The drivers associated with Murray-Darling Basin irrigators’ future farm adaptation strategies

Seidl, Constantin; Zuo, Alec

doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.048

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Path dependency in farming strategy does appear to exist, in that once a farmer implements a strategy, they are more likely to continue doing so over the next five years – which has been found to be the case for selling permanent water (e.g. Seidl et al, 2021; Wheeler et al, 2013). This finding indicates that, at some point, selling more permanent water entitlements may be a negative financial strategy for an individual farm if the desire is to continue irrigation, and more research is needed in this area using longitudinal panel datasets.…”

Section: Australian Water Marketsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Debunking Murray‐Darling Basin water trade myths

Wheeler

2022

Aus J Agri & Res Econ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Australia, and particularly the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB), has the most mature and adopted water markets globally. Water trading is an important policy tool to deal with water scarcity issues, demonstrating allocative, dynamic and productive efficiency benefits. At the same time, water markets have been controversial in Australia. Markets have been blamed for a range of issues, including claims of unsustainability, inequity, farm bankruptcy, farmer distress and farm exit. This study reviews the MDB water trade literature and finds little evidence to support such myths. Arguably, the biggest misconception is that critics do not separate water markets from the meta‐governance institutional structures that define them. Perceived water market failures are often due to governance issues – not water trade per se. This is not to say that market failure does not exist, it does, and indeed, there are also serious distributional issues that need addressing (e.g., water property entitlements for indigenous stakeholders). As such, water market design and governance need to adapt and evolve as problems arise and the market matures. However, in an era of increasing water scarcity, enabling water trade remains one of the most important instruments available to assist in water sharing, reallocation and farm adaptation to climate change.

show abstract

Section: Australian Water Marketsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Debunking Murray‐Darling Basin water trade myths

Wheeler

2022

Aus J Agri & Res Econ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is worth noting that there is only weak evidence for these trends in the GSE and LRE models, making it unlikely that any factor would discriminatorily impede HSE trading. Furthermore, prior literature has documented a rise in market participation and enhancements in institutional and governance structures, promoting active trading in the southern Murray‐Darling Basin (sMDB) water market over the last decade (Loch et al., 2018; Seidl, 2020; Wheeler & Garrick, 2020; Zuo et al., 2019). Therefore, these declining trends in trading volume and frequency may signify a shift in HSE ownership towards long‐term holders, possibly high‐value users such as horticultural irrigators.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With the increased level of market participation, some derivative products such as forward contracts, entitlement leasing, and carryover capacity leasing have been developed (Seidl, 2020). Various stakeholders view the water market like other financial markets, applying sophisticated investment management (Seidl, 2020). There have also been debates over the impacts of non‐land holders, especially large institutional investors, on the market.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Market Functionality: Evidence From the Australian Experience

Zhao,

Ancev,

Vervoort

2024

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Market approaches to natural resource management have gained popularity over the last few decades. This study provides an encompassing analysis of the water market in the southern Murray‐Darling Basin (sMDB), Australia, in order to evaluate its performance and the importance of having various types of water rights traded in the market. We do so by investigating a set of market attributes, including price and price volatility, traded volume, number and the average size of transactions, and net import across a number of trading zones in the southern Murray‐Darling Basin. Our findings show that the price mechanism in the water market functions as intended, as the water prices signal the level of scarcity and reflect value that can be derived from water resources. Other factors like crop structure and institutional settings also play important roles in explaining differences in water market outcomes across the considered trading zones within the sMDB market. Overall, our findings document that water markets serve well their fundamental purpose in water resource management to allocate water toward its economically‐highest‐valued uses, and that various types of water rights traded in the market are meeting heterogenous needs of market participants in managing water supply and use.

show abstract

“…Adjustments were made in most studies, and few refer to more than one behavioral theory. The most frequently cited theory is the TPB (8) (e.g., Roesch-McNally et al 2017;Wheeler et al 2013), followed by the MPPACC (6) (e.g., Eakin et al 2016;Mitter et al 2019), the Value-Beliefs-Norm Theory (VBN, 4) (e.g., Davidson et al 2019;Sanderson and Curtis 2016), the PMT, (3) (e.g., Käyhkö 2019;van Duinen et al 2015), and the Five Capitals Model (3) (e.g., Seidl et al 2021;Wheeler et al 2013). Other theories or models, such as the Construal Level Theory (Niles et al 2015;van Haden et al 2012), the Identity Control Model (Morton et al 2017), and the Model of Adaptive Capacity (e.g., Marshall et al 2012) are applied in only one or two studies each.…”

Section: Applied Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…General Risk Attitude as indicated by farmer self-assessment (Wheeler et al 2013) or number of insurance products purchased (Seidl et al 2021), is identified as a significant antecedent for incremental and transformational adaptation measures.…”

Section: Dispositional Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Influencing Farmers’ Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review

Kropf

Mitter

2022

Alpine Landgesellschaften Zwischen Urbanisierung Und Globalisierung

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers increasingly explore farmers’ climate change behavior and the respective influencing factors. This has resulted in extensive, but hitherto unstructured knowledge. We analyze 50 peer-reviewed scientific studies and identify behavioral factors and their influence on farmers’ mitigation and adaptation behavior. Our results show a broad variety of behavioral factors, including cognitive factors which refer to perceptions of a specific risk or behavior, social factors which are influenced by farmers’ interactions with their social peers, and factors which depend on farmers’ personal disposition. Depending on the characteristics of the respective behavioral factor, the implementation of mitigation and adaptation measures is facilitated or impeded.

show abstract

The drivers associated with Murray-Darling Basin irrigators’ future farm adaptation strategies

Cited by 18 publications

References 76 publications

Debunking Murray‐Darling Basin water trade myths

Debunking Murray‐Darling Basin water trade myths

Water Market Functionality: Evidence From the Australian Experience

Factors Influencing Farmers’ Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About