“…Some studies found that water pricing is an effective way to improve water allocation and to encourage water conservation [6][7][8]. However, many other studies found that the price mechanism has failed to generate a force for water conservation [9][10][11][12][13].…”
Abstract:The conflict between increasing water demand and limited water resources has become a serious threat to oasis regions in China. Solutions to water scarcity have to curb overall water demands, especially reducing agricultural water use. Price control and quantitative control are the two most commonly applied policy instruments for water demand management. This paper used a bio-economic model (BEM) to examine the shadow price of water resources and to investigate farmers' response to water demand management policies in water scarce regions based on a study in the Heihe River Basin in northwest China. The results indicate that farmers are not very responsive to changes in water price, because it is currently far below the shadow price of water resources in most irrigation zones. A reduction of agricultural water demand could occur only with a large rise in the water price. In comparison, a quantitative control measure is more effective at reducing water use. Concerning the effects on farm income, a price control will cost much more than a quantitative control to save the same volume of water. Hence, a water quota is a more OPEN ACCESS Sustainability 2014, 6 7602 suitable choice for the purpose of reducing agricultural water use, while minimizing farm income loss in the region of this case study.
“…Some studies found that water pricing is an effective way to improve water allocation and to encourage water conservation [6][7][8]. However, many other studies found that the price mechanism has failed to generate a force for water conservation [9][10][11][12][13].…”
Abstract:The conflict between increasing water demand and limited water resources has become a serious threat to oasis regions in China. Solutions to water scarcity have to curb overall water demands, especially reducing agricultural water use. Price control and quantitative control are the two most commonly applied policy instruments for water demand management. This paper used a bio-economic model (BEM) to examine the shadow price of water resources and to investigate farmers' response to water demand management policies in water scarce regions based on a study in the Heihe River Basin in northwest China. The results indicate that farmers are not very responsive to changes in water price, because it is currently far below the shadow price of water resources in most irrigation zones. A reduction of agricultural water demand could occur only with a large rise in the water price. In comparison, a quantitative control measure is more effective at reducing water use. Concerning the effects on farm income, a price control will cost much more than a quantitative control to save the same volume of water. Hence, a water quota is a more OPEN ACCESS Sustainability 2014, 6 7602 suitable choice for the purpose of reducing agricultural water use, while minimizing farm income loss in the region of this case study.
“…This over-simplistic scenario, where no other effects are considered, is the hidden assumption of many studies assessing the expected water savings from irrigation modernization plans (a good example of this can be found in the Spanish Irrigation Plan 6 ). However, farmers are profit maximizing agents that change their choices depending on conditions on revenues and costs, and water demand is derived from this choice (Gómez and Pérez-Blanco, 2012;Kampas et al, 2012;Rivers and Groves, 2013). Since the technical shift means also a change in the incentives in place, farmers will not normally continue taking the same decisions as before.…”
Greening the economy is mostly about improving water governance and not only about putting the existing resource saving technical alternatives into practice. Focusing on the second and forgetting the first risks finishing with a highly efficient use of water services at the level of each individual user but with an unsustainable amount of water use for the entire economy. This might be happening already in many places with the modernization of irrigated agriculture, the world's largest water user and the one offering the most promising water saving opportunities. In spite of high expectations, modern irrigation techniques seem not to be contributing to reduce water scarcity and increase drought resiliency. In fact, according to the little evidence available, in some areas they are resulting in higher water use. Building on basic economic principles this study aims to show the conditions under which this apparently paradoxical outcome, known as the Jevons' Paradox, might appear. This basic model is expected to serve as guidance for assessing the actual outcomes of increasing irrigation efficiency and to discuss the changes in water governance that would be required for this to make a real contribution to sustainable water management.
“…Given a demand function characterized by productive users' willingness to pay for a marginal unit of water, institutions can adjust charges to determine the amount of extraction and resulting environmental flows at any (site-specific) location and moment in time (permanent and incremental charges). 5 Higher charges strengthen the participation constraint, and contribute to water policy objectives through reduced use or higher cost-recovery -provided revenues are earmarked for water conservation-related policies (Kampas et al 2012;Pérez-Blanco et al 2016). When river basins are closed, charging resource costs to water-users can also result in a more efficient market allocation, penalizing those that are less productive and allowing for the entrance of more productive users (Berrittella et al 2007).…”
This paper presents a conceptual framework for both assessing the role of economic instruments, and reshaping them in order to enhance their contribution to the goals of managing water scarcity. Water management problems stem from the mismatch between a multitude of individual decisions, on the one hand, and the current and projected status of water resources on the other. Economics can provide valuable incentives that drive individual decisions, and can design efficient instruments to address water governance problems in a context of conflicting interests and relevant transaction costs. Yet, instruments such as water pricing or trading are mostly based on general principles of welfare economics that are not readily applicable to assets as complex as water. A flaw in welfare economic approaches lies in the presumption that economic instruments may be good or || Corresponding author. This is an Open Access article published by World Scientific Publishing Company. It is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY) License. Further distribution of this work is permitted, provided the original work is properly cited.Water Economics and Policy, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2018) bad on their own (e.g., finding the "right" price). This vision changes radically when we focus on the problem, instead of the instrument. In this paper, we examine how economic instruments to achieve welfare-enhancing water resource outcomes can realize their full potential in basin-scale management contexts. We follow a political economy perspective that views conflicts between public and private interest as the main instrumental challenge of water management. Our analysis allows us to better understand the critical importance of economic instruments for reconciling individual actions towards collective ambitions of water efficiency, equity and sustainability with lessons for later-adopting jurisdictions. Rather than providing panaceas, the successful design and implementation of economic instruments as key river basin management arrangements involves high transaction costs, wide institutional changes and collective action at different levels.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.