Water torture: Unravelling the psychological distress of irrigators in Australia
Journal of Rural Studies, ISSN: 0743-0167, Vol: 62, Page: 183-194
2018
- 51Citations
- 98Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Most Recent News
Don't blame the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It's climate and economic change driving farmers out
For the thousand or so farmers in Canberra in the past week venting their anger at the federal government, it’s the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to blame for destroying their livelihoods and forcing them off the land. We can’t comment directly on their claims about the basin plan. But our research, looking at the years 1991 to 2011, suggests little association between the amount of water extracted fr
Article Description
Water institutional and property right reform in the food bowl of Australia, the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB), has generated both benefits and costs for irrigators. Water allocation uncertainty along with the increased risk of recurring drought has been gradually placed back on irrigators to manage, and in the last decade there has been considerable reallocation of water from consumptive to environmental use in the MDB, which has caused much angst within rural communities. In the face of such change this study provides, for the first time, a large-scale profile (n = 1000) of irrigators' mental health in the MDB. Our point estimates suggest some irrigation industries in 2015-16 recorded some of the highest levels of psychological distress nationally; higher than dryland farmers or the Australian population. Financial difficulties were most associated with this distress, but it was intertwined and underpinned by the ongoing threat of water scarcity, which irrigators often incorrectly associate with the implementation of the Basin Plan. Psychological distress varied by industry and location: horticulturists reported the highest levels of distress, followed by broadacre, dairy and livestock. Future national water policy must consider the real impacts of water recovery, and recognize that so-called ‘socially neutral’ water recovery policies can actually cause significant community harm where they hamper farm exit and adaptation to a hotter future. We recommend that future water policy must focus on i) encouraging farmer adaptation (hence supporting water entitlement buy-back and eliminating on-farm irrigation infrastructure subsidies); and ii) removing farm exit barriers.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016717302000; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.08.006; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85051708311&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0743016717302000; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.08.006
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know