Niğde İli Tarımsal Su Ayak İzi Dinamiklerinin Yenilikçi Trend Analizi Kullanılarak Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

İklim değişikliği ve artan gıda talebi, yarı kurak tarım havzalarındaki sınırlı su kaynakları üzerinde ciddi bir baskı oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışma, Niğde İlindeki bitkisel üretimin sürdürülebilirliğini değerlendirmek amacıyla Su Ayak İzi (WF) yaklaşımı ile Yenilikçi Trend Analizi (ITA) yöntemini entegre etmiştir (2005-2024). Sonuçlar, verimlilik ve ölçek arasında kritik bir hidrolojik paradoks ortaya koymuştur. Artan atmosferik su talebine (S=79.82) rağmen, modern sulama teknolojileri ve yüksek verimli çeşitlerin kullanımı sayesinde birim WF istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir azalma eğilimi (S=-348.23) göstermiştir. Ancak, bu teknik verimlilik havza ölçeğinde mutlak su tasarrufuna dönüşmemiştir. Aksine, Bölgesel WF hacmi belirgin bir artış trendi (S=3.43) sergilemiştir. Bu hidrolojik genişleme, nüfus artışı ve yükselen ekonomik talep tarafından tetiklenen belirgin bir geri tepme etkisine işaret etmektedir. Analizler, verimlilik kazanımlarından elde edilen su tasarrufunun yeraltı suyunu korumak yerine ürün desenini değiştirmek için kullanıldığını göstermektedir. Çalışma döneminde buğdayın payı %55’ten %38’e gerilerken, Patates (%18) ve Kuru Fasulye (%7.2) gibi katma değeri yüksek ancak yoğun Mavi Su tüketen ürünlerin ekim alanları hızla genişlemiştir. Sonuçlar, teknolojik modernizasyonun tek başına yetersiz olduğunu; yeraltı suyu üzerindeki baskıyı hafifletmek için politikaların nicel tahsis kotaları ve stratejik planlama ile desteklenmesi gerektiğini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mavi Su
• Yeşil Su
• Sulama Geri Tepme Etkisi
• Jevons Paradoksu
• Yarı Kurak Bölge

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışmada insan veya hayvan denekler kullanılmamış ve çalışma, özel veya koruma altındaki sahalarda yürütülmemiştir.

Assessment of Agricultural Water Footprint Dynamics of Niğde Province Using Innovative Trend Analysis

Öz

Climate change and increasing food demand exert unprecedented pressure on limited water resources in semi-arid agricultural basins. This study integrated Water Footprint (WF) and Innovative Trend Analysis (ITA) to evaluate the sustainability of crop production in Niğde Province (2005-2024). Results revealed a critical hydrological paradox between efficiency and scale. Despite increasing atmospheric water demand (S=79.82), the unit WF showed a significant decreasing trend (S=-348.23), driven by modern irrigation technologies and high-yielding varieties. However, this technical efficiency did not translate into absolute water savings on the regional scale. On the contrary, the Regional WF volume exhibited a distinct increasing trend (S=3.43). This hydrological expansion points to a distinct rebound effect driven by population growth and rising economic demand. Analyses indicate that water savings from efficiency gains were utilized to alter the crop pattern rather than to conserve groundwater. During the study period, the share of wheat declined from 55% to 38%, while high-value but Blue Water-intensive crops such as Potato (18%) and Dry Bean (7.2%) expanded rapidly. Results highlight that technological modernization alone is insufficient; policies must be supported by quantitative allocation caps and strategic planning to alleviate pressure on groundwater.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Blue Water
• Green Water
• Irrigation Rebound Effect
• Jevons Paradox
• Semi-Arid Region

Etik Beyan

This research did not contain any studies involving animal or human participants, nor did it take place in any private or protected areas

Kaynakça

1. Adetoro, A. A., Ngidi, M., Nyam, Y. S., & Orimoloye, I. R. (2021). Temporal evaluation of global trends in water footprint, water sustainability and water productivity research. Scientific African, 12, e00732.
2. Aktaş, Ö. (2014). Impacts of climate change on water resources in Turkey. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 13(4), 881–889.
3. Alcott, B. (2005). Jevons’ paradox. Ecological Economics, 54(1), 9–21.
4. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., & Smith, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirements: FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper, 56. FAO.
5. Askaraliev, B., Musabaeva, K., Koshmatov, B., Omurzakov, K., & Dzhakshylykova, Z. (2024). Development of modern irrigation systems for improving efficiency, reducing water consumption and increasing yields. Machinery & Energetics, 15(3), 47–59.
6. Berbel, J., Gutiérrez-Martín, C., & Expósito, A. (2018). Impacts of irrigation efficiency improvement on water use, water consumption and response to water price at field level. Agricultural Water Management, 203, 423–429.
7. Berbel, J., Gutiérrez-Martín, C., Rodríguez-Díaz, J. A., Camacho, E., & Montesinos, P. (2015). Literature review on rebound effect of water saving measures and analysis of a Spanish case study. Water Resources Management, 29(3), 663–678.
8. Biswas, A., Sarkar, S., Das, S., Dutta, S., Choudhury, M. R., Giri, A., & Paul, D. (2025). Water scarcity: A global hindrance to sustainable development and agricultural production—A critical review of the impacts and adaptation strategies. Cambridge Prisms: Water, 3, e4.

9. Boyacıoğlu, H. (2018). Internal (blue) water footprint of municipal consumption: A case study for Turkey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 190(7), 403–413.
10. Bulut, A. P. (2023). Determining the water footprint of sunflower in Turkey and creating digital maps for sustainable agricultural water management. Environmental Development and Sustainability, 25(10), 11999–12010.
11. Çakmak, B., & Torun, E. (2023). Konya kapalı havzası sulama şebekelerinde tarımsal su ayak izinin değerlendirilmesi. Harran Journal of Agricultural and Food Science, 27(2), 239–252.
12. Chukalla, A. D., Krol, M. S., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2015). Green and blue water footprint reduction in irrigated agriculture: Effect of irrigation techniques, irrigation strategies and mulching. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19(12), 4877–4891.
13. Deveci, H., & Konukcu, F. (2024). Modeling the effect of climate change on evapotranspiration in the Thrace Region. Atmosphere, 15(10), 1188–1207.
14. Ercin, A. E., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2016). European water footprint scenarios for 2050. Water, 8(6), 226.
15. Ertürk, A., Ekdal, A., Gürel, M., Karakaya, N., Guzel, C., & Gönenç, E. (2014). Evaluating the impact of climate change on groundwater resources in a small Mediterranean watershed. Science of the Total Environment, 499, 437–447.
16. Gültaş, H. T. (2024). Water footprint assessment of agricultural production in Bilecik province. Black Sea Journal of Agriculture, 7(5), 515–523.
17. Gültaş, H. T., Ahi, Y., & Çakmak, B. (2025). Assessment of water resources status using the water footprint concept: The case of Tekirdağ province. Black Sea Journal of Agriculture, 8(2), 186–193.
18. Güney, E., & Demirel, N. (2021). Water footprint assessment of carbon in pulp gold processing in Turkey. Sustainability, 13(15), 8497.
19. Hoekstra, A. Y. (2003). Virtual water trade: Proceedings of the international expert meeting on virtual water trade, 12–13 December 2002, Delft, The Netherlands. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 12.
20. Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya, M. M., & Mekonnen, M. M. (2011). The water footprint assessment manual: Setting the global standard. Earthscan.
21. Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A., Martinez-Aldaya, M., & Mekonnen, M. (2009). Water footprint manual: State of the art 2009.
22. İlhan, A., Yenicag, R., Yalcin Pehlivan, E., Ozturk, E., Karahan, S., & Rakıcıoğlu, N. (2023). Greenhouse gas emission and water footprint of the national diet in Turkey: Results from Turkey Nutrition and Health Survey 2017. Sustainability, 15(12), 9768.
23. Karaçil Ermumcu, M. Ş., Çıtar Dazıroğlu, M. E., Erdoğan Gövez, N., & Acar Tek, N. (2024). Evaluation of personal water footprint components in Turkey: Factors associated with obesity and food consumption. International Journal of Environmental Health Research, 34(1), 432–442.
24. Kocalar, A. C. (2022). Water scarcity—Türkiye—Konya and Niğde. International Journal of Water Management and Diplomacy, 1(8), 94–111.
25. Korkanç, S. Y., Kayıkçı, S., & Korkanç, M. (2017). Evaluation of spatial and temporal water quality in the Akkaya Dam watershed (Niğde, Turkey) and management implications. Journal of African Earth Sciences, 129, 481–491.
26. Lermi, A., & Ertan, G. (2019). Hydrochemical and isotopic studies to understand quality problems in groundwater of the Niğde Province, Central Turkey. Environmental Earth Sciences, 78(12), 365.
27. Ma, W., Opp, C., & Yang, D. (2020). Past, present, and future of virtual water and water footprint. Water, 12(11), 3068.
28. Mekonnen, M. M., & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2011). National water footprint accounts: The green, blue and grey water footprint of production and consumption, Volume 2: Appendices. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 50. UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education.
29. Muratoglu, A. (2020). Assessment of wheat’s water footprint and virtual water trade: A case study for Turkey. Ecological Processes, 9(1), 13.
30. Muratoglu, A., & Avanoz, Z. (2021). Spatial analysis of blue and green water footprints of agricultural crop patterns: Turkey. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Water Management, 174(6), 291–308.
31. Muratoglu, A., Bilgen, G. K., Angin, I., & Kodal, S. (2023). Performance analyses of effective rainfall estimation methods for accurate quantification of agricultural water footprint. Water Research, 238, 120011.
32. Mwadzingeni, L., Mugandani, R., & Mafongoya, P. L. (2022). Socio-economic factors and water footprint in smallholder irrigation schemes in Zimbabwe. Water, 14(13), 2101.
33. Nachtergaele, F., Van Velthuizen, H., Verelst, L., Batjes, N., Dijkshoorn, K., van Engelen, V., & Shi, X. (2010). Harmonized world soil database. In Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science: Soil Solutions for a Changing World (pp. 34–37). Brisbane, Australia.
34. Niğde Governorship. (2022). Niğde İli 2021 Yılı Çevre Durum Raporu [Environmental Status Report of Niğde Province for 2021]. (Date Accessed: 12 May 2026), https://webdosya.csb.gov.tr/db/ced/icerikler/nigde-ilcdr-2021-20220630094936.pdf. Ocak, S., Öğün, S., & Emsen, E. (2013). Turkey’s animal production water footprint; heading in the wrong direction. Procedia Technology, 8, 255–263.
35. Perry, J. N., Rothery, P., Clark, S. J., Heard, M. S., & Hawes, C. (2003). Design, analysis and statistical power of the farm-scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40(1), 17–31.
36. Pfeiffer, L., & Lin, C. Y. C. (2014). Does efficient irrigation technology lead to reduced groundwater extraction? Empirical evidence. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 67(2), 189–208.
37. Pilevneli, T., Capar, G., & Sánchez-Cerdà, C. (2023). Investigation of climate change impacts on agricultural production in Turkey using volumetric water footprint approach. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 35, 605–623.
38. Ricart, S., Villar-Navascués, R. A., Hernández-Hernández, M., Rico-Amorós, A. M., Olcina-Cantos, J., & Moltó-Mantero, E. (2021). Extending natural limits to address water scarcity? The role of non-conventional water fluxes in climate change adaptation capacity: A review. Sustainability, 13(5), 2473.
39. Şen, Z. (2012). Innovative trend analysis methodology. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 17(9), 1042–1046.
40. SHW. (2025). Türkiye’s General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (SWH) 4th Regional Directorate land and water resources. https://bolge04.dsi.gov.tr/Sayfa/Detay/922. Accessed 12 May 2026.
41. Smith, M. (1992). CROPWAT: A computer program for irrigation planning and management. FAO.
42. Song, J., Wang, Y., & Wu, P. (2017). A review on irrigation water rebound effect. Advances in Water Science, 28(3), 452–461.
43. TAGEM. (2016). Guide for crop water consumption of irrigated crops in Turkey. TAGEM.
44. TSMS. (2025). Turkish State Meteorological Service, climate data of long-term period [Unpublished institutional dataset provided upon request].
45. Turan, E. S. (2017). An evaluation of Turkey’s water footprint. Turkish Journal of Hygiene and Experimental Biology, 74(1), 55–62.
46. TURKSTAT. (2025). Turkish Statistical Institute. (Date Accessed: 3 November 2025), https://tuikweb.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1001.
47. Wada, Y., van Beek, L. P., & Bierkens, M. F. (2011). Modelling global water stress of the recent past: On the relative importance of trends in water demand and climate variability. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(12), 3785–3808.
48. Wang, C., Liu, J., Zhang, L., Wang, Y., Feng, M., Zhang, P., & Malik, A. (2025). Global supply chain drivers of scarce water caused by grain production in China. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 111, 107737.
49. Wang, S., Lai, X., & Gu, X. (2023). Analysis of spatial and temporal evolution characteristics and influencing factors of the water footprint in Xinjiang from 2000 to 2020. Systems, 11(7), 349.
50. Ward, F. A., & Pulido-Velazquez, M. (2008). Water conservation in irrigation can increase water use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(47), 18215–18220.
51. Yang, C., & Cui, X. (2014). Global changes and drivers of the water footprint of food consumption: A historical analysis. Water, 6(5), 1435–1452.
52. Yetik, A. K., Arslan, B., & Şen, B. (2024). Trends and variability in precipitation across Turkey: A multimethod statistical analysis. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 155(1), 473–488.
53. Yin, J., Wu, N., Engel, B. A., Hua, E., Zhang, F., Li, X., & Wang, Y. (2022). Multi-dimensional evaluation of water footprint and implication for crop production: A case study in Hetao Irrigation District, China. Agricultural Water Management, 267, 107630.