Air pollution imposes enormous public health and economic burdens in northwest India. Groundwater conservation policies appear to be exacerbating the crisis by concentrating agricultural burning in the late fall with a 39% higher peak fire intensity occurring when meteorological conditions favour poor air quality. Reconciling food security, resource depletion and environmental quality tradeoffs is necessary for achieving sustainable development in the breadbasket region of India.
Access optionsAccess options
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.67 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
MODIS EVI data were acquired from the NASA Land Data Products and Services portal: https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/products/mod13q1v006/. MODIS active fire data were acquired from the Fire Information for Resource Management System: https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/download/. Measured PM2.5 data for New Delhi were acquired from the National Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Network that aggregates information from 27 air quality monitoring stations that are distributed across the capital region. Year-wise daily data are available from the Government of India (note: filter results for ‘Delhi’): https://data.gov.in/catalog/historical-daily-ambient-air-quality-data. Satellite-estimated PM2.5 data for New Delhi were acquired from the University of Miami: http://precise.miami.edu/index_delhi.php. Rice yield data for Punjab and Haryana were compiled from various Government of India sources: https://aps.dac.gov.in/APY/Public_Report1.aspx, https://nfsm.gov.in/ReadyReckoner/NFSMRR/NFSM_AllocationReleases2018.pdf and http://esaharyana.gov.in/en-us/Economic-Survey-of-Haryana-2016-17-English. Weather data for New Delhi were acquired from the Indian Agricultural Research Institute: http://www.iari.res.in/index.php?Itemid=1033&id=402&option=com_content&view=article. Political boundaries depicted in our maps are distributed as spatial data by GADM (www.gadm.org).
Bikkina, S. Nat. Sustain. 2, 200–205 (2019).
Cusworth, D. H. et al. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 044018 (2018).
Landrigan, P. L. et al. Lancet 391, 462–512 (2017).
Ghude, S. D. et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 4650–4658 (2016).
Guttikunda, S. K. & Goel, R. Environ. Dev. 6, 8–20 (2013).
Chowdhury, S. et al. Environ. Sci. Policy 74, 8–13 (2017).
Dey, S. et al. Remote Sens. Environ. 127, 153–161 (2012).
Liu, T. et al. Atmos. Environ. 172, 83–92 (2018).
Jethva, H. et al. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 18, 1756–1773 (2018).
Rajput, P. et al. Atmos. Environ. 45, 6732–6740 (2011).
Ortiz-Monasterio, J. I. et al. Field Crops Res. 37, 169–184 (1994).
Ahmad, T. et al. Land Use Policy 47, 448–458 (2015).
Rodell, M., Velicogna, I. & Famiglietti, J. S. Nature 460, 999–1001 (2009).
Humphreys, E. et al. Adv. Agron. 109, 155–217 (2010).
Chhatre, A. et al. Decision 43, 167–179 (2016).
Singh, B. et al. Field Crops Res. 173, 68–80 (2015).
Singh, R. P. & Kaskaoutis, D. G. Eos 95, 333–340 (2014).
Guttikunda, S. K. & Jawahar, P. Atmos. Environ. 92, 449–460 (2014).
Bollasina, M. A. et al. Science 334, 502–505 (2011).
Sidhu, H. S. et al. Field Crops Res. 184, 201–212 (2015).
Sidhu, H. S. et al. Agric. Water Manag. 216, 273–283 (2018).
Boschetti, M. et al. Int. J. Remote Sens. 30, 4643–4662 (2009).
Eckmann et al. Earth Interact. 14, 1–29 (2010).
Zhang et al. Remote Sens. Environ. 198, 407–424 (2017).
Kumar, N. et al. Atmos. Environ. 41, 4492–4503 (2007).
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.