Küçük çiftçilerin sebze yetiştiriciliğinde su kıtlığına uyumu: Çanakkale ilinde verim sorunları ve kurumsal destek eksiklikleri

Abstract

Amaç: Türkiye'nin Çanakkale ilinde sürdürülebilir sebze üretimi, yarı Akdeniz iklimindeki değişkenlik ve tekrarlayan kuraklıklarla bağlantılı su kıtlığı nedeniyle giderek daha fazla tehdit altındadır. Bu çalışma, küçük ölçekli sebze çiftçilerinin, özellikle domates ve biber üreticilerinin, su kaynaklı streslere nasıl uyum sağladığını incelemektedir.

Tasarım/Metodoloji/Yaklaşım: Yağış eğilimleri, ürün verimi ve kurumsal raporları içeren 2018–2023 yıllarına ait ikincil verilere dayanan bu çalışma, çevresel kırılganlığı ve kurumsal duyarlılığı değerlendirmek için Uyum Kapasitesi Çerçevesi ve Kurumsal Uyum Teorisini uygulamaktadır.

Bulgular: Sonuçlar, yıllık yağışın 500 mm'nin altına düşmesiyle ilişkili olarak, kuraklık yıllarında (2020 ve 2023) domates veriminde ~%17 ve biber veriminde ~%16'lık düşüşler olduğunu göstermektedir. Bu baskılara rağmen, yüksek yatırım maliyetleri, parçalanmış arazi yapısı ve yetersiz teknik destek nedeniyle çiftçilerin yalnızca %18–20'si modern sulama yöntemlerini benimsemektedir. Danışmanlık hizmetleri ve tarım sigortası, üreticilerin yalnızca küçük bir kısmına ulaşmaktadır. Buna karşılık, çiftçiler ekim takvimlerini değiştirme, gayri resmi su paylaşımı ve düşük teknolojili damla sulama gibi taban düzeyinde stratejiler benimsemektedir. Bu tepkiler, yukarıdan aşağıya tarım programları ile yerel tarım gerçekleri arasındaki uyumsuzluğu ortaya koymaktadır.

Araştırmanın sınırlılıkları: Çalışma, il düzeyindeki ikincil verilere dayanmaktadır ve bu da bireysel çiftçi davranışlarının analizini sınırlamaktadır. Tutarsız veriler, analizi 2018–2023 yıllarıyla sınırlamıştır; bu da uzun vadeli iklim–verim ilişkilerini tam olarak yansıtmayabilir. Betimsel yaklaşım, nedensel çıkarımları sınırlamaktadır. Gelecekteki çalışmalar, daha sağlam bir çok değişkenli analiz için birincil verileri kullanmalıdır.

Özgünlük: Bu çalışma, Akdeniz tarım bağlamında çevresel maruziyet, kurumsal boşluklar ve çiftçi öncülüğündeki yenilikleri birbirine bağlayarak alt ulusal uyum literatürüne katkıda bulunmaktadır. Çalışma, ademi merkeziyetçi, uyarlanabilir ve kapsayıcı politika yaklaşımlarına duyulan ihtiyacı vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• Uyum kapasitesi
• kurumsal destek
• iklim direnci
• alt ulusal düzeyde uyum
• agroekolojik stres

Adaptation to water scarcity in smallholder vegetable farming: Yield challenges and institutional support gaps in Çanakkale province, Türkiye

Abstract

Purpose: Sustainable vegetable production in Çanakkale Province, Türkiye, is increasingly threatened by water scarcity associated with semi-Mediterranean climate variability and recurrent droughts. This study investigates how smallholder vegetable farmers, particularly tomato and pepper producers, adapt to water-related stresses.

Design/Methodology/Approach: Based on secondary data from 2018–2023 including rainfall trends, product yield, and institutional reports, the study applies the Adaptive Capacity Framework and Institutional Fit Theory to assess environmental vulnerability and institutional responsiveness.

Findings: Results show yield declines of ~17% for tomatoes and ~16% for peppers during drought years (2020 and 2023), correlated with annual rainfall falling below 500 mm. Despite these pressures, only 18–20% of farmers adopt modern irrigation, constrained by high investment costs, fragmented landholdings, and insufficient technical support. Institutional support tools such as extension services and agricultural insurance reach only a small minority of producers. In response, farmers adopt grassroots-level strategies, including altered planting schedules, informal water-sharing, and low-tech drip irrigation. These responses highlight a mismatch between top-down agricultural programs and local farming realities.

Research limitation: The study relies on provincial-level secondary data, limiting analysis of individual farmer behavior. Inconsistent data restricted the analysis to 2018–2023, which may not capture long-term climate–yield relationships. The descriptive approach limits causal inference. Future studies should use primary data for a more robust multivariate analysis.

Originality: This study contributes to subnational adaptation literature by linking environmental exposure, institutional gaps, and farmer-led innovations within the Mediterranean agricultural context. It highlights the need for decentralized, adaptive, and inclusive policy approaches.

Keywords

• Adaptive capacity
• ınstitutional support
• climate resilience
• subnational adaptation
• agroecological stress

References

1. Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., & Tompkins, E. L. (2005), Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005
2. Akdemir, Ş., Miassi, Y., Açıksarı, Y. Ş., & Keskin, F. (2021),Producers’ access to agricultural credit in Turkey: the case of Adana province. Ciência Rural, 51(5), e20200353. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20200353
3. Altieri, M. A., Nicholls, C. I., Henao, A., & Lana, M. A. (2015), Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(3), 869–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0285-2
4. Aslan, G. E., Bastug, R., Karaca, C., Kurunc, A., Buyuktas, D., & Navarro, A. (2024), Effects of saline irrigation water applications on evapotranspiration partitioning and crop coefficient of tomato grown in Mediterranean-type greenhouses. Agronomy, 14(8), 1771. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14081771
5. Atış, E., Günden, C., Salalı, H. E., Akyüz, Y., & Çuhadar, M. (2023), İklim değişikliği koşullarında üreticilerin sulama yöntemi tercihi. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 28(2), 241–247. https://doi.org/10.24181/tarekoder.1187457
6. Aydoğdu, M. H., (2021), Is drought caused by fate? Analysis of farmers’ perception and its influencing factors in the irrigation areas of GAP-Şanlıurfa, Türkiye. Water, 13(18), 2519. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13182519
7. Çelik, Z., Uslu, I., Yüceerim, G., Karagül, V., & Özdarıcı Ok, A. (2023), Çiftçilerin iklim değişikliğine tepkileri ve uyum yeteneğinin belirlenmesi: Menemen örneği. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Economics, 29(2), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.24181/tarekoder.1376828
8. Everest, B. (2021), Farmers’ adaptation to climate-smart agriculture (CSA) in NW Türkiye. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 4215–4235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00767-1

9. Falkenmark, M. (1977), Water and mankind: A complex system of mutual interaction. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 2(1), 1–10. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4312233
10. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) & European Union. (2020), Feasibility study of the state-of-art and potential of climate-smart agriculture in Türkiye (Project BSB1135 AGREEN). https://blacksea-cbc.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/BSB1135_AGREEN_-_Feasibility-study-of-the-state-of-art-and-potential-of-climate-smart-agriculture-in-Türkiye_EN.pdf
11. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2021), A rapid review of drought risk mitigation measures.
12. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2021), The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture.
13. Fereres, E., & Soriano, M. A. (2007), Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. Journal of Experimental Botany, 58(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl165
14. Giorgi, F., & Lionello, P. (2008), Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region. Global and Planetary Change, 63(2–3), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.09.005
15. Global Water Partnership (GWP) (2000), Integrated water resources management. https://www.gwp.org/en/GWP-CEE/about/why/what-is-iwrm/
16. Gören, H. (2025), Adaptive capacity of agricultural institutions to climate change and the barriers: A comparative study from Türkiye. Climate Policy, 25(1), 118–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2025.2526674
17. Gulseven, H. (2020), Estimating the demand factors and willingness to pay for agricultural insurance (arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.11279), https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.11279
18. Günay, T. (2021), Determination of the knowledge levels, attitude and behavior of Capia pepper producers about use of pesticide: Case of Çanakkale Province (Unpublished master’s thesis), Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University.
19. Harmanny, H., & Malek, Ž. (2019), Adaptive capacity and climate change adaptation strategies in Mediterranean agriculture. Environmental Science & Policy, 93, 43–53. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10113-011-0274-1
20. Iglesias, A., Garrote, L., Quiroga, S., & Moneo, M. (2011), Towards adaptation of agriculture to climate change in the Mediterranean. Regional Environmental Change, 11(S1), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-010-0187-4
21. Iglesias, A., & Garrote, L. (2015), Adaptation strategies for agricultural water management under climate change in Europe. Agricultural Water Management, 155, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.03.014
22. Iglesias, A., Moneo, M., & Quiroga, S. (2003), A programming model for farmer decision-making under drought in Spain. In Climate change and water resources in the Mediterranean (pp. 207–226), Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781950258.00018
23. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (2014), Fifth Assessment Report: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
24. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (2021), Sixth Assessment Report: The physical science basis. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
25. Kibaroglu, A., & Baskan, A. (2011), Türkiye’s water policy framework. In A. Kibaroglu, W. Scheumann, & A. Kramer (Eds.), Türkiye’s water policy (pp. 3–25), Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19636-2_1
26. Koluman Darcan, N., & Ragkos, A. (2024), PASTINNOVA Project, Sustainable Pastoral Mobility Living Lab: Case Study Türkiye. Çukurova Tarım ve Gıda. https://avesis.cu.edu.tr/yayin/3537de7f-180d-4747-a736-c6da557d8fc7/pastinnova-project-sustainable-pastoral-mobility-living-lab-case-study-Türkiye
27. Lionello, P., Malanotte-Rizzoli, P., & Boscolo, R. (2006), The Mediterranean climate: An overview of the main characteristics and issues. Developments in Earth and Environmental Sciences, 4, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1571-9197(06)80003-0
28. MAPFRE Foundation. (n.d.), Drought and agricultural insurance: The Turkish case (TARSIM), Revista Trébol, 54. https://app.mapfre.com/mapfrere/docs/html/revistas/trebol/n54/articulo2En.html
29. Melkonyan-Gottschalk, A., & Daus, D. (2024), Transformation of the agricultural economy towards sustainable and circular systems. In Citrus supply chains in Mediterranean countries (pp. 3–20), Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-63793-3_1
30. Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2016), Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Science Advances, 2(2), e1500323. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1500323
31. Postel, S. (1992), Water scarcity. Environmental Science & Technology, 26(12), 234–239. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es00036a600
32. Seckler, D., Amarasinghe, U., Molden, D., de Silva, R., & Barker, R. (1998), World water demand and supply, 1990 to 2025: Scenarios and issues. IWMI Research Report 19.
33. Sezen, S. M., Yazar, A., & Tekin, S. (2019), Physiological response of red pepper to different irrigation regimes under drip irrigation in the Mediterranean region of Turkey. Scientia Horticulturae, 245, 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.10.037
34. Smit, B., & Skinner, M. W. (2002), Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: A typology. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 7(1), 85–114. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015862228270
35. State Hydraulic Works (DSİ), (2022), Irrigation infrastructure and agricultural water use report. https://www.dsi.gov.tr/Sayfa/Detay/1169
36. UNDP, FAO, & IFAD. (2021), Empowering rural smallholders in Türkiye through digital marketing and business solutions in post-COVID-19 period. UNDP Türkiye. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2022-05/UNDP-TR-DIGITAL-SOLUTIONS-BOOKLET-TR.pdf
37. Vizinho, A., Alves, F. M., Fleskens, L., & Marques, M. J. (2021), Framework for climate change adaptation of agriculture and forestry in Mediterranean climate regions. Land, 10(2), 161. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020161
38. World Bank. (2020), Water in agriculture. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water-in-agriculture
39. Wriedt, G., Gomes, L., et al. (2023), Economic assessment of irrigation strategies in drought-prone agriculture. Agricultural Water Management, 280, 108179. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935123013130
40. Yercan, M. (2003), Management turning-over and participatory management of irrigation schemes: A case study of the Gediz River Basin in Türkiye. Agricultural Water Management, 62(3), 205–214. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378377403000519
41. Young, O. R. (2002), Institutional dimensions of environmental change