i

Academic Year 2016-17

DRIP IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY IN

HARD ROCK FARMING AREAS.

TESTING JEVONS PARADOX IN

KARNATAKA, INDIA

Kabbur, Rashmi

Promotor: Prof. Dr.ir. Stijn Speelman

Thesis submitted in the partial fulfilment of the requirement for the joint academic degree programme

of International Master in Rural Development (IMRD) from Ghent University (Belgium), Agro-campus

Ouest (France), Humboldt University of Berlin (Germany), Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra

(Slovakia) and University of Pisa (Italy) in collaboration with Can Tho University (Vietnam), China

Agricultural University (China), Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral (Ecuador), Nanjing Agricultural

University (China), University of Agricultural Sciences Bengaluru (India), University of Pretoria (South

Africa).

ii

This thesis was elaborated and defended at Ghent University, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Department of Agricultural Economics, within the

framework of the European Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree “International Master of Science in Rural Development" (Course N° 2015-1700 / 001 - 001)

Certification

It is a unpublished M.Sc. report and is not prepared for further distribution. The author and the promoter give the permission to use this thesis available for consultation and to copy parts of it for personal use. Every other use is

subjected to the copyright laws; more specifically the source must be extensively specified when using results from this thesis.

The Promoter(s) The Author

Prof. Dr. ir. Stijn Speelman Rashmi Shivamurthy Kabbur

(Name(s) and Signature (s)) (Name and Signature)

Thesis online access release

I hereby authorize the IMRD secretariat to make this thesis available online on the IMRD website.

The Author

Rashmi Shivamurthy Kabbur

(Name and Signature)

iii

Acknowledgement

I place my deep sense of gratitude with at most sincerity and heartfelt respect to

my promoter Prof. Dr. ir. Stijn Speelman. For his valuable teaching, guidelines

and cooperation throughout my study programme. My special thanks to my

tutor Gonzalo Gabriel Villa-Cox for his consistence assistance and

encouragement at every stage of my research work. I am grateful to my friends

Preetham, Raghavendra, Amurutha, Sandhya, Tim, Khin, Lavanya, Deepu

Swamy, Vijay Kumar, Goldi, Sathish Kumar, Veerabhadrappa and not only for

their help during data collection but also for the moral support. My sincere

gratitude to farmer Prasad and his family for their hospitality and assistance

during my research survey. Without their friendly support and generosity my

research work would not have been completed. My study would not be

complete without thanks to my family for their unconditional support during

this programme.

At last but not least, I also want to dedicate my gratitude to the sampled farmers

of Chikkaballapura district for sharing their valuable time and relevant

information required by this study.

iv

Abstract

Technology inventions are often increases resource use efficiency. However, the increased

resource use efficiency not always leads to resource conservation. It may open a way to raise

resource consumption due to reduced cost of production. This study aims to test Jevons

paradox in drip irrigation technology of hard rock areas of Karnataka, India. Chikkaballapura

district of Karnataka was chosen as study area. Farmers were chosen by purposive random

sampling. Data was collected from 109 drip irrigated farmers and 76 flood irrigated farmers

with structured questionnaire through face to face interview. For well failure intensity

between drip and flood irrigated farmers is assessed by negative binomial distribution. The

results indicated probability of well failure is 0.43 under drip irrigation against 0.31 in flood

situation. In addition, for every 100 drilling efforts, there were 43 and 31 failures in drip and

flood irrigation respectively. Secondly, Jevons paradox in drip irrigation is analysed by

propensity score matching. The probit model depicts that loan amount, average power of

pump used to lift groundwater affects significantly on drip adoption at 5 percent and distance

between borewell to the nearest water source, isolation distance between two borewell and

caste influences drip implementation significantly at 10 percent. The mean groundwater use

by drip farmers is 6.71, 12.66 and 12.85 acre-inch significantly less than flood irrigated

farmers by radius, kernel and nearest neighbour matching methods respectively. Therefore,

from the study results concludes that drip technology contributing to reduce groundwater use

and there was no rebound or Jevons paradox in the case drip technology of irrigation in hard

rock areas of Karnataka, India.

v

Contents

1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………. 1

1.1 Background…………………………………………………………………..………. 1

1.2 Introduction of drip Technology…………………………………………..….……… 2

1.3 Jevons paradox and its relevance to the study………………...……………..…….......3

1.4 Problem statement…………………………………………………….……..…….......5

1.5 Research gap …………………………………………...…………………..…….…...6

1.6 Research objectives ……………………………………………………….…..……....7

1.7 Limitation of the study …………………………………………………….…..……...7

2. Review of Literature ……..………………………………………………………..…….. 9

2.1 Groundwater exploitation and well failure in India ……………………………………... 9

2.1.1 Groundwater status before green revolution in India (before 1960s)……………….. 9

2.1.2 Groundwater status after green revolution in India ……………………………........10

2 .1.3 Groundwater status after 2000s onwards …………………………………………. 13

2.1.4 Extent of over-exploitation of groundwater and its consequences in India ……….. 14

2.2 Probability of well failure in India …………………………………………………….. 16

2.3 Emergence of water saving technologies in India ………………………………….…... 17

2.3.1 Importance of water saving technologies in India ……………………………..….. 17

2.3.2 Water saving technologies adopted in India ………………………………….….... 17

2.3.3 Emergence of micro-irrigation technology in India ……………………………..... 18

2.3.4 Factors determine drip irrigation adoption in India ………………………….…..... 19

2.3.5 Drip irrigation method as a water saving technology …………………………...… 20

2.4 Jevons Paradox in technology innovation and its relevance to drip irrigation ………..... 21

3. Methodology ………………………………………………………………..………..…. 23

3.1 Description of the study area ………………………………….………………...….…. 23

3.1.1 Agriculture profile of Karnataka state in India ……………..…………...……..… 23

3.1.2 Groundwater status and it’s exploitation in Karnataka …………...……………… 24

3.1.3 Agriculture profile of Chikkaballapura district of Karnataka, India …….……….. 25

3.1.4 Groundwater use in Chikkaballapura district of Karnataka ………………….…... 27

3.2 Sampling procedure ……………………………………………………………..……… 27

3.3 Analytical tools employed ………………………………………………….…….…….. 28

3.3.1 Negative binominal distribution ……………………………………………..….... 29

3.3.2 Propensity Score Matching …………………………………………...….………. 29

vi

3.2.2.1 Measurement of groundwater used in conventional irrigation system ….... 33

3.2.2.2 Measurements of groundwater used in drip irrigation system …….….….. 33

4. Results and Discussion …………………………………………………..……………... 35

4.1 Socio-economic features of sample farmers in the study area ………………..………... 35

4.2 Cropping pattern of the study area …………………………………………………..…. 38

4.3 Bore well failure and its reasons in the study area ……………………………………... 39

4.3.1 General profile of bore well irrigation in the study area, 2015-16 ………...….…. 39

4.3.2 Probability of bore well failure in the study area …………………………....…... 41

4.3.3 Reasons for borewell failure in the study area …………………………...…..….. 44

4.4 Testing of Jevons paradox in drip technology of irrigation in the study area ………….. 45

4.4.1 Estimation of probit model …................................................................................. 45

4.4.2 Propensity scores and average treatment estimation ………………….…...…….. 48

5. Conclusion and Recommendation ……………………………………………….……. 52

5.1 Introduction ……………………………………………….…………….…………….... 52

5.2 Major findings of the study ……………………….…………………….……………… 53

5.3 Recommendations ……………………………………….………………………………54

6. References ……………………………………………………………………...……….. 56

A Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………… 66

A.1 Photos of drip and flood irrigation method ………………………………………….… 66

A.1a Drip irrigation method ………………………………………………….………… 66

A.1b Flood irrigation method ……………………………………………………………67

A.2 Questionnaire used for the research data collection …..………………………..……… 68

A.3 Pictures from data collection ……………………………………………………….….. 79

vii

List of Tables

Table 1: Annual compound growth rate of net irrigated area in India (%)…………………. 12

Table 2: Comparative status of over-exploitation of groundwater in India from 1995 to

2011…………………………………………………………………………………………..15

Table 3: Description of independent variables used for probit analysis ……..…………….. 31

Table 4: Social characteristics of farmers following drip and flood irrigation in the study area,

2015-16……..………………………………………………………………………………. 36

Table 5: Economic characteristics of drip and flood irrigated farmers in the study area, 2015-

16……………………………………………………………………………………………..37

Table 6: Irrigation Intensity of the farmers following drip and flood irrigation in the study

area …………………………………………………………………………………..……... 39

Table 7: Borewell profile of the study area…………………………………………………. 40

Table 8: Probability of well success and failure in drip and flood irrigated farmers in the

study area…………………………………………………………………………….……… 43

Table 9: Reasons for borewell failure in the study area in 2015-16…………..….………… 44

Table 10: Estimates of endogenous variable with instrumental and other independent

variables of drip adoption in the study area……………………………………...…….…… 46

Table 11: Estimates of probit regression on drip irrigation adoption in the study area……...47

Table 12: Blocks/Cells for Treated and Control Groups to check balancing property

…….………………………………………………………………………………………... 48

Table13: Average treatment effect based on different matching method …………………...50

viii

List of Figures

Figure1: Percent share of irrigation to the total water used in selected countries, 1995…..... 11

Figure 2: Net irrigated area (000’ hectares) over the years in India………………………… 11

Figure 3: Percent share of different irrigation source to total net irrigated area, 1960-61, 2000-

01 and 2012-13 ………………………………………………………...…………………… 13

Figure 4: Comparative water use efficiency between micro and surface irrigation …...…… 18

Figure 5: Share of different sources to net irrigated area (%) between 2001-02 and 2010-11 in

Karnataka ………………………………………………………………………..…………. 24

Figure 6: Map showing study area in Karnataka state of India ……………..………….…... 26

Figure 7: Cropping pattern of Chikkaballapura district 2012-13, Karnataka………………..27

Figure 8: Proportion of farmers share based on farm size, Chikkaballapura ………………. 28

Figure 9: Cropping pattern of drip and flood irrigated farmers in the study region, 2015-16

……………………………………………………………………………………..…..……. 38

Figure 10: Frequency distribution of well failure to get a success among farmers following

drip and flood irrigation in the study area…………………………………………………... 41

Figure 11: Difference in well failure occurrence between drip and flood irrigation condition

of the study area ………………………………………………………………………….… 42

Figure 12: Probability of well success in the study area ……………….……………………43

Figure 13: Matching pattern between farmers practicing drip (treated) and flood (control)

irrigation in the study area ……………………………………………..…………………... 49

ix

List of Abbreviations

BCM – Billion Cubic Meters

CGWB – Central Ground Water Board

CIA – Central Intelligence Agency

CSO – Central Statistical Organization

DSAL – Digital South Asia Library

FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization

GDP – Gross Domestic Product

GGGI - Global Green Growth Institute

GOI- Government of India

GOK- Government of Karnataka

GPH – Gallons Per Hour

GSDP – Gross State Domestic Product

GWF - Ground Water Foundation

ICAR – Indian Council for Agriculture Research

IMF – International Monetary Organization

INR – Indian Rupees

IWMI- Intenational Water Managemnet Institute

KINSPARC – Kalyani Institute for Study, Planning and Action for Rural Change

NABARD - National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

PMKSY- Pradhan Manthri Krishi SinchaiyeeYojna

RBI – Reserve Bank of India

SANDRP - South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People

WRI- Water Resource Institute

1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world (World Bank, 2017); with a

growth rate of 7.5 percent in 2015 (IMF, 2016). The country ranks second in terms of

population, next to China. Despite this, 22 percent of Indians are living under the world

poverty line of $1.25 per person per day (RBI, 2016). Further, agriculture is playing an

important role in the upliftment of rural livelihoods and it accounts for 50 percent of total

employment in the country (CIA, 2017). In fact, in 2013-14, agriculture and allied sectors

contributed 17.32 percent to the country’s GDP (CSO, 2015).

India’s population explosion is leading to enormous increase in the demand for food while

per capita arable land decreased from 0.34 to 0.12 hectare during the period 1961 to 2014

(World Bank, 2016). This in turn increases demand for water exponentially, being an

essential resource for growing food. Meanwhile, current water supply capacity cannot follow

the same trend. In addition, the resulting water scarcity problem will threaten the rural

livelihoods and overall food security in the country.

Seckler and others (1999) indicated that, by the end of 2025, one third of world population

will face an absolute water scarcity. South Asia, Middle East and Sub- Saharan Africa would

be the worst sufferers as they are home to larger proportion of world’s poor population. In

addition, a country named under water stressed category if it has less than 1700 cubic meter

water per person per year (Seckler, Baker, & Amarasinghe, 1999). According to the 2011

census, India had 1000 cubic meter water per person per year. But when looking back to

1951; India had annually 3000 to 4000 cubic meter water per person (Luthra & Kundu,

2013); which in fact underlies the decadal rate of water availability reduction of 15 percent

(2001-2011) (Suhag, 2016). One of the main reasons for drastic reduction in water

availability is open access to groundwater; i.e. anyone can pump water under his/her own

land (Kirit, 2013). The largest ground water dependent agro-economies are in South and East

Asia; being India and China, the largest groundwater-users in the world (Foster & Shah,

2012).

Presently, India ranks first in groundwater consumption, next to United Sates and European

Union. The country is currently using 89 percent of groundwater for irrigation, 9 percent for

drinking and 2 percent for industrial use (Suhag, 2016). There was a fall in the ground water

level in major parts1 of India except of a few regions

2 (CGWB, 2014). One plausible cause

for this trend was introduction of electric pumps augmented by electricity subsidies from the

state Governments; which in turn reduced cost associated to the use of diesel and fuel pumps.

(Foster & Shah, 2012). The Central Groundwater Year Book, 2010-11 mentioned that the

1 Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, South Gujarat and North Eastern states

2 Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, South Rajasthan

3 In the case of total vegetable and fruit production, it stands fifth and third position

respectively (GOI, 2015)

4 Bagalkot, Bengaluru urban, Vijayapur, Chamarajnagar, Chitradurga, Haveri, Mandya, Davangere, Kodagu,

2 Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, South Rajasthan

2

number of overexploited groundwater plots were higher in South Indian states such as

Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Rajasthan, Gujarat and Haryana (CGWB,

2011). Poor aquifer properties (particularly in hard rock areas) and difficulties for

groundwater recharge in these areas which results to water stress conditions.

Since the end of the green revolution, age of bore well in hard rock areas of the country has

reduced drastically, mainly because of groundwater over exploitation. Thus, post green

revolution can be called as ‘over groundwater exploitation period’. Because farmers are not

strict in maintaining isolation distance between bore wells as they have small farms. The

probability of well failure is increasing along with rise in quantity of ground water extraction

which in turn increases the cost of irrigation by repeated cost of drilling new bore well/s

(Chandrakanth, 2015). A shift to high value crops, free electricity for pumping water, coupled

with policy instruments such as credit facilities, incentives to modern technologies will lead a

way to increase groundwater extraction. In addition, unsustainable extraction of groundwater

caused well failure in Karnataka (Nagaraj & Chandrakanth, 1997). Thus, well failure has

become an important issue in groundwater irrigation agriculture of the country, particularly in

the southern parts of Karnataka.

1.2 Introduction of drip technology

In order to fulfil the country’s food grain demand and export demand, India has to produce

not less than 500 million tons by 2050 (GOI, 2001). Under this circumstance, best possible

solutions are; reducing water losses and increasing water productivity rather than increasing

area under irrigation (FAO, 2012) Thus, inventions of low cost water saving technologies are

inevitable for the sustainable growth of India (Saksena, 1995). Accordingly, drip irrigation

technologies were invented in the 1970s from developed countries like Israel (Chandrakanth,

2009). Drip irrigation technology has been documented to increase water use efficiency with

about 40 to 80 percent and to be responsible for increased yield levels, reduced tillage

requirements compared to other irrigation methods (Sivanappan, 1994). A study on

comparative analysis of drip and flood irrigation methods analysed under field experiments

indicated that, more efficient use of water generates higher crop yield under drip condition

(Erankia, El-Shikha, Hunsaker, Bronsonb, & Landis, 2017). Another study used quadratic

equation to assess vegetable yield from the drip irrigation water application at field level. The

results depicted that water application by drip technology has significant influence on

vegetables yield and earns increased net returns. The study suggested that drip irrigation is

profitable but farmers must be able afford the initial investment (Kuscu, Cetin, & Ahmet,

2009). Another study by Drija and Salagean (2012) concluded that, drip irrigation has

increased production, lowered water use and increased net returns even though it requires

high initial investment than flood irrigation (Drija & Salagean, 2012).

The drip technology has positive economic implications on yield and reduces water use per

acre for crop production (Sivanappan, 1994; Narayanamoorthy, 2004; Dhawan, 2000). There

are some impediments for adoption of water saving technologies. Especially, for the small

and marginal farmers as they constitute a large part of the country’s farmers (Reddy, 2016).

The high initial investment is a hurdle for them to adopt. Thus, there is a need to promote drip

irrigation method to reach resource poor farmers (Singh , 2006). For cotton production it was

3

proven that the technology consumes less water (about 81 cm) and resulted in a higher yield

of 1890 kg/ha compare to 1257 kg/ha with 203 cm of water under flood irrigation

(Narayanmoorthy, 2008). Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) are higher

to the famers with subsidy compared to farmers without subsidy (Narayanmoorthy, 2008). In

addition, it also indicates that drip irrigation require less energy and reduce water

consumption as compared to flood irrigation (Narayanmoorthy, 2008). Farmers are able to

extend the irrigated area under drip irrigation with the same amount of water used for the

flood method (Narayanmoorthy, 2008). Extension of irrigated area yield more income to

cover the initial investment cost (Reddy, 2016). Moreover, if extension of area under

irrigation with saved water, then it will leads to unsustainable use of groundwater and make

the technology inefficient to serve its purpose.

The state Governments of India is encouraging these technologies by giving subsidy and

institutional credit. In particular, Government of India launched various schemes such as

Centrally Sponsored Scheme on micro irrigation (CSS) in 2006 which was later upgraded to

National Mission on Micro Irrigation (NMMI) in 2013-14. Recently, in 2015 under Pradhan

Manthri Krishi SinchaiyeeYojna (PMKSY), the Government released subsidy of INR 107.5

million for micro irrigation integration (Ministry of Water Resource, 2016). The Government

investments make these technologies cheaper than other irrigation methods, which in turn

increases the area under micro irrigation at the compound growth rate (CGR) of 9.8 percent

between 2005 and 2015 (GGGI, 2015). Consequently, the share of drip and sprinkler

irrigation in 2015 to total irrigated area under micro irrigation was 43.4 and 56.6 percent,

respectively. In addition, the area under drip irrigation (9.85%) increased more rapidly than

sprinkler irrigation (6.60%) between 2012 and 2015 (Balyan, 2016). No doubt, the policy

intervention is helping farmers to gain high net returns and productivity with less water but

not always the efficiency of technology will results in the conservation of resource rather it

can lead to more extraction (Young, Charles, Hall, & Lopez, 1998; Polimeni, Raluca, &

Polimeni, 2006). For example, increased efficiency of coal in industries led to produce more

goods with same amount of coal, which in turn increases the goods production by using more

coal and finally it effects in increase consumption of coal (Jevons W. S., 1865).This is known

as the Jevons Paradox in economics.

1.3 Jevons paradox and its relevance to the study

Economic efficiency is a condition where resources are allocated optimally to serve each

individual or entity or objective in the best way and to minimise waste or inefficiency (Alain,

2004). In production, it indicates that goods are produced at the lowest possible cost.

Moreover, in physical terms, it means that production attained at the lowest possible quantity

of input (Alain, 2004). Thus, the efficient technologies produce more goods per unit of

resources or inputs. Furthermore, it saves the resource. It has been proven in many parts of

countries e.g. Spain that to adopting modern irrigation technologies (Gomez & Dinisio,

2015), decreased water consumption in irrigation with restricting area under irrigation in

Europe (Berbel & Mateos, 2014).Thus, Government will encourage these technologies with

policy intervention such as subsidies and others. But the efficiency not always leads to

resource conservation (Jevons W. S., 1865). As consider another corner of the efficient

4

technologies, there is an ongoing debate especially, in the case of environmental economics.

For example, in Scotland technologies are adopted for efficient use of energy as a concern of

environmental sustainability, but as a response to efficiency gain ratio of GDP to CO2 falls

(Hanley, Macgregor, Swales, & Turner, 2009). In another case of green irrigation practices, if

economy adopted high efficient irrigation technologies, this actually increases the

unsustainable use of water in the economy rather than saving it (Gomez & Dinisio, 2015). In

energy consumption, there can be other factors which influence the efficiency of energy

consumption such as population growth, affluence, energy consumption per person and

others (Young, Charles, Hall, & Lopez, 1998). Thus , it has been shown that technological

inventions are correct and will lead to efficiency gain only when they offsets population

growth but this is far from reality (Polimeni, Raluca, & Polimeni, 2006). Therefore, invention

of technologies makes the resource cheaper, which in turn increases demand for the resource

finally increases use of the resource rather than conserving it (Polimeni, Raluca, & Polimeni,

2006).

The rebound effect of technology can be interpreted as if the efficiency increased by ‘x’

percent then the resource consumption may increase or decrease by ‘x’ percent. For example,

energy efficiency increased by 6 percent which lead to increase in energy consumption by 4

percent (Yorka & McGeeb, 2015). This is termed as rebound effect. Furthermore, rebound

effect of technological efficiency will lead to counterproductive results of the technology’s

real purpose. This is called Jevons Paradox. The Paradox occur, when rebound effect is 100

percent, for instance if the energy efficiency rise by 6 percent which cause an effect to

increase in energy consumption by 2 percent. Furthermore, the energy efficient technologies

are not reduced the energy consumption rather it increased the use by 2 percent than the

earlier level. Thus, the economic loss of benefit is 120 percent (Yorka & McGeeb, 2015).

In this study, drip irrigation is operating as a technological invention in the field of

agriculture, preferably in irrigation. On one hand, world population is growing rapidly and on

the other hand food demand is also increasing at fast rate (FAO, 2009). Thus, irrigation is

important to fulfil not only food demand but many other requirements as well since water is a

basic necessity for all. Government of India is promoting the technology with the goal to

increase water use efficiency as it saves water by reducing quantity to be consumed. Finally,

it leads to water conservation as India is a water stressed country being the second largest

populated country in the world (Seckler, Baker, & Amarasinghe, 1999). Irrigation is an

important tool to address food security of the country. However, some studies on irrigation

modernisation showed that irrigation modernisation and technology adoption sometimes lead

to rebound effect by increasing consumption of water which happened in the case of Western

Kansas (Pfeiffer & Cynthia, 2013). Furthermore, in California the state subsidised to convert

traditional irrigation system in to efficient irrigation (nozzle drippers) technologies because of

depletion in groundwater table. But the technology effect negate because farmers ended up in

increase more area under irrigation with groundwater (Cynthia, 2013). In Morocco, a study

on three cases of drip irrigation adoption indicated that water and energy efficiency did not

lead to water saving rather it results in water extraction (Guy, Jack, Abdelouahid, Ahmed, &

El Houssine, 2015). Technical innovations appear to be efficient at theoretical and conceptual

level but may lead to contradict results in practice. In addition, water efficient innovations

5

and water saving may not go hand in hand. Thus, the study main concern is to analyse

whether drip intervention in irrigation is leading to water conservation or not? Is there any

contradicting effect of drip irrigation on groundwater extraction? Perhaps, it can provide

suitable answers to all these concerns.

1.4 Problem statement

Karnataka is one among those Indian states that have the largest area under micro irrigation

(GGGI, 2015). It ranks fifth in area under horticulture crops3 (DES, 2011). Hence, irrigation

plays an important role in the state. The major source for irrigation is groundwater (36.30 %),

followed by canals (32.84%); whereas open wells (12.23 %) and tanks (5.92 %) accounts for

less than 20 percent (CGWB, 2014). In recent years, there has been a significant increase in

net irrigated area of the state; which spanned from 0.22 million ha in 1990-91 to 34.90 lakh

ha in 2008-11 (CGWB, 2014). In addition, the state is significantly important because of the

large proportion of hard rock area and except coastal parts all other areas of the state receive

less than 75cm annual rainfall (CGWB, 2014). According to the Central Groundwater Report

2014, it was placed under considerable groundwater fluctuation rates, where the observed

groundwater decline was more than 4m and it was also under the category of over exploited

groundwater area (CGWB, 2014). As per the study of Global Green Growth Institute in 2010,

1.1 million irrigation wells irrigated 51 percent of the net irrigated area in the state. In

addition, each of surface (tank, canal, open wells) and groundwater resource irrigate 50

percent of the total irrigated area in the state (GGGI, 2015). In terms of availability of

renewable water resource, there was an existence gap of 0.18 m ha in general against 0.78 m

ha in groundwater (GOI, 2015). This drift will threaten the future agriculture development in

the state. Thus, increased water use efficiency methods and inventions are inevitable for the

future agriculture prosperity of the state (GGGI, 2015). This makes Karnataka relevant to

study.

In Karnataka, 80 percent of the area is categorised as highly water stressed (WRI, 2016).

Bore well failure in the state is significantly increasing over the years. In the past, electricity

was provided free of cost to farmers for irrigation. This led to decreases in cost of irrigation

and on the other hand increases the demand for irrigation. Finally, it end up with less

interference distance between bore well will results in early and premature failure of bore

wells in the state (Nagaraj & Chandrakanth, 1997). The social cost of irrigation increases

with increase in negative externality due to less well interference distance (Chandrakanth,

2015). Despite of this, the state is the largest producer of coffee and cocoa and ranks third in

sugarcane and plantation crops production in the country (GOI, 2015). This makes the state to

be placed in unique position with respect to water resource management in comparison to rest

of the country. As per the report from National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development

(NABARD), per year number of households is expected to increase by 1.79 percent between

2012-13 and 2016-17. In contrast to this, the area under food grains will decline at 0.56

percent (GGGI, 2015). This necessitate the use and encouragement of water saving and

3 In the case of total vegetable and fruit production, it stands fifth and third position

respectively (GOI, 2015)

6

efficient technologies that yield more crops per drop in the state. Micro irrigation is the most

adopted technology in the state as water saving and adoption is encouraged by Government

support. The technology reduces loss of fertilizer by 18 to 24 percent, reduces labour

requirement, and reduces irrigation cost by 40-45 percent. The technology has higher water

use efficiency of 40 to 80 percent compare to other irrigation methods, increases yield levels,

reduces tillage requirement compared to other irrigation methods (Sivanappan, 1994).

The state implemented micro irrigation scheme for horticultural crops in 1991-92 and also for

agricultural crops from 2003-04 to decrease ground water exploitation by increasing water

use efficiency. Since from 2014 onwards, the state Government offered 90 percent subsidy to

all kind of farmers in the state (GOK, 2014).

But, net irrigated area per well in the state has increased from 1.1 ha in 1991-91 to 1.5 ha in

2011-12. The number of bore well and net irrigated area under tubewells was grown at the

annual compound growth rate of 3.61 and 4.42 percent from 1991-91 to 2011-12,

respectively (GOK, 2014). However, the growth can also be explained by other variables

such as increase in population, food demand and others. Apparently, the figures depict

increasing water exploitation in the state even though micro irrigation technology is playing

as a water saving element. Furthermore, it indicates that drip intervention in irrigation may

not end up with decrease in water consumption rather it may leads to exploitation of

groundwater in the region. In that case, exploitation in turn augmented with Government

supports such as subsidies and other infrastructures. However, some studies indicated that

drip irrigation is economically viable without Government subsidy (Narayanamoorthy, 2004)

and the technology adoption is coupled with the state Governmental support. It may lead to

over ground water exploitation and threatens the future food security and environmental

balance in the area. Nevertheless, Government and environmentalist generally assume that

efficiency gain by technology will reduces the consumption of the resource, ignoring the

possibility of paradox arising (Alcott, 2015). Thus, there can be occurrence of rebound effect

of drip technology, which leads to raise demand for groundwater than the earlier level of its

use in the hard rock area of Karnataka state of India.

1.5 Research gap:

Jevons paradox concept is attempted only by a few authors in India, preferably in the field of

irrigation. However, it is also not well addressed by past literatures for example one study

used the dummy regression to analyse the effect between farmers practicing flood and drip

irrigation, where farmers were chosen purposively (Patil, Chandrakanth, Mahadev, &

Manjunatha, 2015). In addition, it violates the assumption of normal distribution because

sample was not completely random. Thus, estimators may be inefficient because of selection

bias. Some studies emphasised only on relation between technological efficiency and its

adverse effect. For example technology introduction at green revolution period contributed to

agriculture productivity gain but at the cost of land degradation and water exploitation in

India (Singh R. B., 2000). Another study on electrification and technology adoption in

agriculture analysed with computable general equilibrium model using macro level data. The

study concluded that technological progress increases agricultural wages, income and rent for

arable land which increase the deforestation rate in the country (Foster & Mark, 2003). In

7

another case panel data regression was used at macro level and showed that technological

intervention in Indian states is leading to expand area under cultivation rather than decreasing

it (Amarendra & Narayanan, 2013). As indicated above, the studies analysed technology

effects are at macro level with a few works at micro level or farm level. Only a finger count

of studies which attempted to assess Jevons paradox in the country. Thus, the present study

interested to address the research gap in drip irrigation technology and its effect on

groundwater use. The theoretical concept behind the study: people are rational, always trying

to optimise profit at the lowest possible cost of production. Drip technology of irrigation

results in production of more crop per drop. Moreover, drip technology adoption is a profit

gaining instrument to farmers rather than a water saving element. Whilst drip innovation

reduces cost of groundwater use, it also increases demand for water extraction. Ultimate

results will be increased groundwater extraction. The study is based on a comparative

analysis of groundwater use with and without drip irrigation adoption in hard rock areas of

Karnataka, India. As mentioned above previous studies addressed the Jevons paradox by

linear regression model for purposeful sampled data for comparative analysis. The data will

not be random so, it violates the basic assumption of regression. The study is making an

attempt to use matching estimator to overcome the disadvantages of past studies and to avoid

selection bias.

1.6 Research objectives

The main objective of the study is to test the Jevons paradox in drip irrigation technology in

hard rock areas of Karnataka, India.

Specifically the study aims:

1. To Estimate the probability of well failure on farms with and without drip irrigation.

2. To assess the existence of Jevons paradox in drip irrigation technology of the study area.

Specific hypothesis of the study are as follows:

Null hypothesis:

1. Probability of well failure is same under both drip and flood irrigation

2. Mean groundwater used for crop cultivation in drip and flood irrigation is same

Alternative hypothesis

1. Probability of well failure is differ between drip and flood irrigation

2. Mean groundwater used is varies between drip and flood irrigation

1.7 Limitation of the study

Though the study tries to be comprehensive in its scope, there are few limitations intrinsic to

it. The research carried out under time and other resource constraints. The study was

conducted only in Chikkaballapura district of Karnataka, India. The study is based on the

primary data collected for the period of 2015 to 2016 crop year. Thus, the study is based on

cross sectional data and not able to address the time effect. It is based on crop cultivation of

crop year 2015-16.

8

Presentation of the study:

The study is presented under the following chapters

Introduction: In this introductory chapter, the nature and importance of research

problem, research gap, specific objectives and hypotheses of the study has been

presented.

Review of Literature: It deals with the review of the relevant concepts and past studies

useful to the present study.

Methodology: This chapter highlights overview of the study area, the nature and

sources relevant data collected for the research and the analytical tools employed for

evaluating objectives of the study.

Results and Discussion: The results of the study and their analysis have been

presented in this chapter in the form of tables and discussed with past literature results

Conclusion and recommendation: Brief summary of the main findings of the study

along with policy implications drawn from the findings have been presented.

References: The list of the referred books, journals, reports, reports, websites,

documents from websites are presented in this section.

9

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Considering the objectives of the study, relevant past studies are reviewed.The salient

findings are summarized and presented below. For detail and clear presentation, these

reviewed past studies are presented under the following subheadings:

2.1 Groundwater exploitation and ground well failure in India

2.1.1 Groundwater status before green revolution in India (before 1960s)

Earlier to 1800s Kings were the initiators of irrigation investment in India. They were

constructing a huge irrigation system and managed with bureaucratic power. In addition, river

basins were the important source of irrigation at time of British India. British East India

Company made a significant change in irrigation system; it constructed irrigation structures

in line with river basins (Alferd, 1891). According to the Indian Easement Act of 1882,

groundwater belongs to the land owner as it is attached to land property. Thus, it is private

property rather than an open access resource (GOI, 1882). During British India 1900

(consists of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh), only 14 percent of the cropped area was irrigated

(DSAL, 1905). In the same period India had 12 million hectare of area under irrigation, it was

more compared to 3 million hectare in USA, 2 million hectare in Egypt and rest of the world

(Alferd, 1891). Furthermore, British India was the number one in terms of area under

irrigation in the world. Canal irrigation was the predominate method of irrigation during the

British period and also profitable one. The investment made on canal irrigation yielded 8 to

10 percent profit consistently till the end of 1945 (Shah, 2007). The irrigation system was

managed by fee collected from farmers for irrigation at village level and bureaucracy played

a significant role. Irrigation fee collected was 10-12 percent of the value of output. Moreover,

irrigation fee or tax was the major source of income to the Government (Shah, 2007).

Enormous increase in agriculture production and income was noticeable achievement of

irrigation at colonial period (Naz, Saravanan, & Subramanian, 2010). Gujarat state of British

India renowned for well irrigation, during 1930s 78 percent of the state’s irrigated area by

wells and canal irrigation was merely 10 percent (Desai, 1948). North- West parts of India

had significant initiation of groundwater by bullock powered lifts in small private open wells.

However, the high cost per unit of water lifted was an obstacle for the groundwater

development as compare to canal irrigation (Shah, 2007). Furthermore, irrigation was

considered as a profitable instrument in agriculture even before green revolution. In addition,

before the green revolution groundwater use was known to irrigated agriculture in India but at

limited scope. Moreover, groundwater as a source of irrigation was less developed compare

to canal or any other irrigation source. Thus, in this period groundwater is not at the risk of

exploitation.

In India, after the green revolution dramatic changes occurred in irrigation agriculture. This

was the period where important changes and the introduction of technology such as drip,

sprinkler and other elements had taken place in agriculture. Irrigation is treated as a tool for

increasing food production to fulfil the demand of rapid growing population. But at the end of

20th

century irrigation has grown into a new phase of groundwater exploitation period.

Furthermore, this development drives to think about water saving technologies. In addition,

at the beginning of 21st century is called as ever green revolution period, policies made to

10

promote water saving technologies such as drip, sprinkler, watershed management and many

others to conserve groundwater. Thus, detail explanation of groundwater status and

exploitation in India is reviewed in following sub headings:

2.1.2 Groundwater status after green revolution in India

On one hand India experienced a population explosion in 1960s. On the other hand land to

man ratio declined from 0.4 ha / person in 1900 to 0.1 ha / person in 2000 (World Bank,

2016). As a result, farmers adopted intensification and diversification at farm level to

maximize their benefits (IWMI, 2009). Groundwater has been taking an important role in

Indian agriculture since the green revolution. In addition, green revolution led a way for

introduction of high yielding varieties; these are sensitive to water stress and nutrient

deficiency. Thus, irrigation and fertilizer management is taken as a crucial part in cultivation

of crops. Moreover, this was encouraged by government funding to drill public bore well.

From mid 1960s to 2000s net irrigated area under surface water source was reduced very

drastically by 23 percent (Bhaduri, Upali, & Shah, 2014). This was because of improper

execution of irrigation projects and lack of organisational efforts in surface method of

irrigation (Gulati, Meinzen-Dick, & Raju, 1999). Moreover, groundwater irrigation increased

at rapid rate, but this was not because of decreased irrigated area under surface source rather

it was due to population pressure on agriculture (Bhaduri, Upali, & Shah, 2014).

Furthermore, the Government emphasised to invest more in agriculture, preferably on

irrigation infrastructure.

This in turn increased the farmers’ interest to adopt technologies such as high yielding

varieties, chemical fertilizer use, and many other agriculture innovations (Das, 1999). As a

result, on the one hand groundwater development improved in 1960 and over 1980, on the

other hand consistency of agriculture production increased in India (Gleick, 2004).

Groundwater became an essential element for crop production and to make efficient use of

green revolution technologies such as high yielding varieties, fertilizers, pesticides and other

products. As a result, water use for irrigation took a trajectory growth not only in India but

also the worldwide. Figure 1 represents the allocation of irrigation water out of total water

used in selected countries. Figures depicts that, more than 80 percent of total water used to

for irrigation in developing countries such as India, China and Egypt against the developed

countries such as Netherlands, France, and UK were using less than 30 percent. It concludes

that developing and agrarian economies uses more water for irrigation compare to other ones.

At present, India is the highest water user for irrigation in the world. India was one of the

agrarian economies at green revolution period. The agriculture and allied sectors share was

42.56 to 27.13 percent to the country’s total GDP for the period 1960 to 1996 respectively

(Planning Comission, 2017). By the end of 2000, availability of annual renewable water per

person was less than 500 m3, which was less than many parts of the world, namely United

States, Europe, Central Asia, and some parts of Africa (Carmen, 2000).

Groundwater occupied the large share among the various sources of irrigation in India, in

2000 groundwater accounted 35 percent share to the total irrigated area. Number of

groundwater abstraction structures has increased in India from 1 million in 1950 to 17 million

11

in 1997. In addition, irrigation potential with groundwater has increased from 6 million

hectares (M ha) to 36 M ha for the same period (Igor & Lorne, 2004).

Figure 1: Percent share of irrigation to the total water used in selected countries, 1995

Source: Saeijs & Van, 1995

Figure 2 indicates trend in growth of net irrigated area between period 1960-61 and 2011-12

in India. At the beginning of green revolution 1960-61, canals were the major source of

irrigation while area under bore well irrigation was negligible.

Figure 2: Net irrigated area (000’ hectares) over the years in India

Source: Ministry and Farmers Welfare.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

India China Egypt Netherlands France UK

Per

cen

t o

f to

tal

use

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

1960-6

1

1962-6

3

1964-6

5

1966-6

7

1968-6

9

1970-7

1

1972-7

3

1974-7

5

1976-7

7

1978-7

9

1980-8

1

1982-8

3

1984-8

5

1986-8

7

1988-8

9

1990-9

1

1992-9

3

1994-9

5

1996-9

7

1998-9

9

2000-0

1

2002-0

3

2004-0

5

2006-0

7

2008-0

9

2010-1

1

2012-1

3

Net

irr

igate

d a

rea (

'000 h

a)

Net irrigated area by tubewells ( in ' 000 Hectares)

Net irrigated area by canals ( in ' 000 Hectares)

Total Net Irrigated Area (in ' 000 Hectares)

12

Since after1966-67, groundwater source was taking an exponential growth, while the area

under canal source was not decreasing but the growth was less than the groundwater source.

In addition, decreasing trend in area under canal irrigation was noticeable after 2000-01.

Enlargement of net irrigated area in the country is showed in the Table 1. Compound growth

of total net irrigated area in the country was 2.50 percent during green revolution period

(1960-61 to 1979-80). Furthermore, the increased net irrigated area was majorly contributed

by groundwater source. It was growing at rapid rate of 20.34 percent than canals (2.04 %). In

the period of post green revolution (1981-82 to 1999-00), growth of net irrigated area in the

country was 2 percent. In addition, the pattern of net irrigated area growth under tube wells

and canals were same as at the time of green revolution. However, the area under

groundwater source increased by 4.32 percent, against the growth of area under canal source

(0.14 %).

Table 1: Annual compound growth rate of net irrigated area in India (%)

Period

Annual Growth of net irrigated area in %

Tube wells Canals Total

Period I 1960-61 to 1979-80 20.34 2.04 2.50

Period II 1980-81 to 2000-01 4.32 0.14 2.02

Period III 2001-02 to 2012-13 2.04 0.77 1.71

Source: Authors calculation based on the data from Ministry and Farmers Welfare.

Figure 3 represents the share of different source to the total irrigated area of the country. At

the beginning of the green revolution (1960-61), the highest share to total net irrigated area

was by canals (42.05 %) followed by other wells (29.01 %) such as open wells, dug wells,

tanks (18.49 %) and other sources (9.89 %). While the share of tube wells (0.50 %) was

insignificant. At the end of the green revolution era (2000-01), there was a spectacular change

in the share different sources of irrigation to the net irrigated area of the country. Tube wells

(40.88 %) were topped among the various sources of irrigation, followed by canals (29.00

%), other wells (20.38 %) and other sources (5.27 %). Furthermore, the replacement of canals

position at 1960-61 by tube wells in 2000-01, it indicated that the dependency on

groundwater in agriculture has increased. Finally, net irrigated area expanded by 24 and 18

percent in 1980s and 1990s respectively. Irrigated land intensity change by 10 percent

between 1980 and 1990. In addition, the irrigation intensity by the end of 2000 was 138

percent ( (Bhaduri, Upali, & Shah, 2014).

The reliance of Indian agriculture on groundwater is increased because of raised food grain

demand in the country and also from outside the country due to globalization and

liberalization. As a result, per capita availability of food grains increased from 167 kg in

1980-1990 to 174 kg in 1990-2000 (Braun, Gulati, & Hazzel, 2005). In addition, less scope

for canal irrigation projects from Government side. Canal or surface irrigation projects

require large scale investment and subsidised diesel or electric pumps with no charge for

electricity. Moreover, high reliability on consistency water supply to make efficient use of

13

agricultural inputs such as seed, labour, fertileizers, pesticides and other inputs (Bhaduri,

Upali, & Shah, 2014). In addition, surface irrigation is difficult to manage in water prone

areas and causes salinity in the region is a major hurdle. This augmented the demand for

groundwater irrigation in the country.

2.1.3 Groundwater status after 2000s onwards

It is the period of over exploitation of groundwater. Figure 1 indicates that total net irrigated

area is increasing only because of increase in area under groundwater irrigation.

Conspicuously, the growth of total net irrigated in 2001-02 and 2012-13 was 2.04 percent. It

was more than the increased area under total net irrigated area (1.71 %). From the Figure 3,

groundwater (62 %, combination of tube wells and other wells) is continuing as a major

source of irrigation in India. Meanwhile, slight decreases in canal share to total irrigated area.

However, the expansion of irrigated area under groundwater was slow down compare to

previous period because of depletion of groundwater basins in most parts of the country

(CGWB, 2014). In addition, it is predicted that the net irrigated area under groundwater will

increase from 37 M ha in 2000 to 50 M ha by 2050 (IWMI, 2009). Even though depletion of

groundwater has alarmed, but still groundwater is major source of irrigation for now and also

for future.

Figure 3: Percent share of different irrigation source to total net irrigated area, 1960-61,

2000-01 and 2012-13

Source: Authors calculation from Ministry and Farmers Welfare, 2014

India is the largest user of groundwater in the globe, accounts quarter of total global use.

Annually, the country is using 230 cubic kilometre of groundwater (CGWB, 2011). In

addition, 60 percent of irrigation and 80 percent of drinking water relay on groundwater

42.05

29.00

23.90

18.49

4.47 2.70

0.55

40.88

45.71

29.01

20.38

16.61

9.89

5.27

11.07

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

1960-61 2000-01 2012-13

Canal Tank Tubewells Other wells other source

14

(World Bank , 2012). Number of bore wells increased from 0.1 million in 1960 to 25 million

in 2010 (Chandrakanth, 2015). As a result of continuous increase in groundwater extraction

and the use is not only for the irrigation but also for other purposes such as industries,

drinking etc. This ended up in depletion of groundwater resource all over the country.

According to national assessment of 2004, 29 percent of groundwater blocks were reported as

semi-critical, critical and over-exploited in the country. If the present trend of groundwater

use continues which leads to critical condition of 60 percent aquifers in the country (World

Bank , 2012).

2.1.4 Extent of groundwater over-exploitation and its consequences in India

Continuous increasing in scope for groundwater not only led to increase in area under

irrigation but also had consequences on groundwater resource degradation (Chandrakanth,

2015). Groundwater is an important natural resource of every nation. Preferably, for the

tropical countries namely India as agriculture is gambling with the monsoons in the country.

Furthermore, the country has to feed the 1.3 billion people. Moreover, this dependency ended

up in exploitation of groundwater resource in the country. India is exploiting annually 245

BCM, which is more than China’s (135 BCM) annual withdrawal of groundwater (SANDRP,

2016). Aquifer is a rock situated under the ground, which transmits the water to wells. The

countries groundwater system is divided into two, namely hard-rock aquifers of peninsular

India and alluvial aquifers of Indo-Gangetic plains. Hard-rock areas aquifers shares 65

percent of the country’s surface area, major parts of this situated in peninsular India

(Chandrakanth, 2015). The range of exploitation varies across the country because of

different aquifer system (Suhag, 2016). Places falls under the Gangetic- Alluvial plains for

example Bihar was entirely safe compare to western Indus alluvial regions such as Punjab

where 75 percent of regions were over exploited. In addition, states of hard rock areas such as

Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh also showed sign

of over exploitation (Sundarajan, Patle, Trishikhi, & Purohit, 2017). Finally, 15 states out of

30 states and 2 out of 8 Union territories of India are classified under over- exploited category

(SANDRP, 2016).

Table 2 represents the severity of groundwater exploitation for the different periods from

1995 to 2011. At 1995, less than 10 percent of districts need the recommendations for future

groundwater use. In addition, only 3 percent of country’s districts were over exploited. But

the figures after 2000 onwards depicts that groundwater exploitation widens in the country.

Furthermore, more than 25 percent of the country’s area has to take measures for

groundwater conservation. By the end of 2011, 15 percent of India’s area has marked under

over-groundwater exploitation. Among Indian states, the over-exploitation of groundwater

topped in Northern-Western plain (72.56 %) followed by Western arid region (37.23 %) and

Southern peninsular India (22.2 %) (CGWB, 2014) In addition, at the over exploited regions,

there was a significant fall in aquifers property before and after monsoons arrival. Moreover,

over the year groundwater development was raising at 4 times in all over the country

(Sundarajan, Patle, Trishikhi, & Purohit, 2017). In addition, the declined water yield of the

bore wells, it has been recorded in 56 percent of bore wells from 2003 to 2013. Preferably, in

the case of hard rock areas such as Tamil Nadu (76 %), Kerala (71 %), Karnataka (69 %) and

15

Haryana (65 %) bore well yield declined significantly (CGWB, 2014). Between period 2002

and 2012, it has been noted that farmers were pumping out groundwater 8 percent. It was

more than average annual rate of groundwater replenished; this caused a drop of water table

at the rate more than 1.5 meters per year (Postel, 2015).

Table 2: Comparative status of groundwater over-exploitation in India from 1995 to

2011

Level of

Groundwater

Development

Explanation

% of

districts in

1995

% of

district in

2004

% of

district in

2009

% of

district in

2011

0 – 70 %

Areas which have ground

water potential for

development

92.00 73.00 72.00 71.00

70 – 90 %

Areas where cautious ground

water development is

recommended

4.00 9.00 10.00 10.00

90 – 100 %

Areas which need intensive

monitoring and evaluation

for ground water

development

1.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

>100 %

Areas where future ground

water development is linked

with water conservation

measures

3.00 14.00 14.00 15.00

Source: CGWB, 2014.

Depletion of natural resource disturbs the ecosystem balances and leads to negative

consequences on environment. Groundwater is an important and fundamental environmental

resource and extensive demanded one from mankind. Continuous increasing in extraction of

groundwater has negative effects such as drinking water problem, increasing the water

extraction cost, frequent well failure, reducing command area of well, increasing inequity for

assessing well water and in addition ecological degradation such as soil salinity, decreasing

groundwater table (Kumar M. D., 2007; Kumar, Singh, & Sharma, 2005). In addition,

insufficient availability of water per head per year, for example amount of annual per capita

availability was decreased from 6042 cubic meter in 1947 to 1545 cubic meter in 2011

(Vishwa, 2014). Degradation of groundwater quality is another important outcome of

groundwater depletion. For example, 82 percent of area in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu is

under high groundwater development. The areas are suffering from salinity and water quality

problems (Sundarajan, Patle, Trishikhi, & Purohit, 2017).

South West and Central India has water tables at lower or deeper level. Especially, in the case

of Southern region 30 percent of groundwater table is situated at the depth of more than 60

meters (Singh P. , 2015). Depletion of the water table makes farmers to drill deepened bore

16

well. In addition, deepened drillings increases the cost of drilling and cost of irrigation

(Viswanathan, Kumar, & Narayanamoorthy, 2016). In addition, the over-exploitation adds

more to the groundwater extraction cost, because well has to drill deep and it requires more

fixed cost for drilling and adds more to maintenance cost for pumping water (Nagaraj &

Chandrakanth, 1997). The growth of shallow and deep tube wells in 1980s was 7.2 and 5.3

percent respectively while growth of dug wells was 1.8 percent (Nagaraj, Chandrakanth, &

Gurumurthy, 1994). A study indicated that over the years bore wells of 10 meter and more

depth has increased compared to the ones of less than 10 meter depth. Preferably, tubewells

with more than 60 meter increasing at rapid rate compares to the bore wells of depth between

10 to 60 meters. Meanwhile, the decreased share of bore well depth less than 10 meter

(Singh P. , 2015). The water which is extracted from deeper depths usually evidence the

contamination with high fluoride level, arsenic content and other harmful chemicals

(Wyrwoll, 2012). Poor quality of bore well water not only affecting crop yield but also causes

diseases to human (Reddy & Gunasekar, 2013). All kind of water bodies are related to each

other, thus groundwater overuse which is ending up in drying of surface water bodies such as

lakes, rivers, ponds and other water bodies (GWF, 2017).

2.2 Probability of well failure in India

Poor aquifer property coupled with exploitation of groundwater will augmented the problem

of well drying and failure in the country. Groundwater depletion and poor water table

development cause the wells to dry up and failure of bore wells at initial and pre-mature

stages. Well failure is serious outcome of groundwater overuse and hurdle to the farmers’

income in India. Especially, in hard rock areas of the country such as Karnataka, Tamil Nadu,

and Andhra Pradesh etc. Probability of getting a successful bore well is very low in the case

of peninsular hard-rock areas (Nagaraj, Marshal, & Sampath, 1999). At the beginning of

green revolution, bore wells drilled were not lost after 20 years age, but since after 2000 bore

well’s life is becoming shorter less than 8 years and even failures at drilling (Nagaraj,

Chandrakanth, & Gurumurthy, 1994). The failures is adding cost to the farmers cost of

production and reduces their net income. The cost of production or irrigation cost increase

with increase in number of well failures. A study indicated that the average rate of well

failure in Tamil Nadu state of India was 47 percent for open wells and 9 percent for tube

wells. In addition, the total cost of depletion of new wells varies from Rs. 1999 to Rs. 90975,

respectively (Palanisami, Vidhyavathi, & Ranganathan, 2008). Depletion of groundwater

table lead a way for resource rich farmers to invest more on deepening and drilling additional

bore well and is coupled with installation of high powered submersible pump to lift water

from more depth. Furthermore, this raises the question of equality and equity with respect to

resource poor farmers for accessing groundwater (Nagaraj & Chandrakanth, 1997). Excessive

and continuous pumping in a bore well is causing to dry up neighboring bore well, where

bore wells shared common aquifer because of well interference. In addition, less isolation

distance between wells is leading to initial and pre-mature failure of bore wells in hard rock

areas of India. For example, in Karnataka probability of well failure was estimated with

negative binomial distribution. The probability of well failure was 40 percent, that means for

every 100 wells drilled there was 40 percent possibility of well failure (Chandrakanth, 2015).

Another study indicated that growth of number of wells is not ended up in increasing area

17

under irrigation due to rise in number of well failure. In addition, less discharge from bore

well, failure in successful installation of bore well, seasonal failure of open wells augmented

the extra burden on farmers (Bassi, Vijayshankar, & Kumar, 2008). Furthermore, small

farmers are the worst sufferer’s due to well failure (Anantha & Raju, 2008). However, the

extent of failure varies with level of ground water development in the region (Nagaraj,

Chandrakanth, & Gurumurthy, 1994).

Therefore, well failure is one of main outcome of groundwater overuse. This study is making

a modest attempt to find the bore well failure and its probability in the study area. According

to the past studies negative binomial distribution methodology is captured to find out extent

of tube wells failure in the study area.

2.3 Emergence of water saving technologies in India

2.3.1 Importance of water saving technologies in India

If the above trend of groundwater extraction continues, it will leave the future generation

without sufficient water. By end of 2025, annual per capita availability of water decrease to

1399 cubic meters against the availability of 1588 cubic meter in 2011 (WRI, 2016). India is

the second largest country in terms of population and food security is an important addressing

issue in the country. In addition, an estimate indicates that India population will be 1.6 billion

at the end of 2050 (Sinead, 2014; Balyan, 2016). As population grows, the demand for

groundwater also increases. It has been estimated that 30 percent will be decline in

groundwater availability per person in the country by 2050 (Upali, Shah, Hugh, & Anand,

2007). In addition, an estimate shows that share of groundwater in to the total irrigated area

will decreases from 60 percent in 2012 to 51 percent 2025. Therefore, efficiency of

groundwater irrigation should be increase to 75 percent by 2025 from water use efficiency of

60 percent in 2006 (Upali, Shah, Hugh, & Anand, 2007). As a result, it will threaten the

country’s future food security. Thus, it is important to increase water use efficiency rather

than increasing area under irrigation without compromising crop productivity. The

government intended to develop and promote of high water use efficient technologies and

irrigation methods.

2.3.2 Water saving technologies adopted in India

Water efficient technologies are looking from the side of water saving in India. ‘More crops

per drop’ will solve the food security problem on one way and conserve water/groundwater

resource on another way. Hence, it necessitates the adoption of new innovative products to

reduce water usage. Flood irrigation is the conventional irrigation practice in the country’s

agriculture, where water efficiency is less than other methods. Among conventional methods

of irrigation water use efficiency was 35 to 40 percent (Narayanmoorthy, Indian Water

Policy at the Crossroads: Resources, Technology and Reforms, 2016). In India, different

kinds of water saving technologies are recognized. Namely, moisture storage pits: increase

groundwater table, raises irrigation activity and increases farm productivity. Rain water

harvesting: increases groundwater table and decreases run-off in the farm. Zero tillage

practice: is also aiming at conserving soil, water and ecosystem with little interference of

tillage practices. It has been proved that 25 percent saving of irrigation water from zero

18

tillage and grain yield increases more than 50 percent (KINSPARC, 2009). On-farm rain

water management: is excavating small ponds to collect rain water. This will help in

recharging groundwater table and also useful for raising second crop after rainy season.

Watershed management is also to conserve and to recharge groundwater. However, all these

were not appreciated by farmers even though encouragement from government side. The

governmental programmes such as in 1992 initiated rainwater harvesting programme to

recharge groundwater, watershed programmes to conserve soil and water and many other.

But, these are failing to achieve 100 percent of their targets because of poor response from

end users (farmers).

2.3.3 Emergence of micro-irrigation technology in India

Micro-irrigation is seen as a boom for water saving by increasing water use efficiency.

Sprinkler and drip are the main elements of micro irrigation that have been operating in

Indian irrigation sector. In addition, to having high water use efficiency, the technologies

increase crop yield at reduced cost of cultivation compare to conventional irrigation methods

such as flood irrigation or any other surface irrigation measures. Figure 4 indicates the

comparative efficiency between traditional and micro-irrigation methods. Drip and sprinkler

irrigation has high application efficiency, surface water moisture efficiency compare to

surface irrigation (50-60 %). In addition, there are no conveyances losses in micro-irrigation.

Figure 4: Comparative water use efficiency between micro and surface irrigation

Source: Balyan, 2016.

Finally, overall efficiency of micro irrigation system (85% in drip and 60% in sprinkler) is

higher than traditional one (35%). In 1992, first initiation of micro-irrigation technologies

was taken place in the country (Government of India, 2001). But, first real effort has

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Conveyance

efficiency

Application

efficiency

surfece water

moisture

effciency

overall efficency

Eff

icie

ncy

(%

)

Surface irrigation

Sprinkler irrigation

Drip irrigation

19

established in 2006 through government launched centrally sponsored programme for micro-

irrigation. It was upgraded in 2013-14 as National Mission on Micro Irrigation (NMMI)

(Goverment of India, 2015). In 2015, it was merged with National Mission for Sustainable

Agriculture (NMSA). Pradhan Mantri KrushiSinchayee Yojana (PMKSY) was launched in

2015 and is an ongoing project in the country. The programme aimed to create infrastructure

to adopt micro-irrigation technology and subsidy being the main element of the programme.

Furthermore, Government of India has been making continuous effort to encourage farmers

to adopt micro irrigation technology to save groundwater or to reduce groundwater use

(Goverment of India, 2015).

Noticeable growth of area under micro-irrigation has taken place in India (Narayanamoorthy,

2004).in addition, appreciable growth of area under micro-irrigation is noticeable since after

2005. The area was increased from 3.09 million hectare in 2005 to 7.73 million hectare 2015

at the rate of 9.6 percent. However, the country’s penetration in micro irrigation technologies

was 5.5 percent less than the rest of the world such as Israel, USA, Russia, Spain and China

(Balyan, 2016). In 2015, the share of drip and sprinkler to the country’s total micro irrigation

area was 43.6 and 56.4 percent respectively. But, growth of drip irrigation was 9.85 percent

against 6.6 percent in sprinkler irrigation for the period 2012-2015. The area under drip

irrigation showed a tremendous growth. It is evident by increased area under micro irrigation

from 40 ha in 1960 to 3.37 million hectare in 2015. Indian states such as Maharashtra (94000

ha), Karnataka (66000 ha) and Tamil Nadu (55000 ha) have larger area under drip irrigation

than rest of the country (ICAR, 2015). Moreover, drip irrigation method (85 %) has high

water use efficiency compares to sprinkler irrigation (60 %). In addition, sprinkler method

has limited scope under windy weather and undulating topography. Furthermore, drip

irrigation (9.85 %) is growing faster than sprinkler irrigation (6.6 %) from field crops to

perennial plantations. In the country, Karnataka state is situated in the southern peninsular

region with more area under drip than sprinkler. It makes more sense to analyse the research

objects under drip irrigation technology than sprinkler one. Thus, the main focus of study is

testing the Jevons paradox in drip irrigation rather sprinkler irrigation.

2.3.4 Factors determining drip irrigation adoption in India

Installations of micro-irrigation depend on various factors and vary with different climatic

conditions (Dhawan, 2000). A study indicated that family size and demographic structure,

human capital, ownership on agro wells, depth of well, cropping pattern, other socio-

economic variables such as caste, poverty index, off-farm and non-farm economic variables

are important to determine the adoption of micro-irrigation (Regassa, Upadhyay, & Nagar,

2005). The results of a logit function indicate that the deeper the well, the higher will be the

probability to adopt, and also the higher the share of fruits, vegetables and commercial crops

the higher the probability of drip adoption and also socio-economic variables had significant

effect on technology adoption (Regassa, Upadhyay, & Nagar, 2005). In another case, it

depends on type of crop grown and better suited for horticulture crops than field crops. In

addition, range of physical, socio-economical and financial variable decides the crop and its

area under irrigation through micro-irrigation (Dhawan, 2000). Age of the farmers, farm size,

wider crops, and non-farm income has positive effect on drip technology adoption in India.

20

The size of farm indicates wealth of a farmer. However, small and marginal farmers

enthusiastic to adopt drip technology but they need support for initial investment (Goyal,

2015). Government subsidy is also one of the important factors for having micro-irrigation

technology. The results showed that years of extra subsidy offered from the government

showed higher percentage of drip and sprinkler adoption compare to the year without subsidy

(Viswanathan, Kumar, & Narayanamoorthy, 2016; Kumar, Hugh, Sharma, Upali, & Singh,

2008). However, some studies disproved effect of subsidy in drip implementation

(Narayanamoorthy, 2004 & 2008; Sivanappan, 1994). In another study indicated the other

factors with above factor of drip adoption such as power of pump owned and years of

schooling of household head, dependency ratio influences the adoption. Furthermore, caste,

poverty index and share of area under vegetables, power of pump owned had positive and

significant effect on probability of adoption while area under cereals had negative and

significant effect on adoption (Namara, Nagar, & Upadhyay, 2007).

2.3.5 Drip irrigation method as a water saving technology

Micro-irrigation is a method where water is supplied directly to the root system in the form of

droplets. The previous section dealt with the advantages of micro-irrigation over flood

method. Preferably, drip irrigation results in very high water use efficiency of about 90 to 95

percent (ICAR, 2015). Furthermore, it saves water by 40 to 80 percent and yield will

increase up to 100 percent in different crops (Narayanamoorthy, 2004). Drip irrigation is

proved as a technically feasible and socially acceptable type of micro irrigation not only for

large farmers but also for the small farmers in India (Sivanappan, 1994). In addition, more

benefits of micro-irrigation realised in semi-arid and arid region especially in wide spaced

crops (Kumar, Hugh, Sharma, Upali, & Singh, 2008). It saves energy requirement (30.5 %),

reduces fertilizer consumption (28.5 %), productivity increases in fruits (42.4 %) and

vegetable crops (52.7 %), and reduces irrigation cost (31.9 %) (Balyan, 2016). For example,

cost of cultivation of drip adopted farmers in coconut and banana crop was 9.1 and 56.4

percent respectively less than the non-adopters (Goyal, 2015). In another situation, micro-

irrigation in tomato saved 21 percent of water and increased yield by 27 percent (Dalvia,

Tiwarib, Pawadea, & Phirkea, 1999). Water saving in micro-irrigation varies across the crops

from 12 to 79 percent and increase in yield varies from 12 to 179 percent (Narayanamoorthy,

2004). It has been proved that incremental benefit-cost ratio for different crops varies from

1.35 to 13.35 excluding water saving and with water saving ratio is 2.78 to 32.32

(Sivanappan, 1994). An estimate indicated that water saving by drip irrigation was noted as

11.271 million hectare meter and which can potentially irrigate area of 11.22 million hectare

under flood method of irrigation or 24.12 million hectare by drip method (Narayanamoorthy,

2004). Since, the study emphasis on further enlargement of irrigated area by saved water, it

deviates the technology as profit rising element rather than water saving one. A study

indicated that 3 percent increase in the ground water use over the total mean annual

extraction after the technology adoption. In other parts of the world, micro-irrigation

technology adoption leads to increase in the average area under irrigation (Pfeiffer &

Cynthia, 2013). This contradict findings are placed the drip irrigation under debate of water

saving technology or water exploiting element?

21

2.4 Jevons Paradox in technology innovation and its relevance to drip irrigation

The reviewed literature indicates the positive and potential effect of drip technology.

However, the studies are looking technology from one face as water saving technology rather

than the income earning one. Drip irrigation method is not only a saving technology

meanwhile it is increasing the farmers’ income by decreasing cost of cultivation of crops and

increasing the crop productivity. The increased efficiency lead to decrease in irrigation cost,

in the other words it decreases the price of groundwater. As price of groundwater goes down,

it increases the quantity demanded. Efficiency can lead to more use of groundwater to

produce larger quantity of crop than initial production level this is termed as rebound effect

of drip technology. In addition, Governmental support to promote water efficient

technologies can couple the problem of groundwater exploitation rather than conservation.

Furthermore, technology is not always lead to reduce consumption of resource units. This is

the situation of Jevons paradox. There is a chance of occurrence of the paradox in the study

area.

Occurrence of Jevons paradox is not new to agriculture field. Agricultural land intensification

and increased productivity may lead to increase in land use to produce more units in order to

earn higher profit (Lambin & Meyfroidt, 2011). Agriculture intensification is necessary to

promote food security on one way meanwhile decreases pressure on land. But, this is may

also lead to increases pressure on forest land without complementary policies (Ceddiaa,

Sedlaceka, Bardsleyb, & Gomez-y-Palomac, 2013). It is again proved that land

intensification will not lead to decline pressure on land use at national level over the year

(Rudela, et al., 2009). A study indicated that conservation, simplification, pricing and

innovations can only serve for shorter term. However, in long term these can result contradict

results (Tainter, 2011). Modernisation of economy is employing the energy efficient

technologies to reduce resource use but it has been proved that there is linear relationship

between resource use and economic growth and agriculture production for all years for Costa

Rica, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands and the United States (Young, Charles, Hall, & Lopez,

1998). Similar results were recorded in the case of West Europe, Middle East, South Africa,

and in some Asian countries. In addition, a study showed the positive association between

energy consumption and economic growth over the years with energy efficient technologies

(Polimeni, Raluca, & Polimeni, 2006).

Some literature proved that the existence of Jevons paradox in irrigation technologies or

irrigation modernization. A study indicated that actually objective of irrigation modernization

is to increase efficiency without compromising farm income. But, contradict results recorded

in the case of irrigation technologies (Gomez & Dinisio, 2015). In another case, dropped

nozzles implemented to increase irrigation efficiency and to save groundwater in Western

Kansas. The results indicated that groundwater consumption did not decreased rather it

increased the use due to change in cropping pattern (Pfeiffer & Cynthia, 2013). Similar

results also found in Europe after irrigation technologies promoted by European Commission.

In addition, it also indicated that drip and sprinkler irrigation will reduce water consumption

only if restriction imposed on new irrigated area (Berbel & Mateos, 2014). In the case

Northern Basin of Australia, a study concluded that greater the technology change in

22

irrigation higher will be the consumptive demand for land and water because farmers switch

to perennial crops with government incentives (Loch & Adamson, 2015). However, some

studies disproved the existence of the paradox. For instance, in the case of irrigation

modernization in Spain depicted that the country saved 12 percent water from modernization

of irrigation methods ( (Dumont, Mayer, & Lopez, 2013). Similar results are recorded with

dummy regression for farmers practicing flood and drip irrigation. The results represent that

thearea under drip irrigation was not increased thus there is no existence of rebound or Jevons

paradox in drip irrigation technology in India (Patil, Chandrakanth, Mahadev, & Manjunatha,

2015).

The above literature indicates that very few studies carried out on drip irrigation and the

Jevons paradox. There are limitations; some studies attempted using macro level data but

limited scope at farm level studies. The present study is an attempt to test rebound or Jevons

paradox in drip irrigation technology of hard rock areas of India by using micro level data.

The study main focus is to analyse whether water consumption is increased in the case of drip

irrigation farmer or not by comparing with control group or farmers following conventional

irrigation method.

23

III METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, a brief description of study area, sampling method and tools employed

for data analysis are presented under the following heads.

3.1 Description of the study area

3.2 Sampling Procedure

3.3 Analytical techniques

3.1 Description of the study area

The study is based hard rock areas of Karnataka state of India. Karnataka state is one among

30 states of India. It has 30 districts, 270 towns and 29406 villages (GOI, 2015). Bangalore is

the capital city of the state. The city is one of the largest metropolitan cities in India (GOI,

2015). In India, the state stands at 8th

position in terms of population (Census of India, 2011).

Kannada is the most spoken language in the state. The state is one among the rapid growing

states of India with the GSDP growth of 8.2 percent in 2010-11, which was more than the

country’s growth rate (GOI, 2015). Out of total GSDP, 16 percent was contributed by

agriculture and its related sectors.

The state is chosen for the study, because groundwater status is at the critical limit. Rainfall

occurrence is erratic in the state. Rainfall varies across the state from 569 mm in East to

4029 mm in west parts of the state. The annual rainfall in the state is 1138 mm (Water

Resources Department, 2002; Chandrakanth, 2009). This lead to more dependency on

groundwater in the state compare to rest of the country. The most parts of Karnataka4,

groundwater quality declined to critical level (CGWB, 2014). In addition, it created the

serious water problems ranges from 50-79 percent. Out of which, fluoride, arsenic and other

contaminations are noticeable (Parisaramahiti, 2017). Nonetheless, water resource is very

important for the state, preferably groundwater as it is playing an important role in the state

agriculture production. Furthermore, the state is one of the fast-growing economies in the

country (IBEF, 2010). The agriculture snapshot of the state is presented as below.

3.1.1 Agriculture profile of Karnataka state in India

The state is blessed with tropical climate and has into three seasons, rainy or monsoon (June

to October), winter (November to January) and dry or summer (February to May).

Agriculture is the lifeblood of rural people in the region. According to the 2011 census, the

state agriculture supports 13.74 million workers, out of which 26.61 percent were cultivars

and 25.67 percent were agricultural workers. Furthermore, it provides employment to more

than 50 percent of the state population (Census Population, 2011). The south-west monsoons

are playing a vital role in cultivation of crops. In addition, the state is placed at 7th

position in

terms of geographical area in India. Area under agriculture cultivation accounts to 64.5

percent to the total geographical area (GOI, 2015). In addition, out of total land under

cultivation 26.5 percent was the area under irrigation (Bhende, 2013).

4 Bagalkot, Bengaluru urban, Vijayapur, Chamarajnagar, Chitradurga, Haveri, Mandya, Davangere, Kodagu,

Kolar, Raichur, and Koppal Districts.

24

Karnataka shares 12 percent of fruit production, 8 percent of vegetable production and 70

percent of coffee production in the country. Furthermore, the state is the third largest

producer of sugarcane in the country (State Agriculture Department, 2013). Thus, irrigation is

playing a vital role in the state agriculture.

Figure 5 indicates the proportional share by canal, tanks, wells, tube wells, lift irrigation and

other source to the net irrigated area of the state. At 2001-02, canals (35%) were the major

source of irrigation but the trend has changed to tube wells (37 %) as per the 2010-11

statistics. In addition, in the span of 10 years groundwater share to total irrigated area

increased by 15 percent. Thus, groundwater is taking an important role in irrigation sector of

the state. At the one hand demand for groundwater is growing and on the other hand, supply

of groundwater is declining in the state as it contains a large portion of hard rock aquifers

than the rest of the country (Chandrakanth, 2009).

Figure 5: Share of different sources to net irrigated area (%) between 2001-02 and

2010-11 in Karnataka

Source: State Agriculture Department, 2013.

3.1.2 Groundwater status and it’s exploitation in Karnataka

A major portion of the state has hard rock areas and it makes the aquifer to yield less water

(Chandrakanth, 2009). The depth of water level in the state varies from less than 2m to more

than 30m. Furthermore, in the majority of the area (40 %) water depth is between 5m to 10m,

followed by 25 percent of area with the depths ranging between 2m and 5m, another 25

percent falls under category of depth from 10m to 20m and only 9 and 1 percent area has

water depth less than 2m and more than 20m, respectively (CGWB, 2014). According to the

2013 assessment, it was recorded that 44 percent of the areas showed a rise in groundwater

and 56 percent of areas depicted the fall against the previous decadal average (CGWB, 2014).

35

9

19

22

4

11

36

5

11

37

3

8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Canals Tanks Wells Tubewells Lift irrigation Other

Sources

Per

cen

t sh

are

(%

)

Source of Irrigation

2001-02

2010-11

25

According to the dynamic report on groundwater of Karnataka 2014, represents that 80

percent of the areas were over exploited (CGWB, 2014). In the state 10 areas categorized as

critical, 17 as semi-critical and 127 named as safe with respect to groundwater use (Girish,

2009). Furthermore, in 2014 out of 174 taluks of the state 90 were reported as groundwater

overused areas (Shivaraj, 2014).

Karnataka state is one of the largest state having area under micro-irrigation (0.94 m ha) in

India (GGGI, 2015). The state is the fourth largest state in area under drip irrigation (0.39 m

ha) next to Maharashtra (0.88 m ha), Andhra Pradesh (0.84 m ha) and Gujarat (0.42 m ha)

(GGGI, 2015). The state Government is promoting micro-irrigation with an objective to

reduce the groundwater consumption for irrigation. The Government attempted micro-

irrigation development at various levels. Agriculture and horticulture are two main key

sectors in promoting micro-irrigation, preferably drip method through subsidized

programmes (GOI, 2015).

In order to fulfil the research objective, Chikkaballapura district of Karnataka state has

chosen as sample district. Figure 6 depicts the study area.

3.1.3 Agriculture profile of Chikkaballapura district of Karnataka, India:

Chikkaballapura district of Karnataka state is placed in southern part. It is newly formed

district since 2007 and previously it was under Kolar district. The district has 6 taluks

namely, Chikkaballapura, Gauribidanur, Shidlaghatta, Chintamani, Gundibanda and

Bagepalli. According to the 2011 census, the district has 1513 villages (Directorate of Census

Operations, 2011). In addition, population of the district was 1.25 million and 298 persons

were living per square meter (Kallapur, 2012). The district achieved gross domestic product

of INR 3.5 billion in 2012-13 and same year annual per capita income in the district was INR

44183 (UASB, 2014). Furthermore, the area is just 50 km away from metropolitan city

Bangalore. It is also well connected with highways (Bangalore-Hyderabad) and railways.

Thus, there is a huge scope for horticulture crops such as vegetables, flower, fruits and other

crops. Livestock has emerged as an important subsidiary occupation of farmers and other

members in the district.

The total geographical area of the district is 0.40 m ha; area under crop cultivation shares the

highest (52 %), followed by other uncultivated land (33 %) and forest land (12 %). Red-

loamy, red-sandy and mixed red are the major soil types in the region. The normal annual

rainfall was 677 mm but actual received was 424 mm in 2012-13. Net cultivated area was

0.19 m ha, out of which 27 percent was under irrigation (GOK, 2016). The major crops in the

area are ragi, maize, oilseeds, fruits, vegetables, fruits and commercial crops. Figure 7

represents the cropping pattern of the study area. In crop year 2012-13, crop cultivation was

dominated with cereals (60 %) followed by oilseeds (13 %), pulses (7 %) and least by

commercial crops5 (0.09 %) (UASB, 2014).

5 Seasonal flower crops such as Marigold, Gladiolus and commercial crops such as cotton, sugarcane and other

crops

26

Figure 6: Map showing study area in Karnataka state of India

Source: Author

27

Figure 7: Cropping pattern of Chikkaballapura district 2012-13, Karnataka.

Source: UASB, 2014; GOI, 2015.

3.1.4 Groundwater use in Chikkaballapura district of Karnataka

Groundwater is playing a vital role in irrigated agriculture of the district. Net groundwater

availability in the region was 28426 ha m, existing groundwater available for all uses was

40060 ha m and the available resources for future was 1699 ha m. Groundwater levels varies

from 1.8m to 11.35m in pre-monsoon against deviations of 0.87m to 13.35m in post-

monsoon seasons (Ministry of Water Resources, 2012). Decadal mean water depth fluctuates

from 0-2 m and 2-4 m during pre-monsoon and post-monsoons, respectively. Bore wells are

the sole source of irrigation; they accounts for 99 percent of net irrigated area in the region.

There were 29985 irrigation tube wells, the ratio of gross irrigated area to bore well was 1.90

ha (Ministry of Water Resources, 2012). Groundwater development in the district was 141

percent. Thus, groundwater is over-utilized. There were 345 dug wells and 930 bore wells

dried in 2005-06 (Kallapur, 2012). The major groundwater problems in the area are water

level depletion, decreased bore well yield and water contamination fluoride and nitrate

(Ministry of Water Resources, 2012).

3.2 Sampling procedure:

As indicated in the previous sections the research is aimed to test the effect of drip irrigation

on groundwater use in the study area. This is done by analysing drip irrigation adoption effect

on groundwater use with conventional irrigation method (flood irrigation). Therefore, drip

irrigated and conventional farmers are the specific respondents of the study. The pictures of

drip and flood irrigation method of the study area are reported in Appendix A.1. The criteria

used to categorize between the farmers following drip and flood irrigation were based on the

share of drip irrigated area out of total irrigated area of the farmer. Therefore, a purposive

random sampling technique was employed to choose respondents for the research.

60% 7%

13%

0%

20%

Cereals Pulses Oilseeds Commercial crops Others

28

Figure 8: Proportion of farmers share based on farm size, Chikkaballapura for the year

2016-17

Source: Authors calculation; Government of Karnataka, 2016.

The data collection pertains to the crop year 2015-16, preferably on social-economic

characteristics of the respondents, determinants of drip technology adoption, well failure,

cropping pattern, quantity of water pumped and other relevant sections. The questionnaire

used for the research data collection is presented in Appendix A.2 .To concise the research

and to avoid the size effect of farm, data was collected only from marginal (<1 ha), small (1

to 2 ha) and semi-medium farmers (2 to 4 ha). Face-to-face interviews were conducted with

well structured questionnaires. Total farmers interviewed are 185, out of which 109 farmers

adopted drip irrigation and 76 are following conventional flood irrigation method. Data

collection photos are indicated in Appendix A.3.

Balancing the sample data with the population characters is the most important features has to

be taken care in every research. Thus, during data collection proportion of farm size of

different category of farmers was tried to maintain with the official district statistics. Figure 8

depicts the share of different categories of farmers (based on land holdings) to the total

cultivated area. It represents that the share pattern is similar in both primary and secondary

survey. Marginal and small farmers have the higher share than semi-medium farmers in both

surveys.

3.3 Analytical tools employed:

The analytical tools and techniques employed for assessing the objectives of the study

are briefly summarized below:

26.69 27.75

23.79

16.37

5.40

38.00

46.05

15.95

0.00 0.00

<1ha 1 to 2 ha 2 to 4 ha 4 to 6 >6

Per

cen

t sh

are

farm size (ha)

District data Sampled data

29

3.3.1 Negative binominal distribution:

Well failure is the major outcome of groundwater exploitation in the region. The chances of

getting well successes or failures depend on the level of groundwater development in the

region. However, well failure also depends on the point of drilling and criteria behind the

chosen point of drilling. Moreover, the option to go for drilling/s is independent from farmer

to farmer.

In the theory of probability distribution and statistics, consider a random experiment with two

outcomes namely success and failure. The experiment has a possibility of getting each at one

time. It is same for each independent trial are called ‘Bernoulli trails’ (Christian, 2007). It is

fundamental and simple concept in probability of random experiments. It is true when the

outcomes are mutually exclusive. If the probability of success of a trial is ‘p’, then the

probability of failure is 1-p. For example, in the case of tossing a coin, there are only two

chances head or tail and only one at a time.

Negative binominal distribution is the special case of Bernoulli trials, where each trial with a

probability of success (Walck, 2007). But, experiment has to pass number of failures to get a

fixed number of successes. A variance which is greater than its mean is a unique feature of

this distribution. In the case of bore well drilling, drilling activity is independent from farmer

to farmers. There are two outcomes for each trial, one is getting water and another is end up

without water. Since from 2000 onwards, due to over-utilization of groundwater, to get

successful drilling farmers has sustained some number of failures. Consider ‘n’ number of

bore well drilling trials. The ‘n’ number of trials has ‘x’ number of failure followed to ‘r’

successes.

Thus, the probability of well success is deriving from following formula:

P (X=x) = (x+r-1) C (r-1) pr q

x

Where, the probability of well success:

p = (mean of x / variance of x), and

q=1-p is probability of well failure

Recursive formula of the distribution is as follows:

P(x+r) = [(x+r) / (x+1)] q P(x);

P (X=0) = P (0) = pr ;

In this study, x is taken value from 0 to 6, for each value of x; number of farmers were

recorder and is taken as ‘f’ frequency for each value of x from 0 to 6. Mean and variance of x

are calculated from x observation and corresponding frequency of ‘f’ for each value of x.

Probability of well success and failure are calculated using the above formulae.

3.3.2 Propensity score Mmatching:

In the study, the treatment group is defined as the farmers who adopt drip irrigation

technology in the cultivation of crops to reduce the groundwater use. Hence, there are two

groups: one is farmers adopted drip irrigation (treated group) and another is farmers followed

30

flood irrigation method (control group). The study aimed to analyse the effect of drip

irrigation on groundwater use by comparing the treated and controlled group. Thus,

Propensity Score Matching (PSM) is employed and the detail explanation of the procedure

followed during the research analysis is briefed as below:

Propensity Score Matching (PSM) is an analytical technique used to find the effect of an

intervention programme or innovation or technology or any other intervention by matching

the certain characters of treatment and controlled groups in a non randomised experiment

(Austin, 2011). It is a widely used method to find the causal effect of a treatment, referred to

as Average Treatment Effect (ATE), when the sampling frame is not completely randomised.

It has wider applications in observational studies. It is aimed to minimize inefficiency and

selection bias of the estimated ATE rather than simply comparing the treatment and

controlled without considering the necessary features. Furthermore, this tool analyses the

treatment and non-treatment effect by considering set of individual characters for both group

as constant.

Two main procedures in PSM are:

Firstly, estimation of probit regression model by considering the binary action of treated

(farmers following drip irrigation, X=1) and non-treated conditions (farmers following flood

irrigation, X=0). The main assumption of PSM is adoption or non-adoption of the technology

is guided by certain characteristics ‘S’.

Therefore, propensity score is M(s) on the treated action=1 by considering the ‘S’

characteristics are constant for both group.

) [1]

In the study ‘S’ is defined as follows:

1. Socio- economic characteristics consider for the analysis are age of farmers, education

of farmer, family size, caste6 of farmers, credit access (Loan amount with the banks),

and farm size.

2. Crop cultivations taken into account are: percent share of perinneal crop/s area to the

gross cropped area, Crop type (seasonal or perinneal) and market access (total

distance from famer’s village to their product markets).

3. Irrigation system features reflected by average depth of bore well drilled, Average

distance to the nearest water source from farmer’s bore well and Average interference

distance between two neighbouring bore wells of the famer.

The details of dependent variables are listed in below Table 3.

6 Caste is a hereditary class of Hindu society distinguishable by relative degree of ritual purity. In India,

education and job opportunities are based on caste reservation system. Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled

Tribe (SC) are historically considered as disadvantaged people and have higher reservation than Other

Backward Classes (OBC) and general category (Mehbubul, 2010).

31

Table 3: Description of independent variables used for probit analysis

Sl.

No.

Variable Name Variable

type

Unit of

measurement

Variable description

1 Percent area under

plantation crop Continuous Percentage

Share of perennial crop out of total

gross cropped area of a farmer

2 Crop type Dummy Code

Crop type grown by farmers

1= plantation crop, 2 = seasonal crop

3 Age Continuous Years Age of the farmer

4 Year of education Continuous Years

Year of schooling of farmer

considered as year of education

5 Total distance to

market Continuous Kilo meter

Total distance to their products

markets from farmer’s village

6 Family size Continuous Number Family size of a farmer

7 Average power of

pump used to lift

groundwater

Continuous Horse power Average power of pump used by

farmer to lift groundwater from well

8 Average distance to

water source Continuous Meter

Average distance to the nearest water

source from farmer’s bore well

9 Average distance

between two

neighbouring bore

wells

Continuous Meter

Average interference distance

between two neighbouring bore wells

of the famer

10 Distance to loan

institution Continuous Kilo meter

Distance from farmers’ village to

bank institution where they borrowed

loan

11 Loan amount Continuous INR

Amount borrowed by farmer from

bank/s

12 Number of milk

yielding animals Continuous Number

Number of milk yielding animals

owned by farmer

Source: Author

Consider XR represents the farmers having drip irrigation, and XO indicates farmers following

flood irrigation (without drip), and is binary dependent variable in the model of interest.

Thus, the resulting equations for the probability of drip adoption at all variables allocated

optimally are XR (Si) and XO (Si). Where, ‘Si’ denotes the other independent variables of the

model, where ‘i’ indicates farmer.

In addition, ‘↋R’ and ‘↋O’ are the error terms represent the additive effect of omitted variable

on drip technology adoption of the farmer. Therefore, the probability of adopting drip

technology by farmers is given by below specified model:

- ↋ -↋ [2]

Nonetheless, one of the main assumptions behind PSM is that treatment assignment is

independent conditional on observed characteristics ‘S’ (as stated above). As the loan amount

borrowed by the farmer explains other factors includes in the model [2] and other omitted

variables such as capital assets, social variables etc. In this regard, following (Gabriel, 2017),

32

there is an endogeneity problem associated with loan access and technological adoption in the

context irrigation. Thus, a similar approach is conducted to estimate the propensity scores by

using instrumental variables in a linear probit model with drip irrigation adoption as a

dependent variable.

Instrumental variable is the common approach to overcome the endogeneity, preferable in the

case of casual effect estimation (Freedman & Sekhon, 2010). Distance to loan institution

from farmer’s village is an important variable which decides the easiness of credit of access

and explains the loan amount borrowed by farmers. The easier the access, the more will be

the transactions with bank/s, it increases the financial inclusion and helps to create good

relationship with bank to utilise the bank services. Another important variable which explains

loan amount borrowed is the total distance to credit market. The lesser the distance to product

market, higher the marketing opportunities to the farmer. It also reduces the transportation

cost, increases accessibility to inputs, guides crop choice, widens choices of crops more

preferably perishables such as vegetables, fruits, flowers and other commercial crops. For

such crops farmers need investments in inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, labour, green house

structures, irrigation infrastructure. It will increase the requirement of finance. It can lead to

loans from banks. Distance to market and total distance to product market are correlated with

loan amount. Relevance of instrumental variables is tested by correlation and results are

presented in Appendix A.3.Thus, distance to loan institution and total distance to product

markets are chosen as the instrumental variables for loan amount borrowed by farmers from

bank/s. Let put distance to loan institution and total distance to market as Zi. Where, Zi should

be correlated with Li and exogenous from error term ‘↋’. Now the model of Li will be the

function of Ni independent variables except the loan amount borrowed by farmer from bank/s

and instrumental variables Zi and model is specified as below:

Thus, Si is redefined as Ni by removing endogenous variable loan amount borrowed by

farmer from bank/s. Then, the probability of drip adoption is estimated with two linear

equations and is presented below:

v [3]

In model [3] Zi represent the instrumental variable/s which should explains the loan amount

and uncorrelated with the error term ‘v’.

Let Lip

is the predict value of Li obtained from model [3].

Therefore, the new model with correction of endogeneity is presented below:

1 ↋ [4]

Where, ↋ represents the error term of the model [4].

Model [4] is the linear probability model estimated with two stage regression (2SLS).

After getting propensity scores from the model [4] and [1], a further step is to find the

average treatment effect of drip irrigation on quantity of groundwater used by the farmers.

33

The second part of the PSM deals with the specific interest of the study. It is to find the effect

of drip irrigation on quantity of irrigation water used for crop cultivation. Therefore, the

dependent variable is the quantity of water used per farm.

The quantity of groundwater used is calculated both for drip irrigated and non-drip irrigated

or controlled farmers and the method is explained as below:

3.2.2.1 Measurement of groundwater use in conventional irrigation system:

Groundwater used per farmer to each crop was calculated by using following formula:

Groundwater used for each crop per year (acre inches) = [(area irrigated per each crop) *

(frequency or number irrigation per month) * (duration of irrigation given to crop in months)

* (number of hours given to each irrigation) * (Average yield of bore well in gallons per

hour)] / 22611.

Where, 22611 is a factor to convert from gallon per hour to acre inches.

Groundwater used per farmer (acre inches) = Sum of groundwater used per each crop

Groundwater used per acre per farmer (acre inches) = (sum of groundwater used per each

crop / gross irrigated area per year).

3.2.2.2 Measurements of groundwater used in drip irrigation system:

Groundwater used per farmer to each crop was calculated by using following formula:

Groundwater used for each crop per year (acre inches) = [(number of drippers or emitters per

cropped area) * (groundwater discharge per emitter in litres per hour) * (frequency or number

irrigation per month) * (duration of irrigation given to crop in months) * (number of hours

given to each irrigation)]/ 4.5/ 22611.

Where, 4.5 is a factor to convert from litres per hour to gallon per hour

Groundwater used per farmer (acre inches) = Sum of groundwater used per each crop

Groundwater used per acre per farmers (acre inches) = (sum of groundwater used per each

crop / gross irrigated area per year)

The ultimate objective of the research is to measure the effect of drip irrigation (X) on

quantity of groundwater used (Y). It will give the treatment effect by balancing the treated

and controlled farmers with ‘Ni’ and Zi characters consider as constant. Therefore, model [5]

indicates the effect of drip irrigation groundwater used by farmers for crop cultivation.

[5]

Actual outcome of the treatment can be derived from model [6] :

i - [6]

Where, i represent each farmer

For each farmer, effect of drip irrigation on quantity of water used is defined as:

i

34

The Average treatment effect (ATE) is defined as is the average effect at the population level

of moving entire population from untreated to treated (Austin, 2011).

ATE can be representing as below:

Average effect of drip technology on amount of groundwater pumped for crop cultivation

over conventional method of irrigation will decide, whether the technology reduced the water

consumption or else it is extracting more water than conventional one.

Average treatment effect is estimated with different matching methods using STATA

software and is detailed below:

1) Radius matching: a radius with the highest propensity scores will create and is called

caliper. It matches treated and controlled units which fall under the propensity scores

within the radius.

2) Kernel matching: this narrates the estimation of weights to each controlled unit based

on the difference between propensity scores of treated and controlled units. The lesser

distance between propensity score more will be the weight of that unit. In other

words, higher the weight nearer the controlled unit to treated ones. The matching is

based on the weights.

3) Nearest neighbourhood matching: it is a type of matching used. According to this, it

matches the treated and control units with nearest propensity scores and it will drop

the non-similar scores treated and controlled units.

35

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The study deals with drip technology of irrigation in hard rock areas of India, preferably in

Karnataka. The main objective is to examine occurrence of Jevons paradox in drip

technology of the study area or not? The results of the study are presented and compared with

past studies in the following sub-headings and are indicated as below.

4.1 Socio-economic features of sampled farmers in the study area

4.2 Irrigation cropping pattern of the study area

4.3 Bore well failure and its reasons in the study area

4.3 Testing of Jevons paradox in drip technology of irrigation in the study area

4.1 Socio-economic features of sample farmers in the study area

For the research, 109 and 76 farmers following drip and flood irrigation are interviewed,

respectively. Age groups, education level, family type, family size and caste system depicts

social structure of the sampled farmers (see Table 4). Agriculture land holding and subsidiary

occupation of the farmers considered as economic features and represented in Table 5. The

major age category among the drip adopted farmers is between 35 and 50 years (70.64 %)

followed by below 35 years (17.43 %) and above 50 years group (11.93 %). Where in the

case of farmers following flood irrigation, the majority of farmers belong to age group

between 35 to 50 years (69.74 %) followed by above 50 years (17.11 %) and below 35 years

group (13.16 %). Furthermore, mean age of head of drip irrigated and flood irrigated farms is

41.68 and 42.63 years, respectively. A study indicated that average age of farmers in

Chikkaballapura district was 47.75 years (Babu, Mahesha, & Rajkumar, 2015) another study

depicted that, average age of the farmers in Karnataka was 47.84 years (Sreeramaiah &

Kamatar, 2013). Considering the education of the farmers, among those using drip irrigation

larger proportion of the sampled farmers obtained education up to the level of high school

(33.94 %); followed by illiterates (20.18 %), middle school (14.68 %), under graduates

(13.76 %) and pre-university level (9.17 %). While from those using flood irrigation also a

majority of farmers had as education level (28.95 %), illiterates (26.32 %), middle school

(14.47 %), pre-university level (14.47 %) and under graduates (7.89 %). Interestingly, percent

of illiterates are more among farmers practicing flood irrigation than the drip ones contradict

results observed at the under -graduates level of education. Average year of education

attained by farmers following drip and flood irrigation is 8.05 and 7.22 years respectively.

According to 2011 census, average literacy rate of the study area was 69.76 percent (Census

Population, 2011).

About 53.21 percent of farmers using drip irrigation belongs to joint family against the

farmers following flood irrigation of 47.37 percent. The average family size of farmers using

drip and flood irrigation is 6.20 and 6.00 respectively. At the district level, mean size of

family was 4.4 (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 2013). Caste is an endogamous and

hereditary social group of a person. It influences on opportunity to use institutional

programmes by The Government.

36

Table 4: Social characteristics of farmers following drip and flood irrigation in the

study area, 2015-16

Classification Farmers using drip

irrigation (n=109)

Farmers using flood

irrigation (n=76)

Significance

test

Frequency Average Frequency Average

I. Age Group Age (years) Age (years) P-value

a. Below 35 years 19 (17.43) 30.32 10 (13.16) 30.50

b. 35-50 years 77 (70.64) 42.44 53 (69.74) 42.47 ANOVA

c. Above 50 years 13 (11.93) 53.77 13 (17.11) 52.62 0.001**

(within)

d. Overall 109

(100.00) 41.68 76 (100.00) 42.63

0.6 NS

(between)

II. Education

Level

Year of

schooling

Year of

schooling Chi- Square

a. Illiterate 22 (20.18) - 20 (26.32) -

b. Primary 9 (8.26) - 6 (7.89) -

c. Middle school 16 (14.68) - 11 (14.47) -

d. High school 37 (33.94) - 22 (28.95) -

e. PUC 10 (9.17) - 11 (14.47) -

f. Under graduate 15 (13.76) - 6 (7.89) -

g. Overall 109

(100.00) - 76 (100.00) - 0.6

h. Average year of

schooling - 8.05 7.22 0.28

III. Family Type Family size

(number) Chi- Square

a. Nuclear 51 (46.79) 4.25 40 (52.63) 4.00

b. Joint 58 (53.21) 8.14 36 (47.37) 7.00

c. Overall 109

(100.00) 6.20 76 (100.00) 6.00 0.00007

IV. Caste

Categories Chi- Square

a. Schedule Caste 22 (20.18) 13 (17.11) 17.11

b. Schedule Tribe 33 (30.28) 22 (28.95) 28.95

c. OBC (Other

Backward Classes) 32 (29.36) 21 (27.63) 27.63

d. General 22 (20.18) 20 (26.32) 26.32

e. Overall 109

(100.00) 76 (100.00) 100.00 0.79 NS

Source: Author; Note: figures in parenthesis indicate percentage to the total; NS= Non

Significant

37

However, debate of equality among all caste groups is an ongoing issue in India. In the case

of drip, the majority of farmers belong to schedule tribe (30.28 %), followed by Other

Backward Class (OBC) (29.36 %) and each of schedule caste and general category shares

20.18 percent. Consider flood irrigation, similar pattern follow except general and scheduled

caste shares 26.32 and 17.11 percent respectively. The district census statistics of the study

area indicates that schedule caste and schedule tribe shares 24.9 and 12.5 percent respectively

(Census of India, 2011).

Among sampled farmers, the major share is by marginal farmers (farm size <1 ha) followed

by small farmers (farm size between 1 and 2 ha) and semi-medium farmers (farm size >2 ha).

Table 5: Economic characteristics of farmers following drip and flood irrigation in the

study area, 2015-16

Classification

Farmers using drip

irrigation

Farmers using drip

irrigation

Significance

test

Frequency Average Frequency Average P- value

I. Land holding Land holding

(ha)

Land holding

(ha)

a. Land holdings <

1ha 58 (53.21)

0.76 44 (57.89)

0.76

b. Land holding 1 to 2

ha 38 (34.86)

1.49 30 (39.47)

1.25 ANOVA

c. Land holding >2 ha 13 (11.93) 2.18

2 (2.63) 2.15

0.008

(within)

d. Overall 109

(100.00) 2.97

76 (100.00) 2.48

0.33

(between)

f. Rainfed land

holding 66 (60.55)

0.60 42 (55.26)

0.44 0.03 (within)

g. Irrigation land

holding size -

2.38 -

2.04 0.21

(between)

V. Subsidiary

occupation Chi- Square

a. Livestock activities 89 (81.65) - 50 (65.79) -

b. Self-employment

(shop, auto) 7 (6.42) - 8 (10.53) -

c. Wages and salary

(includes private,

government and

agriculture labour)

2 (1.83) - 4 (5.26) -

d. Not working 11 (10.09) - 14 (18.42) -

e. Overall 109

(100.00) - 76 (100.00) - 0.09

Source: Author; Note: figures in parenthesis indicate percentage to the total.

38

Compared to farmers practicing drip and flood irrigation, the share of marginal farmers is

more in flood irrigation condition (57.89 %) than under drip situation (53.21 %). Conversely,

the share of semi-medium farmers is (11.93 %) higher in drip irrigation situation than flood

irrigation (2.63 %). The average land holding size of drip marginal, small and semi-medium

farmers is 0.76 ha, 1.49 ha and 2.18 ha respectively while it is 0.76 ha, 1.25 ha, and 2.15 ha

respectively in the case of flood irrigation. According to district statistics, marginal, small and

semi-medium farmers shares of 62.30, 20.16 and 9.01 percent respectively to the total

farmers of the district (DES, 2011). Average irrigation land holding size among the drip

farmers’ is (2.38 ha) more than flood ones (2.04 ha). Consider total farmers following drip

and flood irrigation, among which 60.55 and 55.26 percent respectively have rainfed area.

Apart from agriculture, livestock is following as an important source of subsidiary income to

the farmer. Out of total sampled farmers, 81.65 percent of farmers following drip have

livestock activity as a subsidiary occupation, and which is more than flood ones (65.79 %).

4.2 Cropping pattern of the study area

Figure 9 represents the share of different crops out of gross irrigated area among the sampled

farmers for the year 2015-16. Cropping pattern of the interviewed farmers estimated

separately for drip irrigated, flood irrigated and total irrigation pattern of the study area. The

major cereals growing in the region are maize and ragi, pulses cultivated are red gram and

field bean, vegetables grown are tomato, chilly, carrot, potato, beetroot and others, other

commercial category includes seasonal flower crops such as marigold, gladiolus and others,

and major perinneal crops are mulberry, grapes, rose, crossandra and coconut.

Figure 9: Cropping pattern of the farmers following drip and flood irrigation in the

study region, 2015-16.

Source: Author

54.77

13.16

36.66

22.02 23.59 22.71

2.40

8.52 5.06

20.18

48.51

32.51

0.63

6.21 3.06

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

Drip Irigated Area Flood irrigated area Overall

Plantation crops Vegetables Other commercial crops Cereals Pulses

39

Consider farmers following drip irrigation, plantation crops (54.77 %) shares highest to the

total gross cropped area followed by vegetables (22.02 %), cereals (20.18 %), other

commercial crops (2.40 %) and the least share by pulses (0.63 %). Under flood irrigation,

major share to total area is from cereals (48.51 %), followed by vegetables (23.59 %),

plantation crops (13.16 %), other commercial crops (8.52 %) and pulses (6.21 %). In

addition, no oilseed crops are recorded in sample information. Furthermore, plantation crop

(54.77 %) shares high in drip irrigation whereas significant share of cereals (48.51 %) in the

case of flood condition. Farmers following drip and flood irrigation are altogether accounts

36.66 percent to plantation crop area followed by area under cereals (32.51 %), vegetables

(22.71 %), other commercial crops (5.06 %) and pulses (3.06 %). However, the area under

food crops is not conspicuous in irrigated area of the study region. It is noticeable that the

major aim of groundwater irrigation is to fulfil food grain demand of rapid growing

population. The purpose of groundwater irrigation is not up to the mark. According to district

statistics depicts that cereals shares 60 percent to total area under cultivation followed by

other crops (vegetables, flowers and others), oilseeds occupied 13 percent, pulses by 7

percent and commercial crops accounts least of 0.01 percent (GOI, 2015).

Table 6 summarises the ratio of gross irrigated area to net irrigated area of the study region

based on sample data. The proportion gross to net irrigated area is more in the case of drip

irrigation compare to flood situation. Irrigation intensity of farmers practicing drip irrigation

is 153.76 percent against 137.42 percent under flood irrigation. Total irrigation intensity of

sampled farmers is 147.65 percent. It was more than the country’s irrigation intensity (138 %)

(Bhaduri, Upali, & Shah, 2014). Based on district report 2015-16, the irrigation intensity of

the district was 116.8 percent (GOK, 2016; Ministry of Water Resources, 2012).

Table 6: Irrigation Intensity of the farmers practicing drip and flood irrigation method

in the study area, 2015-16

Particulars Drip Irrigation Flood Irrigation Overall

Net Irrigated area (Ha) 104.02 62.16 415.46

Gross irrigated area (Ha) 159.95 85.42 613.43

Irrigation intensity (%) 153.76 137.42 147.65

Source: Author

4.3 Bore well failure and its reasons in the study area

4.3.1 General profile of bore well irrigation in the study area, 2015-16

Table 7 represents the general details about bore wells and related elements from the sampled

data of 2015-16. Isolation distance is the distance between two neighbouring bore wells. It is

the main factor affects bore wells yield in case of aquifer share in common. Lesser the

isolation distance more pronounced occurrence of initial and pre-mature failures of bore wells

(Chandrakanth, 2015). Farmers following drip irrigation (289.66 m) have less isolation

distance between bore wells compare to flood ones (451.60 m). Whereas, a contrasting result

is observed in the case of average distance to nearest bore well between drip (949.49 m) and

40

flood irrigation farmers (1021.93 m). In addition, t-test result indicates that no significance

difference between farmers following drip and flood irrigations with respect to isolation

distance and distance to nearest water source. Mean drilling depth of bore well of farmers

following drip irrigation is 843.38 feet against 784.95 feet under flood irrigation. There is no

statistical significant difference between two groups (t-statistic 1.58, P < 0.05). A study

indicated that due to over-exploitation of the groundwater resource led to rapid growth of

shallow and deep bore wells and deep drilling decreases the life of the bore well (Nagaraj,

Marshal, & Sampath, 1999). Another work indicated that deepened drilling increases the cost

of drilling and probability of well failure (Bassi, Vijayshankar, & Kumar, 2008). The district

groundwater development level (141 %) alarmed the groundwater resource over exploitation.

The results of the study narrate that high horse power pump used by farmers following drip

irrigation (14.16 hp) compare to the flood irrigation (13.66 hp). Horse power of the pump

used to lift the water from the bore well is directly proportional to the depth of bore well

(FAO, 2007). Mean well yield of the tube well is 1.50 inch (1500 GPH) in drip irrigation

while it was 1.62 inch under flood irrigation (1620 GPH). The deviation of well yield

between drip and flood is statistically significant at 10 percent. According to district

groundwater information booklet of 2012 reported that average well yield in the district

varies between 0.5 to 20 m3

per hour (Ministry of Water Resources, 2012). Whereas, decline

in water yield of the bore well was observed and 57 percent of the various regions of the

country showed this trend between 2003-13 (CGWB, 2014).

Table 7: Bore well profile of the study area

Particulars

Farmers

following drip

irrigation

Farmers

following

flood

irrigation

T-test

Average isolation distance between two bore well

(m) 289.66 451.60 -1.16 NS

Average distance from bore well to nearest water

source (m) 949.49 1021.93 -0.70 NS

Average drilling depth of bore well (feet) 843.38 784.95 1.58 NS

Average power of pump used (HP) 14.16 13.66 0.70 NS

Average bore well yield (inch) 1.50 1.62 -1.89*

Average age of the bore well (years) 7.57 8.72 -1.65*

Average number of functional borewells 1.50 1.40 1.60 NS

Average number of failures at drilling 2.69 1.82 4.26***

Mean annual cost of repairs and maintenance per

borewell (INR) 15973.68 13298.11 2.39***

Source: Author; Note: *** significant < 1 percent; * significant < 10 percent; NS- non-

significant.

Mean age of bore well is 7.57 years under drip irrigation against the 8.72 years in the case of

flood situation. The mean difference is statistically significant at 10 percent. A study reported

41

that since after the green revolution average life of a borewell was less than 8 years while was

more twenty years before the revolution (Nagaraj, Chandrakanth, & Gurumurthy, 1994) .

Farmers used to have more than one borewell in order to fulfil the water requirement of crops

all around the year. The average number of functional bore wells under drip irrigation are

1.50 whereas 1.40 in flood irrigation. Average number of failed drillings under drip is 2.69

compared to 1.82 failures under flood irrigation and it is significant at 1 percent. Farmers

have to spend a certain amount per year for renewing pump oil and other costs on repairs if

any. Mean annual repair and maintenance cost of bore well is INR 15973.68 in the case of

farmers following drip irrigation against INR 13298.11 under flood irrigation and the mean

difference is significant at 1 percent. A study indicates that cost of maintainace and repairs

increases with depth of well drilling (Bassi, Vijayshankar, & Kumar, 2008).

4.3.2 Probability of bore well failure in the study area

Figure 10 indicates the proportion of farmers faced number of well failures in order to get a

success in the study region. In the case of drip irrigation, the number of bore well failures

ranges from 0 to 6 to get one successful bore well. Whereas, it varies from 1 to 5 under flood

irrigation. The majority of farmers practicing drip irrigation (29.36 %) get a successful bore

well at first attempt, followed by success at the cost of 1 drilling (25.69 %), after two failures

(18.35 %) and a success at fourth drilling (11.93 %). Whereas, the share of famers being

successful after 4 drilling (6.42 %), 6 failures (4.59 %) and 5 failures (3.67 %) is less than 15

percent of the total. Consider the flood irrigation, the highest number of farmers (34.21 %)

belongs to the category of getting successful well at the first drilling followed by success at

the cost of one drilling (21.05 %), success at third drilling (19.74 %), after 3 failures (14.47

%) and after 4 drillings (3.95 %) and at the six failures shares (6.58 %).

Figure 10: Frequency distribution of well failure to get a success among farmers

following drip and flood irrigation in the study area

Source: Author

29.36

25.69

18.35

11.93

6.42

3.67

4.59

34.21

21.05

19.74

14.47

3.95

6.58

0.00

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Farmers following flood irrigation Farmers following drip irrigation

42

Figure 11: Difference in well failure occurrence between drip and flood irrigation of the

study area

Source: Author

Figure 11 presents the deviation in farmers share between drip and flood irrigation at

different failures points ranging between 0 and 6. Interestingly, wide deviation observed

between two groups for the success at first attempt and success at after facing 3 failures. The

difference between farmers following drip and flood irrigation share to the total to get a

successful bore well is 5.95 percent at second drilling, followed by success after 6 failures

(4.59 %), 4 failures (1.16 %), 5 failures (-0.67 %), success at the cost of 2 drillings (-0.99 %),

success at first attempt (-4.85 %) and success at the cost of 3 drillings (-5.18 %).

Table 8 illustrates the chances of well success and failure occurrence between farmers

following drip and flood irrigation. Probability of well failure or success is calculated from

negative binomial distribution and the difference in the probability of success or failure

among different attempts is concluded from Chi-square test for goodness of fit. The results

indicated that average number of failures to get a successful bore well is 1.72 and 1.55 for

farmers following drip and flood irrigation respectively. The deviation of success from mean

is more in the case of drip irrigation (3.00) compare to flood irrigation (2.25). The probability

of getting successful bore well is 0.57 and 0.69 in drip and flood irrigation condition

respectively. Furthermore, in the study area for every 100 bore well drillings, 57 bore wells

ended up in yielding water at the cost of 43 failed drillings under drip irrigation. While in the

case of flood irrigation there are 31 bore wells successful in yielding water for every 100

attempts. However, the occurrence of bore well failures not differs among various levels of

drilling as Chi-square test is statistically insignificant (P > 0.05). This concludes severity of

well failure in the study, which underlines the effect of groundwater over used in the study

area. The results of probability of well failure are supported from previous literatures. A

study conducted in hard rock area of India indicated that well failure is the main outcome of

groundwater exploitation in the region (Nagaraj, Chandrakanth, & Gurumurthy, 1994).

5.95

4.59

1.16 -0.68 -0.99

-4.85 -5.18

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

1 6 4 5 2 0 3

Per

cen

t d

iffe

ren

ce

Number of failures to get a success

43

Another study summarised that 40 percent is the probability of well failure in hard rock areas

of Karnataka (Chandrakanth, 2015). Mean rate of well failure in other hard rock areas of

south India was varied from 47 to 9 percent across different wells (Palanisami, Vidhyavathi,

& Ranganathan, 2008).

Table 8: Probability of well success and failure between farmers following drip and

flood irrigation in the study area

Particulars Farmers following drip

irrigation

Farmers following drip

irrigation

Mean of number of drillings 1.72 1.55

Variance number of drillings 3.00 2.25

Probability of success 0.57 0.69

Probability of failure 0.43 0.31

Chi square test (P-value) 5.57 NS 8.69 NS

Source: Author; Note: NS is not significant

Figure 12 shows the possibility of well successful across various attempts for both farmers

following drip and flood irrigation. The results indicated that the chances of getting

successful bore well decreases with increase in number of drilling. This conveys that

occurrence of negative binominal distribution in the case of bore well drilling. Chi-square test

for goodness of fit is non- significant for both drip and flood irrigation. Probability of success

or failure between drip and flood irrigation and is going hand in hand. Probability of success-

Figure 12: Probability of well success in the study area

Source: Author

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Pro

bab

ilit

y o

f su

cces

s

Number of drillings

Farmers following drip

irrigation

Farmers following flood

irrigation

44

-varies from 1 to 0.03 for farmers practicing drip and flood irrigation for different number of

attempts, respectively. The probability of well failure is more under drip irrigation than flood

condition. Therefore, the first research null hypothesis that tube well failures same in both

drip and flood irrigation is dropped and alternative hypothesis is accepted. It concludes the

severity of groundwater overused in the study area.

4.3.3 Reasons for bore well failure in the study area

Table 9 describes the causes of groundwater depletion in the study area from the primary

interview from the farmers following irrigation. Based on the sampled data analysis, out of

total sample 80.54 percent of farmers expected that a decrease in the quantum rainfall is the

main reason for groundwater depletion followed by wells with no specific isolation distances

(63.24 %), regular cut of electricity (62.70 %), tanks without proper de-siltation (59.46 %),

irrigation tanks with irregular fill (55.68 %), cultivation of water demanding crops (49.19 %),

adoption of high power submersible and electric pumps (40.54 %), tube well location is out

of command area (37.30 %), drilling at out of point located by local diviner (36.76 %), and

drilling point was excluded from Geologist indication (28.11 %).

Interestingly, no one responded on supply side elements of groundwater such as groundwater

recharge efforts from them, water conservation structures such as farm pond, rainwater

harvesting and other water conservation practices in the farm. However, there are cultivation

practices to conserve water namely mulching, zero tillage, use of anti-transparent. Also, self

responsibility in reducing unnecessary water losses in public or private places and other

practices.

Table 9: Reasons for bore well failure in the study area in 2015-16

Sl. No. Reasons Percent of respondents

(Total respondents 185)

1 Decreasing quantum of rainfall 80.54

2 Densely spaced wells 63.24

3 Frequent power cuts/load shedding 62.70

4 Tanks not desilted-poor groundwater recharge 59.46

5 Irrigation tanks are not regularly filled up 55.68

6 Water Intensive crops 49.19

7 Use of high HP pumps 40.54

8 Well is located outside the command area 37.30

9 Did not drilled at the point shown by local diviner 36.76

10 Did not drilled at the point shown by Geologist 28.11

Source: Author

Therefore, it represents the lack of self-responsibility from farmers’ side in water

conservation, on the other hand it also shows farmers still has to realise the importance of

water for now and in concern to future generation. A study results indicated that extensive

pumping of water to grow profitable crops led to groundwater overuse (Sandra, 2015).

45

Another study concluded that increases in importance to groundwater irrigation to fulfil food

demand of rapid growing population (Braun, Ashok, & Peter, Indian Agriculture and Rural

Development: Strategic Issues and Reform Options, 2005). Stabilized water supply is

essential for the potential use of inputs such as seed, labour, fertilizers and others. In addition,

requirement of large investment for canal irrigation lead to broaden the scope for

groundwater irrigation (Anik, Upali, & Tushaar, 2014). This, demand side interests neglect

the supply side elements of groundwater resources. Furthermore, it ended up in overuse of

groundwater in many parts of India and the study area is not an exceptional from this.

4.4 Testing of Jevons paradox in drip technology of irrigation in the study area

4.4.1 Estimation of probit model

Table 10 summarises the first part of 2SLS estimation for instrumental variables selection.

The findings depicts that caste categories and distance to loan institution made significant

effect on loan amount borrowed by the farmers at 1 percent significance level. It also

explained by farm size, percentage of area under perinneal crops, crop type (plantation=1,

seasonal=0), mean distance to nearest water source from farmer’s bore well, total distance to

product market significantly at 5 percent level of significance. Whereas, the mean power of

pump used to lift groundwater affected significantly at 10 percent level. The model is

significant according to Wald test of exogeneity as chi square test is significant (P <0.05).

This validates the use of instrumental variables distance to loan institution and total distance

to product markets for the loan amount borrowed by farmers from bank/s. in addition,

distance to loan institution/s and total distance to product markets are correlated with the loan

amount borrowed by the farmer. It depicts the relevance of these variables with the loan

amount borrowed. Therefore, total distance to market and distance to loan institution selected

as instrumental variables as other variables are in the main equation to assess the

determinants of drip adoption.

In the situations, distance to loan institution from farmer’s village is an important variable

which decides the easiness of credit access. Easier the access more will be the transactions

with the bank, increases the financial inclusion and help to create good relationship with

bank, to update knowledge about bank services, Governmental programmes. Thus, distance

to loan institution/s explains the total amount borrowed by farmer. Furthermore, it is not

related with other factors, which determines the drip implementation by the farmers.

Therefore, it is uncorrelated with other independent variables included in the model and error

term of omitted variables of model. Another one more important variable which explains loan

amount borrowed is the total distance to product market from farmer’s village. The lesser

distance to product market, increases the marketing opportunities. It also reduces the

transportation cost, greater accessibility to inputs, it guides the best crop choice, wider

choices of crops to cultivate, more preferably perishables such as vegetables, fruits, flowers

and other commercial crops. For such crops farmers need to investment on inputs such as

seeds, fertilizers, labour, green house structures which will lead to borrow loans from banks.

However, lesser distance to product markets also increases the financial liquidity of the

farmers which may reduces the dependency on loan amount. Nonetheless investment on

inputs is the initial cause for the further earnings from the crop cultivation. Moreover,

46

irrigation and land development infrastructures are the base for wider crop choices, which

requires long term investment.

Table 10: Estimates of endogenous variable with instrumental and other independent

variables of drip adoption in the study area.

Sl. No. Independent variable - loan amount of the farmers with the bank/s (in INR)

1 Dependent variables Coefficient

2 Farm size 13380.57**

3 % of plantation area 849.2594**

4 Crop type (Seasonal=0, Perinneal=1) -55915.78**

5 Age 1395.421

6 Family size -2223.864

7 Average power of pump used to lift groundwater -2068.109*

8 Average distance between two neighbouring bore wells -20.82957

9 Average distance to the nearest water source from farmer’s bore

well -19.50998**

10 Number of milk yielding animals 5735.854

11 d1 caste (Scheduled tribe) 54098.11**

12 d2_caste (Other backward classes) 58514.52***

13 d3 caste (General) 105838.5**

14 Years of education received 6360.721***

15 Years of education received * d1 caste -4439.619

16 Years of education received * d2 caste -4291.399

17 Years of education received * d3 caste -10254.6**

18 Distance to loan institution 4444.527***

19 Total distance to product market -234.4584**

20 Intercept -39138.87

21 Athrho -1.29069

22 Insigma 11.2925

23 Wald test of exogeneity 10.57

24 Prob> chi2 0.0011

Source: Author; Note: *** < 0.01 significance level and ** <0.05 significance level

Secondly, Table 11 shows the results of the probit for drip technology (farmers following

drip=1, farmers following flood= 0) by linear probit model of 2SLS. The model significant as

Chi-square test probability is less than 0.05 P-value. The results showed that loan amount

borrowed from banks made high significant effect on farmer’s action for drip technology

adoption. In detail, probability of drip adoption will increases by 0.00123 percent for every-

47

Table 11: Estimates of probit regression on drip irrigation adoption in the study area.

Sl. No. Treatment is the independent variable (0 = farmers following flood irrigation, 1

farmers following drip irrigation)

1 Dependent variables Coefficient

2 Loan amount .000012***

3 Farm size 0.137887

4 % of plantation area .003996

5 Crop type (Seasonal=0, Perinneal=1) .435503

6 Age -.016641

7 Family size .030107

8 Average power of pump used to lift groundwater .037194**

9 Average distance between two neighbouring bore wells .000461*

10 Average distance to the nearest water source from farmer’s bore well .000189*

11 Number of milk yielding animals .013909

12 d1 caste (Scheduled tribe) -.453525

13 d2 caste (Other backward classes) -.708106*

14 d3 caste (General) -1.135900*

15 Years of education received .040776

16 Years of education received * d1 caste .012587

17 Years of education received * d2 caste .043659

18 Years of education received * d3 caste .080631

19 Intercept -.498840

20 Log pseudo likelihood -2429.8297

21 Number of observations 185

22 Wald chi2(17) 199.12

23 Prob> chi2 0.0000

Source: Author; Note: *** < 0.01 significance level, ** < 0.05 significance level, *< 0.1

significance level; Loan amount equals to Distance to loan institution( bank) and total

distance to product market from farmers’ village

-additional unit of amount available for borrowing, keeping all other things constant. In

addition, Average power of pump used is positively correlated with average depth of drilling

(Nagaraj, Marshal, & Sampath, 1999).The one horse power increase in of pump used to lift

groundwater will increases the likelihood to go for drip technology by 0.03 percent at 5

percent significance level and citeris paribus. Mean interference distance between two

neighbouring bore well and mean distance to the nearest water source from farmer’s bore

well are positively influencing on drip technology implementation at 10 percent significance

level. Scheduled caste is taken as a base caste category, where the possibility of adopting drip

technology by other backward classes and general category was 0.7 and 1.13 percent lower

than base category of caste at 10 percent significance level. Whereas, no difference in

48

adoption of drip between scheduled class and scheduled tribe. This is because schedule caste

and schedule tribe are considered as the most disadvantaged social groups in India. Thus,

there are many Governmental programmes to support them economically such as

scholarships to students, reservation in education institutes and in government jobs, subsidy

to the initial investment such as drip adoption, green house construction, special assistance

through public distribution programmes and many other (Sekhri, 2011; Nair, 2017)While in

the case of other backward and general category people receives less institutional supports

than Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). However, drip adoption is not

influenced by type of crop, area under plantation crops, farm size, family size, age of the

farmer and education of the farmer.

Some literature indicated that power of pump used to lift water, year of schooling,

dependency ratio (Namara, Nagar, & Upadhyay, 2007), age of farmer, farm size, wider crops

and non-farm income (Goyal, 2015) made a positive and significant effect on drip

technology adoption. But, area under cereals had a negative effect on drip technology

(Namara, Nagar, & Upadhyay, 2007). In addition, possibility of drip adoption increases with

increase in depth of bore well, higher share of fruits, vegetables, plantation crops more the

rate of adoption and socio-economic variables made and significant effect on drip technology

implementation (Regassa, Upadhyay, & Nagar, 2005). Furthermore, crop cultivation

elements, physical, socio-economical and financial variables decide the micro irrigation

implementation (Dhawan, 2000).

4.4.2 Propensity scores and average treatment estimation

Table 12 presents the distribution of propensity scores over 4 blocks namely 0.008, 0.2, 0.4,

0.6 and 0.8. In each block, certain units of controlled units (farmers practicing flood irrigated)

matched with treated units (farmers adopting drip irrigation). Propensity scores estimated

indicates the all the factors and elements considered during drip technology adoption. Thus, it

avoids the selection bias.

Table 12: Blocks/Cells for Treated and Control Groups to check balancing property

Sl No. Inferior of block of

propensity scores

Controlled

units Treated units Sub total

1 0.008 25 2 27

2 0.2 23 11 34

3 0.4 7 13 20

4 0.6 10 23 33

5 0.8 5 60 65

Grand total 70 109 179

Note: the common support option has been selected, Balancing property satisfied

In the matching, a treatment unit should be match with more than one controlled units.

However, one to one matching is preferred commonly as it is difficult find in real situation

49

(Glazerman, Levy, & Myers, 2003). The results indicate that range of controlled units

matched varies from five to 25 of each block, while it is between two and 60 among treated

units. Where in the case of total number of matched controlled units are 70 out of 76

observations with the 109 treated units. The total number of observation considered for

estimating propensity scores are 179.

Common support is the main assumption of propensity score matching i.e., certain number of

propensity scores of controlled units should be similar with the treated ones. It is difficult in

real condition but at least there must be some overlap between controlled and treated units

scores are preferable. Common support option has been selected in STATA software based

on the results obtained indicates that the balancing property of the score is satisfied. Figure 13

describes the distribution of propensity scores between controlled units (farmers following

flood irrigation = 0) and treated units (farmers adopting drip irrigation =1). Both histograms

indicate the region of overlap between farmers following drip and flood irrigation. Therefore,

the propensity scores are valid to estimate the average treatment effect of the drip technology

on groundwater use by the farmers.

Figure 13: Matching pattern between farmers practicing drip (treated) and flood

(control) irrigation in the study area.

Source: Author

Table 13 represents the average treatment effect on groundwater used by the famers for crop

cultivation. The results conclude that there is a significant difference between quantity of

water used between farmers practicing drip and flood irrigation to raise the crops. According

to radius matching, 62 of controlled units matched with 73 of treated units. The mean

difference in groundwater used is -6.715 acre-inch, in other words farmers adopting drip used

01

23

0 .5 1 0 .5 1

0 1

De

nsi

ty

Probability of positive outcomeGraphs by treatment

50

6.715 acre inch less groundwater than the farmers following conventional or flood irrigation

at 5 percent significance level. Considered kernel matching method, average difference of

groundwater used is -12.66 acre-inch. Mean difference summarised that farmers practicing

flood irrigation used 12.66 acre-inch of groundwater more than the farmers practicing drip

irrigation and it is significant at 5 percent level.

Table13: Average treatment effect based on different matching method

Matching method Matched

control

units

Matched

treated

units

ATT (Y1 –

Y0)

t-Statistic Confidence interval of

95 %

Radius 62 73 -6.715 -2.513 ** -12.724 to -0.618

Kernel 76 109 -12.666 -1.962** -39.317 to -4.461

Nearest

neighbourhood 28 109 -12.856 -1.838 * -44.424 to -5.028

Source: Author; Note: ** significance at< 5 percent; * significance at <10 percent

Where, the 76 units of controlled matched with 109 treated observations. The results of the

nearest neighbourhood type describes that average use of groundwater among treated group

(drip) is 12.856 acre inch lower than the controlled (flood) farmers at 10 percent significant

level with the matching of 28 units of controlled units with the 109 treated elements.

Finally, as per the results of radius and kernel matching the drip technology results in water

savings and it is in the way to serve its objective. Thus, there is no existence of rebound effect

or Jevons paradox in drip irrigation technology of the study area. Drip technology is in the

line of conservation of groundwater resources. Thus, the second research null hypothesis is

rejected and the alternative hypothesis that mean groundwater used in the case of drip is less

than flood irrigation. A study reported that drip and sprinkler irrigation will reduces the water

consumption under limitation of extension of area under irrigation (Berbel & Mateos, Does

investment in irrigation technology necessarily generate rebound effects? A simulation

analysis based on an agro-economic model, 2014). Another study in Spain showed that the

country saved 12 percent water from irrigation modernization (Loch & Adamson, 2015).

One more study in India also indicated that drip technology using less water than flood or

conventional irrigation system (Patil, Chandrakanth, Mahadev, & Manjunatha, 2015).

Even though there is no evidence of occurrence of Jevons or rebound effect in drip irrigation

technology. According to previous section results showed that there was no significance

difference in socio economic characteristics such as age, education, family size, land holding

and others between farmers following drip and flood irrigation. In addition, mean drilled

depth of bore well is more under drip than flood irrigation, average isolation distance

between two neighbouring bore well is less in drip against flood condition. In addition, bore

well yield is less in the case of farmers practicing drip than flood irrigation and statistically

significant. Mean number of failed drilling and repair and maintenance cost are significantly

more under drip than flood irrigation. Furthermore, intensity of well failure more in the case

of farmers following drip irrigation compared to flood ones. This illustrates that drip

51

irrigation can reduce the amount of water used for crop cultivation but is not only a sole

solution to conserve the groundwater resource. Thus, it is important to take key action in

other areas such as educating farmers regarding importance of water for future, conduct

trainings on groundwater recharge techniques such as rainwater harvesting, watershed

management and other elements. It is also need to make reach of real purpose of drip

technology i.e., it is to decrease water consumption not to increase area under irrigation or not

to gain profit to avoid occurrence of rebound effect in future. Some literature above indicated

that drip and sprinkler technology saves water only under the limitation on area under

irrigation (Berbel & Mateos, 2014). Thus, the institutional efforts are needed in this regard

without compromising food security of the country. It can be feasible to reallocate the drip

subsidy amount, considerably for drip irrigation on other hand for other groundwater

recharge and conservation programmes such as encouragement for zero tillage, rainwater

harvesting, on farm water reducing practices and other methods.

52

V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter summarises and concludes the salient findings of the study on drip

irrigation technology in hard rock areas of India and testing of Jevons paradox in Karnataka,

India.

5.1 Introduction

Micro irrigation is a noticeable innovation in the field of irrigation. Preferably for the water

stressed and heavy populated countries such as India, China and other economies. However

the achievement of micro irrigation area in India is less compare to the rest of the world

namely Israel, USA, Spain, Russia and others. However, the continuous effort to promote

technologies is under process.

Overuse of groundwater has been rising as a challenging issue to the country with respect to

water management and food security. Groundwater depletion results in initial and pre- mature

failure of bore wells, deepened drillings coupled with installation of high powered pump to

lift water and increased in irrigation cost. Well failure is an important feature of groundwater

over exploitation in a region. Well failure is occurring in many parts of India, preferably in

hard rock areas of the country such as Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and others

parts. Thus, institutional efforts are framed to address groundwater depletion in concern of

the country’s future survival as water is an important constitute for life. One important among

those is encouragement to micro-irrigation technologies namely adoption of drip and

sprinkler irrigation. Micro-irrigation technology is an innovative method of supplying water

at the root zone of plant in the form of drop by drop. This pattern of irrigation reduces evapo-

transpiration losses, conveyance losses and other type of losses. Thus, efficiency of the

method is higher than the other conventional methods of irrigation such as flood irrigation,

ridge and furrow method, check and basin and many other methods. The main agenda of

micro irrigation is ‘more crops per drop’. In India, drip and sprinkler method has wider

adoption among various methods of micro irrigation. These methods do not only reducing

water consumption or increasing water use efficiency, but also lower labour requirement,

increases productivity and increases the net returns of the crop cultivation.

However, technology adoption and resource use efficiency have been subject for debate.

Technology not always opens a way to reduce resource consumption by enhancing resource

use efficiency. In detail, increase in resource use efficiency by technology, reduces the cost of

production, which in turn migh increases demand for the resource. It will end up in

consuming more units of the resources rather than conserving the resource. This is called as

the rebound effect or Jevons paradox in economics.

Therefore, present study aimed to assess whether the drip technology adoption in the study

area reduces the groundwater used for crop cultivation or it is ending up in increasing the

resource consumption.

Research objectives of the study:

1. To estimate the probability of well failure on farms with and without drip irrigation.

53

2. To test the hypothesis for Jevons paradox in drip irrigation technology of the study area.

5.2 Major findings of the study:

Consider Overall irrigation cropping pattern, the highest share in case of plantation

crops (36.66 %) followed by cereals (32.51 %), vegetables (22.71 %), other

commercial crops (5.06 %) and pulses (3.06 %) accounts least portion. It is noticeable

that share of food crops is insignificant.

It is noticeable that the share food crops is less under irrigation.

Irrigation cropping intensity of irrigated farmer’s is 147.65 percent. However, the

irrigation intensity of farmers following drip and flood irrigation is 153.76 and 137.42

percent, respectively. Thus, annual area cultivated is more under drip than under flood

irrigation.

Average number of functional bore wells is more under drip (1.50) irrigation than

flood (1.62) irrigation.

Mean number of failed drilling under drip and flood irrigation are 2.69 and 1.82

respectively. The difference is statistically significant at 1 percent.

Average annual cost of repairs and maintenance per bore well is INR 15973.68 in the

case of drip irrigation while it is INR 13298.11 under flood irrigation.

The mean number of drilling in the sampled farmers is higher in the case of drip

irrigation (1.72) compare to flood one (1.55). While contradict findings in the

variance of drilling between drip (3.00) and flood (2.25) situation. This satisfied the

unique feature (mean> variance) of negative binomial distribution.

The probability of well failure is 0.43 and 0.31 in the case of drip and flood irrigation

respectively.

Well failure results depicted that to get 100 successful bore well farmers has to

attempt 143 drillings under drip condition against 131 attempts under flood irrigation.

In addition, the drilling without yielding water are 43 and 31 under drip and flood

irrigation.

Furthermore, for every 100 drilling in the case of drip farmers will get 57 successful

bore wells while it is 69 in the case of flood irrigation.

The research first hypothesis is rejected and alternative hypothesis that the probability

of well failure high under drip irrigation than flood irrigation is accepted.

According farmers point of view, 80.54 percent out of total respondents expressed

that decreasing quantum of rainfall is the main reason for well failure followed by

densely spaced tubewells (63.24 %), frequent cut of electricity (62.70 %), improper de

silted tanks (59.46 %), irregular filled up of irrigation tanks (55.68 %), cultivation of

water intensive crops (49.19 %), use of high powered pump (40.54 %), location of

bore well outside command area (37.30 %), drilling at point indicated by local diviner

and deviation drilling point predicted by Geologist.

No farmer aware about their self-responsibility of groundwater recharge, reduced

water wastages in public and private places, lack of interest in water conservation

structures and other self responsibilities.

54

Estimation of probit model for drip technology adoption (drip = 1, flood = 0)

indicated that loan amount and average power of pump used to lift groundwater

explained drip implementation at 1 and 5 percent level of significance.

Increase in additional unit available of loan will going to increase possibility of

having drip irrigation by 0.0012 percent at 1 percent significance level and citeris

paribus. Similarly, one horse power increase in the pump used to lift water will

increases the chances of going for drip adoption by 0.03 percent at 5 percent level of

significance and keeping all other thing constant.

Average interference distance between two neighbouring bore well and mean distance

to the nearest water source from farmer’s bore well are positively influencing on drip

technology implementation at 10 percent significance level.

Scheduled class is the base caste category, the possibility of drip adoption by other

backward classes and general category was 0.7 and 1.13 percent lower than base

category at 10 percent significance level and citeris paribus. However, no difference

in adoption between scheduled class and scheduled tribe. Where the caste reservation

is the ongoing debate subject in the country.

Type of crop, area under plantation crops, farm size, farmer’s age and education of

the farmer have no influence on drip implementation.

The propensity scores blocks are divided into five, each block has certain

observations in both control and treated groups. Thus, balancing property of the

scores satisfied.

According to radius matching, 62 controlled and 73 treated observations are matched.

Mean use of groundwater in drip irrigation is 6.715acre-inch less than flood condition.

In kernel matching, 76 farmers following flood irrigation matched with 109 drip ones.

Average consumption of groundwater for crop cultivation in drip irrigation is

12.66acre-inch less than flood situation.

As per nearest neighbour method, 28 controlled farmers matched with 109 drip ones.

Mean groundwater used for crop grown in flood irrigation is 12.856 acre-inch more

than drip condition.

Thus, the research second objective mean groundwater used for crop cultivation same

under drip and flood irrigation was rejected and accepted the alternative hypothesis.

5.3 Recommendations:

More than 50 percent of the sampled farmers are illiterate and received just up to

primary school education and belongs to age group between 35 and 50. It necessitates

to enhance farmer’s knowledge with regard to current issues, agricultural

technologies, agriculture marketing opportunities, input and output prices. It is

necessary to arrange educational programmes such as farm schools, arranging

motivational agriculture dramas during off seasons, interaction sessions with

agriculture scientists and farmers and other agricultural events.

The main agenda of groundwater irrigation is to fulfil the demand of food grain

production. However, area under food crops is not appreciable under irrigation among

the sampled farmers. Although vegetables accounts more than 20 percent. Therefore,

55

there is a need to reallocate the area to different types of crops substantially. The

policies to address sustainable cropping pattern in the region are essential.

Well failure is the major problem in the study and indicated that 43 and 31 percent of

well failure under drip and flood irrigation, respectively. It depicts that groundwater

overuse in the area. Though the farmers expressed the reasons for the well failure only

on demand side such as reduced rainfall amount, densely spaced wells, improper

electricity supply, tanks with improper de siltation and others. However, farmers fail

to recognise their responsibilities such as groundwater recharge, rainwater harvesting,

cutting of unnecessary water loss in the area and other farmers’ initiations. Thus, it is

important to create cognizance about water conservation among farmers. Designing of

group discussions, campaign, and scene plays on water crisis and water management

practices.

It is worthful to take up in depth research in the study regarding water usage for

different purposes in households, local water supply system, assessment of people

concern to water wastage, ways to figure out water conservation in the study.

Caste is playing a significant role to some extent in adoption of drip irrigation

technology. It can create inequality in the social system and evades people to go for

technology implementation by social structure. It is important to provide more

opportunities to disadvantaged group than others. But, economic and financial

condition is the better way of measure one’s social disadvantage status rather than

caste. It is important to target the right group at right amount of institutional supports.

Therefore, restructuring of Government support schemes such as educational

opportunities, credit availability, subsidy for drip, easy access to bank services by

considering income level as a base to afford in the study area.

The study proved that drip irrigation is reducing the water consumption for crop

cultivation compare to flood or conventional irrigation. In concern to future

sustainability of the technology, it is necessary to limit the area under irrigation in the

study area as the area cropping intensity under drip more than flood irrigation.

Meanwhile, it is important to taken care of food security.

Though drip irrigation is saving water in the study, area under irrigation is more for

plantation, vegetable and commercial crops than food crops. Indicated that the

farmers in the study area accepted technology as profitable instrument rather than

water conservation tool. It is essential to make reach of drip technology goal to end

users (farmers). Thus, necessary to organise extension training programmes to farmers

for reaching the drip technology main objective and reason for providing subsidies is

to conserve water not to increase farmer’s profit in the study area.

Although drip irrigation reduces water consumption but is not only enough to evade

groundwater exploitation in the study area. Thus, it is feasible to reframe policies to

encourage farmers in rainwater harvesting, water reduction practices such as zero

tillage, mulching, anti-transparents use. For example providing direct payment for the

farmers, who following certain fixed area under zero tillage or giving subsidies to

anti-transparents. Also give a target amount of water to be saved per village by

offering incentives, which motivates the water conservation of the community. It not

only increases water saving and also builds social capital in the area.

56

VI REFERENCES

Alain, A. (2004). Economics. Navarra, Spain: Causeway Press.

Alcott, B. (2015). Jevons' Paradox. Ecological Economics , 9-21.

Alferd, D. (1891, February 9). Trove . Retrieved March 30, 2017, from National Library of

Australia Web Site: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/26771520

Amarendra, P. S., & Narayanan, K. (2013, January 17). Special Research Netwrok. Retrieved

March 30, 2017, from Special Research Netwrok Web Site:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2202053

Anantha, K. H., & Raju, K. V. (2008). Groundwater Over-Exploitation, Costs and Adoption

Measures in the Central Dry Zone of Karnataka. Bangalore: Institute for Social and

Economic Change.

Austin, P. C. (2011). An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects

of Confounding in Observational Studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research , 322-424.

Babu, P. B., Mahesha, M., & Rajkumar, B. J. (2015). Utilization of Benefits from

Government Programmes by Irrigated and Rainfed Farmers in Chikkaballapura District of

Karnataka- an Comparative Analysis. International Journal of Agricultural Science and

Research , 173-182.

Balyan, S. K. (2016). Accelerating growth of Indian agriculture: Micro irrigation an efficient

solution. New Delhi: Ministery of State and Farmers Welfare.

Bassi, N., Vijayshankar, P., & Kumar, D. M. (2008). Wells and Ill-fare: Impacts of Well

Failures on Cultivators in Hard Rock Areas of Madhya Pradesh. Proceedings of the 7th

Annual Partners Meet (pp. 310-330). Hyderabad: International Water Management Institute.

Berbel, J., & Mateos, L. (2014). Does investment in irrigation technology necessarily

generate rebound effects? A simulation analysis based on an agro-economic model.

Agricultural Systems , 25-34.

Bhaduri, A., Upali, A., & Shah, T. (2014, November 14). Groundwater Irrigation Expansion

in India:An Analysis and Prognosis. Retrieved March 21, 2017, from

http://publications.iwmi.org: http://publications.iwmi.org/pdf/H039616.pdf

Bhende, M. J. (2013, August). Institute for Social and Economic Change. Retrieved March

20, 2017, from Institute for Social and Economic Change Web Site:

http://www.isec.ac.in/Agri%20Profile-Karnataka.pdf

Braun, V. J., Gulati, A., & Hazzel, P. (2005). Indian Agriculture and Rural Development:

Strategic Issues and Reform Options. Washington D.C.: Intenational Food Policy Research.

Carmen, R. (2000, October). World Resources Institute. Retrieved April 02, 2017, from

World Resources Institute Web Site:

57

http://netedu.xauat.edu.cn/jpkc/netedu/jpkc2009/szylyybh/content/wlzy/4/Will%20There%20

Be%20Enough%20Water.pdf

Ceddia, M. G., Sedlacek, S., Bardsley, N. O., & Gomez-y-Paloma, S. (2013). Sustainable

agricultural intensification or Jevon’s paradox? The role of public governance in tropical

South America. Global Environmental Change , 1052-1063.

Census of India (2011). District Census Handbook Chikkaballapura. Bangalore: Directorate

of Census Operations.

Census Population (2011). Census2011. Retrieved May 3, 2017, from census2011 Web Site:

http://www.census2011.co.in/census/district/249-chikkaballapura.html

CGWB. (2011). Central Ground Water Board. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from Central

Ground Water Board Web Site:

http://cgwb.gov.in/documents/Ground%20Water%20Year%20Book-2010-11.pdf

CGWB. (2014). Dyanamc Ground Water Resources of India;. Faridabad: Ministry of Water

Resources.

Chandrakanth, M. G. (2009). Karnataka State Water Sector Reform: Current Status,

Emerging Issues and Needed strategies. Colombo: International Water Management

Institute;.

Chandrakanth, M. G. (2015). Water Resource Economic - Sustainable Use of Water for

Irrigation in India. New Delhi: Springer.

CIA. (2017, January 12). Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved February 24, 2017, from

Central Intelligence Agency Web Site: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-

factbook/geos/in.html

CSO. (2015). National Dairy Development Board. Retrieved February 02, 2017, from

National Dairy Development Board Web Site:

http://www.nddb.org/information/stats/GDPcontrib

Cynthia, Y. L. (2013, August 13). UC Davis’ Center for Watershed Sciences . Retrieved

February 28, 2017, from California Waterblog Web Site:

https://californiawaterblog.com/2013/08/13/paradox-on-the-plains-as-water-efficiency-

increases-so-can-water-use/

Dalvia, V. B., Tiwarib, K. N., Pawadea, M. N., & Phirkea, P. S. (1999). Response surface

analysis of tomato production under microirrigation. Agricultural Water Management , 11-

19.

Das, J. R. (1999). Geographical Unevenness of India's Green Revolution. Journal of

Contemporary Asia , 167-186.

58

DES. (2011). Karnataka State Department of Agriculture. Retrieved May 4, 2017, from

Karnataka State Department of Agriculture Web Site:

http://raitamitra.kar.nic.in/landholdings.html

Desai, M. B. (1948). The Rural Economy of Gujarat. Bombay: Oxford University Press.

Dhawan, B. D. (2000). Drip Irrigation: Evaluating Returns. Economic and Political Weekly ,

3775-3780.

Directorate of Census Operations (2011). District Census Handbook 2011- Chikkaballapura.

Bangalore: Census of India.

Drija, M., & Salagean, T. (2012). Economic Efficiency of Irrigation Regime of Tomatoes and

Cucumbers Crops Cultivated in of Protected Areas. Bulletin UASVM Horticulture , 421-423.

DSAL. (1905). Digital South Asia Library. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from Digital South

Asia Library Web Site: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/statistics/1894_excel/

Dumont, A., Mayer, B., & Lopez, E. G. (2013). Is rebound effct or Jevaons Paradox a useful

conccept for better management of water resources? insights from the irrigation

modernization in Spain. World Water Week (pp. 64-76). Stockhalm: Aquatic Procedia.

Erankia, P. L., El-Shikha, B. D., Hunsaker, D. J., Bronsonb, K. F., & Landis, A. E. (2017). A

Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Flood and Drip Irrigation for Guayule Rubber

Production using Experimental Field Data. Industrial Crops and Products , 97-108.

FAO. (2012). Coping with water scarcity An action framework for agriculture and food

security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

FAO. (2007, May 24). Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrieved May 10, 2017, from

Food and Agriculture Organization Web Site:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ah810e/AH810E04.htm

FAO. (2009, October 9). Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from

Food and Agriculture Organization Web Site:

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in

_2050.pdf

Foster, D. A., & Mark, R. R. (2003). Economic growth and the rise of forest. The Quarterly

Journal of Economics , 601-637.

Foster, S., & Shah, T. (2012). Groundwater Resources and Irrigated Agriculture – making a

beneficial relation more sustainable. Stockholm, Sweden: Global Water Partnership (GWP).

Freedman, A. D., & Sekhon, S. J. (2010). Endogeneity in Probit Response Models. Advance

Access publication , 138-150.

59

Gabriel, G. V.-C. (2017). Small-Mid Sized Farmer Irrigation Adoption in the Context Public

Provision of Hydric Infrastructure In Latin America and Caribbean. Water Resource

Management , 50-62.

GGGI. (2015). Implementation Roadmap for Karnataka Micro Irrigation. Seoul, Republic of

Korea: GGGI.

Girish, M. B. (2009, April 29). The Hindu. Retrieved May 01, 2017, from The Hindu Web

Site: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/Groundwater-

exploitation-hits-borewells-in-Bidar/article14878057.ece

Glazerman, S. D., Levy, M., & Myers, D. (2003). Nonexperimental versus experimental

estimates of earnings impacts. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science , 63-93.

Gleick, P. H. (2004). The World's Water 2004-05. Washington. D.C.: Island press.

GOI. (2015). Karnataka at a glance. New Delhi: Directarate of Economics and Statistics.

GOI. (2015, August). Pradhan Manthri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana. Retrieved February 26,

2017, from Pradhan Manthri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana Web Site:

http://pmksy.gov.in/microirrigation/Archive/August2015.pdf

GOI. (1882, February 17). Punjab Judicial Academy. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from Punjab

Judicial Academy Web Site:

http://www.pja.gov.pk/system/files/Easments%20Act%201882.pdf

GOI. (2001). Report of the Working Group on Minor Irrigation for formulation of the Tenth

Five Year Plan (2002-2007) Proposals. New Delhi: Ministry of Water Resources.

GOK. (2014). Area irrigated by various sources in Karnataka. Bangalore: Planning,

Programme Monitoring and Statistics Department.

GOK. (2016). Chikkaballapura District at a glance 2015-16. Chikkaballapura: District

Statistical officer.

GOK. (2014). Governement of India Finance Department. Retrieved February 21, 2017, from

Finance Department, Government of KarnatakaWeb Site:

http://finance.kar.nic.in/bud2014/bseng14.pdf. 2014.

Gomez, M. C., & Dinisio, P. B. (2015). Simple myths and basic maths about greening

irrigation. Water Resource Management , 4035-4044.

Goyal, R. M. (2015). Management, Performance, and Applications of Micro Irrigation

Systems. Oakville: Apple Academic Press.

Gulati, A., Meinzen-Dick, R., & Raju, K. V. (1999). From Top Down to Bottoms up:

Institutional Reforms in Indian canal irrigation. Delhi: Institute of Economic growth.

60

Guy, J., Jack, K., Abdelouahid, C., Ahmed, L., & El Houssine, E. M. (2015). The Water-

Food-Energy-Climate Nexus in Global Drylands: the Epitome of Twenty-First Century

Development? International Journal of Water Resources Development , 393-406.

GWF. (2017). Groundwater Organization. Retrieved March 22, 2017, from Groundwater

Organization Web Site: http://www.groundwater.org/get-informed/groundwater/overuse.html

Hanley, N., M. G., Swales, J. K., & Turner, K. (2009). Do Increase in Energy Efficiency

Improves Environmental Quality and Sustainability? Ecological Economics , 692-709.

IBEF. (2010, November). Indian Brand Equity Foundation. Retrieved April 22, 2017, from

Indian Brand Equity Foundation Web Site:

https://www.ibef.org/download/Karnataka_190111.pdf

ICAR. (2015). Indian Agricultural Research Institute. Retrieved April 21, 2017, from Indian

Agricultural Research Institute Web Site:

http://iari.res.in/?option=com_content&view=article&id=200&Itemid=577

Igor, S. Z., & Lorne, G. E. (2004). Groundwater Resource of the World and their Resource

Use. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

IMF. (2016, October). International Monetary Fund. Retrieved February 24, 2017, from

International Monetary Fund Web Site:

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=54&pr.y=8&s

y=2016&ey=2020&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=534&s=PPPSH&grp=0&

a=

IWMI. (2009). Startegic analyses of the Nationa Riverl Linking Project (NRLP) of India.

Second National level Workshop on Strategic Issues in Indian Agriculture (p. 367). Colombo:

Intenational Water Managemnet Institute.

Jevons, W. S. (1865). Of the economy of fuel [excerpt from The Coal Question].

Organization & Environment , 99-104.

Kallapur, B. K. (2012). The Chickballapur District Ground Water Information Booklet.

Bangalore: Central Ground Water Board.

KINSPARC (2009, October). India Water Partnership. Retrieved March 12, 2017, from

India Water Partnership Web Site: http://www.cwp-

india.org/Reports/pdf/Water%20Saving%20Technologies%20in%20Eastern%20India.doc.pd

f

Kirit, S. P. (2013). India’s Water Crisis: Causes and Cures. Seattle: The National Bureau of

Asian Research for the Senate India Caucus.

Kumar, M. D. (2007). Groundwater Management in India: Physical, Institutional and Policy

Alternatives. Delhi: Sage Publications.

61

Kumar, M. D., Hugh, T., Sharma, R. B., Upali, A. A., & Singh, O. P. (2008). Reseach Gate.

Retrieved April 15, 2017, from Reseach Gate Web Site:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228894953_Water_Saving_and_Yield_Enhancing_

Micro_Irrigation_Technologies_in_India_When_and_where_can_they_become_best_bet_tec

hnologies

Kumar, R., Singh, R. D., & Sharma, K. D. (2005, September 10). Water resources of India.

Current Science , pp. 794-811.

Kuscu, H., Cetin, B., & Ahmet, T. (2009). ield and Economic Return of Drip‐irrigated

Vegetable Production in Turkey. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science ,

51-59.

Lambin, E. F., & Meyfroidt, P. (2011). Global land use change, economic globalization and

the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 3465-3472.

Loch, A., & Adamson, D. (2015). Drought and the rebound effect: a Murray–Darling Basin

example. Natural Hazards , 1429–1449.

Luthra, S., & Kundu, A. (2013, August 13). India’s Water Crisis: Causes and Cures.

Retrieved January 24, 2017, from http://www.nbr.org:

http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=356

Mehbubul, H. L. (2010). Rethinking Reservation in Higher Education in India. Indian Law

Institute Law Review , 25-53.

Ministry and Farmers Welfare (2014). Indiastat. Retrieved March 21, 2017, from Indiastat

Web Site:

http://www.indiastat.com/table/agriculture/2/irrigationbysource19502013/449345/10539/data

.aspx

Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (2013). District Level Household and Facility survey

-4 . Mumbai: International institute for population sciences .

Ministry of Water Resources (2012). Groundwater Information Booklet - Chikkaballapura

district, Karnataka. Bangalore: Central Ground Water Board.

Ministry of Water Resource (2016). Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana. Retrieved

March 21, 2017, from Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana Web Site:

http://pmksy.gov.in/AboutPMKSY.aspx

Nagaraj, N., Chandrakanth, M., & Gurumurthy. (1994). Borewell Failure in Drought-Prone

Areas of Southern India: A Case Study. Indian Journal of Agriculture Economics , 106-109.

Nagaraj, N., Marshal, W. F., & Sampath, R. K. (1999, July 2). Use., A Comparative Study of

Groundwater Institutions in the Western United States and Peninsular India for Sustainable

and Equitable Resource. Economic and Political Weekly , pp. 93-104.

62

Nagaraj, N., & Chandrakanth, M. G. (1997). Intra- and Inter-Generational Equity Effects of

Irrigation Well Failures: Farmers in Hard Rock Areas of India. Economic and Political

Weekly , 41-44.

Nair, S. (2017, April 18). Indian Express. Retrieved May 4, 2017, from Indian Express Web

Site: http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/bjps-obc-pitch-how-stronger-new-backward-

classes-panel-will-function-4617203/

Namara, R. E., Nagar, R. K., & Upadhyay, B. (2007). Economics, adoption determinants, and

impacts of micro-irrigation technologies: empirical results from India. Irrigation Science ,

283-297.

Narayanamoorthy, A. (2004). Impact Assessment of Drip Irrigation in India: The Case of

Sugarcane. Development Policy Review , 443-462.

Narayanmoorthy, A. (2008). Orebro University Business School. Retrieved 02 2017, 22, from

Econpapers Web site: http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/iwtconppr/h042297.htm

Narayanmoorthy, A. (2016). Indian Water Policy at the Crossroads: Resources, Technology

and Reforms. New Delhi: Springer International Publishing.

Naz, F., Saravanan, V., & Subramanian. (2010). Water Management across Space and Time

in India. Bonn: Department of Political and Cultural Change, University of Bonn.

Palanisami, K., Vidhyavathi, A., & Ranganathan, C. R. (2008). Wells for Welfare or Illfare?

Cost of Groundwater Depletion in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Water Policy , 391-407.

Patil, K. K., Chandrakanth, M. G., Mahadev, G. B., & Manjunatha, A. (2015, July 28).

AgEcon Search. Retrieved April 02, 2017, from AgEcon Search Research in Agriculture and

Applied Economics Web Site:

http://ageconsearch.tind.io/record/200417/files/Kiran%20Patil-paper%20_1_.pdf

Parisaramahiti.(2017, March 1). Government of Karnataka. Retrieved April 23, 2017, from

Karnataka State Official Groundwater Web Site:

http://www.karnataka.gov.in/Parisaramahiti/Pages/Groundwater.aspx

Pfeiffer, L., & Cynthia, L. C. (2013, December 3). Department of Environmental Science and

Policy. Retrieved 11 27, 2016, from University of California Web Site:

http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/Lin/PfeifferLin_irrigationtechnology_paper.pdf

Planning Comission (2017, March 21). Statistics Times. Retrieved April 01, 2017, from

Statistic Times Web Site: http://statisticstimes.com/economy/sect-contribution-of-

india.phporwise-gdp

Polimeni, M. J., Raluca, & Polimeni, I. (2006). Jevons Paradox and myths of technological

liberation. Ecological Complexity , 344-353.

63

Postel, S. (2015, February 5). Water currents insight into the fresh water world. Retrieved

April 10, 2017, from http://voices.nationalgeographic.com:

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2015/02/03/indias-food-security-threatened-by-

groundwater-depletion/

RBI. (2016, September 16). RBI . Retrieved April 10, 2017, from RBI Web Site:

https://rbi.org.in/scripts/PublicationsView.aspx?Id=17295

Reddy, D. V., & Gunasekar, A. (2013). Chronic Kidney Disease in two Coastal Districts of

Andhra Pradesh, India: Role of Drinking Water. Environmental Geochemistry and Health ,

439-454.

Reddy, P. R. (2016). Is Micro Irrigation Viable in Helping Small and Marginal Farmers? -

Need for an in depth Scientific Study. Journal of Indian Geographics Union , 516-519.

Regassa, E. N., Upadhyay, B., & Nagar, R. K. (2005). Adoption and Impacts of

Microirrigation Technologies Empirical Results from Selected Localities of Maharashtra and

Gujarat States of India. Colombo: International Water Management Institute.

Rudela, K. T., Laura, S., Uriartec, B. L., Turner, I. I., Ruth, D., Deborah, L., et al. (2009).

Agricultural intensification and changes in cultivated areas, 1970–2005. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 20675–20680.

Saeijs, H. F., & Van Berkel, M. (1995). Global Water Crisis, the Major Issue of the 21st

Century. European Water Pollution Control , 26-40.

Saksena, R. S. (1995). Micro irrigation in India – Achievement and Perspective. the Fifth

International Micro Irrigation Congress (pp. 353-358). Orlando, Florida: F. J. R. Lamm (ed).

SANDRP. (2016, January 1). South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People. Retrieved

March 26, 2017, from South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People Web Site:

https://sandrp.wordpress.com/2016/01/01/ground-water-crisis-deepened-in-india-in-2015/

Seckler, D., Baker, R., & Amarasinghe, U. (1999). Water Scarcity in the Twenty-First

Century. International Journal of Water Resources Development , 29-42.

Sekhri, S. (2011, March). University of Virginia. Retrieved May 6, 2017, from University of

Virginia: http://people.virginia.edu/~ss5mj/Peereffects_April12_2011.pdf

Shah, T. (2007). Past, Present and the Future of Canal Irrigation in India. Colombo:

International Water Management Institute.

Shivaraj, S. (2014, July 1). The Hindu. Retrieved April 12, 2017, from The Hindu Web Site:

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/groundwater-is-depleting-in-90-taluks-in-

karnataka/article6163912.ece

64

Sinead, L. (2014, June 04). Future Directions Organization. Retrieved March 24, 2017, from

Future Directions Organization Web Site:

http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/india-s-food-and-water-security/

Singh, G. (2006). Water Management - Vision for Sustainable Agriculture. Karnal: Central

Soil Salinity Research Institute.

Singh, P. (2015, May 1). Live Mint. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from Live Mint Web Site:

http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/v4nXpXNxSJtxQNlEbvtJFL/Indias-groundwater-

crisis.html

Singh, R. B. (2000). Environmental Consequences of Agricultural Development: a Case

Study from the Green Revolution State of Haryana, India. Agriculture, Ecosystems &

Environment , 97-103.

Sivanappan, R. K. (1994). Prospects of Micro-Irrigation in India. Irrigation and Drainage

Systems , 49-58.

Sreeramaiah, H., & Kamatar, M. (2013). Socio Economic Profile of Millet Growers in

Karnataka. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences , 333-336.

State Agriculture Department (2013). State Agiculture Profile: Karnataka. Bangalore:

Karnataka State Agriculture Department.

Suhag, R. (2016). Overview of Ground Water in India. New Delhi: PRS Legislative

Research.

Sundarajan, K., Patle, A., Trishikhi, R., & Purohit, C. (2017, April 22). Research gate.

Retrieved March 19, 2017, from Research gate Web Site:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242177479_Groundwater_Exploitation_in_India_E

nvironmental_Impacts_and_Limits_to_Further_Exploitation_for_Irrigation

Tainter, A. J. (2011). Energy, complexity, and sustainability: A historical perspective.

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions , 89-95.

UASB. (2014). University of Agricultural Sciences Bangalore. Retrieved April 15, 2017,

from University of Agricultural Sciences Bangalore Web Site: http://e-

krishiuasb.karnataka.gov.in/ItemDetails.aspx?DepID=14&cropID=0&SubDepID=28#

Upali, A. A., Shah, T., Hugh, T., & Anand, B. K. (2007). Digital Library of the Commons.

Retrieved March 25, 2017, from Indiana University Web Site:

http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/4012/RR123.pdf?sequence=1

Vishwa, M. (2014, July 27). Times of India. Retrieved April 05, 2017, from Indian Times

Web Site: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Depleting-ground-water-levels-cause-of-

worry/articleshow/39079749.cms

65

Viswanathan, P. K., Kumar, M. D., & Narayanamoorthy, A. (2016). Micro Irrigation Systems

in India: Emergence, Status and Impacts. Singapore: Springer.

Walck, C. (2007). Hand Book on Statistical Distributions for Experimentalists. Stockholm:

University of Stockholm.

Water Resources Department (2002). Water Resoource Department, Government of

Karnataka . Retrieved April 20, 2017, from Water Resoource Department, Government of

Karnataka Web Site: http://waterresources.kar.nic.in/state_water_policy-2002.htm

World Bank (2012, March 6). World Bank. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from World Bank Web

Site: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/03/06/india-groundwater-critical-

diminishing

World Bank (2016). Arable land (hectares per person). Retrieved February 24, 2017, from

http://data.worldbank.org: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL.HA.PC

World Bank (2017, March 29). World Bank Organization. Retrieved May 23, 2017, from

World Bank Organization Web Site: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-

release/2017/05/29/india-economic-fundamentals-remain-strong-investment-pick-up-needed-

sustained-growth-says-new-world-bank-report

WRI. (2016, June). Baseline water stress (withdrawals/available supply). Retrieved 12 24,

2016, from World Resources Institute Web Site:

http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/Baseline_Water_Stress_-_China.pdf

Wyrwoll, P. (2012, July 30). Global Water Forum Organization. Retrieved March 24, 2017,

from Global Water Forum Organization Web Site:

http://www.globalwaterforum.org/2012/07/30/indias-groundwater-crisis/

Yorka, R., & McGeeb, J. A. (2015). Understanding the Jevons paradox. Environmental

Sociology , 1-11.

Young, K. J., Charles, A. S., Hall, G. L., & Lopez, L. (1998). Resource Use Rates and

Efficiency as Indicators of Regional Sustainability: An Examination of Five Countries.

Netherlands: Springer.

66

Appendices

A.1 Drip and flood irrigation methods

A.1a Drip irrigation method

Source: Author

67

A.1b Flood irrigation method

Source: Author

68

A.2: Questionnaire used for the research data collection

Questionnaire

Information sought for MSc. research in Rural Development by Rashmi.K.S. Faculty of

Bio-Science Engineering, University of Ghent, Belgium.

Title: “DRIP IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY IN HARD ROCK FARMING AREAS.

TESTING JEVONS PARADOX IN KARNATAKA, INDIA.”

1. Name of the farmer: Date of data collection: - 02-2017

Address:

Mobile No:

Education:

1a. Is major part of your farm income shared from irrigated land – Yes / No

From how many years you are using drip/ flood irrigation………

2. Family details: Type of family: Nuclear / Joint

Household is a group of people who live together and take food from the same pot.

A household member is a person who lives in the household for at least six month and at least

three days in each week of those months.

B1 Household

members

No. 1 2 3 4 5

A. Male adults

(16 and above)

Relation to

respondent

Main

occupation

Education

B Female adults

(16 and above)

Relation to

respondent

Main

occupation

Education

C Girls under 16 Relation to

respondent

69

Schooling

D Boys under 16 Relation to

respondent

Schooling

E Number of

respondent’s

children outside

the household:

Sons

Daughters

Codes for occupation Crop farming on your farm-1

Dairy production -2

Other agriculture work on your farm-3

Self-employment (shop, auto)-4

House wife-5

Wages and salary employment (including private, government,

agricultural labor) (specify)-6

Seasonal employment and daily wages-7

Not working-8

B2 Who is the head of

household?

Respondent -1, Husband-2, Other male (specify)-3, Other female

(specify)-4

Particular Main Occupation Income (Rs.)

B3 What was your main

occupation in the last 12

months?

Main occupation means that

you have spent most of your

time doing this activity.

Crop farming on your farm-1

Dairy production-2

Other agriculture work on your farm-3

Self-employment (shop, auto)- 4

House wife-5

Wages and salary employment (including private,

government, agricultural labor) (specify)-6

Seasonal employment and daily wages-7

70

Not working-8

What is your subsidiary

occupation

Crop farming on your farm-1

Dairy production-2

Other agriculture work on your farm-3

Self-employment (shop, auto)-4

House wife-5

Wages and salary employment (including private,

government, agricultural labor) (specify)-6

Seasonal employment and daily wages-7

Not working-8

2b. Major crop: plantation/ field crop

If plantation crop, age of the orchard……… year

3. Credit details of the farmers

Credit type Amount (Rs.) Duration

of loan

(years)

Interest

(%)

Credit Institution Distance to

Institution

from Village

(km)

3. ASSET

A. Land Holdings

Sl.

No. Particulars Irrigation land Dry land

Irrigation Source (tank /

well)

1. Owned land (in acres)

2. Leased in land (in acres)

3. Leased out land (in acres)

4. Land value / acre (in rupees)

5. No. of fragments

71

A1. Crop grown details during 2015-16

Sl.

No. Crop

If plantation

crop, age of

the plantation

(Year)

Irrigation land

(acres) (A)

Rainfed land

(acres)

(B)

Irrigation

method

(Flow/

drip)

Cost of

cultivation of

A (Rs. Per

area )

Income

from A

(Rs. Per

area)

Cost of

cultivation of

B (Rs. Per

area )

Income from

B (Rs. Per

area)

Distance

from Home

(km)

Kharif

1.

2.

3.

4.

Rabi

1.

2.

3.

4.

Summer

1.

2.

3.

4.

72

A2. Irrigated area details according to 2015-16:

Sl. No. Particulars In acres Income (Rs. Per total

area)

1. Total area cropped per year

2. Drip/flow irrigated area per season

3. Flow irrigated area per season

4. Drip irrigated area per year

5. Flood irrigated area per year

6. irrigated area per year before drip

irrigation

7. irrigated area per season before drip

irrigation

B. Farm Machinery, Implements

Sl. No. Name of the machinery No. Year of

Purchase

Book value

(Rs.)

Annual Income from hiring-

out machinery (Rs.)

1 Tractor (……. hp) with

accessories

2 Power tiller (……. hp)

with accessories

3 Any other machinery /

equipments

4 Bullock Cart

C. Livestock

Sl.

No. Particulars No.

Milk yield

from milch

animals

Income from sale of milk/

poultry/sheep/pigs / hire charges received

from draught animals per year

1 Draught animals

2

Milch animals

a. Local cow

b. Crossbred cow

c. She buffalo

73

3 Calves and Heifers

(below 1 year)

4 Sheep

5 Goats

6 Pigs

7 Poultry

4. Inventory-identification, reasons for functioning / non-functioning of bore wells

on the farm.

4a. Number of bore wells of the farmers

4b. Details about functional bore wells

Bore well

Location

and Identity in

the farm

Interference distance

from neighbour bore

well (m)

Distance from

water source

(pond, tank) (m)

Present Age

of the bore

well (Year)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

NOTE: For Identification write in farmers’ own description like ‘Raste Bhavi’; ‘Thotada

Bhavi’; ‘Mane bore’

74

5. Details of functional bore wells owned

Particulars Well No.1

Working /failed

Well No.2

Working /failed

Well No.3

Working /failed

Magnit

ude Investment Magnitude Investment Magnitude Investment

1.Year of drilling/digging

2. Drilling depth (ft)

3a. Diameter of well (inches)

3b. Dimension of dug well *

4. Casing Length (ft)

5. Length of pipes (delivery)

6. Pump HP / stages ex: 5/7

7. Pump placement depth (ft)

8. Pump house

9. Electrical installation cost

10. Other costs (specify)

11. H20 Storage structure (1)*

12. H20 Storage structure (2) *

Yield of the well

13. Year of construction

14. Drip irrigation area in

acres

Crop/s cultivated in drip

Particulars Mag. Invsmt (Rs.) Mag. Invsmt (Rs.) Mag. Invsmt (Rs.)

No. of pipes

Length of drip pipes in feet

75

Drippers at every ___ foot (every

1 or 1.5 feet etc)

No. of drips or holes per pipe

15. No. of emitters /no. of

drippers

No. of liters dripped per hour

(estimate this)

16. Year installed

17. Subsidy received

*Dimension: Length X Breadth X Depth; Groundwater quality: Good / Average / Poor

Is well failure common in the region? Yes / no

If yes, Reasons for well failure in the region:

1. Densely spaced Wells;

2. Initial failure;

3. Water intensive crops – name the crop;

4. Frequent power cuts/load shedding;

5. Decreasing number of rainy days

6. Ill-distributed rainfall;

7. Decreasing quantum of rainfall;

8. Tanks not desilted-poor Groundwater recharge;

10. Use of high HP pumps than needed;

11. Did not drill at the point shown by local diviner

12. Did not drill at the point shown by Geologist

13. Well is located outside command area of Irrigation tank;

14. Irrigation tanks are not regularly filled up;

15. Irrigation well is close to successful public drinking water well;

16. Siltation in bore well;

17. Any other specify

76

6. How wells are financed

Particulars Well no _____ Well no _____ Well no _____

Qty Funds(Rs.) Qty Funds (Rs.) Qty Funds (Rs.)

1. By sale of land

2. Sale of jewels (grams)

3. Sale of livestock (number)

4. From Dairy/ Poultry

5. Sale of trees (number)

6. Sale of Perennials

7. Savings from farm net returns

8. Relatives and friends

9. Borrowing from Banks / Cooperatives

10. Outstanding debt from well/s & IP set/s

7. How drip irrigation is financed

Particulars Land area ….. (acres)

Land area …..

(acres)

Land area …..

(acres)

Qty Funds (Rs.) Qty Funds (Rs.) Qty Funds (Rs.)

1. By government assistance

2. Own Finance

a. Savings

b. Returns from previous crop sale

c. Credit and interest rate

8. Crop wise Costs and returns from crop enterprises on the farm for the year 2015-16

Crop: Field or plantation

Season_____Crop______

Var___ Area______

Season_____Crop______

Var___ Area______

Season_____Crop______

Var___ Area______

77

I. If Flow irrigation

1.Frequency of irrigation

(once in)

2.Hours to irrigate this area

3. Hours of irrigation per time

4. Duration of irrigation (e.g.

Days/weeks/months)

Crop: Field or plantation

Season_____Crop______

Var___ Area______

Season_____Crop______

Var___ Area______

Season_____Crop______

Var ___ Area______

Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value

II. If Drip Irrigation

1.No.of emitters in area

2. Discharge per emitter in

liters per hour

3. No. of hours of drip for

each irrigation

4. Frequency of drip irrigation

(once in)

If sprinkler irrigation add….as

above

5. Duration of irrigation (e.g.

Days/weeks/months)

1. man days of labor

2. woman days of labour

3.Bullock labour days

3.Machine hours

4.Seeds / planting material

5.Manure (cart loads)

6.Fertilizer type (Kg)

a)

b)

c)

7.PPCs: Liquid

78

8. PPCs Dust

9. Transport costs

Packing costs

Marketing costs

10. Main product (Qtl)

11. Price of main product

12. By product (Qtl)

13. Price of By product

9. Agriculture training

Training type Duration of Training

(days)

Place of training Sponsored institute

10. Agriculture Market access

Product sold Market accessing Distance from your

village (km)

Commission per….

79

A.3: Data collection photos

Photo 1

Source: Author

Photo 2

Source: Author

80

Photo 3

Source: Author

Photo 4

Source: Author

81

A.4: Correlation of Instrumental variables with loan amount borrowed by the famer

from bank/s

Particular

Loan amount

borrowed by farmer

from bank

Total distance to loan

institution from

farmer’s village

Total distance to

product market from

farmers village

Loan amount

borrowed by farmer

from bank

1.00 0.56 0.43

Total distance to loan

institution from

farmer’s village

0.56 1.00 0.03

Total distance to

product market from

farmer’s village

0.43 0.03 1.00

Source: Author