Research Framework
Figure 1 shows a summary of the research procedures and methods to achieve the stipulated research aim
In every IWMP, the CPM permeates through all organisational components. So, we explored the scoping conditions of the CPEF to include all key watershed governance actions. We derived lessons from literature and the existing organisational models focusing on the watershed zones' local socio-political environment to ascertain the definitions, characteristics, benefits, and watershed CPM risks. To classify relevant indicators and propose appropriate critical actions for a hypothetical CPEF, we identified entangled social groups and their interactions. Following an iterative research process where theories are gradually adjusted based on realistic situations, we constructed arguments around theories of collective actions and participatory governance for resource management as dominant concepts.
Figure 2 shows different steps of the framework development. Figure 3 shows the CPEF structure.
Constructs, Domains and Variables for the CPEF
In designing the variables for the CPEF, we assumed existing social group formation procedures, interdependence and standard management transactions prevailing in IWMP projects. Generally, watershed projects utilise two prime apparatus to accomplish CP, (a) organisational management and (b) critical component management. We mapped the domains and variables from these two perspectives (Figure 4) to propose two structural constructs of the CPEF: Organizational Construct and Managerial Construct.
We conducted pilot interviews with academicians, water resource officers to seek their expert opinions in selecting the CPEF domains and variables. This pilot study would add value to the research and help move to the next data collection stage.
Identifying IWMP-OAs
The performance of a watershed project hinges on the water managers' ability to link property rights of the created assets to the community. Inability to delineate property rights in the projects results in improper risk-sharing modalities leading to a vicious cycle of project failure. The failure to link the community with the public projects is the fallout of the inability to define property right of the created assets for effective management transfer (Furubotn and Pejovich 1972). Community participation through coalitions facilitates ownership and increases successful institutionalisation into the community (Bracht and Tsouros 1990). Vermillion substantiated the impact of property right on infrastructure development as: "Property rights are primarily social conceptions, but to have thrust on human behaviour, they must be enforceable through sanctions. Sanctions may involve new legal codes, punishments imposed by users' groups or other social pressures. Key obligations which may be attached to property rights are financing construction and maintenance of infrastructure, financing costs of service provision, and following rules regarding use or protection of the resource" (Vermillion 2001).
Studying water right reform in China, Calow et al. (Calow et al. 2009) concluded that the development of a modern water rights system is vital for meeting water conservation and reallocation objectives. Resources allocation are more efficient, where transparent markets for property rights are established (Grimsey and Lewis 2005). Podder et al. compared irrigation reform in India and Australia. They observed that in transferring ownership and management for the distribution of infrastructure in Australia, a significant change in production occurred due to a change in institutional structure underpinned with a transfer of property rights from state governments to either individual irrigators or collectives irrigators (Poddar et al. 2011). In formulating a robust CPEF having the potential of positive economic impact, few relevant questions are: how to attach property rights to the created assets and how to accomplish risk allocation for devolution of the community's management functions. The effectiveness of watershed CPM must be computable from this perspective. Therefore, we included OAs concerning property rights transfer in the CPEF.
Subsequently, our organisational construct consisted of different domains, representing one active project-level organisational element (Table 1). It accommodates the desirable organisational procedures or actions involved in the organisational management, which we denoted as 'Integrated Watershed Management Programme-Organisational Actions' (IWMP-OAs).
Table 1 Participant CBOs and their activities in the present organisational model of IWMP projects
IWMP Participants
|
Members
|
Defined Role
|
Watershed Development Team (WDT)
|
At least four members from the public sector
|
It is providing technical assistance to the watershed activities and overseeing project implementation.
|
Watershed Development Committee (WDC)
|
Ten members from the project area
|
Selection of CBOs, project implementation activities
|
Self Help Group (SHG)
|
Village producers CBOs
|
Implementation of livelihood schemes
|
Villages/Users
|
Users of the watershed activities
|
The beneficiary of the project
|
Gram Sabha
|
Elected local government
|
Formation of WDC in collaboration with the PIA
|
Identifying IWMP CMAs
Identification of the critical management actions is very challenging for dealing with the complex economic-social-institutional-environmental systems in which the IWMP operates. Moreover, watershed managers should periodically customise the IWMP-CMAs for dynamic capacity development of the river basin organisations to minimise the negative impacts, maximising development partners' benefits. So the CPEF should assess and compare the IWMP operational dynamics at different phases of the project life cycle to take care of the participants' expectations. Studying PPP projects, Ozdoganm and Birgonul divided the critical factors into four main groups i) Financial, ii) Political and legal, iii) Technical, iv) Social (Ozdoganm and Talat Birgonul 2000). In this grouping method, Ng S. et al. have added another factor related to staff issue and success factors (Ng et al. 2012). Similarly, we have included some relevant watershed doctrines and critical issues in formulating the managerial construct's domains and variables, which watershed managers often overlook in outlining CMAs.
In IWMP, environmental issues constitute another significant domain. The Ontario Environmental Assessment Act defines environment as a) Physical features (land, air, water), b) Man-made devices and things (building, structures, machines), c) Any solids liquid, gas, odour, sound, vibration, radiation), d) Biological subjects (plants, animals, man), e) Human and ecological systems (social, economic, cultural conditions) (Government of Ontario 1980). Again, Sadler extended Environmental Assessment to include: Environmental Assessment (EA), Economic Impact Assessment (EIA), Social Impact Assessment (SIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (Sadler et al. 1996). Heathcote recommended water management impact evaluation considering the comprehensive evaluation of potential impacts on the social, cultural, economic and biophysical environment, including preventive or corrective measures (Isobel W. Heathcote 2009).
Moreover, in watershed operations, the legal factors are primarily influential. The water law systems should acknowledge the social and environmental dimensions through norms intended to protect third parties, the environment, and the resource base (Solanes and Gonzalez-Villarreal 1999). Water-managers must resolve conflicts smoothly within the boundaries of sanctioned social behaviours. Their rules reflect a social consensus on conflict resolution's two principal elements: compensation and punishment (Isobel W. Heathcote 2009). Referring to water management in the USA and Canada, Heathcote (2009:309) acknowledged that besides written laws, there are influential inherent common law rights and responsibilities such as nuisance, riparian rights, and strict liability, trespass, and negligence. Heathcote further noted that an important social dimension of water rights, closely associated with the resource's economic dimension, is a definite intent in most legislation to prevent water hoarding, speculation, monopolies, and waste. In many countries, the legal system's basis is written-law or statutes, which fall short of solving many local disputes in IWMP projects. There is a broader scope of applicability of common law rights and responsibilities for better community engagement in this context. Accordingly, the CPEF includes CMAs relating the common laws for better social control and infusion.
Long term and sustainable financial gain is the focal point in IWMP planning. All IWMP projects must embrace appropriate financial management actions since their financial appeal is a strong determinant to generate better CP.
A community is a cultural group. Its institutions evolve through the socio-cultural values intrinsic to the community. Besides, every culture group has its history, origin, development, migrations, conflicts, adjustments (Pauline v. Young 2000). Sadler (Sadler et al. 1996) emphasised social impact assessment (SIA) with environmental assessment.
Post project monitoring and follow up is an essential component of IWMP management. Reliable monitoring and follow-up system help determine compliance, identify any unforeseen effect, and determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Planners' awareness of building societal resilience and protecting economic growth in future uncertainties is indispensable. So, the CPEF should incorporate key factors for resilient water infrastructure. For resilience against the political and institutional instability, Hurford et al. endorsed the necessity of transferring the skills acquired to improve institutional competence (Hurford et al. 2017). Such skill transfer stimulates the process of social learning. Social learning in river basin management refers to developing and sustaining the capacity of participant authorities, experts, interest groups and the public to manage collectively (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2008). To do away with the deep uncertainties of social behaviour and exogenous events, Walker et al. (Walker et al. 2015) suggested incorporating flexibility and learning mechanism in water management. However, questions may arise: Is it over-ambitious to incorporate social learning and building new social behaviour through IWMP? Or, how far IWMP can shoulder responsibility for propagating social learning? In answering this, it's noteworthy to quote Wehn et al. (Wehn et al., 2018): "The facilitators are not accountable if stakeholder engagement fails in terms of social learning, but they are responsible for ensuring that the enabling conditions for social learning are accessible." The present-day water managers must not overlook this point.
Based on these perspectives, our managerial construct encompassed different domains of CMAs, each representing a category of CMAs. In the CPEF, we denote them as 'Integrated Watershed Management Programme-Critical Management Actions' (IWMP-CMAs), while each CMA is taken-up as an individual variable.
Brief Description of Study Area
For validating the CPEF, we identified the active interactions in CPM of four IWMP projects in the state of Assam, India. They are 1. Kaldia IWMP part III 2010-11 (SLNA 2010a), 2. Turkunijan IWMP 2010 (SLNA 2010b), 3. Satpokholi IWMP 2011-12 (SLNA 2011), 4. Maloibari IWMP 2010-11, (SLNA 2010c) (Fig. 5,6,7 in appendix). We purposively selected these watershed projects within the same agro-climatic zone functioning with similar operating procedures to be laboratories for the investigation.
The projects under IWMP have primary objectives for achieving sustainable community participation in watershed management (SLNA 2010b). The Indian planning authority, NITI Aayog, has formed the State Level Nodal Agency (SLNA Assam) to manage and monitor IWMP-Assam projects. In their organisational structure, CBOs are the core component. The SLNA has a governing council under the Additional Chief Secretary's chairmanship to the Govt of Assam in the Department of Soil Conservation. For each IWMP-Assam project, a Programme Implementing Agency (PIA) is responsible for checking technical feasibility, budgeting and estimating, and implementation. The PIA forms the project participant groups in the project area to work in collaboration with the local government organisations like Zila Parishads, Gaon Panchayatas, and CBOs (Table 1).
The IWMP-Assam envisages the implementation of IWMP with a declared prescription of formal allocation of users' right on common property (2011).
Data Collection Framework
A structured questionnaire protocol is designed based on the variables. A questionnaire survey and expert interviews were conducted to glean information and perceptions of 30 experienced project stakeholders relating to these variables. We have chosen the survey participants from two groups using a stratified sampling approach: i) Watershed Policy Experts and ii) Field level Managers and community. However, the first group includes three sub-groups: the academicians, Public Sector water experts and field level watershed experts and, the second group includes two sub-groups: the field level watershed managers and community stakeholders (Table 2 in appendix). Our justification for choosing the two groups is that, in enhancing community participation, there appears a large gap between the perception of theoretical experts and field level stakeholders.
The questionnaire was directly distributed to the individuals. They are asked to record their agreement using a 2-point scale. Researchers are counting created assets where responses are mostly quantitative in a conventional non-participatory (top-down) watershed assessment method. But here, we are going to measure community participation from the stakeholders' perspective (bottom-up). So, we need to assess their general qualitative attitudes towards watershed management actions. Accordingly, our community participation measuring framework is applicable in a participatory model where many respondents are community people. In this context, the 2 point scale would accommodate their opinions in a better way.
In the survey, a questionnaire based on the concept of watershed management and the research objectives are incorporated to mark their opinion by choosing 2 when they agree and 1 when they disagree. (Table 3 in appendix).
Data Analysis Framework
For analysing and filtering the variables, we adopted suitable non-parametric statistical techniques as listed in Table 4.
Table 4
Statistical methods applied
Test for
|
Applied Statistical Tests
|
Interrater Reliability
|
Krippendorff’s Alpha (Kalpha)
|
In-group Consistency
|
Chronbach's Alpha (α)
|
Correlation
|
Pearson's Coefficient (r)
|
Validity by measuring the Degree of Alignment of inter-group views/perception
|
Spearman's Rho (ρ ) or Rank correlation coefficient
|
Validity by measuring Acceptance Level
|
Percentage Agreement
|
The similarity of Agreement Score Mean
|
Two sample T-test on average of both group
|
Filtering of identified Variables
|
Coefficient of Variation (CoV)
|
One Sample T-test on CoV
|
Limitation
While our theoretical framing epicentres contribution to social capital, we do not explicitly address broader cultural context and local politics. We also did not address any explanation that relates personal skill, efficiency and educational qualification of members of the CBOs.