Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:27:25.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating Stakeholder Input into Water Policy Development and Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Bridget Guerrero ,
Steve Amosson  and
Lal Almas
Bridget Guerrero
Affiliation:
Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Amarillo, TX
Steve Amosson
Affiliation:
Texas AgriLife Extension Service, Amarillo, TX
Lal Almas
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, West Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Agricultural water use is becoming an issue in much of the South due to population growth. Results of projects evaluating the impacts of conservation strategies aimed at reallocating or extending the life of water supplies are being met with great skepticism by stakeholder groups. In order to gain acceptance of results, it is essential that stakeholder groups be involved from the beginning in the identification of potential water conservation strategies and be kept informed throughout the project. The objective of this paper is to review previous attempts at involving stakeholders and the methodology currently being employed in the Ogallala Aquifer Project.

Keywords

conservationOgallala Aquiferstakeholderwater policyQ250Q280
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , August 2008 , pp. 465 - 471
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amosson, S., Almas, L., Bretz, F., Gaskins, D., Guerrero, B., Jones, D., Marek, T., New, L., and Simpson, N.. “Water Management Strategies for Reducing Irrigation Demands in Region A.” Prepared for Agricultural Sub-Committee, Panhandle Water Planning Group. Texas A&M University Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Amarillo, Texas, 2004.Google Scholar
Burby, R. “Making Plans that Matter: Citizen Involvement and Government Action.” Journal of the American Planning Association 69,1 (Winter 2003):33–49.Google Scholar
Dillman, D.A. “Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method.” New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978.Google Scholar
Gregory, R., and Keeney, R.. “Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values.” Management Science 40,8(August 1994):1035–48.Google Scholar
Hanna, K. “The Paradox of Participation and the Hidden Role of Information.” Journal of the American Planning Association 66,4(Autumn 2000):398–410.Google Scholar
Innes, J. “Information in Communicative Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 64,1(Winter 1998):52–63.Google Scholar
Kaiser, R., and Skillern, F.. “Deep Trouble: Options for Managing the Hidden Threat of Aquifer Depletion in Texas.” Texas Tech Law Review 32(2001):249–304.Google Scholar
Peterson, J.M., Marsh, T.L., and Williams, J.R.. “Conserving the Ogallala Aquifer: Efficiency, Equity, and Moral Motives.” Choices First Quarter (2003):15–8.Google Scholar
Popp, J., Rodriquez, G., Gbur, E., and Pennington, J.. “How Attitudes of Important Stakeholder Groups Can Influence Effective Water Quality Management.” Selected Paper at the American Agricultural Economics Association 2007 Annual Meeting; Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
Senate Bill, I. “Regional Water Plan—Panhandle Water Planning Area.” Prepared for the Panhandle Water Planning Group through a contract with the Panhandle Regional Planning Commission, Amarillo, Texas. Vol. 1, 2001.Google Scholar
Wheaton, W.L.C. “The Federal Role as an Incentive to Local Development.” Regional Planning: Challenges and Prospects, Hufschmidt, M.H., ed., pp. 238–59. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1969.Google Scholar
Zwingle, E. “Ogallala Aquifer: Wellspring of the High Plains.” National Geographic (March 1993):80–109.Google Scholar