This article is a review of the science goals and activities initiated within the framework of the Pollution and its Impacts on the South American Cryosphere (PISAC) initiative. Air pollution associated with biomass burning and urban emissions affects extensive areas of South America. We focus on black carbon (BC) aerosol and its impacts on air quality, water availability, and climate, with an emphasis on the Andean cryosphere. BC is one of the key short‐lived climate pollutants that is a topic of growing interest for near‐term mitigation of these issues. Limited scientific evidence indicates that the Andean cryosphere has already responded to climate change with receding glaciers and snow cover, which directly affect water resources, agriculture, and energy production in the Andean region of South America. Despite the paucity of systematic observations along the Andes, a few studies have detected BC on snow and glaciers in the Andes. These, in addition to existing and projected emissions and weather patterns, suggest a possible contribution of BC to the observed retreat of the Andean cryosphere. Here we provide an overview of the current understanding of these issues from scientific and policy perspectives, and propose strategic expansions to the relevant measurement infrastructure in the region.

Scholars have focused on understanding the motivations behind urban authorities' efforts to respond to climate change, yet the determinants of institutional response capacity are less well known, particularly in Latin America. This paper develops a framework to understand the political–economic determinants of institutional response capacity through an examination of climate change governance in Mexico City and Santiago, Chile. We ask whether being a frontrunner (Mexico City) is an indicator of greater institutional response capacity. Although Mexico City has slightly higher levels of institutional capacity than Santiago, both are faced with similar challenges, such as fragmented governance arrangements, asymmetries in access to information, and top-down decision making. However, both also have similar opportunities, such as leadership, participation in transnational networks, and potential to integrate climate change goals into existing policy agendas. Examining urban climate change planning in isolation from other institutions is therefore likely to provide a false sense of a city's response capacity.

In theory, building resilience is touted as one way to deal with climate change impacts; however, in practice, there is a need to examine how contexts influence the capacity of building resilience. A participatory process was carried out through workshops in regions affected by drought in Chile in 2014. The aim was to explore how resilience theory can be better applied and articulated into practice vis-á-vis participatory approaches that enrich the research process through the incorporation of co-produced. The results show that there are more differences in responses by type of actor than between regions, where issues of national interest, such as ‘education-information’ and ‘preparedness’, are highlighted over others. However, historically relevant local topics emerged as differentiators: decentralisation, and political will. This reinforces why special attention must be given to the different understandings in knowledge co-production processes. This study provides evidence and lessons on the importance of incorporating processes of the co-production of knowledge as a means to better articulate and transfer abstract concepts, such as resilience theory, into practice.

Current debate on the implementation of resilience in addressing climatic impacts calls for more pragmatic means of reducing losses. In this study we aimed to generate context-specific knowledge about resilience factors for addressing the impacts of drought, with the expectation that bringing forth experiential knowledge on how impacts were addressed in the past would shed light on what constitutes key resilience factors for practitioners working in urban contexts. The study was carried in three of the largest cities in Chile: Santiago, Concepción, and Valdivia. The analytical framework consists of urban and regional resilience incorporating transdisciplinary approaches applying the Resilience-Wheel tool, combined with participatory methods for the co-production of knowledge and qualitative content analysis of documents and workshops. Results show that key determinants of building resilience to drought were: improving education and access to information, enhancing preparedness, promoting technology transfer, reinforcing organizational linkages and collaboration, decentralizing governance, and encouraging citizen participation. The Resilience-Wheel was useful for navigating the conceptual complexity and diversity of perspectives inherent among social actors. The transdisciplinary approach allowed us to co-produce key knowledge that can be applied to build resilience in future, through a bottom-up approach that bridges the science–policy interface.

Energy and water have faced important levels of conflicts in the last 20–25 years in Chile. However, the way that they have been politically addressed in the last decade differs. These differences emerge from how these fields have been historically configurated, impacting on how the policy problems and policy options have been framed. Using thematic analysis of 93 interviews and documentary analysis, this article analyzes by contrasting two participatory processes which nourish the formulation of the energy and water policies in Chile in 2014–2015. It seeks to understand the factors that may influence why the development, impact and inclusion of new voices in public policies related to water and energy have been different, and how that can impact the water–energy nexus. Five factors emerge as determinants in this difference: structure of use, number of actors, governance and institutional framework, elite conformation, and legal framework. These factors impacted the policy processes and the scope of the policy outcomes, generating two different results: a long-term energy policy, and a water policy that did not survive the presidential period. Thus, the water–energy nexus is under pressure as a result of the tension between power structures, social responses to environmental issues and decision-making, environmental limitations, and climate change stressors, creating greater vulnerability and conflicts.