Environmental Sustainability of Rice Cultivation in Western Regions of Odisha: A Life Cycle Perspective

Suraj Kumar Samal; Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo; Pritikrishna Majhi; Mahendra Kumar Mohanty

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Environmental Sustainability of Rice Cultivation in Western Regions of Odisha: A Life Cycle Perspective

Suraj Kumar Samal

, Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo

, Pritikrishna Majhi^*

, Mahendra Kumar Mohanty

Published in American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology (Volume 11, Issue 4)

Received: 31 December 2025 Accepted: 19 January 2026 Published: 17 October 2026

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Rice, a principal cereal crop often regarded as a staple food, plays a vital role in the agricultural economy of western Odisha. Cultivation of rice needs various forms of material and energy inputs, making it a resource-intensive process, and hence, its environmental consequences are becoming increasingly significant. Consequently, finding the right strategies and solutions to improve sustainability has become essential. The right scientific tools and credible data are required for assessing the sustainability by evaluating the environmental burden associated with rice cultivation. Environmental impact assessment can be performed by various methods, and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is one such approach which is widely used. LCA provides intricate details in the cultivation process, which are generally overlooked during most studies. This study evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the rice cultivation process using LCA with a focus on hotspots due to inputs, outputs and emissions. The ReCiPe midpoint methodology has been used to calculate 18 impact indicators. The results were characterized and normalized subsequently for comparison. Results show a Global warming potential (GWP) of 1.34 kg CO₂eq per functional unit. The highest normalized impact was found to be water consumption (3.89E-03), indicating that intensive rice farming has led to high water consumption, while high normalized values of terrestrial (2.86E-03) and marine ecotoxicity (2.83E-03) indicate contamination of water bodies due to excessive fertilizer and chemical use. These impacts pose challenges to environmental sustainability and highlight the need for sustainable rice cultivation practices, including improved water management, balanced nutrient use, and eco-friendly farming techniques, to reduce environmental degradation while maintaining crop productivity.

Published in	American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology (Volume 11, Issue 4) This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Translational Research, Biotechnology, and Sustainable Bio-Innovations
DOI	10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32
Page(s)	426-436
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2026. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Life Cycle Assessment, Rice Cultivation, Sustainability, Methane Emissions, Global Warming Potential

1. Introduction

Rice, a synonym for food grain in Odisha, covers a staggering 70% of the state's cultivable land, i.e. around 4.06 million ha and around 90% of the food grain, i.e. 11.93 million tons

[1, 2]

. Rice cultivation is a resource-intensive process, which is performed with heavy number of inputs which includes pesticide, fertilizers, machineries, land and water which affects the quality of soil, human health and increases environmental burden through release of greenhouse gases (GHGs)

[3, 4]

. Cultivation of rice serves as a crucial component of regional food security, but with significant burden on ecology through depletion of resources and emissions of harmful gases

[5, 6]

. Intensive cultivation methods has been linked to soil fertility loss, groundwater depletion, human health hazards and biodiversity decline

[7]

Alternative promising farming practices such as system of rice intensification (SRI), organic farming, crop rotation, mulch farming, zero tillage, minimum tillage and integrated pest management are few which are adopted to address these challenges

[8]

. Organic farming is the most relevant option as it helps in reducing dependence on harmful chemicals but farmers often complain about its reduced yield, high cost and labour-intensive nature. Comparative analyses indicate that traditional and organic rice production systems often demonstrate lower environmental impacts than conventional practices, particularly through reduced reliance on chemical fertilizers and higher renewable energy consumption but heavily varies across cultivation practices adopted in particular region

[9, 10]

. Numerous studies indicate that the reduced reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides in organic systems substantially lowers emissions of Greenhouse gases (CO₂, NOx, and SOx) which are identified as major contributors to global warming and acidification potential

[11]

. However, the environmental performance of organic systems is not uniformly positive across all impact categories, as trade-offs may emerge in areas such as land occupation and water depletion due to lower yields compared to conventional methods

[12]

. Before choosing these alternate options and how they perform in comparison to conventional farming it is essential to quantify these harmful emissions, its impact on ecosystem and the underlying cause behind it. These are plenty of methods available among which life cycle assessment (LCA) has emerged as a robust methodological framework which can quantify these environmental burdens throughout the complete production cycle. LCA enables researchers to gauge and compare the ecological performance of diverse agricultural systems

[9]

. This study employs LCA methodology to evaluate the environmental impacts of rice production systems in the western regions of Odisha, specifically analysing indicators such as global warming potential, energy consumption, and water use and resource efficiency across different stages of rice cultivation

[9, 10]

. The application of Life Cycle Assessment allows for a comprehensive quantification of emissions, its root cause and answers the underlying cause. It also provides critical discernments into the comparative advantages of traditional versus modern production systems

[10, 13]

. By quantifying the total global warming potential LCA helps in identifying key hotspots where interventions can significantly reduce the ecological footprint of rice farming

[10, 14]

. Despite these nuances, the inherent capacity of LCA to throw light on environmental hotspots within agricultural supply chains remains invaluable for informing sustainable policies and practices

[15]

This research therefore, aims to provide a comprehensive life-cycle assessment of intensive rice cultivation practices and environmental impact associated with the inputs specific to western regions of Odisha. Identification of environmental hotspots and mitigation through sustainable alternatives to resource intensive processes. The study focuses standard farming practices adopted by farmers includes inputs specific to that region. Information from this study will aid farmers and policymakers on sustainable agricultural development and policy.

2. Materials and Methods

This section describes the methodology adapted for conducting LCA. The study follows the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 which provides the guidelines and framework for conducting LCA. Specifically, the four main phases of the LCA include goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory analysis, life cycle impact assessment and interpretation

[16, 17]

. The LCA framework includes four stages (1) Goal and scope definition, (2) Life cycle inventory, (3) Impact assessment and (4) Interpretation which are discussed in detail in the next section

[16]

2.1. Goal and Scope Definition

The current study was carried out as a “cradle to gate” assessment, which include land preparation, seeding, fertilization, irrigation, pesticide application, and harvesting, with particular attention paid to the energy and material inputs at each stage to ensure a robust inventory of environmental flows. The foreground system encompasses direct on-farm activities that have been divided into distinct sub-systems, each representing a crucial phase in the rice cultivation lifecycle, to facilitate a detailed analysis of resource flows and environmental burdens. The background system encompasses the activities involved in producing the agricultural inputs, such as the manufacturing of fertilizers, pesticides and the energy inputs in form of diesel burned in machineries and electricity required for on farm needs. The functional unit for this study is defined as 1 kg of paddy production, which allows for a standardized comparison of environmental impacts across different cultivation practices

[11, 18]

. Rice straw was not included in the system boundary, and the impact was allocated entirely to the primary product. Although this could lead to a higher impact as allocation generally distributes the impact based on either the economic value, mass, or energy content of the products and co-products. The system boundary also excludes the distribution of the rice after it leaves the farm gate, focusing solely on the production phase and transportation of materials itself as shown in Figure 1.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 1. System boundary for the study.

2.2. Life Cycle Inventory

The inventory stage gives details regarding all the inputs and outputs at each stage within the defined system boundary

[19]

. This section details the compilation of all relevant input and output data used in the LCA model and serves as the basis of analysis

[20]

. The detailed inventory data is presented in Table 1.

2.2.1. Data Sources

Inventory data for the LCA were meticulously collected from primary and secondary sources, encompassing all material and energy flows associated with the defined system boundaries. It includes inputs like seed, water, land, fertilizer, pesticide, machinery operation, and on-farm emissions

[21]

. Detailed surveys of farmers from key agricultural blocks of the leading rice producer of the western region, i.e. Bargarh. On-site surveys were conducted in order to gather data relevant data. Secondary data sources for the background system were taken from LCA literature, Office of district agricultural officer, reports, and the Ecoinvent 3 dataset, which holds good for the Indian context. The production of inputs was also included in the system boundary.

2.2.2. Material Input

Data was collected firsthand of the inputs for paddy cultivation through a questionnaire prepared keeping in mind the inputs considered in the already available database in the software. The inputs are listed in Table 1 with relevant units. The inputs were for the cultivation of 1ha of rice in a continuous flooded field. Data for irrigation were referenced from literature as it is quite difficult to obtain accurate data in the field. Inventory data is divided into inputs from nature, which include land and water. Material inputs from technosphere include seed, fertilizer, pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and energy input in form of diesel burned to carry out agricultural operations.

Table 1. Inventory data for paddy cultivation (1ha).

Input

Quantity

Unit

Description

Source

Inputs from nature

Land

11,000

m²

Land for nursery and main field

Field area

Irrigation water

11,500

m³

Total water requirement

[11]

Material Inputs

Seed

62.5

Input from Ecoinvent 3 database

Field Survey

Urea

180

N (Nitrogen supplement)

Field Survey

Phosphate fertiliser

P₂O₅ (Phosphate supplement)

Field Survey

Potassium fertiliser

K₂O (Potassium supplement)

Field Survey

Manure

2471

Organic nutrient source (NPK)

Field Survey

Zinc monosulfate

19.77

ZnSO₄.H₂O (micronutrient fertilizer (containing 33% Zinc and 15% Sulphur)

Field Survey

Potassium sulphate

120

K₂SO₄ (K and S source)

Field Survey

Ammonium sulphate

3.216

(NH₄)₂SO₄ (NPK 21-0-0)

Field Survey

Benzimidazole fungicides

4.94

Fungicide, (for fungal diseases like blast, sheat blight etc.)

Field Survey

Carbaryl

6.6188

Insecticide (for stem borer, leaf hoppers)

Field Survey

Carbofuran

4.13

Insecticide (for broad spectrum insects)

Field Survey, IPM Rice cultivation

Organophosphorus-compound

5.35

Insecticide (for brown plant hoppers)

Field Survey,

[11]

Pyrethroid-compound

3.74

Insecticide (for leaf folders, root grubs etc.)

Field Survey,

[11]

Fungicide

10.127

Carbendazim 12% + Mancozeb 63% WP (for blast, sheath blight, and leaf spot)

Field Survey

2,4-D

2.685

Herbicide (for broadleaf weed)

Field Survey

Chloroacetanilide herbicides

3.0875

Herbicide (for grassy weeds)

Field Survey

Triazinylsulfonylurea herbicides

0.1976

Herbicide (for grassy weeds and broad weed leafs)

Field Survey

2.2.3. Energy Input

Energy input plays a vital role in the inventory as the major source is fossil-based fuel, which results in the release of heavy pollutants in prolonged operations. Machineries were used for land preparation, transplantation, weeding, harvesting, threshing and transportation of input material and rice grain transportation to storage. Energy from diesel burned in these machineries during field operations and transportation as shown in Figure 2 were calculated based on the field capacity and data collected during field operations. The diesel input is converted into mega joules (MJ) with a total calculated value of 13195.8 MJ which a sum of diesel used in agricultural operations.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 2. Stages of paddy cultivation taken in the study.

2.2.4. Field Emissions

Emissions from rice fields is the direct cause of intensive water management and intensified further with application of fertilizers. Field emissions includes methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), ammonia (NH₃) and emissions of nitrates and phosphorous to water

[22, 23]

. Application of urea leads to the emission of carbon dioxide which directly contributes to the environmental impact of the rice

[24]

. The emissions were calculated as per the IPCC guidelines

[25]

and World food LCA database (WFLDB) and secondary data from a similar study in Bangladesh

[11]

. Direct emission of carbon dioxide from rice field due to application of urea, methane emission due anaerobic decomposition of organic matter, N₂O and NH₃ emission from nitrogen fertilizer. The emission values were calculated and presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2. Emissions from rice field.

Compartment

Emission

Quantity

Source

Air

Carbon dioxide

258 kg

Calculated value

Methane

133.28 kg

[11, 26]

Nitrogen dioxide

5.38 kg

[11,

27]

Ammonia

31.49 kg

[11, 27]

Table 3. Emission due to phosphorous and water evapotranspiration.

Compartment

Emission

Quantity

Source

Water

Water (evapotranspiration)

5175 kg

[11, 28]

Water, groundwater

1163.6 m³

[11, 28]

Water, river

4654.4 m³

[11, 28]

Phosphorus, groundwater

0.21573 kg

[11, 28]

Phosphorus, river

0.061069 kg

[11, 28]

2.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) is the third phase in the LCA which is based on the LCI results. It involves conversion of raw data into quantifiable environmental damages. The study was performed in the Simapro 9 LCA software with ReCiPe midpoint impact assessment model for calculation of environmental impact. The impact results were categorized into 18 midpoint impact categories with their reference units as shown in the Table 4. The calculated impact were normalized for comparison of impact categories. Normalization is an optional step as per ISO 14040 while characterization is a mandatory step

[28]

Table 4. ReCiPe midpoint impact categories.

Impact Category	Impact result	Unit
Global warming potential	1.32E+00	kg CO₂ eq
Stratospheric ozone depletion	2.38E-07	kg CFC11 eq
Ionizing radiation	8.45E-03	kBq Co-60 eq
Ozone formation, Human health	1.91E-03	kg NOx eq
Fine particulate matter formation	2.19E-03	kg PM2.5 eq
Ozone formation, Terrestrial ecosystems	1.94E-03	kg NOx eq
Terrestrial acidification	1.34E-02	kg SO₂ eq
Freshwater eutrophication	7.79E-05	kg P eq
Marine eutrophication	4.09E-05	kg N eq
Terrestrial ecotoxicity	2.97E+00	kg 1,4-DCB
Freshwater ecotoxicity	4.11E-04	kg 1,4-DCB
Marine ecotoxicity	2.92E-03	kg 1,4-DCB
Human carcinogenic toxicity	6.08E-04	kg 1,4-DCB
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity	1.61E-01	kg 1,4-DCB
Land use	2.01E+00	m2a crop eq
Mineral resource scarcity	1.07E-03	kg Cu eq
Fossil resource scarcity	1.43E-01	kg oil eq
Water consumption	1.04E+00	m³

3. Results

Impact assessment result based on the allocation method and functional unit is presented in this section with special emphasis on global warming potential and water consumption. The impact indicators were calculated by analyzing the inventory and are listed in Table 4. Impact categories relevant to the current study have been described and compared in the following section.

3.1. Global Warming Potential

Rice production is a major contributor to climate change, primarily through the emission of three key greenhouse gases: methane (CH₄), carbon dioxide (CO₂), and nitrous oxide (N₂O)

[18]

. The GWP for the production of 1 kg of rice was calculated to be 1.3218 kg CO₂ eq. The primary driver of this impact is the cultivation process itself, representing direct field emissions which accounts for 0.8629 kg CO₂ eq (65.29%) of the total GWP. These emissions are largely characterized by the release of 133.28 kg of methane (CH₄) and 258 kg of carbon dioxide (CO₂). Methane is generated by the decomposition of organic matter in anaerobic conditions, which occur when rice fields are flooded. It typically accounts for 30% to 55% of the total GWP of rice production)

[18]

. CO₂ and N₂O emissions are often linked to the production and application of nitrogen-based chemical fertilizers and the combustion of diesel in farming machinery for field preparation, transplanting, weeding, and harvesting/threshing which adds another 0.2201 kg CO₂eq (16.65%), while the production and application of Urea fertilizer contributes 0.1003 kg CO₂eq (7.59%) as the third largest contributor. The contribution of different inputs to the GWP is shown in the Figure 3.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 3. Contribution of inputs to GWP.

3.2. Toxicity and Human Health Impacts

The study identifies a critical environmental hotspot in toxicity categories, specifically linked to micronutrient and pesticide application. Terrestrial ecotoxicity reached a total of 2.97 kg 1,4-DCB, with Zinc monosulfate acting as the overwhelming contributor at 2.4227 kg 1,4-DCB, representing 81.6% of the category. Similar trend extends to human non-carcinogenic toxicity category, where the major contributor was Zits for 0.1468 kg 1,4-DCB out of the total 0.1605 kg 1,4-DCB (89.39%) impact. Other major contributors were found to be insecticides of Pyrethroid-compounds (14.59%) and Organophosphorus compounds (6.72%), applied for controlling leaf fodder and brown plant hoppers. Highlighting the health risks associated with intensive chemical pest management in Odisha. The human carcinogenic toxicity (6.08E-04 kg 1,4-DCB) and human non-carcinogenic toxicity (1.61E-01 kg 1,4-DCB) categories were contributed majorly by fertilizer (Urea, Phosphate), pesticide (Pyrethroid-compounds) and diesel use.

3.3. Resource Scarcity and Water Footprint

Fossil resource scarcity was calculated at 0.1428 kg oil eq, which is driven primarily by fertilizer, pesticide and diesel inputs. Diesel burned in machinery for on farm operation has the highest contribution (46.62%) followed by Urea (28.36%). Mineral resource scarcity is dominated by phosphate fertilizers, which account for 70.67% of the total impact in this category. Water consumption is a high-impact category with a total of 1.0367 m³ water consumed per kg of rice which shows the water intensive nature of rice cultivation. The majority of this consumption (98.73%) is attributed to the output (grain) as irrigation is directly associated with the outputs of the cultivation process. This shows that irrigation methods should be optimized for reduce this depletion.

Download: Download full-size image

Figure 4. Normalized result.

3.3. Normalization and Comparative Analysis

Normalization is an optional step which is obtained by dividing the characterization result with a normalized factor which represents the total environmental impact of a region over a year and the output is expressed as a fraction of that reference. The results obtained allows for a comparison across different impact categories by converting the output to a common dimensionless value. Figure 4 shows the normalized result plot across different impact categories. The most significant categories were found to be Water consumption (0.00388), Terrestrial ecotoxicity (0.00286) and Marine ecotoxicity (0.002831254). Water consumption is directly associated with the output i.e. rice grain (98.7%) and the remaining 1.3% is contributed by the background processes across all other inputs. The major source of terrestrial and marine ecotoxicity were fertilizer (Urea, Phosphate, Zinc monosulfate) and Energy from diesel burned in machineries. The impact can be reduced by adopting organic amendments and reducing on farm machine operations.

4. Discussion

The GWP for the current study was calculated to be 1.32 kg CO₂ eq per kg of rice, predominantly driven by direct field emissions. Continuously irrigated paddy fields lead to direct field emissions which account for 65.29% of the total GWP. The release of CH₄ due to the anaerobic decomposition of organic matter left in the in flooded fields is a primary contributor and has been reported in similar studies

[29]

. GWP value has been reported in different studies and tends to vary based on the system boundary, functional unit, input, farming practices and rice processing methods employed after harvesting with typical values ranging from 0.9 to 3.15 kg CO₂-eq per kg

[11, 29-32]

. This value is lower as compared to various similar studies with similar system boundary, functional unit and input pattern. Beyond field emissions, the diesel use in agricultural machinery (16.65%) and urea (7.59%) are significant secondary drivers of climate impact. These results underscore that while mechanical cultivation and chemical inputs contribute to the carbon footprint, the fundamental method of cultivation specifically water management remains the most critical factor for greenhouse gas mitigation.

A LCA on rice cultivation in Bangladesh reported the GWP to be 3.15 kg CO₂eq which was due to primarily due to methane emission from field while a similar study reported a contribution of 2.9 kg CO₂eq due to non-mechanized irrigation practices

[11, 33]

Normalization results indicate that water consumption as the most significant environmental impact category (3.89E-03). Irrigation input was found to be the most impactful category and had the highest contribution in 15 out of 18 selected categories due to direct emission of methane released due to methanogenesis in the irrigated field. Impact was further escalated causing indirect emissions cause by water conveyance

[29]

. Hence, water management system plays a vital role. The current study also shows the water intensive nature of the rice cultivation with 1.04 m³ of water per kg of rice, with 98.73% of this consumption attributed directly to irrigation needs. This high-water footprint is a direct consequence of the traditional flooding methods currently employed by farmers in Western Odisha. Such intensive water use poses a severe threat to regional groundwater levels. Transitioning from continuous flooding to more efficient systems, such as drip or sprinkler irrigation, could significantly reduce this depletion while maintaining productivity. Non-continuous flooding and straw management practice can help in reducing waster depletion as well as emissions of CH₄

[30]

A study in Malaysia reported relatively lower values of GWP (0.457 kg CO₂-eq), water use (0.098 m³) and fossil fuel depletion (0.084 kg oil-q) for conventional rice while for organic rice these values were 0.140 kg CO₂-eq, 0.029 m³ and 0.022 kg oil-eq respectively. Cultivation phase was found to be the main contributor due to the application and production of fertilizer and pesticides. The current study also reported these values with a higher impact revealing that these values

[34]

The study identifies a critical hotspot in terrestrial and marine ecotoxicity, largely linked to the application of micronutrients and pesticides. Zinc monosulfate emerged as an overwhelming contributor, representing 81.6% of the terrestrial ecotoxicity category. Furthermore, the use of Pyrethroid and Organophosphorus compounds for pest control contributes significantly to human non-carcinogenic toxicity. These findings highlight the environmental and health risks associated with intensive chemical management in the region, where excessive fertilizer and pesticide use leads to the contamination of water bodies. The effect of agrochemical on human health, food, and environment Surface water is also contaminated with use of pesticide which effect both aquatic and marine life

[35]

The reliance on fossil-based fuels for machinery operations and the production of synthetic inputs drives resource scarcity

[36]

. Diesel burned during field operations is the primary driver of fossil resource scarcity (46.62%), followed by Urea (28.36%). Additionally, phosphate fertilizers dominate the mineral resource scarcity category, accounting for over 70% of its impact. Reducing these impacts will require a shift toward greener energy options and more balanced nutrient management to decrease the dependence on non-renewable resources. Organic farming have reportedly shown better environmental performance with lower GWP, fossil resource scarcity, human health impact and in many more categories which is proven to be a better alternative

[35]

5. Conclusion

The environmental impact assessment of rice cultivation in western region of Odisha shows that inputs like fertilizer, pesticides and fossil resources has a significant contribution across different impact categories. LCA is a tool which can guide to understand these impacts and identify the critical point and thus sustainable solutions can be explored. The choice and quantity of inputs greatly affect the output and thus should be regulated properly. Greener options can lead to reduction of these impacts which can be incorporated in different stages of rice cultivation. Organic farming is a potential alternative and cab reduce the chemical released by the use of synthetic fertilizers but could reduce the yield and hence the choice of chemicals compounds used in these inputs can be regulated to reduce this impact. Irrigation has been found to be a major hotpot as the method adopted by the farmers is still the flooding of fields. This could be reduced by adopting more advance drip and sprinkler irrigation systems. This study evaluated the impact of rice cultivation through a life cycle perspective in an effort to identify the significant contributors and study the emission on a system level. The results from this study could be communicated to the farmers providing an opportunity to change their behavior and change the inputs accordingly. Communicating of this result to farmers is itself an overwhelming task and could be a topic of future research. Life cycle modelling is a data driven process and output results depends on the quality of the life cycle inventory and hence should be evaluated in detailed manner. Most studies include data non-relevant to the region and hence the results are non-reliable and inaccurate. The current study also relies on many literature data and hence can be further improved in future studies. As the first LCA conducted specifically for rice cultivation in Western Odisha, this study provides a vital baseline using 18 impact categories. Future research should strive for more region-specific primary data to enhance accuracy. This study focused solely on rice grain, excluding rice straw from the system boundary. Including co-products in future analyses might redistribute and lower the impact allocated to the primary grain employing suitable allocation. The study has provided qualitative data which can be further investigated in future studies.

Abbreviations

LCA	Life Cycle Assessment
LCI	Life Cycle Inventory
GWP	Global Warming Potential
GHGs	Green House Gases
SRI	System of Rice Intensification

Acknowledgments

The study has been conducted using laboratory facilities provided by BPCL biofuel project at College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology.

Author Contributions

Suraj Kumar Samal: Conceptualization, Investigation, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo: Supervision, Resources, Validation

Pritikrishna Majhi: Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Visualization

Mahendra Kumar Mohanty: Supervision, Resources, Validation

Funding

This work is not supported by any external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data supporting the outcome of this research work has been reported in this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	CEICdata.com. (2024c, December 23). India Agricultural area: Foodgrains: Rice: Odisha. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/india/area-of-foodgrains-in-major-states-rice/agricultural-area-foodgrains-rice-odisha
[2]	Directorate of Economics and Statistics. (2024). Odisha Economic Survey 2023-24. Planning and Convergence Department, Government of Odisha. pc.odisha.gov.in
[3]	R. Chen and Q. Zhang, “Pesticide usage in rice cultivation: Consequences for soil and water health,” Molecular Soil Biology, Jan. 2024, https://doi.org/10.5376/msb.2024.15.0013
[4]	Bhoi, R., Mahananda, M. R., & Pradhan, A. (2023). High consumption of pesticides in agricultural fields leads to prevalence of cancer cases in rural pockets of eastern India: A case study. Environmental Quality Management, 33(1), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.22060
[5]	Behera SS, Ojha CSP, Prasad KSH, Dash SS. Yield, water, and carbon footprint of rainfed rice production under the lens of mid-century climate change: a case study in the eastern coastal agro-climatic zone, Odisha, India. Environ Monit Assess. 2023 Apr 5; 195(5): 544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-023-11117-9
[6]	Kumar, N., Chhokar, R. S., Meena, R. P., Kharub, A. S., Gill, S. C., Tripathi, S. C., Gupta, O. P., Mangrauthia, S. K., Sundaram, R. M., Sawant, C. P., Gupta, A., Naorem, A., Kumar, M., & Singh, G. P. (2022). Challenges and opportunities in productivity and sustainability of rice cultivation system: a critical review in Indian perspective. Cereal research communications, 50(4), 573–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42976-021-00214-5
[7]	Nirmal K Mandal, Prasanta Parida, Kuntal Sarkar, Jyotirmoyee Pati. (2025). Sustainable Farming for the Future: A Comparative Analysis of Economic and Environmental Viability in Rice Cultivation Models. European Economic Letters (EEL), 15(1), 1277–1291. https://doi.org/10.52783/eel.v15i1.2503
[8]	Zhou, W., Arcot, Y., Medina, R. F., Bernal, J., Cisneros-Zevallos, L., & Akbulut, M. E. S. (2024). Integrated Pest Management: An Update on the Sustainability Approach to Crop Protection. ACS omega, 9(40), 41130–41147. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.4c06628
[9]	Kumar R, Bhardwaj A, Singh LP, Singh G, Kumar A, Pattnayak KC. Comparative life cycle assessment of environmental impacts and economic feasibility of tomato cultivation systems in northern plains of India. Scientific Reports. 2024. 14(1). 7084. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-57623-9
[10]	K. Beer et al., “Energy budgeting and global warming potential of traditional rice production system in Eastern Ghats region of Odisha,” Journal of environmental biology. 2024. 45(2). 200–209. https://doi.org/10.22438/jeb/45/2/mrn-5174
[11]	Jimmy, A. N., Khan, N. A., Hossain, M. N., & Sujauddin, M. (2017). Evaluation of the environmental impacts of rice paddy production using life cycle assessment: case study in Bangladesh. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 3(4), 1691–1705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-017-0368-y
[12]	Xueqing He, Yuhui Qiao, Long Liang, Marie Trydeman Knudsen, Friederike Martin, Environmental life cycle assessment of long-term organic rice production in subtropical China, Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018. 176. 880-888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.045
[13]	Khangar NS, Thangavel M. Assessment of environmental impacts: a life cycle analysis of wheat and rice production in Madhya Pradesh. Agronomy Research. 2024. 3(22). https://doi.org/10.15159/AR.24.011
[14]	N. Hatcho, Y. Matsuno, K. Kochi, K. Nishishita Assessment of environment-friendly Rice farming through life cycle assessment (LCA). CMU. J. Nat Sci. Special Issues on Agricultural & Natural Resources. 2012 11. 403-408.
[15]	Sevigné-Itoiz, E., Mwabonje, O., Panoutsou, C., & Woods, J. (2021). Life cycle assessment (LCA): informing the development of a sustainable circular bioeconomy? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society a Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences, 379(2206), 20200352. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2020.0352
[16]	ISO 14040: International Organization for Standardization. (2006). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework (ISO Standard No. 14040: 2006). https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html
[17]	ISO 14044: International Organization for Standardization. (2006). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines (ISO Standard No. 14044: 2006). https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html
[18]	Ahmad, A., Zoli, M., Latella, C., & Bacenetti, J. (2023). Rice cultivation and processing: Highlights from a life cycle thinking perspective. Science of The Total Environment, 871, 162079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162079
[19]	Shoaib-ul-Hasan, S., Roci, M., Asif, F. M. A., Salehi, N., & Rashid, A. (2021). Analyzing Temporal Variability in Inventory Data for Life Cycle Assessment: Implications in the Context of Circular Economy. Sustainability, 13(1), 344. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010344
[20]	Moutik, B., Summerscales, J., Graham-Jones, J., & Pemberton, R. (2023). Life Cycle Assessment Research Trends and Implications: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability, 15(18), 13408. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813408
[21]	Alhashim R, Deepa R, Anandhi A. Environmental Impact Assessment of Agricultural Production Using LCA: A Review. Climate. 2021; 9(11): 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli9110164
[22]	Gathorne-Hardy, A., Barbara Harriss-White, & Rebecca White. (2013). Greenhouse gas emissions from rice. In RGTW Working Paper Number 5. https://www.southasia.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/southasia/documents/media/ghg_emissions_from_rice_working_paper_2.pdf
[23]	Islam, S. M. M., Gaihre, Y. K., Biswas, J. C., Singh, U., Ahmed, M. N., Sanabria, J., & Saleque, M. A. (2018). Nitrous oxide and nitric oxide emissions from lowland rice cultivation with urea deep placement and alternate wetting and drying irrigation. Scientific reports, 8(1), 17623. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-35939-7
[24]	G. W. Kim, S. T. Jeong, G. Y. Kim, P. J. Kim, and S. Y. Kim, “Evaluation of carbon dioxide emission factor from urea during rice cropping season: A case study in Korean paddy soil,” Atmospheric Environment, vol. 139, pp. 139–146, May 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.05.033
[25]	H. S. Eggleston, L. V. Buendia, K. Miwa, T. Ngara, and K. Tanabe, “2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories,” OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information), Jul. 2006, [Online]. Available: https://www.osti.gov/etdeweb/biblio/20880391
[26]	IPCC. (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H. S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). IGES, Hayama
[27]	Nemecek, Thomas, Xavier Bengoa, Jens Lansche, Andreas Roesch, Mireille Faist-Emmenegger, Vincent Rossi, Sébastien Humbert, Patrik Mouron, and Eliane Riedener. "World food LCA database." Methodological Guidelines for the Life Cycle Inventory of Agricultural Products 3 (2019).
[28]	Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., and Weidema, B. (2016). The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 21(9), 1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8
[29]	Giuliana, V., Lucia, M., Marco, R., & Simone, V. (2022). Environmental life cycle assessment of rice production in northern Italy: a case study from Vercelli. The international journal of life cycle assessment, 1–18. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02109-x
[30]	H. Qian et al., “Greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation in rice agriculture,” Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 716–732, Sep. 2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-023-00482-1
[31]	Singh, P., Singh, G., Sodhi, G. P. S. et al. Accounting Carbon Footprints and Applying Data Envelopment Analysis to Optimize Input-Induced Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under Rice–Wheat Cropping System in North-Western India. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 21, 3030–3050 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-021-00587-w
[32]	Kasmaprapruet, S., Paengjuntuek, W., Saikhwan, P., & Phungrassami, H. (2009). Life cycle assessment of milled rice production: case study in Thailand. European Journal of Scientific Research, 30(2), 195-203
[33]	G. A. Blengini and M. Busto, “The life cycle of rice: LCA of alternative agri-food chain management systems in Vercelli (Italy),” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 1512–1522, Dec. 2008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.10.006
[34]	Harun, S. N., Hanafiah, M. M. & Aziz, N. I. H. A. An LCA-Based Environmental Performance of Rice Production for Developing a Sustainable Agri-Food System in Malaysia. Environmental Management 67, 146–161 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01365-7
[35]	Amirahmadi E, Moudrý J, Konvalina P, Hörtenhuber SJ, Ghorbani M, Neugschwandtner RW, Jiang Z, Krexner T, Kopecký M. Environmental Life Cycle Assessment in Organic and Conventional Rice Farming Systems: Using a Cradle to Farm Gate Approach. Sustainability. 2022; 14(23): 15870. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142315870
[36]	Abdo et al., “Carbon footprint of global rice production and consumption,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 474, p. 143560, Sep. 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143560

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Samal, S. K., Sahoo, S. S., Majhi, P., Mohanty, M. K. (2026). Environmental Sustainability of Rice Cultivation in Western Regions of Odisha: A Life Cycle Perspective. American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology, 11(4), 426-436. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Samal, S. K.; Sahoo, S. S.; Majhi, P.; Mohanty, M. K. Environmental Sustainability of Rice Cultivation in Western Regions of Odisha: A Life Cycle Perspective. Am. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2026, 11(4), 426-436. doi: 10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Samal SK, Sahoo SS, Majhi P, Mohanty MK. Environmental Sustainability of Rice Cultivation in Western Regions of Odisha: A Life Cycle Perspective. Am J Sci Eng Technol. 2026;11(4):426-436. doi: 10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32,
  author = {Suraj Kumar Samal and Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo and Pritikrishna Majhi and Mahendra Kumar Mohanty},
  title = {Environmental Sustainability of Rice Cultivation in Western Regions of Odisha: A Life Cycle Perspective},
  journal = {American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology},
  volume = {11},
  number = {4},
  pages = {426-436},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajset.20261104.32},
  abstract = {Rice, a principal cereal crop often regarded as a staple food, plays a vital role in the agricultural economy of western Odisha. Cultivation of rice needs various forms of material and energy inputs, making it a resource-intensive process, and hence, its environmental consequences are becoming increasingly significant. Consequently, finding the right strategies and solutions to improve sustainability has become essential. The right scientific tools and credible data are required for assessing the sustainability by evaluating the environmental burden associated with rice cultivation. Environmental impact assessment can be performed by various methods, and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is one such approach which is widely used. LCA provides intricate details in the cultivation process, which are generally overlooked during most studies. This study evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the rice cultivation process using LCA with a focus on hotspots due to inputs, outputs and emissions. The ReCiPe midpoint methodology has been used to calculate 18 impact indicators. The results were characterized and normalized subsequently for comparison. Results show a Global warming potential (GWP) of 1.34 kg CO2eq per functional unit. The highest normalized impact was found to be water consumption (3.89E-03), indicating that intensive rice farming has led to high water consumption, while high normalized values of terrestrial (2.86E-03) and marine ecotoxicity (2.83E-03) indicate contamination of water bodies due to excessive fertilizer and chemical use. These impacts pose challenges to environmental sustainability and highlight the need for sustainable rice cultivation practices, including improved water management, balanced nutrient use, and eco-friendly farming techniques, to reduce environmental degradation while maintaining crop productivity.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Environmental Sustainability of Rice Cultivation in Western Regions of Odisha: A Life Cycle Perspective
AU  - Suraj Kumar Samal
AU  - Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo
AU  - Pritikrishna Majhi
AU  - Mahendra Kumar Mohanty
Y1  - 2026/10/17
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32
T2  - American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology
JF  - American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology
JO  - American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology
SP  - 426
EP  - 436
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2578-8353
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32
AB  - Rice, a principal cereal crop often regarded as a staple food, plays a vital role in the agricultural economy of western Odisha. Cultivation of rice needs various forms of material and energy inputs, making it a resource-intensive process, and hence, its environmental consequences are becoming increasingly significant. Consequently, finding the right strategies and solutions to improve sustainability has become essential. The right scientific tools and credible data are required for assessing the sustainability by evaluating the environmental burden associated with rice cultivation. Environmental impact assessment can be performed by various methods, and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is one such approach which is widely used. LCA provides intricate details in the cultivation process, which are generally overlooked during most studies. This study evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the rice cultivation process using LCA with a focus on hotspots due to inputs, outputs and emissions. The ReCiPe midpoint methodology has been used to calculate 18 impact indicators. The results were characterized and normalized subsequently for comparison. Results show a Global warming potential (GWP) of 1.34 kg CO2eq per functional unit. The highest normalized impact was found to be water consumption (3.89E-03), indicating that intensive rice farming has led to high water consumption, while high normalized values of terrestrial (2.86E-03) and marine ecotoxicity (2.83E-03) indicate contamination of water bodies due to excessive fertilizer and chemical use. These impacts pose challenges to environmental sustainability and highlight the need for sustainable rice cultivation practices, including improved water management, balanced nutrient use, and eco-friendly farming techniques, to reduce environmental degradation while maintaining crop productivity.
VL  - 11
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Suraj Kumar Samal

School of Mechanical Sciences, Odisha University of Technology and Research, Bhubaneswar, India

Biography: Suraj Kumar Samal is a Ph.D. scholar at Odisha University of Technology and Research (OUTR), School of Mechanical Sciences. He completed his Master of Technology in Farm Machinery and Power Engineering from Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT) in 2019, and his Bachelor of Technology from the same institution in 2016. He had worked as a SRF in the BPCL-OUAT Biofuel research collaboration projects from 2020-22 as an LCA practitioner. He is currently working as a Guest Lecturer in the Department of Renewable Energy Engineering, OUAT.

Research Fields: Farm machinery, Ergonomics, Renewable energy, Life cycle analysis, Biofuel from lignocellulosic biomass

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0007-0444-5452
Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo

School of Mechanical Sciences, Odisha University of Technology and Research, Bhubaneswar, India

Biography: Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo is presently working as an Associate Professor in the School of Mechanical Sciences at Odisha University of Technology and Research (OUTR), Bhubaneswar. He completed his M.Tech in Thermal Engineering from IIT Delhi and PhD in Renewable Energy from IIT Bombay. He has been honored with various prestigious awards and fellowships including Bhaskara Advanced Solar Energy (BASE) Fellowship Program (2017). He has published more than 90 papers in International Journals and more than 15 books/book chapters to date. The Indian Patent Office has granted him over 35 Patents/Designs to date. He is lifetime member of various organizations like Solar Energy Society of India, Fluid Mechanics and Fluid Power, Institute of Engineers, Indian Society of Technical Education, Society of Automotive Engineers.

Research Fields: Fluid and Thermal Engineering, Energy Systems, Renewable Energy, Solar Thermal, Energy Management, Waste Management

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1174-098X
Pritikrishna Majhi

Department of Biotechnology, Chandigarh University, Unnao, India

Biography: Pritikrishna Majhi is currently working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Biotechnology at the School of Applied Sciences, Chandigarh University, Lucknow Campus, Uttar Pradesh. Dr. Majhi completed her M.Sc. in Microbiology with specialization in Algal Technology in 2016 and was awarded Ph.D. degree in 2021 from Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar, Odisha. She has worked as a Senior Research Fellow in the project funded by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), India. She has also worked as Project Fellow at Coir Board Regional Office, Bhubaneswar. She has completed her Post Doctorate Degree under the 1st National Call of E-YUVA Scheme supported by DBT-BIRAC, Government of India. Her extensive research experiences include sectors like nutraceuticals, bioremediation, and synthesis of value-added products from microalgae and seaweed. She combines rigorous scientific inquiry with innovative experimental techniques, consistently producing high-impact publications and patent.

Research Fields: Microbiology, Bioremediation, Microalgae, Biofuel, Conservation Biology

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7416-2796
Mahendra Kumar Mohanty

Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar, India

Biography: Mahendra Kumar Mohanty is an Emeritus professor in the Renewable Energy Division at the College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, OUAT, Bhubaneswar. With 29 years of professional experience, his career spans roles from Junior Scientist to Professor. An alumnus of IIT Kharagpur (M.Tech) and IIT Delhi (Ph.D.), he has been recognized as the Best Research Scientist (2009-10) at OUAT and is a Fellow of the Institute of Engineers, India. Dr. Mohanty has led multiple DST-funded projects involving biodiesel plant installation and solar hybrid systems. He has supervised numerous Ph.D. and M.Tech scholars. His extensive publication record includes impactful studies on energy and exergy analysis and sustainable fuel alternative.

Research Fields: Renewable energy, Farm machinery and power, Biofuel production, Waste management, Solar photovoltaic

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0575-590X

Download PDF

Submit an Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Samal, S. K., Sahoo, S. S., Majhi, P., Mohanty, M. K. (2026). Environmental Sustainability of Rice Cultivation in Western Regions of Odisha: A Life Cycle Perspective. American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology, 11(4), 426-436. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Samal, S. K.; Sahoo, S. S.; Majhi, P.; Mohanty, M. K. Environmental Sustainability of Rice Cultivation in Western Regions of Odisha: A Life Cycle Perspective. Am. J. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2026, 11(4), 426-436. doi: 10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Samal SK, Sahoo SS, Majhi P, Mohanty MK. Environmental Sustainability of Rice Cultivation in Western Regions of Odisha: A Life Cycle Perspective. Am J Sci Eng Technol. 2026;11(4):426-436. doi: 10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32,
  author = {Suraj Kumar Samal and Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo and Pritikrishna Majhi and Mahendra Kumar Mohanty},
  title = {Environmental Sustainability of Rice Cultivation in Western Regions of Odisha: A Life Cycle Perspective},
  journal = {American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology},
  volume = {11},
  number = {4},
  pages = {426-436},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajset.20261104.32},
  abstract = {Rice, a principal cereal crop often regarded as a staple food, plays a vital role in the agricultural economy of western Odisha. Cultivation of rice needs various forms of material and energy inputs, making it a resource-intensive process, and hence, its environmental consequences are becoming increasingly significant. Consequently, finding the right strategies and solutions to improve sustainability has become essential. The right scientific tools and credible data are required for assessing the sustainability by evaluating the environmental burden associated with rice cultivation. Environmental impact assessment can be performed by various methods, and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is one such approach which is widely used. LCA provides intricate details in the cultivation process, which are generally overlooked during most studies. This study evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the rice cultivation process using LCA with a focus on hotspots due to inputs, outputs and emissions. The ReCiPe midpoint methodology has been used to calculate 18 impact indicators. The results were characterized and normalized subsequently for comparison. Results show a Global warming potential (GWP) of 1.34 kg CO2eq per functional unit. The highest normalized impact was found to be water consumption (3.89E-03), indicating that intensive rice farming has led to high water consumption, while high normalized values of terrestrial (2.86E-03) and marine ecotoxicity (2.83E-03) indicate contamination of water bodies due to excessive fertilizer and chemical use. These impacts pose challenges to environmental sustainability and highlight the need for sustainable rice cultivation practices, including improved water management, balanced nutrient use, and eco-friendly farming techniques, to reduce environmental degradation while maintaining crop productivity.},
 year = {2026}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Environmental Sustainability of Rice Cultivation in Western Regions of Odisha: A Life Cycle Perspective
AU  - Suraj Kumar Samal
AU  - Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo
AU  - Pritikrishna Majhi
AU  - Mahendra Kumar Mohanty
Y1  - 2026/10/17
PY  - 2026
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32
T2  - American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology
JF  - American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology
JO  - American Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology
SP  - 426
EP  - 436
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2578-8353
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajset.20261104.32
AB  - Rice, a principal cereal crop often regarded as a staple food, plays a vital role in the agricultural economy of western Odisha. Cultivation of rice needs various forms of material and energy inputs, making it a resource-intensive process, and hence, its environmental consequences are becoming increasingly significant. Consequently, finding the right strategies and solutions to improve sustainability has become essential. The right scientific tools and credible data are required for assessing the sustainability by evaluating the environmental burden associated with rice cultivation. Environmental impact assessment can be performed by various methods, and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is one such approach which is widely used. LCA provides intricate details in the cultivation process, which are generally overlooked during most studies. This study evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the rice cultivation process using LCA with a focus on hotspots due to inputs, outputs and emissions. The ReCiPe midpoint methodology has been used to calculate 18 impact indicators. The results were characterized and normalized subsequently for comparison. Results show a Global warming potential (GWP) of 1.34 kg CO2eq per functional unit. The highest normalized impact was found to be water consumption (3.89E-03), indicating that intensive rice farming has led to high water consumption, while high normalized values of terrestrial (2.86E-03) and marine ecotoxicity (2.83E-03) indicate contamination of water bodies due to excessive fertilizer and chemical use. These impacts pose challenges to environmental sustainability and highlight the need for sustainable rice cultivation practices, including improved water management, balanced nutrient use, and eco-friendly farming techniques, to reduce environmental degradation while maintaining crop productivity.
VL  - 11
IS  - 4
ER  -

Copy | Download