IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cam/camdae/2435.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Farmers preferences for incentives on solar pumps: Evidence from a choice experiment in Punjab

Author

Listed:
  • Kaur, S.
  • Pollitt, M. G.

Abstract

Diesel and electric pumps have dominated groundwater irrigation in Punjab since the advent of intensive agriculture in 1966. National policies offer a range of subsidies for solar pumps, but there is limited empirical evidence of their effectiveness in promoting adoption. To address this need, a discrete choice method is applied to estimate the level of financial incentives for solar pumps preferred by farmers. The results show that enhanced subsidies combined with energy buyback have a significant impact on adoption decisions. The impact of contextual factors on the acceptance of grid-connected solar pumps is also estimated. Additionally, willingness to pay estimates and economic evaluations are improved with the use of flexible mixed logit formulation. The findings confirm that low subsidy limits the diffusion of solar pumps in Punjab agriculture. Further, the results from the statistical models indicate high public acceptance of individual solar agriculture pumps. We suggest that solar subsidies combined with grid purchases of surplus solar electricity can both reduce emissions and reduce the over-use of ground water, by indirectly introducing a price of electricity for water pumping.

Suggested Citation

  • Kaur, S. & Pollitt, M. G., 2024. "Farmers preferences for incentives on solar pumps: Evidence from a choice experiment in Punjab," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2435, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    • Handle: RePEc:cam:camdae:2435
    Note: mgp20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/research-files/repec/cam/pdf/cwpe2435.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scarpa, Riccardo & Willis, Ken, 2010. "Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy: Primary and discretionary choice of British households' for micro-generation technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 129-136, January.
    2. Mohammad Al-Saidi & Nisreen Lahham, 2019. "Solar energy farming as a development innovation for vulnerable water basins," Development in Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(5), pages 619-634, July.
    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. Chapman, Andrew J. & McLellan, Benjamin & Tezuka, Tetsuo, 2016. "Residential solar PV policy: An analysis of impacts, successes and failures in the Australian case," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1265-1279.
    5. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    7. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    8. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    9. Batley, S. L. & Colbourne, D. & Fleming, P. D. & Urwin, P., 2001. "Citizen versus consumer: challenges in the UK green power market," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 479-487, May.
    10. Zhang, Da & Chai, Qimin & Zhang, Xiliang & He, Jiankun & Yue, Li & Dong, Xiufen & Wu, Shu, 2012. "Economical assessment of large-scale photovoltaic power development in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 370-375.
    11. Uz, Dilek & Mamkhezri, Jamal, 2024. "Household willingness to pay for various attributes of residential solar panels: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    12. Wasi, Nada & Carson, Richard T., 2013. "The influence of rebate programs on the demand for water heaters: The case of New South Wales," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 645-656.
    13. Best, Rohan & Chareunsy, Andrea, 2022. "The impact of income on household solar panel uptake: Exploring diverse results using Australian data," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    14. Ek, Kristina, 2005. "Public and private attitudes towards "green" electricity: the case of Swedish wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(13), pages 1677-1689, September.
    15. Higgins, Andrew & McNamara, Cheryl & Foliente, Greg, 2014. "Modelling future uptake of solar photo-voltaics and water heaters under different government incentives," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 142-155.
    16. Yamaguchi, Yohei & Akai, Kenju & Shen, Junyi & Fujimura, Naoki & Shimoda, Yoshiyuki & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi, 2013. "Prediction of photovoltaic and solar water heater diffusion and evaluation of promotion policies on the basis of consumers’ choices," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 1148-1159.
    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. Marco A. Palma & Dmitry V. Vedenov & David Bessler, 2020. "The order of variables, simulation noise, and accuracy of mixed logit estimates," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 58(5), pages 2049-2083, May.
    2. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Gutsche, Gunnar & Ziegler, Andreas, 2019. "Which private investors are willing to pay for sustainable investments? Empirical evidence from stated choice experiments," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 193-214.
    4. Faustin, Vidogbèna & Adégbidi, Anselme A. & Garnett, Stephen T. & Koudandé, Delphin O. & Agbo, Valentin & Zander, Kerstin K., 2010. "Peace, health or fortune?: Preferences for chicken traits in rural Benin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1848-1857, July.
    5. Heng, Yan & Lu, Chao-Lin & Yu, Luqing & Gao, Zhifeng, 2020. "The heterogeneous preferences for solar energy policies among US households," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    6. Gerhardt, Michaela V. & Kanberger, Elke D. & Ziegler, Andreas, 2023. "The Relevance of Life-Cycle CO2 Emissions for Vehicle Purchase Decisions: A Stated Choice Experiment for Germany," VfS Annual Conference 2023 (Regensburg): Growth and the "sociale Frage" 277675, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    7. Ajayi, V. & Reiner, D., 2020. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Green Plastics," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 20110, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    8. Michaela V. Gerhardt & Elke D. Kanberger & Andreas Ziegler, 2023. "The Relevance of Life-Cycle CO2 Emissions for Vehicle Purchase Decisions: A Stated Choice Experiment for Germany," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202305, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Kalkbrenner, Bernhard J., 2019. "Residential vs. community battery storage systems – Consumer preferences in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 1355-1363.
    12. Franceschinis, Cristiano & Thiene, Mara & Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John & Moretto, Michele & Cavalli, Raffaele, 2017. "Adoption of renewable heating systems: An empirical test of the diffusion of innovation theory," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 313-326.
    13. Amador, Francisco Javier & González, Rosa Marina & Ramos-Real, Francisco Javier, 2013. "Supplier choice and WTP for electricity attributes in an emerging market: The role of perceived past experience, environmental concern and energy saving behavior," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 953-966.
    14. Frick, Bernd & Barros, Carlos Pestana & Prinz, Joachim, 2010. "Analysing head coach dismissals in the German "Bundesliga" with a mixed logit approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 151-159, January.
    15. van Putten, Marloes & Lijesen, Mark & Özel, Tanju & Vink, Nancy & Wevers, Harm, 2014. "Valuing the preferences for micro-generation of renewables by househoulds," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 596-604.
    16. Deka, Devajyoti & Carnegie, Jon, 2021. "Predicting transit mode choice of New Jersey workers commuting to New York City from a stated preference survey," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    17. Christian A. Oberst & Reinhard Madlener, 2015. "Prosumer Preferences Regarding the Adoption of Micro†Generation Technologies: Empirical Evidence for German Homeowners," Working Papers 2015.07, International Network for Economic Research - INFER.
    18. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    19. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    20. Staus, Alexander, 2008. "Standard and Shuffled Halton Sequences in a Mixed Logit Model," Working Papers 93856, Universitaet Hohenheim, Institute of Agricultural Policy and Agricultural Markets.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Renewable energy; solar pumps; feeder level solarization; energy water nexus; energy subsidies; irrigation water; electricity; groundwater depletion; Punjab;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q1 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture
    • Q20 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - General
    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • Q42 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Alternative Energy Sources
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • P48 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Other Economic Systems - - - Legal Institutions; Property Rights; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Regional Studies

    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:cam:camdae:2435. 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: Jake Dyer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/ .

    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.