Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38157345›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Determinants of wheat residue burning: Evidence from India.

Adrian A Lopes, Dina Tasneem, Ajalavat Viriyavipart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Adrian A LopesDepartment of Economics, School of Business Administration, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.
Dina TasneemDepartment of Economics, School of Business Administration, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.
Ajalavat ViriyavipartDepartment of Economics, School of Business Administration, American University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.ORCID 0000-0002-7152-6742

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Air PollutionOryzaAgricultureCrops, AgriculturalIndiaTriticum

Identifiers

PMID38157345
PMCPMC10756511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.