IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea17/258219.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Analysis of the Impact of Tenure on Groundwater Use and Attitudes Concerning Groundwater Conservation in Colorado’s Republican River Basin

Author

Listed:
  • Shepler, Ryan
  • Suter, Jordan F.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Shepler, Ryan & Suter, Jordan F., 2017. "An Analysis of the Impact of Tenure on Groundwater Use and Attitudes Concerning Groundwater Conservation in Colorado’s Republican River Basin," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258219, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea17:258219
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.258219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/258219/files/Abstracts_17_05_25_09_56_22_98__172_16_20_110_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.258219?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. Peterson, Jeffrey M. & Marsh, Thomas L. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2003. "Conserving the Ogallala Aquifer: Efficiency, Equity, and Moral Motives," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 18(1), pages 1-4.
    2. Meredith J. Soule & Abebayehu Tegene & Keith D. Wiebe, 2000. "Land Tenure and the Adoption of Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 993-1005.
    3. Adam Reimer & Aaron Thompson & Linda Prokopy, 2012. "The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(1), pages 29-40, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Christine A. Ervin & David E. Ervin, 1982. "Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(3), pages 277-292.
    6. Santiago Rubio & Begoña Casino, 2003. "Strategic Behavior and Efficiency in the Common Property Extraction of Groundwater," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(1), pages 73-87, September.
    7. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    8. Karp, Larry, 1992. "Social Welfare in a Common Property Oligopoly," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 33(2), pages 353-372, May.
    9. Kliebenstein, James & Barrett, D. A. & Heffernan, W. D. & Kirtley, C. L., 1980. "An Analysis of Farmers' Perceptions of Benefits Received from Farming," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10641, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    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. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    2. Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Eija Pouta & Sami Myyrä, 2016. "Exploring the determinants for adopting water conservation measures. What is the tendency of landowners when the resource is already at risk?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 993-1014, June.
    3. Hua Zhong & Ping Qing & Wuyang Hu, 2016. "Farmers' willingness to participate in best management practices in Kentucky," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 1015-1039, June.
    4. Jara-Rojas, Roberto & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Díaz, José, 2012. "Adoption of water conservation practices: A socioeconomic analysis of small-scale farmers in Central Chile," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 54-62.
    5. Giovanopoulou, Eirini & Nastis, Stefanos A. & Papanagiotou, Evagelos, 2011. "Modeling farmer participation in agri-environmental nitrate pollution reducing schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2175-2180, September.
    6. Gabrielle E. Roesch-McNally & J. Gordon Arbuckle & John Charles Tyndall, 2017. "What would farmers do? Adaptation intentions under a Corn Belt climate change scenario," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 333-346, June.
    7. Traxler, Emilia & Li, Tongzhe, 2020. "Agricultural Best Management Practices, A summary of adoption behaviour," Working Papers 305271, University of Guelph, Institute for the Advanced Study of Food and Agricultural Policy.
    8. Burnett, Wesley & Szmurlo, Daniel & Callahan, Scott, 2022. "Land tenure and conservation adoption: An analysis of contracts and incentives," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322244, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Alain Ayong Le Kama & Agnès Tomini, 2012. "Water Conservation versus Soil Salinity Control," EconomiX Working Papers 2012-8, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    10. Andrea Caravaggio & Luigi De Cesare & Andrea Di Liddo, 2023. "A Differential Game for Optimal Water Price Management," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-15, April.
    11. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    12. Morrison, Mark, 2005. "Identifying Market Segments for Technology Adoption," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 137937, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    13. Julia Frutos Cachorro & Katrin Erdlenbruch & Mabel Tidball, 2019. "Sharing a Groundwater Resource in a Context of Regime Shifts," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(4), pages 913-940, April.
    14. Ryschawy, Julie & Tiffany, Sara & Gaudin, Amélie & Niles, Meredith T. & Garrett, Rachael D., 2021. "Moving niche agroecological initiatives to the mainstream: A case-study of sheep-vineyard integration in California," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    15. Marta Biancardi & Lucia Maddalena, 2018. "Competition and cooperation in the exploitation of the groundwater resource," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 41(2), pages 219-237, November.
    16. 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.
    17. Murielle Djiguemde, 2020. "A survey on dynamic common pool resources : theory and experiment," Working Papers hal-03022377, HAL.
    18. Wade, Tara & Claassen, Roger, 2015. "Modeling No-Tillage Adoption by Corn and Soybean Producers: Insights into Sustained Adoption," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 204957, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Patrick Baur, 2020. "When farmers are pulled in too many directions: comparing institutional drivers of food safety and environmental sustainability in California agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(4), pages 1175-1194, December.
    20. Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway & Philip R. Wandschneider, 2010. "Agent Heterogeneity in Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Integrating Economic, Diffusion, and Behavioral Innovation Theories," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource/Energy Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use; Research Methods/Statistical Methods;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aaea17:258219. 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.