Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perceptions of Government and Research Expert Groups and Their Implications for Watershed Management in Oklahoma, USA

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The collaborative approach for sustainable management of watersheds is built on engagement of diverse stakeholders. Climate variability and anthropogenic activities increasingly impose challenges to successful management, as do contrasts in stakeholder perceptions about those processes. To assess differences in perceptions about watershed issues, we conducted a focus group meeting of expert stakeholder groups from research institutions, and state and federal agencies in the management of Cimarron River Watershed, Oklahoma. We employed the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOTs) approach to identify important issues, and the analytic hierarchy process to rank the perceptions of these groups. We found incongruity between these two groups over internal factors (SW) and external factors (OT) risking sustainable watershed management. External threats such as climate change dominated the research group perceptions, whereas internally prevalent weaknesses such as inability to track water use and lack of a common platform to share scientific data, dominated the government group perceptions. Despite these differences, both groups identified the negative aspect (W + T) as dominant over the positive aspect (S + O), which suggests a pessimistic watershed management future, with risks prevailing over the opportunities. We see this particular congruity of these two stakeholders as an opportunity to initiate a collaborative approach to watershed management in Oklahoma. We also note that the most important factor from each group corresponds to a relatively modest importance from the other group, and therefore suggests the possibility of cooperation rather than conflict in management goals should collaborative watershed management become established in the watershed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acharya BS, Hao Y, Ochsner TE, Zou CB (2017a) Woody plant encroachment alters soil hydrological properties and reduces downward flux of water in tallgrass prairie. Plant Soil 414:379–391

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Acharya BS, Stebler E, Zou CB (2017b) Monitoring litter interception of rainfall using leaf wetness sensor under controlled and field conditions. Hydrol Process 31:240–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D, Berkes F, Dale A, Kocho-Schellenberg E, Patton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Glob Environ Change 21:995–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N (2010) Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning, and multi-level governance. UBC Press, Vancouver

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur RI, Charles AT, Davidson-Hunt IJ, Diduck AP, Doubleday NC, Johnson DS, Marschke M, McConney P, Pinkerton EW, Wollenberg EK (2009) Adaptive co‐management for social–ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ 7:95–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azarnivand A, Malekian A (2016) Analysis of flood risk management strategies based on a group decision making process via interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. Water Resour Manag 30:1903–1921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1259-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basara JB, Maybourn JN, Peirano CM, Tate JE, Brown PJ, Hoey JD, Smith BR (2013) Drought and associated impacts in the Great Plains of the United States-a review. Int J Geosci 4:72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manag 90:1692–1702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bidwell RD, Ryan CM (2006) Collaborative partnership design: the Implications of organizational affiliation for watershed partnerships. Soc Nat Resour 19(9):827–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borisova T, Racevskis L, Kipp J (2012) Stakeholder analysis of a collaborative watershed management process: a Florida case study. J Am Water Resour Assoc 48:277–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brugha R, Varvasovszky Z (2000) Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plan 15:239–246. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/15.3.239

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bull JW, Jobstvogt N, Bohnke-Henrichs A, Mascarenhas A, Sitas N, Baulcomb C, Lambini CK, Rawlins M, Baral H, Zahringer J, Carter-Silk E, Balzan MV, Kenter JO, Hayha T, Petz K, Koss R (2016) Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats: a SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework. Ecosyst Serv 17:99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson L, Berkes F (2005) Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. J Environ Manag 75:65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr G, Bloschl G, Loucks DP (2014) Developing a dynamic framework to examine the interplay between enironmental stress, stakeholder participation processes and hydrological systems. Proceedings of ICWRS2014, Bologna, Italy, June 2014 (IAHS Publ. 364, 2014), 364:326-332

  • Choi BCK, Pang T, Lin V, Puska P, Sherman G, Goddard M, Ackland MJ, Sainsbury P, Stachenko S, Morrison H, Clottey C (2005) Can scientists and policy makers work together? J Epidemiol Community Health 59:632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppedge BR, Engle DM, Fuhlendorf SD, Masters RE, Gregory MS (2001) Landscape cover type and pattern dynamics in fragmented southern Great Plains grasslands, USA. Landsc Ecol 16:677–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortner HJ, Wallace MG, Burke S, Moote MA (1998) Institutions matter: the need to address the instituional challenges of ecosystem management. Landsc Urban Plan 40:159–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox TM, Mark; Arthur, K (2012) Incorporating climate change into water supply planning and yield studies: a demonstration and comparision of practical methods. Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan Supplemental Report

  • Dale J, Zou CB, Andrews WJ, Long JM, Liang Y, Qiao L (2015) Climate, water use, and land surface transformation in an irrigation intensive watershed—streamflow responses from 1950 through 2010. Agric Water Manag 160:144–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darshini D, Dwivedi P, Glenk K (2013) Capturing stakeholders’ views on oil palm-based biofuel and biomass utilisation in Malaysia. Energy Policy 62:1128–1137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.07.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodds WK, Gido K, Whiles MR, Fritz KM, Matthews WJ (2004) Life on the edge: the ecology of Great Plains prairie streams. Bioscience 54:205–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwivedi P, Alavalapati JRR (2009) Stakeholders’ perceptions on forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US. Energy Policy 37:1999–2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPA (2013) Getting in step: engaging and involving stakeholders in your watershed. 2nd edn: United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. p 91

  • EPA (2016) Hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas: impacts from the hydraulic fracturing water cycle on drinking water resources in the United States, Executive Summary. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. p 50

  • Gao C-Y, Peng D-H (2011) Consolidating SWOT analysis with nonhomogeneous uncertain preference information. Knowl-Based Syst 24:796–808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons P, Zammit C, Youngentob K, Possingham HP, Lindenmayer DB, Bekessy S, Burgman M, Colyvan M, Considine M, Felton A, Hobbs RJ, Hurley K, McAlpine C, McCarthy MA, Moore J, Robinson D, Salt D, Wintle B (2008) Some practical suggestions for improving engagement between researchers and policy-makers in natural resource management. Ecol Manag Restor 9:182–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2008.00416.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorddard R, Colloff MJ, Wise RM, Ware D, Dunlop M (2016) Values, rules and knowledge: adaptation as change in the decision context. Environ Sci Policy 57:60–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Görener A, Toker K, Uluçay K (2012) Application of combined SWOT and AHP: a case study for a manufacturing firm. Procedia—Social Behav Sci 58:1525–1534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddeland I, Heinke J, Biemans H, Eisner S, Flörke M, Hanasaki N, Konzmann M, Ludwig F, Masaki Y, Schewe J (2014) Global water resources affected by human interventions and climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:3251–3256

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hill T, Westbrook R (1997) SWOT analysis: it’s time for a product recall. Long Range Plann 30:46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(96)00095-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoerling M, Eischeid J, Kumar A, Leung R, Mariotti A, Mo K, Schubert S, Seager R (2014) Causes and predictability of the 2012 Great Plains drought. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 95:269–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer C, Dewitz J, Yang L, Jin S, Danielson P, Xian G, Coulston J, Herold N, Wickham J, Megown K (2011) Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States–representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 81:345–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells M, Hermann S, Welsch M, Bazilian M, Segerström R, Alfstad T, Gielen D, Rogner H, Fischer G, Van Velthuizen H (2013) Integrated analysis of climate change, land-use, energy and water strategies. Nat Clim Change 3:621–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Igliski B, Piechota G, Igliska A, Cichosz M, Buczkowski R (2016) The study on the SWOT analysis of renewable energy sector on the example of the Pomorskie Voivodeship (Poland). Clean Technol Environ Policy 18:45–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-015-0989-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen M (2002) Complexity and ecosystem management: the theory and practice of multi-agent systems. Edward Elgar Publishing, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Kangas J, Kurttila M, Kajanus M, Kangas A (2003) Evaluating the management strategies of a forestland estate—the SOS approach. J Environ Manag 69:349–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KC B, Stainback GA, Chhetri BBK (2014) Community users’ and experts’ perspective on community forestry in Nepal: a SWOT-AHP analysis. For Trees Livelihoods 23:217–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kettle N, Harrington L, Harrington J (2007) Groundwater depletion and agricultural land use change in the high plains: a case study from Wichita County, Kansas. Prof Geogr 59:221–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kharel, G, Miller, R, Zou, C, Koch, J, Boyer, T, McCarthy, H, Dilekli, N, Huhnke, R (2018). An integrated modeling approach coupling stakeholders’ values and policy trade-offs in Oklahoma, USA. Proceedings of the 9th International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs), Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, 24–28 June

  • Kharel G, Zheng H, Kirilenko A (2016) Can land-use change mitigate long-term flood risks in the Prairie Pothole Region? The case of Devils Lake, North Dakota, USA. Reg Envir Chang 16:2443–2456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-0970-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon JW (1984) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Little, Brown & Co., Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Lustig (1993) Intercultural competence: Interpersonal communication across cultures. Harper Collins College Publishers, New York

  • 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. For Policy Econ 1:41–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach WD, Pelkey NW, Sabatier PA (2002) Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking: Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. J Policy Anal Plan 21(4):645–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margles SW, Masozera M, Rugyerinyange L, Kaplin BA (2010) Participatory Planning: using SWOT-AHP analysis in buffer zone management planning. J Sustain For 29:613–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811003769483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masozera MK, Alavalapati JR, Jacobson SK, Shrestha RK (2006) Assessing the suitability of community-based management for the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda. For Policy Econ 8:206–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mukwada G, Manatsa D (2017) Acacia mearnsii management in a South African National Parks: SWOT analysis using hot topics in biological invasion as a guide. J Mt Sci 14:205–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-015-3808-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutekanga FP, Kessler A, Leber K, Visser S (2013) The use of stakeholder analysis in integrated watershed management: experiences from the Ngenge Watershed, Uganda. Mt Res Dev 33:122–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagara G, Lam W-H, Lee N, Othman F, Shaaban M (2015a) Comparative SWOT analysis for water solutions in Asia and Africa. Water Resour Manag 29:125–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0831-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagara G, Lam WH, Lee NCH, Othman F, Shaaban MG (2015b) Comparative SWOT analysis for water solutions in Asia and Africa. Water Resour Manag 29:125–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0831-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newig J, Challies E, Jager NW, Kochskaemper E, Adzersen A (2018) The environmental performance of participatory and collaborative governance: a framework of causal mechanisms. Policy Stud J 46(2):269–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nigam S, Guan B, Ruiz‐Barradas A (2011) Key role of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation in 20th century drought and wet periods over the Great Plains. Geophys Res. Letters 38:L16713. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noël J (2017) Oklahoma drinking water at risk from oil and gas injection wells: Exposing Oklahoma Corporation Commission’s flawed drinking water protection policies. Clean Water Action 15:1–15, Washington, DC

  • O’Driscoll M, Clinton S, Jefferson A, Manda A, McMillan S (2010) Urbanization effects on watershed hydrology and in-stream processes in the southern United States. Water 2:605–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OWRB (2012a) Oklahoma Comprehensive Water Plan: Executive Report. Oklahoma Water Resources Board. p 172

  • OWRB (2012b) Central Watershed Planning Region Report. p 149

  • Pachauri RK, Allen MR, Barros VR, Broome J, Cramer W, Christ R, Church JA, Clarke L, Dahe Q, Dasgupta P (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland p 151

  • Panagiotou G (2003) Bringing SWOT into focus. Bus Strategy Rev 14:8–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8616.00253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickton DW, Wright S (1998) What’s swot in strategic analysis? Strateg Change 7:101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiao L, Hong Y, McPherson R, Shafer M, Gade D, Williams D, Chen S, Lilly D (2014) Climate change and hydrological response in the trans-state Oologah Lake watershed–evaluating dynamically downscaled NARCCAP and statistically downscaled CMIP3 simulations with VIC model. Water Resour Manag 28:3291–3305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiao L, Zou CB, Gaitán CF, Hong Y, McPherson RA (2017) Analysis of pprecipitation projections over the climate gradient of the Arkansas Red River Basin. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 56:1325–1336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiao L, Zou CB, Will RE, Stebler E (2015) Calibration of SWAT model for woody plant encroachment using paired experimental watershed data. J Hydrol 523:231–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90:1933–1949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg NJ (1987) Climate of the Great Plains region of the United States. Great Plains Quarterly 7(1): 22–32

  • Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M, Kraft ME, Kamieniecki S (2005) Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management. MIT press, London

  • Scanlon BR, Reedy RC, Stonestrom DA, Prudic DE, Dennehy KF (2005) Impact of land use and land cover change on groundwater recharge and quality in the southwestern US. Glob Change Biol 11:1577–1593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott T (2015) Does collaboration make any difference? Linking collaborative governanace to environmental outcomes. J Policy Anal Mgmt 34(3):537–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert SD, Suarez MJ, Pegion PJ, Koster RD, Bacmeister JT (2004) Causes of long-term drought in the US Great Plains. J Clim 17:485–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevkli M, Oztekin A, Uysal O, Torlak G, Turkyilmaz A, Delen D (2012) Development of a fuzzy ANP based SWOT analysis for the airline industry in Turkey. Expert Syst Appl 39:14–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafer M, Ojima D, Antle JM, Kluck D, McPherson RA, Petersen S, Scanlon B, and Sherman K, (2014) Ch. 19: Great Plains. Climate change impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, Melillo JM, Richmond T, and Yohe GW (eds) U.S. Global Change Research Program, 441–461. https://doi.org/10.7930/J0D798BC

  • Shrestha RK, Alavalapati JRR, Kalmbacher RS (2004) Exploring the potential for silvopasture adoption in south-central Florida: an application of SWOT-AHP method. Agric Syst 81:185–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2003.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stainback GA, Masozera M, Mukuralinda A, Dwivedi P (2012) Smallholder agroforestry in Rwanda: a SWOT-AHP Analysis. Small-Scale Forestry 11:285–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-011-9184-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TNC (2011) Ecological Porfolio. The Nature Conservancy’s Priority Conservation Areas. http://www.uspriorityareas.tnc.org/. Accessed 20 Dec 2016

  • Ulibarri N (2015) Tracing process to performance of collaborative governance: a comparative case study of federal hydropower licensing. Policy Stud J 43(2):283–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vespignani A (2011) Modelling dynamical processes in complex socio-technical systems. Nat Phys 8:32. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weible CM (2008) Expert‐based information and policy subsystems: a review and synthesis. Policy Stud J 36:615–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse CA, Overpeck JT (1998) 2000 years of drought variability in the central United States. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 79:2693–2714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou LH, Chen Y (2014) Exploring the potential of community-based grassland management in Yanchi County of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, China: an application of the SWOT-AHP method. Environ Earth Sci 72:1811–1820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-014-3090-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zou CB, Turton DJ, Will RE, Engle DM, Fuhlendorf SD (2014) Alteration of hydrological processes and streamflow with juniper (Juniperus virginiana) encroachment in a mesic grassland catchment. Hydrol Process 28:6173–6182

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. OIA-1301789. The authors would like to acknowledge Emma L. Kuster for her work co-organizing the Cimarron River Watershed Symposium.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

    Gehendra Kharel, Omkar Joshi & Chris Zou

  2. Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

    Ron Miller

Authors
  1. Gehendra Kharel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Omkar Joshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ron Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chris Zou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gehendra Kharel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kharel, G., Joshi, O., Miller, R. et al. Perceptions of Government and Research Expert Groups and Their Implications for Watershed Management in Oklahoma, USA. Environmental Management 62, 1048–1059 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1108-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1108-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation