IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v94y2012i5p1094-1112.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Behavior in a Spatially Explicit Groundwater Resource: Evidence from the Lab

Author

Listed:
  • Jordan F. Suter
  • Joshua M. Duke
  • Kent D. Messer
  • Holly A. Michael

Abstract

This research uses laboratory experiments to examine how hydrogeologic properties of groundwater models influence decision making. The results reveal that pumping rates are highest when the underlying model is such that the future costs of groundwater use are broadcast evenly to all users, as a majority of participants behave myopically. There is less myopic behavior when the groundwater dynamics are governed by spatially explicit models, where the private cost of groundwater use is high relative to external costs. These results suggest that models used to simulate common-pool resource dynamics play an important role in determining both economic predictions and behavioral outcomes. Copyright 2012, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Jordan F. Suter & Joshua M. Duke & Kent D. Messer & Holly A. Michael, 2012. "Behavior in a Spatially Explicit Groundwater Resource: Evidence from the Lab," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1094-1112.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:94:y:2012:i:5:p:1094-1112
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ajae/aas058
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Rommel, Jens & Anggraini, Eva, 2018. "Spatially explicit framed field experiments on ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 201-205.
    2. Louis Sears & David Lim & C.-Y. Cynthia Lin Lawell, 2018. "The Economics of Agricultural Groundwater Management Institutions: The Case of California," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(03), pages 1-21, July.
    3. Bhargava, Anil K. & Lybbert, Travis J. & Spielman, David J., 2015. "Public benefits of private technology adoption: The localized spatial externalities of water conservation in eastern Uttar Pradesh:," IFPRI discussion papers 1455, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Eric C. Edwards, 2016. "What Lies Beneath? Aquifer Heterogeneity and the Economics of Groundwater Management," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(2), pages 453-491.
    5. Quintana Ashwell, Nicolas E. & Peterson, Jeffrey M. & Hendricks, Nathan P., 2018. "Optimal groundwater management under climate change and technical progress," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 67-83.
    6. Guilfoos, Todd & Pape, Andreas D. & Khanna, Neha & Salvage, Karen, 2013. "Groundwater management: The effect of water flows on welfare gains," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 31-40.
    7. Wegmann, Johannes & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Groundwater management institutions in the face of rapid urbanization – Results of a framed field experiment in Bengaluru, India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours, & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Can RCTs help improve the design of CAP," CEE-M Working Papers hal-01974425, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    9. Jason Delaney & Sarah Jacobson, 2016. "Payments or Persuasion: Common Pool Resource Management with Price and Non-price Measures," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 747-772, December.
    10. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2019. "How can randomised controlled trials help improve the design of the common agricultural policy?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 46(3), pages 473-493.
    11. Liu, Zhuo & Suter, Jordan F. & Messer, Kent D. & Duke, Joshua M. & Michael, Holly A., 2014. "Strategic entry and externalities in groundwater resources: Evidence from the lab," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 181-197.
    12. Leah H. Palm-Forster & Paul J. Ferraro & Nicholas Janusch & Christian A. Vossler & Kent D. Messer, 2019. "Behavioral and Experimental Agri-Environmental Research: Methodological Challenges, Literature Gaps, and Recommendations," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(3), pages 719-742, July.
    13. Tellez Foster, Edgar & Rapoport, Amnon & Dinar, Ariel, 2017. "Groundwater and electricity consumption under alternative subsidies: Evidence from laboratory experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 41-52.
    14. Murielle Djiguemde & Dimitri Dubois & Alexandre Sauquet & Mabel Tidball, 2019. "On the modeling and testing of groundwater resource models," CEE-M Working Papers hal-02316729, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    15. Collie, Samuel, 2015. "Accounting for well capacity in the economic decision making of groundwater users," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205783, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2018. "Can RCTs help improve the design of CAP," Post-Print hal-02112625, HAL.
    17. Maas, Alexander & Goemans, Christopher & Manning, Dale & Kroll, Stephan & Brown, Thomas, 2017. "Dilemmas, coordination and defection: How uncertain tipping points induce common pool resource destruction," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 760-774.
    18. Wegmann, J., 2018. "Addressing the institutional challenges of groundwater management in areas of rapid urbanization," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277268, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2019. "How can randomised controlled trials help improve the design of the common agricultural policy?," Post-Print halshs-02297689, HAL.
    20. Jordan F. Suter & Sam Collie & Kent D. Messer & Joshua M. Duke & Holly A. Michael, 2019. "Common Pool Resource Management at the Extensive and Intensive Margins: Experimental Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 73(4), pages 973-993, August.

    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:oup:ajagec:v:94:y:2012:i:5:p:1094-1112. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.