Abstract ▼

□ Background of Research
The need to recognize agricultural water as economic goods has increased, and the importance of agricultural water demand management has been emphasized due to changes in internal and external conditions for agricultural water use and management. There exist no explicit a

□ Background of Research
The need to recognize agricultural water as economic goods has increased, and the importance of agricultural water demand management has been emphasized due to changes in internal and external conditions for agricultural water use and management. There exist no explicit agricultural water markets in Korea, and farmers are not actually charged with the agricultural water use or management costs, so it is impossible to estimate the values of farmers and non-farmers about the amount of agricultural water use.

In addition, it is difficult to accurately measure and monitor the actual amount of agricultural water use including surface water and underground water, which makes the existing agricultural water supply and demand analyses often fail to reflect the socio-economic view by focusing more on the engineering aspects.

Existing agricultural water management has been mainly focused on the supply side to increase the supplied water quantity. However, the facts that the internal water use pattern in the agricultural sector has changed due to technological development and crop conversion and the external water demand has increased in the non-agricultural sector imply the necessity of demand management of the agricultural water use and allocation.

□ Purpose of Research
This study analyzes and suggests policy measures for effective water management of the demand side including water management and water re-allocation to deal with the water shortage, which is defined in terms of economic inefficiency, when it is possible to obtain Pareto improvement.

□ Method and Contents of Research
Limitations on the agricultural water use and management are analyzed by reviewing the previous studies and literature. In addition, theories and methodologies related to the estimation of the farmers' value on the agricultural water use amount, the empirical case studies, and useful agricultural water policy tools dealing with the water shortage were summarized by literature review.

Surveys of farmers, agricultural water management agents, and experts were conducted through interview, telephone survey, and online survey, respectively. The farmers' willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept(WTA) were estimated by the choice experiment method (CE). In addition, we discussed the contents, scope, and flow of this research with the experts (the research advisors of this study, the staffs of the Korea Rural Community Corporation (KRCC), etc.) by holding personal meetings.

Different from the previous studies mainly focusing on the paddy field water use, we tried to cover the water use demand characteristics about both paddy and dry fields, as well as surface water use and underground water use. Furthermore, this study advanced the scope of agricultural water research by quantitatively analysing the farmers’ WTP and WTA.

□ Water Shortage and Necessity for Demand Management
Agricultural water use demand is determined by various factors such as soil, climate, crop mix, farming practices, physical and chemical characteristics of farmland, production season, etc, and the demand fluctuates with the amount of precipitation at the time. Also, existence of seasonality and return flow, and supplying the multifunctionality are the unique characteristics of the agricultural water. Note that the actual amount of agricultural water withdrawal can be different from the theoretically necessary water quantity.

The current problem of the supply-side management of agricultural water in Korea is closely related to the inefficient distribution and use of the agricultural water than to the lack of available water. In particular, unlimited use of the agricultural water may cause the tragedy of commons. Thus, it gets more important to use the demand-side agricultural water management to solve the water shortage problem by approaching it to increase social efficiency, not to stabilize the farmers’ income.

□ Agricultural Water Use Behavior and Demand Characteristics
Overall farmers' satisfaction with the current agricultural water supply and management is high. It is observed that the farmers in all agricultural water management areas, which are categorized by management agents(KRCC, local government, and farmer himself/herself), input their labor for agricultural water management although the management fee is mainly not paid in the KRCC management area (92.7% of the no-cost response). The fee is partially paid in the local government management area (54.8% of the no-cost response), and most farmers pay the fee in their own management area (6.1% of the no-cost response). In contrast, experts express their opinion that it is necessary to improve the current agricultural water management.

Considering only the highest response of farmers, a majority of the farmers consider the KRCC as the owner and manager of the agricultural surface water and surface water infrastructure. Also, most farmers think that they have to own and manage the underground water and relevant facilities.

With regard to the perception of opportunity cost of agricultural water use, most farmers respond that there is no impact on other agricultural and non-agricultural water users, and there exists impact on the other agricultural water users in the same local area. This implies that a part of the farmers recognize the opportunity cost through their own experiences. The majority opinions of the agricultural water managers in the field and experts are no existing opportunity costs and opportunity costs occurred to the other agricultural and non-agricultural water users, respectively.

28% of the farmers answer that they did not put any efforts to save agricultural water use even in the case of drought, and 90.6% of the farmers respond that they do not put any efforts to save agricultural water use in general. In addition, most of the experienced water conflict of the farmers has occurred with their neighbors and farmers in the same local area (80%).

□ Awareness of Farmers, Management Agents, and Experts on Agricultural Water Use Condition Change and Demand Management
Farmers were relatively reluctant to pay for agricultural water management. Most farmers and management agents (KRCC and local government) are not aware of the discussion about the agricultural water use right conversion to the permission system, and the rejection rate about the conversion is relatively high compared to the expert group.

In terms of the effective agricultural water use saving methods by individuals, the farmers choose ‘introduction of water saving practices’ and‘installation of water saving facilities’ most, the management agents choose‘installation of water saving facilities’ and ‘taking education about water saving’ most, and the experts choose ‘taking education about water saving’ most. As the effective agricultural water use saving methods by community, all groups choose ‘voluntary arrangement of timing to withdraw and drain water in the community’ most.

For utilizing the market mechanism, the farmers prefer ‘compensation for water saving’ to the others, while the management agents and experts prefer‘charge of water use fee’ most. More than half of the farmer respondents positively react to transferring water rights or the amount of watersaved, and also the approval rate is higher when there exist reward or compensation and when their farmland does not suffer from drought.

Furthermore, all groups go for the cross-compliance program, so the cross-compliance program is considered as the positive political tool in respect of support in the field and theoretical effectiveness.

□ Farmers’ WTP and WTA for Agricultural Water
The following WTP is estimated (based on the estimated coefficient):
- Paddy field, 1% increase of available water amount: 49 KRW/3.3m²(Pyeong)/year;
- Paddy field, 1km reduction from residence: 281 KRW/3.3m²/year;
- Dry field, 1% increase of available water amount: 33 KRW/3.3m²; and
- Dry field, 1km reduction from residence: 108 KRW/3.3m²/year.

The following WTA is estimated (based on the estimated coefficient):
- 1% increase in the water amount saved: 7 KRW/3.3m²;
- Meeting water demand of neighboring farmers: 257 KRW/3.3m²; and
- Meeting water demand of both farmers and non-farmers in the region: 104 KRW/3.3m².

□ Water Shortage Management
Solving the lack of knowledge and information, and improving the understanding about the complexity and diversity of agricultural water resource management issues are the most important priorities of the agricultural water demand management in Korea. After building knowledge and information and raising awareness, discussions on reforming the institutional and property rights will be possible. This has to be discussed together with the on-going issues about the national unification of water management systems and establishment of “Water Basic Law.”

In the long run, this legislation and institutional reform will derive the specific political tools to help the farmers not only to recognize water scarcity and opportunity costs of their water use but also to internalize the social cost in their decision-making. These political tools include establishment of an agricultural water trade system, introduction of the water market, charges and fees for using agricultural water, compensation for water saving, and others.

In Korea, utilizing ‘market mechanism’ cannot be successful without applying the ‘educational mechanism.’ Also, the political tools targeting ‘community’ rather than individual farmers can complement these two mechanisms, and it is necessary to use the ‘community’ targeted policies in the context of the broader agricultural environment issues.

( 출처: ABSTRACT 9p )

목차 Contents

• 표지 ... 1
• 머 리 말 ... 2
• 요 약 ... 4
• ABSTRACT ... 9
• 목차 ... 14
• 표목차 ... 16
• 그림목차 ... 20
• 제1장 서 론 ... 22
• 1. 연구의 필요성 및 목적 ... 22
• 2. 선행연구 검토 및 차별성 ... 27
• 3. 연구내용 ... 34
• 4. 연구범위와 방법 ... 35
• 제2장 물부족과 농업용수 수요관리의 필요성 ... 40
• 1. 농업용수 특성 및 이용 현황 ... 40
• 2. 농업용수 관련 제도 및 관리 현황 ... 45
• 3. 농업용수 공급 여건 변화와 물부족 ... 57
• 4. 농업용수 수요관리의 중요성 ... 65
• 제3장 농업용수 이용 행태와 수요 특성 ... 74
• 1. 농업용수 수요자, 관리주체, 전문가 조사 개요 ... 74
• 2. 농업용수 관리에 대한 만족도 ... 83
• 3. 농업용수·수리권·수리시설의 소유 및 관리주체에 대한 인식 ... 93
• 4. 농업용수 이용의 기회비용 인식 ... 99
• 5. 가뭄 및 물갈등에 대한 농업인 사례 분석 ... 103
• 제4장 농업용수 환경변화 및 수요관리에 대한 농업인·관리주체·전문가 인식 ... 110
• 1. 농업인의 농업용수 관리 참여 ... 110
• 2. 허가수리권체제 전환과 준비 ... 113
• 3. 농업용수 이용의 효율화 방안 ... 115
• 4. 물부족에 대한 수리권 양도·농업용수절감량 이전 ... 118
• 5. 상호준수프로그램 도입 ... 124
• 제5장 농업용수에 대한 농업인의 가치 ... 126
• 1. 선택실험법 적용의 이점 ... 126
• 2. 선택실험법 설계 및 결과 분석 ... 127
• 3. 농업인 조사 결과와의 비교 및 시사점 ... 137
• 제6장 물부족 대응을 위한 물이용 효율화 방안 ... 140
• 1. 물이용 효율화에 대한 정책 방향 ... 141
• 2. 교육 기제 활용 방안 ... 151
• 3. 시장 기제 활용 ... 156
• 4. 공동체 대상 방안 ... 164
• 제7장 요약 및 결론 ... 170
• 부 록 ... 176
• 1. 선택실험법(농업인) ... 176
• 2. 농업용수에 관한 설문조사(농업인) ... 196
• 3. 농업용수에 관한 설문조사(관리주체) ... 208
• 4. 농업용수에 관한 설문조사(전문가) ... 214
• 참고문헌 ... 222
• 끝페이지 ... 227