Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T10:42:11.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Willingness of farmers to pay for satellite-based irrigation advisory services: a southern Italy experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2018

F. Altobelli ,
U. Lall ,
A. Dalla Marta ,
F. Caracciolo ,
G. Cicia ,
G. D'Urso  and
T. Del Giudice
F. Altobelli*
Affiliation:
Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bio-economy – Council for Research in Agriculture and Agricultural Economy Analysis (CREA), 00195 Roma, Italy
U. Lall
Affiliation:
Columbia Water Center, Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
A. Dalla Marta
Affiliation:
Department of Agrifood Production and Environmental Sciences, University of Florence, Firenze, Italy
F. Caracciolo
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, Napoli, Italy
G. Cicia
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, Napoli, Italy
G. D'Urso
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, Napoli, Italy
T. Del Giudice
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, Napoli, Italy
*
Author for correspondence: F. Altobelli, E-mail: filiberto.altobelli@crea.gov.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to define, optimize and customize IRRISAT, a fully operative satellite-based irrigation advisory service (IAS) provided in Campania Region, Italy, using a choice experiment to determine the preferences of farmers regarding the main characteristics and attributes of IRRISAT. Furthermore, willingness to pay for the main attributes of the services provided was estimated. The information on the amount of water required for irrigation provided by the IAS is sent out to farmers via SMS and email, as well as via the IRRISAT webpage. The study was related to the 2013–2014 irrigation season, when the service provided support to 669 farmers over an area of 55 ha. The study considered four attributes and levels of IRRISAT service: land management unit (scale of service); different levels of water saving (5, 10 and 30%) that could be achieved at different prices; annual fee paid by farmers (ranging between €6 and €10/ha/year); length of contract for the service supply, ranging from 1 to 3 years. Results showed that farmers’ preferences are influenced positively by scale (entire area of the farm instead of single fields) and duration of the service delivering contract. Concerning the duration of the contract, the most preferred option was the 3-year service. Finally, water saving was shown to affect farmers’ choices very little and thus it is probably less attractive for farmers probably due to the low price and to a relatively large availability of water for irrigation.

Keywords

Choice experimentprecision farmingremote sensing
Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 156 , Themed Issue 5: Themed Issue: Assessment and monitoring of crop water use and productivity under present and future climate , July 2018 , pp. 723 - 730
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamowicz, W, Boxall, P, Williams, M and Louviere, J (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80, 64–75.Google Scholar
Aydogdu, MH (2016) Evaluation of willingness to pay for irrigation water: Harran plain sampling in GAP region, Turkey. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 14, 349–365.Google Scholar
Biswas, D and Venkatachalam, L (2015) Farmers’ willingness to pay for improved irrigation water. A case study of Malaprabha Irrigation Project in Karnataka, India. Water Economics and Policy 1, 1450004.Google Scholar
Bogner, A and Menz, W (2009) The theory-generating expert interview: epistemological interest, forms of knowledge, interaction. In Bogner, A, Littig, B and Menz, W (eds), Interviewing Experts. Research Methods Series. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 43–80.Google Scholar
Bozorg-Haddad, O, Malmier, M, Mohammad-Azari, S and Loáiciga, HA (2016) Estimation of farmers’ willingness to pay for water in the agricultural sector. Agricultural Water Management 177, 284–290.Google Scholar
Chandrasekaran, K, Devarajulu, S and Kuppannan, P (2009) Farmers’ willingness to pay for irrigation water: a case of tank irrigation systems in South India. Water 1, 5–18.Google Scholar
Gani, M, Cicogna, A and Centore, M (2000) Evoluzione e prospettive dell’ offerta agrometeorologica in Friuli-Venezia Giulia: dieci anni di bilanci idrici (evolution and perspectives of agrometeorological supply in Friuli – Venezia Giulia: ten years of water balances). In Mariani, L (ed.), Domanda e Offerta di Agrometeorologia in Italia Attualità e Prospettive per il Prossimo Decennio. Atti del Workshop Nazionale di Agrometeorologia AIAM 2000. Rome, Italy: Associazione Italiana di Agrometeorologia, pp. 144–157. Available at http://www.agrometeorologia.it/joomla/en/aiamconferences/89-convegno-aiam-2000.html (Accessed 1 May 2018).Google Scholar
Hanemann, WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66, 332–341.Google Scholar
Hanemann, WM and Kanninen, B (1999) The statistical analysis of discrete-response CV data. In Bateman, IJ and Willis, KG (eds), Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing Countries. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 302–441.Google Scholar
Hanley, N, Mourato, S and Wright, RE (2001) Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys 15, 435–462.Google Scholar
Hensher, DA, Rose, JM and Greene, WH (2005) Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lancaster, KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74, 132–157.Google Scholar
Louviere, J, Hensher, DA, Swait, JD and Adamowicz, W (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mañas, FMDSO, Ramos, AB, Cortés, CF, González, DF and Córcoles, HL (1999) Improvement of irrigation management towards the sustainable use of groundwater in Castilla-La Mancha, Spain. Agricultural Water Management 40, 195–205.Google Scholar
Mannini, P, Genovesi, R and T, Letterio (2013) IRRINET: large scale DSS application for on-farm irrigation scheduling. Procedia Environmental Sciences 19, 823–829.Google Scholar
Marletto, V, Zinoni, F, Botarelli, L and Alessandrini, C (2005) Studio dei fenomeni siccitosi in Emilia-Romagna con il modello di bilancio idrico CRITERIA. Italian Journal of Agrometeorology 2005, 32–33.Google Scholar
McFadden, D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka, P (ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics. New York, USA: Wiley, 105–142.Google Scholar
Mekonnen, MM, Hoekstra, AY and Becht, R (2012) Mitigating the water footprint of export cut flowers from the Lake Naivasha Basin, Kenya. Water Resources Management 26, 3725–3742.Google Scholar
Mitchell, RC and Carson, RT (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, D.C., USA: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Molle, F (2001) Water Pricing in Thailand: Theory and Practice. DORAS Centre Research Report no. 7. Bangkok, Thailand: Kasetsart University.Google Scholar
Pearce, D, Atkinson, G and Mourato, S (2006) Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment: Recent Developments. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
Price, JI, Janmaat, J, Sugden, F and Bharati, L (2016) Water storage systems and preference heterogeneity in water-scarce environments: a choice experiment in Nepal's Koshi River Basin. Water Resources and Economics 13, 6–18.Google Scholar
Salman, AZ and Al-Karablieh, E (2004) Measuring the willingness of farmers to pay for groundwater in the highland areas of Jordan. Agricultural Water Management 68, 61–76.Google Scholar
Svendsen, M and Small, LE (1990) Farmer's perspective on irrigation performance. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 4, 385–402.Google Scholar
Tang, Z, Nan, Z and Liu, J (2013) The willingness to pay for irrigation water: a case study in Northwest China. Global NEST Journal 15, 76–84.Google Scholar
Train, K (2009) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vuolo, F, D'Urso, G, De Michele, C, Bianchi, B and Cutting, M (2015) Satellite-based irrigation advisory services: a common tool for different experiences from Europe to Australia. Agricultural Water Management 147, 82–95.Google Scholar
Zheng, W, Shen, GQ, Wang, H, Hong, JD and Z, Li (2017) Decision support for sustainable urban renewal: a multi-scale model. Land Use Policy 69, 361–371.Google Scholar