The Role of Italian Local Agencies for Water Management in the Mitigation of and Adaptation to Climate Change: Stated Preference Methods for Future Sustainable Strategies

Abstract

Climate change affects all aspects of human life, and understanding citizens’ views from a policy perspective is crucial for policymakers to develop future financial programs. In Italy, local agencies for water management (LAWMs), historically linked to irrigation and land reclamation, have expanded their role to address environmental challenges. Their modern functions encompass multifunctional strategies aimed at guaranteeing environmental benefits such as groundwater recharge, prevention of hydrogeological disasters, restoration of biodiversity, and natural water purification. This research conducts a discrete choice experiment to analyze citizens’ awareness and willingness to pay regarding the link between LAWMs’ actions and climate change environmental benefits. The findings indicate that respondents are willing to pay a larger amount to support the prevention of hydrological disasters and the restoration of biodiversity. Additionally, over 87% of our sample chose to pay specific amounts rather than maintain the status quo. This percentage varies depending on three factors: recognizing humans as the primary cause of climate change, embracing new policies, and age. However, there is a gap between the willingness to pay for the benefits studied and the importance respondents place on the LAWMs’ actions required to achieve them. Environmental education and participatory solutions to involve citizens in climate change strategies will promote stronger awareness of sustainable policies, an essential factor to improve governance performance.

1. Introduction

1.1. Climate Change and Participatory Irrigation Management: An International Perspective

Climate change (CC) is a major environmental stress that affects all aspects of human life, from economics to social issues to politics [1,2]. The increasing frequency and intensity of climate events, such as heat and cold waves, drought, wildfires, and floods, significantly impact biodiversity and result in the loss of ecosystem functions and services [3].

For years, policymakers have focused their efforts on environmental policies to address these issues, both at the international and European levels [4]. In increasingly unstable climate conditions, sustainable water management is essential for optimizing agricultural production and combating climate change, as it guarantees efficient water resources and crop resilience [5,6].

The European Union’s (EU) ambitious plan for sustainable development, launched as the Green Deal in 2019 [7], involves reaching climate neutrality by 2050 and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% from 1990 levels by 2030. The action plan includes clean air and water, healthy soil and biodiversity, and clean energy from renewable energy sources [7]. To meet these environmental goals, the EU requires a comprehensive plan that includes external parties, such as water user associations (WUAs).

In the last years of the 20th century, under the supervision of WUAs, over 60 countries with sizable irrigated areas implemented Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) in different degrees and with various methods [8]. In PIM, the decision-making process is facilitated by the interaction between the state and the final users, which provides several advantages. They are crucial for avoiding overextraction, enhancing water delivery services, raising water fee collection, reducing operating and maintenance costs, preventing opportunistic behavior in local systems, and enhancing irrigation systems’ financial sustainability [9,10,11].

The pace and modes of PIM growth among nations are greatly influenced by numerous variables, such as geography, climate, governance, socioeconomic conditions, and development level [12]. After analyzing 14 countries and regions, ref. [12] discovered that PIM development differs among countries and regions, and only Australia, Japan, and Chinese Taipei are considered to be well-established. The main challenges regarding PIM growth seem to involve the absence of professional staff and funds, poor economic reforms due to a lack of experience in agricultural financing or governance, and bureaucratic issues [13]. In some developing countries, such as Indonesia, the emerging WUAs help avoid imports of typical products (e.g., rice) due to mismanagement and water scarcity [14]; in Kenya, they promote water conservation and ecosystem services by encouraging sustainable practices and ensuring a continuous water flow [15,16]; in Egypt, WUAs represent an instrument to avoid water conflicts as a social problem [17].

Concerning the Mediterranean Region, ref. [18] compared WUAs’ structure in Italy, Spain, and Turkey, identifying Spanish WUAs as the most performant, while Turkey has high water waste and insufficient revenue collection. Italian WUAs, probably because of their very large irrigation areas, have excessive management, operation, and maintenance costs.

Despite the varying approaches and levels of development across different countries, the role of WUAs in mitigating climate change is becoming critical [19].

1.2. Italian Local Agencies for Water Management: The Role of Water User Associations in Participatory Irrigation Management

Our research focuses on the Italian context in which WUAs, called Italian Local Agencies for Water Management (ILAWMs), are well-known for their historic role in the agricultural and land reclamation sectors. Their functions are linked to the hydraulic defense of the territory and water management, particularly irrigation objectives [20].

The Protocollo Intesa Stato-Regioni (State-Regions Agreement), law n.31, 28 February 2008, defines ILAWMs as ‘public legal entities with an associative nature which are administered through their own bodies, whose members are chosen by the ILAWMs’ associates’ [20,21]. According to [22], ILAWMs play a crucial role in Italy, more than in other European nations, due to the country’s specific hydrogeological structure.

Here, the goals of reclamation activities have changed over time [23], especially since the 1980s, due to problems related to the overexploitation of natural resources, uncontrolled and disorganized urbanization, the climate crisis, and, in recent years, the energy crisis. Thus, a new kind of multifunctional integral reclamation has begun, involving a variety of ecosystem services, as well as soil protection and hydrogeological risk mitigation [24].

ILAWMs have shown an incredible capacity to respond to new needs as part of their mission to support policies for climate change [25]. Not only have irrigation practices evolved due to water scarcity, prompting more strategic irrigation choices, but a number of positive externalities have also indirectly impacted CC issues [26,27].

This research focuses on four strategies, listed in

Table 1. ILAWMs’ strategies for climate change.

Strategy	Description	Main Objective
Water storage	Slow down water flow and collect rainwater	Groundwater recharge (preserve water quantity)
Maintenance and redevelopment of the territory	Ordinary and extraordinary maintenance of natural or artificial waterways, wetlands, and urban green infrastructures	Prevention of hydrogeological disasters
Increasing ecosystem services and ecosystem resilience	Reforestation, creation of wetlands, and green areas	Protection and restoration of biodiversity
Reducing water pollutants	Enhance the natural character of waterways	Natural water purification (preserving water quality)

Source: Our elaboration.

and briefly described in the following sections of the paper.

(i)

Groundwater Recharge

Groundwater recharge, primarily through forest infiltration areas (FIAs), is a viable alternative to traditional methods of water storage in CC mitigation, e.g., the creation of reservoirs (natural or artificial) and dams [28]. The latter appears to have very significant environmental impacts that do not fit well with the objectives of Directive 2000/60/EC [29], the government’s biodiversity strategy, or the most recent DNSH (do no significant harm) principle of the Next Generation EU (NGEU) Recovery Plan [30].

Groundwater recharge can help mitigate water shortages during drought periods and also perfectly fits the idea of multifunctionality [30,31].

(ii)

Prevention of Hydrogeological Instability

The term hydrogeological instability encompasses all the phenomena that compromise soil and, therefore, human artefacts and urban centers.

Due to climate change, the frequency of intense rainfall events is on the rise, resulting in an increase in surface landslides, debris flows, and sudden rapid floods (flash floods). Measure M2C4.2 of the ‘Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza—PNRR’ [32], the Italian instrument to access the European NGEU fund, focuses precisely on this issue. It plans to combine structural defense works with non-structural measures mentioned in Article 7 of the Floods Directive (2007/60/EC) [33], which has rarely been used in the past. Non-structural measures focus mainly on preventive maintenance and territorial redevelopment [21,34].

(iii)

Protection and Restoration of Biodiversity

Human activities, pollution, the overexploitation of species and natural resources, and the introduction of alien species are all contributing factors to the current major environmental crisis of biodiversity loss [35,36]. The climate crisis and biodiversity are interdependent because climate change not only impacts biodiversity, but variations in biodiversity also impact CC. For example, an increase in greenhouse gases and average global temperatures heavily undermines biodiversity and, therefore, ecosystem vitality [37,38]. Biodiversity loss has a significant impact on the vitality of ecosystems and, therefore, on ‘regulating’ ecosystem services.

(iv)

Natural Water Purification

The lack of water resources caused by climate change necessitates measures to safeguard both the quantity and quality of water. Canal ecosystems and resource usability are often compromised by poor water quality due to point discharges or water from agricultural areas rich in nutrients [39]. The self-cleaning capacity of rivers is often compromised by the excessive regularity of river (or channel) sections and poor vegetation development. To enhance the natural character of waterways. The role of wetland areas is crucial in enhancing the natural character of waterways. Moreover, the lush vegetation found in wetland areas acts as a natural filter, improving the quality of the water that percolates deep into the ground.

Public aid provides financial support to ILAWMs for the extraordinary maintenance of water systems and major interventions for the defense of the territory. Normally, the sole source of income for ILAWMs is private contributions, the fees paid by property owners within the organization’s boundaries, identified using an instrument known as the “piano di riparto della contribuenza consortile” (ILAWMs contribution allocation plan) [40]. The fees vary depending on the relative advantages that each property receives. This calculation technique, however, considers irrigation and land reclamation but not environmental benefits. Furthermore, the “piano di riparto” excludes all properties outside the contribution perimeters, while the environmental benefits related to climate change are obviously not limited from a territorial point of view [25].

By conducting a discrete choice experiment (DCE), this research aims to analyze citizens’ awareness and willingness to pay (WTP) regarding the link between ILAWMs’ actions and environmental benefits in the context of climate change. Understanding citizens’ views from a policy perspective is crucial for policymakers to make better strategic decisions and develop future financial assistance programs while also allowing them to allocate funds more wisely to innovative initiatives [6,41].

This research could help policymakers develop future financial assistance programs and allocate funds more wisely to innovative, high-caliber initiatives. It recognizes citizens as beneficiaries of modern ILAWM initiatives and focuses on analyzing: (i) interviewees’ awareness of the connection between ILAWMs’ activities and environmental benefits; (ii) citizens’ WTP for ILAWMs’ environmental activities related to climate change; (iii) potential differences in citizens’ attitudes towards the environmental benefits of ILAWMs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design

Stated preference (SP) methods gather data from hypothetical scenarios, enabling the valuation of non-marketable goods, such as environmental resources [42,43,44,45]. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs), a form of SP method, involve respondents declaring their preferences by choosing between predefined alternatives [46,47]. DCEs are based on Lancaster’s multi-attribute utility theory and random utility theory [48,49].

This method can be utilized to obtain willingness to pay, even in the context of evaluating future policy options or market strategies [43,50,51]. Several studies have applied DCEs to evaluate environmental issues and policy tools [45,52,53,54,55,56,57,58].

Our study utilizes a DCE to investigate the economic value that citizens attribute to specific activities that can generate environmental benefits related to the mitigation and adaptation of CC effects. The case study involved an Italian sample sharing their preferences for specific waterway management strategies employed by ILAWMs. A monetary attribute was also added to obtain respondents’ WTP for specific environmental benefits, corresponding to a monthly household water bill increase of EUR 4, 12, or 20 [59].

Table 2. Attributes and levels used in the DCE.

Attributes	Code	Levels	Description
Groundwater recharge	GRWAr	Low, medium, high	Uncovered canals promote water percolation into the ground, recharging underground aquifers. This process is helped by vegetation in the channels, which slows the flow.
Prevention of hydrogeological disasters	PRHYd	Low, medium, high	Irrigation canals can channel meteoric water, slow water flow, and increase flood lamination.
Protection and restoration of biodiversity	BIOpr	Low, medium, high	Irrigation canals are the habitat of many fish and bird species. The interactions between water, vegetation, and animal species are also amplified through the reforestation of the banks and the management of droughts during non-irrigation periods. Ecosystems with high biodiversity are more resilient and able to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Natural water purification	WAPU	Low, medium, high	Riparian and aquatic vegetation can absorb and thus reduce the loads of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen) resulting from pollution.
Monthly increase in water bill per household	Price	EUR 4, 12, 20

Source: Our elaboration.

displays the attributes and levels used in the study.

The choice set was created using a fractional D-efficient design. It had five choice sets with three options each and a ‘no choice’ alternative, the alternative specific constant (ASC). An informative statement on the ILAWM’s practices was conveyed in the first phases before the DCE round to prevent hypothetical biases due to respondents’ different awareness levels, as suggested in previous literature studies [60,61]. To avoid inconsistent interpretations among respondents, we used easily understandable qualitative levels [62]. An example of a choice set is shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Data Collection and Questionnaire Structure

The data on which this study is based were collected through questionnaires sent online from January 2023 to November 2023. The sampling method used was the snowball method, which is widely employed in qualitative research [63]. In this method, researchers start with a small number of contacts from different contexts, who are then asked to forward the questionnaire.

The questionnaire was structured into 4 sections: (i) Introduction and Informed Consent; (ii) Choice Experiment; (iii) Understanding of and Involvement in CC and ILAWM Issues; and (iv) Socioeconomic Variables. Based on previous studies on stated preference methods, the questionnaire structure was developed emphasizing public goods in an environmental context [47,64].

(i)

Introduction and Informed Consent

The first section of the questionnaire provides the introduction to the research objectives and data processing methods. It clarifies that participation is voluntary and that all responses will be treated anonymously, ensuring maximum privacy protection. Participants are also notified that “there is no wrong answer”. This clarification represents an incentive to answer truthfully, basing results on citizens’ actual preferences. To assure consequentiality, a necessary condition in stated preference methods, respondents could read in the introduction that the collected information, used in aggregated form only, will be useful to economically support future climate change policies [65,66,67]. This section also includes the informed consent form, where participants confirm their agreement to the anonymous use of the collected data for scientific research purposes only.

(ii)

Choice Experiment

This part of the questionnaire did not mention ILAWMs, as the primary goal is to explore participants’ preferences regarding the proposed interventions without introducing potential biases. Interviewees were simply offered five choice sets focusing on irrigation and reclamation canals, the attributes or characteristics of which, expressed at multiple levels, represented the CC-related benefits. To achieve these CC benefits, each alternative option in the choice set results in an increase in water bill per household, as a budget reminder for the economic support of future policies

(iii)

Awareness and Engagement with Climate Change and Italian Local Agencies for Water Management

The third part of the survey aimed to investigate citizens’ attitudes to climate change and citizens’ knowledge of ILAWMs and their functions, with particular attention to those functions useful to recharge groundwater, prevent hydrological disasters, increase ecosystem biodiversity, and promote the natural depuration of water.

(iv)

Socioeconomic Information

Finally, sociodemographic data were collected in the third section, such as age, education level, occupation, and income. These data are essential to analyze choice set results in relation to participants’ socioeconomic characteristics, providing a more comprehensive understanding of their preferences and willingness to financially support CC policies.

2.3. Model Specification

Logit family models are used in the SP field [68,69,70]. The mixed logit model (MLM) is often chosen as a tool to evaluate the impact of new policies [71,72,73], as is the latent class logit model (LCL Model) [74,75].

The MLM accounts for preference heterogeneity that is not correlated with observed characteristics [76]. This heterogeneity can be estimated by calculating the mean and variance of the model parameters. The utility that each individual n obtains by choosing alternative j within choice-set t is given by the following formula [77]:

$$U_{njt}={\beta \prime }_n{X}_{njt}+{\epsilon }_{njt}$$

(1)

where ${\beta \prime }_n$ is the vector of the individual-specific coefficient; $X_{njt}$ is the vector of observed attributes related to the individual n, alternative j, and choice-set t; and ${\epsilon }_{njt}$ is the stochastic component.

Therefore, the utility formula becomes:

$$U_{njt}=ASC+{\beta }_1{\mathrm{G}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{A}\mathrm{r}}_{njt}+{\beta }_2{\mathrm{P}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{Y}\mathrm{d}}_{njt}+{\beta }_3{BIOpr}_{njt}+{\beta }_4{WAPU}_{njt}+{\beta }_5{PRICE}_{njt}+{\epsilon }_{njt}$$

(2)

ASC is a dummy variable that takes the value 1 when the choice option is the no-choice option, in other words, the status quo [51].

PRICE is the variable referring to the price attribute. According to [51], it is assumed to be log-normally distributed, ensuring a negative coefficient for all respondents.

These coefficients were utilized to derive the marginal willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for each considered attribute, representing the marginal substitution rate between the attribute and the monetary value.

The formula for WTP is as follows:

$${WTP}_a=-{\beta }_a/{\beta }_p$$

(3)

in which ${\beta }_a$ is the attribute of the coefficient for which we are calculating the WTP e, and ${\beta }_p$ is the price’s attribute.

If the MLM identifies heterogeneity in respondents’ preferences, the LCL model may be used as an additional step, considering the paper’s objectives. The LCL model makes it possible to identify homogeneous groups of respondents with similar preferences, such as those based on their attitudes and sensitivity to climate change. Unobserved preference heterogeneity has been widely recognized as a critical issue not only for modelling choice behavior but also for policy analysis [74].

3. Results

3.1. Sample Description

The entire sample contained 232 units;

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics.

Variables			Frequency	%
Gender	Female		153	65.95
	Male		73	31.47
	Unspecified		6	2.59
Age			33.6 (mean)	13.56 (s.d.)
Region	North		46	19.83
	Centre		138	59.48
	South		34	14.66
	Islands		13	5.60
	Abroad		1	0.43
Education	High school or lower		131	56.47
	Higher than high school (university, master’s degree, PhD)		101	43.53
Employment	Public or private employees		169	72.84
	Freelance		21	9.05
	Retired		10	4.31
	Student		23	9.91
	Unemployed		9	3.88
Income level	EUR 0/15,000		65	28.02
	EUR 15,000/28,000		90	38.79
	EUR 28,000/50,000		29	12.50
	EUR 50,000/100,000		12	5.17
	More than EUR 100,000		1	0.43
	Unspecified		35	15.09
	Attitudinal variables
Participation in environmental initiatives		Yes	76	32.76
		No	156	67.24
Knowledge of ILAWMs and their functions		Yes	95	40.95
		No	137	59.05
Respondents’ knowledge about climate change		Likert scale (From 1 to 5)	2.96	0.96
CC is real			4.58	0.67
Humans are the main cause			4.31	0.90
CC is a normal planetary evolution			3.35	1.10
Trust in new policies			4.15	0.79
			(mean)	(s.d.)

Source: Our elaboration.

presents the descriptive statistics. About 65.9% of the respondents were female, and the average age was approximately 34. A total of 59.5% of respondents resided in central Italy, and almost half the total sample (43.5%) had a higher level of education than high school. The main categories of workers and income were, respectively, ‘public and private employees’ and an income level ‘from EUR 15,000 to EUR 28,000’. Only 32.8% of respondents had participated in environmental initiatives before, and 40% claimed to know about ILAWMs and their functions.

Respondents were also asked to assign a five-point Likert-scale level from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important) to the following LAWM activities: ‘safeguarding inhabited and uninhabited territories from extreme meteorological events’, ‘water supply assurance for farmers and water resource management’, ‘protection of ecosystems and endemic animal and plant species’, and ‘reforestation and creation of wetland areas’. The objective was to compare this output (

Table 4. Crucial activities to achieve environmental CC benefits.

Do you Know What ILAWMs Are and What Functions They Perform?	Yes	Total
LAWM Activities
Safeguarding inhabited and uninhabited territories from extreme meteorological events	4.40	4.45
	(1.00)	(0.88)
Water supply assurance for farmers and water resource management	4.36	4.23
	(0.98)	(0.92)
Protection of ecosystems and endemic animal and plant species	4.08	4.21
	(1.02)	(1.02)
Reforestation and creation of wetland areas	3.94	4.10
	(1.09)	(1.03)

Source: Our elaboration. Mean and standard errors are in parentheses.

) with the WTP values for each attribute, as these activities are crucial for achieving the environmental benefits assessed in the DCE.

3.2. Mixed Logit Model (MLM) Results

Given our small sample size, we opted for a robust mixed logit model, which can better mitigate potential bias reflecting a possibly non-random or geographically concentrated sample in standard error estimation. The results are shown in

Table 5. Results for the mixed logit model.

Variables	Coeff	Robust Std. Err	p-Value
Mean
GRWAr	0.075	0.043	0.077
PRHYd	0.510	0.065	0.000
BIOpr	0.492	0.067	0.000
WAPU	0.328	0.054	0.000
ASC	−0.611	0.515	0.236
Price	−0.042	0.009	0.000
SD
GRWAr	−0.009	0.038	0.817
PRHYd	0.397	0.079	0.000
BIOpr	0.268	0.144	0.062
WAPU	0.401	0.094	0.000
ASC	2.601	0.550	0.000
PRICE	0.060	0.015	0.000
Number of obs.	4640	LR chi2	158.00

Source: Our elaboration. The sign of the estimated standard deviations is irrelevant: interpret them as being positive.

. According to the results, respondents prefer to pay for environmental benefits rather than maintain the status quo, as shown by the non-significant coefficient of the ASC variable. All coefficients except groundwater recharge (p < 0.1) are statistically significant at the 1% level. The positive value of attributes like groundwater recharge, prevention of hydrological disasters, protection and restoration of biodiversity, and natural water purification suggests that respondents favor them. As expected, price negatively impacts respondents’ choices; the probability of choosing an option decreases as the price level increases. Additional important information about heterogeneity is provided by the magnitude of SD coefficients. The output shows a significant heterogeneity of preferences for the variables PRHYd, WAPU, PRICE, and ASC at a 1% level and for BIOpr at a 5% level. There is no preference variation for the variable GRWAr. The heterogeneity of preferences is probably due to unobserved attitudes among respondents, such as their knowledge and perception of climate change, concern for the planet, or sociodemographic characteristics, e.g., education or age.

3.3. Wtp Analysis

The mixed logit model allowed us to calculate the WTP for each attribute.

Table 6. Lower and upper limits and average willingness to pay for selected attributes.

(EUR/Month/Household)	PRHYd	BIOpr	WAPU	GRWAr
WTP (Base = Low)	12.05	11.62	7.76	1.78
Lower Limits	6.22	5.44	3.44	−0.45
Upper Limits	17.89	17.80	12.07	4.01

Source: Our elaboration.

presents the average WTP estimation. Respondents were inclined to pay the highest amount (EUR 12.05 per month per household) to prevent water disasters; they were willing to pay slightly less to protect and restore natural biodiversity (EUR 11.62 per month per household). Respondents were prepared to pay an average of EUR 7.76/month/HH for water purification, while they placed the least value on groundwater recharge, being willing to pay only EUR 1.78 per month per household.

We compared Table 6’s WTP values with the previous output in Table 4. The aim was to understand whether the respondents were aware of the link between LAWM activities and the associated environmental benefits.

Table 4 indicates that respondents believed the primary function of ILAWMs to be ‘safeguarding inhabited and uninhabited territories from extreme meteorological events’. This result was expected, as ‘prevention of hydrological disasters’ had the highest WTP value.

Interestingly, Table 4’s high value for ‘water management and supply’ contrasted with the low WTP for ‘natural water purification’ and especially ‘groundwater recharge’. This apparent discrepancy may arise from the respondents’ unclear understanding that adequate water management and supply depend on maintaining the high quality and quantity of this resource in natural reservoirs, such as groundwater.

Finally, ‘protection of ecosystems and protection of endemic animal and plant species’ and ‘reforestation and creation of wetland areas’ were considered minor LAWM activities. Nevertheless, the WTP for the ‘protection and restoration of biodiversity’ was high (EUR 11.62/month). Respondents apparently ignored the fact that wetland areas, forests, and ecosystems are important reservoirs of biodiversity and play a pivotal role in the lamination and dispersion of rainwater, protecting against hydrological disasters.

3.4. Latent Class Logit Model (LCL) Results

Based on the MLM heterogeneity results, a latent class logit model (LCL model) with two classes was developed to identify homogeneous groups (

Table 7. Estimation results for the LCL model.

	Class1 Environmental Citizens			Class2 Conservative Citizens
Number of Respondents	202			30
	(87.1%)			(12.9%)
	Coeff.	Std. Err	p-Value	Coeff.	Std. Err	p-Value
PRHYd	0.408	(0.049)	0.000	0.645	(0.241)	0.007
BIOpr	0.401	(0.058)	0.000	0.332	(0.228)	0.145
WAPU	0.357	(0.045)	0.000	−0.214	(0.222)	0.336
ASC	−0.412	(0.343)	0.230	2.675	(1.025)	0.009
Price	−0.032	(0.007)	0.000	−0.059	(0.031)	0.06
Knowledge of CC	0.348	(0.243)	0.153
Humans are the main cause of CC	−0.714	(0.326)	0.029
Trust in new policies for CC	0.491	(0.282)	0.082
Age	−0.038	(0.015)	0.013
Gender	0.090	(0.444)	0.839
Level of education	−0.029	(0.476)	0.952
Type of master’s degree	−0.083	(0.112)	0.459
Constant	3.434	(2.198)	0.118

Source: Our elaboration.

). The classes were grouped according to social indicators such as age, gender, education level, and type of master’s degree (scientific or humanities). In addition, attitudinal variables related to comprehending climate change, its causes, and confidence in new policies were utilized as predictors of choice and behavior. The sociodemographic characteristics or attitudes that determined whether a person belonged to class 1 or class 2 were ‘realizing that humans are the primary cause of CC’, ‘believing in new policies’, and age. The clustering process did not seem to be influenced by some socioeconomic variables (e.g., gender and education level) [52,59,60,78,79].

Class 1 respondents preferred to pay for environmental benefits rather than maintain the status quo, as indicated by the only non-significant coefficient, ASC. This class could be defined as ‘environmental citizens’. Notably, 87% of the sample was in class 1, indicating that most respondents wanted to change the status quo and supported new approaches to counteract climate change. Class 2 was more focused on preventing hydrological disasters than class 1, and this group of citizens preferred the ASC option. The group’s preference was to maintain the status quo instead of paying for environmental benefits that could help mitigate and adapt to CC. Class 2 could be named ‘conservative citizens.’

We used descriptive statistics (

Table 8. Descriptive statistics for significant variables in the LCL model.

	Class1 Environmental Citizens	Class2 Conservative Citizens
Number of respondents	202	30
	87.07%	12.93%
Humans are the main cause of CC Likert scale (from 1 to 5)	4.030	4.367
	(1.055)	(0.928)
Trust in new CC policies Likert scale (from 1 to 5)	4.119	4.000
	(0.928)	(0.947)
Age	32.673	39.667
	(12.243)	(17.215)

Source: Our elaboration. Mean and std. dev. are in parentheses.

) to gain a deeper understanding of the LCL model’s results, examining variables that impacted respondents’ membership in one class or the other. As expected, Class 1 individuals, who were more inclined to pay for environmental climate change activities, had a higher level of trust in new policies. Also, CC-conscious attitudes were higher in younger people. Finally, class 1 respondents assigned less responsibility to humans in climate change processes than class 2 respondents. Our results are similar to those presented in other studies in which people show considerable concern about environmental problems but are less inclined to engage in actions to solve these issues. In particular, the higher a person’s WTP for sustainable products, the lower their level of environmentally friendly actions [80,81]. According to [82], younger people are more likely to support climate policy measures. However, their behavior may not always be climate-friendly [83]. This element could explain why people in class 1 are more willing to pay for CC activities and have more trust in new policies, but assign less responsibility to humans for CC.

4. Discussion

In an era in which the effects of CC have become incredibly tangible and concrete, and uncertainty regarding irrigation water availability and the food demand of the human population is growing, sharing out the responsibility among farmers and governments could help to address the related risks [84,85]. Irrigation water has traditionally been managed and valued by only considering its contribution to land productivity. However, irrigation water management could have several purposes in providing a wide range of services to society, such as mitigating droughts and floods [86,87,88,89].

In considering future environmental policies that can mitigate and adapt to climate change, economically assessing LAWMs’ environmental benefits and the services they provide is imperative in quantifying their value and integrating environmental priorities with socioeconomic aspects.

The innovative aspect of our research lies in redefining environmental benefits, not as mere externalities but as primary activities, with intrinsic value and strategic importance.

Traditionally, benefits like groundwater recharge or biodiversity protection have been seen as secondary outcomes of primary activities such as irrigation [90,91]. This perspective has limited their role in planning and policymaking.

Our approach aims to identify these benefits as the main activities of ILAWMs. This means rethinking policies and management strategies to actively maximize them rather than considering them as side effects. Another innovative feature involves the beneficiaries of ILAWM activities. Traditionally, those beneficiaries are identified as owners whose properties fall within the organization’s boundary. According to our approach, all citizens must be considered beneficiaries of environmental benefits. In this perspective, the economic concepts in Article 9 of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) pertaining to the polluter/user pays principle (PPP) and adequate recovery of water services costs specifically relate to water resources, and may also be extended to other economic analyses pertaining to various environmental benefits, like those related to climate change.

The ultimate objective is to determine how to allocate money for high-quality climate change strategies.

However, our results highlight significant critical issues in this process. In fact, while the highest WTP for the prevention of hydrogeological disasters aligns with the highest perceived importance of ILAWM activities aimed at this outcome, in other cases, a gap exists between WTP and the importance attributed to ILAWMs’ actions necessary to achieve the corresponding environmental goals. This highlights a significant threat to the implementation of new policies in this direction. This discrepancy may be explained by differences in risk perception and awareness. Hydrogeological disasters, such as floods and landslides, are highly visible and increasingly frequent due to climate change and land mismanagement. Their immediate and tangible impacts make citizens more aware of their importance and willing to pay for prevention measures.

Conversely, the consequences of inefficiency in groundwater recharge, natural water purification, and protection and restoration of biodiversity are less perceptible and have long-term effects, making it harder for people to recognize their significance. This limited public awareness underlines the need for targeted information campaigns to bridge the knowledge gap and support more effective environmental policies, with particular attention to those attitudinal and socio-economic factors that negatively influence support.

For example, trust in new policies is a crucial aspect of our study’s goal to provide policymakers with new tools to fight climate change. According to [92], support for climate policy is more resistant to change than climate change beliefs due to the concrete costs and complex in-depth knowledge involved. Policy support requires a deeper acceptance of proposed solutions and an understanding of their effectiveness, which is a crucial concept for our research. Some potential solutions are related to environmental education, but mostly to public participation in the improvement of environmental governance performance, enhancing the quality of awareness of the whole population [93]. Participatory solutions between people and government, especially the township government, which is closer to the community [94], could lead to more tangible results at all stages of development and therefore have positive effects on support for environmental policies [95].

5. Conclusions

The environmental benefits of Italian ILAWMs in facing CC threats are essential for the entire community, and our analyses demonstrate that citizens see value in these benefits.

The research has focused on four environmental benefits typically enhanced by ILAWMs. Their activity is currently financed solely by owners who benefit from the traditional concept of reclamation and water supply for agriculture, despite our WTP studies having demonstrated that respondents are prepared to pay specific amounts for environmental advantages rather than maintain the status quo. Our respondents indicated that they are willing to pay a larger water bill to support some of the examined benefits, such as preventing hydrological disasters or protecting and restoring natural biodiversity, while they placed the least value on water purification and groundwater recharge. The LCL model shows two important findings: (i) over 87% of the sample recognizes the necessity to economically support CC benefits changing the status quo; and (ii) respondents’ preference for environmental benefits varies depends on three factors: understanding that human behavior is the primary cause of climate change, embracing new policies, and age. Preferences are not influenced by gender, education level, or the type of master’s degree.

Finally, although citizens are willing to pay for specific environmental benefits, there appears to be a discrepancy in their assessment of the importance of LAWMs’ actions required to achieve these benefits.

Our study acknowledges certain limitations. While challenges related to sample size and constraints on generalizability remain a concern [89,95], we emphasize that these limitations do not weaken the relevance of our findings. Our research introduces an innovative approach to evaluating environmental benefits, reframing them as core activities of ILAWMs with intrinsic value and strategic importance rather than mere secondary effects. This perspective challenges the traditional view that benefits such as groundwater recharge or biodiversity protection are secondary outcomes of activities like irrigation. Recognizing these benefits as central components of integrated landscape and water management could drive policy shifts toward more sustainable management strategies.

Despite the approach, our findings also highlight critical challenges in implementing policies aimed at addressing climate change, as previously discussed. In conclusion, we acknowledge the limitations of our study, but the insights we obtained from it provide a valuable basis for fostering a broader and more in-depth discussion on climate change and environmental policymaking.