Skip to main content

Drought and the rebound effect: a Murray–Darling Basin example

Natural Hazards volume 79, pages 1429–1449 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

Droughts are natural hazards, to which irrigators must adapt. Climate change is expected to increase both the frequency and severity of future droughts. A common adaptation is investment in water-efficient technology. However, increased efficiency can paradoxically result in rebound effects: higher resource demand among consumptive users, and lower flow benefits for environmental users. Under an assumption of increasing future drought conditions, we examine anticipated rebound effect impacts on environmental and private irrigator water availability/use outcomes from current water efficiency-centric policy in Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin. We determine that rebound effects for environmental and private irrigation interests are likely. Our results identify greater technological change and higher consumptive land and water demand in northern Basin annual production systems, as irrigators switch to perennial cropping systems under subsidization incentives. Policy incentives to encourage water use efficiency paradoxically reduce environmental flow volumes on average. We find that environmental policy objectives will only be achieved when water is not a binding production constraint, typically in wet states of nature.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. One gigalitre (GL) equates to approximately 810.71 acre-feet.

  2. The SRWUIP recovery figure was downgraded from the previous report (i.e. 31 December 2013). Therein, the Department reported that 616 GL of water had been recovered from the SRWUIP program. The new estimate represented a 12 % change over the intervening periods, highlighting the uncertainties that are possible in programs of this nature.

  3. In fact the MDB Plan lists nine monitored threats to water quality: salinity; suspended matter (e.g. river turbidity); nutrient levels such as nitrogen and phosphorus; toxins from biological systems (e.g. blue-green algae or cyanobacteria); toxins from human systems (e.g. pesticides and heavy metals); water temperature; pathogens from animal waste; acidity; and dissolved oxygen levels. Our simple model constrains the discussion of MDB water quality to salinity.

  4. A megalitre (ML) is equal to one million litres of water, or 0.812 acre-feet.

  5. This constraint may also result in an unfortunate condition where Section 1.07 of the Basin Plan is violated if the Basin manager is provided with perverse incentives to lock resources into regions and/or discourages interstate or inter-regional water trade—but we digress.

  6. Beyond drought uncertainty is the issue of greater ongoing water recovery strategy uncertainty, as evidenced in DoE (2014b). While policy-makers continue to debate and alter the SDL arrangements, farmers will continue to operate in uncertainty—which they consistently raise objections to—providing additional motives for exit.

References

  • Adamson D, Loch A (2014) Possible negative feedbacks from ‘gold-plating’ irrigation infrastructure. Agric Water Manag 145:134–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adamson D, Mallawaarachchi T, Quiggin J (2007) Water use and salinity in the Murray–Darling Basin: a state-contingent model. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 51:263–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adamson D, Mallawaarachchi T, Quiggin J (2009) Declining inflows and more frequent droughts in the Murray–Darling Basin: climate change, impacts and adaptation. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 53:345–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcott B (2005) Jevons’ paradox. Ecol Econ 54:9–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berbel J, Mateos L (2014) Does investment in irrigation technology necessarily generate rebound effects? A simulation analysis based on an agro-economic model. Agric Syst 128:25–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BOM (2013) Murray–Darling Basin: physical information. Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Canberra. http://www.bom.gov.au/water/nwa/2012/mdb/contextual/physicalinformation.shtml. Accessed 12 May 2014

  • BOM (2014) enGauge: keeping track of El Niño. Bureau of Meteorology, Canberra. http://e.bom.gov.au/link/id/zzzz53ab7b3353769576Pzzzz4e9cd148594ec210/page.html#zzzz538d399bb5329575. Accessed 25 June 2014

  • Bradshaw WE, Holzapfel CM (2006) Evolutionary response to rapid climate change. Science (Washington) 312:1477–1478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers RG, Quiggin J (2000) Uncertainty, production, choice, and agency: the state-contingent approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth of Australia (2012) Water act 2007—the basin plan. Australian Parliament, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor J, Schwabe K, King D, Knapp K (2012) Irrigated agriculture and climate change: the influence of water supply variability and salinity on adaptation. Ecol Econ 77:149–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CSIRO (2012) Climate and water availability in south-eastern Australia a synthesis of findings from phase 2 of the south eastern Australian climate initiative (SEACI). CSIRO, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins T, Watson A (2012) A hundred year policy experiment: the Murray–Darling Basin in Australia. In: Quiggin J, Mallawaarachchi T, Chambers S (eds) Water policy reform: lessons in sustainability from the Murray–Darling Basin. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagnino M, Ward FA (2012) Economics of agricultural water conservation: empirical analysis and policy implications. Int J Water Resour Dev 28:577–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DOE (2014a) Progress of water recovery against 2750GL reduction in surface water SDLs: 31 July 2014. Department of the Environment, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/16cfc337-7c02-4a77-ab57-fb0e8483b58b/files/water-recovery-progress-20140430.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2014

  • DOE (2014b) Water recovery strategy for the Murray–Darling Basin. Department of the Environment, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumont A, Mayor B, López-Gunn E (2013) Is the rebound effect or Jevons paradox a useful concept for better management of water resources? Insights from the irrigation modernisation process in Spain. Aquat Procedia 1:64–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez CM, Gutierrez-Martin C (2011) Enhancing irrigation efficiency but increasing water use: the Jevon’s paradox. In: EAAE congress: change and uncertainty challenges for agriculture, food and natural resources, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland. August 30–Sept 2

  • Gómez CM, Pérez-Blanco CD (2014) Simple myths and basic maths about greening irrigation. Water Resour Manage 28:4035–4044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graveline N, Majone B, van Duinen R, Ansink E (2014) Hydro-economic modeling of water scarcity under global change: an application to the Gállego river basin (Spain). Reg Environ Change 14:119–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez-Martin C, Gomez G (2011) Assessing irrigation efficiency improvements by using a preference revelation model. Span J Agric Res 9:1009–1020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes M, Wilhite D, Svoboda M, Trnka M (2012) Investigating the connections between climate change, drought and agricultural production. In: Dinar A, Mendelsohn R (eds) Handbook on climate change and agriculture. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Honhart M (1994) Carrots for conservation: Oregon’s water conservation statute offers incentives to invest in efficiency. Univ Colo Law Rev 66:827–854

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffaker R (2008) Conservation potential of agricultural water conservation subsidies. Water Resour Res 44:W00E01

  • Huffaker R, Whittlesey N (2000) The allocative efficiency and conservation potential of water laws encouraging investments in on-farm irrigation technology. Agric Econ 24:47–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huffaker R, Whittlesey N (2003) A theoretical analysis of economic incentive policies encouraging agricultural water conservation. Int J Water Resour Dev 19:37–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jevons WS (1906) The coal question: an inquiry concerning the progress of the nation, and the probable exhaustion of our coal-mines. The Macmillan Company, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamruzzaman M, Beecham S, Metcalfe AV (2013) Climatic influences on rainfall and runoff variability in the southeast region of the Murray–Darling Basin. Int J Climatol 33:291–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kefford BJ, Nugegoda D, Metzeling L, Fields EJ (2006) Validating species sensitivity distributions using salinity tolerance of riverine macroinvertebrates in the southern Murray–Darling Basin (Victoria, Australia). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63:1865–1877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kundzewicz Z, Mata L, Arnell NW, Döll P, Jimenez B, Miller K, Oki T, Şen Z, Shiklomanov I (2007) Freshwater resources and their management. In: Parry ML, Canziani JP, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, contribution of the working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Loch A, Wheeler S, Bjornlund H, Beecham S, Edwards J, Zuo A, Shanahan M (2013) The role of water markets in climate change adaptation. Griffith University, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF), Gold Coast

    Google Scholar 

  • Loch A, Adamson D, Mallawaarachchi T (2014a) Role of hydrology and economics in water management policy under increasing uncertainty. J Hydrol 518:5–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loch A, Wheeler S, Boxall P, Hatton-Macdonald D, Adamowicz W, Bjornlund H (2014b) Irrigator preferences for water recovery budget expenditure in the Murray–Darling Basin. Land Use Policy 36:396–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallawaarachchi T, Adamson D, Chambers S, Schrobback P (2010) Economic analysis of diversion operations for the Murray–Darling Basin plan: returns to irrigation under reduced water availability. Business School Commercial, The University of Queensland, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  • MDBA (2009) About the Basin—quick facts. MDBA, Canberra. http://www.mdba.gov.au/water/about_basin. Accessed 14 July 2009

  • MDBA (2011) Proposed basin plan. Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • MDBA (2012) Water inflows and significant flooding/drought events. Murray–Darling Basin Authority, Canberra. http://www.mdba.gov.au/explore-the-basin/points-of-interest/water-inflows. Accessed 9 Aug 2012

  • MDBC (2006a) Basin statistics. Murray Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. http://www.mdbc.gov.au. Accessed 22 July 2013

  • MDBC (2006b) The living Murray environmental watering plan 2006–07. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Medellín-Azuara J, Howitt RE, Harou JJ (2012) Predicting farmer responses to water pricing, rationing and subsidies assuming profit maximizing investment in irrigation technology. Agric Water Manag 108:73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwoudt W, Armitage R (2004) Water market transfers in South Africa: two case studies. Water Resour Res 40:W09S05

  • O’Donnell C, Griffiths WE (2006) Estimating state-contingent production frontiers. Am J Agric Econ 88:249–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry C (2011) Accounting for water use: terminology and implications for saving water and increasing production. Agric Water Manag 98:1840–1846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry C, Steduto P, Allen RG, Burt CM (2009) Increasing productivity in irrigated agriculture: agronomic constraints and hydrological realities. Agric Water Manag 96:1517–1524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer L, Lin C-YC (2014) Does efficient irrigation technology lead to reduced groundwater extraction? Empirical evidence. J Environ Econ Manag 67:189–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podbury T, Sheales TC, Hussain I, Fisher BS (1998) Use of El Nino climate forecasts in Australia. Am J Agric Econ 80:1096–1101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quiggin J, Adamson D, Chambers S, Schrobback P (2010) Climate change, uncertainty, and adaptation: the case of irrigated agriculture in the Murray–Darling Basin in Australia. Can J Agric Econ 58:531–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen S (2003) Criteria for optimal production under uncertainty. The state-contingent approach. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 47:447–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheierling S (2011) Assessing direct economic effects of reallocating irrigation water to alternative uses: concepts and applications. The World Bank Transport, Water and ICT Department: Water Anchor (TWIWA)

  • Scheierling SM, Young RA, Cardon GE (2006) Public subsidies for water‐conserving irrigation investments: hydrologic, agronomic, and economic assessment. Water Resour Res 42:W03428

  • Schirmer J, Berry H (2014) People and place in Australia: the 2013 regional wellbeing survey summary report. University of Canberra, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirado D, Gómez CM, Lozano J (2006) Efficiency improvements and water policy in the Balearic Islands: a general equilibrium approach. Investig Econ 30:441–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Treasury (2009) Budget measure paper no. 2. Australian Parliament, Canberra. http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/bp2/download/bp2_v2.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2011

  • Ward FA, Pulido-Velazquez M (2008) Water conservation in irrigation can increase water use. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:18215–18220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittwer G, Griffith M (2011) Modelling drought and recovery in the southern Murray–Darling Basin. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 55:342–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the suggestions provided by discussants from the 2013 Belpasso International Summer School on Environmental and Resource Economics in the development of this paper, as well as very helpful insights and feedback from several independent reviewers. This research was funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery project DP140103946 and Discovery Early Career Research Project DE150100328, with additional collaborative funding provided by The University of Queensland’s School of Economics Search and Visitor’s Committee.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Regulation and Market Analysis, University of South Australia Business School, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, SA, 5001, Australia

    Adam Loch

  2. Risk and Sustainability Management Group, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia

    David Adamson

Authors
  1. Adam Loch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Adamson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Loch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Loch, A., Adamson, D. Drought and the rebound effect: a Murray–Darling Basin example. Nat Hazards 79, 1429–1449 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1705-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1705-y

Keywords

  • Rebound effects
  • Environmental flows
  • Drought
  • Murray–Darling Basin