A livelihood in a risky environment: Farmers’ preferences for irrigation with wastewater in Hyderabad, India

Abstract

Most cities in developing countries fail to treat their wastewater comprehensively. Consequently, farmers downstream use poor-quality water for irrigation. This practice implies risks for farmers, consumers and the environment. Conversely, this water supply supports the livelihood of these farmers and other stakeholders along the value chains. Linking safer options for wastewater management with irrigation could therefore be a win–win solution: removing the risks for society and maintaining the benefits for farmers. However, in developing countries, the high investment costs for the required treatment are problematic and the willingness of farmers to pay for the water (cost recovery) is often questionable. Using a choice experiment, this paper gives insight into farmers’ preferences for wastewater use scenarios, quantifying their willingness to pay. The case study is Hyderabad, India. Farmers there prefer water treatment and are prepared to pay a surplus for this. Considering the cost-recovery challenge, this information could be valuable for planning small on site wastewater treatment systems.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    TDS represents the total quantity of dissolved minerals in the water; since the major part of the material dissolved is ionic, electrical conductivity (EC) is conventionally used as a measure of TDS (McCartney et al. 2008).

  2. 2.

    Para-grass is a type of grass, cultivated as fodder for buffalo feed.

  3. 3.

    Water intensive crops (e.g. sugar cane and rice) are referred to as ‘wet crops’; less water intensive crops (e.g. cotton and maize) are referred to as ‘dry crops’ (Tirupataiah, pers. comm.).

  4. 4.

    USD 1 = INR 54.90 as of May 2013.

  5. 5.

    “Are you aware of the health risks related to irrigating with Musi water?”

  6. 6.

    “Did you experience any negative effect on your health when using Musi water? Please mention the effects”.

  7. 7.

    “Are you aware of the nutrient content of the Musi water, which decreases the need for fertilizer use?”

  8. 8.

    “Did you experience any negative effect on the crops when using Musi water? Please mention the effects”.

  9. 9.

    Examples mentioned by the respondents: decrease in crop yield and in grain-filling both for paddy.

  10. 10.

    The utility functions were specified as follows: U(NI) = ASC1 + A 1 * Price/U(R) = ASC2 + A 2 * S crop + A 3 * M crop + A 4 * T hlth + A 1 * Price/U(WT) = A 5 * M wat + A 3 * M crop + A 4 * T hlth + A 1 * Price, where A 1A 5 are the coefficients and ASC no intervention (ASC1), ASC restrictions (ASC2), strict crop restriction (S crop), moderate crop restriction (M crop), tolerable health risks (T hlth) and medium water quantity (M wat).

  11. 11.

    State government fixed water fees based on crop type and land size per season: wet crops approximately 500 INR/ha; dry crops approximately 250 INR/ha (Tirupataiah, pers. comm.).

References

  1. Abu Madi, M., O. Braadbaart, R. Al-Sa’ed, and G. Alaerts. 2003. Willingness of farmers to pay for reclaimed wastewater in Jordan and Tunisia. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 3: 115–122.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere, and J. Swait. 1998. Introduction to attribute-based stated choice methods. Edmonton, AB: ADVANIS.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amerasinghe, P., P. Weckenbrock, R. Simmons, S. Acharya, A.W. Drescher, and M. Blummel. 2009. An atlas of water quality, health and agronomic risks and benefits associated withwastewaterirrigated agriculture: A study from the banks of the Musi River, India. Report. Colombo: IWMI.

  4. Bakopoulou, S., S. Polyzos, and A. Kungolos. 2010. Investigation of farmers’ willingness to pay for using recycled water for irrigation in Thessaly region, Greece. Desalination 250: 329–334.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ben Brahim-Neji, H., A. Ruiz-Villaverde, and F. González-Gómez. 2014. Decision aid supports for evaluating agricultural water reuse practices in Tunisia: The Cebala perimeter. Agricultural Water Management 143: 113–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bennett, J., and R. Blamey. 2001. The strengths and weaknesses of environmental choice modelling. In The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation, ed. J. Bennett, and R. Blamey, 227–242. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Birol, E., K. Karousakis, and P. Koundouri. 2006. Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: The case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecological Economics 60: 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Birol, E., P. Koundouri, and Y. Kountouris. 2008. Evaluating farmers’ preferences for wastewater: Quantity and quality aspects. International Journal of Water 4: 69–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Birol, E., P. Koundouri, and Y. Kountouris. 2010. Assessing the economic viability of alternative water resources in water-scarce regions: Combining economic valuation, cost–benefit analysis and discounting. Ecological Economics 69: 839–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boxall, P.C., and W.L. Adamowicz. 2002. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: A latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics 23: 421–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Buechler, S., and G. Devi. 2003. Household food security and wastewater-dependent livelihood activities along the Musi River in Andhra Pradesh, India. Report. Geneva: World Health Organisation. http://publications.iwmi.org/pdf/H_34272.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2013.

  12. Buechler, S., G. Devi, and B. Keraita. 2006. Wastewater use for urban and peri-urban agriculture. In Cities farming for the future: Urban agriculture for green and productive cities, 243–273. http://www.ruaf.org/sites/default/files/Chapter%209.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2014.

  13. Census. 2011. Greater Hyderabad, City Census 2011 data. http://www.census2011.co.in/census/city/392-hyderabad.html. Accessed 22 Oct 2013.

  14. Cheepi, P. 2012. Musi River pollution its impact on health and economic conditions of downstream villages—A study. IOSR Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology 1: 40–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. CPCB. 2009. Status of water supply, wastewater generation and treatment in class-I cities and class-II towns of India. Control of Urban Pollution series: CUPS/70/2009–10. New Delhi: Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests.

  16. de Bekker-Grob, E.W., B. Donkers, M.F. Jonker, and E.A. Stolk. 2015. Sample size requirements for discrete-choice experiments in healthcare: A practical guide. The Patient–Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 8: 373–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Drechsel, P., M. Qadir, and D. Wichelns. 2015. Wastewater: An economic asset in an urbanizing world. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ensink, J.H., C.A. Scott, S. Brooker, and S. Cairncross. 2010. Sewage disposal in the Musi-River, India: Water quality remediation through irrigation infrastructure. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 24: 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Genius, M., A.N. Menegaki, and K.P. Tsagarakis. 2012. Assessing preferences for wastewater treatment in a rural area using choice experiments. Water Resources Research 48: 1e11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Greene, W., and D. Hensher. 2003. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: Contrasts with mixed logit. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 37: 681–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hanley, N., S. Mourato, and R. Wright. 2001. Choice modelling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys 15: 435–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hensher, D.A., J.M. Rose, and W.H. Greene. 2005. Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hope, R.A. 2006. Evaluating water policy scenarios against the priorities of the rural poor. World Development 34: 167–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hoyos, D. 2010. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics 69: 1595–1603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Keremane, G.B. 2009. Urban wastewater use for irrigation: A case study of farmers along Musi River in Hyderabad. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 22: 235–237.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Leas, E.C., A. Dare, and W.K. Al-Delaimy. 2014. Is grey water the key to unlocking water for resource-poor areas of the Middle East, North Africa, and other arid regions of the world? Ambio 43: 707–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Louviere, J.J., D.A. Hensher, and J.D. Swait. 2000. Stated choice methods—Analysis and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. McCartney, M., C. Scott, J. Ensink, B. Jiang, and T.W. Biggs. 2008. Salinity implications of wastewater irrigation in the Musi River catchment in India. Ceylon Journal of Science 37: 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  29. McDonald, L. 2009. Development of a protocol for measuring wastewater exposure for farmers engaging in wastewater irrigated agriculture in Hyderabad, India. MSc Thesis, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London (unpublished).

  30. Ministry of Water Resources, Republic of India. 2012. National water policy. http://wrmin.nic.in/writereaddata/NationalWaterPolicy/NWP2012Eng6495132651.pdf. Accessed April 2013.

  31. National Panchayat Portal. 2013. Ghatkesar intermediate panchayat. http://www.ranghatkebp.appr.gov.in/hidden/-/asset_publisher/di5XrVERUf8s/content/about-ghatkesar/3093320. Accessed 5 Oct 2015.

  32. Ndunda, E.N., and E.D. Mungatana. 2013. Evaluating the welfare effects of improved wastewater treatment using a discrete choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Management 123: 49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. OECD. 2010. Sustainable management of water resources in agriculture. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264083578-en.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Qadir, M., D. Wichelns, L. Raschid-Sally, P.G. McCornick, P. Drechsel, A. Bahri, and P.S. Minhas. 2010. The challenges of wastewater irrigation in developing countries. Agricultural Water Management 97: 561–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Quitzow, R., H. Bär, and K. Jacob. 2013. Environmental governance in India, China, Vietnam and Indonesia: A tale of two paces. FFU-Report 01-2013. Berlin: Environmental Policy Research Centre, Freie Universität Berlin.

  36. Rao, S.M., and P. Mamatha. 2004. Water quality in sustainable water management. Current Science 87: 942–947.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Raschid-Sally, L., R. Carr, and S. Buechler. 2005. Managing wastewater agriculture to improve livelihoods and environmental quality in poor countries. Irrigation and Drainage 54: S11–S22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rose, J.M., and M.C. Bliemer. 2013. Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments. Transportation 40: 1021–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Saldías, C. 2016. Analysing the institutional challenges for the agricultural (re)use of wastewater in developing countries. PhD Thesis, Ghent University, Ghent.

  40. Srinivasan, J.T., and V.R. Reddy. 2009. Impact of irrigation water quality on human health: A case study in India. Ecological Economics 68: 2800–2807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Starkl, M., N. Brunner, P. Amerasinghe, J. Mahesh, D. Kumar, S.R. Asolekar, S. Sonkamble, S. Ahmed, et al. 2015. Stakeholder views, financing and policy implications for reuse of wastewater for irrigation: A case from Hyderabad, India. Water 7: 300–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sur, D., J. Cook, S. Chatterjee, J. Deen, and D. Whittington. 2007. Increasing the transparency of stated choice studies for policy analysis: Designing experiments to produce raw response graphs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 26: 189–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Times of India. 2002. Ghatkesar ryots pay cess for polluted water. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2002-02-18/hyderabad/27111813_1_water-tax-polluted-water-musi. Accessed 30 Oct 2013.

  44. Toze, S. 2006. Reuse of effluent water—Benefits and risks. Agricultural Water Management 80: 147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Van Rooijen, D.J., T.W. Biggs, I. Smout, and P. Drechsel. 2010. Urban growth, wastewater production and use in irrigated agriculture: A comparative study of Accra, Addis Ababa and Hyderabad. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 24: 53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Weldesilassie, A.B., O. Frör, E. Boelee, and S. Dabbert. 2009. The economic value of improved wastewater irrigation: A contingent valuation study in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 34: 428–449.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Field research for this paper was supported by the International Water Management Institute and Ghent University. The authors thank Dr. Priyanie Amerasinghe for facilitating contacts and fieldwork in Hyderabad; Dr. George Danso and Dr. Krishna Reddy Kakumanu for their comments on the choice experiment and the questionnaire. We also thank many interviewees who generously shared information. Finally, we thank two anonymous reviewers whose comments helped us to improve this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cecilia Saldías.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saldías, C., Speelman, S., Drechsel, P. et al. A livelihood in a risky environment: Farmers’ preferences for irrigation with wastewater in Hyderabad, India. Ambio 46, 347–360 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0824-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Agriculture
  • Choice experiment
  • India
  • Wastewater