4.5 Article

How Does Straw Burning Affect Urban Air Quality in China?JEL codes

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
卷 103, 期 3, 页码 1122-1140

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajae.12132

关键词

Agricultural fire; air pollution; China; straw burning; Q15; Q53

资金

  1. UNU-WIDER Visiting PhD Fellowship Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Straw burning has a significant impact on urban air quality, with a noticeable increase in air pollution on the first day after burning, gradually decreasing but remaining significant for at least eight days. The impact is greater for fires located in the upwind direction with lower wind speeds, while pollution is mainly driven by fires within 100km from urban centers.
Over the past decade, straw burning has been debated as one of the causes of severe air pollution in developing countries. However, the magnitude and pattern of its impact on air quality have not been precisely estimated. This study employs remote sensing data on straw fires from different satellite sources and examines its overall impact on urban air quality in China. Exploiting daily variations in straw burning activities and air pollution with a difference-in-differences strategy across 290 cities and 620days, I find a clear temporal pattern for the straw burning effect. On the first day after burning, the index of air pollution increases by 6.5 in urban areas, equivalent to 9.4% of the mean. This impact decreases over time and remains significant for at least eight days. The effect is larger for fires located in the upwind direction relative to urban areas and is limited with lower wind speed. In terms of distance, pollution is mostly driven by straw fires within 100km from urban centers but could also be influenced by fires as far as 600km away. Among different pollutants, particulate matters are increased most by straw fires. The effect is largest and most persistent in October and November, when straw burning prevails in the north after harvest, but is also non-negligible in other seasons.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据