Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Dec 29;18(12):e0296059.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296059. eCollection 2023.

Determinants of wheat residue burning: Evidence from India

Adrian A Lopes  1 , Dina Tasneem  1 , Ajalavat Viriyavipart  1
Affiliations

Determinants of wheat residue burning: Evidence from India

Adrian A Lopes et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Postharvest crop residue burning (CRB) is a major policy issue in several developing countries because of harmful environmental and public health consequences. While the literature has extensively examined the reasons for rice CRB, much less is known about wheat residue management. This paper explores the drivers of CRB of wheat in India and relates it to farmers' prior decisions related to CRB of rice in the preceding season. Using primary data on residue management practices of 301 Indian farmers, whom we tracked over two consecutive harvests of rice (2018) and wheat (2019), we find that farmers are significantly more likely to burn wheat residue if they had previously burned rice residue. The possibility of this linkage or spillover increases the likelihood of wheat residue burning by 15.6 to 21 percent. Furthermore, farmers are undertaking wheat CRB despite the positive net benefit of choosing non-burning alternatives to manage crop residue. Our results suggest that ensuring well-functioning markets for crop residue, awareness campaigns, and recognition of spillover effects of residue management across crops over time can enable policies to promote pro-environmental postharvest choices.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Percentage of wheat residue burning based on farmer perceptions and paddy residue burning.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Keil A, Krishnapriya PP, Mitra A, Jat ML, Sidhu HS, Krishna VV, et al. Changing agricultural stubble burning practices in the Indo-Gangetic plains: is the Happy Seeder a profitable alternative? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 2021;19(2):128–51.
    1. Kumar S, Sharma DK, Singh DR, Biswas H, Praveen KV, Sharma V. Estimating loss of ecosystem services due to paddy straw burning in North-west India. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 2019;17(2):146–57.
    1. McDonald AJ, Balwinder S, Jat ML, Craufurd P, Hellin J, Hung NV, et al. Indian agriculture, air pollution, and public health in the age of COVID. World Development. 2020;135:105064. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105064 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gupta PK, Sahai S, Singh N, Dixit CK, Singh DP, Sharma C, et al. Residue burning in rice-wheat cropping system: Causes and implications. Current Science. 2004;87(12):1713–7.
    1. Bajracharya SB, Mishra A, Maharjan A. Determinants of crop residue burning practice in the Terai region of Nepal. PLOS ONE. 2021;16(7):e0253939. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253939 - DOI - PMC - PubMed