Evaluating the Role of Irrigation Ponds on Yield, Water Consumption, and Water Productivity of Wheat and Fodder Corn in the Marvdasht Region: A Counterfactual Analysis
Subject Areas : Agricultural Economics Research
Sajad Bolorzadeh 1 , منصور زیبایی 2
1 -
2 -
Keywords: مرودشت, بهره وری آب , استخرهای آبیاری, تحلیل جایگزین واقعیت,
Abstract :
Introduction: Adaptation strategies are vital for addressing the impacts of climate change on integrated water management.One effective approach is the construction of irrigation ponds, which improves irrigation efficiency and quality. Additionally, storing water overnight for use during optimal times reduces human errors in irrigation and prevents water loss. This study aims to evaluate the impact of irrigation ponds on crop yields, water consumption, and water productivity for wheat and fodder corn, while also identifying factors influencing farmers' willingness to construct these ponds.
Material and Methods: The analysis identified statistically significant covariance terms among farmers with ponds, indicating a self-selection phenomenon. To address potential bias in coefficient estimates, endogenous switching regression and counterfactual analysis were employed. The study estimated the impact of irrigation ponds for both adopters and non-adopters, enabling the calculation of average treatment effects (ATE) and average treatment effects on the treated (ATT). Data were collected from a sample of 336 farmers in Marvdasht, selected using a simple random sampling technique.
Findings: The results reveal that a majority of farmers perceive pond construction as beneficial for increasing yields of fodder corn and wheat, while concurrently reducing irrigation time. Over 80% of the respondents reported expanding the cultivated area for these crops after constructing ponds. Furthermore, the endogenous switching regression and counterfactual analysis suggest that water productivity could increase by 73% for wheat and 31% for fodder corn if farmers adopt irrigation ponds.
Conclusion: While the construction of irrigation ponds significantly enhances agricultural efficiency by increasing productivity and reducing per-hectare water consumption, it also presents challenges related to overall water usage due to the rebound effect. Therefore, strategies aimed at conserving water and soil resources should take these dynamics into account to promote sustainable agricultural practices.
1. Abdulai, A. Impact of conservation agriculture technology on household welfare in Zambia. Agricultural Economics, 2016, 47(6): 729-741.
2. Abdulai, A., & Binder, C. R. Slash-and-burn cultivation practice and agricultural input demand and output supply. Environment and Development Economics, 2006, 201-220.
3. Abdulai, A., & Huffman, W. The adoption and impact of soil and water conservation technology: An endogenous switching regression application. Land economics, 2014, 90(1), 26-43.
4. Danso-Abbeam, G., & Baiyegunhi, L. J. S., Welfare impact of pesticides
management practices among smallholder cocoa farmers in Ghana.
Technology in Society, 2018, 52(1), 1-10.
5. Di Falco, S., & Veronesi, M. (How can African agriculture adapt to climate change? A counterfactual analysis from Ethiopia. Land Economics, 2013, 89(4), 743-766.
6. Di Falco, S., Veronesi, M., & Yesuf, M. Does adaptation to climate change provide food security? A micro-perspective from Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2011, 93(3), 829-846.
7. Fox, P., Rockström, J., Barron, J., Risk analysis and economic viability of water harvesting for supplemental irrigation in semi-arid Burkina Faso and Kenya. Agric. Syst. 2005, 83, 231–250.
8. Ghimire, B. R., & Kotani, K. A counterfactual experiment on the effectiveness of plastic ponds for smallholder farmers: A case of Nepalese vegetable farming 2015, (No. SDES-2015-18).
9. Heckman, J. J., Tobias, J. L., & Vytlacil, E. J. Four parameters of interest inthe evaluation of social programs. Southern Economic Journal, 2001, 68, 210–233.
10. IPCC. Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, & Vulnerability. Part A: Global & Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, & L.L. White (Eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (pp. 1-32). United Kingdom & New York, NY, USA. 2014.
11. IWRM. (2010). Integrated water resource management. International conference Karlsruhe, 24-25.
12. Kassie, M., Teklewold, H., Marenya, P., Jaleta, M., & Erenstein, O.
Production risks and food security under alternative technology choices in Malawi: Application of a multinomial endogenous switching regression. Journal ofAgricultural Economics, 2015, 66(3), 640–659.
13. Lawford, R. G. A design for a data and information service to address the knowledge needs of the Water-Energy-Food (WEF) Nexus and strategies to facilitate its implementation. Frontiers in Environmental Science 2019., 7, 56.
14. Liu, J., Yang, H., Cudennec, C., Gain, A. K., Hoff, H., Lawford, R., ... & Zheng, C. Challenges in operationalizing the water–energy–food nexus. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 2017, 62(11), 1714-1720.
15. Lokshin, M., & Sajaia, Z. Maximum likelihood estimation of endogenous switching regression models. Stata Journal, 2004, 4(12), 282-289.
16. Maddala, G. S. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics (No. 3). Cambridge university press. 1986.
17. Miller, J. W. Farm ponds for water, fish and livelihoods. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2009.
18. Mirzaei Khalilabadi H. The Position of the Water Sector in the Eonomy of Kerman Province. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research. 2012, 4(2), 69-82. (In Farsi)
19. Mishra, S., Dwivedi, S., Kumar, A., Chauhan, R., Awasthi, S., Mattusch, J., & Tripathi, R. D. Current status of ground water arsenic contamination in India and recent advancements in removal techniques from drinking water. International Journal of Plant and Environment, 2016, 2(1 and 2), 01-15.
20. Motalebani S, Zibaei M, Sheikhzeinoddin A. Effects of Conservation Tillage Technology Adoption on Wheat Yield, Water Use and Household Poverty. Journal of Water and Soil Science.2020, 24(3), 161-178. [In Farsi]
21. Motalebani S, Zibaei M, Sheikhzeinoddin A. Socio-Economic Factors Influencing the Adoption of ConservationTillage Technology. Iranian J Agric Econ Devel Res. 2019, 51(1), 33-49. [In Farsi].
22. Qudosi. C. Native and Modern Methods Collecting and Extracting Rainwater and Their Application as a Solution to Adapt to water Scarcity. The First Conference on Adaptation to Drought. 2007. (In Farsi).
23. Shahini G. R. Harvesting Rainwater Using Rooftop Catchment Ponds. International Conference on Traditional Knowledge of Water Resource Management. 2011
24. Shiferaw, B., & Holden, S. T. Resource degradation and adoption of land
conservation technologies in the Ethiopia highlands: A case study in Andit Tid, North Shewa. Agricultural Economics, 1998, 18(3), 233–47.
25. Soleimani, H., & Hassani, A. Estimation of Water Unit Cost, Water (WUF) Efficiency and Water Added Value for Major Crops in Darab as an Arid Area. Journal of Agricultural Knowledge. 2008, 5(1), 121-131. [In Farsi]
26. Teklewold, H., Kassie, M., Shiferaw, B., & Kohlin, G. Cropping systems
diversification, conservation tillage and modern seed adoption in Ethiopia: Impacts on household income, agro-chemical use and demand for labor. Ecological Economics, 2013, 93, 85–93.
27. Thornton, P. K., & Lipper, L. How does climate change alter agricultural strategies to support food security? (Vol. 1340). Intl Food Policy Res Inst. 2014.
28. Thornton, P. K., Whitbread, A., Baedeker, T., Cairns, J., Claessens, L., Baethgen, W., ... & Keating, B. A framework for priority-setting in climate smart agriculture research. Agricultural Systems, 2018, 167, 161-175.
29. USBR. Canal-lining demonstration project year 10 final report, 2010, R-02-03.
