↓ Skip to main content

Are participants in markets for water rights more efficient in the use of water than non-participants? A case study for Limarí Valley (Chile)

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Are participants in markets for water rights more efficient in the use of water than non-participants? A case study for Limarí Valley (Chile)
Published in
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11356-016-6187-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

María Molinos-Senante, Guillermo Donoso, Ramon Sala-Garrido

Abstract

The need to increase water productivity in agriculture has been stressed as one of the most important factors to achieve greater agricultural productivity and sustainability. The main aim of this paper is to investigate whether there are differences in water use efficiency (WUE) between farmers who participate in water markets and farmers who do not participate in them. Moreover, the use of a non-radial data envelopment analysis model allows to compute global efficiency (GE), WUE as well the efficiency in the use of other inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, energy, and labor. In a second stage, external factors that may affect GE and WUE are explored. The empirical application focuses on a sample of farmers located in Limarí Valley (Chile) where regulated permanent water rights (WR) markets for surface water have a long tradition. Results illustrate that WR sellers are the most efficient in the use of water while non-traders are the farmers that present the lowest WUE. From a policy perspective, significant conclusions are drawn from the assessment of agricultural water productivity in the framework of water markets.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Researcher 6 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 11 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 13%
Engineering 6 11%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 9%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 13 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 June 2018.
All research outputs
#16,223,992
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#3,738
of 9,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,420
of 301,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#70
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,883 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 301,431 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.