IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 3 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 APPLICATION OF COMBINED ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) AND SWOT FOR INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT Fadim Yavuz Necmettin Erbakan University Konya, Turkey fadimyavuz@konya.edu.tr Tüzin Baycan Istanbul Technical University Istanbul, Turkey tbaycan@itu.edu.tr ABSTRACT The most critical issue in watershed management is the active involvement of a range of stakeholder groups in the process. This paper offers an integrated approach to contribute to the integrated watershed management (IWM) process by using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) methods. The paper looks at Beyşehir Lake Basin (BLB), the largest freshwater lake and drinking water reservoir in Turkey, and focuses on the most critical stage of IWM. This critical stage determines the optimal and agreed upon watershed management strategy from all of the stakeholder’s perspective. This strategy is referred to in this study as the ‘Collaborative Watershed Management (CWM) Strategy’. The combined AHP and SWOT methodology is applied to the real-life problems of: i) how to identify differences among the knowledge, experiences, values and interests of three different stakeholder groups including local communities, local authorities and experts regarding the agreed upon watershed management strategy, and ii) how to determine the CWM strategy that meets the expectations of all stakeholders in BLB. The methodology is carried out via stages including describing SWOT factors, comparing these SWOT factors pair by pair to determine the relative weights of each, developing strategies based on those factors, evaluating each strategy alternative with respect to each SWOT factor, and performing final calculations. The study illustrates the feasibility of combining AHP and SWOT to incorporate stakeholder preferences in the decision making process of IWM. Keywords: Integrated watershed management, stakeholder-based decision making, analytic hierarchy process (AHP), AHP-SWOT, Beyşehir Lake Basin 1. Introduction Integrated watershed management (IWM) has emerged as a new model for watershed planning following the trend towards more holistic and participatory approaches to natural resource management (DeSteiguer et al., 2003). IWM is the process of managing human activities and natural resources in an area defined by watershed boundaries, and aims to protect and manage natural resources for present and future generations. Considering the integrity of the environment, economy and communities and using adaptive environmental management approaches, IWM offers an integrated interdisciplinary approach. IWM recognizes the importance of the human dimension. Instead of focusing exclusively on biophysical processes and human impacts, IWM includes stakeholder participation, adaptive management, and experimentation that are compatible with critical ecosystem functions and services. Rob Typewritten Text http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 4 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 Stakeholders are the people that directly and/or indirectly take part in watershed planning and management activities in the area and are affected by the actions in the basin. Key stakeholders of a watershed may include people who can influence land management decisions, such as individual landowners, farmers, local government officials, representatives from environmental and community groups etc. (Bonnell and Baird, 2010). IWM is a process-oriented approach that provides a chance for stakeholders to balance diverse goals, and considers how their cumulative actions may affect long-term sustainability of watershed resources (Qianxiang et al., 2005). IWM as a decision-making process makes it possible to address multiple issues and objectives, and enables planning in a very complex and uncertain environment. Decision making in IWM typically involves several stakeholders with conflicting views. Effective participation and conflict resolution are the most important challenges of the IWM approach (Sharma et al., 2005). The related literature emphasizes the importance of consensual decision making in collaboration. Margerum (1999) states that consensus is important not only for reaching an acceptable decision, but also for building long-term trust and support for outcomes. Beierle (2002) suggests that it is the more intensive stakeholder processes that are more likely to result in higher-quality decisions. In order to succeed, IWM must be participatory, integrating all the relevant scientific knowledge/data and user-supplied information regarding the social, economic and environmental processes affecting natural resources at the watershed level. This paper offers an integrated approach to contribute to the IWM process by using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) methods. The paper addresses Beyşehir Lake Basin (BLB), the largest freshwater lake and drinking water reservoir in Turkey, and focuses on the most critical stage of IWM, where the optimal and agreed upon watershed management strategy is determined by all of the stakeholders. This is referred to in this study as ‘Collaborative Watershed Management (CWM) Strategy’. Identifying the CWM strategy is an important stage as it represents the culmination of the IWM process and sets the course for the future of the watershed. Within this context, the differences among the knowledge, experiences, values and interests of three different stakeholder groups (local communities, local authorities and experts) with regard to the optimal and agreed upon watershed management strategy are assessed with the goal of protecting and restoring aquatic ecosystems, human health and other natural resources in BLB. The paper consists of five sections. Following a brief review of the stakeholder participation in IWM approach given in the Introduction, Section 2 describes the methodology of the combined use of AHP-SWOT. Section 3 focuses on the empirical study and describes the case study area and the survey methodology. In this section, the participatory SWOT analysis for BLB and the strategy formulation on the basis of SWOT analysis are also presented. Next, Section 4 explains the AHP-SWOT application steps and discusses the empirical results. The last section evaluates the application of combined AHP and SWOT as a tool for stakeholder-based decision making in IWM and discusses future research directions. 2. Methodology: Combined use of AHP and SWOT as a tool for stakeholder- based decision making in IWM The methodological framework includes the combined use of AHP and SWOT in developing CWM strategies, tallying SWOT factors, and prioritizing them with the pairwise comparison technique available with AHP. 2.1 AHP The multitude of watershed planning and management objectives inevitably leads to conflicts among watershed stakeholders or interest groups. It is often impossible to aggregate the objectives into a single criterion or performance measure in the alternative ranking and selection process. Thus, multi-criteria (or multi-objective) decision support methods are widely applied in water policy planning and evaluation, strategic watershed planning and management, and IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 5 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 infrastructure development. Multiple criteria analysis techniques have been used by water resource practitioners to select or to design alternatives in areas such as river basin planning and development, water resources development, land use management, groundwater/surface water allocation, watershed restoration and water resources quality (Mirchi et al., 2010). Since AHP is fairly well known for the audience of this journal we will only briefly introduce the methodology. AHP is a mathematical method for analysing complex decisions with multiple criteria. It has been translated into the level of analysis by Thomas Saaty. The technique has become a widely known and used for solving discrete multiple criteria problems. It has been successfully applied to many complex planning, resource allocation and priority setting problems in business, energy, health, marketing, natural resources and transportation (Saaty, 2001). AHP is applied to the decision problem after it is structured hierarchically at different levels, each level consisting of a finite number of elements. Fundamentally, AHP works by developing priorities for alternatives and the criteria are used to judge the alternatives. The estimation of the priorities from pairwise comparison matrices is the major component of the AHP. The importance or preferences of the decision elements are compared in a pairwise manner with regard to the element preceding them in the hierarchy. The priority vector can be derived from these pairwise comparison matrices using different techniques. The most commonly used technique is the Eigenvector Method (Mikhailov, 2000). First of all, priorities are derived for the criteria in terms of their importance to achieve the goal, and then priorities are derived for the performance of alternatives on each criterion. These priorities are derived based on pairwise assessments using the judgement or ratios of measurements from a scale if one exists. Finally, a weighting and adding process is used to obtain overall priorities for alternatives as to how they contribute to the goal. By additive aggregation AHP finally computes the priorities of the elements at the bottom level of the hierarchy, usually known as the alternatives. Their priorities are interpreted with respect to the overall goal at the top of the hierarchy and elements at upper levels such as criteria, sub-criteria etc. are used to mediate comparison process (Srdjevic, 2005). With the AHP, a multidimensional scaling problem is thus transformed to a uni-dimensional scaling problem. Saaty (2001) suggests AHP as a formal method for rational and explicit decision making. It is a useful tool to analyse decisions in complex social and political problems. AHP is also useful when many interests are involved and a number of people participate in the judgement process. AHP is a straightforward and transparent method that is also able to consider subjective and judgemental information. The technique provides the objective mathematics to process the inescapably subjective and personal preferences of an individual or a group in making a decision. AHP can deal with qualitative as well as quantitative attributes. 2.2 SWOT SWOT analysis is a commonly used strategic planning method to evaluate the Strengths (S), Weaknesses (W), Opportunities (O), and Threats (T) involved in a project or business venture. Generally SWOT is a list of statements or factors with descriptions of the present and future trends of both the internal and external environment; the expressions of individual factors are general and brief which describe subjective views. However, SWOT is a convenient and promising way of conducting a situational assessment (Wickramasinghe and Takano, 2009). 2.3 Combined use of AHP-SWOT The use of AHP in SWOT analysis supports the strategic planning process quantitatively by providing analytical priorities to the SWOT factors. The combined use of the AHP and SWOT analysis has been widely used to support strategic decision-making processes such as institutional situation analysis and strategy selection (Arslan, 2010; Gürbüz, 2010), economical structure analysis (Çelik and Murat, 2008), stakeholder analysis in environmental management IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 6 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 (Dwivedi and Alavalapati, 2009), strategy selection in defense sector (Kandakoğlu et al., 2007), developing and selecting strategy in forest management (Kurttila et al., 2000; Leskinen et al., 2006; Masozera et al., 2006; Shrestha et al., 2004), developing collaborative strategy in the health sector (Osuna and Aranda, 2007), selecting strategy in natural resource management (Pesonen et al., 2001), project management (Stewart et al., 2002), strategy development in industry sector (Shinno et al., 2006; Taşkın and Güneri, 2005), developing and selecting strategy in tourism planning (Kajanus et al., 2004; Wickramasinghe, 2008), collaborative project evaluation (Yılmaz, 2007), selection of the optimal reconstruction solution of a water intake structure within a regional hydro-system (Srdjevic et al., 2012), and decision making in information technology (Hacımenni, 1998).The technique has been also referred as A’WOT in some studies (Gürbüz, 2010; Kajanus et al., 2004; Leskinen et al., 2006; Pesonen et al., 2001; Taşkın and Güneri, 2005; Yılmaz, 2007). The first AHP-SWOT applications (Kurttila et al., 2000, Shrestha et al., 2004) have only focused on weighting the SWOT factors. The method has been developed by involving the evaluating processes of the strategy alternatives according to each SWOT factor and general priority calculations for the strategy alternatives. Making pairwise comparisons forces the decision–makers to think over the weights of the SWOT factors and to analyze the situation more precisely and in more depth than the standard SWOT does. By integrating AHP with SWOT, not only the mutual weighting of SWOT factors, but also the evaluation of alternative strategic decisions can be integrated with ordinary SWOT analyses. In this way, the most crucial weakness of SWOT can be avoided (Kangas et al., 2001; Kangas et al., 2003; Saaty and Vargas, 2001, cited in Dwivedi and Alavalapati, 2009; Yılmaz, 2007). The AHP-SWOT method increases and improves the information basis of the strategic planning processes, and not only provides a robust decision support, but also an effective framework for learning in strategic decision support. AHP-SWOT can be used as a communication and educational tool in the decision making processes if more than one decision maker exists. In addition, separate AHP- SWOT applications for individuals or interest groups can provide a good basis for examining the vision and expectation differences of different stakeholders regarding a particular decision- making process (Kangas et al., 2001). The AHP-SWOT combination is carried out in five stages (Figure 1) (Kangas et al., 2001 and Yılmaz, 2007). Figure 1. Application stages of AHP-SWOT Stage 1−SWOT analysis: The SWOT groups (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) are created. SWOT factors of each SWOT group that will be included in the analysis are ranked as neutral as possible. Stage 2−Pairwise comparisons between SWOT factors are performed using Saaty's (2008) nine point scale (Table 1) separately within each SWOT group. The comparisons are used as input to IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 7 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 the scope, and then the relative priorities of SWOT factors are calculated using the eigenvector approach of AHP technique. Table 1 Scale of two-paired comparison at AHP (Saaty, 2008) Intensity of Importance Definition Explanation 1 Equal Importance Two activities contribute equally to the objective 3 Moderate Importance Experience and judgment slightly favour one activity over another 5 Strong Importance Experience and judgment strongly favour one activity over another 7 Very Strong Importance An activity is favoured very strongly over another; its dominance demonstrated in practice 9 Extreme Importance The evidence favouring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation 2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate Values Intermediate values Stage 3− The next stage is the calculation of a list of the relative weights, importance, or value of the S, W, O and T factor groups (technically, this list is called an eigenvector). In this process, if S is absolutely more important than W and is rated at 9, then W must be absolutely less important than S and is valued at 1/9. These pairwise comparisons are carried out for all SWOT factors to be considered, and the matrix is completed. Relative priorities of S, W, O and T factors are based on eigenvector values of the pairwise comparisons. Stage 4−In this stage the strategy alternatives for each SWOT factor are evaluated. Here, the relative priority value of each SWOT group is separately multiplied by the relative priority of each of the SWOT factors in this group. Thus, the overall priority value of each SWOT factor in the related SWOT group is derived. This process is repeated for each of the SWOT groups. Finally, the overall priority values of all the SWOT factors (of which total value is equal to 1) are obtained. At the end of each AHP calculation stage there is a need to calculate a Consistency Ratio (CR) to measure how consistent the judgments have been relative to large samples of purely random judgments. Saaty has proved that the consistent reciprocal matrix, the largest Eigen value is equal to the size of the comparison matrix, or λmax–n. The measure of consistency, called the Consistency Index (CI), is a deviation or degree of consistency using the following formula: CI=(λmax–n) / (n–1) (1) Saaty proposes that CI be used by comparing it with the appropriate one. The appropriate CI is called the Random Consistency Index (RI) (Table 2). Table 2 Random consistency index (Teknomo, 2006) n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 Then, he proposes what is called CR, which is a comparison between CI and RI: CR= CI / RI (2) IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 8 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 If the value of CR is smaller or equal to 0.1, the inconsistency is acceptable. If the CR is greater than 0.1, the judgments are untrustworthy because they are too close to randomness. The subjective judgment is valueless or must be repeated. Saaty suggests that if that ratio exceeds 0.1 the set of judgments may be too inconsistent to be reliable. A CR of 0 means that the judgments are perfectly consistent. Stage 5−This stage includes general priority calculations for the strategy alternatives. AHP uses a principle of hierarchic composition to derive composite priorities of alternatives with respect to multiple criteria from their priorities with respect to each criterion. It consists of multiplying each priority of an alternative by the priority of its corresponding criterion and adding over all the criteria to obtain the overall priority of that alternative (Saaty, 2003). In this study, weights of strategy alternatives are calculated using the following formula adapted from Osuna and Aranda (2007): : The global (relative) value of the Strategy j (j = 1, 2, ...., n) (3) Normalized value of the Strategy Weights: (4) Where : Normalized weight of the strategy, m: Number of SWOT factors, n: Number of strategies. 3. Empirical study: stakeholder-based decision making in BLB’s management This study aims to provide a better understanding of i) the critical problems of the BLB, ii) the most important advantages of the basin in terms of ‘Strengths’ and ‘Opportunities’, iii) the problems regarding BLB’s management, iv) the most important disadvantages of the basin in terms of ‘Weaknesses’ and ‘Threats’, v) the possible strategies that would ensure major positive changes towards the basin’s sustainability, vi) knowledge, perceptions and behaviours of the stakeholders (individual and institutional level), and vii) the optimal adaptive watershed management strategy that would be sensitive to the views of all stakeholders in the basin within the context of the field work in BLB. Household, local government and expert questionnaires are performed to achieve these purposes. 3.1 The case study area: Beyşehir Lake Basin (BLB) Beyşehir Lake, located in the southwest of Konya Closed Basin, is the largest freshwater lake and drinking water reservoir in Turkey. The basin, belonging to the Konya and Isparta province borders (Figure 2), is significant both for humans as a source of fresh water, and the environment, due to its wetland ecosystem (Babaoğlu, 2007). The lake has international importance according to the Ramsar Convention criteria. It also holds the statuses of Important Bird Area (IBA) and Important Plant Area (IPA). Various zones of the lake and its basin are protected under the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd Degree Natural Site statuses, and the area has several declared National Parks namely, Beyşehir Lake and Kızıldağ. Also, archaeological sites exist in the basin, and Beyşehir Lake has a drinking and potable water conservation area character. IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 9 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 Figure 2. Location of BLB in Turkey In recent years, BLB has suffered from some environmental and socio-economic problems. Inappropriate water policy and non-point source pollution in the lake which have led to variations in water levels have become striking environmental issues at the basin. 3.2. Participatory SWOT Analysis The ultimate success of a watershed management largely depends on the accuracy of an effective situational assessment. To assess the BLB substantially, first a participatory SWOT analysis was conducted through expert interviews including a civil engineer, forest engineer, urban planner, hydrologist, geologist and tourism experts. The local authority interviews included the mayor, village headman and an employee, and household interviews were also conducted. Next, the judgments of experts, local authorities and local communities regarding SWOT factors were aggregated. This aggregation helped cope with the difficulty resulting from the original long list of SWOT factors in AHP technique. The experts’ SWOT judgments that were close to each other were combined thematically to reduce the number of factors, and in this way BLB’s current status was summarized on the basis of a comprehensive and detailed SWOT analysis. Consequently, six Strengths, seven Weaknesses, six Opportunities and eight Threats factors were obtained. The SWOT analysis performed for BLB is presented in Table 3. Table 3 Participatory SWOT analysis for BLB W e a k n e s s e s [ W ] S t r e n g t h s [ S ] [W1] Inequalities in water use [W2] Lack of importance attached to tourism as an instrument in the development of the basin [W3] Lack or inadequacy of infrastructure services [W4] Scarcity of employment opportunities [W5] Problems in the institutional structure and legal system related to problem solving and management in the basin [W6] Inadequacy of financial resources for activities to protect the lake [W7] Limitations to construction facilities in the basin with National Park statuses, inability to efficiently benefit from the lakeshore [S1] Geographical position and accessibility [S2] Water supply [S3] The environmental importance of the Beyşehir Lake [S4] Supporting means of subsistence such as agriculture, animal husbandry, fishing [S5] Historical importance [S6] Suitable environment for nature friendly economic activities O p p o r t u n i t i e s [ O ] T h r e a t s [ T ] [O1] Positional advantage [O2] Construction of New Konya- Antalya (Gembos) Motorway [O3] Derebucak Derivation Tunnel [O4] Its suitability in terms of tourism development [O5] Plans and projects to protect and develop the basin [O6] Presence of financial resources such as the European Union Grant Projects, World Bank Credits etc. [T1] Migration of the population to the outside of the basin [T2] Climate changes [T3] Decline in the amount of lake water [T4] Water pollution [T5] Overhunting [T6] Destruction of the lake ecosystem [T7] High taxes against the rise of the local economy [T8] Interventions to basin’s water system from outside the basin IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 10 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 3.3 Survey methodology In this study, we structured an analytical hierarchy for the BLB’s IWM process based on a SWOT analysis. We also used AHP to estimate a global value for each of the strategy alternatives. Initially, we used TOWS matrix, developed by Weihrich (1982), to describe watershed management options based on the SWOT factors. TOWS matrix provides means to develop strategies based on logical combinations of SWOT factors related to internal strengths (or weaknesses) with factors related to external opportunities (or threats) (Wickramasinghe, 2008). TOWS matrix identifies four conceptually distinct strategic groups to create the strategy alternatives including, i) Strength-Opportunity (SO), ii) Strength-Threats (ST), iii) Weaknesses- Opportunities (WO), and iv) Weaknesses-Threats (WT). In this context, considering the expert views, we have proposed six strategy alternatives (ALT). These alternatives consider the advantages of the Strengths and Opportunities while also reinforcing the Weaknesses in order to develop the best defence strategy to the Threats (Table 4). Table 4 Strategy formulation using TOWS matrix Strategy groups Strategy alternatives SO Strategies: Maxi-Maxi Strategies use strengths to maximize opportunities [ALT 1] Agricultural development [ALT 2] Environment friendly tourism development: rural tourism WO Strategies: Mini-Maxi Strategies reduce internal weaknesses or develop missing strengths are used to minimize external threats [ALT 3] Collaborative watershed management ST Strategies: Maxi-Mini Strategies use internal strengths to minimize threats [ALT 4] Decreasing the water consumption in urban area WT Strategies: Mini-Mini Strategies reduce the internal weaknesses to avoid external threats (defensive strategy, worst case scenario) [ALT 5] Improving water quality- control invasive pollutant [ALT 6] Improving water usage in rural areas and agriculture AHP begins with the development of a decision hierarchy including a main goal, sub-objectives and strategy alternatives. Figure 3 and Table 3 show the decision hierarchy used in the study. The hierarchy for the described problem was structured in four levels. The top level refers to the main goal, to develop the best watershed management strategy that enables both the environmental and socio-economic sustainability of the BLB. The next level consists of decision objectives that take advantage of the Strengths (S), to reinforce the Weaknesses (W), to use the advantage of Opportunities (O) and to develop the best defense to the Threats (T). SWOT factors, described in SWOT analysis, take part in the third level. Finally, the fourth level consists of the strategy alternatives (ALT). How important are the internal Strengths & Weaknesses and the Opportunities & Threats arising from the external environment, or to what extent should they be ignored to achieve the specified purposes? What are the most important problems of the basin? What is the safest course that would lead to improvement of the lake's environmental conditions and the basin residents’ living conditions? AHP and SWOT integration has been used to answer these research questions from the perspectives of stakeholders. IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 11 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 Figure 3. Hierarchical structure to prioritize the SWOT factors of BLB’s sustainability , , : relative importance of each group of factors (S, W, O and T) for the achievement of the strategic objective ( , …, ,): relative importance of the Strengths factors (S1, S2, ..., Sms) within their group (S) ( , …, ,): relative importance of the Weaknesses factors (W1, W2, ..., Wmw) within their group (W) ( , …, ,): relative importance of the Opportunities factors (O1, O2, ..., Omo) within their group (O) ( , …, ,): relative importance of the Threats factors (T1, T2, ..., Tmt) within their group (T) For any Strategy j (j = 1, 2, ...., n); degree of relationship between Factor and Strategy : : Efficiency of Strategy j in taking the advantage of the Strength factor Si (i= 1, 2, ...., ms) : Efficiency of Strategy j in lessening the effects of the Weakness factor Wi (i = 1, 2, ...., mw) : Efficiency of Strategy j in taking the advantage of the Opportunity factor Oi (i = 1, 2, ...., mo) : Efficiency of Strategy j in facing the Threat factor Ti (i = 1, 2,…, mt) The data for the analysis was gathered from a survey conducted in 44 different settlements in BLB in March and April of 2010. In order to determine the CWM strategy from the perspective of the stakeholders the following questionnaires were performed: i) 457 household (approximately 1.7 % sample size) questionnaires, ii) 27 local authorities (mayor, village headman and employee) questionnaires, and iii) 22 expert (civil engineer, forest engineer, urban planner, hydrologist, geologist, tourism expert, etc The household and local authority questionnaires were performed face to face by visiting all of the settlements, whereas the expert questionnaires were conducted using different channels such as phone calls and e-mails in addition to face to face interviews. Following a pilot study by the authors, a professional survey team was trained and the rest of the survey was completed by this professional team. The survey IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 12 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 sheet was designed in order to be appropriate to the AHP-SWOT technique, and the decision hierarchy has been developed for BLB (see for further information Appendix A). For pairwise comparisons, the questionnaire consists of two parts: i) comparison of the two factors in order to determine environmental and socio-cultural sustainability of BLB (Goal), the most dominant factor (in the case of strength and opportunity) or the least favourable factor (in the case of weakness and threat), and ii) the intensity of importance. In this context, the survey sheet consists of tables comparing each factor in a particular SWOT category with other factors in the same category. Survey participants were asked to compare the stated factor to other factors and evaluate their importance from their perspective. For example, during the pairwise comparisons of S1 and S2 factors, under the Strengths heading, the responder first decided which factor was more important, then evaluated their relative importance on a scale of 1-9. The success of any SWOT factors in determining the best strategy was measured on a scale of 0-9. Reliability of the responses to the questionnaire was tested with the “consistency ratio” (CR) formula (Formula 1 and Formula 2) as prescribed by the AHP technique. The CRs of the matrices were below the limit value of 0.1. Therefore, the judgments are acceptably consistent. Table 5 shows the sampling sites, household size and number of local authority questionnaires, and Figure 4 shows the study area and sampling sites. Table 5 Sampling sites and the sizes of household and local authority questionnaires Settlement: H LA Settlement: H Q Settlement: Q LA Settlement: H LA Akburun 6 - Çiftliközü 4 - Hüyük 12 2 Sağlık 4 1 Bademli 4 - Derbent 13 1 İlmen 4 - Sarıkabalı 4 - Belceğiz 5 - Doğanbey 13 - İmrenler 5 - Selki 6 - Beyşehir 131 - Emen 5 - Karadiken 4 - Sevindik 3 - Budak 6 1 Gedikli 4 1 Karayaka 3 - Ş.karaağaç 48 2 Burunsuz 5 - Gencek 5 1 Kıreli 9 1 Tolca 5 1 Çamlıca 6 1 Göçeri 5 - Kızılören 5 2 Üstünler 7 1 Çarıksaraylar 10 1 Gölkaşı 5 1 Kurucuova 6 - Üzümlü 20 - Çavuş 4 2 Gölkonak 5 - Kuşluca 6 1 Yenidoğan 6 1 Çiçekpınar 7 2 Gölyaka 3 1 Mutlu 4 1 Y.bademli 12 1 Çiflikköy 3 - Huğlu 13 - Sadıkhacı 12 1 Yeşildağ 10 - TOTAL: 457 27 * H: household, LA: local authory IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 13 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 BEYŞEHİR LAKE AKBURUN BELCEĞİZ TOLCA SARIKABALI DERBENT ÇARIKSARAY GÖÇERİ KIRELİ HÜYÜK ÇAVUŞ ŞAKİKARAAĞAÇ HUĞLU YEŞİLDAĞ GENCEK ÜSTÜNLER YENİŞARBADEMLİ KURUCUOVA KARADİKEN BEYŞEHİR GÖLKAŞI GÖLKONAK KUŞLUCA BUDAK SAĞLIK KIZILÖREN EMEN SELKİ DOĞANBEY ÇİFTLİKÖZÜ MUTLU BURUNSUZ ÇAMLICA İMRENLER İLMEN GEDİKLİ ÇİÇEKPINAR GÖLYAKA YENİDOĞAN ÇİFTLİKKÖY BADEMLİ KARAYAKA SADIKHACI SEVİNDİK ÜZÜMLÜ DIĞRAK . YENİCEKALE SALUR ÖRDEKÇİ YAKAEMİR ÇELTEK FAKILAR GÖKSÖĞÜT ÖRENKÖY ÇAVıNDUR ARAK BEYKÖY ÇALTI YUKARI DİNEK AŞAĞI DİNEK ARSLANDOĞMUS BASDEĞİRMEN MURATBAŞI KÖPRÜKÖY DUMANLI ADAKÖY ARMUTLU YASSIBELYENİKÖY KIYAKDEDE AKÇABELEN DOĞANCIK ÜÇPINAR KARAALİ BAYINDIR GÖÇÜ KAYABAŞI SAMLAR AĞILÖNÜ K.AFSAR BAYAT AVDANCIK EĞLİKLER İSAKÖY DEĞ.ALTI ÇUKURKENT KÖSK GÖRÜNMEZ YENİCE SULUDERE PINARBASI GÖKÇEKUYU EĞİRLER BAŞGÖZEGÖNEN GÜNDOĞDU SARIKÖY YUNUSLAR DAMLAPINAR KARABAYAT DERBENTTEKKE D ĞİŞE SARAYPINAR YASSIÖREN ÇUKURAĞIL DURAK TEPEARASI LEGEND Sampling sites Settlement River Basin boundary Province boundary 0 Kilometers 4 8 Figure 4. Study area and sampling sites 4. Empirical Results and Discussion An Excel worksheet was used to perform AHP calculations. This section presents the empirical results according to the AHP-SWOT application steps consecutively. 4.1 Priorities of SWOT factor groups Table 6 shows the AHP priorities of the SWOT factor groups in terms of three stakeholder groups. ‘To develop the best defence to Threats’ [T] is the most highly rated SWOT factor group from the perspective of local communities (40.1%), and also the basic determinant of local authority views (46.0%). Contrary to the local community and local authority views, ‘to use the advantage of Opportunities’ [O] is dominant (35.0 %) in the holistic perceptions of the experts. While the other two stakeholder groups define [T] category as their primary decision objective, [T] is ranked second in priority by the experts (28.4%). CWM strategy considers the common benefit of all stakeholders and is responsive to their expectations. Consequently, we IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 14 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 derived the CWM strategy for BLB by congregating stakeholder groups’ assessments that were made separately. [T] is the highest overrated SWOT factor group of the CWM strategy priorities calculated from the geometric means of three stakeholder group priorities (37.4 %), and ‘to take the advantage of Strengths [S]’ is the least rated category (13.6%) (Appendix-B, C, D, E). Table 6 Weights of the decision objectives from the perspectives of stakeholders S t a k e h o l d e r g r o u p s Weights Local communities Local authorities Experts Overall stakeholders * to take the advantage of Strengths 0.102 0.117 0.209 0.136 to reinforce the Weaknesses 0.281 0.221 0.157 0.214 to use the advantage of Opportunities 0.216 0.202 0.350 0.248 to develop the best defence to Threats 0.401 0.460 0.284 0.374 * Each value is the geometric mean of the row. 4.2 Priorities of the SWOT factors Local weight dispersions regarding SWOT factors explicitly show the importance of [T4] ‘water pollution’ and [T3] ‘decline in the amount of lake water’ factors from the perspective of local communities. Local authorities emphasized the importance of [T] category like local communities, and more highly rated the [T4] ‘water pollution’ and [T6] ‘destruction of the lake ecosystem’ [T] factors. Experts emphasized the importance of the [O] category. This group rated [O5] ‘plans and projects to protect and develop the basin’, and [O4] ‘its suitability in terms of tourism development’ the highest. While [T] is accepted as the most important overall SWOT category with respect to CWM strategy, all of the stakeholders rated [T4] ‘water pollution’, [T3] ‘decline in the amount of lake water’ and [T6] ‘destruction of the lake ecosystem’ the highest factors in this category (Appendix-B, C, D, E). Figure 5 shows the differences in the SWOT factor prioritizations of the three stakeholder groups. The most important differences observed in the weight dispersions of SWOT factors are: i) Experts supported the [O] factors with the highest scores and, ii) Local authorities supported the [T] factors with the highest scores compared to other stakeholders. Figure 5. Priorities of the SWOT factors from the perspectives of stakeholders IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 15 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 4.3 Global weight dispersions of strategy alternatives with respect to CWM strategy Our findings suggest that amongst six strategy alternatives, the ‘Collaborative Watershed Management (Public-Corporate-Experts Cooperation) [ALT 3], ‘reduces internal weaknesses or develops missing strengths to minimize external threats’, is perceived as the most important approach (17.4 %) by all stakeholders to solve the basin’s problems (for further information see Appendix-F, G). This preference points out that all stakeholders are aware of the necessity of coordination and cooperation to gain effective watershed planning and management activities. Stakeholders agree that ‘the suitability of the basin to the development of tourism’ [O4] is an important opportunity. Thus, they rated the ‘Environment friendly tourism development: rural tourism’ [ALT 2] strategy, uses strengths to maximize opportunities, after [ALT 3] (16.9 %). This preference points out the importance of providing income sources, sensitive to the basin’s natural resources, for the local people. ‘Improving water usage in rural areas and agriculture’ [ALT 6] strategy, reduces the internal weaknesses to avoid external threats, is rated third by the stakeholders (16.8 %). While [T4] ‘water pollution’ is perceived as the primary threat to the sustainability of the basin, ‘improving water quality-control invasive pollutant’ [ALT 5] strategy, reduces the internal weaknesses to avoid external threats, is ranked fifth in stakeholders’ priorities (16.4 %). ‘Decreasing the water consumption in urban areas’ [ALT 4] strategy, uses internal strengths to minimize threats, is the lowest rated (% 16.1) strategy. Despite the fact that stakeholders rated [T3] ‘decline in the amount of lake water’ (6.6 %) more highly, and [T6] ‘destruction of the lake ecosystem’ (6.0 %) factors, they have not supported [ALT 4], ‘developed to improve the amount of water in the basin’ enough. Priorities of the stakeholders for the alternatives/strategies developed to restore the water amount show that ‘rural areas’ and the ‘agricultural water consumption’ are perceived as the main reasons for the decrease in water amount. 4.4 Comparison of the stakeholders’ alternative preferences Table 7 and Figure 6 show the results of the sensitivity analysis of each watershed management option. This analysis demonstrates how the strategy alternatives were prioritized relative to other alternatives with respect to each objective as well as the overall objective from the perspective of stakeholders. According to the sensitivity analysis, the experts have the same prioritization with the CWM strategy which represents a shared view of all stakeholders. However, local authorities have the same prioritization with the CWM strategy, only regarding their preferences of ALT 3 and ALT 2 at the first and second row. Table 7 Global priorities of the strategic alternatives from the perspectives of stakeholders Stakeholders Strategic Alternatives Local communities Local authorities Experts Overall stakeholders* [ALT 1] 0.1634 0.1660 0.1640 0.1645 [ALT 2] 0.1613 0.1686 0.1784 0.1693 [ALT 3] 0.1689 0.1713 0.1817 0.1739 [ALT 4] 0.1690 0.1654 0.1487 0.1608 [ALT 5] 0.1679 0.1651 0.1576 0.1635 [ALT 6] 0.1696 0.1635 0.1697 0.1676 * Each value is the geometric mean of the row. IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 16 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 Figure 6. Sensitivity analysis While comparing the global weight dispersions of alternatives in terms of stakeholder groups, we have determined the differences presented below (Figure 6): i) ‘Agricultural development’ [ALT 1] strategy was supported at the highest level (16.60 %) by the local authorities. ii) ‘Environment friendly tourism development: rural tourism’ [ALT 2] strategy was supported at the highest level (17.84 %) by the experts. iii) ‘Collaborative watershed management’ [ALT 3] strategy was supported at the highest level (18.17 %) by the experts. iv) ‘Decreasing the water consumption in urban area’ [ALT 4] strategy was supported at the highest level (16.90 %) by the local communities. v) ‘Improving water quality- control invasive pollutant’ [ALT 5] strategy was supported at the highest level (16.79 %) by the local communities. vi) ‘Improving water usage in rural areas and agriculture’ [ALT 6] strategy was supported at the highest level (16.97 %) by the experts. Amongst the alternatives (Mini-Mini, Mini-Maxi, Maxi-Maxi and Maxi-Mini) aiming to provide sustainability of BLB, local authorities mostly preferred ‘Maxi-Maxi’ and ‘Mini-Mini’ strategies whereas an aggregate of the stakeholders mostly preferred ‘Mini-Maxi’ strategies (Table 8). However, any significant difference in other stakeholder groups’ preferences was not observed. Table 8 Rankings by different stakeholders regarding alternatives * Each value is the geometric mean of the row. Ranking Local communities Local authorities Experts Overall stakeholders (CWM strategy)* 1 [0.1696] ALT 6: Mini-Mini [0.1713] ALT 3: Mini-Maxi [0.1817] ALT 3: Mini-Maxi [0.1739] ALT 3: Mini-Maxi 2 [0.1690] ALT 4: Maxi-Mini [0.1686] ALT 2: Maxi-Maxi [0.1784] ALT 2: Maxi-Maxi [0.1693] ALT 2: Maxi-Maxi 3 [0.1689] ALT 3: Mini-Maxi [0.1660] ALT 1: Maxi-Maxi [0.1697] ALT 6: Mini-Mini [0.1676] ALT 6: Mini-Mini 4 [0.1679] ALT 5: Mini-Mini [0.1654] ALT 4: Maxi-Mini [0.1640] ALT 1: Maxi-Maxi [0.1645] ALT 1: Maxi-Maxi 5 [0.1634] ALT 1: Maxi-Maxi [0.1651] ALT 5: Mini-Mini [0.1576] ALT 5: Mini-Mini [0.1635] ALT 5: Mini-Mini 6 [0.1613] ALT 2: Maxi-Maxi [0.1635] ALT 6: Mini-Mini [0.1487] ALT 4: Maxi-Mini [0.1608] ALT 4: Maxi-Mini IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 17 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 ‘Agricultural development’ [ALT 1] is a strategy that was preferred at a medium and low degree by all stakeholders. ‘Environment friendly tourism development: rural tourism’ [ALT 2] is a strategy that was more highly rated by experts and local authorities while ignored by local communities. ‘Collaborative watershed management’ [ALT 3] is a strategy that was highly rated by all stakeholder groups. ‘Decreasing the water consumption in urban area’ [ALT 4] is a strategy that was more highly rated by the local communities, however preferred by the local authorities and experts at a medium and low degree. ‘Improving water quality- control invasive pollutant’ [ALT 5] is a strategy that was adopted as a medium and low degree preference by all stakeholders. ‘Improving water usage in rural areas and agriculture’ [ALT 6] is a strategy the local authorities seriously protested. 4.5 Performance of the agreed upon watershed management strategy for BLB [ALT 3] on SWOT factors It is a commonly held view among stakeholders that ‘Collaborative watershed management’ [ALT 3] is the most successful at: i) developing the best defence to threats of [T4] ‘water pollution’, [T6] ‘destruction of the lake ecosystem’, [T3] ‘decline in the amount of lake water’, [T5] ‘overhunting’, and [T8] ‘interventions to basin’s water system from outside the basin’, ii) using the advantage of opportunities of [O4] ‘its suitability in terms of tourism development’, [O3] ‘addition of water to the Beyşehir Lake through the Derebucak Derivation Tunnel’, [O2] ‘construction of New Konya- Antalya (Gembos) Motorway’, and [O5] ‘plans and projects to protect and develop the basin’, and iii) reinforcing the weaknesses of [W5] ‘problems in the institutional structure and legal system related to problem solving and management in the basin’, and [W6] ‘inadequacy of financial resources for activities to protect the lake’. However, the [ALT 3] approach is not considered the most successful at taking advantage of strengths (Figure 7). * Negative values are symbolical and should be ignored. Figure 7. Performance of the agreed upon watershed management strategy [ALT 3] by stakeholders’ shared views on SWOT factors IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 18 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 5. Concluding remarks and recommendations for future research This study evaluated the perceptions of three stakeholder groups—local people, local authorities, and experts—towards the successful watershed management in BLB, and explored how professionals/experts and local communities can combine their abilities to resolve the basin’s problems, and how they can work in collaboration to achieve the objectives of joint management. As a methodology, a combination of AHP and SWOT analysis was used i) to describe the most appropriate watershed management strategies from the perspectives of different stakeholders, and ii) to determine the CWM strategy as an agreed upon strategy that met expectations of all stakeholders and considered their benefits equally. The results of the study show that amongst a set of proposed strategy alternatives ‘collaborative watershed management’ [ALT 3] was assumed as the optimal approach to solve the BLB’s problems by all stakeholders. Their joint strategy preferences show that ‘cooperation between community and public institutions’ is the key to success in watershed management. This study presents a ‘knowledge-based, stakeholder-oriented and comprehensive decision support system’ which provides assistance for water resource planning. The applied AHP- SWOT approach yields a better understanding of participatory planning and more effective decision-making in IWM studies. AHP-SWOT i) enables the development of guidelines for effective collaboration between stakeholders, thus reduces conflicts, ii) provides a simple, transparent and rapid decision-making process, iii) provides some insights on what can be done to enhance the likelihood of watershed management success, and iv) provides a mechanism to determine an agreed upon watershed management strategy (in this study CWM). Such a transparent decision-making process leads to more sustainable watershed planning and management decisions, encourages increasing community capacity to address the important issues in a constructive way, and therefore greatly increases the acceptability of the policy decisions by the public. Nevertheless, this study is limited with determining an agreed upon watershed management strategy. Due to the independent and hierarchical structure of AHP, watershed management strategies are considered to be independent and the connections among the strategies as well as the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats cannot be evaluated. In order to highlight the interaction and dependence among the strategies, the combined use of ANP (Analytic Network Process) and SWOT can be applied in future studies. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the BLB’s stakeholders for their participation to the questionnaire. The earlier version of this manuscript that is titled ‘Stakeholder-based Decision Making in Integrated Watershed Management’ has been presented at the 51st European Congress of the Regional Science Association International: New Challenges for European Regions and Urban Areas in a Globalised World (30th August - 3rd September 2011, Barcelona, Spain) by the authors. IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 19 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 APPENDICES APPENDIX–A: Survey sheet 1. Please state the most dominant or the least favorable factor (in the case of Strength) in order to perform environmental and socio-cultural sustainability of BLB, and compare two factors’ intensity of importance. Strengths (S) 1= Equal Importance; 3= Moderate Importance; 5= Strong Importance; 7= Very Strong Importance; 9= Extreme Importance Strengths (S) S1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 S2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 S3 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 S4 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 S5 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 S6 2. Please state the most dominant or the least favorable factor (in the case of Weakness) in order to perform environmental and socio-cultural sustainability of BLB, and compare two factors’ intensity of importance. Weaknesses (W) 1= Equal Importance; 3= Moderate Importance; 5= Strong Importance; 7= Very Strong Importance; 9= Extreme Importance Weaknesses (W) W1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W3 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W4 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W5 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W6 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 W7 3. Please state the most dominant or the least favorable factor (in the case of Opportunity) in order to perform environmental and socio-cultural sustainability of BLB, and compare two factors’ intensity of importance. Opportunities (O) 1= Equal Importance; 3= Moderate Importance; 5= Strong Importance; 7= Very Strong Importance; 9= Extreme Importance Opportunities (O) O1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 O2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 O3 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 O4 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 O5 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 O6 4. Please state the most dominant or the least favorable factor (in the case of Threats) in order to perform environmental and socio-cultural sustainability of BLB, and compare two factors’ intensity of importance. Threats (T) 1= Equal Importance; 3= Moderate Importance; 5= Strong Importance; 7= Very Strong Importance; 9= Extreme Importance Threats (T) T1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T3 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T4 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T5 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T6 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T7 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T8 5. Please evaluate the importance of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of the basin to reach the goal of “to develop the best watershed management strategy enables BLB’s environmental and socio-economic sustainability together”. IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 20 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 Please evaluate the performances of the strategy alternatives (ALT 1, ALT 2, ALT 3, ALT 4, ALT 5, ALT 6) to take the advantage of the Strengths, to reinforce the Weaknesses, to use the advantage of Opportunities or to develop the best defense to the Threats via the following scale: [ Degree of relationship: 0: No; 1: Very weak; 3: Weak; 5: Medium; 7: Strong; 9: Very strong ] 6. How much successful is the “Agricultural development” strategy (ALT 1); 6.1. …to take the advantage of the Strengths? 6.2. …to reinforce the Weaknesses? 6.3. …to use the advantage of Opportunities? 6.4. …to develop the best defense to the Threats? ALT 1−S1 ALT 1−W1 ALT 1−O1 ALT 1−T1 ALT 1−S2 ALT 1−W2 ALT 1−O2 ALT 1−T2 ALT 1−S3 ALT 1−W3 ALT 1−O3 ALT 1−T3 ALT 1−S4 ALT 1−W4 ALT 1−O4 ALT 1−T4 ALT 1−S5 ALT 1−W5 ALT 1−O5 ALT 1−T5 ALT 1−S6 ALT 1−W6 ALT 1−O6 ALT 1−T6 ALT 1−W7 ALT 1−T7 ALT 1−T8 7. How much successful is the “Environment friendly tourism development” strategy (ALT 2); 7.1. …to take the advantage of the Strengths? 7.2. …to reinforce the Weaknesses? 7.3. …to use the advantage of Opportunities? 7.4. …to develop the best defense to the Threats? ALT 2−S1 ALT 2−W1 ALT 2−O1 ALT 2−T1 ALT 2−S2 ALT 2−W2 ALT 2−O2 ALT 2−T2 ALT 2−S3 ALT 2−W3 ALT 2−O3 ALT 2−T3 ALT 2−S4 ALT 2−W4 ALT 2−O4 ALT 2−T4 ALT 2−S5 ALT 2−W5 ALT 2−O5 ALT 2−T5 ALT 2−S6 ALT 2−W6 ALT 2−O6 ALT 2−T6 ALT 2−W7 ALT 2−T7 ALT 2−T8 8. How much successful is the “Collaborative watershed management” strategy (ALT 3); 8.1. …to take the advantage of the Strengths? 8.2. …to reinforce the Weaknesses? 8.3. …to use the advantage of Opportunities? 8.4. …to develop the best defense to the Threats? ALT 3−S1 ALT 3−W1 ALT 3−O1 ALT 3−T1 ALT 3−S2 ALT 3−W2 ALT 3−O2 ALT 3−T2 ALT 3−S3 ALT 3−W3 ALT 3−O3 ALT 3−T3 ALT 3−S4 ALT 3−W4 ALT 3−O4 ALT 3−T4 ALT 3−S5 ALT 3−W5 ALT 3−O5 ALT 3−T5 ALT 3−S6 ALT 3−W6 ALT 3−O6 ALT 3−T6 ALT 3−W7 ALT 3−T7 ALT 3−T8 9. How much successful is the “Decreasing the water consumption in urban area” strategy (ALT 4); 9.1. …to take the advantage of the 9.2. …to reinforce the Weaknesses? 9.3. …to use the advantage of Opportunities? 9.4. …to develop the best defense to the Threats? 1= Equal Importance; 3= Moderate Importance; 5= Strong Importance; 7= Very Strong Importance; 9= Extreme Importance S to take the advantage of the Strengths 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to reinforce the Weaknesses W 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to use the advantage of Opportunities O 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to develop the best defense to the Threats T IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 21 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 Strengths? ALT 4−S1 ALT 4−W1 ALT 4−O1 ALT 4−T1 ALT 4−S2 ALT 4−W2 ALT 4−O2 ALT 4−T2 ALT 4−S3 ALT 4−W3 ALT 4−O3 ALT 4−T3 ALT 4−S4 ALT 4−W4 ALT 4−O4 ALT 4−T4 ALT 4−S5 ALT 4−W5 ALT 4−O5 ALT 4−T5 ALT 4−S6 ALT 4−W6 ALT 4−O6 ALT 4−T6 ALT 4−W7 ALT 4−T7 ALT 4−T8 10. How much successful is the “Improving water quality- control invasive pollutant” strategy (ALT 5); 10.1. …to take the advantage of the Strengths? 10.2. …to reinforce the Weaknesses? 10.3. …to use the advantage of Opportunities? 10.4. …to develop the best defense to the Threats? ALT 5−S1 ALT 5−W1 ALT 5−O1 ALT 5−T1 ALT 5−S2 ALT 5−W2 ALT 5−O2 ALT 5−T2 ALT 5−S3 ALT 5−W3 ALT 5−O3 ALT 5−T3 ALT 5−S4 ALT 5−W4 ALT 5−O4 ALT 5−T4 ALT 5−S5 ALT 5−W5 ALT 5−O5 ALT 5−T5 ALT 5−S6 ALT 5−W6 ALT 5−O6 ALT 5−T6 ALT 5−W7 ALT 5−T7 ALT 5−T8 11. How much successful is the “Improving water usage in rural areas and agriculture” strategy (ALT 6); 11.1. …to take the advantage of the Strengths? 11.2. …to reinforce the Weaknesses? 11.3…to use the advantage of Opportunities? 11.4. …to develop the best defense to the Threats? ALT 6−S1 ALT 6−W1 ALT 6−O1 ALT 6−T1 ALT 6−S2 ALT 6−W2 ALT 6−O2 ALT 6−T2 ALT 6−S3 ALT 6−W3 ALT 6−O3 ALT 6−T3 ALT 6−S4 ALT 6−W4 ALT 6−O4 ALT 6−T4 ALT 6−S5 ALT 6−W5 ALT 6−O5 ALT 6−T5 ALT 6−S6 ALT 6−W6 ALT 6−O6 ALT 6−T6 ALT 6−W7 ALT 6−T7 ALT 6−T8 IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 22 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 APPENDIX–B: AHP matrices of local communities SWOT group weights matrix of local communities Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Weights Strengths 1.00 0.36 0.47 0.26 0.102 Weaknesses 2.74 1.00 1.30 0.70 0.281 Opportunities 2.11 0.77 1.00 0.54 0.216 Threats 3.91 1.42 1.86 1.00 0.401 CR = 0.0016 Consistent (Lambda max=3.99565, RI =0.9, CI=0.00145) Strengths matrix of local communities S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Weights S1 1.00 0.27 0.30 0.24 0.49 0.36 0.006 S2 3.72 1.00 1.12 0.88 1.84 1.35 0.022 S3 3.33 0.90 1.00 0.78 1.65 1.21 0.020 S4 4.25 1.14 1.28 1.00 2.10 1.54 0.026 S5 2.02 0.54 0.61 0.48 1.00 0.73 0.012 S6 2.75 0.74 0.83 0.65 1.36 1.00 0.017 CR= 0.0008 Consistent (Lambda max=5.99505, RI =1.24, CI =0.00099) Weaknesses matrix of local communities W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 Weights W1 1.00 0.45 0.32 0.30 0.33 0.31 0.37 0.015 W2 2.20 1.00 0.70 0.66 0.73 0.69 0.82 0.033 W3 3.14 1.43 1.00 0.95 1.05 0.99 1.18 0.048 W4 3.32 1.51 1.05 1.00 1.10 1.04 1.24 0.050 W5 3.01 1.37 0.96 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.13 0.046 W6 3.18 1.44 1.01 0.96 1.06 1.00 1.19 0.048 W7 2.67 1.21 0.85 0.81 0.89 0.84 1.00 0.041 CR = 0.0012 Consistent (Lambda max=6.990747, RI=1.32, CI=0.00154) Opportunities matrix of local communities O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 Weights O1 1.00 0.25 0.19 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.010 O2 4.08 1.00 0.77 1.01 1.00 1.24 0.040 O3 5.29 1.30 1.00 1.31 1.30 1.61 0.052 O4 4.04 0.99 0.76 1.00 0.99 1.23 0.040 O5 4.07 1.00 0.77 1.01 1.00 1.24 0.040 O6 3.28 0.80 0.62 0.81 0.81 1.00 0.033 CR = 0.0022 Consistent (Lambda max=6.01386, RI=1.24, CI=0.002772) Threats matrix of local communities T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Weights T1 1.00 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.32 0.23 0.49 0.25 0.014 T2 4.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 1.27 0.92 1.98 1.00 0.057 T3 4.67 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.48 1.07 2.31 1.17 0.067 T4 4.65 1.16 1.00 1.00 1.47 1.07 2.30 1.16 0.067 T5 3.16 0.79 0.68 0.68 1.00 0.73 1.56 0.79 0.045 T6 4.36 1.09 0.93 0.94 1.38 1.00 2.15 1.09 0.063 T7 2.02 0.51 0.43 0.43 0.64 0.46 1.00 0.50 0.029 T8 4.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 1.27 0.92 1.98 1.00 0.058 CR = 0.0021 Consistent (Lambda max=7.97885, RI=1.41, CI=0.00302) IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 23 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 Performances of the strategy alternatives on SWOT factors from the view point of local communities Strategy evaluation matrix of local communities Factors [ALT 1] [ALT 2] [ALT 3] [ALT 4] [ALT 5] [ALT 6] Factors [ALT1] [ALT2] [ALT3] [ALT4] [ALT5] [ALT6] S1 6.99 6.91 7.22 7.33 7.21 7.25 S1 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 S2 6.99 6.91 7.22 7.33 7.21 7.25 S2 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 S3 6.99 6.91 7.22 7.33 7.21 7.25 S3 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 S4 6.99 6.91 7.22 7.33 7.21 7.25 S4 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 S5 6.99 6.91 7.22 7.33 7.21 7.25 S5 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 S6 6.99 6.91 7.22 7.33 7.21 7.25 S6 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 W1 6.83 6.73 7.10 7.11 6.92 7.12 W1 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 W2 6.83 6.73 7.10 7.11 6.92 7.12 W2 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 W3 6.83 6.73 7.10 7.11 6.92 7.12 W3 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 W4 6.83 6.73 7.10 7.11 6.92 7.12 W4 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.009 W5 6.83 6.73 7.10 7.11 6.92 7.12 W5 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 W6 6.83 6.73 7.10 7.11 6.92 7.12 W6 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 W7 6.83 6.73 7.10 7.11 6.92 7.12 W7 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 O1 7.19 6.99 7.22 7.27 7.40 7.24 O1 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 O2 7.19 6.99 7.22 7.27 7.40 7.24 O2 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 O3 7.19 6.99 7.22 7.27 7.40 7.24 O3 0.009 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 O4 7.19 6.99 7.22 7.27 7.40 7.24 O4 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 O5 7.19 6.99 7.22 7.27 7.40 7.24 O5 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 O6 7.19 6.99 7.22 7.27 7.40 7.24 O6 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.005 T1 6.99 6.97 7.31 7.26 7.24 7.36 T1 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 T2 6.99 6.97 7.31 7.26 7.24 7.36 T2 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 T3 6.99 6.97 7.31 7.26 7.24 7.36 T3 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 T4 6.99 6.97 7.31 7.26 7.24 7.36 T4 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 T5 6.99 6.97 7.31 7.26 7.24 7.36 T5 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 T6 6.99 6.97 7.31 7.26 7.24 7.36 T6 0.010 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 T7 6.99 6.97 7.31 7.26 7.24 7.36 T7 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 T8 6.99 6.97 7.31 7.26 7.24 7.36 T8 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 Total Weight 0.1634 0.1613 0.1689 0.1690 0.1679 0.1696 Ranking 5 6 3 2 4 1 IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 24 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 APPENDIX–C: AHP matrices of local authorities SWOT group weights matrix of local authorities Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Weights Strengths 1.00 0.53 0.58 0.25 0.117 Weaknesses 1.89 1.00 1.09 0.48 0.221 Opportunities 1.73 0.92 1.00 0.44 0.202 Threats 3.93 2.08 2.27 1.00 0.460 CR= 0.0009 Consistent (Lambda max=3.99756, RI=0.9, CI=0.00081) Strengths matrix of local authorities S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Weights S1 1.00 0.50 0.30 0.37 1.09 0.55 0.010 S2 2.00 1.00 0.59 0.74 2.18 1.10 0.020 S3 3.39 1.69 1.00 1.25 3.70 1.86 0.033 S4 2.72 1.36 0.80 1.00 2.97 1.49 0.027 S5 0.92 0.46 0.27 0.34 1.00 0.50 0.009 S6 1.82 0.91 0.54 0.67 1.99 1.00 0.018 CR = 0.0024 Consistent (Lambda max=6.01504, RI=1.24, CI=0.0030) Weaknesses matrix of local authorities W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 Weights W1 1.00 0.82 0.59 0.48 0.28 0.33 0.40 0.015 W2 1.23 1.00 0.72 0.59 0.34 0.40 0.49 0.018 W3 1.70 1.39 1.00 0.83 0.47 0.56 0.69 0.025 W4 2.06 1.69 1.21 1.00 0.57 0.68 0.83 0.030 W5 3.61 2.95 2.12 1.75 1.00 1.19 1.46 0.053 W6 3.04 2.48 1.78 1.47 0.84 1.00 1.23 0.044 W7 2.48 2.02 1.45 1.20 0.69 0.82 1.00 0.036 CR= 0.0024 Consistent (Lambda max=7.01918, RI=1.32, CI=0. 0032) Opportunities matrix of local authorities O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 Weights O1 1.00 0.43 0.28 0.41 0.25 0.40 0.013 O2 2.32 1.00 0.65 0.96 0.58 0.92 0.030 O3 3.59 1.54 1.00 1.48 0.90 1.43 0.046 O4 2.43 1.05 0.68 1.00 0.61 0.97 0.031 O5 3.98 1.71 1.11 1.64 1.00 1.58 0.051 O6 2.51 1.08 0.70 1.04 0.63 1.00 0.032 CR= 0.0015 Consistent (Lambda max=6.00941, RI=1.24, CI=0.1518) Threats matrix of local authorities T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Weights T1 1.00 0.53 0.24 0.19 0.54 0.22 1.81 0.39 0.021 T2 1.89 1.00 0.46 0.37 1.03 0.41 3.41 0.74 0.040 T3 4.12 2.18 1.00 0.80 2.24 0.90 7.44 1.62 0.087 T4 5.15 2.73 1.25 1.00 2.80 1.12 9.29 2.02 0.109 T5 1.84 0.98 0.45 0.36 1.00 0.40 3.32 0.72 0.039 T6 4.59 2.43 1.11 0.89 2.49 1.00 8.28 1.80 0.097 T7 0.55 0.29 0.13 0.11 0.30 0.12 1.00 0.22 0.012 T8 2.55 1.35 0.62 0.50 1.39 0.56 4.60 1.00 0.054 CR= 0.0019 Consistent (Lambda max=8.01884, RI=1.41, CI=0.002692) IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 25 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 Performances of the strategy alternatives on SWOT factors from the view point of local authorities Strategy evaluation matrix of local authorities SWOT Factors [ALT 1] [ALT 2] [ALT 3] [ALT 4] [ALT 5] [ALT 6] SWOT Factors [ALT1] [ALT2] [ALT3] [ALT4] [ALT5] [ALT6] S1 6.43 6.71 7.29 7.29 7.14 6.96 S1 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 S2 6.33 6.73 7.00 7.27 7.00 6.73 S2 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 S3 6.60 8.07 7.40 7.00 7.40 6.53 S3 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.005 S4 7.53 6.60 7.00 7.40 7.00 7.00 S4 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.004 S5 7.40 7.67 7.53 6.47 6.87 6.60 S5 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 S6 6.73 7.00 7.40 7.00 7.13 6.73 S6 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 W1 6.57 6.86 7.50 7.07 7.46 7.32 W1 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.002 W2 6.60 7.00 6.73 6.47 6.33 6.47 W2 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 W3 7.40 7.93 7.27 7.67 7.40 7.33 W3 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 W4 6.73 6.73 7.27 7.00 7.00 7.53 W4 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 W5 6.20 6.87 7.00 6.20 6.33 7.00 W5 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.008 0.009 W6 6.73 7.40 7.53 6.73 6.73 7.40 W6 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.008 W7 5.93 6.87 6.60 6.87 7.13 7.20 W7 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 O1 7.00 7.07 7.43 7.25 7.39 6.93 O1 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 O2 7.13 7.00 6.87 5.87 7.00 6.07 O2 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.005 O3 7.13 7.40 7.53 7.27 7.27 6.87 O3 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.007 O4 7.40 7.27 7.53 7.40 7.53 6.73 O4 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 O5 7.53 7.53 7.40 6.87 7.27 7.53 O5 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.008 0.009 O6 6.93 6.40 6.20 6.53 6.53 6.27 O6 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 T1 6.36 6.71 7.07 6.75 7.14 7.04 T1 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.004 T2 5.93 5.40 5.80 5.93 6.07 5.80 T2 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 T3 7.00 6.73 7.27 7.27 6.67 7.13 T3 0.015 0.014 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.015 T4 7.27 7.27 7.53 6.80 7.00 6.73 T4 0.019 0.019 0.019 0.017 0.018 0.017 T5 6.73 7.13 6.73 6.33 6.33 6.40 T5 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 T6 7.13 6.73 7.00 7.13 6.73 6.00 T6 0.017 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.016 0.014 T7 5.47 6.07 5.93 5.53 5.13 6.07 T7 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 T8 6.87 7.07 6.87 6.86 6.36 6.86 T8 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.009 Total weight 0.1660 0.1686 0.1713 0.1654 0.1651 0.1635 Ranking 3 2 1 4 5 6 IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 26 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 APPENDIX–D: AHP matrices of experts SWOT group weights matrix of experts Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Weights Strengths 1.00 1.33 0.60 0.73 0.209 Weaknesses 0.75 1.00 0.45 0.55 0.157 Opportunities 1.68 2.23 1.00 1.23 0.350 Threats 1.36 1.81 0.81 1.00 0.284 CR = 0.0004 Consistent (Lambda max=3.99904, RI=0.9, CI=0.00032) Strengths matrix of experts S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Weights S1 1.00 0.52 0.72 0.44 1.02 0.51 0.022 S2 1.92 1.00 1.39 0.85 1.95 0.97 0.042 S3 1.38 0.72 1.00 0.61 1.40 0.70 0.030 S4 2.25 1.17 1.63 1.00 2.29 1.14 0.049 S5 0.98 0.51 0.71 0.44 1.00 0.50 0.022 S6 1.97 1.03 1.43 0.88 2.00 1.00 0.043 CR= 0.0014 Consistent (Lambda max=6.00894, RI=1.24, CI=0.00178) Weaknesses matrix of experts W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 Weights W1 1.00 0.74 0.37 0.53 0.36 0.57 1.00 0.013 W2 1.35 1.00 0.50 0.71 0.49 0.78 1.35 0.017 W3 2.72 2.01 1.00 1.43 0.99 1.56 2.71 0.034 W4 1.90 1.41 0.70 1.00 0.69 1.09 1.89 0.024 W5 2.74 2.03 1.01 1.44 1.00 1.58 2.73 0.035 W6 1.74 1.29 0.64 0.92 0.63 1.00 1.74 0.022 W7 1.00 0.74 0.37 0.53 0.37 0.58 1.00 0.013 CR= 0.0029 Consistent (Lambda max=7.02291, RI=1.32, CI=0.003818) Opportunities matrix of experts O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 Weights O1 1.00 1.08 1.45 0.55 0.47 0.96 0.046 O2 0.93 1.00 1.34 0.51 0.43 0.89 0.043 O3 0.69 0.75 1.00 0.38 0.32 0.66 0.032 O4 1.82 1.97 2.64 1.00 0.85 1.75 0.084 O5 2.13 2.31 3.09 1.17 1.00 2.05 0.098 O6 1.04 1.12 1.51 0.57 0.49 1.00 0.048 CR= 0.0008 Consistent (Lambda max=6.0051, RI=1.24, CI=0.00102) Threats matrix of experts T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 Weights T1 1.00 0.49 0.40 0.42 0.39 0.54 0.81 0.83 0.019 T2 2.03 1.00 0.82 0.86 0.80 1.10 1.65 1.68 0.039 T3 2.48 1.22 1.00 1.05 0.98 1.34 2.01 2.05 0.048 T4 2.36 1.16 0.95 1.00 0.93 1.28 1.92 1.95 0.046 T5 2.53 1.25 1.02 1.07 1.00 1.37 2.06 2.10 0.049 T6 1.84 0.91 0.74 0.78 0.73 1.00 1.50 1.52 0.036 T7 1.23 0.61 0.50 0.52 0.49 0.67 1.00 1.02 0.024 T8 1.21 0.60 0.49 0.51 0.48 0.66 0.98 1.00 0.023 CR= 0.0016 Consistent (Lambda max=7.8461, RI=1.41, CI=0.00219) IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 27 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 Performances of the strategy alternatives on SWOT factors from the view point of experts Strategy evaluation matrix of local experts SWOT Factors [ALT 1] [ALT 2] [ALT 3] [ALT 4] [ALT 5] [ALT 6] SWOT Factors [ALT 1] [ALT 2] [ALT 3] [ALT 4] [ALT 5] [ALT 6] S1 4.86 5.82 4.67 3.32 3.45 3.00 S1 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.003 S2 5.00 4.00 4.90 5.41 5.14 5.41 S2 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.007 0.008 S3 5.45 6.73 5.71 4.73 5.73 5.14 S3 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.005 S4 6.59 5.00 5.57 4.55 4.36 5.91 S4 0.010 0.008 0.009 0.007 0.007 0.009 S5 3.41 6.59 5.86 4.36 4.36 4.36 S5 0.003 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.003 S6 4.48 6.64 5.76 4.05 4.73 5.50 S6 0.006 0.009 0.008 0.006 0.007 0.008 W1 5.00 2.77 6.00 4.90 4.50 6.45 W1 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.003 W2 4.14 5.86 6.09 3.59 3.77 4.50 W2 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.003 W3 5.05 5.36 6.18 5.45 6.18 5.18 W3 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.005 W4 5.29 4.59 4.86 3.27 3.27 4.00 W4 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.004 W5 3.77 3.67 5.91 3.36 3.45 4.73 W5 0.005 0.005 0.008 0.005 0.005 0.007 W6 4.09 5.36 5.45 4.68 5.05 5.36 W6 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.004 W7 2.82 5.64 4.45 4.41 3.45 3.59 W7 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 O1 4.62 6.09 4.95 3.09 3.64 4.05 O1 0.008 0.011 0.009 0.005 0.006 0.007 O2 4.76 5.86 5.14 2.50 3.50 3.36 O2 0.008 0.010 0.009 0.004 0.006 0.006 O3 5.52 4.18 5.18 4.76 4.82 5.55 O3 0.006 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.006 O4 4.71 7.09 5.59 3.91 5.91 5.00 O4 0.012 0.018 0.015 0.010 0.015 0.013 O5 5.05 5.45 5.82 5.23 5.64 5.59 O5 0.015 0.016 0.017 0.016 0.017 0.017 O6 5.14 5.24 4.82 4.36 4.77 5.00 O6 0.008 0.009 0.008 0.007 0.008 0.008 T1 4.81 4.77 4.00 2.77 3.09 4.18 T1 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.003 T2 2.62 2.27 2.68 2.95 2.77 3.00 T2 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.007 0.007 T3 6.05 4.36 5.50 5.82 5.00 6.45 T3 0.009 0.006 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.009 T4 4.76 4.77 5.59 5.23 6.45 5.82 T4 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.007 0.009 0.008 T5 4.14 4.55 5.05 3.55 3.45 4.64 T5 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.007 0.007 0.009 T6 4.10 4.64 5.14 5.55 5.00 5.82 T6 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.007 T7 2.10 2.43 2.77 2.55 1.59 2.14 T7 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.004 T8 6.00 5.40 5.36 5.50 4.64 4.90 T8 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.004 Total Weight 0.1640 0.1784 0.1817 0.1487 0.1576 0.1697 Ranking 4 2 1 6 5 3 IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 28 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 APPENDIX–E: SWOT priorities with respect to different stakeholder groups and CWM strategy Local priorities Global priorities Local communities Local authorities Experts CWM strategy Local communities Local authorities Experts CWM strategy S1 0.006 0.010 0.022 0.011 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.002 S2 0.022 0.020 0.042 0.026 0.002 0.002 0.009 0.003 S3 0.020 0.033 0.030 0.027 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.004 S4 0.026 0.027 0.049 0.033 0.003 0.003 0.010 0.004 S5 0.012 0.009 0.022 0.013 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.002 S6 0.017 0.018 0.043 0.024 0.002 0.002 0.009 0.003 W1 0.015 0.015 0.013 0.014 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.003 W2 0.033 0.018 0.017 0.022 0.009 0.004 0.003 0.005 W3 0.048 0.025 0.034 0.034 0.013 0.006 0.005 0.007 W4 0.050 0.030 0.024 0.033 0.014 0.007 0.004 0.007 W5 0.046 0.053 0.035 0.044 0.013 0.012 0.005 0.009 W6 0.048 0.044 0.022 0.036 0.014 0.010 0.003 0.007 W7 0.041 0.036 0.013 0.027 0.011 0.008 0.002 0.006 O1 0.010 0.013 0.046 0.018 0.002 0.003 0.016 0.005 O2 0.040 0.030 0.043 0.037 0.009 0.006 0.015 0.009 O3 0.052 0.046 0.032 0.042 0.011 0.009 0.011 0.010 O4 0.040 0.031 0.084 0.047 0.009 0.006 0.029 0.012 O5 0.040 0.051 0.098 0.058 0.009 0.010 0.034 0.015 O6 0.033 0.032 0.048 0.037 0.007 0.006 0.017 0.009 T1 0.014 0.021 0.019 0.018 0.006 0.010 0.006 0.007 T2 0.057 0.040 0.039 0.045 0.023 0.018 0.011 0.017 T3 0.067 0.087 0.048 0.065 0.027 0.040 0.014 0.025 T4 0.067 0.109 0.046 0.070 0.027 0.050 0.013 0.026 T5 0.045 0.039 0.049 0.044 0.018 0.018 0.014 0.017 T6 0.063 0.097 0.036 0.060 0.025 0.045 0.010 0.022 T7 0.029 0.012 0.024 0.020 0.012 0.005 0.007 0.007 T8 0.058 0.054 0.023 0.042 0.023 0.025 0.007 0.016 * The SWOT priorities for the ‘CWM strategy’ are derived from the geometric means of three stakeholder group priorities. IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 29 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 APPENDIX–F: Strategy evaluation matrix for CWM strategy SO ST [ALT 1] [ALT 2] [ALT 3] [ALT 4] [ALT 5] [ALT 6] S1 6 0,011 0,002 S2 3 0,026 0,003 S3 2 0,027 0,004 S4 1 0,033 0,004 S5 5 0,013 0,002 S6 4 0,024 0,003 W1 7 0,014 0,003 W2 6 0,022 0,005 W3 3 0,034 0,007 W4 4 0,033 0,007 W5 1 0,044 0,009 W6 2 0,036 0,007 W7 5 0,027 0,006 O1 6 0,018 0,005 O2 4 0,037 0,009 O3 3 0,042 0,010 O4 2 0,047 0,012 O5 1 0,058 0,015 O6 5 0,037 0,009 T1 8 0,018 0,007 T2 4 0,045 0,017 T3 2 0,065 0,025 T4 1 0,070 0,026 T5 5 0,044 0,017 T6 3 0,060 0,022 T7 7 0,020 0,007 T8 6 0,042 0,016 0,165 0,169 0,174 0,161 0,164 0,168 16,5 16,9 17,4 16,1 16,4 16,8 4 2 1 6 5 3 S t r a t e g y A l t e r n a t i v e s WO WTSWOT Weight SWOT Factors Local Weight Global Weight Strengths 0,136 Weaknesses 0,214 Opportunities 0,248 Threats 0,374 T o t a l W e i g h t : N o r m a l i z e d R e l a t i v e I m p o r t a n c e (% ) : R a n k i n g : Degree of Relationship Graphic Symbol Number No 0 Very Weak 1 Weak 3 Medium 5 Strong 7 Very Strong 9 IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 30 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 APPENDIX–G: Global weights for CWM strategy SWOT factors [ALT 1] [ALT 2] [ALT 3] [ALT 4] [ALT 5] [ALT 6] S1 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 S2 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 S3 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.004 S4 0.006 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.005 0.006 S5 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 S6 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 W1 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.003 W2 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 W3 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 W4 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.006 W5 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.008 W6 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.007 W7 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 O1 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.004 O2 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.005 0.006 0.006 O3 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 O4 0.008 0.010 0.009 0.007 0.009 0.008 O5 0.010 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.011 0.011 O6 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 T1 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 T2 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 T3 0.011 0.010 0.011 0.012 0.011 0.012 T4 0.012 0.012 0.013 0.012 0.013 0.012 T5 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.007 0.008 T6 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.011 T7 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.004 T8 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.008 Total Weight 0.1645 0.1693 0.1739 0.1608 0.1635 0.1676 Ranking 4 2 1 6 5 3 IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 31 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 REFERENCES Arslan. E.T. (2010). Analitik hiyerarşi süreci yöntemiyle strateji seçimi: Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesinde bir uygulama. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 455-477. Babaoğlu. M. (2007). Beyşehir Gölü’nün sorunları ve alınması gereken önlemler [online]. http://www.mehmetbabaoglu.gen.tr/beygolresim/beysehirraporu.pdf. Accessed: 01.12.2009. Beierle. T.C. (2002). The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Analysis, 22(4), 739–749. Bonnell. J.. & Baird. A. (2010). Community-based watershed management [online]. http://ohioline.osu.edu/ws-fact/0001.html. Accessed: 11.05.2010. Çelik. N.. & Murat. G. (2008). Sayısallaştırılmış SWOT analizi ile Bartın İl’inin ekonomik yapısını değerlendirme [online]. 2. Ulusal İktisat Kongresi. (20-22 Subat 2008). Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İİBF İktisat Bölümü. İzmir. http://www.deu.edu.tr/userweb/iibf_kongre/dosyalar/celik.pdf. Accessed: 25.02.2011. DeSteiguer. J.E.. Duberstein. J.. & Lopes. V. (2003). The analytic hierarchy process as a means for integrated watershed management [online]. In: Renard. K.G.. McElroy. S.A.. Gburek. W.J.. Canfield. H.E. and Scott. R.L. (Eds). Proceedings of First Interagency Conference on Research in Watersheds. pp.737-740. US Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service. http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov/icrw/proceedings/steiguer.pdf. Dwivedi. P. & Alavalapati. J.R.R. (2009). Stakeholders’ perceptions on forest biomass- based bioenergy development in the Southern US. Energy Policy, 37, 1999–2007. Gürbüz. F. (2010). A’WOT analizi-Erciyes Üniversitesi Endüstri Mühendisliği Bölümü uygulaması [Online]. Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi. 26(4), 369- 378. Hacımenni. E. (1998). Analitik hiyerarşi süreci ve bilişim teknolojisi kararlarında uygulanması. İzmir. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Doktora Tezi. Kajanus. M. Kangas. J. & Kurttila. M. (2004). The use of value focused thinking and the A’WOT hybrid method in tourism management. Tourism Management, 25 (4), 499-506. Kandakoğlu. A. I. Akgün. & Topçu. Y. I. (2007). Strategy development and evaluation in the Battlefield using quantified SWOT analytical method [online]. 9th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (August 2-6 2007. Viña del Mar. Chile) Online Proceedings. http://chile2007.isahp.org/. Access: 01.01.2010. Kangas. J. Kurttila. M. Kajanus. M. & Kangas. A. (2003). Evaluating the management strategies of a forestland estate - the S–O–S approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 69, 349-358. http://www.mehmetbabaoglu.gen.tr/beygolresim/beysehirraporu.pdf IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 32 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 Kangas. J.. Pesonen. M.. Kurttila. M.. & Kajanus. M. (2001). A’WOT: Integrating the AHP with SWOT analysis [Online]. Sixth International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process- ISAHP 2001 (August 2-4. 2001. Bern. Switzerland). 189-198. http://www.isahp.org/2001Proceedings/Papers/037-P.pdf. Access: 20.01.2011. Kurttila. M. Pesonen. M. Kangas J. & Kajanus. M. (2000). Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis - a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. Forest Policy and Economics, 1(1), 41-52. Leskinen. L.A. Leskinen. P. Kurttila. M. Kangas. J. & Kajanus. M. (2006). Adapting modern strategic decision support tools in the participatory strategy process—a case study of a forest research station. Forest Policy and Economics 8(3), 267-278. Margerum. R.D. (1999). Integrated environmental management: the foundations for successful practice. Environmental Management, 24(2), 151–166. Masozera. M.K. Alavalapati. J.R.R. Jacobson. S.K. & Shrestha. R.K. (2006). Assessing the suitability of community-based management for the Nyungwe Forest Reserve. Rwanda. Forest Policy and Economics, 8(2), 206-216. Mikhailov. L. (2000). A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. Operational Research Society, 51(3), 341-349. Mirchi. A. Watkins. D. Jr. & Madani. K. (2010). Modeling for watershed planning. management. and decision making. In: Watersheds: management. restoration and environmental impact. Jeremy C. Vaughn (Ed). Environmental Science. Engineering and Technology Series. e-book. ISBN: 978-1-61209-295-9. http://www.kysq.org/docs/Mirchi_Watershed.pdf. Osuna. E.E. & Aranda. A. (2007). Combining SWOT and AHP techniques for strategic planning [Online]. 9th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (August 2- 6 2007. Viña del Mar. Chile) Online Proceedings. 1-8. http://chile2007.isahp.org/. Accessed: 01.01.2010. Pesonen. M.. Kurttila. M.. Kangas. J.. Kajanus. M.. & Heinonen. P. (2001). Assessing the priorities using A’WOT among resource management strategies at the Finnish Forest and Park Service. Forest Science. 47 (4). 534-541. Qianxiang. L. Igbokwe. K.N. & Jiayong. L. (2005). Community-based integrated watershed management [online]. www.paper.edu.cn/index.php/.../journal-1004- 2857(2005)01-0060-05. Accessed: 03.04.2010. Saaty. T.L. (2001). Fundamentals of the analytic hierarchy process. In The analytic hierarchy process in natural resource and environmental decision making. Schmoldt. D.L.. Kangas. J. Mendoza. G.A. & Pesonen. M. (Eds). Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Saaty. T.L. (2003). Decision Aiding Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research, 145, 85–91. IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 33 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 Saaty. T.L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83-98. Saaty. T.L.. & Vargas. L.G. (2001). Models. methods. concepts and applications of the analytical hierarchy process. Dordrecht. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher. Sharma. B.R.. Samra. J.S.. Scott. C.A.. & Wani. S.P. (Eds.) (2005). Watershed Management Challenges: Improving Productivity. Resources and Livelihoods. Colombo. Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute, 336. Shinno. H. Yoshioka. H. Marpaung. S. & Hachiga. S. (2006). Quantitative SWOT analysis on global competitiveness of machine tool industry. Journal of Engineering Design, 17(3), 251-258. Shrestha. R.K. Alavalapati. J.R.R. & Kalmbacher. R.S. (2004). Exploring the potential for silvopasture adoption in south-central Florida: An application of SWOT-AHP method. Agricultural Systems, 81, 185-199. Srdjevic Z. Bajcetic. R. & Srdjevic B. (2012). Identifying the criteria set for multicriteria decision making based on SWOT/PESTLE analysis: a case study of reconstructing a water intake structure. Water Resources Management, 26(12), 3379-3393. Srdjevic. B. (2005). Combining different prioritization methods in the analytic hierarchy process synthesis. Computers & Operations Research, 32, 1897-1919. Stewart. A.R. Mohamed. S. & Daet. R. (2002). Strategic implementation of IT/IS projects in construction: A case study. Automation in Construction, 11, 681-694. Taşkın. A. & Güneri. A.F. (2005). Strateji geliştirmede A’WOT hibrit metodu kullanımı ve Türk kimya sektöründe bir uygulama çalışması [Online]. V. Ulusal Üretim Araştırmaları Sempozyumu. (İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi. 25-27 Kasım 2005). 503-507. http://www.iticu.edu.tr/kutuphane/pdf/uas/M01071.pdf. Accessed: 06.04.2011. Teknomo. K. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) Tutorial, http://people.revoledu.com/kardi/tutorial/AHP/Consistency.htm. Accessed: 11.01.2010. Weihrich. H. (1982). The TOWS matrix-a tool for situational analysis. Long Range Planning, 15(2), 54-66. Wickramasinghe. V. (2008). Analytical tourism disaster management framework for sustainable tourism following a sudden calamity [Online]. PhD dissertation. Division of Engineering and Policy for Cold Regional Environment. Hokkaido University. Japan. http://133.87.123.206/e3/alumni/abstract/Vasantha.pdf. Accessed: 11.01.2010. Wickramassinghe. V. & Takano. S. (2009). Application of combined SWOT and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for tourism revival strategic marketing planning: a case of Sri Lanka Tourism. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 8, 954-969. http://people.revoledu.com/kardi/tutorial/AHP/Consistency.htm IJAHP Article: Yavuz, Baycan/Application of combined Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and SWOT for integrated watershed management International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process ISSN 1936-6744 34 Vol. 6 Issue 1 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v6i1.194 Yılmaz. E. (2007). A’WOT tekniği kullanarak katılımcı yaklaşımla proje değerlendirmesi [online]. Doa Dergisi (Journal of Doa). 13. 1-16. Doğu Akdeniz Ormancılık Araştırma Müdürlüğü. Mersin. www.doa.gov.tr/doadergisi/doa13/AWOT%20.pdf. Accessed: 25.02.2011.