1.3. ‘

lama” «up... . .

7......kuw. . .
.. : ‘

Q 4 . é

, .13..

fin...

I.
«U. n. , . .
m . f , .flr 2
2 ‘5‘" Ivémb.um-H’m¢
‘ , 33% .J—‘v

,1
k.

.

z
i .. ....
$433 .3...

2..
r. K!
a . (-

 

L: 4...
.60.me «mm

 

“N;
in... «a?
.4 :2. .«m.%.
I». an. ‘wwpxha .

A it.

. .. ‘ 4..»
8...: A“ .
:w.

a?

. I:
. !
11:1}..{1’
I. “fin“...

r¢

.... s

. . l1: . u
z.

v.32». H. . in:

5,...

I. l . \ LP. . u .
Esau. "$me. mm ., .2
.2 a...
.. . . m

y

a , .
M550.» . =
”3...; at“.

 

“94$.” .

«a.

7."...- t. . 21“.“
33% .- ,.
gnaw?
. :1,“ «R2...

. ....3br.

t
,r

we.
Ag,

. I
. . . _
1.: sun-MW 3... «.-
“.3 Hp‘a).l.! .
u. 2&4»: Q
. . ..~..L\
H. .) A.
I . .1
.l‘ A, :22 .. it:
‘32.”. I 14 11:“: UV.
V ‘ ‘ L
the!
..

v . L‘fil
but.

THESIS

ZCTCI

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Implementation Process of a Demonstration:
A Case Study of a Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse
Project on the U.S./Mexico Border

presented by

James Rankine Harding

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masters degreeinResource Development

 

 

 

Major professor

Date 5-9-00

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

l {LEBRARY
E Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

NOV M20320 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c-JCIRC/DatoDuepSS—p. 15

THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS OF A DEMONSTRATION: A CASE STUDY
OF A WASTEWATER REUSE AND RECLAMATION PROJECT ON THE
U.s./MEx1CO BORDER
By

James Harding

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Resource Development

2000

ABSTRACT
THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS OF A DEMONSTRATION: A CASE STUDY
OF A WASTEWATER REUSE AND RECLAMATION PROJECT ON THE
U.S./MEXICO BORDER
By

James Harding

Within the study of diffusion of innovations, the demonstration is considered an
important means of speeding the rate of diffusion. However, the details of the
demonstration, specifically the process of implementing a demonstration, has not been
studied in great detail. Therefore this study takes the case of Ecoparque, a wastewater
reclamation and reuse project in Tijuana, Mexico, to examine the process of
implementation of an innovative technology in a demonstration project.

Using a qualitative analysis of open-ended, semi-structured interviews and written
documents, this study documented the implementation history and examined the barriers
and facilitative factors that affected the implementation of Ecoparque. The barriers
included political and financial issues as well as an overall resistance to change. The
facilitative factors included political connections, individual motivation, and the
flexibility to change throughout the entire process. Overall, the process of implementing
Ecoparque followed a model of adaptation between the innovation and innovation
environment which appeared to facilitate its success despite numerous barriers and

setbacks.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

When I began thinking about different thesis topics after entering a master’s
program in the department of Resource Development, I never would have guessed I
would be writing about the process of implementation of a demonstration project in
Tijuana, Mexico. Nor did I ever expect I would conduct a case study based on qualitative
research. All the pieces to the puzzle, however, slowly came together. This section of my
thesis is devoted to recognizing those people who helped me along the way.

A number of people at Michigan State University provided invaluable help with
the research and writing of this thesis. My advisor, Scott Witter, has supported me
through my studies and devoted a significant amount of time to the development of this
thesis. My other committee members, Frank Fear and Jim Dearing, perhaps two of the
busiest people on campus, made themselves available time and again for advice and
direction. Another professor, Scott Whiteford, showed interest in my research plans and
went out of his way to find a way to send me down to Baja California. His colleagues in
Mexicali introduced me to border water issues and ultimately lead me to Ecoparque. Drs.
Witter and Fear also contributed funding for this research, as did the Department of
Resource Development, the Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, and the
Graduate School. I could not have completed my research without all these forms of
support.

A number of people also helped me while I was conducting my research away
from Michigan State. In particular, I would like to thank my friends Icela Lopez and
Arturo Mejia, whom I met in Mexicali while looking for a research topic. I am indebted

to them for taking so much time out of their lives to help me with my research and to

iii

make me feel so welcome. I am indebted also to Mike and Patricia McCoy, who opened
their doors to me and gave me a place to stay while I collected data for this study. They
were a researcher’s dream come true. I also appreciate the kindness David Campbell and
his family showed me while I was in California conducting my research. They generously
invited me to stay with them each weekend, giving me a comfortable atmosphere in
which to process the data I collected during the week. Lastly, I would like to thank
Carlos de la Parra. I credit our very first conversation as being the spark for most of what
plays out in the pages that follow.

I would also like to thank my classmates in the Department of Resource
Development. They helped pull me through some difficult material and months of cold
weather and cloudy skies. Loretta Ishida deserves a special note of gratitude. She, more
than anybody, has helped me make it through graduate school.

Most of all, I would like to thank my parents, the two most wonderful people in
the world. Thank you Mom and Dad for continually encouraging me to broaden my

horizons.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................... ix
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1
Problem Analysis ............................................................................ 1
Problem Statement ........................................................................... 5
Research Directions/Objectives ............................................................ 5
Significance of the Study .................................................................... 6
Overview of the Project ..................................................................... 6
Regional Context ................................................................... 6

Project Description .................................................................. 9

Organization of the Study ................................................................ 11
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................... 12
Introduction ................................................................................. 12
Qualitative Research ....................................................................... 12
Diffusion of Innovations .................................................................. 14
Demonstration .............................................................................. 15
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse ..................................................... 17
Implementation ............................................................................. 18
Chapter 3: RESEARCH METHODS ............................................................. 20
Introduction ................................................................................. 20

The Use of Qualitative Approach ......................................................... 20

Types of Data Used ........................................................................ 21
Identifying Sources of Data ............................................................... 21

Data Collection ............................................................................. 22
Arranging an Interview ........................................................... 22

Conducting the Interview ......................................................... 23

Data Analysis ............................................................................... 25
Verification of Results ..................................................................... 27
Chapter 4: IMPLEMENTATION OF ECOPARQUE .......................................... 28
Introduction ................................................................................ 28

Phase I: The Experimental Phase 1983-1986 .......................................... 28

1983 ................................................................................. 28

1984 ................................................................................. 32

1985 ................................................................................. 34

1986 ................................................................................. 35

Phase II: The Exemplary Phase 1986-1991 ............................................ 37

'1 986 ................................................................................ 37

1987 ................................................................................ 38
1988 ................................................................................ 40
1991 ................................................................................ 40

Chapter 5: BARRIERS AND FACILITATING FACTORS IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS ............................................................. 42
Introduction .................................................................................. 42
Barriers to the Implementation of Ecoparque ........................................ 42
Political Barriers .................................................................. 44
External Political Pressures .............................................. 44
Internal Political Pressures .............................................. 46
Financial Barriers ................................................................. 47
Implementation Strategies Used in Ecoparque ....................................... 48
Community Involvement ......................................................... 49
Local Decision Making ........................................................... 49
Project Planning ................................................................... 50
Mutual Adaptation ................................................................ 51
The Technology Adapting to the Organization ...................... 52
The Organization Adapting to the Technology ....................... 53
The Organization Adapting to the Context ........................... 54
The Technology Adapting to the Context ............................. 55
Mutual Adaptation Revisited ........................................... 56
Facilitative Factors ............................................................... 57

Chapter 6: CASE STUDY SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 59
Introduction .................................................................................. 59
Summary .................................................................................... 59
Conclusions ................................................................................. 61

Process of Implementation .............................................. 61
The Ecoparque Demonstration ......................................... 63
Ecoparque as a Development Project ................................. 65
Recommendations for Future Study ...................................................... 67
Diffusion of Innovations ................................................ 68
Mutual Adaptation ...................................................... 69
Development ............................................................. 69

APPENDICES ...................................................................................... 70
Appendix I .................................................................................. 71
Appendix II ................................................................................. 72

Appendix III ................................................................................ 74
Appendix 1V ................................................................................ 76
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 78

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Key Players in Ecoparque Implementation Process .................................. 29

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of San Diego/Tijuana Region ...................................................... 7
Figure 2. Detail of Tijuana indicating location of Ecoparque ................................. 10
Figure 3. Tijuana settlement on hillside .......................................................... 31
Figure 4. Mutual adaptation ........................................................................ 52
Figure 5. Forces of adaptation ..................................................................... 56
Figure 6. Fine screen (I-Iydrasieve) ................................................................ 76
Figure 6. Biofrlter ..................................................................................... 76
Figure 7. Clarifier ..................................................................................... 77
Figure 8. Compost unit ............................................................................. 77

viii

Coastal Conservancy
CESPT
CILA

CNA
COLEF
COSAE
EDF

IBWC
PRODUTSA
SAHOPE
SEDUE
SDSU

SWIA

UCSD

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

California State Coastal Conservancy

C omisio’n Estatal de Servicios delicos de Tijuana
Comisio'n Intemacional de Limites y Aguas

C omisién Nacional de Aguas

C oIegio de la F rantera Norte

Comisién de Servicios de Agua del Estado
Environmental Defense Fund

International Boundary and Water Commission

La Promotora de Desarollo Urbano de Tijuana, S.A.
Secretaria de Asentamientos Humanos y Pfiincas
Secretaria de Desarollo Urbano y Ecologia

San Diego State University

Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Association

University of California San Diego

ix

Chapter 1

Intr c i

Problem Analysis

During periods of rapid population and economic growth, urban areas around the
world have traditionally sought to meet increased water demands by augmenting their
existing supply with new fresh water supplies. This practice, however, is quickly
changing. New untapped sources of water are now often located too far away or in too
small a supply to warrant the cost of their capture and delivery. People have also realized
that they can increase water supplies simply by making better use of the water they
already have available. As Sandra Postel (1997: 22) wrote, “Doing more with less is the
first and easiest step along the path toward water security”.

In an effort to use their water supplies more efficiently, people have begun
employing methods such as installing low-flow devices, locating and repairing leaks in
distribution systems, installing meters, and developing public education programs
(Schilling 1992). Each reduces the total amount of water lost to infiltration, evaporation,
mnoff, or simple waste.

Water security, however, is not the only water issue these areas are facing.

F alkenmark and Lindh (1993: 87) report that, “The problem of wastewater disposal rivals
that of water supply in many urban areas”. Populations in some urban areas are growing
so quickly that local governments are simply unable to continue to provide adequate
sewerage and treatment services. For instance, in the early 1990s, the World Health

Organization estimated that only 41% of the urban population in Latin America and the

Caribbean had access to sewer systems and that 90% of the wastewater collected was
discharged into local waterways without treatment (Nash 1993). As a result, these
growing populations are also becoming increasingly exposed to the threat of waterborne
diseases.

Many urban areas have typically attempted to solve their wastewater problems by
expanding sewer systems and building more waste treatment facilities. This solution,
however, has only had limited success. Continued growth makes improvements almost
invisible, particularly in developing countries where urban populations are growing the
fastest and funding for infrastmcture is low (Gleick 1993).

Consequentially, these same areas have begun to explore other means for
resolving their wastewater problems. The list of solutions has included using more on-
site disposal systems (Kindler 1992), stabilization ponds or lagoons, and constructed
wetlands (Moshiri 1993, Hammer 1989). This list also includes wastewater reclamation
and reuse (Asano 1998, Asano and Levine 1996, Okun 1991), which addresses both
water supply and pollution abatement issues at the same time.

People encounter problems and challenges in all aspects of life, including the
water supply and wastewater disposal problems discussed above. To overcome these
problems, people seek to find solutions. In other words, people seek positive change in
their lives; positive change can be considered “development” in its most basic form.
These solutions that lead to development tend to take the form of new attitudes, new
technologies, or new methods for doing something. These factors may also be referred to

as innovations’.

 

' “An innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual
or another unit of adoption” (Rogers 1995: 11).

Innovations may be developed on a local level, by an individual, or a community.
The individual or community perceives a problem and comes up with an innovative way
for dealing with it. Innovations may also be developed by an organization outside of the
area where a problem is being experienced. Development agencies such as the World
Bank and the United States Agency for International Development, for instance, have
been known to generate innovations in hopes that they will provide a solution for
individuals and communities around the world. Innovations are activities/tools used by
the development community in an attempt to better the lives of the stakeholders with
whom they are working.

Despite the good intentions behind their development, and the benefits they may
have to offer, innovations are still frequently difficult to diffuse. Whether they represent
a new idea, a new method, or a new technology, innovations will almost always meet
with some resistance before becoming widely adopted. Even if the benefits are obvious,
potential adopters frequently need time to become more familiar with an innovation and
accustomed to the idea that it may require a change in the way they operate before
deciding whether or not to adopt it (Rogers 1995). Those interested in understanding the
diffusion of innovations have, as a result, invested a significant amount of time over the
years in researching and developing means for making the diffusion process more
efficient.

One such means is the demonstration. Research and practice have shown that
successful demonstration projects speed difl‘usion rates by increasing an innovation’s
observability, or “the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others”

(Rogers 1995: 16), and generating information about how well the innovation operates

under field conditions (Magill and Rogers 1981). Improving the observability of the
innovation and increasing the amount of available information about it acts to reduce any
uncertainty a potential adopter may have about an innovation, thereby increasing the
chances the innovation will be adopted and diffused (Baer et al. 1977).

Research and practice have also shown, however, that demonstrations are not
always successful and often fail to meet their objectives (Baer et al. 1976, 1977). These
demonstrations generally suffer from at least one of three main problems: they are unable
to increase the innovation’s observability; do not provide enough information about an
innovation to reduce the uncertainty of its potential adopters; or make the innovation too
observable and make too much information available while the innovation is still in a
testing phase and has yet to be proven (Dearing 1997). These problems result in low
adoption rates and can at times slow the diffusion of innovations.

The success or failure of a demonstration can be attributed to many different
factors, including the process through which the demonstration is implemented. This
process dictates how the innovation at the heart of the demonstration will be put to use.
While many studies have been devoted recently to researching the process of
implementation, most tend to focus on the implementation of an innovation within an
organization after the innovation has already been adopted (e.g., Cummings and
Mohrman 1987, Nord and Tucker 1987, Tomatzky and Fleischer 1990). Only a few
studies have touched specifically on the process of implementation within the context of

a demonstration (e.g., Baer et al. 1976).

Problem Statement

Innovations do not diffuse easily. Proponents of innovations, as a consequence,
have frequently turned to various alternative methods for speeding the rate of adoption.
These methods include demonstration. Successful demonstration projects will speed
diffusion rates by increasing the observability of an innovation and showing potential
adopters how well an innovation performs in a “real world” setting.

One of the key factors that influence the outcome of a demonstration is the
process in which the demonstration is implemented. While there is now a growing
literature base on implementation, very little research has been conducted on the process
of implementation as it pertains to demonstrations. This study will therefore attempt to
expand the understanding of this process by drawing from the implementation
experiences of a small-scale wastewater reclamation and reuse demonstration project,
Ecoparquez, in Tijuana, Mexico. Specifically, this study will attempt to build a better

understanding of the factors that affect the implementation process of a demonstration.

Research Directions
In order to understand the dynamic processes involved in implementing a
demonstration project, this study examines the case of Ecoparque by exploring the

following research question:

0 How did the demonstration project of Ecoparque evolve as a tool to

implement an innovation?

 

2 Throughout this thesis, the demonstration will be referred to as Ecoparque. The project,
however, did not receive this name until 1993.

In order to answer this question, the following questions guided the research:
0 What stakeholder groups were involved in the implementation process?
0 What factors were important to the implementation of Ecoparque as a
demonstration project?

0 How did these factors hinder or facilitate the implementation?

Significance of the Study

This study focuses on the processes involved in the implementation of a
demonstration project. Understanding these processes will not only add to the growing
literature base on demonstration projects; it will also benefit practitioners interested in
speeding the adoption and diffusion rates of projects like Ecoparque. The lessons learned
during the implementation of Ecoparque will help development practitioners and people
interested in wastewater management, in particular, understand that solutions, while
deemed viable in the eyes of their developers, may face many unexpected barriers and

therefore could be difficult to implement and diffuse.

Overview of the Project

Rinl nx

Tijuana is one of the fastest growing areas in Mexico. Located just south of San
Diego, California, on the United States/Mexico border (see Figure 1), people from all

over Mexico have migrated to Tijuana for one of two main reasons. First and foremost,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

.:iSan.Diquo *

 

"mum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo. . . "o. f worming

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Map of San Diego/Tijuana Region.

there are numerous employment opportunities in the city’s many maquiladoras’.
Secondly, Tijuana is an important crossing ground for people interested in finding high
paying jobs in the United States, relative to what they can make in Mexico. Annual
population growth rates in Tijuana have increased from 3.0% in the 1970’s to 4.9% in the
1980’s, and present estimates indicate that these rates have risen even higher in the
1990’s (Ganster 1999). This is well above the 2.0% national average growth rate
(SAHOPE and COSAE 1994).

The growth in Tijuana has not come without a cost. While there may be more
business and/or employment opportunities, de la Parra and Luecke (1997: 2) explain how,
“as a result of this demographic explosion, the urban infrastructure, including the water
and sewage systems, has been overwhelmed”. The treatment of wastewater, in particular,
has been a problem for many years now. Even with the upgrades the city has made to
the system over the past couple of decades, including the newly constructed International
Wastewater Treatment Plant (IWTP)", wastewater treatment is still inadequate. Salazar
(1999) reports that the sewage system in Tijuana presently services around 65 percent of
the city’s population. Raw sewage continues to flow into the Tijuana River,

contaminating the Tijuana River Valley, and threatening the health of the Tijuana River

 

3 Large industrial plants that have moved to the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border
from the United States, Canada, Europe, and Asia in order to take advantage of cheap
labor and tax exemptions and still be close to United States markets.

" The International Wastewater Treatment Plant, which had an initial estimated cost of
$400 million, officially began operations in April 1997. The plant is located directly
across the border from Tijuana and is projected to treat 25 millions gallons per day of raw
sewage. Effluent treated at the IWTP is discharged into the Pacific Ocean.

National Estuarine Research Reserve5 and other sensitive coastal waters of the region

(Salazar 1999).

Ecoparque is a demonstration project that has been run since 1991 by El Colegio
de la Frontera Norte (COLEF), a local research institution. Located on steep hillside in
the heart of Tijuana (see Figure 2), Ecoparque uses a small-scale wastewater treatment
system to reclaim household wastewater from an adjacent residential neighborhood and
reuse it for irrigation. In conventional systems, wastewater effluent is typically
collected, treated thoroughly, and then discharged into a water body, such as a river or
ocean, without consideration for its future value. Ecoparque’s wastewater reclamation
and reuse program models an alternative approach. Wastewater effluent is collected,
brought to a treatment center, treated partially or completely, and then released for reuse
at a designated location either on-or off-site. Wastewater, therefore, becomes a resource
rather than just another problem to be pumped away (de la Parra 1989).

Over the past eight years, Ecoparque has demonstrated that its low cost and
simple wastewater reclamation and reuse technology can effectively treat wastewater
and, at the same time, create a new source of water. As a result, it has also shown that
Tijuana has alternatives for addressing its water and wastewater problems. By building a
system of inexpensive, small-scale projects like Ecoparque around the city, the people at
Ecoparque feel that Tijuana would enhance its treatment capacity and make a new source

of water available for something beneficial, such as developing more urban green space.

 

5 The reserve is a saltwater marsh ecosystem located south of San Diego, on the United
States side of the border, at the mouth of the Tijuana River.

 

 

 

 

,. ”a

 

 

 

omnva
_ L __fi;, ,,

__ _.

NVHJO

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Detail of Tijuana indicating location of Ecoparque (adapted from Estero Beach
Volleyball 2000).

Over that same period of time, Ecoparque has developed into more than just a
wastewater reclamation and reuse system. The project is now not only a place where
researchers explore alternative technologies for treating wastewater. It is also a place
where the surrounding community can come and learn more about issues such as
composting, urban forestry, and bio-diversity. Thousands of people visit the project each
year to take a tour or just to get away and relax in one of Tijuana’s few remaining green
spaces. Ecoparque has become a symbol for what can be accomplished if waste is

thought of as being a resource rather than just something to be thrown away. As one

10

former project director said, “There are very few people that will go there, look at it, see

what’s going on, and not come out and say, this has got real potential.”6

Organization of the Study

This study will be organized in the following manner: The next chapter will be a
literature review. The third chapter will be an outline of this study’s research design. The
fourth chapter provides a detailed description of Ecoparque’s implementation. Chapter
five will include a discussion of the research results and analysis of the results using
concepts borrowed from existing literature, that address the research questions. The sixth
and final chapter contains a study summary, some conclusions, and a set of

recommendations for future studies.

 

6 All uncited quotes are taken from interviews conducted for this research.

11

Chapter 2

Literature ngim

Introduction

This chapter presents concepts from literature on qualitative research, diffusion of
innovations, demonstration, innovation implementation, and wastewater reclamation and
reuse. The literature review on qualitative research will cover what types of problems
warrant the qualitative approach, some assumptions of the approach, and the types of
research tools typically used in qualitative studies. Using diffusion of innovations as a
general background, the literature bases of demonstration, innovation implementation,
and wastewater reclamation and reuse are crucial to the understanding of the details of
this study. The literature helps frame the research problem discussed at the beginning of
the study and contributes to the construction of a broader final analysis of emergent

themes and categories (Creswell 1994).

Qualitative Research

Creswell (1998) emphasizes the firndamental decision to engage in qualitative
research lies in the type of problem being examined. Merriam (1988, as cited in Creswell
1994) notes that a qualitative approach to research is the most appropriate when
examining a process. Also, qualitative studies are exploratory in nature (Creswell 1998)
because not much is known, whether it be variables that cannot be cleariy defined or

inadequate theory to explain people’s behavior. Also, Creswell (1994) points to a basic

12

assumption that reality is viewed differently from the perspectives of different people,
therefore is subjective.

When accepting this assumption, methodological assumptions are then made
about qualitative research. Marshall and Rossman (1995:44) say that “the strengths of
qualitative studies should be demonstrated for research that is exploratory or descriptive
and that stresses the importance of context, setting, and the participants' frames of
reference." Therefore, contextual elements and the setting are described in detail. The
researcher also seeks to understand people’s backgrounds and roles in the situation in
order to understand their interpretation of events.

In order to explore people’s multiple view of reality and the context in which
people operate, then richly describe the situation examined to understand a particular
problem, qualitative researchers use a variety of tools. Creswell (1994, 1998) and Miles
and Huberrnan (1994) detail qualitative research strategies such as case studies,
ethnographies, and grounded theory. Actual data collection methods for each of these
strategies also vary. Denzin and Lincoln (1994), for example, go into great detail on
methods such as interviews, observations, and document review.

The choice to use a particular strategy depends on the problem being examined.
Creswell (1998), Stake (1994), and Yin (1994) discuss case studies specifically. A case
study is appropriate to examine a situation that is bounded by time and location. A case
study examines what is unique about a situation and what can be learned from that
uniqueness. Once a strategy is chosen, that strategy lends itself to particular data
collection tools. Again, Creswell (1998), Stake (1994), and Yin (1994) examine the tools

suited for case studies. Multiple sources of information are used to construct a case,

13

therefore a combination of tools such as interviews, documents, and observations are
used. Not only does using different tools help broaden the researcher’s understanding of
multiple perspectives, but it assists in triangulation (Stake 1994), which assists the
researcher in meeting an “expectation that the meanings of situation, observation,
reporting, and reading will have a certain correspondence.” (Stake 1994:241).
Triangulation can be done through multiple tools as well as multiple sources of
information using a particular tool (Mukgerj ee 1995) — interviewing different

stakeholders, for instance.

Diffusion of Innovations

Studies on the diffusion of innovations have been conducted for years now by
researchers from many different scientific disciplines. Recently, however, this research
has converged into a “single, integrated body of concepts and generalizations” (Rogers
1995: 94). Of these concepts, the one most relevant to the case discussed in this thesis is
the Innovation-Development process.

Rogers (1995) describes the Innovation-Development process as a series of stages
from the emergence of an idea to solve a particular need, to the creation of an innovation,
to the impact of that innovation once adopted or rejected. The specific stages are

explained below.

Stage 1. Identifying a need or problem.

Stage 2. Researching potential solutions/innovations.

Stage 3. Developing the innovation to meet the need or problem.

14

Stage 4. Converting (producing, packaging, marketing, etc.) the innovation into a

useful product for widespread distribution.

Stage 5. Diffusing the innovation and the target audience adopting or rejecting the

innovation for use to meet the need or problem.

Stage 6. Changing of a person or group as a result of the adoption/rej ection of the

innovation.

Although these stages are somewhat arbitrary in that they do not always occur in
the same order for every innovation (Rogers 1995), they do help establish a context for
the subject of the following section of this review: the demonstration. Demonstrations
are often used sometime between Stages 3 or 4 as a final stage of the scaling-up process,
from research and development to widespread use (Baer et al. 1977), to help speed the

diffirsion of an innovation.

Demonstration

There are two categories of demonstrations: experimental and exemplary (Rogers
1995, Magill and Rogers 1981, Myers 1978). Exemplary demonstrations are typically
conducted to accomplish two objectives. The first is to increase the observability (Rogers
1995) of an innovation. By putting an innovation on display, demonstrations permit
potential adopters to see how well it operates under actual field conditions (Magill and
Rogers 1981). The second objective is to produce new and disseminate already existing
information about the innovation. Both objectives combine to reduce the uncertainty a
potential adopter may have about an innovation and thereby increase the chances the

innovation will be adopted and difl’used (Baer et al. 1977).

15

Within the context of the diffusion of innovations, uncertainty generally refers to
the degree of knowledge someone has about an innovation prior to its adoption and
implementation. Exactly how much is known depends on how well the innovation is
defined, how well steps have been outlined for implementing the innovation, and how
easy it is to learn how to use the innovation. Innovations that do well in each of these
categories are considered to be highly certain. Innovations that do not do well, on the
other hand, are considered to be highly uncertain. As uncertainty rises, adoption rates fall
and the process of implementation becomes more complex (Cummings and Mohrman
1987)

Experimental demonstrations are conducted primarily to test, evaluate, and further
develop an innovation (Magill and Rogers 1981). The uncertainty about how the
innovation will perform under operational conditions is high. Therefore, visibility is kept
to a minimum and access is restricted to the sponsors of the innovation until a relatively
high degree of certainty can be expected by potential adopters (Myers 1978).

Research has shown that these two types of demonstration are often confused and
consequentially, certain demonstration projects have taken on characteristics of both
experimental and exemplary demonstrations (Rogers 1995). Bearing (1997) suggests
that this confusion tends to lead to demonstration failure (the main objectives are not
accomplished) and that demonstration advocates should know to distinguish between the
two when they design a project.

The decision to conduct an experimental or exemplary demonstration is only one
of many important decisions made during the process of demonstration planning and

implementation. Baer et al (1976), in their study of 24 federally funded demonstration

l6

projects, identify five additional aspects of planning and implementation that are
important to project success. They recommend:

1. Including the target audience in planning processes.

2. Making planning and implementation decisions locally.

3. Involving private sector firms with incentives to become manufacturers and

suppliers of the innovation.
4. Defining site characteristics early in the planning process.
5. Planning and implementing a demonstration at a scale large enough to provide

sufficient data for full-scale operation.

Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse

The process of wastewater reclamation and reuse is one where we can understand
more about issues of implementation. While most literature sources on wastewater
reclamation and reuse have a tendency to focus on technical issues related to system
efficiency, there a few reports that deal with project planning and implementation (e.g.
Uhlmann and Luxford 1999, Mills and Asano 1998, Wegner-Gwidt 1998). These reports
highlight the barriers wastewater reclamation and reuse projects have faced in the past
and recommend strategies for avoiding them in the future.

One of the biggest baniers these projects have encountered is public perception.
Uhlmann and Luxford (1999) found that the public is generally uncertain about the type
of technology used to reclaim and reuse wastewater, are unwilling to have operations
close to home, have concerns about health standards, and are concerned the cost of their

water services will change. Venhuizen (1991) also found that people are particularly

17

reluctant to give consideration to alternatives to conventional water services. There is a
resistance to change.

Wegner-Gwidt (1998) suggests that the first step to overcoming resistance to
change is to establish a line of communication with the public and address the
perceptions and expectations of community members, special interest groups,
government agencies, and the media. This will:

1. Inform and educate the public.

2. Present important issues early and avoid any unnecessary surprises.

3. Identify sources of opposition and their main concerns.

4. Encourage public input.

This will also, according literature on innovation implementation, make these groups
more accepting (Johnson and Rice 1987, Locke and Schweiger 1979) and more
committed to the project (Markus 1983).

In order to avoid other kinds of barriers facing wastewater reclamation and reuse
projects, Mills and Asano (1998) recommend conducting feasibility studies early in the
planning and implementation process. These studies, based on criteria such as
engineering, economic and institutional feasibility, will help project managers anticipate

potential barriers and assess if they can be overcome.

Implementation
If potential adopters of an innovation are likely to fully understand it and do not
consider its adoption much of a risk, i.e. they consider it a highly certain innovation,

much of the implementation process can be pre-planned and standardized (Cummings

18

and Mohrman 1987). Employing strategies, like the ones presented above by Baer et al
(1976), will help make this process run as smoothly as possible. There have been
instances, however, when people have chosen to follow some of the most accepted
implementation strategies and still failed to implement an innovation (Leonard-Barton
1988b). Cummings and Mohrman (1987) propose, therefore, that there must be a degree
of latitude included in planning implementation, whether an innovation is certain or not.

Planners and managers must be aware that implementation is not a predictable
realization of a programmed plan. Instead, implementation is a dynamic process of
mutual adaptation between an innovation and its “user environment” (Leonard-Barton
1988a), where innovations not only adapt to the existing environment they also change
the structure and practice of the environment itself (Van de Ven 1986).

Diffusion literature commonly refers to this process of adaptation as re-invention
(Rogers 1995, Johnson and Rice 1987, Rice and Rogers 1980). This concept, however,
only focuses on the degree to which an innovation is altered or modified by a user to suit
his or her needs (Rogers 1995, Leonard-Barton 1988a, Rice and Rogers 1980). Leonard-
Barton (1988a) argues that the environment is also impacted simultaneously by the
innovation and goes through a process of re-invention as well.

Managers who are able to be flexible and direct implementation as a process of
mutual adaptation are likely to be more successful at implementing the innovation,
because the innovation and its environment will have changed sufficiently to make a

more appropriate fit (Leonard-Barton 1988a).

19

Chapter 3

Reeeereh Metheds

Introduction

This chapter is divided into five different sections, each describing a step taken to
complete the research for this case study. The first section introduces the two types of
data this study draws from and explains why they were used. The following section
details how the sources for these two types of data were located and accessed. The third
section describes how the data was actually collected in the field. The fourth section
explains how the data was manipulated and analyzed. Lastly, the final section describes

what methods were used to verify the validity of the data presented in this study.

The Use of Qualitative Approach

The research methods used for this case study were chosen for their qualitative
nature. This decision was based on the literature discussed in Chapter 2: the qualitative
approach was appropriate for this study because it examined the process by which a
demonstration was implemented, this process was understood through the subjective
perspectives of reality from multiple players, and these perspectives were examined in
light of the context, setting, and people ’5 flames of reference. This approach allowed the
researcher to meet people who knew about Ecoparque and its implementation in their
natural setting, to explore the project’s history through their perspectives, and therefore

reconstruct a detailed, multiple perspective view of what actually happened. The

20

 

research design was flexible, which left the study open for emergent issues or themes as

they developed in the field.

Types of Data Used

This study used two forms of data. The first and primary source of data was
open-ended, semi-structured interviews. This type of interview was chosen primarily
because a researcher can use it to “ask key respondents for the facts of a matter as well as
for the respondents’ opinions about the events” (Yin 1994: 84). Open-ended, semi-
structured interviews also opened the study to what Stake (1995: 64) calls the “road to
multiple realities” and gives interviewees the freedom to provide information on topics
not previously considered by the researcher. Having each of these characteristics in an
interview was necessary, especially considering very little was known to the researcher of
Ecoparque and its implementation prior to beginning the research.

The second kind of data came from archival research. This included written
documents such as project proposals, e-mails, official statements, and news articles.
Information from these sources was used to corroborate or contrast with information
collected in interviews. This information also “allows an investigator to address a
broader range of historical, attitudinal, and behavioral issues” (Yin 1994:92) beyond

those that emerge in the interviews.

Identifying Sources of Data

The research process for this case study started with the identification of potential

interviewees. These were people who had been involved with the project during its

21

implementation, public officials who had an influence on the project’s progress, local
researchers, and local environmental activists.

The process of identification began with help from gatekeepers (Creswell 1998).
These gatekeepers were individuals who had either been involved with the project or
were familiar with it. They were therefore able to assist the researcher to gain access to
other key individuals who had different perspectives about the case. Two gatekeepers at
the beginning of the study were asked to provide a list of potential interviewees and, if
available, their contact information. This list became a springboard for the remaining
research. Through snowball sampling (Miles and Huberman 1994), which involves
pursuing sources provided by each subsequent contact person, the list of contacts grew
throughout the research period.

A similar strategy was taken with archival research. While the gatekeepers
helped identify and locate some relevant documentation, more written information was

identified by other contacts and located as the research progressed.

Data Collection
Amnging an Interview

Interviews were generally arranged by telephone or e-mail. When potential
interviewees were contacted, they were introduced to the researcher, provided with a
summary of this research, and ultimately asked if he/she would be willing to participate
in an interview. If the potential interviewee agreed to participate, he/she was asked to set

a time and place to meet for the interview.

22

Some interviews, however, were arranged with help from former interviewees.
They were either able to obtain access to potential interviewees who had proved to be
unreachable by telephone or e-mail, or, on a few occasions, they introduced the
researcher to a colleague1 whom they thought might have a different perspective on the
project directly after their interview had been completed.

Cendeee'ng the Interview

At the beginning of each interview, the interviewee was re-briefed on the nature
of the research. Afterwards, the interviewee was read a consent form (see Appendix I),
which explained who would be conducting the research, the purpose of the research, and
how the rights of participants in the research would be protectedz. The interviewee then
signed his/her name on the consent form to indicate he/she understood the nature of the
research and agreed to be interviewed. The interviewee was also asked to initial the
consent form if he/she was willing to have the interview taped3.

At the beginning of the interview the interviewee normally took the initiative and
began telling his/her story. For people who had been directly affiliated with the project,
their stories often began by explaining how they had been introduced to it. For people
who were not affiliated with the project or had not participated in its implementation,

their stories started with information on how they first heard about it.

 

' This was generally a co-worker or professional acquaintance who happened to be in the
same office.

2 This study received approval from the Michigan State University Internal Review Board
for research involving human subjects (1RB# 99-3 29).

3 12 interviews were not recorded because the researcher felt recording would be
inappropriate at the time or the interviewee declined to enter his/her initials on the
consent form.

23

As the interview between researcher and interviewee proceeded, however, the researcher
gradually directed the conversation around a list of pre-prepared questions.

These questions were organized prior to traveling to the research site and can be
found in Appendix II; developed according to interview protocol guidelines in Creswell
(1994). The questions were used as points of departure, addressing what the
interviewee’s professional role is/was in relation to Ecoparque (questions 1 and 2 of
protocol), what the interviewee perceived to be as the goal(s) of Ecoparque (questions 3
and 4), who was involved in Ecoparque’s development and implementation (questions 5-
7), how Ecoparque was developed and implemented over time and why (questions 8-11),
and what, from the interviewee’s point of view, the main factors were that affected the
implementation process (questions 12-17). The answers from these questions would
ultimately be used to build a better understanding of the factors that affected the
implementation process of Ecoparque.

During the fieldwork, these questions were appropriate for interviews with pe0ple
who had participated in the project’s development and implementation. However, they
were not well suited for interviews with people who had not. Therefore, the questions
asked during these interviews were adapted to center on the interviewees’ knowledge of
the project and their perception of how the project fit in the surrounding border
environment.

For some interviewees, the actions and events critical to the implementation of
Ecoparque were not fresh in his/her memories. If, during the course of the interview,
they neglected to give their perspective on some of these actions and events, they were

prompted to do so. The researcher, for example, would ask the interviewee if he/she

24

remembered a specific event. The researcher, however, prompted with discretion, and
only asked questions about well-known actions and events. The researcher also
attempted to allow each interviewee to talk with the least amount of interruptions as
possible.

In all, twenty-five one-on-one interviews were conducted between July and
August of 1999. Fifteen of these interviews took place in the United States, eight
occurred in Mexico, and two were done over the telephone. They were conducted by the
researcher, either in English or Spanish, depending on which language the interviewee

preferred.

Data Analysis

Data analysis for this study revolved around what Yin (1994: 110) calls
“explanation building”. After the data was collected, it was interpreted, reduced, and
entered into a running narrative that pieced together different perspectives and events,
thereby creating a clearer picture of the case than would have emerged from one or two
sources. By going through each of these steps, general themes emerged from the data to
help advance a basic understanding of the process of demonstration project
implementation.

Data interpretation began with the transcription of taped interviews. This process
took place as soon as possible after the interviews had been conducted. As the interviews
were transcribed, the researcher made notes in the margins of the transcriptions. These

notes, containing thoughts and comments, were used as flags for the researcher as the

25

data was reviewed in full a second time. They signaled points of departure that had the
potential to develop into major themes for the study.

For those interviews that were not taped, interpretation meant re-writing the
written notes. Re—writing the interviews immediately after they were conducted helped
the researcher capture some elements of the interview that were lost while taking notes.
Re-writing also gave the researcher time to make note of important themes emerging in
the interviews.

The data from these transcriptions or re-writes were aggregated (Stake 1995) into
various categories. Aggregation involved extracting comments from the data and
grouping them according to the issue to which they pertained. Comments about barriers,
for instance, were placed into a category about barriers and then that category was
subdivided depending on what kind of barriers was being discussed. Similarly,
comments about the support people who worked on Ecoparque received during the
process of implementation were grouped and then subdivided according to the type of
support being discussed. The researcher sought to collect related comments from the data
with the hope that “issue relevant meanings” would emerge (Creswell 1998: 154).

Some of these categories focused on the roles and motivations of major
stakeholders in the case. This information was used to develop a description of the case
including a chronological timeline of project implementation facts and events, which is
found in the following chapter. Other categories dealt with the project’s evolution.
These will emerge in chapter five as the author attempts to discuss the major themes of

this case study. The last group of categories formed the foundation of the thesis’ final

26

chapter, where recommendations are made for the planning and implementation of future

projects.

Verification of Results

Two main methods were used to verify the quality of information generated in
this case study. The first of these methods is called triangulation, the “convergence of
multiple sources of evidence” (Yin 1994: 93). Being able to corroborate and contrast
data between both interviews and documentation, the researcher converged on themes or
perspectives that appeared to more accurately represent what actually happened during
Ecoparque’s implementation.

The second method used in this study is called member checking (Creswell 1998,
Miles and Huberrnann 1994). In this process “the researcher solicits informants’ views of
the credibility of the findings and interpretations” (Creswell 1998: 202). To “ensure the
truth value of the data” (Miller 1992, as cited in Creswell 1994: 167), two interviewees
who had expressed interest in helping with the study were asked to review and comment

on portions of this thesis’ Case Description and Discussion of Results.

27

Chapter 4

The Imnlementetien ef Eeeeergge

Introduction

This chapter provides a detailed description of Ecoparque’s development and
implementation. The chronological review of major events begins with the birth of
Ecoparque in the United States in 1983 and ends with its final implementation in Mexico
in 1991. This chronology is divided into two phases: the experimental phase and the
exemplary phase. A list of key players in the development and implementation of both

phases are detailed in Table 1. A timeline for both phases can be found in Appendix III.

Phase 1: The Experimental Phase 1983-1986
_1__8_3

In 1983, a group of concerned US. citizens living around San Diego, U.S., began
discussing how to address the water quality problems of the Tijuana River. For years,
sewagel had been running out of Tijuana, through the Tijuana River, and polluting
sensitive coastal waters along the border, including the newly created Tijuana River
National Estuarine Research Reserve. The group thought that if they could not find a

method for controlling this flow of water, the health of the Reserve and local beaches

would be put in jeopardy.

 

‘ de la Parra and Luecke (1997) report that as much as 4 to 5 million gallons of raw
sewage crossed the border each day.

28

Table 1. Key Players in Ecoparque Implementation Process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key Players Description.

California State The state agency responsible for creating the Tijuana River

Coastal Conservancy National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Southwest Wetlands The non-profit organization located in Imperial Beach,

Interpretive California.

Association (SWIA)

Environmental An environmental non-govemmental organization based in the

Defense Fund (EDF) United States.

El Colegio de la A research institution located in Tijuana.

F rontera Norte

(COLEF)

Technology Two PhDs who developed the core technology used at the

Innovators demonstration project.

Project Manager A consultant hired by SWIA and later retained by EDF to run the
demonstration project.

Project Engineer A consultant hired by SWIA and later retained by EDF to test the
project technology.

Members of SWIA Communiy members of Imperial Beach, California.

Project Foreman A contractor hired by the EDF to help expand the demonstration.

President of COLEF Head of the research institute.

International The United States branch of a bi-national governmental

Boundary and Water organization responsible for managing waterways between

Commission (IBWC) Mexico and the United States.

La Comision The Mexican branch of a bi-national governmental organization

Internacional de responsible for managing waterways between Mexico and the

Limites y Aguas United States.

(CILA)

La Secretaria del A branch of the Mexican government in charge of urban

Desarollo Urbano y development and ecology.

Ecologia (SEDUE)

La Promotora del A branch of the Mexican government in charge of promOting

Desarollo Urbano de urban development in Tijuana, Mexico.

Tijuana, S.A.

(PRODUTSA)

Institute for Regional A research institute at San Diego State University (SDSU)

Studies of the

Califomias

 

29

 

 

The group of citizens ultimately decided that the key to solving the wastewater
problem was to develop a sewage treatment process that could treat sewage at its source.
Most wastewater treatment systems at the time were designed to collect wastewater at its
source and then pump it to a central wastewater treatment plant. These conventional
systems, however, failed to provide adequate treatment when the system did not reach all
the areas where sewage was being generated.

This was the case in Tijuana. A significant amount of the wastewater crossing the
border came from Tijuana’s steep hillsides and canyons, where recent immigrants to the
city were building new settlements (see Figure 3) at a faster rate than for which the city
sewer system could account. As de la Parra and Luecke explain (1997: 3), “Sewage
interceptors quickly became overloaded in these areas, and the canyons themselves
became wastewater canals.”

In the meantime, two PhDs from the University of California at Santa Barbara had
been exploring low-scale technological alternatives to wastewater treatment and were
considering the idea of testing their plans through a pilot project. The technology
involved three main components: a stainless steel screen to separate solids from the
water, a PVC “biofilter” where naturally occurring bacteria grow on the plastic and digest
the organic wastes as the water trickles over the filter, and a “clarifier,” in which

remaining solids settle out of the water.

30

 

 

Figure 3. Tijuana settlement on hillside (Photograph by R Angiano; used with
permission).

These technology innovators and the citizen group met and agreed that the
technology could serve as a foundation for a project that would address at least some of
the concerns over water quality in the Tijuana River watershed In particular, the
treatment mchnology would be adaptable to Tijuana’s steep hills and canyons, where the
city could not easily expand their sewer system.

Armed with new ideas and a new technology, the group of citizens called a
meeting. They contacted different stakeholder groups from the region and asked them to
come to discuss different solutions to the area’s wastewater problems. One of the
organizations that came to the June 1983 meeting was the California State Coastal

Conservancy, who had been responsible for the development of the Tijuana River

31

National Estuarine Reserve. The Coastal Conservancy was also interested in discussing
any ideas that could help protect the Reserve.

A few months after the meeting, the Coastal Conservancy asked the Southwest
Wetlands Interpretive Association (SWIA), a non-profit environmental group based in
Imperial Beach, California, to explore inexpensive solutions to water quality problems in
the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve. SWIA members had been active
at the June 1983 meeting and had worked with the Coastal Conservancy to establish the

Reserve a few years earlier.

12%

In 1984, SWIA sent the Coastal Conservancy a report which “recommended the
trial of a treatment system based on simplicity of operation but designed to treat
concentrated wastewater efficiently” (de Treville 1984, quoted in de la Parra and Luecke
1997: 8). Through testing this system, composed of a stainless steel screen, a corrugated
plastic media biological filter, and a settling tank, SWIA hoped to demonstrate an
alternative sewage treatment process that would:

0 Treat and reclaim wastewater

0 Be adaptable

0 Work on gravity to conserve energy

0 Help reduce the number of renegade flows2

0 Pay for itself

Enhance biodiversity

 

2 Wastewater flows generated in the canyons of Tijuana, which were not captured by the
city sewage collection system.

32

The ultimate goal of this treatment process was to enhance and protect the Tijuana River
and the Estuarine Reserve.

In July of 1984, the Coastal Conservancy agreed to fund a demonstration project
where the technology SWIA had recommended could be tested. Once the Coastal
Conservancy had accepted its proposal, SWIA set out to find a site for the demonstration.
SWIA found a site for the project on the United States side of the border, located in the
Tijuana River Valley on Dairy Mart Road. The property, which was leased by the
International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), was selected mainly for its
proximity to the emergency connection’. The connection would provide a source of
Mexican wastewater that SWIA could use in the system.

Another one of SWIA’s main goals was to bring a bi-national element to the
project. Since Tij uana’s wastewater problem effected both sides of the border, SWIA
thought the project would benefit from having people from both Mexico and the United
States working on the project. Therefore, SWIA hired a group of consultants from
Mexico and the United States to form a project team and help run operations.

One of these consultants had been working on the project with SWIA from the
very beginning. She had written the proposal to the Coastal Conservancy, she had found
the site for the facility, and she had introduced SWIA to nearly everyone who was
working on the project. SWIA asked her to be the project manager.

Another of the consultants came from a research institution in Tijuana called the

Colegr’o de la Frontera Norte. He had met the project manager while working for an

 

3 A sewer line designed by the IBWC in 1965 to transport 13mgd of wastewater from
Tijuana to San Diego for treatment at the Point Loma facility.

33

agency in charge of water in Mexico and was interested in exploring alternative
technologies for wastewater treatment. SWIA asked him to be the project engineer.

With his connections in Tijuana’s government, the project engineer began what he
referred to as the “Mexicanization” of the project. He began talking to people he knew in
the government, trying to persuade them that the ideas presented in the pilot project were
legitimate, that the project was not just another idea the “gringos” (or Americans) wanted
to force on Mexico, and that the city could actually benefit from using the innovative

technology.

19;

By 1985, all the components were in place. SWIA had been able to secure money
from the Coastal Conservancy, to find a site for the pilot project, and to draft plans for a
temporary facility. SWIA started construction at the Dairy Mart Road site in March
1985.

The construction was finished by June and wastewater, drawn from the
emergency connection, ran through the facility for the first time. From June until August,
project team members tested each stage of the treatment train. They ran wastewater
through the stainless steel screen, the plastic biological filter, and the settling tanks,
examining how the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (T SS)

in the water changed at each stage of the treatment process. Both of these measures help

assess the quality of the water; the lower the measures the cleaner the water. After they

34

were satisfied with the results“, they let the wastewater run through the entire treatment
system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

For the next nine months, everything ran very smoothly at the pilot facility. The
project engineer visited the facility regularly to monitor water quality levels. A group of
volunteers from the community organized a schedule for general maintenance. There
was even a small dedication ceremony towards the end of the year. The project was an

experimental demonstration at this stage.

L986

Operations were running so smoothly by the end of nine months that people at the
project started making plans to move the project forward, to be more of an exemplary
demonstration while retaining some experimental aspects. This meant expanding the
facility and making it more visible to the larger community. To help facilitate this
expansion, SWIA decided to turn over control of the project to the Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF), a larger organization with more exposure that had more experience
running big projects. This move, coupled with the success of the experimental phase of
the project, led the Coastal Conservancy to grant additional funding for a second,

exemplary phase of the demonstration project in February 1986.

 

" Testing during the first phase of the demonstration revealed that the system treated
wastewater at advanced primary levels. Primary treatment, according to Feigin et al.
(1991), typically removes coarse organic and inorganic solids, as well as grease and oil.

F ei gin et al. (1991) describes secondary treatment as involving aerobic and anaerobic
biological processes to break down organic material. Advanced primary treatment is,
therefore, primary treatment with some elements of secondary treatment. The solids were
separated from the wastewater stream using screens and settling tanks and
microorganisms living in the biofilter broke down the organic material.

35

Before any definitive plans for the second phase could be made, however,
wastewater suddenly stopped running through the emergency connection. The IBWC
and its counterpart in Mexico, la Comision Internacional de Limites y Aguas (CILA: the
International Commission for Limits and Water), had agreed to discontinue use of the
emergency connection between Tijuana and San Diego. Since the facility could not
operate without wastewater, the project manager and the project engineer went to the
IBWC and CILA, respectively, to inquire if and when the emergency connection could be
used again. While the IBWC told the project manager that the service was only going to
be shut down temporarily and that wastewater would run through the emergency
connection in a few months, CILA told the project engineer that Tijuana was going to
build its own treatment plant and would never send sewage to San Diego again.

Despite the conflicting information, the project manager decided it would be best
to listen to the IBWC and begin construction and expand the facility in its experimental
capacity. The expanded facility would include wetlands and ponds to treat the water
further after it had run through the basic core system, as well as a composting unit to
make use of the solids that were separated at the beginning of the treatment process.

EDF hired a project foreman and began expanding the facility. Soon afterwards,
however, the project faced an even bigger barrier. The IBWC said it would not renew the
project’s lease and that the facility would have to be broken down and removed from the

site.

36

Phase Two: The Exemplary Phase 1986-1991
EL

The project team tried to find out why the IBWC would not renew the lease. But,
after various attempts at communicating with the IBWC, they never arrived at a firm
answer. Once they found that the IBWC was not willing to discuss the matter, the project
team took steps to override the decision. They consulted with a lawyer to see how they
could legally stay on the property. They also spoke with people they knew in other
branches of the government. But, despite all their effort, the outcome remained the same.
They would have to stop construction, take down their equipment, and put everything in
storage.

Finding another suitable location on the United States side of the border for the
project proved to be difficult. The sites were often either too far away from an adequate
source of sewage or would require using sewage from the United States rather than
Mexico. The project team, therefore, decided to search for a new site in Mexico.

For help, the project engineer contacted the president of COLEF . The president
was impressed with the project and suggested that the engineer speak with a colleague at
La Secretaria de Desarollo Urbano y Ecologia (SEDUE: the Secretariat of Urban
Development and Ecology) in Mexico City.

The project engineer met with the SEDUE contact in Mexico City and presented
the project. The contact was impressed with the project as well and urged the project
engineer to present the technology to SEDUE’s engineers. He said that if the engineers

found no problems then two projects could be built, one in Tijuana and one in Ciudad

Juarez. The contact also suggested that the project engineer visit an organization called

37

La Promotora del Desarollo Urbano de T ijuana, S.A. (PRODUTSA: Promoter of Urban
Development of Tijuana), a branch of the government which was at the time held
property throughout Tijuana.

While the project engineer never received a response from SEDUE’s engineers,
he was able to find a few potential sites for the project with PRODUTSA. There were
three in particular where he thought the project could be located. He presented these
three sites at a PRODUTSA board meeting in December 1986 and was awarded one
situated on a steep south facing slope just below a neighborhood known as the Colonia
Otay Universidad. paonursa drafted an agreement (cornodatof saying um COLEF,
which had become the EDF’s partner on the Mexican side of the border, could have the
site for five years.

The site was selected for three main reasons. It was located on a steep slope
overlooking downtown Tijuana, making it very visible in the community. It was near a
city sewer, from which the project could draw and discharge wastewater. And lastly, the
23 acre site would accommodate the disassembled equipment from the first phase of the

project.

1982
Finding a new site was only the first step towards completing the second phase of

the project. Two additional steps would have to be taken before construction could even

 

5 The comodato specified that COLEF could only use the land to work on the
demonstration project and that it would have to return it in the same condition as it had
been before being loaned.

38

begin at the new site. Project team members would have to make sure they could still use
the Coastal Conservancy’s money for the project, even though it was now located outside
of California, and they would have to find a way to transport the original facility’s stored

equipment across the border without being required to pay customs.

Making arrangements to use California state money on a project in Tijuana was
difficult. Various members of the project team and EDF spent a significant amount of
time and money consulting with lawyers to establish that investing California funds in
Tijuana was not against the law. But eventually the Attorney General of California
signed an agreement stating that since the project would ultimately benefit California, the
Coastal Conservancy could fund an out-of-state project.

The process of moving the project’s equipment and construction materials across
the border was somewhat easier. Contacts at the Institute for Regional Studies of the
Califomias, at San Diego State University (SDSU), agreed to take all the EDF’s
equipment and materials as a donation and then transported everything across the border,
duty free, as a part of an existing agreement between SDSU and COLEF.

With a new site, funding, and the means for transporting equipment and
construction materials, EDF and COLEF began making preparations to build the second
phase of the project. They cleared the site, which had previously been an informal
community dump, and then began to design how the new facility would operate. The
treatment system, which would now include a clarifier, a system of wetlands and ponds,
and a composting unit, as well as the core system would have to be adapted to the new

site. Construction on the new site officially started in December 1987.

39

1188

As construction continued, people working closely on the project slowly began to
realize that they did not have as much money as they had believed. A large portion of the
funding they had received from the Coastal Conservancy had been used on construction
at the initial site, legal fees to move the project across the border, and making adaptations
at the new site. By the time people really knew how much money remained, it was too
late. In March of 1988, with an estimated 75% of the project completed, the EDF
stopped construction due to lack of funds.

There was very little advancement on the project over the next three years. The
project engineer and the project foreman were able to convince the EDF to permit them
to pour concrete at the new site in 1989. Beyond pouring the concrete, however, the EDF
had decided not to invest any more money into the project until there was enough to

complete construction and write a report for the Coastal Conservancy.

The three years between 1988 to 1991 were very difficult. A number of key
contributors to the project resigned their posts, another was fired, and yet another had to
leave due to illness‘. There was even a time when the EDF considered walking away
from the project. In the end, however, the EDF and COLEF were able to find the

resources7 to complete construction at the new site.

 

6 The project manager was diagnosed with a brain tumor.

7 The EDF found funding at the Coastal Conservancy and the General Service
Foundation. The project engineer received additional funding from SEDUE, Fundacion
la Puerta, and the Mexican Council of Science and Technology.

40

Construction resumed at the new site in January 1991 and was finished in June of
the same year. While the original design for the project had included wetlands and
polishing ponds, there was not enough money to complete these stages of the treatment
process. The final system, therefore, consisted of a stainless-steel fine screen, a plastic
media biological filter, a fiberglass clarifier, and a composting unit (see Appendix IV for
photographs of each of these components). EDF and COLEF began testing the system in
July 1991, using household wastewater from the Colonia Otay Universidad, wastewater

has been reclaimed and reused for irrigation at the site ever since’.

 

8 PRODUTSA ultimately gave the property to COLEF. The size of the property,
however, was reduced from 23 to 15 acres.

41

Chapter 5

Berrieg end Feeilitetive Feetors in the Implementetien Preeeee

Introduction

This chapter synthesizes the academic literature discussed in Chapter 2 and the
Ecoparque case study from the previous chapter in order to understand the
implementation process of a demonstration project. First, several of the barriers faced in
the Ecoparque project are outlined and discussed. This is followed by an analysis of
why, despite these baniers, the implementation of the demonstration was successful. The
chapter ends with a summary of the factors that facilitated the implementation of

Ecoparque.

Barriers to the Implementation of Ecoparque

During the 1983-1991 period detailed in Chapter 4, the various people affiliated
with the Ecoparque demonstration project encountered a number of barriers that made the
process of implementation difficult. These barriers ranged from an overall resistance to
change by a number of parties, to political struggles within the project and from
influences without, to different financial problems.

Implicit through many of the interviews and documentation available for the
study period, one of the major barriers was a resistance to change. This became apparent
through the lack of personal or institutional willingness to support or adopt the new
wastewater reclamation technology with no concrete reason for doing so other than the

defense of the status quo.

42

When asked what some barriers to the project were, the contractor hired to help
build the Tijuana facility noted that one of the main problems the project faced was
people’s natural tendency to question new ways of doing things when they are different
from their experience or training. The current director echoed this observation saying
engineers, which make up a large portion of the target audience for this type of
technology, “are generally trained in conventional ways and it’s hard to show them that
there are other ways, that there are alternatives.”

A researcher at the University of California at San Diego (UC SD) studying border
issues and familiar with Ecoparque’s history provided an interesting categorization of
people, including those who resisted it’s implementation:

Most reactions to the project fit into two categories. The

enthusiastic environmentalists kind, who have a “this is great, this

is how it should be done everywhere” sort of attitude. And then

the other attitude is one of . . .at least skepticism, if not outright

hostility. . .and I would divide that group into two. There’s a group

of people who live in neighborhoods in Tijuana who are skeptical

or outright hostile because they don’t want a sewage treatment

plant in their neighborhood. The other category of sort of

skepticism and opposition are really the sort of traditionalists, if

you will, who just don’t like anything that’s new. These are people

in CESPT, some of the engineers at IBWC and CILA, some of the

government officials in Tijuana, Baja [California] State, and the

federal government [of Mexico].

His evaluation included those who welcome change for the sake of any change for
what they perceive to be better (the “enthusiastic environmentalists”). He
subdivided the parties resisting change into the residents who would be most

directly impacted by the change and the institutional power-holders who were

invested in maintaining the traditional ways of operating.

43

This overall resistance to change can be categorized in terms of the specific

political and financial barriers that were encountered over time, as developed below.

The term “political” in this discussion encompasses ideas outlined by Bolman and
Deal (1997) such as the development of coalitions of people with similar interests making
decisions based on negotiations, and that the distribution and exertion of power is a
central concern both within coalitions and between coalitions. The key players who
worked on Ecoparque faced political issues both from outside of the group and within the
group.

External political pressures

When asked to describe the kinds of barriers Ecoparque faced during its
implementation a representative from an environmental NGO based in San Diego,
California, suggested that projects like Ecoparque often experience setbacks as a result of
the frequent changes that occur in the administration in local state, and federal
government. He said that, “While you may have a deal struck with one administration, a
new group may come in after only a couple of years and require you to start all over
again.”

Ecoparque experienced such a setback when the administration changed at the
IBWC. According to a former director of SWIA, who had been involved with the project
from the beginning, the IBWC was initially very supportive of the project. When the
administration changed 1986, however, and a new director was appointed, the support

vanished. The IBWC, without warning, told the EDF that it would not renew the lease on

44

the property where the project had been operating and asked that it stop construction and
remove all equipment from the site.

A former official at the IBWC explained that the lease had not been renewed
because the IBWC had not been informed of the extent of the project’s expansion and
was not willing to have constructed wetlands on their property. The IBWC felt the
wetlands, located within the Tijuana River floodplain, would be a health hazard to the
region.

The director of SWIA at the time suggested that there might have been other
reasons. He said that while the original director at the IBWC, who had been in office
when the first phase of the project began, was open to alternative technologies, the
successive directors were not. He noted that he and the new director “had many bitter
disagreements about the way sewage might be treated” and that the new director was only
open to conventional ideas for treating wastewater.

The move to Mexico brought other political barriers. One of the main problems
the project faced in Mexico was the perception that it was an American project. This was
a problem because, as the project engineer explained, “In the political context then,
anything that was coming from the US. side of the border was viewed as an
intervention. . .it was viewed in an adversarial type of mode.” People in Mexico at the
time, particularly those in the government, were not receptive to any new ideas coming
from the United States because they were tired of the United States telling them how to
deal with Mexico’s problems.

The project also met some resistance in Mexico because it showcased a

technology that would operate contrary to the way government agencies were handling

45

water issues in Tijuana. Many Mexican officials were not supportive of Ecoparque
because it challenged their centralized control over wastewater services. As one former
director of Ecoparque said, “We were promoting a concept of [decentralized wastewater
management] that would be administered by the citizens, not by the authorities, and they
didn’t like that”. Mexican officials, as a researcher from UCSD mentioned, may have
also questioned who would have rights to the all the recycled water generated by
Ecoparque or an other future projects like Ecoparque. He said, “All water belongs to the
people of Mexico and that right of ownership is exercised by the CNA [Comisién
Nacional del Agua: the National Water Commission]. And so the CNA. . .whenever
anybody recycles water, shows up and says ‘That’s ours, we don’t have to pay for it
because we’ve never lost title to it. Just because you’ve cleaned it doesn’t mean you get
to sell it to us or anybody else’”.
Internal political pressures

A number of people who worked on Ecoparque during the process of
implementation mentioned that there were internal political problems as well. Foremost
among these problems was that, as one consultant suggested, “People lost track of the
group ideal and self interest took over.” A former director for SWIA added, “You get too
many innovative people together working on one project and they lose the goal of what
they are trying to do because they all end up trying to go their own way.” As people lost
sight of some of the original common objectives and became more focused on their own
personal motivations, there were conflicts over how to proceed, and the process of
implementation slowed down. Power struggles between key players during the second

phase of implementation resulted in at least three resignations and, as the chief project

46

contractor said, “[this] made it hard to get releases of money [for construction] in a timely

manner.”

in ' B

Within this discussion, financial barriers will be explained in terms of funds
available for start-up and operating costs of Ecoparque. For most of the implementation
period, funds were not a concern. The Coastal Conservancy provided enough money to
finish both phases of the project. The problems began, however, when money that had
been meant for start-up and operating costs were spent on unexpected costs, such as
moving the project to Mexico. This left less money available for implementing the
second phase of the project.

When the initial funding finally ran out, people affiliated with the project were
forced to look for additional firnding. Over the two years they searched, they found that
people were interested in the project but nobody was willing to lend any financial
support.

The Mexican government was not interested in investing in Ecoparque. As a
former director for the project noted:

They are dealing with a different way of doing things. They like to

build large facilities, long pipe lines, they like to spend a lot of

money, they like to contract a lot of contractors, and they like to

cut ribbons every other week, and Ecoparque is not that type of

project. So it did not fit their expectations.

This statement was confirmed by a representative from one of the Mexican government

agencies who admitted that small-scale projects, like Ecoparque were usually not

considered.

47

Other major funding agencies had a similar opinion. The current director at
Ecoparque, who is experiencing problems finding funding for maintenance and
expansion today, explains how “most funding agencies like the World Bank prefer to be
involved with big projects where they have to spend a lot of money on construction and

development. They are not interested in smaller and cheaper solutions.”

Implementation Strategies Used in Ecoparque

In Chapter 2, a review of implementation and wastewater reclamation/reuse
literature indicated some strategies for successful implementation of an innovation.
These strategies included increasing community involvement at the initial stages
(W egner-Gwidt 1998, Baer 1976), maintaining decision-making at a local level (Baer
1976), and conducting assessments of project feasibility in terms of economics,
engineering, and social and environmental impacts (Mills and Asano 1998). In addition,
detailed plans are recommended to guide the implementation process:

Because the designs of innovations are fully specified,

implementation generally involves constructing the innovation

from detailed knowledge of its design features and how they

should work together. This construction process typically involves

specified steps for introducing the innovation into a particular

situation which serve as instnrctions for construction the

innovation anew in the organization. They may include aspects as

training for organizational members, installation of equipment,

establishment of structures and special roles, and the development

of communication techniques. (Cummings and Mohrman 1987:

278-9)

Most of these suggested strategies, however, were not followed in the implementation of

the Ecoparque demonstration project.

48

Qemmunity Invelvement

The community was, to a certain degree, involved with the project during the first
phase of implementation. Members from SWIA and other members of the community
participated in project activities, such as general maintenance of the treatment facility.
Once the second phase began, however, and the project moved to Mexico, community
involvement disappeared. CESPT (Comisio’n Estatal de Servicios Publicos de Tijuana:
State Commission for Public Services in Tijauna) donated a small labor force and some
equipment and a few researchers from COLEF lent their expertise. Beyond that, there
was no community input.

A researcher from COLEF explained that the reason why there was no community
involvement with the project once it moved to Mexico was that there were not enough
managers to teach and supervise anyone not already contributing. The main contractor
for the project added that the project team was in such a rush to finish the second phase of
implementation and was working with limited funding, that there really was no time to
consider involving the community. He said, “We were working six to seven days a week,
ten to twelve hours a day, in addition to being stuck at the border at the cross, which is
especially bad on the weekends. It would have been difficult to have more community

involvement.”

Lmal Deeisiee Meking
Decisions regarding the implementation of Ecoparque were largely made at the
local level. This was particularly true when SWIA was managing the project. It was

located within minutes of the first treatment facility. When the EDF took over control of

49

the project from SWIA, however, some decision making responsibilities transferred to
the their office, located in Boulder, Colorado.

Various interviewees who had been affiliated with the project during the second
phase of implementation commented that the distance between the EDF’s office and the
project site made decision making more difficult. This was true for the EDF office in
Boulder, which was in charge of all grant money. The project manager said he had a hard
time making decisions because communication with the site in Mexico was restricted to
phone calls1 and mail, and therefore could not stay on top of everything that was going at
the project. This was also true for project team members working on-site in Mexico. The
project contractor, for instance, felt that if the EDF if had been on-site the internal
conflicts between project team members may not have been quite so debilitating. Nearly
everyone involved with the project said they thought the second phase of the project
would have been smoother if the project had been charged to an office in California

rather than Colorado.

Mm

If there is an event that exemplified the priority level given to planning the
implementation of Ecoparque, it was a meeting held by project team members after the
decision had been made to move the demonstration project to Mexico. One of the project
consultants described it as follows:

I had been hammering all along that we needed to have a plan.

We needed to have a PERT chart. We needed to have a plan so we
knew what everybody was doing and how it all goes together.

 

‘ There was no phone at the site in Mexico at first. Project team members were forced to
go off-site to communicate with the EDF until they obtained a cell phone.

50

And. . .the project engineer didn’t want that because it wasn’t the

Mexican way of doing things. And. . .the project contractor didn’t

want it because he’s was going to build it. He knew how to build

it. He didn’t need a plan. He had it in his head. . .Everybody just

said thank you but we don’t want to do that.
In essence, nobody on the project team wanted to talk about common visions or set goals
and objectives. Everyone had their own objectives and their own ideas for what was best
for the project and they were not willing to make compromises. Thus, the second phase
of implementation proceeded without a set of goals and objective, without timetables,

without periods of evaluation, and even without a plan for how they would build the

facility at the new sitez.

MumalAdantation

Reviewing the chronology of Ecoparque’s implementation, a cyclical pattern is
more apparent than a step-by-step pattern. Advances were followed by setbacks, which
led to a change in direction from the original plan. Not only did the actual technology
change for various reasons, but the organization of people behind implementing the
demonstration project changed their own composition and the strategies taken. Leonard-
Barton (1988a, 1988b) calls this process “mutual adaptation,” where the innovation and
the “user environment” simultaneously adapt’to one another to reach a better fit (see
Figure 4). “Fit” is when the innovation is most successful because both the innovation

and the organization in which it is used have become appropriate to one another.

 

2 The project contractor explained that while there was a schematic of the various
components, there was no actual plan of where the components went on the site.

51

Technology

F it

Organization

Figure 4. Mutual adaptation (adopted from Leonard-Barton 1988a).

Leonard-Barton’s (1988a) term “user environment” is not clearly defined, but she does
refer to it in terms of organizations. Therefore, understanding the group of people
working to diffuse the technology of Ecoparque as the organization/user environment, a
mutual adaptation of the technology and the organization was apparent, as discussed
below.
The Technology Adapting to the Organization3

At the beginning, the focus of Ecoparque revolved around the technology. People
affiliated with the project felt that this unique combination of components could be used
to treat renegade flows from Tijuana effectively at a low cost and create green space at

the same time. As time went on, however, the scope of the project broadened. After

 

3 Though the group of people who worked on Ecoparque were not all of one formal
organization, they will be called an organization, referring to the general sense of a group
of people collaborating toward a common goal.

52

meeting their goals for the first phase, the organization of people working on the project
decided to run a second phase. Only this time, the facility was to be expanded to include
new components such as a clarifier, a system of wetlands and ponds, and a composting
unit. These additions, they thought, would improve the level of treatment and therefore
make the project more attractive to potential adopters.

The additions made to the technology for the second phase of the project were
influenced directly by the interests of the people working on the project. The wetlands,
for example, were added to the wastewater treatment system primarily because people on
the project, including the project engineer, had worked with wetlands before the project
began or simply had an interest in them and hoped to learn more about how they could be
used. A representative from the EDF stated that the EDF agreed to become involved with
Ecoparque partially because it had been interested in exploring the use of wetlands for
wastewater treatment.

The Organization Adapting to the Technology

Just as the technology adapted to the organization of people working on the
project, the organization also adapted to the technology. These adaptations were most
visible in the change in personnel over time. When they needed someone to help analyze
the data they had collected at the first facility and write a report, they asked one of the
original innovators to join the project team as a consultant. When they needed someone
to help build the new facility with the additional treatment components, they hired a
contractor who specialized in working on alternative technologies. And when plans were
made to expand the project, the project engineer said, “We needed an organization that

could give it a little more humph than SWIA and we got EDF.”

53

The Organization Adapting to the Context

In the case of Ecoparque, the model of the technology and the organization
adapting to each other is slightly inadequate. The political, economic, and cultural
context in which the events of the case study took place also plays a role. Both the
Ecoparque technology and the organization of people who worked on it were influenced
by and forced to adapt to the surrounding context.

The organization was forced to adapt, for example, when the IBWC refused to
renew the lease on the first site. This event led the organization to move operations to a
new site in Mexico and, as a result, forced people who had been working on the project in
the United States to adapt to a new setting and a new way of doing things. A Mexican
crew helped with the construction of the new facility, construction equipment was
borrowed from local government agencies, and most importantly, the EDF formed a
partnership with COLEF.

Financial issues also caused changes in the organization. Renewed funding for
the second phase from the Coastal Conservancy was contingent upon the sponsorship of a
bigger, better known organization than SWIA. The organization, therefore, handed over
the control of the project to EDF. Once the Tijuana project began, the organization ran
into financial difficulties, making it difficult to meet the salaries of its employees. A
number of employees, including the contractor and the consultant, were not paid during
the second phase of implementation and until the organization could catch up on the
back-pay, some employees volunteered their time in order to complete their

responsibilities.

54

The Technology Adapting to the Context

The surrounding, political, economic, cultural context also had an impact on the
technology. One example was the deletion of the final treatment step in the Tijuana site
due to lack of funds. After the wastewater was run through the core technology including
the clarifier, the plans specified using constructed wetlands and ponds to remove
remaining impurities or contaminants. When the organization was not able to finance the
completion and integration of these features, it decided that for the immediate purpose of
irrigation, the water did not have to be run through the final phase. The completion of the
wetlands and ponds was planned for a future time when the appropriate funds were
secured.

Another example is that the demonstration was converted from a wastewater
reclamation and reuse facility into a park based on reclamation and reuse technologies in
1989. The project engineer explained the reason was because cholera was becoming a
concern in the area around 1988-1989 and COLEF did not want the presence of
wastewater in Ecoparque to be associated with cholera. He added, “I thought a way to
defeat that was to get the people acquainted with the notion that wastewater was a
resource, not a problem.” Though reusing the water for green space was always a major
component of the technology, the conversion into a more socially acceptable park
required adaptations for the public to access and enjoy the space such as well-maintained

paths and other beautification measures.

55

Mutual Adaptation Revisited

In summary, the implementation of Ecoparque can be described as a process of
mutual adaptation, between the technology and the organization of people who worked
on the project. During this process, however, both the technology and the organization of
pe0ple were also influenced by and forced to adapt to their surrounding political,

economical, and cultural contexts. Figure 5 summarizes the forces of adaptation.

Context
Technology / J \

Fit

\x/

Context

Organization

Figure 5. Forces of adaptation.

56

Facilitative Factors

Despite the myriad of barriers that, according to theory would have prevented a
successful implantation of a demonstration project, Ecoparque has continued to function
at the Tijuana site for the past nine years. It has not only continued to demonstrate a
simple technology for wastewater treatment, but it has been able to meet at least some of
its goals such as providing an alternative wastewater treatment process for some
neighborhoods in Tijuana and increasing awareness about environmental issues in
general. It has, of course, suffered many setbacks and not yet succeeded in a widespread
replication of similar strategies, but what are the factors that counteracted the many
barriers?

The first explanation is the people who worked on the project. They were a major
factor in the implementation of Ecoparque. The passion and motivation they brought to
their work helped the project hurdle each of the barriers mentioned above. Even when it
seemed like the project would crumble, such as after the IBWC refused to renew the lease
on the first site in the United States or when construction halted in Mexico because all
funds had been exhausted, these people managed to find a way to finish what they had
started.

The second-explanation is that these same people were able make the necessary
political connections to move the project beyond the barriers they faced during its
implementation. As someone who worked on the project with the Coastal Conservancy
said, “I think the success of this project can be attributed less to the technology, than the
fact that we all did a lot of political leg work.” These connections paid off very early,

beginning when SWIA recommended the technology to the Coastal Conservancy. The

57

Coastal Conservancy may have never agreed to fund the first phase of the demonstration
had SWIA not already built a good working relationship with them while creating the
Tijuana River National Estuarine Reserve. Making political connections also benefited
the project later, after the project had been shut down by the IBWC. If the project
engineer had not already established a relationship with the president of COLEF, the
project might never have moved to Mexico, or even found a second site.

Making each political connection work, however, required taking the right
approach. The same representative from the Coastal Conservancy suggested that the key
to using a connection was not to focus on a contact’s objections about the project, but
rather to emphasize how that person would benefit from the project. She said that this
approach, for example, helped convince a couple key members of very conservative
California States Coastal Commission4 board to vote in favor of funding a second phase
for the demonstration project.

The most encompassing facilitative factor for the implementation of the project
was the adaptive approach, as described above. The flexible, adaptive approach may not
have been deliberately planned. Because the technology was new and its implementation
was somewhat uncertain, step-by-step long-term plans probably could not have been
made from the beginning. The improvisational approach was necessary and ultimately
became a benefit because each time a barrier appeared, either the organization or

technology changed to accommodate it.

 

’ The Coastal Commission was responsible for making decisions on whether or not to
fund projects sponsored by the Coastal Conservancy.

58

Chapter 6

a t mm nluin nR mmn rn

Introduction
This chapter presents the summary and conclusions of the case study. This
chapter ends with recommendations for further study for Ecoparque and for diffusion of

innovations, specifically dealing with the implementation of demonstration projects.

Summary

People have been conducting demonstration projects for years in attempt to speed
the rate at which innovations diffuse. As a result, people have also been conducting
research on demonstrations to see what factors typically lead to their success or failure.
One of the factors that has been largely passed over in past research is the stage of
implementation, the process where a demonstration is actually conducted. This study
has, therefore, attempted to add to the existing literature and provide firrther insight into
this important process through examination of a wastewater reclamation and reuse project
on the U.S.-Mexico border called Ecoparque.

This study draws on concepts from four literature bases, including diffusion of
innovations, demonstration projects, innovation implementation, and wastewater
reclamation and reuse. These concepts provide insight into the reasons why
demonstrations are conducted, the appropriate time or situation that they should be
employed, and the key factors involved in their planning and implementation. They also

introduce ways to approach the process of implementation as a step by step progression

59

of pre-planned strategies or as a process of mutual adaptation between an innovation and
its environment.

Ecoparque, located in Tijuana, Mexico, has been operating since 1991,
demonstrating how wastewater can be reclaimed and reused at a small scale and a low
cost to create urban green space. While Ecoparque’s Tijuana operation began in 1991,
the project had its start in 1983 in the United States. It was originally designed to help
prevent wastewater, flowing through the Tijuana River from Tijuana to the United States,
from threatening the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve and other
sensitive coastal waters. The first phase of the demonstration project, funded by the
California State Coastal Conservancy, was implemented and conducted in the United
States just south of San Diego for approximately nine months. The second phase of the
demonstration, also funded by the California State Coastal Conservancy, began at the
same site in the United States. The project, however, was ultimately implemented in
Tijuana five years later.

Problems with lease on the site where the project had been operating during the
implementation of the second phase of the project forced the project to shut down and
move to another site. The second phase construction that had begun in the US. had to be
restarted at a new site in Tijuana. The problems continued when funds for the second
phase of the demonstration were exhausted. The project was forced to shut down for
another three years before people working on the project would secure additional funds,
complete construction, and begin to test the technology. Ecoparque was ultimately

implemented, at its present location in Tijuana in 1991.

60

This study draws from two sources of data: open-ended, semi-structured
interviews and archival research. Through qualitative analysis, data from the interviews
and archival research were interpreted, reduced, and categorized to construct a narrative
of the implementation of Ecoparque. The validity of the results from the data analysis
was verified through triangulation and member checking.

People who worked on Ecoparque encountered a number of barriers to
implementation. These barriers were both political and economic in nature and were
founded in a general resistance to change. People who worked on the project, however,
were able to overcome each of these barriers and ultimately implemented both phases of
the demonstration project. Their ability to move past each barrier was not based on
strategies outlined in the literature, but instead due to the passion and motivation they
brought to the project, the use of political connections in the project’s favor, and the

flexibility with which the project was managed.

Conclusions

The overall conclusion of this study is that the process of implementation for a
demonstration project can be highly unpredictable. This is particularly apparent when
projects like Ecoparque, which are based on a simple, low-cost design, encounter

unforeseen problems and require many years to be implemented.

mgflawimmtatign

A number of literature sources (e. g. Mills and Asano 1998, Baer et al. 1976) have

suggested basing the process of implementation on a list of strategies. After studying the

61

case of Ecoparque, however, it appears that implementation may occur even when none
of these strategies are followed. This study draws from the model of mutual adaptation
(Leonard-Barton 1988a, 1988b) to help describe Ecoparque’s implementation. Instead of
being a step by step realization of a implementation plan, the process of implementation
for Ecoparque was dynamic, with the innovation and organization adapting to each other
over time.

This study, however, does not follow exactly the conceptual framework
developed by Leonard-Barton (1988a, 1988b). She does not discuss how the process of
adaptation is affected by influences outside of the organizational environment in which
the innovation is implemented. An analysis of the implementation of Ecoparque has
revealed that the broader context (e. g. political, economic, cultural factors) in which the
innovation is being implemented does affect the process of adaptation. The external
barriers encountered by the organization of people who worked on Ecoparque, for
example, played a major role in the evolution of both the innovation and the organization.

The process of implementation should, therefore, be broadened from Leonard-
Barton’s (1988a, 1988b) concept of two elements adapting to one another to include other
elements, namely the various contextual factors surrounding an innovation and the
organization. As in the case of Ecoparque the innovation and the organization did adapt
to one another, but both adapted under the influence of an additional element: their
surrounding context.

This process of adaptation had beneficial consequences. In Leonard-Barton’s
(1988a, 1988b) analysis of mutual adaptation, the end result of the process of mutual

adaptation is that the technology is better aligned with the organization. With

62

Ecoparque, where the technology, organization, and context interacted in the
implementation process, the end result was a better fit of the three forces of adaptation.
The organization learned how to use a technology to solve a given problem, the
technology was adapted to fit the interests and abilities of the organization, and both the
organization and technology changed over time to adapt to the economic, social, and
political forces in the context. Today, there is a technology in place that is run by an
organization, both of which operate within the contextual systems of Tijuana.
Demonstration project managers should be aware, however, that the process of
adaptation can be rather lengthy and that this may have some drawbacks. One of these
drawbacks was highlighted by a project consultant when he implied that the combination
of technologies at the heart of Ecoparque, considered to be innovative when the project
first started, had become mainstream and standardized by the time operations began in

Tijuana.

Wm

Ecoparque was first developed during the eighties by a group of concerned
citizens from San Diego. The project was meant to be a solution for some of the
wastewater problems plaguing the Tijuana River. While tested in the United States, the
goal was to have the technology at the core of Ecoparque adopted and diffused
throughout Tijuana. The technology would help treat wastewater in areas where the
existing treatment system was failing and, at the same time, create a new source of water
that could be used for something beneficial such as the development of community green

space.

63

The organization of people who worked on Ecoparque have, to a certain degree,
accomplished their goal. Ecoparque has been operating in Tijuana since 1991, reclaiming
wastewater and using it to create one of the few visible green spaces in the city.
Exceeding initial expectations, of reclaiming and reusing water, Ecoparque has also
become a park where people can come learn about environmental issues that are
important in Tijuana and all along the border.

The same organization of people, however, is finding that implementation success
does not always translate into a successful demonstration that speeds diffusion. While
operating at its present site in Tijuana, Ecoparque has failed to diffuse through Tijuana or
anywhere else along the border. Organizations in other cities in Mexico have inquired
about the technology and sought advice for starting their own versions of the project, but
none have come close to implementing their own Ecoparque.

One explanation for Ecoparque’s failure to speed the rate of diffusion throughout
Tijuana could be that the pe0ple who implemented the project did not initially clarify
whether the demonstration would be experimental or exemplary. In fact, it could actually
be argued that Ecoparque shared characteristics of both experimental and exemplary
demonstrations. The first phase of the demonstration, conducted in the United States, was
experimental in nature. The focus of the demonstration was to test and further develop
the reclamation and reuse system and, for that reason, visibility was kept to a minimum.
The second phase of the demonstration, conducted in Mexico, was meant to be
exemplary. The organization of people behind Ecoparque wanted to implement the
project and share the fruits of their labor. As the second phase became operational,

however, there were still plenty of experiments to do. The design was completely

64

different from the first demonstration and included at least two new components: the
clarifier and the compost unit. They also had areas on-site excavated for firture wetlands
and ponds, but not in use, which led some interviewees to call the project, eight years
after its implementation, a work in progress. As Dearing (1997) suggests, demonstration
projects should take on characteristics of either experimental or exemplary
demonstrations, not both. Allowing potential adopters to see an innovation while it is
still being tested, permits potential adopters to walk away from the project perhaps more

uncertain about the innovation than when they had arrived.

Eeepetgue ae e Develepment Prejeet

As introduced in the first chapter, development can be simply defined as positive
change, usually seeking to change a problem. Often development is carried out through
the implementation of an innovation. Successful implementation, however, does not
always equate to development success.

The organization of people responsible for Ecoparque’s implementation
developed a technology that would help protect the Tijuana River National Estuarine
Research Reserve and other sensitive coastal waters between Tijuana and San Diego.
The organization tested the technology in the United States and then decided to move the
second stage of the demonstration project into Tijuana, the source of the wastewater
problems. The project was designed to benefit both sides of the border. The project,
however, like most other development project of its era, followed a technology transfer
model that worked under the assumption that technology developed in one place would

be appropriate in other places (Chambers 1997). The organization of people working on

65

Ecoparque, which included some Mexicans from Tijuana, decided to implement the
project in a location where people, at the time, were not asking for or even considering
the type of technology Ecoparque had to offer.

The approach taken to implement Ecoparque can be critiqued, especially given
today’s development theories such as bottom-up development (Chambers 1997),
participatory action research (F als-Borda and Rahman 1991), and autonomous
development (Esteva 1997), which emphasize development arising from the ideas, needs,
and abilities of the people benefiting from the development. A critique, though, is not the
intent of this author because at the time Ecoparque was implemented, technology transfer
was an accepted mode of development. What development theories offer, however, are
different perspectives through which to analyze Ecoparque’s implementation as a
development strategy, each bringing out different issues to consider.

For instance, critics of technology transfer (e. g. Ullrich 1997) raise questions
about the assumptions behind using technology as the solution to problems. An
assumption is that a technology developed under a particular context and in response to
particular needs is appropriate in another context with potentially different needs.
Ecoparque was developed in the United States by Americans who perceived a water
pollution problem. A critique of technology transfer may pose questions such as, “Do
people in Tijuana perceive the problem in the same manner or view Ecoparque as the best
means to solve the problem?” Ifthese questions were answered before Ecoparque was
moved to Tijuana, the implementation of this demonstration may have taken a different

direction.

66

Participatory approaches to development (Chambers 1997, Esteva 1997, Fals-
Borda and Rahman 1991) raise the question, “Development for whom?” Participatory
approaches emphasize the need for posing the development problems, defining the course
of action to solve the problems, and taking those actions all to be done by the people most
affected by the problem. Therefore, one may ask who were “the people” in the case of
Ecoparque. In one sense, it was community people in San Diego who defined the
problem of wastewater contamination of fragile estuary ecosystems. These same people
developed and implemented a solution to this problem. This can be seen as very
participatory. However, when Ecoparque was moved to Tijuana, the source of the
problem, one may frame the case as one of an outside group defining a problem and
imposing a solution on a local community. Some people did seek to include local input
before Ecoparque was built in Tijuana, but the input was limited primarily to COLEF
staff members. Therefore, when the implementation of Ecoparque, both in its first stage
in the US. and its second stage in Mexico, is analyzed from a participatory development
approach, issues of who defines the problem and formulate the solution arise. If
Ecoparque was implemented in Tijuana with more community involvement, again, the

outcome today may have looked very different.

Recommendations for Future Research

While the lessons learned in this case study may be valuable for future research or
for future demonstrations, they must also be evaluated with the understanding that they
come from a single case study. Ecoparque was implemented in a unique context. The

experiences of Ecoparque’s implementation will be distinct from the experiences other

67

demonstration projects have as they are implemented. The generalizations generated in
this study must, therefore, be tested in future studies on other demonstration projects.
This case study was an example of how complicated the implementation of a
demonstration can be. Understanding how barriers and facilitative factors affect and
change the implementation process is useful for guiding future demonstration projects.
Future studies on the implementation of demonstrations can build on the lessons learned
in this study by either testing to see if other demonstrations are affected by the same
factors or exploring to see how other factors, not identified in this study, affect other

demonstrations.

Diffirsjmngflmatinns

Although this study has focused on the implementation process of Ecoparque, it
could have just as easily focused on the diffusion of Ecoparque. Future studies on
Ecoparque could explore the reasons why the technology has yet to be diffused into wide
spread use. To date, four or five projects in Mexico have attempted to implement their
own Ecoparques. A former director of Ecoparque commented that other organizations in
Mexico had attempted to adopt Ecoparque and implement their own version since the
demonstration began operations in Tijuana. A future study could investigate how these
projects have faired and if any of their implementation experiences compared to the

implementation of Ecoparque.

68

MW

This study showed how the context in which a demonstration is implemented
could have an effect the on process of adaptation that takes place during implementation.
Future studies could take this analysis one step further and examine whether or not
elements of the context may also adapt to the organization and/or technology. Though
this was beyond the scope of this study, the fact that Ecoparque was eventually
acknowledged by Tijuana city officials as a small part of Tijuana’s overall wastewater
treatment plan suggests the technology and organization did cause at least one change in

the city’s wastewater context.

vl mn

When the diffusion of innovations is for the purpose of positive change, or
development, framing each case in various development theories raise different issues.
Whether examining similar cases to Ecoparque or broadening our understanding of
mutual adaptation to include the context, considering them from different angles can help
inform the development of demonstration projects and how they are implemented, thus

insuring the best possible fit of the innovation, the organization, and the context.

69

APPENDICES

70

 

Appendix I
Qengent Ferm

You are being asked to participate in research for a master’s degree thesis. The purpose
of this study is to gain a better understanding of the factors involved in the
implementation of a demonstration project, specifically Ecoparque in Tijuana, Mexico.
During the interview, which will last approximately one hour, you will be asked
questions about your professional and/or personal views on Ecoparque. Your identity
will remain confidential and though your name will not appear in any published
document or presentation, you may be identified by your professional position and/or an
alias. Your participation is entirely optional. You may refirse to participate in this
research and may choose to discontinue the process at any time without any negative
consequences to you.

With your permission, this interview will be taped. After the recording has been
interpreted, it will be erased. By writing your initials below next to the consent to record,
you are indicating your agreement to have this interview recorded. If you choose not to
be recorded but agree to have the interview, sign this consent forrrr and do not write your
initials.

By signing below, you are stating that you fully understand: the purpose of the research,
your involvement in it, and your willingness to participate. Ifyou have any further
questions, please feel free to contact the researcher, James Harding, or Dr. David Wright
of Michigan State University at:

James Harding Dr. David Wright

122 S. Foster Chairperson of the University Committee on Research
Lansing, MI 48912 Involving Human Subjects (UCHRIS)

U.S.A. Michigan State University

(517)485-1258 (517) 355-2130

I agree to have this interview recorded.

Signature

 

Name

 

Date

 

71

Appendix 11
Sample Interview [reteeel

 

PP?“

9‘9.“

Explain the purpose of the interview.

Read the participant consent form to the interviewee.

Ask the interviewee to sign the consent forrrr to indicate that he/she understands the
purpose of the research, his/her involvement, and hi s/her willingness to participate.
Ask interviewee if he/ she would mind being tape-recorded.

Ask if the interviewee has any questions before the interview formally begins.
Thank the interviewee at the end and provide contact information.

 

Questigns:

Interviewee '3 professional role in relation to Ecoparque

l.

2.

What was/rs your involvement in the Ecoparque project?

How has that involvement changed over time?

Main goals of Ecoparque

3.

4.

What is the purpose or goal of Ecoparque?

Is that purpose or goal different from what it was when the project was first
conceptualized? If so, how has it changed? (Experimental versus Exemplary
demonstration)

Stakeholders involved in the implementation process

5. Who has been responsible for Ecoparque’s development? Has that changed?

6.

How did these individual s/organizations become involved with Ecoparque?

72

7. Who were the principal project promoters? (Prompt: Who were the project
champions?)

Reasons for Demonstrating the Technology

8. Who was the project designed for“? Who was meant to use an Ecoparque—type
technology?

9. How was Ecoparque designed to reach these potential users?
Demonstration site-selection

10. When was Ecoparque first operated at its present location? Why was this site
chosen?

11. Why was the decision made to build the project in Tijuana? Who made this decision?

Positive and negative reactions to Ecoparque and the eflects of these reactions

12. What were the reactions to the plan to build Ecoparque? Who reacted that way and
why? (Prompt: Was there any opposition or support to the project before it was
implemented? If so, who opposed/supported it?)

[P answer to 12. was “there was opposition,” ask questions 13-15:

13. What steps were taken to work through the opposition? Why? (Prompt: were.
adaptations made to the innovation, the environment, or both?)

14. Were there any other barriers to implementation? (Prompt: were there political/
technical/economic/cultuml barriers to implementation?)

15. How could things have been handled differently to avoid these problems before or
during the implementation process?

IF answer to 12. was “there was support,” ask questions 16 and 17:
16. How was this support helpful in getting Ecoparque built and running?

17. How could things have been handled differently to make the implementation process
smoother?

73

 

Appendix III

Timeline ef Meier Eyentg

 

Year

Event

 

1983

A group of concerned citizens in San Diego, California begin
discussing methods for addressing the chronic water quality
problems of the Tijuana River.

 

The group of citizens meets two PhDs who have developed a
simle technology for treating wastewater.

 

A meeting is held in San Diego to discuss alternatives for
resolving problems with water qualityin the Tijuana River.

 

The California State Coastal Conservancy asks the Southwest
Wetlands Interpretive Association (SWIA) to explore solutions
for treating Tijuana’s wastewater.

 

1984

SWIA sends a report to the Coastal Conservancy proposing it
test the core technology; a stainless steel screen, plastic
biological filter, and settling tanks.

 

The Coastal Conservancy decides to fund a demonstration
project where the technology may be tested

 

SWIA finds a site for demonstration in the United States on

property leased by the International Boundary and Water
Commission (IBWC).

 

SWIA hires a group of consultants from the United States and
Mexico to run the demonstration.

 

1985

Construction begins at the new site.

 

Construction is finished at the new site.

 

Each component is tested using Tijuana wastewater tapped from
the emergency connection.

 

Wastewater from the emergency connections begins running
through the system 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

 

The demonstration is dedicated.

 

 

1986

After running the demonstration for nine months, SWIA decides
the project should be expanded.

 

SWIA asks the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to act as
prg' ect manager.

 

The EDF accepts managerial control and submits a new proposal
for a second phase of the project to the Coastal Conservancy.

 

The Coastal Conservancy agrees to fund a second phase of the
demonstration.

 

 

The IBWC shuts off the emergency connection between Tijuana
and San Diego.

 

74

 

 

 

Year

Event

 

1986, continued

The project manager decides to proceed with the second phase

 

The EDF hires a contractor to help expand the demonstration to
include a clarifier, a composting unit, and a system of wetlands
and ponds.

 

Construction for the second phase begins.

 

The IBWC notifies the EDF that it will not renew its lease.

 

The IBWC asks the EDF to stop construction and remove
everything from the site.

 

The EDF removes all equipment and materials from the site and
puts them in storage.

 

The EDF searches for a new site.

 

The project engineer finds a new site for the demonstration in
Tijuana.

 

El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (COLEF) becomes the EDF’s
partner on the Mexican side of the border.

 

La Promotora de Desarollo Urbano de Tijuana, S.A.
(PRODUTSA) agrees to loan the site in Tijuana to e1 Colegio de
la Frontera Norte (COLEF) for five years.

 

1987

The Attorney General of California authorizes the Coastal
Conservancy to spend state money on the demonstration even
though the project is located outside of state boundaries.

 

The Institute for Regional Studies of the Califomias at San
Diego State University (SDSU) accepts the equipment and
materials from the first facility as a donation and transports them
across the border duty free.

 

The EDF and COLEF clear the new site and begin construction.

 

1988

Project funds are exhausted.

 

The EDF stops construction at the new site.

 

1 990

The EDF obtains funding from the Coastal Conservancy and the
General Service Foundation.

 

The project engineer secures additional funding from La
Secretaria de Desarollo Urbano y Ecologia (SEDUE),

F undacion la Puerta, and the Mexican Council of Science and
Technology.

 

 

1991

The EDF and COLEF finish construction at the new site.

 

The EDF and COLEF tap into a sewer from a neighboring
community, la Colonia Otay Universidad, and test the new
facility.

 

 

The EDF and COLEF authorize the demonstration to run 24
hours a day, 7 days a week.

 

75

 

 

Appendix IV

new

 

 

Figure 7. Biofilter.

 

i Photographs were taken by the author.

76

 

Figure 8. Clarifier.

 

Figure 9. Compost Unit.

77

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

78

Bibliography

Asano, T. 1998. Wastewater Reclematien end Reeee. Water Quality Management
Library, Vol. 10, Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publications Co., Inc.

Asano, T., and Levine, A. D. 1996. Wastewater Reclamation, Recycling and Reuse: Past,

Present, and Future. Water Seiegee end jjfeehnelegy. Vol. 33, No.10-11, pp. 1-4.

Baer, W. S., Johnson, L. L., and Merrow, E. W. 1976. Anflysis ef Federally Funded
Demenstretien Prejeets: Finel Regen. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Baer, W. S., Johnson, L. L., and Merrow, E. W. 1977. Govemment-Sponsored
Demonstrations of New Technologies. Sejeece, Vol. 196, pp. 950-957.

Bolman, L. G., and Deal, T. E. 1997. W. 2"" ed., San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chambers, R. 1997. Whese Reelity Qeunts? Petting the Last Fitst. London:

Intermediate Technology Publications.

Creswell, J. W. 1998. Qeelitetive Ingeity end Reeeerch De§ign; Cheesing Ameeg Five

mm. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswe1|,J. W. 1994. WWW

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cummings, T. G., and Mohrman, S. A. 1987. Self-Designing Organizations: Towards

Implementing Quality-of-Work-Life Innovations MW
Change and Qevelepment, Vol. 1, pp. 275- 310.

De la Parra, C. 1989. La Aministracion del Agua en Zonas Urbanas como Enfoque

Alternativo al Esquema de Dotacion y Desecho. In ll R ' 1
Edited by J. Caballos de la Torre, R. Lopez Lucio, J. G. Osuna Millan, and H.

Gomez Gomez. Baja California: Colegio de Economistas de Baja California, pp.

125-130.
Dela Parra, C.. and Luecke D F 1997 W
t - 1'," ._ no.1 m n 'r, z. - .WashingtonDC:
EDF Publications.

De Treville S 1984 W
W Imperial Beach, CA: Southwest Wetlands Interpretive

Association March.

79

 

 

 

Dearing, J. W. 1997. Interorganizational Diffusion: Integrated Demonstrations and the

US. Department of Energy. In Cage Studies in Qrganigetienel Cemmunieetiee,
edited by B. D. Sypher. New York: Guilford, pp. 262-276.

Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S., eds. 1994. W.
Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Estero Beach Volleyball. 2000. Velleybal] Estere Beeeh, Mexiee. [Online] Available:
http://www.esterobeach.com/images/tj-large.gif (May 2000).

Esteva, G. 1997. Development. In Ihegeyelepmeetpjefiepm edited by W. Sachs.
London and New Jersey: Zed Books, pp. 6-25.

Fals—Borda, O., and Rahman, M. A. eds. 1991. W
n l wi hP i i A i -R r h. New York: The Apex Press.

Falkenmark, M., and Lindh, G. 1993. Water and Economic Development. In Wateun

EnsiLAQuidsJtheflatldlafleshLl/Mrsoum edited by P H Gleick,
New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 80- 91.

Feigin, A., Ravina, I., and Shalhevet, J. 1991.1mgenenmthfleammefifflyem.
London: Springer-Verlag.

Ganster, P. 1999. The Environmental Implications of Population Growth in the San

Diego-Tijuana Region In Sumammmmnsmflfim edited

by M. J. Spalding, La Jolla: Center for U. 8. -Mexican Studies, University of
California, San Diego, pp. 35-66.

Gleick. PH. 1993. W New
York: Oxford University Press.

Hammer D H 1989 W
W. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers.

Johnson B and Rice R E 1987 W
W New York: Columbia

University Press.

Kindler, J. 1992. Water Quality Impacts of Urban Expansion in Developing Countries. In

Wetet, Develepmegt age the Envirenment, edited by W. James and J.
Niemczynowicz, Ann Arbor: Lewis Publishers, pp. 96-105

Leonard-Barton, D. 1988a. Implementation as Mutual Adaptation of Technology and
Organization. W191, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 251-267.

80

Leonard-Barton, D. 1988b. Implementation Characteristics of Organizational
Innovations: Limits and Opportunities for Management Strategies.

Cemmnnicetien Researeh, Vol. 15, No. 5, October 1988, pp. 603-631.
Locke, E. A., and Schweiger, D. M. 1979. Participation in Decision-Making: One More

Look. In Regeareh in Organizational Behevier, edited by B. Straw, Vol. 1, pp.
265-339.

Magill, K. P., and Rogers, E. M. 1981. Federally Sponsored Demonstrations of
Technological Innovations. K_n_oLle_Qge, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 23-42.

Markus, M. L. 1983. Power Politics and M18 Implementation. Qemmnnjeetienenflthe
AQM, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 430-444.

Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B. 1995. WWW. Thousand Acres,

London, and New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Meniam. S. B. 1988. W San

Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., and Huberman. A. M. 1984. WWW
fer New Metheds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Miller, D. 1992. Ex f i -Y 11 n :
Unpublished Doctoraln Dissertation Proposal, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Mills, R. A, and Asano, T. 1998. Planning and Analysis of Water Reuse Projects. In
W edited by T Asano Water Quality

Management Library, Vol.10, Lancaster, PA. Technomic Publications Co., Inc,

pp. 52-105.

Moshin', G. A. 1993. WWW. Boca Raton:
Lewis Publishers.

Mukgerjee, A. 1995. i i l i l' h n li
Planning. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing.

Myers S 1978 WM
W. Washington, D. C, Institute of Public
Administration, Report.

Nash, L. 1993. Water Quality and Health. In W

Wes, edited by P.H.Gleick, New York: Oxford University
Press, pp. 25-39.

81

Nord, W. R., and Tucker, S. 1987. Implementing Rentjne end Redieej Innevetjens.
Lexington, MA: Heath.

Okun, D. A. 1991 Reclaimed Water: An Urban Water Resource. Weter Seienee end
Teehnelogy, Vol. 24, No. 9, pp. 352-362.

Postel, S. 1997. Lest Qaeie. New York: W.W Norton & Comapany.

Rogers, E. M. 1995. Ditfijgien ef Innevetiens. 4‘” Ed. New York: Free Press.

Rice, R. E., and Rogers, E. M. 1980. Re-invention in the Innovation Process. Knowledge,
Vol. 1, pp. 499-514.

Secretaria de Asentamientos Humanos y Publicas (SAHOPE) and Comision de Servicios
de Agua del Estado (COSAE). 1994. Plen Estetel Hidre’liee. Baja California:
Gobiemo del Estado.

Salazar, J. 1999. Sustainable Development in San Diego-Tijuana? The Case of the

International Wastewater Treatment Plant. In W
QLeggtLijnene, edited by M. J Spalding, La Jolla: Center for U. S. -Mexican

Studies, University of California, San Diego, pp. 73-96.
Schilling, E. 1992. The Big Thirst. Elenning, February, pp. 35-38.

Stake, R. E. 1994. Case Studies. In W Edited by N. K.
Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage

Publications, pp. 236-247.

Stake, R. 1995. MW. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tomatzky. L. G.. and Fleischer. M. 1990. Mmsnfleehnnlogjgaunmtion
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Uhlmann, V., and Luxford, L. 1999. Edueetjenfleedefieekgmundfiepen. [Online]

Available: http://www.dnr.qld.gov.au/water/water-
recycling/collateral/qwrs1_education.pdf (March 1999).

Ullrich, O. 1997. Technology. In Ihefleyetepmentpjetjenem, edited by W. Sachs.
London and New Jersey: Zed Books, pp. 275-287.

Van de Ven, A. H. 1986. Central Problems in Management of Innovation. Menegement
Seienee, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 590-607.

Venhuizen, D. 1991. Decentralized Wastewater Management. Qyjlfingineejjng, Vol. 61,
No. 1, pp. 69-71.

82

Wegner-Gwidt, J. 1998. Public Support and Education for Water Reuse. In fleeteytetet

Reelmetjenendfienee, edited by T. Asano, Water Quality Management Library,
Vol. 10, Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publications Co., Inc. ,pp. 1417-1462.

Yin, R. K. 1994. WWW (2Ml ed.)- Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

83