Zuhud Rozaki*
| Mohd Fauzi Kamarudin | Adhitya Marendra Kiloes | Triyono | Nur Rahmawati | Dharend Lingga Wibisana
© 2024 The authors. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
OPEN ACCESS
The agricultural sector still playing a significant role in Indonesia's economy; however, it also has an environmental impact, particularly due to the use of chemicals. Yogyakarta is one of the regions in Indonesia with substantial rice production, but unfortunately the awareness regarding the environmental impact of the rice farming is still low. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the environmental impact of irrigated and rainfed rice farming systems in Yogyakarta, as well as the farmers' awareness of the environmental consequences of their farming practices. This study result can help to raise the awareness of environmental impact from rice farming. Data were collected through interviews with 150 irrigated rice farmers in Sleman Regency and 100 rainfed rice farmers in Gunungkidul Regency. The analytical tool used for environmental impact assessment was the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach, and awareness was analyzed descriptively. Environmental awareness revealed relationships with farmer characteristics such as age, income, and land area. The environmental impact analysis indicated that irrigated farming has a lower total impact (23 Pt) compared to rainfed farming (25.7 Pt). In the climate change impact category, irrigated rice farming had a lower value of 6.34 Pt compared to rainfed land of 11.3 Pt. Although the environmental impact produced is relatively small compared to the industrial sector, it still needs attention from relevant stakeholders to ensure that the environmental impact of rice farming does not develop in a more negative direction.
life cycle assessment, environmental awareness, agriculture, rice farming
The agricultural sector plays a crucial role in supporting the nation's economy [1, 2]. This is due to the large number of Indonesians who rely on agriculture for their livelihoods, particularly in rice cultivation [3]. In 2022, the harvested area for rice spanned 10.61 million hectares, an increase from 10.41 million hectares in 2021. The distinction between rice fields and upland serves as a basis for the rice farming system, where rice fields often utilize irrigation systems, and upland areas rely on rain-fed systems [4].
Rice farming activities, while positively contributing to food security [2, 5], also have negative environmental impacts, such as the use of chemical fertilizers or fuel-powered agricultural machinery [6]. The increased usage of these inputs results in greater environmental impacts [7]. If left unaddressed, these environmental impacts, such as the rise in CO2 levels, will exacerbate greenhouse gas effects. The increase in greenhouse gases can impact the atmosphere and damage the ozone layer [8-10]. Climate change is also a consequence of environmental changes induced by human activities [11, 12]. And in fact, many farmers are already aware of the impact of climate change on their farming activities [13-15] show that the carbon footprint in Yogyakarta is quite low compare to the other area in Indonesia, but due to the growing of rice production may increase the environmental impact late or sooner. And research by Triyono et al. [16] suggest that Yogyakarta need to implement sustainable agriculture to support the environment. These prove that Yogyakarta face environmental issue for rice farming.
In Indonesia, there are two types of irrigation systems for rice farming: rain-fed and irrigated [17, 18]. Each system has distinct characteristics. Some regions are suitable for irrigation development, but certain areas, such as mountainous or arid regions, have not yet benefited from irrigation channels and thus rely solely on rain-fed systems [19, 20]. These two systems may have differing environmental impacts, considering the varying characteristics of rain-fed and irrigated farmers, as well as differences in the type and quantity of inputs used [21]. In Yogyakarta, both irrigation and rain-fed rice farming systems are present, each generally impacting the environment [16].
The environmental impacts of rice farming activities are not widely recognized by farmers [22], including in Yogyakarta. Increased environmental awareness among farmers can help mitigate these impacts by reducing the use of chemical inputs [23, 24]. Partially, the research about carbon footprint and heavy metal of agricultural practices have been conducted [25, 26], however there is still limited that focus on rice farming which dominating the agricultural practice in Yogyakarta. Therefore, this study aims to analyze the environmental impacts of irrigated and rain-fed rice farming systems in Yogyakarta, as well as farmers' awareness of the environmental impacts resulting from their farming activities.
2.1 Research location
The selection of research locations was conducted purposively, focusing on Minggir Subdistrict in Sleman Regency and Bantul Subdistrict in Bantul Regency, considering that the land in these areas consists of irrigated rice fields. For rain-fed land, the research was conducted in Panggang Subdistrict, Gunung Kidul Regency. The location was also chosen purposively, taking into account that all rice farmers in area practicing the rain-fed system.
2.2 Sampling procedure and data collection
Data for this study were obtained through interviews with 250 farmers. This included 75 irrigated rice farmers from each location, Minggir District in Sleman Regency and Bantul District in Bantul Regency, resulting in a total of 150 respondents for irrigated rice farming. Additionally, in Panggang District, Gunungkidul Regency, 100 rain-fed rice farmers were interviewed (Table 1).
Table 1. Sample location
|
Farming Type |
Location |
Respondents |
|
Irrigation |
Minggir Subdistrict, Sleman Regency |
75 |
|
Bantul Subdistrict, Bantul Regency |
75 |
|
|
Rainfed |
Panggang Subdistrict, Gunungkidul Regency |
100 |
|
Total |
250 |
|
Figure 1. Environmental impact flowchart
The environmental awareness analysis will include seven indicator variables, each measured using a single question on a 5-point scale ranging from “1-strongly disagree” to “5-strongly agree.” The seven indicators of environmental awareness are (Figure 1):
For the environmental impact analysis, data were collected regarding the inputs used from pre-planting to post-harvest activities conducted by the farmers. The focus of the environmental impact analysis includes human health, ecosystem quality, climate change, and resource use.
2.3 Analytical technique
This research employs a descriptive quantitative method which can better picturing the findings. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) was used as approach to know the environmental impacts of rice farming. And SimaPro using the IMPACT 2002+method, the quantity of inputs in farming activities were analyzed. For the environmental awareness analysis, Rank Spearman was used to analyzed the correlation between the seven indicators of environmental awareness and farmer characteristics, which include age, land area, education level, and farmer income.
3.1 Farmers’ characteristics
The socioeconomic characteristics of farmers provide background information on the social and economic conditions of irrigated rice farmers and rain-fed rice farmers, potentially influencing their awareness of environmental impacts [27]. These characteristics include age, education level, income, and land area.
Based on Table 2, the age distribution of rain-fed rice farmers shows that the largest group, 47%, is aged between 50-60 years. This age group falls within the productive age range for rice farming, with sufficient physical capability to manage farming activities. This observation is consistent with Shalli et al. [28], who noted that age influences physical ability and farm management skills.
Regarding the education level of rain-fed rice farmers, the majority, 59%, have completed elementary school (SD). This low level of education indicates a lower quality of human resources for improving farm performance. This aligns with Guo et al. [29] and Ruhyana et al. [30], who found that education level impacts the ability to enhance performance for economic improvement.
Table 2. Rain-fed farmers characteristics
|
Age |
Freq. |
Percent. |
Income |
Freq. |
Percent. |
|
28-38 |
2 |
2.00 |
≤3,500,000 |
30 |
30.00 |
|
39-49 |
30 |
30.00 |
3,500,001-7,500,000 |
44 |
44.00 |
|
50-60 |
47 |
47.00 |
7,500,001-11,500,000 |
12 |
12.00 |
|
61-71 |
18 |
18.00 |
11,500,001-15,500,000 |
9 |
9.00 |
|
72-82 |
3 |
3.00 |
15,500,001≤ |
5 |
5.00 |
|
100 |
100.00 |
100 |
100.00 |
||
|
Education |
Freq. |
Percent. |
Land Size (m2) |
Freq. |
Percent. |
|
No School |
1 |
1.00 |
300-4,240 |
18 |
18.00 |
|
Elementary School |
59 |
59.00 |
4,241-8,181 |
40 |
40.00 |
|
Primary School |
29 |
29.00 |
8,182-12,122 |
25 |
25.00 |
|
High School |
10 |
10.00 |
12,123-16,063 |
12 |
12.00 |
|
Diploma/University |
1 |
1.00 |
16,064-20,004 |
5 |
5.00 |
|
|
100 |
100.00 |
100 |
100.00 |
Table 3. Irrigated famers characteristics
|
Age |
Freq. |
Percent |
Income |
Freq. |
Percent |
|
34-43 |
9 |
6.00 |
≤3,500,000 |
68 |
45.33 |
|
44-51 |
27 |
18.00 |
3,500,001-7,500,000 |
52 |
34.67 |
|
52-59 |
45 |
30.00 |
7,500,001-11,500,000 |
9 |
6.00 |
|
60-67 |
47 |
31.33 |
11,500,001-15,500,000 |
7 |
4.67 |
|
68-76 |
22 |
14.67 |
15,500,001≤ |
14 |
9.33 |
|
150 |
100.00 |
150 |
100.00 |
||
|
Education |
Freq. |
Percent |
Land Size (m2) |
Freq. |
Percent |
|
No School |
9 |
6.00 |
300-4,240 |
105 |
70.00 |
|
Elementary School |
38 |
25.33 |
4,241-8,181 |
30 |
20.00 |
|
Primary School |
40 |
26.67 |
8,182-12,122 |
8 |
5.33 |
|
High School |
49 |
32.67 |
12,123-16,063 |
6 |
4.00 |
|
Diploma/University |
14 |
9.33 |
16,064-20,004 |
1 |
0.67 |
|
150 |
100.00 |
150 |
100.00 |
In terms of income, 44% of rain-fed rice farmers earn between IDR 3,500,000 and IDR 7,500,000. The income level is relatively low, influenced by land area and farming practices on the farmers' land. The most common land area owned by rain-fed rice farmers is between 4,241-8,181m2, accounting for 40%, while the largest land area is 16,064-20,004m2, representing 5%. Rain-fed rice farmers generally have larger land areas compared to those in Giritirto Village, Purwosari District, where the average land area is 2,500m2. In Indonesia, the average land ownership among farmers is quite small, typically less than 1,000m² [31].
Table 3 presents the characteristics of irrigated rice farmers, revealing that the majority, 47%, are aged between 60-67 years, indicating an older demographic. While increasing age enhances farming experience and skills, it can lead to decreased performance and productivity [32].
The education level of irrigated rice farmers is predominantly high school, with 49 farmers holding this level of education. This is advantageous as higher education levels facilitate the absorption of new knowledge and technological advancements in any sector, particularly agriculture [33]. The relatively high education level indicates a strong awareness of formal education and the availability of adequate educational facilities.
Income for irrigated rice farmers is mostly below IDR 3,500,000, attributed to relatively low rice production yields, resulting in lower income levels. Regarding land area, 70% of irrigated rice farmers own between 250-4,240m2. The relatively small land areas influence lower production yields and, consequently, lower farmer incomes. Efforts to intensify farming through the use of high-quality seeds or agricultural machinery are undertaken, but limited land and resources result in less than optimal outcomes [34].
3.2 Farmers environmental awareness
3.2.1 Environmental awareness
Farmer awareness of environmental issues is a crucial component in efforts to achieve agricultural sustainability. Environmental awareness indicators can reveal the level of farmers' awareness and serve as a reference for environmental conservation efforts in the agricultural sector. According to Table 4, the indicators-ranging from knowledge of environmental impacts, soil management, water management, fertilizer and pesticide use, biodiversity and habitat conservation, environmental education and support, to future goals-have respective scores of 4.55, 4.03, 3.72, 4.51, 4.53, 4.28, and 4.49. All indicators are categorized as good, with an overall average score of 4.30, which also falls within the good category.
The same results were obtained in the assessment of indicators among irrigation farmers, with consecutive scores of 4.09, 4.10, 4.23, 4.20, 4.30, 4.23, 4.22 indicating a rating of “Good” (Table 5). This indicates that environmental awareness among both rainfed and irrigated rice farmers falls within the “Good” category. Such good environmental awareness serves as a foundation that farmers can use to enhance their commitment to reducing chemical inputs or activities that have potential environmental disturbances in their farming practices [35].
Table 4. Rain-fed farmers’ environmental awareness
|
Indicator |
Score |
Category |
|
Knowledge of environmental impacts |
4.55 |
Good |
|
Soil management |
4.03 |
Good |
|
Water management |
3.72 |
Good |
|
Use of fertilizers and pesticides |
4.51 |
Good |
|
Conservation of biodiversity and habitats |
4.53 |
Good |
|
Education and environmental support |
4.28 |
Good |
|
Future Goal |
4.49 |
Good |
|
Total |
4.30 |
Good |
Table 5. Irrigated farmers’ environmental awareness
|
Indicator |
Score |
Category |
|
Knowledge of environmental impacts |
4.09 |
Good |
|
Soil management |
4.10 |
Good |
|
Water management |
4.23 |
Good |
|
Use of fertilizers and pesticides |
4.20 |
Good |
|
Conservation of biodiversity and habitats |
4.30 |
Good |
|
Education and environmental support |
4.23 |
Good |
|
Future Goal |
4.22 |
Good |
|
Total |
4.20 |
Good |
Table 6. Factors that have correlation for rain-fed farmers
|
|
Age |
Edu. |
Income |
Land |
|
Knowledge of environmental impact |
.213 .137 |
-.019 .894 |
-.097 .339 |
.166 .249 |
|
Soil management |
.287* .043 |
.129 .371 |
-.003 .980 |
-.008 .954 |
|
Water management |
-.077 .596 |
-073 .616 |
.083 .414 |
-.060 .678 |
|
Use of fertilizers and pesticides |
.325* .021 |
.013 .929 |
.091 .528 |
-.097 .503 |
|
Conservation of diversity and habitat |
.327* .021 |
-.206 .151 |
-.008 .935 |
-.025 .862 |
|
Environmental education and support |
.293* .039 |
.045 .755 |
.126 .211 |
-.035 .812 |
|
Future Goal |
.220 .126 |
.104 .473 |
.105 .297 |
.091 .529 |
3.2.2 Correlated factors
The correlation analysis using the Rank Spearman method between farmer characteristics and environmental awareness indicators was conducted to determine relationships among all variables and ascertain correlation coefficients for these relationships. According to Tables 6 and 7, the results indicate that farmer Age significantly correlates with the Soil Management Indicator, with a correlation coefficient of 0.287 and a significance level of 5%. Based on field conditions, rice farmers in Girikarto Village predominantly use organic fertilizers over chemical fertilizers, and they infrequently conduct soil testing on their land.
Furthermore, Age shows a significant correlation at the 5% significance level with the Biodiversity and Habitat Conservation Indicator, with a correlation coefficient of 0.325. Age also correlates significantly at the 5% level with the Pesticide and Fertilizer Use Indicator, with a correlation coefficient of 0.327. Another correlation involving Age is observed with the Environmental Education and Support Indicator. Age and environmental education/support indicators exhibit a significant relationship at the 5% significance level, with a correlation coefficient of 0.293.
In Table 6, the results show that Land Area characteristics exhibit inverse correlations at a 5% significance level with the indicators Knowledge of environmental impacts, Soil management, Water management, Fertilizer and pesticide use, and Environmental education and support, with respective correlation coefficients of 0.196, 0.172, 0.167, 0.193, and 0.179. Additionally, Land Area demonstrates an inverse correlation at a 1% significance level with a coefficient of 0.226. This indicates that as land area increases, the level of awareness regarding environmental indicators decreases.
In addition to Land Area, Age and Income are also correlated. Age correlates positively with the Soil management and Future goals indicators at a 5% significance level, with coefficients of 0.172 and 0.189, respectively. Income, on the other hand, correlates positively with the Future goals indicator at a 5% significance level with a coefficient of 0.177.
3.3 Environmental impact
3.3.1 Network
The network is used to understand the relationships between agricultural activities that impact the environment. Red lines indicate the influence on environmental impacts, where thicker red lines indicate greater influence. Based on Figure 2, it is found that the input contributing significantly to the environmental impact of rain-fed rice farming is fertilizer (N), with 24.3 Pt, indicated by thick red arrows.
In Figure 3, red lines are used to depict environmental impact influences. The input material most affecting environmental impact is Urea, used for land processing, planting, and pesticides. According to the diagram, Urea as an input material shows high and thick red lines, indicating that its use in irrigated rice farming significantly affects the environmental impact of rice farming.
Figure 2. Network for rain-fed rice
Figure 3. Network for irrigated rice
Table 7. Factors that have correlation for irrigated farmers
|
|
Age |
Edu. |
Income |
Land Size |
|
Knowledge of environmental impact |
.027 .747 |
.153 .062 |
.057 .486 |
-.196* .016 |
|
Soil management |
.172* .035 |
.020 .812 |
.123 .135 |
-.172* .035 |
|
Water management |
.089 .280 |
.039 .632 |
.070 .394 |
-.167* .042 |
|
Use of fertilizers and pesticides |
.082 .316 |
.0.72 .384 |
.049 .554 |
-.193* .503 |
|
Conservation of diversity and habitat |
.113 .17 |
.004 .963 |
-.018 .825 |
-.226** .006 |
|
Environmental education and support |
.130 .113 |
.027 .746 |
.139 .089 |
-.179* .028 |
|
Future Goal |
.189* .021 |
.021 .801 |
.177* .030 |
-.114 .163 |
3.3.2 Characterization
The data obtained after inputting agricultural inputs resulted in characterization data, yielding 15 impact categories (Tables 8 and 9). These categories are used to detail each impact in respective units to understand their specific effects.
3.3.3 Damage assessment
The damage assessment stage is used to evaluate the impacts of damage based on their impact categories. This stage aims to categorize several indicators from the characterization stage into 4 scopes of damage categories.
In Table 10, the first impact category from rain-fed farming, human health, is found to have an overall impact total of 0.0512, with the highest value observed in the Post-Harvest process at 0.0508 DALY (Disability-Adjusted Life Years). One DALY represents one year of healthy life lost. According to Table 11, the impact from irrigated farming on human health totals 0.0519, indicating that the impact on human health is not greater than that of rain-fed land.
Next, in the ecosystem quality category, it is noted from the table that the highest value is associated with “Post-Harvest”. This is because the post-harvest phase involves activities from land processing to post-harvesting, thus involving more complex inputs such as chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and fuel use in agricultural activities, resulting in an ecosystem quality impact of 3.73×103 PDFm²yr (Potentially Disappeared Fraction per square meter per year). Table 10 shows that on irrigated land, the impact amounts to 8.69×103 PDFm²yr. Therefore, based on calculations, rain-fed farming has the potential to impact species or ecosystems over an area of 3,740 m² per year, whereas irrigation affects ecosystem quality over an area of 8,690m2.
Moving on to the climate change category, Table 10 reveals that the impact generated from climate change due to rain-fed farming amounts to 1.12×105kg CO2eq (carbon dioxide equivalent), whereas irrigation yields 6.28×104kg CO2eq. Rain-fed rice farming thus potentially contributes 112,000kg CO2eq to climate change, while irrigated rice contributes 62,800kg CO2eq. Previous research [36] showed that organic Hom Mali rice farming in Thailand produced 2.88kg CO2eq per kg of rice. If Thailand's annual organic Hom Mali rice harvest totals 17 million tons, the climate change impact amounts to 4.896×1010kg CO2eq.
In the resources category, rain-fed rice farming has a total surplus of 1.06×106 MJ surplus, while irrigated rice production results in a surplus impact of 1.33×104 MJ surplus. This indicates the amount of energy required for extracting natural resources, with rain-fed and irrigated fields requiring 1,060,000 MJ surplus and 1,330,000 MJ surplus respectively.
Table 8. Characterization for rain-fed rice
|
Impact Category |
Unit |
Total |
Distribution |
Post-Harvest |
Gasoline FAL |
Destillate Fuel Oil (DFO) FAL |
|
Carcinogens |
kg C2H3Cl eq |
42.4 |
0 |
42.3 |
0.00538 |
0.0184 |
|
Non-carcinogens |
kg C2H3Cl eq |
220 |
0 |
219 |
0.0764 |
0.263 |
|
Resp. Inorganics |
kg PM2.5 eq |
72 |
0 |
71.5 |
0.106 |
0362 |
|
Ionizing radiation |
Bq C-14 eq |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Ozone layer depletion |
kg CFC-11 eq |
6.79E-6 |
0 |
4.7E-6 |
4.66E7 |
1.62E-6 |
|
Resp. organics |
Kg C2H4 eq |
21,9 |
0 |
17.3 |
1.04 |
356 |
|
Aquatic ecotoxicity |
kg TEG water |
3.3E3 |
0 |
2.43E3 |
196 |
678 |
|
Terrestrial ecotoxicity |
kg TEG soil |
1.78E3 |
0 |
1.58E3 |
42.2 |
149 |
|
Terrestrial acid/nutri |
kg SO2 eq |
3.58E3 |
0 |
3.57E3 |
2.48 |
8.51 |
|
Land occupation |
m2org.arable |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Aquatic acidification |
kg SO2 eq |
577 |
0 |
573 |
1.08 |
3.72 |
|
Aquatic eutrophication |
kg PO4 P-lim |
0.0111 |
0 |
0.00768 |
0.000769 |
0.00265 |
|
Global warming |
kg CO2 eq |
1.12E5 |
0 |
1.11E5 |
90.7 |
312 |
|
Non-renewable energy |
MJ primary |
1.06E6 |
0 |
1.01E6 |
1.19E4 |
4.09E4 |
|
Mineral extraction |
MJ surplus |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Table 9. Characterization for irrigated rice
|
Impact Category |
Unit |
Total |
Distribution |
Post-Harvest |
Gasoline FAL |
Destillate Fuel Oil (DFO) FAL |
|
Carcinogens |
kg C2H3Cl eq |
573 |
0 |
573 |
0.0493 |
0.197 |
|
Non-carcinogens |
kg C2H3Cl eq |
1.82E3 |
0 |
1.77E3 |
10 |
40 |
|
Respiratory inorganics |
kg PM2.5 eq |
64.2 |
0 |
64.1 |
0.0302 |
0.121 |
|
Ionizing radiation |
Bq C-14 eq |
4.42E5 |
0 |
4.42E5 |
0 |
0 |
|
Ozone layer depletion |
kg CFC-11 eq |
0.0106 |
0 |
0.0106 |
5.86E9 |
2.34E8 |
|
Respiratory organics |
kg C2H4 eq |
57.3 |
0 |
57 |
0.0573 |
0.229 |
|
Aquatic ecotoxicity |
kg TEG water |
3.34E6 |
0 |
3.01E6 |
6.68E4 |
2.67E5 |
|
Terrestrial ecotoxicity |
kg TEG soil |
7.22E5 |
0 |
7.22E5 |
7.38 |
29.5 |
|
Terrestrial acid/nutri |
kg SO2 eq |
1.37E3 |
0 |
1.37E3 |
0.879 |
3.51 |
|
Land occupation |
m2org.arable |
1.27E3 |
0 |
1.27E3 |
0 |
0 |
|
Aquatic acidification |
kg SO2 eq |
399 |
0 |
397 |
0.279 |
1.12 |
|
Aquatic eutrophication |
kg PO4 P-lim |
84.4 |
0 |
84.4 |
0.00122 |
0.00488 |
|
Global warming |
kg CO2 eq |
6.28E4 |
0 |
6.27E4 |
18.1 |
72.3 |
|
Non-renewable energy |
MJ primary |
1.33E6 |
0 |
1.32E6 |
2.12E3 |
8.45E3 |
|
Mineral Extraction |
MJ surplus |
2.96E3 |
0 |
2.96E3 |
0 |
0 |
Table 10. Damage assessment rain-fed rice
|
Damage Category |
Unit |
Total |
Distrib. |
Post-Harvest |
Gasoline FAL |
Destillate Fuel Oil (DFO) FAL |
|
Human Health |
DALY |
0.0512 |
0 |
0.0508 |
7.63E-5 |
0.000262 |
|
Ecosystem Quality |
PDF*m2yr |
3.74E3 |
0 |
3.73E3 |
2.92 |
10.1 |
|
Climate Change |
kg CO2eq |
1.12E5 |
0 |
1.11E5 |
90.7 |
312 |
|
Resources |
MJ surplus |
1.06E6 |
0 |
1.01E6 |
1.19E4 |
4.09E4 |
Table 11. Damage assessment for irrigated
|
Damage Category |
Unit |
Total |
Distrib. |
Post-Harvest |
Gasoline FAL |
Destillate Fuel Oil (DFO) FAL |
|
Human Health |
DALY |
0.0519 |
0 |
0.0516 |
4.95E5 |
0.000198 |
|
Ecosystem Quality |
PDF*m2yr |
8.69E3 |
0 |
8.67E3 |
4.32 |
17.3 |
|
Climate Change |
kg CO2eq |
6.28E4 |
0 |
6.27E3 |
18.1 |
72.3 |
|
Resources |
MJ surplus |
1.33E6 |
0 |
1.32E6 |
2.12E3 |
8.45E3 |
Table 12. Normalization for rain-fed rice
|
Damage Category |
Total |
Distrib. |
Gasoline FAL |
Destillate Fuel Oil (DFO) FAL |
Post-Harvest |
|
Human Health |
7.21 |
0 |
0.0108 |
0,037 |
7.17 |
|
Ecosystem Quality |
0.273 |
0 |
0.000213 |
0.000735 |
0.272 |
|
Climate Change |
11.3 |
0 |
0.00916 |
0.0315 |
11.2 |
|
Resources |
6.97 |
0 |
0.0784 |
0.269 |
6.62 |
Table 13. Normalization for irrigated rice
|
Damage Category |
Total |
Distrib. |
Gasoline FAL |
Destillate Fuel Oil (DFO) FAL |
Post-Harvest |
|
Human Health |
7.32 |
0 |
0.00698 |
0.0279 |
7.28 |
|
Ecosystem Quality |
0.634 |
0 |
0.000316 |
0.00126 |
0.633 |
|
Climate Change |
6.34 |
0 |
0.00183 |
0.0073 |
6.33 |
|
Resources |
8.75 |
0 |
0.0139 |
0.0556 |
8.68 |
Table 14. Weighting for rain-fed rice
|
Damage Category |
Unit |
Total |
Distrib. |
Gasoline FAL |
Destillate Fuel Oil (DFO) FAL |
Post-Harvest |
|
Total |
Pt |
25.7 |
0 |
0.0985 |
0.338 |
25.3 |
|
Human Health |
Pt |
7.21 |
0 |
0.0108 |
0.037 |
7.17 |
|
Ecosystem Quality |
Pt |
0.273 |
0 |
0.000213 |
0.000735 |
0.272 |
|
Climate Change |
Pt |
11.3 |
0 |
0.00916 |
0.0315 |
11.2 |
|
Resources |
Pt |
6.97 |
0 |
0.0784 |
0.269 |
6.62 |
Table 15. Weighting for irrigated rice
|
Damage Category |
Unit |
Total |
Distrib. |
Gasoline FAL |
Destillate Fuel Oil (DFO) FAL |
Post-Harvest |
|
Total |
Pt |
23 |
0 |
0.0231 |
22.9 |
22.9 |
|
Human Health |
Pt |
7.32 |
0 |
0.00698 |
7.28 |
7.28 |
|
Ecosystem Quality |
Pt |
0.634 |
0 |
0.000316 |
0.633 |
0.633 |
|
Climate Change |
Pt |
6.34 |
0 |
0.00183 |
6.33 |
6.33 |
|
Resources |
Pt |
8.75 |
0 |
0.0139 |
8.68 |
8.68 |
3.3.4 Normalization
Normalization is a stage aimed at standardizing unit measures across all damage categories. This standardization occurs after the damage assessment process and serves to facilitate analysis among environmental impact categories. The results obtained during the normalization stage do not have specific units because this stage involves aligning the unit measures generated from the damage assessment stage (Tables 12 and 13).
3.3.5 Weighting
The weighting stage is where all assessed impacts are simplified and compared on a standardized scale to reflect their relative importance. According to Table 14, the total environmental damage score for rainfed rice farming is 25.7 Pt, whereas Table 15 shows that the total damage score for irrigated rice farming is 23 Pt. In the climate change category, rainfed rice farming has a score of 11.3 Pt, whereas irrigated rice farming has a lower score compared to rainfed rice farming, at 6.34 Pt. The unit of measurement in this stage is Points (Pt), where 1 Pt represents one-thousandth of the annual environmental burden per average European resident [8].
3.3.6 Interpretation
The use of chemical fertilizers (Urea, NPK, KCL) impacts the environmental footprint of both rainfed and irrigated rice farming activities. Additionally, the use of diesel and gasoline in tractors during land preparation and harvesting machines during crop harvesting, as well as in the transportation of harvested produce using motorized vehicles such as motorcycles, trucks, and cars, contribute to this impact. Efforts to reduce the environmental impact of rainfed rice farming can include decreasing the use of chemical fertilizers and increasing the application of organic fertilizers. Furthermore, the use of fossil fuel-powered machinery increases environmental impact through carbon dioxide emissions, which can contribute to greenhouse gas potential if emitted excessively. These impacts can be mitigated through training in the production of organic fertilizers from agricultural waste residues, thereby facilitating the conversion of waste into reusable resources.
Although the result of LCA analysis show different between irrigated and rainfed rice farming, but the same thing is both have environmental impacts. Therefore, the awareness of not only farmers, but also the other stakeholders, need to be raised in order to the sustainable agriculture can be achieved. Based on research by Triyono et al. [16], sustainable agriculture must consider not only the economic side, but also the ecological and social side. Three aspects of sustainable agriculture can be achieved through collaboration among stakeholders where the first step can be the awareness regarding the environmental impact of rice farming [37, 38].
Overall agricultural development is often assessed based on production levels, while the environmental impacts also need attention. Farmers' awareness of environmental impacts has become a shared concern, shifting focus not only towards increasing production but also towards mitigating the environmental impacts of agricultural activities. Age, income, and land area are correlated with farmers' awareness of the environmental impacts of their rice farming practices. Farmers aged over 50 years appear to have greater awareness of the environmental impacts of their rice farming activities. The environmental impact of irrigated rice farming, which is 23 Pt, is lower than rainfed rice farming, which is 25.7 Pt, mainly due to rainfed systems using larger quantities of organic fertilizers, resulting in higher environmental impact calculations. In the context of climate change, irrigated rice farming also shows lower impacts compared to rainfed rice farming, with values of 6.34 Pt and 11.3 Pt, respectively. Field observations indeed indicate considerable activities in rainfed rice farming, potentially contributing to climate change impacts. Awareness of agricultural impacts on the environment can influence reductions in activities that pose environmental risks. Support from governments, private sectors, and other stakeholders is crucial to enhancing awareness of the environmental impacts of rice farming practices, thereby mitigating these impacts.
Thanks to the Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta and RISETMU (0258.408/I.3/D/2024) for funding this research. Thanks also to Pramanda Choirul Ihsan, Erida Aisyah Maris, Tiara Ayu Anggrayni for helping to carry out this research.
[1] Tanjung, G.S., Suryantini, A., Utami, A.W. (2021). The priorities of leading sub-sector in the sector of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries in economic development in bangka belitung province. AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research, 7(2): 160-175. https://doi.org/10.18196/agraris.v7i2.11615
[2] Hatta, M., Burhansyah, R., Kifli, G.C., Dewi, D.O., Kilmanun, J.C., Permana, D., Supriadi, K., Warman, R., Azis, H., Santari, P.T., Widiastuti, D.P. (2023). Food self-sufficiency: Managing the newly-opened tidal paddy fields for rice farming in Indonesia (A case study in West Kalimantan, Indonesia). Heliyon, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13839
[3] Alaerts, G.J. (2020). Adaptive policy implementation: Process and impact of Indonesia’s national irrigation reform 1999-2018. World Development, 129: 104880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104880
[4] Surahman, A., Shivakoti, G., Soni, P. (2017). Prospect of sustainable peatland agriculture for supporting food security and mitigating green house gas emission in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Redefining Diversity & Dynamics of Natural Resources Management in Asia, 1: 291-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805454-3.00015-3
[5] Sulistyo, A. (2022). Food security and welfare of lowland rice farmers analysis in the border area of North Kalimantan. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1083(1): 012015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1083/1/012015
[6] Rostiati, N., Marsi, Ashari, A., Marnisah, L. (2019). Local wisdom in the management of natural resources in the swamp land. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 28(11): 28-35. http://sersc.org/journals/index.php/IJAST/article/view/1003.
[7] Bado, B.V., Whitbread, A., Manzo, M.L.S. (2021). Improving agricultural productivity using agroforestry systems: Performance of millet, cowpea, and ziziphus-based cropping systems in West Africa Sahel. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 305: 107175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107175
[8] Patel, M.R., Panwar, N.L. (2023). Biochar from agricultural crop residues: Environmental, production, and life cycle assessment overview. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances, 19: 200173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2023.200173
[9] Resosudarmo, I.A.P., Tacconi, L., Sloan, S., Hamdani, F.A.U., Alviya, I., Muttaqin, M.Z. (2019). Indonesia's land reform: Implications for local livelihoods and climate change. Forest Policy and Economics, 108: 101903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.04.007
[10] Kay, S., Rega, C., Moreno, G., den Herder, M., Palma, J.H., Borek, R., Crous-Durane, J., Freeseh, D., Giannitsopoulosi, M., Gravesi, A., Jägerj, M., Lamersdorfk, N., Memedeminl, D., Mosquera-Losadam, R., Panteran, A., Paracchinib, M.L., Pariso, P., Roces-Díaza, J.V., Roloc, P.V., Rosatiq, A., Sandorr, M., Smiths, J., Szerencsitsa, E., Vargat, A., Viaudu, V., Wawerg, R., Burgessi, P.J., Herzog, F. (2019). Agroforestry creates carbon sinks whilst enhancing the environment in agricultural landscapes in Europe. Land Use Policy, 83: 581-593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.025
[11] Zaki, M.K., Noda, K., Ito, K., Komariah, K., Sumani, S., Senge, M. (2020). Adaptation to extreme hydrological events by javanese society through local knowledge. Sustainability, 12(24): 10373. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410373
[12] Ahmad, M.I., Ma, H. (2020). An investigation of the targeting and allocation of post-flood disaster aid for rehabilitation in Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 44: 101402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2019.101402
[13] Le Goff, U., Sander, A., Lagana, M.H., Barjolle, D., Phillips, S., Six, J. (2022). Raising up to the climate challenge-Understanding and assessing farmers’ strategies to build their resilience. A comparative analysis between Ugandan and Swiss farmers. Journal of Rural Studies, 89: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.10.020
[14] Ackerl, T., Weldemariam, L.F., Nyasimi, M., Ayanlade, A. (2023). Climate change risk, resilience, and adaptation among rural farmers in East Africa: A literature review. Regional Sustainability, 4(2): 185-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2023.05.004
[15] Afiyanti, M., Handoko, R.N.S. (2019). Carbon footprint of rice production in Indonesia: An analysis of national statistics. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 239(1): 012015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/239/1/012015
[16] Triyono, Rahmawati, N., Rozaki, Z. (2021). Sustainable value of rice farm based on economic efficiency in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Open Agriculture, 6(1): 563-572. https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2021-0039
[17] Ayinu, Y.T., Ayal, D.Y., Zeleke, T.T., Beketie, K.T. (2022). Impact of climate variability on household food security in Godere District, Gambella Region, Ethiopia. Climate Services, 27: 100307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2022.100307
[18] Bagheri, A., Bondori, A., Allahyari, M.S., Damalas, C.A. (2019). Modeling farmers’ intention to use pesticides: An expanded version of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Environmental Management, 248: 109291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109291
[19] Rondhi, M., Fatikhul Khasan, A., Mori, Y., Kondo, T. (2019). Assessing the role of the perceived impact of climate change on national adaptation policy: The case of rice farming in Indonesia. Land, 8(5): 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8050081
[20] Ma’Mun, S.R., Loch, A., Young, M.D. (2021). Sustainable irrigation in Indonesia: A case study of Southeast Sulawesi Province. Land Use Policy, 111: 105707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105707
[21] Salman, D., Yassi, A., Bahsar-Demmallino, E. (2022). Climate change impacts and the rice farmers' responses at irrigated upstream and downstream in Indonesia. Heliyon, 8(12). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11923
[22] Sujianto, Gunawan, E., Saptana, Syahyuti, Darwis, V., Ashari, Syukur, M., Ariningsih, E., Saliem, H.P., Mardianto, S., Marhendro. (2022). Farmers’ perception, awareness, and constraints of organic rice farming in Indonesia. Open Agriculture, 7(1): 284-299. https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2022-0090
[23] Bhatt, A., John, J. (2023). Including farmers' welfare in a government-led sector transition: The case of Sikkim's shift to organic agriculture. Journal of Cleaner Production, 411: 137207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137207
[24] Laishram, C., Vashishat, R.K., Sharma, S., Rajkumari, B., Mishra, N., Barwal, P., Vaidya, M.K., Sharma, R., Chandel, R.S., Chandel, A., Gupta, R.K., Sharma, N. (2022). Impact of natural farming cropping system on rural households-evidence from Solan district of Himachal Pradesh, India. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6: 878015. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.878015
[25] Dhamira, A., Aminda, F.R. (2023). Rice production risk in main producing countries 1961-2021. Buletin Penelitian Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian Fakultas Pertanian Universitas Haluoleo, 25(2): 143-150. https://doi.org/10.37149/bpsosek.v25i2.921
[26] Purwaningsih, H., Widodo, S., Kristamtini, Widyayanti, S., et al. (2023). Distribution analysis and environmental impact of heavy metal contamination in rice fields: A case of sleman regency, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture, 38: 323-345. https://doi.org/10.59670/jns.v38i.5427
[27] Baga, L.M., Utami, A.D., Wahyudi, A.F. (2023). Exploring the relation between farmer group membership and agricultural productivity: Evidence from Indonesian rice farming. AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research, 9(1): 65-78. https://doi.org/10.18196/agraris.v9i1.115
[28] Shalli, M.S., Mmochi, A.J., Rubekie, A.P., Yona, G.K., Shoko, A.P., Limbu, S.M., Mwita, C.J., Lamtane, H.A., Hamed, S.S., Jiddawi, N.S., Mapenzi, L.L. (2024). The contribution of milkfish (Chanos chanos) pond farming to socio-economics and coastal community livelihoods for a sustainable blue economy in Tanzania. Aquaculture International, pp. 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10499-024-01408-4
[29] Guo, R., Li, Y., Shang, L., Feng, C., Wang, X. (2021). Local farmer’s perception and adaptive behavior toward climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production, 287: 125332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125332
[30] Ruhyana, N.F., Essa, W.Y., Mardianis, M. (2020). Sociodemographic factors affecting household food security in sumedang regency West Java province. AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research, 6(1): 38-51. https://doi.org/10.18196/agr.6189
[31] Prayitno, G., Dinanti, D., Hidayana, I.I., Nugraha, A.T. (2021). Place attachment and agricultural land conversion for sustainable agriculture in Indonesia. Heliyon, 7(7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07546
[32] Abadega, A.F. (2021). Potato market participation and its extents evidence from Southwest Ethiopia: A double hurdle approach. AGRARIS: Journal of Agribusiness and Rural Development Research, 7(1): 53-63. https://doi.org/10.18196/agraris.v7i1.9912
[33] Hafizah, D., Hakim, D.B., Harianto, H., Nurmalina, R. (2020). Analysing food consumption in Indonesia. International Journal of Progressive Sciences and Technologies, 20(2): 340-347.
[34] Lakitan, B., Hadi, B., Herlinda, S., Siaga, E., Widuri, L.I., Kartika, K., Lindiana, L., Yunindyawati, Y., Meihana, M. (2018). Recognizing farmers’ practices and constraints for intensifying rice production at Riparian Wetlands in Indonesia. NJAS-Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 85: 10-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2018.05.004
[35] Wang, X., Shao, S., Li, L. (2019). Agricultural inputs, urbanization, and urban-rural income disparity: Evidence from China. China Economic Review, 55: 67-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2019.03.009
[36] Mungkung, R., Pengthamkeerati, P., Chaichana, R., Watcharothai, S., Kitpakornsanti, K., Tapananont, S. (2019). Life cycle assessment of Thai organic Hom Mali rice to evaluate the climate change, water use and biodiversity impacts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211: 687-694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.197
[37] Qiu, Y., Bouraima, M.B., Badi, I., Stević, Ž., Simic, V. (2024). A decision-making model for prioritizing low-carbon policies in climate change mitigation. Challenges in Sustainability, 12(1): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.56578/cis120101
[38] Sabri, Aimon, H., Amar, S. (2024). Interdependencies of environmental quality, poverty, and green growth: A simultaneous equation analysis across Indonesian Provinces. Challenges in Sustainability, 12(1): 52-64. https://doi.org/10.56578/cis120104
