Water Resources Management

, Volume 24, Issue 15, pp 4359–4379 | Cite as

An Indicator Based Assessment for Water Resources Management in Gediz River Basin, Turkey

  • Baris YilmazEmail author
  • Nilgun B. Harmancioglu


In this study, a water resources management model that facilitates indicator-based decisions with respect to environmental, social and economic dimensions is developed for the Gediz River Basin in Turkey. The basic input of the proposed model is the quantity of surface water that is greatly allocated to irrigation purposes; therefore, supply and demand interrelations in agricultural water use constitute the main focus of the study. The model has been applied under three different hydro-meteorological scenarios that reflect baseline as well as better and worse conditions of water supply and demand, not only to reach an assessment of water budget, but also to evaluate the impacts of proposed management alternatives under different conditions. The Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) software is used as a simulation and evaluation tool to assess the performance of possible management alternatives, which is measured by nine proposed indicators. The results of the study have indicated that the Gediz River Basin is quite sensitive to drought conditions, and the agricultural sector is significantly affected by irrigation deficits that increase sharply in drought periods. Even if the optimistic scenario is assumed to occur, it is not possible to observe a significant improvement in the water budget; however, the negative impacts of climate change can possibly exacerbate the water crisis. The indicators also verified that, efficient water management is crucial to ensure the sustainable use of water resources with respect to environmental, social and economic dimensions.


Water resources management Hydro-meteorological scenario Indicator WEAP Gediz River Basin 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Al-Omari A, Al-Quraan S, Al-Salihi A, Abdulla F (2009) A water management support system for Amman Zarga Basin in Jordan. Water Resour Manag 23:3165–3189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (1998) Sustainability Criteria For Water Resources Systems. (Task Committee on Sustainability Criteria, Water Resources Planning and Management Division, ASCE and Working Group, UNESCO/IHP IV Project M-4.3). ASCE, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  3. Cetinkaya CP, Fistikoglu O, Fedra K, Harmancioglu NB (2008) Optimization methods applied for sustainable management of water-scarce basins. J Hydroinform 10:69–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen Y, Zhang D, Sun Y, Liu X, Wang N, Savenije HHG (2005) Water demand management: a case study of the Heihe River Basin in China. Phys Chem Earth 30:408–419Google Scholar
  5. De Voogt K, Kite G, Droogers P, Murray-Rust H (2000) Modeling water allocation between wetlands and irrigated agriculture: case study of the Gediz Basin, Turkey. International Water Management Institute, ColomboGoogle Scholar
  6. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (1979) Yield Response to Water—Yield and Water—FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 33, Chapter 5. 27 January 2009
  7. Guimarães LT, Magrini A (2008) A proposal of indicators for sustainable development in the management of river basins. Water Resour Manag 22:1191–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Harmancioglu NB (2004) Indicators for sustainable management of water resources (in Turkish). In: Proceedings of IV. National hydrology congress. ITU, Istanbul, pp 9–18Google Scholar
  9. Harmancioglu NB, Ozkul S Baran T (eds) (2005) Network on governance, science and technology for sustainable water resource management in the Mediterranean: the role of DSS tools—NOSTRUM-DSS Project National Report II—Turkey. Project code: INCO–MPC-1-509158, IzmirGoogle Scholar
  10. Harmancioglu NB, Fedra K, Barbaros F (2008) Analysis of sustainability in management of water scarce basins: the case of the Gediz River Basin in Turkey. Desalination 226:175–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jeong CS, Heo JH, Bae DH, Georgakakos GP (2005) Utility of high-resolution climate model simulations for water resources prediction over Korean Peninsula: a sensitivity study. Hydrol Sci J 50(1):139–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koch H, Grünewald U (2009) A comparison of modelling systems for the development and revision of water resources management plans. Water Resour Manag 23:1403–1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lévite H, Sally H, Cour J (2003) Testing water demand management scenarios in a water-stressed basin in South Africa: application of the WEAP model. Phys Chem Earth 28:779–786Google Scholar
  14. Loukas A, Mylopoulos N, Vasiliades L (2007) A modeling system for the evaluation of water resources management strategies in Thessaly, Greece. Water Resour Manag 21:1673–1702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50(3):885–900Google Scholar
  16. OPTIMA (2006) Regional case study: Gediz River Basin, problem analysis, “Optimisation for Sustainable Water Resources Management” (OPTIMA), co-funded by the European Commission FP6 Programme, 2002–2006. Project document: Deliverable D08.1.
  17. Ozkul S (2009) Assessment of climate change effects in Aegean river basins: the case of Gediz and Buyuk Menderes Basins. Clim Change 97:253–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pallotino S, Sechi GM, Zuddas P (2005) A DSS for water resources management under uncertainty by scenario analysis. Environ Model Softw 20:1031–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Silay A, Gunduz O (2007) Demirkopru reservoir water budget and irrigation performance assessment (in Turkish). In: Proceedings of V. National hydrology congress. Middle East Technical University, Ankara, pp 103–112Google Scholar
  20. SMART (2005) Regional case study: Gediz River Basin, Turkey, “Sustainable Management of Scarce Resources in the Coastal Zone” (SMART), supported by the European Commission FP5 Programme (Contract number: ICA3-CT- 2002), 2002–2005. Project document: Deliverable D05.1.
  21. Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) (2007) WEAP Water Evaluation and Planning System. (User Guide for WEAP21). Stockholm Environmental Institute, U.S. Center. 20 December 2008
  22. Varis O, Kajander T, Lemmela R (2004) Climate and water: from climate models to water resources management and vice versa. Clim Change 66(3):321–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Yates D, Sieber J, Purkey DR, Huber-Lee A (2005) WEAP21—a demand, priority, and preference driven water planning model. Part 1: model characteristics. Water Int 30:487–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Walmsley JJ (2002) Framework for measuring sustainable development in catchment systems. Environ Manag 29(2):195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of Construction Technology, Golmarmara Vocational High SchoolCelal Bayar UniversityManisaTurkey
  2. 2.Water Resources Management Research and Application Center (SUMER)Dokuz Eylul UniversityIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations