IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/endeec/v15y2010i03p321-340_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Valuing irrigation water using a choice experiment: an ‘individual status quo’ modelling of farm specific water scarcity

Author

Listed:
  • BARTON, DAVID N.
  • BERGLAND, OLVAR

Abstract

We use a choice experiment to evaluate a hypothetical irrigation water pricing regime in Karnataka State, India. The proposed regime includes increasing the availability of water in the dry season, increasing irrigation frequency, water sharing with downstream water users, set against the introduction of a semi-volumetric irrigation price. The majority of farmers chose the status quo (SQ) option. Given the large heterogeneity in farmers’ SQ water availability, irrigation practices and current water tax payments, the SQ could not be given a unique baseline interpretation. This poses a potential problem for choice model estimation. By coding the individual SQ situation of farmers, we observed considerable increase in the explanatory power of the choice experiment models. The results may be of general interest for choice experiments of environmental goods and services with heterogeneous spatial distribution, heterogeneous respondents and/or contentious policies that are expected to elicit considerable SQ response.

Suggested Citation

  • Barton, David N. & Bergland, Olvar, 2010. "Valuing irrigation water using a choice experiment: an ‘individual status quo’ modelling of farm specific water scarcity," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 321-340, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:15:y:2010:i:03:p:321-340_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1355770X10000045/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dale Whittington & Vic Adamowicz, 2010. "The Use of Hypothetical Baselines in Stated Preference Surveys," EEPSEA Special and Technical Paper sp201009s1, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Sep 2010.
    2. Bennett, Michael T. & Gong, Yazhen & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2018. "Hungry Birds and Angry Farmers: Using Choice Experiments to Assess “Eco-compensation” for Coastal Wetlands Protection in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 71-87.
    3. Alemu Mekonnen & Zenebe Gebreegziabher & Abebe D. Beyene & Fitsum Hagos, 2019. "Valuation of Access to Irrigation Water in Rural Ethiopia: Application of Choice Experiment and Contingent Valuation Methods," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(01), pages 1-26, September.
    4. Christine Bertram & Heini Ahtiainen & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Kristine Pakalniete & Eija Pouta & Katrin Rehdanz, 2020. "Contingent Behavior and Asymmetric Preferences for Baltic Sea Coastal Recreation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(1), pages 49-78, January.
    5. Sahan T. M. Dissanayake & Andrew G. Meyer, 2021. "Incorporating Beliefs and Experiences into Choice Experiment Analysis: Implications for Policy Recommendations," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 823-848, June.
    6. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    7. Joshi, Janak & Ali, Mohammad & Berrens, Robert P., 2017. "Valuing farm access to irrigation in Nepal: A hedonic pricing model," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 35-46.
    8. Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Håkan Eggert & Ståle Navrud & Jesper Stage, 2014. "What do respondents bring to contingent valuation? A comparison of monetary and labour payment vehicles," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 253-267, November.
    9. Veettil, Prakashan Chellattan & Speelman, Stijn & Frija, Aymen & Buysse, Jeroen & van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2011. "Complementarity between water pricing, water rights and local water governance: A Bayesian analysis of choice behaviour of farmers in the Krishna river basin, India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(10), pages 1756-1766, August.
    10. Broch, Stine Wamberg & Strange, Niels & Jacobsen, Jette B. & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2013. "Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 78-86.
    11. Muchara, B. & Ortmann, G. & Mudhara, M. & Wale, E., 2016. "Irrigation water value for potato farmers in the Mooi River Irrigation Scheme of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: A residual value approach," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 164(P2), pages 243-252.
    12. Mat Alipiah, Roseliza & Anang, Zuraini & Abdul Rashid, Noorhaslinda Kulub & Smart, James C. R. & Wan Ibrahim, Wan Noorwatie, 2018. "Aquaculturists Preference Heterogeneity towards Wetland Ecosystem Services: A Latent Class Discrete Choice Model," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 52(2), pages 253-266.
    13. Speelman, Stijn & Veettil, Prakashan Chellatan, 2012. "Comparing the scope for irrigation water rights reforms in India and South Africa," 2012 Conference, August 18-24, 2012, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil 126731, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Bajaj, Akshi & Singh, S.P. & Nayak, Diptimayee, 2023. "Are farmers willing to pay for groundwater irrigation? Insights from informal groundwater markets in Western Uttar Pradesh, India," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 288(C).
    15. Kemeze, Francis H., 2020. "Demand for Supplemental Irrigation via Small-Scale Water Harvesting," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304569, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:endeec:v:15:y:2010:i:03:p:321-340_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ede .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.