Sustainability Assessment of Rice Farming: Insights from Four Italian Farms Under Climate Stress

1. I suggest that this article could be published as a review rather than a research paper.

We thank the author for the suggestion. We will ask the editor.

1. I suggest integrating the introductionsection. Three to five paragraphs would be sufficient.

Accepted. We integrated the introduction and added more references.

1. I suggest supplementing the introduction of the differences between organic systemsand conventional farms.

Accepted. We integrated the introduction as suggested.

1. I suggest confirming the concept oforganic systems cultivation in this study.

Accepted. We added the adopted definition. Line 214.

Organic Agriculture is a production system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystems, and people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic Agriculture combines tradition, innovation, and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and good quality of life for all involved.

IFOAM General Assembly

2008

1. I suggest supplementing the number and basic information of the interviewed farmers in the material method.

Accepted. We already wrote: The sample includes 4 farm households (2 organic, 2 conventional) and 6 agricultural workers, totaling 21 individuals: 4 farmers, 4 spouses, 7 children, and 6 workers. The average age is approximately 39.7 years (excluding children: 45.8 years), with a balanced gender distribution among adults (6 women, 8 men).

1. I suggestedadd subheadings to make the content clearer in the discussion section.

Rejected. We think the headings and subheadings are fine, moreover other reviewer said we already have too many paragraphs and we should reduce…

1. I suggest that the conclusion part be more concise and logical.

Partially accepted. We reduced the Conclusion section by moving part of the text to a brand new paragraph 5.1 Limitations of the study.

I thoroughly enjoyed reviewing the manuscript on integrated sustainability analysis of organic and conventional rice farming systems using a mixed-method approach (LCA, gross margin analysis and OASIS). The authors clearly demonstrated the relevance of their work with climate resilience and agroecology. However, the manuscript lacks significantly the explanation of the concepts, methods and data interpretation.  There is a huge number of unnecessary paragraph breaks. I provided my comments below with a recommendation of major revision along with some suggestions that might be helpful to the authors to address the issues and improve the quality of the manuscript.

We thank the reviewer for his/her time and passion in reviewing our manuscript.

Line 2: I suggest simplifying the title to make it more  impactful. It could be- Integrated Sustainability Assessment of Rice Farming: Lessons from Four Italian Farms under Climate Stress

Accepted. The title now is: Sustainability Assessment of Rice Farming: Insights from Four Italian Farms under Climate Stress

Line 21: Replace “fundamental tension” because it seems redundant. You can use “clear trade-offs” for this purpose.

Accepted.

Line 27: The phrase “single-metric assessments can be misleading” is nice and impactful. But the authors need to briefly explain why this arises. (e.g., “due to the exclusion of ecosystem services and social dimensions”). Plus, add 1–2 sentences on practical implications for farmers/ policymakers to increase the scientific merit and relevance. For example, at the end, authros can add-- These findings highlight the urgent need for hybrid farming models that balance economic efficiency with ecological resilience.

Partially accepted. Given that line 27 is in the abstract, we preferred to remove the sentence for brevity.

Line 78- The term “extreme drought year” is used, but where is the context? Authors should add a sentence summarizing the  exceptional severity of the 2022 drought.

Partially accepted. We explain why 2022 is exceptional in paragraph 2.2 (lines 181-…).

Line 128: The introduction section ended very poorly. Authors should end the introduction with a sharper research aim. Authors can consider- This study investigates whether an integrated assessment approach can effectively identify trade-offs and inform sustainable rice production under climate stress.

Accepted. We integrated the suggested sentence and we sharpened the last sentence of the introduction.

Line 299: The choice of “1 ha” as the functional unit (FU) is questionable. Why did you choose this? Any support from literature? Why not use yield-based FU (e.g., per ton rice)? Authors should provide justification and discuss trade-offs between area- and yield-based assessments. This is crucial information for repeatability. Additionally, did LCA exclude post-farm gate process? Why so?

Accepted. We added few lines of explanation on the choice of the FU.

This approach aligns with the standardized methodology outlined in ISO 14040/14044 for Life Cycle Assessment, which emphasizes consistent functional units to ensure comparability across environmental impact studies [45]. Furthermore, de-fining a clear functional unit is critical in agricultural sustainability assessments to accurately evaluate resource use and environmental outcomes [46].

The choice of 1 hectare as the functional unit (FU) was made to reflect the man-agement practices over a standard land area, which is common in agricultural LCA studies for comparability and practical relevance. While yield-based FUs, such as per ton of rice, can capture productivity differences, they may obscure environmental im-pacts related to land use and management intensity. Literature suggests that organic farming often shows better environmental performance per hectare due to lower in-puts, though yield-based assessments sometimes favor conventional systems due to higher productivity, highlighting the importance of FU selection based on study goals.

And

The LCA conducted in this study focused on a from-cradle-to-farm-gate scope, intentionally excluding post-farm gate processes such as distribution, marketing, and consumption. This exclusion is common in agricultural LCAs to isolate the environmental impacts directly related to production practices. However, it is important to consider that conventional and organic rice systems often differ significantly in their marketing channels, with organic products typically involving shorter, more localized value chains that may reduce emissions and resource use beyond the farm gate. These differences highlight the potential need for complementary studies addressing post-farm gate impacts to fully capture the sustainability of each system.

Line 252-262: The description of OASIS is too much and procedural. Streamline and emphasize why OASIS was chosen over other tools.

Partially accepted. We removed redundant sentences.. We added an explanation for the choice.

Among the few existing recognized frameworks for agroecological evaluation, the Original Agroecological Survey and Indicator System (OASIS) was selected for this study. While OASIS shares core principles with other methodologies like the FAO's Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE)—such as assessing all dimensions of agroecological performance and including participatory moments for validation—OASIS presents two key advantages for this specific research. Firstly, its development by Agroecology Europe ensures its framework is highly relevant to the European context, making it well-suited for analyzing the nuances of Italian rice farming systems. Secondly, OASIS is intentionally more farm-oriented, employing a granular set of 56 indicators that allows for a more detailed and in-depth comparison of individual farm performances, which aligns perfectly with the case-study methodology of this paper.

Line 496: Replace “worst-case environmental model” because it is a poor representation. You can consider using- ……..scenario exhibiting the highest environmental impact scores.

Accepted.

Line 548: Explain why RO shows higher methane emissions despite being organic. Is this due to prolonged flooding practices? Add explanatory context. This is a major flaw of this section.

Partially accepted.  We improved the sentence as follow: In particular, even if RC and RO show similar duration of submersion, RO adopts an additional flooding, which entails prolonged submersion and consequent methane emissions and additional use of irrigation water.  

The reason behind is that

"RO adopts an additional flooding, which entails prolonged methane emissions and additional use of irrigation water."

This suggest that the additional flooding event implemented by the RO farm, compared to its conventional counterpart (RC), may be the primary reason for its higher methane emissions, as prolonged flooding creates the anaerobic conditions necessary for methane production in rice paddies.

 Use em-dash to express a range. It is not 70-80%, it should be 70—80%. So many paragraph breaks in section 3, most of them are not necessary.

Rejected. Typos like 70-80 are usually corrected by the editorial service prior to publication. And paragraphs in section three improve the clarity of the discourse (we think).

Line 675–678: The “unusual market conditions in 2022” discussion should not come here. Move this to earlier and reframe as a limitation.

Accepted

The section was not concluded properly. Authors can consider ending this section with- Yield-based functional units favor intensive systems, while area-based FUs align with ecosystem service assessments. A multi-FU approach may better capture trade-offs.

Accepted. We integrated as suggested.

Line 780: Replace “must” with “should” for a balanced scientific tone.

Accepted.

The end of the conclusion section should have a forward looking statement for future researchers. Authors can consider adding- Future studies should explore hybrid rice systems integrating the ecological benefits of organic farming with the economic efficiency of conventional models, particularly under climate change scenarios

Rejected. We think our conclusions are acceptable (and we already basically say that “Future studies should explore hybrid rice systems integrating the ecological benefits of organic farming with the economic efficiency”).

Additional suggestions: Authors should add 3–5 recent (2023–2025) references on integrated sustainability assessments and agroecological transitions to improve the relevance and novelty.

Accepted. We added :

1.

Ariyarathna, S.M.W.P.K.; Nanayakkara, K.; Thushara, S.C. The Nexus of Farmers’ Sustainable Agriculture Potential and Readiness for More Organic Use in Rice Farming: Insights from Resilience Theory. Sustainable Environment 2023, 9, doi:10.1080/27658511.2023.2273619.

2.

Panpakdee, C. The Social-Ecological Resilience Indicators of Organic Rice Production in Northeastern Thailand. Org. Agr. 2023, 13, 483–501, doi:10.1007/s13165-023-00441-6.

3.

Orounladji, B.M.; Sib, O.; Berre, D.; Assouma, M.H.; Dabire, D.; Sanogo, S.; Vall, E. Cross-Examination of Agroecology and Viability in Agro-Sylvo-Pastoral Systems in Western Burkina Faso. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 2024, 48, 581–609, doi:10.1080/21683565.2024.2307902.