IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Designing a Policy Mix and Sequence for Mitigating Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution in a Water Supply Catchment

Listed author(s):
  • Brett Bryan


  • John Kandulu

Agricultural non-point source pollution, common in water supply catchments worldwide, can have significant environmental and human health impacts, and its mitigation poses a challenge for policymakers. We used deliberative multi-criteria evaluation (DMCE) to identify a mix and sequence of policy instruments (or policy design) to address agricultural non-point source pollution using a case study of Cryptosporidium contamination in the Myponga River water supply catchment, South Australia. The major impediments to adoption of on-farm water quality management and benefits for ecosystem services were identified using a landholder survey for use as decision criteria in DMCE. The DMCE approach involved stakeholders in policy design during two community fora held in the catchment. We developed six policy scenarios and quantified their impact on decision criteria. The relative importance of decision criteria was quantified using swing weights and consensus was reached on the preferred policy scenario. The mix, sequence, and targeting of instruments in the preferred policy scenario were refined based on information obtained through the deliberative process. Impediments to adoption included a lack of both information/knowledge and financial resources. The recommended policy scenario involved targeted information, followed by an incentive program, and finally the regulation of a mandatory code of practice for water quality management. Detailed, catchment-specific context obtained through DMCE was critical for refining an effective mix and sequence of policy instruments. The techniques may be readily used to select and schedule policy instruments for effective mitigation of agricultural non-point source pollution in other drinking water supply catchments elsewhere. Copyright The Author(s) 2011

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Springer & European Water Resources Association (EWRA) in its journal Water Resources Management.

Volume (Year): 25 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 (February)
Pages: 875-892

in new window

Handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:25:y:2011:i:3:p:875-892
DOI: 10.1007/s11269-010-9731-8
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Web page:

Order Information: Web:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Muller Nicholas & Tong Daniel & Mendelsohn Robert, 2009. "Regulating NOx and SO2 Emissions in Atlanta," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(2), pages 1-32, March.
  2. Seon-Ae Kim & Jeffrey M. Gillespie & Krishna P. Paudel, 2008. "Rotational grazing adoption in cattle production under a cost-share agreement: does uncertainty have a role in conservation technology adoption?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 235-252, 09.
  3. Staff, 2009. "Forecaster in the Field," Foresight: The International Journal of Applied Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, issue 14, pages 1-51, Summer.
  4. Strauss, Peter & Leone, Antonio & Ripa, Maria & Turpin, Nadine & Lescot, Jean-Marie & Laplana, Ramon, 2006. "Using critical source areas for targeting cost-effective best management practices to mitigate phosphorus and sediment transfer at the watershed scale," MPRA Paper 66256, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  5. Chia-Ling Chang & Tsung-Hung Hsu & Yunn-Jiin Wang & Jen-Yang Lin & Shaw Yu, 2010. "Planning for Implementation of Riparian Buffers in the Feitsui Reservoir Watershed," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(10), pages 2339-2352, August.
  6. Sarker, Ashutosh & Ross, Helen & Shrestha, Krishna K., 2008. "A common-pool resource approach for water quality management: An Australian case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 461-471, December.
  7. David J. Pannell, 2008. "Public Benefits, Private Benefits, and Policy Mechanism Choice for Land-Use Change for Environmental Benefits," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 225-240.
  8. Ben B. Davies & Ian D. Hodge, 2006. "Farmers' Preferences for New Environmental Policy Instruments: Determining the Acceptability of Cross Compliance for Biodiversity Benefits," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 393-414.
  9. John Loomis & Bryon Allen, 2008. "Using Non Market Valuation to Inform the Choice Between Permits and Fees in Environmental Regulation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 329-337, July.
  10. Connor, Jeffery D. & Ward, John & Clifton, Craig & Proctor, Wendy & Hatton MacDonald, Darla, 2008. "Designing, testing and implementing a trial dryland salinity credit trade scheme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 574-588, November.
  11. Wendy Proctor & Martin Drechsler, 2006. "Deliberative multicriteria evaluation," Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 24(2), pages 169-190, April.
  12. Greiner, Romy & Patterson, Louisa & Miller, Owen, 2009. "Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 99(2-3), pages 86-104, February.
  13. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:25:y:2011:i:3:p:875-892. 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: (Sonal Shukla)

or (Rebekah McClure)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.