IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/nbaesp/311051.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does engagement improve groundwater management?

Author

Listed:
  • Silva, Felipe de Figuereido
  • Fulginiti, Lilyan E.
  • Perrin, Richard K.
  • Burbach, Marck

Abstract

Groundwater use often has external effects on both the environment and future groundwater benefits, leading to over withdrawal. Ostrom’s research on common property resources (CPR) and related literature indicates that CPR management may improve if users have more information about the groundwater system, more opportunities for communication, and empowerment to regulate. In this paper, we conduct a computer laboratory experiment involving 180 students to evaluate the role of these components of engagement in reducing irrigation withdrawals from an aquifer. Our treatments, which consisted of different levels of information, communication and empowerment, resulted in decreases in groundwater extraction and increases in irrigation profits over nine-year extraction horizons. Enhanced information and communication also increased the fraction of subjects who voted for and complied with collective action in the form of quotas on pumping levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Silva, Felipe de Figuereido & Fulginiti, Lilyan E. & Perrin, Richard K. & Burbach, Marck, 2021. "Does engagement improve groundwater management?," Staff Papers 311051, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Agricultural Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:nbaesp:311051
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.311051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/311051/files/Manuscript%20Water%20Lab%20Exp%2004_20_2021%20Econpapers.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.311051?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Janssen, Marco A. & Kandikuppa, Sandeep & Chaturvedi, Rahul & Rao, Kaushalendra & Theis, Sophie, 2018. "Playing games to save water: Collective action games for groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 40-53.
    2. Rachel Croson & Nicolas Treich, 2014. "Behavioral Environmental Economics: Promises and Challenges," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(3), pages 335-351, July.
    3. Jones, Luke R. & Vossler, Christian A., 2014. "Experimental tests of water quality trading markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 449-462.
    4. Cardenas, Juan Camilo & Rodriguez, Luz Angela & Johnson, Nancy, 2011. "Collective action for watershed management: field experiments in Colombia and Kenya," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 275-303, June.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Alberto Abadie & Susan Athey & Guido Imbens & Jeffrey Wooldridge, 2017. "When Should You Adjust Standard Errors for Clustering?," Papers 1710.02926, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2022.
    8. Peth, Denise & Mußhoff, Oliver & Funke, Katja & Hirschauer, Norbert, 2018. "Nudging Farmers to Comply With Water Protection Rules – Experimental Evidence From Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 310-321.
    9. Leah H Palm-Forster & Jordan F Suter & Kent D Messer, 2019. "Experimental Evidence on Policy Approaches That Link Agricultural Subsidies to Water Quality Outcomes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(1), pages 109-133.
    10. 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.
    11. Janssen, Marco A. & Bousquet, François & Cardenas, Juan-Camilo & Castillo, Daniel & Worrapimphong, Kobchai, 2012. "Field experiments on irrigation dilemmas," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 65-75.
    12. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Stephanie Rosch & Sharon Raszap Skorbiansky & Collin Weigel & Kent D. Messer & Daniel Hellerstein, 2021. "Barriers to Using Economic Experiments in Evidence‐Based Agricultural Policymaking," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(2), pages 531-555, June.
    3. Rommel, Jens & Anggraini, Eva, 2018. "Spatially explicit framed field experiments on ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 201-205.
    4. Bicchieri, Cristina & Dimant, Eugen & Xiao, Erte, 2021. "Deviant or wrong? The effects of norm information on the efficacy of punishment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 209-235.
    5. Alistair Munro & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Green Goods: Are They Good or Bad News for the Environment? Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment on Impure Public Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 317-335, October.
    6. Robert Böhm & Özgür Gürerk & Thomas Lauer, 2020. "Nudging Climate Change Mitigation: A Laboratory Experiment with Inter-Generational Public Goods," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-20, October.
    7. Murielle Djiguemde, 2020. "A survey on dynamic common pool resources : theory and experiment," Working Papers hal-03022377, HAL.
    8. Miklánek, Tomáš & Zajíček, Miroslav, 2020. "Personal traits and trading in an experimental asset market," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    9. Falk, Thomas & Kumar, Shalander & Srigiri, Srinivasa, 2019. "Experimental games for developing institutional capacity to manage common water infrastructure in India," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 260-269.
    10. 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.
    11. Jacob P. Byl, 2021. "Three Barriers to Effective Programs with Payment for Ecosystem Services: Behavioral Responses in a Computer-Based Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-17, November.
    12. Francesco Fallucchi & Jan Niederreiter & Massimo Riccaboni, 2021. "Learning and dropout in contests: an experimental approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 245-278, March.
    13. Momeni, Fatemeh, 2021. "Voluntary and mandatory provision of common-pool resources with heterogeneous users," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 785-813.
    14. Rita Abdel Sater, 2021. "Essays on the application of behavioural insights to environmental policy [Essais sur l’application des connaissances comportementales aux politiques environnementales]," SciencePo Working papers tel-03450909, HAL.
    15. Blanco, Esther & Lopez, Maria Claudia & Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio, 2015. "Exogenous degradation in the commons: Field experimental evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 430-439.
    16. Esther Blanco & Maria Claudia Lopez & James M. Walker, 2016. "The Opportunity Costs of Conservation with Deterministic and Probabilistic Degradation Externalities," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(2), pages 255-273, June.
    17. Murielle Djiguemde, 2020. "A survey on dynamic common pool resources : theory and experiment," CEE-M Working Papers hal-03022377, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    18. Lan T. Pham & Ilona M. Otto & Dimitrios Zikos, 2019. "Self-Governance and the Effects of Rules in Irrigation Systems: Evidence from Laboratory and Framed Field Experiments in China, India and Vietnam," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(01), pages 1-28, January.
    19. 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.
    20. Dorner, Zack, 2019. "A behavioral rebound effect," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Institutional and Behavioral Economics; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:nbaesp:311051. 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: . General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/daunlus.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.

    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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/daunlus.html .

    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.