Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761

DOI 10.1007/s10661-011-2148-x
Evaluating Integrated Watershed Management using
multiple criteria analysisa case study at Chittagong Hill
Tracts in Bangladesh
Shampa Biswas Harald Vacik Mark E. Swanson
S. M. Sirajul Haque
Received: 22 June 2010 / Accepted: 25 May 2011 / Published online: 15 June 2011
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011
Abstract Criteria and indicators assessment is
one of the ways to evaluate management strate-
gies for mountain watersheds. One framework for
this, Integrated Watershed Management (IWM),
was employed at Chittagong Hill Tracts region
of Bangladesh using a multi-criteria analysis ap-
proach. The IWM framework, consisting of the
design and application of principles, criteria, indi-
cators, and verifiers (PCIV), facilitates active par-
S. Biswas
School of Environmental Sciences and Management,
Independent University, Bangladesh Plot-16,
Block - B, Aftabuddin Ahmed Road,
Bashundhara R/A., 1229 Dhaka, Bangladesh
S. Biswas (B) 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
e-mail: shampa.bd@gmail.com
H. Vacik
Department of Forest and Soil Sciences, Institute
of Silviculture, University of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences, Peter Jordanstr. 82,
1190 Vienna, Austria
S. M. S. Haque
Institute of Forestry and Environmental Sciences,
University of Chittagong, 4331, Chittagong,
Bangladesh
ticipation by diverse professionals, experts, and in-
terest groups in watershed management, to explic-
itly address the demands and problems to mea-
sure the complexity of problems in a transparent
and understandable way. Management alterna-
tives are developed to fulfill every key component
of IWM considering the developed PCIV set and
current situation of the study area. Different man-
agement strategies, each focusing on a different
approach (biodiversity conservation, flood con-
trol, soil and water quality conservation, indige-
nous knowledge conservation, income generation,
watershed conservation, and landscape conserva-
tion) were assessed qualitatively on their potential
to improve the current situation according to each
verifier of the criteria and indicator set. Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP), including sensitivity
analysis, was employed to identify an appropriate
management strategy according to overall prior-
ities (i.e., different weights of each principle) of
key informants. The AHP process indicated that
a strategy focused on conservation of biodiversity
provided the best option to address watershed-
related challenges in the Chittagong Hill Tracts,
Bangladesh.
Keywords Multi-criteria analysis (MCA)
Criteria and indicators (C&I) assessment
Integrated Watershed Management (IWM)
Resource planning Key stakeholders
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
2742 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761
Introduction
Severe water shortages affect 400 million peo-
ple today and may affect four billion peo-
ple by 2050 (Vergano 2003). To address this
global challenge, the complex nature of watershed
management must be addressed with innovative
approaches which integrate and address a broad
range of resource and environmental protec-
tion issues in a compehensive way (Lamy et al.
2002; Thomas and Durham 2003; Mendoza and
Martins 2006). Viable solutions must recognize
the linkage of terrestrial and aquatic systems to
assure quality and quantity of surface and ground
water (Paneque Salgadoa et al. 2009). During
the 1990s, watershed management focused on
minimizing negative effects of activities within
a catchment. More recently, the maintenance
and enhancement of naturally functioning wa-
tersheds has increased in importance. Integrated
Watershed Management (IWM), which is gener-
ally applied at the catchment level, has emerged
worldwide as the preferred model for water-
shed planning (Heathcote 1998). IWM makes
the general concept of sustainable development
operational for the management of freshwater
resources. IWM adopts a holistic approach, which
implies that information is needed on the state
of economy, society, environment, and their in-
terrelationships (Steiguer et al. 2003). It also
invokes the need for greater stakeholder partici-
pation in decision-making, which means that there
must be tools for effective communication be-
tween different groups of policy makers (e.g., the
policymakers, the public, and the scientists). IWM
uses the watershed as the geographic planning
unit while integrating social, economic, ecolog-
ical, and policy concerns with science (Steiguer
et al. 2003; Heathcote 1998; National Research
Council 1999). IWM requires the consideration
of tradeoffs between social, economic, and en-
vironmental considerations. The need to involve
different groups of stakeholders in the manage-
ment and planning of water resources is recog-
nized as a key element in obtaining balanced and
sustainable utilization of water (Jnch-Clausen
and Fugl 2001). But in many cases, stakehold-
ers have conflicting interests, and their objec-
tives concerning water resources management
may substantially differ. Information is therefore
needed on causeeffect relationships and socioe-
conomic and environmental effects of policy mea-
sures (Hettelingh et al. 1998; Hammond et al.
1995; Swart and Bakkes 1995; Bakkes et al. 1994).
Application of multi-criteria analysis (MCA)
methods, including the use of hierarchical sys-
tems of criteria and indicators, is appropriate for
addressing complex resource problems (Prabhu
et al. 1998, 1999; CIFOR 1997). Both MCA tech-
niques and approaches using criteria and indi-
cators (C&I) are capable of elucidating conflicts
in decision-making (CIFOR 1999; Hajkowicz and
Collins 2007). Such approaches are desirable to
achieve knowledge-based, internally consistent
and rational decisions. In the case of watershed
management, a combined approach of MCA and
C&I has a strong capability to integrate both qual-
itative and quantitative variables (CIFOR 1997),
such as flooding potential, drought impacts, ero-
sion, extreme weather events, trans-boundary wa-
ter sharing, depletion of surface and ground wa-
ter, salinity intrusion, community participation,
agricultural issues, and socioeconomic concerns.
Direct participation of multiple experts and stake-
holders contribute to the general acceptability of
process results (CIFOR 1997; Prabhu et al. 1999;
Kodikara et al. 2010).
An entire C&I framework consists of objec-
tives, principles, criteria, indicators, and verifiers
(Prabhu et al. 1999). An effective code of practice
for principles, criteria, indicators, and verifiers
(PCIV) assessment needs to include a hierarchy
of different elements: objectives (reflecting the
general desires of the engaged stakeholders), prin-
ciples (fundamental ideals which help to achieve
objectives), criteria (conditions that need to be
met in order to adhere to principles), indica-
tors (measurable states which allow assessment
of whether or not associated criteria are being
met), and verifiers (information or observations
that will be used to demonstrate that the indicator
is being realized). The formation of principles,
criteria, indicators, and verifiers can be used to
construct clear, transparent, and acceptable data-
bases for specific decision-making cases (including
social, economic, and environmental policy fac-
tors; Biswas and Choudhury 2007; Prabhu et al.
1998, 1999). Field testing of the PCIV approach
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761 2743
provides a strong indication as to its utility and has
led to suggestions for continual improvement of
indicators and verifiers (CIFOR 1997), including
improvements in reliability and economy in its
application.
In MCA, the Analytic Hierarchy Process is
often used as a technique to organize decision-
making problems in a transparent and structured
way and derive preferences for a set of criteria
and indicators (Saaty 1995), including the case
of Integrated Watershed Management (Steiguer
et al. 2003). AHP has been used in many studies
with MCA (Qureshi and Harrison 2003; Mendoza
1997a, b; Saaty 1995; Golden et al. 1989; Vargas
and Zahedi 1993; Garfi et al. 2011), providing
a sound basis for determining weights of multi-
ple stakeholder preference variables (Qureshi and
Harrison 2003), in a process called preference
elicitation. Here, an initial set of C&I is often as-
sessed through ranking or rating procedures (e.g.,
by pairwise comparisons or scoring), according to
the perceptions and preferences of interest groups
involved in the decision-making process. The ap-
plication of MCA is growing in water resource
management (Bailey et al. 2000; French and
Geldermann 2005; Shackley and McLachlan 2006;
Fisher 2006; Hajkowicz and Collins 2007) because
MCA techniques, when applied to complex prob-
lems, can consider qualitative and quantitative
variables in the decision-making process of IWM
(Hajkowicz and Higgins 2008). This process must
be participatory and collaborative to be effective
(i.e., facilitating the decision making process). The
concept of an integrated assessment that incor-
porates C&I is derived from the practical experi-
ence of many organizations and is compliant with
frameworks such as the Montreal Process and the
Santiago Declaration (USDAForest Service 1997;
Mendoza and Prabhu 2000a, b, c). Assessment
of criteria and indicators for IWM can aid in
aggregating pertinent data, assist communication
between stakeholders, assist the development of
a conceptual model of the problem space, and
ultimately lead to group-based collaborative eval-
uation.
In Bangladesh, one of the most densely pop-
ulated countries, watershed management is be-
coming increasingly necessary for sustainable
protection of natural resources and environmental
health (Haque et al. 2010). In the Chittagong Hill
Tracts (CHT), watersheds are increasingly limited
in their capacity for sustainable provision of re-
sources for the local economy. Only 5% of the
land area in the CHT can be used for crop produc-
tion, 20% for horticulture (tree fruit production)
and the balance is comprised of hill slopes vul-
nerable to erosion from various land uses (Zaman
et al. 2010; Chowdhury et al. 2007a, b; Gafur et al.
2003). The major land uses are shifting cultivation,
horticulture, and production of tea, rubber, yam,
or ginger. Soil loss is often not considered in land
management, with shifting cultivation frequently
leading to enhanced rates of erosion and sedi-
ment transport (Gafur et al. 2003). As a result,
disturbances in upland watersheds have seriously
affected the lowland environment, especially via
water quality degradation and flooding impacts
(Karmakar et al. 2011; Beattie 1969; Khan and
Haque 2003; Reavill and Rahman 1995).
The purpose of this contribution is to establish
a framework for the evaluation and implementa-
tion of alternative IWM practices in the CHT of
Bangladesh. A set of C&I was used in conjunction
with the AHP to identify an appropriate water-
shed management strategy addressing the land
management preferences of farmers, the experi-
ence of resource professionals, and interest groups
in watershed management.
Methodology
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 (Fig. 1), following discussions with
local watershed specialists. The study area (Fig. 1)
covers three small neighboring watershed catch-
ments (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
2744 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761
Fig. 1 The map showing mountainous area of Bangladesh
indicating research site, Bandarban Sadar thana Soil Con-
servation and Watershed Management Centre, Talukdarpara
community and Reichathalipara community in Bandar-
ban Sadar (SRDI 1987; FD 2007)
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761 2745
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 for-
est managers and other key informants in the
Bandarban Sadar Thana planning area, CHT
(Fig. 1). The second stage consisted of consulta-
tion with local experts to refine the final PCIVset.
The most emerging problems related to the case
study area were formulated according to issues
previously identified in the first stage. Environ-
mental 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 ade-
quate sanitation, hill cutting (mining and leveling),
soil erosion, slope failures, flooding, and conver-
sion of sensitive sites to agriculture (e.g., tobacco
cultivation in the Matamuhri river floodplain;
Chowdhury et al. 2007a, b). The primary com-
ponents and main principles of the preliminary
PCIV set were communicated to the key infor-
mant group through meetings and phone/email
contact, with the explicit understanding that every
stakeholder could recommend alterations. That
flexibility and freedom for the informants was
beneficial in generating acceptability of the pre-
liminary PCIV set (Kodikara et al. 2010). How-
ever, 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 (Table 1) was a product of collaborative
and iterative discussions among stakeholders and
advisors which provides a basic 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 ac-
tivities were developed as possible activities to
reduce environmental risk factors and improve
standard policy, the local economy, ecosystem
protection, the local livelihood standard, and man-
agement planning. As a result of the consultation
with local experts six different alternative man-
agement strategies for IWM in the CHT have
been formulated taking into account the indi-
vidually proposed activities. Those alternatives
fulfilled, at least in part, the key components
of IWM considering the developed PCIV set.
The alternatives (Table 6) are: MS-0, a business-
as-usual strategy reflecting the Current Situa-
tion; 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 Conserva-
tion Strategy; and MS-VI, Landscape Conserva-
tion Strategy.
Qualitative assessment of effect of management
systems on verifiers
Following development of the PCIVset the stake-
holder group participated in a qualitative assess-
ment of the potential impact of each management
alternative on the verifier set. Information from
the peer-reviewed literature on watershed man-
agement was used to further refine this informa-
tion. The effect of a given management alternative
on a specific verifier was assessed according to the
following statements: No difference, Slight Im-
provement, Moderate Improvement, Strong
Improvement, Very Strong Improvement, and
Extreme Improvement (Hajkowicz and Collins
2007).
2746 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761
T
a
b
l
e
1
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
,
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
,
a
n
d
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
f
o
r
I
W
M
i
n
t
h
e
C
H
T
o
f
B
a
n
g
l
a
d
e
s
h
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
1
.
P
o
l
i
c
y
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
1
.
1
P
r
o
p
e
r
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
1
.
1
.
1
O
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
a
n
d
u
s
e
r
r
i
g
h
t
1
.
1
.
2
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
a
w
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
1
.
1
.
3
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
a
t
l
o
c
a
l
/
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
s
1
.
2
P
r
o
p
e
r
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
1
.
2
.
1
S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
e
n
i
n
g
m
u
l
t
i
-
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
1
.
2
.
1
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
1
.
3
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
.
3
.
1
E
x
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
.
3
.
2
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
g
r
o
u
p
1
.
4
P
r
o
p
e
r
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
1
.
4
.
1
S
k
i
l
l
e
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
i
e
s
1
.
4
.
2
W
e
l
l
-
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
p
r
e
c
a
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
a
n
d
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
1
.
4
.
3
E
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
o
f
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
e
x
p
e
r
t
i
s
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
1
.
5
P
r
o
p
e
r
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
m
a
k
i
n
g
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
1
.
5
.
1
L
o
c
a
l
p
e
o
p
l
e

s
a
n
d
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
2
.
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
i
n
c
o
m
e
2
.
1
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
m
a
r
g
i
n
/
n
e
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
2
.
1
.
1
P
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
l
o
c
a
l
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
/
s
u
b
s
i
d
i
e
s
o
f
f
a
r
m
e
r
s
2
.
1
.
2
N
e
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
f
r
o
m
f
a
r
m
i
n
g
/
f
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
/
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
2
.
2
I
n
c
o
m
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
r
e
g
i
o
n
/
s
t
a
t
e
2
.
2
.
1
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
u
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
2
.
2
.
2
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
s
o
f
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
3
.
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
3
.
1
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
s
o
i
l
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
t
y
3
.
1
.
1
G
r
o
w
t
h
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
s
o
i
l
)
f
o
r
f
o
r
e
s
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
1
.
2
G
r
o
w
t
h
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
s
o
i
l
)
f
o
r
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
3
.
2
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
b
i
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
3
.
2
.
1
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
l
o
r
a
l
a
n
d
f
a
u
n
a
l
r
i
c
h
n
e
s
s
3
.
2
.
2
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d
p
a
t
e
n
t
e
d
r
i
g
h
t
3
.
3
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
3
.
3
.
1
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
3
.
3
.
2
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
3
.
3
.
3
W
a
t
e
r
c
r
i
s
i
s
a
r
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
3
.
4
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
d
s
i
t
e
s
3
.
4
.
1
S
u
r
v
e
y
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
t
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
i
n
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
3
.
4
.
2
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
4
R
i
s
k
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
4
.
1
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
o
i
l
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
4
.
1
.
1
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
s
o
i
l
a
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
4
.
1
.
2
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
r
o
s
s
d
a
m
s
w
i
t
h
b
i
o
-
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
4
.
1
.
3
S
l
o
p
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
b
e
s
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
4
.
2
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
l
l
e
g
a
l
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
4
.
2
.
1
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
i
l
l
e
g
a
l
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
4
.
2
.
2
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
s
t
p
l
a
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
o
f
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
b
y
t
h
e
i
r
c
o
s
t
4
.
3
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
l
a
s
h
f
l
o
o
d
4
.
3
.
1
F
o
r
m
u
l
a
t
i
n
g
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
4
.
3
.
2
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761 2747
5
.
L
i
v
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
5
.
1
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
5
.
1
.
1
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
t
a
t
u
s
:
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
5
.
1
.
2
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
5
.
1
.
3
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
i
n
d
i
g
e
n
o
u
s
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
5
.
1
.
4
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
g
r
o
u
p
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
d
5
.
2
F
u
e
l
w
o
o
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
5
.
2
.
1
F
u
e
l
w
o
o
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m

h
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
f
o
r
e
s
t
s

5
.
2
.
2
F
u
e
l
w
o
o
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
p
l
a
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
5
.
3
P
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
f
o
o
d
5
.
3
.
1
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
f
r
u
i
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
5
.
3
.
2
S
m
a
l
l
-
s
c
a
l
e
e
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
s
a
r
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
5
.
3
.
3
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
d
l
o
c
a
l
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
a
r
e
r
e
c
r
u
i
t
e
d
5
.
4
U
s
e
o
f
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
5
.
4
.
1
C
r
o
p
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
r
i
c
e
,
s
e
s
a
m
e
,
c
o
t
t
o
n
,
t
u
r
m
e
r
i
c
,
g
i
n
g
e
r
,
a
n
d
v
e
g
e
t
a
b
l
e
s
)
5
.
4
.
2
H
e
r
b
a
l
m
e
d
i
c
i
n
e
:
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
/
h
a
r
v
e
s
t
i
n
g
5
.
4
.
3
W
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
a
n
d
f
a
r
m
i
n
g
i
n
d
r
y
s
e
a
s
o
n
5
.
5
E
m
p
o
w
e
r
m
e
n
t
o
f
w
o
m
e
n
5
.
5
.
1
S
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
o
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
f
o
o
d
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
5
.
5
.
2
W
o
m
e
n

s
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d
,
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
a
n
d
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
5
.
6
P
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
5
.
6
.
1
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
d
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
6
.
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
6
.
1
F
o
r
e
s
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
6
.
1
.
1
E
x
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
o
f
a
f
o
r
e
s
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
6
.
1
.
2
U
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
k
i
l
l
e
d
f
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
l
a
b
o
r
,
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
,
a
n
d
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
6
.
2
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
6
.
2
.
1
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
i
e
s
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
6
.
2
.
2
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
s
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
2748 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761
Preference elicitation
During stakeholder meetings, a PowerPoint
(Microsoft Corporation 1995) presentation on the
process of preference elicitation (ranking and rat-
ing method) helped key informants to understand
PCIV concepts as well as the systematic steps
of filling out the Evaluation Preference Form
(Table 5). A complete explanation of each ele-
ment of the Evaluation Preference Form might
be required while key informants were giving their
opinion about PCIV for IWM. The steps in pref-
erence elicitations were: (a) the key informant or
stakeholder scored each element of the PCIV set
using a range from 1100 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;
Tables 2 and 3). The aim was to aggregate the
individual preferences of each stakeholder and
provide input to the IWM framework (Karvetski
et al. 2011).
Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process
In this work, the PCIV set was used to decom-
pose integrated watershed management into a
hierarchy for structuring the complex problems
into smaller parts with a relational structure be-
tween them. Six principles and 22 criteria (ranging
from more general at the top to more specific
at the bottom; Fig. 2) were used to develop the
AHP model. The individual preferences by the
stakeholders allowed to determine the impor-
tance of each criterion using the geometric mean
(In and Olson 2004). The assessment of the man-
agement strategies for IWM by applying pairwise
comparisons was done based on the qualitative
information provided by key informants during
interviews. Comprising the qualitative assessment
of the performance of the management strate-
gies regarding the principles and criteria as well
as the aggregated preferences provided for them
allowed to evaluate the strategies with the AHP.
In addition, sensitivity analysis was performed by
alternative weighting regimes at the hierarchical
level of principles, wherein each principle was
given a higher weight than the others, and the
effect on alternative prioritization was determined
(Saaty 1995).
Results
Preferences of principles, criteria,
and indicators for IWM
Criteria and indicators are developed at interna-
tional to local scales planning at Chittagong hill
tracts for IWM. Global average priorities for six
principles by six key informants to identify the
best alternatives for IWM was the highest for
principle Ecological Maintenance. Students and
field managers gave the highest preferences for
policy planning (Principle 1), where watershed
specialists, professors, and engineers had similar
preferences for policy planning (Table 2).
Watershed management regulations (Criterion
1.3) were highly preferable according to global
average preferences across stakeholder groups.
Ensuring a proper decision-making mechanism
(Criterion 1.5) was the most preferred criterion
for the civil engineer group. Professors displayed
greater preferences for a proper legislative frame-
work (Criterion 1.1), whereas this criterion re-
ceived a medium level of preferences by students,
Table 2 Key informants priorities at principle level (1100/1 n) for IWM in the CHT of Bangladesh
Principles Global Watershed Professor Field Engineer Journalist Student
average specialist manager
Policy planning 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.19 0.21
Economic income 0.15 0.15 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.11 0.15
Ecological maintenance 0.20 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.25 0.17 0.16
Risk factors 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.09 0.15 0.19 0.18
Livelihood of people 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.15
Management planning 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.15 0.17 0.15
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761 2749
T
a
b
l
e
3
K
e
y
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
t

s
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
a
t
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
(
1

1
0
0
/
1

n
)
f
o
r
I
W
M
i
n
t
h
i
s
c
a
s
e
s
t
u
d
y
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
G
l
o
b
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
o
r
F
i
e
l
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
i
s
t
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
1
.
P
o
l
i
c
y
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
1
.
1
P
r
o
p
e
r
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
0
.
1
9
0
.
1
4
0
.
2
8
0
.
1
3
0
.
1
3
0
.
1
6
0
.
2
0
1
.
2
P
r
o
p
e
r
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
0
.
1
5
0
.
1
8
0
.
1
3
0
.
1
3
0
.
1
3
0
.
2
0
0
.
1
6
1
.
3
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
0
.
3
2
0
.
3
4
0
.
3
3
0
.
3
6
0
.
2
8
0
.
2
4
0
.
2
5
1
.
4
P
r
o
p
e
r
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
0
.
1
1
0
.
1
0
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
3
0
.
2
0
0
.
1
6
1
.
5
P
r
o
p
e
r
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
-
m
a
k
i
n
g
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
0
.
2
3
0
.
2
4
0
.
1
7
0
.
2
8
0
.
3
3
0
.
2
0
0
.
2
3
2
.
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
i
n
c
o
m
e
2
.
1
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
m
a
r
g
i
n
/
n
e
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
o
f
f
a
r
m
e
r
s
0
.
5
2
0
.
4
7
0
.
5
4
0
.
6
0
0
.
6
0
0
.
4
4
0
.
5
5
2
.
2
I
n
c
o
m
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
r
e
g
i
o
n
/
s
t
a
t
e
0
.
4
8
0
.
5
3
0
.
4
6
0
.
4
0
0
.
4
0
0
.
5
6
0
.
4
5
3
.
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
3
.
1
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
s
o
i
l
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
t
y
0
.
2
7
0
.
2
3
0
.
2
5
0
.
2
0
0
.
2
5
0
.
2
3
0
.
2
8
3
.
2
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
b
i
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
5
0
.
2
2
5
0
.
2
5
0
.
2
3
0
.
3
6
3
.
3
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
0
.
2
6
0
.
2
7
0
.
2
6
0
.
4
0
0
.
2
5
0
.
2
7
0
.
2
2
3
.
4
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
d
s
i
t
e
s
i
n
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
0
.
1
7
0
.
2
0
0
.
1
4
0
.
1
7
5
0
.
2
5
0
.
2
7
0
.
1
4
4
.
R
i
s
k
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
4
.
1
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
o
i
l
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
0
.
3
6
0
.
3
5
0
.
4
3
0
.
3
5
0
.
3
3
5
0
.
3
5
0
.
3
2
4
.
2
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
l
l
e
g
a
l
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
0
.
3
4
0
.
3
6
0
.
3
3
0
.
3
5
0
.
3
3
5
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
7
4
.
3
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
l
a
s
h
f
l
o
o
d
0
.
3
0
0
.
2
9
0
.
2
4
0
.
3
0
0
.
3
3
0
.
3
5
0
.
3
1
5
.
L
i
v
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
5
.
1
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
0
.
2
0
0
.
1
8
0
.
2
3
0
.
3
3
0
.
1
7
0
.
1
7
0
.
1
7
5
.
2
F
u
e
l
w
o
o
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
0
.
1
4
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
5
0
.
1
1
0
.
1
7
0
.
1
8
0
.
1
2
5
.
3
P
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
f
o
o
d
0
.
2
1
0
.
3
5
0
.
2
1
0
.
1
3
0
.
1
7
0
.
1
5
0
.
1
9
5
.
4
U
s
e
o
f
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
0
.
1
8
0
.
1
9
0
.
1
4
0
.
1
6
0
.
1
7
0
.
1
7
0
.
2
0
5
.
5
E
m
p
o
w
e
r
m
e
n
t
o
f
w
o
m
e
n
0
.
1
4
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
6
0
.
1
6
0
.
1
5
0
.
1
8
0
.
1
4
5
.
6
P
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
0
.
1
3
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
1
7
0
.
1
5
0
.
1
8
6
.
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
6
.
1
F
o
r
e
s
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
0
0
.
5
5
0
.
5
4
0
.
5
2
0
.
5
2
0
.
5
8
6
.
2
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
0
.
4
6
0
.
5
0
0
.
4
5
0
.
4
6
0
.
4
8
0
.
4
8
0
.
4
2
2750 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761
Principle
Principle 1.
Policy planning
Principle 2.
Economic Income
Principle 3.
Ecological
Maintenance
Principle 4.
Risk factors
Principle 5.
Livelihood of people
Principle: 6.
Management
planning
Criteria
1.1 Proper Legislative Framework
1.2 Proper Institutional Framework
1.3 Watershed management regulations
1.4 Proper Scientific Framework
1.5 Proper decision making mechanism
2.1 Contribution margin/net income of farmers
2.2 Income generation for region/state
3.1 Maintenance of Soil fertility
3.2. Maintenance of Biodiversity
3.3 Maintenance of Water quality
3.4 Identification of degraded sites in the watershed
4.1 Reduction of soil erosion
4.2 Reduction of flash flood .
4.3 Reduction of illegal extractions
5.1 Education and Training
5. 2 Fuelwood production
5.3 Possibility to produce food
5.5 Empowerment of Women
5. 6.Possibilities for Settlement
6.1 Forest Management Plan
6.2 Evaluation and Monitoring
MS-I: Bio-diversity 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
MS-VI: Landscape conservation
Strategy
Management Strategies
Hierarchy of IWM Framework
5.4 Use of Innovative technology
Fig. 2 Hierarchy of IWM framework, principles, and criteria cascading from the decision objective or goal
and relatively lower preferences by field man-
agers, watershed specialists, and journalists. Jour-
nalists gave highest preferences for a proper
institutional framework (Criterion 1.2) than other
key informants. The criterion related to a proper
scientific framework (Criterion 1.4) was highly
preferred by journalists, with lowest preference
values for this criterion given by professors. Par-
ticipants in the journalists group assigned almost
equal preference to all criteria (Table 3).
Considering economic income (Principle 2),
preference for net income for farmers (Criterion
2.1) was different than income generation for the
state (Criterion 2.2). Among the ecological main-
tenance (Principle 3), biodiversity maintenance
received the highest global average preference.
The sole difference between all stakeholder
groups in this category was that degraded site
identification (C3.4) received a lower preference
when compared to the other three criteria. Field
managers assigned the highest preference for
maintenance of water quality (C3.3). Soil fertility
maintenance (C3.1) was equally preferable to all
informants (Table 3).
The highest preferences for the risk factor cat-
egory (Principle 4) of IWM were for soil erosion
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761 2751
T
a
b
l
e
4
Q
u
a
l
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
o
f
s
i
x
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
a
n
d
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
o
f
i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
i
n
g
v
e
r
i
f
i
e
r
b
y
s
i
x
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
M
S
-
0
M
S
-
I
M
S
-
I
I
M
S
-
I
I
I
M
S
-
I
V
M
S
-
V
M
S
-
V
I
1
.
P
o
l
i
c
y
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
1
.
1
P
r
o
p
e
r
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k

1
.
2
P
r
o
p
e
r
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k

1
.
3
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s

1
.
4
P
r
o
p
e
r
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
/

/
/
/
/
/
1
.
5
P
r
o
p
e
r
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
-
m
a
k
i
n
g
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m

I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
o
n
v
e
r
i
f
i
e
r
s
6
5
5
0
1
9
2
7
2
1
2
5
2
0
2
.
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
i
n
c
o
m
e
2
.
1
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
m
a
r
g
i
n
/
n
e
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
o
f
f
a
r
m
e
r
s

/
2
.
2
I
n
c
o
m
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
r
e
g
i
o
n
/
s
t
a
t
e

/
/

/
I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
o
n
v
e
r
i
f
i
e
r
s
1
3
1
3
4
8
5
1
0
3
3
.
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
3
.
1
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
s
o
i
l
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
t
y

/
/
/
3
.
2
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
b
i
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

3
.
3
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y

3
.
4
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
d
s
i
t
e
s
i
n
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d

I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
o
n
v
e
r
i
f
i
e
r
s
3
1
3
1
6
1
1
9
1
4
1
5
4
.
R
i
s
k
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
4
.
1
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
o
i
l
e
r
o
s
i
o
n

4
.
2
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
l
l
e
g
a
l
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

4
.
3
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
l
a
s
h
f
l
o
o
d

I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
o
n
v
e
r
i
f
i
e
r
s
1
8
1
3
5
7
8
7
1
2
5
.
L
i
v
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
5
.
1
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
/
/
/

5
.
2
F
u
e
l
w
o
o
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

/
/

5
.
3
P
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
f
o
o
d
/

5
.
4
U
s
e
o
f
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
/
/
/

5
.
5
E
m
p
o
w
e
r
m
e
n
t
o
f
w
o
m
e
n
/

/
/

5
.
6
P
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
o
n
v
e
r
i
f
i
e
r
s
4
5
1
5
6
2
9
2
6
3
9
3
9
6
.
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
6
.
1
F
o
r
e
s
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
/
/
/
/
/

6
.
2
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
o
n
v
e
r
i
f
i
e
r
s
1
9
2
4
8
5
1
4
1
9

n
o
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,
/
s
l
i
g
h
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
,

m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
,

s
t
r
o
n
g
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
,

v
e
r
y
s
t
r
o
n
g
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
,

e
x
t
r
e
m
e
i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
o
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
2752 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761
T
a
b
l
e
5
A
f
o
r
m
a
t
o
f

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
f
o
r
m

t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
,
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
,
a
n
d
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
f
o
r
I
W
M
i
n
t
h
i
s
c
a
s
e
s
t
u
d
y
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
1

1
0
0
1

n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
1

1
0
0
1

n
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
1

1
0
0
1

n
1
.
P
o
l
i
c
y
2
0
1
1
.
1
P
r
o
p
e
r
l
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e
2
0
3
1
.
1
.
1
C
l
e
a
r
t
e
n
u
r
e
a
n
d
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
2
0
2
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
1
.
1
.
2
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
a
w
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
2
0
2
1
.
1
.
3
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
6
0
1
1
.
2
P
r
o
p
e
r
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
3
0
2
1
.
2
.
1
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
o
c
a
l
a
n
d
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
2
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
1
.
2
.
2
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
8
0
1
1
.
3
P
r
o
p
e
r
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
1
0
4
1
.
3
.
1
S
k
i
l
l
e
d
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
i
e
s
1
0
3
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
1
.
3
.
2
W
e
l
l
-
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
p
r
e
c
a
u
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
a
n
d
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
3
0
2
1
.
3
.
3
E
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
o
f
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
e
x
p
e
r
t
i
s
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
6
0
1
1
.
4
P
r
o
p
e
r
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
4
0
1
1
.
4
.
1
L
o
c
a
l
p
e
o
p
l
e

s
a
n
d
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r

s
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
,
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
6
0
1
m
a
k
i
n
g
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
a
n
d
c
o
-
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
1
.
4
.
2
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
,
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
,
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
a
n
d
r
e
c
e
n
t
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
3
0
2
1
.
4
.
3
M
u
l
t
i
s
e
c
t
o
r
a
l
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
m
o
n
g
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
4
4
1
.
4
.
4
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
a
n
d
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
1
5
1
.
4
.
5
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
f
o
r
s
h
a
r
i
n
g
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
5
3
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
2
.
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
1
0
4
2
.
1
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
2
0
2
2
.
1
.
1
P
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
l
o
c
a
l
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
o
r
s
u
b
s
i
d
i
e
s
2
0
2
i
n
c
o
m
e
m
a
r
g
i
n
/
n
e
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
2
.
1
.
2
N
e
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
f
r
o
m
f
o
r
e
s
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
2
0
2
o
f
f
a
r
m
e
r
s
2
.
1
.
3
N
e
t
i
n
c
o
m
e
f
r
o
m
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
(
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
p
o
u
l
t
r
y
,
6
0
1
l
i
v
e
s
t
o
c
k
,
a
p
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
,
m
u
s
h
r
o
o
m
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
n
e
w
w
e
a
v
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
)
2
.
2
I
n
c
o
m
e
8
0
1
2
.
2
.
1
L
i
v
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
s
t
a
t
u
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
d
7
0
1
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
2
.
2
.
2
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
o
f
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
f
o
r
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
3
0
2
r
e
g
i
o
n
/
s
t
a
t
e
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
3
.
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
1
0
4
3
.
1
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
6
0
1
3
.
1
.
1
G
r
o
w
t
h
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
s
o
i
l
)
f
o
r
f
o
r
e
s
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
0
2
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
s
o
i
l
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
t
y
3
.
1
.
2
G
r
o
w
t
h
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
s
o
i
l
)
f
o
r
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
6
0
1
3
.
2
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
2
0
2
3
.
2
.
1
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
l
o
r
a
l
a
n
d
f
a
u
n
a
l
r
i
c
h
n
e
s
s
7
5
1
b
i
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
3
.
2
.
2
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
o
f
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
2
5
2
3
.
3
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
1
0
3
3
.
3
.
1
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
b
y
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
4
0
1
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
3
.
3
.
2
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
b
y
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
1
5
3
3
.
3
.
3
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
d
g
e
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
l
i
k
e
r
i
v
e
r
s
,
1
5
3
e
s
t
u
a
r
i
e
s
,
l
a
k
e
s
a
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
d
e
p
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
3
.
3
.
4
B
l
o
c
k
e
d
o
r
t
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
l
e
a
n
e
d
3
0
2
a
n
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
d
3
.
4
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
0
3
3
.
4
.
1
S
u
r
v
e
y
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
t
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
2
0
2
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
d
s
i
t
e
s
i
n
3
.
4
.
2
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
f
o
r
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
2
0
2
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
3
.
4
.
3
I
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
e
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
6
0
1
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761 2753
4
.
R
i
s
k
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
1
0
4
4
.
1
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
1
5
2
4
.
1
.
1
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
s
o
i
l
a
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
6
5
1
s
o
i
l
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
e
d
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
,
c
r
e
e
k
s
,
c
a
n
a
l
s
a
n
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
4
.
1
.
2
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
r
o
s
s
d
a
m
s
w
i
t
h
b
i
o
-
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
2
0
2
4
.
1
.
3
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
b
e
s
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
f
o
r
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
1
5
3
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
s
t
e
e
p
s
l
o
p
e
s
4
.
2
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
5
3
4
.
2
.
1
M
e
d
i
c
i
n
a
l
P
l
a
n
t
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
e
d
3
0
2
t
h
r
e
a
t
t
o
4
.
2
.
2
E
t
h
n
i
c
v
a
l
u
e
s
a
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
3
0
2
p
a
t
e
n
t
r
i
g
h
t
4
.
2
.
3
G
e
n
e
t
i
c
p
o
o
l
o
f
N
T
F
P
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
i
n
d
i
g
e
n
o
u
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
a
r
e
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
e
d
4
0
1
4
.
3
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
4
0
1
4
.
3
.
1
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
i
l
l
e
g
a
l
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
8
0
1
i
l
l
e
g
a
l
4
.
3
.
2
S
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
f
o
r
e
s
t
p
l
a
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
i
n
g
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
2
0
2
e
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
b
y
t
h
e
i
r
o
w
n
c
o
s
t
4
.
4
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
4
0
1
4
.
4
.
1
F
o
r
m
u
l
a
t
i
n
g
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
6
0
1
f
l
a
s
h
f
l
o
o
d
4
.
4
.
2
A
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
i
n
v
e
s
t
e
d
m
o
n
e
y
s
p
e
n
t
f
o
r
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
2
0
2
4
.
4
.
3
T
r
a
i
n
e
d
e
x
p
e
r
t
s
w
i
t
h
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
a
n
d
a
b
e
t
t
e
r
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
2
0
2
o
f
f
l
o
o
d
r
i
s
k
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
5
.
L
i
v
e
l
i
h
o
o
d
3
0
1
5
.
1
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
1
0
3
5
.
1
.
1
P
r
i
m
a
r
y
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
5
2
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
5
.
1
.
2
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
4
0
1
5
.
1
.
3
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
o
r
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
e
s
5
2
5
.
1
.
4
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
/
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
o
f
i
n
d
i
g
e
n
o
u
s
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
4
0
1
5
.
1
.
5
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
n
s
t
i
t
u
e
n
c
y
g
r
o
u
p
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
g
r
o
u
p
s
,
1
0
3
l
a
n
d
t
r
u
s
t
s
,
n
o
n
-
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
f
o
r
e
s
t
l
a
n
d
o
w
n
e
r
s
,
s
m
a
r
t
g
r
o
w
t
h
g
r
o
u
p
s
,
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
g
r
o
u
p
s
)
5
.
2
F
u
e
l
w
o
o
d
2
0
2
5
.
2
.
1
A
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
f
u
e
l
w
o
o
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m

n
a
t
u
r
a
l
f
o
r
e
s
t
s

2
0
2
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
5
.
2
.
2
A
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
f
u
e
l
w
o
o
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
p
l
a
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
8
0
1
5
.
3
P
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
1
0
3
5
.
3
.
1
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
f
r
u
i
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
e
.
g
.
p
i
n
e
a
p
p
l
e
,
j
a
c
k
f
r
u
i
t
,
2
0
2
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
f
o
o
d
l
e
m
o
n
,
g
u
a
v
a
,
o
r
a
n
g
e
,
b
a
n
a
n
a
,
p
a
p
a
y
a
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
)
5
.
3
.
2
W
e
a
v
i
n
g
,
c
a
n
e
a
n
d
b
a
m
b
o
o
w
o
r
k
s
2
0
2
5
.
3
.
3
P
o
u
l
t
r
y
a
n
d
m
i
l
k
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
1
0
3
5
.
3
.
4
C
r
o
p
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
r
i
c
e
,
s
e
s
a
m
e
,
c
o
t
t
o
n
,
t
u
r
m
e
r
i
c
,
g
i
n
g
e
r
4
5
1
a
n
d
v
e
g
e
t
a
b
l
e
s
)
5
.
3
.
5
S
m
a
l
l
-
s
c
a
l
e
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
(
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
d
r
e
s
s
e
s
,
5
4
h
a
n
d
i
c
r
a
f
t
s
a
n
d
s
o
o
n
)
5
.
4
U
s
e
o
f
3
0
1
5
.
4
.
1
B
i
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
2
i
n
n
o
v
a
t
i
v
e
5
.
4
.
2
H
e
r
b
a
l
m
e
d
i
c
i
n
e
5
4
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
5
.
4
.
3
F
i
s
h
e
r
i
e
s
5
4
5
.
4
.
4
W
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
a
n
d
f
a
r
m
i
n
g
i
n
d
r
y
s
e
a
s
o
n
4
0
1
5
.
4
.
5
K
a
p
t
a
i
d
a
m
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
5
4
5
.
4
.
6
F
o
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
i
n
g
r
e
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
h
i
l
l
y
a
r
e
a
5
4
5
.
4
.
7
R
e
s
o
l
v
i
n
g
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
e
t
h
n
i
c
v
a
l
u
e
a
n
d
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
2
0
2
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
5
.
4
.
8
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
1
0
3
2754 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761
T
a
b
l
e
5
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
1

1
0
0
1

n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
1

1
0
0
1

n
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
1

1
0
0
1

n
5
.
5
E
m
p
o
w
e
r
m
e
n
t
1
0
3
5
.
5
.
1
S
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
o
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
f
o
o
d
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
5
0
1
o
f
w
o
m
e
n
5
.
5
.
2
S
h
a
r
i
n
g
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
,
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
1
5
.
6
P
o
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
1
0
3
5
.
6
.
1
P
l
a
n
n
e
d
a
n
d
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
e
d
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
h
a
r
m
i
n
g
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
6
0
1
f
o
r
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
5
.
6
.
2
I
n
p
u
t
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
f
t
e
r
a
s
s
e
s
s
i
n
g
c
a
r
r
y
i
n
g
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
2
0
2
5
.
6
.
3
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
u
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
a
n
p
o
w
e
r
2
0
2
5
.
7
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
/
1
0
3
5
.
7
.
1
W
a
t
e
r
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
3
0
1
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
o
f
5
.
7
.
2
F
o
o
d
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
2
0
2
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
5
.
7
.
3
H
e
a
l
t
h
1
0
3
5
.
7
.
4
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
1
0
3
5
.
7
.
5
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
1
0
3
5
.
7
.
6
M
o
n
e
y
s
p
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
p
o
v
e
r
t
y
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
2
0
2
(
s
u
b
s
i
d
i
e
s
,
i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s
)
6
.
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
2
0
3
6
.
1
F
o
r
e
s
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
2
0
2
6
.
1
.
1
E
x
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
o
f
f
o
r
e
s
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
6
0
1
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
6
.
1
.
2
U
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
k
i
l
l
e
d
m
a
n
p
o
w
e
r
a
n
d
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
4
0
2
f
o
r
e
s
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
s
t
6
.
2
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
6
0
1
6
.
2
.
1
E
x
i
s
t
e
n
c
e
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
5
0
1
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
6
.
2
.
2
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
3
0
2
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
6
.
2
.
3
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
e
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
g
r
o
u
p
2
0
3
6
.
3
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
a
n
d
2
0
2
6
.
3
.
1
I
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
i
e
s
a
r
e
d
o
n
e
4
0
2
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
6
.
3
.
2
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
s
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
a
n
d
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
6
0
1
r
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
T
h
i
s
t
a
b
l
e
r
e
l
a
t
e
s
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
g
i
v
e
n
t
o
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
n
t
s
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
e
l
i
c
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
P
l
e
a
s
e
n
o
t
e
t
h
a
t
s
o
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
w
e
r
e
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
.
P
l
e
a
s
e
t
r
y
t
o
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
y
o
u
r
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
,
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
a
n
d
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
g
o
a
l
(
s
)
o
f
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
.
S
t
a
r
t
t
o
r
a
n
k
t
h
e
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
1

n
a
n
d
g
i
v
e
s
c
o
r
e
s
t
o
e
a
c
h
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
o
n
a
r
a
n
g
e
f
r
o
m
1

1
0
0
.
F
o
r
t
h
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
o
f
e
a
c
h
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
a
n
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
o
f
e
a
c
h
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
y
o
u
a
l
s
o
h
a
v
e
a
r
a
n
g
e
o
f
1

1
0
0
s
c
o
r
e
s
.
F
o
r
i
n
s
t
a
n
c
e
y
o
u
r
a
n
k
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
1
a
t
s
e
c
o
n
d
r
a
n
k
(
2
5
s
c
o
r
e
s
)
a
n
d
y
o
u
g
i
v
e
8
0
s
c
o
r
e
s
f
o
r
1
.
1
.
a
n
d
6
0
s
c
o
r
e
s
f
o
r
1
.
1
.
1
.
,
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761 2755
T
a
b
l
e
6
L
i
s
t
o
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
p
l
a
n
s
f
o
r
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
f
o
r
I
W
M
i
n
t
h
i
s
c
a
s
e
s
t
u
d
y
M
S
-
I
M
S
-
I
I
M
S
-
I
I
I
M
S
-
I
V
M
S
-
V
M
S
-
V
I
B
i
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
F
l
o
o
d
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
S
o
i
l
a
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
I
n
d
i
g
e
n
o
u
s
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
I
n
c
o
m
e
-
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
I
n
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
o
f
f
l
o
o
d
A
r
r
a
n
g
e
h
i
g
h
s
u
b
s
i
d
i
e
s
S
t
r
o
n
g
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
a
m
o
n
g
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
R
e
s
p
e
c
t
t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
f
f
o
r
t
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
f
o
r
e
n
g
a
g
i
n
g
p
e
o
p
l
e
m
u
l
t
i
-
s
e
c
t
o
r
a
l
e
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
l
y
n
o
r
m
s
a
n
d
b
e
l
i
e
f
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
C
r
e
a
t
e
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
a
r
e
a
M
o
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
n
f
l
o
o
d
p
r
o
n
e
a
r
e
a
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
R
e
c
o
g
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
o
c
a
l
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
r
i
c
h
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
r
s
a
n
d
f
a
r
m
e
r
s
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
o
f
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
l
a
n
d
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
o
c
a
l
p
e
o
p
l
e

s
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
e
.
g
.
,
u
n
h
a
r
v
e
s
t
e
d
f
o
r
e
s
t
)
o
w
n
e
r
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
d
e
m
a
n
d
o
f
l
o
c
a
l
c
o
p
i
n
g
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
n
d
i
g
e
n
o
u
s
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
P
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
v
e
A
r
r
a
n
g
e
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
p
e
o
p
l
e
F
o
r
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
y
r
i
s
k
a
r
e
a
A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
A
s
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
o
f
b
e
s
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
o
i
l
f
e
r
t
i
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
n
u
t
r
i
e
n
t
f
o
r
s
o
l
v
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
k
i
l
l
e
d
/
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
l
o
c
a
l
p
e
o
p
l
e

s
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
C
a
r
e
f
u
l
a
m
a
l
g
a
m
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
d
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
o
f
i
n
d
i
g
e
n
o
u
s
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
f
o
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
o
f
f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
a
n
d
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
d
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
o
s
t
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
m
a
k
i
n
g
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
l
i
m
i
t
i
n
g
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
a
n
d
a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
b
i
o
-
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
Q
u
i
c
k
e
r
a
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
v
a
l
u
e
s
a
n
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
d
i
v
e
r
s
e
s
e
t
o
f
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
p
o
r
t
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
a
c
c
e
p
t
e
d
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
A
c
h
i
e
v
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
b
o
t
h
t
o
u
r
i
s
m
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
N
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
b
y
p
e
o
p
l
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
F
i
s
h
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
a
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
a
t
-
r
i
s
k
F
o
s
t
e
r
i
n
g
e
x
c
h
a
n
g
e
o
f
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
u
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
i
n
d
i
g
e
n
o
u
s
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
e
s
t
s
o
f
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
t
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
C
o
s
t
-
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
l
o
n
g
l
a
s
t
i
n
g
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
u
s
e
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
R
u
l
e
s
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
a
n
d
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
o
n
i
n
d
i
g
e
n
o
u
s
A
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
r
e
p
o
r
t
o
f
s
t
r
i
c
t
l
y
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
e
a
c
h
a
n
d
e
v
e
r
y
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
O
b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
s
u
b
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
2756 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761
reduction (C4.1), according to the key informants
global average. The professors preferences for
reduction of soil erosion (C4.1) were higher than
other key informants. The education and training
criterion (C5.1) was preferred over possibilities
for settlement (C5.6) in the livelihood of people
category (Principle 5). Preferences relating to the
possibility of food production (C5.3) were greater
than scores for fuel wood production (C5.2) and
possibilities for settlement (C5.6). The criterion
ensuring implementation of a forest management
plan (C6.1) gained higher preferences than the cri-
terion involving evaluation and monitoring (C6.2)
for management planning (Principle 6; Table 3).
Assessment of six management strategies
A qualitative assessment was done according to
the impact of each management strategy on all
criteria. A total of 65 verifiers were used in a
two-stage qualitative analysis of the current situ-
ation in the Chittagong Hills (Table 4) provides
a detailed overview on the number of influenced
verifiers and on the magnitude of influence on
each criterion. The Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy (MS-I) performed best by improving 50
of the identified verifiers, followed by the Soil
and Water Quality Conservation Strategy (MS-
III) which allows a positive influence on 27 of
the identified verifiers (Table 4). The Biodiver-
sity Conservation Strategy (MS-I) improves 13
verifiers under the principle Economic Income,
giving that strategy the highest performance. For
the Ecological Maintenance (Principle 3), MS-I
satisfied 31 verifiers and under the Risk Factors
(Principle 4) MS-I satisfied 13 out of 18 verifiers.
In the case of Livelihood (Principle 5), the per-
formance of the Landscape Conservation Strategy
(MS-VI) and the Income-Generating Watershed
Conservation Strategy (MS-V) outperformed the
other four strategies, addressing 39 out of 45
verifiers. MS-VI had the best performance in
the Management Planning (Principle 6) category,
fulfilling 19 verifiers (Tables 4, 5, and 6).
Sensitivity analysis with the AHP
The global average preferences of the stake-
holder groups for the IWM framework at CHTs
in Bangladesh were used to investigate the sen-
sitivity of the six management strategies in the
AHP model by changing priorities at the hierar-
chical level of the six principles (Fig. 3; Table 7).
This analysis identified the relative sensitivity of
each management strategy by varying the weights
assigned to each principle. In sensitivity analysis,
each principle is treated as the most important in
one of the scenarios while keeping the others of
minor importance. The preferences expressed by
the stakeholder for each of the criteria remain un-
changed in each of the scenarios. The Biodiversity
Conservation Strategy was the outstanding option
considering the Policy Planning, Economic In-
come, Ecological Maintenance, and Risk Factors
principles. The income-generating watershed con-
servation strategy and the landscape conservation
Fig. 3 Performance of six
management strategies
for IWM at principle level
according to sensitivity
analysis by AHP
0.00000
0.05000
0.10000
0.15000
0.20000
0.25000
0.30000
P
o
l
i
c
y

p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

i
n
c
o
m
e
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
R
i
s
k

f
a
c
t
o
r
L
i
v
e
l
i
h
o
o
d

o
f
p
e
o
p
l
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
Principles
C
h
a
n
g
e
d

p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
MS-0:Current Situation MS-I: Bio-diversity
MS-II: Flood MS-IV:Indigenous Knowledge
MS-V:Income MS-III:Soil and Water Quality
MS-VI Landscape
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761 2757
Table 7 Comparing overall performance of six management strategies for IWM framework through preferences of six key
informants after pairwise comparison by AHP
Engineer Field Journalist Professor Student Watershed Globalavg
manager specialist
MS-0: Current situation 0.05107 0.05052 0.05435 0.05078 0.05189 0.05055 0.05110
MS-I: Bio-diversity 0.21209 0.19935 0.20309 0.19775 0.20873 0.20439 0.20247
MS-II: Flood 0.11021 0.11160 0.11275 0.11003 0.11315 0.10854 0.11093
MS-III: Soil and water quality 0.15030 0.15474 0.14752 0.15877 0.15320 0.15156 0.15450
MS-IV: Indigenous knowledge 0.13504 0.13700 0.13372 0.14161 0.13849 0.14269 0.13910
MS-V: Income 0.17299 0.17678 0.17275 0.17363 0.16770 0.17290 0.17253
MS-VI: Landscape 0.16829 0.17000 0.17582 0.16743 0.16684 0.16937 0.16939
strategy both performed well with respect to the
Livelihood principle. The landscape conservation
strategy performed best under the Management
Planning principle. The sensitivity analysis indi-
cated that none of the strategies outperforms the
other strategies independently from the level of
priority given for each principle. This suggests a
need to negotiate between different stakeholders
groups and find a compromise solution for imple-
menting IWM.
Discussion
Preference elicitation on criteria
and indicators for IWM
The lack of differences in preferences between
principles suggests that participants possess a rel-
atively holistic approach to watershed-related val-
ues (Tiwari et al. 2008; Datta and Virgo 1998),
despite the expectation that stakeholders in de-
veloping countries might be disproportionately
concerned with economic indicators to alleviate
poverty (Milder et al. 2010). Another example
of this occurs at the hierarchical level of criteria,
where the preferences given for income genera-
tion for farmers were different from those given
for income generation for the state. This indicates
awareness that the maintenance of governmental
mechanisms to carry out IWM and other pro-
grams has a similar degree of importance to the
maintenance of personal income (Swallow et al.
2009).
The preference elicitation process also revealed
attitudes regarding active vs. passive management
of watersheds. The first three criteria under the
ecological maintenance principle (C3.1C3.3) all
included the possibility to continue land manage-
ment activities (e.g., farming or forestry) while
the fourth (Identification of degraded sites in the
watershed, C3.4) is a passive, protection-oriented
approach to watershed management. The first
three criteria received equal preference values
which were higher than the preference values as-
signed to the fourth, which suggests that passive
management is not preferred by stakeholders.
Stakeholder attitudes in the arena of livelihood
factors displayed a relative affinity for education
and training when contrasted with possibilities
for settlement and maintenance/establishment of
infrastructure, as education is seen as a means for
advancement of socioeconomic status (Ison et al.
2007). Food production and fuel wood production
were also strongly preferred, which seems consis-
tent with needs in the densely populated country
of Bangladesh (Rahman et al. 2009; Dewan and
Vacik 2010).
Justification for integrated watershed
management
In this case, MCA techniques have been used
for the development of a multi-objective man-
agement system, helping decision-makers to
model tradeoffs between different key infor-
mants conflicting values, interests, and objectives
(Prato 1999; Fernandes et al. 1999; Vacik and
Lexer 2001; Ananda and Herath 2003). These
techniques are generally seen as integral in assist-
ing decision-makers and policy actors to develop
operable models of sustainable development (in-
cluding assessment, management activities, and
effectiveness monitoring), in this case with regard
2758 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761
to IWM (Hajkowicz and Collins 2007). The use
of MCA for evaluating alternatives for the imple-
mentation of IWM in the Chittagong Hill Tracts
addresses the existing complex decision making
situation explicitly, providing a framework for
measuring tradeoffs in a transparent and under-
standable way. The establishment of a hierarchy
of principles, criteria, indicator, and verifiers, and
a careful selection of stakeholders from water
management, science, and public media helped
to select among possible alternatives. Preference
elicitation was a challenging and time-consuming
task due to the lack of familiarity of stakeholders
with the ranking/rating in MCA and the PCIV
set in the AHP framework. Nevertheless, they
seemed appropriate for addressing some of the
challenges involved in C&I assessments (Prabhu
et al. 1998, 1999; CIFOR 1997). Management al-
ternatives developed in this research varied in
temporal scale and in terms of mechanisms used
to generate positive outcomes, making it more
difficult for the experts to evaluate them. The Bio-
diversity Conservation Strategy, for example, is
a long-term water resource conservation strategy,
while flood management is a strategy concerned
with more immediate responses to the effects of
flooding events. Economic motivators, for exam-
ple, are the basis for the income-generating wa-
tershed conservation strategy (e.g., firmer land
tenure to avoid exploitative land uses, develop-
ment of non-timber forest products), while the in-
digenous knowledge conservation strategy focuses
on the maintenance of ecologically attuned tra-
ditional land management methods. Although a
diverse group of professionals was solicited for the
evaluation of management strategies preference,
some groups (specifically engineer) held only one
individual, limiting statistical inference in some
cases. The lownumbers of experts in some groups,
however, are not necessarily a problem for infer-
ences drawn from the AHP process (Qureshi and
Harrison 2003). Another challenge is related to
the potential overlap in activities between strate-
gies (Table 6); this may reduce the distinct char-
acter of alternative strategies, producing a bias
in selecting preferable solutions. However, the
local knowledge and collaborative participation
of stakeholders seemed to be sufficient to en-
sure the robustness, consistency, and acceptability
among stakeholders for the final criteria and indi-
cator set.
If the biodiversity conservation strategy, iden-
tified as the preferred alternative can be im-
plemented as a part of IWM in the Chittagong
Hill Tracts, then it is possible that most of the
negative externalities from current management
might be mitigated. The fact that this strategy was
clearly preferred suggests that regional strategies
centered on biodiversity conservation have the
greatest likelihood of being acceptable and socio-
politically feasible. This could be interpreted as
a suggestion that biodiversity is seen as basis for
the functionality of landscapes (Chapin et al. 2000;
Turner et al. 2007), including soil fertility, forest
yield, and diverse non-agricultural and non-timber
products.
Conclusions
Applying C&I assessment for IWM in CHTs has
an additional strength to develop an information
base within a policy framework (e.g., Sustainable
Forest Management) that assist to decrease the
information gap between the local level with na-
tional, international and global level. This re-
search is an example of using a preference-based
framework with a stakeholder group to clarify
complex decision-making processes. Assessment
of C&I for IWM can reduce informational com-
plexity and align the managerial vision of partici-
pants, develop a multivariate model for decision-
making, iteratively formulate potential indicators
and verifiers for future monitoring, and (most
importantly) establish communication between
stakeholders. Feedback mechanisms among par-
ticipants through the iterative preference elici-
tation process contribute to the achievement of
internally consistent preferences for an optimal
management strategy, or a consensus evalua-
tion. Both C&I assessment and MCA facilitate
the identification of centrally important goals in
the implementation of a compromise IWM strat-
egy, or any other multiple-value land management
system, in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. But still,
there is a pressing need to better understand how
MCA can be utilized to support environmental
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761 2759
decision-making processes which goes beyond the
findings from this case study.
Acknowledgements The study has been funded by the
Austrian Orient Association (OG). The authors ac-
knowledge help from the Institute of Forestry and En-
vironmental Sciences (University of Chittagong), Soil
Research Development Institute (Dhaka, Bangladesh),
and the Chittagong office of the CARITAS Bangladesh
foundation for arranging necessary facilities during the
collection of research data.
References
Ananda, J., & Herath, G. (2003). The use of Analytic
Hierarchy Process to incorporate stakeholder pref-
erences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy
and Economics, 5, 1326. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(02)
00043-6.
Bailey, D. E., Loos, J. J., Perry, E. S., & Wood, R. J.
(2000). A retrospective evaluation of 316(b) mitiga-
tion options using a decision analysis framework. En-
vironmental Science and Policy, 3, 2536. doi:10.1016/
S1462-9011(00)00024-1.
Bakkes, J.-A., Van Den Born, G.-J., Helder, J.-C., Swart,
R.-J., Hope, C.-W., & Parker, J.-D. (1994). An over-
view of environmental indicators: State of the art and
perspectives. UNEP/EATR.9401, RIVM/402001001.
Nairobi Environmental Assessment Sub-Programme,
United Nations Environment Programme.
Beattie, B. B. (1969). Watershed conditions and watershed
research needs in Chittagong Hill Tracts (p. 15). Project
Report 2, UNDP/FAO Project, BGD/72/005, BFRI,
Chittagong, Bangladesh.
Biswas, S. R., &Choudhury, J. K. (2007). Forests and forest
management practices in Bangladesh: The question
of sustainability. International Forestry Review, 9(2),
627640. doi:10.1505/ifor.9.2.627.
Biswas, S., Swanson, M. E., Shoaib, J. U., & Haque,
S. M. (2010). Changes in soil chemical properties
under Modern and Traditional farming system at
Khagrachari, Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. Jour-
nal of Forestry Research, 21(4), 451456. doi:10.1007/
s11676-010-0096-x.
Chapin, F. S., Zavaleta, E. S., Eviner, V. T., Naylor, R. L.,
Vitousek, P. M., Reynolds, H. L., et al. (2000). Con-
sequences of changing biodiversity. Nature, 405, 234
242. doi:10.1038/35012241.
Chowdhury, M. S. H, Biswas, S., Haque, S. M. S,
Muhammed, N., & Koike, M. (2007a). Comparative
analysis of some selected macronutrients of soil or-
ange orchard and degraded forests in Chittagong Hill
Tracts, Bangladesh. Journal of Forest Research, 18(1),
2730. doi:10.1007/s11676-007-0005-0.
Chowdhury, M. S. H, Halim, M. A, & Biswas, S. (2007b).
Comparative evaluation of physical properties in soils
of orange orchard and bushy forest in Chittagong
hill tracts, Bangladesh. Journal of Forestry Research,
18(3), 245-248. doi:10.1007/s11676-007-0050-8.
CIFOR (1997). CIFOR annual report 1996. CIFOR,
Bogor, Indonesia (66 pp.). CIFOR annual report.
CIFOR (1999). CIFOR criteria and indicators generic tem-
plate. The Criteria and Indicators Toolbox Series
No. 2. CIFOR C&I Team.
Datta, D. K., & Virgo, K. J. (1998). Towards sustainable
water-shed development through peoples participa-
tion. Mountain Research and Development, 18(3), 213
233. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3674034.
Dewan, S., & Vacik, H. (2010). Analysis of regener-
ation and species diversity along human induced
disturbances in the Kassalong Reserve Forest at
Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. Ecology, 29, 307
325. doi:10.4149/ekol_2010_03_307.
FD (2007). www.bforest.gov.bd.
Fernandes, L., Ridgley, M. A., &vant Hof, T. (1999). Mul-
tiple criteria analysis integrates economic ecological
and social objectives for coral reef managers. Coral
Reefs, 18, 393402. doi:10.1007/s003380050217.
Fisher, B. E. A. (2006). Fuzzy approaches to environ-
mental decisions: Application to air quality. Environ-
mental Science and Policy, 9(1), 2231. doi:10.1016/
j.envsci.2005.08.006.
French, S., & Geldermann, J. (2005). The varied contexts
of environmental decision problems and their impli-
cations for decision support. Environmental Science
and Policy, 8(4), 378391. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2005.04.
008.
Gafur, A., Jensen, J. R. Auns, Borggaard, O. K., &
Petersen, L. (2003). Runoff and losses of soil and
nutrients from small watersheds under shifting cul-
tivation (Jhum) in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of
Bangladesh. Journal of Hydrology, 279(14), 293309.
doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00351-7.
Garfi, M., Ferrer-Marti, L., Bonoli, A., & Tondelli, S.
(2011). Multi-criteria analysis for improving strate-
gic environmental assessment of water programmes.
A case study in semi-arid region of Brazil. Jour-
nal of Environmental Management, 92(3), 665675.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.007.
Golden, B., Marker, P., & Wasil, E. (1989). The An-
alytic Hierarchy Process: Applications and studies.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Hajkowicz, S., & Collins, K. (2007). A review of multiple
criteria analysis for water resource planning and man-
agement. Water Resource Management, 21, 15531566.
doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9112-5.
Hajkowicz, S., & Higgins, A. (2008). A comparison of
multi-criteria techniques for water resource manage-
ment. European Journal of Operational Research, 184,
255265. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.10.045.
Haque, S. M. S., Karmakar, S., & Hossain, M. M.
(2010). Effect of land cover on water quality of
creek and seepage in mountainous watershed in
Bangladesh. Journal of Forestry Research, 21(2), 251
254. doi:10.1007/s11676-010-0041-z.
Hammond, A., Adriaanse, A., Rodenburg, E., Bryant, D.,
& Woodward, R. (1995). Environmental indicators:
A systematic approach to measuring and reporting on
2760 Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761
environmental policy performance in the context of sus-
tainable development. Washington: World Resource
Institute.
Heathcote, I. W. (1998). MCA integrated watershed man-
agement: Principles and practices. New York: Wiley.
Hettelingh, J. P., De Hann, B. J., Strengers, B. J., Klein
Goldewijk, C. G. M., Van Woerden, J. W., Pearce,
D. W., et al. (1998). Integrated environmental assess-
ment of the baseline scenario for the EU state of the
environment. 1998 Report, The Netherlands.
In, H., &Olson, D. (2004). Requirements negotiation using
multi-criteria preference analysis. Journal of Universal
Computer Science, 10(4), 306325.
Ison, R. L., Roling, N., & Watson, D. (2007). Challenges
to science and society in the sustainable management
and use of water: Investigating the role of social learn-
ing. Environmental Science and Policy, 10(6), 499511.
doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2007.02.008.
Jnch-Clausen, T., & Fugl, J. (2001). Firming up the con-
ceptual basis of integrated water resources manage-
ment. International Journal of Water Resources Devel-
opment, 17, 501510. doi:10.1080/07900620120094055.
Karmakar, S., Haque, S. M., Hossain, M. M., &
Shafiq, M. (2011). Water quality of Kaptai reservoir
in Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Journal of
Forestry Research, 22(1), 8792. doi:10.1007/s11676-
011-0131-6.
Karvetski, C. W., Lambert, J. H., Keisler, J. M., & Linkov,
I. (2011). Integration of decision analysis and scenario
planning for coastal engineering and climate change.
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part
A, 41(1), 6373. doi:10.1109/TSMCA.2010.2055154.
Khan, M. A. A., & Haque, S. M. S. (2003). Features
and characteristics of Bangladesh watershed (p. 51).
B.Sc. (Hons) Project paper, Institute of Forestry and
Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong,
Chittagong, Bangladesh.
Khisa, S. K., Shoaib, J. U., & Khan, N. A. (2006). Conser-
vation approaches and technologies of hill farming and
natural resource management practices documented
from Chittagong Hill Tracts. Bangladesh, BANCAT,
CHTDB. Khagrachari.
Kodikara, P. N., Perera, B. J. C., & Kularathna, M. D. U.
P. (2010). Stakeholder preference elicitation and
modelling in multi-criteria decision analysisA case
study on urban water supply. European Journal
of Operational Research, 206, 209220. doi:10.1016/
j.ejor.2010.02.016.
Lammerts van Bueren, F., & Blom, F. (1997). Hierarchical
framework for the formulation for sustainable forest
management standards: Principles, criteria and indica-
tors. Wageningen: Tropenbos Foundation.
Lamy, F., Bolte, J., Santelmann, M., & Smith, C. (2002).
Development and evaluation of multiple-objective
decision-making methods for watershed management
planning. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 38, 517529. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.
tb04334.x.
Mendoza, G. A. (1997a). Introduction to the Analytic
Hierarchy Process: Theory and application to natural
resources management. In Proceedings: Joint an-
nual meeting of the American Congress on Survey-
ing and Mapping (ACSM); American Association of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS), and
Resources Technology Institute (RTI), 510 April.
Seattle, WA.
Mendoza, G. A. (1997b). A GIS based multi-criteria ap-
proaches to land suitability assessment and alloca-
tion. In Proceedings: Seventh international symposium
on systems analysis in forest resources, 2831 May.
Traverse City, Michigan.
Mendoza, G. A., & Martins, H. (2006). Multi-criteria de-
cision analysis in natural resource management: A
critical review of methods and new modelling para-
digms. Forest Ecology and Management, 230, 122.
doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.03.023.
Mendoza, G. A., & Prabhu, R. (2000a). Multiple criteria
decision making approaches to assessing forest sus-
tainability using criteria and indicators: A case study.
Forest Ecology and Management, 131(3), 107126.
doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(99)00204-2.
Mendoza, G. A., & Prabhu, R. (2000b). Evaluating and
selecting criteria and indicators for forest sustainabil-
ity: A case study on participatory assessment under
CBFM in the Philippines. Journal of Environmental
Science and Management, 2(2), 3353.
Mendoza, G. A., & Prabhu, R. (2000c). Multiple criteria
analysis for assessing criteria and indicators in sustain-
able forest management: Acase study on participatory
decision making in a Kalimantan forest. Environmen-
tal Management, 26(6), 659673.
Microsoft Corporation (1995). Powerpoint version 1993
2007. Redmond, Washington.
Milder, J. C., Scherr, S. J., & Bracer, C. (2010). Trends
and future potential of payment for ecosystem ser-
vices to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries.
Ecology and Society, 15(2), 4.
National Research Council (1999). New strategies for
Americas watersheds. Washington: National Academy
Press.
Paneque Salgadoa, P., Corral Quintana, S., & Guimaraes
Pereirac, A. (2009). Participative multi-criteria analy-
sis for the evaluation of water governance alterna-
tives: A case in the Costa del Sol (Malaga). Ecolog-
ical Economics, 68, 9901005. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.
2006.11.008.
Prabhu, R., Colfer, C., & Dudley, R. G. (1998). Guide-
lines for developing, testing and selecting criteria and
indicators for sustainable forest management. CIFOR
Special Publication.
Prabhu, R., Colfer, C. J. P., &Dudley, R. G. (1999). Guide-
lines for developing, testing and selecting criteria and
indicators for sustainable forest management. Criteria
and Indicators Toolbox Series No. 1. CIFOR, Bogor,
Indonesia.
Prato, T. (1999). Multiple attribute decision analysis for
ecosystem management. Ecological Economics, 30,
207222. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00002-6.
Qureshi, M. E., & Harrison, S. H. (2003). Application of
the Analytic Hierarchy Process to riparian revege-
tation policy options. Small-Scale Forest Economics,
Management and Policy, 2(3), 441458.
Environ Monit Assess (2012) 184:27412761 2761
Rahman, M. M., Ainun, N., & Vacik, H. (2009). An-
thropogenic disturbances and plant diversity of the
Madhupur Sal forests (Shorea robusta C.F. Gaertn.)
of Bangladesh. The International Journal of Biodiver-
sity Science, Ecosystems Services & Management, 5(3),
162173. doi:10.1080/17451590903236741.
Reavill, L. R. P., & Rahman, T. G. (1995). A systems-
science-based analysis of the factors that influence and
aggravate the effects of flooding in Bangladesh. Tech-
nological Forecasting and Social Change, 48, 89101.
doi:10.1016/0040-1625(94)00068-8.
Saaty, T. L. (1995). Decision making for leaders: The An-
alytic Hierarchy Process for decisions in a complex
world. Pittsburgh: RWS.
Shackley, S., & McLachlan, C. (2006). Trade-offs in assess-
ing different energy futures: A regional multi-criteria
assessment of the role of carbon dioxide capture and
storage. Environmental Science and Policy, 9(4), 376
391. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.01.006.
SRDI (1987). Soil Research and Development Institute
map
Steiguer, J. E. D., Duberstein, J., & Lopes, V. (2003). The
Analytic Hierarchy Process as a means for Integrated
Watershed Management (pp. 734740). Tucson: School
of Renewable Natural Resources, University of
Arizona.
Swallow, B. M., Kallesoe, M. F., Iftikhar, U. A., van
Noordwijk, M., Bracer, C., Scherr, S. J., et al. (2009).
Compensation and rewards for environmental services
in the developing world: Framing pan-tropical analysis
and comparison. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 26.
Swart, R. J., & Bakkes, J. A. (Eds.) (1995). Scanning
the global environment: A framework and method-
ology for integrated environmental reporting and as-
sessment. Environmental assessment sub-programme.
Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme.
UNEP/EATR.9501, RIVM 402001002.
Tiwari, K. R., Roshan, M. B., & Sitaula, B. K. (2008).
Natural resource and watershed management in South
Asia: A comparative evaluation with special refer-
ences to Nepal. The Journal of Agriculture and Envi-
ronment, 9, 7289.
Thomas, J., & Durham, B. (2003). Integrated water
resource management: Looking at the whole pic-
ture. Desalination, 156(13), 2128. doi:10.1016/S0011-
9164(03)00320-5.
Turner, W. R., Brandon, K., Brooks, T. M., Costanza, R.,
da Fonseca, G. A. B., & Portela, R. (2007). Global
conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Bioscience, 57, 868873. doi:10.1641/B571009.
USDA Forest Service (1997). Report of the United States
on the criteria and indicators for the sustainable man-
agement of temperate and boreal forests. U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington
DC. URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/global/pub/links/report/
contents.html (online).
Vacik, H., & Lexer, M. J. (2001). Application of a spa-
tial decision support system in managing the protec-
tion forests of Vienna for sustained yield of water
resources. Forest Ecology and Management, 143(13),
6576. doi:10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00506-5.
Vargas, L., & Zahedi, F. (Eds.) (1993). Special issue. An-
alytic hierarchy process and its applications. Math-
ematical and Computer Modeling, 17(45), 1209.
doi:10.1016/0895-7177(93)90169-Y.
Vergano, D. (2003). Water shortages will leave world in dire
straits. USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/
nation/2003-01-26-water-usat_x.htm.
Wolfslehner, B., & Vacik, H. (2011). Mapping indi-
cator models: From intuitive problem structuring
to quantified decision-making in sustainable forest
management. Ecological Indicators, 11(2), 274283.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.05.004.
Zaman, M. A., Osman, K. T., & Haque, S. M. S. (2010).
Comparative study of some soil properties in forested
and deforested areas in Coxs Bazar and Rangamati
Districts, Bangladesh. Journal of Forestry Research,
21(3), 319322. doi:10.1007/s11676-010-0077-0.