Determinants of choosing in-kind benefits over cash: A study among Nepalese farmers.

This study investigates the determinants of choosing in-kind benefits over cash transfers when their respective values are equivalent. Employing a rigorous two-step experiment with a large sample size (n = 962), we offer real monetary rewards to respondents. In the first step, we asked whether the respondents would choose NRs. 1,000 (≈ US dollars 9) in cash or in-kind benefit that is worth NRs. 1,000. We observe that approximately two-thirds of participants opt for in-kind benefits of equal value to the proposed cash transfer. In analyzing the factors influencing this preference, our results indicate that households with higher non-farm incomes are less likely to choose in-kind benefits. Increasing the non-farm income by NRs. 100,000 respondents are 0.2% less likely to choose in-kind benefits. Furthermore, households with limited savings demonstrate a higher preference toward in-kind benefits over cash transfers. Not having NRs. 25,000 savings would make respondents 10% more likely to choose in-kind benefits. Previously receiving in-kind benefits also increase the likelihood of choosing them over cash. Additionally, households with restricted market access are more inclined to opt for in-kind benefits. Notably, in the second step of the experiment which involves only those who chose cash in the first step of the experiment, only 48% of respondents would opt for in-kind benefits even when values were higher by NRs. 150 to 450. This research sheds light on the factors affecting the decision-making process between in-kind benefits and cash transfers and provides insights into the design of effective social welfare policies. More specifically, findings from this study suggest tailored approaches for assisting people could be followed based on their income level and accessibility to the market.

In-field degradation of soil-biodegradable plastic mulch films in a Mediterranean climate.

Soil-biodegradable plastic mulch films are a promising alternative to polyethylene mulches, but adoption has been slow, in part because of uncertainties about in-field degradation. The international biodegradability standard EN-17033 requires 90% degradation within 2 years in an aerobic incubation at constant temperature (20-28 °C). However, in-laboratory biodegradability does not guarantee in-field degradation will follow the same timeframe. Field test protocols are needed to assess biodegradable mulches under a range of environmental conditions and collate site-specific information to predict degradation. Our objectives were to (1) monitor in-field degradation of soil-biodegradable plastic mulches following successive applications and incorporations, (2) quantify mulch recovery 2 years after the final incorporation, and (3) compare in-field degradation with the laboratory standard in terms of calendar and thermal times based on a zeroth-order kinetics model. A field experiment was established in spring 2015 in Mount Vernon, WA testing five biodegradable mulches laid each spring and incorporated each fall until 2018. Mulch recovery was quantified every 6 months until fall 2020, 2 years after the final incorporation. While mulches were incorporated annually, recovery of visible fragments (>2.36 mm) was constant or decreasing over time, indicating mulch deterioration kept pace with new additions. In fall 2020, mulch recovery was 4-16% of total mulch mass incorporated. A zeroth-order kinetics model was used to analyze mulch degradation after the final application. Model extrapolations indicate it would take 21 to 58 months to reach 10% recovery (90% degradation), exceeding the laboratory standard's 24-month benchmark by up to a factor of 2.4. However, when the analysis is done with thermal time, better agreement between in-field and laboratory degradation rates is observed. While other factors, including soil type, soil moisture, and mulch fragment size are also at play, thermal time, rather than calendar time, will be more applicable for assessing site-specific, in-field mulch degradation.

Sampling and degradation of biodegradable plastic and paper mulches in field after tillage incorporation.

Plastic biodegradable mulch (plastic BDM) is tilled after use, but there is concern about incomplete degradation and potential impact on subsequent crops, and we lack a reliable method to measure mulch degradation post soil-incorporation. We conducted two field experiments to (i) develop a sampling method to estimate the amount of mulch (fragments size >2.36 mm) in the field post soil-incorporation, and (ii) assess the amount of BDM in the soil after four consecutive years of mulch incorporation. In Expt. 1, we used the quartering method to reduce soil from a 1 m2 field sample area to a representative 19 L sample. In Expt. 2, we applied and tilled four plastic BDMs: BioAgri, Naturecycle, Organix AG, and an experimental mulch; and one paper mulch, WeedGuardPlus, in their respective plots for four consecutive years. Starting in year 2, we sampled soil with the quartering method each spring and fall to determine mulch recovery. With respect to the total amount of mulch applied, average mulch recovery in the fall for the three commercial plastic BDMs was 71%, 50%, and 35% after second, third and fourth applications, respectively. For the experimental mulch, the average recovery was 80%, 69%, and 54% in the fall after second, third, and fourth applications, respectively. Recovery was slightly lower in spring than in preceding fall all years. For WeedGuardPlus, average recovery was 14%-20% in each fall, and no recovery in any spring (complete degradation). The results show that the quartering method reliably estimates the amount of mulch in a field and BDMs degrade over time in the field even with repeated applications, but complete degradation takes >1 year. While a few standards (e.g., ASTM D5988) specify how to determine biodegradation of plastics in soil under controlled laboratory conditions, our sampling method assesses plastic degradation under diverse field conditions.