4.7 Article

Farmers' climate change beliefs and adaptation strategies for a water scarce future in Australia

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.008

Keywords

Irrigators; Climate change attitudes; Planned behaviour; Basin

Funding

  1. National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility grant [SD116]
  2. Australian Research Council
  3. Murray-Darling Basin Authority
  4. Goulburn-Murray Water
  5. NSW Department of Energy and Office of Water
  6. Department of Sustainability and Environment
  7. CSIRO
  8. University of Lethbridge, Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Climate change is likely to require irrigators in Australia's Murray-Darling Basin to cope with less water, which will require ongoing farm adjustment. Possible incremental adjustment strategies include expansive and accommodating responses, such as irrigators buying land and water, increasing their irrigated area, changing crop mix and adopting efficient infrastructure. Contractive strategies include selling land and water, and decreasing their irrigated area. Using historical surveys we provide a comparison of irrigators' planned and actual strategies over the past fifteen years, thereby offering a strong foundation to support analysing future adaptation strategies. We explore influences associated with farm adjustment strategies, and in particular the role that climate change beliefs play. Farmers convinced that climate change is occurring are more likely to plan accommodating, but not expansive, strategies. The relationship between climate change belief and adopting various adaptive strategies was found to be often endogenous, especially for accommodating strategies. Such results suggest the need for irrigation farming policies to be targeted at improving irrigators' adaptability to manage water variability, and its link with farm future viability. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available