Summary
This economic analysis evaluates the rationality of Chinese government subsidies for mulch film management by comparing the cost–benefit performance of thicker mulch film and biodegradable mulch film against conventional film in Northern China. Thicker film emerged as economically superior with a net benefit 253.8 CNY/ha higher than conventional film, whilst biodegradable film proved unprofitable without continuous external subsidy. The findings suggest policy should prioritise promoting thicker film uptake through improved farmer awareness and optimised subsidy design, whilst biodegradable film subsidies require recalibration or investment in cost-reduction research.
UK applicability
Direct applicability to the UK is limited, as the study focuses on Northern Chinese farming conditions, regulations, and subsidy structures. However, the cost–benefit methodology for evaluating plastic film management policies and the comparison of thicker versus biodegradable alternatives may inform UK agricultural plastic reduction strategies and subsidy design.
Key measures
Net benefit (CNY/ha and USD/ha) for each mulch film type; cost–benefit comparison relative to conventional film baseline
Outcomes reported
The study compared the net economic benefits of three mulch film management approaches: conventional film, thicker film, and biodegradable film, measured in cost–benefit terms (CNY/ha). Results showed thicker film had the highest net benefit, whilst biodegradable film was unprofitable relative to conventional practice.
Topic tags
Dig deeper with Pulse AI.
Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.