Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Regular Articles

Vol. 22 No. 2 (2020)

Politiche di gestione della risorsa idrica sotterranea a fini irrigui. Analisi delle preferenze degli agricoltori

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/ecag2-2020oa10409
Submitted
September 17, 2020
Published
2020-09-17

Abstract

The overexploitation of groundwater for irrigation purposes is a general problem affecting the management of common resources. The objective of this study was to analyze some of the policy options when facing this issue. A choice experiment was performed in order to elicit farmers’ stated preferences
for four policy instruments, namely i) implementation of a compulsory measurement system of groundwater extraction; ii) improved monitoring of rural areas in order to limit illegal access to groundwater; iii) reforming the groundwater tax system; iv) increasing the supply of reclaimed wastewater for irrigation. A survey was conducted in the Puglia region on a representative sample of 187 farmers, selected in the main hot-spot irrigated areas. A Random Parameter Logit Model was estimated using two covariates (i.e. size of irrigable farmland and farmers’ awareness of groundwater shortage). Findings highlighted the farmers’ preference for increasing the supply of water for irrigation (i.e. wastewater supply). Among the measures aiming to handle groundwater demand for irrigation, the respondents positively valued the enhancement of rural area monitoring to prevent illegal access, but they rejected a compulsory groundwater metering system. Finally, the methodological approach proved to be an effective tool to improve policy design, making the decisionmaking process more participatory.

References

  1. Arborea, S., Giannoccaro, G., de Gennaro, B.C., Iacobellis, V. & Piccinni, A.F. (2017). Cost-benefit analysis ofwastewater reuse in Puglia, Southern Italy. Water (Switzerland), 9(3), 1-17. Doi: 10.3390/w9030175.
  2. Berbel, J., Borrego-Marin, M. M., Exposito, A., Giannoccaro, G., Montilla-Lopez, N.M. & Roseta-Palma, C. (2019). Analysis of irrigation water tariffs and taxes in Europe. Water Policy, 21(4), 806-825. Doi: 10.2166/wp.2019.197.
  3. Bhat, C.R. (2003). Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 37(9), 837-855. Doi: 10.1016/S0191-2615(02)00090-5.
  4. Carson, R., Louviere, J.J. (2010). Experimental design and the estimation of willingness to pay in choice experiments for health policy evaluation. Applied Methods of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Health Care 1, 185-210.
  5. Decreto Ministeriale MiPAAF del 31 luglio 2015, recante l’“Approvazione delle linee guida per la regolamentazione da parte delle Regioni delle modalità di quantificazione dei volumi idrici ad uso irriguo”. MiPAAF.
  6. Direttiva Quadro sulle Acque 2000/60/EC. European Union. Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Water Framework Directive, 2000.
  7. Dono, G. & Mazzapicchio, G. (2010). L’impatto economico dei cambiamenti climatici sulla disponibilità di acqua irrigua in un’area del Mediterraneo. Economia delle fonti di energia e dell’ambiente. Doi: 10.3280/EFE2010-001010.
  8. Giannoccaro G., Casieri A., de Vito R., Z.D. & P.I. (2019). Impatti economici dell’interruzione del servizio irriguo consortile nell’area della Capitanata (Puglia). Stima
  9. empirica per il pomodoro da industria nel periodo 2001-2016. Aestimum, in press.
  10. Giannoccaro, G., Arborea, S., de Gennaro, B.C., Iacobellis, V. & Piccinni, A. F. (2019). Assessing Reclaimed Urban Wastewater for Reuse in Agriculture: Technical and Economic Concerns for Mediterranean Regions. Water, 11(7), 1511. Doi: 10.3390/w11071511.
  11. Giannoccaro, G., Scardigno, A. & Prosperi, M. (2017). Economic analysis of the long-term effects of groundwater salinity: bringing the farmer’s perspectives into policy. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 14(1), 59-72. Doi: 10.1080/1943815X.2017.1351993.
  12. Greene, W.H. & Hensher, D.A. (2003). A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 37(8), 681-698. Doi: 10.1016/S0191-2615(02)00046-2.
  13. Halton, J.H. (1960). On the efficiency of certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multi-dimensional integrals. Numerische Mathematik, 2(1), 84-90. Doi: 10.1007/BF01386213.
  14. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. Science (New York, N.Y.), 162(3859), 1243-1248. Doi: 10.1126/SCIENCE.162.3859.1243.
  15. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M. & Greene, W.H. (2015). Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. ISTAT (2010). 6° Censimento Generale dell’Agricoltura utilizzo della risorsa idrica a fini irrigui in agricoltura. -- Retrieved from www.istat.it/it/files/2014/11/Utilizzo_risorsa_idrica.pdf.
  17. Krinsky, I. & Robb, A.L. (1986). On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 68(4), 715. Doi: 10.2307/1924536.
  18. Lancaster, K.J. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157. Doi: 10.1086/259131.
  19. Louviere, J.J. & Woodworth, G. (1983). Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer
  20. Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(4), 350-367. Doi: 10.1177/002224378302000403.
  21. Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., Swait, J. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and
  22. application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Massarutto, A. & Carli, A. de. (2009). I costi economici della siccità: il caso del Po.
  24. Economia delle fonti di energia e dell’ambiente. Doi: 10.3280/EFE2009-002008.
  25. McFadden, D. (1986). The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research. Marketing Science, 5(4), 275-297. Doi: 10.1287/mksc.5.4.275.
  26. Pistocchi, A., Aloe, A., Dorati, C., Alcalde Sanz, L., Bouraoui, F., Gawlik, B., … Vigiak, O. (2018). The potential of water reuse for agricultural irrigation in the EU a hydro-economic analysis. Doi: 10.2760/263713.
  27. PTA Regione Puglia. (2015). Aggiornamento Piano di Tutela del Acque. Regolamento Regionale, 28 febbraio 2017 n. 2, intitolato “Disciplina delle modalità di quantificazione dei volumi idrici ad uso irriguo ai sensi del D.M. MiPAAF 31 luglio 2015”. Regione Puglia.
  28. RRN. Rete rurale Nazionale. -- Retrieved from www.reterurale.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/19543.
  29. Saliba, R., Callieris, R., D’Agostino, D., Roma, R., Scardigno, A. (2018). Stakeholders’ attitude towards the reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation in Mediterranean agriculture. Doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.03.036.
  30. Sardaro, R., Bozzo, F. & Fucilli, V. (2018). The choice experiment and the stochastic profit frontier: a methodological approach for groundwater preservation policies. Aestimum, 81-107.
  31. Thurstone, L.L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273-286. Doi: 10.1037/h0070288.
  32. Train, K. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge
  33. University Press.
  34. Ursitti, A., Giannoccaro, G., Prosperi, M., De Meo, E. & de Gennaro, B. (2018). The
  35. Magnitude and Cost of Groundwater Metering and Control in Agriculture. Water, 10(3), 344. Doi: 10.3390/w10030344.
  36. Viaggi, D., Raggi, M., Bartolini, F. & Gallerani, V. (2010). Designing contracts for irrigation water under asymmetric information: Are simple pricing mechanisms enough? Agricultural Water Management, 97(9), 1326-1332. Doi: 10.1016/J.AGWAT.2010.03.014.
  37. Zucaro, R., Pontrandolfi, A., Dodaro, G.M., Gallinoni, C., Pacicco, C.L. & Vollaro, M. (2011). Atlante nazionale dell’irrigazione. INEA.
  38. Zucaro, R. (2014). Condizionalità Ex-Ante Per Le Risorse Idriche. Opportunità e Vincoli per il mondo agricolo. INEA.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...