2008, Pellow 2007, Grineski et al. 2010, Grineski and
Collins 2010), environmental degradation (Blaikie and Brookfield1987, Sattherwaite
2003), access to environmental amenities and nature (Pedlowski et al. 2002, Leichenko
20

and Solecki 2008, Zebich-Knos 2008, de la Parra 2009), and access to basic urban
services (Moore 2008, Pezzoli 1998, Swyngedouw 2004, McGranahan et al. 2001).
Researchers redefine or develop new theories of urbanization (Griffen and Ford 1980,
Ford 1996) and environmental justice (Goldrich and Carruthers 1992, Carruthers 2008) to
separate their social, political, and economic contexts from those of their former
colonizers and other developing regions.
Applying the environmental justice framework used in the U.S. and Western
Europe to Mexico and the Global South is a complex undertaking. Environmental
injustice is understood as the disproportional location of environmental hazards in
socially marginalized neighborhoods (Pulido 1996, Pastor et al. 2004, Grineski and
Collins 2008). In the U.S., environmental justice scholars recognize the historical trend
of systematic exposure of persons of color and lower-income to a disproportionate level
of environmental hazards (Pulido 1996, Pastor et al. 2004, Pastor et al. 2005, Pastor et al.
2006, United Church of Christ 1987). In contrast, the emblematic policies of deliberately
locating hazards among minority communities in the North are not present in Latin
America (Carruthers 2008). The inequitable distribution relates directly to the rapid
urbanization and growth patterns that disproportionately put poor and newly migrated
residents at risk for greater exposure (Carruthers 2008, Roberts and Thanos 2003). For
example, maquiladora factories may be located in older, formalized areas of border cities
with access to urban service and transportation networks. Migrants and the urban poor
settle on undesirable land or adjacent to industrial sites because of availability and
affordability. While all social classes located near the maquiladora have potential for
21

hazard exposure, recent quantitative research on hazard exposure in Ciudad Juarez
identified that residents of poorer neighborhoods face increased daily exposure to
industrial and environmental hazards due to their living conditions and economic status
(Grineski and Collins 2008, 2010; see also Finco and Hepner’s (1999) work in Ambos
Nogales).
The environmental justice movement in Latin America is often embedded within
the region’s popular movements’ work to establish a political voice (Carruthers 2008).
Despite democratic reforms, universal political participation remains limited. Social
justice and equity movements link their environmental concerns into their demand for
greater voice in the political decisions that impact their daily life. In the case of urban
popular movements, the urban poor and recent migrants fault the failed development
strategies that left urban areas unprepared for population growth and the subsequent
uneven exposure to environmental hazards, limited infrastructure, and lack of land tenure
(Carruthers 2008). Environmental inequality and injustice permeate everyday life,
creating the strong bond between social justice activism (Carruthers 2008).

The case of Tijuana- Conceptual Framework
Global and local forces interact to shape the urbanization of Mexican border cities
and manipulate the city’s political process, economic development, and society. As a
result, urbanization in these cities creates distinct patterns of inequality and exposure to
environmental hazards. In Tijuana, inequality includes inadequate access to basic
22

wastewater infrastructure. Four key processes that influence the evolution of these
wastewater riskscapes within Tijuana are (Table 1):
1. geographic contexts, or the physical impact of rapid urbanization on settlement
and environmental quality,
2. economic transformations, or the adoption of neoliberal economic policies,
3. political consolidation, including the gradual decentralization of power of the
central Mexican government, and
4. social challenges, such as marginalization and unequal power relations
Table 1: Causal Processes for Tijuana's Wastewater Riskscapes
Scale Key Causal Process Sub-process Outcomes in Tijuana
International
National
Economic
Transformations
Neoliberal Economic
Policies
 Industrialization of the border
 Structural Adjustment Policies
 Commodification of nature
 NAFTA, Environmental side
agreements
National Political Consolidation Decentralization of
State Power
 State fiscal austerity
 Slow devolution of power over
infrastructure to local
governments
Regional
Metropolitan
Local
Social Challenges Marginalization of the
Urban Poor
 Historically spatialized
ethnic/racial, class divisions
 Rising inequity of urban
wastewater infrastructure
 Unequal power relations
Regional
Metropolitan
Local
Geographic contexts Physical Geography
of Urbanization
 Persistent, rapid, unplanned
urbanization
 New migrants, urban poor
occupy marginal, hazardous, or
environmentally sensitive land
 Watershed contamination and
sedimentation

23

Economic transitions: neoliberal economic globalization
Geographers guided by an urban political ecology framework recognized that
urban environmental condition cannot be separated from economic processes (Heynen et
al. 2006, Sassen 1994, Pezzoli 1998, Swyngedouw 2004). The spread of global
capitalism and neoliberal economics since the mid-1970s shaped and reshaped urban
landscapes and ecosystems to support further development. Developing economies
limited government intervention and reduced environmental oversight to promote foreign
investment to stimulate growth.
The spread of global capitalism and commodification of nature produced dramatic
changes of urban form in the global South. The 1980s Third World debt crisis and
subsequent structural adjustment policies (SAPs) required governments to deregulate the
economy privatize urban services, open economies to foreign investment, and reign in
government spending. SAPs promoted export-oriented industrial activities to establish a
foundation for sustainable economic growth. Natural and environmental resources
became valuable commodities to attract foreign industry. New urban development
projects transformed and domesticated urban nature to foster industrialization and meet
the needs of potential investors (Swyngedouw 2004, 2006 Kaika and Swyngedouw 2000,
Kaika 2005, Gandy 2003, Heynen et al. 2006, Goldrich and Carruthers 1992). Improved
urban infrastructure eased the flow of key industrial commodities into the city and
removed urban and industrial wastes (Kaika 2005, Gandy 2003, Swyngedouw 2004,
2006). Economic and environmental inequality gaps widened as industrial infrastructure
24

took priority over the needs of marginalized urban residents (Pezzoli 1998:37, Goldrich
and Carruthers 1992, Sassen 1994, Davis 2006).
In Mexico, economic liberalization intensified after the 1994 signing of the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Multinational economic integration drew
investors to border cities’ abundant labor and proximity to the U.S. market.
Maquiladoras, or the industrial facilities that assemble inputs from U.S. manufacturers
into finished products, became the key driver of economic and population growth for
border cities. In 30 years, Tijuana quadrupled in population, from 277,306 in 1970 to
1,217,818 in 2000 (Peña 2006: 287). By 2000, Tijuana had 779 maquiladoras,
representing 21 percent of the total number border plants (Peña 2006: 288).
Industrialization and development agendas had grave impacts on the environment
and quality of life for border residents. Uncontrolled urban and industrial expansion led
to deteriorated living conditions, rising inequality, and degraded urban environmental
conditions (Goldrich and Carruthers 1992, Peña 2006, Spalding 1999). Studies on the
U.S.-Mexico border identified that growing economic inequality increased the
vulnerability of marginal populations to public health, industrial, and environmental
hazards (Townsend and Eyles 2004, Hazin 1997, Grineski and Collins 2008, Pellow
2007, Collins 2009). Limited investment in clean water, solid waste disposal, and
sanitation services in informal settlements created wastewater riskscapes, exposing
residents to harmful bacteria and waterborne illnesses. Unlike wealthier counterparts,
residents of marginalized communities do not have the ability to move away from hazard
exposure (Hardoy et al. 1992)
25

In the last twenty years, Tijuana’s municipal government worked to address the
inadequate and unequal wastewater infrastructure provision throughout the city to attract
further private industrial investment. These efforts have not translated into an equal
expansion of services to the urban poor. The new economic climate in Mexico
encouraged an American company, AguaClara, LLC, to seek support and financing to
build privately operated wastewater treatment facilities south of the border to fill in the
gaps left by Tijuana’s Public Service Commission (CESPT, for its Spanish acronym). To
attract private investment and gain public support, AguaClara painted the transborder
governments as slow, ineffective, and lacking technical capacity to select an effective
method for wastewater treatment or to sustainably protect the transborder ecosystem
(Simmons 1999). In the complicated transborder environment, the company faced
opposition from border residents over their political contributions, exclusive no-bid
contracts, their proposed facilities located proximate to Mexican residents with little
economic power, and the government’s lax environmental standards (see Chapter 4).
Furthermore, the slow expansion of the public sanitation network forced construction
companies to include on-site treatment facilities for new housing developments aimed at
attracting wealthy U.S. buyers (Dibble 2007). The effectiveness and environmental
impact of private facilities remains unclear and unmonitored.

Political consolidation: decentralization of the Mexican state
Centralized political command enables the state to control human-environment
interaction and facilitate economic development, often at the expense of the urban
26

environment and residents (Bryant and Bailey 1997, Keil 2003, 2005). The changing
economic climate impacted Mexico’s strong federal government by decentralizing power
and reducing state intervention into local economic and social conditions. Mexico’s
rapid industrialization and population growth during the 1980s intensified environmental
degradation due to reduced environmental regulation (Goldrich and Carruthers 1992).
Furthermore, economic integration eroded the state’s centralized control over border
environmental and development decisions in favor of transnational collaboration.
Historically, Mexico’s federal government controlled access and distribution of
natural resources and urban environmental services. Water and sanitation services are
enshrined as public goods in Articles 27 and 115 of the 1917 Mexican Constitution,
guaranteeing the right to access for all citizens. The enforcement of these articles
remains unequal within Mexico’s urban population (Castro 2004). In 1983 the federal
government granted municipal governments responsibility over the water and sanitation
supply citing their knowledge of local needs to combat inequality and improve service
provision (Pezzoli 1998, Moore 2008a, 2008b). A decade later, fiscal austerity measures
left the federal government unable to finance additional infrastructure development
through public deficit. This placed the entire burden of infrastructure on Mexico’s
municipal governments without federal financing or technical support and further delayed
the expansion of local infrastructure networks (Salazar 1999).
Tijuana experienced a slow devolution of federal power over water and sanitation
services while undergoing rapid population expansion (Hazin 1997, Spalding 1999,
Pezzoli 1998). The municipal government lacked the funding, technical knowledge,
27

autonomy, authority, and political will to address the basic housing and infrastructure
needs of new migrants (Salazar 1999, Pezzoli 1998, Moore 2008). The construction of
several wastewater treatment plants in the late 1990s reduced the flow of industrial and
household waste into the transnational watershed; however, the capacity of these plants
fell below the supply of effluent and continues to introduce household wastes into the
watershed during heavy precipitation events (Salazar 1999). Regardless, informal
settlements unconnected to the municipal infrastructure continued to deposit untreated
wastewater into the transborder ecosystem.
The transborder geography of the Tijuana River Watershed further reduced
Mexico’s control over environmental resources. Since the 1940s, the U.S. and Mexican
governments worked together to address environment and water issues at the border.
Created in 1944, the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) managed
water treaties between U.S. and Mexico including distribution, management, use, and
conservation of shared water resources (IWBC 2010). The U.S. and Mexican branches of
the commission formulated and funded projects that address binational problems, such as
border sanitation and water quality (Spalding 1999, 2000). NAFTA negotiations created
two binational governmental bodies to address infrastructure improvement and
preservation of the shared border ecosystem: the Border Environment Cooperation
Commission (BECC) and the North American Development Bank (NADB). The BECC
managed projects related to water supply, wastewater, and solid waste within 100 km of
the U.S.-Mexico border (BECC 2009). The BECC also certified projects so the
beneficiary communities can apply and qualify for loans from the NADB, a binational
28

financial institution that funds the certified environmental projects (BECC-NADB 2004,
Doughman 2001, Spalding 1999, 2000). These organizations prioritized public
participation with the goals of a citizen-driven, transparent process for project
certification and an improved quality of life for border residents (Spalding 1999). The
growth in influence of the IBWC, BECC, and NADB on border water and sanitation
planning processes further eroded control of the Mexican government over the border
environment.

Social contexts: urban social challenges
The continued urbanization of poverty in Mexico intensified and further
spatialized urban environmental inequality. The widening equity gap created a
pronounced and visible disparity in hazard risk exposure of residents in informal
settlements (Pellow 2007, Heynen et al. 2006, Gandy 2003, Bryant 1997). In Mexico, the
“limited quality of citizenship” prevents most Mexicans from having a political voice
(Carruthers 2008: 16, Moore 2008b). Informal settlement residents, and their
environmental and social struggles, were excluded from public discourse and stripped of
their “right to the city” (Mitchell 2003). Marginalized urban residents lacked the power
to influence the government, direct sanitation infrastructure development, or formalize
their illegal settlements (Pezzoli 1998, Carruthers 2008). The unequal supply of water,
power, and sanitation services led to intense social struggles throughout Mexico’s urban
areas as poorer residents mobilized to enhance their environment and quality of life (see
Pezzoli 1998, Swyngedouw 2004, Moore 2008a, 2008b, Castro 2004, Adams 2009).
29

Through mobilization and disruption of the public discourse, residents reclaimed their
influence and highlighted the urban disparity in provision of services (Moore 2008b)
The contemporary geography of Tijuana was forged through this history of
unequal power relations. In Tijuana, access to piped water or sewer service was
positively correlated with economic status, as networked systems cover the older, affluent
areas and oceanfront resort communities (Peña 2006: 293, Bakker 2003). Without
political, social, or economic power, the urban poor were unable to influence urban
service decisions despite their increased exposure to public health and environmental
risks (Pezzoli 1998, Carruthers 2008). Pervasive marginalization and vulnerability
inspired community groups such as Frontereza Ambiental, Tijuana Calidad de Vida,
Surfrider Foundation Enseñada, Tijuana Housewives Association and the Mexican
Council of Science and Technology to mobilize against inadequate service provision and
related unequal urban environmental conditions (Estrada 2006). These groups worked
across geographical scales, forming collective identities over a shared concern for
watershed degradation both with and independently from U.S. environmental groups,
such as the Sierra Club, Wildcoast, and Surfrider Foundation. To draw attention and
mobilize support surrounding watershed protection, the Sierra Club and Surfrider
Foundation sued the U.S. government in 1995 and 1999 for the continued violation of
Clean Water Act standards by the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant
(SBIWTP), beginning a contentious battle against the binational treatment facility
(Salazar 1999, Branscomb 1999, 2001). Through these lawsuits, environmental groups
compelled the IBWC and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct in-depth
30

environmental impact reviews as well as additional water quality testing and analysis.
While the lawsuits failed to force the IBWC and SBIWTP to speed up compliance with
Clean Water Act standards, the social movements garnered further transparency and
accountability for water quality in the Tijuana River Estuary and Pacific Ocean.

Geographic contexts: physical geography of urbanization
In the Global South, the physical geography of urbanization took on a distinctly
different character than in the Global North. Despite proximity to the United States,
Mexican border cities experienced persistent and unplanned urbanization, similar to other
cities throughout Latin America. Border cities were unable to match the rapid growth
and demands for housing and infrastructure. The speed of urbanization left sanitation and
wastewater infrastructure inadequate to serve the existing population, new migrants, and
ongoing industrialization; further degrading local and regional environmental quality and
ecosystem health.
Latin American cities’ physical geography of human settlements helped shape the
complex patterns of urban stratification and environmental vulnerability. Wealthier
residents resided in centralized older areas of the city or in newer settlements along the
commercial spine to guarantee access to basic municipal services, green space, and other
environmental amenities (Ford 1996, Griffin and Ford 1980, Arreola and Curtis 1993,
Alegría 2006). In contrast, new migrants were limited to the environmental, physical,
and social margins of the city with limited access to basic urban infrastructure or green
space (Ford 1996, Griffin and Ford 1980, Davis 2006). Unable to enter the formal
31

housing market, migrants and the urban poor settled into high-density illegal or semi-
legal communities regardless of location or access to basic services. These settlements
occupied land at the urban periphery or unsuitable for development, such as steep
hillsides, riverbeds, sensitive ecosystems, or toxic lands adjacent to industrial zones
(Satterthwaite 1997). Marginal location and poor construction placed dwellings and
occupants at risk during heavy rains, floods, mudslides, or tectonic movement (Pezzoli
1998). Public or private service companies were reluctant to expand services due to the
high cost of establishing and maintaining infrastructure on hazardous terrain or at a great
distance from the urban core (Aldama 2006, UN-HABITAT 1996).
Without land tenure, illegal or semi-legal settlements developed without urban
planning controls, building codes, or density limits (Pezzoli 1998). The persistent fear of
eviction discouraged residents from constructing permanent housing or lobbying for
service network extensions. Instead, residents depended on poor quality, unreliable, and
expensive services from alternative providers or created their own illegal access (Peña
2006). High density, narrow roadways, and ad-hoc construction made future extension of
municipal services challenging. As informal settlements occupied land for an extended
period of time, the fear of eviction decreased and residents improved upon their structures
with higher-quality materials or establish more permanent, formal community
infrastructure (Pombo 2000).
The physical geography of urbanization in Tijuana has mirrored the experiences
in other parts of Latin America. Beginning in the 1970s, a dramatic increase in rural-to-
urban migration contributed to the urbanization of poverty throughout Mexico. The
32

promise of jobs at border industrial facilities encouraged many Mexicans to leave rural
areas of southern and central states for border cities. Tijuana expanded outward from the
historic city center, or Zona Centro, along both sides of the Tijuana River. Zona Centro
developed as the center of tourism, commerce, and middle class neighborhoods. New
and recent migrants had few housing options and settled on Tijuana’s marginal land that
included canyon slopes and urban periphery. Most of Tijuana’s informal settlements
were the result of illegal land invasion and had the characteristic substandard construction
and limited access to water, sewage, paved roads, and street lighting (Herzog 2000: 38,
Bringas Rábago and Sanchez 2006). Low environmental quality and lack of
infrastructure in these settlements put residents at risk for exposure to untreated
household wastewater.
Without land tenure, obtaining permits and conducting land surveys to expand the
city’s network was difficult (Bakker 2003). Tijuana’s existing wastewater collection
system consisted of aging pipes susceptible to rupture, spilling untreated wastewater into
the inhabited canyons, the Tijuana River, and the sensitive estuarine environment (Pombo
2000). The city was reluctant to upgrade the wastewater collection and treatment
infrastructure due to the upfront capital investment and the complexity of construction
upgrades on marginal land (Bakker 2003). In areas undergoing service extension,
sanitary sewers and drainage systems lag far behind potable water provision due to the
expense associated with disposing and treating wastewater (Pombo 2000). To combat
the lag in sanitation and wastewater provision, residents constructed, maintained and
improved sanitary facilities in their settlements and homes to combat environmental and
33

public health risks (Pombo 2000). The ongoing expansion of informal settlements into
unsuitable landscapes and slow expansion of sanitation networks compounded efforts to
preserve environmental quality of the Tijuana River Watershed and improve public
health of residents.

Spatial distribution of wastewater infrastructure in Tijuana

To better understand the spatial distribution of wastewater services among the
diverse urban population in Tijuana, I examine the complex relationship between
wastewater infrastructure, residential marginality, and geographic factors. This study
expands on Kopinak and Barajas et al. (2002) and Grineski et al.’s (2008) work on the
quantitative analysis of social marginality factors and their relationship to environmental
justice. I further expand this research by including geographic marginality to account for
the less desirable, unstable, and environmentally hazardous land options available to the
urban poor and recent migrants (Pezzoli 1998). While the relationship between social
marginality and environmental hazards is well documented in the North, research along
the U.S.-Mexico border continues to advance the in-depth understanding of
environmental injustice as it relates to the complex transborder environment and
economy. This section models and examines the relationship between physical
geography, socioeconomic status, and settlement formality in Tijuana and the access to
wastewater services.

34

Study Area
This study focuses on the city of Tijuana, which has an area of 339.46 square
miles and a 2000 population of over 1.1 million inhabitants (INEGI 2000) (Figure 2).
1
I
use the smallest available geographic unit for analysis in the 2000 Mexican Census, the
Area Geoestadistica Básica Urbana (AGEB). Equivalent to the “block group” division in
the U.S. census, AGEBs are used in the literature for statistical and spatial analysis on the
U.S.-Mexico border (Grineski and Collins 2008, Grineski et al. 2010, Collins 2009).
Tijuana has 363 AGEBs, but only 359 have occupied dwellings.
Tijuana’s historic downtown is located within the Zona Centro (Figure 2). This
area is home to the city’s tourist district, centered on Avenida Revolución. Adjacent to
Zona Centro is the contemporary downtown and commercial and financial districts, Zona
Río. This area’s strategic location puts businesses within 10 miles of downtown San
Diego and adjacent to some of the city’s industrial districts. To the west and south of
Zona Centro are several residential districts, including the administrative boroughs of
Playas de Tijuana, San Antonio de los Buenos, Sanchez Toboada, and La Mesa. To the
east of Zona Centro and Zona Río are the administrative boroughs of Mesa de Otay and
Centenario. These boroughs include much of the city’s maquiladora manufacturing
facilities. Tijuana’s informal settlements are scattered throughout the city, but tend to be
located on the steep hillsides that run parallel to the Tijuana River’s west/south bank as
well as some of the more rural communities in the hills east of the city.

1
Upon completion of this analysis, the 2010 Census of Population at the AGEB level became available.
The 2010 data lacked some of the variables used in this analysis.
35

Figure 2: Map of Tijuana Delegaciones (Administrative Boroughs)

Dependent Variable
For this study, the dependent variable of percent homes without access to
wastewater infrastructure, Viviendas particulares sin drenaje (homes without sewer
access), is obtained from the 2000 Census of Population for all AGEBs in the Tijuana
municipality (INEGI 2000). This value excludes homes connected to the formal grid,
septic tanks, and homes connected to ditches or rivers. The number of homes fitting this
criterion is divided by the total number of households to get the proportion of homes in
each AGEB. In the Tijuana municipality, there are 253,050 occupied dwellings within
the 359 inhabited AGEBs. The number of homes without wastewater infrastructure in
36

2000 is 31,952, or nearly 12.6% of homes in Tijuana had no access to wastewater
infrastructure (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Proportion homes without wastewater infrastructure

Independent Variables
Inequities in the distribution of wastewater services are analyzed using a set of
geographic and social marginality variables from the 2000 Census of Population (INEGI
2000) and Tijuana River Watershed GIS Database (COLEF 2000) for the Tijuana
municipality and Tijuana River Watershed at the AGEB level. Individual geographic and
37

socioeconomic predictors of wastewater services are examined, however many of the
factors outlined in Table 2 are correlated (see correlation matrix in Appendix A).

Table 2: Geographic and Social Marginality Variables
Category Independent Variable Source Literature
Geography Slope
Vegetation
Geomorphology
Tijuana River
Watershed GIS
Database (COLEF
2000)

Socioeconomic
Status
Percent female head of
household
Percent under 14 years of age

Average years of education
attained
Proportion migrant
Percent of households with a car
Percent homes with computers
2000 Census of
Population (INEGI
2000)
Pastor et al. 2005
Chakraborty 2009
Downey 2005
Kopinak and Barajas
2002

Grineski et al. 2010
Grineski and Collins
2008
Collins 2009
Settlement
formality
Percent homes with floors,
cement, paving stone,
wood, tile
Percent homes with concrete or
brick walls
Percent homes with concrete or
brick roofs,
Percent homes with indoor piped
water
Percent homes with electricity
2000 Census of
Population (INEGI
2000)
Grineski at al. 2010
Grineski and Collins
2008

38

I consider three categories of variables, one category of geographic location
marginality and two categories of social marginality (Grineski et al. 2010, Grineski and
Collins 2008). The first set of variables is geography. As previously discussed, the
varied physical geography of Tijuana combined with rapid urbanization has dramatic
impacts on settlement and environmental quality. The combination of Tijuana’s steep
slopes, limited vegetation, and unstable soils makes formal infrastructure subject to
erosion damage (Kopinak and Barajas 2002). The variables include slope,
geomorphology, and vegetation type (Table 3). The variables in the geographic
marginality category capture the impacts of physical geography on the availability of
basic wastewater infrastructure since less desirable areas traditionally are home to
informal settlements.
Steep slopes are less desirable areas for development because of their potential for
erosion. The Tijuana River Watershed GIS Clearinghouse includes a digital elevation
model (DEM) of the watershed. ArcMap10 is used to convert the raster DEM to a slope
surface to determine the slope for each cell. I then use the zonal statistics function to
calculate the mean percent slope for each AGEB (zone). I delineated three classes of
slope to identify areas of low slope (0-15% slope), moderate slope (15.1-30 % slope), or
high slopes (>30 % slope).
The Tijuana River Watershed GIS Clearinghouse provides information on land
formations in the watershed. Tijuana’s location within the watershed, proximity to the
ocean, and canyon slopes contribute to the presence of erosional surfaces throughout the
39

Table 3: Geographic Factors
Values Categories Class Level Comments
Slope 0-15 % 0 Low Slopes
15.1-30 % 1 Medium Slope
>30 % 2 High Slope
Vegetation Developed 250 No vegetation
Disturbed Habitat 240
Coastal Sage Scrub 30 Brushes,
succulents, low
vegetation
Coastal Sage Scrub-
disturbed
31
Chaparral-disturbed 50
Geomorphology
(landform
description)
Alluvial plains, valleys 1
Alluvial terraces 2
Canyons, dissected
valleys
3
Colluvial, alluvial
depressions
4
Erosional undulating
surfaces
5
High hills, gentle
slopes
6
High hills, moderate to
steep slopes
7
Low hills gentle slope 8
Mountains with
medium to steep slopes
9
Uplifted marine
surfaces
10

40

study area. Therefore, I use the GIS Clearinghouse’s geomorphology classification codes
to create the geography factor. These 10 classes described in Table 3 indicate landforms
and soil stability, thereby identifying areas of the city with undesirable construction
slopes and surfaces. Areas within the city that are dominated by alluvial or erosional
surfaces as well as hillsides put residents that occupy insufficient housing with
inadequate infrastructure at risk for damage caused by erosion, urban runoff, or
landslides.
In the Tijuana River Watershed, there are 44 vegetation classes defined by a
modified Holland classification system that identifies vegetation groups (COLEF 2000).
The Holland classification system takes an ecological approach through the identification
of natural communities to preserve the ecosystem and protect the habitats of plants and
animals (Holland 1986). The municipality of Tijuana only has five vegetation classes:
developed, disturbed habitat, coastal sage scrub, coastal sage scrub-disturbed, and
chaparral- disturbed. Disturbed habitats indicate a change in the ecosystem. In Tijuana,
disturbances can be explained through anthropogenic sources, such as deforestation or
expansion of the urban area. Tijuana’s predominance of developed land and disturbed
habitats indicate the reach of the urban footprint in the study area. The denuding of
Tijuana’s hills increases erosion and destabilizes slopes, making inadequate housing and
infrastructure vulnerable to damage.
The second set of variables reflect the socioeconomic status of the AGEB and
include: average years of education attained, proportion migrant, percent female head of
household, percent under 14 years of age, percent of households with a car, and percent
41

households with a computer. These variables combine traditional environmental justice
values used in analysis in the Global North with variables specific to the context of a
rapidly urbanizing city in the Global South. The Mexican Census does not collect a
direct measurement of income. As a result, average education, percent households with
a car and percent households with a computer are used in the literature to operationalize
economic status through education and possession of goods (Grineski and Collins 2008,
Grineski et al 2010). Average education provides the mean number of years of
education attained for the AGEB. In Latin American environmental justice research,
average education can also imply socioeconomic status as the bulk of workers within
Tijuana’s maquiladora sector often are low- to intermediate-skill labors with incomplete
formal education and earn lower wages (Grineski and Collins 2010, Ghiara and Zepeda
2001). Percent population under 14 years of age represents the proportion of children
within the AGEB. The use of a presence of children variable in other environmental
justice studies reveals that children bear a disproportionate burden of environmental
hazards while having no choice in their housing location (Downey and Hawkins 2008,
Mitchell and Dorling 2003). The percent children variable explores the relationship of
Tijuana’s children and wastewater service. Proportion migrant is defined by the
proportion of residents that were not residing in Tijuana five years prior to the 2000
census. Previous literature identified that recent migrants in border cities are limited in
site selection for housing to marginal or undesirable land use (Pezzoli 1998, Hardoy et al.
1996, UN HABITAT 2006). These variables tend to be highly correlated in the literature
and are highly correlated in this analysis.
42

The third set of variables considers the formality of the settlement through a
description of the housing stock. While this variable may not be appropriate in Northern
environmental justice studies, it is relevant in border cities due to the variability in quality
and availability of formal housing stock across the city. The Mexican Census collects
detailed housing information. Settlement formality variables include percent homes with
floors, strong walls, strong roofs, piped water indoors, and electricity (Grineski et al
2010, Grineski and Collins 2008). Formal settlements in Tijuana will have housing
constructed from quality materials. AGEBs with high percentages of homes with floors
constructed with concrete, paving stone, or wood; roofs of concrete or bricks; and walls
of concrete or brick indicate a formal area of the city. Percent homes with indoor piped
water and percent homes with electricity are other indicators of settlement formality.
Homes with access to the public network for these services are tenured and recognized by
the municipality. There is often a lag between the introduction of piped water and the
introduction of sanitation services to informal settlements due to the costs associated with
sewage collection and treatment infrastructure (Hazin 1997, Peña 2005). Therefore,
formalized settlements should have more access to wastewater infrastructure than areas
that have lower levels of water coverage. The settlement formality variables are highly
correlated, especially the description of the housing stock.

Methodology
This analysis employs a three-way factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) to
determine if there is a significant difference between the means of percent households
43

with no wastewater collection infrastructure (P_NODRAIN) and the settlement formality,
socioeconomic, and geographic factors described above. ANOVA statistics evaluate the
significance of mean differences on a dependent variable and the various levels
independent variable(s), or factors (Mertler and Vannatta 2002). The null hypothesis is
that there is no difference between the means of P_NODRAIN and the settlement
formality, socioeconomic, and geographic factors. The alternative hypothesis is that at
least one of the factor means is significantly different from the others.
Data are screened to ensure the assumptions of factorial ANOVA are fulfilled. To
eliminate outliers and missing data, AGEBs with less than 500 residents are eliminated.
The results of Levene’s test is significant, indicating that there is interaction between the
variables. Since ANOVA evaluates the mean differences that are the result of the
combinations of the levels of the factors, attention needs to be paid to the interactions
among the factors. All of the variables are graphed on a scatter plot with regression lines
to determine the interaction between the factors. This scatter plot reveals both ordinal
and disordinal interaction among many of the variables. The most notable interactions
include:
 Percent homes with piped water and homes with strong walls;
 Percent children and percent homes with piped water, percent homes with strong
walls, and percent homes with strong roofs;
 Percent migrant with percent homes with indoor piped water and percent homes
with strong walls;
44

 Percent households with a car with percent children and percent homes with
strong walls;
 Percent households with a computer and percent homes with strong roofs.
Results from the correlation matrix and scatter plot indicate a strong, significant
correlation between settlement formality variables and between housing quality variables
(see Appendix A for correlation matrix). As a result of interaction, percent homes with
indoor piped water (P_PIPEWATER) is used in the ANOVA analysis as a proxy for
housing formality (Figure 4).
2
Similarly, average years of education attained
(AVGEDUC) has a strong, significant relationship with other income and socioeconomic
variables. Since AVGEDUC does not interact with any other variables on the scatter
plot, it will be used as a proxy for socioeconomic status in the ANOVA analysis (Figure
5). For the ANOVA analysis, P_PIPEWATER and AVGEDUC are converted into class
variables. The univariate descriptive statistics for each variable were used to create three
class levels (Tables 4 and 5).

2
I also combine the housing formality variables that did not interact, P_ROOFSTRONG, P_FLOORCEM,
into a formality score factor but this factor is not significant in the ANOVA analysis at the 0.05 or 0.10
level. The r-square value does not improve by adding these variables.
45

Figure 4: Proportion homes with piped, indoor water

Table 4: Class levels for percent piped, indoor water
P_PIPEWATER Value Class level
0-25% 0.000-0.5950 0
25.1- 89.9% 0.5951-0.9769 1
> 90% 0.9770-1.00 2

46

Figure 5: Average years of education

Table 5: Class levels for average years of education
AVGEDUC Value Class level
0-25% 6.14-7.10 0
25.1- 89.9% 7.11-10.60 1
> 90% 10.61-13.86 2

47

The categorical factor geomorphology (GEOMORPH) is used as the geography
marginality variable to describe the landform and soil quality based on the significant
interactions between the other geography factors (Figure 6).
3
This variable has ten class
levels listed in Table 3.

Figure 6: Geomorphology class level

Results
The three-way analysis of variance is conducted using the global linear model
process in the SAS statistical software package to account for the class factors. A

3
The vegetation and slope factors used in the ANOVA are not significant. Their interactions with other
variables in the Type II sum of squares is significant, indicating the regression slopes interact.
48

Table 6: Summary statistics of variables used in global linear model

Min Max Mean SD
Average years education
attained
6.14 13.86 8.302 1.476
Geomorphology 1 10 6.448 2.792
Percent houses with
piped water
0 1 0.855 0.582

Table 7: ANOVA results
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Model (between
treatments)
50 13.10 0.26 22.10 <0.001
Error (within treatments) 295 3.50 0.01
Corrected Total 345 16.59

Source DF Type II SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
AVGEDUC 2 0.190 0.095 8.03 0.0004
GEOMORPH 9 0.255 0.028 2.39 0.0125
AVGEDUC *GEOMORPH 13 0.111 0.009 0.72 .7410
PIPE_H2O 2 1.708 0.854 72.06 <.0001
AVGEDUC*PIPE_H2O 2 0.010 0.004 0.41 0.6649
GEOMORPH*PIPE_H2O 13 0.192 0.015 1.25 0.2445
AVGEDUC*GEOMORPH*PIPE_H2O 8 0.098 0.012 1.03 0.4105

49

summary of the descriptive statistics for the variables used in the ANOVA is presented in
Table 6. The ANOVA results are listed in Table 7.
The results from the ANOVA analysis indicate that we can reject the null
hypothesis. This model supports the hypothesis that socioeconomic status, settlement
formality, and geographic marginality account for some of the difference in access to
household wastewater infrastructure in Tijuana. The ANOVA statistics show overall and
pairwise difference between all factors and percent households without wastewater
infrastructure. The overall model is significant, F = 22.10, p < .0001, with an R-square
value of 0.79, meaning that the factors explain 79% of the variance within the model.
Main effect results revealed that P_NODRAIN is significantly different among
 average education levels (AVGEDUC), F = 8.03, p = 0.0004,
 access to indoor piped water (PIP_H2O), F = 72.06, p <0.0001, and
 geomorphology classes (GEOMORPH), F= 2.39, p= 0.0125.
The interactions between the factors are not statistically significant.
Since the ANOVA test finds a significant difference between the factors and
P_NODRAIN, a post-hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference test is performed to
identify which classes of piped water, education, and geomorphology are significantly
different from percent of households with no wastewater infrastructure (Tables 8-10, see
also Appendix B for mean difference values). Tukey’s test controls the Type I
experimentwise error rate.

50

Table 8: Tukey's test results for Average Years Education
Average Education Class N Mean Standard
Deviation
0 87 0.39729 0.24671
1 224 0.07020 0.13158
2 35 0.00306 0.00055

Results reveal that the mean of percent of homes without wastewater
infrastructure is significantly different between all levels of education (Table 8). These
results indicate that while all levels of average education influence absence of wastewater
infrastructure, households with the lowest average education have greater likelihood of
not having wastewater infrastructure (mean = 0.397, sd = 0.247). As the level of
education increases, the mean percent households without wastewater infrastructure
decreases. Using average education as a proxy for socioeconomic status confirms what
other researchers have found: areas with lower socioeconomic status have lower levels of
basic urban service infrastructure (Peña 2005, Bakker 2003). In Tijuana, areas with
higher levels of education tend to be located in the Zona Centro, proximate to Mesa dey
Otay and Centenario industrial areas in the northeast, and in the Playas de Tijuana
communities close to the shoreline. These areas reflect the parts of the city with
established infrastructure networks, such as commercial and industrial centers and older
residential neighborhoods. Land in these areas is at a premium, forcing those with lower
education levels to less-established areas away from the city center.

51

Table 9: Tukey's test results for Piped Water
Piped Water Class N Mean Standard
Deviation
0 87 0.46383 0.20652
1 222 0.04501 0.07048
2 37 0.00135 0.00291

The ANOVA reveals that there is a significant difference between the lowest level
of access to indoor piped water (0) and the mid- (1) and high-levels (2) of access to piped
water (Table 9). AGEBs with the lowest level of piped water infrastructure are less likely
to have wastewater infrastructure (mean = 0.463, sd= 0.206). These results indicate that
as the coverage of piped water increases in an AGEB, the mean percent of households
without wastewater infrastructure decreases. Areas of Tijuana with higher rates of piped
water infrastructure are in AGEBs in the Zona Centro, Mesa de Otay, Centenario, and
Playas de Tijuana. AGEBs with low levels of piped water coverage are located on the
city’s eastern margins. Wastewater infrastructure usually arrives after piped water and
electricity to informal settlements due to the expense associated with installing new sewer
lines (Peña 2005). Results from the ANOVA indicate that there is a strong link between
the presence and absence of the two basic services. Tijuana’s comparatively high rates of
potable water coverage, over 93 percent, are a product of the service requirements of
city’s industrial base (SEDESOE 2008). Extension of the water or sewer network to
peripheral residential areas of Tijuana is otherwise overlooked. The urban poor and
recent migrants tend to settle in informal settlements at the eastern and southern edges of
52

the city as well as on undesirable lands within the urban core where urban infrastructure
is not directed (DeOliveria and Roberts 1996).

Table 10: Tukey's test results for Geomorphology
Geomorphology Class N Mean Standard
Deviation
9 4 0.53250 0.28412
5 8 0.35950 0.33048
6 60 0.19372 0.25024
8 72 0.19138 0.23953
7 58 0.15905 0.21316
10 66 0.10144 0.17892
3 13 0.09139 0.14886
1 20 0.06385 0.10409
2 43 0.03709 0.11572
4 2 0.00350 0.00495

In terms of geomorphology, the results indicate that P_NODRAIN and
mountainous, moderate to steep slopes (9) and erosional, undulating surfaces (5) are
significantly different from all other geomorphology groups. As the physical landscape
becomes less steep or erosional, the mean percent households without wastewater
infrastructure decrease. For example, the three different hill classes (6,7, and 8) are
significantly different from the alluvial plains, valleys, and terrace classes (1, 2) and have
larger means. While alluvial surfaces may not be an ideal building location, these
53

surfaces are the substructure of Zona Centro and Playas de Tijuana. These areas are
home to the city’s older, established residential and commercial areas and are more likely
to have wastewater infrastructure (Figure 5). Alternatively, mountainous, steep slopes
and erosional, undulating surfaces tend to be surrounded by other hilly areas on the
eastern and southern areas of the city. The lower rates of wastewater infrastructure in
AGEBs with these geomorphology classes is reflective of other research that has found
utilities reluctant to expand infrastructure to the urban periphery and steep slopes due to
the cost and difficulty associated with these projects (Bringas Rábago and Sánchez 2006,
Aldama 2006, UN-HABITAT 1996). Additionally, the preponderance of fault lines
throughout Tijuana constructing earthquake-tolerant infrastructure networks adds
additional costs, especially in areas on slopes or on unstable surfaces.
The maps in this chapter support the findings of the statistical analysis. The
spatial distribution of different factors reveals that access to piped water and lack of
access to wastewater service mirrors each other (Figure 7). AGEBs without wastewater
service have similarly low levels of piped water service, concentrated on the southern
edges of the city and the eastern edges of the city. Higher levels of education are
centered in Zona Centro and Zona Rio, the historic and contemporary downtowns, as
well as expensive beach communities in Playas de Tijuana and the industrial districts of
Mesa de Otay and Centenario. Areas with low levels of education are located on the
southern and eastern edges of the city. Lastly, the neighborhoods with more hills,
mountains, and erosional undulating surfaces also delimit the city’s southern
communities and border.
54

Figure 7: Comparing spatial distribution of ANOVA factors
55

To summarize, the ANOVA statistic reveals that average education, access to
indoor piped water, and geomorphology are all significant influences on access to
wastewater infrastructure. Results indicate that areas with the lowest levels of access to
piped water, the lowest level of education, and the steepest slopes are most associated
with a lack of access to household wastewater infrastructure. By including a geographic
marginality variable, this study assesses the impact of physical landscape on access to
wastewater infrastructure and potential exposure to wastewater hazards. The significance
of the geomorphology variable in this analysis suggests that geographic marginality can
and should be considered in environmental justice studies along the U.S.-Mexico border
and other urban areas in Latin America to gain a more thorough understanding of the
influence on geographic marginality on access to basic urban services.
There are limitations to using ANOVA to determine the relationship between
measures of socioeconomic status, settlement formality, and geography marginality.
ANOVA, unlike regression analysis, is not used to predict to what degree each factor
changes the dependent variable. Instead, ANOVA determines if the variation between
marginality factors’ means is significantly different from other factors means. Therefore,
these results show how access to piped water, average education, or geomorphology
effect an AGEB’s lack of access to wastewater infrastructure but cannot forecast which
variable has the most influence on the lack of access to wastewater infrastructure.
Additionally, AGEBs are not necessarily a true reflection of a neighborhood or an
informal settlement. This geographic scale obscures some of the fine-grained variation
within neighborhoods and across AGEB. Future research should collect more detailed
56

data to better reflect and represent the areas of the city that have the greatest need for
wastewater infrastructure. This information would be beneficial to policy makers looking
to target informal settlements that are not counted in the census or that may be hidden
within the coarse geographic scale used in this analysis.

Conclusion
Urbanization patterns in the Global South are different from their urban
counterparts in the Global North. The continued growth of Tijuana’s maquilas has
focused infrastructure expansion and rehabilitation in industrial areas near the border and
in the traditional urban center along the Tijuana River. The lack of affordable housing
combined with slow infrastructure expansion to the city’s marginal areas has pushed new
migrants and the urban poor away from the Zona Centro to the hill slopes in the
southwest, south, and east of the city. The results of this chapter’s analysis support
Alegría’s (2006) findings from 1990 Census data that identify Tijuana’s poor residents as
occupying neighborhoods at a distance from the Zona Centro and manufacturing centers.
The overall pattern of residential segregation remains largely unchanged over 10 years.
Tijuana’s rapid, unplanned urbanization continues to produce uneven, unjust urban
environments with unequal distribution of basic urban services, including sanitation and
wastewater.
The results from the ANOVA improve the definition of Tijuana’s wastewater
riskscapes by providing quantitative evidence of urban marginality. Areas with steep
slopes and erosional soils, households with limited indoor piped water services, and
57

individuals with low educational attainment are susceptible to exposure to untreated
wastewater because they are less likely to have household wastewater infrastructure.
With limited finances, the urban poor and recent migrants occupy poorly constructed
homes with limited public or self-constructed infrastructure and have few opportunities to
move to a more suitable location with basic urban services. Homes constructed on steep
slopes are potentially exposed to urban run-off, including untreated household
wastewater. Residents that occupy the hills or erosional surfaces are also at risk for
landslides, flooding, and structural damage from earthquakes. These conditions combine
to form the city’s wastewater riskscapes and identify areas on the eastern, southern, and
southwestern edges of the city that should be targeted for infrastructure expansion. With
added collection infrastructure, potential exposure to untreated wastes in Tijuana, as well
as north of the border, will be reduced.
In order to establish a more sustainable, equitable, and just city, the disparity in
access to wastewater infrastructure in Tijuana must be addressed through two important
but challenging methods. First, the city of Tijuana must recognize and offer land tenure
to the city’s many informal settlements. Official statistics often overlook or obscure the
infrastructure situation in informal settlements; by sanctioning formalization the city can
better assess wastewater collection and treatment needs. With recognition, utilities can
expand basic infrastructure to target areas of the city identified in this analysis and other
hidden riskscapes and reduce exposure of those most susceptible to wastewater hazards.
Adding and maintaining collection infrastructure is essential to eliminate future untreated
58

wastewater flows and thus decrease the exposure of residents and the larger ecosystem to
damaging pollution.
In addition, the city of Tijuana would benefit from adding more housing options
for lower income households. The urban poor and recent migrants occupy informal
settlements on land unsuitable for development because of low income and a lack of
affordable housing options (Bringas Rábago and Sanchez 2006). Low-income housing in
areas close to the commercial and industrial centers as well as transportation corridors
could encourage informal settlement residents to relocate to better quality, affordable
housing options connected to the formal infrastructure grid. Implementing these
programs is difficult; recent history has demonstrated that the speed of urbanization and
financial constraints have inhibited planned urban development and provision of basic
urban services in Tijuana.
Perhaps an easier path to ameliorating wastewater riskscapes and environmental
injustice is offering community education programs targeted at Tijuaneses that occupy
these areas with the aim of informing residents about the health and environmental risks
of settling in these areas. Given that established informal settlement residents have
limited opportunities to move, these programs would also provide practical, affordable
strategies to prevent unnecessary exposure to untreated wastewater. After the initial
education program is completed, sponsoring organizations may offer other programs,
such as developing community latrines or self-built sewer lines, to further limit
wastewater exposure, improve the quality of life in neighborhoods, and help reduce
wastewater flows into the ecosystem. Such projects can involve local non-profit
59

development organizations or engineering firms if the government is unwilling or unable
to develop or support education efforts. Ongoing success and maintenance of these
programs depends on financing, technical knowledge, and perhaps most importantly,
community involvement and support.
The first objective of this dissertation is to define the factors that influence uneven
spatial distribution of wastewater infrastructure in Tijuana. This examination of
Tijuana’s urbanization through economic, political, social, and geographic contexts
reveals the uneven development of the urban landscape, and the places that are most
severely marginalized. The purpose of this chapter is to identify the relationships
between the percent of homes without access to wastewater infrastructure and
socioeconomic marginality, settlement formality, and geographic marginality factors,
variables that may be associated with access wastewater infrastructure. Results from the
ANOVA confirm that there is a significant relationship between socioeconomically and
geographically marginalized residents and access to wastewater collection infrastructure.
This chapter makes two important contributions to the literature on urban political
ecology and Latin American environmental justice. First, by including geography in the
review of Tijuana’s urbanization process and the quantitative analysis, this study
highlights an important aspect of the environment that influences urban experience. This
chapter tests the quantitative links between geographic marginality and access to
wastewater service through the use of quality, quantitative physical geography data.
With few housing options for Tijuana’s socially and economically marginalized
residents, informal settlements are constructed on undesirable land often with no pre-
60

established access to public network. Results from this analysis support other studies that
show that physical landscape can impact availability and accessibility of basic urban
services (Aldama 2006, Bringas Rábago and Sanchez 2006, UN-HABITAT 1996).
Furthermore, this chapter offers a response to calls for more quantitative studies
on environmental justice issues in the Global South (Grineski and Collins 2008, Grineski
and Collins 2010, Grineski et al. 2010, Finco and Hepner 1999). Quantitative studies
provide evidence that can support mobilization for action to improve basic infrastructure
as well as appeal to policy-makers. With an additional tool to understand the
contemporary landscape of wastewater service provision, Tijuana policy-makers, social
movement leaders, and community groups have a clearer picture of the influences on
infrastructure availability. Applying the knowledge of the city’s wastewater riskscapes to
policy formation and implementation can mitigate or eliminate wastewater riskscapes and
improve the urban environmental condition for all inhabitants.
While the results from this chapter offer quantitative contributions to geography
and the subfields of urban political ecology and Latin American environmental justice,
they also bring to light areas that need additional research. Future directions include
using the 2010 Census data to further explore the how relationship between
socioeconomic, settlement formality, and geographic marginality factors and wastewater
infrastructure access in Tijuana has changed over time. These results would provide
important information to social movement leaders and policy makers who seek to take
action to better protect vulnerable residents with little social, economic, or political
power.
61

Most significantly to the geography discipline, this chapter demonstrates that
efforts to define marginality in geographic research need to take into account physical
geographic marginality. Data availability issues in the Global South are well documented
(Grineski and Collins 2008). This chapter suggests the use and applicability of using
geographic data to better understand uneven urban development. To make this analysis
applicable to other developing cities, geospatial data sets need to be produced,
maintained, and made publicly available to academics, activists, and policymakers. A
clearer picture of social, economic, political, and geographic marginality develops with
this additional knowledge. In turn, this could provide policymakers with a comprehensive
understanding of marginality and allow them to tailor social development and
environmental management programs to meet the needs of the urban residents, as well as
preserve the environment for regional neighbors.

62

CHAPTER 3: TRANSBORDER FLOWS OF UNTREATED WASTEWATER:
COMPARING MEDIA DISCOUSRE IN TIJUANA AND SAN DIEGO FROM 2007-
2011

Unregulated transborder flows of untreated household wastewater emerge as an
environmental and public health issue after Tijuana’s population explosion begins in the
1970s. The rapid, unplanned expansion of human settlements combined with the city’s
inability to meet the growing demand for urban services contribute to the unsolicited
flows of wastewater into the United States. Residents in Tijuana and San Diego continue
to be exposed to wastewater and sewage spills that travel northwards through the Tijuana
River or the Pacific Ocean. Contact with untreated wastewater puts residents at risk for
water borne and respiratory diseases and degrades sensitive estuarine and marine
environments (U.S. EPA 2011).
Years of discussion, debate, and planning culminate with the construction of the
South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant (SBIWTP) by the binational
International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC). However, funding issues prevent
the completion of the plant. As a result, SBIWTP is non-compliant with the U.S. Clean
Water Act (CWA) because it only treats wastewater to the primary treatment level and
the plant’s discharge into the Pacific Ocean fails multiple toxicity tests (Lee 2008,
Branscomb 2000a, 2001a, 2002, Lumpkin 2000, Balint 1998). In Tijuana, ruptured pipes
and a failed pumping station send raw sewage northward into San Diego (Branscomb
2000, 2001, 2003, Branscomb and Oakes 2002, The San Diego Union-Tribune 2001,
63

Balint 1999). These infrastructural solutions fail to end the transborder wastewater flows
or address underlying causes of uneven wastewater distribution in Tijuana.
This chapter investigates the influence of geography on discourse formation to
understand how wastewater is depicted in the two border cities. Discourse is used to
control the definition of the wastewater issue and influence public consciousness and
policymaking processes on both sides of the border. Examining discourse related to
wastewater in the Tijuana River Watershed provides an opportunity to investigate how
understandings of a complex environmental, political, economic, and social issue are
shaped across multiple publics. The long-term nature of the wastewater problem and its
impact on people and the environment suggests temporal changes in the definitions of
threats, problems, and solutions. An analysis of the frames present in San Diego and
Tijuana media reveals how discourse changes over time and across space, as well as
identifies the influence of environmental, political, economic, or social contexts.
Media communications from The San Diego Union-Tribune and El Sol de Tijuana
are examined through a correspondence analysis and a content analysis to trace the media
coverage of transborder wastewater flows and to deconstruct the framing process over a
five-year time period. This review of newspaper articles also provides a broad
understanding of the messages received by readers. While analysis of newspaper articles
is not a direct measurement of residents’ perceptions, the discourse presented in
newspapers both affects the attitudes of readers and over time can shape coverage itself,
thus providing a useful indication of public perception and general views surrounding an
issue (Sonnett et al. 2006: 96). A correspondence analysis is used to assess the discursive
64

contexts over the study period and between the two newspapers. A correspondence map
illustrates the association and difference between the specific language used to describe
the wastewater issues in San Diego and in Tijuana. Content analysis supports the
correspondence analysis through a qualitative deconstruction of the discourse using
collective action frames to classify the threats, problems, and solutions presented in the
media text.
This analysis helps determine the impact of discourse on public perception of the
wastewater issue. A focus on the identifying wastewater frames reveals how threats,
problems, and solutions to transborder wastewater flows are presented to readers.
Competing discourses divide the two publics’ understandings of the risks associated with
wastewater and prevent a clear, cohesive solution from emerging. Identifying the
construction of competing discourses is valuable for creating a singular discourse to
promote public consciousness about wastewater and for motivating successful binational
collaboration and support to end transborder wastewater flows and protect the
environment and people. Additionally, a comparison between the United States and
Mexico’s discourses brings to light the impact of an international border on the media
representations of the same issue. This binational discourse examination provides a clear
picture of this regional issue that would not be feasible through a study of either a Tijuana
or San Diego newspaper alone.

65

Management of untreated wastewater in the Tijuana-San Diego border region
Along the U.S.-Mexico border, discourse related to issues of environmental
degradation and quality of life reveals the contentious debate between the government,
business community, social movements, and environmental NGOs. Identifying, defining,
and mitigating regional environmental and social justice concerns have become an
important component of transnational economic negotiations as well as local
development efforts. After the signing of NAFTA, issues formerly seen as specific
concerns of underdeveloped Mexican border cities are redefined as critical transnational
issues occurring in sensitive transborder environments (Herzog 1999, Salazar 1999). The
environmental policy debate and evolving discourse surrounding the framing of
transborder wastewater flows represents a specific attempt to frame the environmental
degradation and social injustice problematic that exists along the length of the U.S.-
Mexico border.
Billed as a success story of transnational environmental protection and
cooperation, the SBIWTP becomes the center of debate among activists, government
officials, business leaders, and residents on both sides of the border. Funded by the
IBWC and the City of San Diego, the plant opens the first stage of construction in 1997.
Excess wastewater is collected and treated from a Tijuana pumping station that diverts up
to 13 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater during dry weather (Salazar 1999).
The SBIWTP has no pumping system to collect and treat water directly from the Tijuana
River. Wet weather or flows exceeding 13 mgd shut down the diversion system,
66

allowing rainwater and excess sewage flow into sensitive estuarine environments (Salazar
1999).
The plant’s failure to meet US CWA standards and to supply adequate treatment
capacity, let alone eliminate the transborder flow of wastewater, is an important storyline
in San Diego’s newspaper of record before the plant’s opening (Balint 1996, 1996a,
1996b). Residents and community leaders express their concern over the
underperforming SBIWTP, the plant’s ocean outfall toxicity, plans to upgrade the
SBIWTP, and environmental impacts of the SBIWTP in the opinion pages of The San
Diego Union-Tribune (Saldana 1998, Inzunza 1998, Powers 1999, Simmons 1999, Ricks
2000, The San Diego Union-Tribune 2000 May 12, Minan 2001, Saldana and Ducheny
2005, Saldana 2005, Dedina 2006, The San Diego Union-Tribune 2007).
In 2007, the debate surrounding transborder wastewater returns as a plan to build
a private treatment plant to circumvent the SBIWTP is targeted by area residents and
environmental groups. The San Marcos company, Bajagua LLC, proposes to construct
and operate a separate 59 mgd treatment plant in Mexico purifies Tijuana’s sewage to
comply with U.S. CWA standards (Lee 2007c). This plant would pump SBIWTP
primary-level treated sewage over the hill to Mexico for treatment, and then re-pump its
treated effluent to the SBIWTP for discharge (Liddick 2007). This project would more
than double Tijuana’s treatment capacity and reduces San Diego residents’ exposure to
untreated wastes (Liddick 2007). Bajagua’s plan includes a combination of mixed
aerated ponds, aeration lagoons, and disinfection to treat the wastewater to secondary
level treatment standards with the potential for reclaimed water usage (Liddick 2007).
67

The contract for the plant indicates that Bajagua would maintain ownership and collect
service fees from the U.S. government for twenty years, upon which the plant would
revert to Mexican ownership. Bajagua gains acceptance from some in the surrounding
community while being criticized by other prominent environmental organizations for its
no-bid contract and political donations to area congressmen (Lee 2007c).
South of the border, efforts to stem the tide of wastewater flowing north run into
political and financial difficulties. Original bilateral SBIWTP negotiations call for
Tijuana to build two additional treatment facilities as well as construct and maintain the
conveyance systems. After the construction of the SBIWTP, the number of required new
treatment facilities in Tijuana is reduced to one. The plant constructed in Tijuana, San
Antonio de los Buenos, proves insufficient to handle the quantity of sewage it received
and relies on leaky, overstressed infrastructure prone to breaks and raw sewage spills.
Tijuana residents do not see an immediate reduction in wastewater flows or expansion of
infrastructure until Tijuana’s Public Service Commission (CESPT for its Spanish
acronym) receives money from the North American Development Bank (NADB), the
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), and the Japanese Bank for
International Cooperation to begin infrastructure expansion and improvements
(Mondragón 2010, 2010a, 2010d, 2011). Infrastructure in Tijuana improves under “El
Programa Cero Descargas” that includes the completion of new treatment plants in 2008
and 2010 and a city-wide effort to reinforce existing infrastructure (Mondragón 2010g).
Despite these improvements, the city’s rapid growth means that many areas of the city
still remain underserved by sanitation infrastructure, leaving communities north of the
68

border vulnerable to sewage flows brought on by heavy rainstorms or ruptured pipelines.
Ocean and recreation area water quality issues on both sides of the border continue
(Sánchez Aguirre 2011a, Dibble and Lee 2011, 2011a).

Discursive Contexts: Framing the wastewater problematic
Discourse can be understood as patterns of language under specific historical and
social contexts, or how people talk, write about, and represent the world (Foucault 1972).
The continued presence and absence of terms, concepts, and themes in written, verbal,
and visual communication influence the ability of others to interpret and understand the
problems they face in their community (Sonnett et al. 2006). In political ecology
research, this type of analysis facilitates the understanding of the formation of dominant
assumptions of a society or residents of a place (Escobar 1995, 1996).
Having political, economic, or social power suggests control over this discourse.
This power over discourse can distort or hide issues, including class, race, gender, or
environmental risk, to prevent a discussion or debate that may dispute internalized
discourses (Harvey 1996: 90). Asymmetries in knowledge and power are contested and
negotiated over time and space, as groups work to challenge the formation, use, and
dissemination of a dominant discourse (Harvey 1996, Snow and Benford 1988, 1992,
Snow et al. 1986, Benford and Snow 2000). Discourse analysis aims to expose
competing definitions of problems and solutions over time and across space (Sonnett et
al. 2006).
69

To better understand how discourse is used or controlled, it is important to unpack
the framing process to identify the specific factors that have influenced the message. In
this study, collective action frames provide a critical framework for the deconstruction of
wastewater discourse and the perception and reception of the discourse by two different
societies. The framing process, or the production and mobilization of meaning,
simplifies events, problems, or ideas to reveal their relevance and importance to everyday
life (Snow and Benford 1988, Benford and Snow 2000).
Snow and Benford’s (1988) collective action frames are used in social movement
research to understand how organizations convey ideas, emphasize shared values, foster
activism, and legitimize the organization (Benford and Snow 2000: 614, Snow et al.
1986, Snow and Benford 1992, Martin 2003, Miller 2000). In contrast to other discourse
analysis theories such as resource mobilization theory and political process models, the
collective action frame looks at how social movements develop discourse over time,
space, and scale rather than primarily focusing on internal organizational characteristics
or relationships with the external political environment (see Miller 2000). Benford and
Snow’s (1998, 1992) deconstruction of the framing process is used in urban political
ecology research to analyze government, economic entities, or social movements’ efforts
to frame environmental policy.
Collective action frames have three main elements that explain the relevance of an
issue: motivation, diagnosis, and prognosis (Snow and Benford 1998, 1992). The three
frames, build upon each other to shape community understanding, motivate participants,
and influence policy formation and implementation to transform the issues identified.
70

The motivational frame, or frame resonance, defines the community impacted and
encourages people to address the risk or threat facing them (Snow and Benford 1988,
1992). This threat is then used to identify the source of the problem and potential
solutions (Ackleson 2005).
The diagnostic frame then identifies the problem and assigns blame by isolating
the source. Those shaping discourse define who or what is to blame for the risks they
face. Communications then target the cause directly through specific language or
indirectly through the consistent use of terms that connote a problem. Specific language
or the use of problem terms aids the consumer in drawing conclusions and identifying the
source of the threat (Sonnet et al. 2006). Diagnosis varies over space and time, especially
if the threat is ongoing or unresolved.
The prognostic frame provides solutions or identifies actions to solve or mitigate
the problem. Control over dominant discourse and issue framing allows groups with the
most power to set forth official solutions (Snow and Benford 1988, 1992). The official
designation signifies that the person or group making the prognosis is an expert in the
field, such as government officials, academics, business leaders, or NGOs. Unofficial
solutions are those posed by people who are not experts but are impacted by the problem,
such as community members. The ability to turn official or unofficial solutions into
dominant discourse and eventually policy implementation requires the power,
knowledge, and visibility to mobilize participant action. Asymmetries of power often
encourage smaller community organizations to mobilize their followers to challenge
dominant discourse and present alternative views of the threat, problem, and solution. If
71

this alternative viewpoint resonates with followers, it can lead to a transformation of
discourse and policy over time and space. Collective action frames that lead to a shift in
policy will ideally foster the implementation of the new policy solutions promoted in the
prognostic frame. Alternatively, the implementation of the new policy may influence or
transform existing or related policies and programs.
While collective action frames are traditionally used in social movement research,
their use as an analytical framework for media discourse is growing, in particular in
research examining environmental policy changes across multiple publics (Sonnett et al.
2006). As governments or other entities develop discourse related to environmental
issues, identifying the motivational, diagnostic, and prognostic frames within discourse
reveals control over discourse and how environmental problems are presented to the
various publics.

Analyzing Media Communications and Discourse
To understand the outcomes of producing discourse related to wastewater in the
Tijuana River Watershed, I investigate the frames present in key Tijuana and San Diego
newspapers, The San Diego Union-Tribune and El Sol de Tijuana. These two
newspapers represent different communities and are expected to expose the variations in
coverage and representations of wastewater. I first present the key storylines present in
each newspaper to provide context for the results of the discourse analysis. Next, articles
are analyzed through a discourse analysis combining correspondence analysis and a
content analysis to determine how transborder wastewater flows have been represented in
72

media communications between 2007 and 2011. A preliminary review of newspaper
articles suggests that the business community and local governments utilize media texts
to mobilize the local population to support their policies, assign blame to other actors, or
garner support for their proposed response to transborder sanitation and wastewater.
Although these newspapers are important sources of information for Tijuana and
San Diego residents, we cannot know how audiences interpret and understand the
information presented in these articles. Rather, newspapers provide an indirect measure
of the public discourse surrounding these issues. Social contexts regarding the
wastewater, transborder transfer of sewage, environmental degradation, and rapid
urbanization structure what is presented in media communications (Thompson 1995).
Therefore, this method provides a record of what is and is not discussed in public and
how these issues are represented based on the coverage in the newspaper (Thompson
1995, Scott 1990).

Media text data
The study period begins in January 2007, when popular awareness and
involvement in wastewater and infrastructure solutions reappears due to the
disappointment with the slow progress of upgrading the SBIWTP and to a proposal for a
private treatment plant that gains traction. The study period ends in June 2011, six
months after the completion of final upgrades to the SBIWTP to comply with U.S.
C.W.A. standards and thirteen months after the completion of Tijuana’s La Morita
wastewater treatment plant. The lag is intended to capture the impacts of the introduction
73

of La Morita and the upgrades to the SBWITP on the winter rainy season, when the
estuary and ocean are most at risk for untreated urban runoff and effluent from Tijuana.
Within this time frame, three periods are identified to capture significant moments in the
evolution of wastewater treatment plant debate.
 Period 1: January 1, 2007 to May 18, 2008 - debate leading up to decision to
upgrade SBIWTP.
 Period 2: May 19, 2008- November 30 2010 - delays in upgrading the
SBIWTP, completion of the La Morita treatment plant in Tijuana.
 Period 3: December 1, 2010- June 30, 2011- environmental impacts and
community response after completion of SBIWTP upgrades and infrastructure
improvements in Tijuana.
To identify relevant articles, keyword searches of the newspapers’ internet
archives and online databases are performed using the following search terms:
wastewater treatment plant, wastewater, sewage, Tijuana River Watershed in English
and planta de tratamiento de aguas residuales, las aguas residuales, and la cuenca del
río Tijuana in Spanish. Articles are excluded if they do not address the primary issues of
transborder wastewater flows in the Tijuana River Watershed, inadequate wastewater
services in Tijuana, or the treatment plants in the border area. Articles in the analysis are
more than 100 words to avoid community meeting announcements, and include letters to
the editor, opinion pieces, and news articles. The San Diego Union Tribune has a total of
N=46 articles between January 2007 and June 2011 (Figure 8). A total of N = 61 articles
are located for the study in El Sol de Tijuana. All articles are obtained in an .rtf format
74

for analysis with Atlas.ti 6.2 software, a program that allows for quantitative and
qualitative analysis of textual data.

Figure 8: Wastewater newspaper articles by year

During the study period, the San Diego Union-Tribune prints the most articles in
2007(fifteen), and the year 2009 has the least amount of coverage, with four articles.
Coverage of untreated wastewater flows in El Sol de Tijuana has greater variability
between years, with 35 articles out of a total of 61 articles appearing in 2010. The fewest
articles, two, appear in 2007.

Quantitative analysis
Correspondence analysis extracts underlying structures in the form of association
or difference within categorical data. The rows and columns of the frequency matrix are
analyzed for association (Härdle and Simar 2007). Similar to principle components
analysis, correspondence analysis develops simple indices that show relationships
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
San Diego Union-Tribune El Sol de Tijuana
75

between the rows and columns in a contingency table by assigning a weight to each item
and identifying which column categories have more weight in which rows and vice versa
(Härdle and Simar 2007, Sonnet et al. 2006). The indices are then extracted in
decreasing order of importance so the main information on the table can be summarized
(Härdle and Simar 2007). A Chi-square measure of similarity is used to test the strength
of association. Results are graphed as clouds of points representing rows and columns of
the data’s frequency matrix (He and Tiefenbacher 2008).
A correspondence analysis has the advantage of providing a graph, or map, that
displays the association between each newspaper time period and key words or phrases
related to wastewater. This exploratory data analysis technique is important tool for
political ecology research because it simplifies complicated contingency tables into a
visual representation of the categorical variables without sacrificing any information in
the data set (Doey and Kurta 2011). The correspondence map illustrates changes in
discourse over time and across space, displaying similarities and differences between the
two newspapers’ coverage during the study period.
After reading the articles collected several times, patterns of language emerge
regarding transborder wastewater flows. I use these patterns as a starting point to create a
series of commonly occurring words or phrases within the articles that are used to depict
problems with or solutions for transborder wastewater flows. Problem terms include
words that reflect conflict or contention over wastewater, governments, finances, or
environmental outcomes. Solutions terms suggest changes to infrastructure, partnerships,
and public education. These lists of “problem” and “solution” terms shape the diagnostic
76

and prognostic frame elements. Terms identify related sets of words, or semantic field,
dependent on the social context in which they are used, to help identify variations in
usage across media (Sonnett et al. 2006).
After creating this first list, I then use English and Spanish thesauruses to find
variations in the problem and solution terms to account for social context and identify
other key terms that are not apparent during the initial reading (Sonnett et al. 2006). The
problem and solution term list for the Union-Tribune included an N=458 words
(Appendix C). A list of keywords from El Sol consists of N=813 words (Appendix D).
This list is substantially longer than the English version to capture any potential
dialectical variant that may appear in the articles. Each word or root of the word for each
set of articles is searched using the Atlas.ti 6.2 program.
The frequency of each problem and solution keyword is recorded on a frequency
matrix with columns for each of the newspaper time period for use in a correspondence
analysis. Newspaper time periods are related to each other by means of a Chi-square
measure of similarity between the frequency of keywords and the newspapers by time
period, or two-way contingency table. These data produce a table with six columns, one
for each of the newspaper time periods and a row for each keyword. The cells of the
table contain the number of articles that use a keyword. Each newspaper appears three
times on the correspondence map, one position for each time period. A shift in position
of the newspaper on the map indicates a change between the periods. The closer two
newspaper time periods or two terms are to each other, the more similar the use of
discourse.
77

The list of keywords is filtered during the correspondence analysis to exclude
redundant terms that show similar patterns on the output map, terms with very few cases,
outliers, or terms clustered close to the origin that indicate no relation to time period or
geographic area. This process allows for a clearer picture of the differences between time
periods and the geographic areas.

Qualitative analysis
Newspaper articles related to wastewater include a count of stories by topic and a
content analysis of the transformation of frames presented by government, businesses,
NGOs, and residents. To provide context for the emergent themes, I present a narrative
of each newspapers key storylines that are present over the study period. These
storylines help connect a shift in wastewater discourse to an event that is covered in a
series of articles. A qualitative content analysis in connection with the correspondence
map supports a comparison in the news coverage and framing in the San Diego Union-
Tribune and El Sol de Tijuana. I first examine the discussions of wastewater across
temporal scales to understand the significance of the transborder wastewater flows in
media discourse over time. Second, I compare how wastewater is portrayed in each
newspaper and the framing of perceived problem, causes, and solutions to transborder
flows. This qualitative picture of the framing outcomes reveals not only attitudes and
value judgments across time and space, but also what aspects of the wastewater issue
were covered and how these issues were covered.

78

Typology of wastewater frames
To understand the discursive contexts of untreated wastewater in the TRW,
articles are read to identify how the transborder wastewater flows are represented as
threats, the source of the problem, and solutions presented in each of the newspapers, as
represented on the left side in Figure 9. The initial reading produces a typology of the
themes or categories present in the newspapers to structure content analysis coding
(center column of Figure 9). Through this filtering of wastewater discourse, the
definitions of threats, problems, and solutions that frame the wastewater problematic
emerge. The classification of specific wastewater threats, problems, and solutions
presented on Figure 9 are discussed in further detail below.
The broad frames in Figure 9 demonstrate the similarities in representations of the
wastewater problem in regional newspapers. For example.
“At issue is how to best deal with the flow of sewage from Tijuana that regularly pollutes beaches
in the South Bay” (Lee 2007: B-1)
would be coded as an environmental threat due to its depiction of polluting beaches.
Alternatively, a sentence such as
“Surfers in South San Diego County said they were concerned about getting sick from the tainted
water.” (Dibble and Lee 2011)
focuses on the disruptions to residents’ regular activities, surfing, and would be coded as
threat to their quality of life. Each appearance of a theme is coded as an individual
occurrence. Occasionally, a sentence or phrase will have contain language that reflects
several threats, or a threat, a problem, and a solution. For example,
79

“Either way, the situation provides a vivid reminder that despite numerous upgrades to the sewage
system in Tijuana, it remains a chronic environmental and human health problem with roots going
back more than 70 years” (Dibble and Lee 2011).
This sentence would be coded as an infrastructure cause for the insufficient “upgrades to
the sewage system in Tijuana,” and as an environmental and quality of life threat for the
“chronic environmental and human health problem” that untreated wastewater creates.
Although these codes are found in both newspapers, the definitions of the larger threats,
the perceived significance, the definitions of the problems, and proposed solutions vary
from one side of the border to the other.

Figure 9: Typology of untreated wastewater framing
80

Two themes or categories of threats emerge from reading the articles, an
environmental threat against the shared regional ecosystem and a threat to residents’
quality of life, as seen in Figure 9. The environmental threats of untreated wastewater
flows are defined as fouling the fragile border environment, the sensitive estuarine
ecosystem, local beaches, and the Pacific Ocean. Second, untreated wastewater remains
a threat to the quality of life for border residents due to the persistent public health threat
from contaminated wastewater flows. Wastewater flows and sewage spills expose
residents, surfers, and bathers at area beaches to negative health impacts and disrupt daily
or seasonal beach use for many residents in the region.
After the identification of threats, the articles are coded for how they define
problems and the solutions. The definition of the problems in The Union-Tribune and El
Sol include four main themes: economic or financial issues, government, infrastructure,
or societal changes. Few articles in El Sol use targeted, direct language to define the
problem, instead indirectly identifying the source of the problem through a discussion of
solutions undertaken by the Baja California government to end the flow of untreated
wastewater.
4

4
For example,

“Una vez que estas plantas de tratamiento, Tecolote-La Gloria y la Morita, sean puestas en
funcionamiento se fortalecerá el Programa Cero Descargas cuyo objetivo es sanear el cauce del Río
Tijuana y el Océano Pacífico”(Mondragón 2009: n.p.)

Once these treatment plants, Tecolote-La Gloria and La Morita, are brought into operation, it will
strengthen the Programa Cero Descargas, whose objective is to clean up the Tijuana River channel and the
Pacific Ocean.

This sentence provides an example of an indirect discussion of an infrastructure problem. By saying that
the Programa Cero Descargas will be strengthened, the author is tacitly acknowledging that the previous
81

Articles that emphasize economic problems identify concerns with inadequate
domestic or international financing to build or upgrade existing infrastructure.
Governmental problems include the local and transnational bureaucracy, unregulated
urbanization, and limited communication regarding sewage spills or exposure potential.
Infrastructure is presented as a primary cause of transborder wastewater flows,
specifically Tijuana’s inefficient and overburdened wastewater collection and treatment
infrastructure, and the continued failure of SBIWTP to treat wastewater to Clean Water
Act standards. The final problem theme is the growth of Tijuana’s informal settlements
that lack the formal collection of household wastewater and are excluded from Tijuana’s
official collection and treatment tallies.
After coding for the definition of problems, solutions are coded to identify the
person or entity providing the solution, such as an expert providing official solutions or a
community member offering unofficial solutions. The overwhelming majority of the
articles in both newspapers offer only official solutions from government experts,
academics, or business leaders. Official solutions tend to be divided into four main
categories: infrastructure, transnational partnerships, and sustainable development.
Infrastructure is the most common proposal for ending the threats posed by
untreated household wastewater in the two newspapers. This covers new construction or
the upgrading and repairs to existing treatment plants, pumping stations, and pipe
networks on both sides of the border. Ending the threat from untreated wastewater is also

wastewater treatment plants were insufficient to remove all of the wastewater from the Tijuana River and
surrounding ecosystem.

82

a means to improve environmental protection and urban sustainability in the rapidly
growing border region. Sustainable development solutions include the use of treated
wastewater for irrigation and industrial purposes to improve urban sustainability in the
arid border region. The transborder nature of the wastewater flows and watershed also
are seen as an opportunity to facilitate communication and cooperation between local,
federal, and transborder government bodies in order to protect the border ecosystem and
residents.
By using the above topology to classify the articles in the San Diego Union-
Tribune and El Sol de Tijuana, I trace the changing discourse surrounding the flow of
untreated household wastes across the international border. The variation and frequency
of these themes during the study period structure an analysis of framing over time as well
as between the newspapers.

Newspaper Storylines
Reviewing the dominant storylines in the San Diego Union-Tribune and El Sol de
Tijuana offers a background on transborder wastewater flows and provides an
explanation for the nature of the coverage in each paper.

San Diego Storylines
Two narratives about wastewater dominate the coverage in the San Diego
newspaper. During the first time period, the San Diego Union-Tribune features articles
that discusses the Bajagua-SBIWTP debate storyline and traces the IBWC’s decision-
83

making process. Originally, Union-Tribune editorial staff favors Bajagua, blaming the
IBWC and environmental activists for the private company’s missed deadlines (The San
Diego Union-Tribune 2007). Environmental activists and the IBWC raise concerns about
the Bajagua’s availability of funding, reporting inconsistencies, questionable lobbying
practices, and support from the Mexican federal government (Rodgers 2007, Lee 2007a,
Lee 2007c). This debate culminates in an inconclusive Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report in 2008 that favored neither project, calling for more extensive
studies (Lee 2008a). The GAO report identifies Bajagua as the costlier and riskier
project, leading powerful Washington and IBWC decision makers, including Senator
Diane Feinstein of California, to favor upgrades to the SBIWTP (Feinstein 2008, Lee
2008a). After the decision is made to upgrade SBIWTP, the Bajagua debate storyline
rapidly falls out of the newspaper pages as San Diego’s wastewater concerns shift to
SBIWTP upgrades and sewage spills.
The second narrative is the ongoing exposure of residents to sewage spills that
result from pipe breaks and pumping station failures in Tijuana. While many articles
during the 2007-2008 debate refer to the risk of sewage spills, this story arc is the main
focus of articles of the end of Period 2 and throughout Period 3. These articles report on
the substantial amount of raw sewage crossing the border due to the combination of a
wetter than normal 2010-2011 winter and infrastructure malfunctions at pumping stations
along the Tijuana River and Tijuana’s Punta Bandera treatment plant. Despite
completing upgrades to the SBIWTP in November of 2010, sewage continues to flow
northward because of currents in the Pacific Ocean, wastewater overwhelming Mexico’s
84

collection and treatment capacity, and the growth of informal settlements without
wastewater collection services (Dibble and Lee 2011, Lee 2010, The San Diego Union-
Tribune 2010). Articles identify Mexico’s failure to provide sufficient warning of the
spills and subsequent slow clean-up efforts as future challenges to the goal of ending
transborder wastewater flows.
Although the San Diego Union-Tribune carries articles that did not fall within
these two topics, these stories lack a central unifying theme or detailed the upgrades to
the SBIWTP through late 2008 and 2009. The limited number of articles during 2009
and early 2010 speaks to the key stories surrounding the wastewater flows taken up by
the Union-Tribune.

Tijuana Storylines
The narratives in the Union-Tribune contrast with the presentation of wastewater
in El Sol de Tijuana. Three principal story arcs emerge in the Tijuana newspaper, the
expansion of infrastructure, residents’ pollution exposure, and the sewage spills of 2010-
2011. Tijuana’s efforts to modernize, upgrade, reinforce, and extend the city’s
inadequate wastewater collection and treatment system emerges as the predominant
narrative regarding wastewater in El Sol. Between January 2007 and December 2010
(Periods 1 and 2), the newspaper focuses on stories that highlight funding received from
the Border Environment Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), NADB, or other international
sources to continue their infrastructure boom. Readers learn of the fruits of this
investment in late 2010 with the inauguration of the first in a series of new wastewater
85

treatment plants, La Morita (Mondragón 2010b). The newspaper also detail further
infrastructure changes, including upgrades to the existing Punta Bandera and El Refugio
plants as well as the work of CESPT director Hernando Durán Cabrera to bring sanitation
services to all of Tijuana (Mondragón 2010c, 2010d, 2010e, 2011). Significantly, while
the Union-Tribune covers the SBIWTP during 2008-2010, El Sol has only one article
reporting the official inauguration of the plant in May 2011 (Mondragon 2011a).
Another theme in El Sol is the attention given to the extreme pollution and
contamination levels in Tijuana to which residents are exposed. This short collection of
four articles in March and April of 2008 include an opinion piece that raises concerns
over whether government beach closures are enough to protect residents and visitors from
the untreated wastewater that regularly fouls the Pacific Ocean and area beaches (Ravelo
2008). These articles also identify the different ways residents are exposed to untreated
domestic sewage, including the lack of adequate infrastructure in informal settlements
(Mondragón 2008). To highlight the extent of pollution from untreated household
wastewater, El Sol lists the Tijuana River as one of the most polluted rivers in Mexico
(Mondragón 2008). El Sol also informs residents of ongoing efforts of the Border 2012
program to improve environmental quality based on the principles of sustainable
development (El Sol de Tijuana 2008).
The storyline of pollution exposure and Tijuana’s pollution burden reemerges in
late 2010 and early 2011 in five articles that uncover a sewage leak into the Pacific Ocean
in the area of Playas de Tijuana, the same time period that this storyline appears in the
Union-Tribune. The Proyecto Fronterizo de Educación Ambiental (PFEA)
86

environmental organization draw attention to the 60 liters per second of raw sewage spill
that CESPT fails to report to Tijuana or San Diego residents (El Sol de Tijuana 2011).
Unlike coverage in the Union-Tribune, El Sol articles detail the source of the break,
CESPT’s failure to report the break in a timely fashion, and the slow reconstruction of the
damaged pipe (El Sol de Tijuana 2011, Sánchez Aguirre 2011a, 2011b). An article after
the spill recounts residents’ acknowledgement of the ongoing environmental and public
health repercussions of sewage spills due to inadequate sanitation provision provided by
CESPT (Ochoa 2011).
Articles in El Sol that do not fall under these three narratives are limited. Articles
outside of the story arcs focus on high-level government conferences to discuss
wastewater issues or maintenance at existing wastewater treatment plants. The strong
central narratives of El Sol suggest the controlled, moderated discourse presented to
readers.

Mapping Discourse
After tallying keyword frequency, edits to the English and Spanish problem and
solution term lists remove terms that did not appear in any of the articles or have very
few occurrences. These lists are then further edited to identify terms that are significant to
the creation of discourse and the key storylines for each newspaper presented above. The
English and Spanish lists are revised and combined to create a final list of terms
significant to both newspapers. The list combines English and Spanish terms to facilitate
the comparison of key word usage in each newspaper. While these terms are the most
87

significant, they may only appear in one newspaper, indicating the difference in discourse
between the two cities despite geographic proximity. These terms are graphed on a
correspondence matrix to remove terms that cluster near the origin or have no relation to
any newspaper time period. Therefore, I remove terms based on their relationship to the
wastewater discourse, not solely based on frequency. This final frequency matrix
consists of 64 terms (see Appendix E).
Figure 11 shows the correspondence map of the problem and solution words from
the San Diego Union-Tribune (UT) and El Sol de Tijuana (ST) for the three different
time periods of the study:
 Period 1: January 1, 2007-May 18, 2008
 Period 2: May 19, 2008-November 30, 2010
 Period 3: December 1, 2010-June 30, 2011
Period 1 has 18 articles from the Union-Tribune (UT1) and 6 articles from El Sol (ST1)
(Figure 10). Period 2 has 15 articles from the Union-Tribune (UT2) and 41 articles from
El Sol (ST2). The final period has 10 articles from the Union-Tribune (UT3) and 14
articles from El Sol (ST3). While the time periods reflect significant wastewater
discourses, the article distribution in El Sol is skewed toward the second time period.
This may impact the accuracy of the location of terms in the first time period on the
correspondence map. The content analysis will support the relevance of the results for El
Sol.
88

Figure 10: Newspaper articles by time period.
Problem terms on the map are represented by a circle and solution terms are
squares. Terms are mapped in English and as their word root, if easily identifiable.
Original terms are searched in the appropriate language of the newspaper as their root
with any spelling changes to ensure the coding of irregular verbs.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Period 1 Period 2 Period 3
El Sol de Tijuana San Diego Union-Tribune
89

Figure 11: Correspondence map of problem and solutions terms. UT refers to the Union-Tribune, ST refers to El Sol.
The corresponding numbers next to the newspaper abbreviations refer to the time periods.

The first correspondence factor is displayed on the horizontal axis and accounts
for 49.9 percent of the Chi-square variation of the table. The second correspondence
factor is displayed on the y-axis and accounts for 26.5 percent of the Chi-square
variation. The two factors thus account for 76.4 percent of the variance of the data. The
remaining three factors, UT explain a decreasing percentage of inertia and build on the
first and second dimensions.
These association maps are spaces of opposition, where x and y variables that are
located in the same direction from the origin of the graph are more closely associated.
90

Variables located opposite each other across the origin are negatively related. Thus, terms
on the quadrant as a newspaper time period indicate a strong positive association with
that time period, for example UT 1 and Bajagua. Terms located in an opposite quadrant
from a newspaper time period will have a negative association with that time period, such
as Bajagua and ST 3.
This map indicates that the San Diego Union-Tribune’s discourse shifts between
Period 1 and 2. The discourse in El Sol de Tijuana shifts between all three time periods,
notably the shift of Period 3 away from Period 2 and returning the discourse to language
similar to Period 1. Words located close or on the vertical axis indicate their lack of a
strong relation to one specific newspaper, such as continu, environ, problem, lack,
improve, and develop. These words suggest a similarity in the formation of discourse to
describe the ongoing pollution and environmental degradation associated transborder
wastewater flows.
In the San Diego Union-Tribune, discourse throughout the three time periods is
associated with problem terms that elicit the general concern over transborder
wastewater. This map indicates that the San Diego newspaper frames wastewater
discourse through the failures of infrastructure, budgets, and the governments. The first
period presents the financial and logistical failures associated with SBIWTP, through the
use of problem words, fail, delay, cost, and budget. Notably, Period 1 has the strongest
solution discourse, including terms build, Bajagua, upgrade, and expand. These terms
suggest the San Diego government’s efforts to address treatment infrastructure
inefficiencies and solve the wastewater problem. In Period 2, discourse is less focused,
91

reflecting the changes in discourse as the SBIWTP-Bajagua debate ends and fades from
the newspaper coverage. Terms shifted to more general concern over the border
environment and residents’ quality of life, such as border, flow, surf, and wastewater.
Period 3 witnesses a return of wastewater problems defined by terms that indicate
urgency and immediacy, such as spill, break, and rain. This map indicates that The
Union-Tribune disseminates wastewater discourse focused on the failures of
infrastructure, budgets, and governments to solve the ongoing wastewater problem.
In contrast, El Sol de Tijuana frames wastewater with terms associated with
progress and improvement. The few articles during Period 1 define the threats and
problems associated with wastewater, including waste, discharge, and drainage. The
second time period features a distinct shift in discourse to solution terms that reflect
discussion of infrastructure changes, such as install, reclaim, irrigat, maintain, and
eliminat. Problem terms from Period 2 suggest conflict with government’s provision of
infrastructure based on the connection to terms sanitation, CESPT, and coverage.
Discourse during Period 3 changes again, but still presents solution terms that indicate
infrastructure, like infrastructur, increase, and pipe. The problem term ocean is associated
with this time period, and is indicative of the concern over ocean water quality after the
major sewage spills in the winter of 2010-2011. El Sol’s wastewater frames focus on
positive, infrastructure-related solution terms to portray municipal efforts to address
untreated wastewater. This is evidenced through the three time periods’ strong negative
association with many problem terms, including fail, flow, and spill. Significantly, there
92

are no mentions of the Bajagua project in El Sol, as noted by the strong negative
association with all of the El Sol de Tijuana time periods.
The findings in the correspondence map suggest the two newspapers produce
considerably different discourses despite geographic proximity. The Union-Tribune
focuses on describing wastewater as a problem, expressing urgency in ending transborder
flows, and motivating policymakers and residents to address this issue. Alternatively,
discourse in Tijuana presents wastewater through a discussion of infrastructure expansion
and policy implementation. However, this generally optimistic discourse neglects
wastewater’s impacts on residents and the environment. The next section investigates
how local contexts influence the framing process and explain the differences uncovered
during the correspondence analysis.

Deconstructing the framing of the wastewater problematic
In this section, I deconstruct how wastewater is framed in El Sol de Tijuana and
the San Diego Union-Tribune (see Figure 8). This process uncovers how each newspaper
defines the threats, problems, and solutions associated with wastewater. When reviewing
the framing process, it is apparent that while threats, problems, and solutions have
thematic similarity, a notable difference emerged in each newspaper’s coverage and the
place-specific presentation of broader, transnational issues.

93

The environmental threat
In both the Union-Tribune and El Sol, the most pressing threat of untreated
household wastewater is the ongoing and potential threat to the region’s fragile
environment, including the Tijuana River Estuary, area beaches, and the Pacific Ocean.
The San Diego Union-Tribune focuses extensively on the threat to the
environment north of the border with limited coverage of Tijuana’s environmental
conditions. In the Union-Tribune, discussion of the environmental threat appears 95
times. At the start of the study period, the Union-Tribune defines the environmental
threat as the transborder flow of untreated wastewater from Tijuana or the toxic effluent
discharged into the Pacific Ocean from the SBIWTP (Dibble 2007a). The sources of
these two environmental threats are portrayed in the Union-Tribune as infrastructural,
government, or financial problems. During the 2007-2008 Bajagua-SBIWTP debate, the
SBIWTP is faulted for its failure to meet U.S. CWA standards for the treatment of
wastewater (Lee 2007, 2007b, 2007c, Dibble 2007a). Governmental problems also
emerge during the debate as the IBWC is labeled an inefficient government agency that
drew out the process to end the environmental threat (The San Diego Union-Tribune
2007). The IBWC often counters these claims by citing binational negotiations and
Mexico’s different collection and treatment standards as inhibiting the selection of an
infrastructural solution (Lee 2007b). Financing is a limiting factor, as Mexico’s ability to
invest in Bajagua, the SBITWP, or their domestic wastewater infrastructure is called into
question during this time period (Lee 2008c, The San Diego Union-Tribune 2007).
94

After deciding to upgrade the SBIWTP, the environmental threat definition shifts
to environmental degradation caused by Tijuana’s inadequate infrastructure. The Union-
Tribune notes that upgrades to the binational facility will not address Tijuana’s
inadequate wastewater collection infrastructure and insufficient treatment capacity,
indicating that “the unconnected sewage that runs down across the border from
impoverished Tijuana neighborhoods” would still present environmental problems in the
coming years (Dribble 2007:A-1). After a series of sewage spills during the 2010 dry
season, the Union-Tribune identifies Tijuana’s inadequate, poorly maintained wastewater
infrastructure as a threat to the estuary and Pacific Ocean ecosystem health (Lee 2010,
2010a).
During this second phase of the environmental threat, the Union-Tribune
identifies Mexico’s government as a hindrance to improving the city’s inadequate
infrastructure. San Diego area governments have little leverage to take action against the
source of the sewage spills during 2010 and 2011 because the spills occur on Mexican
soil (Lee 2010). Articles also note the difficulty the San Diego governments have in
communicating with Tijuana municipal government officials during spills (Dibble and
Lee 2011).
The two different definitions of the environmental threats produce three similar
definitions of solutions. The Union-Tribune repeatedly identifies infrastructure as a
principal way to attack the wastewater problem. The 2007-2008 debate centers on
selecting the most appropriate treatment plant for the region. Articles cover the opening
of new treatment plants in Tijuana that add needed treatment capacity and support
95

wastewater reclamation programs (Dibble 2009). After the sewage spills of 2010 and
2011, improving border infrastructure financing is depicted as a necessary to fund needed
upgrades to the border wastewater collection and treatment (Lee 2010a).
Two additional solutions to the environmental threats are the improvement of
transborder partnerships and the increase in sustainable development programs. Stronger
transborder partnerships are depicted as a key step to improving binational negotiation &
financial gridlock that slows wastewater infrastructure development (Dibble 2011, The
San Diego Union-Tribune 2010). As high-technology treatment plants are constructed in
Tijuana, sustainable development became a critical component of efforts to solve
environmental threats and reduce consumption of limited water resources. These plants
not only ensure a better quality of water that crosses the U.S. border, they are also
equipped with wastewater recycling technology (Dibble 2009). Although the transborder
flow of untreated wastewater continues, articles in the Union-Tribune remain hopeful that
the new sustainability technologies and transborder partnerships will reduce the
environmental threat.
El Sol de Tijuana portrays the scope of the environmental threat as binational, yet
few articles feature the debates occurring north of the border (Mondragón 2008 June 10).
The environmental threat appears 53 times over the study period. Unlike the Union-
Tribune, the environmental threat is indirectly referenced through discussions of
government projects, programs, and goals to end transborder wastewater flows. Articles
define the environmental threat as the environmental degradation caused by untreated
wastewater flows in part due to rapid, unplanned development and the inadequate
96

wastewater infrastructure in new developments (Mondragón 2008, 2008). During late
2010 and early 2011, the sewage spills change the presentation of the environmental
threat to direct descriptions of the damages in area beaches, rivers, and the estuary caused
by these spills. This time period witnesses the definition of the environmental threat
appended to include the toxic effluent flowing into the Pacific Ocean.
Similarly to the Union-Tribune, El Sol identifies the sources of the environmental
threat throughout the study period as infrastructural, governmental, or financial problems.
However, these broad problem frames are defined in local contexts specific to Tijuana
and differ from those present in the San Diego paper. In Tijuana, they city’s insufficient
and poorly maintained collection infrastructure is cited as the source of much of the
wastewater flows into the ocean and estuary (Mondragón 2008, 2009). Articles
associate Tijuana’s government with the slow response to wastewater infrastructure
failures, limited information on sewage spills, and uncontrolled growth of informal
settlements (El Sol de Tijuana 2011, Ochoa 2011, Sánchez Aguirre 2011a, 2011b,
Mondragón 2010d). Financial problems also contribute to the environmental threat. El
Sol articles throughout the study period report on the influx of federal, binational, and
international funding earmarked for addressing the city’s inadequate wastewater
infrastructure.
Cabe destacar, que gracias al BEIF se han podido realizar obras de drenaje en colonias como el
Monte, Granjas la Esperanza, Maclovio Rojas, en Tijuana y Aztlán, Independencia y Lomas de
Rosarito en el municipio del mismo nombre (Mondragon 2008: n.p.)
97

Remarkably, thanks to the BEIF, drainage works have been possible in neighborhoods such as el
Monte, Granjas la Esperanza, and Maclovio Rojas in Tijuana, and Aztlán, Independencia, and
Lomas de Rosarito in the municipality of the same name.

…esta obra se realizó con recursos provenientes del Crédito Japonés, que también fueron
utilizados para la construcción de la Arturo Herrera y de la Tecolote-La Gloria (El Sol de
Tijuana 2010a: n.p)
…this work was carried out with funds from the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation,
which were also used for the construction of the Arturo Herrera and Tecolote-La Gloria

These articles note that Tijuana’s ability to address the city’s untreated wastewater on a
large scale would not be possible without international aid. Articles indirectly uncover
the larger issue of Tijuana’s financial and political inability to provide adequate
wastewater infrastructure, leading to the unequal distribution of coverage across much of
the city.
El Sol depicts infrastructure as the answer to ending wastewater flows. Articles
describe new collection and treatment infrastructure as the key to removing untreated
wastewater from the environment. The frequency of articles describing infrastructure
improvements portrays CESPT as persistently working to end untreated wastewater flow.
Many government programs, such as “Cero Descargas”, are contingent on the continued
addition of new, higher technology treatment plants and upgrades to old facilities (El Sol
de Tijuana 2010a, 2010c). While these articles highlight the growing percentages of
wastewater collected and treated by new infrastructure, there is little discussion of how
this process will keep up with informal and unregulated development.
98

The quality of life threat
The second threat defined in the newspapers is the threat to resident’s quality of
life. The threat to quality of life is defined in the newspapers as a public health issue, but
more frequently as an expected disruption of residents’ daily activities. Both papers
highlight the impact that the flows of raw sewage have on the ability of residents to enjoy
beaches safely and without risk of contracting a serious illness. The threat to quality of
life appears a similar number of times in both newspapers, 23 times in the Union-Tribune
and 26 times in El Sol de Tijuana.
The frequent beach closures, strong odors, and risk of contact with untreated
sewage by Imperial Beach and San Diego residents are represented in the Union-Tribune
as a fact of life for many residents. This decades-old problem leaves residents acutely
aware that “when it rains, they should avoid the beaches near the border” (Feinstein
2008: B-7). The newspaper targets the governments and failed infrastructure as the
source of quality of life threats. During the Bajagua-SBIWTP debate, The Union-Tribune
blames the IBWC, the U.S. federal government, and the Mexican federal government for
drawing out the process to address the disappointing performance of the plant.
The 2010 and 2011 sewage spills reignite residents’ ongoing frustration over the
border sewage problem as the threat to public health remained a pressing danger. In
these incidents, the source of this threat is defined as the breakdown in communications
between the U.S. and Mexican federal governments (Fry and Zuniga 2010, Dibble and
Lee 2011a). During the July 2010 dry season spill, CESPT fails to notify U.S. officials of
infrastructure malfunctions that would require U.S. officials to follow the protocol at
99

SBIWTP to handle the increased flow. Senior engineer at the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Board Brian Kelley responds, “ ‘It’s somewhat frustrating,’ he said. ‘But it didn’t
raise a huge red flag because we are used to it’” (Lee 2010a). After these incidents, the
Union-Tribune articles reassert the need to expand collection and treatment capacity in
Tijuana, as well as improving transborder governmental communication about future
sewage flows to solve San Diego area residents’ quality of life impairments (Dibble
2011, Dibble and Lee 2011). The tone of Union-Tribune articles remains critical
throughout the study period as quality of life and exposure to untreated wastewater
remains salient issues.
El Sol de Tijuana represents the threat to quality of life as a public health issue.
However, these articles rarely directly discuss the specific impacts of wastewater flows
on quality of life. The newspaper articles instead indirectly portray the risk of
wastewater-related intestinal, skin, and respiratory diseases as a past threat solved by the
growth and expansion of the treatment network. El Sol identifies aging infrastructure as a
source of the quality of life threat and implies the government’s role in the slow
expansion of treatment facilities. The newspaper alludes to Tijuana’s infrastructure
problems through articles on new infrastructure projects that increase wastewater
treatment capacity to protect local beaches and residents from contamination (Mondragón
2009a, 2010b, 2010g, El Sol de Tijuana 2010a). Despite expanded treatment
infrastructure and government promotion, Tijuana residents still perceive wastewater as a
major threat to their public health (Ochoa 2011). One article directly addresses the
government’s failure to match the pace of urbanization with sufficient infrastructure by
100

documenting the lag in extending collection infrastructure to Tijuana’s informal
settlements (Ochoa 2011).
The articles present two solutions to the quality of life threat: continued
infrastructure improvement and better communication between CESPT and residents.
Again, infrastructure solutions generally are inferred from articles that discuss new
treatment plants and expanded treatment capacity to curb residential exposure to
wastewater (Cruz 2010, Sánchez Aguirre 2011, Mondragón 2010, 2010a, 2010b, 2010d).
U.S.-based environmental group Wildcoast identifies the need to expand Tijuana’s
collection system to informal settlements to truly end residents’ health impairments due
to sewage exposure (Ochoa 2011). After the sewage spills in 2010 and 2011, El Sol
targets the CESPT’s poor and belated communication with residents regarding public
health risks and beach closures. In CESPT’s place, PFEA is portrayed as a conduit
between residents and the government to ensure residents’ needs is met and the
contaminated areas cleaned (El Sol de Tijuana 2011). El Sol’s representation of the
quality of life threat centers on cataloging the infrastructure improvements that are
portrayed as eliminating the threat almost in its entirety. Few articles are critical of
CESPT’s handling of the city’s uneven distribution of wastewater infrastructure.

Divergent frames
Beyond the similar broad frames in The San Diego Union-Tribune and El Sol de
Tijuana, there are two solution frames that appear in only one of the newspapers that are
significant to the local contexts and discourse creation surrounding wastewater. In this
101

section, I discuss the two solutions, Bajagua and sustainable development, that only
appeared in one newspaperand discuss what their absence in the other paper suggests.
First, the Union-Tribune’s thorough coverage of the Bajagua-SBIWTP debate is
unmatched in Tijuana. The term “Bajagua” appears 229 times in the Union-Tribune over
the study period, with a peak of 220 times during the 2007-2008 debate time period that
featured 16 articles on the topic. Bajagua is presented as a U.S.-designed solution to be
built in Mexico. Most articles target the U.S. and Mexican federal governments for
delaying Bajagua’s construction. As the decision making process draws to a close, The
Union-Tribune withdraws support from the project over concern about the project’s
political connections and uncertain support from the Mexican government (Lee 2008d,
Lee 2007c). Despite the evolution of The Union-Tribune portrayal, Bajagua fails to
appear at all in El Sol de Tijuana. One article in The Union-Tribune offers this
justification:
For all the discussion north of the border, debates in Mexico about the Bajagua plant until now
have been taking place behind closed doors. Even leaders of the maquiladora sector, expected to
be a major client of the plant's recycled water, say they know little about the project (Dibble
2007a: A-1).
While the Bajagua project ultimately is unsuccessful, the lack of its representation in El
Sol speaks to the divided nature in defining solution discourse. More importantly, the
closed doors approach of the Mexican government indicates the limited influence of
residents and the business community on infrastructure expansion and discourse
formation.
102

Sustainable wastewater reuse and treatment projects are depicted in the El Sol de
Tijuana as essential for the city to eliminate wastewater pollution and decrease the
dependence on imported water, thereby improving the overall health of the urban
environment. Sustainable development as a solution appears 46 times throughout the
study period, detailing wastewater recycling technology at government and private
treatment plants (Ochoa 2008, Sánchez Aguierre 2008). Several articles focus on the
introduction of three high-technology wastewater treatment plants that produce treated
wastewater usable for irrigation, protecting the region’s limited water resources from
overuse (Mondragón 2010, 2010b, 2010c, El Sol de Tijuana 2010, 2010a). With
financing from federal and binational sources, Tijuana introduces Proyecto Morado, a re-
used water pipe that irrigates urban green space and supplies industry (Mondragón
2009a). Additionally, articles describe the government program “Cultura del Agua” that
educates residents about the arid region’s water scarcity and responsible water use (El Sol
de Tijuana 2010b). These three projects make up the mayor’s Cero Descargas project to
eliminate discharges and protect the regional environment through the introduction of
“…mayores áreas verdes y tener un impacto positivo al entorno ecológico del área", indicó
Hernando Durán Cabrera. (Mondragón 2009a: n.p.)
“… more green areas and have a positive impact on the area’s ecology”, said Hernando Durán
Cabrera.
Alternatively, The Union-Tribune rarely presents sustainability as a solution to the
wastewater flows in the watershed. Sustainable development is discussed in seven
articles in reference to the Bajagua project’s plan to treat wastewater to a level safe for
103

reuse in irrigation and industrial purposes (Rodgers 2007, San Diego Union Tribune
2007, Wilkie 2007, Lee 2007, Lee 2008, 2008a, 2008d). At the same time, the paper has
limited coverage of Tijuana’s sustainable development-based policies despite their
centrality to the city’s wastewater infrastructure development plan and potential to
improve the regional environment. Tijuana’s sustainability efforts related to wastewater
are only catalogued in the Union-Tribune in one article (Dibble 2009). This absence
suggests that the San Diego-based discourse surrounding wastewater again is narrowly
focused on solutions that have immediate impacts for San Diego area residents. Thus
these ideas and efforts that are portrayed in the individual papers as a significant feature
framing wastewater solutions do not always cross the border despite the transborder
nature of the wastewater problem.

Discussion
The correspondence and content analysis results demonstrate that the two
newspapers have similarities in frames but local contexts ultimately shape discourse
specificities. The correspondence and content analyses reveal the Union-Tribune’s
reliance on problem terms to define its wastewater discourse. This language choice
fosters an unpromising image of the future of untreated wastewater flows, with little in
the way of potential U.S.-based solutions to eliminate transborder wastewater flows. The
newspaper’s coverage of the threats and related solutions highlight a complicated picture
of solving transborder wastewater flows that are inherently linked to larger underlying
transborder or binational governance issues. For example, the Union-Tribune places
104

blame on both the Tijuana municipal and U.S. federal governments for their roles in
creating inadequate treatment infrastructure, delaying infrastructure construction, and
failing to end transborder wastewater discharges. Despite the detailed portrayal of the
wastewater threats and problem sources, the Union-Tribune offers passive solutions to its
readers, seemingly resigned to their inability to solve the problem that originates south of
the border.
In contrast, the discourse in El Sol de Tijuana is shaped by reactions to the
environmental and quality of life threats of wastewater flows. Terms with strong positive
association to El Sol in the correspondence analysis tend to be solution terms. The
content analysis supports this finding by exposing a discourse that depicts the city’s
inadequate infrastructure problem as currently being solved through technological fixes.
Most articles present environmental and quality of life threats by indirectly portraying
these issues through descriptions of new governmental infrastructure programs instead of
directly discussing or reporting on resident exposure to wastewater or ecosystem
degradation. These action-oriented solutions aim to attack the problem of wastewater
through engineering better treatment plants and educating residents. Significantly, the
newspaper neglects the city’s uneven collection of wastewater from informal settlements.
Wastewater from informal settlements that goes uncollected does not enter the formal
treatment network, thus will not be solved by the expansion of wastewater treatment and
falls outside of the solution-centric discourse.
The goal of the framing process is to influence policy decisions and area
residents’ attitudes and perceptions of the wastewater problem. While discourse analysis
105

is not a direct measure of residents’ reception of ideas, it identifies the messages and
storylines to which they are potentially exposed. San Diego Union-Tribune readers
receive information on the ongoing efforts to end untreated transborder wastewater flows,
and read articles under this theme that portray the efforts of the U.S. and Mexican federal
authorities in negative or indifferent manners. Messages depict the wastewater problem
as an enduring threat to the environment and their quality of life. El Sol de Tijuana
readers obtain their information and perceptions based on articles that present the
wastewater problem in a more optimistic, upbeat style. Tijuana’s readers gain an
understanding of the efforts to end the environmental and quality of life threats based on
the many articles that feature the construction, expansion and upgrading of wastewater
infrastructure projects.
However, both newspapers’ discourse primarily is constructed from official
sources, such as the government, academia, environmental NGOs, and the business
community. There are limited examples of unofficial discourse throughout the study
period. Unofficial solutions to the wastewater problem predominantly present
alternatives to official solutions with three mentions in the Union-Tribune and five in El
Sol. These articles discuss beach clean-ups or environmental education projects (Lee
2011, Ochoa 2008, El Sol de Tijuana 2010b). This absence prevents readers from being
exposed to alternative understandings of the threats of transborder wastewater flows.
Official sources control the framing process by creating and sustaining the messages
residents receive.
106

The control over the framing process, and the noted absence of topics such as
Tijuana’s rapid urbanization or environmental injustices and the lack of community
voices, may also be attributed to the nature and independence of the press. In the United
States, freedom of the press is a constitutional right and affords journalists the ability to
critique the government with little risk of reprisal. For the past forty years, the San Diego
Union-Tribune has regularly criticized both the U.S. and Mexican federal governments
and the Tijuana municipal government for their inability to adequately address untreated
transborder wastewater flows (Dibble 2007a, Lee 2010a, Dibble and Lee 2011). Articles
in the San Diego Union-Tribune are skeptical of government plans and favor private
business solutions that would benefit not only the environment, but also the local
economy (Lee 2007c, San Diego Union-Tribune 2007). Historically, the Union-Tribune
editorial staff is conservative (Davis 2011).
5
This is especially apparent during the
Bajagua-SBIWTP debates that feature an editorial expresses a strong pro-business, anti-
government bureaucracy position in favor of Bajagua (The San Diego Union-Tribune
2007). Other articles discuss editorial meetings with the Bajagua team and offer sharp
criticism over the ineffectiveness of the IBWC (Lee 2007c).
Despite geographic proximity, there is little in the San Diego discourse that
provides readers with a clear picture of the quality of life for residents south of the
border. The Union-Tribune does not directly address Tijuana’s environmental and social
injustices, or give a voice to Tijuana’s residents impacted by inadequate sanitation or

5
The San Diego Union-Tribune was purchased by hotelier Doug Manchester in late 2011 for over $110
million (Davis 2011). Manchester himself is conservative and has donated large sums of money to defeat
ballot initiatives that are contrary to his political beliefs. This study period does not include articles under
the new ownership; the impact of the shift on editorial tone and news coverage is unclear.

107

beach contamination. The newspaper does criticize the Tijuana government for its poor
handling of urbanization and environmental degradation with articles focused on the
city’s inability to provide wastewater infrastructure to its growing population and the
resultant sewage spills (Dibble 2007, 2011, 2011a). Omitting these issues and voices
ignores the underlying injustices that increase during rapid, unplanned urbanization of a
developing city. The lack of coverage may be attributed to concerns over journalist
safety in Tijuana due to rising border violence during the study period. Moreover, this
narrative does not fall within newspaper’s conservative, pro-business tradition. Articles
focus on how the issues affect San Diego residents and businesses and ignore the
experiences of their neighbors south of the border.
Mexico’s historically state-controlled media and suppressed civil society
contribute to El Sol’s wastewater discourse devoid of representations of environmental
injustice and community voices. A free press is guaranteed in Mexico’s constitution, but
the government’s influence over the media persists throughout its history. During the
1980s and 1990s, Mexico’s independent press strengthens amid the privatization and
deregulation of the Mexican economy (Lawson 2002). Scrutiny of the government’s
actions, decisions, and policy increases during this shift (Lawson 2002). True freedom of
expression continues to expand throughout Mexico’s urban areas; however journalists in
interior states still face some degree of control by the state or local government (Estévez
2010).
Since 2004, the escalating drug cartel-related violence has caused many
journalists to self-censor their coverage to avoid violent retaliation (Estévez 2010,
108

Carless 2011). The increase of violence directed towards journalists in Tijuana and Baja
California discourages reporting on ineffective governance and political corruption
(Esévez 2010). Government officials routinely bribe journalists for positive coverage
(Carless 2011). It is difficult to determine if the articles from El Sol during this time
period are censored by journalists or the local governments. However, the tradition of
government control and the resurgence of a timid press suggest an outside influence on
the paper’s optimistic, solution-based wastewater discourse. Few articles until late 2010
directly place blame on the government, and never discussed the government’s handling
of rapid urbanization and unequal living conditions. The articles on the 2010 and 2011
sewage spills provide one of the few examples of resident opinions critical of the
government’s handling of the wastewater issue (El Sol de Tijuana 2011, Ochoa 2011,
Sánchez Aguirre 2011a).
Furthermore, Mexican citizens have few opportunities for political participation
(Moore 2008b). Marginalized residents have little ability to influence or change their
circumstances because they lack economic or political power. El Sol’s limited use of
non-expert voices in the newspaper articles intimates Mexico’s unequal social climate,
where those with power have the ability to influence policy decisions. NGOs and social
movements like PFEA use the newspaper to draw attention to the uneven development
and environmental inequity produced by the city’s rapid, unplanned urbanization (El Sol
de Tijuana 2011, Ochoa 2011, Sánchez Aguirre 2011a). Those without power are unable
influence discourse creation, exercise their right to shape the urbanization process,
109

criticize the government, or voice their concerns over exposure to untreated household
wastewater.

Conclusion
The transborder nature of this study of wastewater discourse reveals differences in
the framing process that would not be present in a study of one side of the border. This
chapter identifies the temporal and spatial variations in the framing of untreated
wastewater in media discourse. Temporal and spatial variations in the framing of
untreated wastewater are apparent in media discourse. Between 2007 and 2011, both
newspapers experience shifts in the framing of transborder wastewater frequently
cultivated by infrastructure changes or sewage. The discourse presented in The San
Diego Union-Tribune reveals a public perception influenced by articles stressing the
negative impact of wastewater as well as projecting a discouraging future outlook. In
Tijuana, public perception of wastewater discourse is influenced by the enumeration of
the government’s recent efforts to solve the city’s inadequate treatment of household
wastewater through the construction and expansion of wastewater treatment plants.
With respect to this dissertation’s concern over how the environmental, political,
economic and social contexts influence the conceptualization of domestic wastewater,
this chapter proposes that transborder wastewater flows remain a significant issue despite
steps taken by both governments. Results also suggest that a difference in the
conceptualization of the threats, causes, and solutions of the untreated wastewater in San
Diego and Tijuana compels residents to interpret the impacts of wastewater on
110

environmental and public health within their local contexts with little acknowledgement
of their neighbors on the other side of the international border. These competing
wastewater discourses create two different public perceptions that must be overcome to
preserve the estuarine and ocean ecosystems while protecting the residents from
continued exposure to untreated wastewater. A more unified public understanding would
be useful in ensuring all residents understand the risks associated with exposure to
untreated wastewater and in promoting community action to address those risks, whether
through supporting binational policies or through alternative action.
As the tones and themes emerge from the correspondence and content analyses,
the process of constructing transborder wastewater discourse emerges. Tied into the
results from the analysis are outside factors that influence what is printed in the
newspapers, and thus how the wastewater is perceived by its readers. The more
comprehensive understanding of the significance of press independence, editorial slant,
and public participation reveals the influence of the governments and the newspapers on
what gets printed. In the case of Tijuana and San Diego newspapers, these outside
influences contribute to the competing discourses, one problem-based with a strong
critique of the government, the other solution-centric with a focus on ongoing
improvements to address untreated wastewater.
This chapter also provides context for other chapters in this dissertation by
deconstructing the wastewater discourse to reveal the complex decision-making process
that contributes to the continued potential environmental and public exposure to untreated
household wastewater. The region continues to implement local and binational policy
111

solutions that address the inadequate wastewater treatment and infrastructure
maintenance in Tijuana. However, larger marginality issues, such as equitable
distribution of wastewater collection infrastructure, are left out of the decision-making
process. Uncertainty remains about the ability of new policies and treatment plants to
truly end transborder wastewater flows.
112

CHAPTER 4: EVALUATING URBAN SUSTAINABILITY CONTRIBUTIONS OF
CENTRALIZED AND DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER TREATMENT IN
TIJUANA, MEXICO

Rapidly growing cities in the global south face additional challenges in planning
for urban sustainability because of the need to provide a growing population with basic
urban services and protection from environmental hazards. Their rapid population and
industrial expansion demand more natural resources and spread environmental impacts
beyond the local ecosystem (Rees 1992, Choguill 1996, Mitlin and Satterthwaite 1996,
McGranahan et al. 2001, McGranahan and Satterthwaite 2003). Improving urban
sanitation is a necessary step toward achieving urban sustainability. Adequate
wastewater treatment, whether through traditional, centralized plants or alternative,
decentralized plants, protects vulnerable urban populations from exposure to pathogens
while removing pollutants from local watersheds and ecosystems.
In Tijuana, rapid, unplanned urbanization combined with the city’s limited access
to water resources complicates sustainable development policymaking, particularly
household sewage treatment. Tijuana’s rapid expansion is intertwined with the border
maquila economy that attracts new migrants to the city and draws on regional
environmental resources. New residents and industry require more water and energy
inputs and produce more wastes that the surrounding ecosystems must absorb. The
impact of this increase in domestic wastewater production has contaminated and
damaged local and regional riparian and coastal ecosystems. By introducing sustainable
113

wastewater treatment infrastructure, Tijuana is trying to address this imbalance between
resource use, wastewater production, public health, and the absorptive capacity of the
local and regional ecosystem.
This chapter examines the growth, manifestations, and impacts of sustainable
wastewater treatment initiatives in Tijuana. In it, I investigate the specific sustainability
contributions of a centralized treatment facility, Planta de Tratamiento de Aguas
Residuales Ingeniero Arturo Herrera (PTAR Arturo Herrera), and a decentralized,
alternative treatment facility, Ecoparque. The strengths and weaknesses of each
technology and their broader implications for city and regional environmental health and
ecological sustainability have yet to be studied. The chapter also examines the
experiences of key stakeholders during the planning, construction, and operation of
Ecoparque to better understand the complex process of introducing a small-scale
alternative treatment facility into a developing urban area.
I first review the development of sustainable wastewater treatment technology and
its incorporation into centralized and decentralized facilities in Tijuana. Here, I explore
the incorporation of natural, biological treatment methods into wastewater treatment to
generate a more sympathetic relationship between infrastructure and the environment.
I then develop a series of sustainable wastewater treatment facility indicators to
assess how PTAR Arturo Herrera and Ecoparque contribute to city and regional
sustainability objectives. Indicators assist in comparison between the two diverse
methods for sustainably treating and reusing urban wastewater. Specific indicators
provide an overall view of each facility’s capacity to meet economic, social, and
114

environmental sustainability objectives and allow the two different treatment
technologies to be evaluated. This quantification of sustainability benefits and risks
demonstrates each plant’s contributions to improving Tijuana’s ecological sustainability
and environmental health.
In the final section of the chapter, I investigate Ecoparque as a case study to better
understand the impacts and limitations of decentralized, alternative wastewater treatment
approaches. A series of semi-structured interviews with people involved in the planning,
financing, construction, and operation of Ecoparque provide context for the indicator
analysis and a window into the challenges facing decentralized treatment facilities. A
content analysis of the interviews reveals the value of alternative wastewater treatment
technologies for urban sustainability and the challenges related to the construction,
operation, and maintenance of such a facility.

Sustainable wastewater treatment
The city and the environment are inherently linked as the natural flows or
processes of ecosystems operate within the city. Water enters the city through a largely
invisible infrastructure network and is consumed for drinking, industrial, and sewage
treatment purposes, then re-enters the ecosystem in a changed state (Kaika 2005, Kaika
and Swyngedouw 2000, Gandy 2003). As a result, residents have little to no connection
to the water cycle or the fate of their polluted wastewater on the local and regional
environment. The provision of basic sanitation infrastructure is viewed as a necessary
element to achieve urban sustainability and remain in balance with its environment
115

(Choguill 1996). Untreated domestic wastewater creates critical environmental and
public health problems, including polluting surface and groundwater sources as well as
exposing residents to dangerous pathogens. This section examines the traditional model
of wastewater treatment and non-traditional, natural and decentralized treatment system
and their use in Tijuana and in other Mexican border cities. The two different systems
incorporate vastly different treatment technologies and system designs to reduce public
health risks and mitigate the environmental impacts of development within the city and in
neighboring environments.

Centralized wastewater treatment: controlling urban water flows
In the early 20
th
century, rapidly urbanizing cities in the global south adopted
centralized, large scale, subsidized infrastructure popular in Europe and North America to
improve public health. This infrastructure acted as a barrier for residents from exposure
to pathogens and pollution (Beck and Cummings 1996, Yu, Tay, and Wilson 1997).
Physical infrastructure was also necessary to support continued economic growth, to
reduce environmental impacts of development, and to improve the standard of living
(Choguill 1996). The potential exposure to raw sewage in urban areas had dramatic
impacts on the near and distant ecosystems, public health, and global water flows.
Centralized wastewater treatment facilities were public facilities with the capacity
to treat large amounts of wastewater outside the city that was then disposed of in nearby
water bodies (Wilderer and Schreff 2000, Massoud et al. 2009). Large-scale centralized
wastewater treatment plants effectively managed and controlled the treatment and
116

transportation of large volumes of wastewater for large urban populations. In urban
areas, large concentrations of people benefited from the lower cost per capita of
centralized systems (Massoud et al. 2009). These plants provided an effective public
health barrier by removing pathogens, heavy metals, chemicals, and organic matter from
the raw sewage during the treatment process (Muga and Mihelcic 2008). Treated
wastewater would then be transported away from the city to reduce unwanted
environmental impacts on the local environment and limit residents’ exposure to adverse
pollution (Choguill 1996). Newer plants incorporated green technologies, such as water
reclamation, to support the reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation and industrial
purposes.
Cities in the global south that pursued centralized treatment strategies faced risks.
The financial investment required to construct, maintain, and upgrade centralized
treatment plants was often beyond the technical capacity and financial resources of local
or regional governments (Butler and Parkinson 1997, Jeffrey et al. 1997, Wilderer and
Schreff 2000, McGranahan et al. 2001, Massoud et al. 2009). Traditional, centralized
large-scale systems drew heavily on water, energy, and open space resources of the city.
These technologies required large inputs of water to transport sewage to treatment
facilities, problematic for urban areas in water-scarce regions. Wastewater treatment
utilized huge amounts of energy to build facilities, and to transport and treat sewage.
Centralized facilities demanded a lot of open space for construction, and often plants had
to be located at a distance from the generation of waste. Traditional treatment was
followed immediately by disposal of treated wastes, tossing away treated wastewater and
117

important nutrients in residual solids (Luecke and de la Parra 1994, Otterpohl, Grottker,
and Lange 1997, Jennsen, Vradle, and Lindholm 2007). With cost recovery as a main
goal, centralized systems often skipped over areas of the city perceived as unprofitable
and prevented informal settlements from accessing basic services. Centralized systems
and top-down infrastructure planning therefore contributed to the service inequality
present in many rapidly developing cities (Bakker 2003, 2010, Choguill 1996).

Decentralized wastewater treatment: maximizing resource recovery and reducing
environmental impacts
As rapid urbanization continued through the 1980s and 1990s, scholars began to
question the sustainability of the traditional wastewater treatment systems.
Anthropogenic changes to water systems caused ecosystems to collapse due to changes in
water flow, timing, and quality (Gleick 2010). Outfalls from wastewater treatment plants
raised nutrient levels in receiving water bodies even after very high levels of treatment,
disrupting natural carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus cycles (Otterpohl, Grottker, and
Lange 1997). The accidental release of untreated wastewater into the environment due to
pipe breaks or sewer overflows continued to expose the public and environment to health
risks (Otterpohl, Grottker, and Lange 1997). In Mexico, sixty percent of the country’s
rivers and streams were seriously contaminated while coastal ecosystems were regularly
exposed to contaminated discharges and untreated urban run-off (Mumme 1992:123).
The dramatic environmental impacts of wastewater treatment cultivated demands
for the inclusion of more holistic, sustainable wastewater treatment technologies that
118

produced less disruption to the natural processes and balanced the needs of the population
and flows of resources (Beck and Cummings 1996, Ellman and Robbins 1998). To
improve the urban water cycle, practitioners defined sustainable wastewater treatment as
one that used less energy and materials than traditional methods, eliminated the transfer
of wastes in space or time or to other persons, ended the degradation of water and soil
resources in the short and long term, and integrated human activities into natural cycles
(Otterpohl, Grottker, and Lange 1997: 123, Jettern, Horn and van Loordrect 1997). By
designing and selecting wastewater treatment technologies with these objectives in mind,
wastewater systems would help rectify and compensate for the distortions in natural
cycles precipitated by urbanization (Beck and Cummings 1996).
These sustainability goals addressed the multi-dimensional nature of sustainability
by acknowledging treatment solutions needed to balance economic, social, and
environmental aspects of sustainability. Economic sustainability referred to the treatment
facility’s long-term cost-effectiveness, and the implicit goal that the costs of construction,
operation and maintenance do not exceed the benefits to public health and the
environment. The systems were also expected to have high treatment efficiency at a low
capital investment (Yu, Tay, Wilson 1997, Hareleman and Murcott 1999, Bakir 2001,
Suriyachan, Nitivattananon, and Amin 2012). Costs included those associated with
support infrastructure, such as trunk sewers pumping stations (Carter et al. 1999, Bakir
2001, Balkema et al. 2002). The availability of financing was factored into economic
sustainability to determine if a city could afford to construct and operate the plant (Yu,
Tay, Wilson 1997, Flores, Buckely and Fenner 2009). Economic sustainability was often
119

the most critical factor in project implementation and success (Ellman and Robbins
1998).
Environmental sustainability goals reinforced the preservation and efficient
utilization of environmental resources. These wastewater collection and treatment
systems aimed to reduce water and energy use for conveyance and treatment (Otterpohl,
Grottker and Lange 1997, Jennsen, Vradle, and Lindholm 2007, Bakir 2001, Balkema et
al. 2002). The reduction in water consumption was especially critical in areas with
limited water resources. More natural treatment methods reduced the use of added
chemicals for clarification and disinfection (Jetten, Horn, and van Loosdrecht 1997).
Wastewater was viewed no longer as a problem but as a resource; natural treatment
systems maximized reuse options and retained nutrients by recycling sludge as compost
and/or reusing treated wastewater to irrigate agricultural and other green areas (Jennsen,
Vradle, and Lindholm 2007, Otterpohl, Grottker and Lang 1997, Flores, Buckley, and
Fenner 2009). These reuse methods promoted the preservation of land fertility and
biodiversity (Bakir 2001).
Wastewater treatment solutions that addressed social sustainability satisfied basic
human needs and were socially equitable. Social sustainability was hard to define and
quantify. The facility needed to have a beneficial impact on the community, whether
through improving hygiene standards, including more people in the treatment network, or
promoting environmental or hygiene education (Balkema et al. 2002, Carter et al. 1999).
To protect residents from exposure to wastewater and pathogens, facilities needed to
meet minimal treatment standards. Community participation in the planning,
120

construction, and operation improved community acceptance and responsibility of the
facility (Balkema et al. 2002, Bakir 2001, Elman and Robbins 1998, Choguill 1996).
Local residents could also gain indirect benefits from treatment facilities, including
access to open space and employment (Suriyachan, Nitivattananon, and Amin 2012). To
be truly sustainable, a universal and city-wide wastewater collection and treatment
system would ensure the removal of pollutants and pathogens (Choguill 1996).

Alternative, natural wastewater treatment methods: a closed-loop approach
A growing interest in natural treatment process emerged during the 1980s and
1990s as a way to return wastewater to the environment in the most benign manner (Beck
and Cummings 1996). The aim of these technologies was to be more cost effective,
sympathetic with nature, and to maximize resource recovery, thereby meeting the
objectives of sustainable wastewater treatment (Beck and Cummings 1996).
These plants were designed to collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater at or near
the source without demanding a lot of physical space for treatment (Bakir 2001, Wilderer
and Schreff 2000, Massoud et al. 2009). This eliminated large capital investments in
extensive sewer and pumping infrastructure (Parkinson and Tayler 2003, Massoud et al.
2009). Equipped with alternative technology on a closed-loop system, decentralized
facilities demanded less water and electricity during the treatment process, therefore
lowering construction and operating costs and demands on the local environment (Butler
and Parkinson 1997, Beck and Cummings 1996, Otterpohl, Grottker, and Lang 1997).
These alternative technologies often reused the byproducts of treatment, such as compost
121

as fertilizer, treated wastewater for irrigation, and biogas for energy recovery. Treated
wastewater and compost supported on-and off-site reforestation and urban greening
projects such as urban agriculture, community gardens, or public park space. In many
rapidly urbanizing cities, the growth of park space and/or vegetated areas lagged behind
the development of other land uses, such as housing, industrial facilities,
retail/commercial or institutional uses (Jauregui 1990/91: 457). Treated wastewater and
compost supported area reforestation projects, creating greenspace to stabilize denuded
slope and reduce urban run-off.
Bioremediation was a broad category of on-site treatment technologies that used
microorganisms to remove pollutants. These technologies required no extra inputs of
water or energy, creating a smaller environmental impact (Butler and Parkinson 1997).
Some popular bioremediation technologies used for wastewater treatment include
trickling filters, artificial wetlands, stabilization ponds, and anaerobic digesters. These
treatment methods combined both aerobic and anaerobic processes for the treatment of
wastewater. In aerobic treatment, bacteria in the presence of oxygen consumed organic
matter and produced carbon dioxide. Anaerobic digestion occurred in the absence of
oxygen, where fermentation reduced the biological oxygen demand (BOD), without the
need for additional energy to add oxygen to the aerobic process.
Trickling filters were an example of an attached-growth process, where
microorganisms were attached to a medium, such as a biological film or slime, to remove
organic compounds from wastewater (US EPA 2000). The wastewater passed through a
stone or plastic surface to which microorganisms in the wastewater attach themselves
122

form a film. Aerobic organisms on the outer layer of the film degraded organic material,
while the under layer of film supported anaerobic fermentation (US EPA 2000). Solids
that did not attach to the surface were transported to a clarifier for further treatment (US
EPA 2000). Vents at the bottom of the filter provided the oxygen necessary to support
aerobic process (US EPA 2000). Trickling filters offered a simple biological process to
treat wastewater without requiring a large land area or large amounts of energy to quickly
process organic material. However, they required a moderate level of skill for regular
maintenance. The technology was also susceptible to clogging, and accumulation of
excess biomass may disrupt aerobic process. Trickling filters alone often did not meet
required discharge standards (US EPA 2000).
Artificial or constructed wetlands offered an opportunity to return the urban area
to its pre-developed conditions. Constructed wetlands were non-mechanical, meaning
they did not require highly skilled labor force or a lot of energy, and reduced the risk of
direct contamination and disease transmission (Elman and Robbins 1998). Constructed
wetlands rose in popularity in the US and UK in the late 1980s as a tertiary treatment
method at small plants, following secondary treatment bioremediation technologies like
trickling filters to ensure discharge met quality standards (Yu, Tay, Wilson 1998: 198).
Aquatic plants, such as reeds, bulrush, or cattails, were planted in soil and gravel filled
tanks lined with impermeable liners (Yu, Tay, and Wilson 1998, Ellman and Robbins
1998). This process first separated out the solid organic matter. The bacteria in the
wetland oxidized the remaining soluble organics and aquatic plants extracted nutrients
from the effluent (Elman and Robbins 1998, Yu, Tay, Wilson 1998). Contaminants are
123

consumed by aerobic bacteria (Elman and Robbins 1998). While artificial wetlands had
lower costs than traditional treatment technologies, they tended to be more expensive
than other natural systems options. Additionally, they require a lot of open space for
project development. A constructed wetland in Naco, Sonora, Mexico was developed to
treat sewage from Naco that frequently flooded across the U.S.-Mexico border into
washes in Naco, Arizona. This project was designed to eliminate the flow of untreated
wastewater across the border and to reuse treated wastewater to irrigate several small
enterprises, including a mesquite nursery, a gourd plot (for traditional crafts), and a honey
bee colony (Elman and Robbins 1998).
Stabilization ponds were designed to remove organic material and suspended
solids without aeration through sedimentation and aerobic and anaerobic processes.
Wastewater treatment occurred over a series of ponds and that produces a high-quality
treated effluent. Facultative stabilization ponds are the simplest variation, with three
distinct layers in the pond where aerobic and anaerobic processes take place. The top
layer of the pond supported aerobic processes. Algae consumed carbon dioxide in the
wastewater and released oxygen which the aerobic bacteria used to stabilize organic
material (US EPA 2002). The middle layer supports aerobic bacteria and fungi. The
bottom layer of the pond collected the settled solids, supporting anaerobic fermentation
and the development of sludge, or biosolid residuals (US EPA 2002, Nelson et al. 2004).
Stabilization ponds performed best in temperate climates that promote the consistent
oxygenation and fermentation rates for optimal discharge quality and prevent strong
124

odors due to dramatic seasonal changes (US EPA 2002). Treated effluent can be used for
irrigation and for aquaculture (Rose 1999).
Stabilization ponds were inexpensive, easy to operate, and were effective in
reducing organic material, pathogens, and ammonia from the wastewater (US EPA 2002,
Yu, Tay, and Wilson 1998, Nelson et al. 2004, Rose 1999). Ponds had low construction
and operation costs and required little energy, but also require a lot of land (US EPA
2002, Yu, Tay, and Wilson 1998). They also had a long treatment time with limited
control over the quality of the effluent (Yu, Tay, Wilson 1998, US EPA 2002).
Wastewater stabilization ponds were the most common type of wastewater
treatment in Mexico, with over 400 systems built since 1980 (Nelson et al. 2004). North
of Mexico City, a facultative stabilization pond in Texcoco, Mexico was one of many
facilities that treated Mexico City’s wastewater for agricultural irrigation of the
Mezquital Valley (Nelson et al. 2004). In other parts of the Valley, a reservoir and
irrigation channels acted as a facultative stabilization system to treat the capital’s
wastewater (Downs et al. 2000). This system was not formalized or maintained, but the
natural stabilization pond removed many organic compounds. However there were
moderate levels metals, nitrates, pesticides, and pathogens found in surface and
groundwater (Downs et al. 2000).
Anaerobic reactors varied in cost and complexity of treatment (Monroy et al.
2000). Anaerobic digestion relied on enzymes, bacteria, yeasts, and molds to break down
carbohydrates without oxygen. Two products of digestion, methane and carbon dioxide
were the primary components of biogas, an important source of recovered energy from
125

the treatment process. Residual biosolids could be used as compost. The anaerobic
process removed some compounds that aerobic processes cannot, and produced a lower
volume of biosolid than other treatment technologies (Yu, Tay, Wilson 1997). This
treatment method is simple to construct, operate and maintain and requires little space
(Yu, Tay, Wilson 1997). Anaerobic digesters were well-suited for pre-treatment of
wastewater in tropical and sub-tropical climates due to the treatment method’s sensitivity
to low and fluctuating temperatures (Yu, Tay, Wilson 1997). Post-treatment
technologies, such as stabilization ponds or artificial wetlands, provided additional
treatment to maximize the reusable resources and meet strict discharge and water reuse
standards (Yu, Tay and Wilson 1997).
Mexico City constructed several anaerobic digesters beginning in 1987 to treat
industrial wastewater and later household sewage, with a total of 85 digesters built in
2000 (Monroy et al. 2000). Only thirteen of these plants had biogas facilities because of
the added costs associated with energy recovery (Monroy et al. 2000). Due to the limited
water resources in the region, several of the facilities have additional post-treatment
technologies added to support wastewater reuse (Monroy et al. 2000).
The small and alternative nature of the above treatment plants presented obstacles
for wide-spread adoption. Rapidly developing urban areas needed large treatment
solutions that could not be met by small treatment capacities of decentralized facilities
(Parkinson and Tayler 2003). With municipal and international financing funneled
toward large-scale treatment facilities, smaller-scale faculties had to seek out funding
opportunities for construction, maintenance and operation (Parkinson and Tayler 2003).
126

It was also imperative that the facility was tailored the community’s social, cultural,
economic, and environmental circumstances to ensure the long-term viability of the
project (Bakir 2001: 321, Parkinson and Tayler 2003, Choguill 1996, Butler and
Parkinson 1997, McGranahan et al. 2001, Massoud et al. 2009). For example, residents
concerned with the facility’s ability to effectively prevent the spread of disease might
resist the introduction of an alternative treatment plant in their community (McGranahan
et al. 2001). Understanding the needs and capabilities of the surrounding community
improved the acceptance, participation, and responsibility of residents for decentralized
facilities (Balkema et al. 2002).

Wastewater treatment in Tijuana
The Tijuana-Rosarito metropolitan region underwent the largest growth in
population along the U.S.-Mexico border. Population grew by 3.6 percent between 1990
and 2000, well above the national growth rate for the same time period of 1.7 percent
(CDM 2003). By 2000, Tijuana’s population was estimated at 1,210,820 (INEGI 2000).
This dramatic growth rate outpaced the city’s ability to provide wastewater infrastructure
for new residents (CDM 2003). In 2001, 75 percent of households in Tijuana and
neighboring Rosarito were connected to sewer infrastructure that funneled to the city’s
five domestic wastewater treatment plants, designed to treat a capacity of 1,944 l/s (CDM
2003).
The overburdened collection and treatment system was regularly subjected to
breaks and overflows of sewage traveled north across the border into the U.S., degrading
127

the transborder ecosystems and exposing area residents to raw sewage. Untreated
wastewater combined with salt water intrusion polluted the city’s underlying aquifer
(Campana, Neir, and Klise 2006). This lack of a local water source combined with the
city’s reliance on a Colorado River allotment challenged city planners to develop a
sustainable domestic and industrial wastewater treatment system that eliminated
environmental and reduced the public health risks. After a series of studies guaranteed
the public and environmental safety of treated wastewater reuse, the Mexican government
established regulations for reclaimed water quality in 1997, paving the way for
wastewater treatment plants that support treated wastewater reuse for irrigation and
industrial uses (SEMARNAT 1997, Flores Ortega 2010).
The incorporation of sustainable development policies and practices into
Tijuana’s environmental and development planning began after the U.S. and Mexico
initiated changes to border environmental policy. In the 1980s and 1990s, the two
nations recognized the rising transborder environmental issues and the disproportionate
public health problems for border city residents. Transborder environmental efforts
aimed to create long-term, sustainable strategies to improve public health and to protect
the shared environment. In 2003, the U.S. and Mexican governments launched the
Border 2012 program that used a bottom-up, regional approach to involve local
stakeholders in decision making and policy implementation for long-term, quantifiable
sustainable development goals (EPA 2003). Border 2012’s guiding principles
emphasized reducing wastes and improving water quality to mitigate public health and
environmental hazards (EPA 2003, EPA 2008a).
128

The policy climate of binational support to solve regional environmental problems
laid the foundation for a dramatic expansion of Tijuana’s wastewater treatment capacity
during the 2000s. Next, I examine two different responses to the demands for more
treatment capacity, a large-scale centralized treatment plant built and operated by the
government and a small-scale, decentralized alternative treatment plant designed and
operated by researchers at El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (COLEF) with support from
local foundations and individuals.

Arturo Herrera: Centralized treatment in Tijuana
The availability of binational funding through the North American Development
Bank (NADBank) allowed Tijuana to develop plans to improve of the city’s
overburdened wastewater treatment infrastructure that emphasized transborder
collaborations. Published in 2004, the Tijuana Master Plan for Potable Water and
Sanitation in the Municipalities of Tijuana and Playas de Rosarito formalized future
plans designed to address the challenges for the city’s potable water and wastewater
infrastructure. This document evaluated the current and future conditions of the city’s
wastewater collection and treatment network and recommended short, medium, and long-
term solutions and investments to support the growing population’s wastewater collection
and treatment demands. Along with large-scale treatment plant construction, the Master
Plan recommended city-wide infrastructure improvements and upgrades and the reuse
treated wastewater for irrigation and reforestation projects (CDM 2003: 6-50). The
Master Plan outlined the construction process for three new treatment plants with water
129

reclamation technologies that that increased city-wide treatment capacity by 1220 l/s:
PTAR Arturo Herrera, PTAR La Morita, and PTAR Tecolote-La Gloria. In addition,
significant rehabilitation and repair to PTAR San Antonio de los Buenos added 350 l/s of
capacity in 2003 (CDM 2003).
Arturo Herrera (previously named Monte de los Olivos) was designed as a large-
scale, centralized, government-run wastewater treatment plant. PTAR Arturo Herrera
received financing from NADBank and the Japanese Bank for International Cooperation
(JBIC) for construction. Treatment at Arturo Herrera consisted of activated sludge that
introduces oxygen into wastewater to remove nitrogen and phosphorus from the effluent.
Sand filtration and UV disinfection settled the organic matter and killed pathogens thus
removing biosolids and preserving the treated wastewater for reuse. After some delays in
construction, PTAR Arturo Herrera was completed in August 2007. At its completion, it
was the first advanced treatment plant in Tijuana with the capacity to reclaim treated
wastewater for irrigation. The plant’s onsite and offsite greenspace irrigation was the
centerpiece to CESPT’s reframing of the ‘Cultura del Agua’ program to focus on
educating residents on the city’s limited water resources and sustainable water use.
Located in the southeast of the city, Arturo Herrera treats wastewater from over 200,000
households from 12 neighborhoods (CESPT 2008).

Ecoparque: Distributed, alternative wastewater treatment
In response to the binational sustainable development discussions, COLEF
researchers designed a pilot project for their Decentralized System of Wastewater
130

Treatment and Reuse in Urban Areas (SIDETRAN) initiative. The plant originally
developed in 1983 out of a grant from the California Coastal Conservancy to the
Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Association (SWIA) to fund a pilot project on
affordable wastewater treatment options in Tijuana. The initial pilot plant was built in
the U.S. on land leased from the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC).
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) was brought on in 1986 to manage the design,
construction, and operation of a more permanent facility (Luecke 2012). However, in
late 1986, construction on the second site was halted after IBWC did not renew the lease
to EDF and SWIA. Despite the best efforts of Ecoparque project managers to convince
IBWC to renew the lease, the project was eventually relocated the alternative treatment
plant to a denuded Tijuana hillside (Luecke 2012). Work on the Mexican site was
suspended between March 1987 and January 1991 due to a lack of funds (de la Parra and
Luecke 1997). Ecoparque opened in late 1991 and demonstrated a low-cost, low-
electricity alternative to centralized treatment (COLEF 2011a, Meyer 2001). The project
received funding from both Mexican and U.S. sources, including COLEF and CESPT,
the Mexican Council of Science and Technology, as well as the U.S.-based non-profit
organizations, the California Coastal Conservancy, the Environmental Defense Fund, the
General Services Fund (Meyer 2001, Bloom 2001, COLEF 2011a, Luecke 2012).
Ecoparque treated the wastewater it siphoned from the Otay-Universidad sewer
line through a bioremediation trickling filter system. Situated on a hill with at 30 percent
grade, Ecoparque relied on gravity and minimal electricity to transport effluent through
the treatment process (Romo 1997). The effluent first passed through a stainless steel
131

fine screen, or hydraseive, to remove large solids that were eventually composted.
Volunteers manually emptied the screens onto a compost pile several times a day. Two-
thirds of that flow returns to the municipal sewer; the other third enters the trickling filter,
or biofilter. A PVC biofilter maze slowed the movement of the water to increase
oxygenation and growth of essential organisms to break down wastes. The water then
was pumped back through the biofilter, the only use of electricity at the site, and stored
for another 11 hours in the sedimentation tank, or clarifier. This water was reused to
support the reforestation project. Due to funding problems, the final stage of tertiary
treatment, a settling pond, was never completed. As a result, Ecoparque failed to meet
Mexico’s water quality standards or wastewater reuse.

Methodology
The objective of this chapter’s analysis is twofold: first, to evaluate the
contributions of PTAR Arturo Herrera and Ecoparque to urban and regional
sustainability; and second to assess the Ecoparque model’s potential to sustainably treat
wastewater in Tijuana and other border cities. To assess how Ecoparque and PTAR
Arturo Herrera address sustainability objectives, it is important to define how this study
conceptualizes sustainable wastewater treatment solutions. Balkema et al. (2002: 157)
offer the definition, “a sustainable solution means the limited use and limited degradation
of resources through harmful emissions, at the same time avoiding the export of the
problem over time and space.” This study examines how the two treatment facilities
preserve key economic, social, and environmental resources in Tijuana while protecting
132

the local and regional environment from exposure to untreated wastewater. The three
pillars of sustainability (economic, social, and environmental) are used as broad
categories of indicators, with an addition of functional or technological indicators, to
determine the effectiveness of the solution (Balkema et al. 2002, Muga and Mihelcic
2008). Muga and Mihelcic (2008: 438) suggest this balance of indicators “…provides a
holistic assessment…for evaluating sustainability of different treatment technologies.”
These indicators allow for a comparison between the centralized and decentralized
technologies.
Functional or technological indicators define the minimal technical requirements
of the treatment facility (Balkema et al. 2002, Muga and Mihelcic 2008). Economic
indicators classify the facility’s cost-effectiveness, or ability to provide high-quality
treatment at a minimum cost per unit volume of wastewater treatment (Balkema et al.
2002, Hareleman and Murcott 1999). Environmental indicators characterize the optimal
resource utilization of the facility, with particular emphasis on removal of
pollutants/pathogens, water use, integration into natural cycles, water reuse, and green
space provision (Balkema et al. 2000, Hellström, Jeppsson, and Kärrman 2000, Muga and
Mihelcic 2008, Suriyachan, Nitivattananon, and Amin 2012). Social sustainability
indicators are not always used in the literature and are hard to quantify. They provide an
important measure of the direct and indirect benefits of the wastewater facility to the
surrounding community, such as size of community served and access to open space
(Suriyachan, Nitivattananon, and Amin 2012, Muga and Mihelcic 2008, Balkema et al.
2000). It is important to note that the indicators for this study are adapted to the specific
133

geographic, economic, and societal contexts of Tijuana and the wastewater case, and do
not include all possible aspects of sustainability.
Semi-structured interviews with those involved in the planning, construction, and
maintenance of Ecoparque evaluate the challenges and opportunities for small-scale,
decentralized sustainable treatment technologies in a larger urban sustainability program.
These interviews add context to the indicator analysis. Government officials at CEPST
were contacted with the intention of conducting a series of similar interviews regarding
the strengths and weaknesses, as well as the sustainable technologies at PTAR Arturo
Herrera. The government officials contacted declined to participate. The lessons learned
by Ecoparque practitioners reflect the difficulty of developing alternative, sustainable
wastewater treatment facilities in a border city. Common themes of the strengths of the
project described by interview participants identify the aspects of the project that have
contributed to the resilience, success, and permanence of the project.

Sustainable Indicator Analysis
The two plants in this analysis represent contrasting methods for wastewater
treatment plants. PTAR Arturo Herrera is indicative of Tijuana’s prioritization of
centralized, large-scale treatment plants. However, this plant takes a step away from
treatment methods of the past by incorporating biological processes into treatment and it
is the first treatment plant in Tijuana to include water reclamation technologies. In
contrast, Ecoparque represents alternative treatment methods, using bioremediation for
decentralized treatment. The two treatment plants are evaluated based on sustainable
134

wastewater indicators to determine how they contribute to local and regional
sustainability (Table 11). This analysis offers an assessment of Tijuana’s new generation
of centralized treatment plants by using PTAR Arturo Herrera as a proxy for PTAR La
Morita and PTAR Tecolote-La Gloria. These three treatment plants vary in treatment
capacity, but all are designed with the same treatment method (activated sludge supported
by silica sand filtration and UV light disinfection) treat to an advanced secondary level,
and support water reclamation and irrigation with treated wastewater.
The analysis includes maximum treatment capacity and treatment level as
indicators to define the plant’s functional contributions to sustainability. These indicators
provide a baseline for the technical requirements of each plant or describe how the
facilities measure against demands and standards for treatment quality and capacity.
Treatment capacity measures the amount of wastewater that the facility is able to treat at
maximum capacity. Treatment level refers to the highest level of treatment wastewater
entering the facility receives (advanced primary, secondary, tertiary treatment) before it is
released into the environment based on U.S. treatment standards. These are quality
standards insure that wastewater entering the shared ecosystem via ocean outfalls or the
Tijuana River meet or exceed U.S. Clean Water Act regulations.
The indicator capital investment per capita represents the economic sustainability
of each plant. These indicators quantify how cost-effective the facility is at providing
optimal treatment standards. Calculating capital investment per capita offers a useful
comparison between the two plants to better understand the financial impact of the
investment in the technology. The capital investment per capita is determined by
135

dividing the capital investment of the facility by the number of residents that receive
treatment from the plant.
Environmental indicators include water reuse, facility water use, percent water
reuse, natural/artificial infiltration, and method/location of discharge. These indicators
assess the facility’s contribution to reducing the impact of waste on the local and distant
ecosystems. Most importantly, these indicators are tailored to the environmental
specificities of Tijuana, in particular the limited potable water resources and the potential
for treated wastewater reuse. Water reuse refers to the amount of treated wastewater that
is reused for irrigation or other purposes. Facility water use indicates the amount of
potable water that is used during the conveyance and treatment process. Percent water
reuse calculates how much of the water treated is directed toward irrigation projects.
Natural/Artificial infiltration describes efforts to improve to natural or artificial
infiltration to resupply Tijuana’s overdrawn aquifers. Natural infiltration refers to on-
and off-site efforts to create and preserve permeable surfaces. Artificial infiltration refers
to engineered aquifer recharge with treated wastewater. Method/location of discharge
indicates how the plant disposes of the treated wastewater that is not used for irrigation.
It is important to note how and where these plants dispose of wastewater in an effort to
preserve water quality of the Pacific Ocean and Tijuana River Estuary.

136

Table 11: Wastewater Indicators
Indicator Ecoparque Arturo Herrera
Maximum Treatment
Capacity
0.09 MGD

10.5 MGD
(currently treats 4.2 MGD)
Treatment Level Advanced Primary Advanced Secondary,
Silica sand filtration, UV
light disinfection
Number of Residents Served Aprox. 10,000 residents Aprox. 202,652 residents
(265,000 at full capacity)
Capital Investment Per
Capita
$60 $49.26 at current usage
($37.74 at full capacity)
Water Reuse 22,000 g/d 470,000 g/d
Facility Water Use 0.09 MGD Unknown
Percent Water Reuse 24% 11.2% at current capacity
4.5% of total capacity
(Goal is 75% of Capacity)
Natural/Artificial
Infiltration
Natural infiltration onsite Artificial infiltration in Valle
de la Palma
Method/Location of
Discharge
Return to Tijuana sewer
pipeline
Discharged into San Antonio
Creek, which discharges into
Pacific Ocean

137

Table 12: Wastewater Indicators (cont’d)
Indicator Ecoparque Arturo Herrera
Number of Residents Served Aprox. 10,000 residents Aprox. 202,652 residents
(265,000 at full capacity)
Provision of urban
greenspace
 Reforest, stabilize 23-
acre site on steep
hillside
 Treated WW used to
irrigate Parque Morelos,
1045.26-acre public park
that previously used well
water
 Irrigate street shading
 Parque InnovaCESPT on
premises- 170.5 acres
Community Involvement  None at beginning
 Environmental
Education Center
 Involvement during
planning
 Community outreach
through Parque
InnovaCESPT

Social sustainability indicators include, number of residents served, provision of
urban greenspace, and community involvement, and measure the direct and indirect
benefits to the quality of life of Tijuana’s urban residents. The number of residents
served is measured by the number of residents whose wastewater is transported to and
treated at the facility. The provision of urban greenspace indicator describes the
facility’s greenspace project and the numbers of acres irrigated by treated wastewater.
This can include on-site reforestation projects or off-site greening projects. Community
involvement describes the inclusion of the community in planning or development of the
plant and contemporary engagement with the community on environmental education
issues such as water conservation, sustainable development, and water reuse.
138

This analysis would benefit from the addition of several other indicators that are
not included in this analysis, due to the lack of data. First, measuring operating costs
would compare how much each facility costs per year to run and maintain. This data is
available for Ecoparque (US $50,000) but was unavailable for PTAR Arturo Herrera.
Second, information on the volume of wastewater used for natural or artificial infiltration
projects would provide a quantitative measure of how the two plants rate in reducing
urban run-off. Number of jobs filled by local residents is a social sustainability indicator
that would describe how well the facility’s technology matches the area residents’ skills,
thereby signifying if the facility took into consideration local human capital. Lastly,
measuring the length of wastewater collection pipes introduced to the urban area would
offer a look at how/if the treatment infrastructure expansion translates to expanding the
collection network unserved or underserved areas.

Treatment capacity
Ecoparque treats 90,000 g/day or 0.09 MGD (de la Parra and Luecke 1997). The
Otay Universidad sewage pipeline generates a 0.48 MGD average flow, and the
wastewater that is not treated at Ecoparque is then treated by the city (BECC 1997).
While original site documents included expansion plans, funding issues prevent
Ecoparque from expanding its capacity to treat more wastewater from the sewer line (de
la Parra and Luecke 1997, de la Parra 2012). Arturo Herrera’s maximum treatment
capacity is 10.5 MGD. According to CESPT, it currently is treating below capacity, at
4.75 MGD (CONAGUA 2010).
139

Treatment level
In the United States, wastewater treatment must meet or exceed secondary
treatment standards. Primary treatment removes only 20-30 percent of total BOD and 50-
60 percent of suspended solids from sewage in sedimentation tanks or clarifiers (World
Bank, 2012). Advanced primary signifies that there is an additional step to promote
more sedimentation of organic solids. Secondary treatment, or biological treatment,
removes dissolved and suspended organic solids from raw sewage using microbes to turn
dissolved organic matter into carbon dioxide in settling tanks (World Bank 2012). This
process removes about 85 percent of suspended solids and biodegradable organics (BOD)
(World Bank 2012).
Ecoparque consistently removes over 80 percent of BOD and suspended solids
(Medina, 2001: 68). This indicates that the plant operates at an advanced primary
treatment level but it did not meet secondary treatment standards (de la Parra 2012, Romo
2012). As a result, Ecoparque did not meet Mexico’s (or the U.S.’s) quality standards for
wastewater reuse and therefore the treated wastewater could not be sold to private or
public consumers for irrigation purposes. PTAR Arturo Herrera treats wastewater to the
advanced secondary treatment level allowing the treated wastewater to be used for
irrigation purposes. The plant has four treatment steps: sedimentation through activated
sludge, extended aeration, sand filtration, and UV clarification (CESPT 2008). By
treating at the advanced secondary level, wastewater from PTAR Arturo Herrera that
enters the ecosystem via an ocean outfall does not contaminate the water quality for
140

coastal ocean ecosystems, protecting the ocean life and Tijuana residents from exposure
to dangerous bacteria and disease.

Capital Investment Per Capita
Ecoparque received funding from multiple financiers on both sides of the border
in order to begin construction, relocate the plant to Mexico, and restart construction.
About U.S. $600,000 was invested in Ecoparque, of which $239,000 was used for the
construction at its \original location in the U.S. (Medina 2001). In addition to monetary
support from area non-profits, Ecoparque received US $70,000 of in-kind donations from
Mexican agencies, such as paving, power supplies, and pipes (Medina 2001).
6
After the
original three year lease ended, the Mexican government donated the land to COLEF in
perpetuity (de la Parra 2012). This translates to a capital cost per captia of about $60 per
resident.
PTAR Arturo Herrera construction costs were US $10 million, which included
loans from NADBank, JBIC, and CESPT (Holding 2010). At its current treatment rate,
PTAR Arturo Herrera costs $49.26 per capita. Once it is at full capacity and treating the
household wastewater of 265,000 persons, it will cost $37.74 per capita.
Water Reuse
Treated wastewater is used to irrigate green spaces, support artificial infiltration
and aquifer recharge, and for industrial purposes. Use of treated wastewater helps
Tijuana reduce potable water consumption and decreases the exposure risk of humans

6
Operating costs at Ecoparque are around $50,000 per year (Bloom 2001).
141

and the environment to untreated wastewater. Ecoparque treats and reuses 22,000 gallons
per day (g/d) to support the park’s nursery and reforestation project on the 23-acre site
(Medina 2000). Extra treated wastewater is held in a storage tank for later use or
returned to the municipal sewer for disposal.
PTAR Arturo Herrera produces 470,000 g/d of treated wastewater to irrigate
Parque Morales, a 148.26 acre public park that previously relied on well water for
irrigation (Dibble 2009). This treated wastewater also is used to irrigate the on-site
170.5-acre Parque InnovaCESPT. In the future, CESPT hopes the reclaimed wastewater
will irrigate a 64-acre graveyard and local vineyards, supply the city’s growing maquila
industry, and support a pilot artificial infiltration project in Tijuana’s east side (Dibble
2009, 2010).

Facility Water Use
Tijuana’s wastewater collection and conveyance infrastructure uses the city’s
limited water resources to transport raw sewage; therefore both plants require additional
water to transport wastewater to the facilities. However, Ecoparque does not require
additional water during the treatment process (de la Parra 2012). The water use at the
facility reflects its treatment capacity of 0.09 MGD (de la Parra and Luecke 1997).
Arturo Herrera also does not require any additional water for the treatment processes, so
its water use was equal to its current treatment quantity of 4.2 MGD (Benigno 2013).

Percent Water Reuse
142

Comparing the percentage of wastewater reused to the treatment capacity allows
for a more accurate comparison between the two different technologies. Ecoparque
reuses 24 percent of the water it treats to irrigate onsite the reforestation project.
However, the plant does not meet Mexican or U.S. wastewater quality standards. This
percentage will not increase since the treated wastewater cannot be distributed to off-site
customers and the park cannot extend its borders due to the limited funding. PTAR
Arturo Herrera reuses about 11.2 percent of the wastewater it treats at its current capacity
of 4.2 MGD. When it reaches its maximum capacity, the percent of water reuse would be
4.5 percent. CESPT officials set a goal of reusing 75 percent of the plant’s maximum
treatment capacity over the coming years (Dibble 2008).

Method/Location of Discharge
Ecoparque treats more wastewater than it uses to irrigate the on-site reforestation
program. The surplus wastewater is either stored onsite or returned to the city’s
collection and treatment network for further treatment. PTAR Antonio Herrera
discharges its treated wastewater into the San Antonio Creek which empties into the
Pacific Ocean.

Number of Residents Served
Ecoparque serves about 10,000 residents or 1,045 buildings in the Mesa de Otay
neighborhood, which sits on the hill above the park (Luecke and de la Parra 1997, Bloom
2001, COLEF 2011a). PTAR Arturo Herrera treats below its capacity by serving
143

202,652 residents in 12 neighborhoods in the Eastern zone of Tijuana (CESPT 2008,
Mier 2008). The plant currently operates under capacity to prepare for increased demand
from new connections as more people are added to the formal treatment network (up to
265,000 residents) (CDM 2003, Dibble 2009). However, the Master Plan notes that
demand for wastewater treatment are expected to continue to rise, and PTAR Arturo
Herrera would eventually be overcapacity (CDM 2003: 6-19-6-22).

Reforestation/provision of Urban Greenspace
The combination of Tijuana’s urbanization and the growth of informal settlements
have impacted the quality and distribution of the city’s vegetation. New developments
and informal settlements denude the city’s landscape and encroach on natural areas at the
urban fringe. Without adequate vegetative cover, the city’s slopes and open spaces are at
risk for sediment run-off, destabilization, and landslides which creates blockages in city’s
drainage networks and sedimentation issues in the Tijuana River Estuary. Tijuana is also
a park poor city, with few public open spaces available to residents (de la Parra 1999).
Urban parks provided several microclimate benefits to the residents immediately
surrounding the park or to visitors, including improvements to the local air quality,
evaporative cooling, and interaction with urban nature.
Ecoparque’s on-site reforestation project includes 23 acres of native grass, shrubs,
and trees that rehabilitate the barren hillside and stabilize the slope, reducing
sedimentation and urban run-off (COLEF 2011). The park is open to the public and is
the fourth largest public park within the Tijuana-Rosarito region, after Parque Morelos
144

(148.26 acres), Parque la Amistad (59.3 acres), and Parque Metropolitano (34.5 acres).
Organic matter from the sewage also supplies an on-site compositing program.
PTAR Arturo Herrera supports reforestation and urban greenspace programs
through the irrigation of public spaces including two parks and a street greening program.
Water from PTAR Arturo Herrera is transported through a three-mile purple pipe to
Parque Morelos, the city’s largest public park at 148.26 acres, to irrigate vegetation and
soccer fields. This irrigation is part of CESPT’s Proyecto Morado, or Purple Project, a
project that transports treated wastewater to Parque Morelos through a network of purple
pipes and related infrastructure. CESPT intends to expand Proyecto Morado to include
other agricultural areas and industry in the future. PTAR Arturo Herrera also supports an
on-site park at Parque InnovaCESPT, a 170.5 acre educational park that explained the
journey of potable water from the Colorado River, the water cycle, and water
conservation (CESPT 2013). The park includes a playground and sports fields irrigated
with treated wastewater. Annually, between 6,000 and 7,000 trees have been planted
along Tijuana’s sidewalks, schools, and in private residences in support the state’s
Reforestation Program (Durán Cabrera 2010).
7
The street trees provide much needed
shade and combat the urban heat island effect and also are irrigated using the purple pipe
network. However, critics of the project maintain that the only active purple pipeline is
the one to Parque Morales (de la Parra 2012).

7
The native trees and plants used in the reforestation program are grown at a greenhouse and nursery
supported by the wastewater from the PTAR La Morita. The nursery contains approximately 700,000 trees
from which 7,000 trees have been planted along the city’s sidewalks (Durán Cabrera 2010).
145

Natural/Artificial Infiltration
In addition to water from the Colorado River, Tijuana relies on two aquifers that
are overdrawn and facing salt water intrusion, diminishing the resource quality
(Campana, Neier, and Klise 2006). Urban development has increased impervious land
cover, limiting infiltration and natural recharge of the aquifers. Ecoparque supports
natural infiltration with its irrigation and reforestation programs, reducing urban run-off.
While 22,000 g/d of treated wastewater are used for irrigation, it is unknown the quantity
of water that reached the aquifer. PTAR Arturo Herrera provides treated wastewater for
a recently completed artificial infiltration pilot project in Valle de la Palma. Wells
infiltrate 150 cubic meters of treated wastewater into the local aquifer to study the
outcomes of aquifer recharge and impacts on aquifer water quality (Gómez Sanchez
2011, 2012). The initial tests have favorable water quality results, but more studies are
needed to determine the feasibility of the project (Gómez Sanchez 2012).

Community Involvement
The surrounding Tijuana community was not involved in the initial stages of
Ecoparque’s planning and construction, save for communication from the plant directors
regarding problems or inconsistencies with the quality and content of the sewer line
(Romo 2012, de la Parra 2012). Ecoparque held a series of six community information
meetings in 1996 to meet qualifications for the BECC certification process (BECC
1997).
8
These meetings provided information to the community about the Ecoparque

8
Ecoparque received BECC certification but never applied for NADBank funding.
146

facility and its expansion (BECC 1997). Ecoparque remained an important
environmental education center for Tijuana. Over 3,000 students per year visited the site
for educational tours that inform students about environmental problems specific to the
region, including water conservation and ecosystem restoration (COLEF 2011).
Use of NADBank funds required the community’s involvement in PTAR Arturo
Herrera’s planning process. However, certification documents from BECC were
unavailable; thus the type and degree of community involvement was unclear. Currently,
PTAR Arturo Herrera offered an on-site environmental education program that CESPT
developed with local schools within Parque InnovaCESPT. The goal of Parque
InnovaCESPT was to educate children about the care and conservation of water through
interactive exhibits that included the walking the path of water from the Colorado River
to Tijuana, an aquarium with fish swimming in treated wastewater, and games
representing the wastewater treatment process (Gómez Sánchez 2011). Over 40,000
students and adults visited the park since it opened in October of 2010 (CESPT 2012).
PTAR Arturo Herrera and Parque InnovaCESPT were also important showpieces for
CESPT’s Cultura del Agua program. Cultura del Agua was a city-wide environmental
education program that is integrated into schools that taught young children to be aware
of their semi-arid surroundings and the importance of careful stewardship of the regions
limited water resources (CESPT 2013). Students learned simple conservation steps they
could practice in their own home, such as turning off the water when brushing their teeth,
to instill a conservation ethic on future generations.

147

Introducing alternative wastewater treatment in Tijuana: A case study of
Ecoparque
To gain insight into the strengths and weaknesses of Ecoparque and to account for
the challenges that may face future alternative wastewater treatment projects, a series of
semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders were conducted to reveal the
circumstances that have supported Ecoparque’s operation for over twenty years (see
Appendix A). The goal of these interviews was to collect a diverse set of opinions and
experiences from those involved with the design, planning, financing, and day-to-day
operation of Ecoparque. Interview participants included current and past project
managers, engineers, funders, and environmental education director (Table 12).
This approach encountered major challenges due to an unwillingness to respond
to requests for interviews. I contacted the current and former director general of CESPT,
heads of the ecology and environment department and the infrastructure projects
department at IMPLAN, director of the City of Tijuana’s Environmental Protection unit,
and the Secretary of Urban Development and Ecology for Baja California, and the area
operations director at IBWC with the intention of recording voices of dissent, criticism,
or opposition to the Ecoparque project. These interview targets either declined to
participate, referred me to another target that had already declined to participate, or did
not return my repeated emails and phone calls.
Another issue arose was that my timeframe for interviews in part coincided with
local, state and federal elections of 2012. During this time period, election law prohibited
government agencies from giving out any information. The respondents at CESPT asked
148

for a list of questions from me that they would possibly answer after the election.
Despite my reminders, these questions were never answered after the election. I also
intended to interview Ecoparque volunteers about their experience with the project.
However, the plant was under construction and only a skeleton staff remained. The
Education Director was the only staff member available for an interview. The data
obtained from interviews present a biased, more homogenous view of alternative
wastewater treatment plants like Ecoparque than would have resulted had the full round
of interviews been completed. However, the findings from the interviews still provide an
opportunity to explore the challenges associated with introducing decentralized
wastewater treatment technologies into urban areas.
Each interview followed a predetermined schedule of questions with an open
response design, and was flexible to expand on informant responses (Dunn 2000).
Interviews were structured to gain a better understanding of the facility’s impact on
improving the sustainability of the city including the challenges and opportunities the site
faced in terms of funding, community participation, and environmental education. In
addition, the interviews addressed past issues in introducing the Ecoparque model to
other neighborhoods and in challenging the dominant government efforts to create large-
scale infrastructure projects.

149

Table 13: Ecoparque stakeholders interviewed
Interview
Participant
Affiliation
Jim Bell Supervisor of Ecoparque construction in Mexico
Carlos de la Parra Founder, former director of Ecoparque, current
COLEF faculty
Xiomara Delgado Current Director of Environmental Education at
Ecoparque
Michael Fischer Former Director of California Coastal Conservancy
Dan Luecke Former Director of Rocky Mountain Office of the
Environmental Defense Fund
Anne McEnany Former Director of Sustainable Communities at the
International Community Foundation (ICF) (2002-
2006), current Senior Adviser for the Conservation
and Environment Program at ICF
Oscar Romo Former director of Ecoparque

Interviews were preceded by pilot interviews in both English and Spanish to test
the interview schedule and uncover any potential problems that would impact the
research process, including issues with question style, wording, or local factors.
Respondents were asked to identify any difficult or unclear questions. I reviewed pilot
interview transcripts to assess if responses provided enough information for interpretation
and removed or revised any unnecessary and unclear questions.
The data gathered from interviews were analyzed for themes and patterns within
the text of interviews (Dunn 2000: 76). Data was coded in Atlas.ti. 6.2 according to
themes that emerge during the historical analysis and sustainability indicator research,
such as strengths and weaknesses of design, the role of the local community, role of the
150

government, financing concerns, and contributions to the city’s environmental health and
ecosystem sustainability. After completing data collection and coding, I reviewed the
dominant themes in the interviews to identify the shared and varied opinions from
interview respondents about the successes and failures of Ecoparque.

The strengths, weaknesses, and future prospects for Ecoparque
Throughout the interviews, Ecoparque supporters identified four strengths crucial
to sustaining the facility for over 20 years: the park’s contribution to the reframing of
wastewater as a resource, the reforestation of a denuded hillside, the strong personalities
of early project leaders, and the development of an environmental education program.
The combination of these elements facilitated the park’s construction, funding, and
survival. Ecoparque’s unique design worked to change the understanding of wastewater
and demonstrated the benefits of reused wastewater to the urban environment. Carlos de
la Parra, co-founder and one-time director of Ecoparque, described the mission of
Ecoparque: “What we wanted to do was present a module that would entice folks into
thinking that wastewater was indeed a resource, not a problem” (de la Parra 2012). This
reframing of wastewater as a resource appeared in similar language in interviews with
Luecke and Delgado. This message was carried over to environmental education
programs that highlighted the many uses for recycled water and the ecosystem benefits of
reforestation.
Several participants identified environmental restoration or the provision of urban
green space as another of Ecoparque’s strengths (Delgado 2012, Fischer 2012, de la Parra
151

2012, Romo 2012, Bell 2012, Luecke 2012). In the City of Tijuana, there were only
about 0.9 acres of green space per capita, making the city extremely park-poor.
Ecoparque represented the fourth largest park in the region (de la Parra 1999). Luecke
and Fischer referenced Ecoparque as a “spot of green on the hill,” or an important visual
reminder of the contribution of the reforestation program to chipping away at the green
space deficit (Figures 11 and 12). Restoring the degraded hillside created an “ecological
niche” within the city, a home for many varieties of native flora, as well as 27 species of
birds, rabbits, squirrels, and snakes (Delgado 2012). Delgado (2012) also described
Ecoparque as “un pequeño pulmón,” or a small lung, that aided in improving the city’s
air quality. When describing these environmental contributions, several respondents
qualified their answers to acknowledge that while the park made significant
improvements to the availability of green space and ecosystem restoration, its impacts on
Tijuana’s overall urban sustainability was small and contained within the areas
surrounding the park (Luecke 2012, de la Parra 2012).
152

Figure 12: Driveway into Ecoparque through reforestation project. Photography by author.

Figure 13: Looking northeast across Ecoparque with trickling filter in the background. The green areas are irrigated
with treated wastewater.
153

The personality and motivation of early stakeholders was also seen as a driving
force for the design and implementation of Ecoparque. De la Parra and Susan de
Treville’s
9
efforts to promote the project to potential funders at SWIA, California Coastal
Conservancy, and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), as well as to convince
COLEF to take ownership of the project in Mexico spoke to the drive and momentum
that got Ecoparque off the ground, established in Mexico, and restarted after funding ran
out (Luecke 2012). Despite some disagreements between de Treville and de la Parra
(Luecke 2012), the infectious momentum created by these individuals spread to others
involved in the project. Oscar Romo and Xiomara Delgado, among others, continue to
convey the vision and significance of alternative wastewater treatment and environmental
education to Tijuana’s residents and leaders.
Perhaps Ecoparque’s most unanticipated impact on the urban environment was
through the 12,000 school children and teachers that participated in the award-winning
interactive environmental education programs (Romo 2012, Delgado 2012, de la Parra
2012). During trips to Ecoparque, students learned about how the water cycle functions
in the arid border region (Delgado 2012) (Figure 13). Students were then presented with
issues related to climate change, including the availability of potable water and the
importance of reusing treated water in Tijuana (Delgado 2012). Ecoparque staff also
helped develop curriculum and learning modules for Tijuana’s teachers that lack
sufficient science training (Delgado 2012). The popularity of Ecoparque field trips with
area schools improved environmental education in the city and was the main reason

9
Susan de Treville, one of the early leaders of the project that would become Ecoparque, died in 1994.
154

COLEF continued to support Ecoparque. COLEF viewed the education program as the
greatest success within Ecoparque (de la Parra 2012).

Figure 14: White trailer serves as Ecoparque's environmental education offices. Photograph by author.

Three key themes emerged when discussing the weaknesses or challenges of
Ecoparque with interview participants: financing, working in a transborder policy
environment, and working with the Mexican government. Each interview respondent
directly mentioned the difficulty of establishing, constructing, and maintaining
Ecoparque in an uncertain funding environment. Moving the plant from the U.S. to
Mexico created a series of unexpected legal fees that depleted the original budget and
stalled construction (Bell 2012). Despite a low-cost design, it took four years to construct
the first phase of Ecoparque because of funding gaps and miscommunications between
155

Ecoparque stakeholders and funders (de la Parra 2012, Luecke 2012, Bell 2012). The
second phase that included constructed wetlands to further treat the wastewater to
secondary treatment standards remained incomplete because additional funding never
materialized, leaving the plant’s effluent short of Mexican and U.S. treatment quality
standards (Luecke 2012, Bell 2012). COLEF’s limited funding and inconsistent
institutional support also prevented the expansion of Ecoparque to other parts of Tijuana
or other border cities (Figure 14) (Romo 2012, de la Parra 2012, Fischer 2012).
Ecoparque remained understaffed due to the limited budget, preventing the expansion of
the environmental education programs and research projects conducted on site (Delgado
2012).
156

Figure 15: Welcome signs at Ecoparque credit COLEF, its current funding source.

157

The experience at Ecoparque reflected other small-scale sustainability projects,
whether energy, potable water, or wastewater treatment: securing and maintaining
financing was essential to the success and continuation of such projects. An additional
challenge for Ecoparque was attracting funding to a non-traditional wastewater treatment
plant. Several respondents remarked on the difficulty of explaining the importance of the
project that was so different from traditional solutions to wastewater treatment in Tijuana
(de la Parra 2012, Bell 2012, Fischer 2012). Tijuana’s and Mexico’s wastewater
engineering establishment was entrenched in the centralized, large scale treatment
solutions. As result, de la Parra, Luecke, and Fischer found themselves using
presentations and on-site demonstrations to emphasize the potential for alternative
treatment facilities like Ecoparque to provide environment and public health benefits in
urban areas (Luecke 2012, de la Parra 2012).
The second problem cited by interview participants conveyed the unique
experience associated with planning and implementing environmental projects in a
transborder environmental policy environment. Working across international borders and
managing design, financing, construction as well as personality and cultural differences
proved challenging for many early Ecoparque stakeholders (Luecke 2012, Romo 2012,
Bell 2012, and Fischer 2012). This was exemplified in the eviction of Ecoparque from
the U.S. site and its reestablishment in Mexico in part due to U.S. and IBWC politics.
Despite the proposed changes and modifications by the engineers to meet IBWC
standards, the plant was evicted from the U.S. site (Luecke 2012). De La Parra and
others had to then convince the local and federal government in Mexico to lease the land
158

for the project (de la Parra 2012). When the decision was made to move to Mexico, the
next hurdle included how to transport plant equipment and construction equipment while
avoiding paying import duties and preserving what remained of the budget. The move to
Mexico drained the existing budget mostly to pay legal fees due to the complex nature of
employing and insuring American citizens on a construction site in Mexico (Bell 2012).
During this time period when the project could not afford any more funding
interruptions, stakeholders had to navigate complex grant application and disbursement
systems with U.S. institutions to receive funding for a project in Mexico (Luecke 2012).
With funding in the balance, Luecke and others convinced the California Coastal
Conservancy, a state-run agency dedicated to California’s coastal resources, to continue
funding the project in spite of its move to Mexico. Working with the Mexican and
Tijuanan governments continued to be a challenge; the local government and water
authority still viewed Ecoparque as a competitor for reclaimed water provision even
though the water did not meet quality standards and neither Ecoparque nor the
government had extensive distribution infrastructure (Romo 2012). If the government
was more involved and supportive of the project, Delgado (2012) indicated that there
would be more available funding to make needed repairs to the project, hire more staff,
and provide more educational opportunities for students and teachers.
After identifying the perceived strengths and weaknesses of Ecoparque,
respondents were asked how they would change or modify the project for a similar
alternative treatment technology plant elsewhere in Tijuana or along the border. Five
159

themes emerged from the interviews including changes to technology, funding, general
ignorance, government involvement, and community involvement.

Figure 16: Ecoparque's trickling filter. Photograph by author.

Ecoparque’s low-tech design and minimal use of electricity for the treatment
process was an essential sustainability feature. Although the plant withstood the test of
time, the original designers and engineers acknowledged the potential for improvements
to the technology for future plants. De la Parra (2012) noted that the trickling filter,
while still a valid treatment technology, was no longer an advanced wastewater treatment
technology (Figure 15). Furthermore, the cement trickling filter and untreated
160

wastewater did not mix; the filter started to decay after 20 years of use (de la Parra 2012).
The plant needed constant maintenance, from the cleaning of the biofilter screens to
repairing broken pipes (Fischer 2012, Bell 2012). The hillside location created additional
construction difficulties due to the steep slopes and lot shape. After the move to Mexico,
Bell (2012) had to redesign the plant, building the clarifier and biofilter from scratch.
While the technology was part of Ecoparque’s identity, many interview participants
suggested a general need for newer technology and improved material quality at a future
plant that required less maintenance to ensure a new projects long-term success.
As previously discussed, obtaining and sustaining funding had been a challenge
for the continued operation of Ecoparque. In a general discussion about financing urban
sustainability projects in Tijuana, McEnany (2012) described the difficulty in providing
U.S. funds directly to Mexican organizations addressing wastewater issues in Tijuana.
As a result, organizations, such as EDF and the General Services Fund, financed or
managed funds for projects that the California Coastal Conservancy could not legally
fund due to their location in Mexico after the original grant expired (McEnany 2012,
Fischer 2012, and Luecke 2012). Ecoparque’s difficulties in finding and maintaining
financial and technical support reiterated the importance of having the right people
connected to the project, such as Luecke, Fischer, and Romo, who had connections
within the water, wastewater, and sustainable development communities. Today, the
signature environmental education program was the main motivation behind COLEF’s
continued support to Ecoparque (de la Parra 2012).
161

Romo (2012) mentioned that if he were to build another Ecoparque, he would do
it with the blessing of the state government:
“…we were competing with the government. They didn’t really like us. Even though they funded
us and that fund still exists, it was not the same….They wanted to shut it down. At one point they
wanted to do it so badly that I went all the way to Mexico City to start requesting permits,
discharge permits. And we became an independent wastewater treatment facility…we could have
started that relationship earlier to avoid that competition because we were not competing, we were
just promoting a different approach.”

The antagonistic relationship with the Mexican government and the IBWC frustrated
those involved with Ecoparque (Luecke 2012, Bell 2012, Romo 2012). The Tijuana
government was described as more concerned with solving the wastewater problem than
researching best practices, sustainable development, or alternative technologies
(McEnany 2012, Fischer 2012, Romo 2012). Government engineers that favored
traditional large-scale treatment plants viewed Ecoparque with skepticism due to its
small-scale and focus on sustainability and green technology (Fischer 2012). Local
politicians, engineers, and planners were unwilling to see the macro- and micro-
environmental and public health benefits that the park’s design provides (Romo 2012,
Bell 2012). Interview participants viewed bridging this cultural and technical gap as
important for any further alternative treatment plant development or adoption of
additional sustainable wastewater treatment technologies to Tijuana’s centralized
facilities. Having more local government support would improve opportunities to attract
federal and binational funding to the project.
162

Previous literature on the success of alternative, distributed technologies indicated
that community involvement in the planning and development stages was essential to
ensure project acceptance and endurance (Choguill 1996, Carter et al. 1999, Balkema et
al. 2002, Muga and Mihelcic 2008). The complex negotiations to relocate the park to
Mexico and the temporary land lease left de la Parra, Luecke, Romo, and other early
participants unsure about the permanence of the facility. One consequence of this
transition period was the limited involvement of the community during planning and
construction (Romo 2012, Luecke 2012, de la Parra 2012, Delgado 2012). Additionally,
Fischer (2012) and de la Parra (2012) remarked that the odors emanating from Ecoparque
often upset neighboring residents. Ecoparque did not have a lot of community
involvement at the start of the project; the late addition and success of its environmental
education programs kept the project funded through COLEF (Delgado 2012). COLEF’s
attachment to Ecoparque lent the park authority within the community while endorsing
the alternative treatment technology and community education programs.

Discussion
In comparing how each treatment facility performs according to specific
indicators, it is clear that both plants have important design elements for economic, social
and environmental sustainability. Ecoparque and PTAR Arturo Herrera both incorporate
water reuse programs that support urban greenspace restoration and development.
However, it is also apparent that Ecoparque fails to meet key sustainability benchmarks,
most significantly its failure to treat wastewater to secondary treatment standards.
163

PTAR Arturo Herrera represents the new, more sustainable wastewater treatment
plant that has become the standard in Tijuana. The two remaining JBIC plants, La Morita
and Tecolote-La Gloria, employ the same technologies that promote biological treatment
methods and water reuse. Arturo Herrera contributes significantly to the economic,
social and environmental sustainability according to the indicators employed in this
study. Centralized treatment facilities benefit densely populated areas, where the cost can
be distributed over a larger population. Arturo Herrera is less expensive per resident
served than Ecoparque, or $49.26 per resident at its current operating capacity. When the
plant treats to its full capacity, this number will drop to $37.74 per resident served. This
plant adds much needed treatment capacity to the city, without additional draws on
potable water for dilution. Discharge from PTAR Arturo Herrera meets water quality
standards by treating to the advanced secondary level, ensuring residents and the
surrounding environment are not exposed to pathogens or pollutants. PTAR Arturo
Herrera reuses a large volume of wastewater, over twenty times the amount reused by
Ecoparque. This water is used to support several urban greening efforts, from Parque
Morelos and Parque InnovaCESPT, to the street tree program to line the city’s busiest
boulevards. These areas give residents access to urban green space, provide green cover
to reduce the urban heat island and air pollution, and reduce the amount of potable water
used for irrigation. Parque InnovaCESPT’s environmental education program offers area
school children access to environmental education that emphasizes the community’s
limited water resources.
164

The weaknesses of PTAR Arturo Herrera are consistent with many other large-
scale centralized facilities. First, the treatment plant requires a large capital investment of
US $10 million, most of which the city financed through international loans and
eventually will have to pay back. This cost is a barrier for some cities in the global south.
Although the plant has consulted with the community, this type of plant continues the
“invisible infrastructure” problem that detaches people from the environmental
consequences of their wastewater production (Kaika 2005, Kaika and Swyngedouw 2000,
Gandy 2003). Parque InnovaCESPT does take a step forward into presenting the
water/wastewater cycle, but if residents do not visit the site they may not appreciate how
this plant attempts to reduce the environmental impact. Lastly, PTAR Arturo Herrera
recycles only 11.2% of its current water capacity. While the eventual goal is to reuse
75% of the treated wastewater, the plant is a long way off from this goal (Dibble 2008).
The limited Proyecto Morado infrastructure has prevented the development of a customer
base and the further expansion of treated wastewater reuse (Dibble 2009)
Ecoparque is an example of sustainable wastewater treatment technology that
relies solely on biological treatment methods. While major issues remain with financing
and water quality, the plant features several important economic, social, and
environmental sustainability advantages. The decentralized, alternative technology
design allows Ecoparque to produce treated wastewater for lower investment costs, at
$600,000 plus in-kind donations of materials and equipment. The facility also reuses a
higher percentage of the wastewater it treats, 24 percent, when compared to Arturo
Herrera. Ecoparque’s design and technology are relatively simple to operate; volunteers
165

need little formal training or engineering experience to operate and maintain the facility.
The slope stabilization and reforestation projects have reclaimed a denuded hillside and
have reduced sedimentation and urban run-off. At 24 acres, the reforested park has added
new greenspace to a city with a public open space deficit. The environmental education
programs bring in school children from throughout the city, where they can be exposed to
nature and learn about the importance of viewing wastewater as a resource and reducing
water consumption.
Ecoparque’s sustainability shortcomings temper its contributions to restoring the
environment. Due to the facility’s decentralized nature, its smaller capacity reduces the
amount of residents that are served by the facility. The plant only treats a fraction of the
wastewater in the main sewer that serves about 10,000 residents. In comparison, 116.66
Ecoparques would be needed to match the maximum treatment capacity of PTAR Arturo
Herrera. This translates to an additional 2,683.18 acres of land needed if each facility is
paired with a similar reforestation project. Ecoparque’s design is flexible enough to be
installed in other areas of the city and on challenging topography, but it would be difficult
to locate the new facilities close enough to the point of origin of the sewage and to obtain
the land to build the decentralized system. When taking into account inflation, the
$600,000 price tag for the existing facility would cost today over US $860,000. The
fewer residents served by this technology translates to a higher cost per resident than the
centralized facility. At $60 per resident served, Ecoparque is more expensive than PTAR
Arturo Herrera, with lower treatment standards. To equal the cost per resident served of
Arturo Herrera ($49.26), Ecoparque-like facilities would need to treat the waste from a
166

minimum of 12,180 residents. Most importantly, Ecoparque still does not have
stabilization ponds for final treatment due to budget constraints; the wastewater at
Ecoparque does not meet quality standards established by Mexico for wastewater reuse.
Building and operating the stabilization ponds would add to the bottom line and this cost
would vary based on size of the pond, land costs, maintenance costs, and technological
design of the pond.
The goal of designing and implementing sustainable wastewater treatment
systems that incorporate biological treatment methods is to select the most cost-effective
method that provides the most efficient and highest level of treatment. Ecoparque
supports a substantial amount of ecosystem reclamation and wastewater reuse, while
PTAR Arturo Herrera provides much needed treatment capacity. However, at its current
status, Ecoparque cannot compete with the PTAR Arturo Herrera when it comes to cost,
capacity, and treatment level. In its current state, Ecoparque does not meet the minimum
treatment level, suggesting that it does not offer a satisfactory solution to Tijuana’s
wastewater treatment needs (Balkema et al. 2002)
Interviews provide context for the sustainability indicators. While Ecoparque
requires less capital investment, respondents reveal that acquiring this funding was a long
and complicated process that continued today. A direct result of the lack of funding is
the park’s stalled expansion and low quality of the treated wastewater. Ecoparque’s
successful environmental education project is represented as an afterthought by many
participants, yet it remains the most identifiable aspect of the facility and the main reason
COLEF continued to fund the project. Interviews reinforce the facility’s relatively small
167

impact on the urban environment and environmental sustainability goals. Respondents
acknowledge these deficiencies in the design and implementation of Ecoparque, yet stress
how the small successes demonstrate the possibility of incorporating small-scale
decentralized treatment systems into large urban areas in arid and semi-arid
environments.
More importantly, the interviews offer a window into the challenges of
introducing distributed wastewater treatment into an urban area. On the surface,
Ecoparque appears to fit with the city’s sustainable development policies that began in
the 2000s. However, the financing structures and professional culture do not embrace
small-scale, decentralized treatment. The wastewater and sanitation professional culture
of Tijuana remains situated in the Western Europe/U.S. sanitation experience and success
with large-scale, centralized treatment. International funding to support sanitation goals
still favor large-scale, centralized treatment facilities despite the growing scholarship that
identifies the economic, social, and environment sustainability merits of decentralized
and biological treatment methods. Engineers in Tijuana and Mexico as a whole focus on
eliminating wastewater discharges by increasing treatment capacity with little attention
paid to best practices or sustainable technologies (McEnany 2012). Ecoparque’s
technology is viewed as too unconventional for the demands and needs of a growing city
like Tijuana. The majority of funding that Ecoparque received from private and public
environmental protection foundations supported the development and construction of the
facility. Ongoing operations, maintenance, and repairs are subject to funding through
COLEF and the municipality. Considering these ongoing challenges faced by
168

Ecoparque, this decentralized treatment facility offers a cautionary example for future
decentralized urban sustainability projects.

Conclusion
As urbanization continues, cities must plan for and mitigate the increasing amount
of waste produced by urban residents. Urban growth demands the equal expansion of
new urban service infrastructure while putting added pressure on aging, existing
infrastructure. At the same time, water resources are increasingly limited and shared over
a greater population due to changing climate patterns. Cities like Tijuana are challenged
to reduce their reliance on dwindling potable water resources for wastewater treatment
and on nearby water bodies as waste sinks. Providing adequate wastewater treatment
infrastructure that incorporates sustainable treatment technologies will help eliminate
regional public and environmental health risks while reducing the pressure on local and
regional ecosystem services.
This chapter evaluates the sustainability costs and benefits of two different
wastewater treatment technologies in Tijuana, Mexico. A series of functional, economic,
environmental and sustainability indicators were used to assess the contributions of the
two treatment plants to the city’s residents and surrounding environment. Results bring
to light the difficulty of implementing alternative, decentralized wastewater treatment on
a large-scale in Tijuana. The numbers presented above indicate that there are many
barriers to Ecoparque-like facilities replacing traditional treatment plants. Ecoparque
cannot compete when it comes to treatment capacity, amount of recycled water produced,
169

or the quality of treated wastewater. The real benefits of Ecoparque are the facility’s
relatively low cost, provision of urban greenspace, and the slope stabilization offered by
the reforestation project. With modification to improve the final water quality of the
treated wastewater, decentralized wastewater treatment facilities similar to Ecoparque
have the potential to augment large-scale treatment plants, but it is unlikely they will ever
replace centralized treatment in large urban areas. The introduction of more efficient,
closed-loop treatment technologies at centralized facilities are promising technologies
that can continue to provide high-capacity treatment while maximizing resource recovery
and reducing water usage.
The technology and design of Ecoparque could be generalized to cities or rural
areas in arid and semi-arid environments. In arid environments, the expansion of
wastewater treatment is often linked to concerns about water scarcity, as the availability
of water resources may not support the requirements for conveyance and plant operation
(Bakir 2001, Gleick 2010). Ecoparque’s design promotes the preservation of potable
water resources by eliminating the use of water for dilution and relying on treated
wastewater for irrigation. This reduces the pressure on limited water resources while
reducing the risks to public and ecosystem health. Ecoparque’s technology also
addresses future climatic uncertainty in arid regions by reducing pressure on water
systems in anticipation of future hydrological conditions, such as more droughts and drier
weather patterns (Gleick 2010).
While Tijuana’s recycled water distribution program needs further development,
Ecoparque exemplifies the benefits of urban greening. PTAR Arturo Herrera
170

demonstrates a step forward for traditional treatment methods to promote wastewater
reuse and on-site greenspace development. Incorporating more urban greening projects
supported by treated wastewater will further reduce the impacts of urbanization on the
local and regional environment by reducing urban run-off and promoting natural
infiltration. Future large-scale facilities in Tijuana could reduce their environmental
impact by incorporating more advanced biological treatment methods, such as artificial
wetlands. However, it is unrealistic to expect a change in Tijuana’s wastewater
collection and treatment system due to the professional culture focused on large-scale,
centralized facilities. This is further complicated by the proximity to San Diego and the
expectation of this downstream sister city that treated wastewater that flows north in the
Tijuana River will meet or exceed U.S. Clean Water Act Standards. San Diego’s
wastewater system is largely based on centralized facilities, supporting the need to
develop centralized systems to be compatible with U.S. standards of treatment.
Furthermore, IBWC funding is tied to large-scale solutions to the ongoing challenges of
sewage spills crossing the border into San Diego and its surrounding environments.
Despite the evidence of the benefits of decentralized, natural treatment facilities in the
global south, widespread adoption of alternative wastewater treatment is unlikely along
the U.S.-Mexico border.
171

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION TO THE DISSERTATION
Cities in the global south face many challenges in managing urban growth and
mitigating further environmental degradation. This dissertation examined key
environmental impacts of development in Tijuana, Mexico, namely the transborder public
and environmental health impacts of the city’s uneven, insufficient wastewater collection
and treatment infrastructure. I posed the general question, how did the uneven geography
of wastewater infrastructure in Tijuana shape environmental and public health risks faced
by residents of the transborder Tijuana River watershed? These wastewater riskscapes
suggest that the city’s urban poor bore most of the risk and vulnerability to untreated
wastewater. These marginalized residents were least likely to have access to the health
benefits provided by wastewater infrastructure or have the power to influence decisions
about wastewater that impinge on their quality of life. I used qualitative and quantitative
methods to explore this question through a set of three research objectives. My findings
demonstrate the importance of universal, equitable wastewater infrastructure to mitigate
and protect urban and regional environments from future damage due to continued
uncontrolled population and industrial growth.
In this concluding chapter, I review the findings of each research objective, and
the implications for scholarly research in urban political ecology, Latin American
environmental justice, and sustainable development as well as transborder environmental
policy. I next discuss the implications for the field of geography. To conclude, I present
directions for future geographical research in this field.

172

Review of research findings
Chapter 2 tackled the first research objective, namely to define the factors that
influence the uneven distribution of wastewater infrastructure in Tijuana. This chapter
first reviewed the urban political ecology and Latin American environmental justice
literature that framed this analysis. The first half of the chapter traced the historical
social, political, economic, and environmental processes that shaped and reshaped access
to basic household wastewater infrastructure in Tijuana. This provided needed insight
into the creation of the complex, uneven landscape of development in this border city.
The last half of this chapter uses a three-way analysis of variance to identify the
socioeconomic and geographic factors that influence whether households do or do not
have access to wastewater infrastructure. Identifying these factors allowed me to
characterize Tijuana’s wastewater riskscapes, or the convergence of exposure and
vulnerability to untreated wastewater. This analysis was conducted with data from the
2000 Mexican Census of Population and Housing (INEGI 2000) and the Tijuana River
Watershed GIS Clearinghouse (COLEF 2000).
The results of Chapter 2 revealed that homes without piped water infrastructure,
households with low educational attainment, and homes located on steep slopes and
erosional surfaces are more likely to also lack wastewater infrastructure. These
households tend to be located on the eastern, southern, and southwestern edges of the
city, away from the historic core and beach communities. The results of this analysis
raised a few concerns. First, the Mexican Census did not count the informal,
unrecognized settlements of the city. Not enumerating households in these communities
173

could have compromised this analysis the city’s wastewater riskscapes. Second, while
expanding Tijuana’s wastewater collection infrastructure or increasing affordable housing
availability appeared to be the easiest technical fix to the wastewater problem, the city’s
historic inability to match infrastructure supply with demand continued to the present
day. Creating a more environmentally and socially equitable city through infrastructure
expansion would need to be conducted at a smaller, community-led scale.
The third chapter addressed the second research objective, which was to analyze
the impact of wastewater discourse on environmental and infrastructural policy. This
chapter first reviewed the discourse formation process and the influence of power on a
group’s ability to control how people understand the world around them. I then
examined the media discourse in Tijuana and San Diego to better understand the impact
of the international border on creating place-specific understandings of the transborder
flows of untreated wastewater. The goal of this chapter was to deconstruct the discourse
framing processes to reveal the temporal and spatial variations in how wastewater was
presented to readers. Collective action frames, often borrowed by political ecology
researchers from social movement studies, were used to develop a typology of
wastewater discourse (Escobar 1995, 1996, Sonnett et al. 2006). A correspondence and
content analysis were then utilized to explore how wastewater discourse changed over
time and across space. In addition, these quantitative and qualitative data analyses
identified how the San Diego Union-Tribune and El Sol de Tijuana newspapers defined
the threats, problems, and solutions.
174

The results of Chapter 3 showed that the two publics receive dramatically
different depictions of untreated wastewater. Residents in San Diego are exposed to a
depiction of the transborder flows of untreated wastewater as an ongoing threat to
residents’ quality of life and surrounding ecosystem health. The San Diego Union-
Tribune relied on word and language choices that reflect wastewater as a past and current
problem that could only be solved through technology fixes north of the U.S.-Mexico
border. In contrast, readers in Tijuana received representations of discourse in El Sol de
Tijuana that presented untreated wastewater as a past problem solved by the
municipality’s expansion of wastewater treatment infrastructure. The newspaper used
more solution terms and positive language to create a discourse that only indirectly
identified challenges to the city’s public and environmental health. Newspapers provided
an indirect measure of public understanding of transborder wastewater; however this
analysis highlighted the messages and frames to which residents were potentially
exposed.
This chapter also raised some important questions about the formation and control
of discourse. San Diego and Tijuana newspaper articles were dominated by official
responses and solutions, signifying that residents did not receive alternative, or
competing, definitions of threats, problems, and solutions. While this demonstrated a
control over discourse creation and dissemination by binational and local governments,
non-profits, and businesses, it prevented readers from being exposed to alternative
understandings of the threats, problems, and solutions to untreated wastewater.
175

The final empirical chapter of this dissertation examined the third research
objective: to investigate the growth, manifestations, and impacts of sustainable
wastewater treatment in Tijuana. First, this chapter reviewed the theoretical and practical
contribution of sustainable wastewater treatment technologies to urban designs that were
more protective of natural systems. This chapter looked at two wastewater treatment
plants in Tijuana, Arturo Herrera, a large-scale centralized treatment plant, and
Ecoparque, a small-scale, decentralized, alternative treatment facility. A series of
sustainability indicators assessed how each plant contributed to economic, social, and
environmental sustainability objectives. Semi-structured interviews with core Ecoparque
stakeholders provided a window into the problems and prospects of incorporating
alternative wastewater treatment facilities into a rapidly growing area.
Results in Chapter 4 revealed that both wastewater treatment plants made
significant contributions to Tijuana’s economic, social, and environmental sustainability,
specifically through their incorporation of water reuse systems and addition of much
needed urban greenspace. Arturo Herrera demonstrated the ability of large-scale,
centralized facilities to provide additional treatment capacity and high treatment
standards at a lower cost per resident due to the population density of the urban area.
Recycled water irrigated on- and off-site urban greening projects, reducing the city’s
reliance on potable water for irrigation and improving public access to urban greenspace.
Despite these sustainability improvements, Arturo Herrera had a high capital cost and an
unfinished distribution network for treated wastewater. Ecoparque also contributed to
sustainability through the on-site reforestation program irrigated by reclaimed
176

wastewater, environmental education programs, and low-cost bioremediation design.
However, treating wastewater at Ecoparque was expensive. The final product did not
meet U.S. or Mexican water quality standards for irrigation purposes and therefore could
not be sold or used off-site. Additionally, its smaller treatment capacity and variable
funding resources prevented expansion of the plant for a more wide-spread adoption of
the technologies.
Overall, the findings from of Chapters 2-4 echoed deficiencies in Tijuana’s
wastewater infrastructure expansion plans, in that the expansion of the treatment network
alone would not (and had not) eliminated untreated wastewater from the Tijuana River
Watershed. The other half of the wastewater infrastructure system, collection
infrastructure, needed to be addressed universally to reduce the exposure of residents and
the environment to pathogens in wastewater. Unless all of the city’s wastewater was
collected and treated in a manner that reduced water use and maximized resource
recovery, Tijuana would continue to threaten the integrity of its surrounding ecosystem.

Implications of research
The proceeding chapters offer important theoretical, methodological, and policy
contributions to the field of geography. First, this dissertation proposes a theoretical
model for examining environmental issues on the U.S.-Mexico border that integrates the
urban political ecology, Latin American environmental justice, and sustainable
development fields of knowledge. This trio of theories informs an investigation of shared
environmental problems that impact multiple spatially, economically, socially, politically
177

and environmentally diverse communities across an international border. This approach
acknowledges the complex and delicate relationship between urban socioeconomic and
environmental equity. By incorporating these theories into an analysis of transborder
wastewater, we gain a better understanding of how physical and socioeconomic
geography influence control over resources and exposure to environmental hazards.
This dissertation recognizes the importance of considering geographic marginality
when examining the factors that put the urban poor and recent migrants at risk for
exposure to untreated wastewater. With limited land choices available to the urban poor,
the physical landscape can present additional hazards, such as unstable hillsides,
riverbeds, or adjacent to industrial sites. These marginal physical landscapes make
establishing wastewater infrastructure extensions difficult and expensive (Aldama 2006,
UN-HABITAT 1996). This factor is not included in traditional environmental justice
analyses. Its use here emphasizes its utility to advance the analysis of future
environmental justice studies as well demonstrating the relevance of physical geography
for in understanding hazard exposure.
In terms of methodological contributions, this work elaborates and improves on
methods and models used in human-environment and environmental justice research.
First, this dissertation develops a statistical model for examining the influence of
socioeconomic, settlement formality, and geographic factors on access to basic
wastewater infrastructure in rapidly developing areas. This model expands on existing
models and variables produced by scholars interested in air toxic exposure in other U.S.-
Mexico border cities (Kopinak and Barajas 2002, Grineski et al. 2008). While this model
178

is designed to specifically characterize wastewater in Tijuana, its basic structure and
variable selection can be modified and applied to other rapidly urbanizing areas and other
forms of pollution. Geographic marginality is perhaps the most difficult factor to
recreate, as there is an uneven collection and distribution of physical geographic spatial
data in many countries; the use of satellite imagery, however may compensate for such
data gaps. Despite this, the model used in this dissertation is a potentially powerful tool
to better understand the social, economic, political, and environmental contexts that have
shaped spatial disparity of access to wastewater infrastructure.
Moreover, geographic analysis of potential exposure to untreated wastewater
helps prioritize locations and settlements for infrastructure interventions. The analyses in
this dissertation as well as future finer-grained, neighborhood-by-neighborhood surveys
of wastewater collection infrastructure allow policymakers and community activists to
visualize the extent and spatial distribution of infrastructure deficits. This knowledge
will help refine an ambiguous issue within the city and lead to an identification of key
target areas for infrastructure expansion as well as inform the selection of communities
for education programs or self-built infrastructure outreach.
In the discourse analysis, I employ collective action frames as a methodology to
dissect media discourse surrounding transborder flows of untreated wastewater. The
motivation, diagnostic, and prognostic frame elements provide a classification system to
support the correspondence and content analysis. This method is traditionally used in
social movement research, but its use here demonstrates the feasibility and utility of
applying collective action frames to discourse analysis more broadly. These results
179

contribute to the growing use of collective action frames in political ecology research
issues (Sonnett et al. 2006, Thompson 1995) and reveal the spatial and temporal shifts in
discourse and public perception related to the environment.
The forth chapter on sustainable wastewater treatment facilities offers a further
refinement to existing sustainable indicator models (Balkema et al. 2002, Muga and
Mihelcic 2008). The indicators used in this dissertation allow for a comparison between
two different treatment technologies while recognizing the specific water resource
challenges of an arid city. As a result, the framework furthers sustainability assessments
of wastewater treatment plants in arid environments by emphasizing water use and reuse.
By including indicators for the three pillars of sustainability—social, economic, and
environment—this indicator model also highlights the contributions of closed-loop
wastewater treatment technologies that are becoming more common throughout the U.S.
and Mexico. Furthermore, the evaluation of how the closed-loop technologies reduce the
use of potable water and promote the reuse of treated water will support needed future
research into the interactions and interconnections between natural and human systems.
Results generated from similar indicator analyses could contribute to effective and
efficient policy decisions regarding the appropriate wastewater technology to incorporate
into an arid city.
This dissertation offers several policy and planning suggestions to eliminate
exposure to untreated wastewater. The results provided in Chapter 2 test the quantitative
link between the physical landscape and exposure to wastewater. The link between steep
hill slopes and potential exposure to untreated wastewater provides policy makers with
180

valuable urban planning information. The city of Tijuana must address growing hillside
informal settlements by controlling hillside land development and enforcing building
codes in these areas to protect residents from landslides and exposure to untreated
wastewater. This will impact the urban poor and recent migrants’ ability to access land
and housing in Tijuana. To meet this housing demand Tijuana should develop alternative
housing and construction programs to provide affordable housing. These developments
will include basic urban services for residents, including wastewater services. In
addition, land tenure and titling regulations must be changed so that poor and recent-
migrants can legally occupy the land they build on and therefore have rights to basic
urban services. Without retroactively granting land tenure, residents of informal
settlements have a difficult time establishing services and therefore escaping potential
exposure to risk. Unfortunately, Tijuana has faced urban planning, land tenure, and
affordable housing challenges since rapid urbanization began in the 1970s. One policy
solution that could be implemented at present is a community education program that
informs residents of the risks of wastewater exposure and provides some training for self-
built infrastructure.
From Chapter 3, it became clear that the transborder flows of wastewater remain a
significant concern for public and ecosystem health. Failures in the collection
infrastructure, including burst pipes and pumping stations, are frequently cited as the
cause of untreated wastewater spills. Tijuana’s aging collection infrastructure must be
updated and upgraded to prevent future spills. Despite Tijuana and San Diego sharing
the same megaregion, publics on both sides of the border understand the wastewater
181

problem differently. A unified public education program will help improve transborder
understanding of the threats, causes, and solutions of wastewater and increase support for
local and binational solutions.
Finally, Chapter 4 recognizes the importance of investing in sustainable
wastewater treatment technologies to increase treatment capacity while providing public
and environmental health benefits. In addition to reducing potable water use and the
spread of wastes to distant environments, these facilities provide urban greenspace and
additional secondary sustainability benefits, such as reducing the urban heat island,
improving air quality, and slope stabilization to prevent the sedimentation of the
watershed. However, treatment modality must be matched with demand and capacity of
collection infrastructure. If collection infrastructure does not expand to unserved areas,
the challenge of transborder flows of untreated wastewater will continue unabated into
the future.
The findings of this dissertation also have important implications for public health
research and outreach programs. The geographic analysis provided in the preceding
chapters highlight the need to understand the pathways of untreated wastewater entering
the environment as well as who is exposed, and where. This information should be used
by public health officials to target areas of the city for community education programs
about the importance of avoiding untreated wastewater, as well as recognizing the signs
of diarrheal disease that is often a symptom of exposure. Residents of informal
settlements without access to sanitation and sewage infrastructure, and in particular
children and infants, are at risk for exposure to diarrheal, infectious, parasitic disease
182

(Hardoy, Mitlin, Satterthwaite 1992, Downs et al. 1999, Cienfuentes and Rodriquez
2005, Gracey 2003, Graham et al. 2005, Bartlett 2005). Public health officials in Tijuana
can take steps to monitor sewage leaks and diarrhea cases at local hospitals to prevent
widespread outbreaks of cholera and other diseases within the city.

Possibilities for future research
The analysis and results of this dissertation have revealed the theoretical and
empirical gaps that remain and require further exploration in the pursuit of better
understanding wastewater riskscapes. As previously discussed, this work suggests the
need to consider geographic marginality in environmental justice investigations.
Geographic marginality is well understood in relation to environmental hazards, such as
floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes, but the exploration of how physical geography can
influence exposure to environmental injustices in the global south is minimal. Much of
the work on spatial inequality is focused on how hazard exposure varies between
different social and/or economic groups (Grineski and Collins 2008, 2010, Collins 2009,
Grineski et al. 2010, Pullido 1996, Chakraborty 2009). Geographers must elaborate on
the definition of geographic marginality presented here, and develop a more extensive
typology that could be applied at different scales and to cities worldwide. By classifying
soils, landscapes, slopes, hydrology, and vegetation types as potentially hazardous
landscapes, geographers can begin to better understand the urban experience for
marginalized residents. The growth of this research area will help broaden the concept of
183

environmental justice and marginality while providing a framework for communicating
research results.
This research would also benefit from longitudinal studies that measure the
quantitative and qualitative public health and environmental impacts of exposure to
wastewater in Tijuana. This dissertation focuses on determining the location of the
potential exposure risk. A longitudinal study could include obtaining hospitalization
rates for children with diarrheal disease or sampling water and soil in several
neighborhoods to generate a clearer picture of the toll exposure to untreated wastewater
has on communities and ecosystems. This detailed data would tell policymakers not only
where in Tijuana people and ecosystems are most affected by untreated wastewater, but
specifically how they are affected. This knowledge would provide a clearer picture of
vulnerability and risk to ensure that binational policy targets the specific health needs of
residents and the ecosystems.
More detailed data collection on the scope, scale, and design of wastewater
collection infrastructure at the neighborhood level would provide policymakers with a
clearer picture of the variability in the availability and quality of collection infrastructure.
The ANOVA analysis in Chapter 2 provides a general picture of inequality in service
provision within the city. A fine-grained neighborhood study would capture differences
within individual neighborhoods, as well as across the city. This data collection would
also identify and map informal settlements that are not counted in the official Census.
This data and resulting analyses would help policymakers identify and target reforms to
184

the specific communities, streets, and households most at risk for exposure to untreated
household wastewater.
Another gap exposed by this research is the lack of “unofficial” discourse, or a
large community outside of the government and business leaders contributing to the
discussion on transborder wastewater. Several groups emerge in the media discourse
chapter, but Tijuana-based groups do not have a large presence in either El Sol de Tijuana
or The San Diego Tribune articles. In Ecoparque discussions, it is clear that the COLEF-
backed project has little ability to influence wastewater policy. An investigation into the
social movements or environmental groups that work on issues related to water and
environmental problems in Tijuana would reveal how these groups have challenged or
changed existing wastewater problems. This examination could identify how
environmental organizations, action networks, and non-profits operate within Mexico’s
state-centric political and economic system as well as across the international border with
San Diego environmental organizations, in ways not tracked by print media.
Lastly, there remains a noticeable gap in formal wastewater infrastructure
provision in Tijuana’s informal settlements. While the Mexican Census collects detailed
housing data, including three degrees of wastewater infrastructure coverage, it is not
immediately clear how the census captures self-built infrastructure in informal
settlements. As residents occupy informal settlements for longer periods of time, they
begin to expand their homes and add basic infrastructure to their home or to be shared by
the community (Choguill 1996, Pezzoli 1998, Bakker 2003, 2010). An investigation of
how wastewater infrastructure is implemented informally would identify how self-built
185

infrastructure supplements or substitutes formal, city-provided infrastructure. This
research would catalog how self-built infrastructure changes spatially and temporally as
well as its contributions to improving resident and environmental health. This work
would help discover how residents are challenging the traditional division of access to
basic urban services, taking control over their community spaces, and reducing their
vulnerability to wastewater hazards with little to no help from the government. This
research would contribute to a broader discussion on development geography, and
critically examine the political, economic, social, and environmental processes that have
compelled residents to design and manage their own infrastructure.

186

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackleson, J. 2005. Constructing security on the U.S.–Mexico border. Political
Geography 24: 165-184.
Adams, W.M. 2009. Green Development: Environment and sustainability in a developing
world. London: Routledge.
Aldama, R. G. 2006. Environment, Poverty, and Gender: Using and Managing
Environmental Resources in Tijuana Colonia. In Equity and Sustainable
Development Reflections from the U.S.-Mexico Border. Eds. Jane Clough-
Riquelme and Nora Bringas Rábago. La Jolla, California: Center for U.S.-
Mexican Studies, UCSD.
Alegría, Tito. 2006. Urban Structure and Social Segregation in Tijuana. In Equity and
Sustainable Development Reflections from the U.S.-Mexico Border. Eds. Jane
Clough-Riquelm and Nora Bringas Rábago. La Jolla, California: Center for U.S.-
Mexican Studies, UCSD.
Arreola, D. D. and J.R. Curtis. 1993. The Mexican border cities: Landscape anatomy an
dplace personality. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Bakir, H.A. 2001. Sustainable wastewater management for small communities in the
Middle East and North Africa. Journal of Environmental Management 61:319-
328.
Bakker, K. 2003. Archipelagos and networks: urbanization and water privatization in the
South. The Geographic Journal 169:328-341.
Bakker, K. 2010. Privatizing Water: Governance Failure and the World’s Urban Water
Crisis. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Balint, K. 1996. Border sewage spills to continue Pipeline not built for new treatment
plant. The San Diego Union-Tribune. September 19: B-1.
Balint, K. 1996a. New sewage plant at border poses official dilemma. The San Diego
Union-Tribune October 11: B-1.
Balint, K. 1996b. Sewage plant rises to cheers, doubts Disposal from border facility,
funds for operation unsettled. The San Diego Union-Tribune. 5 May: B-1.
Balint, K. 1998. Treatment plant fails toxin tests; Officials puzzled by woes at border-
area facility. The San Diego Union-Tribune. 2 March: B-1
Balint, K. 1999. New system not ready for Tijuana spill; Millions of gallons of raw
sewage flows into San Diego. The San Diego Union-Tribune 12 January: B-1.
187

Balkema, A.J., H. Preisig, R. Otterpohl, and F.J.D. Lambert. 2002. Indicators for the
sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems. Urban Water 4:153-
161.
Bartlett, S. 2005. Water, Sanitation, and Urban Children. Children, Youths, and
Environment 15:115-137.
BECC, 1997, Expansion of the Ecoparque Wastewater Treatment Plant. Retrieved
September 2, 2012 from the BECC Web site at
http://www.cocef.org/aproyectos/ecopar-ing.htm
BECC. 2009. BECC and NADB: Successful Bi-national Cooperation.
http://www.cocef.org/english/index.html last accsesed 23 October 2010.
BECC-NADB. 2004. Agreement Between the Government of the United States of
America and the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning the
Establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North
American Development Bank. San Antonio: NADB.
Beck, M.B. and R.G. Cummings. 1996. Wastewater Infrastructure: challenges for the
Sustainable City in the New Millennium. Habitat International 20: 405-420.
Bell, J. 2012. Personal Interview. 23 May 2012.
Benford, R.D. and D.A. Snow. 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An
Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26:611-639.
Benigno, Q. 2013. Personal communication. 6 March 2013.
Blakie, P. and H.C. Brookfield. 1987. Land Degradation and Society. London:
Routledge.
Bloom, G. 2001. Tijuana’s Ecoparque: Decentralized Water Treatment and Reuse.
Retrieved September 2, 2012 from the Frontera NorteSur Web site at
http://frontera.nmsu.edu/may01/feat3.html
Branscomb, L.W. 1999. Surf group sues as border sewage war turns hotter; State, water
district could follow suit. The San Diego Union-Tribune. 17 November B-1:7,8
Branscomb, L.W. 2000. Sewage spill near border under control. The San Diego Union-
Tribune 2 November B-3: 7.
Branscomb, L.W. 2000a. State fines federal agency over water pollution. The San Diego
Union-Tribune 9 November B-1:7.
Branscomb, L.W. 2001. Foul water removed from river valley; Private company pays for
cleanup. The San Diego Union-Tribune 13 October B-3:7
188

Branscomb, L.W. 2001a. No money, no talks on sewage plant. The San Diego Union-
Tribune 17 November. B-5:7
Branscomb, L.W. 2002. City pans settling of sewage suit; Border plant does not meet
standards. The San Diego Union-Tribune 7 September B-4.
Branscomb, L.W. 2003. West Nile fear spurs pumping of water from Tijuana Valley.
San Diego Union-Tribune 16 August: B-7
Branscomb, L.W. and A. Oakes. 2002. Spill fouls Tijuana River Valley. The San Diego
Union-Tribune 12 January: B-1: 1,6,7.
Bringas Rábago, N.L and R. Sánchez R. 2006. Social Vulnerability and Disaster Risk in
Tijuana: Preliminary Findings. In Equity and Sustainable Development
Reflections from the U.S.-Mexico Border. Eds. Jane Clough-Riquelme and Nora
Bringas Rábago. La Jolla, California: Center for U.S.- Mexican Studies, UCSD.
Bryant, R.L. 1992. Political Ecology: An emerging research agenda in Third-World
studies. Political Geography 11:12-36.
Bryant, R.L. 1998. Power, knowledge, and political ecology in the third world: a review.
Progress in Physical Geography 22:79-94.
Bryant, R.L. and S. Bailey. 1997. Third World Political Ecology. London and New York:
Routledge.
Butler, D. and J. Parkinson, 1997, Towards Sustainable Urban Drainage. Water, Science,
and Technology, Vol. 35, 53-63.
Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM), 2003, Plan Maestro de Agua Potable y Saneamiento en
los Municipios de Tijuana Playas de Rosarito. Carlsbad, CA: CDM.
Campana, M.E., A.M. Neir, and G.T. Klise, 2006, Dynamics of Transboundary Ground
Water Management: Lessons from North America. Albuquerque, NM: Water
Resources Program, University of New Mexico.
Carless, W. 2011. For Tijuana, the World’s Eyes and Ears. Voice of San Diego. 13 May.
Last accessed 3 April 2012
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/people/q_and_a/article_2d155174-7dbb-11e0-
b267-001cc4c03286.html
Carruthers, D.V. 2008. Popular Environmentalism and Social Justice in Latin America. In
Environmental Justice in Latin America: Problems, Promise, and Practice ed.
D.V. Carruthers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
189

Carter, R.C., S.F. Tyrrell, and P. Howsam. 1999. Impact and sustainability of community
water supply and sanitation programs in developing countries. Journal of the
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management 13:292-296.
Castro, J.E. 2004. Urban water and the politics of citizenship: the case of the Mexico City
Metropolitan Area during the 1980s and 1990s. Environment and Planning A 36:
327-346.
Chakraborty, J. 2009. Automobiles, air toxics, and adverse health risks: Environmental
Inequalities in Tampa Bay, Florida. Annals of the Association of the American
Geography 85: 641-663.
Checkley, W., R.H. Gilman, R.E. Black, L.D. Epstein, L. Cabrera, and C.R. Sterling.
2004. Effect of water and sanitation on childhood health in a poor Peruvian peri-
urban community. The Lancet 363:112-118.
Choguill, C.L., 1996, Ten Steps to Sustainable Infrastructure. Habitat International, Vol.
20, 389-404.
Cifuentes, E., and S. Rodríguez. 2005. Urban sprawl, water insecurity, and enteric
diseases in children from Mexico City. EcoHealth 2:70-75.
Collins, T.W. 2009. The production of unequal risk in hazardscapes: An explanatory
frame applied to disaster at the US–Mexico border. Geoforum 40:589-601.
Comisión Estatal de Servicios Públicos de Tijuana (CESPT). 2008. Planta de
Tratamiento de Aguas Residuales: Monte de los Olivos [Wastewater Treatment
Plant: Monte de los Olivos]. Tijuana, Mexico: CESPT.
http://www.cespt.gob.mx/cultura/pres_MonteOlivos.html last accessed 28 July
2011.
Comisión Estatal de Servicios Públicos de Tijuana (CESPT). 2012. Destaca Parque
InnovaCESPT en el 6º Foro Mundial del Agua en Francia [Highlights Parque
InnovaCESPT in the 6th World Water Forum in France]. Retrieved April 14,
2013 from the CESPT Web site at
http://www.cespt.gob.mx/ServNoticias/VerNoticia.aspx?id=457
Comisión Estatal de Servicios Públicos de Tijuana (CESPT). 2013. Actividades Lúdicas
en Planta Ing. Arturo Herrera Solís (Complejo Monte de los Olivos) [Leisure
Activities at Eng. Arturo Herrera Solis Plant (Monte de los Olivos Complex)].
Retrieved April 4, 2013 from CESPT Web site at
http://www.cespt.gob.mx/culturaagua/articulo_innovacespt.html
Comisión Estatal de Servicios Públicos de Tijuana (CESPT). 2013a. Programa Cultura
del Agua. Retrieved April 14, 2013 from the CESPT Web site at
http://www.cespt.gob.mx/culturaagua/articulo_programacultura.html.
190

Comisión Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA). 2010. Inventario nacional de plantas
municipales de potabilización y de tratamiento de aguas residuales en operación
[National inventory of municipal water potabilization plants and wastewater
treatment plants in operation]. Mexico, D.F.: Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y
Recursos Naturales.
Cruz, N. 2010. Busca Ramos construir 14 pluviales. El Sol de Tijuana. 28 April.
Cutter, S.L. 1996. Societal Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. International
Social Science Journal 47: 525-536.
Cutter, S.L., ed. 2001. American Hazardscapes The Regionalization of Hazards and
Disasters. Washington D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
Davis, M. 2006. Planet of Slums. London: Verso.
Davis, R. 2011. New U-T Boss: 'You Change Now or You Die.' Voice of San Diego. 17
November. Last accessed 5 April 2012
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/environment/muck/article_aafd0af6-11a3-11e1-
843d-001cc4c002e0.html.
de la Parra, C. 1999, Desertification in Tijuana (Mexico): Effects and Policies. In Six
Case Studies from Asia, Africa and Latin America. World Forum of Mayors on
Cities and Desertification Bonn, 11-12 June 1999.
de la Parra, C., 2012, Personal Interview. 9 July 2012.
de la Parra, C. and D.F. Luecke. 1997. Ecoparque: An Innovative Low-Tech Approach
for Water Use and Resource Enhancement in the Tijuana River Valley.
Washington, D.C.: Environmental Defense Fund.
Dedina, S. 2006. Not the way to fight border pollution. The San Diego Union-Tribune 2
June.
Delgado, X. Personal Interview, 5 September 2012.
DeOliveria, O. and B., Roberts. 1996. Urban development and social inequality in Latin
America. In The urban trasnformtation of the developing world, ed. J. Gugler.
Oxfor: Oxford University Press.
Desfor, G. and Keil, R. 2004. Nature and the City: Making Environmental Policy in
Toronto and Los Angeles. Tuscon, AZ: The University of Arizona Press.
Dibble, S. 2007. Baja’s Burden: Development burden on gold coast forces scrutiny of
sewage plight. The San Diego Union-Tribune. 21 October: A-1.
Dibble, S. 2007a. Sewage proposal endorsed in Mexico; U.S. would pay for Tijuana
plant. The San Diego Union-Tribune. 20 March: A-1.
191

Dibble, S. 2008. Sewage treatment plant praised, Flow to river channel to drop; irrigation
uses seen. The San Diego Union-Tribune 26 September. Retrieved 2013 The San
Diego Union-Tribune Web site at
http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080926/news_1m26tjsewage.html
Dibble, S. 2009. Every drop counts; Wastewater recycling may benefit both sides of the
border. The San Diego Union-Tribune. 6 July.
Dibble, S. 2010. Proposed aqueduct would quench Baja wine valley. The San Diego
Union-Tribune, 1 February. Retrieved September 2, 2012 from The San Diego
Union-Tribune Web site at
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/01/proposed-recycled-water-canal-
would-quench-baja/?page=1#article
Dibble, S. 2011. $4.8-million loan to expand Tijuana sewage treatment. The San Diego
Union-Tribune. 9 February.
Dibble, S. 2011a. Tijuana sewage pipe fixed, agency reports. The San Diego Union-
Tribune. 27 January.
Dibble, S. and M. Lee. 2011. Massive sewage spill fouls Imperial Beach. San Diego
Union-Tribune. 18 January.
Dibble, S. and M. Lee. 2011a. Size of Tijuana sewage spill is disputed. San Diego Union-
Tribune. 19 January.
Doughman, P.M 2001. Discourses and Water on the U.S.-Mexico Border. In Reflections
on Water: New Approaches to Transboundary Conflicts and Cooperation, eds. J.
Blatter and H. Ingram. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Downey, L. and B. Hawkins. 2008. Single-mother Families and Air pollution: A National
Study. Social Sciency Quarterly 89:523-536.
Downs, T. J. E. Cienfuentes, E. Ruth and I. Suffet. 2000. Effectiveness of Natural
Treatment in a Wastewater Irrigation District of the Mexico City Region: A
Synoptic Field Survey. Water Environment Research 72: 4-21.
Downs, T.J., E. Cienfuentes-Garcia, and I.M. Suffet. 1999. Risk Screening for Exposure
to Groundwater Pollution in a Wastewater Irrigation District of the Mexico City
Region. Environmental Health Perspectives 107:553-560.
Dunn, K. 2000. Interviewing. In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography,
ed. I. Hay. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dúran Cabrera, H., 2010, Tijuana’s Wastewater Treatment and Recycling Water
Program. San Unpublished presentation presented in Diego, CA. September.
192

El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. 2000. Tijuana River Watershed GIS Database. San
Diego: Center for Earth Systems Analysis Research.
El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (COLEF), 2011, Programa de Educación Ambiental
[Environmental Education Program]. COLEF: Tijuana, B.C., Mexico.
El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (COLEF), 2011a, Un proyecto de El Colegio de la
Frontera Norte para la Comunidad de Tijuana [A Project of El Colegio de la
Frontera for the Tijuana Community]. Tijuana, Mexico: COLEF.
El Sol de Tijuana. 2008. Piden propuestas para mejorar la calidad del agua, suelo y aire. 7
April.
El Sol de Tijuana. 2010. Expone CESPT proyectos ante Canadevi. 2 November.
El Sol de Tijuana. 2010a. Listo, evento inaugural de la planta La Morita. 22 April.
El Sol de Tijuana. 2010b. Reanudan alumnos de Cbtis visitas a INNOVACESPT. 8
December.
El Sol de Tijuana. 2010c. Trata CESPT 90% de aguas residuales. 28 April.
El Sol de Tijuana. 2011. Playas de Tijuana, destino tóxico. 18 January.
Ellman, E. and D. Robbins. 1998. Merging sustainable development with wastewater
infrastructure improvement on the U.S.-Mexico border. Journal of Environmental
Health 60: 8-13.
Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third
World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Escobar, A. 1996. Construction Nature: Elements for a post-structuralist political
ecology. Futures 28: 325-343.
Estarada, S.L. 2006. NGOS, Environment, and Gender in Tijuana. In Equity and
Sustainable Development Reflections from the U.S.-Mexico Border. Eds. Jane
Clough-Riquelme and Nora Bringas Rábago. La Jolla, California: Center for U.S.-
Mexican Studies, UCSD.
Estévez, D. 2010. Protecting Press Freedom in an Environment of Violence and
Impunity. In Shared Responsibility: U.S.-Mexico Policy Options for Confronting
Organized Crime. Eds. E.L. Olson, D.A. Shirk, and A. Selee. Washington, D.C.:
Mexico Institute Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Feinstein, D. 2008. Dealing with Tijuana's wastewater. The San Diego Union-Tribune 2
May: B-7.
193

Finco, M.V. and Hepner, G.F. 1999. Investigating US-Mexico Border Community
Vulnerability to Industrial Hazards: A Simulation Study in Ambos Nogales.
Cartography and Geographic Information Science 26: 243-252.
Fischer, M. 2012. Personal Interview. 27 July 2012.
Flores Ortega, J. I., 2010, Reuso de aguas residuales en Tijuana B.C. formulación de
políticas públicas en materia de aguas residuales. “La Línea Morada” En
Tijuana Baja California. [Reuse of wastewater in Tijuana, B.C. Formulation of
public policy on wastewater: “The Purple Line” in Tijuana, Baja California].
Unpublished paper presentation at the Primer Congreso Red de Investigadores
Sociales Sobre Agua.
Flores, A., C. Buckley, and R. Fenner. 2009. Selecting sanitation systems for
sustainability in developing countries. Water Science & Technology 60: 2973-
2982.
Ford, L. 1996. A New and Improved Model of Latin American City Structure.
Geographical Review 86:437-440.
Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon Books.
Fry, W. and J. Zuniga. 2010. Levee breached, causes flooding in Tijuana River Valley.
The San Diego Union-Tribune 22 December.
Gandy, M. 2003. Concrete and Clay: Reworking Nature in New York City. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Gracey, M. 2003. Child health implications of worldwide urbanization. Reviews on
Environmental Health 18: 51-64.
Ghiara, R. and E. Zepeda. 2001. Relative wages and education premium in Tijuana:
1987-1996. Journal of Borderland Studies 16:31-49.
Gleick, P. 2010. Roadmap for sustainable water resources in southwestern North
America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107:21300-21305.
Goldrich, D. and D.V. Carrutheres. 1992. Sustainable Development in Mexico? The
International Politics of Crisis or Opportunity. Latin American Perspectives
19:97-122.
Gómez Sánchez, L. 2011. Estudia si se puede recargar acuíferos [Study if we can
recharge aquifers]. El Mexicano, October 19. Retrieved September 2, 2012 from
El Mexicano Web site at http://www.el-
mexicano.com.mx/informacion/noticias/1/3/estatal/2011/10/19/511632/estudia-si-
se-puede-recargar-acuiferos.aspx
194

Gómez Sánchez, L. 2012. Buscarán infiltrar agua residual tratada en Valle [Looking to
infíltrate treated wastewater in the Valley]. El Mexicano, July 23. Retrieved
September 2, 2012 from the El Mexicano Web site at http://www.el-
mexicano.com.mx/informacion/noticias/1/3/estatal/2012/07/23/596099/buscaran-
infiltrar-agua-residual-tratada-en-valle.aspx
Graham, J.P., Corella-Barud, V., Avitia-Diaz, R., & Gurian, P. 2005. The In-Home
Environment and Household Health: A Cross Sectional Study of Informal Urban
Settlements in Northern Mexico. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, Vol. 2, 394-402.
Griffen, E. and L. Ford. 1980. A Model of Latin American City Structure. Geographical
Review 70: 397-422.
Grineski, S.E. and T.W. Collins. 2008. Exploring patterns of environmental injustice in
the Global South: Maquiladoras in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. Population and
Environment 29: 247-270.
Grineski, S.E. and T.W. Collins. 2010. Environmental injustices in transnational context:
urbanization and industrial hazards in El Paso/Ciudad Júarez. Environment and
Planning A 42: 1308-1327.
Grineski, S.E., T.W. Collins, M. De Lourdes Romo Aguilar, and R. Aldouri. 2010. No
Safe Place: Environmental Hazards & Injustice along Mexico's Northern Border.
Social Forces 88: 2241-2266.
Härdle, W. and L. Simar. 2007. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Berlin:
Springer.
Hardoy, J.E. D. Mitlin, and D. Satterthwaite. 1992. Environmental problems in Third
World cities. London: Earthscan.
Harleman, D.R.F. and S. Murcott. 1999. The role of physical-chemical wastewater
treatment in the mega-cities of the developing world. Water Science and
Technology 40: 75-80.
Harvey, D. 1996. Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference. Cambridge:
Blackwell Publishers.
Hazin, L.S. 1997. Toward More Efficient Urban Water Management in Mexico. Water
International 22:153-158.
He, X.E. and J.P. Tiefenbacher. 2008. Political and cultural contrasts in reporting about
disasters: comparing United States and Chinese newspaper portrayals of bridge
collapses. Geojournal 73: 133-147.
195

Hecht, S.B. and A. Cockburn. 1990. The Fate of the Forests: Developers, Destroyers,
and Defenders of the Amazon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Herzog, L.A. 1999. Urban Planning and Sustainability in the Transfrontier Metropolis. In
Sustainable Development in San Diego –Tijuana: Environmental, Social, and
Economic Implications of Interdependence, ed. M. J. Spalding. La Jolla: Center
for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.
Herzog, L.A., ed. 2000. Shared Space: Rethinking the U.S.-Mexico Border Environment.
La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.
Heynen, N.C., M. Kaika, and E. Swyngedouw. 2006. Urban political ecology:
Politicization of urban natures. In In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political
Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism eds. Nik Heynen, Maria Kaika,
and Erik Swyngedouw. London: Routledge.
Holding, E. 2010. U.S. can't compete with Mexico in treating water. San Diego
Newsroom, April 27. Retrieved September 13, 2012 from the San Diego
Newsroom Web site at
http://www.sandiegonewsroom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl
e&id=42180:emily-holding&catid=41:water&Itemid=58
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of
California. California Department of Fish and Game unpublished report.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). 2000. Censo de Pobalción y
Vivienda 2000 [2000 Census of Population and Housing]. Aguas Calientes,
Mexico: INEGI.
International Boundary and Water Commission. 2010. Strategic Plan 2008-2013. El
Paso: IBWC.
Inzunza, G. 1998. Threatening South Bay's environment The San Diego Union-Tribune.
12 November. B-13.
Jauregui, E., 1990/91, Influence of Large Urban Parks on Temperature and Convective
Precipitation in a Tropical City. Energy and Buildings, Vol. 15, 457-468.
Jeffrey, P., R. Seaton, S. Parsons, and T. Stephenson, 1997, Evaluation methods for the
design of adaptive water supply systems in urban environments. Water Science
Technology, Vol. 35, 45-51.
Jenssen, P.D., L. Vrale, and O. Lindholm. 2007. Sustainable Wastewater Treatment. In
L. Seng, editor, Proceedings of the international conference on natural resources
and environmental management an environmental safety and health. Kuching,
Malaysia 27-29 November.
196

Jerrett, M. and M. Finkelstein. 2005. Geographies of Risk in Studies Linking Chronic Air
Pollution Exposure to Health Outcomes. Journal of Toxicology and
Environmental Health, Part A 68: 1207-1242.
Jetten, M.S.M., S. J. Horn, and M.C.M. van Loosdrect. 1997. Towards a More
Sustainable Wastewater Treatment System. Water Science and Technology 35:
171-180.
Kaika, M. 2005. City of Flows: Modernity, Nature, and the City. New York: Routledge.
Kaika, M. and E. Swyngedouw. 2000. Fetishizing the Modern City: The Phantasmagoria
of Urban Technological Networks. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research. 24: 120-138.
Keil, R. 2003. Progress Report: Urban Political Ecology. Urban Geography 24:723-738.
Keil, R. 2005. Progress Report—Urban Political Ecology. Urban Geography 26:640-651.
Kopinak, K. and M. del Rocio Barajas.2002. Too Close for Comfort? The Proximity of
Industrial Hazardous Wastes to Local Populations in Tijuana, Baja California. The
Journal of Environment Development 11: 215-246.
Lawson, C. 2002. Building the Fourth Estate: Democratization and the Rise of a Free
Press in Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lee, M. 2007. Bajagua plan may be on brink Sewage- treatment option seen as captive to
Feinstein's clout. The San Diego Union-Tribune. 15 July: B-1.
Lee, M. 2007a. Border sewage plant delayed Commission suspends all Bajagua
wastewater plans. The San Diego Union-Tribune. 10 May: B-1.
Lee, M. 2007b. Further delays seen for border sewage plant. The San Diego Union-
Tribune 18 March: B-1.
Lee, M. 2007c. Land for Tijuana sewage plant located, says San Marcos firm. The San
Diego Union-Tribune 2 February: B-1.
Lee, M. 2008. Feds plan upgrade of sewage facility: $100 million to go to plant in San
Ysidro. The San Diego Union-Tribune. 16 May.
Lee, M. 2008a. No clear solution to border pollution; Agency picks neither of 2 sewage
projects San Diego Union-Tribune 24 April: B-1.
Lee, M. 2008b. Plans to upgrade wastewater plant called a `victory'; Officials select firm
to do work. The San Diego Union-Tribune 14 Nov: B-1.
Lee, M. 2008c. Two options being pressed on treating sewage from Tijuana Strategy
decision still months away. The San Diego Union-Tribune. 23 January B-3.
197

Lee, M. 2008d. Wastewater Treatment Facility. The San Diego Union-Tribune. 18 May:
B-3.
Lee, M. 2009. Work starts on sewage plant expansion. The San Diego Union-Tribune. 31
January: B-3.
Lee, M. 2010. No cleanup in huge TJ sewage spill: Mexican discharge raises
jurisdictional, legal issues. The San Diego Union-Tribune 10 July.
Lee, M. 2010a. Spills suggest problems aren't under control; Second sewage overflow
since June flows into U.S. The San Diego Union-Tribune. 20 July.
Lee, M. 2011. Using trash to track Tijuana's trash Unusual study's goal: To determine
sources of cross-border flow of garbage. The San Diego Union-Tribune. 13
February.
Leichenko, R.M. and W.D. Solecki. 2008. Consumption, Inequity, and Environmental
Justice: The Making of New Metropolitan Landscapes in Developing Countries.
Society and Natural Resources 21:611-624.
Liddick, S.D. 2007. A Sewer Runs Through It. San Diego Magazine
http://www.sandiegomagazine.com/media/San-Diego-Magazine/December-
2007/A-Sewer-Runs-Through-It/
Luecke, D, 2012, Personal Interview, July 13, 2012.
Luecke, D. and C. de la Parra. 1994. Experiment in Tijuana: A Low-Tech Approach to
Wastewater Management. California Coast and Ocean 10:7-15.
Lumpkin, B. 2000. Baja sewage worries official; Higher bacteria counts are cited. The
San Diego Union-Tribune. 8 January: B-1:7
Martin, D.G. 2002. “Place-Framing” as Place-Making: Constituting Neighborhood for
Organizing and Activisim. Annals of the Association of American Geographers
95:730-750.
Massoud, M.A., A. Tarhini, and J.A. Nasr. 2009. Decentralized approaches to wastewater
treatment and management: Applicability in developing countries. Journal of
Environmental Management, 90: 652-659.
McEnany, A. 2012. Personal Inerview. 23 May 2012.
McGranahan, G. and D. Satterthwaite. 2003. Urban Centers: An Assessment of
Sustainability. Annual Review of Environmental Resources,28: 243-274.
McGranahan, G., P. Jacobi, J. Songsore, C. Surjadi, and M. Kjellen. 2001. The Citizens at
Risk: From Urban Sanitation to Sustainable Cities. London: Earthscan.
198

Medina, M., 2000, Low-Tech Option for Wastewater Treatment, Water Reuse, and
Nutrient Recycling. Biocycle International, Vol. 40, 66-70.
Meyer, H.G., 2001, Tijuana gets green with park fed recycled water; Ecoparque faces
growth questions. The San Diego Union-Tribune, July 30, B-1.
Miller, Byron A. 2000. Geography and Social Movements: Comparing Antinuclear
Activism in the Boston Area. Minneapolis: Minnesota Press.
Minan, J.H. 2001. Pollution violations at the border. The San Diego Union-Tribune 4
September. B-9.
Mitchell, D. 2003.The Right to City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Mitchell, G. and D. Dorling. 2003. An environmental justice analysis of British air
quality. Environment and Planning A 35:909-929.
Mitlin, D. and D. Satterthwaite. 1996. Sustainable Development and Cities. In C. Pugh,
editor, Sustainability, the Environment and Urbanization. London, U.K:
Earthscan, 23-62.
Mondragón, A. 2007. Recibirá CESPT visitas de funcionarios. El Sol de Tijuana. 2
August.
Mondragón, A. 2008. El Río Tijuana, entre los más contaminados del país. El Sol de
Tijuana. 10 June.
Mondragón, A. 2009. Descargas y el Proyecto Morado. El Sol de Tijuana. 20 July.
Mondragón, A. 2010. Entregará Conagua más de 65 mdp. El Sol de Tijuana.15
November.
Mondragón, A. 2010a. Fuerte inversión pare el reuso de aguas negras. El Sol de Tijuana.
9 August.
Mondragón, A. 2010b. Inauguran planta de tratamiento de aguas residuales La Morita. El
Sol de Tijuana. 27 April.
Mondragón, A. 2010c. Realiza CESPT mantenimiento a planta de tratamiento El
Refugio. El Sol de Tijuana. 20 May.
Mondragón, A. 2010d. Recorre CESPT distintas colonias. El Sol de Tijuana. 15 June.
Mondragón, A. 2010e. Refuerzan planta Punta Bandera. El Sol de Tijuana. 14 May.
Mondragón, A. 2010f. Repararán boquete en tres días. El Sol de Tijuana. 29 December.
199

Mondragón, A. 2010g. Trata CESPT 90% de aguas residuales. El Sol de Tijuana 28
April. http://www.oem.com.mx/elsoldetijuana/notas/n1613662.htm
Mondragón, A. 2011. Confía BDAN en proyectos estatales. El Sol de Tijuana. 9
February.
Mondragón, A. 2011a. Termina problema de contaminación del río Tijuana. El Sol de
Tijuana. 14 May.
Monroy, O. G. Famá, M. Meraz, L. Montoya, and H. Macarie. 2000. Anaerobic
digestion for wastewater treatment in Mexico: State of the Technology. Water
Research 34:1803-1816.
Moore, S. A. 2008. Urban Environmental Politics in Latin America. In Placing Latin
America: Contemporary Themes in Human Geography. eds. E.L. Jackiewicz and
F.J. Bosco. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Moore, S. A. 2008a. The Politics of Garbage in Oaxaca, Mexico. Society and Natural
Resources 21:7597-610.
Moore, S. A. 2008b. Waste Practices and Politics: The Case of Oaxaca, Mexico. In
Environmental Justice in Latin America: Problems, Promise, and Practice ed.
D.V. Carruthers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Morello-Frosch, R., M. Pastor, and J. Sadd. 2001. Environmental Justice and Southern
California’s “Riskscape” The Distribution of Air Toxics Exposures and Health
Risks among Diverse Communities. Urban Affairs Review 36: 551-578.
Muga, H.E. and J.R. Mihelcic. 2008. Sustainability of wastewater treatment technologies.
Journal of Environmental Management 88: 437-447.
Mumme, S.P. 1992. System Maintenance and Environmental Reform in Mexico:
Salinas's Preemptive Strategy. Latin American Perspectives 19:123-143
Nelson, K.L., B.J. Cisneros, G. Tchobanoglous, J.L. Darby. 2004. Sludge accumulation,
characteristics, and pathogen inactivation in four primary waste stabilization
ponds in central Mexico. Water Research 38: 111-127.
Ochoa, S.G. 2008. Cuenta Tijuana con proyecto llamado ''Ecoparque.'' El Sol de Tijuana.
16 October
Ochoa, S.G. 2011. Y la gente aceptó vivir en suciedad. El Sol de Tijuana. 19 January.
Otterpohl, R., M. Grottker, and J. Lange. 1997. Sustainable Waste and Waste
Management in Urban Areas. Water Science and Technology 35: 121-133.
Parkinson, J. and K. Tayler. 2003. Decentralized wastewater management in peri-urban
areas in low-income countries. Environment and Urbanization 15: 75-90.
200

Pastor, M., R. Morello-Frosch, and J.L. Sadd. 2005. The air is always cleaner on the other
side: race, space, and ambient air toxics exposures in California. Journal of Urban
Affairs 27: 127-148.
Pastor, M., R. Morello-Frosch, and J.L. Sadd. 2006. Breathless: schools, air toxics, and
environmental justice in California. Policy Studies Journal 34: 337-362
Pastor, M., Sadd J.L., and R. Morello-Frosch. 2004. Reading, writing and toxics:
children’s health, academic performance, and environmental justice in Los
Angeles. Environment and Planning C 22: 271-290.
Pedlowski, M.A., V.A. Carneiro da Silva, J.J. Corabi Adell, and N.C. Heynen. 2002.
Urban forests and environmental inequality in Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil. Urban Ecosystems 6: 9-20.
Pellow, D.N. 2007. Resisting Global Toxics: Transnational Movements for
Environmental Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Peña, S. 2006. Recent developments in urban marginality along Mexico’s northern
border. Habitat International 29: 285-301.
Pezzoli, K.1998. Human Settlements and Planning for Ecological Sustainability: The
Case of Mexico City. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Pezzoli, K. 2006. Cross-Border Regionalism and Sustainability: Contributions of Critical
Regional Ecology. In Equity and Sustainable Development: Reflections from the
U.S.-Mexico Border, eds. J. Clough-Riquelme and N. Bringas Rábago. Boulder,
CO.: Lynne Rienner Publishers
Pombo, O.A. 2000. Water Use and Sanitation Practices in Peri-Urban Areas of Tijuana:
A Demand-Side Perspective. In Sustainable Development in San Diego –Tijuana:
Environmental, Social, and Economic Implications of Interdependence, ed. M. J.
Spalding. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California,
San Diego.
Powers, C. 1999. Sewage ponds at the border: There's more than meets the eye xxx. The
San Diego Union-Tribune 23 June: B-9.
Pulido, L. 1996. Environmentalism and Economic Justice: Two Chicano Struggles in the
Southwest. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Ravelo, M. 2008. Arsénico... y Encaje: Quejas oficiales y populares. El Sol de Tijuana.
21 March.
Rees, W.E. 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban
economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 4, 121-131.
201

Ricks, C. 2000. `Big brother' and South Bay sewage Residents of the South Bay are still caught
in the throes of a major dilemma. The San Diego Union-Tribune 6 July: B-13.
Roberts, J.T. and N.D. Thanos. 2003. Trouble in Paradise: Globalization and
Environmental Crisis in Latin America. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press.
Rodgers, T. 2007. Report urges new look at two border sewage ideas. The San Diego
Union-Tribune 17 May: B-1.
Romo, O. 1997. Ecoparque: A Sustainable Development Project, Based on a Wastewater
Treatment Plant. In Biotechnology for Water Use and Conservation: The Mexico
'96 Workshop. Paris, France: OECD.
Romo, O. 2012. Personal Interview. May 23, 2012.
Rose, G.D. 1999. Cities Feeding People Series- Report 27: Community-Based
Technologies for Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Reuse: Options for urban
agriculture. Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre.
Salazar, J. 1999. Sustainable Development in San Diego-Tijuana ? The Case of the
International Wastewater Treatment Plant. In Sustainable Development in San
Diego –Tijuana: Environmental, Social, and Economic Implications of
Interdependence, ed. M. J. Spalding. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies,
University of California, San Diego.
Saldana, L. 1998. The trouble with Tijuana's toxins. The San Diego Union-Tribune 17
February: B-7.
Saldana, L. 2005. Bajagua boondoggle: A no-bid sewage plant contract. The San Diego
Union-Tribune 15 December: B-11.
Saldana, L. and D.M. Ducheny. 2005. Sewage plant woes nothing new. The San Diego
Union-Tribune 1 September: B-11.
Sánchez Aguirre, A.L. 2008. Miles de estudiantes visitan el Ecoparque. El Sol de
Tijuana. 20 February.
Sánchez Aguirre, A.L. 2011. En autorización dos plantas de tratamiento para Tijuana. El
Sol de Tijuana. 6 February.
Sánchez Aguirre, A.L. 2011a. Cierran playa por contaminación. El Sol de Tijuana. 19
January.
Sánchez Aguirre, A.L. 2011b. Sigue fuga de drenaje al pacífico. El Sol de Tijuana. 25
January.
202

Sassen, S. 1994. The Urban Complex in A World-Economy. International Social Science
Journal 46:43-62.
Satterthwaite, D. 1997. Sustainable Cities or cities that Contribute to Sustainable
Development? Urban Studies 34: 1667-1691.
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.
Scott, J.C. 1990. Domination of the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
Secretara de Desarrollo Social (SEDESOE). 2008.Situación de desarrollo social en Baja
California. http://www.bajacalifornia.gob.mx/sedesoe/situacion/vivienda.html last
accessed 23 March 2012.
Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT). 1997. Norma
Oficial Mexicana NOM-003-SEMARNAT-1997 que establece los límites máximos
permisibles de contaminantes para las aguas residuales tratadas que se reúsen en
servicios al público. [Official Mexican Law NOM-003-SEMARNAT-1997 that
establishes the maximum permissible limits for contaminants of treated
wastewater to be reused in services to the public]. Mexico City: Diario Oficial de
la Federación.
Simmons, J. 1999. Stopping cross-border sewage flows. The San Diego Union-Tribune
21 November: G-3.
Simmons, J. 1999. Stopping cross-border sewage flows. The San Diego Union-Tribune
21 November: G-3
Snow, D.A. and R.D. Benford. 1988. Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant
Mobilization. International Social Movement Research 1: 197-217.
Snow, D.A. and R.D. Benford. 1992. Master Frames and Cycles of Protest. In Frontiers
in Social Movement Research eds. A.D. Morris and C. Mclurg Miller. Providence:
Yale University Press.
Snow, D.A., E.B. Rochford, Jr., S.K. Worden, R.D. Benford. 1986. Frame Alignment
Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation. American
Sociological Review 51:464-481.
Sonnet, J., B.J. Morehouse, T.D. Finger, G. Garfin, N. Rattray. 2006. Drought and
declining reservoirs: Comparing media discourse in Arizona and New Mexico,
2000-2004. Global Environmental Change 16:95-113.
203

Spalding, M.J. 1999. Preface. In Sustainable Development in San Diego –Tijuana:
Environmental, Social, and Economic Implications of Interdependence, ed. M. J.
Spalding. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California,
San Diego
Spalding, M.J. 2000. The NAFTA Environmental Institutions and Sustainable
Development on the US-MX border. In Shared Space: Rethinking the U.S.-
Mexico Border Environment ed. L.A. Herzog. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican
Studies, University of California, San Diego.
Suriyachan, C., V. Nitivattananon, A.T.M.N. Amin. 2012. Potential of decentralized
wastewater management for urban development: Case of Bangkok. Habitat
International 36:85-92.
Swyngedouw, E. 2004. Social Power and the Urbanization of Water: Flows of Power.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swyngedouw, E. 2006. Metabolic urbanization: The making of cyborg cities. In In the
Nature of Cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism
eds. Nik Heynen, Maria Kaika, and Erik Swyngedouw. London: Routledge.
Swyngedouw, E. and N.C. Heynen. 2003. Urban Political Ecology, Justice, and the
Politics of Scale. Antipode 35: 898-919.
The San Diego Union-Tribune. 2000. In with the tide; A Mexican sewage plant and beach
pollution. May 12: B-8
The San Diego Union-Tribune. 2001. Pipe breaks, spilling sewage toward ocean. 4
December. B-3.
The San Diego Union-Tribune. 2007. Build Bajagua Don't let critics sabotage this
project. May 20.
The San Diego Union-Tribune. 2010. Sewage spill fatigue; Despite progress on both
sides of border, problems endure. 22 July: B-6.
Thompson, J.B. 1995. The Media and Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Townsend, K. and J. Eyles. 2004. Capacity and transparency of potable water regulation
in Tijuana, Mexico: challenges for ensuring water quality at community level.
Health Promotion International 19:77-83.
UN-HABITAT. 2006. What are slums and why do they exist? Nairobi: United Nations
Human Settlements Programme.
204

United Nations Population Division (UNPD). 2008. United Nations Expert Group
Meeting on Population Distribution, Urbanization, Internal Migration and
Development. New York: Population Division, Department of Economics and
Social Affairs.
United Church of Christ. 1987. Toxic Waste and Race in the United States. New York:
UCC Commission for Racial Justice.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2000. Wastewater
Technology Fact Sheet: Trickling Filters. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002. Wastewater
Technology Fact Sheet: Facultative Lagoons. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Border 2012: U.S.-
Mexico Environmental Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2008, U.S.-Mexico
Environmental Program: Border 2012: A Mid-Course Refinement (2008-2012).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA. 2011. U.S.-Mexico Border 2012: Environmental Issues.
http://www.epa.gov/Border2012/issues.html last accessed 10 January 2012.
Wilderer, P.A., and D. Schreff, 2000, Decentralized and centralized wastewater
management: A challenge for technology developers. Water Science and
Technology, Vol. 41, 1-8.
Wilkie, D. 2007. Bajagua plan changes draw Filner's wrath He berates federal officials,
vows to block alternative private company may be out. The San Diego Union-
Tribune. 11 July: B-1.
World Bank. 2012. Introduction to Wastewater Treatment Processes. Retrieved
September 13, 2012 from the World Bank Web site at
http://water.worldbank.org/shw-resource-guide/infrastructure/menu-technical-
options/wastewater-treatment
World Health Organization. 2000. Global water supply and sanitation assessment 2000
report. New York and Geneva: WHO and UNICEF.
Yu, H., J-H Tay, and F. Wilson. 1997. A Sustainable Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Process for Tropical and Subtropical Regions in Developing Countries. Water
Science and Technology 35: 191-198.
Zebich-Knos, M. 2008. Ecotourism, Park Systems, and Environmental Justice in Latin
America. In Environmental Justice in Latin America: Problems, Promise, and
Practice ed. D.V. Carruthers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
205

Zeisel, K., N. Paredes, and D. Brunelle. 2006. The North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA): Effects on human rights. International Federation of Human
Rights. Retrieved from http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/Mexique448-ang2006.pdf.
Last accessed 28 March 2012.

206

APPENDIX A: CORRELATION MATRIX

The CORR Procedure

15 Variables: P_NODRAIN AVGEDUC P_FEMHEAD P_COMP P_CAR
P_0TO14
P_5YRRES P_PIPEH2O P_WALLSTRONG P_ROOFSTRONG P_FLOORCEM
PERC_SLOPE
SLOPE_CODE GEOMORPH VEG

Simple Statistics

Variable N Mean Std Dev Sum Minimum Maximum

P_NODRAIN 346 0.14565 0.21930 50.39500 0 0.86400

AVGEDUC 346 8.30266 1.47562 2873 6.14000 13.86000
P_FEMHEAD 346 0.21270 0.04867 73.59400 0.08500 0.35500
P_COMP 346 0.16083 0.13261 55.64600 0 0.71300
P_CAR 346 0.62621 0.14341 216.66900 0.27400 0.96000
P_0TO14 346 0.29678 0.05467 102.68600 0.07500 0.41900
P_5YRRES 346 0.64424 0.08213 222.90600 0.29800 0.82100
P_PIPEH2O 346 0.73475 0.26483 254.22200 0 0.99500
P_WALLSTRONG 346 0.61997 0.24602 214.50800 0.09900 1.00000
P_ROOFSTRONG 346 0.41397 0.27735 143.23300 0.03600 0.99500
P_FLOORCEM 346 0.94978 0.06034 328.62500 0.63300 1.00000
PERC_SLOPE 346 10.82769 6.72963 3746 0.88000 44.96000
SLOPE_CODE 346 0.27457 0.47217 95.00000 0 2.00000
GEOMORPH 346 6.44798 2.79210 2231 1.00000 10.00000
VEG 346 246.91040 23.06878 85431 30.00000 250.00000

207

Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 346
Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0

P_NODRAIN AVGEDUC P_FEMHEAD P_COMP P_CAR P_0TO14 P_5YRRES P_PIPEH2O

P_NODRAIN 1.00000

AVGEDUC -0.56911 1.00000
<.0001

P_FEMHEAD -0.41012 0.09975 1.00000
<.0001 0.0638

P_COMP -0.53837 0.90554 0.20863 1.00000
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001

P_CAR -0.55124 0.88360 0.00273 0.84964 1.00000
<.0001 <.0001 0.9596 <.0001

P_0TO14 0.57124 -0.55013 -0.52630 -0.65063 -0.49600 1.00000
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

P_5YRRES -0.39282 0.12369 0.51004 0.28952 0.16112 -0.25702 1.00000
<.0001 0.0214 <.0001 <.0001 0.0026 <.0001

P_PIPEH2O -0.90455 0.67964 0.41553 0.63829 0.65374 -0.61488 0.45764 1.00000
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

P_WALLSTRONG
-0.74235 0.80972 0.20152 0.71040 0.76757 -0.55596 0.24116 0.84063
<.0001 <.0001 0.0002 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

P_ROOFSTRONG
-0.54470 0.76278 -0.00514 0.61046 0.67916 -0.30130 0.10468 0.63866
<.0001 <.0001 0.9242 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0517 <.0001

P_FLOORCEM
-0.79426 0.54574 0.33262 0.50697 0.58711 -0.60488 0.38971 0.82637
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

PERC_SLOPE 0.25158 -0.29353 0.01619 -0.25514 -0.32735 0.28647 0.13810 -0.24213
<.0001 <.0001 0.7642 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0101 <.0001

SLOPE_CODE 0.25107 -0.26019 0.02580 -0.20079 -0.30247 0.24331 0.10819 -0.25301
<.0001 <.0001 0.6325 0.0002 <.0001 <.0001 0.0443 <.0001

GEOMORPH 0.13329 -0.15809 -0.29718 -0.20771 -0.05254 0.32563 -0.16286 -0.13840
0.0131 0.0032 <.0001 <.0001 0.3298 <.0001 0.0024 0.0100

VEG -0.15891 0.06747 0.06304 0.09048 0.09084 -0.08177 0.08093 0.13806
0.0030 0.2106 0.2422 0.0929 0.0916 0.1290 0.1330 0.0101

208

Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 346
Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0

PERC_ SLOPE_
P_WALLSTRONG P_ROOFSTRONG P_FLOORCEM SLOPE CODE GEOMORPH VEG

P_NODRAIN -0.74235 -0.54470 -0.79426 0.25158 0.25107 0.13329 -0.15891
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0131 0.0030

AVGEDUC 0.80972 0.76278 0.54574 -0.29353 -0.26019 -0.15809 0.06747
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0032 0.2106

P_FEMHEAD 0.20152 -0.00514 0.33262 0.01619 0.02580 -0.29718 0.06304
0.0002 0.9242 <.0001 0.7642 0.6325 <.0001 0.2422

P_COMP 0.71040 0.61046 0.50697 -0.25514 -0.20079 -0.20771 0.09048
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0002 <.0001 0.0929

P_CAR 0.76757 0.67916 0.58711 -0.32735 -0.30247 -0.05254 0.09084
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.3298 0.0916

P_0TO14 -0.55596 -0.30130 -0.60488 0.28647 0.24331 0.32563 -0.08177
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.1290

P_5YRRES 0.24116 0.10468 0.38971 0.13810 0.10819 -0.16286 0.08093
<.0001 0.0517 <.0001 0.0101 0.0443 0.0024 0.1330

P_PIPEH2O 0.84063 0.63866 0.82637 -0.24213 -0.25301 -0.13840 0.13806
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0100 0.0101

P_WALLSTRONG 1.00000 0.88748 0.75210 -0.29808 -0.27135 -0.08850 0.07897
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.1003 0.1427

P_ROOFSTRONG 1.00000 0.50692 -0.21590 -0.18619 -0.06088 0.04155
<.0001 <.0001 0.0005 0.2587 0.4410

P_FLOORCEM 1.00000 -0.30376 -0.32377 -0.14792 0.15676
<.0001 <.0001 0.0058 0.0035

PERC_SLOPE 1.00000 0.83561 0.06091 -0.26198
<.0001 0.2585 <.0001

SLOPE_CODE 1.00000 -0.00123 -0.22206
0.9819 <.0001

GEOMORPH 1.00000 0.02241
0.6779

VEG 1.00000

209

APPENDIX B: TUKEY’S TEST MEAN DIFFERENCE

AVGEDUC COMPARISON Mean
Difference
95% Confidence limits
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
0 1 0.32709* 0.29469 0.35949
2 0.39423* 0.34289 0.44557
1 0 -0.32709* -0.35949 -0.29469
2 0.06714* 0.02052 0.11375
2 0 -0.39423* -0.44557 -0.34289
1 -0.06714* -0.11375 -0.02052
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
PIPEH2O COMPARISON Mean
Difference
95% Confidence limits
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
0 1 0.41882* 0.38638 0.45126
2 0.46248* 0.41214 0.51281
1 0 -0.41882* -0.45126 -0.38638
2 0.04366 -0.00188 0.08920
2 0 -0.46248* -0.51281 -0.41214
1 -0.04366 -0.08920 0.00188
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

210

GEOMORPHOLOGY
COMPARISON
Mean
Difference
95% Confidence limits
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1 2 0.02676 -0.06719 0.12070
3 -0.02753 -0.15120 0.09613
4 0.06035 -0.19707 0.31777
5 -0.29565* -0.44086 -0.15044
6 -0.12987* -0.21949 -0.04024
7 -0.03759* -0.18521 -0.00519
8 -0.12753* -0.21526 -0.03979
9 -0.46865* -0.65877 -0.27853
10 -0.03759 -0.12619 0.05101
2 1 -0.02676 -0.12070 0.06719
3 -0.0529 -0.16415 0.05557
4 0.03359 -0.21749 0.28468
5 -0.32241* -0.45606 -0.18876
6 -0.15662* -0.22598 -0.08727
7 -0.12196* -0.19181 -0.05211
8 -0.15428* -0.22118 -0.08738
9 -0.49541* -0.67685 -0.31396
10 -0.06435 -0.13237 0.00368
3 1 0.02753 -0.09613 0.15120
2 0.05429 -0.05557 0.16415
4 0.08788 -0.17576 0.35153
5 -0.26812* -0.42409 -0.11214
6 -0.10233 -0.20852 0.00386
211

7 -0.06767 -0.17418 0.03885
8 -0.0999 -0.20459 0.00461
9 -0.4412* -0.63958 -0.24265
10 -0.01005 -0.11538 -0.09527
4 1 -0.06035 -0.31777 0.19707
2 -0.03359 -0.28468 0.21749
3 -0.08788 -0.35153 0.17576
5 -0.35600* -0.63041 -0.08159
6 -0.19022 -0.43972 0.05928
7 -0. 15555 -0.40519 0.09409
8 -0.18788 -0.43670 0.06095
9 -0.52900* -0.82960 0.22840
10 -0.09794 -0.34707 0.15119
5 1 0.29565* 0.15044 0.44086
2 0.32241* 0.18876 0.45606
3 0.26812* 0.12811 0.42409
4 0.35600* 0.08159 0.63041
6 0.16578* 0.03514 0.29643
7 0.20045* 0.06954 0.33136
8 0.16813* 0.03877 0.29748
9 -0.17300 -0.38556 0.03956
10 0.25806* 0.12811 0.38801
6 1 0.12987* 0.04024 0.21949
2 0.15662* 0.08727 0.22598
3 0.10233 -0.00386 0.20852
4 0.19022 -0.05928 0.43972
212

5 -0.16578* -0.29643 -0.03514
7 0.03466 -0.02925 0.06392
8 0.00234 -0.05833 0.06302
9 -0.33878* -0.51803 -0.15954
10 0.09228* 0.03036 0.15419
7 1 0.09520* 0.00519 0.18521
2 0.12196* 0.05211 0.19181
3 0.06767 -0.03885 0.17418
4 0.15555 -0.09409 0.40519
5 -0.20045* -0.33136 -0.06954
6 -0.03466 -0.09858 0.02925
8 -0.03232 -0.09357 0.02892
9 -0.37345* -0.55289 -0.19401
10 0.05761 -0.00486 0.12008
8 1 0.12753* 0.03979 0.21526
2 0.15428* 0.08738 0.22118
3 0.09999 -0.0046 0.20459
4 0.18788 -0.06095 0.43670
5 -0.16813* -0.29748 -0.03877
6 -0.00234 -0.06302 0.05833
7 0.03232 -0.02892 0.09357
9 -0.34113* -0.51943 -0.16282
10 0.08994* 0.03078 0.14909
9 1 0.46865* 0.27853 0.65877
2 0.49541* 0.31396 0.67685
3 0.44112* 0.24265 0.63958
213

4 0.52900* 0.22840 0.82960
5 0.17300 -0.03956 0.38556
6 0.33878* 0.15954 0.51803
7 0.37345* 0.19401 0.55289
8 0.34113* 0.16282 0.51943
10 0.43106* 0.25233 0.55289
10 1 -0.03759 -0.05101 0.12619
2 0.06435 -0.00368 0.13237
3 0.01005 -0.09527 0.11538
4 0.09794 -0.15119 0.34707
5 -0.25806* 0.38801 -0.12811
6 -0.09228* -0.15419 -0.03036
7 -0.05761 -0.12008 0.00486
8 -0.08994* -0.14909 -0.03078
9 -0.43106* -0.60980 -0.25233
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

214

APPENDIX C: PROBLEM AND SOLUTION TERM LISTS ENGLISH

Problem
words
Acute toxicity
Adequate
Administration
Advanced primary
level
Affect
Afford
Aggravation
Alter
Argue
Beach
Bog
Border
Boundary
Breach
Break
Budget
Business
Carry on
Catastrophe
Cease
Certain
Challenge
Change
Chemical
Clean
Close
Cloud
Coastline
Company
Comply
Compound
Congress
Contaminate
Contest
Continue
Condemn
Crack
Crisis
Criticize
Cross-border
Current
Damage
Debate
Deficit
Defile
Delay
Deluge
Demand
Diplomatic
Dirty
Disaster
Discharge
Disparity
Dispute
Disregard
Distress
Disturbance
Down
Earthquake
Ecology
Economic
Ecosystem
Effluent
Electricity
Element
Emergency
Energy
End
Endure
Enforce
Enough
Environment
EPA
Equitable
Existing
Factory
Fail
Fair
Filthy
Financial
Fiscal
Fish
Flood
Flow
Flush
Foot-dragging
Foul
Fracture
Frustration
Function
Fund
Government
Harmful
Hill
House
IBWC
Ignore
Imperial Beach
Impossible
Impartial
Implicate
Impractical
Infect
Influence
Inundate
Insist
International
Include
Involve
Issue
Law
Legal
Level
Local
Loss
Liability
Limit
Maintain
Maintenance
Management
Mandate
Manipulate
Marsh
Mexico
Mixed
Modify
More
NAFTA
Nature
Near
Negative
Network
Northward
Nuisance
Ocean
Ocean currents
Operation
Opposition
Outfall
Overflow
Partially
Partly
Pathogens
Permit
Persist
Philosophy
Plague
Plume
Poison
Political
Pollute
Population growth
Power
Primary
Priority
Private
Problem
Prolong
Raw
Question
Refuse
Regulation
Release
Remainder
215

Remnant
Requirement
Responsibility
Resource
Restriction
Results
Rival
River
Rule
Runoff
Rupture
Sanitation
Sea
Secondary
Seepage
September 11
Services
Setback
Sewage
Shore
Shoreline
Shortfall
Slope
Solids
Soiled
South Bay
Spill
Split
Spoil
Standards
Stop
Stream
Subject
Substance
Subtle
Suffer
Sufficient
Supply
Sure
Surf
Swamp
Swim
System
Taint
Taxpayer
Terminate
Test
Tijuana
Tijuana River
Valley
Time
Topic
Topography
Toxic
Trash
Trouble
Unbiased
Unclean
Underfund
Undergo
Unsanitary
Untreated
Varied
Violate
Want
Waste
Wastewater
Water
Water quality

216

Solution
words

Accommodate
Action
Activated sludge
Additional
Agenda
Aim
Allow
Alternative
Ambitious
Analysis
Application
Approve
Aqueduct
Assemble
Authorize
Bacteria
Bajagua
Bio-filters
Board
Bridge
Build
Canal
Capability
Capacity
Capture
Catch
Channel
Chart
Choice
Choose
Cistern
Citizen
Clean
Collaboration
Collectors
Commissions
Commitment
Communication
Community
Company
Compel
Compensate
Concrete
Conduit
Conform
Connect
Consent
Conservation
Consortium
Construct
Construction
Consult
Contact
Contract
Cooperation
Correspond
Create
Decide
Decision
Decrease
Desalinization
Design
Develop
Diminish
Discussion
Eliminate
Endorse
Enforce
Enhance
Enlarge
Erect
Examine
Expand
Explore
Extend
Extra
Fair
Filters
Financier
Fit
Fix
Fresh
Force
Forum
Forward
Function
Gap
Goal
Government
Grand
Hygienic
Idea
Impose
Improve
Infrastructure
Inhabitant
Inspect
Interact
Investigate
Investor
Involvement
Irrigation
IWTP
Join
Judicial
Just
Landfills
Large-scale
Legal
Lesson
Link
Little
Long-term
Low-tech
Lower
Make
Map
Match
Meeting
Microbes
Microorganism
Minor
Moderate
Monitor
Negotiations
Neighborhood
Objective
Observe
Official
Open-air
Operate
Option
Organization
Outline
Panel
Park
Participation
Permit
Pipe
Pipeline
Plan
Plant
Pond
Potential
Practical
Private
Processor
Program
Progress
Project
Promote
Proposal
Public works
Pursue
Qualitative
Rational
Realistic
Reasonable
Rebar
Recover
Reclaim
Recycle
Reduce
Refund
Reimburse
Remove
Repay
Research
Reservoir
Resident
Responsibility
Require
Return
Reuse
Role
Sanction
Sanitary
Screen
Select
Sierra Club
217

Sieve
Sluice
Small
Solution
Solve
Structure
Study
Suggestion
Support
Tank
Target
Task
Technology
Transform
Treat
Treatment
Trivial
U.S. Clean water
act
Underground
Unite
Upgrade
Volume
Work

218

APPENDIX D :PROBLEM AND SOLUTION TERM LIST SPANISH
Palabras
Problemas

Abatir
Acabar
Acelerado
Acuíferos
Acentuar
Acequia
Acuático
Ácueo
Adecuado
Afectar
Afligir
Agravarse
Agua
Agua potable
Aguacero
Aguas negras
Agudizar
Alarmante
Alrededores
Alternativa
Altos
Ambigüedad
Anárquico
Ancestral
Apremiado
Apresurado
Apropiadas
Aprovisionar
Aptitud
Apto
Apurado
Arbitro
Arduo
Arroyo
Arroyo Alamar
Arruinar
Asentado
Asentamiento
Población
Autoridad
Bacteria
Bajar
Barranco
Barro
Basura
Calzada
Cambio climático
Camino
Canal
Caño
Cárcamos
Carencia
Casa
Cauce
Caudal
Causar
Censo
Cerrar
CESPT
Chaparrón
Ciudadanía
Cobertura
Colonia
Competencia
Complicación
Conflicto
Complicado
Concluir
Conducción
Conducir
Conducto
Confluya
Confuso
Consecuencia
Contaminante(s)
Contradicción
Contrariedad
Correcto
Corriente
Costo
Crear
Crecer
Crecimiento
Critica
Cruzar
Cubierta
Cuenca
Cuenca del río
Tijuana
Cuidado
Dañar/Dañada
Debilitarse
Declinar
Declinar
Decrecer
Déficit
Delegados
Dependencia
Derrames
Derruir
Derrumbes
Desaguar
Desagüe
Desborden
Descargar
Descender
Descubrir
Desechos
Desembocadura
Desenlace
Desgaste
Deshacer
Desierto
Deslaves
Desordenado
Desparrames
Desperdicios
Despojos
Desplome
Despojos
Destino
Destrucción
Destruir
Deterioro
Degradación
Deuda
Diferente
Difícil
Difusión
Dirección
Dirigir
Disímil
Disminución
Disminuir
Disparar
Dispersión
Distintos
Domiciliaras
Drenaje
Duda
Ecosistema
naturaleza
Efecto
Efluente
Efusión
Eludir
Emisión
Empeorar
Desmejorar
En el marco del
acuerdo
Encontrar
Enfermedad
intestinal
Erosión
Error
Escasez
Escurrimientos
superficiales
Esquemas
Estándares
Excluir
Excrementos
Existir
Fabricaciones
Fábricas
Falla
Falta
Familiar
Fango
Flujo
Forma
219

Fronteriza
Fuente
Funcionarios
Fundamentos
Medios
Generar
Grado
Habitación
Hábitat
Hídrico
Higiene
Hogares
Huella
Hundimiento
Impedir
Incompatibilidad
Incrementar
Indicador
Industrias
Inferioridad
Influir
Infraestructura
Inmundicia
Inspección
Insuficiencia
Inundar
Laboroso
Lanzamiento
Lecho de arroyo
Límite
Limo
Líquido
Llegar
Lluvias
Lodo
Mando
Manufacturas
Mar
Marea
Medio ambiente
Miasma
Microbio
Microorganismo
Módulo
Molestia
Negligencia
Nivel(es)
Obligaciones
Necesidades
Requerimientos
Restricciones
Océano
Oficiales
Burócratas
Oficinistas
Olvido
Omisión
Opinar
Orientar
Origen
Oxidación
Padrón
Pérdida
Perjudicar
Pertinente
Piel
Plantilla
Playas
Pleamar
Pluvial
Poblado
Pobreza
Poder
Populoso
Poso
Precio
Precipitación
Preferencia
Presión
Prevenir
Principio
Prioridad
Problema
Producto
Propio
Proveer
Provisión
Quitar
Rambla
Ramificación
Raquítico
Rebosar
Rechazar
Recurrente
Red
Red de tubería
Redundar
Refugio
Registro
Repercusión
Requisitos
Residencia
Residuos
Respiratorias
Restos
Resultado
Retirar
Riegues
Río
Rio Tijuana
Romper
Rompimiento
Ruina
Rumbo
Ruptura
Sacar
Sacrificarse
Salud pública
Saneamiento
Sanidad
Sedimento
Servicios
Servicios básicos
Sistema
Sobras
Social moderna
Sólido
Subestructura
Servicios
Suficiencia
Sufrir
Suministro
Supervisión
Terminar
Tolerar
Torrente
Trabajoso
Transferencia
Trayectoria
Tuberías
Tubo
Urbana
Urgente
Usuarios
Vaciado
Venir
Vivienda
Volumen
Volver
Zanja
Zona

220

Palabras
Soluciones

Abastecimiento
Abrir
Acabar
Acción
Acortar
Acrecentamiento
Activo
Acto
Acueducto
Acuerdo
Acumulación
Adelanto
Adicional
Administrar
Adyacente
Afianzar
Afirmar
Agente
Agricultura
Agua recuperada
Alborada
Alcantarilla
Aledañas
Almacenamiento
Alta tecnología
Alternativo
Aludido
Amabilidad
Cordialidad
Amanecer
Ambos lados
Aminorar
Ampliación
Ampliar
Amplificar
Analizar
Antisepsia
Anuncio
Apagar
Aportar
Apostar
Apoyo
Aprendizaje
Aprieta
Áreas verdes
Arrancar
Arreglo
Arruinar
Asamblea
Asegurar
Asistir
Asociación
Atender
Atenuar
Atestar
Aumento
Autenticar
Autorizar
Avance
Aviso
Ayudar
Bajar
Banqueta
Básico
BEIF
Beneficio
Bienestar
Bilateral
Biocombustible
Bombeo
Bondad
Cabida
Cambio
Canalización
Capacidad
Capaz
Capital
Captación
Caracterizar
Central
Cerrar
Certificar
Circuito
Coberturas
Coherencia
Colaborar
Colector
Colocar(se)
Comenzar
Comité
Comparar
Compasión
Competente
Complementaria
Comprobar
Comunicar
Con la puesta (for
the commissioning)
Concientizar
Concluir
Conexión
Configuración
Confirmar
Confluencia
Conformación
Congreso
Conseguir
Conservación
Constatar que
Construcción
Construir
Continuidad
Contrato
Contribuir
Control
Convertir
Convocatoria
Cooperar
Coordinación
Corto plazo
Crecimiento
Crédito
Cubierta
Cuerpo
Culminar
Cultivo
Cumplir
Dar
Debido
Decidir
Decisión
Declinar
Decreto
Defender
Definir
Demostrar
Desaladora
Desarraigar
Desarrollar
Desarrollo
sustentable
Desazolvadora
Descartar
Descender
Descubrir
Desechar
Desenterrar
Deshacer
Desinfección
Desplegar
Destacar
Destruir
Detallar
Determinar
Dictado
Diferenciar
Difusores
Dirección
Disciplinado
Disminuir
Distinguir
Divulgar
Documentar
Ecológico
Edificar
Educación
Efectuar
Eficiencia
Ejecutar
Ejecutivo
Eliminar
Eludir
221

Empezar
Emplear
Endosar
Enlace
Enseñanza
Entubar
Época
Equidad
Erradicar
Escaso
Escuchar
Esencial
Espacio publico
Especializada
Establecer
Estacionar
Estanque
Estimación
Estimular
Estrecha
Estricto
Estructura
Estudiar
Etapa
Evadir
Evaluación
Evitar
Evolucionar
Examinar
Excelente
Excluir
Expandir
Experto
Explicar
Exponer
Expulsar
Extender
Extirpar
Extraer
Extremas
Fertilizantes
Fianza
Filtrar
Finalizar
Fluya
Fomentar
Fondos
Forma
Fortalecer
Fortificar
Fortuna
Franja
Fronterizo
Fundamental
Fundar
Garantizar
Gavión
Generar
Gobernar
Grande
Grupo
Honestidad
Humedecer
Hundimiento
Impactar
Impedir
Implementar
Importante
Impulsar
Inaugurar
Incentivo
Incorporar
Incremento
Indicar
Indígena
Informar(se)
Iniciar
Iniciativa
Inmediato
Innovación
Inspirar
Instalar
Instrucción
Instruir
Integridad
Intención
Intensificación
Intensificación
Intentar
Interlocutor
Intervención
Introducción
Inundar
Inversión
Investigar
Irrigar
Japón
Jardín
Lanzar
Legalizar
Ley
Líberamente
Líder
Limpiar
Limpieza
Línea de
abastecimiento
Líneas de drenaje
Lograr
Macrodistribución
Mandato
Manejar
Manifestar
Mantenimiento
Maquinaria
Mediante
Mejorar
Mencionado
Micromedición
Mitigar
Modelo
Modernización
Modificar
Mojar
Monitorear
Mostrar
Multiplicar
Nacido
Nativo
Necesidad
Negociación
Negocio
Nitrato
Notable
Notificar
Objetivo
Obligación
Obra
Observar
Obtener
Operativos
Optimización
Óptimo
Orden
Organizar
Otorgar
Parque
Participar
Pedir
Período
Permuta
Peso
Piloto
Piscina
Plan
Planta de
tratamiento de
aguas residuales
Planta tratadora
Plantar
Por razón de
Posibilidad
Potabilizar
Pozo
Preciso
Prepuesto
Presentar
Preservación
Presto
Pretender
Prioritarios
Probabilidad
Probar
Programa de Cero
Descargas
Progresión
222

Prolongación
Pronto
Proporcionar
Protección
Proteger
Provisión
Racionamiento
Proyecto
Prueba
Pureza
Purificar
Quitar
Racional
Rápido
Ratificar
Rayos ultravioleta
Razonar
Reabrir
Realizar
Rechazar
Recibir
Reciclados
Recolector
Recomendar(se)
Reconstrucción
Recorrida
Recuperar
Recurso
Recursos no
reembolsables
Reducir
Reforestación
Reforzar
Regado
Rehabilitar
Rehacer
Reinstalar
Rejilla
Relación
Reparación
Reparar
Reponer
Reproducir
Reservas
Resolver
Respaldo
Responsabilidad
Restablecer
Restituir
Resultar
Retar
Reunión
Reusar
Revelar
Romper
Sacar
Salud
Sanear
Satisfacción
Secretar
Seleccionar
Sensibilidad
Separar
Significativo
Situarse
Socorrer
Solicitar
Solucionar
Sostén
Substancial
Sumidero
Superficiales
Suplementario
Suprimir
Tanque
Tarea
Temprano
Terminar
Termoeléctrica
Tomar
Trabajar
Transformar
Tratamiento
Tubería
Ubicarse
Unión
Urgir
Usar
Utilizar
Valer
Valoración
Variabilidad
Variedad
Vecino
Vencer
Verificar
Vigilancia
223

APPENDIX E: NUMBER OF ARTICLES CONTAINING FRAMING KEY WORDS
UT 1 UT 2 UT 3 ST 1 ST 2 ST 3 Total
alternative 12 1 0 2 5 1 21
Arturo Herrera 0 3 0 0 26 2 31
bacteria 1 8 2 0 0 2 13
Bajagua 220 8 1 0 0 0 229
beach 18 13 12 1 4 24 72
benefit 5 1 0 2 27 8 43
border 38 32 23 6 16 9 124
break 0 10 8 0 0 2 20
budget 23 3 2 0 8 0 36
build 80 15 7 2 9 2 115
capacity 9 4 4 1 23 6 47
CESPT 0 0 4 5 146 42 197
clean 34 27 8 3 5 7 84
close 3 0 6 3 6 9 27
collect 9 3 16 0 2 0 30
construct 27 19 1 5 52 3 107
continu 10 2 5 0 5 6 28
cost 44 5 4 2 3 6 64
coverage 0 0 1 0 14 3 18
delay 21 2 0 0 0 1 24
develop 23 3 1 4 12 2 45
discharge 14 8 9 1 26 3 61
drainage 3 0 3 4 14 15 39
eliminate 3 1 1 0 10 1 16
environment 26 12 17 11 18 9 93
224

expand 22 8 4 0 0 0 34
extend 6 2 3 1 8 1 21
fail 13 6 0 0 3 1 23
financ 13 1 3 0 2 9 28
flow 27 19 29 0 2 3 80
govern 42 8 3 0 29 7 89
IBWC 79 23 9 0 4 0 115
improv 24 10 2 8 14 6 64
increas 3 3 3 7 5 2 23
infrastructur 8 6 4 1 7 7 33
install 0 0 1 0 56 12 69
invest 6 0 2 0 18 7 33
irrigat 2 7 0 1 17 3 30
lack 9 0 1 1 4 4 19
maintain 1 0 2 0 21 8 32
ocean 12 7 14 5 8 12 58
officials 73 21 12 7 18 2 133
open 4 5 0 0 23 5 37
pipe 8 18 18 0 11 17 72
plant 167 64 15 8 137 18 409
pollut 28 18 20 7 14 24 111
problem 25 23 13 4 18 13 96
project 130 21 7 14 31 22 225
protect 0 2 0 8 8 3 21
rain 4 6 14 0 3 6 33
reclaim 11 1 0 2 40 6 60
reduc 5 2 2 5 6 0 20
225

river 25 41 38 0 29 5 138
sanitation 0 2 0 1 28 4 35
SBIWTP 6 12 6 0 0 7 31
solution 21 6 1 2 7 4 41
spill 2 21 15 0 2 2 42
surf 4 5 1 0 0 0 10
Tijuana 136 58 68 6 46 39 353
treat 161 49 16 10 36 13 285
upgrade 43 22 6 0 14 1 86
waste 2 3 0 0 7 4 16
wastewater 207 115 60 9 89 36 516
water 66 63 32 23 113 31 328
work 25 25 9 11 46 26 142

226

APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
A. Background:

1. What is your job (at Ecoparque)? What is your role with the organization?
What are your duties?
2. How many days a week do you work at Ecoparque/on issues related to
Ecoparque?
3. How long have you worked in your current position?
B. Information on Ecoparque:

1. Can you tell me about how you came to work at/with Ecoparque? How did you
find out about the project?
2. Can you tell me in your words, about the mission of Ecoparque? The history of
the project?
3. Do you remember what the land was used for and how it looked before
Ecoparque began?
4. Can you explain to me how the project works? (water treatment, education
programs)?
5. What is the treatment capacity of Ecoparque? Approximately how many
households does the facility treat wastewater from?
6. How many meters of additional wastewater pipelines were laid to establish
new connections or rehabilitate old pipe lines?
7. Does Ecoparque support any natural or artificial infiltration efforts?

C. Assessing strengths, weaknesses, scalability
1. What do you consider the strengths/opportunities of Ecoparque as a project?
Prompts:
Design? Sustainable development? Service provisions? Educational?
2. What do you consider the weaknesses/problems of Ecoparque as a project?
Prompts:
Design? Sustainable development? Service provisions? Educational?
3. Do you think Ecoparque is or has improved the natural environment,
sustainability of the city?
4. Do you think Ecoparque has made an impact on education on the environment?
5. Would it be worthwhile to expand Ecoparque to other parts of Tijuana- to find
another site and construct a similar facility?
6. What would you consider the challenges of expanding Ecoparque?
Prompts:
227

Government/bureaucracy? Community acceptance? Finding a new site?
Financing?
7. If you were to be involved in the construction and running of the new facility
what would you change to make it run even more smoothly?
Prompts:
Management? Volunteers? Treatment design? Financing? Government
Involvement?
D. Assessing sustainable wastewater collection and treatment in Tijuana
I would like to ask you a few questions on sustainable development in Tijuana, and more
specifically about sustainable wastewater collection and treatment in Tijuana.

1. How would you describe the quality and quantity of wastewater collection and
treatment services in Tijuana?
2. How would you define sustainable development?
3. How would you describe efforts by the city of Tijuana to address sustainability
or sustainable development?
4. Are you aware of any city programs to meet wastewater collection and
treatment demands through sustainable practices or alternative technologies? If
yes, please list and describe.
5. Do you think the city of Tijuana and the larger Tijuana River Watershed would
benefit from the introduction of more sustainable wastewater collection and
treatment strategies?

E. Wrap-Up
1. Is there anything else you would like to add about the park, your experience
here, or sustainability in Tijuana?

228

A. Información básico
1. ¿Cuál es su trabajo a CESPT? ¿Cuáles son sus responsabilidades y sus tareas?
2. ¿Cuántos días a la semana trabaja en los temas de aguas residuales o los temas
referentes a aguas residuales?
3. ¿Cuántos años ha trabajados a en su puesto corriente?

B. Información de CESPT, la planta de tratamiento Arturo Herrera, y la Línea
Morada.
1. ¿Cómo pasé trabajar a CESPT?
2. Dígame, en sus propias palabras, la misión de los proyectos de la Línea Morada
y La Cultura de Agua. ¿Qué es la historia de los proyectos?
3. ¿Puede explicarme cómo funciona la Línea Morada? (por ejemplo, el reuso del
agua, el tratamiento de aguas residuales, y los programas de educación
comunidad)
4. ¿Puede describirme los tipos y la magnitud de los proyectos de repoblación
forestal apoya del agua de Línea Morada?
5. ¿Qué es la capacidad de tratamiento de Arturo Herrera? ¿Aproximadamente,
Arturo Herrara trata las aguas residuales de cuantos hogares?
6. ¿Cuántos meteros de pipas efluentes adicional instalaron para establecer
conexiones nuevos de aguas residuales? O ¿Cuántos pipas rehabilitaron a
consecuencia de la planta nueva?
7. ¿Cómo apoyar a Arturo Herrera los esfuerzos de infiltración natural o artificial?

C. La evaluación de las virtudes, las debilidades, y la escalabilidad.
1. En su propia opinión, ¿cuáles son las virtudes y las oportunidades de Arturo
Herrera y la Línea Morada?
Por ejemplo, el diseño, el desarrollo sostenible, la provisión de servicios
nuevos, la educación de la comunidad
2. En su propia opinión, ¿Cuáles son las debilidades o los problemas de Arturo
Herrera y la Línea Morada?
Por ejemplo, el diseño, el desarrollo sostenible, la provisión de servicios
nuevos, la educación de la comunidad
3. ¿Ud. piense que Arturo Herrera y la Línea Morada mejoraron o están
mejorando el medio ambiente y la sostenibilidad de la ciudad?
4. ¿Ud. piense que Arturo Herrera y la Línea Morada mejoraron o están
mejorando educación ambiental?
D. La evaluación de la colección y tratamiento sostenible de aguas residuales en
Tijuana
229

1. ¿Cómo Ud. define desarrollo sostenible?
2. ¿Cómo Ud. describe la cualidad y cuantidad de servicios de colección y
tratamiento de aguas residuales en Tijuana?
3. ¿Cómo Ud. describe los esfuerzos de la municipalidad de Tijuana a dirigir la
sostenibilidad o desarrollo sostenible?
4. ¿Ud. se da cuenta de los programas municipalidades que satisfacer las
demandas de colección y tratamiento con las prácticas sostenibles o las
tecnologías alternativas? Si sí, enumera y describe.
5. ¿Ud. piense que Tijuana y el medio ambiente regional del cuenca del Río
Tijuana se aprovecharían de la introducción de estrategias de colección y
tratamiento de aguas residuales más sostenible?
E. Me gustaría pedirle algunas preguntas sobre Ecoparque, la instalación de
tratamiento alternativa y descentralizada en Tijuana.
1. ¿Ud. concoce la instalación Ecoparque?
2. ¿Valdría la pena encontrar otro sitio en otro lugar en Tijuana y construir una
instalación similar?
3. En su propia opinión, ¿cuáles son las virtudes y las oportunidades de
Ecoparque?
Por ejemplo, el espacio verde, lo menos uso de energía y agua, el espacio
de educación comunidad, la infiltración natural, o la estabilización de las
colinas.
4. En su propia opinión, ¿Cuáles son las debilidades o los problemas de
Ecoparque?
Por ejemplo, la salud pública, la salud del medio ambiente, la cuesta, la
aceptación comunidad, o la cantidad de ciudadanos servidos.
5. En su propia opinión, ¿Cuáles son los desafíos de un Ecoparque nuevo?
Por ejemplo, la comunidad, la búsqueda de un sitio nuevo, las fianzas.
F. Conclusión
1. ¿Hay algos más que Ud. quiera decir sobre la planta Arturo Herrera, sus
experiencias con CEPST, o la sostenibilidad en Tijuana?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The global population is increasingly urban. This rapid urbanization and accompanying industrial growth has forced cities to draw on increasingly distant environments for resources and waste sinks. At the same time, the quality of life in urban areas has declined, leaving the urban poor without access to basic urban services, including adequate housing and water, waste, and sanitation services. This dissertation explores the human and environmental implications of inadequate sanitation collection and treatment infrastructure in Tijuana, and in the larger transborder Tijuana River Watershed. This study investigates the political, social, economic, and geographic contexts that have produced inequitable distribution of wastewater infrastructure in Tijuana and degraded the binational ecosystem. Qualitative and quantitative research methods are employed to examine the discursive, environmental justice, and urban sustainability aspects of untreated wastewater in this rapidly urbanizing border city. ❧ This dissertation has three research objectives. The first objective examines and identifies the socioeconomic and geographic factors that influence a lack of access to wastewater collection infrastructure. This analysis reveals the areas of Tijuana most susceptible to insufficient infrastructure, and discusses the social, political, economic, and geographic processes that have affected the city’s distribution of wastewater infrastructure. Findings suggest that areas of Tijuana with low levels of piped water service, low levels of education, and a physical geography of steep slopes are most likely to also lack wastewater service. The second objective of this dissertation examines media communications surrounding transborder untreated wastewater flows in Tijuana and San Diego. This research objective seeks to understand the complex process of discourse formation surrounding a transborder environmental issue. Media discourse in Tijuana and San Diego are markedly different. Residents of Tijuana are exposed to a positive discourse focused on government infrastructure improvements. Alternatively, residents of San Diego are presented with a problem-focused discourse, highlighting the ongoing quality of life and environmental challenges caused by untreated wastewater. Lastly, the final research objective investigates two sustainable wastewater treatment technologies used in Tijuana, a large-scale centralized facility and a small-scale, alternative facility, to better understand the contributions of these technologies to the city’s economic, social, and environmental sustainability. A sustainable indicator analysis reveals that while Ecoparque, the small-scale alternative facility, makes important contributions to reforestation, slope stabilization, and community education programs, it lacks the capacity and treatment standards to meet the current and future needs of Tijuana. This chapter also employs a case study to reveal the difficult and complicated processes of introducing Ecoparque to a rapidly developing city. ❧ This dissertation suggests that historic and contemporary processes shape and reshape the uneven distribution of wastewater collection and treatment infrastructure. This in turn has created the city’s wastewater riskscapes, where urban poor and recent migrants bear the most risk and vulnerability to the untreated wastewater. Extending a more equitable wastewater collection and treatment network would mitigate and protect the regional environment from future degradation caused by untreated wastewater. In addition, incorporating sustainable treatment technologies to new and existing wastewater treatment facilities would protect the region’s limited potable water resources while promoting resource recovery and reuse.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The interplay of environmental justice and environmental psychology in environmental conflicts: a case study of the La Farfana water sewage treatment plant and the Pudahuel community in Santiago Chile

PDF

Why go green? Cities' adoption of local renewable energy policies and urban sustainability certifications

PDF

Development of a Web GIS for urban sustainability indicators of Oakland, California

PDF

Human dimensions of urban biodiversity: animal-oriented organizations as influences on human-avian relations

PDF

Urban revolution: rethinking the American small town

PDF

Biological sulfate reduction in sulfate rich industrial wastewaters by anaerobic fluidized-bed reactors: effect of electron donors

PDF

The role of race in configuring park use: a political ecology perspective

PDF

Structure, agency, and the Kuznets Curve: observations and implications for sustainability planning in U.S. cities

PDF

Wastewater reclamation and potable reuse with novel processes: membrane performance and system integration

PDF

Do sustainability plans affect urban sustainability outcomes in Santa Monica, San Francisco, and San Jose?

PDF

Urban green space accessibility and environmental justice: a GIS-based analysis in the city of Phoenix, Arizona

PDF

Children’s environmental and developmental equity within Los Angeles: a spatio-temporal exploration of varying conditions, perspectives, and outcomes

PDF

Enterprising citizenship: Mexican immigrant empowerment and public-private partnerships in Santa Ana, California

PDF

Greening law: a socio-legal analysis of environmental human rights in India

PDF

A comparison of urban land cover change: a study of Pasadena and Inglewood, California, 1992‐2011

PDF

Environmental justice: geospatial impacts of hazardous materials spills

PDF

The geobiology of fluvial, lacustrine, and marginal marine carbonate microbialites (Pleistocene, Miocene, and Late Triassic) and their environmental significance

PDF

Catalytic oxidation and precursor identification of disinfection byproducts in recycled water

PDF

Impacts of indoor environmental quality on occupants environmental comfort: a post occupancy evaluation study

PDF

"Geography should never be why a child dies:" spatial narratives and the Pediatric Medical Clinic of the Americas

Asset Metadata

Creator Russell, Rachel (author)

Core Title Environmental equity and urban sustainability: an analysis of untreated household wastewater in Tijuana, Mexico

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Geography

Publication Date 08/27/2013

Defense Date 08/02/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag environmental equity,international environmental policy,Mexico,OAI-PMH Harvest,sustainable wastewater treatment,Tijuana,wastewater

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Wolch, Jennifer (committee chair)

Creator Email rachelru@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-324633

Unique identifier UC11293190

Identifier etd-RussellRac-2023.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-324633 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RussellRac-2023.pdf

Dmrecord 324633

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Russell, Rachel

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA