IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea99/21528.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Welfare Differences Between Gross Water Pumped And Consumptive Use As Alternative Policy Control Variables To Meet Aquifer Management Objectives

Author

Listed:
  • Yeboah, Osei-Agyeman
  • Supalla, Raymond J.
  • Martin, Derrel L.

Abstract

The welfare cost of using gross water pumped instead of consumptive use as a control variable to meet consumptive use goal was estimated for Southwestern Nebraska. The results show that the widespread use of gross water as a policy control variable substantially overstates the welfare cost of reducing consumptive use.

Suggested Citation

  • Yeboah, Osei-Agyeman & Supalla, Raymond J. & Martin, Derrel L., 1999. "Welfare Differences Between Gross Water Pumped And Consumptive Use As Alternative Policy Control Variables To Meet Aquifer Management Objectives," 1999 Annual meeting, August 8-11, Nashville, TN 21528, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea99:21528
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.21528
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21528/files/sp99ye01.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.21528?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eli Feinerman & Keith C. Knapp, 1983. "Benefits from Groundwater Management: Magnitude, Sensitivity, and Distribution," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(4), pages 703-710.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pfeiffer, Lisa & Lin, C.-Y. Cynthia, 2012. "Groundwater pumping and spatial externalities in agriculture," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 16-30.
    2. Hubert Stahn & Agnes Tomini, 2014. "On the Environmental Efficiency of Water Storage: The Case of a Conjunctive Use of Ground and Rainwater," Working Papers halshs-01083461, HAL.
    3. Murielle Djiguemde & Dimitri Dubois & Alexandre Sauquet & Mabel Tidball, 2019. "On the modeling and testing of groundwater resource models," CEE-M Working Papers hal-02316729, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    4. Kimberly Burnett & Christopher Wada, 2014. "Optimal groundwater management when recharge is declining: a method for valuing the recharge benefits of watershed conservation," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 16(3), pages 263-278, July.
    5. Wegmann, J., 2018. "Addressing the institutional challenges of groundwater management in areas of rapid urbanization," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277268, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Saak, Alexander E. & Peterson, Jeffrey M., 2007. "Groundwater use under incomplete information," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 214-228, September.
    7. Suarez, Federico & Fulginiti, Lilyan & Perrin, Richard, 2015. "The Value of Water in Agriculture: The U.S. High Plains Aquifer," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211644, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Shew, Aaron M. & Nalley, Lawton L. & Durand-Morat, Alvaro & Meredith, Kylie & Parajuli, Ranjan & Thoma, Greg & Henry, Christopher G., 2021. "Holistically valuing public investments in agricultural water conservation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    9. Guilfoos, Todd & Pape, Andreas D. & Khanna, Neha & Salvage, Karen, 2013. "Groundwater management: The effect of water flows on welfare gains," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 31-40.
    10. Smith, Steven M., 2018. "Economic incentives and conservation: Crowding-in social norms in a groundwater commons," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 147-174.
    11. Lars Gårn Hansen & Frank Jensen & Eirik S. Amundsen, 2014. "Regulating Groundwater Use in Developing Countries: A Feasible Instrument for Public Intervention," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 170(2), pages 317-335, June.
    12. Amine Chekireb & Julio Goncalves & Hubert Stahn & Agnes Tomini, 2021. "Private exploitation of the North-Western Sahara Aquifer System," Working Papers halshs-03457972, HAL.
    13. Murielle Djiguemde, 2020. "A survey on dynamic common pool resources : theory and experiment," Working Papers hal-03022377, HAL.
    14. Phoebe Koundouri, 2004. "Current Issues in the Economics of Groundwater Resource Management," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(5), pages 703-740, December.
    15. Marta Biancardi & Gianluca Iannucci & Giovanni Villani, 2023. "Groundwater management and illegality in a differential-evolutionary framework," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 1-17, December.
    16. Burness, H. Stuart & Brill, Thomas C., 2001. "The role for policy in common pool groundwater use," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 19-40, January.
    17. Wheeler, Erin & Golden, Bill & Johnson, Jeffrey & Peterson, Jeffrey, 2008. "Economic Efficiency of Short-Term Versus Long-Term Water Rights Buyouts," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(2), pages 493-501, August.
    18. Louis Sears & David Lim & C.-Y. Cynthia Lin Lawell, 2018. "The Economics of Agricultural Groundwater Management Institutions: The Case of California," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(03), pages 1-21, July.
    19. Pamela Giselle Katic, 2010. "Spatial dynamics and optimal resource extraction," Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy Papers 1002, Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    20. Claudia Heidecke & Thomas Heckelei, 2010. "Impacts of changing water inflow distributions on irrigation and farm income along the Drâa River in Morocco," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(2), pages 135-149, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource/Energy Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea99:21528. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.