SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 21 Sayı: 83

INTER-SECTORAL COMPETITION FOR WATER AND A RESEARCH ON IRRIGATION PERCEPTION OF AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES IN HARRAN PLAIN

SEKTÖRLER ARASI SU REKABETİ VE HARRAN OVASI TARIM İŞLETMELERİNİN SULAMA ALGISI ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Nihat Küçük(HARRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-1483-0422
Hatice Parlakçı Doğan(GAP Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü)0000-0002-2186-3505
Mustafa Hakkı Aydoğdu(HARRAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-4945-5239
Pages
1343–1357
Publication Date
2022-07-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Along with the training and extension activities for agricultural enterprises, the products that provide the highest added value from the unit water amount and the water-saving technologies should be extended.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:While the world population has increased by 4.4 times in the last century, water consumption has increased by about 7.3 times.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The agricultural sector consumes approximately 70% of the world's water resources.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Along with the training and extension activities for agricultural enterprises, the products that provide the highest added value from the unit water amount and the water-saving technologies should be extended.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sektörler arası su rekabeti · Verimlilik · Üretici algısı

Abstract

While the world population has increased by 4.4 times in the last century, water consumption has increased by about 7.3 times. The agricultural sector consumes approximately 70% of the world's water resources. The water demand of sectors such as industry, energy and municipal services is also increasing. The resulting competition means that other sectors demand a share of the water used by the agricultural sector. It is expected that the agricultural sector will be negatively affected by these developments, which contain new risks. Agriculture is also blamed for negative externalities such as excessive water use, water scarcity and environmental pollution. The main factors affecting the excessive and inefficient use of water in agriculture; producers do not have to pay the real cost of water and their misconceptions about irrigation. In this context, the perceptions of agricultural enterprises in the Harran Plain about irrigation were investigated. One-way analysis of variance was applied to the data obtained through face-to-face survey. The most striking result obtained from the research; 31.1% of producers have the perception that using more water will increase efficiency. Education and income independent variables are statistically significant (p<5%) in terms of the dependent variable "more water use increases efficiency". The results strengthen the opinion that agricultural enterprises tend to use excessive water and use water inefficiently. To the extent that water can be used efficiently in agriculture, the risks of other sectors regarding water supply will also decrease. Along with the training and extension activities for agricultural enterprises, the products that provide the highest added value from the unit water amount and the water-saving technologies should be extended.

Özet

Son yüzyılda dünya nüfusu yaklaşık 4,4 kat artarken, su tüketimi ise yaklaşık 7,3 kat artmıştır. Tarım sektörü, dünyadaki su kaynaklarının yaklaşık %70’ini tüketmektedir. Sanayi, enerji ve belediye hizmetleri gibi sektörlerin de su talebi artmaktadır. Ortaya çıkan rekabet, diğer sektörlerin, tarım sektörünün kullandığı sudan pay talep etmeleri anlamına gelmektedir. Tarım sektörünün, yeni riskler barındıran bu gelişmelerden olumsuz yönde etkileneceği öngörülmektedir. Tarım, aşırı su kullanımı, su kıtlığı ve çevre kirliliği gibi negatif dışsallıklardan da sorumlu tutulmaktadır. Tarımda suyun aşırı ve verimsiz kullanılmasını etkileyen başlıca faktörler, üreticilerin suyun gerçek maliyetini ödememesi ve sulama konusundaki yanlış algılardır. Bu bağlamda, Harran Ovasındaki tarım işletmelerinin sulama algıları araştırılmıştır. Yüz yüze anket yoluyla elde edilen verilere tek yönlü varyans analizi uygulanmıştır. Araştırmadan çıkan en çarpıcı sonuç; üreticilerin %31,1’inin fazla su kullanmanın verimi arttıracağı algısı taşımalarıdır. Eğitim ve gelir bağımsız değişkenleri, “fazla su kullanımı verimi arttırır” bağımlı değişkeni açısından istatistiki olarak anlamlıdır (p<%5). Sonuçlar, tarım işletmelerinin aşırı su kullanma eğilimi taşıdıkları ve suyu verimsiz kullandıkları kanaatini güçlendirmektedir. Tarımda suyun verimli kullanılabilmesi ölçüsünde, diğer sektörlerin su tedarikine dair riskleri de azalacaktır. Tarım işletmelerine yönelik eğitim ve yayım faaliyetleriyle birlikte, birim su miktarından en yüksek katma değeri sağlayan ürünlerin ve su tasarrufu sağlayan teknolojilerin yaygınlaştırılması gerekmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Küçük, N., Doğan, H. P., Aydoğdu, M. H. (2022). INTER-SECTORAL COMPETITION FOR WATER AND A RESEARCH ON IRRIGATION PERCEPTION OF AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES IN HARRAN PLAIN. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 83, 1343–1357. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.1073491

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (53)

  1. Adarsh, S., ve Priya, K.L. (2021). Multifractal Description of Droughts in Western India Using Detrended Fluctuation Analysis. Chapter 9,. In: Pandey A., Mishra S., Kansal M., Singh R., Singh V.P. (Eds)., Hydrological Extremes. Water Science and Technology Library, vol 97, (p.133-142). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59148-9_9
  2. Amara, A., ve Kansal, M.L. (2021). Challenges of Water Supply Management in Harbour City of Freetown in Western Sierra Leone. Chapter 27. In: Pandey A., Mishra S., Kansal M., Singh R., Singh V.P. (eds)., Hydrological Extremes. Water Science and Technology Library, vol 97, (p391-403). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59148-9_27
  3. Aydoğdu, M.H, Cançelik, M., Sevinç, M.R., Çullu, M.A., Yenigün, K., Küçük, N., Karlı, B., Ökten, Ş., Beyazgül, U., Doğan, H.P., Şahin, Z., Mutlu, N., Kaya, C., Yenikale, A., ve Yenikale, A. (2021(a)). Is Drought Caused by Fate? Analysis of Farmers’ Perception and Its Influencing Factors in the Irrigation Areas of GAP-Şanlıurfa, Turkey. Water, 13(18), 2519. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13182519
  4. Aydoğdu, M.H., Cançelik, M., Sevinç, M.R., Çullu, M.A., Yenigün, K., Küçük, N., Karlı, B., Ökten, Ş., Beyazgül, U., Doğan, H.P., Sevinç, G., Şahin, Z., Mutlu, N., Kaya, C., Yenikale, A., ve Yenikale, A. (2021(b)). Are You Happy to Be a Farmer? Understanding Indicators Related to Agricultural Production and Influencing Factors: GAP-Şanlıurfa, Turkey. Sustainability, 13, 12663. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212663
  5. Aydoğdu, M.H., Sevinç, M.R., Cançelik, M., Doğan, H.P., ve Şahin, Z. (2020). Determination of Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Agricultural Land Use in the GAP-Harran Plain of Turkey. Land, 9(8), 261: 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9080261
  6. Aydoğdu, M.H., ve Bilgiç, A. (2016). An evaluation of farmers’ willingness to pay for efficient irrigation for sustainable usage of resources: The GAP-Harran Plain case, Turkey. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 13(2-4), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2016.1241808
  7. Başol, K., Durman, K., ve Önder, H. (2007). Doğal Kaynakların ve Çevrenin Ekonomik Analizi. Bursa, Alfa Akademi.
  8. Biber, Ç., ve Kara, T. (2006). Mısır Bitkisinin Bitki Su Tüketimi ve Kısıtlı Sulama Uygulamaları, OMÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 140-146
  9. Bilgic, A., ve Yen, S. T. (2013). Household food demand in Turkey: A two-step demand system approach. Food Policy, 43(1), 267-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.09.004
  10. Burek, P., Satoh, Y., Fischer, G., Kahil, M. T., Scherzer, A., Tramberend, S., Nava, L. F., Wada, Y., Eisner, S., Flörke, M., Hanasaki, N., Magnuszewski, P., Cosgrove, B., ve Wiberg, D. (2016). Water Futures and Solution Fast Track Initiative – Final Report ADA Project Number 2725-00/2014. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/13008/ 1/WP-16-006.pdf
  11. Connor, R., ve Coates, D. (2021). The state of water resources, The United Nations World Water Development Report 2021: Valuing Water, pp11-16,. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France
  12. Delgado, A., Rodriguez, D.J., Amadei, C.A., ve Makino, M. (2021). Water in Circular Economy and Resilience (WICER). World Bank, Washington, DC.
  13. El-Sadek, A. (2011). Virtual water: an effective mechanism for integrated water resources management, Agricultural Sciences, 2(3), 248-261. https://doi:10.4236/as.2011.23033
  14. FAO (2003). World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030 An FAO Perspective, Edited by Jelle Bruinsma, Food and Agriculture Organization, London, Earthscan Publications Ltd.
  15. FAO (2017) Water for Sustainable Food and Agriculture: A Report Produced for the G20 Presidency of Germany. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2017 Rome.
  16. FAO-AQUASTAT (2016). “Water withdrawal by sector, around 2010, AQUASTAT November 2016”, FAO's Global Information System on Water and Agriculture, Erişim Adresi (26.01.2022). https://firebasestorage.googleapis.com/v0/b/fao-aquastat.appspot.com/o/ PDF%2FTABLES%2FWorldData-Withdrawal
  17. FAO-AQUASTAT (2022). “Water use, FAO's Global Information System on Water and Agriculture”, Erişim asdresi: https://www.fao.org/aquastat/en/overview/ methodology/ water-use/
  18. Fischer, G., Tubiello, F.N., van Velthuizen, H., ve Wiberg, D.A. (2007). Climate change impacts on irrigation water requirements: effects of mitigation, 1990–2080. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(7), 1083–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.05.021
  19. Fuglie, K., Dhehibi, B., El Shahat, A.A.I., ve Aw-Hassan, A. (2021), Water, Policy, and Productivity in Egyptian Agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 103(4), 1378-1397. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12148
  20. Geman, H. (2015). Agricultural Finance: From Crops to Land, Water and Infrastructure. The Wiley finance series, United Kingdom, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  21. Gomez-Limon, J.A., Gutierrez-Martin, C. ve Montilla-Lopez, N.M. (2021). Priority water rights. Are they useful for improving water-use efficiency at the irrigation district level?. Agricultural Water Management, 257, 107145: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107145
  22. Griffin, R.C. (2006). Water Resource Economics: The Analysis of Scarcity, Policies, and Projects. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The MIT Press.
  23. Hanemann, W.M. (2006). The economic conception of water, pp.61–91. In: Roegers, P.P., Llamas, M. R., Martinez-Cortina, L. (Eds.), Water Crisis: Myth or Reality. London, Taylor & Francis,
  24. He, B., Wang, Y., Takase, K., Mouri, G, ve Razafindrabe, B.H. (2009). Estimating Land Use Impacts on Regional Scale Urban Water Balance and Groundwater Recharge. Water Resources Management, 23, 1863–1873 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-008-9357-2
  25. Hellegers, P., Davidson, B., Russ, J., ve Waalewijn, P. (2022). Irrigation subsidies and their externalities, Agricultural Water Management, 260, 107284: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107284.1-6.
  26. Kansal, M.L., ve Nyamsha, D. (2021). Challenges of Food Security in Tanzania: Need for Precise Irrigation, Chapter 25, p363-380. In: Pandey A., Mishra S., Kansal M., Singh R., Singh V.P. (Eds), Hydrological Extremes. Water Science and Technology Library, vol 97, Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59148-9_25
  27. Knox, J.W., Kay, M.G., and Weatherhead, E.K. (2012). Water regulation, crop production, and agricultural water management - Understanding farmer perspectives on irrigation efficiency, Agricultural Water Management, 108, 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.06.007.
  28. Knox, J.W., Morris, J., Weatherhead, E.K. ve Turner, A.P. (2000). Mapping the financial benefits of spray irrigation and potential financial impact of restrictions on abstraction: a case study in Anglian Region. Journal of Environmental Management, 58(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema. 1999.0307
  29. Küçük, N. (2021). Su Kaynakları Yönetimi ve Şanlıurfa GAP Sulamalarının Sosyoekonomik Etkileri, Bölüm 8, s139-158. Ed: Ahmet Niyazi Özker, İşletme ve İktisadî Bilimler Araştırma ve Teori, Lyon, France, Livre de Lyon.
  30. Küçük, N., Aydoğdu, M. H. ve Şahin, Z. (2022). Yağlı Tohum Piyasalarındaki Gelişmeler ve Türkiye Kolza Piyasası Trend Analizi. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 32(1): 215-227. https://doi.org/10.18069/firatsbed.976052
  31. OECD (2017). Addressing water risks in agriculture, Chapter 1, 11-23. In Water Risk Hotspots for Agriculture, 25 Sep 2017. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264279551-2-en
  32. OECD (2022). “Water and agriculture, Managing water sustainably is key to the future of food and agriculture”. Erişim adresi (17.01.2022): https://www.oecd.org/agriculture/topics/water-and-agriculture/
  33. Okay, D. ve Yazgan, S. (2016). Farklı Su Uygulama Düzeylerinin Mısır Bitkisi Verimi Üzerine Etkisi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 30 (1), 1-12.
  34. Parlakçı Doğan, H. (2019). Şanlıurfa-Harran Ovasında Tarımsal Üretimde Suyun Ekonomik Analizi. Harran Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Tarım Ekonomisi ABD, (Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi), Şanlıurfa.
  35. Rosegrant, M.W., Cai, X. ve Cline, S.A. (2002). World Water and Food to 2025, Dealing with Scarcity. Washington DC, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  36. Swain, S., Mishra, S.K., Pandey, A., ve Dayal, D. (2021). Identification of Meteorological Extreme Years Over Central Division of Odisha Using an Index-Based Approach, Chapter 12, p161-174. In: Pandey A., Mishra S., Kansal M., Singh R., Singh V.P. (eds) Hydrological Extremes, Water Science and Technology Library, vol 97, Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59148-9_12
  37. T.C. Kalkınma Bakanlığı (2018). On Birinci Kalkınma Planı (2019-2023) Su Kaynakları Yönetimi ve Güvenliği, Özel İhtisas Komisyonu Raporu, Yayın No: KB: 3012- ÖİK: 793, Ankara
  38. Tanrıverdi, Ç., Değirmenci, H., Gönen, E., Şenyiğit, U. (2018). Doğu Akdeniz Bölgesinde Farklı Sıra Aralıklarının Pamuk Bitkisinin (Gossypium Hirsutum L.) Verim ve Sulama Suyu Miktarına Etkisi. KSÜ Tarim ve Doğa Dergisi, 21(2):185-190. DOI:10.18016/ksudobil.287802
  39. Terin, M., Bilgiç, A., Güler, İ.O. ve Yavuz, F. (2015). Türkiye’de Süt Ürünleri Tüketim Harcamalarına Etki Eden Faktörlerin Analizi: Çoklu Heckman Örneklem Seçicilik Sistem Yaklaşımı. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 21 (4), 500-515.
  40. UN-Water (2020). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2020: Water and Climate Change. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France.
  41. UN-Water (2021). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2021: Valuing Water. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France.
  42. Urak, F., Bilgiç, A. ve Dağdemir, V. (2018). Türkiye’de hane halkı süt ve süt ürünleri ile yenilebilir yağların harcama tutarını etkileyen faktörlerin belirlenmesi. KSU Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi, 21(Özel Sayı), 177-189. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.472701
  43. Van Duinen, R., Filatova, T., Geurts, P., ve van der Veen, A. (2015). Empirical analysis of farmers’ drought risk perception: Objective factors, personal circumstances, and social influence. Risk Analysis, 35(4), 741–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12299
  44. Velazquez, E. (2007) Water trade in Andalusia. Virtual water: An alternative way to manage water use. Eco-logical Economics, 63, 201-208. https://doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2006.10.023.
  45. Wada, Y., M. Flörke, N. Hanasaki, S. Eisner, G. Fischer, S. Tramberend, Y. Satoh, M. van Vliet, P. Yillia, C. Ringler, P. Burek and D. Wiberg (2016). Modeling global water use for the 21st century: Water Futures and Solutions (WFaS) initiative and its approaches. Geoscientific Model Development, 9(1), 175–222. https://doi:10.5194/gmd-9-175-2016
  46. WEF (2020). The Global Risks Report 2018, 13th Edition. World Economic Forum (WEF), REF: 09012018, Geneva, Switzerland.
  47. World Bank (2020). “Water in Agriculture, May 08, 2020”. Erişim adresi (17.01.2022): https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water-in-agriculture#1
  48. World Bank (2022). “Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (% of GDP), Industry (including construction), value added (% of GDP)”, World Bank Open Data. Erişim adresi (27.01.2022): https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS
  49. Yamane, T. (2001). Temel Örnekleme Yöntemleri. Literatür Yayıncılık, İstanbul, 2001.
  50. Yıldız, C. (2016). Pamukta Sulama ve Dikkat Edilecek Hususlar, Borsa Tarım Dergisi, Nisan, Mayıs, Haziran, 4-5. https://www.sutb.org.tr/ Upload/Dosya/Dergi/BORSA-TARIM-2-6.pdf
  51. Zetland, D. (2021). The role of prices in managing water scarcity. Water Security, 12, 100081: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasec.2020.100081.
  52. Connor, R., ve Coates, D. (2021). The state of water resources, The United Nations World Water Development Report 2021: Valuing Water, pp11-16,. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France
  53. Okay, D. ve Yazgan, S. (2016). Farklı Su Uygulama Düzeylerinin Mısır Bitkisi Verimi Üzerine Etkisi. Uludağ Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 30 (1), 1-12.