Developing Criteria for Integrated Energy Management

Good day mates!

For several days now, our group has been working really hard for a case study “Integrated Energy Management in New Zealand”. And today we specifically focused and discussed the development of criteria to determine or evaluate how much is energy management in New Zealand been integrated. The following questions/inquiries were raised during our meeting: to what extent is energy being managed, what aspects of energy must be considered and integrated and how to design a criteria framework.

Indeed a lengthy discussion was made on so many things regarding energy integration. But we were able to agree to look on the following references in developing our criteria.

a.      The vertical and horizontal integration from Buhrs (1995) IEM matrix;

b.      The conceptual IEM matrix discussed by Born and Sonzogni (1995);

c.       Problem-framing by Bardwell (1991);

d.      Barriers to IEM by Cairns (1991); and

e.      Other relevant readings/literatures on IEM.

As Bardwell’s problem-framing and Cairns’ barriers to IEM have already been discussed on my previous postings, this blog will explore the possibility of developing criteria using the frameworks developed by Buhrs and Born and Sonzogni.

Vertical and horizontal integration

Buhrs (1995) suggested putting or combining together the vertical and horizontal axis to chart the diversity of approaches towards IEM in a matrix (see figure 1). But what does he actually mean by vertical and horizontal axis? The vertical axis of the IEM matrix simply refers to the environment which is represented as an integrated, holistic concept, comprising interdependent ecosystems or nature, including people (Buhrs, 1995). The key to effective integration of the vertical axis is to take into account interconnectedness of all elements under the environment concept (Buhrs, 1995). This is rather very ambitious if not very idealistic in my opinion. The environment itself for me is already a very huge and difficult subject to approach, hence, adding all associated concepts will rather make it more complex and complicated. However, it is the very essence of integration to take into account all the significant aspects of the environment for effective management. Thus, if we want to work on integrated energy management, all subjects associated with it must essentially be considered.

In contrast, the horizontal axis includes a variety of efforts and approaches to IEM which may be classified as integrated interpretation, institutional integration and policy integration (Buhrs, 1995). Integrated interpretation efforts refer to integrating information and knowledge about, and understanding of the environment. Institutional integration effort, on the other hand, is directed at integrating organizations, rules and procedures for environmental management. And lastly, policy integration effort is the process of formulating more integrated policy for managing the environment. The horizontal axis for me is more doable than the vertical axis. However, in order to come with a good IEM framework the both axis must be in integrated. But how can this help us developed criteria for our case study?

The IEM Matrix
Management
“The Environment”	Classification	Interpretation	Institutions	Policy	IEM
	Land
	Water
	Air
	Plants
	Animals
	Resources
	People

Figure 1. The IEM Matrix by Buhrs (1995)

Since environment is much broader in scope than energy, the IEM framework suggested by Buhrs may not totally be utilised in our case study. Nonetheless, I personally think of using the vertical and horizontal aspect in integrating energy institutions and policies. For instance, we will be looking on organizational structure in terms of decision-making within the vertical and horizontal level. Within the horizontal level we will be evaluating how cooperation and coordination is being undertaken between and among ministries of the government concerned with energy management and how energy policies are being implemented within their level. Under the vertical level, we will try to evaluate how energy policies and planning and decision-making process is being undertaken or translated from the central government to regions/districts down to local governments. Under this level we will also try to look on how key energy players are being involved in energy management such as the power generators, transmitters, distributors and consumers. Further, different relevant sectors which use energy mainly in their operation will be integrated such as the industries, transport, agriculture and household.

The Four Dimensions of IEM

Born & Sonzogni (1995) have conceptualized an IEM framework under four major dimensions or characteristics: comprehensive, interconnective, strategic, and interactive/coordinative. Comprehensive is inclusive of many things but must define the scope and scale of management. In IEM, it may include all critical biophysical, chemical, and human parts of an ecological system and all entities – public and private – that affect or can be affected by management (Born & Sogzogni, 1995). Comprehensive may answer the question: have all relevant aspects/areas of energy been considered for integration? Interconnective on the other hand may define interrelationships and linkages among processes and components of the environment within and among multiple, cross-cutting, and often conflicting resource uses. One appropriate question that interconnective dimension may answer is how do management of energy is being undertaken among the vast stakeholders. In other words, interconnective may show the linkages of all processes involve in energy management. In contrast, strategic or reductive or scaled-down involve interactions and trade-off decisions among stakeholders. Question on dispute resolution and prioritisation may be answered under this dimension. Lastly, interactive/coordinative may address how information is shared and dispersed between and among agencies and various stakeholders (Born & Sonzogni, 1995). A good question to look at in relation to interactve/coordinative dimension is how well energy information are being shared.

How can these dimensions help us create criteria for an integrated energy management? I constructed a table below to show possible aspects of energy that can be evaluated using the four dimensions of IEM by Born & Sonzogni.

Dimension	Aspects of Energy Management for Integration
1.      Comprehensive	a.      Integration of energy sources and uses into a single energy system; b.      Consideration of social, economic and environment into energy policies and strategies; c.       Integration of policies and regulations into energy company’s operations or goals; d.      Integration of the horizontal and vertical components of the energy institutions or organizations; e.      Integration of energy alternatives into planning; and f.        International or global linkages.
2.      Interconnective	a.      Consideration for all sectors for integration: households, agriculture, industry, commercial, transport, etc.; b.      Integration of key government agencies and energy companies; c.       Determination of supply and demand for energy market integration; d.      Define functions and responsibilities of all key players; and e.      Mapping and structuring to show interconnection/linkages of all energy management processes and determine the gaps.
3.      Strategic	a.      Integration of supply and demand in connection with population and economic present and future growth; b.      Determination of alternatives and their viability (must be integrated in the energy strategy); c.       Evaluation of consistency of policies and availability of alternative dispute resolutions; d.      Public communication and transparency for effective public involvement; and e.      Prioritisation of regional needs.
4.      Interactive/ Coordinative	a.      Evaluation of the extent of public participation with regard to energy management; b.      Institutional coordination and energy development strategy; c.       Inter-ministerial, inter-governmental coordination; and d.      Multi-partite or multi-stakeholder energy planning and decision-making.

Both works by Buhrs (1995) and Born and Sonzogni (1995) may be used as a guide only for the development of criteria for integrated energy management and not necessarily define energy integration. As mentioned earlier, environment is distinct and a lot different from energy in numerous aspects, hence a modification of the frameworks suggested by the authors is needed to establish criteria that will specifically and holistically define energy management. But by referring to this criteria, we may able to evaluate if integration in energy management is lacking, inadequate, strong or weak. I have provided herewith some aspects of creating criteria towards integrated energy management. They may be very general but somewhat useful nonetheless. I admit however that more research works are needed to be undertaken to put together various elements in one matrix for energy management.  

So, what do you think mates? Do you know any criteria that we can use for our case study? Please do not hesitate to suggest. Thank you very much.  

References

Bardwell, L.V. 1991. Problem-Framing: A Perspective on Environmental Problem-Solving. Environmental Management 15:601-612.

Born, S.M., Sonzogni, W.C. 1995. Integrated Environmental Management: Strengthening the Conceptualization. Environmental Management 19:167-181.

Buhrs, T. 2009. Integrated Environmental Management: Towards a Framwork for Application. Unpublished paper, Environmental Management and Design Division, Lincoln University.

Cairns, J. Jr.  1991. The Need for Integrated Environmental Systems Management. Pp 5-20, Chapter 2, In: John Cairns, Jr. And Todd V. Crawford (eds). Integrated Environmental Management. Lewis Publishers. Chelsea, Michigan.

Bardwell’s ‘Problem-Framing’: A Framework for Identifying Problems in IEM

 

Hello mates! I wish you all well. Today’s post is all about problem identification which is an integral part of the IEM Framework. So here we go…

Two of the most challenging aspects of implementing an Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) approach to environmental issues include problem solving and achieving comprehensiveness in decision making. With the growing need and demand for public involvement on matters of environment issues, understanding and getting the correct problem on the one hand is necessary among various conflicting interests, perceptions and perspectives of the participants. Comprehensiveness on the other hand is implicit in dealing with the complex and interrelated nature of the environment. Consequently, we asked on how to identify the correct problem and why is it important?  Moreover, is comprehensiveness in environmental decision making feasible and/or desirable? This blog however is devoted to problem-framing. We will be discussing more about comprehensiveness in the next posting.

Problem identification is very crucial in addressing environmental issues. In order to come with a viable solution, the problem must be captured correctly. Problem definition will determine where one ends up. With the complex, uncertain and highly political characteristics of the environment coupled with the diverse knowledge and values of the people, different understanding and interpretations of the issues may arise. ‘There are many ways of looking at the problem, many paths worth exploring, and rarely is there one “right” solution’ (Bardwell, 1991). These varying interpretations are sometimes overwhelming and discouraging, and hence may result to the participant’s helplessness in the face of these issues. How to facilitate and bring together these different views therefore is necessary to effectively provide a ‘good’ solution.

To make a good problem-solving, Bardwell (1991) refer to a framework known as ‘problem-framing’. ‘Problem-framing emphasizes focusing on the problem definition and on consciously examining different interpretations of that problem’ (Bardwell, 1991). It represents a synthesis of both cognitive psychology and conflict management that manages information and creates a problem solving environment that not only encourages participation but can yield better approaches to environmental problems. It is a way of understanding both the problem-solvers (on how people tend to solve problems) and the problem itself in general. In other words, problem-framing is a concerted effort to focus on one’s understanding of a problem. But how problem-framing is being done?

To accomplish problem-framing, Bardwell (1991) emphasized the ‘need for a usable structure, or way of organizing information related to that problem, and an effective process, with strategies for managing the problem-solving effort’. How one shapes a problem definition makes up the structure. The structure thus creates a model which provides parameters for selecting and classifying new information. ‘The more coherent one’s map, the easier is to step back and explore the dimensions of a problem’ (Bardwell, 1991). A structure also addresses confusion by establishing an effective way of organizing information about the problem.

An effective process on the other hand involves ways of managing and acting with the information relating to the problem. It is a matter of organizing the content of the structure. In order to be effective however, the process shall take into account some strategies. Some of the strategies provided by Bardwell include:

1.      Staving off solutions which basically tell us to avoid solving the problem too quickly but rather focus on problem definition in order to avoid inadequate or inaccurate definition of the problem. This process will encourage exploring the issue by carefully looking other alternatives that may possibly address it rather than focusing on one option and how to execute it.

2.       Limiting information to provide constraints between being overwhelmed by a problem that one gives up and feeling capable of effecting some change. It is the acknowledgement of hazards that too much information may bring due to disagreements over risks, objectives, accuracy and comprehensiveness of data in environmental problem solving. Limiting information may facilitate agreement on common database to increase mutual awareness and avoid hidden assumptions and different interpretations.

3.      Choosing levels refers to gathering information based on the level at which a problem is being addressed. Choosing the approximate scale for a given situation however must encompass enough of the problem. To do so, the scale that one chooses in addressing the problem must matches the structure, the actions are link to the framework and considers personalization.

4.      Generating imagery defines how well the strategies are being implemented. It is highly dependent on how one thoroughly knows the nature of the problem.  It involves the establishment of patterns and a perspective from which to build various levels for looking at a problem (Bardwell, 1991). Moreover, this will help in identifying critical decision points and envisioning alternative scenarios. One best example of imagery is through ‘success stories’.

5.      Developing metacognition to incorporate the notion of flexibility that facilitates understanding which reduces ambiguity and avoids confusion in problem solving. It is a way of simplifying a problem into manageable number of parts by choosing to address one level to avoid trying to deal with everything at once (Bardwell, 1991).

Identifying the right problem is not that easy due to various challenges posed by different environmental issues and information provided by various individuals. But certainly, getting the correct problem will lead to a better and more effective measures to address them. Bardwell has provided us a framework that we can use as a guide in dealing with it through the concept of problem-framing. Problem-framing thus avoids jumping quickly into solutions or being trapped into a goal which might be addressing the wrong problem. Moreover, problem-framing aims to manage information from varying and sometimes conflicting views and interests of the people facing environmental problems. Achieving common goal through proper analysis of the whole picture of the situation will definitely result to a better judgment and decision.

So what do you think mates? Do you have any other ideas of what and how to make better problem identification? Don’t hesitate to share them with me. Thank you very much and see you all on my next blog.    


References

Bardwell, Lisa V. (1991). Problem-Framing: A Perspective on Environmental Problem Solving. Environmental Management, Vol. 15, No. 5:603-612. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

IEM, what for and how it works?

Hello mates! It’s been a while since my last post and I do wish you all well. As of the last article, we have provided a definition of IEM to develop a clear understanding and appreciation of its concept. As promise, today we will be talking about what are the benefits that can be derived from IEM and what processes are involved in its implementation.

The first question therefore is what do we gain from IEM or what do IEM tries to achieve? Cairns (1991:5) enumerated some of the benefits of IEM: ‘(1) long-term protection of the resource; (2) enhanced potential for non-deleterious multiple use; (3) reduced expenditure of energy and money on conflicts over competing uses and the possibility of redirecting these energies and funds to environmental management; (4) more rapid and effective rehabilitation of damaged ecosystems to a more usable condition (more ecosystem services provided; and cost effectiveness’. The said benefits are somehow specifically address to resources and their uses. It is the desire of IEM therefore to promote development without causing any detrimental effects to the underlying ecosystems and provide viable solutions for long-term protection and sustainability of the environment.

Born and Margerum (1995:35-36), on the other hand, brings the idea of comprehensiveness and interconnections. IEM, thus, facilitate a broader analysis and understanding of the interrelationships that exist between and among varying environmental problems. It considers the ecological, institutional, and socio-economic interconnections and linkages of different systems that ensure a holistic approach to environmental governance. In addition, Buhrs (2009) put forward the possibility of ‘greening’ of knowledge, institutions and policy which may result to effective environmental management. Overall, what IEM’s can provide toward the betterment of environmental management is quite appealing.

But how IEM actually works? Born and Sonzogni (1995:169) provided a conceptual framework for IEM that make considerations of four principal dimensions: comprehensive, interconnective, strategic, and interactive/coordinative. Comprehensiveness implies a degree of inclusivity by defining the scope and scale of environmental management activities. To be comprehensive and eventually succeed, IEM must embrace the underlying ecosystems and its components, the resource management functions and most importantly the stakeholders. Interconnective dimension on the other hand describes the interrelationships and linkages between and among the ecosystems components, conflicting resource uses and the varying community of interest. In other words, the interactions and coordination among the diverse component of the environment are defined.

The strategic dimension is similar to a filtering process (Born and Sonzogni, 1995:171). It ‘aims to make environmental planning and management adaptive, anticipatory, and more attuned to the realities of the political decision arena’. In contrast, interactive/coordinative component not only is interorganizational and intergovernmental but also embrace directly and indirectly affected interests. Thus, public involvement is recognized as an essential factor to ensure successful implementation through effective interaction and coordination that eliminates conflicts and confusions.

In addition, Margerum (1999) presented a set of elements that are critical for the successful initiation, operation, and implementation of IEM. Within the initiation stage of IEM, legal, institutional, and organizational elements are considered, hence the following elements: (1) Laws and policies should support an integrated approach; (2) Resources must be available to support the planning process; (3) Willingness to participate of major stakeholders; (4) Legitimate stakeholder committee membership and participation; and (5) The need for people with skills and time to lead the effort. Operation stage deals with the elements that make stakeholders functions effectively. Among the important elements under this include: (1) The need for stakeholders to develop effective and clear processes for communicating; (2) The need for clear decision rules or consensus; (3) Effective identification and management of conflicts; (4) Consultation with the general public; and (5) Stakeholders should base management decisions on a sound understanding of environmental systems and interrelationships.

Lastly, the implementation stage which are referred to as the outputs and outcomes address the following elements: (1) Stakeholders need to foster familiarity, common goals, and mutual understanding; (2) Development of strategic and adaptable strategy; (3) Development of management approach that include environmental, social, and economic factors; (4) Stakeholders need to support implementation actions; (5) Identification of intervention leverage points to achieve management goals; (6) Stakeholder committees need to assert their role in management activities; (7) Creation of structures and mechanisms for coordinating decision making; (8) Implementation of information and education programs; (9) Resources to support implementation; and (10) immediate implementation of actions and activities.

Below is an IEM framework diagram that we can use as a guide in implementing IEM. In using this framework, it is important to remember the themes of IEM which are comprehensive, interconnective, strategic and interactive and coordinative. Moreover, it is essential to incorporate some points put forward by Buhrs (1995:14), to: ‘(1) Think politically; (2) Think analytically and laterally; and Think practically and strategically’.

 

On my next blog, I will try to discuss in detail the importance of defining a problem in order to arrive at correct IEM approach/measures. Truly, there is no single formula that can define successful IEM implementation. There is also no guarantee of achieving complete integration. In practice, IEM implementation may be differ in scope or coverage and varied in terms of location or space as it is continuously influenced by various factors such as political systems and community values.But can it be done or will it be done? Indeed it is a challenge up to this date on how to progress with IEM. The task is so huge and not easy. But, the most important thing, however, is that we are taking the right direction in embracing IEM as an effective tool for environmental governance. So what do you think mates? How can we effectively implement an IEM?    

         

References

Born, Stephen M. and Margerum, Richard D.  (1995). Integrated Environmental Management: Improving the Practice in Wisconsin. Department of Urban and Regional Planning. University of Wisconsin.

Born, Stephen M. and Sonzogni, William C. (1995). Integrated Environmental Management: Strengthening the Conceptualization. Environmental Management Vol. 19. No. 2, pp. 167-181. Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

Buhrs, Ton (1995). Integrated Environmental Management: Towards a Framework for Application. Environmental Management and Design Division. Lincoln University. New Zealand.

Buhrs, Ton (2009). Environmental Integration: Our Common Challenge. SUNY Press, Albany.

Cairns, John Jr. and Crawford, Todd V., Ed. (1991). Integrated Environmental Management. Chelsea, MI, Lewis Publishers.

Margerum, Richard D. (1999). Integrated Environmental Management: The Foundations for Successful Practice. Environmental Management Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 151-166. Springer-Verlag New York Inc.