IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/eep/report/rr2013031.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Economic Analysis of Rice Straw Management Alternatives and Understanding Farmers' Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Cheryll C. Launio

    (Socioeconomics Division, Philippine Rice Research Institute)

  • Constancio A. Asis, Jr.

    (Socioeconomics Division, Philippine Rice Research Institute)

  • Rowena G. Manalili

    (Socioeconomics Division, Philippine Rice Research Institute)

  • Evelyn F. Javier

    (Socioeconomics Division, Philippine Rice Research Institute)

Abstract

The negative effects of open-field rice straw burning on the environment and human health are well documented in local and international literature. Farmers have thus been encouraged to refrain from burning rice straw and adopt more environment- and human-friendly rice straw management practices. This research project aimed at assessing the environmental consequences of rice straw burning and other straw management practices in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and evaluating the cost-effectiveness and adoption of selected rice straw management alternatives. The study evaluated emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) gases only since carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from rice cultivation and associated practices are assumed to be reabsorbed during the next growing season. Given the average yield and total rice area of the country by season and ecosystem, and the current use of rice straw based on our survey of farmers, rice stubble and straw contribution to CH4 and N2O emissions in paddy fields is around 16 M tons carbon dioxide equivalent 1 (CO2-eq) in the base year. Incorporating stubble less than 30 days before crop establishment appears to be the largest contributor, accounting only for the current year. On a per hectare-basis and considering a time horizon of five years with associated assumptions on cost savings and secondary benefits, incorporating stubble more than 30 days before crop establishment, and incorporating composted rice straw in the field yielded the lowest cumulative CH4 and N2O emissions. The most cost-effective option for farmers is to incorporate stubble and straw in the soil more than 30 days before crop establishment. Rapid straw composting and incorporation of rice straw compost entails much higher additional cost but it also significantly mitigates GHG emission, hence it is the next most cost-effective option. Incorporating rice stubble and straw less than a month before crop establishment, on the other hand, appears to result in a net increase in ton CO2-eq given the assumed time horizon. Literature points to the potential of rice straw as raw material for power generation and bioethanol production and the corresponding reduction in GHG emissions, but this study has not evaluated the cost-effectiveness of these options, hence, this is recommended for further study. The estimated GHG emissions are generally indicative and the economic analysis must be interpreted in relative terms. Further study on water management and tillage options as mitigation options is recommended for a broader perspective useful for farmers, policy-makers and other rice stakeholders. A mix of socio-economic, farm, and awareness and attitude variables determine why farmers choose to burn, incorporate, or remove rice straw. Training on rice production for farmers, increasing the demand for rice straw for other uses, developing options for reducing the cost of collection and transportation of rice straw, and intensifying information campaigns and drives regarding environmental regulations and policies are recommended.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheryll C. Launio & Constancio A. Asis, Jr. & Rowena G. Manalili & Evelyn F. Javier, 2013. "Economic Analysis of Rice Straw Management Alternatives and Understanding Farmers' Choices," EEPSEA Research Report rr2013031, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2013.
  • Handle: RePEc:eep:report:rr2013031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.eepsea.org/pub/rr/2013-RR8_Launio.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2013
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schleiniger, Reto, 1999. "Comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis of measures to reduce nitrogen emissions in Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 147-159, July.
    2. Cheng, Jay J. & Timilsina, Govinda R., 2011. "Status and barriers of advanced biofuel technologies: A review," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 3541-3549.
    3. Greiner, Romy & Patterson, Louisa & Miller, Owen, 2009. "Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 99(2-3), pages 86-104, February.
    4. Lv, Yao & Gu, Shu-zhong & Guo, Dong-mei, 2010. "Valuing environmental externalities from rice-wheat farming in the lower reaches of the Yangtze River," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1436-1442, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Asci, Serhat & Borisova, Tatiana & VanSickle, John J., 2015. "Role of economics in developing fertilizer best management practices," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 251-261.
    2. Caires, Anderson R.L. & Scherer, Marisa D. & De Souza, José E. & Oliveira, Samuel L. & M'Peko, Jean-Claude, 2014. "The role of viscosity in the fluorescence behavior of the diesel/biodiesel blends," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 388-391.
    3. Durán-Romero, Gemma & López, Ana M. & Beliaeva, Tatiana & Ferasso, Marcos & Garonne, Christophe & Jones, Paul, 2020. "Bridging the gap between circular economy and climate change mitigation policies through eco-innovations and Quintuple Helix Model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    4. Bishu, Kinfe & O'Reilly, Seamus & Lahiff, Edward & Steiner, Bodo, 2016. "Cattle farmers’ perceptions of risk and risk management strategies," MPRA Paper 74954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. de Lauwere, Carolien & Slegers, Monique & Meeusen, Marieke, 2022. "The influence of behavioural factors and external conditions on Dutch farmers’ decision making in the transition towards circular agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    6. Luqi Qin & Erbao Cao, 2024. "Decision-making and performance of the agricultural supply chain: risk-neutral farmer vs target-oriented farmer," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 340(2), pages 961-980, September.
    7. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    8. Syed Aflatun Kabir Hemel & Mohammad Kamrul Hasan & Md. Abdul Wadud & Rojina Akter & Nasima Akther Roshni & Md. Tariqul Islam & Afsana Yasmin & Keya Akter, 2022. "Improvement of Farmers’ Livelihood through Choi Jhal ( Piper chaba )-Based Agroforestry System: Instance from the Northern Region of Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-20, December.
    9. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    10. Do, Truong Xuan & Lim, Young-il, 2016. "Techno-economic comparison of three energy conversion pathways from empty fruit bunches," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 307-318.
    11. Wei, Yongping & White, Robert & Hu, Kelin & Willett, Ian, 2010. "Valuing the environmental externalities of oasis farming in Left Banner, Alxa, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2151-2157, September.
    12. Thomassen, Gwenny & Van Dael, Miet & Lemmens, Bert & Van Passel, Steven, 2017. "A review of the sustainability of algal-based biorefineries: Towards an integrated assessment framework," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P2), pages 876-887.
    13. Ozoegwu, C.G. & Eze, C. & Onwosi, C.O. & Mgbemene, C.A. & Ozor, P.A., 2017. "Biomass and bioenergy potential of cassava waste in Nigeria: Estimations based partly on rural-level garri processing case studies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 625-638.
    14. Rastogi, Meenal & Shrivastava, Smriti, 2017. "Recent advances in second generation bioethanol production: An insight to pretreatment, saccharification and fermentation processes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 330-340.
    15. Katia A. Figueroa-Rodríguez & Francisco Hernández-Rosas & Benjamín Figueroa-Sandoval & Joel Velasco-Velasco & Noé Aguilar Rivera, 2019. "What Has Been the Focus of Sugarcane Research? A Bibliometric Overview," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-15, September.
    16. Nyaupane, Narayan & Gillespie, Jeffrey & Ken, McMillin, 2014. "Goal Structure of U.S. Meat Goat Producers: Is Farm Performance Consistent with the Goals?," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Brett Bryan & John Kandulu, 2011. "Designing a Policy Mix and Sequence for Mitigating Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution in a Water Supply Catchment," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(3), pages 875-892, February.
    18. Reed, Brinton & Chan-Halbrendt, Catherine & Tamang, B.B. & Chaudhary, Narendra, 2014. "Analysis of conservation agriculture preferences for researchers, extension agents, and tribal farmers in Nepal using Analytic Hierarchy Process," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 90-96.
    19. Dörschner, T. & Mußhoff, O., 2014. "Does the Risk Attitude Influence and Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Agri-Environmental Measures? – A Normative Approach to Evaluate Ecosystem Services," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    20. Neto, Ana Maria Pereira & Sotana de Souza, Rafael Augusto & Leon-Nino, Amanda Denisse & da Costa, Joana D'arc Aparecida & Tiburcio, Rodolfo Sbrolini & Nunes, Thaís Abreu & Sellare de Mello, Thaís Cris, 2013. "Improvement in microalgae lipid extraction using a sonication-assisted method," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 525-531.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    pollution; waste; Philippines;
    All these keywords.

    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:rr2013031. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.