Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Economics, adoption determinants, and impacts of micro-irrigation technologies: empirical results from India

  • Water productivity: science and practice
  • Published:
Irrigation Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Micro-irrigation technologies are promoted for various reasons in India. Despite the reported significant economic advantages, and the concerted support of the government and NGOs, the current micro-irrigation area in India remains an insignificant proportion of its potential. This paper analyzes: (1) the economics of alternative micro-irrigation technologies, (2) the determinants of adoption, (3) the poverty outreach of the different micro-irrigation systems, and (4) the sustainability implications of micro-irrigation adoption. In line with the findings of other studies, this study indicates that micro-irrigation technologies result in a significant productivity and economic gains. The most important determinants of micro-irrigation adoption include access to groundwater, cropping pattern, availability of cash, and level of education, the social status and poverty status of the farmer. Contrary to the expectations, the majority of the current adopters of low-cost micro-irrigation systems are the better-off farmers. The study indicates that the impact of micro-irrigation systems on the sustainability of groundwater resources depends upon the magnitude of the overall productivity gain following the shift from traditional irrigation method to micro-irrigation system, the pattern of use of the saved water, and the type and potential number of adopters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The limitation of the Cobb–Douglas production function is that it can represent only one stage of production at a time and assumes fixed production elasticities, which requires that average physical product and marginal physical product be at a fixed proportion to each other (See Debertin 1986).

  2. One needs to note that the operational definition of micro-irrigation adoption adopted in here does not take into account the extent or intensity of adoption of micro-irrigation technologies.

  3. For the explanation of the differences and similarities between these two models see Amemiya (1981) and Greene (2000).

  4. Ideally the VMP figures ought to be compared to the annual ownership cost of mico-irrigation technologies, which obviously is a fraction of the initial investment costs.

  5. Bt cotton is a genetically modified seed, created by inserting a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a naturally-occurring soil bacterium, so that the plant produces Bt toxins which kills bollworms.

References

  • Aldrich JH, Nelson FD (1984) Linear probability, logit and probit models. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Amemiya T (1981) Qualitative response models: a survey. J Econ Lit 19:1483–1536

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilgi M (1999) Socio-economic study of the IDE promoted micro-irrigation systems in Aurangabad and Bijapur. IDE, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttel FH, Larson OF, Gillespie GW (1990) The sociology of agriculture. Greenwood Press, Inc., Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Caswell MF (1999) The adoption of low volume irrigation technologies as a water conservation tool. Water Int 14:19–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debertin DL (1986) Agricultural production economics. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhawan BD (2002) Technological change in irrigated agriculture: a study of water saving methods. Commonwealth Publishers, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder G, Zilberman JD (1982) Adoption of agricultural innovation in developing countries: a survey. World Bank Staff Working Papers Number 542

  • Greene WH (2000) Econometric analyses. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry C, Lapenu C, Zeller M, Sharma M (2003) Microfinance poverty assessment tool. The World Bank, Washington DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leagans PJ (1979) Adoption of modern agricultural technology by small farm operators: an interdisciplinary model for researchers and strategy builders. Cornell University, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Molden D, Hammond MR, Sakthivadivel R, Makin I (2003) A water productivity framework for understanding and action. In: Kijne JW, Barker R, Molden D (eds) Water productivity in agriculture limits and opportunities for improvement. CAB Publishing, Cambridge, pp 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Namara RE, Weligamaghe P, Barker R (2003) Prospects for adopting system of rice intensification in Sri Lanka: a socioeconomic assessment. Research Report 75. International Water Management Institute, Colombo

  • Narayanamoorthy A (1997) Economic analyses of drip irrigation: an empirical analysis from Maharashtra. Indian J Agric Econ 52(4):728–739

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayanamoorthy A (2003) Averting water crises by drip method of irrigation: a study of two water intensive crops. Indian J Agric Econ 58(3):427–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Neil SP, Lee DR (2001) Explaining the adoption and disadoption of sustainable agriculture: the case of cover crops in northern Honduras. Econ Dev Cult Change 49(4):793–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polak P, Nanes B, Adhikari D (1997) A low-cost drip irrigation system for small farmers in developing countries. J Am Water Resour Assoc 33(1):119–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. The free press, a division of Simon and Schusfer Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakks RK (2001) Predicting drip irrigation use and adoption in a desert region. Agric Water Manage 51(2001):125–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar NA, Hanamashet SJ (2002) Financial viability of drip-irrigation system for sugarcane and grapes cultivation in Maharastra. Asia-Pac J Rural Dev 12(1):1–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah T, Keller J (2002) Micro-irrigation and the poor: a marketing challenge in smallholder irrigation development. In: Sally H, Abernethy CL (eds) Proceedings of regional seminar on private sector participation and irrigation expansion in Sub Saharan Africa. Private irrigation in Sub Saharan Africa. IWMI, FAO and ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation, Colombo

  • Shrestha RB, Gopalakrishnan C (1993) Adoption and diffusion of drip irrigation technology: an econometric analysis. Econ Dev Cult Change 41(2):407–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivanappan RK (1994) Prospects of micro-irrigation in India. Irrig Drainage Syst 8(1):49–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Upadhyay B (2003) Drip irrigation: an appropriate technology for women. Appropriate Technology 30(4):31–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Upadhyay B (2004) Gender aspects of smallholder irrigation technology: insights from Nepal. J Appl Irrig Sci 39(2):315–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Verma S, Tsephal S, Jose T (2004) Pepsee systems: grass root innovation under groundwater stress. Water Policy 6(2004):1–16

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Water Management Institute, PMB, CT 112, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana

    R. E. Namara

  2. Agribusiness and Rural Development A-11, Aavakar Apartments, Near IRMA Gate, Anand, 388 001, India

    R. K. Nagar

  3. International Water Management Institute, Elecon, Anand-Sojitra Road, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Anand, 388120, Gujarat, India

    B. Upadhyay

Authors
  1. R. E. Namara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. K. Nagar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Upadhyay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. E. Namara.

Additional information

Communicated by R. Evans.

This study was supported by the Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (CA) and IWMI-TATA Water Policy Program.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Namara, R.E., Nagar, R.K. & Upadhyay, B. Economics, adoption determinants, and impacts of micro-irrigation technologies: empirical results from India. Irrig Sci 25, 283–297 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-007-0065-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-007-0065-0

Keywords