Agricultural crop residue burning is a major driver of seasonal PM2.5 pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Northern Thailand. This study quantified GHG emissions from the open burning of rice, maize, and sugarcane residues across six provinces (Chiang Mai, Mae Hong Son, Lampang, Uttaradit, Nakhon Sawan, and Kamphaeng Phet) from 2019 to 2024 using the 2006 IPCC emission methodology. Spatiotemporal patterns of fire hotspots were characterized using MODIS and VIIRS satellite data, combined with kernel density estimation (KDE) and land-use classification in ArcGIS Pro. Total non-CO2 GHG emissions (CH4 and N2O, expressed as CO2-eq using GWP100 from IPCC AR5) over the six years totaled 2,599,551 tCO2-eq, with major rice contributing the largest share (35%), followed by sugarcane (24%), second rice (21%), and maize (20%). Nakhon Sawan was the leading emitter (41%), reflecting its extensive rice and sugarcane cultivation. Pearson correlation analysis revealed consistently positive relationships between daily fire hotspot counts and PM2.5 concentrations (r = 0.30–0.84), with the strongest correlations observed in Mae Hong Son, where basin topography traps pollutants. Time-series analysis confirmed pronounced seasonal PM2.5 peaks that exceeded Thailand’s 24-h NAAQS limit (37.5 μg/m3) by 7–9 times in severe years. Biochar production via pyrolysis was evaluated as a zero-burning alternative, with an estimated annual carbon sequestration potential of 2.3–3.5 million tCO2-eq, substantially exceeding emissions from open burning. These findings indicate that crop-residue valorization options—including biochar production, composting, and biochar co-compost—could theoretically offset agricultural GHG emissions and reduce field-burning PM2.5 emissions in Northern Thailand. However, the realized mitigation will depend on (i) verification of biochar long-term stability in tropical Thai soils through dedicated in situ trials, (ii) economic incentives that offset biochar production costs of approximately 1500–3500 THB per tonne, and (iii) integration within a policy mix that combines burning bans, mechanization support, and farmer extension services. Without these enabling conditions, biochar should be regarded as a future-perspective option rather than an immediately deployable solution.
Sampattagul et al. (Mon,) studied this question.