Identification and Prioritization of the Most Suitable Strategies for Improving the Health of the Ilam Dam Watershed Using the SWOT Method

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• E. Fathi ¹
• M. Ekhtesasi ¹
• A. Talebi ¹
• J. Mosaffaie ²

¹ Rangeland and Watershed Department, Faculty of Natural Resources and Desertology, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

² Soil Conservation and Watershed Management Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jsw.2025.90768.1446

Abstract

Introduction
Watersheds, as diverse ecosystems, play a fundamental role in water provision, soil conservation, biodiversity, and ecological sustainability. In addition to delivering environmental services, these areas serve as vital resources for supporting the livelihoods and well-being of local communities. However, population growth, climate change, land-use changes, and overexploitation have imposed significant pressures on these ecosystems, jeopardizing their health and natural functionality. The degradation of these areas can lead to serious consequences for water resources, biodiversity, and environmental sustainability. Therefore, identifying and implementing effective strategies to preserve and enhance watershed health is essential. In this regard, the present study utilizes the strategic SWOT model to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats within the Ilam Dam watershed and aims to propose practical solutions for improving and strengthening the health of these valuable ecosystems.
 
Materials and Methods
To achieve optimal strategies for resource management and improving the health of the study area, the SWOT analysis method was employed. This method provides a comprehensive framework for developing operational strategies by identifying existing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Data for this research were collected through field studies, specialized interviews with local experts, and a review of scientific resources and available information. To enhance accuracy and reliability in evaluating and weighting internal and external factors, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Expert Choice software were utilized. Subsequently, the collected data were analyzed using the Internal Factor Evaluation (IFE) and External Factor Evaluation (EFE) matrices, leading to the formulation of appropriate strategies. These strategies were categorized into four main types: aggressive, conservative, competitive, and defensive. Finally, to ensure the selection of the best options, the Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM) was applied. At this stage, each strategy was scored and prioritized based on its attractiveness and feasibility, ensuring the identification of the most effective and actionable strategies.
 
Results and Discussion
According to the results of this study, seven factors were identified as strengths and seven as weaknesses (internal factors), along with seven opportunities and seven threats (external factors). The total score for strengths was 3.33, and for weaknesses, it was 3.57. Additionally, the score for opportunities was calculated at 3.54, while threats scored 3.28. Based on these scores and the internal and external factors evaluation matrix analysis, the WO strategy position was recommended, with specific solutions determined for each strategy. In the SO strategy, the QSPM matrix analysis indicated that optimal management of surface and groundwater resources, along with the establishment of suitable infrastructure for water capture and storage (strategy SO2), was recognized as the top priority. Within the ST strategy, the strategy of leveraging high organizational and local capacity to address the negative impacts of climate change and sustainably engage stakeholders and local communities in decision-making and watershed resource protection (strategy ST4) was prioritized. For the WO strategy, enhancing water and soil conservation programs and developing research and management initiatives through encouragement, support, and both material and spiritual contributions for specialized studies (strategy WO2) was identified as the main priority. Likewise, under the WT strategy, expanding and diversifying educational programs, developing educational content on water crises and climate change, and addressing the consequences of natural resource degradation in the basin, along with planning and approving national and international projects on climate change and dust storm mitigation (strategy WT1), emerged as the top priority. These strategies can provide an effective framework for improving resource management in watersheds and addressing environmental challenges.
 
Conclusion
 The findings of this study clearly demonstrate that strengthening protective, managerial, and educational programs plays a crucial role in improving the health of this watershed. These strategies, by optimizing available opportunities and minimizing weaknesses, can significantly contribute to sustainable development and effective natural resource conservation. In particular, the implementation of these programs requires collaboration and synergy among the local community, governmental and non-governmental organizations, and related agencies. It is recommended that conservation and management planning be accompanied by education and awareness initiatives for the local community, so residents understand the importance of preserving natural resources and are encouraged to participate in conservation efforts. This active community involvement not only enhances the effectiveness of these strategies but also contributes to achieving desirable outcomes and ecosystem sustainability, setting the stage for more effective management and long-term conservation of water and soil resources.

Keywords

• Ilam Dam
• Management
• Strategy
• SWOT
• Watershed health

Main Subjects

• Soil science

©2025 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

References

1. Alimoradi, M., Talebi, A., & Karimi, H. (2022). Analysis of factors affecting watershed management and providing appropriate management strategy using SWOT model (Doeiraj River watershed area). Extension and Development of Watershed Management, 9(35), 1-10. (In Persian with English abstract). https://www.wmji.ir/ article_254169.html?lang=en
2. Aspiany, A., Anggoro, S., & Gunawan, B.I. (2019). Strategies for sustainable ecotourism development in the marine waters of Bontang City, Indonesia. Aquaculture, Aquarium, Conservation & Legislation, 12(5), 1779-1787.
3. Bahremand, A., Onagh, M., & Komaki, C.B. (2018). Impacts of land use changes scenarios on water balance components using WetSpa model (Case study: Ziarat Watershed of Golestan Province). Journal of Watershed Management Research, 9(17), 168-181. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.29252/jwmr.9.17.168
4. Cabello, V., Willaarts, B. A., Aguilar, M., & del Moral Ituarte, L. (2015). River basins as social-ecological systems: Linking levels of societal and ecosystem water metabolism in a semiarid watershed. Ecology and Society, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07778-200320
5. Dehghan Chenari, M., Barzegari Banadkooki, F., & Saremi Naeini, M.A. (2022). Investigating effects of water transfer project from Oman or (Persian Gulf) to desert ecosystem of Yazd province using SWOT analysis. Iranian Journal of Watershed Management Science and Engineering, 16(58), 1-12. (In Persian with English abstract).
6. Einloo, F., Ekhtesasi, M.R., Ghorbani, M., & Abdinejad, P. (2022). Determining the most appropriate management strategies for balancing the Abhar Plain Aquifer using the SWOT analytical model. Journal of Watershed Management Research, 13(25), 179-187. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.52547/jwmr.13.25.179
7. Environment Protection Agency. )2011(. ealthy Watersheds Initiative, National Framework and Action Plan. EPA 841-R -11-005. https://www.asdwa.org/2011/10/07/epa-releases-its-2011-healthy-watersheds-framework-and-action-plan/
8. Ervinia, A., Huang, J., Huang, Y., & Lin, J. (2019). Coupled effects of climate variability and land use pattern on surface water quality: An elasticity perspective and watershed health indicators. Science of The Total Environment, 693, 133592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133592
9. Gari, S.R., Guerrero, C.E.O., Bryann, , Icely, J.D., & Newton, A. (2018). A DPSIR-analysis of water uses and related water quality issues in the Colombian Alto and Medio Dagua Community Council. Water Science, 32(2), 318-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsj.2018.06.001
10. Gliem, J.A., & Gliem, R.R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales. In Midwest research-to-practice conference in adult, continuing, and community education (Vol. 1, pp. 82-87). https://hdl.handle.net/1805/344
11. Hamel, P., Riveros-Iregui, D., Ballari, D., Browning, T., Célleri, R., Chandler, D., Chun, K.P., Destouni, G., Jacobs, S., Jasechko, S., Johnson, M., Krishnaswamy, J., Poca, M., Pompeu, P.V., & Rocha, H. (2018). Watershed services in the humid tropics: opportunities from recent advances in ecohydrology. Ecohydrology, 11(3), 1e42. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.1921
12. Hazbavi, Z., Baartman, J. E., Nunes, J.P., Keesstra, S.D., & Sadeghi, S.H. (2018a). Changeability of reliability, resilience and vulnerability indicators with respect to drought patterns. Ecological Indicators, 87, 196-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.12.054
13. Hazbavi, Z., Keesstra, S.D., Nunes, J.P., Baartman, J.E., Gholamalifard, M., & Sadeghi, S.H. (2018b). Health comparative comprehensive assessment of watersheds with different climates. Ecological Indicators, 93, 781-790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.078
14. Hazbavi, Z., Parchami, N., Alaei, N., & Babaei, L. (2020). Assessment and analysis of the Koozeh Topraghi watershed health status, Ardabil province, Iran. Journal of Water and Soil Resources Conservation, 9(3), 121-142. (In Persian with English abstract). https://sanad.iau.ir/en/Article/829138
15. Hazbavi, Z., Sadeghi, S.H.R., & Gholamalifard, M. (2019). Comparative analysis of variability of health assessment indicators of pressure, state, and response in Shazand watershed. In 13th National Conference on Watershed Management Science and Engineering of Iran and 3rd National Conference on Conservation of Natural Resources and Environment October 4 and 5, 2016, Mohaghegh Ardabili University. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.52547/jwmr.12.24.1
16. Hazbavi, Z., Sadeghi, S.H., & Gholamalifard, M. (2018c). Land cover-based watershed health assessment. AGROFOR International Journal, 3, 47-55. http://doi.org/10.7251/AGRENG1803047H
17. Jafari, M., Ekhtesasi, M.R., & Fatahi Ardakani, A. (2021). Evaluation of factors affecting the performance and economic productivity of watershed management projects using SWOT model. Watershed Engineering and Management, 13(2), 328-338. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.52547/jwmr.11.22.132
18. Kallioras, A., Pliakas, F., Diamantis, I., & Kallergis, G. (2010). SWOT analysis in groundwater resources management of coastal aquifers: a case study from Greece. Water International, 35(4), 425-441. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02508060.2010.508929
19. Molaei Hashjin, N., & Zahedi Dafchahi, K. (2010). Planning integrated rural development using SWOT analysis model in Khomam district, Rasht. Rural Research Quarterly, 1(22), 133-154. (In Persian). https://www.magiran. com/p902006
20. Mosaffaie, J., Jam, A.S., Tabatabaei, M.R., & Kousari, M.R. (2021). Trend assessment of the watershed health based on DPSIR framework. Land Use Policy, 100, 104911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104911
21. Motaghian, M., Ghazavi, R., & Alavinia, S.H. (2024). Presenting the best management plan for the comprehensive management of Doabi watershed in Tehran province using SWOT and QSPM matrix. Hydrogeomorphology, 11(38), 140-123.
22. Nasiri Khiavi, A.N., Tavoosi, M., Khodamoradi, H., & Kuriqi, A. (2024). Integration of watershed eco-physical health through algorithmic game theory and supervised machine learning. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 101216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsd.2024.101216
23. Petousi, I., Fountoulakis, M., Papadaki, A., Sabathianakis, I., Daskalakis, G., Nikolaidis, N., & Manios, T. (2017). Assessment of water management measures through SWOT analysis: the case of Crete Island, Greece. International Journal of Education and Learning Systems, 2, 59-62. https://www.iaras.org/iaras/filedownloads/ijes/2017/008-0010(2017).pdf
24. Rahmani, B., Shams, M., & Hatamifar, )2010(. Feasibility study on tourism development in Malayer using SWOT model. Geography Quarterly and Environmental Studies Journal, 1(3), 13-25. (In Persian). file:///C:/Users/Ehsan/ Downloads/6000313890302.pdf
25. Sadeghi, S.H., Khaledi Darvishan, A., Vafakhah, M., Moradi Rekabdarkolaei, H., Nasiri Khiavi, A., Rajabi, M.R., & Zaki, S.A. (2021). Integrated and problem-based management of the watershed using strategic planning framework. Iranian Journal of Watershed Management Science and Engineering, 15(52), 63-66. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.61186/jwmr.14.27.15
26. Sadoddin, A., Sheikh, V.B., Ownegh, M., Najafi Nejad, A., & Sadeghi, H.R. (2016). Development of a national mega research project on the integrated watershed management for Iran. Environmental Resources Research, 4(2), 231-238.
27. Tavakoli, M., Fathizad, H., & Hamidian, M. (2021). Preparing strategic plan for integrated watershed management using SWOT and QSPM (Case study: Meymeh watershed, Ilam Province). Journal of Watershed Management Research, 12(24), 13-27. https://doi.org/10.52547/jwmr.12.24.13
28. Tsai, Y.W., Lin, J.Y., & Chen, Y.C. (2021). Establishment of the watershed health indicators and health check of reservoirs. Ecological Indicators, 127, 107779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107779