Skip to main content

Adoption of improved irrigation and drainage reduction technologies under limiting environmental conditions

Abstract

Modern irrigation technologies have been suggested as a means of conserving scarce water and reducing environmental pollution caused by irrigated agriculture. This paper applies an economic model of technology selection that provides a general framework to analyzing adoption of irrigation technologies under various environmental conditions. Data from the San Joaquin Valley of California is used to verify the theoretical relationships. Results suggest key variables to be considered by policy makers concerned with adoption of modern irrigation technologies. Among these variables are crop prices, water technology costs, farm organization characteristics, and the environmental conditions of the farm or the field. Policy implications were discussed and analyzed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. CampbellM. B. and A.Dinar (1991), ‘Organizational Classes Explain Differences among Westside Farms’, California Agriculture 46(1), 35–39.

    Google Scholar 

  2. CaswellM. F. (1991), ‘Irrigation Technology Adoption Decisions: Empirical Evidence’, in DinarA. and D.Zilberman (eds.), The Economics and Management of Water and Drainage in Agriculture. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 295–312.

    Google Scholar 

  3. CaswellM. and D.Zilberman (1985), ‘The Choice of Irrigation Technologies in California’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 67(2), 224–234.

    Google Scholar 

  4. CaswellM. and D.Zilberman (1986), ‘The Effects of Well Depth and Land Quality on the Choice of Irrigation Technology’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68, 798–811.

    Google Scholar 

  5. CH2M HILL (1989), Irrigation Systems Costs and Performance in the San Joaquin Valley. Report prepared for the Federal-State San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program, 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825, USA.

  6. CIMIS (California Irrigation Management Information System) (1982–1990), Water Conservation Office, California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA.

  7. Dinar, A. and J. Letey (1989), ‘Economic Analysis of Charges and Subsidies to Reduce Agricultural Drainage Pollution’, Proceeding of the 2'nd Pan-American Regional Conference on Toxic Substances in Agricultural Water Supply and Drainage — An International Environmental Perspective, Ottawa, Canada, June 8–9.

  8. DinarA. and D.Yaron (1990), ‘Influence of Quality and Scarcity of Inputs on the Adoption of Modern Irrigation Technologies’, Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 15(2), 224–233.

    Google Scholar 

  9. DinarA. and D.Yaron (1992), ‘Adoption and Abandonment of Irrigation Technologies’, Agricultural Economics 6(4), 315–332.

    Google Scholar 

  10. DinarA. and M. B.Campbell (1990), Adoption of Improved Irrigation and Drainage Reduction Technologies in the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley. Part I Report: Literature Review, Survey Methods and Descriptive Statistics. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Contract 9-PG-20–03380 and 9-PG-20–03010. San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program, Sacramento, CA, August.

    Google Scholar 

  11. DinarA. and M. B.Campbell (1991), Adoption of Improved Irrigation and Drainage Reduction Technologies in the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley. Part II Report: Economic Analysis and Estimates of Behavior of Farm Operators under Various Environmental Conditions. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Contract 9-PG-20–03380 and 9-PG-20–03010. San Joaquin Valley Draiage Program, Sacramento, CA, July.

    Google Scholar 

  12. DinarA. and D.Yaron (1992), ‘Adoption and Abandonment of Irrigation Technologies’, Agricultural Economics 6, 315–332.

    Google Scholar 

  13. DinarA. and D.Zilberman (1991), ‘The Economics of Resouce-Conservation, Pollution-Reduction Technology Selection: The Case of Irrigation Water’, Resources and Energy 13, 323–348.

    Google Scholar 

  14. FederG., R. E.Just, and D.Zilberman (1985), ‘Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries, A Survey’, Economic Development and Cultural Change 33, 255–298.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Feder, G., T. Onchan, Y. Chalamwong, and C. Hongladarom (1988), Land Policies and Farm Productivity in Thailand. Johns Hopkins University Press for World Bank.

  16. GilliomR. J. (1991), ‘Overview of Sources, Distribution and Mobility of Selenium in the San Joaquin Valley, California’, in DinarA. and D.Zilberman (eds.), The Economics and Management of Water and Drainage in Agriculture. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 29–47.

    Google Scholar 

  17. GujaratiD. N. (1988), Basic Econometrics, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  18. JustR. E. (1991), ‘Estimation of Production Systems with Emphasis on Water Productivity’, in DinarA. and D.Zilberman (eds.), The Economics and Management of Water and Drainage in Agriculture. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 251–274.

    Google Scholar 

  19. KnappK. C., A.Dinar, and P.Nash (1990), ‘Economic Policies for Regulating Agricultural Drainage Water’, Water Resources Bulletin 26(2), 289–298.

    Google Scholar 

  20. LeteyJ., A.Dinar, C.Woodring, and J.Oster (1990), ‘An Economic Analysis of Irrigation Systems’, Irrigation Science 11, 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  21. LichtenbergE. (1989), ‘Land Quality, Irrigation Development, and Cropping Patterns in the Northern High Plains’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71(1), 187–194.

    Google Scholar 

  22. LichtenbergE., I. E.StrandJr., and B. V.Lessley (1991), Subsidizing Agricultural Nonpoint-Source Pollution Control: Targeting Cost Sharing and Technical Assistance. Working Paper No. 91–10 Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland Colledge Park MD, 20742.

    Google Scholar 

  23. MaddalaG. S. (1989), Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  24. National Research Council (1989), Irrigation Induced Water Quality Problems, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  25. NOAA (National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration) (1977–1989), U.S. Department of commerce, Climatological Data from EARTHINFO.

  26. NegriD. H. and D. H.Brooks (1990), ‘Determinants of Irrigation Technology Choice’, Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 15(2), 213–223.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Orlich, D. C. (1978), Designing Sensible Surveys. Pleasentville, N.Y.

  28. SJVDP (San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program) (1990), A Management Plan for Agricultural Subsurface Drainage and Related Problems on the Westside San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento, CA 183 pp., September.

  29. UttonA. E. and L.Teclaff (eds.) (1978), Water in a Developing World. Westview Special Studies in Natural Resources and Energy Management, Boulder, CO.

    Google Scholar 

  30. YaronD., A.Dinar, and H.Voat (1992), Innovations on Family Farms: the Case of the Nazareth Region in Israel. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 74(2), 361–370.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This research was conducted while the first author was a visiting scholar with the Dept. of Agricultural Economics, University of California, Davis, and USDA-ERS, USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dinar, A., Campbell, M.B. & Zilberman, D. Adoption of improved irrigation and drainage reduction technologies under limiting environmental conditions. Environmental and Resource Economics 2, 373–398 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00304968

Download citation

Key words

  • Adoption
  • irrigation technology
  • environment
  • drainage pollution
  • policy