1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Resource Economics
  4. Volume 13, 2021
  5. Article

Annual Review of Resource Economics

Volume 13, 2021

Using Price Elasticities of Water Demand to Inform Policy

Abstract

This survey distills recent work on the price elasticity of demand for urban and agricultural water and outlines how it can inform the design of market-based approaches to manage increasingly scarce water resources. We offer a brief description of the water sector, including the primary users, main water sources, and market failures in the allocation and use of surface water and groundwater. A review of recent empirical research on the price elasticities of agricultural and urban water demand shows the progress made in our understanding of user response to prices and reveals substantial heterogeneity in the price response. We apply what we have learned about elasticities to surface water markets and price-based groundwater management. Heterogeneity in price elasticities suggests that water transfers may lead to large efficiency gains, but that their magnitude is site specific. Groundwater pricing may cost-effectively manage groundwater and fund the development of alternative water supplies, but heterogeneity in elasticity estimates highlights that the conservation and revenue generated are basin specific.

Keyword(s): climate change, market-based approaches, price elasticity, water resources
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-110220-104549
2021-10-05
2024-04-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/13/1/annurev-resource-110220-104549.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-110220-104549&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Anderson TL, Libecap GD. 2014. Environmental Markets: A Property Rights Approach New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  2. Ayres AB, Edwards EC, Libecap GD. 2018. How transaction costs obstruct collective action: the case of California's groundwater. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 91:46–65
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Ayres AB, Meng KC, Plantinga AJ. 2021. Do environmental markets improve on open access? Evidence from California groundwater rights. J. Political Econ In press. https://doi.org/10.1086/715075
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baerenklau KA, Schwabe KA, Dinar A. 2014. The residential water demand effect of increasing block rate water budgets. Land Econ 90:4683–99
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baumol WJ, Oates WE. 1988. The Theory of Environmental Policy Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  6. Birkenbach AM, Kaczan DJ, Smith MD. 2017. Catch shares slow the race to fish. Nature 544:7649223–26
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Brent DA. 2018. Estimating water demand elasticity at the intensive and extensive margin Work. Pap., La. State Univ. Baton Rouge: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel-Brent-2/publication/303839244_Estimating_Water_Demand_Elasticity_at_the_Intensive_and_Extensive_Margin/links/5c3164ff299bf12be3b1ca0f/Estimating-Water-Demand-Elasticity-at-the-Intensive-and-Extensive-Margin.pdf
  8. Brent DA, Ward MB. 2019. Price perceptions in water demand. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 98:102266
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Brill TC, Burness HS. 1994. Planning versus competitive rates of groundwater pumping. Water Resourc. Res. 30:61873–80
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Browne OR, Gazze L, Greenstone M. 2021. Do conservation policies work? Evidence from residential water use. Environ. Energy Policy Econ. 2:1190–225
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brozović N, Sunding DL, Zilberman D. 2010. On the spatial nature of the groundwater pumping externality. Resour. Energy Econ. 32:2154–64
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bruno EM, Jessoe K. 2021. Missing markets: evidence on agricultural groundwater demand from volumetric pricing. J. Public Econ 196:104374
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bruno EM, Sexton RJ. 2020. The gains from agricultural groundwater trade and the potential for market power: theory and application. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 102:3884–910
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Buck S, Auffhammer M, Hamilton S, Sunding D. 2016. Measuring welfare losses from urban water supply disruptions. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 3:3743–78
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Burlig F, Preonas L, Woerman M. 2020. Groundwater, energy, and crop choice Work. Pap., Univ Chicago: https://epic.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Groundwater-Energy-And-Crop-Choice.pdf
  16. Clarke AJ, Colby BG, Thompson GD. 2017. Household water demand seasonal elasticities: a Stone-Geary model under an increasing block rate structure. Land Econ 93:4608–30
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Coase RH. 1960. The problem of social cost. J. Law Econ. 3:1–44
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Costello C, Grainger CA. 2018. Property rights, regulatory capture, and exploitation of natural resources. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 5:2441–79
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Dalhuisen JM, Florax RJ, De Groot HL, Nijkamp P. 2003. Price and income elasticities of residential water demand: a meta-analysis. Land Econ 79:2292–308
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Dieter C, Maupin M, Caldwell R, Harris M, Ivahnenko T et al. 2018. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2015 Tech. Rep. 1441 US Geol. Surv. Reston, VA: https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1441/circ1441.pdf
  21. Donna JD, Espín-Sánchez JA. 2018. The illiquidity of water markets: efficient institutions for water allocation in southeastern Spain Work. Pap., Univ Fla., Gainesville: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2667654
    [Crossref]
  22. Drysdale KM, Hendricks NP. 2018. Adaptation to an irrigation water restriction imposed through local governance. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 91:150–65
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Edwards EC. 2016. What lies beneath? Aquifer heterogeneity and the economics of groundwater management. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 3:2453–91
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Edwards EC, Cristi O, Edwards G, Libecap GD. 2016. An illiquid market in the desert: estimating the cost of water trade restrictions in northern Chile. Environ. Dev. Econ. 23:6615–34
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Espey M, Espey J, Shaw WD. 1997. Price elasticity of residential demand for water: a meta-analysis. Water Resourc. Res. 33:61369–74
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Gisser M, Sanchez DA. 1980. Competition versus optimal control in groundwater pumping. Water Resourc. Res. 16:4638–42
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Gonzalez-Alvarez Y, Keeler AG, Mullen JD. 2006. Farm-level irrigation and the marginal cost of water use: evidence from Georgia. J. Environ. Manag. 80:4311–17
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Gordon HS. 1954. The economic theory of a common-property resource: the fishery. J. Political Econ. 62:2124–42
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hagerty N. 2019. Liquid constrained in California: estimating the potential gains from water markets Work. Pap., Univ. Calif. Berkeley: https://hagertynw.github.io/webfiles/Liquid_Constrained_in_California.pdf
  30. Hardin G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:131243–48
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hearne RR, Easter KW. 1997. The economic and financial gains from water markets in Chile. Agric. Econ. 15:3187–99
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hendricks NP, Peterson JM. 2012. Fixed effects estimation of the intensive and extensive margins of irrigation water demand. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 37:1–19
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Howitt RE. 1994. Empirical analysis of water market institutions: the 1991 California water market. Resour. Energy Econ. 16:4357–71
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Hsueh L. 2017. Quasi-experimental evidence on the “rights to fish:” the effects of catch shares on fishermen's days at sea. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 4:2407–45
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Ito K. 2014. Do consumers respond to marginal or average price? Evidence from nonlinear electricity pricing. Am. Econ. Rev. 104:2537–63
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Jessoe K, Mérel P, Ortiz-Bobea A 2020. Climate change and California agriculture. California Agriculture: Dimensions and Issues PL Martin, RE Goodhue, BD Wright 347–72 Berkeley: Univ. Calif./Giannini Found. , 2nd ed.. https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/pub/2021/01/21/chapter_16_climate_change_2020.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Jessoe K, Rapson D. 2014. Knowledge is (less) power: experimental evidence from residential energy use. Am. Econ. Rev. 104:41417–38
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Keiser DA, Shapiro JS. 2019. US water pollution regulation over the past half century: Burning waters to crystal springs?. J. Econ. Perspect. 33:451–75
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Klaiber HA, Smith VK, Kaminsky M, Strong A. 2014. Measuring price elasticities for residential water demand with limited information. Land Econ 90:1100–13
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Koundouri P. 2004. Potential for groundwater management: Gisser-Sanchez effect reconsidered. Water Resourc. Res. 40:6 https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002164
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. Kroetz K, Kuwayama Y, Vexler C. 2020. The economics of the joint management of water resources and aquatic species in the United States. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 14:2194–215
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kunkel KE, Karl TR, Brooks H, Kossin J, Lawrimore JH et al. 2013. Monitoring and understanding trends in extreme storms: state of knowledge. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 94:4499–514
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Kuwayama Y, Brozović N. 2013. The regulation of a spatially heterogeneous externality: tradable groundwater permits to protect streams. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 66:2364–82
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Libecap GD 2008. Transaction costs, property rights, and the tools of the new institutional economics: water rights and water markets. New Institutional Economics: A Guidebook E Brousseau, JM Glachant 272–91 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Lin Lawell CYC 2016. The management of groundwater: irrigation efficiency, policy, institutions, and externalities. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 8:247–59
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Mansur ET, Olmstead SM. 2012. The value of scarce water: measuring the inefficiency of municipal regulations. J. Urban Econ. 71:3332–46
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Merrill NH, Guilfoos T. 2017. Optimal groundwater extraction under uncertainty and a spatial stock externality. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 100:1220–38
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Mieno T, Brozović N. 2017. Price elasticity of groundwater demand: attenuation and amplification bias due to incomplete information. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 99:2401–26
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Nataraj S, Hanemann WM. 2011. Does marginal price matter? A regression discontinuity approach to estimating water demand. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 61:2198–212
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Olmstead SM. 2009. Reduced-form versus structural models of water demand under nonlinear prices. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 27:184–94
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Olmstead SM, Hanemann WM, Stavins RN. 2007. Water demand under alternative price structures. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 54:2181–98
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Pérez-Blanco CD, Hrast-Essenfelder A, Perry C. 2020. Irrigation technology and water conservation: a review of the theory and evidence. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 14:2216–39
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Pfeiffer L, Lin CYC. 2012. Groundwater pumping and spatial externalities in agriculture. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 64:116–30
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Pfeiffer L, Lin CYC. 2014. The effects of energy prices on agricultural groundwater extraction from the High Plains Aquifer. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 96:51349–62
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Pigou AC. 1932. The Economics of Welfare London: Macmillan & Co. , 4th ed..
  56. Provencher B, Burt O. 1993. The externalities associated with the common property exploitation of groundwater. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 24:2139–58
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Regnacq C, Dinar A, Hanak E. 2016. The gravity of water: water trade frictions in California. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 98:51273–94
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Roseta-Palma C. 2002. Groundwater management when water quality is endogenous. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 44:193–105
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Scheierling SM, Loomis JB, Young RA. 2006. Irrigation water demand: a meta-analysis of price elasticities. Water Resourc. Res. 42:1 https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004009
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  60. Schoengold K, Sunding DL, Moreno G. 2006. Price elasticity reconsidered: panel estimation of an agricultural water demand function. Water Resourc. Res. 42:9 https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004096
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. Sexton S. 2015. Automatic bill payment and salience effects: evidence from electricity consumption. Rev. Econ. Stat. 97:2229–41
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Shaw WD. 2007. Water Resource Economics and Policy: An Introduction Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
  63. Smith SM, Andersson K, Cody KC, Cox M, Ficklin D. 2017. Responding to a groundwater crisis: the effects of self-imposed economic incentives. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 4:4985–1023
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Sunding D, Zilberman D, Howitt R, Dinar A, MacDougall N. 2002. Measuring the costs of reallocating water from agriculture: a multi-model approach. Nat. Resour. Model. 15:2201–25
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Swain DL, Langenbrunner B, Neelin JD, Hall A. 2018. Increasing precipitation volatility in twenty-first-century California. Nat. Clim. Change 8:5427–33
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Vaux HJ Jr., Howitt RE. 1984. Managing water scarcity: an evaluation of interregional transfers. Water Resourc. Res. 20:7785–92
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Wheeler S, Bjornlund H, Shanahan M, Zuo A. 2008. Price elasticity of water allocations demand in the Goulburn–Murray Irrigation District. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 52:137–55
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Wichman CJ. 2014. Perceived price in residential water demand: evidence from a natural experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 107:308–23
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Wichman CJ, Taylor LO, Von Haefen RH 2016. Conservation policies: Who responds to price and who responds to prescription?. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 79:114–34
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Womble P, Hanemann WM. 2020. Water markets, water courts, and transaction costs in Colorado. Water Resourc. Res. 56:4e2019WR025507
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Yoo J, Simonit S, Kinzig AP, Perrings C. 2014. Estimating the price elasticity of residential water demand: the case of Phoenix, Arizona. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 36:2333–50
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-110220-104549
Loading
Using Price Elasticities of Water Demand to Inform Policy
Annual Review of Resource Economics 13, 427 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-110220-104549
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-110220-104549
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-110220-104549
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error