SOCIOECONOMIC DRIVERS OF STUBBLE BURNING AMONG FARMERS AND BARRIERS TO ADOPTION OF SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVES
DOI: 
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
DOWNLOAD ARTICLE
REVIEW REPORT
CITE THIS ARTICLE
Burning of agricultural stubble is a common practice that has been one of the biggest contributors of air pollution and climate forcing, particularly in South Asia and other places. Although there are environmental costs, socioeconomic incentives and constraints make many farmers continue with this practice. The research paper presents a literature review that summarizes the latest findings on the socioeconomic variables that motivate farmers to incinerate crop residues and the barriers that impede them in adopting environmentally-friendly options. Our analysis was mixed-methods, based on survey data and qualitative interviews with farmers in large crop-producing areas, and the analysis of secondary data. Our identification is that farmers burn residue due to the short turnaround time between harvests, low levels of mechanization and the lack of labor. Burning is also considered by farmers to be the lowest cost and quickest method under conditions of high costs or dangers of substitutes and lots of farmers do not have access to credit, equipment, and good markets of residues. Policy and institutional barriers - such as distrust towards subsidies and inequalities in laws on bans - also stand in the way of no-burn practices. Our analysis findings are presented in Table 1. Table 1 enumerates significant economic, social, and policy-based motivators of burning and obstacles to switching to alternative (e.g. machinery-based no-till, bioenergy use) based on the literature. We discover that the main reasons given by farmers as to why they burn are labor constraints, time and low profitability of alternatives. The Discussion includes comparing our results with the previous research and explains the way such issues as trust, awareness, and the scale of farms act in the world. We draw a conclusion that effective mitigation of stubble burning will have to be combined with efforts that can include both financial and informational incentives, which would be situation-specific (e.g., mechanization assistance, support via initial incentive, community initiatives). As it is highlighted in our analysis, although there are environmental regulations, sustainable change is based on the ability to match the policy with the socioeconomic realities of farmers.
Keywords
Article Information
Article Metrics
HOW TO CITE
Copy
Kumar, A. (2026). Socioeconomic Drivers of Stubble Burning Among Farmers and Barriers To Adoption of Sustainable Alternatives. International Journal of Science, Strategic Management and Technology, 02(05). https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsmt.v2i5.026
Kumar, Ajay. "Socioeconomic Drivers of Stubble Burning Among Farmers and Barriers To Adoption of Sustainable Alternatives." International Journal of Science, Strategic Management and Technology, vol. 02, no. 05, 2026, pp. . doi:https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsmt.v2i5.026.
Kumar, Ajay. "Socioeconomic Drivers of Stubble Burning Among Farmers and Barriers To Adoption of Sustainable Alternatives." International Journal of Science, Strategic Management and Technology 02, no. 05 (2026). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsmt.v2i5.026.
References
[2] Kambam, A. S. (2025). A comparative analysis of post-harvesting strategies: a case study on rice straw management in Arkansas, USA, and Punjab, India. Journal of Sustainable Development, 18(4), 165–179. DOI: 10.5539/jsd. v18n4p165.
[3] Lopes, A. A., Viriyavipart, A., Kim, A. S., Lahiri, N., & Bhanja, S. (2024). Crop residue burning increased during the COVID-19 lockdown: a case study of rural India. Heliyon, 10(6), e27910. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon. 2024.e27910.
[4] Bhatt, R., Giang, A., & Kandlikar, M. (2023). Incentivizing alternatives to agricultural waste burning in Northern India: trust, awareness, and access as barriers to adoption. Environment Systems and Decisions, 43, 358–370. DOI: 10.1007/s10669-022-09892-w.
[5] Cordeiro, U. A., Samaddar, A., Munshi, S., Ajay, A., Rossiter, D. G., Sohane, R. K., Malik, R., Craufurd, P., Pingali, P., & McDonald, A. J. (2024). Transitions to crop residue burning have multiple antecedents in Eastern India. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 44, 59. DOI: 10.1007/s13593-024-00983-3.
[6] Erbaugh, J. T., Singh, G., Luo, Z., Koppa, G., Evans, J., & Shyamsundar, P. (2024). Farmer perspectives on crop residue burning and sociotechnical transition in Punjab, India. Journal of Rural Studies, 111, 103387. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103387.
[7] Yang, Z., Gupta, R., Walrand, M., & Majumdar, K. (2025). Perceptions of air pollution from stubble burning and its health risks in Punjab, India. Scientific Reports, 15, 2135. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-21235-8.
[8] Abdurrahman, M. I., Chaki, S., & Saini, G. S. (2020). Stubble burning: effects on health & environment, regulations and management practices. Environmental Advances, 2, 100011. DOI: 10.1016/j.envadv.2020.100011.
[9] Akahoshi, K., Zusman, E., Hanaoka, T., Kim Oanh, N. T., Nguyen Huy, L., Wangwongwatana, S., Homyok, P., Malley, C. S., Hirayama, T., & Goto, Y. (2023). The prospects of controlling open burning of crop residues in Thailand: a quantitative assessment of implementation barriers and costs. Atmosphere, 15(11), 1309. DOI: 10.3390/atmos15111309.
[10] Demirdogen, A. (2024). Stubble burning: what determines this fire? Environmental Development, 51, 101029. DOI: 10.1016/j.envdev.2024.101029.
Ethics and Compliance
Indexed In
Similar Articles
Previous Article
