Environmental Impact Assessment of Rapeseed Cultivation by Life Cycle Assessment

전과정평가를 이용한 유채재배의 환경영향 평가

  • Hong, Seung-Gil (National Academy of Agricultural Science, RDA) ;
  • Nam, Jae-Jak (Agricultural Technology Commercialization and Transfer) ;
  • Shin, Joung-Du (National Academy of Agricultural Science, RDA) ;
  • Ok, Yong-Sik (Department of Biological Environment, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Choi, Bong-Su (Crop Environment Research Division, National Institute of Crop Science, RDA) ;
  • Yang, Jae-E. (Department of Biological Environment, Kangwon National University) ;
  • Kim, Jeong-Gyu (Division of Environmental Science & Ecological Engineering, Korea University) ;
  • Lee, Sung-Eun (NANOtox Tech.)
  • 홍승길 (농촌진흥청 국립농업과학원) ;
  • 남재작 (농업기술실용화재단) ;
  • 신중두 (농촌진흥청 국립농업과학원) ;
  • 옥용식 (강원대학교 자원생물환경학과) ;
  • 최봉수 (농촌진흥청 국립식량과학원) ;
  • 양재의 (강원대학교 자원생물환경학과) ;
  • 김정규 (고려대학교 환경생태공학부) ;
  • 이성은 ((주)나노톡스텍)
  • Received : 2010.09.09
  • Accepted : 2011.02.15
  • Published : 2011.03.31


BACKGROUND: High input to the arable land is contributed to increasing productivity with causing the global environmental problems at the same time. Rapeseed cultivation has been forced to reassess its positive point for utilization of winter fallow field. The Objective of this study was performed to assess the environmental impact of rapeseed cultivation with double-cropping system in paddy rice on Yeonggwang district using life cycle assessment technique. METHODS AND RESULTS: For assessing each stage of rapeseed cultivation, it was collected raw data for input materials as fertilizer and pesticide and energy consumption rate by analyzing the type of agricultural machinery and working hours by 1 ton rapeseed as functional unit. Environmental impacts were evaluated by using Eco-indicator 95 method for 8 impact categories. It was estimated that 216 kg $CO_2$-eq. for greenhouse gas, 3.98E-05 kg CFC-11-eq. for ozone lazer depletion, 1.78 kg SO2-eq. for acidification, 0.28 kg $PO_4$-eq. for eutrophication, 5.23E-03 kg Pb-eq. for heavy metals, 2.51E-05 kg B(a)p-eq. for carcinogens, 1.24 kg SPM-eq. for smog and 6,460 MJ LHV for energy resource are potentially emitted to produce 1 ton rapeseed during its whole cultivation period, respectively. It was considered that 90% of these potential came from chemical fertilizer. For the sensitivity analysis, by increasing the productivity of rapeseed by 1 ton per ha, potential environmental loading was reduced at 22%. CONCLUSION(s): Fertilization affected most dominantly to the environmental burden, originated from the preuse stage, i.e. fertilizer manufacturing and transporting. It should be included and assessed an indirect emission, which is not directly emitted from agricultural activities. Recycling resource in agriculture with reducing chemical fertilizer and breeding the high productive variety might be contribute to reduce the environmental loading for the rapeseed cultivation.


Environmental impact assessment (EIA);Life cycle assessment (LCA);Rapeseed


  1. Bae, J.H., 2006. Prospect of biofuel application and its social cost-benefit analysis, Korea Energy Economy Institute, Seoul, Korea.
  2. Choi, B.S., Sung, J.K., Lee, S.S., Nam, J.J., Hong, S.G., Kim, R.Y., Yang, J.E., Ok, Y.S., 2010. Effects of rape residue as green manure on rice growth and weed suppression, Korean J. Environ. Agric. 29, 109-114.
  3. Gartner, S.O., Reinhardt, G.A., Braschkat, J., 2003. Life cycle assessment of biodiesel: update and new approach, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IFEU), Heidelberg, Germany.
  4. Goedkoop, M., Spriensma, R., 2001. The Eco-indicator 99, A damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment, Methodology report, PRe Consultants b.v., Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
  5. Grant, T., Beer, T., Campbell, P.K., Batten, D., 2008. Life cycle assessment of environmental outcomes and greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels production in Western Australia, KN29A/WA/F2.9, Department of Agriculture and Food, Government of Western Australia.
  6. Haas, G., Wetterich, F., Kopke, U., 2001. Comparing intensive, extensified and organic grassland farming in southern Germany by process life cycle assessment, Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 83, 43-53.
  7. Heller, M.C., Keoleian, G.A., Volk, T.A., 2003. Life cycle assessment of a willow bioenergy cropping system, Biomass Bioenergy 25,2.
  8. Jang, Y.S., 2007. R&D status and outlook of rapeseed for bioenergy, Rural Env. Eng. J. 95, 90-104.
  9. Jensen, A.A., Hoffman, L., Moller, B.T., Schmidt, A., Christiansen, K., Eikington, J., van Dijk, F., 1997. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) - A guide to approaches, experiences and information sources, European Environmental Agency.
  10. Kaltschmitt, M., Reinhardt, G.A., Stelzer, T., 1997. Life cycle analysis of biofuels under different environmental aspects, Biomass Bioenergy 12,121-134.
  11. Koga, N., Sawamoto, T., Tsuruta, H., 2006. Life cycle inventory-based analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from arable land farming systems in Hokkaido, northern Japan, Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 52, 564-574.
  12. Koga, N., Tsurutab, H., Tsujia, H., Nakano, H., 2003. Fuel consumption-derived $CO_2$ emissions under conventional and reduced tillage cropping systems in northern Japan, Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 99, 213-219.
  13. Lee, S.H., Kim, C.S., Park, J.H., Jeon, S.E., 2005. Study on the economic analysis and governmental support of crops for bioenergy, Fut. Agr. Res. Assoc., p. 156.
  14. Lehuger, S., Gabrielle, B., Gagnaire, N., 2009. Environmental impact of the substitution of imported soybean meal with locally-produced rapeseed meal in dairy cow feed, J. Clean. Prod. 17, 616-624.
  15. Nam, J.J., Ok, Y.S., Choi, B.S., Lim, S.T., Jung, Y.S., Jang, Y.S., Yang, J.E., 2008. Methodology of life cycle assessment (LCA) for environmental impact assessment of Winter rapeseed in double-cropping system with rice, Kor. J. Environ. Agric. 27, 205-210.
  16. Shin, J.D., Lim, D.K., Kim, G.Y., Park, M.H., Ko, M.H., Eom, K.C., 2003. Application of the life cycle assessment methodology to rice cultivation in relation to fertilization, Korean J. Environ. Agric. 22, 41-46.