The impacts of irrigation: A review of published evidence

Mark Giordano, Regassa Namara, and Elisabeth Bassini

Page 1 of 50
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Irrigation development has historically comprised a considerable proportion of the overall

infrastructure investment portfolio of the Bank. However, after a surge from the 1960s to 1980s
in the level of public investment in the irrigation sector, the enthusiasm for continued investment
(particularly in new irrigation development) has softened, except in sub-Saharan Africa. There
may be multiple reasons for this change. Irrigations very success, in concert with other
investments in agriculture, took away the imperative for continued rapid expansion of the global
food supply. At the same time, despite this success in increasing food output, large scale
irrigation systems are often viewed as failing to live up to their potential and require consistent
injections of outside capital for operations and maintenance. Irrigation is also associated with
negative externalities, particularly as related to the environment. Finally, the potential poverty
reduction role of irrigation, particularly large-scale irrigation, may have changed as areas
suitable for new irrigation development have declined and populations urbanize. Nonetheless,
the pressure to meet growing food demand and provide low cost food to an increasingly urban
world persists. Continued irrigation investments, even if not following past models, must play a
key role in relieving that pressure.

To assess empirical evidence of the irrigation impacts highlighted above and provide guidance
to future investment, we reviewed a wide range of published literature (over 500 articles with
over 250 cited in the bibliography) on irrigation impact. Potential studies were identified using
keyword searches focused on irrigation and impact, an examination of the bibliographies of the
identified studies, and bibliographies of previous assessments of irrigation impact. While we
focused our analysis and discussion on studies published in the last 25 years, we also drew on
earlier works to provide context and insights. Where possible we concentrated on peer-reviewed
studies that used primary data to empirically measure impact and studies of economy wide
processes based using secondary data. We supplemented the results with insights from
qualitative studies that provide understanding of the mechanisms through which irrigation
impacts occur. Our goal was to identify and provide context for an illustrative range of impact
assessments from a variety of literatures, but our sample cannot be considered as
representative in a statistical sense.

The reviewed studies showed broad variation in scope and focus, in evaluation design and
methods used to infer impact, and in the physical and institutional nature of the irrigation
systems being evaluated. The impacts measured also ranged widely, from direct and indirect

Page 2 of 50
production effects to impacts on poverty, nutrition and groundwater depletion. While this
variation made systematic comparison across studies difficult, number key conclusions
emerged.

First, irrigation is clearly linked to increased agricultural output through both direct production
effects and through its role in increasing the productivity of complementary inputs.

Second, irrigation has been strongly associated with decreases in poverty, particularly amongst
direct beneficiaries and urban consumers.

Third, irrigation is linked to a wide range of other impacts, for example in nutrition, health and
the environment.

Fourth, studies that measured irrigation impacts beyond the farm or system scales often found
indirect, secondary effects of similar or greater magnitude than direct, primary effects. In some
cases, these secondary effects were positive (e.g. multiplier effects to the overall economy) and
in some cases negative (e.g. offsite environmental effects that offset the gains in production or
poverty reduction).

Fifth, the magnitude and nature of irrigation impacts, particularly impacts beyond production
effects, were highly dependent on the particular location and circumstances in which irrigation
occurred. In addition, impacts changed over time in terms of magnitude and sometimes sign.

Sixth, irrigation impacts, positive and negative, were unequal socially, spatially, and temporally.
Virtually every study we reviewed that was designed to measure differential impacts, in
whatever dimension, found them to be significant.

Together these conclusions suggest a number of considerations to ensure the highest returns
for future irrigation investment. Investment planning should expand attention to irrigation
benefits AND costs and explicitly consideration both direct and indirect impacts. Within this
planning, interventions to reduce negative environmental impacts of irrigation, AND better public
awareness of indirect environmental benefits, for example through decreased pressure on
marginal land, would also improve investment outcomes and public support. Finally, given the
socially differential impacts of irrigation, continued, explicit focus on distribution effects are
needed if poverty reduction and equity goals of investments are to have the greatest likelihood
of success.

1. Introduction

Page 3 of 50
Irrigation development has historically comprised a considerable proportion of the overall
infrastructure investment portfolio of the Bank. However, after a surge from the 1960s to 1980s
in the level of public investment in the irrigation sector, the enthusiasm for continued investment
(particularly in new irrigation development) has softened, except in sub-Saharan Africa. There
may be multiple reasons for this change. Irrigations very success, in concert with other
investments in agriculture, took away the imperative for continued rapid expansion of the global
food supply. Even if successful in increasing food output, large scale irrigation systems are often
viewed as failing to live up to their potential and require consistent injections of outside capital
for operations and maintenance. Irrigation is also associated with negative externalities,
particularly as related to the environment. Finally, the potential poverty reduction role of
irrigation, particularly large-scale irrigation, may have changed as areas suitable for new
irrigation development have declined and populations urbanize. Nonetheless, the pressure to
meet growing food demand and provide low cost food to an increasingly urban world persists.
Continued irrigation investments, even if not following past models, will undoubtedly play a role
in relieving that pressure.

The purpose of this paper is to review published evidence of irrigation impact to provide insights
and lessons for operation and policy. To do this, the paper first provides a general typology for
considering the wide range of mechanisms through which irrigation impacts humans directly and
through the environment. It then presents the results of a broad review of published literature
focused generally on the measurement of irrigation impact, primarily from the Green Revolution
era onwards.

The large number of reviewed studies (over 500 with more than 250 cited and included in the
bibliography) showed broad variation in scope and focus, in evaluation design and methods
used to infer impact, and in the physical and institutional nature of the irrigation systems being
evaluated. The impacts measured also ranged widely, from direct and indirect production effects
to impacts on poverty, nutrition and groundwater depletion. This range of approaches and foci
highlights that the pathways from irrigation development to impact are themselves highly
variable. While it can be concluded that the overall impacts of irrigation on food production,
poverty reduction and some other variables of interest are positive, they are also offset to
varying degrees by negative externalities and sometimes inequitable consequences. The results
also highlight that the impacts of particular irrigation developments change over time as do the
interests of those who study them. While this variation might seem to suggest that no general
conclusions can be drawn from the literature, the breadth of studies provides clear insights into
the impacts of irrigation. To summarize:

1. Irrigation is clearly linked to increased agricultural output through both direct production
effects and through its role in increasing the productivity of complementary inputs.
2. Irrigation has been strongly associated with decreases in poverty, particularly amongst
direct beneficiaries and urban consumers.
3. Irrigation is linked to a wide range of other impacts, for example as related to nutrition,
health and the environment.

Page 4 of 50
4. Studies that measured irrigation impacts beyond the farm or system scales often found
indirect, secondary effects of similar or greater magnitude than direct, primary effects. In
some cases, these secondary effects were positive (e.g. multiplier effects to the overall
economy) and in some cases negative (e.g. offsite environmental effects that offset the
gains in production or poverty reduction).
5. The range and magnitude of irrigation impacts, particularly impacts beyond production
effects, were highly dependent on the particular location and circumstances in which
irrigation occurred. In addition, impacts changed over time in terms of magnitude and
sometimes sign.
6. Irrigation impacts, positive and negative, were unequally distributed socially, spatially,
and temporally. Virtually every study we reviewed that was designed to measure
differential impacts found them to be significant.

These conclusions along with our analysis of the state of irrigation impact assessment leads us
to the following, interrelated, considerations for future investment:

A. Expanded attention to irrigation benefits AND costs is needed in irrigation planning.

B. The potential range of positive and negative impacts considered in planning should
generally be expanded.
C. Continued, explicit focus on distribution effects are needed if poverty reduction and
equity goals of investments are to have the greatest likelihood of success.
D. Increased planning to reduce negative environmental impacts of irrigation AND a better
case for potential environmental benefits would improve investment outcomes and public
appreciation for irrigation.
E. Investment planning should consider that the purpose of irrigation will change over time
as will values towards the environment.

While there is no shortage of irrigation impact assessments and so no need for a general call for
additional research, improved and new research on priority areas could help investment
planning. These areas include:

I. Design for impact assessment, not just M&E, for select projects. However, mechanisms
for impact assessment will likely need longer time horizons than typical project cycles.
II. Additional investment in long-term assessments of irrigation’s dynamic nature.
III. Renewed focus on the impact of large-scale irrigation, particularly in terms of
maintenance and institutions.
IV. New analysis of national and global scale irrigation impacts and processes.
V. Support of both quantitative and complementary qualitative work on the nature and scale
of irrigation impacts.

These findings and recommendations are discussed in detail in the main body of the paper and
in the conclusion.

2. A Typology of Irrigation Impacts

Page 5 of 50
The impacts of irrigation are varied and range from direct increases in agricultural output to
indirect effects on gender relations, employment and even government structures. We provide
here an indicative typology, building on the existing literature, to assist in conceptualizing
irrigation impacts. We note though that the impacts of irrigation are varied and overlapping and
no definitive typology would suit all needs. Our later analysis of published impact assessments
highlights the interconnected, and sometimes counterintuitive, relationships between irrigation
and a wide range of impacts.

2.1 Direct impacts on production, farming systems and risk

The primary, direct impact of irrigation is usually considered to be increased crop output through
increases in yield and area. Yield increases because of additional plant water availability and
the linear relationship between transpiration and yield (Chang, 1968). Irrigation also makes
control of both the quantity and timing of water availability more precise, supporting crop
establishment, growth and yield. In addition, irrigation can make crop production possible in
places where rainfall and soil moisture are otherwise insufficient or make it possible to intensify
production through second and sometimes third croppings.

Availability of water through irrigation also reduces the risk of crop failure. This in turn increases
the expected return on complementary investments, such as seeds and fertilizer (Namara et al.,
2005; Gebregzaiabher et al., 2011), further increasing yields as discussed below and increasing
incentives for investment. This is graphically illustrated in Figure 1. Traditional varieties provide
returns even when water supplies are limited while High Yield Varieties (HYVs) provide no
return. However, once water supplies reach a critical level, HYV yields are higher as is the
marginal response to additional water. (In addition, the absolute and marginal responses of
complementary inputs are higher for HYVs). Thus, farmers with assured supplies of sufficient
water are more likely to invest in HYVs and complementary inputs. In contrast, farmers who
experience or perceive a risk in the volume or timing of irrigation supplies are more likely to
invest in seeds with low yield potential but high probability of some return no matter the water
outcome. Under such conditions, the incentive for investment in other inputs also declines. The
risks associated with assured surface irrigation supply and timing explain, in part, why farmer
initiated groundwater use is so common even within surface irrigation systems.

Figure 1. Typical responses of cereal crop yields to water

Page 6 of 50
Source: Smith, M., Fereres, E., Kassam, A. 2001. 'Crop Water Productivity Under Deficient Water
Supply'. Paper presented on the occasion of the Expert Meeting on Crop Water Productivity
Under Deficient Water Supply, 3-5 December 2001, Rome, Italy. Cited in FAO:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y4683E/y4683e07.htm

Irrigation can also bring new risks beyond the farm scale, for example as related to crop disease
and diversity as demand for traditional varieties decline (Mehra, 1981; Hazell, 1982; Pinstrup‐
Andersen and Hazell, 1985). The adoption of more uniform varieties may also bring new price
risks as cropping decisions become more uniform across large regions (Pinstrup-Anderson and
Hazell, 1985), an outcome potentially further exacerbated by centrally controlled water releases
and crop procurement programs, for example in India. Better water control may also induce
farmers to shift to higher value crops (such as fruits and vegetables) subject to greater price
variability and dependent on reliable transportation and storage.

2.2. Enhanced productivity of complementary inputs

While irrigation directly contributes to increased yield (i.e. land productivity), it also increases the
productivity of other complementary inputs. The productivity of High Yield Variety Seeds during
the Green Revolution, for example, was made possible only by the supply of irrigation. That
productivity was further increased when coupled with additional inputs of fertilizer supplies.
Furthermore, the productivity of fertilizer was itself increased by the availability of irrigation
supplies. Figure 1 illustrates these points. Irrigation likely increases the productivity of other
complementary inputs such as labor through similar mechanisms (von Braun et al., 1989).

Turning the equation around, irrigation can also be considered as an induced response to other
technology or investments. The advantages of the Green Revolution’s High Yield Variety Seeds
could only be achieved when coupled with the assured volumes of water that only irrigation
could provide. This spurred investment in publicly financed, large-scale surface irrigation and a
boom in privately financed, small-scale groundwater use. In fact, it has been argued that the

Page 7 of 50
Green Revolution was as much an irrigation (tubewell) revolution as a seed revolution (Repetto,
1994).

2.3 Impacts on output prices

Increasing output, ceteris paribus, places downward pressure on prices. For example, Evenson
and Rosegrant (2003) estimate that global food prices would have been 35-65% higher without
Green Revolution technologies, including irrigation. While falling prices are generally good for
consumers, they negatively impact producers. However, the impact on any particular producer
will depend on the extent to which falling prices are offset by productivity gains as well as the
extent to which s/he is also a buyer of commodities for personal consumption. The impacts of
irrigation induced price change will also be uneven across countries. For example, the price
reductions caused by Green Revolution irrigated agriculture also impacted farmers confined to
rainfed conditions and farmers in Africa and elsewhere who did not benefit from investments in
irrigation and seeds. As many (irrigated) rice exporting countries continue to directly or
indirectly subside production, this problem persists with perhaps the greatest negative
consequences for African producers.

2.4 Impacts on poverty

The poverty reduction potential of irrigation has been well documented (e.g. Lipton et al., 2003).
Increased output provides additional food for subsistence producers. Price reductions provide
substantial benefits to poor consumers, particularly since the poor spend a higher proportion of
income on food. Many poor producers are also net buyers of food and so also benefit in this
way. However, the nature and extent of poverty impacts can vary greatly depending on factors
such as relative or absolute land size, relative location within an irrigation system (e.g. head or
tail end), and structural issues related to the overall institutional and social-economic
environment, for example as related to gender, caste and class.

Beyond direct production, consumption and income effects, irrigation also impacts poverty
through indirect mechanisms including increased labor demand, particularly during harvest
periods, nutrition and health change, and economy-wide multiplier effects. Whether these
impacts are positive or negative is highly contextual. For example, irrigation’s employment
effects may benefit the landless poor, but inequalities may also widen as output increases and
depresses prices received by poor farmers operating in rain-fed conditions. Irrigation may also
worsen poverty if it re-enforces processes of land consolidation in which poor households lose
rights, converting marginal and poor farmers to landless laborers (Chambers, 1988) or if it is
associated with displacement of labor by mechanization or herbicide use. The development of
irrigation can have off site environmental impacts that are particularly important for the poor. For
example, the construction of dams and reservoirs to support irrigation has been associated with
displacement costs that disproportionately fall on the poor (e.g. Duflo and Pande, 2005).
Irrigation may also reduce environmental service provision upon which the poor rely, for
example as related to inland and marine fisheries.

2.5 Impacts on consumption and nutrition

Page 8 of 50
Irrigation contributes to the availability of energy and protein (Pingali, 2012) and can provide
increased incomes or purchasing power to support diet diversity (Von Braun et al., 1989).
However, the monoculture often associated with irrigation can also reduce the availability of
more nutrient rich crops and increase their costs relative to more abundant staples. This does
not need to be the case though. Small scale irrigation in Africa has been associated with
increases in vegetable production with direct benefits on nutritional status, particularly for
women and children (Von Braun et al., 1989). A variety of mechanisms through which the Green
Revolution related increases in production are related to nutritional status is outlined by
Pinstrup-Anderson and Hazell (1985). A more recent review of nutrition related impacts of
irrigation focused on sub-Saharan Africa is provided by Domenech (2013).

2.6 Impacts on health

Increases in standing water associated with irrigation, especially when systems are poorly
managed, can serve as a breeding-ground for disease vectors including Anopheles mosquitos,
contributing to increases in malaria and other disease. Similarly, dams constructed for irrigation
slow water flow and may increase the prevalence of malaria or sleeping sickness. Irrigation with
un- or minimally treated wastewater can increase exposure of both producers and consumers to
pathogens resulting in schistosomiasis, diarrhea or other ailments (Amoah et al., 2009).
Irrigation with chemically contaminated water, either natural as in arsenic (Senanayake and
Mukherji, 2014) or human induced (Simmons et al., 2005) has clear health implications. The
availability of irrigation can encourage use of other agricultural inputs including fertilizer and
pesticides, increasing exposure of both farmers and consumers.

At the same time, the wealth generated by irrigation may also spur investment in health care, for
example through purchase of bednets (Klinkenberg et al., 2004) or by increasing food
expenditures and nutrition levels as discussed above. Irrigation development may increase the
availability of clean drinking water and improve sanitation (Van der Hoek et al., 1999).
Domenech and Ringler (2013) provide an overview of irrigation and health interactions.

2.7. Equity and Gender

The impacts of irrigation are clearly not uniform. Those producers with access to irrigation will
generally benefit more than those without. Even for those with irrigation, impacts will vary
depending on location within the system (head end versus tail end), relative land size, access to
capital to support complementary investments, and other factors. As with any technology, early
adopters may benefit differently than late adopters. Within irrigating villages, impacts will
depend on class and caste structure.

A long literature highlights the importance of gender considerations in resource management

outcomes in general (Meinzen-Dick et al., 2014) and water in particular (Ray, 2007). The
importance of gender in irrigation outcomes and impacts is no less important. The production of
particular crops is gendered, the uses to which agricultural water is put is gendered (e.g. field
crops versus home gardens), and access to inputs is gendered (e.g. land titles, credits) as is the
use of revenue from irrigated output. However, while well over half of food production in

Page 9 of 50
developing countries is attributed to women (UNDP, 2006), irrigation interventions are often
made without explicit input from erstwhile female beneficiaries and without consideration for
gendered constraints to adoption (Zwarteveen, 1997), potentially reducing effectiveness and
impacting within system inequality. The gendered impacts of irrigation are variable though. For
example, irrigation may reduce work for women in some circumstances but increase it in others.
Van Koppen and Hussain (2007) and Domenech and Ringler, 2013 provide overviews of the
interconnections between irrigation impacts and gender.

2.8 Impacts on the environment

Water withdrawn for irrigation impacts the naturally occurring environmental services provided
by free-flowing rivers as do changes in flow regimes caused by associated dams. Habitat and
resident flora and fauna are destroyed, and the flooding of biomass may result in net releases of
carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). This may have impacts on global climate and
localized air pollution problems. The rapid expansion of groundwater irrigation in the last few
decades has also severed the natural connections between surface and groundwater systems
and lead to drawdown that has caused soil compaction and amongst other problems.
Waterlogging and salinity frequently result from poor irrigation management while the higher
levels of inputs associated with irrigated agriculture result in fertilizer and pesticide runoff.
At the same time, irrigation induced increases in yield and cropping intensity reduce pressures
to develop yet more land. As the availability of new high quality agricultural land reaches it
limits, this also reduces pressures to develop marginal lands prone to soil and nutrient erosion
often of significance for biodiversity conservation (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).

2.9 Multiplier effects and Impacts on the broader economy and political structure
Irrigation influenced changes in agricultural productivity have been shown to impact overall
growth through multiplier effects and can free human and financial capital for industry and
services (Mellor and Lele, 1973, Pinstrup-Andersen and Hazell, 1983.), stabilize rural
populations (Viljoen, 1990; Little and Taylor, 2001; Schraven, 2010) and impact foreign
exchange earnings and budgets via export taxes.

Irrigation may also influence overall governance structures. The Subak system in Indonesia is a
well know example but other examples exist from around the world. While governance change
may typically be a by-product of irrigation, it can also be an explicit objective. The rationale for
the Green Revolution was both increased food production and social and political modernization
in Asia and Latin America (Latham, 2011), though the impacts may not always have been as
hoped. Niazi (2004), for example, argues that the arrival of more productive seeds and irrigation
in Pakistan forestalled larger political reform. Similarly, electricity reform to support overall
economic growth in India is now complicated by the political economy of power subsidies and
groundwater.

3. Methodology

Page 10 of 50
To assess empirical evidence of the irrigation impacts highlighted above, we reviewed a wide
range of published literature. Potential studies were identified using keyword searches focused
on irrigation and impact, an examination of the bibliographies of the identified studies, and
bibliographies of previous assessments of irrigation impact. While we focus our analysis and
discussion on studies published in the last 25 years, we also draw on earlier works to provide
context and insights. Where possible we concentrated on peer-reviewed studies that use
primary data to empirically measure impact and studies of economy wide processes based
using secondary data. We supplement the results with insights from qualitative studies that
provide understanding of the mechanisms through which irrigation impacts occur (see
discussion section for comment on their role importance for policy). Our goal was to identify and
provide context for an illustrative range of impact assessments from a variety of literatures, but
our sample cannot be considered as representative in a statistical sense.

In total, we included more than 120 studies. In reading the studies, we considered a variety of
variables including location and study date, scale of analysis (e.g. plot, household, aquifer), time
since irrigation intervention, irrigation source and type (e.g. surface water, groundwater,
wastewater; electric pump, treadle pump), evaluation approach (e.g. experimental, quasi-
experimental or non-experimental).and method (e.g. econometric, modeling) and the nature of
the impact assessed (e.g. production, poverty or health). We used the results and a detailed,
qualitative reading of the studies included in the bibliography to derive an understanding of the
nature, magnitude and extent of irrigation impacts as described below.

4. RESULTS

4.1 Evaluation scope and focus

The scope and focus of irrigation impact assessments show great diversity and differences in
spatial, social and political scales, time frames of analysis, and geographic focus.

Scales of analysis for studies focused on the human impacts of irrigation include plot (e.g.
Huang et al., 2005), farmer (e.g. Ayanwale and Alimi, 2004), household (e.g. Gebregziaber et
al., 2009) or household head (e.g. Bagson and Kuuder, 2013), irrigation system (e.g. Irajpoor
and Latif, 2011), state/province (e.g. Bhattarai and Narayanamoorthy, 2003) and global food
system (e.g. Nelson et al, 2009). While most studies analyze impacts related to a particular
irrigation system, others analyze and sometimes compare multiple systems in one country (e.g.
Huang et al., 2005) and a few analyze systems in multiple countries (Hussain, 2007). Many
analyses examine impacts at more than one scale.

Studies focused on the non-human impacts of irrigation use scales consistent with
environmental processes. For example, some focus on the impacts of irrigation on particular
rivers, aquifers or climate systems (e.g. Liu et al., 2001; Changming, 2001; Saeed et al., 2009;
Lee et al., 2011; El Ayni et al., 2012). Others measure uptake of toxins at animal or plant level
(e.g. Ohlendorf et al., 1986; Liu et al., 2005; Gupta et al, 2008; Ghosh et al., 2012).

Page 11 of 50
The period between the establishment of irrigation and the measurement of impact also varied
substantially in the studies we surveyed. In some cases, impact was assessed after as little as 1
year (e.g. Adeoti, 2007). At the other extreme were studies done 20 (Rattan et al., 2005), 30
(Baeza et al., 2013), and 50 (Viljoen, 1990) years after irrigation commenced. Many studies did
not make the lag time between irrigation implementation and impact assessment clear.

One critique of early studies of the Green Revolution was that assessments happened too
quickly and did not capture diffusion effects, missing poverty reduction effects that were later
documented and overemphasizing negative effects on inequality (Pinstrup-Andersen and
Hazell, 1985). Still later analysis and discussion tends to highlight growing, negative
environmental impacts (e.g. Shiva, 2016), for example widespread overuse of groundwater and,
in India, negative knock on impacts to the electricity industry. There is no ideal, and appropriate
lags will always depend on purpose. However, past work on irrigation management transfer, an
intervention with substantially less expected impact than irrigation development itself, has
suggested minimum periods of 6 to 10 years (Kloezen, 1997; Vermillion, 1997).

Despite the dynamic and changing nature of irrigation impacts, most assessments measure
impacts between two particular points in time, for example between single before and after
irrigation dates (e.g. Abonesh et al., 2008; Peter, 2011; Bagson et al., 2013) or by comparing
differences between with and without sites at a single point in time (e.g., Yohannes et al., 2005;
Adeoti, 2007). The few studies that do measure impacts across time (e.g. Ayanwale and Alimi,
2004; Bhattarai et al., 2007; Burney et al., 2010) highlight the additional insights that can be
gained and, sometimes, the changing conclusions. For example, the health impacts of irrigation
can be negative in the short run as disease vectors increase, but may turn positive in the longer
term as awareness generates government level policy responses (De Zulueta et al., 1980) or
income effects result in greater health care investment by individuals (Klinkenberg et al., 2004).
A major impediment to long- term assessments of the dynamic nature of irrigation impacts is the
difficulty in data collection over time. Baeza et al. (2013) provide an alternative approach, using
distance as a proxy for time in a study of health impacts of irrigation as related to malaria in
India. While the approach may not be generalizable, it does demonstrate that alternatives to
long- term data collection may be available.

While we did not try to precisely asses the proportion of studies by country, clear patterns did
emerge. Assessments in the wake of the Green Revolution tended to focus on Asia, particularly
India and Pakistan, though the total area under irrigation was larger in China. More recent
studies tend to focus more on Africa, particularly Ethiopia and Ghana though their combined
irrigated area is small by any measure. Studies focused on developing countries tend to focus
on impacts as related to output, poverty and other measures of livelihood. Studies done in richer
countries tend to focus on environmental impacts of irrigation.

There has also been a shift over time in the nature of the irrigation assessed. Earlier studies
tend to focus on large- scale systems. More recent works tends to focus on groundwater
irrigation, and small- scale systems such as treadle pumps, drip, farm ponds, and water used in
home gardens.

Page 12 of 50
4.2 Evaluation design and methods
Evaluation design is typically categorized as non-experimental, quasi-experimental, or
experimental. Non-experimental approaches were common in our sample. Some studies use a
simple comparison of the social and economic situation of participants in an irrigation project to
the intended outcomes as stated in the original technical proposal and terms of reference of the
scheme (e.g., Concern Universal, 2012). Others use a before and after comparison without
control (e.g. Ayanwale and Alimi, 2004; Irajpoor and Latif, 2011) or a comparison between an
area with irrigation and a non-irrigated control (e.g. Viljoen, 1990; Kibret et al., 2010). The fact
that a study used a non-experimental design should not, a priori, be considered a critique as
each study has its own purpose and logic. Nonetheless, the approaches limit the inferences that
can be made on impact specifically.

Another large group, particularly of more recent publication, apply quasi-experimental methods
to provide counterfactuals in with/without scenarios. The specific techniques applied are largely
regression or econometric based but include many different approaches including propensity
score matching; endogenous switching regression (e.g. Nkhata et al., 2014), differencing,
instrumental variables (e.g. Duflo and Pande, 2005), and pipeline approaches. Perhaps not
surprisingly given the nature of most irrigation, experimental approaches now common in other
areas of development literature, just as Randomized Control Trials, did not appear in our
sample.

Moving outside what might be called “orthodox” approaches to impact assessment, studies of
regional, national and global irrigation impacts often use economic, hydro-economic (e.g.
Barbier and Thompson, 1998; Bhatia et al., 2007; Louw et al., 2008; Nelson et al., 2009; Siddig
and Mubarak, 2013) and even atmospheric (e.g. Lee et al., 2011) modeling approaches. None
of the studies used remote sensing approaches, though remote sensing is used in studies of
irrigation performance.

Finally, it is important to note that there is a long history of qualitative studies that directly or
indirectly example the impact of irrigation within agricultural and human systems. Such studies
provide nuanced, grounded insights into the subtle and varied ways irrigation works alone and
as part of larger change processes and can be particularly strong in highlighting the
mechanisms through which the differential impacts of irrigation occur (e.g. Cleaver, 1972; Blyn,
1983; Leaf, 1983; Merrey, 1983; Ostrom and Gardner, 1993; Beck, 1995; Das, 2002; Jewitt and
Baker, 2007).

4.3 The Physical and Institutional Nature of Irrigation evaluated

While any division of water within the hydrologic cycle is arbitrary to some degree, irrigation is
often conceptualized by the source of water within the hydrologic cycle: surface water,
groundwater, conjunctive use, rainwater harvesting, wastewater, or saline water. A second and
sometimes related conceptualization is the approach to water access. For example, surface
water is often accessed through large scale canal systems, groundwater through small scale
tube wells, and rainfall purposely captured in small reservoirs and farm ponds (e.g. Ersado,
2005; Venot et al., 2011; de Fraiture et al., 2014; Acheampong et al., 2014). Irrigation can also

Page 13 of 50
be thought of in terms of the technology for its access [e.g. gravity fed or pumped surface
systems; electric, diesel, solar (e.g. Burney et al., 2010) or human powered pumps (e.g. Shah et
al., 2000; Adeoti et al., 2007; Mangisoni, 2008; Burney et al., 2010; Kamwamba‐Mtethiwa et al.,
2012)] and application (e.g. flood, sprinklers, drip irrigation, or bucket). Finally, irrigation can be
conceptualized in terms of the crops to which it is applied (e.g. staple foods such as rice and
wheat, cash crops, or vegetables for personal consumption or sale produced from home
gardens). Our sample includes studies using each of these conceptualizations alone or in
combination.

While studies of irrigation performance or water productivity (e.g. Senanayake, 2015; Giordano
et al., 2017) are often concerned with particular institutional forms (e.g. Water User
Associations), relatively few studies of irrigation impact assessments use institutional form as an
explanatory variable. This may be because of the relative uniformity in institutional structures
within each of the conceptualizations just outlined. For example, large- scale surface systems
tend to be managed publically in whole or in part (main canals are typically managed by formal
irrigation bureaucracies, though while distributaries may be managed publicly or through Water
User Associations), while groundwater irrigation is typically privately controlled as is small- scale
irrigation using drip or drum and buckets. Some studies have tried to measure differences in
impacts of large scale (public) and small- scale (private) systems, though with a focus on the
scale rather than the institution. For example, Dillon (2010), found greater positive impacts on
production and income with small scale (and therefore private) systems than large scale (and
therefore state) systems. Acheampong et al. (2014) found that performance and impacts of
small dams in Ghana are generally higher when managed under WUAs. Other studies have
examined the issue in reverse, measuring the impacts of irrigation system characteristics on
institutional outcomes (e.g. Nagrah et al., 2016), finding for example that access to groundwater
reduced incentives to participate in cooperative surface water management.

4.4 Measured impacts

4.4.1 Direct impacts on production and farming systems

It is well established that irrigated land is significantly more productive than non-irrigated. At the
global level, irrigation accounts for only 20% of total agricultural area but 40% of total output
(Turral et al., 2011), though of course some of the productivity difference can be attributed to
other factors including land quality, additional input use and research effort. Nonetheless, it is
not surprising that virtually all reviewed studies that measured the impacts of irrigation on
agricultural output documented increases over at least some time scale.

Studies of the first 1-2 decades of Green Revolution impacts highlight impressive gains in
production directly and indirectly related to (primarily) large scale irrigation (see Pinstrup‐
Andersen and Hazell, 1985 and Everson and Gollin, 2003). Later studies, though not focused
on impact assessment per se, do not question positive production impacts of irrigation but tend
to highlight problems of irrigation system operations, sub-optimal system performance, and
inadequate finance (e.g. Byerlee and Siddiq, 1994). Other studies show that production

Page 14 of 50
problems with large- scale irrigation can occur over time. For example, salinization due to poor
irrigation management has been shown to reduce yields (e.g. Pitman and Läuchli, 2002). The
question is thus not whether irrigation increases output but for how long and at what cost.

More recent studies tend to focus on the impact of small- scale irrigation adoption (e.g. Ayars et
al., 1999, Antony and Singandhupe, 2004), demonstrating production increases for a wide
range of crops. However, some highlight the issue of disadoption over time (e.g. Burney and
Naylor, 2012; Wakeyo and Gardebroek, 2015). Disadoption and the fact that adoption
sometimes requires subsidy (e.g. Malik et al., 2016) at least suggests that the question for small
scale irrigation is again not whether it increases output, but rather the conditions under which
particular irrigation investments have the highest returns in general, in particular physical
environments or for particular classes of farmers.

In addition to the direct impact of irrigation on crop output, many studies document impacts on
crop choice and farming systems. Studies of the Green Revolution document a shift from mixed
crops and coarse cereals to wheat, sugarcane, rice and vegetables (Saith and Tankha, 1992;
Bliss, Lanjouw, and Stern 1998). Later studies also document a shift from low to high-valued
crops facilitated by irrigation (Narayanamoorthy and Deshpande, 2003; Mehta, 2009;
Woldewahid et al. 2011; Moore, 2015).

As productivity is increased, new income provides the capital for additional investment in water
control. Adeoti et al. (2007) showed that in Ghana those with initial access to low cost irrigation
such as treadle pumps sometimes generate incomes large enough to invest in motorized
pumps. Shah came to similar conclusions in for South Asia (Shah, 2000).

While direct, positive production impacts of irrigation provision are well documented, other
studies highlight production impacts on non-beneficiary farmers (Takeshima et al., 2016) and
the broader opportunity costs of irrigation water. For example, Barbier and Thompson (1998)
found that irrigation benefits from a system in Nigeria did not compensate for lost floodplain
benefits downstream. An analysis of irrigation in the Snake River system (Hamilton and
Gardner, 1986) of the United States found that while investment had a positive return, the
opportunity cost of irrigation water was high and the water would have greater social returns if
used for hydropower.

In fact, a minority of irrigation impact assessments attempt to assess net impacts (benefits
minus costs) of irrigation, even when narrowly defined in terms of production. Of those that did,
Huang et al. (2002) found positive net returns on investments in a number of irrigation systems
in China. Esardo (2005) found that income and other benefits from irrigation in Ethiopia were
positive but overestimated if health costs were not included. Other studies that considered costs
and benefits include Hamilton and Gardner (1986), Amacher et al. (2004), Duflo and Pande
(2005), Adeoti, et al. (2007), Burney et al. (2010), Aseyehegn et al. (2012) and Kumar et al.
(2014). Another group of studies, particularly those focused on health, nutrition and the
environment, do measure and highlight benefits and costs that should be considered in a full

Page 15 of 50
evaluation of irrigation impacts (see below), but without trying to produce a standard benefit/cost
analysis.

4.3.2 Enhanced productivity of complementary inputs

Irrigation has direct and positive production impacts, but it also increases the productivity of
complementary agricultural inputs such as land, seeds, and labor. Irrigation's impact on the
productivity of land is particularly notable. Yield (a measure of land productivity) increases are
well documented as discussed above, but irrigation is also strongly associated with increases in
cropping intensity (e.g. Guhan and Mencher, 1983; Saith and Tankha, 1992). Hussain &
Hanjra’s (2004) review of irrigation and poverty in Asia, for example, found that cropping
intensity under irrigation nearly doubled. As shown in Namara et al. 2005 and Gebregzaiabher
et al. 2011 and illustrated in figure 1, water supplies from irrigation also increase the productivity
of complimentary inputs including seeds and fertilizer. The increased output driven by irrigation
can also increase demand for agricultural labor as well as wage rates (see below), with
concomitant contributions to income and poverty reduction. This change in labor demand is not
necessarily related to labor productivity though we would expect the impact to be positive. While
only one study in our sample directly examined the issue (Shittu et al., 2010), it did in fact find a
positive relationship.

As irrigation is one of an interrelated set of inputs needed for agricultural production, its impact
on complementary inputs would best be measured in conjunction with those inputs in a Total
Factor Productivity (TFP) or related approaches. The importance of this approach is discussed
by Scheierling and Treguer (2016). However, they also discuss that water is typically left out of
agricultural TFP analyses in part because of the conceptual and empirical difficulties in
measurement (e.g Fuglie, 2010; Darku et al., 2013; Alston and Pardey, 2014).

4.3.3 Impacts on output prices

Everson and Gollin (2003) estimated the global impact of the Green Revolution on major
commodities. They calculated that without the Green Revolution, prices would have been 35-
66% higher by 2000 and noted that higher prices would have induced an expansion of cropped
area, with negative environmental consequences. They attributed about ⅓ of these overall
impacts to irrigation. Because Green Revolution technologies, including irrigation, were focused
mostly on the developing world, they also found that direct and indirect production impacts
would have resulted in crop output 4-7% higher in the developed world and 14-19% lower in the
developing world.

We did not find other studies estimating the global price impacts of irrigation, nor did we find
studies that looked at the negative price impacts on those who did not receive irrigation.
However, we can make some additional hypotheses based on Everson and Gollon (2003). First,
it is likely that, within the developing world, countries whose access to irrigation increased
(mostly in Asia and to a lesser extent in Latin America) would have benefited through increased
production while those who did not gain access (mostly in Africa) would have been harmed by
prices lower than would have been the case without irrigation investment elsewhere. The
degree of harm would be dependent on the integration of national agricultural markets with the

Page 16 of 50
global trade as well as the degree of home consumption. Within any particular country,
producers who did not gain access to irrigation would also be similarly harmed through price
effects. Finally, the net benefits of irrigation to any irrigated farmer would depend on the extent
to which downward pressure on prices was offset by yield increases.

4.3.4 Impacts on poverty

Literally hundreds of studies have documented the poverty reducing impacts of irrigation and
irrigated agriculture. Reviews of these studies include Silliman and Lenton (1985), David and
Otsuka (1994), Freebairn (1995), von Braun (1995), Jayaraman and Lanjouw (1999), DFID
(2001), Kishore (2002) and Lipton et al. (2002). Other studies outline mechanisms through
which irrigation and poverty interact (e.g. Lipton, 2002; Hussain & Hanjra, 2004). We discuss
here empirical evidence of some of these interactions, focusing primarily income, wealth and
employment. Discussion of poverty impacts related to consumption, health, and equity as well
as indirect effects through multipliers are discussed further below.

Empirical studies confirm the substantial direct impacts of irrigation on income. Bhatia (1991)
reported 77% more income for irrigators in India relative to rain-fed farmers. Farm incomes
increased three-fold for those participating in a Fadama program in Nigeria (Ayanwale and
Alimi, 2004). Small-scale irrigation resulted in a 48% increase in farm income in lowlands of
Oromia, Ethiopia (Ahmed et al., 2014). Irrigation can allow savings and accumulation of wealth.
In Africa, households with access to irrigation often own substantial cattle herds (Dillon, 2008;
Chazovachii, 2012), allowing consumption smoothing. Irrigation may also increase access to
education by enabling payment of school fees and related expenses (Adeoti et al. 2007;
Chazovachii, 2012). Thus, irrigation has significant long-term human capital development
implications. However, in instances where irrigation creates labor shortage, it can actually
decrease hours spent in school (Dillon, 2008).
As this suggests, the exact nature of irrigation’s impact on poverty reduction depends on
multiple factors. Hussain et al. (2004) finds that systems with more equal land distribution have
greater poverty reduction potential and that farmers in the head ends of systems typically
benefit more than those in the tail ends. Proximity to infrastructure is also important. Ersado
(2005) highlights that villages nearer small dams in Ethiopia had higher yields and incomes.
However, proximity also brought negative health impacts due to standing water. Adoption of
health management strategies was not uniform, with those already disadvantaged potentially
made worse off.

Impacts also vary by water source. Groundwater has been shown to have high poverty reducing
potential (Dhawan,1988, 2000; Shah, 2010; Narayanamoorthy, 2007), though poorly managed
use (the norm the world over) results in declining groundwater tables that may eventually
disadvantage the poor (Bhatia, 1992; Saith and Tankha, 1992; Dreze, Lanjouw and Sharma,
1998). Institutions also influence irrigation’s poverty reduction potential. Wade (1982) and
Rinaudo (2002) discuss the impact of corruption on reducing water allocation to the poor in
large, public canal irrigation systems. Brewer et al. (1997) also found in India that water

Page 17 of 50
allocation rules requiring bribery put poor at a great disadvantage. Arthreya et al. (1990) note
that ownership rules prevented lower castes acquiring irrigated land.

Increases in labor demand stimulated by irrigation have been shown to at least partly offset
some of the potential negative impacts of irrigation on the poor. Employment for the land-poor
and landless increases due to the labor-intensive nature of infrastructure construction and its
subsequent maintenance as well as increased labor demand from intensified cultivation and
greater harvest volumes, with increases in days worked per hectare and per cropping season
(e.g. Chambers, 1988; Viljoen, 1990; Bhattarai et al., 2002; Smith, 2004; Bhattarai et al., 2007;
Hussain, 2007). Increased employment opportunities may improve and stabilize wages. Namara
et al. (2011) found that small scale groundwater irrigation of tomatoes and peppers in Ghana
increased labor demand in the dry season when there otherwise was no employment. This
effect has been shown in other studies to revitalize and stabilize communities (Little and Taylor,
2001) and counter depopulation of rural areas (Viljoen, 1990; Schraven, 2010). However, other
studies have shown that migration to irrigated areas for employment can depress wages.
Ramachandra (1990) observes a decline in wage rates between 1948 and 1975, which he
attributes to a sharp growth in the agricultural labor force in the Gokilapuram valley, India.
Walker and Ryan (1990) also found that an increase in immigration of landless laborers from
neighboring areas kept wages low, despite the increased demand for on and off-farm labor.

Irrigation investment also creates new employment opportunities off-farm (Hussain and Hanjra,
2002 and see below for a discussion of multiple effects). For example, Louw et al. (2008) found
that while irrigation in the Northern Cape region of South Africa directly created about 18,000
jobs, an additional 4,000 jobs were created to supply inputs to the sector and an additional
13,000 were created as a result of the increased demand for consumables as a result of income
and salary increases in the agricultural sector. Studies have also documented the multiple-use
impacts of irrigation water and infrastructure (Meinzen-Dick and van der Hoek, 2001; Bakker et
al., 1999; Meinzen-Dick and Bakker, 1999; van der Hoek et al., 1999). Jensen et al. (1998)
showed that the availability of canal water use also increased domestic uses. However, other
studies highlight the potential drawbacks (see health section).

Finally, some studies find that higher income and greater personal freedom were considered the
primary benefits of irrigation to many poor. Jodha (1989) determined that a reduced reliance on
patrons as a result of irrigation was deemed an important benefit of irrigation. Beck (1994)
reports that in India 49 out of 50 respondents claimed to value their increased self-respect as a
result of irrigation more than the increase in food abundance. These insights also illustrate the
importance of qualitative assessments in understanding unanticipated positive and negative
impacts of irrigation.

4.3.5 Impacts on Consumption and Nutrition

It is well known that irrigation leads to an increase in calorie consumption over time. Earlier
studies of the Green Revolution (1970-1990) found that irrigation enhanced access to adequate
and diversified food via increases in production and in income (Kennedy, 1989; Hazell et al.,

Page 18 of 50
1991). For example, Von Braun et al. (1989) assessed the links among production, income,
consumption, and nutrition in rice irrigators in the Gambia. He concluded that the cultivation of
rice increased real income of farmers by 13% per household. An additional 10% increase in
annual income led to a 9.4% increase in food expenditure and a 4.8% increase in calorie
consumption.

Increased food availability may result in better nutrition (as opposed to just increased
consumption), though some studies demonstrate that irrigation can adversely affect the
nutritional status of farm-households (Hossain et al, 2005). For example, irrigation has led to
mono-cropping of cereals and decreases in cultivation of pulses, oil seeds, and coarse grains.
Thus despite the widespread increase in calorie consumption and weight gain as a result of
irrigation, decreases in food diversity and micronutrients can occur as wheat and other grains
become a larger percentage of diets (Hossain et al., 2005; Headey et al., 2016). Some countries
with large irrigation investments have relied on nutrient imports with potential implications of
food security. For example, Bangladeshi imports of vegetables and fruits from India and China
now account for approximately 10% of vegetable consumption and 43% of fruit consumption
(FAO, 2014; Headey et al., 2016). Similar outcomes may occur when irrigation expands into
seasonal or permanent grazing land, reducing livestock production and overall protein
consumption (Niemeijer et al., 1988; Hossain et al., 2005), though the impacts of irrigation on
meat production may also be reversed in other circumstances (Steinfled et al., 2006).

The impacts of irrigation on nutrition are also determined by social structure of farming systems.
For example, some studies have shown that increases in irrigated area are associated with
decreases in nutritional status, at least in the short term, in places where women play a large
role in providing income from casual labor, as in Kenya (Fleuret and Fleuret, 1980; Greer and
Thorbecke, 1986; Niemeijer, Foeken and Klaver, 1991; Quisumbing et al., 1995; Hoorweg et al.,
1995; Hossain et al., 2005). In these cases, off farm income had been used to purchase foods
of high or different nutritional value. When female labor was more devoted to a narrow range of
irrigated crops, this source of nutritional variation declined. In the longer term, the impact on
nutritional status may change as income effects take over (Passarelli et al., 2017)

More recent studies have focused less on the impact of large-scale irrigation on farm household
consumption and more on small-scale technologies such as home gardening (e.g. Kidala et al.
2000; Hoddinott and Yohannes 2002; Namara et al. 2011). Black et. al (2008) found that
consumption of iron rich foods such as dark green vegetables can reduce incidence of anemia.
Vitamin A rich foods such as orange, fleshed sweet potato, and pumpkins can reduce night-
blindness and susceptibility to illness (Black et al., 2008). While conditions will vary by location,
home gardens may be more likely to be controlled by women. Thus, if the goal is improved
nutritional status, it is important to consider the nature of irrigation (e.g. large scale versus home
garden) and the gendered nature of the farming system.

In addition to the direct, proximate effects of irrigation on nutrition, other work addresses the
connection between irrigation, sanitation and the ultimate impacts of irrigation on nutrition. Van
der Hoek et al. (2002) show in Pakistan that the application of irrigation water for household use

Page 19 of 50
can significantly reduce diarrhea, thereby improving the nutritional status of children.
Conversely, Audibert et al. (2003) showed that large-scale irrigation could increase the
prevalence of water-based parasites that reduce the potential for nutritional uptake. Other
studies show that irrigation reduced the amount of time that mothers had to spend on household
activities including cooking and caring for their children (Vaughan and Moore, 1988; Brun,
Reynaud and Chevassus-Agnès, 1989), with negative consequences for nutrition. Again
though, these impacts will decline or reduce in the longer term as income effects grow and other
adaptations are made by farm households, governments or other actors.

4.3.6 Impacts on health

Evidence of the, mostly positive, impacts of irrigation on health via direct and indirect
consumption and nutrition effects are outlined elsewhere in this paper. However, irrigation and
health have been shown to be interrelated through a range of other mechanisms. While largely
underappreciated, irrigation with untreated or minimally treated wastewater is widespread and
can have significant health impacts for both producers and consumers (Drechsel et al. 2009),
particularly in semi-arid areas where it is associated with increased frequency of
schistosomiasis and diarrhea. Whether indirect health benefits through higher income,
consumption and diet diversity offset the negative consequences is an open question. Irrigation
with water contaminated with naturally occurring chemicals such as arsenic (Senanayake and
Mukherji, 2014) or human introduced agro- or industrial chemicals such as pesticides and
fertilizers or heavy metals such as cadmium (Simmons et al., 2005) can also cause a range of
health impacts including neurological abnormalities, respiratory diseases, reproductive disorder,
and endocrinological and dermal problems. Because irrigation increases the productivity of
other agricultural inputs as discussed earlier, it likely increases the use of agricultural chemicals.

The construction of dams’ consequent slowing of river flows as well as the stagnant water
associated with irrigation operations at system and farm level has also been associated with
increases in disease vectors leading to increases in malaria, dengue and sleeping sickness.
The severity of impact also depends on the way in which the irrigation system is maintained. At
least in the short term, areas without previous exposure to these diseases may be most
significantly impacted because awareness and institutions for addressing the consequences are
lacking.

At the same time, irrigation is also associated with other positive health impacts. Irrigation has
led to increased water availability for improved sanitation and hygiene practices (Van der Hoek
et al., 1999), contributing to reductions in diarrhea, schistosomiasis and other ailments. The
potential wealth generated by irrigation have been found to drive increased investment in
healthcare such as the purchase of bednets and water filters (Klinkenberg et al., 2004). As
already discussed, increased wealth has also been found to increase food expenditures and
nutrition levels, which can augment calorie intake and allow varied diets, reducing the impact
and incidence of ailments such as anemia, night blindness, and low weight.

Page 20 of 50
Domenech and Ringler (2013) provide a recent overview of the complex evidence on the
impacts of irrigation on health. For the rest of this section, we outline evidence of the impacts of
irrigation on one of the most important diseases, malaria, as an example. Irrigation is often
associated with a rise in malaria incidence as breeding sites for malaria vectors increase and
the breeding season lengthens (IIMI, 1986; Coosemans and Mouchet, 1990; Dixon and
Pinikhana, 1994; Ghebreyesus et al., 1999; Singh et al., 1999; Kobayashi et al., 2000).
Guthmann et al. (2002) found that malaria incidence was five times higher in villages closer to
irrigation systems (i.e. dams) than those villages in a non-irrigated area. In Ethiopia,
Ghebreyesus et al. (1999) determined that villages closer to the small-scale dams experienced
a seven-fold rise in malaria prevalence after the introduction of the dams. As this suggests, the
impact of irrigation on malaria is variable since this impact depends on external factors including
the type of irrigation system, the previous exposure of the area to malaria, the existing health
and irrigation infrastructure, the amount of time that has passed since the introduction of
irrigation, and the level of landless migration to the area (Malaria, 2005).

Surface irrigation has been found to result in the greatest malaria incidence since it requires the
creation of shallow water bodies, which serve as ideal breeding spots for malaria vectors
(Malaria, 2005). The flooding of fields for paddy farming is most often associated with a rise in
malaria incidence (Gillies & De Meillon, 1968; Surtees, 1970; White,1974; Snow, 1983; Coluzzi,
1984). A location’s previous exposure to malaria, as well as the condition of its health
infrastructure, are also important factors. Studies found that those places with previous
exposure (e.g. wetter areas already supporting malaria vectors) often already had protective
measures (i.e. bed nets) in place and, as a result, were often less impacted by the increased
mosquito abundance from irrigation. Variation in prevalence after irrigation is also common
(Dixon and Pinikhana, 1994). Baeza et al. (2013) assessed the impact of the number of years a
community had been irrigating on the abundance of mosquito vectors and the malaria biting
rate. They concluded that the irrigated areas studied had a similar abundance of mosquito
vectors, but areas that had been irrigated for thirty years had a lower malaria prevalence than
areas that had just begun irrigation. Conversely, areas that had just begun irrigation had higher
malaria prevalence than non-irrigated areas. Drier or more arid areas also experienced a higher
initial increase in their number of malaria outbreaks following the implementation of irrigation.
They determined that this initial increase in malaria outbreaks was because the appropriate
health infrastructure was not in place as mosquito abundance increased as a result of irrigation.
Similar findings were reported by Oomen et al. (1988) and Wang'ombe and Mwabu (1993).

Poor irrigation management is often associated with an increase in malaria prevalence.

Chimbari et al. (2004) assessed the impact of poorly maintained irrigation infrastructure and
inadequate landscape-leveling on increased malaria prevalence. He found that these poorly
maintained systems increased the prevalence of mosquito breeding sites within the fields, in the
case of sprinkler schemes and poor drainage structure (Chimbari et al., 2004). Mwangangi et
al. (2013) assessed the impact of irrigation on mosquito vector abundance with different levels
of irrigation management. They determined that when rice planting was coordinated and better
managed, this coordination reduced the amount of time that the fields had to be flooded and as
a result, minimized the amount of time that the mosquitos had to breed in the fields. Moreover,

Page 21 of 50
Kibret et al. (2010) studied the impact of poor infrastructure management on malaria vector
breeding and malaria transmission in the Ziway area of Ethiopia. They determined that
improper canal water management resulted in more vector breeding sites and thus, intensified
malaria transmission due to a strong positive correlation between canal water release and
anopheline larval density. Irrigation management techniques such as coordination of growing
season, in particular for surface irrigation, can often decrease the prevalence of year-round
stagnant water (reduce prolonging of seasonal transmission) and thus, minimize the impact of
the irrigation on the frequency of malaria cases. Water management techniques such as
implementing siphons or following integrated operating rules through fluctuating water flow over
periods of time have also been found to reduce mosquito breeding sites (Jobin, 1999;
Konradsen et al., 2004).

Malaria rates can also go up in the short term as employment opportunities attract landless
workers. Many studies observe a parallel influx of malaria cases with large-scale migration of
low income farmers in search of employment into malarious areas (Coosemans et al., 1985;
Coosemans et al., 1987; Coosemans and Barutwanayo, 1989). Coosemans and Barutwanayo
(1989) observed that these landless migrants often had very low incomes and as a result, were
unable to afford bednets and other malaria prophylactics.

These highlights though the complex relationship between the short-term physical impacts of
irrigation on malaria burden and the longer-term social responses. As noted, irrigation is often
associated with an increase in income and purchasing power (Robert et al., 1985; Audibert et
al., 1990; Boudin et al., 1992), and a higher propensity to spend on malaria protection (Ijumba &
Lindsey, 2001). Thus, an increase in mosquito vectors may be associated with a decrease in
incidence (Klinkenberg et al., 2004).

4.3.7 Equity and Gender

Virtually every study that examined socially differential impacts, whether in terms of class, caste
or gender, of irrigation found them to be significant. However, the nature of those impacts was
highly variable. For example, as noted above, irrigation in systems with unequal land distribution
will result in an unequal distribution of benefits and when some groups are excluded from land
ownership, they will also be excluded from direct irrigation benefits. In this section, we focus on
evidence of the gendered impacts of irrigation to further illustrate equity impacts and
mechanisms.

The impact of irrigation on gender and equity is variable. Upadhyay et al. (2005) determined
from surveys that 83% of respondents reported that drip technology had benefited female and
male employment in Nepal. They also concluded that women received direct consumption
benefits from irrigation (Upadhyay et al., 2005). After the introduction of drip irrigation, women
were able to purchase more livestock with their savings of vegetable income and ultimately,
purchase luxury goods after selling the surplus milk and meat from this purchased livestock
(Upadhyay et al. 2005). Moreover, Perera (1989) observed in Sri Lanka that irrigation channels

Page 22 of 50
increased the availability of water that women could use for domestic purposes and
consequently, reduced the amount of time that women had to spend fetching water.

However, the extent of this positive impact of irrigation on gender and equity is often limited by
many factors, including access to land, water, labor, capital, credit, technology and other
resources (Molden, 2007). Asyehegn et al. (2012) conducted a study in Ethiopia and found that
male headed households were 38% more likely to participate in irrigation than female women,
since female headed households tended to be labor scarce had reduced access to market
information. Therefore, while women may have the same potential agricultural productivity as
men, an unequal access to resources and information inhibit women from fully benefiting from
irrigation.

This unequal access is as a result of the expectation in many societies that women provide the
labor and have a marginal role in the management and decision making processes of irrigation,
which often belongs to the men of the house (Zwarteveen, 1993; Zwarteveen et al., 1996).
Moreover, Bastidas (1999) found in Ecuador that women with small children often participated
less in irrigation due to the expectation that women care for the family. Therefore, this role of
the men in decision-making and their ownership of the land provides men with ownership of the
water underneath and the profits made from irrigation schemes (Agarwal, 1994; Jordans and
Zwarteveen, 1997). Consequently, women often receive less water for domestic purposes
since men most often use the water primarily for irrigation. Moreover, since men often control
the profits from the irrigation, women often become more dependent on their husbands for
money to purchase food and other goods (Van Koppen 1998; Zwarteveen 2006). This
subservient role of women also impacts the society’s willingness to grant credit to women.
Studies in Malawi have found that women often pay for new irrigation technologies in cash and
consequently, are often limited in the size of their purchases unlike men who have access to
greater credit (Kamwamba-Mtethiwa, Namara, De Fraiture, Mangisoni, & Owusu, 2012). In
Kenya, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Zambia and Uganda, women receive less than 10% of the credit
awarded to farmers (Squires, 2010).

These benefits from irrigation may also be limited by the amount of labor women have to
contribute to the irrigation. While irrigation may reduce the need for women to spend time
collecting water, irrigation may increase women’s agricultural workload if they usually provide
the bulk of the labor in that society. Upadhyay et al. (2005) concluded from their study in Nepal
that women usually spend more time growing and cultivating the crops than males, who only
contributed 12% of their time to producing the vegetables. Even in Pakistan, nine women out of
a sample of 87 were determined to be directly engaged in irrigation (Basnet 1992). In some
studies, this high labor requirement along with a lack of recognition for their extra labor
contributions resulted in many women completely losing interest in irrigating the crops.

Due to the negative impact of an unequal distribution of these resources on women, greater
focus has been placed on the impact of different irrigation systems. Many studies have found
that home gardens had the greatest positive impact on women. Home gardens often resulted in
an increase in the economic contribution of women to the household and as a result, women

Page 23 of 50
often received greater respect, an improved social standing and greater decision-making
authority (Bushamuka et al., 2005; Iannotti, Cunningham, & Ruel, 2009; Du Plessis &
Lekganyane, 2010; Schaetzel, Antal, & Guyon, 2013; Galhena et al., 2013; Yasmin, Khattak, &
Ngah, 2014; Schreinemachers et al., 2015; van den Bold et al., 2015). Hallman et al. (2015)
observed that home garden systems required little land and investment and as a result, allowed
women to become empowered, but be less restricted by financial and social constraints. Men
often avoid intervening in home gardens since they see it as a women’s domain. Van Koppen
et al. (2001) found in India that women have the greatest success in accessing and managing
irrigation systems when a women’s group comes together to manage an irrigation project. This
role can be influenced by the society’s allowance of women in leadership, as well as the type of
irrigation and whether it has a greater labor requirement.

The importance of the inclusion of women in irrigation management groups such as water users’
associations is also addressed in many studies. Van Koppen (2002) found that women benefit
most from irrigation when they hold leadership positions and are included in irrigation forums
such as water users’ associations. However, a study in Nepal suggests that women often have
more difficulty in gaining access to water for irrigation, primarily because they are not supposed
to attend water users' meetings, and water allocation plans are often made in their absence
(Bruins and Heijmans, 1993). Schrevel (1989) determined that a major reason for the poor
functioning of water users' associations in Indonesia was that women were not included in the
groups even though they performed the agricultural and irrigation management activities while
their husbands were away throughout the year. Studies also show that irrigation projects that
directly allocate land to women instead of being allocated through their husbands provide the
most benefit to women (van Koppen, 1990).

4.3.8 Impacts on the environment

By its very nature, irrigation perturbs the natural environment, reducing river flows, drawing
down water tables, or changing the paths through which water flows over the landscape. The
infrastructure used to supply irrigation, particularly large dams, can have transformative impacts
on flow regimes, water temperature and other variables critical to ecosystem function. Irrigation
is also associated with decreases in sediment transport, increases in soil erosion, chemical
contamination, and loss of biodiversity. Some of these impacts are discussed and reviewed in
Falkenmark et al. (2007) and Boelee (2013), and both provide insights into mitigation of
negative environmental consequences of agricultural water use broadly defined.

A wide range of, mostly technical, studies highlight more directly measure the negative impacts
of irrigation on the environment. As examples, the construction of the High Aswan Dam
famously reduced sediment transport and led to the erosion of wetlands in the Nile Delta 800
km downstream (Penvenne, 1996). The damming of the Indus in Pakistan has reduced
sediment transport with subsequent die-off of mangrove forest communities in the downstream
delta (Meynell and Qureshi, 1995). Irrigation is also associated with soil salinization (and water
logging), particularly in arid and semi-arid regions. (Kinje, 1998, Rengassamy, 2006). Chemical

Page 24 of 50
fertilizers and pesticides associated with irrigated agriculture have also been shown to have
negative environmental impacts. Vermeer et al. (1974) found that kites foraging in rice fields had
concentrations of PCP 100 times greater than the levels of kites from nearby freshwater
marshes. Litskas et al. (2009) found in the North Aegean, Greece, that nitrate concentration was
higher in the irrigation water by 0.3mg/L due to the use of fertilizers in irrigation. Many studies,
particularly from the United States of America, have found that irrigation has resulted in greater
pesticide presence in the water table (Hallberg, 1987; Wartenberg, 1988; Pionke et al., 1988).

Higher saline, pesticide and nitrate levels, along with diversions of the water supply have all
contributed to reductions in biodiversity due to the inability of organisms to survive under these
harsh conditions. Studies on biodiversity loss, specifically, highlight the role of the submersion of
wetlands, changing of vegetation communities, or diversion of water to certain areas due to
irrigation (Micklin, 1988; Kotlyakov, 1991; Precoda, 1991). GammelsrØd (1996) found that the
reduction in water flow due to the barrages and dams in Mozambique have led to declines in the
marine prawn populations and fish diversity. Similarly, Kotlyakov (1991) studied the impact of
irrigation on the Aral Sea Basin and found that after water diversions, the number of bird
species decreased by 151 and the number of mammal species decreased by 40.

Many studies attribute the extent of the negative impacts of irrigation on the environment to poor
irrigation management practices. Lewis et al. (2011) determined that with a cessation in
manuring processes over a period of five years resulted in a reduction in dissolved and
particulate contaminants, including total phosphorus (TP), soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP),
total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), and nitrate (NO3) in the examined watershed. Padre et al. (2004)
found that improper irrigation management in the Indo-Ganges plain resulted in loss of soil
organic matter and nutrient matter, and ultimately, a yield decline of 37 kg/ha/year over 20
years. Fujioka and Lane (1997) attribute the negative impact on biodiversity to shifts in irrigation
infrastructure. They found that shifting from ditch-fed irrigation to metal pipes and concrete
channels for rice fields resulted in a reduction in the population of two species since the new,
more efficient infrastructure had reduced the water leakages and thus, the pools of standing
water for frog spawning (Fujioka and Lane, 1997). Soil salinization and water logging are also
generally attributed to poor irrigation planning and management practices.

While not commonly discussed or studied, irrigation may have substantial indirect environmental
benefits by reducing pressure on agricultural land expansion. This point was initially brought up
by Norman Borlaug in response to critics of the Green Revolutions environmental impacts as is
supported by the fact that irrigated agriculture produces 25-40% of food output on 10-20% of
agricultural area (Van Schilfgaarde, 1990; Molden et al., 2007). We only identified one global
study formally addressing the issue (Evenson and Gollan, 2003). It found that agricultural land
area would have been 3-5% higher by 2000 without the Green Revolution (including the
contribution of irrigation). Thus, on the one hand, as highlighted by Molden et al. (2007)
drawing on data and expertise from multiple sources, freshwater ecosystems are perhaps the
most degraded in the world in no small measure due to irrigation. On the other, irrigation may
play a largely unrecognized role in reducing other environmental pressures from food production
and can provide new forms of environmental services, for example as in traditional (e.g.

Page 25 of 50
Natuhara, 2013) and modern systems (Soils Incorporated, 2000). Unfortunately, the net impacts
of irrigation on the environment at local, national and global levels have received little attention
in the literature.

4.3.9 Multiplier effects and impacts on the broader economy and political structure

Broad analyses of Green Revolution impact highlight large, positive spillover effects as
increased output increased incomes, consumption and employment, and spurred both rural and
urban growth, driving modernization. Later studies as well estimate high off-farm impacts.
Bhatturai et al. (2007) estimated that multiplier effects in India were 3-4 times more than the
direct effects of irrigation. Given the widespread benefits, they questioned the push to require
farmers to bear responsibility for the full costs of irrigation operations and maintenance. Other
studies suggest that multiplier effects may diminish over time and should be examined in the
context of other investment opportunities. Fan et al. (2008) found, also in India, that while
additional irrigation investment yielded positive benefits to poverty reduction and the overall
economy, returns diminished as poverty declined. Returns to investments in other areas of rural
infrastructure such as roads, electricity and education then provided significantly better returns.
An economic analysis of irrigation development in Idaho (Hamilton and Gardner, 1986) found
that while returns at the project level were $166/acre, the net benefits to the state were -$8. The
study further found that water use generated much higher values in hydropower production than
irrigation. Thus, the question is not simply whether irrigation investment will have impacts
beyond the agricultural sector, it will. The question is the relative impact of irrigation investment
as compared to alternative uses of capital and, in an increasingly water scarce world, water.

Finally, while not falling within the category of impact assessment and beyond the main scope of
this paper, a broad range of literature discusses the connection between irrigation, politics and
political economy (e.g. Steward, 1955; Mitchell, 1973; Davies, 2009). Irrigation has been
credited with generating the surpluses behind the rise of civilization and connected with political
development in systems ranging from the Subak rice terraces in Indonesia to Mormon canals in
the arid western U.S. In the late 20th century, irrigation was credited not only with underpinning
the food supply gains and resulting poverty reduction of the Green Revolution but also with
aspects of modernization and the nature of governments in Asia and Latin America (Niazi, 2004;
Latham, 2011).

The development of irrigation also requires the creation of governance and bureaucratic
structures that may have far-reaching and unexpected consequences. Reisner (1993)
documents how water bureaucracies created to provide irrigation and other water infrastructure
took on lives of their own and shaped U.S. politics. Similarly, Suhardiman et al. (2014) and
Suhardiman and Giordano (2014) discuss political implications of irrigation bureaucracies in The
Philippines, Mexico, Indonesia, and Uzbekistan as do Nickum and Mollinga (2016) for China
and India. Parayil (1992) describes the political changes made by Indian policy makers to allow
the Green Revolution in India while Shah (2010) documents how that effort later created a

Page 26 of 50
broadly entangled and highly political “irrigation-energy nexus” with implications for economic
growth and politics.

5. Discussion
Assessments of irrigation almost universally demonstrate positive impacts on agricultural output
through direct production effects and increases in the productivity of complementary inputs
(land, labor and fertilizer) and via indirect effects that increase expected returns and spur
investments in other agricultural technologies and human capital. The literature also highlights
the substantial contributions of irrigation to poverty reduction over the last 50 years for farmers,
the landless and land-poor who gain at least seasonal employment on irrigated farms and,
perhaps most significantly, consumers. Consumers in general gain through greater availability
of basic food supplies at prices much lower than would have been the case without irrigation.
Poor consumers in particular gain because of the high proportion of their incomes spent on
food.

The literature also clearly demonstrates that irrigation impacts go far beyond production and
poverty effects. These additional impacts include changes in nutrition and health status,
education levels, the environment, global commodity prices, the overall economy and even the
nature of political systems. These impacts are dependent on geographic and social context and
can be highly variable in both magnitude and direction. For example, irrigation can increase
nutritional diversity when used to support household vegetable production or when it results in
income increases that support dietary diversification. However, when irrigation encourages
monocropping, nutritional diversity can decline.

Impacts are also dynamic. Early analysis of the Green Revolution found that benefits accrued
to those with large land holdings who were able to adopt new technologies early. Later studies
showed that the benefits were much more widely shared. Similarly, irrigation development can
increase disease vectors and burden as standing or slow-moving water becomes more
prevalent. However, increases in income made possible by irrigation may be invested over time
in disease prevention, actually lowering disease impacts. The literature shows that the nature of
irrigation impacts changes as income levels and the structure of the overall economy changes.
For example, Fan et al. (2008) found that while the poverty reducing impact of irrigation
remained positive, its marginal effects declined over time and alternative investments in the
rural economy eventually had higher returns.

The literature uncategorically demonstrates that irrigation impacts, both positive and negative,
do not accrue equally across individuals, groups, regions and countries. Virtually every study
that used disaggregated data to assess differential impacts found the differences to be
significant. Where land holdings are unequal, irrigation benefits will also be. Those in headends
of irrigation systems will benefit more than those in tail ends. The gendered nature of farming is
often reproduced and perhaps strengthened by irrigation investment. In some cases, the result
of this inequity can be benign, with one beneficiary profiting more than another but all gaining. In
other cases, though, one group may benefit at the cost of another. This may be particularly

Page 27 of 50
common in the case of environmental externalities, for example where dams displace poor
populations or downstream ecosystem services on which the poor depend are destroyed.

There is no question that irrigation development has direct, negative impacts on the
environment, and the literature documents multiple pathways through which these impacts can
accrue including flooding from dam development, reductions in river flows and related
ecosystem services, drawdown of groundwater, salinization and contamination. However,
irrigation also provides indirect environmental benefits through the increases it brings to land
and other input productivity. This in turn reduces pressure to develop new agricultural land,
much of which would be of increasingly marginal quality (e.g. highly sloping lands) and
susceptible to degradation and of potentially high value in terms of protection of remaining
biodiversity. This positive environmental impact of irrigation appears largely unappreciated and
under-documented in the literature.

Based on this review, there is no question that irrigation investments in the last 50 years have
had major positive impacts on both food production and poverty reduction. Nonetheless, there is
substantial concern in the literature and voiced by investors that, despite success, many
government-managed irrigation systems have not lived up to expectations (Jones, 1995; Turral,
1995; Malano & Hofwegen, 1999; Mukherji et al., 2009). The literature also shows that negative
impacts of irrigation were often misunderstood or ignored, raising questions of equity and
sustainability.

Furthermore, the rationale for irrigation has changed. In the post WWII world, agriculture was
seen as an engine of economic growth and a key means to reduce poverty. This may still be the
case in some parts of the world, particularly Africa, but as the economies of the former
developing world have grown and poverty levels reduced, agriculture may now be less an
engine of growth than a base for food price, and therefore political, stability. Similarly, as abject
poverty levels have decreased in rural areas, the role traditional large-scale irrigation can play in
poverty reduction must also necessarily change. As an example, Huang et al. (2005) found that
irrigation investments in the systems they studied in China had relatively little impact on rural
poverty, because the irrigation districts had so few poor farmers. At the same time, the
opportunity costs of water are changing as scarcity increases, urban areas generate higher
value water uses, and values towards the environment change.

6. Summary and recommendations

Hundreds, and possibly thousands, of published studies have assessed the impacts of
irrigation. The goal of this paper was to identify and provide context to an illustrative range of
those assessments drawn from a variety of literatures and approaches. In total, we examined
more than 500 hundred studies, more than 250 of which are cited here. The cited studies were
examined for a variety of variables including location, scale, time since irrigation intervention,
irrigation source and type, impact evaluation approach and the nature of the impact assessed.
The impacts they measured and their context formed the core of this work. While there was
wide variation in the approaches, scope and foci of the studies as well as their specific findings,
a number of general conclusions emerged.

Page 28 of 50
First, irrigation is clearly linked to increased agricultural output through both direct production
effects and through its role in increasing the productivity of complementary inputs.

Second, irrigation has been strongly associated with decreases in poverty, particularly amongst
direct beneficiaries and urban consumers.

Third, irrigation is linked to a wide range of other impacts, for example in nutrition, health and
the environment.

Fourth, studies that measured irrigation impacts beyond the farm or system scales often found
indirect, secondary effects of similar or greater magnitude than direct, primary effects. In some
cases these secondary effects were positive (e.g. multiplier effects to the overall economy) and
in some cases negative (e.g. off-site environmental effects that offset the gains in production or
poverty reduction).

Fifth, the magnitude and nature of irrigation impacts, particularly impacts beyond production
effects, were highly dependent on the particular location and circumstances in which irrigation
occurred. In addition, impacts changed over time in terms of magnitude and sometimes sign.

Sixth, irrigation impacts, positive and negative, were unequal socially, spatially, and temporally.
Virtually every study we reviewed that was designed to measure differential impacts, in
whatever dimension, found them to be significant.

These conclusions along with our findings on irrigation impact assessment lead us to the
following, interrelated, considerations for future investment and research:

6.1 Expanded attention to benefits AND costs

The question is not whether past investments in irrigation resulted in positive impacts on food
production and poverty reduction, they did. The question is the cost at which those benefits
came at project and broader scales. While project proposals include analyses of net expected
financial returns to investment, relatively few formal, post hoc assessments consider financial or
economic benefits AND costs, even for analyses conducted at farm or irrigation system scales.
Fewer still attempt to measure the net societal impacts of irrigation or consider the opportunity
costs of water. Of those that went beyond the system level, one found high positive spillover
effects, justifying public investment and subsidy. Another found that while direct returns to
irrigation investment are positive, impacts were overstated when negative externalities such as
those related to health were neglected. Another found that positive direct impacts on poverty
were offset by negative indirect impacts off site (Duflo and Pande, 2005). While more impact
assessments that include net benefits across scales may be needed (see below), the key point
is that any irrigation investment needs to be informed by consideration of financial and
economic benefits and costs, across scales. This is particularly important for project level
investment decisions as well as irrigation policy more generally, since evidence shows that

Page 29 of 50
multiplier effects and externalities, positive and negative, can be greater in magnitude than
primarily impacts.

6.2 Greater consideration of multiple impacts

While assessments of irrigation impact have clearly established increases in crop output and
decreases in poverty, they also show a wide range of other impacts that occur through
sometimes complex pathways. These impacts can be positive or negative, may occur far from
irrigation itself, and are many times counterintuitive. To facilitate analysis and discussion, this
study presented an impact typology divided into 9 broad categories, but each element of the
typology could easily have been further sub-divided multiple times or organized in alternative
ways. While it is not possible to anticipate every possible impact in every investment decision, at
least informal consideration of the range of likely impacts beyond the system level is important
for project planning and, perhaps more importantly, the long-term success of and support for
irrigation investment. As an example, a main thrust of the arguments against irrigation focuses
on sometimes unanticipated costs including loss of crop diversity, falling groundwater tables,
increased pesticide use, increases in disease vectors in poorly managed systems, and
increased poverty when irrigation is developed in areas where structural inequality is already
pervasive. Greater awareness of and therefore anticipation of possible negative impacts such
as these can inform actions that reduce negative externalities. Likewise, anticipation of the
broad range of possible positive irrigation impacts can help inform decisions to maximize their
extent.

6.3 Continued, explicit focus on poverty and equity in investment and analysis
Irrigation impacts, positive and negative, are not distributed equally. Thus, irrigation investments
designed to contribute to the eradication of extreme poverty and boost shared prosperity must
explicitly consider how both the benefits and costs will be accrued across beneficiaries as well
as between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. In some cases, the poverty reduction potential
of specific irrigation investments may not be met unless other conditions are simultaneously
changed. This may sometimes be difficult, for example when it involves structural factors such
land holding size or caste or gender relations. In other cases, there may be opportunities to
design investments, or their locations, to disproportionately favor the poor. For example, given
the gender, equity and nutritional significance of home gardens, rural water supply projects that
plan for home plot irrigation may have disproportionate positive impacts on both poverty and
equity. Even if irrigation provides net benefits, it impacts producers and consumers differently
and may cause tradeoffs between those directly receiving benefits and those who do not.
Explicit consideration of who benefits, who is harmed, and the magnitude of both may be at
least as important in having investments meet poverty reduction and equity goals as overall
calculations of net project returns or benefits.

6.4 Reduce environmental costs, including health related, and make a better case for
environmental benefits
Irrigation is associated with many negative environmental impacts. Negative impacts will occur
to some extent because of the very nature of irrigation in modifying the natural environment.

Page 30 of 50
However, the extent of impact has often been exacerbated by a failure to anticipate
environmental costs in decision-making and poor management of environmental consequences.
Many studies highlight, for example, that increased prevalence of irrigation induced disease
should be anticipated during the initial irrigation operation period, and can be reduced through
awareness raising among affected communities and increased preparation of health institutions
during project preparation. Less discussed, irrigation also provides significant indirect
environmental benefits, in particular by reducing pressure on additional land development. Lack
of irrigation is also not associated with positive environmental outcomes. Ethiopia’s degraded
landscapes, for example, occur not because irrigation exists but because it does not. While the
long-term solutions to land pressures might be in reduced meat demand, reductions in
agricultural and food waste, and increases in yields via biotechnology, irrigation will continue to
play a major role in many countries for decades to come. Reducing unnecessary negative
environmental impacts of irrigation as well as better explaining the environmental case for
irrigation are both needed to ensure good investment decisions as well as public understanding
of irrigation’s place in environmental debates.

6.5 Anticipate changing needs and values

While early rationale for and studies of the Green Revolution era irrigation investment focused
on production increases and poverty reduction impacts for farmers and consumers, later studies
tended to include a broader range of variables including farm labor demand, expanding supply
chains, and positive spillover effects in the broader economy. Another set of studies focused on
the negative impacts of irrigation and brought attention to unanticipated costs such as falling
groundwater tables, increased pesticide use, and increases in disease vectors in poorly
managed systems. Later assessments tend to shift from the impacts of large scale surface
systems to small scale technologies and groundwater. These changes in what is studies in part
reflect an increased understanding of the mechanisms through which irrigation works. They also
in part reflect changes in the environment in which irrigation exists and in the nature of food and
poverty challenges it is designed to address. Food security challenges have shifted from
providing gross production of sufficient calories to ensuring access to those calories and
ensuring that that are combined with appropriate nutrients. The nature and location of poverty
have shifted and as have the options for particular forms of irrigation to address it. The
opportunity cost of water has also changed as more water has been developed for irrigation and
water demand for cities and industry have grown along with awareness of water’s environmental
value. Water scarcity and a global water “crisis,” are now the focus rather than water
development. Future irrigation investments must be designed not for the present but for a still
different future.

6.6 Additional investment in priority research areas

There is no shortage of irrigation impact assessments and so no need for a general call for
additional research. However, key questions on particular irrigation impacts have been identified
in recent literature, for example on the role of irrigation in nutrition and on ways to use
irrigation’s gendered dimensions to reduce poverty. New research is also needed to support
investment in irrigation to meet newly emerging priorities, for example youth employment.
Beyond these specific questions, this assessment suggests a number of general gaps in

Page 31 of 50
approach to irrigation impact assessment which, if filled, would provide insights to inform future
investment and investment policy. The following recommendations focus on these general gaps.

6.6.1 Design formal assessment, not just M&E, in conjunction with project implementation
A general challenge for most irrigation impact assessments is that they are implemented after
irrigation is already in place. Only rarely are assessments done using pre-irrigation baseline
data. While with-without and other approaches may partially address this problem, planning and
collecting data for impact assessment in the designs of an increased number of projects would
facilitate a stronger understanding of impacts. In addition, collaborative planning for impact
assessment with project implementers and outside researchers may bring new insights for both
in planning investments to achieve the highest desired impacts and in understanding the
processes through which irrigation impacts occur.

6.6.2. Invest in long term assessments of irrigation’s dynamic nature

It has been suggested that the minimum lag to assess the impact of Irrigation Management
Transfer on system performance, not impact more broadly, is 6-10 years after implementation.
To understand the broader impacts of newly established irrigation, the minimum lag should
presumably be many more years if not decades. Nonetheless, many published assessments
take place only a few years after implementation, with potentially important implications for
policy. For example, irrigation benefits spread to poorer farmers only over time in the Green
Revolution, and some impacts, such has been shown for malaria, may switch sign. This
highlights the need for studies that assess longer term effects as well as assessments that
occur across time, rather than simply between two points of time. Longitudinal assessments will
be relatively costly and their structure may run counter to the time frames of traditional project
funding. However, given their paucity, their insights are likely to be substantial and institutional
models for their implementation do exist in other areas. For example, the Long Term Ecological
Research Network (https://lternet.edu/), funded partly by the National Science Foundation in the
U.S., examines changes to forest ecology over time periods of 25 years or more. Longitudinal
studies in health are also common.

6.6.3 Renew focus on the impact of large scale irrigation, particularly in terms of maintenance
and institutions
As the opportunities for large scale irrigation have declined, with a possible exception of SSA,
so too has the number of assessments of its impact. Nonetheless, it is these systems that still
provide the bulk of irrigation despite a general agreement that performance is lower than
expected. Lower performance is generally believed to be caused by deterioration of physical
infrastructure due to deferred maintenance, itself a function of poor (financial) incentives and
institutional arrangements for infrastructure management (Coward, 1984; Dinar & Subramanian,
1997; Groenfeldt & Svendsen, 2000). There is a large literature on the impact of Irrigation
Management Transfer and Water User Associations (Bastidas, 1999; Koppen et al., 2001; Van
Koppen et al., 2001; Wang et al., 2006). However, this literature is largely focused on irrigation
performance, sometimes including production effects, rather than broader impacts. There is little
other work to provide insights into institutional form, broadly defined, on operations,
maintenance and, eventually, impact.

Page 32 of 50
6.6.4 New analysis of national and global scale impacts and processes
The declining Interest in irrigation over the past 2 to 3 decades is partly a function of increased
global food output and, with some notable exceptions such as 2008, steadily falling real prices.
The 2008 exception again brought to the fore awareness of the interconnection between water,
food prices, and political stability. However, most of the attention on water was focused on
drought or climate change, not the role irrigation played or could play in price stability. This
highlights a broader neglect in understanding of the role of irrigation in global food price levels
and variability. This neglect is particularly problematic in an era of increased climate uncertainty.
Modeling national and global level impacts and contributions of irrigation on prices and their
variability is critical both to inform investment policy and to create broader understanding of
irrigation’s value beyond production..

6.6.5. Support of complementary qualitative work

There has been a push in recent years for more rigorous, quantitative approaches to impact
assessment. While welcome in many ways, this push has reduced emphasis and acceptance of
other forms of analysis. For example, the IEG (2011) analysis of published studies on the
impacts of agricultural investments, including irrigation, rejected ⅔ of the studies it identified
because of concerns around rigor. While quantitative analyses with clearly defined
counterfactuals provide particular, often powerful, insights into impact and attribution, other
approaches may do so as well. For example, qualitative ethnographic can provide nuanced,
grounded insights into the subtle and varied impacts of irrigation alone or as part of change
packages. Such approaches may be particularly strong in highlighting the social mechanisms
through which irrigation impacts occur and are distributed, thereby informing the questions of
later quantitative assessments. While experimental and quasi-experimental approaches are
important, they should not supplant qualitative assessments or be considered to define rigor in
impact assessment.

Page 33 of 50
Bibliography
Acheampong, E. N., Ozor, N., & Sekyi-Annan, E. (2014). Development of small dams and
their impact on livelihoods: Cases from northern Ghana. African Journal of Agricultural
Research, 9(24), 1867-1877.
Adeoti, A., Barry, B., Namara, R., Kamara, A., & Titiati, A. (2007). Treadle pump irrigation
and poverty in Ghana (Vol. 117). IWMI.
Agarwal, B. (1994). A field of one's own: Gender and land rights in South Asia (Vol. 58).
Cambridge University Press.
Ahmed, B., Mume, J., & Kedir, A. (2014). Impact of Small-scale Irrigation on Farm Income
Generation and Food Security Status: The Case of lowland Areas, Oromia,
Ethiopia. International Journal of Economics and Empirical Research (IJEER), 2(10),
412-419.
Aladin, N. V., Plotnikov, I. S., & Potts, W. T. W. (1995). The Aral Sea desiccation and
possible ways of rehabilitating and conserving its Northern part. Environmetrics, 6(1),
17-29.
Alston, J. M., & Pardey, P. G. (2014). Agriculture in the global economy. The Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 28(1), 121-146.
Amacher, G. S., Ersado, L., Grebner, D. L., & Hyde, W. F. (2004). Disease, microdams and
natural resources in Tigray, Ethiopia: impacts on productivity and labour
supplies. Journal of Development Studies, 40(6), 122-145.
Amoah, P., Drechsel, P., Abaidoo, R. C., & Abraham, E. M. (2009). Improving food hygiene
in Africa where vegetables are irrigated with polluted water.
Anderson, J. R., Dillon, J. L., Hazell, P. B. R., Cowie, A. J., & Wan, G. H. (1988). Articles
and Notes Changing Variability in Cereal Production in Australia. Review of Marketing
and Agricultural Economics, 56(3).
Antony, E., & Singandhupe, R. B. (2004). Impact of drip and surface irrigation on growth,
yield and WUE of capsicum (Capsicum annum L.). Agricultural water
management, 65(2), 121-132.
Aseyehegn, K., Yirga, C., & Rajan, S. (2012). Effect of small-scale irrigation on the income
of rural farm households: The case of Laelay Maichew District, Central Tigray,
Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 7(1).
Athreya, V. B., Djurfeldt, G., & Lindberg, S. (1990). Barriers broken: production relations
and agrarian change in Tamil Nadu. Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd.
Audibert, M., Josseran, R., Josse, R., & Adjidji, A. (1990). Irrigation, schistosomiasis, and
malaria in the Logone Valley, Cameroon. The American journal of tropical medicine and
hygiene, 42(6), 550-560.
Audibert, M., Mathonnat, J., & Henry, M. C. (2003). Malaria and property accumulation in
rice production systems in the savannah zone of Cote d'Ivoire. Tropical Medicine &
International Health, 8(5), 471-483.
Ayanwale, A. B., & Alimi, T. (2004). The impact of the National Fadama facility in
alleviating rural poverty and enhancing agricultural development in south-western
Nigeria. Journal of social sciences, 9(3), 157-161.
Ayars, J. E., Phene, C. J., Hutmacher, R. B., Davis, K. R., Schoneman, R. A., Vail, S. S., &
Mead, R. M. (1999). Subsurface drip irrigation of row crops: a review of 15 years of
research at the Water Management Research Laboratory. Agricultural water
management, 42(1), 1-27.
Baeza, A., Bouma, M. J., Dhiman, R. C., Baskerville, E. B., Ceccato, P., Yadav, R. S., &
Pascual, M. (2013). Long-lasting transition toward sustainable elimination of desert
malaria under irrigation development. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Page 34 of 50
Sciences, 110(37), 15157-15162.
Bagson, E., & Kuuder, C. J. W. (2013). Assessment of a smallscale irrigation scheme on
household food security and leisure in Kokoligu; Ghana.
Bakker, M. & Meinzen-Dick, R. (1999). Irrigation systems as multiple-use commons: Water
use in Kirindi Oya, Sri Lanka. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(3), 281-293.
Barbier, E. B., & Thompson, J. R. (1998). The value of water: floodplain versus large-scale
irrigation benefits in northern Nigeria. Ambio, 434-440.
Basnet, K. (1992). Beyond the Chadar and Chardiwari: women in the irrigated areas of
Punjab.
Bastidas, E. P. (1999). Gender issues and women's participation in irrigated agriculture: the
case of two private irrigation canals in Carchi, Ecuador (No. 06973).
Beck, T. (1994). The experience of poverty: fighting for respect and resources in village
India. Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd (ITP).
Beck, T. (1995). The green revolution and poverty in India: a case study of West
Bengal. Applied Geography, 15(2), 161-181.
Bell, C., Hazell, P., & Slade, R. (1982). Project evaluation in regional perspective: a study of
an irrigation project in Northwest Malaysia. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bhatia, R. (1991). Irrigation financing and cost recovery policy in India: case studies from
Bihar and Haryana. Future directions for Indian irrigation: research and policy issues,
168-213.
Bhatia, R., Malik, R. P. S., & Bhatia, M. (2007). Direct and indirect economic impacts of the
Bhakra multipurpose dam, India. Irrigation and Drainage, 56(2‐3), 195-206.
Bhattarai, M., & Narayanamoorthy, A. (2003). Impact of irrigation on rural poverty in India:
an aggregate panel-data analysis. Water Policy, 5(5-6), 443-458.
Bhattarai, M., Barker, R., & Narayanamoorthy, A. (2007). Who benefits from irrigation
development in India? Implication of irrigation multipliers for irrigation financing. Irrigation
and Drainage, 56(2‐3), 207-225.
Black, R. E., Allen, L. H., Bhutta, Z. A., Caulfield, L. E., De Onis, M., Ezzati, M., &
Maternal and Child Undernutrition Study Group. (2008). Maternal and child
undernutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences. The
lancet, 371(9608), 243-260.
Bliss, C. J., Lanjouw, P., & Stern, N. (1998). Population, outside employment and
agricultural change. Lanjouw and Stern, eds.
Blyn, G. (1983). The green revolution revisited. Economic Development and Cultural
Change, 31(4), 705-725.
Boudin, C., Robert, V., Carnevale, P., & Ambroise-Thomas, P. (1992). Epidemiology of
Plasmodium falciparum in a rice field and a savanna area in Burkina Faso. Comparative
study on the acquired immunoprotection in native populations. Acta tropica, 51(2), 103-
111.
Brewer, J. D., Sakthivadivel, R., & Raju, K. V. (1997). Water distribution rules and water
distribution performance: a case study in the Tambraparani irrigation system (Vol. 12).
IWMI.
Bruins, B., & Heijmans, A. (1993). Gender Biases in irrigation projects: Gender
considerations in the rehabilitation of Bauraha Irrigation System in the District of Dang,
Nepal. Unpublished report. Kathmandu, Nepal.
Brun, T., Reynaud, J., & Chevassus-Agnes, S. (1989). Food and nutritional impact of one
home garden project in Senegal. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 23(2), 91-108.
Burney, J., Woltering, L., Burke, M., Naylor, R., & Pasternak, D. (2010). Solar-powered drip
irrigation enhances food security in the Sudano–Sahel. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 107(5), 1848-1853.

Page 35 of 50
Burney, J. A., & Naylor, R. L. (2012). Smallholder irrigation as a poverty alleviation tool in
sub-Saharan Africa. World Development, 40(1), 110-123.
Bushamuka, V. N., de Pee, S., Talukder, A., Kiess, L., Panagides, D., Taher, A., & Bloem,
M. (2005). Impact of a homestead gardening program on household food security and
empowerment of women in Bangladesh. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 26(1), 17-25.
Byerlee, D., & Siddiq, A. (1994). Has the green revolution been sustained? The quantitative
impact of the seed-fertilizer revolution in Pakistan revisited. World Development, 22(9),
1345-1361.
Chambers, R. (1988). Managing canal irrigation: Practical analysis from South Asia.
Cambridge University Press.
Chang, J. H. (1968). Climate and agriculture: an ecological survey. Aldine Publishing Co.
Changming, L., Jingjie, Y., & Kendy, E. (2001). Groundwater exploitation and its impact on
the environment in the North China Plain. Water International, 26(2), 265-272.
Chazovachii, B. (2012). The impact of small scale irrigation schemes on rural livelihoods:
the case of Panganai Irrigation Scheme Bikita District Zimbabwe. Journal of Sustainable
Development in Africa, 14(4), 217-231.
Chimbari, M. J., Chirebvu, E., & Ndlela, B. (2004). Malaria and schistosomiasis risks
associated with surface and sprinkler irrigation systems in Zimbabwe. Acta
tropica, 89(2), 205-213.
Cleaver, H. M. (1972). The contradictions of the Green Revolution. The American Economic
Review, 62(1/2), 177-186.
Coluzzi, M. 1984 Heterogeneities of the vectorial malaria system in tropical Africa and their
significance in malaria epidemiology and control. Bulletin of the World Health
Organisation, 62 (Suppl.), 107–113.
Concern Universal. (2012). A study of economic and social impact of three irrigation
schemes in Dedza and Ntcheu districts. Concern Universal Malawi, 21 Link Road,
Namiwawa, Blantyre, Malawi.
Coosemans, M. H. (1985). Comparaison de l’endémie malarienne dans une zone de
riziculture et dans une zone de culture de coton dans la plaine de la Rusizi, Burundi.
In Annales de la Société belge de Médecine Tropicale (Vol. 65, No. Suppl. 2, pp. 187-
200).
Coosemans, M. H., Barutwanayo, M., Onori, E., Otoul, C., Gryseels, B., & Wéry, M. (1987).
Double-blind study to assess the efficacy of chlorproguanil given alone or in combination
with chloroquine for malaria chemoprophylaxis in an area with Plasmodium falciparum
resistance to chloroquine, pyrimethamine and cycloguanil. Transactions of the Royal
Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 81(1), 151-156.
Coosemans, M., & Barutwanyo, M. (1989). Malaria control by antivectorial measures in a
zone of chloroquine-resistant malaria: a successful programme in a rice growing area of
the Rusizi valley. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and
Hygiene, 83, 97.
Coosemans, M., & Mouchet, J. (1990). Consequences of rural development on vectors and
their control. In Annales de la Société Belge de Médecine Tropicale (Vol. 70, No. 1, pp.
5-23).
Coward, E. W. (1984). Improving policies and programs for the development of small-scale
irrigation systems.
Darku, A. B., Malla, S., & Tran, K. C. (2013). Historical Review of Agricultural Productivity
Studies. Alberta, Canada: CAIRN Research Network.
Das, R. J. (2002). The green revolution and poverty: a theoretical and empirical examination
of the relation between technology and society. Geoforum, 33(1), 55-72.
David, C. C., & Otsuka, K. (Eds.). (1994). Modern rice technology and income distribution
in Asia. Int. Rice Res. Inst.

Page 36 of 50
Davies, M. I. (2009). Wittfogel's dilemma: heterarchy and ethnographic approaches to
irrigation management in Eastern Africa and Mesopotamia. World Archaeology, 41(1),
16-35.
De Fraiture, C., Kouali, G. N., Sally, H., & Kabre, P. (2014). Pirates or pioneers? Unplanned
irrigation around small reservoirs in Burkina Faso. Agricultural Water Management, 131,
212-220.
De Zulueta, J., Mujtaba, S. M., & Shah, I. H. (1980). Malaria control and long-term
periodicity of the disease in Pakistan. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical
Medicine and Hygiene, 74(5), 624-632.
DFID. (2001). Contribution of irrigation to sustainable rural livelihoods: literature review.
DFID: Wallingford, UK.
Dhawan, B. D. (1988). Irrigation in India's agricultural development: productivity, stability,
equity (No. 45). Sage Publications (Pvt) Ltd.
Dhawan, B. D. (2000). Drip irrigation: Evaluating returns. Economic and Political Weekly,
3775-3780.
Dillon, A. (2008). Access to irrigation and the escape from poverty: Evidence from northern
Mali (Vol. 782). Intl Food Policy Res Inst.
Dillon, A. (2011). Do differences in the scale of irrigation projects generate different impacts
on poverty and production?. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(2), 474-492.
Dinar, A., & Subramanian, A. (1997). Water pricing experiences: An international
perspective. The World Bank.
Dixon, R. A., & Pinikhana, J. P. (1994). Malaria and proximity to irrigation projects: a
parasitaemia prevalence study from Sri Lanka. Mosq Borne Dis Bull, 11, 116-121.
Domenech, L. (2013). The impact of irrigation on nutrition, health, and gender: A review
paper with insights for Africa south of the Sahara (Vol. 1259). Intl Food Policy Res Inst.
Drechsel, P., Scott, C. A., Raschid-Sally, L., Redwood, M., & Bahri, A. (2009). Wastewater
irrigation and health. Assessing and Mitigating Risk in Low-income Countries. London:
Earthscan.
Dreze, Jean P., Peter Lanjouw, and Naresh Sharma. (1998). "Economic Development 1957-
93." In Lanjouw and Stern, eds.
Duflo, E., & Pande, R. (2005). Dams (No. w11711). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Du Plessis, G., & Lekganyane, E. M. (2010). The role of food gardens in empowering
women: A study of Makotse Women’s Club in Limpopo. Journal of Social Development
in Africa, 25(2).
El Ayni, F., Cherif, S., Jrad, A., & Trabelsi-Ayadi, M. (2012). Impact of agriculture activities
on a coastal aquifer in Tunisia and options for a better water management. Water
international, 37(7), 871-883.
Ersado, L. (2005). Small-scale irrigation dams, agricultural production, and health: theory
and evidence from Ethiopia.
Evenson, R. E., & Gollin, D. (2002). Crop variety improvement and its effect on productivity.
Cabi Publishing.
Evenson, R. E., & Gollin, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to
2000. Science. 300(5620), 758-762.
Fan, S., Gulati, A., & Thorat, S. (2008). Investment, subsidies, and pro-poor growth in rural
India. Agricultural Economics, 39(2), 163-170.
FAO. (2014). FAO AGROSTAT Database Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome, Italy
Fleuret, P., & Fleuret, A. (1980). Nutrition, consumption, and agricultural change. Human
organization, 39(3), 250-260.
Freebairn, D. K. (1995). Did the Green Revolution concentrate incomes? A quantitative
study of research reports. World Development, 23(2), 265-279.
Fuglie, K. O. (2010). Total factor productivity in the global agricultural economy: Evidence

Page 37 of 50
from FAO data. The shifting patterns of agricultural production and productivity
worldwide, 63-95.
Fujioka, M., & Lane, S. J. (1997). The impact of changing irrigation practices in rice fields
on frog populations of the Kanto Plain, central Japan. Ecological research, 12(1), 101-
108.
Galhena, D. H., Freed, R., & Maredia, K. M. (2013). Home gardens: a promising approach
to
enhance household food security and wellbeing. Agriculture & Food Security, 2(1), 8.
GammelsrØd, T. Effect of zambezi river management on the prawn fishery of the sofala banj
in water management and wetlands in sub-saharan africa. Technical report, IUCN,
Switzerland, 1996.
Gebregziabher, G., Namara, R. E., & Holden, S. (2009). Poverty reduction with irrigation
investment: An empirical case study from Tigray, Ethiopia. Agricultural water
management, 96(12), 1837-1843.
Gebregziabher, G., Namara, R. E., & Holden, S. (2012). Technical efficiency of irrigated and
rain-fed smallholder agriculture in Tigray, Ethiopia: A comparative stochastic frontier
production function analysis. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 51(3), 203.
Ghebreyesus, T. A., Haile, M., Witten, K. H., Getachew, A., Yohannes, A. M., Yohannes,
M., & Byass, P. (1999). Incidence of malaria among children living near dams in northern
Ethiopia: community based incidence survey. Bmj, 319(7211), 663-666.
Ghosh, A. K., Bhatt, M. A., & Agrawal, H. P. (2012). Effect of long-term application of
treated sewage water on heavy metal accumulation in vegetables grown in Northern
India. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 184(2), 1025.
Gillies, M. T., & De Meillon, B. (1968). The Anophelinae of Africa south of the Sahara
(Ethiopian zoogeographical region). The Anophelinae of Africa south of the Sahara
(Ethiopian Zoogeographical Region).
Giordano, M., Turral, H., Scheierling, S. M., Tréguer, D. O., & McCornick, P. G. (2017).
Beyond" more crop per drop": evolving thinking on agricultural water
productivity. Research Report-International Water Management Institute, (169).
Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1986). A methodology for measuring food poverty applied to
Kenya. Journal of Development Economics, 24(1), 59-74.
Groenfeldt, D., & Svendsen, M. (Eds.). (2000). Case studies in participatory irrigation
management (Vol. 273). World Bank Publications.
Guhan, S., & Mencher, J. P. (1983). Iruvelpattu Revisited: I. Economic and Political Weekly,
1013-1022.
Gupta, N., Khan, D. K., & Santra, S. C. (2008). An assessment of heavy metal
contamination
in vegetables grown in wastewater-irrigated areas of Titagarh, West Bengal,
India. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 80(2), 115-118.
Guthmann, J. P., Llanos-Cuentas, A., Palacios, A., & Hall, A. J. (2002). Environmental
factors as determinants of malaria risk. A descriptive study on the northern coast of
Peru. Tropical medicine & international health, 7(6), 518-525.
Hallberg, G. R. (1987). The impacts of agricultural chemicals on ground water
quality. GeoJournal, 15(3), 283-295.
Hallman K, Lewis D, Begum S. An integrated economic and social analysis to assess the
impact of vegetable and fishpond technologies on poverty in rural Bangladesh.
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2003. Retrieved from
http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/79202 (8 July 2015).
Hamilton, J. R., & Gardner, R. L. (1986). Value added and secondary benefits in regional
projection evaluation: Irrigation development in the Snake River basin. The Annals of
Regional Science, 20(1), 1-11.

Page 38 of 50
Hazell, P. B. (1982). Instability in Indian foodgrain production. International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Hazell, P. B., & Ramasamy, C. (1991). The Green Revolution reconsidered: the impact of
high-yielding rice varieties in South India. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Headey, D. D., & Hoddinott, J. (2016). Agriculture, nutrition and the green revolution in
Bangladesh. Agricultural Systems, 149, 122-131.
Hoddinott, J., & Yohannes, Y. (2002). Dietary diversity as a food security indicator. Food
consumption and nutrition division discussion paper, 136(136), 2002.
Hoorweg, J., Foeken, D. W. J., & Klaver, W. (1995). Seasons and nutrition at the Kenya
Coast. Avebury [etc.],[Aldershot][etc.].
Hossain, M., Naher, F., & Shahabuddin, Q. (2005). Food security and nutrition in
Bangladesh: progress and determinants. Electronic Journal of Agricultural and
Development Economics, 2(2), 103-132.
Huang, Q., Dawe, D., Rozelle, S., Huang, J., & Wang, J. (2005). Irrigation, poverty and
inequality in rural China. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, 49(2), 159-175.
Hussain, I. (2007). Direct and indirect benefits and potential disbenefits of irrigation:
evidence and lessons. Irrigation and drainage, 56(23), 179-194.
Hussain, I., & Hanjra, M. A. (2002). Agricultural water and poverty: understanding linkages
and identifying interventions.
Hussain, I., & Hanjra, M. A. (2004). Irrigation and poverty alleviation: review of the
empirical evidence. Irrigation and Drainage, 53(1), 1-15.
Iannotti, L., Cunningham, K., & Ruel, M. (2009). Improving diet quality and micronutrient
nutrition: homestead food production in Bangladesh. Intl Food Policy Res Inst.
IEG (Independent Evaluation Group). 2011. Evaluative Lessons from World Bank Group
Experience: Growth and Productivity in Agriculture and Agribusiness. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
IIMI (International Irrigation Management Institute). 1986. Proceedings of the Workshop on
Irrigation and Vector-Borne Disease Transmission. Digana Village, Sri Lanka.
Ijumba, J. N., & Lindsay, S. W. (2001). Impact of irrigation on malaria in Africa: paddies
paradox. Medical and veterinary entomology, 15(1), 1-11.
Irajpoor, A. A., & Latif, M. (2011). Performance of irrigation projects and their impacts on
poverty reduction and its empowerment in arid environment. International Journal of
Environmental Science & Technology, 8(3), 533-544.
Jayaraman, T. K. (1982). Malarial impact of surface irrigation projects: A case study from
Gujarat, India. Agriculture and Environment, 7(1), 23-34.
Jensen, P. K., Van Der Hoek, W., Konradsen, F., & Jehangir, W. A. (1998). Domestic use of
irrigation water in Punjab. In WEDC CONFERENCE (Vol. 24, pp. 297-299). Water,
Engineering and Development Centre.
Jewitt, S., & Baker, K. (2007). The green revolution re-assessed: Insider perspectives on
agrarian change in Bulandshahr district, Western Uttar Pradesh, India. Geoforum, 38(1),
73-89.
Jobin, W. (1999). Dams and disease: ecological design and health impacts of large dams,
canals and irrigation systems. CRC Press.
Jodha, N. S. (1989). Social science research on rural change: some gaps. Conversations
Between Economists and Anthropologists, Delhi: Oxford UP.
Jones,W. 1995. The World Bank and Irrigation. A World Bank Operations Evaluation Study,
OED, World Bank.
Jordans, E., & Zwarteveen, M. (1997). A well of her own: Gender analysis of irrigation
programmes in Bangladesh. Colombo, International Irrigation Management Institute and
Grameen Krishi Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Page 39 of 50
Kamwamba-Mtethiwa, J., Namara, R., De Fraiture, C., Mangisoni, J., & Owusu, E. (2012).
Treadle pump irrigation in Malawi: Adoption, gender and Benefits. Irrigation and
Drainage, 61(5), 583-595.
Kennedy, E. T. (1989). The effects of sugarcane production on food security, health, and
nutrition in Kenya: a longitudinal analysis (Vol. 78). Intl Food Policy Res Inst.
Kibret, S., Alemu, Y., Boelee, E., Tekie, H., Alemu, D., & Petros, B. (2010). The impact of a
Small-scale irrigation scheme on malaria transmission in Ziway area, Central
Ethiopia. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 15(1), 41-50.
Kidala, D., Greiner, T., & Gebre-Medhin, M. (2000). Five-year follow-up of a food-based
vitamin A intervention in Tanzania. Public Health Nutrition, 3(04), 425-431.
Kishore, A. (2002). Social impact of canal irrigation: A review of 30 years of research.
International Water Management Institute (IWMI-TATA Water Policy Program)., India.
Klinkenberg, E., van der Hoek, W., & Amerasinghe, F. P. (2004). A malaria risk analysis in
an irrigated area in Sri Lanka. Acta tropica, 89(2), 215-225.
Kloezen, W., Garces-Restrepo, C., Johnson III, S. (1997). Impact assessment of irrigation
management transfer in the Alto Rio Lerma Irrigation District, Mexico. In: Research
Report 15. International Water Management Institute, Colombo.
Kobayashi, J., Somboon, P., Keomanila, H., Inthavongsa, S., Nambanya, S., Inthakone, S.,
& Miyagi, I. (2000). Malaria prevalence and a brief entomological survey in a village
surrounded by rice fields in Khammouan province, Lao PDR. Tropical Medicine &
International Health, 5(1), 17-21.
Konradsen, F., van der Hoek, W., Amerasinghe, F. P., Mutero, C., & Boelee, E. (2004).
Engineering and malaria control: learning from the past 100 years. Acta Tropica, 89(2),
99-108.
Koppen, B. C., van Koppen, B., Nagar, R. K., Vasavada, S., Nagar, R. K., & Vasavada, S.
(2001). Gender and irrigation in India: the Women's Irrigation Group of Jambar, South
Gujarat (Vol. 10). IWMI.
Kotlyakov, V. M. (1991). The Aral Sea basin: a critical environmental zone. Environment:
Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 33(1), 4-38.
Kumar, K. A., Reddy, M. D., Devi, M. U., Narender, N., & Neelima, T. L. (2014). Irrigation
Performance Assessment of Left Bank Canal, Nagarjuna Sagar Project, India During
Rabi Using Remote Sensing and GIS. Agrotechnol, 3(122), 2.
Latham, M. E. (2011). The right kind of revolution: Modernization, development, and US
foreign policy from the Cold War to the present. Cornell University Press.
Leaf, M. J. (1983). The green revolution and cultural change in a Punjab village, 1965-
1978. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 31(2), 227-270.
Lee, E., Sacks, W. J., Chase, T. N., & Foley, J. A. (2011). Simulated impacts of irrigation on
the atmospheric circulation over Asia. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres,
116(D8).
Lele, U. J., & Mellor, J. W. (1964). Estimates of change and causes of change in
foodgrains production India, 1949-50 to 1960-61.
Lewis, T. W., & Makarewicz, J. C. (2009). Winter application of manure on an agricultural
watershed and its impact on downstream nutrient fluxes. Journal of Great Lakes
Research, 35(sp1), 43-49.
Lipton, M., Litchfield, J., Blackman, R., De Zoysa, D., Qureshy, L., & Waddington, H.
(2002). The impact of irrigation on poverty. Poverty research unit. Brighton, UK:
University of Sussex.
Lipton, M.; Litchfield, J.; Jean-Marc Faurès. (2003). The effects of irrigation on poverty: a
framework for analysis. Water Policy 5:413-427.
Litskas, V. D., Aschonitis, V. G., & Antonopoulos, V. Z. (2010). Water quality in irrigation
and drainage networks of Thessaloniki plain in Greece related to land use, water

Page 40 of 50
management, and agroecosystem protection. Environmental monitoring and
assessment, 163(1-4), 347-359.
Little, H.M.; Taylor, N. (2001). Social and economic impacts associated with irrigated land
use change. Paper presented to the New Zealand Association for Agricultural and
Resource Economics Conference, 6-7 July, Blenheim.
Liu, C., J. Yu, and E. Kendy (2001), Groundwater exploitation and its impact on the
environment in the North China Plain, Water Int., 26(2), 265–272.
Liu, W. H., Zhao, J. Z., Ouyang, Z. Y., Söderlund, L., & Liu, G. H. (2005). Impacts of
sewage irrigation on heavy metal distribution and contamination in Beijing,
China. Environment International, 31(6), 805-812.
Louw, D. B., van Schalkwyk, H. D., Grove, B., & Taljaard, P. R. (2008). Market risk, water
management and the multiplier effects of irrigation agriculture with reference to the
Northern Cape. Water Research Commission. WRC Report, (1250/1), 08.
Malano, H.M. and Hofwegen, P.L.M. 1999. Management of irrigation and drainage
systems: A service approach. IHE Monograph No. 3. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Malaria, R. B. (2005). World malaria report 2005. World Health Organization and UNICEF.
Malik, R. P. S., Giordano, M., & Rathore, M. S. (2016). The negative impact of subsidies on
the adoption of drip irrigation in India: evidence from Madhya Pradesh. International
Journal of Water Resources Development, 1-12.
Mangisoni, J. H. (2008). Impact of treadle pump irrigation technology on smallholder
poverty and food security in Malawi: a case study of Blantyre and Mchinji
districts. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 6(4), 248-266.
Mehra, S. (1981). Instability in Indian agriculture in the context of the new technology (Vol.
25). Intl Food Policy Res Inst.
Mehta, P. K. (2009). Micro-level Decision for Area Shift in Favours Of High Value Crops: A
case of Horticultural Crops. Agricultural Economics Review, 22.
Meinzen-Dick, R., & Bakker, M. (1999). Irrigation systems as multiple-use commons: Water
use in Kirindi Oya, Sri Lanka. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(3), 281-293.
Meinzen-Dick, R. S., & Van Der Hoek, W. (2001). Multiple uses of water in irrigated
areas. Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 15(2), 93-98.
Meynell, P. J., & Qureshi, M. T. (1995). Water resources management in the Indus river
delta, Pakistan. Managing Water Resources. Parks Special, (5), 2.
Merrey, D. J. (1983). Irrigation, poverty and social change in a village of Pakistani Punjab:
an historical and cultural ecological analysis.
Micklin, P. P. (1988). Irrigation and its future in Soviet Central Asia: a preliminary
analysis (p. 70). L. Holzner, & J. Knapp (Eds.). National Council for Soviet and East
European Research.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:
Current State and Trends. Findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series.
Mitchell, W. P. (1973). The hydraulic hypothesis: A reappraisal. Current Anthropology,
14(5), 532-534.
Molden, D. (2007). Water for food. Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water
Management in Agriculture, Earthscan, London, UK.
Moore, M. (2015). The Economics of Water: The Effects of Irrigation on Average Farm
Revenue. SS-AAEA Journal of Agricultural Economics.
Mukherji, A., & Facon, T. (2009). Revitalizing Asia’s irrigation: To sustainably meet
tomorrow’s food needs.
Mwangangi, J. M., Mbogo, C. M., Orindi, B. O., Muturi, E. J., Midega, J. T., Nzovu, J., &
Beier, J. C. (2013). Shifts in malaria vector species composition and transmission
dynamics along the Kenyan coast over the past 20 years. Malaria journal, 12(1), 13.

Page 41 of 50
Nagrah, A., Chaudhry, A. M., & Giordano, M. (2016). Collective action in decentralized
irrigation systems: Evidence from Pakistan. World Development, 84, 282-298.
Namara, R. E., Horowitz, L., Nyamadi, B., & Barry, B. (2011). Irrigation Development in
Ghana: Past experiences, emerging opportunities, and future directions. Ghana Strategy
Support Program (GSSP) Working Paper, (0026).
Namara, R., Upadhyay, B., & Nagar, R. K. (2005). Adoption and impacts of microirrigation
technologies: Empirical results from selected localities of Maharashtra and Gujarat
States of India (Vol. 93). IWMI.
Narayanamoorthy, A., & Deshpande, R. S. (2003). Irrigation development and agricultural
wages: An analysis across states. Economic and Political Weekly, 3716-3722.
Narayanamoorthy, A. (2007). Does groundwater irrigation reduce rural poverty? Evidence
from Indian states. Irrigation and Drainage, 56(23), 349-362.
Natuhara, Y. (2013). Ecosystem services by paddy fields as substitutes of natural wetlands
in Japan. Ecological engineering, 56, 97-106.
Niemeijer, R., Geuns, M., Kliest, T., Ogonda, V., & Hoorweg, J. (1988). Nutrition in
agricultural development: The case of irrigated rice cultivation in West Kenya. Ecology of
Food and Nutrition, 22(1), 65-81.
Niemeijer, R., Foeken, D., & Klaver, W. (1991). Seasonality in the Coastal Lowlands of
Kenya.
Nelson, G. C., Rosegrant, M. W., Koo, J., Robertson, R., Sulser, T., Zhu, T. & Magalhaes,
M. (2009). Climate change: Impact on agriculture and costs of adaptation (Vol. 21). Intl
Food Policy Res Inst.
Niazi, T. (2004). Rural poverty and the green revolution: the lessons from Pakistan. Journal
of Peasant Studies, 31(2), 242-260.
Nickum, J. E., & Mollinga, P. P. (2016). Different Asias, same problems: negotiating the
state-user interface in surface irrigation in China and India. Water Policy, 18(S1), 83-
102.
Nkhata, R. (2014). Does irrigation have an impact on food security and poverty: Evidence
from Bwanje Valley Irrigation Scheme in Malawi (Vol. 4). Intl Food Policy Res Inst.
Ohlendorf, H. M., Hoffman, D. J., Saiki, M. K., & Aldrich, T. W. (1986). Embryonic
mortality and abnormalities of aquatic birds: apparent impacts of selenium from irrigation
drainwater. Science of the Total Environment, 52(1-2), 49-63.
Oomen, J. M. V., de Wolf, J., & Jobin, W. R. (1988). Health and irrigation: incorporation of
disease control measures in irrigation: a multi-faceted task in design, construction, and
operation: Volume 2 (No. 45). ILRI.
Ostrom, E., & Gardner, R. (1993). Coping with asymmetries in the commons: self-governing
irrigation systems can work. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(4), 93-112.
Padre, A. T., & Ladha, J. K. (2004). Integrating yield trends of rice–wheat systems using the
linear mixed effects model and meta-analysis. Rice–wheat Information Sheet, (48).
Parayil, G. (1992). The green revolution in India: A case study of technological change.
Technology and Culture, 33(4), 737-756.
Passarelli, S. A., Bryan, E., & Mekonnen, D. (2017). Irrigation’s Potential to Improve Dietary
Diversity, Production Diversity and Income in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from
Ethiopia and Tanzania. The FASEB Journal, 31(1 Supplement), 786-48.
Penvenne, L. J. (1996). Disappearing delta. American Scientist, 84(5), 438.
Perera, J. (1987). Researching village irrigation systems in Sri Lanka. International Irrigation
Management Institute, Public Intervention in Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems, Sri
Lanka, Kandy, 181-198.
Peter, G. (2011). The impact of small-scale irrigation schemes on household food security in
Swaziland. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 13(6), 102-117.
Pingali, P. L. (2012). Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proceedings of

Page 42 of 50
the National Academy of Sciences, 109(31), 12302-12308.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., & Hazell, P. B. (1985). The impact of the Green Revolution and
prospects for the future. Food Reviews International, 1(1), 1-25.
Pionke, H. B., Glotfelty, D. E., Lucas, A. D., & Urban, J. B. (1988). Pesticide contamination
of groundwaters in the Mahantango Creek watershed. Journal of environmental
quality, 17(1), 76-84.
Precoda, N. (1991). Requiem for the Aral Sea [Heavy withdrawals of irrigation water from
the Syr and Amu led to a marked fall in the level of the Aral sea]. Ambio (United
Kingdom).
Pitman, M. G., & Läuchli, A. (2002). Global impact of salinity and agricultural ecosystems.
In Salinity: environment-plants-molecules (pp. 3-20). Springer Netherlands.
Powell, R. A., Jensen, R. C., & Gibson, A. L. (1985). Economic impact of irrigated
agriculture in NSW. Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Business Management,
University of New England.
Quisumbing, A. R., Brown, L. R., Feldstein, H. S., Haddad, L., & Peña, C. (1995). Women:
The key to food security. Food policy statement, 21.
Ramachandran, V. K. (1990). Wage labour and unfreedom in agriculture: an Indian case
study. Clarendon Press.
Rattan, R. K., Datta, S. P., Chhonkar, P. K., Suribabu, K., & Singh, A. K. (2005). Long-term
impact of irrigation with sewage effluents on heavy metal content in soils, crops and
groundwater—a case study. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 109(3), 310-322.
Reisner, M. (1993). Cadillac desert: The American West and its disappearing water.
Penguin.
Repetto, R. (1994). The "second India" revisited: population poverty and environmental
stress over two decades. WRI PUBLICATIONS BRIEF, 1-4.
Rinaudo, J. D. (2002). Corruption and allocation of water: the case of public irrigation in
Pakistan. Water Policy, 4(5), 405-422.
Ringler, C., & Domenech, L. (2013). The impact of irrigation on nutrition, health, and
gender. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01259.
Robert, V., Gazin, P., Boudin, C., Molez, J. F., Ouedraogo, V., & Carnevale, P. (1985). La
transmission du paludisme en zone de savane arborée et en zone rizicole des environs
de Bobo-Dioulasso (Burkina Faso). Ann Soc Belg Med Trop, 65(Suppl 2), 201-214.
Saeed, F., Hagemann, S., & Jacob, D. (2009). Impact of irrigation on the South Asian
summer monsoon. Geophysical Research Letters, 36(20).
Saith, A., & Tankha, A. (1992) Longitudinal analysis of structural change in a North Indian
Village: 1970–1987. Working paper series 128. Institute of Social Studies, The Hague,
processed.
Schaetzel, T., Antal, M., & Guyon, A. (2013, January). Factors Motivating Home Garden
Choices Affecting Dietary Diversity in Bangladesh. In Annals of Nutrition and
Metabolism (Vol. 63, pp. 1843-1843). Allschwilerstrasse 10, Ch-4009 Basel, Switzerland:
Karger.
Scheierling, S., Treguer, D. O., & Booker, J. F. (2016). Water productivity in agriculture:
Looking for water in the agricultural productivity and efficiency literature. Water
Economics and Policy, 2(03), 1650007.
Schraven, B. (2010). Irrigate or migrate? Local livelihood adaptation in Northern Ghana in
response to ecological changes and economic challenges. Unpublished PhD thesis,
ZEF: University of Bonn.
Schreinemachers, P., Patalagsa, M. A., Islam, M. R., Uddin, M. N., Ahmad, S., Biswas, S.
C., & Takagi, C. (2015). The effect of women’s home gardens on vegetable production
and consumption in Bangladesh. Food Security, 7(1), 97-107.
Schrevel, A. (1989). Indonesia’s irrigation sector: Some preliminary conclusions from a

Page 43 of 50
socio-economic perspective. Organization and participation in southeast Asian irrigation
systems.
Senanayake, N., & Mukherji, A. (2014). Irrigating with arsenic contaminated groundwater in
West Bengal and Bangladesh: A review of interventions for mitigating adverse health
and crop outcomes. Agricultural water management, 135, 90-99.
Senanayake, N., Mukherji, A., & Giordano, M. (2015). Re-visiting what we know about
Irrigation Management Transfer: A review of the evidence. Agricultural Water
Management, 149, 175-186.
Shah, T., Alam, M., Kumar, M. D., Nagar, R. K., & Singh, M. (2000). Pedaling out of
poverty: Social impact of a manual irrigation technology in South Asia (Vol. 45). IWMI.
Shah, T. (2010). Taming the anarchy: Groundwater governance in South Asia. Routledge.
Shittu, A. M., Ashaolu, O. F., & PHILIP, B. (2010). Determinants of Agricultural Labour
Productivity in the West African Sub-Region, 1970-2004. Journal of Humanities, Social
Science and Creative Arts, 5(1), 101-110.
Shiva, V. (2016). The violence of the green revolution: Third world agriculture, ecology, and
politics. University Press of Kentucky.
Siddig, K.H.A.; Mubarak, A.M. 2013. Food self-sufficiency versus foreign currency earnings
in the Sudanese irrigated agriculture. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural
Sciences12:19-25.
Silliman, J., & Lenton, R. (1987). Irrigation and the land-poor. In Conference on Water and
Water Policy in World Food Supplies, Texas AandM Univ., College Station, Texas
(USA), 26-30 May 1985. Texas AandM University Press.
Simmons, R. W., Pongsakul, P., Saiyasitpanich, D., & Klinphoklap, S. (2005). Elevated
levels of cadmium and zinc in paddy soils and elevated levels of cadmium in rice grain
downstream of a zinc mineralized area in Thailand: implications for public
health. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 27(5-6), 501-511.
Singh, N., Shukla, M. M., & Sharma, V. P. (1999). Epidemiology of malaria in pregnancy in
central India. Bull World Health Organ, 77(7), 567-572.
Smith, L. E. (2004). Assessment of the contribution of irrigation to poverty reduction and
sustainable livelihoods. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 20(2),
243-257.
Smith, M., Fereres, E., & Kassam, A. (2001, December). Crop water productivity under
deficient water supply. In Paper presented on the occasion of the Expert Meeting on
Crop Water Productivity Under Deficient Water Supply (pp. 3-5).
Snow, F. 1983 Mosquito production and species succession from an area of irrigated rice
fields in The Gambia, West Africa. Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 86, 237–
245.
Soils Incorporated (Pty) Ltd and Chalo Environmental and Sustainable Development
Consultants. 2000. Kariba Dam Case Study, prepared as an input to the World
Commission on Dams, Cape Town.
http://share.nanjing-school.com/dpgeography/files/2013/05/World_Commission_on_Dam
s_2000_Case_Study_Kariba_Dam_Final_Report_November_2000-2etc5lv.pdf
Squires, V. (2010). The role of food, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries in human
nutrition. Interdisciplinary and Sustainability Issues in Food and Agriculture-Volume
I, 1, 177.
Steinfeld, H., Wassenaar, T., & Jutzi, S. (2006). Livestock production systems in developing
countries: status, drivers, trends. Rev Sci Tech, 25(2), 505-516.
Steward, Julian Haynes. (1955). Irrigation Civilizations: A Comparative Study. A Symposium
on Method and Result in Cross Cultural Regularities. Vol. 1. Pan American Union.
Suhardiman, D., & Giordano, M. (2014). Is there an alternative for irrigation reform?. World
Development, 57, 91-100.

Page 44 of 50
Suhardiman, D., Giordano, M., Rap, E., & Wegerich, K. (2014). Bureaucratic reform in
irrigation: A review of four case studies. Water Alternatives, 7(3).
Surtees, G. (1970). Effects of irrigation on mosquito populations and mosquito-borne
diseases in man, with particular reference to ricefield extension. International Journal of
Environmental Studies, 1(1-4), 35-42.
Takeshima, H., Adeoti, A. I., & Popoola, O. A. (2016). The impact on farm household
welfare of large irrigation dams and their distribution across hydrological basins: Insights
from northern Nigeria (Vol. 35). Intl Food Policy Res Inst.
Tesfaye, A., Bogale, A., Namara, R. E., & Bacha, D. (2008). The impact of small-scale
irrigation on household food security: The case of Filtino and Godino irrigation schemes
in Ethiopia. Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 22(2), 145-158.
Turral, H. (1995). Recent trends in irrigation management: Changing directions for the public
sector. Natural Resource Perspectives, 5.
Turral, H., Burke, J. J., & Faurès, J. M. (2011). Climate change, water and food security.
Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Upadhyay, B., M. Samad, and M. Giordano. 2005. Livelihoods and Gender Roles in Drip-
Irrigation Technology: A Case of Nepal. Working Paper 87. Colombo, Sri Lanka:
International Water Management Institute.
Van den Bold, M., Quisumbing, A. R., Rubin, D., Manfre, C., Waithanji, E., Olney, D., &
Meinzen-Dick, R. (2015). Gender, assets, and market-oriented agriculture: learning from
high-value crop and livestock projects in Africa and Asia. Agriculture and Human
Values, 32(4), 705-725.
Van Der Hoek, W., Konradsen, F., & Jehangir, W. A. (1999). Domestic use of irrigation
water: health hazard or opportunity? International Journal of Water Resources
Development, 15(1-2), 107-119.
Van der Hoek, W., Feenstra, S. G., & Konradsen, F. (2002). Availability of irrigation water
for domestic use in Pakistan: its impact on prevalence of diarrhea and nutritional status
of children. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 77-84.
Van Koppen, B. C. M. (1990). Women and the design of farmer-managed irrigation
schemes-experiences provided by two projects in Burkina Faso. Women and the design
of farmer-managed irrigation schemes-experiences provided by two projects in Burkina
Faso.
Van Koppen, B. (1998). Water rights, gender, and poverty alleviation. Inclusion and
exclusion of women and men smallholders in public irrigation infrastructure
development. Agriculture and Human Values, 15(4), 361-374.

Van Koppen B, van

Etten J, Bajracharya
P, Tuladhar A. 2001a.
Page 45 of 50
Women irrigators and
women leaders in the
Water User
Association of the
West
Gandak Large-Scale
Canal Irrigation
Scheme, Nepal. IWMI
Working Paper
Van Koppen B, van
Etten J, Bajracharya
Page 46 of 50
P, Tuladhar A. 2001a.
Women irrigators and
women leaders in the
Water User
Association of the
West
Gandak Large-Scale
Canal Irrigation
Scheme, Nepal. IWMI
Working Paper

Page 47 of 50
Van Koppen B, van
Etten J, Bajracharya
P, Tuladhar A. 2001a.
Women irrigators and
women leaders in the
Water User
Association of the
West
Gandak Large-Scale
Canal Irrigation

Page 48 of 50
Scheme, Nepal. IWMI
Working Paper
Van Koppen, B., van Etten, J., Bajracharya, P., Tuladhar, A. (2001). Women irrigators and
women leaders in the Water User Association of the WestGandak Large-Scale Canal
Irrigation Scheme, Nepal. IWMI Working Paper.
Van Koppen, B., & Koppen, B. C. (2002). A gender performance indicator for irrigation:
Concepts, tools and applications (Vol. 59). IWMI.
Van Schilfgaarde, J. (1990). America's irrigation: Can it last?. Civil Engineering, 60(3), 67.
Vaughan, M., Moore, H. (1993). Cutting Down Trees: Gender, Nutrition and Agricultural
Change in the Northern Province of Zambia, 1890-1990, London: James Currey,
Heinemann.
Venot, J. P., Andreini, M., & Pinkstaff, C. B. (2011). Planning and corrupting water
resources development: The case of small reservoirs in Ghana. Water alternatives, 4(3),
399.
Vermeer, K., Risebrough, R. W., Spaans, A. L., & Reynolds, L. M. (1974). Pesticide effects
on fishes and birds in rice fields of Surinam, South America. Environmental Pollution
(1970), 7(3), 217-236.
Vermillion, D. L. (1997). Impacts of irrigation management transfer: A review of the
evidence (Vol. 11). IWMI.
Von Braun, J., Puetz, D., & Webb, P. (1989). Irrigation technology and commercialization of
rice in the Gambia, effects on income and nutrition (Vol. 75). Intl Food Policy Res Inst.
Von Braun, J. (Ed.). (1995). Employment for poverty reduction and food security. Intl Food
Policy Res Inst.
Wade, R. (1982). The system of administrative and political corruption: Canal irrigation in
South India. The Journal of Development Studies, 18(3), 287-328.
Wakeyo, M. B., & Gardebroek, C. (2015). Empty pockets, empty ponds? Disadoption of
water harvesting technologies in Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments, 120, 75-86.
Walker, T. S., & Ryan, J. G. (1990). Village and household economics in India's semi-arid
tropics. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wang, J., Xu, Z., Huang, J., & Rozelle, S. (2006). Incentives to managers or participation of
farmers in China's irrigation systems: which matters most for water savings, farmer
income, and poverty?. Agricultural Economics, 34(3), 315-330.
Wang'Ombe, J. K., & Mwabu, G. M. (1993). Agricultural land use patterns and malaria
conditions in Kenya. Social Science & Medicine, 37(9), 1121-1130.
Wartenberg, D. (1988). Groundwater contamination by Temik Aldicarb pesticide: The first 8
months. Water Resources Research, 24(2), 185-194.
White, G. B. (1974). Anopheles gambiae complex and disease transmission in
Africa. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and hygiene, 68(4), 278-
298.
Woldewahid, G., Gebremedhin, B., Berhe, K., & Hoekstra, D. (2011). Shifting towards
market-oriented irrigated crops development as an approach to improve the income of
farmers: Evidence from northern Ethiopia.
Yasmin, T., Khattak, R., & Ngah, I. (2014). Eco-friendly kitchen gardening by Pakistani

Page 49 of 50
rural women developed through a farmer field school participatory approach. Biological
agriculture & horticulture, 30(1), 32-41.
Yohannes, M., Haile, M., Ghebreyesus, T. A., Witten, K. H., Getachew, A., Byass, P., &
Lindsay, S. W. (2005). Can source reduction of mosquito larval habitat reduce malaria
transmission in Tigray, Ethiopia?. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 10(12),
1274-1285.
Zwarteveen, M. Z. (1993). Gender issues, water issues: a gender perspective on irrigation
management.
Zwarteveen, M., & Neupane, N. (1996). Free-riders or victims: women's nonparticipation in
irrigation management in Nepal's Chhattis Mauja Irrigation Scheme (Vol. 7). IWMI.
Zwarteveen, M. Z. (2006). Wedlock or deadlock? Feminists' attempts to engage irrigation
engineers. Ponsen & Looijen.

Page 50 of 50