Reviewing the decision‐making behavior of irrigators

Abstract

The contribution of agriculture to society is undeniable, as is its impact on the environment. Irrigators' decisions to follow best management practices or implement a policy change, to accept a technology, or even to exit farming, all affect society. Hence the decision-making behavior of irrigators is of interest to politicians, policymakers, and researchers due to their impact on resource use and social concerns for their welfare. There are numerous studies available regarding the decision-making behavior of irrigators. Most of them concentrate on decisions within a single time frame, single decisions with multiple driving forces, or multiple decisions with a single driving force. We have conducted a comprehensive review of the existing literature related to irrigators' decision-making behavior. We used a systematic method to identify relevant publications and used qualitative data analysis (content analysis) to analyze trends and/or patterns across the selected articles. This research provided a typology and an overarching high-level framework of irrigators' decision-making process irrespective of the types of decisions made.The results of the study demonstrate that it is highly beneficial to integrate both qualitative and quantitative methods in a single study to get a complete picture of irrigators' decision-making process. This allows us to ensure that we have captured the relevant drivers of decision-making in highly dynamic and complex environments. Better knowledge of irrigators' decision-making process allows regulators to shape improved agricultural policy and increase acceptance by irrigators of technologies that allow water managers to allocate resources fairly among different stakeholders. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Methods Engineering Water > Planning Water Human Water > Water Governance K E Y W O R D S decision-making framework, irrigators' decision-making behavior, qualitative and quantitative research methods, qualitative content analysis

Machine learning for hydrologic sciences: An introductory overview

“…Zeng et al (2017) used SVM to analyze the competitive or complementary relationship between reservoir operation decisions for hydroelectricity production and water releases for irrigation. Another potential venue of applying machine learning for knowledge discovery is mining relations that cannot be modeled from a physical process-based perspective such as the two-way feedback between human and water systems (Meempatta et al, 2019;Pande & Sivapalan, 2017). Interpretable machine learning algorithms such as tree-based methods and Lasso hold promise for this purpose because the learned models can be interpreted to derive rules or F I G U R E 9 Observed and simulated daily streamflow at USGS Gage 13340600 for two water years.…”

The need for accounting-integrated data streams for scenario-based planning in primary production: responding to COVID-19 and other crises

“…improve yield and change irrigation type). These goals were most likely to be linked to maximising profitability but also being able to plan ahead for different scenarios on and off-farm (Alcon et al , 2014; Meempatta et al , 2019).…”

“…Indeed, systems that ignore expert users' needs and knowledge can result in failure to provide the management improvements desired (Desouza, 2003) especially for SAMPJ small-to medium-sized enterprises which typically comprise farming (Desouza and Awazu, 2006). From an in-depth review of 310 key irrigation journal articles, Meempatta et al (2019) found key irrigation decisions to be able to be grouped across time frame. This includes decisions that are daily (e.g.…”

Who, What, Where, When, and How? A Typology of Drought Decision-Making on Public and Tribal Lands in the North-Central United States

“…With regard to temporal scale, scholars have differentiated between the timing of action relative to a stimulus, such as drought, and the duration of response. The timing of action relevant to the stimulus has been described as proactive, concurrent, or reactive, while the duration of response has been characterized as tactical, strategic, or structural (e.g., Meempatta et al 2019;Risbey et al 1999;Smit et al 2000). In the drought management literature, reactive and proactive actions have been used interchangeably with crisis and risk management actions, respectively (e.g., Cai et al 2015;Wilhite 2017Wilhite , 2000Wilhite et al 2000).…”