The welfare costs of urban outdoor water restrictions

Abstract

Outdoor water restrictions are usually implemented as bans on a particular type of watering technology (sprinklers), which allow households to substitute for labourintensive (hand-held) watering. This paper presents a household production model approach to analysing the impact of sprinkler restrictions on consumer welfare and their efficacy as a demand management tool. Central to our empirical analysis is an experimentally derived production function which describes the relationship between irrigation and lawn quality. We demonstrate that for a typical consumer complete sprinkler bans may be little more effective than milder restrictions policies, but are substantially more costly to the household.

Understanding the Performance of Irrigation Systems Around Homes

“…The analysis of Brennan et al (2007) indicated that as the water restrictions on sprinkler use becomes more restrictive, water savings occur up to a point by substituting hand-watering method for sprinkler method. Beyond this point, making irrigation restricted to hand-watering results in reduced leisure time for homeowners.…”

The Use of Non-pricing Instruments to Manage Residential Water Demand: What Have We Learned?

“…Similarly, Mansur and Olmstead ( 2011 ) estimated that, compared to residential out-door watering restrictions, the welfare gains from a price-based approach added up to approximately US$96 per household during a lawn-watering season, which represented about 29 % of average annual household expenditures on water in their sample of urban areas in the United States and Canada. Brennan et al ( 2007 ) calculated that the economic costs of a 2-day-a-week sprinkling restriction in Perth, Western Australia: allowing hand watering only cost just under AU$100 per household per season, while the cost of a complete outdoor watering ban ranged from AU$347 to AU$870 per household per season. Grafton and Ward ( 2008 ) calculated that mandatory water restrictions in Sydney, Australia, resulted in economic losses of AU$235 million in 1 year (about AU$150 per household, which was about half the average Sydney household's water bill in the year studied).…”

Space matters: the importance of amenity in planning metropolitan growth

“…Demand-side policies, such as water restrictions have been implemented and limit the timing of outdoor water use and/or the type of watering system such as sprinklers, drippers, hand-held hoses and buckets/watering cans. These sorts of bans impose costs on households by restricting when and how watering takes place to achieve water use reductions (Brennan et al 2007;Grafton and Ward 2008). From 2007 to 2009, household water restrictions were much more onerous than the restrictions on the watering of public open space.…”