Irrigator preferences for water recovery budget expenditure in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia

Loch, Adam; Wheeler, Sarah Ann; Boxall, Peter C.; MacDonald, Darla Hatton; Adamowicz, Wiktor L.; Bjørnlund, Henning

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.09.007

Cited by 32 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As noted by Loch et al. (), there were differences in budget expenditure preferences across regions. South Australian (SA) irrigators were more likely to prefer higher spending on water entitlements and exit packages compared with New South Wales (NSW) or Victorian irrigators, and less spending toward on‐farm infrastructure.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Data collection occurred via a mail‐out survey in 2011 that asked individual southern MDB irrigators how they would like to see federal water recovery budget funds allocated in the Basin (see Loch et al., for more detail). The survey asked budget allocation questions directly to avoid difficulties with complex stated preference budget reallocation tasks (see, for example, Carson and Groves, ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A wide range of program alternatives have been trialed in Australia to transfer water resources toward environmental uses, providing a unique opportunity to examine private water‐user responses to these reallocation program options. Major MDB water policy reallocation options to shift water from consumptive to environmental uses have included: capital investments in on‐ and off‐farm water efficiency to generate savings for environmental use; exit packages encouraging irrigators to sell their consumptive holdings, retrain and leave farming; and market‐based purchasing of water entitlements for environmental purposes (Loch et al., ; Zuo et al., ). With specific regard to market‐based purchasing approaches, generally two types of water are traded in Australia: temporary water (also known as seasonal water or water allocations) and permanent water (also known as water entitlements).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Using proportional modeling to evaluate irrigator preferences for market‐based water reallocation

Loch

Boxall

Wheeler

2016

Agricultural Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Irrigators' policy preferences for water reallocation programs usually take the form of proportional data, where one option will be relatively more or less favored than another in the composition of a government's total budget apportionment to address water reform. This study applies a zero-one inflated beta regression to model Murray-Darling Basin irrigators' preferences for market-based water policy programs. Market-based arrangements are more likely to provide efficient solutions to water reallocation problems, particularly where future uncertainty and appropriate pricing induce irrigator preferences for such programs. Our modeling of drivers of irrigator preferences for government expenditure on market-based programs identified different determinants of zero (a corner solution) and proportional outcomes for the reallocation of Murray-Darling Basin water. In addition, the proportional modeling identifies some variables (namely, state regional influences, the type of farm production and recent debt, low income, or water allocation stressors) that increase engagement with market-based programs. Interestingly, while price variables are important and statistically significant, they appear to be less relevant to program engagement than other influences. JEL classifications: Q18, Q25, Q28, Q50

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using proportional modeling to evaluate irrigator preferences for market‐based water reallocation

Loch

Boxall

Wheeler

2016

Agricultural Economics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Over that 20-year period irrigators, irrigation infrastructure operators and irrigation-dependent communities receive wealth transfers of approximately $714 million to realise environmental benefits. At a SRWUIP recovery level of 900 GL, annuity levels are $8411/ML -a 5.6 multiple of average buyback costs, and twice the average infrastructure prices reported in Loch et al (2014). This value offsets an irrigator's annual capital cost by AU$794 for each ML of water purchased by the government.…”

Section: Modelling the Investment Choice With (Without) Srwuipmentioning

confidence: 96%

Achieving environmental flows where buyback is constrained

Adamson

Loch

2017

Aus J Agri & Res Econ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theory suggests that the development of common property increases national welfare, and consistent with this thinking Australia's Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) Plan uses a common property approach to recover environmental water rights in the national interest. Two water recovery instruments are used: purchasing water rights (buyback) from farmers, and saving water by subsidising irrigator adoption of technically efficient technology. A moratorium on buyback has focused environmental recovery on subsidised technically efficient technology adoption. Economists argue that national welfare is maximised via buyback and highlight the limitations of efficiency savings to recover sufficient environmental water. A risk is that water recovery targets may be reduced in future, limiting welfare gains from water reform. This article evaluates possible welfare trade-offs surrounding environmental water recovery outcomes where arbitrary limits on buyback are imposed. Results suggest that, on average, strategies which attempt to obtain >1500 gigalitres (GL) of water from onfarm efficiency investments will only provide sufficient resources to meet environmental objectives in very wet states of nature. We conclude that reliance on technically efficient irrigation infrastructure is less economically efficient relative to water buyback. Importantly, the transformation of MDB irrigation will significantly constrain irrigators' future capacity to adapt to climate change.

show abstract

“…Irrigation is targeted for water savings because it provides “the most immediate opportunity for reallocating some water to other water uses or sectors as demand grows” (Cullet, , p. 330). Attempts to examine what drives the behavior of powerful water‐using groups, such as irrigators, and broader public preferences on the acceptability of the costs and benefits of water‐sharing mechanisms have risen as a response to this water reallocation problem (see Bjornlund et al, ; Loch et al, ; Wheeler et al, ). Thus, there are now many studies of attitudes toward and preferences for reallocating water from irrigated agriculture to other uses, particularly the environment (Graham, ; Wheeler et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Attitudes to Inequality in Water Distribution: Insights From Preferences for Water Reallocation From Irrigators to Aboriginal Australians

Jackson

MacDonald

Bark

2019

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water allocation regimes that adjudicate between competing uses are in many countries under pressure to adapt to increasing demands, climate‐driven shortages, expectations for equity of access, and societal changes in values and priorities. International authorities expound standards for national allocation regimes that include robust processes for addressing the needs of “new entrants” and for varying existing entitlements within sustainable limits. The claims of Indigenous peoples to water represents a newly recognized set of rights and interests that will test the ability of allocation regimes to address the global water governance goal of equity. No study has sought to identify public attitudes or willingness to pay for a fairer allocation of water rights between Indigenous and non‐Indigenous people. We surveyed households from the jurisdictions of Australia's Murray‐Darling Basin, a region undergoing a historic government‐led recovery of water, and found that 69.2% of respondents support the principle of reallocating a small amount of water from irrigators to Aboriginal people via the water market. Using contingent valuation, we estimated households are willing to pay A$21.78 in a one‐off levy. The aggregate value calculated for households in the basin's jurisdictions was A$74.5 million, which is almost double a recent government commitment to fund the acquisition of entitlements for Aboriginal nations of this basin. Results varied by state of residency and affinity with environmental groups. An information treatment that presented narrative accounts from Aboriginal people influenced the results. Insights from this study can inform water reallocation processes.

show abstract

Irrigator preferences for water recovery budget expenditure in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia

Cited by 32 publications

References 17 publications

Using proportional modeling to evaluate irrigator preferences for market‐based water reallocation

Using proportional modeling to evaluate irrigator preferences for market‐based water reallocation

Achieving environmental flows where buyback is constrained

Public Attitudes to Inequality in Water Distribution: Insights From Preferences for Water Reallocation From Irrigators to Aboriginal Australians

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About