Fadim YAVUZ OZDEMIR Tüzin BAYCAN-LEVENT

1. Collaborative and Integrated Watershed Management (CIWM):Evaluation of Critical Success Factors in Beyşehir Lake Basin Fadim YAVUZ OZDEMIR Tüzin BAYCAN-LEVENT

2. Collaborative and Integrated Watershed Management (CIWM): • Integrated Water Resources Management (CIWM) is defined as ‘decision making approach enables watershed stakeholders to participate in the planning processes’. • CIWM is the most ambitious and influential water policy tool and a holistic problem solving strategy. • In this context, CIWM aims to address complexity and uncertainty by recognizing theinterdependence of natural and socio-economic systems on a watershed basis, emphasizing stakeholder involvement in both decision-making and implementation.

3. Aim: • To investigate the critical success factors of CIWM in Beyşehir Lake Basin (BLB).

4. Case Study: Beyşehir Lake Basin (BLB)

5. Beyşehir Lake has international importance according to Ramsar Convention criteria also Important Bird Area (IBA) and Important Plant Area (IPA) statuses. Various zones of the lake and its basin are protected as 1st, 2nd and 3rd Degreed Natural Sit statuses and declared as National Parks called Lake Beyşehir and Kızıldağ. Also there are archeological sits in the basin. BL has drinking and potable water conservation area character. Beyşehir Lake Basin (BLB) suffers from lots of environmental and socio-economic problems. Variations in water level due to inappropriate water policy and non-point source pollution in the lake have become striking environmental issues at the basin.

6. The Main Research Questions: • What is the crucial problem of the BLB? • What is the most appropriate watershed management strategy that enables ecological and socio-cultural sustainability of the basin? • How much important to take most advantage of the basin’s Strengths and Opportunities or to reinforce most the Weaknesses and develop the best defense to the Threats?

7. Focus: • to explore the most appropriate watershed management strategy for BLB from the perspective of experts such as scientists, engineers, urban planners, hydrologists etc.

8. Methodology: SWOT AND AHP SWOT Technique: The ultimate success of a watershed management is largely dependent on the accuracy of an effective situational assessment. SWOT technique is one of the best and the simplest in situational assessment. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP): AHP is thought to be a method and planning framework with potential for implementation of CIWM. AHP provides a systematic method for comparison and weighting of multiple criteria and alternatives by decision-makers.

9. Methodology: SWOT AND AHP • Our proposal is to structure a hierarchy for the CIWM process based on a SWOT study, and to use AHP to estimate a global value for each one of proposed strategies. • SWOT analysis supports the decision situation while AHPmeasures therelative importance of the SWOT factors. • The paper offers a systematic approach and analytical means with a combination of SWOT matrix and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and evaluates the most appropriate watershed management strategy.

10. Implementation of the methodology Figure: The Flowchart of the Methodology

11. Step 1. Situational Assessment:SWOT Matrix of Beyşehir Lake Basin The SWOT matrixdeveloped for BLB has been prepared via scientific data of the workshops and conferences arranged in the basin and individual observations. Besides expert interviews were performed. In the light of 12 expert interviews, the basin’s current status is summarized in the SWOT matrix.

12. Strenghts (S): [What strengths can we build upon?] [S 1] Geographical position and accessibility [S 2] Water supply (for drinking and other purposes) [S 3] The environmental importance of the Beyşehir Lake (natural beauty, flood protection, rich biological diversity, microclimate formation etc.) . . [S 6] Suitable environment for nature friendly economic activities (rural tourism, eco-agriculture, cultural tourism etc.)

13. Weaknesses(W): [What weaknesses do we need to address?] [W 1] Inequalities in water useand high energy prices [W 2] Lack of importance attached to tourism as an instrument in the development of the basin . . . [W 7] Limitations to construction facilities in the basin with National Park statuses, inability to efficiently benefit from the lakeshore

14. Opportunities (O): [What opportunities can we use?] [O 1] Positional advantage: its location on the Kapadokya- Antalya tourism route, geographical closeness to big cities such as Konya, Ankara, Antalya etc. [O 2] Construction of New Konya- Antalya (Gembos) Motorway [. . . . [O 6] Presence of financial resources such as the European Union Grant Projects, World Bank Credits etc.

15. Threats (T): [What threats do we need to be aware of?] [T 1] Migration of the population to the outside of the basin [T 2] Climate changes [T 3] Decline in the amount of lake water . . . [T 8] Interventions to basin’s water system from outside the basin (over water demand from Çumra Plain etc.)

16. Step 2. Hierarchical Structure:

17. Step 3. Pairwise Comparison: Figure: SWOT Factor Priority Scores Figure: SWOT factors and their Global Weights Table: Scale of two-paired comparison at AHP (Saaty, 2008)

18. Step 4. Strategy formulation using TOWS Matrix:

19. Step 5. Evaluation of Proposed Strategies: • Weights of proposed strategies are calculated.

20. Strategy Development and Evaluation Matrix

22. Table: Scale of two-paired comparison at AHP (Saaty, 2008)

23. Empirical results: Figure: Global Evaluation of the Proposal Strategies • Our findings suggested that amongst 6 strategic objectives, [SO 1] (19 %) has beenperceived as the most important, while [SO3] (17, 6 %), also considered to be significant respectively. • [SO 2] and [SO 6] (17 %) were ranked highly important by participants while [SO 5] (15, 7 %) and [SO 4] (13, 6 %) were listed as less significant. • Experts thought AgriculturalDevelopment Strategy [SO 1, Maxi- Maxi] uses strengths to maximize the opportunities as the most important approach to solve basin’s problems in this way reach to successful CIWM.

24. Efficiency of the Most Desirable Strategy [SO 1] on SWOT Factors: • Agricultural Development Strategy [SO 1] takes most advantage of Strength-4 and Opportunity-3, reinforces the Weakness- 4 and develops the best defense to the Threat- 3.

25. Concluding remarks • This study evaluated and identified the crucial CIWM success strategies for BLB. • SWOT-AHP integration model used in this study presents a simplified, transparent and fast decision-making process; thus, ideal to be used in situations with limited data availability or on the contrary intensive data existence. • The final outcome from this approach is, henceforth, helps in selecting the best watershed management strategy for the goal- to sustain socio-cultural and environmental sustainability-in the basin. • The results are reasonable and useful for the practical work of water conservancy. The main findings are as follows:

26. Global Evaluation for the six Proposal Strategies: • For the six different kinds strategic objectives “Agricultural Development- SO 1” is the most important strategy as the rate of 19 %. • From the experts’ perspectives, the efficiency of improving solutions to problems depends on people's living conditions in the basin. • It is followed by "Collaborative (Residents-Enterprises-Experts) Watershed Management- SO 3" strategy (17, 7 %).

27. Global Evaluation for the six Proposal Strategies: • The approach of CIWM has acceptance in world-wide as an effective strategy on wetland management, is overrated by experts, too. • Strategies overrated equally and in the third row by the experts are; “Environment Friendly Tourism Development: Rural Tourism- SO 2” and “Improving Water Usage in Rural Areas and Agriculture- SO 6” (17 %).

28. Global Evaluation for the six Proposal Strategies: • In addition strategies of “Improving Water Quality- Control Invasive Pollutant- SO 5” and “Decreasing the Water Consumption in Urban Area- SO 4” are the strategies cared at least (15, 7 % and 13,6 %). • Despite the fact that strategy of SO 5 was designed to solve the problem of non-point resource pollution, it was ignored by the experts. It is at the fourth row.

29. Global Evaluation for the six Proposal Strategies: • SO 4and SO 6 are the strategies overrate the problematic of reduction in the amount of water. SO6 “Improving Water Usage in Rural Areas and Agriculture” was overrated much more important than the Strategy “Decreasing the Water Consumption in Urban Area” by the experts. • This preference means that water use in rural areas of the BLB is much more than the water use in the cities of the basin from the point of experts’ views.

30. As a second step/future work of this research, it is aimed to test SWOT-AHP based model with the local authorities and the local people of the basin to be able to compare the best management strategy preference differences. It is believed that the outcomes of the research and the further studies will contribute to the build CIWM and also will raise basin residents’ awareness on importance of Beyşehir Lake.

31. Thanks for your attention… Fadim YAVUZ OZDEMIR Selcuk University,Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Konya, TURKEYE-mail: fyavuz@selcuk.edu.tr Tüzin BAYCAN-LEVENT Istanbul Technical University, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Istanbul, TURKEY E-mail: tuzin.baycanlevent@itu.edu.tr