[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/145291.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Groundwater Management Instruments in a Conjunctive Use System: Assessing the Impact on Farmers’ Income Using Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP)

Author

Listed:
  • Lenouvel, Vincent
  • Montginoul, Marielle
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to compare the “relative” and the “absolute” impact on farmers’ income of several economic instruments which may be implemented to mitigate farmers' groundwater withdrawals in a multi-resource system. We conducted fine-tuned field work with farmers in order to understand the key factors of substitution between underground and surface water at the farm level. A mixed integer linear programming framework has been used to model fruit and vegetable production systems and to infer the impact of instruments on farmers` income. Assuming this impact will sharply influence the acceptability of the instruments by the agricultural sector, we demonstrate why farmers’ acceptance is of central concern for both the design and the implementation of an environmental policy. We further assessed the potential financial transfers that could be undertaken to increase acceptability. Our results echo scholars’ doubts about the capacity of taxes to manage irrigation water use. We suggest that a policy relying on a “well-priced” substitutable resource would be greatly favoured by farmers and potentially by policy makers, since it will sharply decrease the transaction costs arising from the implementation of the instrument. In diesem Beitrag werden verschiedene Instrumente verglichen, die man zur Verminderung der Grundwasserentnahme durch Landwirte implementieren kann. Absolute und relative Wirkungen der Instrumente auf das landwirtschaftliche Einkommen werden gegenübergestellt. Wir führen eine empirische Untersuchung durch, die in Feinabstimmung mit Landwirten im französischen Roussillon-Tal erfolgt. Ziel ist es, die zentralen Einflussfaktoren für die Substitution zwischen Grundwasser und Oberflächenwasser auf der Ebene landwirtschaftlicher Betriebe herauszuarbeiten. Um die Effekte der Instrumente auf die landwirtschaftlichen Einkommen abzuleiten, wird ein gemischtganzzahliger linearer Optimierungsansatz verwendet, mit dem die Produktionssysteme der Obst- und Gemüseproduktion modelliert werden. Die Einkommenswirkungen der Instrumente bestimmen deren Akzeptanz im Agrarsektor, und deshalb ist die Akzeptanz von zentraler Bedeutung für die Ausgestaltung und Implementierung des auszuwählenden umweltpolitischen Instruments. Außerdem werden mögliche finanzielle Transferleistungen analysiert, die zur Erhöhung der Akzeptanz bei Landwirten denkbar sind. Die Ergebnisse bestätigen die Einschätzung anderer Autoren, wonach die Besteuerung des Grundwassers zur Beeinflussung der Bewässerungsnachfrage nur wenig geeignet sind. Wir empfehlen eine Politik, die auf eine gezielten Steuerung der Preise des substitutiven Gutes – Oberflächenwasser – baut. Diese Politik würde von Landwirten bevorzugt werden und möglicherweise auch von Politikern, weil sie die Transaktionskosten als Folge der Implementierung der Politik sehr stark senken würde.

Suggested Citation

  • Lenouvel, Vincent & Montginoul, Marielle, 2010. "Groundwater Management Instruments in a Conjunctive Use System: Assessing the Impact on Farmers’ Income Using Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP)," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 59(03), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:145291
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.145291
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/145291/files/4_Lenouvel.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.145291?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. Ronaldo Seroa da Motta & Alban Thomas & Lillian Saade Hazin & Jose Gustavo Feres & Céline Nauges & Antonio Saade Hazin, 2004. "Economic Instruments for Water Management," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3548.
    2. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    3. Buchanan, James M & Tullock, Gordon, 1975. "Polluters' Profits and Political Response: Direct Controls Versus Taxes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 139-147, March.
    4. Varela-Ortega, Consuelo & M. Sumpsi, Jose & Garrido, Alberto & Blanco, Maria & Iglesias, Eva, 1998. "Water pricing policies, public decision making and farmers' response: implications for water policy," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 19(1-2), pages 193-202, September.
    5. Jérémy Celse, 2009. "Will Joe the Plumber envy Bill Gates? The impact of both absolute and relative differences on interdependent preferences," Working Papers 09-26, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Dec 2009.
    6. Shah, Tushaar & Scott, Christopher A. & Kishore, Avinash & Sharma, Abhishek, 2004. "Energy-irrigation nexus in South Asia: Improving groundwater conservation and power sector viability," IWMI Research Reports 44557, International Water Management Institute.
    7. Phoebe Koundouri, 2004. "Current Issues in the Economics of Groundwater Resource Management," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 703-740, December.
    8. Willis, David B. & Whittlesey, Norman K., 1998. "The Effect Of Stochastic Irrigation Demands And Surface Water Supplies On On-Farm Water Management," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(1), pages 1-19, July.
    9. Philippe Thalmann, 2004. "The Public Acceptance of Green Taxes: 2 Million Voters Express Their Opinion," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 119(1_2), pages 179-217, April.
    10. Bolton, Gary E, 1991. "A Comparative Model of Bargaining: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1096-1136, December.
    11. Shah, Tushaar & Scott, C. & Kishore, A. & Sharma, A., 2003. "Energy-irrigation nexus in South Asia: Improving groundwater conservation and power sector viability," IWMI Research Reports H033885, International Water Management Institute.
    12. Nadège Bault & Giorgio Coricelli & Aldo Rustichini, 2008. "Interdependent Utilities: How Social Ranking Affects Choice Behavior," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(10), pages 1-10, October.
    13. repec:adr:anecst:y:2001:i:63-64:p:03 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Daniel J. Zizzo & Andrew J. Oswald, 2001. "Are People Willing to Pay to Reduce Others'Incomes?," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 63-64, pages 39-65.
    15. Schuck, Eric C. & Green, Gareth P., 2002. "Supply-based water pricing in a conjunctive use system: implications for resource and energy use," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 175-192, June.
    16. Kumar, M. Dinesh, 2005. "Impact of electricity prices and volumetric water allocation on energy and groundwater demand management:: analysis from Western India," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 39-51, January.
    17. J. Solnick, Sara & Hemenway, David, 1998. "Is more always better?: A survey on positional concerns," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 373-383, November.
    18. Jay E. Noel & B. Delworth Gardner & Charles V. Moore, 1980. "Optimal Regional Conjunctive Water Management," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 62(3), pages 489-498.
    19. Aliasghar Montazar & H. Riazi & S. Behbahani, 2010. "Conjunctive Water Use Planning in an Irrigation Command Area," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(3), pages 577-596, February.
    20. Steven R. Beckman & Buhong Zheng & John P. Formby & W. James Smith, 2002. "Envy, malice and Pareto efficiency: An experimental examination," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(2), pages 349-367.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Buchholz, Matthias & Musshoff, Oliver, 2014. "The role of weather derivatives and portfolio effects in agricultural water management," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 34-44.

    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. Lenouvel, Vincent & Montginoul, Marielle, 2010. "Groundwater Management Instruments in a Conjunctive Use System: Assessing the Impact on Farmers’ Income Using Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP)," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 59(3).
    2. Jérémy Celse, 2009. "Will Joe the Plumber envy Bill Gates? The impact of both absolute and relative differences on interdependent preferences," Working Papers 09-26, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Dec 2009.
    3. Clark, Andrew E. & D'Ambrosio, Conchita, 2014. "Attitudes to Income Inequality: Experimental and Survey Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 8136, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Zeballos, Eliana, 2015. "Getting a Leg Up or Pulling it Down? Interpersonal Comparisons and Destructive Actions: Experimental Evidence from Bolivia," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205660, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David & Peterle, Emmanuel, 2018. "Discrimination as favoritism: The private benefits and social costs of in-group favoritism in an experimental labor market," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 220-236.
    6. Benno Torgler & Markus Schaffner & Bruno S. Frey & Sascha L. Schmidt & Uwe Dulleck, 2008. "Inequality Aversion and Performance in and on the Field," NCER Working Paper Series 36, National Centre for Econometric Research.
    7. Cason, Timothy N. & Mui, Vai-Lam, 2002. "Fairness and sharing in innovation games: a laboratory investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 243-264, July.
    8. Topi Miettinen & Olli Ropponen & Pekka Sääskilahti, 2020. "Prospect Theory, Fairness, and the Escalation of Conflict at a Negotiation Impasse," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 122(4), pages 1535-1574, October.
    9. Aldo Rustichini & Alexander Vostroknutov, 2014. "Merit and Justice: An Experimental Analysis of Attitude to Inequality," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    10. Patrick Kampkötter & Dirk Sliwka, 2016. "The Complementary Use of Experiments and Field Data to Evaluate Management Practices: The Case of Subjective Performance Evaluations," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(2), pages 364-389, June.
    11. García-Gallego, Aurora & Georgantzis, Nikolaos & Ruiz-Martos, María J., 2019. "The Heaven Dictator Game: Costless taking or giving," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    12. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    13. Tyran, Jean-Robert & Sausgruber, Rupert, 2006. "A little fairness may induce a lot of redistribution in democracy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 469-485, February.
    14. Fafchamps, Marcel & Kebede, Bereket & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2015. "Keep up with the winners: Experimental evidence on risk taking, asset integration, and peer effects," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 59-79.
    15. Jérémy Celse, 2017. "An Experimental Investigation of the Impact of Absolute and Relative Inequalities on Individual Satisfaction," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 939-958, August.
    16. M. Dinesh Kumar, 2016. "Distressed Elephants: Policy Initiatives for Sustainable Groundwater Management in India," IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, , vol. 5(1), pages 51-62, January.
    17. Jérémy Celse, 2018. "Do You Enjoy Having More Than Others or More Than Another? Exploring the Relationship Between Relative Concerns and the Size of the Reference Group," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 138(3), pages 1089-1118, August.
    18. Benno Torgler & Markus Schaffner & Bruno S. Frey & Sascha L. Schmidt, 2008. "Looking Awkward When Winning and Foolish When Losing: Inequity Aversion and Performance in the Field," CREMA Working Paper Series 2008-11, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    19. Gortner, Paul J. & van der Weele, Joël J., 2019. "Peer effects and risk sharing in experimental asset markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 129-147.
    20. Zeballos, Eliana, 2015. "Getting a Leg Up or Pulling it Down? Interpersonal Comparisons and Destructive Actions: Experimental Evidence from Bolivia," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 206857, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:gjagec:145291. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.html .

    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.