SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Black Sea Journal of Agriculture / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2

Managerial Performance of a Water User Association under Governance Reform and Drought: Evidence from the İnönü Open-Channel Irrigation Scheme (2012–2024)

Eray Harman(DSİ)0009-0007-4114-2928
Pages
233–243
Publication Date
2026-03-15
🏛️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)

Results indicate that post-reform management operated under markedly tighter hydrologic constraints: mean pre-season water availability declined from 12.9 million m³ (2012–2017) to 5.4 million m³ (2019–2024), while the mean dam water ratio decreased from 66.8% to 28.0%.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Water scarcity and recurrent droughts are reshaping the operational and governance challenges faced by Water User Associations (WUAs).
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study assesses how managerial performance evolved in the Inönü Water User Association (Eskişehir, Türkiye)—a reservoir-based open-channel system—across a major governance reform implemented in 2018.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results indicate that post-reform management operated under markedly tighter hydrologic constraints: mean pre-season water availability declined from 12.9 million m³ (2012–2017) to 5.4 million m³ (2019–2024), while the mean dam water ratio decreased from 66.8% to 28.0%.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Water user associations · WUA governance reform · Water scarcity

Abstract

Water scarcity and recurrent droughts are reshaping the operational and governance challenges faced by Water User Associations (WUAs). This study assesses how managerial performance evolved in the Inönü Water User Association (Eskişehir, Türkiye)—a reservoir-based open-channel system—across a major governance reform implemented in 2018. An annual operational dataset covering 2012–2024 was analyzed. Because the institutional change entered into force in April 2018, 2018 was treated as a transition year, and pre-reform (2012–2017) and post-reform (2019–2024) periods were compared using time-series analysis and period-based summaries. Managerial performance was evaluated using widely applied indicators: return on investment, maintenance costs to income ratio, management–operation–maintenance cost per irrigated area, fee collection performance, labor cost per irrigated area, and irrigated area per labor, together with water availability and irrigated area dynamics. Results indicate that post-reform management operated under markedly tighter hydrologic constraints: mean pre-season water availability declined from 12.9 million m³ (2012–2017) to 5.4 million m³ (2019–2024), while the mean dam water ratio decreased from 66.8% to 28.0%. Despite intensified drought pressure, service outcomes remained functional, with the mean irrigation ratio increasing from 42.9% to 52%, and fee collection becoming higher and more stable (fee collection performance between 91.2% and 97.7%). Overall, the findings suggest strengthened fee-collection discipline and continued service delivery under water scarcity, supporting the conclusion that the governance reform contributed to improved managerial performance of the irrigation scheme despite intensifying drought conditions.

Özet

Water scarcity and recurrent droughts are reshaping the operational and governance challenges faced by Water User Associations (WUAs). This study assesses how managerial performance evolved in the Inönü Water User Association (Eskişehir, Türkiye)—a reservoir-based open-channel system—across a major governance reform implemented in 2018. An annual operational dataset covering 2012–2024 was analyzed. Because the institutional change entered into force in April 2018, 2018 was treated as a transition year, and pre-reform (2012–2017) and post-reform (2019–2024) periods were compared using time-series analysis and period-based summaries. Managerial performance was evaluated using widely applied indicators: return on investment, maintenance costs to income ratio, management–operation–maintenance cost per irrigated area, fee collection performance, labor cost per irrigated area, and irrigated area per labor, together with water availability and irrigated area dynamics. Results indicate that post-reform management operated under markedly tighter hydrologic constraints: mean pre-season water availability declined from 12.9 million m³ (2012–2017) to 5.4 million m³ (2019–2024), while the mean dam water ratio decreased from 66.8% to 28.0%. Despite intensified drought pressure, service outcomes remained functional, with the mean irrigation ratio increasing from 42.9% to 52%, and fee collection becoming higher and more stable (fee collection performance between 91.2% and 97.7%). Overall, the findings suggest strengthened fee-collection discipline and continued service delivery under water scarcity, supporting the conclusion that the governance reform contributed to improved managerial performance of the irrigation scheme despite intensifying drought conditions.

🔖

Cite This Article

Harman, E. (2026). Managerial Performance of a Water User Association under Governance Reform and Drought: Evidence from the İnönü Open-Channel Irrigation Scheme (2012–2024). Black Sea Journal of Agriculture, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2, 233–243. https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1847686

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. Ahi, Y., Coşkun Dilcan, Ç., Köksal, D. D., & Gültaş, H. T. (2023). Reservoir evaporation forecasting based on climate change scenarios using artificial neural network model. Water Resources Management, 37, 2607–2624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-022-03365-0
  2. Akçay, S. (2018). Sulama birliklerinin ekonomik ve kurumsal performansının karşılaştırmalı değerlendirmesi: Batı Ege örneği. Tarım Ekonomisi Dergisi, 24(2), 109–115. https://doi.org/10.24181/tarekoder.442701
  3. Arslan, F., Córcoles Tendero, J. I., Rodríguez Díaz, J. A., & Zema, D. A. (2023). Comparison of irrigation management in water user associations of Italy, Spain and Turkey using benchmarking techniques. Water Resources Management, 37, 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-022-03355-2
  4. Arslan, F., & Zema, D. A. (2024). Performance indicators for improving irrigation management in Aegean district. Black Sea Journal of Agriculture, 7(6), 703–709. https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1533322
  5. Ayyıldız, M., & Baran, M. (2024). Yozgat ilindeki sulama birliklerinin performans açısından karşılaştırmalı değerlendirilmesi. Eurasian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 4(1), 34–43. https://izlik.org/JA54RH22DT
  6. Batt, H. A., & Merkley, G. P. (2010). Water management and user association analysis for irrigation improvement in Egypt. Irrigation and Drainage, 59(2), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.465
  7. Bayramoğlu, Z., Ağızan, S., Ağızan, K., & Bozdemir, M. (2021). Sulama organizasyonlarında yönetim şekillerine göre fiyatlandırma yaklaşımı. Eurasian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1(1), 14–26. https://izlik.org/JA95DH54UY
  8. Berihune, Z. F., & Moges, M. M. (2022). Performance evaluation of small-scale irrigation scheme: Case study of Selamko irrigation scheme, Upper Blue Nile, Ethiopia. Water Conservation Science and Engineering, 7, 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41101-022-00161-0
  9. Bildim, S., & Irık, H. A. (2024). Performance analysis for Yamula downstream gravity and pump irrigation association. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 11(3), 704–712. https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1468531
  10. Bopp, C., Villamayor-Tomás, S., Jordán, C., Engler, A., & Jara-Rojas, R. (2026). What’s the role of community managers in collective action? An empirical analysis of irrigators’ cooperation decisions in Chilean water user associations. Irrigation Science, 44, 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-025-01046-5
  11. Burton, M., Molden, D., & Scutsch, J. (2000). Benchmarking Irrigationand Drainage System Performance. International Programme on Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID).
  12. Çakmak, B., & Avcı, S. (2025). Assessment of agricultural water consumption in İzmir Province. Turkish Journal of Agriculture: Food Science and Technology, 13(5), 1278–1284. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v13i5.1278-1284.7577
  13. Çakmak, B., Beyribey, M., Yıldırım, Y. E., & Kodal, S. (2004). Benchmarking performance of irrigation schemes: A case study from Türkiye. Irrigation and Drainage: the Journal of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, 53(2), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.130
  14. Cooper, B., Crase, L., Burton, M., & Pham, H. D. (2023). Survey data on preferences and attitudes towards participatory irrigation management in India and Pakistan. Scientific Data, 10, 152. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02052-y
  15. Değirmenci, H., & Arslan, F. (2018). Sulama birliklerine devredilen sulama şebekelerinde işletme ve bakım giderlerinin analizi. Su Kaynakları, 3(1), 16–23. https://izlik.org/JA24GX26RR
  16. DSİ. (2025a). Planning report (hydrometeorology and climate). Eskişehir, Türkiye. Internal planning report (unpublished).
  17. DSİ. (2025b). Irrigation Scheme: Institutional inventory, operational and financial records (2012–2024). Region III, 31st Branch Directorate, Eskişehir, Türkiye. Internal dataset/report.
  18. Durbin, J., & Watson, G. S. (1950). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression: I. Biometrika, 37(3–4), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/37.3-4.409
  19. Ersöz, Ö., & Çamoğlu, G. (2020). Bursa ilindeki sulama birliklerinin performans göstergelerinin karşılaştırmalı değerlendirmesi. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 267–285. https://izlik.org/JA39RP82LM
  20. Fernández-Pacheco, D. G., Ferrández-Villena, M., Molina-Martínez, J. M., & Ruiz-Canales, A. (2015). Performance indicators to assess the implementation of automation in water user associations: A case study in southeast Spain. Agricultural Water Management, 151, 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.11.005
  21. Gany, A. H. A., Sharma, P., & Singh, S. (2019). Global review of institutional reforms in the irrigation sector for sustainable agricultural water management, including water users’ associations. Irrigation and Drainage, 68(1), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2305
  22. Goetz, R. U., Martínez, Y., & Xabadia, À. (2017). Efficiency and acceptance of new water allocation rules—The case of an agricultural water users association. Science of the Total Environment, 601–602, 614–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.226
  23. Harman, E., & B. Çakmak. (2025a) Evaluation of Irrigation Efficiency and Economic Performance: A Case Study of the Eskişehir Water User Association. Irrigation and Drainage, 74(5), 2217–2229. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.70008
  24. Harman, E., & Çakmak, B. (2023). Sakaryabaşı sulama birliğinde sulama performansının değerlendirilmesi. ÇOMÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(2), 320–330. https://doi.org/10.33202/comuagri.1310046
  25. Harman, E., & Çakmak, B. (2025b). Comparative analysis of water management practices in irrigation facilities: Evidence from Eskişehir Province, Central Anatolia, Türkiye. Water and Environment Journal, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.70032
  26. Hu, X.-J., Xiong, Y.-C., Li, Y.-J., Wang, J.-X., Li, F.-M., Wang, H.-Y., & Li, L.-L. (2014). Integrated water resources management and water users’ associations in the arid region of northwest China: A case study of farmers’ perceptions. Journal of Environmental Management, 145, 162–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.06.018
  27. Kakuta, I. (2019). Irrigation management problems derived by a WUA evaluation at the Kpong irrigation scheme (KIS) in Ghana. Paddy and Water Environment, 17, 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-019-00706-5
  28. Karacalr, H., & Irık, H. A. (2024). Paşaköy sulama birliğinde sulama performansının analizi. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 11(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1385599
  29. Kazbekov, J., Abdullaev, I., Manthrithilake, H., Qureshi, A., & Jumaboev, K. (2009). Evaluating planning and delivery performance of water user associations (WUAs) in Osh Province, Kyrgyzstan. Agricultural Water Management, 96(8), 1259–1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.04.002
  30. Kibaroğlu, A. (2022). Türkiye sulama yönetimi politikaları ve sulama birlikleri. Eurasian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2(2), 24–31. https://izlik.org/JA43SN79AY
  31. Kırmıkıl, 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
  32. Malano, H., & Burton, M. (2001) Guidelines for Benchmarking Performance in the Irrigation and Drainage Sector. International Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage (IPTRID), FAO.
  33. Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50–60. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491
  34. Mustafa, D., Altz-Stamm, A., & Scott, L. M. (2016). Water user associations and the politics of water in Jordan. World Development, 79, 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.008
  35. Newey, W. K., & West, K. D. (1987). A simple, positive semi-definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica, 55(3), 703–708. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913610
  36. Rawat, A., & Kulshrestha, M. (2025). Benchmarking water user associations for improved irrigation efficiency: A DEA approach with SHAP and machine learning integration. Water Conservation Science and Engineering, 10, 117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41101-025-00441-5
  37. Vafaei, E., Arslan, F., Lucas-Borja, M., Ahangarkolaee, S., Zema, D., & Zimbone, S. (2025). Evaluation of performance in collective irrigation agencies: A systematic review and a meta-analysis. Irrigation and Drainage, 2025, https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.70068
  38. Welch, B. L. (1947). The generalization of “Student’s” problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika, 34(1–2), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/34.1-2.28
  39. Zema, D. A., Nicotra, A., Mateos, L., & Zimbone, S. M. (2018). Improvement of the irrigation performance in water users associations integrating data envelopment analysis and multi-regression models. Agricultural Water Management, 205, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.04.032
  40. Zhang, L., Heerink, N., Dries, L., & Shi, X. (2013). Water users associations and irrigation water productivity in northern China. Ecological Economics, 95, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.014