IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eep/report/rr2008122.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Alternative Pig Waste Disposal Methods Used in Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Siriporn Kiratikarnkul

    (Faculty of Economics, Maejo University)

Abstract

This study looks at the costs and benefits of the main pig waste disposal options used by intensive pig farmers in Thailand. It aims to see which alternatives give the most benefits to farmers and to society as a whole. It also aims to understand why farmers are reluctant to adopt biogas conversion technology, as this approach is being heavily promoted by the government. The study finds that, as it is currently implemented, biogas conversion actually provides fewer benefits than many of the other waste management solutions that are being used. However the report also finds that, if the necessary technical and financial support are extended to help farmers use biogas to produce electricity and sell this to the national grid, then biogas conversion would become a good option. The study recommends that the Thai government should provide technical and financial support to encourage pig farmers to install biogas systems and help them generate electricity and sell it. It highlights the fact that there is a pressing need to support and promote this renewable energy source, which would benefit pig farmers, the environment and the economy in general.

Suggested Citation

  • Siriporn Kiratikarnkul, 2008. "A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Alternative Pig Waste Disposal Methods Used in Thailand," EEPSEA Research Report rr2008122, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Dec 2008.
    • Handle: RePEc:eep:report:rr2008122
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eepsea.org/pub/rr/12324393381Sirriporn_RR2.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2008
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cost-benefit analysis; waste; Thailand;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q53 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eep:report:rr2008122. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Arief Anshory yusuf (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eepsesg.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.