Journals / Politeknik Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 4

Efficiency of Irrigation Associations in Gediz Basin, Turkey

Pages
836–842
DOI
—
🏛️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)

The results showed that, during the study period there was an increment in the number of efficient irrigation districts from 3 to 6.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study concerns the determination of the technical efficiency of irrigation associations (IAs) located in the Gediz Basin in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, 10 IAs operating in the Gediz Basin were evaluated with the use of input oriented DEA model which considers two inputs: water volume supplied (m3) and total irrigated area (m2), and one output: the total value of agricultural production (TL).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that, during the study period there was an increment in the number of efficient irrigation districts from 3 to 6.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2009-2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) · efficiency · irrigation

Özet

This study concerns the determination of the technical efficiency of irrigation associations (IAs) located in the Gediz Basin in Turkey. For this purpose, 10 IAs operating in the Gediz Basin were evaluated with the use of input oriented DEA model which considers two inputs: water volume supplied (m3) and total irrigated area (m2), and one output: the total value of agricultural production (TL). The assurance region approach was used in DEA not only to include the decision makers’ preferences into the analysis, but also to limit the inappropriate input/output weights that may affect the efficiency scores. The IAs were evaluated during the period 2009-2011 to conclude the variation of efficiency over the study years. The results showed that, during the study period there was an increment in the number of efficient irrigation districts from 3 to 6. However, Gediz, Mesir and Salihli Right Bank IAs were not able to increase their low efficiency scores. The possible reasons of inefficiency are investigated, and the target volume of irrigation water and irrigated area ensuring the same agricultural production were determined. It is concluded that in inefficient IAs the same agricultural production revenue can be achieved with approximately 60% less water and irrigated area.

🔖

Cite This Article

YILMAZ, B., ATMACA, K. (2017). Efficiency of Irrigation Associations in Gediz Basin, Turkey. Politeknik Dergisi, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 4, 836–842. https://ajindex.com/articles/306564

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. EU, “Water scarcity and drought in the European Union”, EU Publications Office, (2010).
  2. UN, “United Nations World Water Development Report, Water and Jobs”, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, (2016).
  3. DSI, “Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü 2015 Yılı Faaliyet Raporu”, General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI), Ankara, (2015).
  4. TOBB, “Türkiye Tarım Sektörü Raporu”, The Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey (TOBB), 2014/230, Ankara, (2014).
  5. Kočišová K., “Application of the DEA on the measurement of efficiency in the EU countries”, Agricultural Economics - Czech, 61: 51-62, (2015)
  6. Nowak A., Kijek T., Domańska K., “Technical efficiency and its determinants in the European Union agriculture”, Agricultural Economics - Czech, 61: 275-283, (2015)
  7. Belton V., Vickers S.P., “Demystifying DEA-A visual interactive approach based on multiple criteria analysis”, Journal of Operational Research Society, 44 (9): 883-896, (1993)
  8. Li X.B., Reeves G.R., “A multiple criteria approach to data envelopment analysis”, European Journal of Operational Research, 115: 507-517, (1999)
  9. Sarkis J., “A comparative analysis of DEA as a discrete alternative multiple criteria decision tool”, European Journal of Operational Research, 123: 543-557, (2000)
  10. Allen R., Athanassopoulos A., Dyson R.G., Thanassoulis E., “Weight restrictions and value judgements in data envelopment analysis: Evolution, development and future directions”, Annals of Operations Research, 73: 13-34, (1997)
  11. Lins M.P.E., Moreira da Silva A.C., Lowell C.A.K., “Avoiding infeasibility in DEA models with weight restrictions”, European Journal of Operational Research, 181: 956-966, (2007)
  12. Wong Y.H.B., Beasley J.E., “Restricting weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis”, Journal of Operational Research Society, 41(9): 829-835, (1990)
  13. Silay A., Gündüz O., “Demirköprü baraj gölü su bütçesi ve sulama performans değerlendirmesi”, V. Ulusal Hidroloji Kongresi, 103-112, Ankara, (2007)
  14. Akkuzu E., Mengü G.P., “Aşağı Gediz Havzası sulama birliklerinde karşılaştırmalı performans g