Money (Not) to Burn: Payments for Ecosystem Services to Reduce Crop Residue Burning

B. Kelsey Jack et al.

American Economic Review: Insights2025https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20230431article
AJG 3ABDC A*
Weight
0.58

Abstract

We test whether payments for ecosystem services (PES) can curb the highly polluting practice of crop residue burning in India. Standard PES contracts pay participants after verification that they met a proenvironment condition (clearing fields without burning). We randomize paying a portion of the money up front and unconditionally to address liquidity constraints and farmer distrust, which may undermine the standard contract’s effectiveness. Incorporating partial up-front payment into the contract increases compliance by 10 percentage points, which is corroborated by satellite-based burning measurements. The cost per life saved is $3,600–$5,400. The standard PES contract has no effect on burning. (JEL D86, O13, Q12, Q15, Q18, Q53, Q58)

12 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20230431

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{b.2025,
  title        = {{Money (Not) to Burn: Payments for Ecosystem Services to Reduce Crop Residue Burning}},
  author       = {B. Kelsey Jack et al.},
  journal      = {American Economic Review: Insights},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20230431},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Money (Not) to Burn: Payments for Ecosystem Services to Reduce Crop Residue Burning

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.58

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.58 × 0.4 = 0.23
M · momentum0.80 × 0.15 = 0.12
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.