Next Article in Journal
Characteristics of the Water Environment and the Mechanism of Nitrogen Metabolism in the Xisha River
Previous Article in Journal
Can the Digital Economy Really Narrow the Innovation Efficiency Gap Among Cities in China?—A Study from the Perspective of Triple Networks
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 9
10.3390/su17094059
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Irrigation Performance Evaluation for Sustainable Water Management: A Study of Karacabey Water Users Association, Türkiye (2006–2023)

by
Müge Kirmikil
Biosystems Engineering Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Bursa Uludağ University, 16059 Bursa, Türkiye
Sustainability 2025, 17(9), 4059; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094059
Submission received: 20 February 2025 / Revised: 24 April 2025 / Accepted: 27 April 2025 / Published: 30 April 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Global climate change exacerbates water scarcity, making efficient water use a critical priority worldwide. In Türkiye, agricultural irrigation accounts for a significant share of water consumption, underscoring the need for sustainable management practices. Water users associations (WUAs) play a crucial role in overseeing irrigation schemes and optimizing water use in agriculture. This study assesses the irrigation performance of the Karacabey Water Users Association in Bursa Province using data from 2006 to 2023. Seven key irrigation performance indicators were analyzed, revealing an average irrigation ratio (IR) of 69.02%, irrigation water distributed per unit area (WIRR) of 8602.04 m3 ha−1, and a water supply ratio (RWS) of 1.33. The operation and maintenance cost (WOM) per unit irrigation water was calculated as USD 0.02 m−3, while total management, operation, and maintenance costs amounted to USD 0.08 m−3. The production value (WP) per unit irrigation water was found to be 0.89. Correlation and regression analyses indicated that WIRR is significantly influenced by indicators related to production, management, and water consumption. The findings highlight the necessity of a comprehensive approach to improving WUA performance, considering multiple performance indicators. To ensure sustainable agricultural water use, adopting advanced irrigation techniques, modernizing infrastructure, and enhancing management strategies are essential. This study provides valuable insights into enhancing irrigation efficiency and sustainability.

1. Introduction

Water is among humanity’s most basic needs and is critical to food security. It is predicted that irrigation water needs will not be met, and food accessibility, adequacy, and stability may be threatened, mainly due to increasing temperatures and decreasing precipitation [1]. In this context, the importance of irrigation is increasing, and water must be used efficiently. According to researchers, the world population will exceed 9 billion in 2050, and people’s needs will increase in this context. Since the demand for food increases with the increasing world population, global warming and climate change issues will gain much more importance in sustainable agriculture. The use and supply of water resources are important in sustainable agricultural activities in terms of cultivation in the agricultural sector. Therefore, the demand for transportation, supply, and use of water resources are increasing daily [2,3,4,5].
The fact that water is scarce has become even more important, mainly due to climate change and the decrease in water resources. In countries experiencing water scarcity, such as Türkiye, irrigation plays a significant role in increasing the efficiency of agricultural production. Due to global climate change, the frequency of droughts and extreme weather events is increasing, making sustainable use of water resources mandatory. Effective use of water can be achieved by preventing unnecessary consumption, especially in agricultural irrigation, and by distributing water rationally [6,7,8]. Moreover, water scarcity is becoming an increasingly critical issue worldwide, making the efficient and sustainable management of water resources essential [9]. Innovative solutions must be developed to optimize water allocation and ensure the effective use of available resources. Considering that approximately 70% of freshwater resources are used in irrigation, we need to focus on the agricultural sector to save water. Water is distributed to irrigation schemes by organizations such as water user associations, municipalities, village administrations, etc. Most of the irrigated areas in Türkiye are under the control of water user associations for sustainable agricultural management. Assessment of these organizations is of great importance for decision-makers, managers, and engineers. There is a growing body of research on this area [8,10,11,12] to improve agricultural water management. In addition to assessment techniques, mathematical modeling and optimization techniques play a crucial role in ensuring the fair and efficient distribution of water to ensure better assessment. Methods such as linear programming for water allocation and dynamic programming for irrigation scheduling can contribute to the optimal management of water resources [13,14]. Regression is one of the most important methods for explaining or estimating the parameters.
The application of linear programming (LP) in water allocation problems has proven effective in agricultural settings across various regions. In Indonesia, an LP model optimized water distribution in the Belitang Irrigation System, enhancing efficiency and increasing the planted area to 58,609 hectares. The irrigation intensity improved by 271.36% while maintaining an 80% reliable discharge. The optimization resulted in a maximum benefit of IDR 1,041,186,630,000 [15]. Similarly, in India, LP was applied to the Chiller reservoir system for real-time irrigation scheduling. The model optimized water allocation by factoring in variables like soil moisture, available water, and irrigation needs, leading to better water resource management and improved efficiency [16,17].
In Algeria, Difallah et al. [18] introduced a linear programming model for optimizing water use through efficient irrigation techniques. The model, based on the “knapsack” problem, successfully reduced water consumption by 28.5%, as demonstrated through field experiments. The model also evaluated precipitation effectiveness and determined the irrigation water requirements for maximum water efficiency.
Lei et al. [19] used dynamic programming (DP) to optimize water, fertilizer, and air-coupled irrigation for greenhouse tomato production. The study tested varying nitrogen application rates, dissolved oxygen levels, and soil moisture contents. The results showed that optimizing irrigation with DP increased yield by 4.25%, and with aerated irrigation, the yield rose by 26.13%. The optimal parameters included a dissolved oxygen level of 24.55 mg/L, a nitrogen application rate of 281.43 kg/ha, and an irrigation quota of 420 mm, increasing net yield of 11,012 USD/ha. This research highlighted the potential of DP in improving irrigation systems.
Garcia et al. [20] reviewed irrigation scheduling methodologies, focusing on two case studies of woody and field crops in semi-arid areas of southeast Spain. They found that optimal irrigation requires investment in equipment, operational costs, and skilled technical services. These technological approaches were beneficial for farms with limited water resources, high profitability, and significant technical-economic capacity.
Studies show that land consolidation projects positively affect irrigation performance [21,22]. Thanks to these projects, advantages such as reducing parcel dispersion and creating more organized and efficient irrigation channels can be achieved. Thus, the performance of irrigation systems is increased, and more efficient use of water resources is made possible.
The high demand for water in agriculture arises from various factors, including the need to feed a growing global population, improve living standards, and address challenges such as climate change and water scarcity [23,24,25].
Water user associations (WUAs) play an important role in organizing agricultural irrigation activities [8,26,27,28,29]. These unions ensure the effective and fair distribution of water resources, perform maintenance and repair of irrigation systems, monitor justice and efficiency in water distribution, and promote the sustainable use of water resources. Water user associations also contribute to collective decision-making processes on water management by increasing cooperation among farmers. In addition, water user associations are responsible for monitoring water consumption, improving infrastructure, and promoting water saving by introducing necessary regulations. In regions with limited water, they protect the environmental balance by preventing excessive water consumption. They support and guide farmers on water-saving irrigation techniques through education and information sharing. These duties are vital for efficient water use and sustainable agricultural production.
Performance indicators are important tools for assessing the effectiveness and functionality of a water users association (WUA) in water resources management [8,30,31,32,33]. These indicators systematically measure a WUA’s performance and ability to fulfill its assigned tasks. Performance indicators provide a standard framework for comparing irrigation associations’ achievements, enabling stakeholders to make informed decisions, promoting transparency and accountability, and enhancing their capacity to meet water management challenges by supporting continuous improvement.
Land consolidation projects are important in increasing agricultural productivity and improving irrigation performance in Türkiye [34]. Combining fragmented and small parcels provides advantages in arranging agricultural areas and developing irrigation infrastructure. The success of irrigation projects is carried out with land consolidation while making water use more efficient and is also necessary for the easy movement of agricultural machinery [35,36]. Irrigation projects constructed without consolidation can lead to lower yield rates. Therefore, consolidation projects are a critical step for the efficient use of Türkiye’s limited water resources [7,21]. Land consolidation projects also increase irrigation efficiency in agricultural lands and ensure efficient water use. For example, a study conducted in the Meram district of Konya observed that irrigation efficiency increased with consolidation and that agricultural production activities of farmers became more manageable thanks to the reduction of land fragmentation [6]. These projects support agricultural sustainability and increase farmer incomes. Consolidation has multidimensional benefits such as protecting natural resources, increasing productivity, and reducing infrastructure costs [37,38]. However, existing studies on the subject have mostly been limited to comparisons of land consolidation and irrigation performance assessment [21,22,36,39].
These studies consistently demonstrate that land consolidation projects have a positive impact on irrigation performance [21,22]. By reducing parcel dispersion and creating more organized and efficient irrigation channels, these projects enhance the performance of irrigation systems and enable more efficient use of water resources.
This study aims to evaluate the performance of the Bursa Province Karacabey Water Users Association using seven irrigation performance indicators based on data between 2006 and 2023. Assessment of the study area is of great importance in terms of the lack of assessment of irrigation performance in the land consolidation project area. The study period was chosen based on available data obtained from DSI. The studies’ objectives focus on the following questions: “What are the most important factors affecting irrigation performance in the Karacabey Water Users Association? What are the relationships between irrigation performance indicators, and what do these relationships mean in terms of irrigation management? What management strategies and technological interventions can be implemented to improve the irrigation performance of the Karacabey Water Users Association?”.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This study selected the Karacabey district of Bursa province as the material (Figure 1). Irrigation is of great importance due to the intensive agriculture in Karacabey. For this reason, the Karacabey Irrigation Union was established to ensure the region’s effective and efficient use of water resources. General information about Karacabey Irrigation Union is given in Table 1. The main products in the region are corn (46%), vegetables (34%), rice, and sugar cane (11%).
Karacabey district has transitional characteristics between Mediterranean and Black Sea climates. Summers are cooler, and winters are warmer and rainier than in the Mediterranean climate. Summer droughts can often extend into autumn, and the delay in autumn rains negatively affects agricultural production. Winters are mild and rainy, and precipitation is usually in the form of rain. According to meteorological data, the annual average temperature is 14 °C, the highest temperature is 38.5 °C in August, and the lowest is −9.7 °C in February. According to 29 years of data, the annual average precipitation is 562 mm [40]. In the Bursa Karacabey Plain, land consolidation works began in 1987 and were completed in a total of 17 villages over different years [41]. Between 1995 and 2000, simultaneous land consolidation was implemented in 10 villages, covering an area of 7776 hectares, which were opened for irrigation [42].
Karacabey pumped irrigation provided water transmission from Manyas Lake to the canal system with the help of pumping to irrigate 15,863 hectares of agricultural land in 1989 for agricultural irrigation activities. The 565,088 m long irrigation facility was transferred to the Karacabey Irrigation Union in 1996 [43].

2.2. Data Collection

The data used in the study were obtained from the Assessment Reports of Irrigation Facilities Operated and Transferred by DSI (Devlet Su İşleri-State Hydraulic Works) (2006–2023) prepared by the General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works-Operation and Maintenance Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry [43].

2.3. Calculation of Performance Indicators

Approximately 70% of global water resources are used in agriculture. Effective irrigation management is vital for sustainable agricultural production, especially in regions experiencing water scarcity. Efficient use of water resources is becoming increasingly important, considering factors such as an increasing population and climate change. Irrigation performance indicators provide important tools for assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of irrigation systems, identifying areas for improvement, and optimizing water management strategies [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. In this study; Rodríguez-Díaz et al.; Zema et al. Molden et al.; Arslan et al.; Malano and Burton; Kartal and Değirmenci [31,57,58,59,60,61]; irrigation rate (IR); amount of irrigation water distributed per unit irrigated area (WIRR); amount of irrigation water distributed per unit irrigated area (WISR); water supply ratio (RWS); operation and maintenance cost per unit irrigation water (WOM); management, operation, and maintenance cost per unit irrigation water (WMOM); and production value per unit irrigation water (WP) irrigation performance indicators were used. The calculation method of the indicators used in the study is given in Table 2. WOM indicates the current water distribution, while WMOM indicates the amount of irrigation water if all command areas are irrigated, which helps to understand irrigation water distribution.

2.4. Statistical Evaluation

Correlation analysis is a statistical method used to understand the relationship between variables. This study used IBM SPSS Statistics version 23 to determine the direction and strength of the relationships between performance indicators. The Pearson correlation coefficient measured the relationships between variables.
The Pearson correlation coefficient measures the degree of linear relationship between two continuous variables. The coefficient is between −1 and +1 [62,63,64]. A value of +1 indicates a perfect positive correlation, where an increase in one variable corresponds to an equal increase in the other. At the same time, −1 represents a perfect negative correlation, where an increase in one variable results in a proportional decrease in the other. A coefficient of 0 signifies no linear relationship between the variables.
The Pearson correlation coefficients calculated in the study show the direction (positive or negative) and strength (how strong the relationship is) of the relationships between performance indicators. This information helps us better understand the factors affecting irrigation performance.
Multiple regression analysis was used to examine the effect of more than one independent variable on a dependent variable [WIRR], which is one of the most important performance indicators showing actual water application in the field. The independent variables to be included in the analysis were determined as [IR, WISR, RWS, WOM, WMOM, WP]. These indicators are the other selected indicators that have an effect on water distribution in the field. WIRR is the best indicator of actual water usage in irrigated agriculture. These variables were selected based on the literature review and research questions.
WIRR was selected as the dependent variable for the setup of the multiple regression model. With the inclusion of independent variables in the model, the regression equation is expressed in Equation (1):
Y = β 0 + β 1 X 1 + β 2 X 2 + … + β n X n + ℇ
Here Y is the dependent variable, X1, X2, …, Xn is the independent variable β 0 constant terms, β 1 ,   β 2 , … β n represents the regression coefficients, and ℇ represents the error term.
The analysis aims to evaluate the irrigation practices and the performance of the WUA in the Karacabey region. In this context, the hypotheses above address various aspects such as increasing the efficiency of irrigation water use, evaluating the effects of modern irrigation techniques, and emphasizing the importance of effective management of the WUA.

3. Results and Discussion

Irrigation performance indicators are important tools used to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of irrigation systems. The maximum, minimum, average, and standard deviation values of the irrigation performance indicators used in the study are given in Table 3.
As seen in Table 3, irrigation rate (IR) has followed a relatively stable course over the years, reaching min. 48.87% and max. 78.24%, while the average value remained at 69.02% (Figure 2). This situation shows that irrigation infrastructure and irrigation practices are stable to a certain level. The standard deviation of 5.98 shows that there have been some fluctuations over the years, but these fluctuations have not changed the general trend. However, a significant decrease was observed in the IR value in 2007, down to 48.87%. This decrease is likely to be due to the high amount of rainfall experienced in the relevant year. Farmers may not have felt the need for irrigation and may have reduced their irrigation practices because they found the rainfall sufficient. In addition, low irrigation rates, inadequate infrastructure, especially inadequate irrigation systems or use of old technology, social and economic difficulties, farmers’ inability to invest in irrigation systems, limited water resources, and restrictions on access to water may also reduce the need for irrigation. In addition, soil structure or farmers’ shift to crops requiring less water may affect irrigation rates. Kartal et al. [65] studied the performance of 5 irrigation schemes in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of Türkiye and stated that there were differences in irrigation rates among the irrigation schemes. While it was similar between Akçakale and Bozova (57.63% and 67.46%, respectively), it was also seen that there was a similarity between Şanlıurfa-Harran, Yaylak Plain, and Yukarı Harran irrigation schemes (79.70%, 69.62% and 86.47%, respectively). The low irrigation rate in Akçakale is due to inadequate facilities, social and economic problems, and a lack of water demand. It was emphasized that administrative and farm-level improvements should be made to increase the irrigation rate in Akçakale. According to a study conducted in Spain, the irrigated area in 2021 constituted 22.9% of the total agricultural land, while this irrigated area provides more than 50% of the plant production. The widespread use of modern irrigation techniques, especially drip irrigation, which makes water consumption more efficient, has managed to keep water consumption balanced, and irrigation rates, especially in citrus fruits and vegetables, have reached 93.7% and 88.4%, respectively [66].
When the amount of irrigation water distributed per unit irrigated area (WIRR) is examined, it is seen that the average value is 8602.04 m3 ha−1 (Table 3). This value has shown significant fluctuations between the minimum values of 3196.76 m3 ha−1 and the maximum values of 12,271 m3 ha−1 over the years. A high standard deviation of 2376.4 confirms this variability in WIRR values. Figure 3 shows a significant increase in WIRR values after 2018, generally above 10,000 m3 ha−1. This situation shows that more irrigation water has recently been used per unit in irrigated areas. On the other hand, when the amount of irrigation water distributed per unit irrigation area (WISR) is examined in the same period, it is seen that there is no dramatic increase as in WIRR. This situation suggests that the ratio of irrigated area to total service area may have decreased in recent years. In other words, irrigation water may be concentrated in a narrower area. Arslan et al. [67], in their study, emphasize that WIRR may differ depending on the water transmission method, management type, and water source. They stated that WIRR reaches higher values in systems that distribute water with natural flow and self-managing associations, that the amount of water needed according to the crop pattern should be calculated correctly, and that the water distribution system should be adapted to pumping systems. Gençoğlu and Değirmenci [68], in their evaluation based on the Kırıkhan Water Users Association data for the years 2008–2013, determined that the amounts of water distributed to the unit irrigation area in 2008 and 2013 were 3735 m3/ha and 16,651 m3/ha, respectively. The total amounts of water distributed to the unit irrigated area were 5496 m3/ha and 13,684 m3/ha.
The relative water supply ratio (RWS) is an important performance indicator showing how effective the irrigation system is in meeting water needs. This metric can help assess whether an irrigation scheme has sufficient irrigation water resources to meet the water demand of crops, considering the conveyance system (open canal, pie, etc.) and irrigation method (drip, sprinkler, etc.) applied on the field. Ideally, the RWS value is expected to be 1. This means that the irrigation water requirement is fully met. On the other hand, RWS values higher than 1 indicate excessive use of water for many reasons, such as farmers using irrigation water more than required, using surface irrigation methods, lack of water delivery systems, climatic conditions, etc. The fact that the RWS was around 0.75 on average in 2015–2017 indicates that the irrigation water requirement was not met by approximately 25% during this period (Figure 4). In other words, the plants may not have received all the water they needed. The fact that the RWS exceeded 1 after 2018 indicates that more water was used than the irrigation water requirement. This may result in the use of surface irrigation methods. Data from 2023 reports of the WUA indicates that about 30% of farmers in the region used surface irrigation methods. This indicates that water resources are being used inefficiently and could potentially lead to environmental problems. In 2007, 2015, 2016, and 2017, when the RWS value was lower than 1, there was water scarcity, and the plants may have experienced water stress. This may have caused yield losses. Gençoğlu and Değirmenci [68], in their study conducted in the Kırıkhan Irrigation Union area covering 11 villages in the Kırıkhan District of Hatay Province, examined the annual water supply rate. The rate was measured as the lowest, at 0.70, in 2008, and at the highest, at 1.97, in 2009; the average was 1.40. It was observed that irrigation rates decreased in the years when the water supply rate was low. In a similar study, Eliçabuk and Toprak [69] determined the annual water supply rate in Konya as Uçar [70]. The lowest, at 0.51, was in 2008, and the highest, at 1.04, was in 2009. They reported that the water supply rate in 10 irrigation networks in Isparta varied between 0.60 and 7.32. Puerto et al. [71], in their study conducted in Spain, showed that irrigation practices did not sufficiently meet the water requirements of the plants and that yield loss was expected due to water stress resulting from the water supply rate results. Lorite et al. [72] in Andalusia and Dechmi et al. [73] reported similarly low RWS values for field crops in studies conducted in Aragon. Parra et al. [74] also reported that water supply ratio values in citrus orchards were generally below 1.
When the sum of operation and maintenance costs (WOM) and management, operation, and maintenance costs (WMOM) in irrigation systems is examined (Figure 5), it is seen that management costs have a significant share in total costs. This situation shows that the management of irrigation systems is costly. However, operation and maintenance costs spent per unit irrigation water have followed a stable course in recent years, with low values, such as an average of 0.02 and a standard deviation of 0.01 (Table 3). Low operation and maintenance costs are a positive sign that the irrigation system is operated efficiently. However, situations such as the need for modernization or repair of channels may cause these costs to increase. In such cases, although increasing costs may seem costly in the short term, they can provide more sustainable irrigation management by increasing the irrigation system’s efficiency in the long term. Değirmenci and Arslan [75], in their study, examined 23 irrigation networks regarding operation and maintenance costs. The Masat irrigation network was found to have the lowest value, and Seyhan was found to have the highest value. High energy costs and maintenance difficulties of open channel systems have negatively affected the success of some networks. Modernization and expansion of collective pressurized irrigation systems are significant in high-cost networks. Cluster analysis contributed to determining improvement strategies by grouping networks with similar characteristics. It was suggested that grant support be increased. Rodríguez-Díaz et al. [31] calculated the operational maintenance costs per unit area as 120 EUR ha−1 in their study conducted in the Andalusia Region of Spain. The fact that the irrigation networks in the region were equipped with advanced technology caused these costs to be high. The study stated that the water transmission channels in the irrigation regions generally had classical structures or consisted of canals. In addition, pressurized irrigation systems were not widespread, and no pump units were emphasized as important factors affecting the low operational maintenance costs. In a similar study, Zema et al. [76] reported that the operational maintenance costs per unit area in the Southern Region of Italy varied between 105 EUR ha−1 and 1280 EUR ha−1.
The production value (WP) per unit irrigation water is an important indicator of how efficiently irrigation water is used. A high WP value indicates that irrigation water is used to achieve higher production; that is, water is used efficiently. The WP value averages 0.89 over the years, and a high standard deviation of 0.81 (Table 3) indicates significant fluctuations in irrigation water efficiency. These fluctuations may be due to changes in climatic conditions, irrigation practices, or agricultural products. The decrease in the WP value since 2018 indicates a decrease in irrigation water efficiency (Figure 6). This situation can lead to a waste of water resources and economic losses. The reasons for the inefficient use of irrigation water include inadequate irrigation techniques, deficiencies in irrigation infrastructure, or disruptions in irrigation water management. Çifçi and Değirmenci [77], in their study conducted between 2013–2017 on irrigation networks in the Asi Basin, determined that production values for irrigation and irrigated areas varied between 1509–7398 USD/ha and 1948–11,262 USD/ha, respectively. Production values for irrigation water taken into the network and plant water needs were calculated as 0.190–2019 USD/m3 and 0.203–0.950 USD/m3, respectively. They stated that fluctuations in production values indicate production and price instability. Molden et al. [78] stated that efficient irrigation water use and increasing agricultural productivity are critical for sustainable agriculture, especially in regions experiencing water scarcity. WP was defined as an essential performance criterion in this process. Zwart and Bastiaanssen [79] examined the increase in productivity created by irrigation water per unit area and emphasized that WP is a key parameter in agricultural productivity analyses. Steduto et al. [80] showed that WP is a measure for sustainable management of water resources and food security. Optimization of irrigation water is effective in increasing agricultural productivity; Fereres and Soriano [81] emphasized that increasing WP for sustainable water use in arid and semiarid regions is critical for the agricultural sector and ecosystems. Howell [82] stated that WP is a basic performance indicator for ensuring economic and environmental sustainability in irrigation water management. Bouman et al. [83] stated that increasing WP in water-intensive agricultural products such as rice is strategically important in providing a solution to global water scarcity. These studies reveal that WP is an effective water management tool directly related to agricultural sustainability.
As a result of the correlation analysis, significant relationships were determined at various levels between the indicators included in the scope of the research (Table 4). One of the most striking findings is the strong positive correlation between the irrigation rate and the amount of irrigation water distributed per unit irrigation area (r = 0.719, p< 0.01). This finding shows that the amount of water distributed per area unit increases as the irrigation rate increases. Similarly, a significant negative relationship was observed between the amount of irrigation water distributed per unit irrigated area and the management-operation and maintenance costs per unit irrigation water (r = −0.710, p< 0.01), emphasizing the impact of irrigation efficiencies on costs.
There was no significant correlation between the operation and maintenance costs spent per unit irrigation water and the production value per unit (r = −0.436, p > 0.05). This finding indicates that the increased operation and maintenance costs do not affect production value. A positive correlation was found between the management-operation and maintenance costs per unit irrigation water and the operation and maintenance costs per unit (r = 0.861, p < 0.01), showing that management and maintenance costs are directly related.
Within the scope of the study, multiple linear regression analysis was performed using the independent variables WP, WISR, RWS, WOM, IR, and WMOM to explain the effects on WIRR (dependent variable). When Table 5 is examined, the high correlation coefficient of R = 0.915 shows a strong linear relationship between independent and dependent variables. The regression model can explain 83.7% of the total variance in the WIRR variable. The adjusted R2 value is adjusted according to the number of independent variables added to the model, which shows that the overall explanatory power of the model is quite strong (74%).
Table 6 shows the ANOVA test results. Accordingly, the F statistic (8.577), which tests the overall significance of the model, shows that all independent variables of the model have a significant effect together. Since p < 0.05, the model is statistically significant.
The regression coefficients used in constructing the regression model reflect the effects of the independent variables on WIRR (Table 7). The IR variable has a positive effect on WIRR. However, this effect is not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The WISR variable hurts WIRR, but this effect is not statistically significant. The RWS variable has a positive effect. Although the p-value is close to the 0.05 limit (p = 0.062), it does not reach the whole significance level (p > 0.05). This shows that as the water supply rate increases, WIRR also tends to increase. The WOM variable is negative and statistically significant (p = 0.024). This shows that as the operation and maintenance costs increase, the amount of irrigation water distributed per unit irrigated area decreases. This suggests that water-saving measures may increase costs or that high costs may restrict water use. A one-unit increase in WOM causes a decrease of 187,957.2 units in WIRR. The WMOM variable has a positive effect but is not statistically significant. WP variable is negative and close to the significance limit (p = 0.064). This may indicate that as the production value increases, WIRR tends to decrease. This suggests that more efficient irrigation practices can provide higher production with less water use.
Table 8 gives the impact values of other indicators on the WIRR indicator. The coefficient of determination (R2) of the model is 0.84. This shows that the independent variables explain 84% of the total variance in the WIRR variable. The p-value is 0.02, indicating that the model is generally significant (p < 0.05).
This regression model reveals how the factors affecting the irrigation system’s efficiency and water use are related. The indicators in the model are considered important variables explaining irrigation performance.
Irrigation ratio (IR) has a positive effect on WIRR. This means the irrigation requirement will also increase as the irrigation rate increases. High irrigation rates increase water consumption, as they require more water usage. This situation can also lead to water wastage if water is not used efficiently. Fernández et al. [84] and Perry et al. [85], in their studies, emphasized that increasing irrigation rates can increase irrigation requirements and that over-irrigation can lead to water waste.
The annual amount of water used per unit irrigated area (WIRR) is an important indicator determining irrigation performance. It has a negative relationship with WISR, which indicates that water is not used more efficiently in irrigation systems with a large service area, and this negatively affects irrigation performance. In other words, irrigation requirements increase when water is not used more efficiently. The strong correlation between WIRR and WISR (r: 0.617; p < 0.01) shows that the WIRR indicator will decrease when the irrigated area increases. This shows that increasing the irrigation water distributed to the service area of the irrigation network is an important relationship that should be focused on, since it will also increase IR. Zwart and Bastiaanssen [79] show that inefficient water use in large service areas negatively affects irrigation performance, and imbalances in water distribution and use reduce production efficiency. Efficiency of water use is directly related to the amount of water used per unit area, and increasing efficiency can improve irrigation performance [78].
Relative water supply (RWS) has a positive effect on WIRR. Sufficient water supply ensures efficient operation of the irrigation system, and irrigation demand increases as more water is supplied. This indicates that irrigation performance is increased and irrigation efficiency is improved. High RWS means that the irrigation system operates correctly and that the water supply and performance reach a better level. However, when RWS is more than 1, more water is transferred to the system than the plant water demand, so it cannot be said that every increase in RWS indicates a positive effect. Howell [82] emphasized that increases in water supply increase irrigation performance up to a certain point, but excessive water can cause inefficiency in the system and environmental damage. Steduto et al. [80] took a similar approach and stated that high RWS values provide positive effects only up to the amount that meets the plant’s need and that if this limit is exceeded, water can cause more harm than good.
Operation and maintenance cost per unit of irrigation water (WOM) hurts WIRR. This shows that high operation and maintenance costs will reduce WIRR. It can be considered that high costs increase the efficient use of water. However, considering that the average RWS is greater than 1 in this irrigation network, it is understood that water is used more than necessary, and the increase in WOM has a positive effect on irrigation performance. Therefore, it can be said that WOM costs are used correctly to improve the irrigation system. Management, operation, and maintenance costs per unit of irrigation water (WMOM) positively affect WIRR. This situation can give more accurate results when evaluated with a WOM indicator. The only difference between WOM and WMOM is management costs. It cannot be said that the increase in management costs increases the WIRR indicator and creates a positive effect when the average RWS is greater than 1. Adequate maintenance is important to ensure the efficient operation of the irrigation system because these expenses optimize irrigation activities and ensure more effective water use. However, it can be said that management costs should be used more carefully. Rogers et al. [86] emphasize that correct management of operation and maintenance costs ensures more efficient use of water and thus increases irrigation performance. This effective management allows water to be used with less loss and waste, thus increasing the irrigation system’s efficiency. On the other hand, Frederiksen et al. [87] state that management costs should be planned carefully and that poor management can negatively affect the irrigation system’s performance. Inadequate planning and mismanagement can reduce the efficiency of irrigation systems and lead to a waste of resources.
Production per unit irrigation water (WP) hurts WIRR. This indicates that as water efficiency increases, the water required for irrigation decreases, thus reducing irrigation requirements. Higher water efficiency allows more crops to be produced with irrigation water, which reduces water consumption, making the irrigation system more efficient. Bouman et al. and Fereres & Soriano [81,83], in their studies, emphasized that higher WP reduces irrigation water requirements and increases agricultural productivity.
In conclusion, the findings of this regression model show that a number of factors should be taken into consideration for the efficient operation of irrigation systems. The interactions between water supply, costs, water efficiency, and management strategies are the elements that directly affect irrigation performance. Optimization of these factors enables irrigation systems to operate more sustainably and efficiently.

4. Conclusions

This study evaluated the indicators affecting the performance of irrigation systems and their relationships with each other using multiple linear regression and correlation analyses. The performance indicators used in the study included irrigation ratio (IR); irrigation water distributed per unit irrigated area (WIRR); irrigation water distributed per unit irrigated area (WISR); water supply ratio (RWS); operation and maintenance costs per unit irrigation water (WOM); total management, operation, and maintenance costs (WMOM); and production value per unit irrigation water (WP). The findings provide a number of important implications for improving the performance of irrigation systems. In the study years, for some important results, the average IR is about 70, WIRR is about 85,000 m3 ha−1, and the average RWS is 1.33 higher than the optimum value that can be given.
Irrigation rate (IR) showed a positive relationship with WIRR. The decrease in irrigation rate in 2007 can be attributed to the increase in rainfall and may have had some positive results in the short term. However, it is important to carefully plan and implement irrigation management strategies, considering the long-term effects and possible risks. Monitoring and evaluating irrigation systems is critical for the sustainable use of water resources and the continuity of agricultural production.
Annual amount of water per unit irrigated area (WIRR) is an important indicator for irrigation systems. High standard deflection values and years of important fluctuations happened, and these fluctuations affected irrigation system stability. WIRR values show an increase in irrigation water use. This situation shows the reasons and possible results in detail. One, in this way, should be investigated and suitable. These management strategies for water resources should be developed. Sustainable usage and agricultural production continuities for irrigation water optimize the use of considerable importance in this context of irrigation systems monitoring, evaluation, and improvement. Also, the WISR value is required to be the same, not increasing, and irrigation systems’ scope and the use efficiency of irrigation water must be subjected to a more detailed analysis.
In terms of water supply rate (RWS), if an irrigation system demonstrates an RWS value that is less than 1, it shows that performance problems in the system are sustainable. An RWS value of 1 is the ideal value. In this context, water is important. Optimizing the use of water, resource management, and the improvement of irrigation infrastructure are required.
Operation and maintenance cost per unit irrigation water (WOM and WMOM) are examined, and the indicators on WIRR show negative and positive effects, respectively. It was found that WOM increased water use by decreasing savings. However, WMOM has a positive influence. Careful planning of expense management should be important in irrigation systems. Management of total expenses’ inside share is important. Low and stable WOM values are positive. One indicator is that modernization and repair need care. In order to optimize costs, irrigation systems are required. Sustainability of resources’ productive usage for operation, maintenance, and management of expenses must be managed in order to be effective, and this is of great importance.
Water productivity (WP) value and irrigation systems performance can be measured to evaluate irrigation systems and that water resources’ sustainable usage and agricultural production can be improved and increased. In order to achieve this, appropriate irrigation techniques must be used, irrigation infrastructure must be improved, and activation of irrigation water must be carried out.

5. Suggestions

Several strategies can be implemented to improve the WIRR performance of the Karacabey Water Users Association. Firstly, promoting modern irrigation techniques and providing training to farmers on these techniques can ensure more efficient water use, thereby optimizing the amount of water per unit area. Encouraging water-saving methods, especially drip irrigation, is important. Modernizing the irrigation infrastructure and transitioning from open channel systems to pressurized pipe systems can reduce water losses and ensure more effective water distribution, which can positively affect the WIRR value. Additionally, optimizing water distribution programs and regulating them to prevent excessive consumption of water resources is necessary because an RWS value above 1 indicates that water is used more than necessary. Regularly monitoring and analyzing irrigation performance indicators allows for the identification of areas needing improvement and the development of appropriate management strategies.
Modernization of irrigation infrastructure requires converting open channel systems to pressurized pipe systems to reduce water loss and increase irrigation efficiency. In this context, it is recommended that grant support be increased to support modernization efforts. In addition, effective management, operation, and maintenance cost planning are important to increase the overall performance of the irrigation system. Optimizing management costs and implementing a transparent spending plan will increase the efficiency of the system in order to achieve high water efficiency; irrigation plans suitable for crop patterns, climate conditions, and water demand should be supported by disseminating modern techniques such as drip irrigation. In addition, providing farmers with training on irrigation management, water saving, and modern irrigation techniques can create awareness that will increase water use efficiency. In order to evaluate and improve the performance of irrigation systems, indicators should be regularly monitored and analyzed. In this way, deficient areas can be identified, and necessary improvement studies can be carried out. In line with the sustainable water management goal, it is necessary to keep the RWS level at one and optimize water distribution programs to prevent excessive consumption of water resources. In this process, it is important to develop water management strategies that consider the effects of climate change.
Shortly, the policies proposed based on the Karacabey WUA study aim to enhance water efficiency and optimize agricultural productivity. Grant support should be increased for the modernization of irrigation infrastructure, and modern irrigation techniques should be promoted alongside farmer training. Irrigation performance should be regularly monitored, and water distribution programs should be optimized to prevent excessive consumption. Additionally, water management strategies should be developed to adapt to climate change, and land consolidation projects should be supported. These steps are crucial for sustainable water management.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Çakmak, B.; Torun, E. Konya kapalı havzası sulama şebekelerinde tarımsal su ayak izinin değerlendirilmesi. Harran Tarım Gıda Bilim. Derg. 2023, 27, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Koberinski, J. Towards a Regenerative Agriculture. Peace Mag. 2020, 36, 20. [Google Scholar]
  3. Li, L.; Huang, Y. Sustainable Agriculture in the Face of Climate Change: Exploring Farmers’ Risk Perception, Low-Carbon Technology Adoption, and Productivity in the Guanzhong Plain of China. Water 2023, 15, 2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Balasundram, S.K.; Shamshiri, R.R.; Sridhara, S.; Rizan, N. The Role of Digital Agriculture in Mitigating Climate Change and Ensuring Food Security: An Overview. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ahmed, A.A.A.; Zahar, M.; Gribkova, V.; Nikolaeva, N.; Dwijendra, N.K.A.; Suksatan, W.; Atiyah, K.K.; Jalil, A.T.; Aravindhan, S. Effects of global warming on insect behaviour in agriculture. J. Water Land Dev. 2022, 54, 150–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Eğilmez, S.; Kaman, H. Arazi Toplulaştırmasının Sulama Altyapısı Açısından İncelenmesi. Cukurova Univ. Agric. Fac. 2022, 37, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sönmezyıldız, E.; Çakmak, B. Eskişehir Beyazaltın köyü arazi toplulaştırma alanında sulama performansının değerlendirilmesi. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Derg. 2013, 26, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
  8. Arslan, F. Production-water user association performance nexus in mediterranean irrigated agriculture: The case of banana in Türkiye. Agric Water Manag. 2024, 292, 108650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Seckler, D.; Barker, R.; Amarasinghe, U. Water scarcity in the twenty-first century. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 1999, 15, 29–42. [Google Scholar]
  10. Moriondo, M.; Bindi, M.; Brilli, L.; Costafreda-Aumedes, S.; Dibari, C.; Leolini, L.; Padovan, G.; Trombi, G.; Karali, A.; Varotsos, K.V.; et al. Assessing climate change impacts on crops by adopting a set of crop performance indicators. EuroMediterr. J. Env. Integr. 2021, 6, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Arslan, F.; Zema, D.A. Performance Indicators for Improving Irrigation Management in Aegean District. Black Sea J. Agric. 2024, 7, 703–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dominguez-Bohorquez, J.D.; Wittling, C.; Cheviron, B.; Bouarfa, S.; Urruty, N.; Lopez, J.M.; Dejean, C. Early-Stage Impacts of Irrigated Conservation Agriculture on Soil Physical Properties and Crop Performance in a French Mediterranean System. Agronomy 2025, 15, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Anvari, S.; Mousavi, S.J.; Morid, S. Stochastic Dynamic Programming-Based Approach for Optimal Irrigation Scheduling under Restricted Water Availability Conditions. Irrig. Drain. 2017, 66, 492–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jin, L.; Huang, G.; Fan, Y.; Nie, X.; Cheng, G. A Hybrid Dynamic Dual Interval Programming for Irrigation Water Allocation under Uncertainty. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26, 1183–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Imron, F.; Murtiningrum. Optimization of irrigation water allocation by using linear programming: Case study on Belitang irrigation system. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Azamathulla, H.M.; Ab Ghani, A.; Zakaria, N.A.; Chang, C.K. Linear Programming Approach for Irrigation Scheduling—A case Study. In Proceedings of the 14th MANCID Annual Conference, Sofia, Bulgaria, 5–8 November 2009. [Google Scholar]
  17. Azamathulla, H.M. Linear programming for irrigation scheduling—A case study. In Linear Programming: New Frontiers in Theory and Applications; Nova Science Publisher Inc.: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  18. Difallah, W.; Benahmed, K.; Draoui, B.; Bounaama, F. Linear Optimization Model for Efficient Use of Irrigation Water. Int. J. Agron. 2017, 2017, 5353648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lei, H.; Lian, Y.; Du, J.; Pan, H.; Li, X.; Li, D.; Jin, C.; Xiao, Z.; Hou, Y. Dynamic Optimization of Greenhouse Tomato Irrigation Schedule Based on Water, Fertilizer and Air Coupled Production Function. Agronomy 2023, 13, 776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fernández García, I.; Lecina, S.; Ruiz-Sánchez, M.C.; Vera, J.; Conejero, W.; Conesa, M.R.; Domínguez, A.; Pardo, J.J.; Léllis, B.C.; Montesinos, P. Trends and challenges in irrigation scheduling in the semi-arid area of Spain. Water 2020, 12, 785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Arslan, H.; Tunca, E. Arazi Toplulaştırmasının Sulama Projelerinin Performansı Üzerine Etkileri. Anadolu Tarım Bilim. Derg. 2013, 28, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Arslan, F.; Sawassi, A.; Derardja, B.; Değirmenci, H.; Lamaddalena, N. The effects of land consolidation projects on pressurized irrigation system design and the cost: A case study from Türkiye. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2024, 24, 608–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Abu-Zeid, K.M. Recent trends and developments: Reuse of wastewater in agriculture. Environ. Manag. Health 1998, 9, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Awais, M.; Li, W.; Yang, Y.F.; Ji, L.L. Detection of plant water stress using UAV thermal images for precision farming application. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2020, 18, 4087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ricart, S.; Olcina, J.; Rico, A.M. Introductory Chapter: Addressing Past Claims and Oncoming Challenges for Irrigation Systems. In Irrigation—Water Productivity and Operation, Sustainability and Climate Change; Intechopen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zema, D.A.; Filianoti, P.; D’Agostino, D.; Labate, A.; Lucas-Borja, M.E.; Nicotra, A.; Zimbone, S.M. Analyzing the performances of water user associations to increase the irrigation sustainability: An application of multivariate statistics to a case study in Italy. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. González-Pavón, C.; Arviza-Valverde, J.; Balbastre-Peralta, I.; Sierra, J.M.C.; Palau-Salvador, G. Are water user associations prepared for a second-generation modernization? The case of the valencian community (Spain). Water 2020, 12, 2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Alcon, F.; Zabala, J.A.; Martínez-García, V.; Albaladejo, J.A.; López-Becerra, E.I.; De-Miguel, M.D.; Martínez-Paz, J.M. The social wellbeing of irrigation water. A demand-side integrated valuation in a Mediterranean agroecosystem. Agric Water Manag. 2022, 262, 107400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Arslan, F.; Kartal, S. Water Management Effect on Tropical Fruits: Case Study Of Alanya, Turkey. In Engineering for Rural Development; Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies: Jelgava, Latvia, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bastiaanssen, W.G.M.; Bos, M.G. Irrigation performance indicators based on remotely sensed data: A review of literature. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 1999, 13, 291–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rodríguez-Díaz, J.A.; Camacho-Poyato, E.; López-Luque, R.; Pérez-Urrestarazu, L. Benchmarking and multivariate data analysis techniques for improving the efficiency of irrigation districts: An application in Spain. Agric. Syst. 2008, 96, 250–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ntantos, P.N.; Karpouzos, D.K. Application of data envelopment analysis and performance indicators to irrigation systems in Thessaloniki Plain (Greece). World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2010, 46, 56–62. [Google Scholar]
  33. Seyedzadeh, A.; Khazaee, P.; Siosemardeh, A.; Maroufpoor, E. Irrigation management evaluation of multiple irrigation methods using performance indicators. ISH J. Hydraul. Eng. 2022, 28, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Uçar, Y.; Kara, M. Arazi Toplulaştırmasının Su İletim ve Dağıtım Performansına Etkisi. KSÜ Fen Mühendislik Derg. 2006, 9, 117–124. [Google Scholar]
  35. Bahar, S.K.; Kirmikil, M. The evaluation of agricultural landowner inputs before and after land consolidation: The Kesik Village example. Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kirmikil, M.; Arici, I. The role of land consolidation in the development of rural areas in irrigation areas. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2013, 11, 1150–1155. [Google Scholar]
  37. Fao. The Design of Land Consolidation Pilot Projects in Central and Eastern Europe; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  38. Yağanoğlu, A.V.; Fayrap, A.; Yanık, R. Sulama Projelerinde Arazi Toplulaştırmasının Gerekliliği: Daphan Sulaması Örneği. Bursa Uludag Üniv. Ziraat Fak. Derg. 2018, 32, 55–67. [Google Scholar]
  39. Moradinejad, A.; Eslampour, S. Increasing Water Productivity by Modifying the Pattern of Irrigation and Land Consolidation. Water Manag. Agric. 2018, 5, 59–70. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sarıyıldız, T. Bursa, Karacabey subasar ormanı kızılağaç meşcerelerinde yıllık döküm miktarı ve bu yolla ekosisteme giren karbon ve besin maddesi. Türkiye Orman. Derg. Turk. J. For. 2024, 25, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yaslıoğlu, E.; Arıcı, I.; Kuşçu, H.; Gündoğdu, K.S.; Akkaya Aslan, T.; Kirmikil, M. Adoption factors of irrigation systems whose projects are synchronized with land consolidation. Kuwait J. Sci. Eng. 2008, 35, 71–80. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kirmikil, M. The Evaluation of a Land Consolidation Project by Water Managers In a Rural Area: A Case Study In Karacabey. Fresenius Env. Bull 2019, 28, 3097–3103. [Google Scholar]
  43. DSI. DSI’ce İşletilen ve Devredilen Sulama Tesisleri Değerlendirme Raporu; T.C. Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı; Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü, ; İşletme ve Bakım Dairesi Başkanlığı: Ankara, Turkey, 2024; 796p. [Google Scholar]
  44. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2023; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. UNESCO. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2023; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  46. Pointet, T. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2022 on groundwater, a synthesis. LHB Hydrosci. J. 2022, 108, 2090867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Molden, D. Water for Food Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Viala, E. Water for food, water for life a comprehensive assessment of water management in agriculture. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 2008, 22, 127–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kartal, S.; Değirmenci, H.; Arslan, F. Ranking irrigation schemes based on principle component analysis in the arid regions of Turkey. Agron. Res. 2019, 17, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kukul, Y.S.; Akçay, S.; Anaç, S.; Yeşilirmak, E. Temporal irrigation performance assessment in Turkey: Menemen case study. Agric. Water Manag. 2008, 95, 1090–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Carrillo-Cobo, M.T.; Rodriguez-Diaz, J.A.; Camacho-Poyato, E. The role of energy audits in irrigated areas. The case of ‘Fuente Palmera’ irrigation district (Spain). Span. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 8, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Raju, K.S.; Pillai, C.R.S. Multicriterion decision making in performance evaluation of an irrigation system. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1999, 112, 479–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Elshaikh, A.E.; Jiao, X.; Yang, S.H. Performance evaluation of irrigation projects: Theories, methods, and techniques. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 203, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Abadia, R.; Rocamora, M.C.; Corcoles, J.I.; Ruiz-Canales, A.; Martinez-Romero, A.; Moreno, M.A. Comparative analysis of energy efficiency in water users associations. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 8, 134–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Alcon, F.; García-Bastida, P.A.; Soto-García, M.; Martínez-Alvarez, V.; Martin-Gorriz, B.; Baille, A. Explaining the performance of irrigation communities in a water-scarce region. Irrig. Sci. 2017, 35, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kartal, S.; Değirmenci, H.; Arslan, F.; Gizlenci, İ. Evaluation of some Water, Energy and Financial Indicators: A Case Study of Esenli Water User Association in Yozgat, Türkiye. Tarim Bilim. Derg. 2023, 29, 643–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zema, D.A.; Nicotra, A.; Mateos, L.; Zimbone, S.M. Improvement of the irrigation performance in Water Users Associations integrating data envelopment analysis and multi-regression models. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 205, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Molden, D.; Sakthivadivel, R.; Perry, C.J.; De Fraiture, C.; Kloezen, W.H. Indicators for Comparing Performance of Irrigated Agricultural Systems; Iwmi: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1998; Volume 20. [Google Scholar]
  59. Arslan, F.; Córcoles Tendero, J.I.; Rodríguez Díaz, J.A.; Zema, D.A. Comparison of Irrigation Management in Water User Associations of Italy, Spain and Turkey Using Benchmarking Techniques. Water Resour. Manag. 2023, 37, 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Malano, H.; Burton, M. Guidelines for Benchmarking Performance in the Irrigation and Drainage Sector; International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID): Rome, Italy, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  61. Kartal, S.; Değirmenci, H. Antalya bölgesi sulama şebekelerinin değerlendirilmesi. Mediterr. Agric. Sci. 2020, 33, 381–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Schober, P.; Schwarte, L.A. Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth. Analg. 2018, 126, 1763–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Aytaç, M. Korelasyon katsayılarının genelleştirilmesi. Uludağ Üniversitesi İktisadi İdari Bilim. Fakültesi Derg. 1983, 4, 209–221. [Google Scholar]
  64. Dufera, A.G.; Liu, T.; Xu, J. Regression models of Pearson correlation coefficient. Stat. Theory Relat. Fields 2023, 7, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kartal, S.; Değirmenci, H.; Arslan, F. Assessment of irrigation schemes with performance indicators in southeastern irrigation district of Turkey. J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 26, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Caixabank Research. The Use of Water in Agriculture: Making Progress in Modernising Irrigation and Efficient Water Management. Available online: https://www.caixabankresearch.com (accessed on 7 November 2024).
  67. Arslan, F.; Değirmenci, H.; Kartal, S.; Alcon, F. Mapping performance of irrigation schemes in turkey. Agron. Res. 2020, 18, 2303–2316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gençoğlu, M.; Değirmenci, H. Sulama Performansının Değerlendirilmesi: Kırıkhan Sulama Birliği Örneği. KSU J. Agric. Nat. 2019, 22, 436–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Eliçabuk, C.; Toprak, R. Gevrekli Sulama Birliği’nde Sulama Performansının Değerlendirilmesi. Selçuk Tarım Bilim. Derg. 2017, 3, 191–199. [Google Scholar]
  70. Uçar, Y. Performance assessment irrigation schemes according to comparative indicators: A case study of Isparta, Turkey. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 2011, 52, 82–90. [Google Scholar]
  71. Puerto, H.; Mora, M.; Roig-Merino, B.; Abadía-Sánchez, R.; Cámara-Zapata, J.M.; Suay, R.; Rocamora, C. Orchard level assessment of irrigation performance and water productivity of an irrigation community in eastern spain. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lorite, I.J.; Mateos, L.; Fereres, E. Evaluating irrigation performance in a Mediterranean environment. Irrig. Sci. 2004, 23, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Dechmi, F.; Playán, E.; Faci, J.M.; Tejero, M. Analysis of an irrigation district in northeastern Spain I. Characterisation and water use assessment. Agric. Water Manag. 2003, 61, 75–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Parra, L.; Botella-Campos, M.; Puerto, H.; Roig-Merino, B.; Lloret, J. Evaluating irrigation efficiency with performance indicators: A case study of citrus in the east of spain. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Değirmenci, H.; Arslan, F. Sulama Birliklerine Devredilen Sulama Şebekelerinde İşletme ve Bakım Giderlerinin Analizi. Su Kaynakları 2008, 3, 16–23. [Google Scholar]
  76. Zema, D.A.; Nicotra, A.; Tamburino, V.; Zimbone, S.M. Performance Assessment Of Collective Irrigation In Water Users’ Associations Of Calabria (Southern Italy). Irrig. Drain. 2015, 64, 314–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Çifçi, Ş.; Değirmenci, H. Sulama Performans Göstergeleri ve TOPSİS Yöntemi ile Asi Havzası Sulama Birliklerinin Analizi. J. Agric. Nat. 2022, 25, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Molden, D.; Oweis, T.; Steduto, P.; Bindraban, P.; Hanjra, M.A.; Kijne, J. Improving agricultural water productivity: Between optimism and caution. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 528–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zwart, S.J.; Bastiaanssen, W.G.M. Review of measured crop water productivity values for irrigated wheat, rice, cotton and maize. Agric. Water Manag. 2004, 69, 115–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Steduto, P.; Hsiao, T.C.; Fereres, E. On the conservative behavior of biomass water productivity. Irrig. Sci. 2007, 25, 189–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Fereres, E.; Soriano, M.A. Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Howell, T.A. Enhancing water use efficiency in irrigated agriculture. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bouman, B.A.M.; Humphreys, E.; Tuong, T.P.; Barker, R. Rice and Water. Adv. Agron. 2007, 92, 187–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fernández, J.E.; Alcon, F.; Diaz-Espejo, A.; Hernandez-Santana, V.; Cuevas, M.V. Water use indicators and economic analysis for on-farm irrigation decision: A case study of a super high density olive tree orchard. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 237, 106074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Perry, C.; Steduto, P.; Allen, R.G.; Burt, C.M. Increasing productivity in irrigated agriculture: Agronomic constraints and hydrological realities. Agric. Water Manag. 2009, 96, 1517–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Rogers, P.; Bhatia, R.; Huber, A. Water as a Social and Economic Good: How to Put the Principle into Practice (TAC Background Papers No.2); Global Water Partnership/Swedish International: Stockholm, Sweden, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  87. Frederiksen, H.D.; Berkoff, J.; Barber, W. Water Resources Management in Asia; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 17 04059 g001
Figure 1. Location of the study area.
Figure 1. Location of the study area.
Sustainability 17 04059 g001
Sustainability 17 04059 g002
Figure 2. Irrigation ratio by (IR) values.
Figure 2. Irrigation ratio by (IR) values.
Sustainability 17 04059 g002
Sustainability 17 04059 g003
Figure 3. Amount of irrigation water distributed per unit irrigated area (WIRR) and per unit irrigation area (WISR) by year.
Figure 3. Amount of irrigation water distributed per unit irrigated area (WIRR) and per unit irrigation area (WISR) by year.
Sustainability 17 04059 g003
Sustainability 17 04059 g004
Figure 4. Relative to years of water supply (RWS) values.
Figure 4. Relative to years of water supply (RWS) values.
Sustainability 17 04059 g004
Sustainability 17 04059 g005
Figure 5. Operation and maintenance costs (WOM) spent per unit irrigation water and management, operation, and maintenance costs (WMOM) spent per unit irrigation water by year.
Figure 5. Operation and maintenance costs (WOM) spent per unit irrigation water and management, operation, and maintenance costs (WMOM) spent per unit irrigation water by year.
Sustainability 17 04059 g005
Sustainability 17 04059 g006
Figure 6. Production value (WP) for irrigation water by year.
Figure 6. Production value (WP) for irrigation water by year.
Sustainability 17 04059 g006
Table 1. Main attributes of Karacabey WUA.
Table 1. Main attributes of Karacabey WUA.
Service Area (ha)15,863
Main cropsCorn (46%), vegetables (34%), paddy and sugarcane (11%)
Water sourceB.Karadere River and Manyas Lake
Water supplyPumped (100%)
Water distribution Canalette (100%)
Irrigation methods used by farmersSurface (14%), sprinkler (5%), drip (80%)
Table 2. Calculation of performance indicators.
Table 2. Calculation of performance indicators.
IndicatorsFormulaUnitOptimum Value
Irrigation ratio (IR) I r r i g a t e d   a r e a S e r v i c e   a r e a × 100 %100
Annual amount of water used per unit of irrigated area (WIRR) T o t a l   w a t e r   s u p p l y I r r i g a t e d   a r e a m3 ha−1-
Annual amount of water used per unit service area (WISR) T o t a l   w a t e r   s u p p l y S e r v i c e   a r e a m3 ha−1-
Relative water supply (RWS) T o t a l   w a t e r   s u p p l y W a t e r   n e e d e d   f o r   p r o d u c t i o n no unit1
Operation and maintenance cost per unit of irrigation water (WOM) O p e r a t i o n   a n d   m a i n t e n a n c e   c o s t   D i v e r t e d   i r r i g a t i o n   w a t e r USDm−3-
Management, operations and maintenance cost per unit of irrigation water (WMOM) M a n a g e m e n t ,   o p e r a t i o n ,   a n d   m a i n t e n a n c e   c o s t   D i v e r t e d   i r r i g a t i o n   w a t e r USDm−3-
Production per unit of irrigation water (WP) P r o d u c t i o n D i v e r t e d   i r r i g a t i o n   w a t e r USDm−3-
Table 3. Descriptive statistics.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics.
IR
(%)		WIRR (m3 ha−1)WISR (m3 ha−1)RWSWOM ($m−3)WMOM ($m−3)WP
($m−3)
Max78.2412,271.006010.522.140.050.262.83
Min48.873196.761562.200.730.010.030.05
Average69.028602.045004.241.330.020.080.89
St. Dev.5.982376.40943.340.410.010.050.81
Table 4. Correlation analysis.
Table 4. Correlation analysis.
IRWIRRWISRRWSWOMWOMWP
IR10.719 **0.780 **0.028−0.784 **−0.860 **−0.651 **
WIRR 10.637 **0.208−0.848 **−0.710 **−0.552 *
WISR 10.484 *−0.826 **−0.886 **−0.219
RWS 1−0.286−0.3050.547 *
WOM 10.861 **0.436
WOM 10.429
WP 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); * correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 5. Multiple linear regression model summary.
Table 5. Multiple linear regression model summary.
ModelRR SquareAdjusted R SquareStd. Error of the Estimate
10.915 a0.8370.7401206.6058399
Predictors (constant): WP, WISR, RWS, WOM, IR, WMOM. a: proportion of variance.
Table 6. ANOVA of multiple regression models.
Table 6. ANOVA of multiple regression models.
ANOVA
Model aSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFShallow
1Regression74,922,207.376612,487,034.56385770.002 b
Residual14,558,976.530101,455,897.653
Total89,481,183.90616
a Dependent variable: WIRR. b Predictors (constant): WP, WISR, RWS, WOM, IR, WMOM.
Table 7. Coefficient of the predictors.
Table 7. Coefficient of the predictors.
ModelUnstandardized CoefficientsStandardized CoefficientstShallow
BStd. ErrorBeta
1(Constant)6393.8269907.313 0.6450.533
IR60.732137.1550.1580.4430.667
WISR−0.3490.895−0.144−0.3900.704
RWS2751.0291307.1610.4952.1050.062
WOM−187,957.20370,960.554−0.730−2.6490.024
WOM15,298.72317,290.8440.3230.8850.397
WP−1666.664799.828−0.571−2.0840.064
Table 8. Multiple regression model of WIRR.
Table 8. Multiple regression model of WIRR.
ModelR2p-Value
W I R R = 6393.8 + 60.7 × I R − 0.3 × W I S R + 2751 × R W S − 187957.2 × W O M             + 15298.7 × W M O M − 1666.7 × W P 0.840.02
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kirmikil, M. Irrigation Performance Evaluation for Sustainable Water Management: A Study of Karacabey Water Users Association, Türkiye (2006–2023). Sustainability 2025, 17, 4059. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094059

AMA Style

Kirmikil M. Irrigation Performance Evaluation for Sustainable Water Management: A Study of Karacabey Water Users Association, Türkiye (2006–2023). Sustainability. 2025; 17(9):4059. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094059

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kirmikil, Müge. 2025. "Irrigation Performance Evaluation for Sustainable Water Management: A Study of Karacabey Water Users Association, Türkiye (2006–2023)" Sustainability 17, no. 9: 4059. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094059

APA Style

Kirmikil, M. (2025). Irrigation Performance Evaluation for Sustainable Water Management: A Study of Karacabey Water Users Association, Türkiye (2006–2023). Sustainability, 17(9), 4059. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17094059

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop