IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v85y2019icp33-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards sustainable water management: Preferences and willingness to pay for smart landscape irrigation technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Khachatryan, Hayk
  • Suh, Dong Hee
  • Xu, Wan
  • Useche, Pilar
  • Dukes, Michael D.

Abstract

Urbanization trends, leading to growing irrigated residential landscapes continue to escalate concerns on surface, ground, and drinking water quantity and quality among environmental groups and regulatory agencies. While automated lawn irrigation systems established in urban areas are critical factors affecting water quantity and quality, homeowners’ water use may vary with their preferences for lawn irrigation systems. The choice of an irrigation system is not determined only by local restrictions or policies but also by homeowners’ preferences. Further, individuals’ preferences can be influenced by the availability of product-specific attributes such as evapotranspiration or soil-moisture based controllers (known as smart irrigation controllers). With a focus on single-family home residents in California, Florida, and Texas, the present study uses the discrete choice analysis framework to link smart irrigation attributes (e.g., sensor types, wireless operation, remote control, alert notification) and monetary incentives (e.g., annual water bill savings, rebates) to preferences and willingness-to-pay. Results indicate that homeowners prefer smart irrigation controllers to conventional automated systems, and that savings on annual water bills could be one of the most important features determining adoption of smart irrigation controllers. Controller features such as the type of operation (i.e., wireless/on-site weather station) and system malfunction alert/notification also impacted homeowners’ preferences. The findings provide practical insights into the promotion of smart irrigation controllers that can be integrated with educational campaigns, or advertisements highlighting benefits of smart irrigation technologies. Clearer understanding about homeowners’ preferences could serve as a feedback loop for policy makers and improve water policies at state and local levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Khachatryan, Hayk & Suh, Dong Hee & Xu, Wan & Useche, Pilar & Dukes, Michael D., 2019. "Towards sustainable water management: Preferences and willingness to pay for smart landscape irrigation technologies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 33-41.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:85:y:2019:i:c:p:33-41
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718318003
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.014?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McCready, M.S. & Dukes, M.D., 2011. "Landscape irrigation scheduling efficiency and adequacy by various control technologies," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(4), pages 697-704, February.
    2. Erik Meijer & Jan Rouwendal, 2006. "Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 227-244.
    3. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    4. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    6. Kenneth E. Train & Terry Atherton, 1995. "Rebates, Loans, and Customers' Choice of Appliance Efficiency Level: Combining Stated- and Revealed-Preference Data," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 55-70.
    7. Kar H. Lim & Wuyang Hu & Leigh J. Maynard & Ellen Goddard, 2013. "U.S. Consumers’ Preference and Willingness to Pay for Country-of-Origin-Labeled Beef Steak and Food Safety Enhancements," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 61(1), pages 93-118, March.
    8. McCready, M.S. & Dukes, M.D. & Miller, G.L., 2009. "Water conservation potential of smart irrigation controllers on St. Augustinegrass," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(11), pages 1623-1632, November.
    9. François Des Rosiers & Marius Thériault & Yan Kestens & Paul Villeneuve, 2002. "Landscaping and House Values: An Empirical Investigation," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 23(1/2), pages 139-162.
    10. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    11. Anna Alberini, Silvia Banfi, and Celine Ramseier, 2013. "Energy Efficiency Investments in the Home: Swiss Homeowners and Expectations about Future Energy Prices," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1).
    12. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Kenneth Train, 2012. "Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 19-31, January.
    13. Nickerson, Cynthia & Ebel, Robert & Borchers, Allison & Carriazo, Fernando, 2011. "Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2007," Economic Information Bulletin 291937, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ortiz, Cristhian A. & Avila-Santamaría, Jorge J. & Martinez-Cruz, Adan L., 2023. "Dairy farmers’ willingness to adopt cleaner production practices for water conservation: A discrete choice experiment in Mejia, Ecuador," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    2. Lim, Chun Hsion & Lim, Steven & How, Bing Shen & Ng, Wendy Pei Qin & Ngan, Sue Lin & Leong, Wei Dong & Lam, Hon Loong, 2021. "A review of industry 4.0 revolution potential in a sustainable and renewable palm oil industry: HAZOP approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    3. Linjing Ren & Xiaojun Yang, 2023. "Adoption and shift of water-saving strategies to policy shock: based on social-ecological system analysis," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 37(10), pages 4015-4037, August.
    4. Khachatryan, Hayk & Rihn, Alicia & Hansen, Gail & Clem, Taylor, 2020. "Landscape Aesthetics and Maintenance Perceptions: Assessing the Relationship between Homeowners’ Visual Attention and Landscape Care Knowledge," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    5. Xiangwen Kong & Chengyan Yue & Eric Watkins & Mike Barnes & Yufeng Lai, 2023. "Investigating the Effectiveness of Irrigation Restriction Length on Water Use Behavior," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 37(1), pages 251-268, January.
    6. Sara Komenda & Martha C. Monroe, 2023. "Clues in the Data: The Role of Education in Adopting Technology That Enhances Sustainable Lifestyle Choices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-15, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    2. Morrissey, Karyn & Plater, Andrew & Dean, Mary, 2018. "The cost of electric power outages in the residential sector: A willingness to pay approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 141-150.
    3. Raja Chakir & Maia David & Estelle Gozlan & Aminata Sangare, 2016. "Valuing the Impacts of An Invasive Biological Control Agent: A Choice Experiment on the Asian Ladybird in France," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(3), pages 619-638, September.
    4. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    5. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    6. Lim, Kar Ho & Hu, Wuyang & Maynard, Leigh J. & Goddard, Ellen W., 2012. "Stated Preference and Perception Analysis for Traceable and BSE-tested Beef: An Application of Mixed Error-Component Logit Model," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124784, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Daziano, Ricardo A. & Achtnicht, Martin, 2014. "Accounting for uncertainty in willingness to pay for environmental benefits," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 166-177.
    8. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    9. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    10. repec:sss:wpaper:201404 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Cherchi, Elisabetta & Guevara, Cristian Angelo, 2012. "A Monte Carlo experiment to analyze the curse of dimensionality in estimating random coefficients models with a full variance–covariance matrix," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 321-332.
    12. Stephane Hess, 2014. "Latent class structures: taste heterogeneity and beyond," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 14, pages 311-330, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Christos Makriyannis & Robert J. Johnston & Ewa Zawojska, 2022. "Do numerical probabilities promote informed stated preference responses under inherent uncertainty? Insight from a coastal adaptation choice experiment," Working Papers 2022-05, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    14. Hole, Arne Risa, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1078-1094, July.
    15. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    16. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    17. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    18. Giergiczny, Marek & Valasiuk, Sviataslau & Czajkowski, Mikolaj & De Salvo, Maria & Signorello, Giovanni, 2012. "Including cost income ratio into utility function as a way of dealing with ‘exploding’ implicit prices in mixed logit models," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 370-380.
    19. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2016. "Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(3), pages 523-544, March.
    20. Galassi, Veronica & Madlener, Reinhard, 2017. "The Role of Environmental Concern and Comfort Expectations in Energy Retrofit Decisions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 53-65.
    21. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).

    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:eee:lauspo:v:85:y:2019:i:c:p:33-41. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.