Strategic Implementation of Integrated Water Resource Management in Selected Areas of Palawan: SWOT-AHP Method

Abstract

In the recent past, Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) has emerged as the method of choice for resolving a wide range of water-related conflicts that arise between governments and stakeholders all over the globe. Despite a variety of regulations and initiatives being put into place, there is still skepticism over their actual execution. In 2006, the Philippine government began updating the water policy and regulatory framework to promote IWRM as a foundation for sustainable development. However, implementation of this national and subnational structure is still in process. This study intends to identify and rank the key elements likely to affect IWRM changes at the subnational level in Palawan Province. Specifically, this study aims to identify the elements that might improve the result of adopting IWRM, which is as important as designing policies, institutions, and instruments for putting the approach into action. This approach combined the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) techniques, a hybrid multi-criteria decision procedure, SWOT-AHP. Expert group discussion revealed the essential elements impacting IWRM implementation in this research, and these elements were categorized into SWOT categories. The AHP approach was used to determine the relative relevance of each component identified in the SWOT analysis. The results show that the following ranking groups have a higher priority for Puerto Princesa: threats (group weight 48.8%), strengths (35.4%), weaknesses (10.7%), and opportunities (5.1%). The ranking group for Roxas is the following: opportunities (36.8%), strengths (27.4%), weaknesses (21.5%), and threats (14.3%). Taytay has the following ranking group: opportunities (27.9%), weaknesses (27.1%), threats (24.7%), and strengths (20.3%). While El Nido has the following ranking group: strengths (33.5%), weaknesses (24.3%), opportunities (24%), and threats (18.2%). This research identified and prioritized the key components essential to the effectiveness of the IWRM concept in the research sites. This study recommends evaluating IWRM implementation using the upgraded element framework, enhancing the strategic framework to assess state, federal, and local IWRM governance performance.

1. Introduction

Water as an essential resource for environmental and socio-economic progress, is under growing strain by population increase and economic expansion, unequal allocation of land, and climate change [1]. In addition, water is an essential component in manufacturing processes, and expenditures on water research and development raise the water technology standard, directly and indirectly contributing to the expansion of national growth [2,3]. Around 4 billion of humanity endures to live in extreme conditions of water deprivation at present at least one month a year [4]. For long term sustainability, the fulfilment of wide-ranging options of human needs, in addition to those imposed by the environment, is the primary focus of water management [5]. Traditional water management based on a single industry is however, not enough to respond to competing demands and typically contributes to wasteful use of capital [6]. Along this line, United Nations (UN) proposed the implementation of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM). IWRM is widely regarded as the ideal approach to the management of water resources among water theorists [7,8,9]. The UN World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) has established management strategies for water quality and supply integration, incorporating water conservation strategies and services [10]. Despite the growing awareness, international policy and scientific bodies have issues regarding implementation [9,11,12,13]. Over the course of history, there has been a considerable change in the methods that are used to manage and administer water resources. This is because the ideas of sustainable development and resilience are becoming an increasingly important parts of modern discourse. Hence, to guarantee that the choices and actions taken by stakeholders are transparent, excellent governance is vital in putting the ideas of IWRM into practice [14]. To put it simply, IWRM strengthens the governance framework so the decision-making process can handle contemporary water concerns.

This study focuses on Sustainable Development Goals SDG 6 with target 6.5.1, implementing IWRM at all levels and transboundary water cooperation (TWC) [15,16]. IWRM gained significance during the Rio de Janeiro Summit and Dublin Conference in 1992. Literature showed that the IWRM idea existed more than 60 years ago, but was not established until the 1990s [17,18]. The Global Water Partnership (GWP) [19] defined IWRM as “a process that promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize the resulting economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems” [17]. IWRM requires public and private entities to work together and integrate in order to improve water governance [20,21]. The limitations of the idea of IWRM and the difficulties of putting it into practice have been criticized by several authors. In light of this, a number of writers have suggested several interpretations of the notion, some of which include the ideas of subsidiarity, engagement of stakeholders, and security of access to water [14,22,23,24,25,26]. These principles indicated a worldwide trend of adopting a more methodical approach to water resource problems, one that tackled impediments and possibilities within the context of the governing system and management implementation.

The IWRM system is still being talked about, and there is more writing around the world calling for a careful look at the ideas behind it. As elaborated by Merrey [27], the pros and drawbacks of the IWRM definition should be carefully weighed for several reasons. The literature demonstrated that wherever the implementation is to take place, given certain circumstances and means supported in IWRM are most likely to be effective and adaptable to local situations, should be critically investigated [27]. However, this paper did not discuss whether the IWRM methodology is an infallible system for the production, management, and usage of water resources alone. What remains relevant is a critical evaluation of the key variables that affect the application of any preferred solution to fit the local context.

Increasing knowledge and implementation of IWRM led to significant shifts toward a more “integrated” strategy for water management in numerous attempts to model water resources in favour of IWRM. In addition, the adequacy of water and demand was to some extent integrated into hydrological modelling and demand forecasts. The latest examples include forecasts of water demand in the sense of socio-economic and climate change scenarios with Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) [28], as well as the allocation of climate change and human (water withdrawal) impacts on changes in flow [29]. Sensors, gauge meters, flow meters, ultrasonic sensors, and motors were used in the development of an Internet of Things-enabled water resource management and misdistribution monitoring system (IWRM-DMS) intended for rural cities [30]. Integrating water quantity and quality had also strengthened the validity of the assessment of water supply for decision help because, while it may be usable, contaminated water is not ideal for any and all applications. Buitrago et al., [31] had incorporated a water management model of water balance, hydrological and hydrodynamic simulations into a web-based organizational decision-making platform and IWRM. Liu et al., [32] measured water shortage in a holistic way by combining water quantity and quality, while explicitly considering environmental flow criteria.

Moreover, SWOT-AHP had been incorporated for water management. Nhamo et al. [33] developed composite indices to create numerical relationships in Southern Africa between water, energy, and agriculture (agriculture is a food proxy). Xue et al. used Bayesan Networks and an AHP model to highlight trade-offs, optimizations, and suggestions regarding water management approaches and the potential advantages of water-related ecosystems [34]. Tahseen & Karney [35] used the AHP and ANP within the SWOT framework to integrate the various and disconnected aspects of water, electricity, tourism, and policy to help expand Niagara’s resource infrastructure. To design and manage a water supply system in rural communities, a SWOT analysis was used by Bellanthudawa et al., to evaluate the applicability of the social and environmental determinants currently in place [36]. While keeping in view internal and external conditions that impact sustainability, SWOT analysis may also be used in social and environmental decision-making techniques for managing sustainable rural water systems.

In spite of the fact that IWRM seemed to have a thorough idea and set of principles, as well as a growing body of research on the topic worldwide, it is still a contentious topic [37,38,39]. The major debate focuses on its challenges in implementation [17]. One of the major issue with the current IWRM framework is the question of “how to integrate,” as specified by Saravanan et al. [40]—identifying what to integrate, how, and who can be challenging [17,18]. The lack of transparency for decision-makers meant it was difficult to incorporate and transpose the IWRM principle into an organizational method to direct water supply management [26]. Its implementation was unclear, and this lack of specificity may be a major contributing factor. Additional barriers to putting IWRM into practice had been noted by other authors: (a) lack of personnel in the water resource institutes [41], (b) insufficient budgetary framework [41], (c) insufficient political resolve [37,41] and (d) institutional barriers [26]. Despite these difficulties, the adoption of the IWRM is essential for achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Therefore, the idea needed to be explored more profoundly in order to recognize and define its imperatives and at the same time suggest ways to address them. Provided the broad range of the IWRM and the varying socio-economic conditions, it should be less normative and adaptive to use the supporting conditions while avoiding hurdles to performance.

Due to unequal spatial and temporal distribution, the Philippines’ enormous water resources have caused significant water challenges in many cities. These water issues included drought, urban flooding, water shortage, water pollution, and inaccessibility of safe drinking water. Thus, in addition to the adverse consequences of climate change, these water problems also posed a threat to human health [42,43,44]. In addition, one of the uncertainties that come along with climate change was the possibility of a shift in the allocation of water resources [45]. IWRM was promoted as a basis for achieving sustainable development by the Philippine government in 2006 when it first started the process of reforming the water policy and regulatory framework. However, implementation of this national and subnational structure is still in process.

This work started with an analysis of the current IWRM ratings of selected areas in Palawan. The goal was to figure out which plans were most important and which management options were best for the current situation. The IWRM ratings in the study areas were obtained from a survey conducted by Cacal et al. [46]. The starting point was the experience and understanding of the different actors in relation to existing consumer and ecosystem issues.

Multi-criteria analysis (MCA), a tool for decision making, was employed throughout the analysis phase: it consisted of steps and processes to progressively conception of the problem with various goals and parameters and a variety of strategies to evoke, to introspect and to aggregate biases in decision making [47]. Among the several MCA techniques in use presently (including AHP, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, and ELECTRE), this study selected the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [48]. It was shown that AHP is an appropriate strategy for expressing the judgments of decision-makers in decision-making procedures that were rather complicated [49,50]. In AHP, responses were compiled into “comparison matrices”, where viewpoints were ranked and component priorities were determined. The selected respondents in this sample were water management administrators and municipal officials surveyed at working sessions.

The objective of this study was to identify and prioritize the key factors affecting the implementation of the IWRM system in the Philippines to support its implementation’s strategic planning. Case studies were conducted in selected areas in Palawan. Specifically, this study aimed to identify the elements that might improve the result of adopting IWRM, which was as important as designing policies, institutional arrangements, and instruments for applying the method. Thus, it was deemed essential to know the factors that can affect the performance of IWRM as the design of strategy, institutional structures, and resources to enforce the approach. The benefits and drawbacks of the IWRM idea were not addressed in this paper. Thus, for scientific purposes, the GWP description of IWRM was adopted to guide research (

Table 1. IWRM alter areas of importance [51].

Pillar Element	Important Area of Change
Enabling environment	Policies—setting goals for using, protecting, and conserving water Legislative framework—guidelines for accomplishing set goals and policies Financial and incentive frameworks—allocation of funds to address water demands
Institutional roles	Establishing an organizational structure—forms and purpose Building institutional capability—enhancing human resources
Management instruments	Water resource assessment—understanding assets and requirements Plans for IWRM—integrating development alternatives, resource use, and human engagement Demand management—maximizing water efficiency Social change instruments—promoting a water-focused civic society Conflict resolution—resolving issues and securing water sharing Regulatory instruments—quotas and water use restrictions Economic instruments—using worth and prices for effectiveness and fairness Information management and exchange—enhancing understanding for improved water management

). The four study sites were selected in terms of water quality and accessibility. This study was focused in Palawan with the following sites: Puerto Princesa City, El Nido, Roxas, and Taytay.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Sites

Four sites were chosen for this investigation as shown in Figure 1. First is Puerto Princesa City, a first class highly urbanized city in the Mindoro, Marinduque, Romblon, Palawan (MIMAROPA) region of the Philippines. It is the westernmost city in the Philippines, situated in the province of Palawan in the Western Philippines. The second is Roxas, a first-class municipality located on the island’s eastern coast, facing Sulu Sea. The third is the municipality of Taytay, a first-class municipality located in the northern part of Palawan. Fourth is El Nido, a first-class municipality and protected area located in the northernmost part of Palawan mainland, Western Philippines. It is about 420 kilometres south-west of Manila [52] and roughly 238 kilometres North-East of Puerto Princesa [53]. The site description was summarized in Table S1.

2.2. The SWOT-AHP Method

The SWOT-AHP approach combined the SWOT analysis with the AHP which was first introduced by Kurtilla, et al. [54]. The SWOT criteria were given equivalent weights in this strategy, which used the AHP to prioritize them. This kind of analysis was used to circumvent the incompatibility between the components mentioned by employing a system of comparisons based on pairwise relationships.

The following steps were used to implement the technique:

• Put on the most internal (strengths and weaknesses) and external (opportunities and threats) factors for the strategic planning, to make up the SWOT analysis.
• Utilize the AHP approach to establish the relative importance of each SWOT group.
• Use the AHP technique to derive comparative weights of each factor within the SWOT groups.

The first step was carried out using formal group discussion; the second and third employed questionnaire-based structured interviews and applied to professionals and users in the research regions that specialized in water resources management. The approach used in this research had been utilized in the past for strategic planning purposes [38,54,55,56]. AHP was used for its flexibility and accessibility of axiomatic concepts and strategies for collective desires and goals.

In Section 2.4 the procedures for SWOT analysis and AHP were outlined to establish priority rankings for the many elements impacting the result of IWRM implementation in the study regions.

Analytical Needs and Data Collection

The information required for analysis was collected from a variety of primary and secondary resources, including (a) focused group discussion and (b) specialists and professionals in water resource management were surveyed using a questionnaire (see Questionnaire S1). Researchers from various academic institutions and professionals with extensive experience in the water industry made up the members of the external expert’s panel. At the discussion, there were five seasoned professionals. Their combined efforts resulted in the production of a SWOT matrix that included the five most significant aspects that had been recognized as being relevant to the use of IWRM in the research regions. In addition, the material that was collected from this session was supplemented with secondary information about the use of IWRM. The participants in the experts group confirmed the matrix that had been produced after collating and analysing all data.

In order to assign relative importance to the various SWOT groups and variables, a questionnaire was devised with the help of the aspects of IWRM that were found to be relevant to water resource management. This questionnaire was then distributed to professionals in the field. The water resources management experts and practitioners were chosen based on the breadth and depth of their understanding of the water sector and the water resources management field, as well as their years of relevant professional experience and individual standing in the water management field. The format of the questionnaire was designed to adhere to the established approach for AHP pairwise comparisons. The questionnaire contained two support tools intended to make decisions easier based on the factors that were evaluated: (a) a scale for AHP pairwise comparisons (based on the level to which a factor is important and its definition) and (b) a concise description of the significance pertaining to each individual SWOT component. There was a total of 32 responses to the questionnaires that were considered to be credible. Table S2 outlines the primary features of the respondents, which demonstrates that they are typical of experts working in the water industry. This data were used as input to the AHP model, which then assigned relative importance ratings to each of the SWOT sub-categories and aspects that were taken into consideration in the investigation.

2.3. The Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Analysis

This research employed SWOT analysis, a visual method that identified strengths and weaknesses in personal and professional life situations [57,58]. It was a simple approach that was used in any setting to identify both positive and negative variables [57]. This paradigm helped decision-makers design strategies that balance internal and external considerations [54]. In addition to the realm of business, the management of water resources was one of the many domains in which there were applications of the SWOT analysis [59]. The process of strategic planning benefitted significantly from using this method as an essential tool; however, it did not provide information on the relevance of the discovered parameters.

Lack of knowledge in terms of proportional importance of SWOT variables made this analysis subjective and hinder strategic plan formulation. To determine the relative weight of the components highlighted in the SWOT analysis, Kurtilla et. al. proposed the use of AHP [54].

2.4. The Analytical Hierarchy Process

The AHP was a valuable technique for coping with situations involving difficult decision-making [60]. This technique aided the decision maker in organizing their priorities and selecting the most appropriate option. By breaking down complex judgments into a series of pairwise comparisons and then synthesizing the findings, the AHP was able to more effectively account for both the subjective and objective components of a decision. The hierarchical structure in this case study is taken from the SWOT matrix. It consisted of three levels: (a) the decision’s intended outcome (the strategic implementation of IWRM), (b) the SWOT groups (criteria), and (c) factors mentioned in each SWOT category (sub-criteria). Figure 2 depicts the hierarchical form of the SWOT matrix.

After establishing the hierarchical structure, pairwise comparisons were used to establish each criterion’s relative importance. The Saatys scale was used to carry out the pairwise comparison [60] (see Table S3). After all pairwise comparisons, Eigen value and Equation (1) were used to calculate factor priority and consistency ratios [61].

A pairwise comparison of matrix (A):

$$\mathit{A}=\left({\mathsf{\alpha }}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{j}}\right)\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\mathbf{1}& {\mathit{w}}_{\mathbf{1}}/{\mathit{w}}_{\mathbf{2}}& \mathbf{\dots }& {\mathit{w}}_{\mathbf{1}}/{\mathit{w}}_{\mathbf{n}}\\ {\mathit{w}}_{\mathbf{2}}/{\mathit{w}}_{\mathbf{1}}& \mathbf{1}& \mathbf{\dots }& {\mathit{w}}_{\mathbf{2}}/{\mathit{w}}_{\mathit{n}}\\ \mathbf{⋮}& \mathbf{⋮}& \mathbf{\dots }& \mathbf{⋮}\\ {\mathit{w}}_{\mathit{n}}/{\mathit{w}}_{\mathbf{1}}& {\mathit{w}}_{\mathit{n}}/{\mathit{w}}_{\mathbf{2}}& \mathbf{\dots }& \mathbf{1}\end{array}\right]$$

(1)

Using pairwise comparisons, data were expressed as a reciprocal matrix of (w), where the allocated relative weight was entered as an entry ${\mathsf{\alpha }}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{j}}$ in the matrix and the entry 1/${\mathit{\alpha }}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{j}}$ reciprocal was applied to the side of the primary diagonal opposite it. In the matrix, when i = j, ${\mathsf{\alpha }}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{j}}$ = 1.

The maximum eigen value $({\mathsf{\lambda }}_{\mathbf{max}})$ can be obtained using the following expression:

$$({\mathsf{\lambda }}_{\mathbf{max}})={\sum }_{\mathit{i}}{\sum }_{\mathit{j}}{\mathsf{\alpha }}_{\mathit{i}\mathit{j}}{\mathit{w}}_{\mathit{i}}$$

(2)

Using the following formula, the consistency Index (CI) was determined to verify the consistency of the comparison matrix:

$$\mathit{C}\mathit{I}=\frac{({\mathsf{\lambda }}_{max}-\mathit{n})}{\left(\mathit{n}-\mathbf{1}\right)}$$

(3)

where n denoted the matrix size.

The judgement about consistency was verified by using the Consistency Ratio (CR) of the CI:

$$\mathit{C}\mathit{R}=\left(\frac{\mathit{C}\mathit{I}}{\mathit{R}\mathit{I}}\right)·\mathbf{100}$$

(4)

where RI was a random index established for a randomly generated n x n matrix [62] (see Table S4.) If the CR was smaller or equal to 10%, the results in these analyses were acceptable.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. SWOT Evaluation of the Water Industry in the Research Areas

SWOT evaluation found 19, 18, 18, and 17 pertinent elements for IWRM strategic planning in Puerto Princesa, Roxas, Taytay, and El Nido, respectively (

Table 2. SWOT Matrices of IWRM in the study sites.

(a) SWOT matrix of the IWRM in Puerto Princesa
Strengths	Weaknesses
S1. Updated local water management plans and policies	W1. Weak implementation of national laws and policies
S2. Enhanced and well-coordinated institutional relationship for IWRM implementation	W2. Slow improvement on capability building and development
S3. Separation of water resources management and water service provision in implementing IWRM	W3. Lack of aquifer and groundwater resources management plans and institutions
S4. Implementation of sustainable and efficient water consumption	W4. Water resource management without civil society participation
S5. Availability of data and efficient information sharing
S6. Sufficient financial capacity for investment in water resources allocation from the national level
Opportunities	Threats
O1. Presence of huge watershed areas and large number of river basins	T1. Increasing population pressure and industrialization
O2. Adoption and implementation of national climate change plan	T2. Increasing negative impacts of climate change
O3. Well-defined sector specific policies and overall sector strategic plan for environment and natural resources management, water supply and sanitation	T3. Absence of integrated water policy master plan
O4. Proposed Philippine water supply and sanitation master plan	T4. Limited availability of alternative water resources aside from surface water
O5. Growing partnership between governmental agencies, NGO’s and developmental partners
(b) SWOT matrix of the IWRM in Roxas
Strengths	Weaknesses
S1. Progressive implementation of national laws and policies	W1. Weak basin management plans and absence of basin institutions
S2. Formulation of adaptive plans for protection and conservation of water resources	W2. Inept transboundary arrangements
S3. Increasing intersectoral linkages	W3. Limited stakeholder participation
S4. Stable pollution control management instruments	W4. Low management plans for sustainable and efficient water use
S5. National investment budget sufficiency
Opportunities	Threats
O1. Existence of sustainable development plan (2016–2020)	T1. Numerous water service providers but limited water resource availability
O2. Existence of water infrastructure agency	T2. Increasing water resources stress-inductors
O3. Presence of water resources related studies	T3. Salinity of provided water
O4. Watershed profiling and plan (Umalad watershed)	T4. Gold panning and its negative effect on water resources
O5. Increasing women empowerment and gender development
(c) SWOT matrix of the IWRM in Taytay
Strengths	Weaknesses
S1. Strong implementation of national laws and policies	W1. Deficient basin/aquifer management institutions, plans and instruments
S2. Effective national implementation of gender objectives	W2. Low public and private participation
S3. Monitoring of water availability	W3. Slow progress of capacity development
S4. Formulated sustainable and efficient water usage	W4. Low recurrent cost allocation
Opportunities	Threats
O1. Existence of provincial and municipal joint agreement	T1. Undesirable river quality assessment result
O2. Existence of I-support water infrastructure office	T2. Limited institutional manpower resources capacity
O3. Devising effective land and water use plan	T3. Degrading effects of anthropogenic threats
O4. Municipal watersheds’ inclusion to provincial priority	T4. Extreme climate change exposure
O5. Establishment of river and rainfall monitoring station	T5. Uncontrolled speed of land conversion and reduction of forest cover
(d) SWOT matrix of the IWRM in El Nido
Strengths	Weaknesses
S1. Presence of framework for national IWRM plans	W1. Low enforcement of legislated water related national policies and laws
S2. Implementation of IWRM related subnational policies	W2. Absence of data and information system
S3. Presence of basin/aquifer management plans	W3. Insufficient national inter-sector coordination
S4. High ecosystem management and sustainability plans	W4. Low control on pollution and sustainable and efficient water use
S5. Recognition and preparedness on natural disaster	W5. Absence of national monitoring for feasible water source
Opportunities	Threats
O1. Existing major river systems	T1. Pressure from increasing population and expansion of tourism
O2. Growing international partnerships	T2. Water pollution
O3. Existence of Protected Area Management Board (PAMB) to limit environmental effects of tourism	T3. Low budget allocations; national and subnational levels
	T4. Absence of water providing agency

a–d). These components, which came together to produce both the internal and the external setting, were classified into four types: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

3.2. Weighing the SWOT

The consolidated Saaty matrices were generated using the 32 questionnaires presented in (

Table 3. (a) Puerto Princesa City matrices and consistency ratios for SWOT groups and factors. (b) Roxas matrices and consistency ratios for SWOT groups and factors. (c) Taytay matrices and consistency ratios for SWOT groups and factors. (d) El Nido matrices and consistency ratios for SWOT groups and factors.

(a)
Matrix for SWOT groups
		S			W		O			T
S		1.000			5.000		7.012			0.534
W		0.212			1.000		3.110			0.192
O		0.143			0.333		1.000			0.143
T		2.000			5.003		6.875			1.000
λmax = 4.1600879		RI = 0.9
CI = 0.05336263		CR = 5.93%
Matrices for SWOT factors
Strengths							Weaknesses
	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6		W1	W2	W3	W4
S1	1.000	0.204	0.300	1.899	0.313	3.002	W1	1.000	0.311	2.453	2.431
S2	0.250	1.000	0.322	0.250	2.865	0.211	W2	2.116	1.000	0.350	0.202
S3	4.550	3.000	1.000	0.203	0.200	0.215	W3	0.250	0.187	1.000	2.101
S4	2.776	0.250	0.302	1.000	0.211	0.251	W4	0.180	2.157	0.174	1.000
S5	0.255	0.377	0.267	0.252	1.000	4.340
S6	0.268	0.322	0.210	0.401	4.760	1.000
λmax = 6.24879896		RI = 1.24					λmax = 4.13303646		RI = 0.9
CI = 0.04975979		CR = 4.01%					CI = 0.04434549		CR = 4.93%
Opportunities							Threats
	O1	O2	O3	O4	O5			T1	T2	T3	T4
O1	1.000	0.288	0.333	2.111	2.117		T1	1.000	3.112	0.680	0.178
O2	0.250	1.000	0.330	0.189	0.456		T2	0.291	1.000	0.333	1.882
O3	2.011	0.333	1.000	3.105	4.013		T3	0.167	0.330	1.000	2.012
O4	0.143	4.553	0.205	1.000	0.250		T4	2.950	0.250	0.255	1.000
O5	0.182	0.143	0.250	3.854	1.000
λmax = 5.19912842		RI = 1.120					λmax = 4.14934674		RI = 0.9
CI = 0.0497821		CR = 4.44%					CI = 0.04978225		CR = 5.53%
(b)
Matrix for SWOT groups
		S			W			O			T
S		1.000			2.011			0.333			1.670
W		0.167			1.000			1.887			0.333
O		2.200			0.476			1.000			2.642
T		0.211			1.244			0.252			1.000
λmax = 4.10690529		RI = 0.900
CI = 0.0356351		CR = 3.96%
Matrices for SWOT factors
Strengths							Weaknesses
	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5			W1	W2	W3	W4
S1	1.000	3.002	2.100	0.207	0.408		W1	1.000	1.988	0.333	0.321
S2	2.770	1.000	0.630	0.333	2.201		W2	0.248	1.000	3.675	0.203
S3	1.452	0.188	1.000	0.580	2.018		W3	3.011	0.242	1.000	0.345
S4	0.503	1.162	0.243	1.000	0.330		W4	2.010	0.272	0.224	1.000
S5	1.780	0.179	0.488	0.333	1.000
λmax = 5.32644685		RI = 1.120					λmax = 4.16863833		RI = 0.9
CI = 0.08161171		CR = 7.29%					CI = 0.05621278		CR = 6.25%
Opportunities							Threats
	O1	O2	O3	O4	O5			T1	T2	T3	T4
O1	1.000	0.251	0.333	0.305	4.781		T1	1.000	0.051	0.713	0.211
O2	0.224	1.000	3.000	0.204	0.550		T2	2.014	0.267	0.083	0.270
O3	0.208	0.333	1.000	2.962	3.562		T3	0.167	0.100	0.248	2.113
O4	2.876	0.785	0.333	1.000	0.250		T4	2.214	0.054	0.483	1.000
O5	0.184	0.143	0.252	1.784	1.000
λmax = 5.27276833		RI = 1.120					λmax = 4.15434908		RI = 0.9
CI = 0.06819208		CR = 6.09%					CI = 0.05144969		CR = 5.72%
(c)
Matrix for SWOT groups
		S			W		O			T
S		1.000			0.431		0.333			1.978
W		0.254			1.000		2.011			0.333
O		0.371			0.478		1.000			3.880
T		2.017			0.680		0.112			1.000
λmax = 4.1759425		RI = 0.900
CI = 0.0586475		CR = 6.52%
Matrices for SWOT factors
Strengths						Weaknesses
	S1	S2	S3	S4			W1	W2	W3	W4
S1	1.000	2.110	0.110	1.457		W1	1.000	1.406	0.202	0.311
S2	0.252	1.000	2.001	0.333		W2	0.205	1.000	2.113	0.200
S3	0.333	0.205	1.000	2.115		W3	3.118	0.258	1.000	1.650
S4	3.121	0.244	0.251	1.000		W4	1.490	2.530	0.333	1.000
λmax = 4.17783206		RI = 0.900				λmax = 4.21194015		RI = 0.900
CI = 0.05927735		CR = 6.59%				CI = 0.07064672		CR = 7.85%
Opportunities						Threats
	O1	O2	O3	O4	O5		T1	T2	T3	T4	T5
O1	1.000	0.500	0.891	0.143	3.670	T1	1.000	0.205	2.210	0.251	2.870
O2	0.244	1.000	2.110	0.213	2.002	T2	0.564	1.000	0.333	2.003	0.451
O3	3.410	0.333	1.000	1.170	2.560	T3	0.167	2.631	1.000	2.710	0.202
O4	6.875	4.876	0.333	1.000	0.253	T4	0.151	0.207	0.225	1.000	0.114
O5	0.210	0.201	0.250	0.117	1.000	T5	0.333	0.333	2.010	0.227	1.000
λmax = 5.29062588		RI = 1.120				λmax = 4.15384544		RI = 1.120
CI = 0.07265647		CR = 6.49%				CI = 0.05128181		CR = 4.58%
(d)
Matrix for SWOT groups
		S			W		O			T
S		1.000			2.880		0.289			1.923
W		2.000			1.000		0.333			0.385
O		0.321			2.116		1.000			0.257
T		0.250			1.786		0.280			1.000
λmax = 4.1792218		RI = 0.900
CI = 0.0597406		CR = 6.64%
Matrices for SWOT factors
Strengths						Weaknesses
	S1	S2	S3	S4	S5		W1	W2	W3	W4	W5
S1	1.000	2.000	0.190	0.197	2.103	W1	1.000	2.000	0.177	0.260	2.511
S2	0.193	1.000	0.243	0.207	6.552	W2	0.250	1.000	2.117	0.243	0.321
S3	2.114	0.457	1.000	2.881	2.000	W3	2.116	0.178	1.000	4.764	0.223
S4	0.452	0.240	0.333	1.000	0.333	W4	0.298	0.250	0.216	1.000	0.200
S5	2.011	0.126	0.280	1.675	1.000	W5	0.288	0.333	3.467	5.011	1.000
λmax = 5.25055402		RI = 1.120				λmax = 5.28188996		RI = 1.120
CI = 0.06263851		CR = 5.59%				CI = 0.07047249		CR = 6.29%
Opportunities						Threats
	O1	O2	O3				T1	T2	T3	T4
O1	1.000	1.172	2.451			T1	1.000	0.432	0.673	0.200
O2	2.887	1.000	0.303			T2	0.251	1.000	0.333	4.011
O3	0.119	0.203	1.000			T3	2.014	0.824	1.000	0.743
						T4	4.887	0.252	0.488	1.000
λmax = 3.057811		RI = 0.58				λmax = 4.15984323		RI = 0.9
CI = 0.0289055		CR = 4.98%				CI = 0.05328108		CR = 5.92%

a–d). It was important to point out that the Saaty matrices produced showed a high level of consistency, with the coefficient of variation (CR) for each matrix being less than 10%. This lent credence to the validity as well as the robustness of the findings that were attained. The results showed that the following ranking groups had a higher priority for Puerto Princesa: threats (group weight 48.8%), strengths (35.4%), weaknesses (10.7%), and opportunities (5.1%). The ranking groups for Roxas were the following: opportunities (36.8%), strengths (27.4%), weaknesses (21.5%), and threats (14.3%). Taytay had the following ranking groups: opportunities (27.9%), weaknesses (27.1%), threats (24.7%), and strengths (20.3%). While El Nido had the following ranking groups: strengths (33.5%), weaknesses (24.3%), opportunities (24%), and threats (18.2%).

Comparing the results for Puerto Princesa in each SWOT category (

Table 4. General priority of the elements and SWOT factor and groupings of the study sites.

(a) The general priority of the elements, as well as the SWOT factors and groupings for Puerto Princesa.
SWOT Group	Group Priority	SWOT Factors	Priority of the Factors within the Group	Overall Priority of the Factor
Strengths	0.354	S1. Updated local water management plans and policies	0.186	0.066
		S2. Enhanced and well-coordinated institutional relationship for IWRM implementation	0.125	0.044
		S3. Separation of water resources management and water service provision in implementing IWRM	0.266	0.094
		S4. Implementation of sustainable and efficient water consumption	0.130	0.046
		S5. Availability of data and efficient information sharing	0.144	0.051
		S6. Sufficient financial capacity for investment in water resources allocation from the national level	0.150	0.053
Weaknesses	0.107	W1. Weak implementation of national laws and policies	0.352	0.038
		W2. Slow improvement on capability building and development	0.248	0.027
		W3. Lack of aquifer and groundwater resources management plans and institutions	0.185	0.020
		W4. Water resource management without civil society participation	0.215	0.023
Opportunities	0.051	O1. Presence of huge watersheds areas and large number of river basins	0.192	0.010
		O2. Adoption and implementation of national climate change plan	0.092	0.005
		O3. Well-defined sector specific policies and overall sector strategic plan for environment and natural resources management, water supply and sanitation	0.380	0.019
		O4. Proposed Philippine water supply and sanitation master plan	0.197	0.010
		O5. Growing partnership between governmental agencies, NGO’s and developmental partners	0.139	0.007
Threats	0.489	T1. Increasing population pressure and industrialization	0.306	0.150
		T2. Increasing negative impacts of climate change	0.199	0.097
		T3. Absence of integrated water policy master plan	0.236	0.116
		T4. Limited availability of alternative water resources aside from surface water	0.258	0.126
(b) The general priority of the elements, as well as the SWOT factors and groupings for Roxas
SWOT Group	Group Priority	SWOT Factors	Priority of the Factors within the Group	Overall Priority of the Factor
Strengths	0.274	S1. Progressive implementation of national laws and policies	0.260	0.071
		S2. Formulation of adaptive plans for protection and conservation of water resources	0.239	0.066
		S3. Increasing intersectoral linkages	0.205	0.056
		S4. Stable pollution control management instruments	0.159	0.044
		S5. National investment budget sufficiency	0.137	0.037
Weaknesses	0.215	W1. Weak basin management plans and absence of basin institutions	0.241	0.052
		W2. Inept transboundary arrangements	0.284	0.061
		W3. Limited stakeholder participation	0.231	0.050
		W4. Low management plans for sustainable and efficient water use	0.244	0.052
Opportunities	0.368	O1. Existence of sustainable development plan (2016–2020)	0.182	0.067
		O2. Existence of water infrastructure agency	0.229	0.084
		O3. Presence of water resources related studies	0.241	0.089
		O4. Watershed profiling and plan (Umalad watershed)	0.241	0.089
		O5. Increasing women empowerment and gender development	0.107	0.039
Threats	0.143	T1. Numerous water service providers but limited water resource availability	0.205	0.029
		T2. Increasing water resources stress-inductors	0.267	0.038
		T3. Salinity of provided water	0.248	0.035
		T4. Gold panning and its negative effect on water resources	0.280	0.040
(c) The general priority of the elements, as well as the SWOT factors and groupings for Taytay
SWOT Group	Group Priority	SWOT Factors	Priority of the Factors within the Group	Overall Priority of the Factor
Strengths	0.203	S1. Strong implementation of national laws and policies	0.284	0.058
		S2. Effective national implementation of gender objectives	0.249	0.051
		S3. Monitoring of water availability	0.214	0.044
		S4. Formulated sustainable and efficient water usage	0.253	0.051
Weaknesses	0.271	W1. Deficient basin/aquifer management institutions, plans and instruments	0.149	0.040
		W2. Low public and private participation	0.218	0.059
		W3. Slow progressing of capacity development	0.346	0.094
		W4. Low recurrent cost allocation	0.288	0.078
Opportunities	0.279	O1. Existence of provincial and municipal joint agreement	0.159	0.044
		O2. Existence of I-support water infrastructure office	0.183	0.051
		O3. Devising effective land and water use plan	0.254	0.071
		O4. Municipal watersheds’ inclusion to provincial priority	0.354	0.099
		O5. Establishment of river and rainfall monitoring station	0.050	0.014
Threats	0.247	T1. Undesirable river quality assessment result	0.308	0.076
		T2. Limited institutional manpower resources capacity	0.192	0.048
		T3. Degrading effects of anthropogenic threats	0.266	0.066
		T4. Extreme climate change exposure	0.068
		T5. Uncontrolled speed of land conversion and reduction of forest cover	0.165	0.041
(d) The general priority of the elements, as well as the SWOT factors and groupings for El Nido
SWOT Group	Group Priority	SWOT Factors	Priority of the Factors within the Group	Overall Priority of the Factor
Strengths	0.335	S1. Presence of framework for national IWRM plans	0.200	0.067
		S2. Implementation of IWRM related subnational policies	0.199	0.067
		S3. Presence of basin/aquifer management plans	0.325	0.109
		S4. High ecosystem management and sustainability plans	0.100	0.034
		S5. Recognition and preparedness on natural disaster	0.177	0.059
Weaknesses	0.243	W1. Low enforcement of legislated water related national policies and laws	0.208	0.051
		W2. Absence of data and information system	0.164	0.040
		W3. Insufficient national inter-sector coordination	0.287	0.070
		W4. Low control on pollution and sustainable and efficient water use	0.065	0.016
		W5. Absence of national monitoring for feasible water source	0.276	0.067
Opportunities	0.240	O1. Existing major river systems	0.465	0.112
		O2. Growing international partnerships	0.407	0.098
		O3. Existence of PAMB to limit environmental effects of tourism	0.127	0.031
Threats	0.182	T1. Pressure from increasing population and expansion of tourism	0.150	0.027
		T2. Water pollution	0.309	0.056
		T3. Low budget allocations; national and subnational levels	0.275	0.050
		T4. Absence of water providing agency	0.266	0.048

(a)), the results showed that not all of the detected factors had weights that were greater than the predicted average variable priority (i.e., above 5.26% (1/19 * 100%)). The factor weights in the strength category were ranked as follows according to priority: separation of water resources management and water service provision in implementing IWRM (factor S3, 9.4%), updated local water policy and water management strategies (factor S1, 6.6%), sufficient financial capacity for investment in water resources allocation from the national level (factor S6, 5.3%). None of the factors in weaknesses and opportunities had weights above average priority. From the point of view of threats, the experts perceived that the increasing negative impacts of climate change (factor T2, 9.7%) should be addressed as a major aspect in the effective deployment of IWRM.

Results for the municipality of Roxas in each SWOT group (Table 4(b)), revealed that none of the threat factors had weights above average priority (5.55% (1/18 * 100%)). The factor weights for the strength categories were arranged according to importance as follows: progressive implementation of national laws and policies (factor S1, 7.1%), formulation of adaptive plans for protection and conservation of water resources (factor S2, 6.6%), and increasing intersectoral linkages (factor S3, 5.6%). The specialists believed that the inept transboundary arrangements (factor W2, 6.1%) need to be addressed for better IWRM implementation. Concerning the opportunities group, water resource-related studies (factor O3) and watershed profiling and plan for Umalad watershed (factor O4) obtained equivalent weights at 8.9%. Another key factor was the existence of a water infrastructure agency (factor O2, 8.4%) and the existence of a sustainable development plan (2016–2020) (factor O1, 6.7%).

Table 4(c) depicts the results for the municipality of Taytay in each SWOT group. The outcomes achieved that not all the factors identified had weights greater than the predicted average variable priority (i.e., above 5.55% (1/18 * 100%)). The factor weights for the opportunity group were the following: municipal watersheds’ inclusion to provincial priority (factor O4, 9.9%) and devising effective land and water use plan (factor O3, 7.1%). Concerning the category of weaknesses, the three factors awere slow progress of capacity development (factor W3, 9.4%), with the highest priority, low recurrent cost allocation (factor W4, 7.8%), and low public and private participation (factor W2, 5.9%). The analysts believed that the threats group perceived that undesirable river quality assessment result (factor T1, 7.6%) and degrading effects of anthropogenic threats (factor T3, 6.6%) should be addressed as key factors for strategic implementation of IWRM. It was also important to consider that just one strength among the category of acquired strengths with weight over average, and that was the strong implementation of national laws and policies (factor S1, 5.8%).

The results for the municipality of El Nido in each SWOT group shown in Table 4(d). Similar to other study sites, the results obtained from other study sites indicated that not all the factors identified had weights that were more than the predicted average variable priority (i.e., above 5.88% (1/17 * 100%)). In the strength group, the presence of framework for national IWRM plans (factor S1) and implementation of IWRM-related subnational policies (factor S2) obtained equivalent weights at 6.7%. In the view of the weaknesses group, the two key factors were insufficient national inter-sector coordination (factor W3, 7.0%) and the absence of national monitoring for a feasible water source (factor W5, 6.7%). Only one of the factors in the opportunities group gained a weight greater than normal importance: growing international partnerships (factor O2, 9.8%).

3.3. Discussion

The findings of this research demonstrate the potential value of the SWOT-AHP approach in analyzing the strategic implementation of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM). It discusses how to prioritize each specific factor that impacts how IWRM is carried out to make the best use of the resources needed to implement a strategic plan. The elements that are given more weight in this technique are viewed as favored targets for the development or planning of the IWRM strategy for implementation because they have a greater likelihood of having significant influence on bringing about change. This is due to the fact that these have a greater likelihood of influencing the IWRM.

However, when employing the AHP method to examine the SWOT group weights, it is vital to note the significant variability as assessed for each group by a group of professionals in the research locations. This is something that should be brought out when discussing the results. Even so, the results of the SWOT-AHP predict that an effective strategic plan will be needed to deploy IWRM in the study areas. This should be established to capitalize on a list of recognized opportunities, to get rid of the weaknesses, to lessen the impact of the threats, and to build upon the strengths in that specific order.

In determining which intervention features to emphasize, all are considered vital yet have different impacts. Low-priority elements do help solidify change, but their influence is limited if the key issues are not addressed first. In many changes, stakeholders want to see benefits immediately. Improvements will happen more quickly if the implementation plan prioritizes the highest-ranking variables and SWOT groups.

Our findings support Merrey’s conclusions [27] that non-normative approaches are necessary for IWRM implementation and that, to implement IWRM successfully, one should concentrate on the key elements affecting it rather than acting on a variety of aspects at once. In fact, our findings show that a realistic strategy for implementing IWRM should be predicated on identifying specific acts with greater potential impact. The results of this study offer an excellent opportunity for the province of Palawan to make the best use of its scarce resources, given its limited human capability and resource availability.

For instance, the results demonstrate that: (factor W1, weak basin management plans and absence of basin institutions), which is one of the key concepts embodied in IWRM and one of the institutional challenges of integration and coordination across the water sectors, is not identified as a key factor for IWRM effectiveness. The respondents may consider this as a sign of institutional weakness since they do not yet completely understand how actions taken by freshly constituted institutions would affect the ground. Decentralization and deconcentration have just recently started in Palawan, but IWRM still needs the involvement of several entities to be successful. People may not understand the necessity for integration at this moment, but institutions still need time to develop and demonstrate their ability to contribute. However, before tackling the issue of how to accomplish a “complete” integration, there are still significant issues and hurdles in the study sites’ present water sector (i.e., absence of national monitoring for feasible water sources—based on the factors’ prioritization). However, the specific weight and priority of planning strategy components is likely to vary throughout time.

Finally, the primary issues that had been raised as a result of this study were as follows: (1) how strong was political will (identifying the most significant considerations) capable of addressing the challenges and IWRM deployment difficulties posed by inherent flaws and dangers? (2) How can those in charge of making decisions used the political will to overcome the institutional obstacles that stood in the way of the IWRM being put into place? Implementing IWRM required overcoming this latter issue [26].

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

In conclusion, the framework that emerged from this study might be seen as a guide for advancing the strategic implementation of IWRM in the research sites, though simultaneously contributing more valuable insights for policymakers involved in the planning development. In fact, as shown in the research, including the involvement and taking into account the advice of professionals enables the development of a strategy that is more consensus as opposed to one built on subjectivity and impromptu opinions.

An extensive examination of the findings led to the conclusion that the strategic implementation of IWRM in the study sites should be primarily determined by the opportunity factors that may aid in addressing the critical weaknesses (inept transboundary arrangements; low public and private participation; slow progressing of capacity development; low recurrent cost allocation; insufficient national intersectoral coordination; and absence of national monitoring for feasible water resource) and threats (increasing negative impacts of climate change; and degrading effects of anthropogenic threats) identified, along with leveraging the advantages and strengths (updated local water management plans and policies; separation of water resource management and water provision in implementing IWRM; progressive implementation of national laws and policies; formulation of adaptive plans for protection and consultation of water resources; presence of framework for national IWRM plans; and recognition and preparedness on natural disaster). These agreements state that decision-makers must carry out various actions to provide a favorable external setting that will enable opportunities to be investigated and utilized to mitigate the primary weaknesses and threats identified in the study. In these situations, careful preparation would be necessary to arrive at a workable solution that takes into account the factors that should come first. For instance, this could be accomplished by utilizing current regional academic frameworks that provide professional knowledge in IWRM to enhance the inadequate human resource capacity of institutions managing the water sector.

The results of this study not only uncovered the driving factors of IWRM implementation but also contributed to the development of a roadmap for resolving water resource management problems. This research recommends the development of additional variables that may be utilized as IWRM implementation success and efficiency indicators. Future works include other study focusing on evaluating IWRM implementation utilizing the upgraded element framework; enhancing the strategic framework to assess state, federal, and local IWRM governance performance; and creating a governance assessment index to evaluate IWRM implementation by improving its conceptual foundation.