JWARP  Vol.10 No.9 , September 2018
GWAM—An Institutional Model to Address Watershed Impacts from Urbanization: Conceptual Framework
Abstract: The urbanization process exerts negative multidisciplinary impacts on the integrity of natural watershed conditions. These impacts are best analyzed and addressed with local inputs, as many of these are site specific and require consistent local monitoring along with appropriate policies and regulations from conventional governance in an interdisciplinary platform. With the realization of the limitations to top-down and bottom-up watershed management approaches in addressing issues associated with urbanization, a conceptual framework for a hybrid approach that tries to effectively integrate the advantages of the two approaches while overcoming their respective limitations, the Grass root Watershed Management model (GWAM), is presented in this paper. The model is to establish a self-sustaining and effective institutional forum that can be used in watersheds across geographical and political boundaries while accommodating the urbanization process. GWAM consists of three crucial components: a common platform, a partnership among major groups of stakeholders, and a facilitation mechanism to conduct the watershed management at local lever or grass-root level. With effective integration of the governmental agencies and institutes at the top with the local residents and non-governmental organizations at the bottom, the concept is that the hybrid approach can serve as a self-sustaining model in achieving effective management of urbanization impacts.
Cite this paper: Saravanapavan, T. and Yamaji, E. (2018) GWAM—An Institutional Model to Address Watershed Impacts from Urbanization: Conceptual Framework. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 10, 896-905. doi: 10.4236/jwarp.2018.109052.

[1]   Leopold. L.B. (1968) Hydrology for Urban Land Planning—A Guidebook on the Hydrological Effects of Urban Land Use. US Geological Survey Circular, 554, 18 p.

[2]   Hollis, G.E. (1975) The Effect of Urbanization on Floods of Different Recurrence Interval. Water Resources Research, 11, 431-435.

[3]   USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1983) Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Project: Final Report. US EPA, Office of Water, Washington DC.

[4]   Booth, D.B. (1991) Urbanization and the Natural Drainage System—Impacts, Solutions, and Prognoses. The Northwest Environmental Journal, 7, 93-118.

[5]   Quilb’e, R., Rousseau, A.N., Moquet, J.S., Savary, S., Ricard, S. and Garbouj, M.S. (2008) Hydrological Responses of a Watershed to Historical Land Use Evolution and Future Land Use Scenarios under Climate Change Conditions. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12, 101-110.

[6]   Saravanapavan, T., Yamaji, E., Voorhees, M. and Zhang, G. (2014) Using Hydrology as a Surrogate in TMDL Development for Impairments Caused by Multiple Stressors. Advances in Water Resource and Protection, 2, 1-10.

[7]   Thomas, D.E. (2008) Where Central Policies Meet Local Objectives: Exploring Sub-Basin-Level Participatory Watershed Management in Northern Thailand. Proceedings of the Sustainable Sloping Lands and Watershed Management Conference, 12-15 December 2006, In: Gebbie, L., Glendinning, A., Lefroy-Braun, R. and Victor, M., Eds., National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI), Vientiane.

[8]   Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C. (2001) The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation. In: Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C., Eds., Communities and the Environment, Ethnicity, Gender and the State in Community-Based Conservation, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 1-23.

[9]   Smith, J.L. (2008) A Critical Appreciation of the “Bottom-Up” Approach to Sustainable Water Management: Embracing Complexity Rather than Desirability. Local Environment, 13, 353-366.

[10]   Heyd, H. and Neef, A. (2004) Participation of Local People in Water Management: Evidence from the Mae Sa Watershed, Northern Thailand. Environment and Production Technology Division, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC.

[11]   Lane, M.B. and McDonald, G. (2005) Community-Based Environmental Planning: Operational Dilemmas, Planning Principles and Possible Remedies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48, 703-731.

[12]   Lovell, C., Mandondo, A. and Moriarty, P. (2002) The Question of Scale in Integrated Natural Resource Management. Conservation Ecology, 5, 25.

[13]   National Research Council (2001) Envisioning the Agenda for Water Resources Research in the Twenty-First Century. The National Academies Press, Washington DC.

[14]   Hooper, B.P. (2003) Integrated Water Resources Management and River Basin Governance. Water Resources Update, 126, 12-20.

[15]   Selin, S. and Chevez, D. (1995) Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental Planning and Management Environmental Management. Environmental Management, 19, 189-195.

[16]   Huntington, C.W. and Sommarstrom, S. (2000) An Evaluation of Selected Watershed Councils in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. (3 Parts). Prepared for Trout Unlimited and Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene.

[17]   Genskow, K.D. and Born, S.M. (2006) Organizational Dynamics of Watershed Partnerships: A Key to Integrated Water Resources Management. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education, 135, 55-64.

[18]   Hammond, J.S., Keeney, R.K. and Raifa, H. (1999) Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

[19]   Kontogianni, A., Tziritis, I. and Skourtos, M. (2005) Bottom-Up Environmental Decision Making Taken Seriously: Integrating Stakeholder Perceptions into Scenarios of Environmental Change. Human Ecology Review, 12, 87-95.

[20]   Saravanapavan, T. and Yamaji, E. (2018) GWAM—An Institutional Model to Address Watershed Impacts from Urbanization: Field Validation. Journal of Water Resources and Protection, 10, 906-918.