Shampa Biswas
Department of Natural Resource Sciences, College of Agricultural, Human and Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Johnson Hall, P.O. Box 646410, Pullman, WA 99164-6410, USA
Harald Vacik ·
Department of Forest and Soil Sciences, Institute of Silviculture, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Peter Jordanstr. 82, 1190 Vienna, Austria
Mark E. Swanson
Department of Natural Resource Sciences, College of Agricultural, Human and Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Johnson Hall, P.O. Box 646410, Pullman, WA 99164-6410, USA
S. M. Sirajul Haque
Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong, 4331, Chittagong, Bangladesh
Multi-criteria analysis (MCA), Criteria and indicators (C&I) assessment, Integrated Watershed Management (IWM), Resource planning, Key stakeholders, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Near the Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Centre, Bandarban, Southeastern Bangladesh
Socio-economic and Policy
Evaluation
Selection of small watershed for IWM A study area for this research was selected near the Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Centre, Bandarban, Southeastern Bangladesh, following discussions with local watershed specialists. The study area covers three small neighboring watershed catchments (∼1 ha each) and the surrounding local communities, Talukdarpara and Reichathalipara (Gafur et al. 2003). Selection of key informants and groups Experienced stakeholders living in or familiar with the CHT, including local farmers, resource managers, watershed specialists, civil engineers, and university scientists (representing forestry and environmental sciences), were selected as key informants and assigned to specific stakeholder categories. Application of multi-criteria analysis for IWM at Chittagong Hill tracts A set of PCIV was developed via a two-stage process, with the first stage consisting of a search for relevant literature and discussions with forest managers and other key informants in the Bandarban Sadar Thana planning area, CHT. The second stage consisted of consultation with local experts to refine the final PCIV set. The most emerging problems related to the case study area were formulated according to issues previously identified in the first stage. Environmental issues in the CHT include deforestation, illegal hunting, adverse effects of short rotation shifting cultivation (Khisa et al. 2006; Biswas et al. 2010), scarcity of clean drinking water, lack of adequate sanitation, hill cutting (mining and leveling), soil erosion, slope failures, flooding, and conversion of sensitive sites to agriculture (e.g., tobacco cultivation in the Matamuhri river floodplain; Chowdhury et al. 2007a, b). The primary components and main principles of the preliminary PCIV set were communicated to the key informant group through meetings and phone/email contact, with the explicit understanding that every stakeholder could recommend alterations. That flexibility and freedom for the informants were beneficial in generating acceptability of the preliminary PCIV set (Kodikara et al. 2010). However, the informant group changed only some indicators of the preliminary PCIV set, as the preliminary principles and criteria were generally acceptable. The single greatest concern among stakeholders was that the principles of IWM were adhered to in the PCIV process. Each interaction and feedback iteration from the key informant group assisted in clarifying the systematic cause and effect relationship of watershed management problems (Wolfslehner and Vacik 2011). The final PCIV set was a product of collaborative and iterative discussions among stakeholders and advisors which provides a basis for an assessment of stakeholder priorities in the planning region (Hajkowicz and Collins 2007), thus setting the “decision space” for negotiated land-use decisions. Management alternatives for IWM Management alternatives were developed to fulfill the key components of IWM, taking into consideration the developed PCIV set and the current situation of the study area. Forty-six activities were developed as possible activities to reduce environmental risk factors and improve standard policy, the local economy, ecosystem protection, the local livelihood standard, and management planning. As a result of the consultation with local experts six different alternative management strategies for IWM in the CHT have been formulated taking into account the individually proposed activities. Those alternatives fulfilled, at least in part, the key components of IWM considering the developed PCIV set. The alternatives are MS-0, a business-as-usual strategy reflecting the Current Situation; MS-I, Biodiversity Conservation Strategy; MS-II, Flood Control Strategy; MS-III, Soil and Water Quality Conservation Strategy; MS-IV, Indigenous Knowledge Conservation Strategy; MS-V, Income-Generating Watershed Conservation Strategy; and MS-VI, Landscape Conservation Strategy. Qualitative assessment of the effect of management systems on verifiers Following the development of the PCIV set the stakeholder group participated in a qualitative assessment of the potential impact of each management alternative on the verifier set. Information from the peer-reviewed literature on watershed management was used to further refine this information. The effect of a given management alternative on a specific verifier was assessed according to the following statements: “No difference,” “Slight Improvement,” “Moderate Improvement,” “Strong Improvement,” “Very Strong Improvement,” and “Extreme Improvement” (Hajkowicz and Collins Preference elicitation During stakeholder meetings, a PowerPoint (Microsoft Corporation 1995) presentation on the process of preference elicitation (ranking and rating method) helped key informants to understand PCIV concepts as well as the systematic steps of filling out the “Evaluation Preference Form”. A complete explanation of each element of the “Evaluation Preference Form” might be required while key informants were giving their opinion about PCIV for IWM. The steps in preference elicitations were: (a) the key informant or stakeholder scored each element of the PCIV set using a range from 1–100 and (b) key informants were required to rank the elements with regard to importance (1 − n, where n is the total number of principles, criteria, or indicators in a category). The aim was to aggregate the individual preferences of each stakeholder and provide input to the IWM framework (Karvetski et al. 2011).
Environ Monit Assess
Journal