Please login first
Armando Ursitti   Dr.  Graduate Student or Post Graduate 
Timeline See timeline
Armando Ursitti published an article in March 2018.
Top co-authors
Giacomo Giannoccaro

30 shared publications

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

Maurizio Prosperi

13 shared publications

Department SAFE, University of Foggia, via Napoli 25, 71122 Foggia, Italy

Publication Record
Distribution of Articles published per year 

Total number of journals
published in
Article 4 Reads 1 Citation The Magnitude and Cost of Groundwater Metering and Control in Agriculture Armando Ursitti, Giacomo Giannoccaro, Maurizio Prosperi, Emi... Published: 20 March 2018
Water, doi: 10.3390/w10030344
DOI See at publisher website ABS Show/hide abstract
Volumetric pricing as envisaged within the Water Framework Directive (60/2000) is a considerable challenge in terms of irrigation in Mediterranean regions, since a large share of the water source is groundwater. Enforcing this pricing scheme involves systematic metering and control (M&C) systems with subsequent high costs. This paper aims to fill the gap in the literature related to the assessment of costs for the metering and control of irrigation groundwater. The full operational cost of all activities related to the hypothetical services provided by a public agency is assessed for Apulia (a region in southern Italy). The results show that point-to-point metering services are quite costly, ranging from 38.5 to 59 euros per delivery point. New questions arise regarding whether the M&C of groundwater abstraction should be fully charged to end users (i.e., farmers), or also shared with the whole society as a public service aimed at environmental enhancement.
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.   


  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.