The Role of Efficient Management of Water Users’ Associations for Adapting to Future Water Scarcity Under Climate Change

  • Chieko UmetsuEmail author
  • Sevgi Donma
  • Takanori Nagano
  • Ziya Coşkun
Part of the The Anthropocene: Politik—Economics—Society—Science book series (APESS, volume 18)


Under climate change, the role of water management organisations is becoming critical for mitigating future water scarcity in Arid Regions. During the last couple of decades, many government-managed water allocation schemes were transferred to private organisations such as water users’ associations (WUAs). The transfer of the water management authority from the government to WUAs had significant impacts on improving operation and maintenance of irrigation facilities as well as increasing the water fee collection rates. However, recently some WUAs are experiencing difficulties in management because of their small-scale operation sizes. This chapter attempts to address the relative efficiency of WUA management by suggesting an alternative composite efficiency index. We observed the case studies earlier conducted on the WUAs in the Lower Seyhan Irrigation Project in Adana, Turkey. And we applied DEA (data envelopment analysis) to compare the efficiency levels with management-, engineering- and welfare-focused models. The analysis revealed that some WUAs are suffering from unfavourable management practices and there is a scope for major reorganisation. Concerning the future climate change and water scarcity in the region, the role of WUAs for efficient management of water resources seems important.


Composite index DEA Irrigation water management Middle East Turkey Water users association 



This is a partial contribution of Impact of Climate Change on Agricultural Systems in Arid Areas (ICCAP) Project, administered by the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN) and the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK). Please address all correspondence to Chieko Umetsu, Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawa Oiwake-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8502 Japan. Authors appreciate DSİ Region VI Adana for providing valuable information, and the staff of WUAs in LSIP for their kind assistance during our interview survey. Also we appreciate Rıza Kanber, Bülent Özekici and Tsugihiro Watanabe for facilitating the research and Thamana Lekprichakul for technical suggestions. Insightful and detailed comments from Elinor Ostrom are gratefully acknowledged. This paper does not reflect the view of DSİ, and the usual disclaimer applies.


  1. Berkes F (2002) Cross-scale institutional linkages: perspectives from the bottom up. In Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dolšak N, Stern PC, Stonich S, Weber EU (eds) The drama of the commons. Committee on the human dimensions of global change, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  2. Chakravorty U, Umetsu C (2003) Basinwide water management: a spatial model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45(1):1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research 2:429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K (2000) Data Envelopment Analysis: a comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-Solver Software. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Dayton-Johnson J (2003) Small-holders and water resources: a review essay on the economics of locally-managed irrigation. Oxford Development Studies 31(3):335–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donma S, Pekel M, Kapur S, Akça E (2004) Integrated rural development in river basin management: the Seyhan river basin example. Paper presented at Pilot River Basin Management Conference in 22–24 September, Brindisi, Italy.Google Scholar
  7. DSİ (2003a) Briefing of WUA and year 2002 management activity report, DSİ VI Region, Adana.Google Scholar
  8. DSİ (2003b) Transferred irrigation association year 2002 observation and evaluation report. DSİ VI Region, Lower Seyhan Irrigation Project, Operation and Maintenance Department.Google Scholar
  9. DSİ (2003c) Year 2002 yield census results for areas constructed, operated and reclaimed by DSİ. DSİ Operation and Maintenance Department, Ankara.Google Scholar
  10. Fujihara Y, Tanaka K, Watanabe T, Nagano T, Kojiri T (2008) Assessing the impacts of climate change on the water resources of the Seyhan river basin in Turkey: Use of dynamically downscaled data for hydrologic simulations. Journal of Hydrology 353:33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kanber R, Ünlü M, Çakmak EH, Tüzün M (2005) Country Report: Turkey Irrigation Systems Performance. Options méditerranéennes, Series B 52:205–226.Google Scholar
  12. Lam WF (1998) Governing irrigation systems in Nepal: institutions, infrastructure, and collective action. Oakland, California: ICS Press.Google Scholar
  13. Mert H (2003) Introduction of General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works and 6th Regional Directorate. Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, DSİ, Adana, November 2003.Google Scholar
  14. Molden D, Sakthivadivel R, Perry CJ, de Fraiture C, Kloezen WH (1998) Indicators for comparing performance of irrigated agricultural systems, IWMI Research Report 20, Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute.Google Scholar
  15. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Scheumann W (1997) Managing salinization: institutional analysis of public irrigation systems. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Svendsen M, Nott G (2000) Irrigation management transfer in turkey: process and outcomes. In Groenfeldt D, Svendsen M (eds) Case studies in participatory irrigation management. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  18. Tekinel O (2001) Participatory approach in planning and management of irrigation schemes. Advanced Short Course – Appropriate Modernization and Management of Irrigation Systems. Kahramanmaraş, Turkey.Google Scholar
  19. Umetsu C, Lekprichakul T, Chakravorty U (2003) Efficiency and technical change in the Philippine rice sector: A Malmquist total factor productivity analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Econics 85(4):943–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Umetsu C, Donma S, Nagano T, Coşkun Z (2006) The efficiency of WUA management in the lower seyhan irrigation project. Journal of Rural Economics: Special Issue 2005. 440–444.Google Scholar
  21. Ward FA (2010) Financing irrigation water management and infrastructure: a review. Water Resources Development 26(3):321–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yazar A (2002) Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) in Turkey: a case study in the Lower Seyhan Irrigation Project. In Hamdy A, Lacirignda C, Lamaddalena N (eds) Water valuation and cost recovery mechanisms in the developing countries of the Mediterranean region. Bari: CIHAM, pp 191–210.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chieko Umetsu
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Sevgi Donma
    • 4
  • Takanori Nagano
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ziya Coşkun
    • 4
  1. 1.Kyoto University, Graduate School of AgricultureKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Kobe University, Graduate School of Agricultural ScienceKobeJapan
  3. 3.Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN)KyotoJapan
  4. 4.6th Regional Directorate of State Hydraulic WorksAdanaTurkey

Personalised recommendations