Comparative assessment of water markets: insights from the Murray―Darling Basin of Australia and the Western USA
Water markets in Australia's Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) and the western USA are compared in terms of their ability to allocate scarce water resources. The study finds that the gains from trade in the MDB are worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year (note that all monetary units of dollars...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Water policy 2012-04, Vol.14 (2), p.175-193 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 193 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 175 |
container_title | Water policy |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | QUENTIN GRAFTON, R LIBECAP, Gary D EDWARDS, Eric C O'BRIEN, R. J.(bob) LANDRY, Clay |
description | Water markets in Australia's Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) and the western USA are compared in terms of their ability to allocate scarce water resources. The study finds that the gains from trade in the MDB are worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year (note that all monetary units of dollars in this article are treated as US$ because Australian$ are converted at par). Total market turnover in water rights exceeds US$2 billion per year while the volume of trade exceeds over 20% of surface water extractions. In Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada and Texas, trades of committed water annually range between 5 and 15% of total state freshwater diversions with over US$4.3 billion (2008 US$; monetary units in dollars are expressed in their value in US$ in 2008) spent or committed by urban buyers between 1987 and 2008. The two-market comparison suggests that policy attention should be directed towards ways of promoting water trade while simultaneously mitigating the legitimate third party concerns about how and where water is used, especially in conflicts between consumptive and in situ uses of water. The study finds that institutional innovation is feasible in both countries and that further understanding about the size, duration and distribution of third party effects from water trade and how these effects might be regulated, can improve water markets' ability to manage water scarcity better. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2166/wp.2011.016 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1943070300</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1943070300</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-3efc97a782838b69e0006ef71f131117714eebc0b6d856511ec87a6ec4df74163</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kE1OwzAQhSMEEqWw4gKWECuU4okTO2FXyq9UxAIqltE0tduU_OFxqLrjElyQk5C2iNXM4r3vzTzPOwU-CEDKy1UzCDjAgIPc83qQJNJPVJTsd7uQ0lcc1KF3RLTknMedo-fZUV02aNHln5ohkSYqdeVYbdgKnbasRPuuHV2xvKJ8vnDEjK1L5haaPbXW4vrn6_sGbZFXc3aNlFcb67AlZ7HIkWE122rfNHW0ik1ehsfegcGC9Mnf7HuTu9vX0YM_fr5_HA3HfiYi5XyhTZYoVHEQi3gqE93dLLVRYEAAgFIQaj3N-FTO4khGADqLFUqdhTOjQpCi753tuI2tP9ouP13Wra26yBSSUHDFBeed6mKnymxNZLVJG5t3T69T4Omm1HTVpJtSU75lnv8xkTIsjMUqy-nfEkQxBDIE8Qu26Hgc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1943070300</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative assessment of water markets: insights from the Murray―Darling Basin of Australia and the Western USA</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>QUENTIN GRAFTON, R ; LIBECAP, Gary D ; EDWARDS, Eric C ; O'BRIEN, R. J.(bob) ; LANDRY, Clay</creator><creatorcontrib>QUENTIN GRAFTON, R ; LIBECAP, Gary D ; EDWARDS, Eric C ; O'BRIEN, R. J.(bob) ; LANDRY, Clay</creatorcontrib><description>Water markets in Australia's Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) and the western USA are compared in terms of their ability to allocate scarce water resources. The study finds that the gains from trade in the MDB are worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year (note that all monetary units of dollars in this article are treated as US$ because Australian$ are converted at par). Total market turnover in water rights exceeds US$2 billion per year while the volume of trade exceeds over 20% of surface water extractions. In Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada and Texas, trades of committed water annually range between 5 and 15% of total state freshwater diversions with over US$4.3 billion (2008 US$; monetary units in dollars are expressed in their value in US$ in 2008) spent or committed by urban buyers between 1987 and 2008. The two-market comparison suggests that policy attention should be directed towards ways of promoting water trade while simultaneously mitigating the legitimate third party concerns about how and where water is used, especially in conflicts between consumptive and in situ uses of water. The study finds that institutional innovation is feasible in both countries and that further understanding about the size, duration and distribution of third party effects from water trade and how these effects might be regulated, can improve water markets' ability to manage water scarcity better.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1366-7017</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1996-9759</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2166/wp.2011.016</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: International Water Association</publisher><subject>Applied sciences ; Buildings. Public works ; Conflicts ; Duration ; Exact sciences and technology ; Feasibility studies ; Freshwater ; Inland water environment ; Innovation ; Innovations ; Markets ; Policies ; Resource allocation ; Scarcity ; Surface water ; Trade ; Water ; Water management ; Water markets ; Water resources ; Water resources management ; Water rights ; Water scarcity ; Water supply ; Water supply. Pipings. Water treatment</subject><ispartof>Water policy, 2012-04, Vol.14 (2), p.175-193</ispartof><rights>2014 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright IWA Publishing Apr 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-3efc97a782838b69e0006ef71f131117714eebc0b6d856511ec87a6ec4df74163</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27843,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=25812641$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>QUENTIN GRAFTON, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LIBECAP, Gary D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>EDWARDS, Eric C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'BRIEN, R. J.(bob)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LANDRY, Clay</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative assessment of water markets: insights from the Murray―Darling Basin of Australia and the Western USA</title><title>Water policy</title><description>Water markets in Australia's Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) and the western USA are compared in terms of their ability to allocate scarce water resources. The study finds that the gains from trade in the MDB are worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year (note that all monetary units of dollars in this article are treated as US$ because Australian$ are converted at par). Total market turnover in water rights exceeds US$2 billion per year while the volume of trade exceeds over 20% of surface water extractions. In Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada and Texas, trades of committed water annually range between 5 and 15% of total state freshwater diversions with over US$4.3 billion (2008 US$; monetary units in dollars are expressed in their value in US$ in 2008) spent or committed by urban buyers between 1987 and 2008. The two-market comparison suggests that policy attention should be directed towards ways of promoting water trade while simultaneously mitigating the legitimate third party concerns about how and where water is used, especially in conflicts between consumptive and in situ uses of water. The study finds that institutional innovation is feasible in both countries and that further understanding about the size, duration and distribution of third party effects from water trade and how these effects might be regulated, can improve water markets' ability to manage water scarcity better.</description><subject>Applied sciences</subject><subject>Buildings. Public works</subject><subject>Conflicts</subject><subject>Duration</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Feasibility studies</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>Inland water environment</subject><subject>Innovation</subject><subject>Innovations</subject><subject>Markets</subject><subject>Policies</subject><subject>Resource allocation</subject><subject>Scarcity</subject><subject>Surface water</subject><subject>Trade</subject><subject>Water</subject><subject>Water management</subject><subject>Water markets</subject><subject>Water resources</subject><subject>Water resources management</subject><subject>Water rights</subject><subject>Water scarcity</subject><subject>Water supply</subject><subject>Water supply. Pipings. Water treatment</subject><issn>1366-7017</issn><issn>1996-9759</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kE1OwzAQhSMEEqWw4gKWECuU4okTO2FXyq9UxAIqltE0tduU_OFxqLrjElyQk5C2iNXM4r3vzTzPOwU-CEDKy1UzCDjAgIPc83qQJNJPVJTsd7uQ0lcc1KF3RLTknMedo-fZUV02aNHln5ohkSYqdeVYbdgKnbasRPuuHV2xvKJ8vnDEjK1L5haaPbXW4vrn6_sGbZFXc3aNlFcb67AlZ7HIkWE122rfNHW0ik1ehsfegcGC9Mnf7HuTu9vX0YM_fr5_HA3HfiYi5XyhTZYoVHEQi3gqE93dLLVRYEAAgFIQaj3N-FTO4khGADqLFUqdhTOjQpCi753tuI2tP9ouP13Wra26yBSSUHDFBeed6mKnymxNZLVJG5t3T69T4Omm1HTVpJtSU75lnv8xkTIsjMUqy-nfEkQxBDIE8Qu26Hgc</recordid><startdate>20120401</startdate><enddate>20120401</enddate><creator>QUENTIN GRAFTON, R</creator><creator>LIBECAP, Gary D</creator><creator>EDWARDS, Eric C</creator><creator>O'BRIEN, R. J.(bob)</creator><creator>LANDRY, Clay</creator><general>International Water Association</general><general>IWA Publishing</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>883</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M0F</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120401</creationdate><title>Comparative assessment of water markets: insights from the Murray―Darling Basin of Australia and the Western USA</title><author>QUENTIN GRAFTON, R ; LIBECAP, Gary D ; EDWARDS, Eric C ; O'BRIEN, R. J.(bob) ; LANDRY, Clay</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c357t-3efc97a782838b69e0006ef71f131117714eebc0b6d856511ec87a6ec4df74163</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Applied sciences</topic><topic>Buildings. Public works</topic><topic>Conflicts</topic><topic>Duration</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Feasibility studies</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>Inland water environment</topic><topic>Innovation</topic><topic>Innovations</topic><topic>Markets</topic><topic>Policies</topic><topic>Resource allocation</topic><topic>Scarcity</topic><topic>Surface water</topic><topic>Trade</topic><topic>Water</topic><topic>Water management</topic><topic>Water markets</topic><topic>Water resources</topic><topic>Water resources management</topic><topic>Water rights</topic><topic>Water scarcity</topic><topic>Water supply</topic><topic>Water supply. Pipings. Water treatment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>QUENTIN GRAFTON, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LIBECAP, Gary D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>EDWARDS, Eric C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'BRIEN, R. J.(bob)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LANDRY, Clay</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Water policy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>QUENTIN GRAFTON, R</au><au>LIBECAP, Gary D</au><au>EDWARDS, Eric C</au><au>O'BRIEN, R. J.(bob)</au><au>LANDRY, Clay</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative assessment of water markets: insights from the Murray―Darling Basin of Australia and the Western USA</atitle><jtitle>Water policy</jtitle><date>2012-04-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>175</spage><epage>193</epage><pages>175-193</pages><issn>1366-7017</issn><eissn>1996-9759</eissn><abstract>Water markets in Australia's Murray–Darling Basin (MDB) and the western USA are compared in terms of their ability to allocate scarce water resources. The study finds that the gains from trade in the MDB are worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year (note that all monetary units of dollars in this article are treated as US$ because Australian$ are converted at par). Total market turnover in water rights exceeds US$2 billion per year while the volume of trade exceeds over 20% of surface water extractions. In Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada and Texas, trades of committed water annually range between 5 and 15% of total state freshwater diversions with over US$4.3 billion (2008 US$; monetary units in dollars are expressed in their value in US$ in 2008) spent or committed by urban buyers between 1987 and 2008. The two-market comparison suggests that policy attention should be directed towards ways of promoting water trade while simultaneously mitigating the legitimate third party concerns about how and where water is used, especially in conflicts between consumptive and in situ uses of water. The study finds that institutional innovation is feasible in both countries and that further understanding about the size, duration and distribution of third party effects from water trade and how these effects might be regulated, can improve water markets' ability to manage water scarcity better.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>International Water Association</pub><doi>10.2166/wp.2011.016</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1366-7017 |
ispartof | Water policy, 2012-04, Vol.14 (2), p.175-193 |
issn | 1366-7017 1996-9759 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1943070300 |
source | PAIS Index; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
subjects | Applied sciences Buildings. Public works Conflicts Duration Exact sciences and technology Feasibility studies Freshwater Inland water environment Innovation Innovations Markets Policies Resource allocation Scarcity Surface water Trade Water Water management Water markets Water resources Water resources management Water rights Water scarcity Water supply Water supply. Pipings. Water treatment |
title | Comparative assessment of water markets: insights from the Murray―Darling Basin of Australia and the Western USA |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T13%3A31%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20assessment%20of%20water%20markets:%20insights%20from%20the%20Murray%E2%80%95Darling%20Basin%20of%20Australia%20and%20the%20Western%20USA&rft.jtitle=Water%20policy&rft.au=QUENTIN%20GRAFTON,%20R&rft.date=2012-04-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=175&rft.epage=193&rft.pages=175-193&rft.issn=1366-7017&rft.eissn=1996-9759&rft_id=info:doi/10.2166/wp.2011.016&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1943070300%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1943070300&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |