Moderators: Stephen Connors, MIT

Mariano Bauer, Instituto Mexicano del Petróleo
Discussion: All Participants

Presentation by Mr. Stephen Connors

Mr. Stephen Connors opened the final "Bringing It All Together" session with a discussion of "Multi-Attribute Tradeoff Analysis," a technique developed at MIT to carry out complex research projects intended for diverse stakeholder audiences. Built around the early involvement of diverse stakeholders in the decision-making process, the aim is both to educate decision-makers and to ensure that results reflect the primary concerns of the various stakeholders.

He noted that most large infrastructure-related projects can be characterized as a combination of (1) complex problems, (2) dispersed solutions (many jurisdictions make it tough to communicate to decision makers), and (3) finite resources (time, money, people). The hazard of decision-making with inadequate input is illustrated by James Thurber's comment, "The conclusion you jump to may be your own."

He discussed the importance of helping stakeholders to understand and make better decisions, representing this "knowledge infrastructure" as a learning curve (Figure 6-1). At the low end is "problem existence" ("pollution is bad"). Next is "problem definition" ("the following pollutants are the primary sources of health problems and other impacts"). "Solution specification" looks for the most cost-effective and feasible ways to reduce those emissions, and, finally, "solution implementation" involves putting those solutions in place and monitoring the results. (These steps roughly map to the data, information, knowledge, and wisdom indices on the learning curve's vertical axis.) Unfortunately, decisions are often made in politically-charged venues focused on near-term outcomes, and are usually made prior to a consensus definition of the problem, let alone solution. The resulting scenario is shown in Figure 6-2, "Jumping to conclusions: jumping to solutions". "Wisdom," Mr. Connors said, is knowing the limits of your knowledge, adding that this is where issues related to uncertainty come in. The better one can define the problem, the easier it is to identify solutions. Outreach can get folded in. However, he said, the political dynamic often results in our "wallowing around the low end of the learning curve."

Figure 6-1. The Knowledge Infrastructure Learning Curve.

Figure 6-2.The political dynamic: jumping to conclusions; jumping to solutions.

The Multi-Attribute Tradeoff Analysis approach is designed to consider thousands of scenarios, tracking their relative performance against a broad number of attributes. Using computer models and visual techniques, stakeholders are shown how various approaches succeed or don't succeed in protecting city inhabitants at reasonable cost. These analyses are typically conducted over a number of years in order to explore a variety of alternatives, to adequately inform decision-makers, and to allow researchers to make recommendations on which refined strategies to evaluate next. The process is based on an acknowledgment that diverse stakeholdersindustry, government, and environmental interests, among othershave distinct criteria, but that each can agree on the desirability of the "cheap/clean corner" when the economic and environmental performance of numerous strategies is displayed on scatter plots (Figure 6-3). Used in this fashion, the tradeoff analysis fosters brainstorming, which in turn entrains diverse policy makers in the decision-making process and helps to identify consensus strategies.

Figure 6-3. Generic example of scatterplot showing cost-effectiveness vs. environmental performance of control strategies

To illustrate the tradeoff approach, Mr. Connors showed a data set from an electricity planning exercise conducted from 1988 to 1996 with a large group of New England stakeholders. Using strategies derived from brainstorming sessions with the stakeholder audience, Mr. Connors illustrated cost vs. SO_X emissions for a large number of strategies, over a range of assumptions. He demonstrated how these strategies focus progressively on cheap/clean strategies for each successive variable:

Starting with the cost/SO_X emissions curve, he selected all the strategies that were in the cheap/clean corner, then examined these using the second variable. By continued selection of clean/cheap strategies for a series of variables, a narrower set of robust cheap and clean strategies was identified. Mr. Connors added that, pedagogically, the tradeoff approach was useful in identifying dirty and costly strategies as well. Knowing what not to do is as important as knowing what to do, particularly if the outcome of the decision-making process is subject to many influencing parties.

For the purpose of the "Bringing It All Together" discussion, Mr. Connors suggested that participants think about what pieces of the "knowledge infrastructure learning curve" were in place, and which needed development or strengthening. He spoke of these pieces as "links" in the knowledge chain. Links include data, emissions inventories and models; institutions and people; and outreach to decision makers, the media, and the public at large. As with any "chain," the most important links are those that are missing or weak.

Other specific topics for the discussion part of the session included (1) integration of policies, (2) communication/ knowledge dissemination, (3) stakeholders, and (4) a 6-month plan.

Presentation by Professor Mariano Bauer

Professor Mariano Bauer began his talk with an anecdote about a student taking a biology exam. The student has only studied worms and is presented with a question about elephants. "Well," he says, "let's begin by describing the elephant's tail. It's long and at the end narrows down, like a worm." From there the student goes on to share all he knows about worms. The point is that we tend to discuss what we know, but that problems usually occur in new, less understood terrain.

Prof. Bauer said that the Mexico City Project is aimed not only at educating Mexican decision makers, but also various US sectorsacademic, private and publicas to how pollution problems differ across political and geographic strata. Environmental problems are linked to developmental problems. Prof. Bauer explained that a country can have quick or slow development, but that quick development may allowonce the development has taken placethe time and the money to address environmental issues.

Prof. Bauer discussed available technologies/strategies in terms of "hard" (e.g. new internal combustion vehicles and fuels, improved mass transit) and "soft" (urban planning, demand management, marketing of lifestyle changes). One aspect to be taken into account for an integrated assessment is the "global village" effect. He said that developing countries currently are pursuing lifestyle changes that mimic developed countries, largely spurred on by the media. For instance, the US popularity of minivans is spreading to Mexico, despite concerns regarding fuel economy.

In the U.S., Prof. Bauer stated, more than 80% of all driving goes no further than ten miles from home. Small, high-efficiency cars could achieve significant gains. Prof. Bauer argued that consumer choices were influenced by the information environment, dominated by the mass media. Lifestyles of industrialized societies are emulated elsewhere. He also believes that fashion is more powerful than reasoned argument (for instance, when people spend a great deal more for a name brand when the quality is no different). Prof. Bauer talked about "A question of image"could the auto industry not promote very small but fancy cars?

Prof. Bauer said that something is missing from the "think tank" approach, specifically the need to convey the message using mass media. This needs to go beyond marketing people, as any program conveys many visual messages beyond what the content is about. A 1995 World Energy Congress round table on transport and the environment had representatives of academia, oil and auto industries, and international bodies, but no mass media. He concluded by saying that instead of the media being a barrier, we should try to bring them in as part of the solution.

Discussion Summary

Some participants said more data were needed, others identified problems with existing data. Some said the problem wasn't the data but the decision-making process. Most agreed that an integrated assessment should be a parallel rather than a serial process, and that low-cost, politically feasible alternatives can provide early improvements while other strategies were being explored.

There was wide agreement on the need to better understand health issues, and explore methods to better integrate science and social opinion in formulating policies.

Important links were highlighted, including the link between air pollution and global warming, and developed and developing countries. For the latter, an example was provided of developed countries exporting older (less efficient, more polluting) technologies to developing countries, which then trigger trade sanctions against those countries. Also, cost effectiveness as an evaluation metric was cited as an important link between different fields that don't necessarily communicate in the same language. Evaluating the consequences of policy, including getting feedback from people whom policies affect, was considered important in terms of linking actions to outcomes.

Discussing the need to integrate different problems raised many other questions of how to make necessary linkages. For instance, better mass transit and improved transportation planning are critical to air pollution and also to solving problems of congestion and mobility. Some participants identified the need to give the environmental sector more influence over the transportation, construction, and development sectors. The role of industry, how to promote clean technology, and the potential to redirect investments were raised as considerations.

The role of the media was also cited by a number of people as an important factor in being able to implement effective policies. Similarly, public education was generally agreed to be a necessary element of the project.

There was some discussion about the potential political and educational uses of constructing a scenario of what happens if we do nothing. One suggestion was to oversimplify and provoke. This could be accomplished similarly to what the Dutch did, constructing a future environmental scenario if current trends continue for 25 years. Political tools could also be built around health information, for instance an economic assessment of total health costs of air pollution.

Politics was also discussed with regard to legislation, standard setting, and enforcement. The political environment could perhaps also be changed by employing media skills or networking. We need to make it politically feasible for the legislators and policy makers to do the right thing.

A critical factor is to define an audience for ourselves. How to reach decision makers and build credibility were discussed. There are different policy makers we need to reach and to educate, particularly the Mayor of the city and the Governor of the state of Mexico. But there are also many small actors; local authorities don't have time or capability, and we can help answer questions before they jump to conclusions.

Some people commented on developing the human resources to carry out the work. We need to increase the number of people with air pollution expertise, as well as the general level of knowledge of air pollution. Finally, the desire for more meetings like this one was expressed.

Moderator: Ralph Gakenheimer, MIT
Speakers: Richard de Neufville, MIT; Arnold Howitt, Harvard; José Luis Lezama, El Colegio de México and Víctor Urquidi, El Colegio de México.

Professor Ralph Gakenheimer opened the session by stating the objectives as follows:

• to review information presented in earlier sessions;
• to determine the optimal means of influencing public policy regarding environmental concerns in Mexico City.

Presentation by Prof. Richard de Neufville

Professor de Neufville stated that science is not enough to address the complex issues involved in cleaning the air. He cited the US experience with leaded gasoline as an example. While the health effects of leaded gasoline were well understood, and the technology available to use unleaded gasoline, US implementation of controls lagged significantly behind. Prof. de Neufville suggested that integrated assessments such as the Mexico City project might teach us ways to quicken and improve this public policy process.

Prof. de Neufville introduced the Technology and Policy Program (TPP). TPP is a unique educational venture at MIT, based on the premise that addressing multi-disciplinary problems requires political, social, legal, and economic understanding. Given the lack of professionals who can bridge these disciplines, TPP's goal is to educate the next generation of professionals that can take a long-term view in analyzing complex, multi-disciplinary problems. He contrasted TPP's approach with the usual way of training engineers with little understanding of social science, and social scientists with little technical training.

Prof. de Neufville outlined three TPP premises:

• There is no "right" answer. No purely "technical fix" exists for these problems; negotiation is an important part of the process, and to make effective policies, scientists and policy makers need to build and maintain constituencies. A feedback loop for exchange of information with society is essential.
• Uncertainty must be managed. There will always be unknowns. Future demographics and social conditions are impossible to predetermine, so we need to develop approaches that aim for a strategic position in anticipation of changes, not unlike chess.
• Professionals need to be trained across disciplines. A need exists for people who can take technical knowledge into the political/economic contexts in which policies evolve. Negotiation is critical between the actors working towards a solution. Not every party is going to get everything it wants. Compromise is essential.

In closing, Prof. de Neufville encouraged institutions involved in the Mexico City Project to use TPP as a resource, and invited Mexican students to take advantage of Masters, Ph.D., post-doctoral and other educational opportunities at MIT.

Presentation by Dr. Arnold Howitt

Dr. Arnold Howitt presented an overview of US transportation and land use policies aimed at reducing mobile-source emissions. From 1970­1995, the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) increased over 100%, while total emissions from various pollutants decreased. This was due to policy interventions in three areas: (1) technology mandates; (2) regulation of land use and transportation structure; and (3) regulation of individual behavior.

Technology mandates

• vehicle emission control systems;
• fuel formulation; and
• alternatives to the internal combustion engine.

The US has been fairly successful in adopting and imposing standards, with emission controls and fuel formulation accounting for most of the US mobile source emission reductions to date. This is in part because these regulations target a small number of large corporations, making the regulations enforceable and politically feasible (despite industry's resistance). Public support has been strong, empowering elected officials.

As fleet turnover takes approximately 10­14 years, policies targeted at new cars are also phased in over this time frame. Dr. Howitt commented that these policies have been the most cost-effective ways to reduce mobile source emissions.

Regulation of land use and transportation infrastructure

• Integrated land use/transportation/air pollution planning, including system and project-level emission analysis
• Regulation of public infrastructure investments, such as highways and transit systems
• Regulation of land use, such as growth management

Dr. Howitt stated that these policies are extremely difficult to impose and implement. Competing environmental and economic factors are involved, as well as individual lifestyle choices. Furthermore, US decision-making structures dealing with land use are highly decentralized, which makes it difficult to push for integrated planning and regulations.

While these structures are more centralized regarding transportation, it is difficult to make a large impact on travel patterns in mature metropolitan areas as new development is only a small percentage of total development. As a result, policy instruments targeting land use and transportation infrastructure are best considered for a long-range time horizon of 30­50 years and beyond.

Regulation of individual behavior

• Inspection and maintenance of in-use vehicle emission control systems;
• Transportation system management (TSM) policies to improve traffic flow and improve efficiency on existing transportation networks;
• Non-restrictive transportation demand management (TDM) to promote non-single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) transportation: mass transit, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) highway lanes, and intelligent transportation system applications, as well as voluntary carpooling, trip reduction, and telecommuting;
• Restrictive TDM, such as financial disincentives or regulatory constraints, including transportation pricing controls, restrictions on parking, exclusion of SOVs, and mandatory trip reduction and car pooling.

Vehicle inspection and maintenance policies have aroused substantial political reaction, which has frequently been overcome. TSM policies and non-restrictive approaches have had relatively minor impact on U.S. emissions. In Houston, intelligent highway and HOV systems have resulted in VOC reductions of just 0.5 tons per day. Though restrictive TDM policies have the potential to reduce emissions significantly, they are politically difficult to impose and regulate. They affect a large number of individuals and firms, and tend to require a substantial degree of voluntary compliance due to limited enforcement possibilities. Also, as vehicles become cleaner, the cost effectiveness of strategies aimed at reducing VMT is diminished. As a result, restrictive TDM policies have not been widely adopted. Singapore is one of the few countries to implement such policies successfully, due to its particular geographic and enforcement context.

Presentation by Prof. José Luis Lezama

Prof. Lezama noted that the Mexican government has introduced various policy programs to address air pollution in Mexico City since the early 1970s, with intensive planning activities beginning in the 1980s. Various approaches have been tried: improving fuel quality, abating traffic problems, upgrading public transportation, controlling emissions from automobiles, industry, and services, and developing educational programs. Three programs were of particular significance:

• Programa Coordinado para Mejorar la Calidad del Aire en el Valle de México (PCMCA), 1979.
• Programa Integral Contra la Contaminación Atmosférica 1990-1995 (PICCA), 1990.
• Programa para Mejorar la Calidad del Aire en el Valle de México (PROAIRE), 1996.

Since the introduction of PCMCA, Mexico City has experienced major environmental, economic, social, and political changes, which have changed both the nature of the air pollution problem and the suitability of various policy instruments. The policy programs, however, have not been adapted to address these changes, and are hampered by limited analysis of physical and technical characteristics of pollution and the absence of realistic consideration of social and political aspects. He attributed these limitations to the authoritarian nature of the Mexican system, which is not sufficiently open to input from the scientific community. Citizen participation in the policy process is also limited, which negatively influences the citizens' perception of the effectiveness of government programs.

Prof. Lezama argued that proposals for action lag behind diagnoses of the problem. For example, PROAIRE established that transportation and urban development were key factors influencing air pollution in Mexico City. However, PROAIRE did not outline any structural reforms to change the modal distribution of the public transportation system, nor to address interest groups such as those that own or operate minivans and small buses.

The government's limited action may be due to the low level of public awareness and understanding. The large distance between the citizens and the government also makes it difficult for the community to mobilize its efforts towards suitable solutions. This point underscores the importance of education and awareness raising among the public and within the government.

Further, citizens believe environmental issues are less critical than security, unemployment, and poverty. Prof. Lezama suggested that if the public were to become more aware, they would be more supportive, but he also warned that the public may not be willing to pay for a cleaner environment. Also, air pollution control may alter power relations among agencies by requiring redistribution of costs.

To increase their influence on policy, Prof. Lezama suggested that environmental agencies, whether local or metropolitan, build an institutional framework along the following lines:

• a division for policy to elaborate environmental options;
• a division for sectoral integration, to negotiate environmental criteria between sectors. Environmental policies of different government sectors must be integrated, and criteria established to guide the actions of different public agencies;
• a division responsible for monitoring implemented policies;
• an environmental ombudsman, to provide outreach to citizens in order to better enforce law and norms.

Prof. Lezama finished by elaborating on the need to integrate various government sectors regarding their environmental policies. Public agencies need to be forced by law to put environmental criteria into actions. Environmental authorities should push for the legal footing and political will needed to bring environmental programs and principles to other sectors whose actions are critical in terms of environmental impact. There is also an urgent need to create horizontal linkages among all the sectors that impact the environment.

Presentation by Professor Victor Urquidi

Prof. Urquidi began by saying that little environmental improvement can be expected without structural change. He suggested that Mexico's current government is not strong enough to consider long-term consequences, and as a result focuses on symptoms rather than underlying causes. To illustrate the lack of strategic planning, he cited Mexico City's transportation system. Access to the city is a bottleneck from all di rections, in part because interurban traffic is mixed with local. Other factors are delayed construction/repairs and mixing of freight and passenger transport. Often freight from one part of Mexico to another passes through Mexico City because of limited alternatives.

Mexico's 1994-1995 economic crisis increased social and economic inequalities including education, allowing little flexibility in budgetary policy, and conditions unfavorable to investment. According to Prof. Urquidi, the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has led to regionalized development (Mexico City, border regions) that doesn't spread easily to the rest of the country. Under the current political conditions, the private sector has little interest in addressing environmental problems, and it is difficult to persuade them to take a long-term view, as there is no clear development policy from the government. Instead, the market dominates. He pointed out that factories in border regions have multiplied since NAFTA, but that opportunities for globalization mean little to those regions left behind. He argued that NAFTA has imposed an American economic view (less government is better) that may be inappropriate for Mexico. In Mexico, decision-making is centralized, hence little opportunity exists to air views in conflict with the centralized government. He expressed concern that the government is emphasizing automobile production and sales in response to the economic crisis but to the detriment of the environment.

The media plays a critical role, according to Prof. Urquidi. Radio, TV, and newspapers fail to provide easily understood environmental information, partly because the media are themselves not well informed. He also stated the importance of including considerations of other cities and regions outside of Mexico City and the Metropolitan district into cultural and economic policies because the Mexico City Metropolitan Area is so important for the country as a whole.

The role of civil society, he said, is to articulate how local needs can influence policy. Given current economic constraints, it is difficult to accomplish this. Prof. Urquidi suggested that the Mexican government should be more interventionist and more concerned about equality and quality of life issues, which have largely been sacrificed in search of foreign investment. In summary, the key questions for the metropolitan area are whether it will be less industrialized and more service-oriented, and if public transit will be improved.

Prof. Urquidi concluded his presentation by offering his perspective on research priorities to improve the effectiveness of air pollution policy in Mexico City:

• Consideration of emission of pollutants from surrounding regions and the effect of the Popocatepetl volcano in evaluating the air quality in Mexico
• Effect of open air defecation and its incorporation into suspended particulates on air quality, integrated with water and public health analysis
• Comprehensive study of public transportation systems in Mexico City, including management and traffic route efficiency analysis
• Analysis of fuel consumption in transportation and non-transportation sectors
• Study of political and social factors that influence the public transportation system
• Assessment of the car culture, including private- and public-sector fleets, maintenance practices, and other policy instruments to influence individual behavior
• Financing of cars in Mexico City
• Policy making and media relations
• Policy coordination among different government agencies

Discussion Summary

There was general agreement on the need for more dialogue between different government agencies. It was noted that during the latest round of air pollution policy reformulation, SEMARNAP officials were unable to get input from the Ministry of Finance. As Mexico becomes more politically diverse, this poses a challenge that would be normal in a democratic society but is new in Mexico.

There was also discussion of Mexico's strengths in analysis vs. implementation of policies, and the lack of strategic planning and integration in the transportation sector. It was noted that Mexico tends to adopt US policies without regard for their appropriateness; e.g., US fuel standards are largely formulated to alleviate air pollution problems in Los Angeles, where a central fuel issue is sulfur content. While reducing sulfur content in gasoline greatly reduces emissions from newer vehicles, it is unclear if this costly strategy is appropriate given Mexico's much older fleet.

Participants addressed the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the church, and the private sector. At present, NGOs are fewer in number and less scientifically informed in Mexico and tend to be combative. However, with better education and informa tion, there is potential for them to enter into constructive dialogue. Mexican religious leaders have generally not been attuned to environmental problems. As for industry, the current level of awareness and involvement is considered inadequate. This may be due to the historical hostility between industry and government. Large companies have become more aware of air pollution and the need to implement cleaner technologies. Small and medium sized enterprises, on the other hand, tend to have less capacity, and may not be aware of regulations. The maintenance level of corporate cars is also quite low, contributing to the air pollution problem. Policies and programs to address industrial pollution need to distinguish different levels of awareness and capacity. Active partnership with the automobile industry may be warranted for this project.

The link with the global environmental issues was emphasized. There is a strategic opportunity to work on both issues if the link can be made explicit. The Mexican government may accept more stringent GHG emission limits as it faces international pressure. Transportation policy is crucial for both urban and global pollution issues, and there needs to be a policy shift toward more investment in public transportation to change mobility. This project could consider the feasibility of pressuring the small number of decision makers with large decision-making authority by presenting them with some win-win solutions that integrate the urban air pollution issues with other problems such as congestion and climate change.

The Moderator presented the following preliminary summary of this section:

• Public education is important, and potential roles of NGOs should be further explored.
• There should be long-range, strategic policies that address behavior.
• There is a need to influence behavior and consider cultural elements in the analysis of policy and context.
• Possible policy consequences must be analyzed.
• Uncertainty is recognized as having an important role in policy making.
• A feedback system from society (and the skill to do this successfully) needs to be established.
• Some policies go in and out of favor, such as land use planning.
• Mexico has a maturing policy making system.
• Relating environmental issues to other priority issues, such as congestion, should be further explored.