Water Management Practices: Use Patterns, Related Factors, and Correlations With Irrigated Acres

Abstract

This study describes the water management practice (WMP) use patterns by producers in Arkansas, USA, identifies the factors related to producers' choices among WMP groups, and examines the correlations between WMP uses and irrigated acreage. Using data from the 2016 Arkansas Irrigation Survey, WMPs are divided into four groups: field management, water flow control, water recovery/storage, and advanced irrigation scheduling practices. We find that about 77% of producers in the study area use two or more groups of WMPs to manage multiple aspects of irrigation, but that the factors that are associated with choices of WMPs vary by WMP group. Regression results show that the use of water flow meters, providing producers with education on the looming groundwater shortage problems and awareness of financial assistance available for conservation efforts, such as the state tax credits program, and use of WMPs by family members, friends, and neighbors are associated with increased use of WMPs. However, we find that producers that are older, have smaller farms, and rely more on groundwater are less likely to use some of the WMPs. Regression results also show that using water flow meters positively correlates with total irrigated acres, irrigated acres in rice, and irrigated acres in soybeans, and that for soybeans using more groups of WMPs is associated with a reduced extent of irrigated acreage. This study contributes to the small economics literature on WMPs and provides a more comprehensive picture of how producers use different WMPs to manage irrigation.

Adoption of Water-Conserving Irrigation Practices among Row-Crop Growers in Mississippi, USA

“…The factors selected are irrigated area in the operation, Groundwater (GW) use in irrigation, crop choice (rice), number of years farming, years of formal education, whether the farmer perceives a GW problem at the farm or state level, average pumping cost in the county of residence, participation in a conservation program, and annual income levels. These factors obtained a sufficient number of valid responses in the sample and were mentioned in two recent comprehensive reviews of the literature [6,22] that identified factors associated with the adoption of agricultural conservation practices or in a recent study of conservation practice adoption in Arkansas [4].…”

“…The hypotheses with respect to this association are drawn from the existing literature. Specifically, we draw from a study using similar data in an adjacent area by Nian et al [4], a comprehensive review of 102 papers in the agricultural conservation practice adoption literature by Prokopy et al [22], and a 129 page Government Accountability Office report to Congress on Irrigated Agriculture by Pearsons and Morris [6]. In terms of the signs of the regression coefficients, the hypotheses are as follows:…”

“…Almost 22,000 permitted wells [1] withdrawing more than 370 million m 3 of water per year [2] continue to reduce the stock of groundwater available in the MRVAA at an unsustainable rate [3]. A shortage of irrigation water would be a critical challenge to agricultural production in the region [4]. To address this threat, researchers, regulators, and conservation agencies promote the adoption of water-conserving practices in irrigated agriculture.…”

“…However, profitable practices are not universally adopted; which suggests there are other factors related to the farmers and their ecosystem that influence their choice of agricultural practices. This implies that the combination of practices adopted and the factors that influence their adoption vary by practice and location [4]. In some cases, factors such as farmer age or the practicality of the technology are more important than monetary factors [5].…”

“…In some cases, factors such as farmer age or the practicality of the technology are more important than monetary factors [5]. Recent literature identifies factors likely to be associated with the adoption of certain water management and conservation practices at the state (for example, Nian et al [4] for Arkansas) and national level [6]. However, no recent study examines the factors driving conservation practice adoption in Mississippi.…”