Social sustainability analysis of rice production in Shaft county

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Graduate M.Sc., Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
In the agricultural and food industry, social life cycle is an emerging field that aims to quantify social impacts such as working conditions, community effects and human rights concerns. The publication of the guidelines for social life cycle assessment (S-LCA) of products and services in 2009 marked a significant turning point in the field of life cycle assessment. In the current situation, where we are moving towards sustainable development and responsible production and consumption, it is essential not only to improve environmental conditions but also to enhance the social conditions of product production. Social life cycle assessment has been proposed as the most effective approach for evaluating the social impacts of products throughout their life cycle. The objective of this study is to investigate the social effects of rice production, the current social status, and the expected future status in order to provide effective and beneficial solutions for achieving sustainable rice production.
Materials and methods
This study was conducted in the Shaft county, Guilan province, Iran, in 2024. The sample size was determined to be 407 samples using Cochran's formula, which were randomly selected from the statistical population. The statistical population comprised five stakeholder groups, including rice mill managers (44 people), rice mill workers (78 people), rice farmers (95 people), farm workers (95 people), and the local community (95 people). To assess the social impacts of rice production, four social indicators were evaluated, including human rights, cultural heritage and community development, working conditions, and socio-economic consequences. The necessary information was gathered through field research using a researcher-developed questionnaire.
Research findings
The results of this study indicated that the social conditions governing the rice production cycle in Shaft county were relatively favorable. From the perspective of the stakeholder groups, including factory workers and farm laborers, some social indicators such as working conditions and average status, were found to be weak in terms of cultural heritage and social development. Additionally, in two sub-indicators, social freedom and collective bargaining between workers and employers, as well as fair rights, farm workers did not have a satisfactory situation. Many workers were also unaware of their basic rights, leading to labor disputes and a lack of motivation among workers to perform their tasks properly, resulting in dissatisfaction for both groups.
Conclusion
The findings of this study showed that although the social conditions governing the rice production cycle in the studied community were generally favorable, some social indicators did not have an adequate status. By enhancing the satisfaction and well-being of workers, this sector can achieve a more sustainable and responsible workforce, which in turn will lead to better conditions for social sustainability.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Ahmadzadeh, S. (2020). Determining the environmental efficiency of rice farmers of the Guilan province with emphasis on directional nutrient surplus. Ph.D. Dissertation. Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran. [In Persian].##Araújo, C. K. C., Salvador, R., Piekarski, C. M., Sokulski, C. C., de Francisco, A. C., & Camargo, S. K. C. C. A. (2019). Circular economy practices on wood panels: A bibliographic analysis. Sustainability, 11(4), 1057. doi: 10.3390/su11041057.##Benoît, C., & Mazijn, B. (2009). Guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products, UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative. Sustainable Product and Consumption, Paris Branch, France.##Benoît, C., Norris, G. A., Valdivia, S., Ciroth, A., Moberg, A., Bos, U., & Beck, T. (2010). The guidelines for social life cycle assessment of products: Just in time!. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15, 156-163.‏ doi: 10.1007/s11367-009-0147-8.##Chang, Y. J., Nguyen, T. D., Finkbeiner, M., & Krüger, J. (2016). Adapting ergonomic assessments to social life cycle assessment. Procedia CIRP, 40, 91-96. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.064.##Colantonio, A. (2009). Social sustainability: Linking research to policy and practice. Proceedings of Sustainable development: A challenge for European research. 26-28 May 2009, Brussels, Belgium.##Colantonio, A., Dixon, T., Ganser, R., Carpenter, J., & Ngombe, A. (2009). Measuring Socially Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Europe. Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development (OISD). School of the Built Environment. Oxford Brookes University. Gipsy Lane, Headington, Oxford.##de Oliveira, A. C., Sokulski, C. C., da Silva Batista, A. A., & de Francisco, A. C. (2018). Competencies for sustainability: A proposed method for the analysis of their interrelationships. Sustainable Production & Consumption, 14, 82-94.‏ doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2018.01.005.##Gómez-Limón, J. A., & Riesgo, L. (2009). Alternative approaches to the construction of a composite indicator of agricultural sustainability: An application to irrigated agriculture in the Duero basin in Spain. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(11), 3345-3362. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.05.023.##Ihuah, P. W., Kakulu, I. I., & Eaton, D. (2014). A review of critical project management success factors (CPMSF) for sustainable social housing in Nigeria. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 3(1), 62-71. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsbe.2014.08.001.##Khani, M., Esfanjari, R., & Payman, S. H. (2023). Economic analysis of modern and traditional transplanting systems in rice production (Case study: Rasht county). Journal of Researches in Mechanics of Agricultural Machinery, 12(1), 41-56. doi: 10.22034/jrmam.2023.13891.590.##Korfmacher, K. S. (2000). What's the point of partnering? A case study of ecosystem management in the Darby creek watershed. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(4), 548-564. doi: 10.1177/00027640021956378.##Lehmann, A., Zschieschang, E., Traverso, M., Finkbeiner, M., & Schebek, L. (2013). Social aspects for sustainability assessment of technologies-challenges for social life cycle assessment (SLCA). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1581-1592. doi: 10.1007/s11367-013-0594-0.##Macombe, C., Loeillet, D., & Gillet, C. (2018). Extended community of peers and robustness of social LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 23, 492-506. doi: 10.1007/s11367-016-1226-2.##Manik, Y., Leahy, J., & Halog, A. (2013). Social life cycle assessment of palm oil biodiesel: A case study in Jambi province of Indonesia. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1386-1392. doi: 10.1007/s11367-013-0581-5.##Ministry of Agriculture Jihad. (2022). Agricultural Statistical Bulletin, Cropping year 2020-2021. Vol. 1. Crop Plants. Reports on the area, production and yield of crop plants. Information and Communication Technology Center, Ministry of Agriculture Jihad, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian].##Mota, B., Gomes, M. I., Carvalho, A., & Barbosa-Povoa, A. P. (2015). Towards supply chain sustainability: Economic, environmental and social design and planning. Journal of Cleaner Production, 105, 14-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.052.##Rivera-Huerta, A., Rubio Lozano, M. D. L. S., Padilla-Rivera, A., & Güereca, L. P. (2019). Social sustainability assessment in livestock production: A social life cycle assessment approach. Sustainability, 11(16), 4419. doi: 10.3390/su11164419.##Portahari, M., Zal, A., & Ruknuddin Eftekhari, A. (2011). Assessment and prioritization of social sustainability in rural areas: A case study of villages in Khorrambid country of Fars province. Village & Development, 14(3), 19-49. [In Persian]. doi: 10.30490/rvt.2018.59150.##Safeie-Noghlbari, B., Amiri, Z., Allahyari, M. S., Nikkhah, A., Ben Hassen, T., & Bacenetti, J. (2024). Social life cycle assessment of the olive oil industry: A case study in Guilan province, Iran. Environment, Development & Sustainability, 1-47. doi: 10.1007/s10668-024-04463-2.##Sawaengsak, W., Olsen, S. I., Hauschild, M. Z., & Gheewala, S. H. (2019). Development of a social impact assessment method and application to a case study of sugarcane, sugar, and ethanol in Thailand. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 24(11), 2054-2072. doi: 10.1007/s11367-019-01624-8.##Shamsodini, A., Jamini, D., & Jamshidi, A. R. (2016). Measurement and analyses of social stability in rural area (Case study: Javanrood township). Journal of Rural Research, 7(3), 486-503. [In Persian]. doi: 10.21859/jjr-07035.##Tavakkoli, J. (2014). Socio-economic sustainability assessment of rural settlements of north and south Khave rural districts, Lorestan province, Journal of Applied Researches in Geographical Sciences, 14(32), 71-92. [In Persian].##Tomislav, K. (2018). The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the contemporary issues. Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 21(1), 67-94. doi: 10.2478/zireb-2018-0005.##Vinci, G., Ruggeri, M., Gobbi, L., & Savastano, M. (2024). Social life cycle assessment of cocoa production: Evidence from Ivory Coast and Ghana. Resources, doi: 10.3390/resources13100141.##Vinci, G., Ruggieri, R., Ruggeri, M., & Prencipe, S. A. (2023). Rice production chain: Environmental and social impact assessment-A review. Agriculture, 13(2), 340.‏ doi: 10.3390/agriculture13020340.##Voglhuber-Slavinsky, A., Zicari, A., & Smetana, S. (2022). Setting life cycle assessment (LCA) in a future-oriented context: The combination of qualitative scenarios and LCA in the agri-food sector. European Journal of Futures Research, 10, 15. doi: 10.1186/s40309-022-00203-9.##Zamagni, A., Pesonen, H. L., & Swarr, T. (2013). From LCA to life cycle sustainability assessment: Concept, practice and future directions. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 18, 1637-1641.‏ doi: 10.1007/s11367-013-0648-3.
Cereal Research
Volume 14, Issue 3 - Serial Number 52
January 2024
Pages 291-308

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics