4.6 Article

How Much Does Water Management Cost? The Case of the Water Market in the Nuble River of South-Central Chile

Journal

WATER
Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w13030258

Keywords

transaction costs; imperfect market; water administration; water market; proportional water distribution

Funding

  1. [ANID/FONDAP/15130015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study analyzed the inefficiencies in the Nuble River water market in Chile, finding that incomplete information, poor flexibility of the system, and high transaction costs contributed to the issues. The inefficiencies in the water market result in an estimated annual net benefit loss of approximately $7.6 million, with even greater economic losses as water flow decreases.
Economic and population growth has increased the demand for freshwater worldwide, generating pressure on the environment and creating conflicts among users. Water markets have emerged as a solution for managing this resource, and Chile has been a pioneer in implementing this approach. However, most Chilean water markets are inefficient due to incomplete information, the poor flexibility of the water distribution system, and high transaction costs. This study analyzes the Nuble River water market and estimates the economic and social costs of its inefficiencies through a methodology based on the marginal profitability of water, which simulates the operation of a perfect market for the Nuble River irrigation system. Net benefit losses from market inefficiencies were estimated at 7.6 million dollars annually, which is equivalent to a 25% increase in the net returns of the current river water distribution strategy. Losses of economic benefits are even greater as the availability of water flow decreases. This is important considering that in the last decade the water flows of the Nuble River have decreased by more than 30% compared to their historical average.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available