Farmers’ willingness to pay for surface water in the West Mitidja irrigated perimeter, northern Algeria

  1. Azzi, Malika
  2. Calatrava Leyva, Javier
  3. Bedrani, Slimane
Revista:
Spanish journal of agricultural research

ISSN: 1695-971X,  2171-9292

Año de publicación: 2018

Volumen: 16

Número: 1

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5424/SJAR/2018161-12073 SCOPUS: 2-s2.0-85046100190 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Spanish journal of agricultural research

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Algeria is among the most water-stressed countries in the world. Because of its climatic conditions, irrigation is essential for agricultural production. Water prices paid by farmers in public irrigation districts are very low and do not cover the operation and maintenance (O&M) costs of the irrigated perimeters, thus leading to the deterioration of these infrastructures. The objective of this paper is to analyse whether farmer’s in the West Mitidja irrigation district in northern Algeria would be willing to pay more for surface water in order to maintain the water supply service in its current conditions. We estimated farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for water using data from a dichotomous choice contingent valuation survey to 112 randomly selected farmers. Farmers’ responses were modelled using logistic regression techniques. We also analysed which technical, structural, social and economic characteristics of farms and farmers explain the differences in WTP. Our results showed that nearly 80% of the surveyed farmers are willing to pay an extra price for irrigation water. The average WTP was 64% greater than the price currently paid by farmers, suggesting some scope for improving the financial resources of the Mitidja irrigated perimeter, but insufficient to cover all O&M costs. Some of the key identified factors that affect WTP for surface water relate to farm ownership, access to groundwater resources, cropping patterns, farmers’ agricultural training and risk exposure.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

Funding: Malika Azzi received a doctoral research scholarship from the Algerian Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Correspondence should be addressed to Javier Calatrava: j.calatrava@upct.es

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alhassan M, Loomis J, Frasier M, Davies S, Andales A, 2013. Estimating farmers' willingness to pay for improved irrigation: An economic study of the Bontanga Irrigation Scheme in Northern Ghana. J Agric Sci 5(4): 31-43. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v5n4p31
  • Bakopoulou S, Polyzos S, Kungolos A, 2010. Investigation of farmers' willingness to pay for using recycled water for irrigation in Thessaly region, Greece. Desalination 250 (1): 329-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2009.09.051
  • Benmihoub A, Bedrani S, 2012. L'attitude des irrigants vis-à-vis de l'augmentation du tarif de l'eau: Cas d'un périmètre d'irrigation public en Algérie. Les Cahiers du CREAD 98/99: 75-101.
  • Bouarfa S, Imache A, Aidaoui A, Sellam F, 2010. Les besoins et la demande en eau d'irrigation dans la Mitidja. In: La Mitidja 20 ans après, réalités agricoles aux portes d'Alger; Imache A, Bouarfa S, Hartani T, Kuper M (eds.), pp: 185-193. Editions Alpha, Alger.
  • Calatrava-Leyva J, Sayadi S, 2005. Economic valuation of water and willingness to pay analysis in tropical fruit production in South-Eastern Spain. Span J Agric Res 3 (1): 25-33. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2005031-121
  • Cameron TA, 1988. A new paradigm for valuing non-market goods using referendum data: Maximum likelihood estimation by censored logistic regression. J Environ Econ Manag 15 (3): 355-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(88)90008-3
  • Carson RT, Flores NE, Meade NF, 2001. Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 19 (2): 173-210. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011128332243
  • Chandrasekaran K, Devarajulu S, Kuppannan P, 2009. Farmers' willingness to pay for irrigation water: A case of tank irrigation systems in south India. Water 1 (1): 5-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/w1010005
  • Chebil A, Thabet C, Frija A, 2007. Evaluation du prix maximum de l'eau d'irrigation dans les cultures sous serres de la région de Teboulba: une approximation contingente. New Medit 2: 21-25.
  • Dono G, Giraldo L, Severini S, 2010. Pricing of irrigation water under alternative charging methods: Possible shortcomings of a volumetric approach. Agr Water Manage 97 (11): 1795-1805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.06.013
  • Drouiche N, Ghaffour N, Naceur MW, Lounici H, Drouiche M, 2012. Towards sustainable water management in Algeria. Desalin Water Treat 50 (1-3): 272-284. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2012.719477
  • Gallego-Ayala J, Gómez-Limón JA, Arriaza M, 2011. Irrigation water pricing instruments: A sustainability assessment. Span J Agric Res 9: 981-999. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/20110904-449-10
  • Garrido A, Iglesias E, Blanco M, 1996. Análisis de la actitud de los regantes ante el establecimiento de políticas de precios públicos y de mercados de agua. Revista Española de Economía Agraria 178: 139-162.
  • Giannoccaro G, Prosperi M, Zanni G, 2010. Assessing the impact of alternative water pricing schemes on income distribution. J Agr Econ 61 (3): 527-544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00252.x
  • Giannoccaro G, Castillo M, Berbel J, 2016. Factors influencing farmers' willingness to participate in water allocation trading. A case study in southern Spain. Span J Agric Res 14 (1): e0101. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2016141-7827
  • Greene WH, 2007. Econometric Analysis, 6th Edition. Prentice Hall, NJ, USA.
  • Haab TC, McConnell KE, 2002. Valuing environmental and natural resources. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. 326 pp. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781843765431
  • Hamiche AM, Stambouli AB, Flazi S, 2015. A review on the water and energy sectors in Algeria: Current forecasts, scenario and sustainability issues. Renew Sust Energ Rev 41: 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.024
  • Hanemann M, Loomis J, Kanninen B, 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 73 (4): 1255-1263. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242453
  • Hanemann WM, 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agric Econ 66 (3): 332-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/1240800
  • Hanemann, WM, 1989. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses: Reply. Am J Agric Econ 71 (4): 1057-1061. https://doi.org/10.2307/1242685
  • Imache A, 2008. Construction de la demande en eau agricole au niveau régional en intégrant le comportement des agriculteurs. Application aux exploitations agricoles collectives de la Mitidja-Ouest (Algérie). Doctoral thesis. INAPG, AgroParisTech, Paris.
  • Imache A, Belarbia F, 2010. L'agriculture dans la Mitidja: des opportunités économiques à saisir. In: La Mitidja 20 ans après, réalités agricoles aux portes d'Alger; Imache A, Bouarfa S, Hartani T, Kuper M (eds.). pp: 106-112. Editions Alpha, Alger.
  • Imache A, Bouarfa S, Kuper M, Hartani T, Dionnet M, 2009. Integrating 'invisible' farmers in a regional debate on water productivity: The case of informal water and land markets in the Algerian Mitidja plain. Irrig Drain 58: S264-S272. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.523
  • Laoubi K, Yamao M, 2009a. A typology of irrigated farms as a tool for sustainable agricultural development in irrigation schemes: The case of the East Mitidja scheme, Algeria. Int J Soc Econ 36 (8): 813-831. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068290910967091
  • Laoubi K, Yamao M, 2009b. Management of irrigation schemes in Algeria: an assessment of water policy impact and perspectives on development. WIT Trans Ecol Envir 125: 503-514. https://doi.org/10.2495/WRM090451
  • Loomis J, 1987. Balancing public trust resources of Mono Lake and Los Angeles' water right: An economic approach. Water Resour Res 23 (8): 1449-1456. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR023i008p01449
  • Loomis J, 1990. Comparative reliability of the dichotomous choice and open-ended contingent valuation techniques. J Environ Econ Manag 18: 78-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-0696(90)90053-2
  • Loomis JB, Brown TC, Lucero B, Peterson G, 1997. Evaluating the validity of the dichotomous choice question format in contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 10 (2): 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026403916622
  • Loomis J, Kent P, Strange L, Fausch K, Covich A, 2000. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol Econ 33 (1): 103-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(99)00131-7
  • Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD, 2000. Stated choice methods: Analysis and applications. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK. 402 pp. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753831
  • Maddala GS, 1983. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge Univ Press: Cambridge, UK. 416 pp. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810176
  • Mallios Z, Latinopoulos P, 2001. Willingness to pay for irrigation water: a case study in Chalkidiki, Greece. Proc 7th Int Conf on Environ Sci and Technol, Ermoupolis (Greece), Sept 3-6. pp: 566-573.
  • Martin-Ortega J, Mesa-Jurado MA, Berbel J, 2015. Revisiting the impact of order effects on sensitivity to scope: A contingent valuation of a common-pool resource. J Agr Econ 66 (3): 705-726. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12105
  • Mesa-Jurado MA, Martin-Ortega J, Ruto E, Berbel J, 2012. The economic value of guaranteed water supply for irrigation under scarcity conditions. Agr Water Manage 113: 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.06.009
  • Messahel M, Benhafid MS, 2007. Gestion du périmètre d'irrigation de la Mitidja Ouest tranche 1 (Algérie). In: Harmonization and integration of water saving options. Convention and promotion of water saving policies and guidelines; Karam F, Karaa K, Lamaddalena N, Bogliotti C (eds.). pp: 59-66. CIHEAM, Bari, Italy.
  • Mitchell RC, Carson RT, 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington D.C. 484 pp.
  • Molle F, Berkoff J (eds), 2007. Irrigation water pricing: The gap between theory and practice. CAB Intnal, Wallingford, UK. 360 pp. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845932923.0000
  • Rigby D, Alcon F, Burton M, 2010. Supply uncertainty and the economic value of irrigation water. Eur Rev Agric Econ 37 (1): 97-117. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq001
  • Scheierling SM, Loomis JB, Young RA, 2006. Irrigation water demand: A meta-analysis of price elasticities. Water Resour Res 42 (1): W01411. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004009
  • Storm H, Heckelei T, Heidecke C, 2011. Estimating irrigation water demand in the Moroccan Drâa Valley using contingent valuation. J Environ Manage 92 (10): 2803-2809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.06.027
  • Thorvaldson J, Pritchett J, Goemans C, 2010. Western households' water knowledge, preferences, and willingness to pay. Can J Agr Econ 58: 497-514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2010.01195.x
  • Weldesilassie AB, Frör O, Boelee E, Dabbert S, 2009. The economic value of improved wastewater irrigation: A contingent valuation study in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. J Agric Resour Econ 34 (3): 428-449.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet