IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/waterr/v31y2017i9d10.1007_s11269-017-1666-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Profiling Farmers’ Preferences about Drought Response Policies Using a Choice Experiment in the Okanagan Basin, Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Steven A. Conrad

    (Simon Fraser University)

  • Murray B. Rutherford

    (Simon Fraser University)

  • Wolfgang Haider

    (Simon Fraser University)

Abstract

Farmers can play a crucial role in water management during water shortages, yet little is known concerning the preferences of farmers for various options in drought response planning. In this paper we demonstrate the use of a discrete choice experiment to investigate the preferences of farmers about options for drought response policies in the Okanagan region of British Columbia, Canada. In the choice experiment, three policy instruments were varied across possible drought response plans: mandatory reductions in water supply, reallocation of entitlements to available water, and opportunities for water trading. Results show that participating farmers, as a whole, were more likely to accept drought response plans with moderate levels of mandatory water reductions, water allocations according to the sensitivity of crops to water loss, and opportunities for water trading between farmers. When analyzed according to the primary crop cultivated, grape growers were more likely to prefer drought response plans with opportunities for water trading between all water users, whereas ranchers were more likely to prefer drought response plans that feature high levels of mandatory water reductions. We contrast our findings with preconceptions about farmers’ preferences concerning water use policies. We also discuss broader implications of the research, including the usefulness of choice experiments for informing the development of effective drought response policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Steven A. Conrad & Murray B. Rutherford & Wolfgang Haider, 2017. "Profiling Farmers’ Preferences about Drought Response Policies Using a Choice Experiment in the Okanagan Basin, Canada," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 31(9), pages 2837-2851, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:31:y:2017:i:9:d:10.1007_s11269-017-1666-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11269-017-1666-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-017-1666-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11269-017-1666-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Koundouri, Phoebe & Remoundou, Kyriaki, 2011. "The use of economic valuation in environmental policy: providing research support for the implementation of Eu Water Policy Under Aquastress," MPRA Paper 42066, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri, 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy:A European Perspective," DEOS Working Papers 0801, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    3. Chokri Dridi & Madhu Khanna, 2005. "Irrigation Technology Adoption and Gains from Water Trading under Asymmetric Information," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 289-301.
    4. Joost M.E. Pennings & Scott H. Irwin & Darrel L. Good, 2002. "Surveying Farmers: A Case Study," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(1), pages 266-277.
    5. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri (ed.), 2008. "Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4102.
    6. Teodoro Estrela & Elisa Vargas, 2012. "Drought Management Plans in the European Union. The Case of Spain," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(6), pages 1537-1553, April.
    7. Heaney, Anna & Dwyer, Gavan & Beare, Stephen & Peterson, Deborah C. & Pechey, Lili, 2006. "Third-party effects of water trading and potential policy responses," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(3), pages 1-17, September.
    8. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    9. He, Lixia & Horbulyk, Theodore M. & Ali, Md. Kamar & Le Roy, Danny G. & Klein, K.K., 2012. "Proportional water sharing vs. seniority-based allocation in the Bow River basin of Southern Alberta," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 21-31.
    10. Kirsten Harma & Mark Johnson & Stewart Cohen, 2012. "Future Water Supply and Demand in the Okanagan Basin, British Columbia: A Scenario-Based Analysis of Multiple, Interacting Stressors," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(3), pages 667-689, February.
    11. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    12. Renwick, Mary E. & Green, Richard D., 2000. "Do Residential Water Demand Side Management Policies Measure Up? An Analysis of Eight California Water Agencies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 37-55, July.
    13. Anna Heaney & Gavan Dwyer & Stephen Beare & Deborah Peterson & Lili Pechey, 2006. "Third-party effects of water trading and potential policy responses ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(3), pages 277-293, September.
    14. Rosegrant, Mark W. & Schleyer, Renato Gazmuri & Yadav, Satya N., 1995. "Water policy for efficient agricultural diversification: market-based approaches," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 203-223, June.
    15. Pereira, Luis Santos & Oweis, Theib & Zairi, Abdelaziz, 2002. "Irrigation management under water scarcity," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 175-206, December.
    16. Roy Brouwer & Fumbi Job & Bianca Kroon & Richard Johnston, 2015. "Comparing Willingness to Pay for Improved Drinking-Water Quality Using Stated Preference Methods in Rural and Urban Kenya," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 81-94, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Van Wyngaarden, Sarah & Anders, Sven & Davidson, Debra, 2024. "How farmer preferences and climate change beliefs shape BMP adoption," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chun-Hung Lee & Chiung-Hsin Wang, 2017. "Estimating Residents’ Preferences of the Land Use Program Surrounding Forest Park, Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, April.
    2. Rocamora, Beatriz & Colombo, Sergio & Glenk, Klaus, 2014. "El impacto de las respuestas inconsistentes en las medidas de bienestar estimadas con el método del experimento de elección," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 14(02), pages 1-22, December.
    3. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol, 2010. "Introduction: The Roles and Significance of Choice Experiments in Developing Country Contexts," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Koundouri, Phoebe & Chatzistamoulou, Nikos & Dávila, Osiel González & Giannouli, Amerissa & Kourogenis, Nikolaos & Xepapadeas, Anastasios & Xepapadeas, Petros, 2021. "Open Access in Scientific Information: Sustainability Model and Business Plan for the Infrastructure and Organization of OpenAIRE," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 170-198, March.
    6. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November.
    8. Jeanloz, Sarah & Lizin, Sebastien & Beenaerts, Natalie & Brouwer, Roy & Van Passel, Steven & Witters, Nele, 2016. "Towards a more structured selection process for attributes and levels in choice experiments: A study in a Belgian protected area," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 45-57.
    9. Koundouri, Phoebe & Chatzistamoulou, Nikos & Davila, González & Giannouli, Amerissa & Kourogenis, Nikolaos & Xepapadeas, Anastasios & Xepapadeas, Petros, 2021. "Open Access in Scientific Information: Sustainability Model and Business Plan for the Infrastructure and Organization of OpenAIRE," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 170-198, April.
    10. Robert Huber & Marcel Hunziker & Bernard Lehmann, 2011. "Valuation of agricultural land-use scenarios with choice experiments: a political market share approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 93-113.
    11. Veettil, Prakashan Chellattan & Speelman, Stijn & Frija, Aymen & Buysse, Jeroen & van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2011. "Complementarity between water pricing, water rights and local water governance: A Bayesian analysis of choice behaviour of farmers in the Krishna river basin, India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(10), pages 1756-1766, August.
    12. Fanny Widadie & Jos Bijman & Jacques Trienekens, 2021. "Farmer preferences in contracting with modern retail in Indonesia: A choice experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(2), pages 371-392, April.
    13. Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato, 2018. "The Value of a Properly Maintained Hiking Trail Network and a Traditional Landscape for Mountain Recreation in the Dolomites," Resources, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-22, December.
    14. Roy Brouwer & Marije Schaafsma, 2013. "Modelling risk adaptation and mitigation behaviour under different climate change scenarios," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 117(1), pages 11-29, March.
    15. Mtimet, Nadhem & Ujiie, Kiyokazu & Kashiwagi, Kenichi & Zaibet, Lokman & Nagaki, Masakazu, 2011. "The effects of Information and Country of Origin on Japanese Olive Oil Consumer Selection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114642, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    17. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    18. Schleich, Joachim & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Tu, Gengyang, 2020. "Conveyance, envy, and homeowner choice of appliances," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    19. Veneziani, Mario & Sckokai, Paolo & Moro, Daniele, 2012. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for a functional food," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124101, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    20. John K. Dagsvik & Zhiyang Jia, 2016. "Labor Supply as a Choice Among Latent Jobs: Unobserved Heterogeneity and Identification," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 487-506, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:waterr:v:31:y:2017:i:9:d:10.1007_s11269-017-1666-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.