Abstract
Classical economic theory relies on the assumption that farmers’ behavior can be modeled by maximizing profits or any utility function with profits as a single attribute. However, farmers’ decision-making processes are actually driven by various typically conflicting criteria, in addition to the expected profit. Therefore, it must be assumed that producers’ behavior is guided by the maximization of a multi-attribute utility function (MAUF) in which all relevant attributes considered for decision-making are condensed. The objective of this paper is to provide more in-depth knowledge about simulating farmers’ behavior by using non-linear MAUFs, developing a new non-interactive method to elicit Cobb-Douglas MAUFs based on farmers’ actual behavior that overcomes some shortcomings of traditional additive MAUFs. Moreover, this approach is compared with two others that are widely used: the profit maximization and additive MAUF approaches. This procedure is implemented for illustrative purposes to analyze the feasible impacts of water pricing in an irrigated district in southern Spain. The results obtained show that simulations using the Cobb-Douglas utility function are more reliable than the alternatives already used in the literature. In this regard, two pieces of evidence justify this assessment: the calibration is more precise, and the resulting water-demand curve is smoother than in the other two alternative simulation approaches considered.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
According to Keeney and Raiffa (1976), attribute i is defined as the utility independent of attribute j when the conditional preferences for lotteries on attribute i given the attribute j do not depend on the particular level of attribute j (p. 226).
- 2.
This is not possible with orange groves since this permanent crop can be grown only under irrigation.
- 3.
The current water cost is already included in the variable costs (vci, j).
References
Amador, F., Sumpsi, J. M., & Romero, C. (1998). A non-interactive methodology to assess farmers’ utility functions: An application to large farms in Andalusia, Spain. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 25(1), 92–102.
André, F. J., & Riesgo, L. (2007). A non-interactive elicitation method for non-linear multiattribute utility functions: Theory and application to agricultural economics. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(2), 793–807.
Bartolini, F., Bazzani, G. M., Gallerani, V., Raggi, M., & Viaggi, D. (2007). The impact of water and agriculture policy scenarios on irrigated farming systems in Italy: An analysis based on farm level multi-attribute linear programming models. Agricultural Systems, 93(1–3), 90–114.
Berbel, J., & Gutiérrez-Martín, C. (2004). Sustainability of European Agriculture under Water Framework Directive and Agenda 2000. Brussels: European Commission.
Berbel, J., & Rodríguez-Ocaña, A. (1998). An MCDM approach to production analysis: An application to irrigated farms in southern Spain. European Journal of Operational Research, 107(1), 108–118.
Berkhout, E. D., Schipper, R. A., van Keulen, H., & Coulibaly, O. (2011). Heterogeneity in farmers’ production decisions and its impact on soil nutrient use: Results and implications from northern Nigeria. Agricultural Systems, 104(1), 63–74.
Bontemps, C., & Couture, S. (2002). Irrigation water demand for the decision maker. Environment and Development Economics, 7(4), 643–657.
Chavas, J.-P., Chambers, R. G., & Pope, R. D. (2010). Production economics and farm management: A century of contributions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(2), 356–375.
Dinar, A., Pochat, V., & Albiac, J. (2015). Water pricing experiences and innovations. Cham: Springer.
European Commission (Ed.). (2001). Pricing water: Economics, environment and society. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Finger, J. M., & Kreinin, M. E. (1979). A measure of ‘export similarity’ and its possible uses. Economic Journal, 89(356), 905–912.
Fishburn, P. C. (1982). The foundations of expected utility. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.
Fragoso, R. M., & Marques, C. (2015). Alternative irrigation water pricing policies: An Econometric Mathematical Programming Model. New Medit Mediterranean Journal of Economics, Agriculture and Environment, 14(4), 42–49.
Galioto, F., Raggi, M., & Viaggi, D. (2013). Pricing policies in managing water resources in agriculture: An application of contract theory to unmetered water. Water, 5(4), 1502–1516.
Gallego-Ayala, J., Gómez-Limón, J. A., & Arriaza, M. (2011). Irrigation water pricing instruments: A sustainability assessment. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 9(4), 981–999.
Gómez-Limón, J. A., & Berbel, J. (2000). Multicriteria analysis of derived water demand functions: A Spanish case study. Agricultural Systems, 63(1), 49–72.
Gómez-Limón, J. A., Gutiérrez-Martín, C., & Riesgo, L. (2016). Modeling at farm level: Positive multi-attribute utility programming. Omega, 65, 17–27.
Gómez-Limón, J. A., & Riesgo, L. (2004). Irrigation water pricing: Differential impacts on irrigated farms. Agricultural Economics, 31(1), 47–66.
Gómez-Limón, J. A., Riesgo, L., & Arriaza, M. (2004). Multi-criteria analysis of input use in agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 55(3), 541–564.
Gutiérrez-Martín, C., & Gómez-Gómez, C. M. (2011). Assessing irrigation efficiency improvements by using a preference revelation model. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 9(4), 1009–1020.
Hardaker, J. B., Huirne, R. B. M., Anderson, J. R., & Lien, G. (2007). Coping with risk in agriculture. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Hazell, P. B. R., & Norton, R. D. (1986). Mathematical programming for economic analysis in agriculture. New York: MacMillan.
Heckelei, T., & Britz, W. (2005). Models based on Positive Mathematical Programming: State of the art and further extensions. In F. Arfini (Ed.), Modelling agricultural policies: State of the art and new challenges (pp. 48–73). Proceedings of the 89th European Seminar of the European Association of Agricultural Economics, University of Parma, Parma, Italy, February 2–5.
Huirne, R. B. M., & Hardaker, J. B. (1998). A multi-attribute utility model to optimise sow replacement decisions. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 25(4), 488–505.
Inada, K. (1963). On a two-sector model of economic growth: Comments and a generalization. The Review of Economic Studies, 30(2), 119–127.
Johansson, R. C., Tsur, Y., Roe, T. L., Doukkali, R., & Dinar, A. (2002). Pricing irrigation water: A review of theory and practice. Water Policy, 4(2), 173–199.
Kahil, M. T., Albiac, J., Dinar, A., Calvo, E., Esteban, E., Avella, L., et al. (2016). Improving the performance of water policies: Evidence from drought in Spain. Water, 8(2), 34.
Kallis, G., & Butler, D. (2001). The EU Water Framework Directive: Measures and implications. Water Policy, 3(2), 125–142.
Karali, E., Brunner, B., Doherty, R., Hersperger, A. M., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2013). The effect of farmer attitudes and objectives on the heterogeneity of farm attributes and management in Switzerland. Human Ecology, 41(6), 915–926.
Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. New York: Wiley.
Lago, M., Mysiak, J., Gómez, C. M., Delacámara, G., & Maziotis, A. (2015). Use of economic instruments in water policy: Insights from international. Cham: Springer.
Mandryk, M., Reidsma, P., Kanellopoulos, A., Groot, J. C. J., & van Ittersum, M. K. (2014). The role of farmers’ objectives in current farm practices and adaptation preferences: A case study in Flevoland, the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 14(4), 1463–1478.
Manos, B., Bournaris, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Begum, M., Anjuman, A., & Papathanasiou, J. (2006). Regional impact of irrigation water pricing in Greece under alternative scenarios of European policy: A multicriteria analysis. Regional Studies, 40(9), 1055–1068.
Mérel, P., & Howitt, R. (2014). Theory and application of Positive Mathematical Programming in agriculture and the environment. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 6(1), 451–470.
Molle, F., & Berkoff, J. (2007). Irrigation water pricing: The gap between theory and practice. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Molle, F., Wester, P., & Hirsch, P. (2010). River basin closure: Processes, implications and responses. Agricultural Water Management, 97(4), 569–577.
Montilla-López, N. M., Gutiérrez-Martín, C., & Gómez-Limón, J. A. (2017). Impacto de la tarifación del agua de riego en el Bajo Guadalquivir. ITEA. Información Técnica Económica Agraria, 113(1), 90–111.
Pennings, J. M. E., & Leuthold, R. M. (2000). The role of farmers’ behavioral attitudes and heterogeneity in futures contracts usage. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82(4), 908–919.
Pérez-Blanco, C. D., & Gutiérrez-Martín, C. (2017). Buy me a river: Use of multi-attribute non-linear utility functions to address overcompensation in agricultural water buyback. Agricultural Water Management, 190, 6–20.
Pérez-Blanco, C. D., Delacámara, G., & Gómez, C. M. (2015). Water charging and water saving in agriculture. Insights from a revealed preference model in a Mediterranean basin. Environmental Modelling and Software, 69, 90–100.
Pérez-Blanco, C. D., Standardi, G., Mysiak, J., Parrado, R., & Gutiérrez-Martín, C. (2016). Incremental water charging in agriculture. A case study of the Regione Emilia Romagna in Italy. Environmental Modelling and Software, 78, 202–215.
Qureshi, M. E., Harrison, S. R., & Wegener, M. K. (1999). Validation of multicriteria analysis models. Agricultural Systems, 62(2), 105–116.
Sumpsi, J. M., Amador, F., & Romero, C. (1997). On farmers’ objectives: A multi-criteria approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 96(1), 64–71.
Tsur, Y., Dinar, A., Doukkali, R. M., & Roe, T. (2004). Irrigation water pricing: Policy implications based on international comparison. Environment and Development Economics, 9(6), 735–755.
Wheeler, S. A., Bjornlund, H., Shanahan, M., & Zuo, A. (2008). Price elasticity of water allocations demand in the Goulburn–Murray irrigation district. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 52(1), 37–55.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economics and Competitiveness (MINECO) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the research project MERCAGUA (AGL2013-48080-C2-1-R) and the associated predoctoral fellowship (BES-C-2014-0006).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Montilla-López, N.M., Gómez-Limón, J.A., Gutiérrez-Martín, C. (2018). Simulating Farmers’ Decision-Making with a Cobb-Douglass MAUF: An Application for an Ex-Ante Policy Analysis of Water Pricing. In: Berbel, J., Bournaris, T., Manos, B., Matsatsinis, N., Viaggi, D. (eds) Multicriteria Analysis in Agriculture. Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76929-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76929-5_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76928-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76929-5
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)