Water source, irrigation management and performance in irrigation cooperatives: a comparative analysis in Central Anatolia, Türkiye

Abstract

This study evaluates irrigation cooperatives operating in the Central Anatolia Region of Türkiye in terms of water source, irrigation infrastructure, water management practices, and irrigation performance. The study is based on field survey data collected from 50 irrigation cooperatives representing groundwater-based, surface water-based, and mixed irrigation systems. Survey findings were cross-checked with official records obtained from the State Hydraulic Works (DSİ) and the General Directorate of Agricultural Reform (TRGM). The results indicate that groundwater-based systems dominate the region, accounting for 72% of the sampled cooperatives. Irrigation performance varies according to water source characteristics, with groundwater-based cooperatives exhibiting the highest irrigation ratio (82.14%), followed by surface water systems (71.79%) and mixed systems (67.82%). Pressurized irrigation methods are widely adopted, particularly sprinkler irrigation (64.40%) and drip irrigation (34.88%). The findings further reveal that water measurement infrastructure and volumetric pricing systems remain insufficiently developed. Although approximately half of the cooperatives employ water measurement, time-based pricing systems (70%) remain dominant, while volumetric pricing is rarely utilized. High energy costs constitute the most critical problem in groundwater-based systems, whereas water scarcity and infrastructure deficiencies are more prominent in surface water systems. Overall, the study demonstrates that water source significantly shapes irrigation infrastructure, management practices, irrigation performance, and sustainability conditions in irrigation cooperatives. The findings highlight the importance of improving monitoring systems, water measurement infrastructure, efficient pricing mechanisms, and sustainable groundwater management under increasing drought and water scarcity conditions.

Keywords

• Irrigation cooperatives
• Water source
• Irrigation management
• Irrigation performance
• Groundwater management
• Water pricing

References

1. Bos, M. G., Burton, M. A., & Molden, D. J. (2005). Irrigation and drainage performance assessment: Practical guidelines. CABI Publishing.
2. Burt, C. M., & Styles, S. W. (2001). Modern water control and management practices in irrigation: Impact on performance. Irrigation Training and Research Center, California Polytechnic State University.
3. Çakmak, B. (2001). Konya Sulama Birliklerinde Sulama Performansının Değerlendirilmesi [Performance evaluation of irrigation projects in Konya]. Journal of Agricultural Sciences (Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi), 7(3), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1501/Tarimbil_0000000663
4. Çakmak, B., Beyribey, M., Yıldırım, Y. E., & Kodal, S. (2004). Benchmarking performance of irrigation schemes: A case study from Turkey. Irrigation and Drainage, 53(2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.130
5. Çetin, M. (2021). Sulama sistemlerinde karar destek sistemleri ve uygulamaları [Decision support systems and applications in irrigation systems]. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 27(1), 35–44.
6. Değirmenci, H. (2001). Sulama şebekelerinde su dağıtım performansının değerlendirilmesi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(2), 113–121.
7. Değirmenci, H., Büyükcangaz, H., & Kuşçu, H. (2003). Assessment of irrigation with comparative indicators in the Southeastern Anatolia Project. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 27(5), 293–303.
8. Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü (DSİ). (2025). 2024 yılı DSİ’ce işletilen ve devredilen sulama tesisleri değerlendirme raporu. DSİ Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları.

9. Elicabuk, Ç. (2017). Türkiye’de sulama yönetimi ve su fiyatlandırma uygulamalarının değerlendirilmesi [Master’s thesis, Ankara University].
10. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2017). Water for sustainable food and agriculture: A report produced for the G20 Presidency of Germany. FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/i7959e/i7959e.pdf
11. Merdun, H., & Öztürk, Y. (2004). Temporal assessment of irrigation schemes in Cukurova Region of Turkey. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 7(2), 174–181. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2004.174.181
12. Molden, D., Sakthivadivel, R., Perry, C. J., de Fraiture, C., & Kloezen, W. H. (1998). Indicators for comparing performance of irrigated agricultural systems (Research Report No. 20). International Water Management Institute (IWMI).
13. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2015). Water resources allocation: Sharing risks and opportunities. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264229631-en
14. Perry, C. (2007). Efficient irrigation; inefficient communication; flawed recommendations. Irrigation and Drainage, 56(4), 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.323
15. Şener, M., & Hurç, H. C. (2012). Küçük sulama şebekelerinde performans değerlendirilmesi: Trakya Bölgesi örneği. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(2), 82–91.
16. Tanrıverdi, Ç. (2011). Sulama performans göstergelerinin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of irrigation performance indicators]. Tarım Ekonomisi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 17(2), 23–31.
17. Turral, H., Svendsen, M., & Faures, J.-M. (2010). Investing in irrigation: Reviewing the past and looking to the future. Agricultural Water Management, 97(4), 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.07.012 Uysal, O. K., & Atış, E. (2010). Assessing the performance of participatory irrigation management over time: A case study from Turkey. Agricultural Water Management, 97(7), 1017–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.02.003
18. World Bank. (2006). Reengaging in agricultural water management: Challenges and options. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
19. Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). Harper and Row.
20. Yazgan, S., & Değirmenci, H. (2002). Efficiency indicators in irrigation projects' performance evaluation: A case study on the Bursa groundwater irrigation project. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 26(2), 93–99.