IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/aue/wpaper/0807.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating farmers' preferences for wastewater: quantity and quality aspects

Author

Listed:
  • Ekin Birol
  • Phoebe Koundouri
  • Yiannis Kountouris

Abstract

This paper employs the Contingent Valuation (CV) method to investigate farmers' willingness to adopt a new water resource, namely treated wastewater, and to estimate their Willingness To Pay (WTP) for varying quantities and qualities of treated wastewater for irrigation. A pilot CV study is undertaken with 97 farmers located around Cyprus' Akrotiri aquifer, a common-pool water resource with rapidly deteriorating water quantity and quality. The results reveal that farmers are willing to adopt this new water resource, and they derive the highest economic values from a treated wastewater use programme, which provides high quality treated wastewater, and high water quantity in the aquifer.

Suggested Citation

  • Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri & Yiannis Kountouris, 2008. "Evaluating farmers' preferences for wastewater: quantity and quality aspects," DEOS Working Papers 0807, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:aue:wpaper:0807
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wpa.deos.aueb.gr/docs/2008.wastewater_quantity_quality_aspects.pdf
    File Function: First version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
    2. Timothy Haab, 1999. "Nonparticipation or Misspecification? The Impacts of Nonparticipation on Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(4), pages 443-461, December.
    3. Cornes,Richard & Sandler,Todd, 1996. "The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521477185, October.
    4. Andreas Kontoleon & Timothy Swanson, 2003. "The Willingness to Pay for Property Rights for the Giant Panda: Can a Charismatic Species Be an Instrument for Nature Conservation?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 483-499.
    5. Scott, C. A. & Faruqui, N. I. & Raschid-Sally, L., 2004. "Wastewater use in irrigated agriculture: confronting the livelihood and environmental realities," IWMI Books, Reports H035947, International Water Management Institute.
    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. Abdulai, Awudu & Owusu, Victor & Bakang, John-Eudes A., 2011. "Adoption of safer irrigation technologies and cropping patterns: Evidence from Southern Ghana," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1415-1423, May.
    2. Laura Mirra & Simone Russo & Massimiliano Borrello, 2024. "Exploring Factors Shaping Farmer Behavior in Wastewater Utilization for Agricultural Practices: A Rapid Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-19, March.

    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. Ekin Birol & Phoebe Koundouri & Yiannis Kountouris, 2007. "Farmers' Demand for Recycled Wastewater in Cyprus: A Contingent Valuation Approach," DEOS Working Papers 0703, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Nir Becker & Yael Choresh & Ofer Bahat & Moshe Inbar, 2010. "Cost benefit analysis of conservation efforts to preserve an endangered species: The Griffon Vulture (Gyps fulvus) in Israel," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 55-70, April.
    5. Birol, Ekin & Koundouri, Phoebe & Kountouris, Yiannis, 2007. "Using the contingent valuation method to inform sustainable wetland management: the case of the Akrotiri wetland in Cyprus," MPRA Paper 38430, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Silva, Tiago Manuel & Silva, Susana & Carvalho, Armindo, 2022. "Economic valuation of urban parks with historical importance: The case of Quinta do Castelo, Portugal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    7. Johan Eyckmans & Michael Finus, 2006. "New roads to international environmental agreements: the case of global warming," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 7(4), pages 391-414, December.
    8. Rashmita Basu, 2013. "Willingness-to-pay to prevent Alzheimer’s disease: a contingent valuation approach," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 233-245, December.
    9. Ingrid Ott & Stephen J. Turnovsky, 2006. "Excludable and Non‐excludable Public Inputs: Consequences for Economic Growth," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 73(292), pages 725-748, November.
    10. Andrew B. Whitford & Derrick Anderson, 2021. "Governance landscapes for emerging technologies: The case of cryptocurrencies," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1053-1070, October.
    11. Acocella Nicola & Di Bartolomeo Giovanni, 2013. "Population location, commuting and local public goods: A political economy approach," wp.comunite 0105, Department of Communication, University of Teramo.
    12. Zawojska, Ewa & Czajkowski, Mikotaj, 2017. "Are preferences stated in web vs. personal interviews different? A comparison of willingness to pay results for a large multi-country study of the Baltic Sea eutrophication reduction," Annual Meeting, 2017, June 18-21, Montreal, Canada 258604, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society.
    13. Kverndokk, Snorre & Figenbaum, Erik & Hovi, Jon, 2020. "Would my driving pattern change if my neighbor were to buy an emission-free car?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    14. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    15. Cornes Richard & Sandler Todd, 2000. "Pareto-Improving Redistribution and Pure Public Goods," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 1(2), pages 169-186, May.
    16. David Kelsey & Frank Milne, 2006. "Externalities, monopoly and the objective function of the firm," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 29(3), pages 565-589, November.
    17. Matteo Migheli & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2014. "Open Access Journals & Academics’ Behaviour," ICER Working Papers 03-2014, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    18. Bensch, Gunther & Grimm, Michael, 2024. "Behavioural constraints in energy technology uptake: Evidence from real-purchase offers in rural Rwanda and Senegal," Ruhr Economic Papers 1081, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    19. Wiktor Adamowicz & Mark Dickie & Shelby Gerking & Marcella Veronesi & David Zinner, 2014. "Household Decision Making and Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Parents and Their Children," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 481-519.
    20. John B. Loomis, 2013. "Incorporating distributional issues into benefit–cost analysis: why, how, and two empirical examples using non-market valuation," Chapters, in: Scott O. Farrow & Richard Zerbe, Jr. (ed.), Principles and Standards for Benefit–Cost Analysis, chapter 9, pages 294-316, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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:aue:wpaper:0807. 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: Ekaterini Glynou (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diauegr.html .

    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.