Please login first
Maurizio PROSPERI   Dr.  University Educator/Researcher 
Timeline See timeline
Maurizio PROSPERI published an article in January 2019.
Top co-authors
Giacomo Giannoccaro

7 shared publications

Department DiSAAT, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, via G. Amendola 165/a, 70121 Bari, Italy

5
Publications
10
Reads
0
Downloads
0
Citations
Publication Record
Distribution of Articles published per year 
(2016 - 2019)
Total number of journals
published in
 
5
 
Publications
Article 0 Reads 0 Citations Ex ante assessment of social acceptance of small-scale agro-energy system: A case study in southern Italy Maurizio Prosperi, Mariarosaria Lombardi, Alessia Spada Published: 01 January 2019
Energy Policy, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.015
DOI See at publisher website
Article 0 Reads 0 Citations Production of bioplastics for agricultural purposes: A supply chain study Maurizio Prosperi, Roberta Sisto, Mariarosaria Lombardi, Xue... Published: 01 July 2018
RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', doi: 10.3280/riss2018-001010
DOI See at publisher website
Article 1 Read 0 Citations Organic fraction of municipal solid waste valorisation in southern Italy: the stakeholders' contribution to a long-term ... Roberta Sisto, Edgardo Sica, Mariarosaria Lombardi, Maurizio... Published: 01 December 2017
Journal of Cleaner Production, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.186
DOI See at publisher website
BOOK-CHAPTER 4 Reads 0 Citations Participatory Planning in Organic Solid Waste Management: A Backcasting Approach Roberta Sisto, Edgardo Sica, Mariarosaria Lombardi, Maurizio... Published: 28 April 2017
Food Waste Reduction and Valorisation, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-50088-1_13
DOI See at publisher website
CONFERENCE-ARTICLE 5 Reads 0 Citations <strong>The magnitude and cost of groundwater monitoring and control in agriculture.</strong> Giacomo Giannoccaro, Armando Ursitti, Maurizio Prosperi Published: 22 November 2016
The 1st International Electronic Conference on Water Sciences, doi: 10.3390/ecws-1-e005
DOI See at publisher website ABS Show/hide abstract

As pointed out by Field and Field [1] there is a natural tendency among people to think that enacting a law automatically leads to the rectification of the problem to which it is addressed.

The implementation and effectiveness of a groundwater use limit as well as pricing policy crucially depends on enforcement capacity, sanctioning systems, and the need for the generation of information and its management. Key issue in groundwater management is the size of the groundwater user community. Groundwater aquifers can be very small, with only tens or hundreds of users, but generally there is a large extent of individual users. Enforcement ultimately requires energy and resources thus it turns into a costly activities. 

Implementing an on-farm monitoring and control system typically involves a fixed component such as installing measuring devices, setting up administration and facilities, and a variable component that increases with the water proceeds (i.e. monitoring and collection activities). Monitoring/detection, may include both measuring the performance of water users and monitoring their compliance with regulation, as well as the development of monitoring technologies [2].

The aim of this research is to define a framework analysis of groundwater monitoring and control in agriculture in order to assess its cost. In Mediterranean region, irrigation water accounts for the largest volume of groundwater withdraw by many individual small users. The magnitude of cost for an individual monitoring may oversize the expected economic return of groundwater control.  The case of Capitanata irrigation basin (Apulia region, South of Italy) is used to carry out the cost assessment of at-farm-gate monitoring and control systems on irrigation groundwater.   

Reference

  1. Field, B.C.; Field, M.K. Environmental economics: An introduction. McGraw-Hill: New York, 2002.
  2. McCann, L.; Colby, B.; Easter, K.W.; Kasterine, A.; Kuperan, K.V. Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies. Ecological Economics 2005, 52, 527-542.
Top