Socio-Economic Implications of Drought in the Agricultural Sector and the State Economy

Ziolkowska, Jadwiga R.

doi:10.3390/economies4030019

Cited by 39 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the 2011 Texas drought was the worst 1-yr drought in Texas history and caused $7.62 billion in losses in the agricultural sector alone (Guerrero, 2012). By October 2011, more than 90% of the state was under exceptional drought conditions (Ziolkowska, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Drought on Crop Production and Cropping Areas in Texas

Ray

Fares

Risch

2018

Agricultural & Env Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Core Ideas Drought causes significant yield reductions both for rainfed and irrigated crops. Drought can have impact on cropping areas and crop yield. Changing crop types can be used to cope with drought challenges during drought periods. Increased crop yield is required to meet the needs of future population growth, but drought causes significant yield reductions for rainfed and irrigated crops. This study evaluates the impact of drought on crop yield and cropping area over 10 climate zones in Texas from 2008 to 2016. It also depicts the spatiotemporal distribution of crop yield and cropping area changes at each climate zone across the state. We analyzed the impact of drought on crop yields and cropping areas before and after the 2011 severe drought using annual crop yields of four major crops. Results show that drought had a greater impact on winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and corn (Zea mays L.) and lesser impact on cotton (Gossypium spp.) and sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] production across Texas. Cotton and corn hectarages were reduced during the drought period and increased after that, whereas winter wheat hectarage was reduced in the northern climate zones and increased in the southern climate zones before the drought. Results also indicate that drought impact on crop production may be reduced by replacing water‐demanding crops such as corn with drought‐tolerant crops such as sorghum and expanding irrigation hectarage during drought periods. It may be beneficial for Texas agricultural production to increase the hectarage of sorghum and other grains especially during drought periods. This study provides valuable information that can be used to adopt appropriate measures to cope with future drought challenges in drought‐prone regions.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Drought on Crop Production and Cropping Areas in Texas

Ray

Fares

Risch

2018

Agricultural & Env Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The actual output is a number, a multiplier, called a ''response coefficient'' that captures the size of the effects of a grant's infusion of funds in the economy, in this case, per US $1 million spent. The model has been used in natural resources fields including forestry (He et al 2016;Daniels et al 2018), outdoor recreation (Guo et al 2017;Hjerpe 2018), the economic implications of drought (Ziolkowska 2016), and to estimate the size of the ''restoration economy'' (BenDor et al 2015) and is considered a standardized metric used across federal departments (NRCS no date).…”

Section: Measuring the Value Of A Public Conservation Program: Findinmentioning

confidence: 99%

The State Wildlife Grant Program: Measuring the Public Value of a Proactive Conservation Program

Riley

Ryzin

Fuller

et al. 2019

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's State Wildlife Grant (SWG) Program was designed as a proactive species conservation program to aid state fish and wildlife agencies in preventing nonplant species from becoming listed as threatened or endangered (T&E) under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. In this paper, we use four criteria to evaluate whether the SWG Program can be considered successful: 1) value is created (increased) in the short term; 2) value is created (increased) in the long term; 3) the value created is public; and 4) the value created is the value that was intended per the original goals of the program. Our analysis indicates the SWG Program has added US $3 billion in short-term value to local economies and supported the creation of about 18,000 jobs between 2001 until 2015. We use the example of the whooping crane Grus americana to calculate the long-term value of this single T&E species as US $103.5 million annually and argue that the SWG Program helps to maintain this value through supported species-conservation activities. Next, we look at two instances of species receiving proactive SWG Program conservation dollars: the oblong rock snail Leptoxis compacta and several North American bat species (Chiroptera spp.). These species and the conservation actions that benefit them demonstrate how public value is created or maintained through services these species naturally provide that benefit human health and economic well-being. Finally, we evaluate whether the SWG Program is creating the value it was designed to create by showing that T&E spending (expenditure) growth rates decreased after the SWG Program began. We find that the decrease in spending does not correlate with fewer species being removed from consideration as a T&E candidate for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, nor does spending correlate with fewer species being delisted (taken off the list) after being listed as T&E species. Allowing for a 5-y time lag, we are also able to show that the SWG Program has been used in 55% of T&E-listed species that were later delisted under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and 24% of candidate species later removed from consideration for T&E listing as a result of recovery or better information. We argue that these results demonstrate that the SWG Program meets or is potentially meeting all four criteria for an effective public program.

show abstract

“…The World Meteorological Organization defines drought somewhat broadly as an insidious natural hazard characterised by lower than expected or lower than normal precipitation that, when extended over a season or longer period of time, is insufficient to meet the demands of human activities and the environment (WMO, 2006; Parry et al ., ; West et al ., ). The concept of drought therefore depends on the perspective of the water resource user, and it can generally be classified into four types: meteorological (1–3 months), defined on the basis of rainfall deficiency; agricultural (1–6 months), when soil moisture is insufficient and results in a lack of crop growth and production; hydrological (6–24 months), when there is a lack of water in the hydrological system; and socio‐economic, when the demand for water exceeds the supply (Kendon et al ., ; Van Loon, ; Ziolkowska, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%