IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/nathaz/v25y2002i1p37-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Vulnerability to Agricultural Drought: A Nebraska Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Olga Wilhelmi
  • Donald Wilhite

Abstract

Recent drought events in the United States and the magnitude of drought losses indicate the continuing vulnerability of the country to drought. Until recently, drought management in many states, including Nebraska, has been largely response oriented with little or no attention to mitigation and preparedness. In 1998, Nebraska began to revise its drought plan in order to place more emphasis on mitigation. One of the main aspects of drought mitigation and planning is the assessment of who and what is vulnerable and why. This paper presents a method for spatial, Geographic Information Systems-based assessment of agricultural drought vulnerability in Nebraska. It was hypothesized that the key biophysical and social factors that define agricultural drought vulnerability were climate, soils, land use, and access to irrigation. The framework for derivation of an agricultural drought vulnerability map was created through development of a numerical weighting scheme to evaluate the drought potential of the classes within each factor. The results indicate that the most vulnerable areas to agricultural drought were non-irrigatedcropland and rangeland on sandy soils, located in areas with a very high probability of seasonal crop moisture deficiency. The identification of drought vulnerability is an essential step in addressing the issue of drought vulnerability in the state and can lead to mitigation-oriented drought management. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Suggested Citation

  • Olga Wilhelmi & Donald Wilhite, 2002. "Assessing Vulnerability to Agricultural Drought: A Nebraska Case Study," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 25(1), pages 37-58, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:nathaz:v:25:y:2002:i:1:p:37-58
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1013388814894
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1013388814894
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1013388814894?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bryan Schurle & Mike Tholstrup, 1989. "Farm Characteristics and Business Risk in Production Agriculture," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 11(2), pages 183-188.
    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. Dunn, Jerry W. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2000. "Farm Characteristics That Influence Net Farm Income Variability And Losses," 2000 Annual Meeting, June 29-July 1, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia 36337, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    2. Langemeier, Michael & Yeager, Elizabeth, 2022. "Factors Impacting Variability and Downside Risk," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2022.
    3. Collins-Sowah, Peron A. & Henning, Christian H. C. A., 2019. "Risk management and its implications on household incomes," Working Papers of Agricultural Policy WP2019-05, University of Kiel, Department of Agricultural Economics, Chair of Agricultural Policy.
    4. Anton Bekkerman & Eric J. Belasco & Vincent H. Smith, 2019. "Does Farm Size Matter? Distribution of Crop Insurance Subsidies and Government Program Payments across U.S. Farms," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 498-518, September.
    5. Barry, Peter J. & Escalante, Cesar L. & Bard, Sharon K., 2000. "Economic Risk And The Structural Characteristics Of Farm Businesses," 2000 Annual meeting, July 30-August 2, Tampa, FL 21778, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Bożena Kusz & Dariusz Kusz & Iwona Bąk & Maciej Oesterreich & Ludwik Wicki & Grzegorz Zimon, 2022. "Selected Economic Determinants of Labor Profitability in Family Farms in Poland in Relation to Economic Size," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-25, October.
    7. Assem Abu Hatab & Carl‐Johan Lagerkvist & Abourehab Esmat, 2021. "Risk perception and determinants in small‐ and medium‐sized agri‐food enterprises amidst the COVID‐19 pandemic: Evidence from Egypt," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(1), pages 187-212, January.
    8. Andersson, Hans & Olson, Kent D., 1992. "A Comparison Of Minnesota'S Farm Business Management Association Members And The Usda'S Farm Costs And Returns Survey," Economic Reports 13084, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    9. Dunn, Jerry W. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2001. "The Relationship Between Incomes, Farm Characteristics, Cost Efficiences, And Rate Of Return To Capital Managed," 2001 Annual Meeting, July 8-11, 2001, Logan, Utah 36151, Western Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. Schurle, Bryan W., 1990. "Business Risk Economies Of Size: Evidence And Implications," 1990 Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk Meeting, January 28-31, 1990, Sanibel Island, Florida 271541, Regional Research Projects > S-232: Quantifying Long Run Agricultural Risks and Evaluating Farmer Responses to Risk.
    11. Key, Nigel & Prager, Daniel & Burns, Christopher, 2017. "Farm Household Income Volatility: An Analysis Using Panel Data From a National Survey," Economic Research Report 256710, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    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:spr:nathaz:v:25:y:2002:i:1:p:37-58. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.