Methodological Design to Determine Water Resource Management Indicators in Irrigation Districts

Abstract

We present the construction of a methodological proposal to determine which indicators should be considered in the monitoring and evaluation of water resource management in the irrigation districts in Colombia (Land Adequacy Districts). This document begins with a characterization of the subsector of land adequacy, presents the national and international background in the assessment of water resource management, and establishes the optimal scope given the experience of Colombian institutions, the current legal framework, and the quality of official information on subsector issues. Economic, social, water, and climate aspects are considered. Thirteen indicators were chosen from Product Management Indicators, Activity Management Indicators and Results, and Impact Indicators.

1. Introduction

Agriculture is the sector with the largest water usage and is characterized by management challenges and high productivity and economic goals [1]. The rational allocation of water resources for irrigation is critical to improve efficiency in the use of water resources and ensure food security, but effective control measures also need to be put in place for the sustainable use of water resources in irrigation areas [2]. Therefore, the use of irrigation water resources must be optimized through proper management that allows water governance by users [3].

While rain-fed agriculture relies on soil moisture generated from rainfall, irrigated agriculture focuses on the withdrawal of water from surface and groundwater sources [4]. When evaluating water resource management in irrigation, usually the focus is on the application of irrigation systems and conduction efficiency, the fraction of water consumed, and performance indicators, such as uniformity and efficiency [5,6].

Studies use various indicators to evaluate water resources in irrigation districts, including economic, environmental, technical, management, social, and political factors [7,8,9,10,11,12]. Defining the indicators to assess the state and use of water might contribute to the development of a methodological framework and baselines that could be used in lands with similar characteristics [13].

Water productivity, which refers to the increase in the annual value of agricultural production attributable to an annual volume of irrigation water inflow, is one of the indicators that links technical factors with economic and production expectations [14,15,16].

Other research focuses on the use of tools that allow the assessment of irrigation management performance. Indicators are grouped into categories of improvement aspects, such as better operation and maintenance, timely delivery, efficient water use, satisfactory irrigation service, financial performance, and agricultural productivity [17,18,19].

Irrigation districts emerged at the end of the nineteenth century as a private initiative to develop an infrastructure for the irrigation of banana plantations in the department of Magdalena (Colombia). Therefore, governments in the second half of the twentieth century promoted so-called “Land Adequacy” (LA) by strengthening its institutional framework around a public policy that significantly increased the area of irrigation coverage in the country [20].

The LA Public policy should be monitored and evaluated to determine its effects on the rural population and the agricultural economy. Consequently, mechanisms for monitoring government goals, which are principally responsible for the increase in irrigation coverage, have been established. From the institutional framework of the Colombian State, a series of regional indicators (the National Management Evaluation System and Results (SINERGIA)) emerged jointly with other sectors of the economy by evaluating the success or failure of irrigation management programs [21].

Afterward, the Agricultural Rural Planning Unit (UPRA—known as Unidad de Planificación Rural Agropecuaria in Spanish) generated the baseline of LA indicators as a starting point for various analyses of the subsector serving regional land adequacy diagnosis [16]. The number of indicators employed is a key factor, which relies on quantified performance details (e.g., research, management, public information) and the examination of irrigation and drainage disciplines (water balance, economics, environment, management) [16].

Considering all the above, the research question posed here is “How may indicators be selected that are sufficient and appropriate for evaluating irrigation districts’ water resource management and facilitating decision making?” A specific methodological difficulty arises in selecting, estimating, and correctly formulating the set of indicators suitable for evaluating the management of LA.

This research focuses on the logical framework methodology. This is a valuable tool for conceptualizing and designing indicators to support the process of project conceptualization, design, execution, and evaluation [22]. Firstly, an analysis of the stakeholders involved (farmers, managers, government) and the problems associated with the generation of a list of indicators that met the proposed goals was performed. With these results, the final selection and validation of the indicators were achieved using two main parameters: the value chain and the Clear, Relevant, Economic, Adequate, Measurable, and Sensitive (CREAMS) methodology [23].

2. Materials and Methods

A methodology is a system of topics, practices, techniques, procedures, and rules used by those working in a discipline [24]. The proposed methodology provides tools and processes to follow and obtain a set of indicators (battery) suitable for estimating the management of water resources made by the Land Adequacy Districts (LADs). It incorporates different tools such as subroutines, which give a logical, applicable result, under the regulatory legal framework for Colombia. Figure 1 presents the methodological scheme described in seven steps: (1) an analysis of the stakeholders involved, (2) the identification and analysis of the problem, (3) a Vester matrix, (4) a problem tree, (5) an analysis of alternatives and optimal strategies, (6) a logical framework matrix, and (7) the selection of indicators.

2.1. Step 1: Stakeholder Analysis

The expectations of the stakeholders involved should be an important factor in the design of projects that seek to influence the

Well-being of a community by providing an opportunity for their empowerment [25,26]. Consequently, those interested in land adequacy (LA) should be initially identified in order to clarify who is concerned with measuring or evaluating the management of a LAD with respect to water resources.

To determine the expectations of those involved, the individuals and their importance in the LAD are characterized and classified by the roles they play into the following categories: authorities and implementers (AUs), beneficiaries (BEs), funders (FNs), and researchers and support personnel (IAs) [27]. Their importance is considered by estimating the power they have to affect the management of the district and the intensity of expectations, which indicates the degree of involvement with management. According to the baseline established by UPRA, both aspects are rated from 1 to 5, where 1 is the lowest strength or expectation and 5 is the highest strength or expectation [28].

2.2. Step 2: Identify and Analyze the Problem

To establish the main problem and approach to the evaluation strategy, it is necessary to consider all the associated problems by specifying the causes and effects of the central problem. To this end, a list of problems that in this case affect the subsector of land adequacy was drawn up. Workshops were held within the framework of the territorial strategy, in the construction of the plans for the productive and social ordering of rural property (POPSPR). Within the methodological process for the formulation of these plans, a diagnosis of the agricultural territorial system or model was made, which showed as by-products the problems and potentialities of different dimensions, such as productivity, social, ecosystemic, economic, and infrastructural (relating to goods and services) dimensions, among others [29].

The socio-productive dimension describes and diagnoses the status of the water resources and the adequacy of the lands of the territories at a general scale, identifying challenges and opportunities from the perspective of productive alternatives that emphasize administrative political areas. The goal of the validation workshops in the territory was to guarantee that the rural and territorial actors’ visions are aligned with the diagnoses given by reviewing the identified issues for confirmation or deletion and the inclusion of those issues not previously addressed.

At this stage of the preparation of the study, all approaches are working hypotheses that should be evaluated according to the deepening of the studies, including the consultation of those affected through participatory methods [22].

2.3. Step 3: Vester Matrix

It is considered a valuable and practical operational research tool to identify causes, effects, and central problems affecting a project. The matrix allows for relations of dependence or influence between one problem and another on a scale of 0 to 3: zero (0): it does not cause it; one (1): it causes it indirectly or has a very weak causal relationship; two (2): it causes it semi-directly or has a medium causal relationship, and three (3): it causes it directly or has a strong causal relationship [30].

Each problem is crossed with the others and the results of quantifying the dependence and influence between them are analyzed before being placed in a Cartesian plane. Then, each problem is classified according to the resulting typology given by the positioning of the influence (x) and dependence (y) as a result of the sum of the rows and columns, according to the Vester matrix. Problems with low dependence and influence on others, for example, are considered or classed as indifferent.

2.4. Step 4: Problem Tree—Objectives

The location of the elements in the Cartesian plane allows us to identify the central problem as well as the main causes and effects, which can subsequently be schematized in the problem tree.

This step seeks to find solutions to the problems identified by converting them to objectives. An objectives tree is constructed by following the order proposed in the problems tree, giving the issues a positive meaning, and presenting the appropriate objective to solve them. In the tree of objectives, what once were the causes (roots of the tree) must now be the means to achieve the central objective [22]. For example, it can be established that: “The Land Adequacy Districts manage the water resources effectively”.

2.5. Step 5: Analysis of Alternatives and Optimal Strategy

The objective tree’s means are operationalized by finding the actions that are most likely to realize them [22]. The recommended actions allow for the procurement of methods that eliminate the cause of the problem, allowing for the acquisition of components and their associated activities. The input for the analytical structure of the research is what is indicated in the tree of objectives, as well as the actions, components, and activities.

2.6. Step 6: Logical Framework Matrix

The logical framework matrix summarizes what the project intends to do by establishing key assumptions and parameters regarding how inputs and outputs will be monitored and evaluated [31].

The logical framework matrix must synthesize the activities, outputs, and results; therefore, one column is composed of the narrative of the objectives and another is composed of the indicators for the achievement of the results. In total, it consists of four sections: goal, purpose, components, and activities, as summarized in

Table 1. Description of the narrative summary of objectives. Source: Adapted from [22].

Objectives	Narrative Summary of Objectives
Goal	This describes the solution to problems of high-level and national, sectoral, or regional importance that have been diagnosed. It also represents a development objective that obeys a strategic level (development policies), that is, it helps to establish the context in which the study fits and describes the long-term impact to which the study is expected to contribute.
Purpose	This describes the direct effect (behavioral changes) or expected result at the end of the execution period and refers to the change that the project will face. It is a hypothesis about what will happen as a result of producing and using the components. The title of the study must arise directly from the definition of the purpose.
Components	These are the specific works, studies, services, and training that are required to produce, in this case, the LADs. Each of the components of the study must be necessary to achieve the purpose, and it is reasonable to assume that the purpose will be achieved if the components are properly produced.
Activities	These comprise those actions that the beneficiary of the study must conduct to produce each component and involve the use of resources. A detailed list of activities should be drawn up as the starting point of the implementation plan, in chronological order and grouped by component.

[22].

2.7. Step 7: Selecting Indicators: Structuring and Validation

As components of the logical framework matrix, those indicators that allow the evaluation of the fulfillment of the activities and contain the necessary components to fulfill the purpose of the study must be selected or designed. These indicators can originate from other studies of the same nature or be designed specifically, as long as they allow each proposed objective to be evaluated [23]. To conduct this selection and validation, two methodologies were used here: value chain and CREAMS.

-

Value chain methodology

Once the indicators have been selected and classified, a value chain is applied to determine which of them has utility for the achievement of the main objective.

The value chain is formed by following the simplified public value-generation model shown in Figure 2 and proposed by SINERGIA [21]. It is used as a practical filter to obtain the indicators for effective Management and Results.

The developments in the tree of objectives and the results obtained in the analytical structure of the project are considered for the elaboration of the value chain.

-

CREAMS

The CREAMS methodology [23] allows the evaluation of each indicator considered (after the value chain), based on 6 basic criteria or guidelines: clarity, relevance, economy, adequacy, measurability, and sensitivity (Figure 3).

The evaluation consists of giving a grade from 1 to 5 to each of the criteria and then averaging their ratings to obtain a final score for each indicator. The criteria for each indicator should be graded by people with experience and knowledge in the subject [32].

All ratings are averaged by criterion and indicator, and, as a filter, the indicator must be rated above the 25th percentile of all ratings.

3. Results

3.1. Categorization of Stakeholders and Associated Problems

The positioning and characterization of stakeholders involved in the management of water resources in the DATs are presented in

Table 2. Positioning and characterization of stakeholders involved in the management of water resources in DATs in Colombia.

ID	Classification	Name	Expectation	Strength	Resultant
03AU	AU	Rural Development Agency	5	5	25
01AU	AU	Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development	5	4	20
02AU	AU	Agricultural Rural Planning Unit	5	3	15
07BE	BE	Associations’ Users	5	3	15
05AU	AU	Territorial Entities	3	4	12
11FN	FN	Financial Institutions	4	3	12
04AU	AU	Regional Autonomous Corporations	2	5	10
08IA	IA	Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology, and Environmental Studies	3	2	6
06BE	BE	Irrigation Districts Users	5	1	5
10IA	IA	Agricultural Research Centers	4	1	4
09IA	IA	Universities	3	1	3

. The actors involved with the greatest interest in the monitoring and evaluation of water resource management correspond to the public institutions that govern the policy.

From the workshops for the identification of problems and potentialities of the agricultural territorial system in two territorial units of Colombia, twenty-one problems were selected and classified according to the Vester matrix (

Table 3. Classification of the problem.

Type	ID	Problem	x	y	Score
Critical	6AU	Irrigation districts have poor water resource management	42	27	69
	5BE	Water concessions for irrigation districts are insufficient	24	29	53
	2BE	Irrigation water of poor quality	26	23	49
Actives (Causes)	7BE	Deficient and unjustified rural public policies	47	7	54
	8BE	Poor monitoring of hydrological variables affecting the district	35	12	47
	4AU	Widespread absence of productive management in Land Adequacy Districts	28	16	44
	2AU	Conflict of use of the soils of the properties benefited by land adequacy that usually overuse the soils	27	16	43
	3BE	Deterioration of civil works (infrastructure)	26	12	38
Passives (Effects)	1BE	Insufficient water resources for crop irrigation	22	40	62
	1AU	Non-payment of fees by users of Land Adequacy Districts	23	38	61
	4BE	High water service tariffs for irrigation	18	33	51
	3IA	Uncertainty about future land use due to climate change	10	33	43
	8AU	Evidence of high contamination of water resources after irrigation	7	33	40
	6BE	Productivity or yields of crops below the theoretical ceilings of crops or production systems	9	28	37
	5AU	Deterioration of the soils with respect to the properties benefited by land adequacy	11	20	31
Indifferences	7AU	Decentralization of water information and high dispersion of applied irrigation data	22	17	39
	3AU	Ignorance of excess dumping into rivers and streams	18	19	37
	2IA	Low efficiency in applications in the irrigated crop area	21	9	30
	1IA	Low efficiency in water conduction	15	10	25
	4IA	There are no criteria for classifying Land Adequacy Districts	15	9	24
	1FN	Failure to meet the beneficiaries’ financial obligations due to the low profitability of the initially projected harvests	4	19	23

).

Problems are located in a Cartesian plane (Figure 4) for their subsequent categorization by crossing them with each other and by analyzing the results of quantifying the relationships of dependence and influence between them.

With the central problem identified, the causal relationships between all the problems in the problem tree are sketched, as shown in Figure 5, where the causes and effects are determined by the items located in the Cartesian plane.

3.2. Objectives and Analytical Structure of the Study

The classification of objectives was shown in

Table 4. Classification of proposed logical framework objectives.

ID	Classification	Objectives
OP	Main objective	Land Adequacy Districts ensure proper water resource management
FI1	Purposes	Water resources sufficient for agriculture irrigation
FI2	Purposes	Provision of sufficient water to Land Adequacy Districts
FI3	Purposes	Irrigation water of good quality
FI4	Purposes	Yields above the theoretical limits of production systems
FI5	Purposes	Water service for irrigation is provided at reasonable rates
FI6	Purposes	Users of Land Adequacy Districts pay fees on time
FI7	Purposes	Sustainable conservation of the soils and properties benefited by land adequacy
FI8	Purposes	In the face of climate change, certainty in the future use of land is essential
FI9	Purposes	Land Adequacy Districts have excellent quality dumping available for reuse
ME1	Media	Water conduction efficiency is high
ME2	Media	Application efficiency in irrigated agricultural areas is high
ME3	Media	Excess discharges into rivers and streams are measured
ME4	Media	Efficient use of soils with respect to the properties benefited by land adequacy
ME5	Media	Adequate and timely maintenance of the infrastructure required by the districts for the collection, management, and distribution of water resources
ME6	Media	Application of centralization and standardization of hydrological and irrigation data
ME7	Media	The district’s land is being managed productively, with the input and approval of the district’s users
ME8	Media	Monitoring of hydrological factors that affect the district in an efficient and effective manner
ME9	Media	Agricultural producers need coordinated, justified, and fair agricultural public policies

.

Based on the findings identified so far in the process, the objectives (means) that can be considered as concrete actions are ME5, ME7, ME8, and ME9. The proposed actions are set out in

Table 5. Proposed actions.

ID	Type	Actions
ME5	Complementary	Developing a maintenance plan, as well as improving or expanding current infrastructure
ME7	Complementary	Adoption of a production order in district properties based on soil suitability
ME8	Complementary	Design of a tool for integrating multiscale hydrological monitoring data for visualization and application in relation to the Land Adequacy District’s geographical scope
ME9	Complementary	Development of a tool for monitoring and assessing water resource management at the district level as a framework for developing new public policies in the land adequacy subsector

, and the respective components and activities are presented in

Table 6. Proposed components and activities.

ID	Components	Actor ID	Activities
CO1	Water collection, management, and distribution infrastructure maintenance, upgrade, and expansion plan	AC1	The plan’s preparation and funding
CO2	The Land Adequacy District’s Productive Management Plan	AC2	The plan’s preparation and funding
CO3	Integrated system for recording and monitoring hydrological data in the district’s geographical area	AC3	The system’s preparation and funding
CO4	Natural resource management monitoring and assessment tool	AC4	The tool’s preparation and funding

.

3.3. Logical Framework Matrix

The logical framework matrix (LFM) is presented in the modified structure of the logical framework methodology proposed. This matrix arises as the result of the sequential and participatory analysis of the problems addressed in the management of water resources by DATs (

Table 7. Logical framework matrix: pre-selected management indicators.

Narrative Summary of Objectives		Pre-Selected Management Indicators
Type	Narrative	Indicator (49)	Variable (30)
Purposes	FI1. Irrigation is used to manage and ensure sufficient water resources to meet the water requirements of the crops of the Land Adequacy District’s users	1. Water delivery ratio 2. Relative total water supply 3. Relative supply of irrigation water 4. Relative water supply by rainfall 5. Surface Water Use Index (UIU) * 6. Water Use Efficiency Index (UIS) * 7. Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) * 8. Shortage Vulnerability Index (IVH) *	1. Evapotranspiration crops 2. Effective precipitation 3. Water requirements of crops 4. Irrigable area 5. Watered area 6. Volume of irrigation water supplied to each user 7. Total volume of water entering the system
	FI2. Manage and maintain the concession of sufficient water for the district for land sufficiency with respect to the appropriate environmental authority	9. Guarantee of supply 10. Recruitment ratio 11. Aridity Index (IA) * 12. Water Retention and Regulation Index (IRH) * 13. Ecosystem Water Pressure Index (IPHE) * 14. Non-Basin Water Index (IARC) *	8. Price of water 9. Volume of irrigation water entering the system 10. Concessional volume
	FI3. Manage and ensure that the water resource is of excellent quality so that the Land Adequacy District users’ crops can be irrigated correctly	15. Water Quality Index (ACI) * 16. Mean Sediment Yield Index (IRS) *	11. Electrical conductivity irrigation water 12. Biochemical oxygen demand irrigation water 13. Chemical oxygen demand irrigation water 14. Sodium adsorption ratio irrigation water 15. Salinity irrigation water 16. Average sediment concentration
	FI4. Achieve the highest possible yields from the users of the Land Adequacy District’s production systems	17. Gross margin per unit of irrigated area 18. Energy productivity per crop 19. Productivity per unit of irrigated area 20. Crop yield per unit of irrigated area 21. Value of agricultural production per unit of irrigated area	17. Agricultural production 18. Total value of agricultural production
	FI5. Agree on suitable water use rates for the Land Adequacy District’s users	22. Energy cost per unit of irrigation water supplied 23. Energy cost per unit of irrigated area 24. Cost of maintenance and operation per unit of irrigation water supplied 25. Cost of maintenance and operation per unit of irrigated area 26. Staff cost per unit of irrigation water supplied 27. Cost of personnel per unit of irrigated area 28. Relative cost of the service 29. Workers per unit area 30. Active energy consumed per unit of irrigated area 31. Area irrigated per worker	19. Cost of operating the system 20. Energy cost 21. Maintenance cost 22. Personnel cost 23. Active energy consumed 24. Number of workers
	FI6. Land Adequacy District users pay water use fees on time	32. Efficiency in collection 33. Collection rate 34. Cost recovery ratio 35. Ratio of maintenance costs and returns	25. Income 26. Billing
	FI7. Sustainable conservation of the soils and properties benefited by land adequacy	36. Relative depth of the water table	27. Number of days with flooded drainage 28. Changes in the depth of the water table
	FI8. Ensure land use in the conditions of climate change scenarios
	FI9. Improve the quality of wastewater so that it can be reused	37. Salt balance 38. Unit of nitrogen fertilizer per unit of water supplied 39. Nitrogen fertilizer unit per irrigated area unit 40. Potential Water Quality Alteration Index (IACAL) *	29. Salinity of drainage water 30. Nitrogen fertilizer unit 31. Biological oxygen demand of drainage water 32. Chemical oxygen demand of drainage water
Components	CO1. Water collection, management, and distribution infrastructure maintenance, upgrade, and expansion plan	41. Water conduction efficiency 42. Distribution efficiency 43. Fraction of operation, conservation, and maintenance 44. Relationship of application at the property level 45. Relationship of use of irrigation infrastructure
	CO2. The Land Adequacy District’s Productive Management Plan	46. Relationship of the effectiveness of infrastructure (works of art)
	CO3. Integrated system for recording and monitoring hydrological data in the district’s geographical area
	CO4. Natural resource management monitoring and assessment tool
Activities	AC1. The plan’s preparation and funding for water collection, management, and distribution infrastructure maintenance, upgrade, and expansion		33. Investments
	AC2. The Land Adequacy District’s Productive Management preparation and funding
	AC3. Integrated system preparation and funding
	AC4. Tool’s preparation and funding

* ENA 2018 indicators [33].

).

3.4. Selection of Management Indicators

This began with a list of indicators (129) from various publications referring to the state of the art of water resource management in irrigation districts. These indicators were categorized into five main typologies: water balance or water yield, agricultural production, socioeconomic and financial, energy, and environmental sustainability.

The pre-selected indicators are recorded in the LFM (Table 7), which in turn includes the hydro-climatological and anthropic intervention indicators of the National Water Study, 2018 [25]. In this matrix, a differentiation was made between what should be considered as variables and what as indicators, considering that there is a contrast between these two terms with respect to their measurement and composition. The result at this step was forty-six (46) indicators.

The value chain (Figure 6) was structured based on the pre-selected indicators of Table 7 that add value to the study and by including or rethinking new indicators that are key to evaluating the management of water resources made by LADs. In this case, only management and result indicators were considered, given that impacts are a fundamental part of the evaluation of public policies. In total, seventeen indicators were obtained, as shown in

Table 8. Management indicators and results of the value chain.

Link	Type of Indicators	Indicators
Inputs	Management	1. Water Quality Index (ACI) 2. Surface Water Use Index (IUA) 3. Water Retention and Regulation Index (IRH) 4. Shortage Vulnerability Index (IVH) 5. Potential Water Quality Alteration Index (IACAL) 6. Water conduction efficiency 7. Irrigation infrastructure usage index 8. Relative depth of the water table
Activities	Management	9. Guarantee of supply 10. Operation and maintenance cost per unit of irrigation water supplied 11. Cost of operation and maintenance per unit of irrigated area 12. Collection rate 13. Application at the property level
Results	Result	14. Relative total water supply 15. Relative supply of irrigation water 16. Crop yield per unit irrigated area 17. Gross margin per unit of irrigated area

.

Finally, we present the evaluation of each indicator by qualifying the CREAMS criteria, obtained from the assessment of professionals with wide experience in the subject of ADT in Colombia. The qualification threshold was 3.55; thus, the results in

Table 9. Evaluation results according to the CREAMS methodology.

Indicator			CREAMS Criteria
N	Name	Definition and Object	C	R	E	A	M	S	Mean	Approval
1	Water Quality Index (ICA)	This allows the analysis of quality conditions at specific points of a current at the time the measurement is made; it is calculated using the measurements of the six representative variables of the main pollutants (DO, COD, SST, CE, pH, NT/PT ratio) [33]	4.18	4.27	4.00	4.09	4.27	4.18	4.17	YES
2	Surface Water Use Index (IUA)	Amount of water used by the different user sectors in each period (annual, monthly) and spatial unit of analysis (area, zone, subzone) of the surface water supply available for the same units of time and space; it allows the analysis of the quantities used by the different sectors of the economy within a hydrographic unit [33]	4.00	4.27	3.55	3.91	3.73	3.45	3.82	YES
3	Water Retention and Regulation Index (IRH)	The indicator associated with the natural regime of the basins that qualitatively qualifies the capacity of retention and water regulation, using the shape of the curve of the duration of average daily flows (CDC) to indicate the areas that drain more stably and the occurrence of extreme flows [33]	3.73	4.18	3.27	3.73	3.64	3.36	3.65	YES
4	Vulnerability Index due to Shortages (IVH)	This index is calculated from a matrix of relationships between the water regulation index and the water use index; it measures the degree of fragility of the water system to maintain an offer that allows the supply of water from sectors that use the resource, both in average hydrological conditions and extremely dry years [33]	3.91	4.18	3.09	3.91	3.27	3.27	3.61	YES
5	Potential Water Quality Alteration Index (IACAL)	This accounts for the pressure of pollutants discharged into surface water systems (organic matter, suspended solids, and nutrients) that affect water quality conditions [33]	3.82	4.09	3.00	3.64	3.18	3.45	3.53	NO
6	Water conduction efficiency	This is the ratio between the total volumes delivered to the user vs. the total volume entering the system; it quantifies the efficiency operating in the system between the source and the delivery points and indicates the efficiency with which water demands are met	4.55	4.45	3.82	4.09	4.18	3.64	4.12	YES
7	Irrigation infrastructure usage index	This is the relationship between the irrigated area vs. the irrigable area; it evaluates the interest of farmers in the use of available irrigation resources and indicates their interest in the use of irrigation services	4.09	4.27	4.00	4.18	3.91	3.45	3.98	YES
8	Relative depth of the water table	This evaluates the appearance of drainage and is defined as the relationship between the current depth of the water table during a given period and the critical depth in the same period	3.46	4.00	2.64	3.73	3.27	3.64	3.46	NO
9	Guarantee of supply	This evaluates the management of the DAT before the Regional Autonomous Corporation regarding the surface water concession and is defined as the relationship between the amount of water entering the system and the volume to which it is entitled	3.55	4.00	3.09	3.73	3.36	3.55	3.55	YES
10	Operation and maintenance cost per unit of irrigation water supply	This relates the annual costs necessary for the operation of the DAT (consisting of personnel costs, maintenance, district administration management, and other miscellaneous costs) and the total volume supplied to users in the same period	4.27	4.27	4.00	4.27	4.09	3.36	4.04	YES
11	Cost of operation and maintenance per unit of irrigated area	This relates the annual costs necessary for the operation of the DAT (consisting of personnel costs, maintenance, district administration management, and other miscellaneous costs) and the total adequate area of the DAT in the same period	4.27	4.18	4.09	3.91	4.27	3.27	4.00	YES
12	Collection ratio	This evaluates the acceptance of the services by the users and is defined by the collection in a certain period on the billing of the same period	4.18	4.27	4.00	4.27	4.36	3.45	4.09	YES
13	Application at the property level	This evaluates the efficiency of the application of irrigable area water, that is, the volume of water required by crops over the volume of property water delivered	4.09	4.36	3.64	3.91	3.73	3.82	3.93	YES
14	Total irrigation supply	This is the relationship between water inputs by precipitation and irrigation vs. evapotranspiration regarding crops; it allows the determination of whether the total amount of water that crops received during a cycle was excessive, sufficient, or insufficient [9]	4.27	4.09	3.73	3.91	3.45	3.73	3.86	YES
15	Relative irrigation supply	This is the relationship between the water inputs from irrigation vs. the water not supplied according to the water needs (by precipitation) of crops; it reports the quality of irrigation applied by relating the amount of water demanded to the net water needs, since it shows whether the farmer has considered the evapotranspiration of a crop and the leaching requirements when using a certain volume of water [9]	3.45	3.82	2.82	3.45	2.91	3.18	3.27	NO
16	Crop yield per unit irrigated area	This evaluates the impact of proper surface water resource management on the agricultural productivity of irrigated crops; it is the quantity of product (t) over the watered area (ha)	4.27	4.55	3.64	4.18	3.91	4.00	4.09	YES
17	Gross margin per unit of irrigated area	This evaluates the profitability of farmers concerning the amount of water that they receive from the DAT—gross profitability for the total volume of irrigation water [34]	3.55	3.36	3.27	3.36	3.36	3.45	3.39	NO

were obtained. Those that exceeded this limit were considered as part of the recommended battery of indicators.

4. Discussion

The logical framework as a methodological tool was the central axis used to estimate the indicators that would be key to evaluating the management of water resources in the districts under consideration here. This tool allowed those elements of a problem to be identified that, when translated into concrete actions, could have a beneficial impact on land adequacy beneficiaries.

Stakeholder participation in formulating a problem gives solid validity to the research. The main reason is that the involvement of stakeholders allows the direction of efforts to solve the problem in question and produce benefits to the farmers who consider irrigation as the solution compete with their agricultural products and at the same time ensures the environmental sustainability needed to continue their way of life and obtain sustenance.

In the case of workshops used as a strategy to determine the indicators, it is key to define an objective and practical scope and to see that it is made explicit and disseminated among those who participate in order to avoid the exercise being skewed by the interests of the attendants. The aim is to obtain an impartial exercise and thus achieve the proposed objectives.

The entities of the national order, reflected in the institutionalism of the agricultural and environmental sectors, are emerging as the most interested actors in the management of the districts for the efficient use of the resource from the perspective of multisectoral demand. However, there is an increasing awareness by the beneficiaries of the land adequacy of implementing monitoring and evaluation practices to the use and management of natural resources.

It was very useful to follow the parameters of the entities in charge of monitoring and evaluating public policies, such as the DNP and the UPRA, to frame the analysis of problems and the structuring of objectives that must be included in the evaluation of the management of water resources by Land Adequacy Districts (LADs). These parameters are the products of public policies to provide irrigation and drainage to the lands of agricultural use in Colombia.

The validation tools of the processes implemented in the proposed methodology, such as the value chain and the pre-selected indicators (evaluation according to the CREAMS criteria), are an excellent filter for defining which indicators should comprise the final battery. They are also useful to ratify those indicators that are already being used to evaluate the management of the districts.

It is recommended to join forces at the interdisciplinary level, to complement and coordinate the concepts of management around natural resources, since the aim must be not only to achieve those resources that meet the input needs of the productive systems but also to seek sustainability over time and increase the well-being of the population, especially the rural population.

5. Conclusions

The classification and typification of the obtained indicators provides support to individuals who make decisions and implement the relevant methodological procedures. Water use in irrigation districts should be monitored and evaluated as a separate project within each organization. Deficient and unjustified rural public policies, poor monitoring of hydrological variables affecting the district, and the deterioration of infrastructure are among the main causes that generate the problems faced in irrigation districts characterized by poor water resource management. The effects are reflected in the high cost of water tariffs, low water availability and quality, and low crop productivity.

Finally, thirteen (13) indicators were selected and formed the battery of proposed indicators. They are estimated to be key to measuring and evaluating water resource management in the Land Adequacy Districts in Colombia and were classified into three (3) main categories: Product Management Indicators, Activity Management Indicators and Results, and Impact Indicators.