Next Article in Journal
Biosorption of Iron-Contaminated Surface Waters Using Tinospora cordifolia Biomass: Insights from the Gostani Velpuru Canal, India
Previous Article in Journal
Opoka as a Natural Material for Phosphorus Removal: Properties and Applications
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 17
Issue 20
10.3390/w17203018
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

From Flood to Drip Irrigation: A Review of Irrigation Modernization Trade-Offs

by
Alessandra Santini
1,
Mauro Masiero
1,*,
Giulia Amato
2 and
Davide Matteo Pettenella
1
1
Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry (TESAF), University of Padova, 35020 Padova, Italy
2
Etifor Srl|Valuing Nature, 35131 Padova, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2025, 17(20), 3018; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17203018
Submission received: 16 September 2025 / Revised: 11 October 2025 / Accepted: 13 October 2025 / Published: 21 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Water, Agriculture and Aquaculture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Water scarcity, climate change, population growth, and rising water demand highlight the urgency of adopting effective water conservation measures. The transition from traditional irrigation systems, such as flood irrigation, to modern ones, like drip irrigation, is often seen as a panacea to improve irrigation efficiency and address water shortages. Despite the flourishing literature on the efficiency gains achieved by shifting to drip irrigation, trade-offs associated with replacing traditional irrigation systems with modern irrigation technologies remain unexplored. Building on this gap, this paper provides a systematic literature review to analyze the current state of knowledge and research on the trade-offs associated with this transition. The review analyses not only the possible effects on agricultural productivity and irrigation efficiency at the farm scale, but also the environmental implications and socio–economic consequences that may emerge at a larger scale. We found that while studies conducted at the field-level emphasize clear benefits associated with the adoption of drip irrigation, including higher crop yields and improved water use efficiency, basin-scale analyses reveal drawbacks, including increased consumptive use, reduced return flows for ecosystem processes, and more generally limited real water savings. Overall, our findings stress the need for more holistic, multi-scale, and interdisciplinary approaches to assess the impact of irrigation modernization, along with the need for policy frameworks that balance agricultural productivity gains with sustainable water management.

1. Introduction

Water scarcity is among the most critical challenges of our times. Anthropogenic pressures on water resources are intensifying due to the growing demand from multiple competing water uses—including, e.g., irrigation, domestic consumption, energy production, and manufacturing [1]—combined with unsustainable management practices [2] and climate change, which is altering hydrological systems in terms of both water quantity and quality [3]. Agriculture is the largest water-dependent sector at the global scale, accounting for about 70% of global freshwater withdrawals [4]. Around 40% of irrigation water is extracted at the expense of freshwater ecosystems [5], further intensifying the competition between agricultural production and environmental conservation. Given this strong dependency, agriculture is expected to be the sector most severely affected by increasing water scarcity, with profound long-term consequences for global food security and rural livelihoods [6,7].
Improving water resource management in agriculture is therefore essential to ensuring sustainable water use, safeguarding food security while integrating ecological and social sustainability priorities [8], as well as enhancing the sector’s capacity to adapt to present and future climate change [9].
In the past and up to the present, efforts to improve water management in agriculture have focused predominantly on improving irrigation performance—particularly in terms of efficiency and productivity—through the adoption of new irrigation technologies and infrastructures [10,11]. Irrigation system modernization has been widely promoted as a cornerstone strategy for advancing sustainable water use [12] and has consequently gained strong policy support. Both European and international policy actively endorse, through public subsides, infrastructural and technological upgrades of irrigation systems [13,14], favoring solutions that aim to reduce water consumption while maintaining current levels of agricultural productivity. The modernization of irrigation systems is primarily reshaping irrigation practices by replacing traditional surface irrigation (e.g., flood irrigation) with modern pressurized systems such as drip irrigation. The widespread diffusion of drip irrigation can be attributed to its effectiveness in reducing water losses and improving water productivity, which in turn contributes to higher crop yields [15]. However, the adoption of drip irrigation is not without drawbacks, as it typically entails higher capital investments and ongoing maintenance requirements [16] as well as increased energy consumption [17], all of which translate into higher production costs for famers. Moreover, mounting evidence from several studies shows that the large-scale implementation of drip irrigation does not always relieve pressure on water resources. On the contrary, it may paradoxically trigger to the so-called “rebound effect” [18,19,20] whereby water savings are reinvested to expand irrigated areas, intensify crop production, or are reallocated to competing water users [13].
Despite the flourishing literature on the efficiency gains achieved through the shift to drip irrigation, there remains the need to investigate the trade-offs associated with replacing traditional irrigation systems with modern irrigation technologies. In many agroecosystems, irrigation represents a key anthropogenic factor influencing natural processes and the broader hydrological cycle [21]. Consequently, any alteration in irrigation systems and practices has the potential to impact hydrological balances and alter agroecosystem dynamics at the large scale [22]. For example, traditional irrigation systems, through return flows, contribute to groundwater recharge [23] and can influence groundwater quality by regulating nutrient leaching [24]. Moreover, modernization processes extend beyond biophysical impacts: they can reshape water governance and use, alter the patterns of energy use required for water application, and affect farmers’ income, labor demand as well as other socio–economic factors [25,26].
Building on above-reported considerations and adopting a systematic literature review approach, this paper aims to structure existing scientific knowledge on the impacts of converting traditional surface irrigation to modern systems. Despite the wide variety of available modern irrigation technologies (e.g., sensors, satellite images, IoT, etc.), the study deliberately focuses on the transition from flood to drip irrigation for two main reasons: first, as this represents the most widespread and commonly adopted shift in irrigation regimes [27], and second, due to the necessity to narrow down the focus of the literature review in order to identify clear and comparable impacts. The review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge and research on the trade-offs associated with this transition. It examines not only the effects on agricultural productivity and irrigation efficiency at the farm scale, but also the broader environmental implications that may emerge at larger scales (e.g., basin level) as well as the possible socio–economic consequences.
In doing so, the review seeks to inform ongoing research by highlighting possible future developments and trajectories, while simultaneously gathering evidence and lessons learned to support policymaking in the field of irrigation water management.

2. Materials and Methods

This study builds on a systematic review approach, i.e., comprehensive, transparent research conducted over scientific literature that ensures replicability and reproducibility [28]. We conducted the literature search and review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [29].
Within this section, we first describe the article search and screening criteria and approaches (Section 2.1), followed by the procedures adopted for article review and analysis (Section 2.2).

2.1. Article Search and Screening

The systematic literature review considered publications available up to 2024, using Elsevier’s SCOPUS database (https://www.scopus.com/). The search was limited to English language, full text articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Search terms applied to titles, keywords, and abstracts were tailored to maximize the retrieval of relevant articles, focusing on combinations of terms related to irrigation regimes and their impacts. The initial search on SCOPUS returned 276 articles.
An initial abstract-based screening was then carried out to refine the selection according to the objectives of the study. Articles whose abstracts mentioned both flood- and drip irrigation-related terms and indicate a direct comparison between the two were retained, yielding a list of 91 articles. Then, a full text assessment was conducted to exclude conference papers and other document types, full texts not available in English, inaccessible articles, and papers deemed irrelevant based on inclusion criteria (Table 1).
To broaden the analysis, we also included papers addressing subtypes of drip irrigation (e.g., subsurface drip irrigation) and studies comparing drip irrigation with other irrigation methods, provided that the impacts of drip irrigation could be analyzed separately.
This screening step narrowed the selection to 49 papers. To further enrich the review, additional relevant studies were identified through a snowball approach, by examining citations within the selected articles. This process resulted in the inclusion of 13 additional articles, which were screened using the above-reported criteria, resulting in a final list of 62 publications (See Supplementary Materials). The workflow of the process followed for the systematic literature review is illustrated in Figure 1.

2.2. Article Review and Analysis

From our final selection of 62 articles, relevant information was systematically extracted. For each selected paper, we collected, where available, the following information:
  • Bibliographic information (i.e., title, authors, year of publication),
  • Geographical scope (i.e., continent and country level) and scale of the study (i.e., farm/field scale and larger scale such as basins, aquifers, regions),
  • Methodological approach adopted by the study (i.e., field experiment with measurement in field- and desk-based methodologies, including modeling, socio–economic analysis, etc.).
Additionally, we categorized the articles based on the type of impacts described. Our analyses primarily focused on five impacts arising from the transition from flood to drip irrigation:
  • Water use—Including impacts on water savings, irrigation efficiency, i.e., the ratio of water consumed by crops relative to water applied [30], water use efficiency (WUE), which refers to the ratio of yield relative to the water consumed (kg/m3), or water productivity (WP), which is the ratio of physical crop production or the economic value of production (in terms of gross or net value) per unit volume of water used [31].
  • Crop—Covering effects on crops, such as yield, growth and overall conditions.
  • Environment—Encompassing impacts on ecosystems or environmental modifications, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
  • Socio-economic aspects—Addressing economic, social, and cultural consequences for farmers or any other water users.
All extracted information was organized into a structured database, which was subsequently analyzed using descriptive statistics to identify publication trends over time. Descriptive statistics were also employed to examine the distribution of studies by geographical scope, scale, and impact categories. Finally, a qualitative analysis of the reported impacts was performed to capture the full range and diversity of findings across the literature.

3. Results

This section presents the results of the systematic literature review. Findings are organized according to general publication trends over time and geographical distribution (Section 3.1), followed by an analysis of the targeted impacts of transitioning from flood to drip irrigation (Section 3.2 and relative subsections).

3.1. General Trends

Figure 2 reports both the number of new publications per year (bars) and the cumulative number of publications over the targeted period (line). Overall, a continuously growing trend can be observed over time. The earliest identified reference dates from 2001. The annual number of papers remained stable between 2008 and 2016, then reached a peak in 2017. After 2017, the number of annual publications dropped but subsequently increased again, before reaching a plateau in the last three years.
Figure 3 shows the geographical distribution of the case studies included in the reviewed articles.
Most of the case studies are in Asia, with China having a predominant role (n = 23), followed by India (n = 8), and Pakistan (n = 3). In Europe, most case studies refer to Spain, followed by Turkey (n = 2), while for Africa, most of them are located in the Mediterranean area, including Morocco (n = 2) and Egypt (n = 1). For North America, case studies are primarily from the United States of America (USA) (n = 7), while for South America, one case study is reported from Peru. Finally, one article considers a global scale case study. Most Chinese case studies are recent as they have been published after 2017, whereas those referring to the USA are among the earliest contributions to the existing literature.

3.2. Impacts

This section presents the impacts associated with the conversion of irrigation regimes retrieved from the reviewed paper and categorized by the type of impact. Given the heterogeneity of papers, we adopted a descriptive approach. First, we reported an overview about impacts and then we addressed each impact category individually.
As reported in Figure 4, most of the reviewed articles focus on environmental impacts (32%), followed by crop yield (28%) and water use (28%) impacts, while social impacts are less covered, being addressed in only 12% of the studies. It is important to note that many selected papers report multiple impact types at once (e.g., water savings and yield improvement, or water and energy savings), making it challenging in some cases to assign them to a single impact category. When this occurred, individual studies were classified under multiple impact categories. Since the figure reports percentage values, the total could not in any case be equal to the number of studies.
Almost all articles addressing water use and yield impacts adopt field experiment methodologies at the plot or farm scale to quantify yield increase and WUE improvement. In contrast, articles assessing environmental and social impacts applied a broader range of desk-based methodologies—such as modeling, surveying, econometric analysis, etc.—typically applied at a larger spatial scale, e.g., basin, aquifer, or regional scale (Figure 5).

3.2.1. Water Use Impacts

The conversion from flood to drip irrigation generally leads to significant water saving and improvements in WUE at the field scale, as water is applied directly to the crop root zone, minimizing surface runoff, deep percolation, and evaporation losses. For example, Narayanamoorthy ref. [32] reported approximately 44% water savings for sugarcane in two irrigation districts in India. For staple cash crops, such as maize and wheat, drip irrigation improves WUE and water savings compared to flood irrigation [33,34,35,36]. In a mixed cropping system, Jahan Leghari et al. [37] found annual water savings of 34% for winter wheat, and 36% to 40% for summer and spring maize. Wang et al. [38] observed an increase in maize irrigation water productivity from 3.51 kg m−3 under flood irrigation to 4.58 kg m−3 under drip irrigation, partly also due to the contribution of shallow groundwater.
Water savings resulting from converting traditional flood irrigation to drip irrigation have also been found for other crops such as sunflowers (about 95% of water saved) [39], olive (63–77%) [40], and citrus (55%) [41]. Ali et al. [42] reported a decrease in water use from 487 m3 to 1200 m3 in cotton production. Moreover, switching from flood irrigation to drip irrigation has been reported to increase WUE by 60.3% in jujube cultivation [43].
While the benefits of drip irrigation on increasing water savings and WUE at the farm scale are largely demonstrated, its impact at the basin scale can vary significantly. Evidence suggests that reductions in water consumption associated with drip irrigation are often accompanied by an expansion of irrigated land and crop intensification, leading to an increased overall consumptive use of water [18,25,44,45,46].

3.2.2. Crop Impacts

Drip irrigation is largely recognized for having positive effects on crops, primarily by delivering water directly to the root zone, thereby minimizing water losses due to evaporation and surface runoff. Results from the literature review indicate that studies comparing flood and drip irrigation in terms of crop impacts generally highlight the benefits of drip irrigation in (i) increasing crop yield, (ii) enhancing nitrogen (N) use efficiency, (iii) improving overall plant growth, and (iv) stabilizing the root zone. Table 2 shows the selected studies reporting positive crops impacts associated with drip irrigation with respect to different crops and across different case studies.
As illustrated in Table 2, studies addressing the impacts of the conversion from flood to drip irrigation on crops concentrate predominantly on assessing yield, with all studies reporting yield increases associated with the adoption of drip irrigation. On the contrary, all other crop impacts are significantly less considered, emerging in 12 to 20% of studies dealing with crop impacts.

3.2.3. Environmental Impacts

Reviewed articles predominantly examine the effects of irrigation regime changes on groundwater recharge. Flood irrigation is generally recognized to ensure a greater recharge intensity than drip irrigation, due to return flows that sustain higher groundwater levels [38,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. For instance, Pool et al. [65] investigated the spatiotemporal effects of the transition from flood to drip irrigation on groundwater recharge in the semi-arid Mediterranean region of Valencia using a hydrogeological model. Their results suggest the critical role of flood irrigation in maintaining groundwater levels, particularly in areas characterized by large precipitation variability. Similarly, Wael et al. [66] found that in semiarid and arid regions like northern Egypt, water-saving irrigation systems reduced the recharge intensity compared to flood irrigation, leading to a decline in groundwater levels with implications for potable water provision. Reported declines in the groundwater table range between 10 and 50 cm, though the effect was partly mitigated by greater clay depth.
Field experiments in China further confirm this trend. Wang et al. [38] observed that flood irrigation contributes to aquifer recharge, whereas drip irrigation results exclusively in shallow groundwater extraction. Likewise, Jin et al. [63] reported negative implications for the stability of regional groundwater resources when drip irrigation replaced flood irrigation. When combined with climate change projections, the shift to drip irrigation is associated with further reductions in mean groundwater recharge, particularly under drier future conditions [64].
Beyond recharge, irrigation return flows from irrigation also affect groundwater quality. Flood irrigation can therefore contribute to aquifer salinization under deeper groundwater levels, while drip irrigation has the potential to mitigate this effect due to reduced deep percolation [68] but tends to increase salt accumulation around the wetted zone. Moreover, drip irrigation can reduce N leaching by improving N use efficiency [37], while also lowering heavy metal accumulation at the soil surface [69], especially with unconventional water sources such as wastewater application [70].
Another emerging strand of the literature concerns GHG emissions from agricultural soils. Indeed, irrigation methods influence the release of GHGs such as carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), nitric oxide (NO), and methane (CH4). Several studies show that drip irrigation can effectively mitigate GHG emissions compared to flood irrigation [34,54,55,71]
Finally, the transition to drip irrigation has important implications for energy consumption. While drip irrigation is typically associated with higher energy requirements due to pressurized water pumping [44,48]. However, where groundwater is required for irrigation, efficiency gains in water use may also reduce total pumping volumes and energy demands [72].

3.2.4. Socio–Economic Impacts

The conversion from traditional flood irrigation systems to drip systems entails significant economic and social changes for irrigation water users, particularly farmers. The long-term viability of this transition is closely tied to its economic sustainability, as farmers are more likely to adopt dripping irrigation when it reduces financial burdens [73].
Evidence from the literature, however, highlights both benefits and drawbacks. According to Hussain et al. [74], for example, despite its potential for water savings, drip irrigation in sugarcane production in Pakistan resulted in net economic losses due to high installation and maintenance costs compared with traditional flood irrigation. Similarly, in Zimbabwe, smallholder farmers found flood irrigation to be more financially and economically viable than drip irrigation in the long-term, as the higher energy costs of drip systems outweighed savings on water and fertilizer inputs [75]. In Spain, the modernization of irrigation has raised domestic agriculture productivity, but farmer incomes have not increased significantly due to higher water and energy costs. Higher energy requirements for drip irrigation increase total maintenance costs, and farmers often respond by applying deficit irrigation to maximize profits, thus balancing production with financial sustainability [44].
Other studies point to more positive outcomes under certain conditions. In the arid region of northwestern China, data collected from 228 farmers reveal that the transition from flood to drip irrigation has a positive effect on gross margin only for those farmers less constrained by water availability. Where access to water remains limited, profitability of drip irrigation systems diminishes, despite rising water scarcity [76].
Furthermore, although the adoption of drip irrigation often results in increased energy expenditures, it can reduce costs for other agricultural inputs, notably fertilizers and herbicides, through more efficient input applications [42]. In terms of input, drip irrigation also reduces labor requirements and thus labor costs due to higher automatization [32,49].
Beyond economic considerations, drip irrigation can also reshape water governance and social practices. At the basin scale, the adoption of more efficient irrigation systems may alter the distribution of water supply, potentially undermining existing water right holders relying on the return flows from traditional flood irrigation practices [18].
At the organizational level, the shift to drip systems has transformed irrigation communities and water user associations (WUAs). For example, Ortega-Reig et al. [77] described how drip irrigation led to new collective rules on water allocation in three collective irrigation systems in Valencia (Spain). Decisions on irrigation scheduling are now the main responsibility of WUA, whereas under traditional irrigation schemes, farmers were able to independently make decisions on timing and volumes. The introduction of drip irrigation also led to the implementation of new rules for water distribution, setting a maximum water use per day or limits in volumes. In some areas, dual (i.e., both drip and surface) irrigation systems persist, as farmers want to maintain surface irrigation as a backup solution despite increased costs associated with the cleaning and maintenance of channels. Within WUA, the conversion to drip irrigation reshaped traditional collective irrigation organizations, rearranging their internal structure and fostering increased centralization to increase technical and economic efficiency.
Finally, the transition to drip irrigation can also carry cultural implications. Traditional irrigation systems have shaped landscapes, social relations, and cultural identity for centuries. In the Cànyoles Valley (Spain) one of the consequences of the conversion from flood to drip irrigation is the loss of cultural heritage. Indeed, many of the ancient canals, used before the shift to drip irrigation, have been abandoned or disused, and the same has occurred for other traditional infrastructures such as mills and underground canals [25].

4. Discussion

This section discusses results reported within Section 3. The discussion focuses on trade-offs (Section 4.1) and policy discourse (Section 4.2). Finally, research limitations and possible future developments are presented (Section 4.3).

4.1. Trade-Offs

In this study, trade-offs are understood as evidence-based patterns of conflicting impacts identified across the reviewed literature. Building on this concept, this section outlines and discusses the main trade-offs associated with the conversion from flood to drip irrigation.
Though the conversion from flood to drip irrigation is regarded as an effective measure to save water and increase WUE at the farm scale, higher irrigation efficiency does not necessarily translate into reduced water consumption at the watershed or basin scale [27]. The paradox of irrigation efficiency [13] can be better understood by distinguishing between consumptive and non-consumptive uses of irrigation water [78]. Consumptive use comprises both beneficial consumption (e.g., crop transpiration) and non-beneficial consumption (e.g., weed transpiration, evaporation from wet soil or open water surfaces). Non-consumptive use refers to flows that are not consumed by crops but re-enter the hydrological system, either as recoverable flows (e.g., drainage and runoff that recharge aquifers and surface water bodies) and non-recoverable flows (e.g., losses to the ocean) [13,78].
Improved irrigation efficiency is typically associated with an increase in beneficial consumption, which in turn results in higher yields, while at the same time reducing non-beneficial consumption and non-consumptive use. However, these reductions do not necessarily translate into real water savings, since the “saved” water often corresponds to return flows that sustain groundwater recharge [79,80] or downstream availability. As shown by our results, flood irrigation generates more return flows than drip irrigation. Consequently, the conversion from flood to drip irrigation may generate trade-offs between improved on-farm irrigation efficiency and the maintenance of water flows supporting ecosystem processes [20], including off-farm irrigation-dependent ecosystem services [81]. Altered return flows may also reduce water availability for other uses [82] and complicate water governance [18,83], thereby shaping trade-offs in terms of water accessibility.
Increased irrigation efficiency at the farm scale generates water savings and additional revenues to the farmers that often enable the expansion of irrigated areas, crop intensification, or the shift to higher water-demanding crops. All these processes ultimately contribute to increasing water use at larger scales [25,46,84]. This rebound effect is frequently reinforced by subsidies for irrigation system modernization [18]. While drip irrigation is often presented as a key solution for water conservation, evidence shows that farmers are generally more motivated by the prospect of higher yields and profits than by conserving water resources [73,77,85]. As a result, efficiency gains at the farm scale may not translate into basin-scale water conservation, but instead into rational farm-level strategies aligned with market forces and subsidies [86]. These dynamics produce trade-offs between productivity gains at the farm scale and water conservation at the basin scale.
From a socio–economic perspective, drip irrigation can enhance farm profitability by increasing yield while reducing cultivation costs associated with farm-inputs like fertilizers and herbicides [26] and labor costs due to automatization. However, its high upfront investments, maintenance and energy costs remain major barriers. These barriers are particularly relevant for smallholders and farmers in developing countries, where financial constraints often make drip irrigation economically unviable despite its water savings potential [15], and thus, farmers tend to favor traditional irrigation schemes [74,75]. Moreover, the adoption of drip irrigation is often limited by several technical constraints; for instance, the difficulty to adopt and maintain complex technology for unskilled farmers [15].
These dynamics risk reinforcing inequalities among farmers, as wealthier producers are better positioned to access subsidies, credit, or technical support (e.g., extension services, advisory services, etc.), while smallholder farmers risk exclusion, rising vulnerability, and remaining trapped in poverty [15]
The transition from flood to drip irrigation also entails trade-offs in terms of GHG emissions and energy use. On one hand, drip irrigation has the potential to mitigate soil-related emissions, lowering CH4 and N2O emissions compared to flood irrigation [55]. On the other hand, drip irrigation systems typically increase the energy intensity and carbon footprint of irrigation [87]. The balance between these outcomes depends on multiple context-specific factors, including, e.g., the choice of the pumping systems [88], the irrigation water source [72], and the regional energy mix. These complexities highlight the need to assess trade-offs at the intersection of farm-scale performance and broader socio–environmental sustainability.
This can also be understood as a need to explore further possible trade-offs (as well as synergies) between private (e.g., crops) and public or semi-public goods (e.g., ecosystem conservation). Our results indicate that, to date, research on the impacts of converting from flood to drip irrigation has predominantly focused on agricultural profitability, considering increases in crop yield, water savings, and, at the economic level, farmers’ income or farm financial sustainability. This seems to suggest a prevalent focus on traditional farm economics, centered at a classical economic approach emphasizing the importance of private goods. From an ecosystem perspective [89], such an approach narrows the analysis to provisioning services alone, overlooking broader ecosystem functions and services. Indeed, none of the socio–economic studies have assessed in economic/monetary terms the potential environmental externalities—whether positive or negative—arising from the conversion of irrigation regimes. This confirms a lack of focus on public goods as well as regulating and cultural ecosystem services. If examined through the lens of the Water–Energy–Food–Ecosystem (WEFE) nexus framework [90,91,92], this denotes a stronger emphasis on the food dimension, especially compared to the ecosystem component [93].

4.2. Policy Discourse

Policies targeting efficient and sustainable water use played a central role in promoting the modernization of irrigation systems. Those policies, encouraging or directly subsidizing water-saving irrigation techniques, are directly aimed at achieving water conservation in the context of unsustainable water management, with growing demand and water scarcity worsened by ongoing climate change. Public programs that would subsidize the adoption of drip irrigation are diffused worldwide following the UN water agenda [94], and to comply with UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6.4, to seek an increase in water use efficiency. For instance, the EU provides financial support for the adoption of drip irrigation through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), a policy instrument that has been widely criticized for pursuing conflicting objectives of economic viability and environmental sustainability while also reinforcing unfair competition among farmers [95]. In the USA, increased public subsidies for water conservation technologies resulted in increased economic benefits both at the farm and the basin level; however, this also led to an increase in water consumption [96]. Even in arid and water scarce areas such as the countries of the Near East and North Africa (NENA) Region, the introduction of drip irrigation in the absence of water allocation policies translated into more water consumption [27].
Yet, a major contradiction emerges between water conservation objectives and the actual impacts on the intensification and expansion of agriculture [10,97] since these policies are usually designed to consider irrigation water primarily for production purposes, adopting a silo approach and thereby accentuating potential trade-offs. In this context, economic incentives and subsidies can even worsen existing negative externalities associated with the adoption of modern irrigation technologies [83,98]. Therefore, if the final objective is water conservation, enhancing water efficiency through the adoption of modern irrigation technologies is necessary but not sufficient [99]. The modernization of irrigation systems should be coupled with ad hoc policies such as measures that limit agricultural expansion at the expense of natural ecosystems [100] or the introduction of water charges and tariffs to regulate water consumption [99]. Voluntary-based or result-based incentives such as agri-environmental payment schemes could also contribute to true water savings and are gaining acceptance among farmers [101].

4.3. Research Limitations and Future Developments

This review presents some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, this review included only publications written in English, thereby excluding potentially relevant studies published in other languages. Second, the initial screening did not consider gray literature such as technical or institutional reports, which could have been particularly relevant for country level analyses; only one institutional report was included through citation analysis. Third, as already mentioned, this study focuses exclusively on the conversion from flood to drip irrigation. While such a strict focus was necessary to simplify the analysis and make it feasible, it inevitably excluded other irrigation techniques that could reshape the trade-offs identified. Fourth, some relevant issues in the transition from flow to drip have not been explored in depth in selected papers; for instance, changes in labor demand and skills requirements or the use of unconventional water sources and their safety implications. Therefore, future research should address these topics. Lastly, the analysis relies on the availability of existing studies, which are often heterogeneous in terms of geographical focus, methodological approaches, and indicators used to assess trade-offs. As a result, direct comparisons remain challenging.

5. Conclusions

This review shows that the conversion from flood to drip irrigation generates a complex set of trade-offs, demonstrating that irrigation modernization cannot be considered as a panacea for water conservation.
At the field scale, drip irrigation offers clear benefits, including higher yields, improved water use efficiency, reduced agrochemical inputs, and lower soil-based GHG emissions. However, these advantages are offset by significant environmental and socio–economic costs.
At the basin scale, efficiency gains often translate into higher consumptive use and evapotranspiration, reducing return flows that sustain aquifers, ecosystems, and downstream users. In parallel, the high investment and maintenance costs of drip systems create barriers for smallholders and risk reinforcing inequalities, while the increased energy demand may erode some of the environmental gains. These findings highlight a potential contradiction between the stated objectives of policies aiming to promote water conservation and their actual outcomes once enforced and implemented in practice on the ground.
To reconcile productivity gains with sustainable water use, irrigation modernization efforts must move beyond a narrow technological focus. Coherent governance frameworks are essential, including regulation of water abstraction, economic instruments such as tariffs, and safeguards against irrigated area expansion. This also calls for stronger integration and coordination across policy domains, avoiding siloed approaches and fostering synergies between—among others—agricultural, rural development, environmental, and economic policies. Another urgent priority is the design and implementation of mechanisms to value, compensate, and account for the environmental benefits—particularly ecosystem services—supported by farming practices and, in particular, by traditional irrigation systems. Only through such integrated and multi-scale approaches can drip irrigation fulfill its potential to strengthen agricultural resilience while contributing to long-term water conservation.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/w17203018/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S. and M.M.; methodology, A.S. and M.M.; software, A.S. and M.M.; validation, A.S., M.M. and D.M.P.; formal analysis, A.S.; investigation, A.S. and M.M.; resources, A.S. and M.M.; data curation, A.S. and M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S.; writing—review and editing, A.S., M.M., G.A. and D.M.P.; visualization, A.S. and M.M.; supervision, M.M., G.A. and D.M.P.; project administration, M.M.; funding acquisition, M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the European Union-Next Generation EU, Mission 4, Component 2 CUP C96E22000130005.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(s).

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Etifor|Valuing Nature for the support given to the research.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Giulia Amato was employed by the company Etifor Srl|Valuing Nature. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
WUEWater use efficiency
WPWater productivity
GHGGreenhouse gas emissions
WUAWater Users Association

References

  1. Biswas, A.K.; Tortajada, C. Assessing Global Water Megatrends; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. UN-Water. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2019: Leaving No One Behind; Ubiquity Press: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. IPCC. AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014; Volume 218, Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ (accessed on 26 April 2022).
  4. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture: Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2016; Available online: https://www.fao.org/publications (accessed on 24 April 2022).
  5. Jägermeyr, J.; Pastor, A.; Biemans, H.; Gerten, D. Reconciling irrigated food production with environmental flows for Sustainable Development Goals implementation. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2020; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. IPCC. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Core Writing Team, Lee, H., Romero, J., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Onyena, A.P.; Sam, K. The blue revolution: Sustainable water management for a thirsty world. Discov. Sustain. 2025, 6, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Iglesias, A.; Garrote, L. Adaptation strategies for agricultural water management under climate change in Europe. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 155, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Berbel, J.; Expósito, A.; Gutiérrez-Martín, C.; Mateos, L. Effects of the Irrigation Modernization in Spain 2002–2015. Water Resour. Manag. 2019, 33, 1835–1849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. McCartney, M.P.; Whiting, L.; Makin, I.; Lankford, B.A.; Ringler, C. Rethinking irrigation modernisation: Realising multiple objectives through the integration of fisheries. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2019, 70, 1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hoffmann, P.; Villamayor-Tomas, S. Irrigation modernization and the efficiency paradox: A meta-study through the lens of Networks of Action Situations. Sustain. Sci. 2023, 18, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Grafton, R.Q.; Williams, J.; Perry, C.J.; Molle, F.; Ringler, C.; Steduto, P.; Udall, B.; Wheeler, S.A.; Wang, Y.; Garrick, D.; et al. The paradox of irrigation efficiency. Science 2018, 361, 748–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. Off. J. Eur. Union 2013, 347, 487–548. [Google Scholar]
  15. Venot, J.P.; Kuper, M.; Zwarteveen, M. Drip Irrigation for Agriculture; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lamm, F.R.; Colaizzi, P.D.; Sorensen, R.B.; Bordovsky, J.P.; Dougherty, M.; Balkcom, K.; Zaccaria, D.; Bali, K.M.; Rudnick, D.R.; Peters, R.T. A 2020 Vision of Subsurface Drip Irrigation in the U.S. Trans. ASABE 2021, 64, 1319–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ticehurst, J.L.; Curtis, A.L. The intention of irrigators to adopt water use efficient measures: Case studies in the north and south of the Murray–Darling Basin. Australas. J. Water Resour. 2018, 22, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ward, F.A.; Pulido-Velazquez, M. Water conservation in irrigation can increase water use. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 18215–18220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Contor, B.A.; Taylor, R.G. Why Improving Irrigation Efficiency Increases Total Volume of Consumptive Use. Irrig. Drain. 2013, 62, 273–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Scott, C.A.; Vicuña, S.; Blanco-Gutiérrez, I.; Meza, F.; Varela-Ortega, C. Irrigation efficiency and water-policy implications for river basin resilience. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2014, 18, 1339–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wagener, T.; Sivapalan, M.; Troch, P.A.; McGlynn, B.L.; Harman, C.J.; Gupta, H.V.; Kumar, P.; Rao, P.S.C.; Basu, N.B.; Wilson, J.S. The future of hydrology: An evolving science for a changing world. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Masseroni, D.; Ricart, S.; De Cartagena, F.R.; Monserrat, J.; Gonçalves, J.M.; De Lima, I.; Facchi, A.; Sali, G.; Gandolfi, C. Prospects for Improving Gravity-Fed Surface Irrigation Systems in Mediterranean European Contexts. Water 2017, 9, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Séraphin, P.; Vallet-Coulomb, C.; Gonçalvès, J. Partitioning groundwater recharge between rainfall infiltration and irrigation return flow using stable isotopes: The Crau aquifer. J. Hydrol. 2016, 542, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Poch-Massegú, R.; Jiménez-Martínez, J.; Wallis, K.; de Cartagena, F.R.; Candela, L. Irrigation return flow and nitrate leaching under different crops and irrigation methods in Western Mediterranean weather conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 2014, 134, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sese-Minguez, S.; Boesveld, H.; Asins-Velis, S.; Van der Kooij, S.; Maroulis, J. Transformations accompanying a shift from surface to drip irrigation in the Cànyoles Watershed, Valencia, Spain. Water Altern. 2017, 10, 81–99. [Google Scholar]
  26. García-Mollá, M.; Medina, R.P.; Vega-Carrero, V.; Sanchis-Ibor, C. Economic efficiency of drip and flood irrigation. Comparative analysis at farm scale using DEA. Agric. Water Manag. 2025, 309, 109314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Perry, C.; Steduto, P.; Karajeh, F. Does Improved Irrigation Technology Save Water? A Review of the Evidence; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2017; Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/b4445410-aca5-491c-8247-10ab4281fa91 (accessed on 4 August 2025).
  28. Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Israelsen, O.W. Irrigation Principles and Practices, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1950. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jensen, M.E. Beyond irrigation efficiency. Irrig. Sci. 2007, 25, 233–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Narayanamoorthy, A. Economic Impact of Drip Irrigation in India: An Empirical Analysis with Farm Level Data; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 329–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Leghari, S.J.; Hu, K.; Wei, Y.; Wang, T.; Bhutto, T.A.; Buriro, M. Modelling water consumption, N fates and maize yield under different water-saving management practices in China and Pakistan. Agric. Water Manag. 2021, 255, 107033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mehmood, F.; Wang, G.; Abubakar, S.A.; Zain, M.; Rahman, S.U.; Gao, Y.; Duan, A. Optimizing irrigation management sustained grain yield, crop water productivity, and mitigated greenhouse gas emissions from the winter wheat field in North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 290, 108599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, H.; Li, X.; Tan, J. Interannual Variations of Evapotranspiration and Water Use Efficiency over an Oasis Cropland in Arid Regions of North-Western China. Water 2020, 12, 1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, Y.; Gao, M.; Chen, H.; Fu, X.; Wang, L.; Wang, R. Soil moisture and salinity dynamics of drip irrigation in saline-alkali soil of Yellow River basin. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1130455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Leghari, S.J.; Hu, K.; Wei, Y.; Wang, T.; Laghari, Y. Modelling the effects of cropping systems and irrigation methods on water consumption, N fates and crop yields in the North China Plain. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2024, 218, 108677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, X.; Huo, Z.; Guan, H.; Guo, P.; Qu, Z. Drip irrigation enhances shallow groundwater contribution to crop water consumption in an arid area. Hydrol. Process. 2018, 32, 747–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dong, S.; Kang, Y.; Wan, S.; Li, X.; Miao, J. Drip-irrigation using highly saline groundwater increases sunflower yield in heavily saline soil. Agron. J. 2021, 113, 2950–2959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sikaoui, L.; Nangia, V.; Karrou, M.; Oweis, T. Improved on-farm irrigation management for olive growing—A case study from Morocco. Ann. Arid Zone 2016, 55, 147–151. [Google Scholar]
  41. Raza, A.; Zaka, M.A.; Khurshid, T.; Nawaz, M.A.; Ahmed, W.; Afzal, M.B.S. Different Irrigation Systems Affect the Yield and Water Use Efficiencyof Kinnow Mandarin (Citrus reticulata blanco.). J. Anim. Plant Sci. 2020, 30, 1178–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ali, M.Y.; Saleem, S.; Irshad, M.N.; Mehmood, A.; Nisar, M.; Ali, I. Comparative study of different irrigation system for cotton crop in district Rahim Yar khan, Punjab, Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Ext. 2020, 8, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, Z.; Zong, R.; Wang, T.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, J. Adapting Root Distribution and Improving Water Use Efficiency via Drip Irrigation in a Jujube (Zizyphus jujube Mill.) Orchard after Long-Term Flood Irrigation. Agriculture 2021, 11, 1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Rodríguez-Díaz, J.A.; Pérez-Urrestarazu, L.; Camacho-Poyato, E.; Montesinos, P. The paradox of irrigation scheme modernization: More efficient water use linked to higher energy demand. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2011, 9, 1000–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. INTERA. Remote-Sensing-Based Comparison of Water Consumption by Drip-Irrigated versus Flood-Irrigated Fields; INTERA Inc.: Austin, TX, USA, 2013; Available online: http://www.ose.state.nm.us/Basins/Colorado/AWSA/Studies/2013_Intera_DmingFldDripRpt.pdf (accessed on 4 August 2025).
  46. Sampedro-Sanchez, D. Can Irrigation Technologies Save Water in Closed Basins? The effects of Drip Irrigation on Water Resources in the Guadalquivir River Basin (Spain). Water Altern. 2022, 15, 501–522. [Google Scholar]
  47. Küçükyumuk, C.; Kaçal, E.; Ertek, A.; Öztürk, G.; Kurttaş, Y.S.K. Pomological and vegetative changes during transition from flood irrigation to drip irrigation: Starkrimson Delicious apple variety. Sci. Hortic. 2012, 136, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Eranki, P.L.; El-Shikha, D.; Hunsaker, D.J.; Bronson, K.F.; Landis, A.E. A comparative life cycle assessment of flood and drip irrigation for guayule rubber production using experimental field data. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 99, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Montazar, A.; Zaccaria, D.; Bali, K.; Putnam, D. A Model to Assess the Economic Viability of Alfalfa Production Under Subsurface Drip Irrigation in California. Irrig. Drain. 2017, 66, 90–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jat, H.S.; Sharma, P.C.; Datta, A.; Choudhary, M.; Kakraliya, S.K.; Singh, Y.; Sidhu, H.S.; Gerard, B.; Jat, M.L. Re-designing irrigated intensive cereal systems through bundling precision agronomic innovations for transitioning towards agricultural sustainability in North-West India. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 17929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Jha, S.K.; Ramatshaba, T.S.; Wang, G.; Liang, Y.; Liu, H.; Gao, Y.; Duan, A. Response of growth, yield and water use efficiency of winter wheat to different irrigation methods and scheduling in North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 217, 292–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, Q.; Lan, Y.; Tan, F.; Tu, Y.; Sun, Y.; Yougu, G.; Yang, Z.; Ding, C.; Li, T. Drip Irrigation Elevated Olive Productivity in Southwest China. HortTechnology 2019, 29, 122–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Umair, M.; Hussain, T.; Jiang, H.; Ahmad, A.; Yao, J.; Qi, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Min, L.; Shen, Y. Water-Saving Potential of Subsurface Drip Irrigation For Winter Wheat. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gao, J.; Xu, C.; Luo, N.; Liu, X.; Huang, S.; Wang, P. Mitigating global warming potential while coordinating economic benefits by optimizing irrigation managements in maize production. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 298, 113474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Andrews, H.M.; Homyak, P.M.; Oikawa, P.Y.; Wang, J.; Jenerette, G.D. Water-conscious management strategies reduce per-yield irrigation and soil emissions of CO2, N2O, and NO in high-temperature forage cropping systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 332, 107944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kumar, J.; Nibhoria, A.; Yadav, P.K.; Satyajeet; Jat, M.; Antil, S.K. Relative performance of drip irrigation in comparison to conventional methods of irrigation in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) in south-west Haryana. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2023, 93, 1320–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Merza, N.; Atab, H.; Al-Fatlawi, Z.; Alsharifi, S. Effect of irrigation systems on rice productivity. Sabrao J. Breed. Genet. 2023, 52, 587–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Li, C.; Han, W.; Peng, M. Effects of drip and flood irrigation on carbon dioxide exchange and crop growth in the maize ecosystem in the Hetao Irrigation District, China. J. Arid Land 2024, 16, 282–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yadav, A.; Upreti, H.; Singhal, G.D. Crop water stress index and its sensitivity to meteorological parameters and canopy temperature. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2024, 155, 2903–2915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wang, J.; He, X.; Gong, P.; Heng, T.; Zhao, D.; Wang, C.; Chen, Q.; Wei, J.; Lin, P.; Yang, G. Response of fragrant pear quality and water productivity to lateral depth and irrigation amount. Agric. Water Manag. 2024, 292, 108652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liu, H.-L.; Chen, X.; Bao, A.-M.; Wang, L.; Pan, X.; He, X.-L. Effect of Irrigation Methods on Groundwater Recharge in Alluvial Fan Area. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 2012, 138, 266–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zhao, X.; Xu, H.; Zhang, P.; Bai, Y.; Zhang, Q. Impact of Changing Irrigation Patterns on Saltwater Dynamics of Soil in Farmlands and their Shelterbelts in the Irrigated Zone of Kalamiji Oasis. Irrig. Drain. 2015, 64, 393–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jin, X.; Chen, M.; Fan, Y.; Yan, L.; Wang, F. Effects of Mulched Drip Irrigation on Soil Moisture and Groundwater Recharge in the Xiliao River Plain, China. Water 2018, 10, 1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pool, S.; Francés, F.; Garcia-Prats, A.; Pulido-Velazquez, M.; Sanchis-Ibor, C.; Schirmer, M.; Yang, H.; Jiménez-Martínez, J. From Flood to Drip Irrigation Under Climate Change: Impacts on Evapotranspiration and Groundwater Recharge in the Mediterranean Region of Valencia (Spain). Earth’s Futur. 2021, 9, e2020EF001859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pool, S.; Francés, F.; Garcia-Prats, A.; Puertes, C.; Pulido-Velazquez, M.; Sanchis-Ibor, C.; Schirmer, M.; Yang, H.; Jiménez-Martínez, J. Hydrological Modeling of the Effect of the Transition From Flood to Drip Irrigation on Groundwater Recharge Using Multi-Objective Calibration. Water Resour. Res. 2021, 57, e2021WR029677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wael, M.; Riad, P.; Hassan, N.A.; Nofal, E.R. Assessment of modern irrigation versus flood irrigation on groundwater potentiality in old clayey lands. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2024, 15, 102776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yan, L.; Chen, M.; Hu, P.; Li, D.; Wang, Y. An analysis on the influence of precipitation infiltration on groundwater under different irrigation conditions in the semi-arid area. Water Supply 2021, 21, 1111–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yakirevich, A.; Weisbrod, N.; Kuznetsov, M.; Villarreyes, C.R.; Benavent, I.; Chavez, A.; Ferrando, D. Modeling the impact of solute recycling on groundwater salinization under irrigated lands: A study of the Alto Piura aquifer, Peru. J. Hydrol. 2013, 482, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tudi, M.; Wang, L.; Wei, B.; Yang, L.; Yu, J.; Jiang, F.; Xue, Y.; Li, H.; Wang, F.; Li, L.; et al. Effects of drip and flood irrigation on soil heavy metal migration and associated risks in China. Ecol. Indic. 2024, 161, 111986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pal, S.; Patel, N.; Malik, A.; Sharma, A.; Pal, U.; KG, R.; Singh, D. Eco-friendly treatment of wastewater and its impact on soil and vegetables using flood and micro-irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 275, 108025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wei, C.; Ren, S.; Yang, P.; Wang, Y.; He, X.; Xu, Z.; Wei, R.; Wang, S.; Chi, Y.; Zhang, M. Effects of irrigation methods and salinity on CO2 emissions from farmland soil during growth and fallow periods. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 752, 141639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jackson, T.M.; Khan, S.; Hafeez, M. A comparative analysis of water application and energy consumption at the irrigated field level. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 1477–1485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ward, F.A. Economic impacts on irrigated agriculture of water conservation programs in drought. J. Hydrol. 2014, 508, 114–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hussain, K.; Majeed, A.; Nawaz, K.; Afghan, S.; Ali, K.; Lin, F.; Zafar, Z.; Raza, G. Comparative study of subsurface drip irrigation and flood irrigation systems for quality and yield of sugarcane. African J. Agric. Res. 2010, 5, 3026–3034. [Google Scholar]
  75. Mupaso, N.; Manzungu, E.; Mutambara, J.; Hanyani-Mlambo, B. The Impact of Irrigation Technology on The Financial and Economic Performance of Smallholder Irrigation in Zimbabwe. Irrig. Drain. 2014, 63, 430–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Khor, L.Y.; Feike, T. Economic sustainability of irrigation practices in arid cotton production. Water Resour. Econ. 2017, 20, 40–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ortega-Reig, M.; Sanchis-Ibor, C.; Palau-Salvador, G.; García-Mollá, M.; Avellá-Reus, L. Institutional and management implications of drip irrigation introduction in collective irrigation systems in Spain. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 187, 164–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Perry, C. Accounting for water use: Terminology and implications for saving water and increasing production. Agric. Water Manag. 2011, 98, 1840–1846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Carlson, G.; Massari, C.; Rotiroti, M.; Bonomi, T.; Preziosi, E.; Wilder, A.; Whitaker, D.; Girotto, M. Intensive irrigation buffers groundwater declines in key European breadbasket. Nat. Water 2025, 3, 683–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Vallet-Coulomb, C.; Séraphin, P.; Gonçalvès, J.; Radakovitch, O.; Cognard-Plancq, A.-L.; Crespy, A.; Babic, M.; Charron, F. Irrigation return flows in a mediterranean aquifer inferred from combined chloride and stable isotopes mass balances. Appl. Geochem. 2017, 86, 92–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Pérez-Blanco, C.D.; Sapino, F. Economic Sustainability of Irrigation-Dependent Ecosystem Services Under Growing Water Scarcity. Insights From the Reno River in Italy. Water Resour. Res. 2022, 58, e2021WR030478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Owens, K.; Carmody, E.; Grafton, Q.; O’DOnnell, E.; Wheeler, S.; Godden, L.; Allen, R.; Lyster, R.; Steduto, P.; Jiang, Q.; et al. Delivering global water security: Embedding water justice as a response to increased irrigation efficiency. WIREs Water 2022, 9, e1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pérez-Blanco, C.D.; Loch, A.; Ward, F.; Perry, C.; Adamson, D. Agricultural water saving through technologies: A zombie idea. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 114032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Playán, E.; Mateos, L. Modernization and optimization of irrigation systems to increase water productivity. Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 80, 100–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. van der Kooij, S.; Zwarteveen, M.; Boesveld, H.; Kuper, M. The efficiency of drip irrigation unpacked. Agric. Water Manag. 2013, 123, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Morrisett, C.N.; Van Kirk, R.W.; Bernier, L.O.; Holt, A.L.; Perel, C.B.; Null, S.E. The irrigation efficiency trap: Rational farm-scale decisions can lead to poor hydrologic outcomes at the basin scale. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1188139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Daccache, A.; Ciurana, J.S.; Diaz, J.A.R.; Knox, J.W. Water and energy footprint of irrigated agriculture in the Mediterranean region. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 124014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Qin, J.; Duan, W.; Zou, S.; Chen, Y.; Huang, W.; Rosa, L. Global energy use and carbon emissions from irrigated agriculture. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 3084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. CBD. Annex A to COP 5 Decision V/6: Ecosystem Approach; Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  90. Hoff, H. Understanding the Nexus: Background Paper for the Bonn 2011 Conference: The Water, Energy and Food Security Nexus; Stockholm Environment Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  91. Ringler, C.; Bhaduri, A.; Lawford, R. The nexus across water, energy, land and food (WELF): Potential for improved resource use efficiency? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 5, 617–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Union for the Mediterranean. UFM Water Policy Framework for Actions 2030; Union for the Mediterranean: Barcelona, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  93. Lucca, E.; El Jeitany, J.; Castelli, G.; Pacetti, T.; Bresci, E.; Nardi, F.; Caporali, E. A review of water-energy-food-ecosystems Nexus research in the Mediterranean: Evolution, gaps and applications. Environ. Res. Lett. 2023, 18, 83001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. United Nations High-Level Panel on Water. Making Every Drop Count—An Agenda for Water Action; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  95. Mennig, P. A never-ending story of reforms: On the wicked nature of the Common Agricultural Policy. npj Sustain. Agric. 2024, 2, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Brinegar, H.R.; Ward, F.A. Basin impacts of irrigation water conservation policy. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 69, 414–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Molle, F.; Tanouti, O. Squaring the circle: Agricultural intensification vs. water conservation in Morocco. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 192, 170–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Hellegers, P.; Davidson, B.; Russ, J.; Waalewijn, P. Irrigation subsidies and their externalities. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 260, 107284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pérez-Blanco, C.D.; Hrast-Essenfelder, A.; Perry, C. Irrigation Technology and Water Conservation: A Review of the Theory and Evidence. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2020, 14, 216–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Berbel, J.; Mateos, L. Does investment in irrigation technology necessarily generate rebound effects? A simulation analysis based on an agro-economic model. Agric. Syst. 2014, 128, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Giannoccaro, G.; Roselli, L.; Sardaro, R.; de Gennaro, B.C. Design of an incentive-based tool for effective water saving policy in agriculture. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 272, 107866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 17 03018 g001
Figure 1. Review workflow.
Figure 1. Review workflow.
Water 17 03018 g001
Water 17 03018 g002
Figure 2. The annual number of publications from 2001 to 2024 (bars) and the cumulative number of publications over the targeted period (line).
Figure 2. The annual number of publications from 2001 to 2024 (bars) and the cumulative number of publications over the targeted period (line).
Water 17 03018 g002
Water 17 03018 g003
Figure 3. Geographical distribution of the case studies analyzed in the reviewed publications by continent (a) and country (b).
Figure 3. Geographical distribution of the case studies analyzed in the reviewed publications by continent (a) and country (b).
Water 17 03018 g003
Water 17 03018 g004
Figure 4. Percentage distribution of reviewed publications per impact categories (n = 102).
Figure 4. Percentage distribution of reviewed publications per impact categories (n = 102).
Water 17 03018 g004
Water 17 03018 g005
Figure 5. Share of methodological approach categories used by impact categories.
Figure 5. Share of methodological approach categories used by impact categories.
Water 17 03018 g005
Table 1. List of exclusion and inclusion criteria.
Table 1. List of exclusion and inclusion criteria.
Exclusion CriteriaInclusion Criteria
Document typeDrip and flood terms mentioned in the abstract
Full text accessibility Comparison between irrigation regimes
Language (only English)Description of impacts
Table 2. Overview of crop impacts reported by reviewed literature.
Table 2. Overview of crop impacts reported by reviewed literature.
SourceCase Study Location
(Country)		CropYieldNitrogen Use EfficiencyPlant GrowthRoot Zone Stability
[47]TurkeyApple x
[40]MoroccoOlivex
[48]USARubberx
[49]USAAlfalfax
[38]ChinaMaizex
[50]IndiaMulti cropsxx
[51]ChinaWheatx xx
[52]ChinaOlivex
[53]ChinaWheatx
[42]PakistanCottonx
[41]PakistanCitrusx
[39]ChinaSunflowerx
[54]ChinaMaizex
[33]ChinaMaizexx x
[43]ChinaJujubex x
[55]USAAlfalfax
[56]IndiaMustardx
[34]ChinaWheatx
[57]IraqRicex x
[36]ChinaMaizex x
[37]ChinaWheat, Maizexx
[58]ChinaMaizex x
[59]IndiaWheatx
[60]ChinaPear
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Santini, A.; Masiero, M.; Amato, G.; Pettenella, D.M. From Flood to Drip Irrigation: A Review of Irrigation Modernization Trade-Offs. Water 2025, 17, 3018. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17203018

AMA Style

Santini A, Masiero M, Amato G, Pettenella DM. From Flood to Drip Irrigation: A Review of Irrigation Modernization Trade-Offs. Water. 2025; 17(20):3018. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17203018

Chicago/Turabian Style

Santini, Alessandra, Mauro Masiero, Giulia Amato, and Davide Matteo Pettenella. 2025. "From Flood to Drip Irrigation: A Review of Irrigation Modernization Trade-Offs" Water 17, no. 20: 3018. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17203018

APA Style

Santini, A., Masiero, M., Amato, G., & Pettenella, D. M. (2025). From Flood to Drip Irrigation: A Review of Irrigation Modernization Trade-Offs. Water, 17(20), 3018. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17203018

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop