Next Article in Journal
Sediment Carbon Stock in Natural and Transplanted Mangroves in Bahrain, Arabian Gulf
Previous Article in Journal
Understanding Geodiversity for Sustainable Development in the Chinchiná River Basin, Caldas, Colombia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 12
Issue 11
10.3390/land12112054
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate Changes and Adaptation Strategies in the Transboundary Gandaki River Basin

by
Raju Rai
1,2,
Yili Zhang
1,2,3,*,
Basanta Paudel
1,3,
Jianzhong Yan
4 and
Narendra Raj Khanal
1,3
1
Key Laboratory of Land Surface Pattern and Simulation, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
2
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
3
Kathmandu Center for Research and Education, Chinese Academy of Sciences—Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu 44613, Nepal
4
College of Resources and Environment, Southwest University, Chongqing 400716, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2023, 12(11), 2054; https://doi.org/10.3390/land12112054
Submission received: 12 September 2023 / Revised: 19 October 2023 / Accepted: 2 November 2023 / Published: 12 November 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Global climate change poses many adverse impacts and risks, which affect the livelihoods of local farmers. This study has assessed farmers’ perceptions of climate changes and adaptation strategies in the transboundary Gandaki River Basin (GRB). A total of 639 households were surveyed purposively from different physiographic regions, ranging from the lowland plain to the high Mountain region of the GRB. These surveyed perceptions were analyzed using a binary logistic regression (BLR) model. The results show that the significant variables determining the climate change perceptions are family size (p = 0.004), total number of livestock owned by the household (p = 0.000), availability of irrigation facility (p = 0.000), temperature change (p = 0.007), precipitation change (p = 0.000), and household head’s age (p = 0.044), education level (p = 0.000), and profession (p = 0.003). The results were also analyzed by physiographic region. Farmers in the Mountain region perceived the household head’s education (p = 0.008) and profession (p = 0.009), precipitation change (p = 0.028), climate-induced disease/pests (p = 0.042), and impact on vegetation (p = 0.044) as significant variables. Significant variables in the Hill region were found to include the household head’s education (p = 0.029) and profession (p = 0.043), lack of irrigation facility (p = 0.029), precipitation change (p = 0.018), increased drought (p = 0.018), and decreased agricultural production (p = 0.025). Similarly, farmers in the Tarai region noticed the lack of irrigation facility (p = 0.011), temperature change (p = 0.042), precipitation change (p = 0.017), impact on stable crops (p = 0.043), and decreased agricultural production as important variables. Likewise, in the Gangetic Plain (GP) region, the household head’s education (p = 0.010), total number of livestock (p = 0.037), lack of irrigation facility (p = 0.006), precipitation change (p = 0.003), increased drought (p = 0.002), and decreased agricultural production (p = 0.001) were found to be significant variables. The determinant factors vary between the different regions due to the geography and overall socio-economic factors of the respondent. Combining the scientific data with the farmers’ perceptions may help to clarify how climate change affects the farmers’ perceptions and adaptation strategies to better enhance their livelihood.

1. Introduction

Climate change occurs worldwide, challenging people’s livelihoods [1]. An increasing number of extreme weather events caused by climate change have resulted in acute food insecurity for millions of Asian, African, Central American, and South American people [2]. Human activities are known as a significant cause of global warming, which is estimated at approximately 1.0 °C above pre-industrial levels and likely to reach 1.5 °C between 2030 and 2052 [3]. In Nepal, the rise in temperature is faster than the global average and particularly in the Himalayas region [4]. The impacts of climate change, such as increasing extreme precipitation, gradually growing temperature, and melting glaciers, have a significant effect on agricultural production, food security, terrestrial ecosystems, and the overall livelihood of the population in Nepal [4,5,6] and India [7,8,9]. In Nepal, rainfed agriculture is a primary source of food production [10] and the majority of people depend on agricultural activities for their livelihoods [11,12], which is common in the Indian Himalayan region [13]. In addition, climate change has resulted in water scarcity with more uncertain and irregular of water resources where more than two million people have lack of access to safe drinking water [14]. Likewise, due to climate change, Nepalese farmers have observed increasing temperatures, changing rainfall trends, and melting glaciers, along with their impacts on agriculture, livelihoods, water resources, biodiversity, and tourism [15]. Water scarcity also results in serious problems for the farmers in the water scarcity areas and environmental problems in peri-urban areas in India [16,17]. Over the years, the Himalayas region has been dramatically affected by climate change [4,18]. From 1971 to 1994, the warming trend was recorded to be from 0.068 °C to 0.128 °C per year in mainly the middle Mountain and Himalayan regions of Nepal, which was already alarming and indicated the sensitivity of mountainous regions to climate change [18]. Similarly, the temperature rose by 1.8 °C in Nepal from 1975 to 2006 [19]. As a result, the increase in temperature and untimely rainfall with uneven rainfall distribution has been challenging for the local livelihoods in the Himalayas region [4,9,20] and in other various ecological regions in Nepal [21]. For example, the increase in temperature caused a decline in the size and quality of apples in the Indian Himalayan region [22]. In addition, temperature increases and rainfall pattern changes were found as the major causes of water shortages and floods, which resulted in shifted crop-growing seasons, decreased fruit production, food security, and likely increased human diseases, such as malaria and dengue in several rural Indian villages [7,9,13]. Climate changes, such as increasing temperature and uneven rainfall distribution, have also caused unemployment and rural–urban migration in different rural areas in India [23,24]. South Asian farmers have already noted the impacts of climate change, such as a shorter rainy season and an increase in temperature, and its high impact on agriculture and food security [24]. In recent years, farmers have been changing their cropping patterns to cope with climate variability in Nepal [25] and India [26] due to the negative impact of climate change on agriculture.
For several years, farmers have been perceiving various forms of climate change, such as an increase in temperature, decrease in rainfall during pre-monsoon and monsoon seasons, and ineffective rainfall in recent years in different villages, such as in the Budi Gandaki River Basin [27], Manaslu Conservation Area [28], Pokhara [29], western Nepal [30], and different ecological regions of Nepal [21]. The majority of the farmers perceived an average annual increase in temperature, summer hotness, and increase in plant-related pests and diseases, whereas they perceived decrease in rainfall but no changes in flood incidents or droughts and no change in water availability for irrigation in Pokhara [29]. Likewise, the farmers of Melamchi Valley also perceived increases in pests and diseases, climate-related hazards, landslides, floods, and irregular precipitation, which affected their agricultural products and livestock. As a result, farmers changed their farming practices, selling livestock, and started daily wage labor and seasonal migration [31]. The farmers of the Mountain region also perceived the decline of precipitation and drying up of springs where local people constructed water tanks at water sources, used pipes, dug deeper wells and traveled farther to wash clothes [32]. Due to the effects of climate change on agriculture, farmers are changing from agriculture to off-farm occupations. Crop production has decreased as a result of these climate change impacts, and this has created food shortages in poor rural villages of Nepal, where more households have been forced into seasonal out-migration [33]. Overall, farmers’ perceptions of climate change and their livelihoods are directly influenced by the farmers’ socio-economic status, agricultural practices, and biophysical characteristics [21]. Likewise, in Henan Province of China, the majority of the farmers also perceived the direct impact of climate change, which resulted in the high risk to their livelihoods. To minimize the impacts of climate change, they have adopted new strategies such as building new irrigation, increasing pesticide and use of chemical fertilizer, new technology for farming, and a variety of crops [34]. Similar to the Henan Province, farmers have adopted to new crop varieties, homestead gardening, changing cropping time, planting trees, and migration to minimize the impact of climate change in Bangladesh [35]. It is very clear that the effects of climate change are mainly increase in temperature, decrease in monsoon rainfall, and recent increase in unpredictable rainfall, which are observed by most farmers worldwide, such as in Nepal [27,36,37,38], eastern Himalayas of India [9,39], China [40,41], Sri Lanka [42], Central America [43], and Ethiopia [44,45]. Among these countries, the Nepal Himalayan region is more sensitive to climate change; however, only a few studies have been conducted in some of the villages within the Gandaki River Basin (GRB) in Nepal [11,27,36]. Due to extreme variations in altitude and climate, agricultural practices vary by physiographic region, along with the farmers’ perceptions. Climate change observation also evolves over time between regions [46]. In this study, the physiographic regions are chosen based on landform characteristics. Each region has different socio-economic characteristics of the people and different agricultural practices. Some existing studies have covered only particular villages without comparing the different physiographic regions with the transboundary river basin. To understand the farmers’ perception on climate change and adaptation strategies, the different physiographic region and socio-economic situations is needed. An understanding of the farmers’ perceptions of changes in climate is necessary to identify problems, create solutions, and improve the local livelihoods of the local population. This study evaluates farmers’ perceptions of climate changes and adaptation strategies in different physiographic regions of the transboundary GRB and assesses how farmers observe these climate change impacts and adapt their agricultural practices accordingly in different villages of GRB.
This study is organized as follows: Section 1 presented the introduction and analyzed the existing literature on climate change impact, farmers’ perception, and adaptation practices in various countries. Section 2 describes the materials and methods of the study. This section includes the study area, data collection methods, sample size, and methods of data analysis. Likewise, Section 3 describes the results of the study, including the socio-economic status of the respondents, agricultural characteristics, climate change perceptions based on different physiographic regions of the study area. Section 4 describes the discussions with previous studies, data, and results, which includes the farmers’ perceptions of the impact of climate change on agriculture and livelihoods, climate change adaptation strategies, suggestions, and recommendations. Section 5 concludes this study.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Research Design

The transboundary GRB is located within the central Himalayas region at elevations ranging from 33 miter to 8164 miter. It is situated between 25°37′32″ and 29°19′37″ north in latitude and between 82°52′45″ and 85°48′18″ east in longitude with an area of 40,378 km2. The transboundary GRB includes a small area of Tibet in China, which accounts for 8% of the GRB [47]. This study covers only the portions of the GRB within Nepal and India (Figure 1).
Based on the physiographic map of Nepal and India, the GRB has been divided into Mountain, Hill, Tarai (an east-west area of flat land in southern Nepal), and Gangetic Plain (GP) regions [48]. The Mountain, Hill, and Tarai regions lie in Nepal, whereas the GP region lies within the states of Bihar Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh of India [48]. The GP, also known as the Indo-Gangetic Plain, which is a vast alluvial plain in South Asia, stand across the northern and eastern regions of India, as well as parts of Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh. The GP has fertile agricultural land made by the Ganges, Brahmaputra, and Indus rivers. Due to the diverse topography of the GRB, the land cover and land use also vary. The major land covers of the GRB are agricultural land (36%), which is mainly in the middle and southern areas and forest covers (36%), which is mainly in the middle of the GRB, with the northern area consisting of barren land, snow cover and limited agricultural land [49]. Due to the large differences in elevation and climatic zones, the agricultural practices, castes and ethnicities also vary by physiographic region [47].
The overall research design of the study is presented in Figure 2. Firstly, we reviewed several related research papers, books, and reports. Secondly, based on research gaps, we designed research questions to select villages for household surveys. Then, we conducted household surveys in various villages of the different physiographic regions of the GRB. Thirdly, the data collected from the field were analyzed in IBM SPSS Statistics Version 26 software. Finally, we analyzed the farmers’ perception of climate change and their adoption strategies in the GRB.

2.2. Data Collection

Household surveys, focus group discussions (FGDs), and key informant interviews (KIIs): In order to obtain farmers’ perceptions of climate changes and adaptation strategies, semi-structured household surveys were conducted in 2018 and 2019. A random sampling method was followed for the household surveys in the different physiographic regions. A total of 639 households were surveyed from 12 villages across the four different physiographic regions of the GRB (Table 1). The selected villages for the household survey were a comparatively large size of farmland in the village. To determine the size of farmland, land cover maps and Google Earth Images were analyzed of the GRB. Three villages from each region were selected for the household surveys. The number of households interviewed in each village ranged from 40 to 56 (Table 1). The sample household size (N = 639) was considered based on the total number of households in the villages. The households for the interview were selected randomly. The head of each household was selected for the interview.
FGDs and KIIs were also conducted to obtain in-depth information on climate change observation and adaptation strategies. The KIIs were conducted mainly for experienced farmers, local leaders, headmasters of local schools, social workers, and chairs of the women’s group, the community forest user groups, the mother’s group, the youth clubs, municipalities, and wards. A total of 72 KIIs were conducted in the 12 villages. In addition, an FGD was conducted in each village. The participants in the FGDs were mainly intellectuals, local leaders, and farmers of the villages. A total of eight to 25 participants were involved in each FGD. Most of the FGDs were conducted in the morning within public buildings, such as schools, ward offices, and municipality offices. A standard checklist based on the household surveys were prepared for the questions and answers during the FGDs and KIIs. In addition to the primary data, secondary information such as relevant unpublished/published documents, reports, books, and maps were also collected during the field study.

2.3. Data Analysis

Data on perceptions of climate change and adaptation were analyzed by binary logistic regression (BLR). BLR is commonly used in many fields. In this model, predictor (independent) variable X is related to a dichotomous response variable Y (dependent) [50]. The perceptions of climate change and adaptation strategies may differ based on the biophysical and socio-economic conditions. Dependent and independent variables for BLR analysis were prepared in binary form (i.e., Yes (1) or No (0)). Only a few variables were prepared as continuous data, such as age, number of livestock, and farmland size; therefore, BLR was used to examine the association between independent and dependent variables [48]. BLR has been commonly used when there was one dependent and more than one independent variable [38,48,50,51]. The BLR has been used by various existing studies, including vegetable farming and farmers’ livelihood: insights from Kathmandu Valley, Nepal by [51]; farmers’ understanding of climate change in Nepal Himalayas [21]; and status of farmland abandonment and its determinants in the transboundary Gandaki River Basin by [48]. The BLR is described in the following Equation (1):
Y = l o g P P − 1 = a + b 1 X 1 + b 2 X 2 + b 3 X 3 + b 4 X 4 … … . . b n X n
In Equation (1), Y is the dependent variable, P is the probability of farmers’ perceptions on climate change (yes or no), X1, X2, X3, X4,…Xn denote the independent variables, and b1, b2, b3, b4,…bn represent the regression coefficients.
To analyze the climate change awareness of farmers, BLR was applied using IBM SPSS statistical tools. For this method, the value of 1 was given to households who reported that they perceived climate change, and the value of 0 was given to households who did not perceive climate change. Table 2 lists the possible various independent variables used in this study, such as the size of the family or farm, change in temperature or precipitation, increase in floods or droughts, impact on livestock production, decrease in agricultural production and age of household head, education, and profession. Most of the variables were assigned either 0 or 1, and only a few variables were continuous, such as age, number of livestock, farm size, and family size. A summary of all the variables and their definitions are presented in Table 2.

3. Results

3.1. Socio-Economic Status of Farmers

The socio-economic situations of farmers are presented in Table 3. The age of the respondents in the GRB were found to range from 22 to 97 years, with an average age of 52.60 years. Older ages were recorded in the Hill region, whereas younger ages were recorded in the other physiographic regions. The number of family members ranged from one to 18, with an average of 5.53 members per family in the GRB. The average family size was higher in the GP as compared with other regions. Male heads of the household were found to be predominant and represented 87.10% of the total respondents, while females represented only 12.99%. A total of 53.36% of respondents were literate in the GRB. The Hill region recorded a higher number of illiterate farmers (56.38%), whereas the other regions had more literate farmers.

3.2. Agricultural Characteristics of Farmers

The agricultural characteristics of farmers were found to vary by physiographic region. The agricultural land owned by farmers ranged from 0.5 to 266 ropani (1 ropani = 0.050 hectares or 508.74 m2 area), averaging 10.11 ropani in the GRB. In comparison, the GP had a larger size of agricultural land than other regions, averaging 17.54 ropani (Table 4). The total number of livestock (cow, sheep, bull, buffalo, horse, chicken, duck, and pig) raised by the surveyed households ranged from zero to 40. An average of 2.44 livestock per household was determined for the whole GRB, and an average of 3.48, 2.74, 2.72, and 1.14 livestock per household was determined for the Mountain, Hill, Tarai, and GP regions, respectively (Table 4). A lack of irrigation facilities was observed in all the regions within the GRB. Only a few farmers (21.28% of households) had irrigation facilities for their agricultural land, while the remaining 78.72% of households had no irrigation facilities for farming.

3.3. Climate Change Perceptions of Farmers

Based on the results from the household surveys conducted within the different physiographic regions of the GRB. Table 5 lists the results of the study that the climate change indicators, such as temperature and precipitation changes, were commonly observed by the farmers in the GRB. Changes in temperature were noticed by 83.73% of respondents (n = 535) and changes in precipitation were noticed by 80.59% of respondents (n = 515) (Table 5). Among the different regions, the changes in temperature and precipitation over time were experienced very commonly in the GP. Floods are another important indicator of the impact of climate change and flood events were frequently observed by Mountain region farmers (79.87% of respondents). Another indicator of the impact of climate change is an increase in droughts, which was also frequently observed by farmers in the GP (yes = 86.06%, no = 13.94%). Most of the farmers (73.87%) perceived that climate change caused an increase in climate-induced diseases and pests in their crops, livestock, and surrounding vegetation, which impacted their farming directly and indirectly. In comparison, climate change impacted the Tarai and GP regions more than the other regions. Climate change affected vegetation more in the Mountain region, whereas only a few farmers noticed this impact in the GP. Apart from these commonly observed climate change indicators, only a few farmers have experienced the impacts of climate change on their livestock (40.85%), and agricultural production (44.13%). The chi-square (χ2) test also reported the commonly observed climate change indicators (Table 5).
Many climate change indicators have been reported by farmers in the different physiographic regions of the GRB. The BLR was calculated to determine the relationship between and among the major indicators in all the GRB and is presented in Table 6 and Table 7. Table 6 shows that the key factors that affected the farmers’ perception of climate change in the GRB were family size (p = 0.004), total number of livestock (p = 0.000), lack of irrigation facility (p = 0.000), change in temperature (p = 0.007), precipitation (p = 0.000), and age (p = 0.044), education level (p = 0.000) and profession of the head of the household (p = 0.003) (Table 6).
The BLR results show that the farmers’ perceptions of climate change are determined by many factors in different regions. In the Mountain region, these factors include the education (p = 0.008), and profession (p = 0.009) of the head of the household. Other important indicators determining climate change perceptions are precipitation change (p = 0.028), climate change-induced diseases and pests (p = 0.042), and impact on vegetation (p = 0.044), which were found to be significant variables perceived by farmers (Table 7). In the Hill region, the education (p = 0.029) and profession of the household head (p = 0.043), lack of irrigation facility (p = 0.029), change in precipitation (p = 0.018), increase in drought (p = 0.018), and decrease in agricultural production (p = 0.025) were recorded as significant variables. In the Tarai region, the lack of irrigation facility (p = 0.011), changes in temperature (p = 0.042) and precipitation (p = 0.017), impact on stable crops (p = 0.043) and decrease in agricultural production (p = 0.045) were found to be important variables observed by farmers. In the GP region, the household head’s education (p = 0.010), total number of livestock (p = 0.037), lack of irrigation facility (p = 0.006), change in precipitation (p = 0.003), increase in drought (p = 0.002), and decrease in agricultural production (p = 0.001) were recorded as significant variables (Table 7). Other variables were also important, but they were not statistically significant in the BLR of this study.

4. Discussion

4.1. Farmers’ Perceptions of the Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Livelihoods

People have their own experiences with perceptions of climate change in the GRB, which are determined by many factors and vary between the different physiographic regions. Perhaps the household characteristics (e.g., size of family, age, education, and profession of the household head), agricultural characteristics (total number of livestock and irrigation facilities), and biophysical variables (e.g., changes in temperature and precipitation) are determinants variables observed by farmers in different physiographic regions of the GRB. Mountain region: The mountain region is more sensitive and affected by climate change. Almost all farmers have observed the effects of climate change on their livelihoods, such as in the eastern Himalayas region, India [9,26], Nepal [6,21,27,38], Sri Lanka [42], Bangladesh [35], and China [34,40,41]. In this region, the majority of the Mountain farmers also perceived climate change, such as increased temperature, increased drought, and overall impact on agriculture and local livelihoods. Climate change has a significant impact, which mainly includes increasing extreme precipitation events and melting of glaciers in the higher Himalayan region of Nepal [5]. Historically, temperature has risen and precipitation is decreasing trend in Nepal. Between 1975 and 2016, the annual average temperature had an increasing trend in all climatic regions of central Nepal, which recorded an annual average rise in minimum temperature of 0.01 °C, 0.026 °C, and 0.054 °C per year in the lower tropical, upper tropical to subtropical, and temperate climatic regions, respectively. During the same time period, the annual rainfall decreased by 1.619 mm, 7.65 mm, and 6.67 mm per year for the same regions, respectively [52].
Historical climate data show that the average temperature has increased by 0.016 °C yr−1, while the precipitation decreased by 0.137 mm yr−1 from 1901 to 2016 in Nepal [53]. From 2000 to 2017, the annual mean temperature increased from 19.44 °C to 20.69 °C in Nepal (Figure 3). In the GRB, 83.72% of farmers observed an increase in temperature. In contrast, the annual precipitation was found to have a decreasing trend in the country. According to the hydrology and metrology department of Nepal, in 2000, the total precipitation was recorded to be 1999.54 mm, but in 2017, it was recorded to be 1681.51 mm. Overall, the GRB farmers (80.59%) also observed this decreasing precipitation trend. Both the observed climate data and the farmers’ perceptions on climate change were found to trend similarly.
Overall, the warming in Nepal is predicted to be higher than the global average. It is predicted that the temperature in Nepal will rise from 1.2 °C to 4.2 °C by the year 2080 under the highest emission scenario RCP 8.5, which was the baseline period of 1986–2005 [5]. The farmers’ perception on climate change and actual climate data were also found consistent in Lower Mustang of the Mountain region of Nepal. The average annual temperature was risen by 0.021 °C/year over the last 45 years (1973–2018) in that region [54].
Land 12 02054 g003
Figure 3. Annual temperature and precipitation trends in Nepal from 2000 to 2017. The climate data source: DHM, Nepal [55].
Figure 3. Annual temperature and precipitation trends in Nepal from 2000 to 2017. The climate data source: DHM, Nepal [55].
Land 12 02054 g003
Hill region: Similar to the Mountain region, the farmers of the Hill region also perceived the impact of climate change on agriculture and livelihoods. The changing climate, with increasing temperature and decreasing in precipitation, has resulted in various impacts on agricultural practices and local livelihoods. The farmers of the Hill region of Nepal have perceived an increment of temperature and decrease in rainfall since historical times. From 1979 to 2009, the mean annual temperatures increased by 1.02 °C due to climate-related hazards, such as crop pests, hailstorms, landslides, floods, thunderstorms, and erratic precipitation, which impacted the agriculture in the Melamchi Valley of Nepal [31]. Similarly, farmers in the Budhi Gandaki River Basin also observed the increase in temperature, the decrease in rainfall during monsoons and the untimely rainfall patterns in recent years in Budhi Gandaki River Basin [27].
In addition, the local residents of the Manaslu Conservation Area also observed an increase in temperatures and decreasing snowfall [28]. Farmers observed the increase in temperature as being responsible for the decline in fruit size and quality, as well as the major cause of damage to apple farming in the Indian Himalayas [22]. In addition, these climatic events have made the crops and the production of smallholder farmers in the district more vulnerable [6]. A study has revealed that the changing climate has been very favorable for the movement and establishment of pests, which increases the risk of crop impacts [1]. Similarly, another study has also found that farmers observed an increase in the number of pests and plant diseases in crops in Pokhara, Nepal [29]. Temperature is primarily the most significant factor affecting the insect population and dynamics, which is likely due to the expansion of their geographic range [56].
Tarai region: The farmers of the Tarai region (southern lower part of Nepal) also perceived climate change and its impact. The Chepang community of the Chitwan district of Nepal also perceived decreasing rainfall, which was supported by the observed climate data. Furthermore, the summer and winter temperatures also recorded an increasing trend between 1983 and 2014 [36]. The increasing temperature and decreasing rainfall trends resulted in drought and caused a decrease in agricultural production and productivity in the Chitwan district of Nepal [36]. Most of the farmers’ perceived increased hotter days, decreased in colder days, decrease in rainfall duration, shift in monsoon pattern and decreased water level in the rivers compared with the past years in the Chitwan district of Tarai region [57].
In Tarai region, a total of 75.90% of farmers noticed an increase in climate-induced disease and pests. These farmers found new types of disease and pests in both crops and animals that had not been previously observed. A recent study also found that a total of 96.8% of Nepalese farmers observed an increase in climate-induced diseases and pests in agricultural crops in various parts of the country [21]. The various types of diseases and pests have impacted stable crops, with a total of 68.39% of farmers experiencing this impact. Stable crops, such as rice, maize, wheat, and potato were found to be highly impacted in the Tarai (80.49%) and GP (85.45%) regions of the GRB. In order to increase crop production, farmers used pesticides and fertilizers in various parts of Nepal [12,58,59].
GP region: Comparatively, the farmers have perceived more drought in the GP region. A total of 67.45% of GRB farmers perceived increased drought in recent years, whereas 77.03%, 69.14%, 37.80%, and 86.06% of farmers perceived increased drought in the Mountain, Hill, Tarai, and GP regions, respectively. In comparison, farmers in the GP region experienced drought more frequently. During the period from 1870 to 2016, India recorded seven major droughts (1876–1882, 1895–1900, 1908–1924, 1937–1945, 1982–1990, 1997–2004, and 2011–2015), which resulted in six major famines (1873–1874, 1876, 1877, 1896–1897, 1899, and 1943). The multiple droughts and famines resulted in millions of deaths during this period of time across India [60]. A recent study also found that the farmers’ age, education, occupation, farming experience, and knowledge of coping strategies were found to be significant variables for perceiving climate change in northern India [61]. Similar to the previous studies, this study also found that the education of the farmer, irrigation facility, increased drought, and precipitation change are the determinant factors in the farmers’ perceptions of climate change.
Due to climate change, the mean temperature has been increasing by 0.3–0.6 °C per decade in India since the 1860s, and is likely to increase by 4.0–5.8 °C in the next few decades across the country [62]. The increasing temperature in the winter and spring seasons in the state of Bihar has had a significantly negative impact on the stable crops by affecting crop phenology, physiology, and plant-water relations [63]. The changing rainfall patterns are likely to lead to severe water scarcity, and the melting of glaciers can be a major cause of flooding and soil erosion in India [7]. Likewise, in western India, people have perceived the reduced rainfall and increasing drought, but in this region, both biophysical and discursive problems have resulted more water scarcity at the poor water-limited areas and farmers [16]. In addition, the scarcity of water is highly growing and resulting in environmental pollution and challenges to human health in peri-urban areas of Delhi, India [17]. The mismanagement of water resources, climate change, low precipitation, illegal uses, misuse of water, unfair sharing with neighboring countries, and population growth are the key reasons of water scarcity in Jordan [64].

4.2. Climate Change and Adaptation Strategies

Agriculture is the main income source of the majority of Nepalese people, though they have a very low adaptive capacity to minimize the impact of climate change [11]. Generally, climate change results in drought, which has a negative impact on agriculture. In the GRB, to minimize the effects of drought on agriculture and the drinking water supply, about 62.07% of farmers collected water in ponds (including man-made plastic ponds) by rainwater harvesting during the rainy season, mainly in the Hill region of the study area. Similarly, about 20.69% of people dug more wells and other farmers planted drought-tolerant crops. The simple and low-cost rainwater harvesting helped to minimize water scarcity during the dry season in the Mountain [65,66], and Tarai regions [67], as well as in various states in India [68].
To minimize the impact of climate change on drought-prone areas, climate-ready crops have been developed through breeding and genetic engineering methods in Nepal [69]. Some varieties of rice were tested for their drought tolerance and rainfed area farmers in the Mid Hill region of Nepal have started to grow these types of rice [70]. Furthermore, the major cereal crops, such as millet, were also found to be drought-tolerant crops for sustainable agricultural practices in the Karnali province of Nepal [71]. Due to increasing droughts, farmers changed their cropping patterns, planting calendar, and drought-tolerant crops and varieties and added fertilizer and pesticides to maintain their crop production in various parts of the country [10,31,66,72]. In addition, farmers have been visiting veterinary clinics for the health of their animals, changing their water supplies, and introducing new agricultural practices and technologies in the Mountain region of Nepal [32]. This study also reported that farmers also visit veterinary or vet clinics when their livestock become sick. Due to the effects of climate change on agriculture, GRB farmers reported a loss in their income from agricultural products. As a result, they pursued alternative ways to increase their production and livelihoods. According to field studies, more than half (54.26%) of GRB farmers reported that they have intensified their agricultural work, such as by doing more labor, using fertilizers and pesticides and buying a tractor for ploughing and harvesting. In addition, about 26.95% of farmers have started small businesses besides their agricultural practices and approximately 12.94% and 5.58% of farmers extended their cropland and migration (internal and abroad), respectively. A study also reported that to cope with the impact of climate change, farmers have extended tourism in the Mountain region, particularly in Mustang [11].
In addition, the level of education was also found to be an important driver of the migration of farmers in India [73]. Low level of literacy has limited livelihood options and strategies in Nepal [74]. Educated farmers were found to be more inclined to migrate in search of better opportunities. As a result, the households that migrated had better adaptation capacities, knowledge, and strategies against the impacts of climate change [73]. A study by Sugden et al. (2014) also reported that migration was indirectly associated with climate change, which has affected all socio-economic groups in the eastern GPs Plains of Nepal and India [75]. Another study also found that poor and marginalized farmers in the Hindu Kush Himalaya region have inadequate adaptation practices, poor access to resources, services, and information, and face the greatest vulnerability to climate change [76].
Similar to the farmers of the GRB, farmers in the state of Rajasthan in India also experienced a decline in their household income due to the impact of climate change (drought and water scarcity). A total of 39% of farmers had a decline in their household income, and 28% had a decline in their crop yield. These farmers also lost their livestock and crops due to new diseases and pests [77]. In addition, farmers reduced the number of livestock, changed in crop varieties, shifted to off-farm activities, shifted the planting calendar, and changed the cultivable size in the mid-Himalaya region of India [78]. Likewise, Nepalese farmers also started diversifying in crops, diversified in occupation, short-term migration and increased agricultural inputs [21]. The indigenous farmers in the Nalanda district of Bihar province changed their adaptation strategies to cope with the impacts of climate change, such as by extending their cropland, changing the crop varieties, changing to irrigation farming, and applying the widespread use of chemical fertilizers [79]. Due to the increase in temperature and decrease in rainfall, Sri Lankan farmers started to plant short-season crops that are resistant to drought and to irrigate in order to minimize the possible losses on their crop yields over the past twenty years [42]. Agroforestry and organic farming are the most common practices that have been implemented to reduce the impacts of increased temperature and unpredictable precipitation in the mid-hills of Nepal [72]. Similarly, the GRB farmers also reported adopting this method of plantation in areas at risk of landslides and floods.

4.3. Suggestions and Recommendations

Farmers of the GRB have been facing numerous problems in agriculture and livelihoods due the impact of climate change. Many Nepalese farmers do not know the climate change patterns and their adverse impacts on agriculture. In particular, rural farmers with low levels of education do not have enough knowledge of the coping strategies for the adverse impacts of climate change on the agricultural system [36]. The subsidies and grants provided by the government were highly influenced by political power and people, so political influence must be discouraged in order to implement grants and subsidies specifically for needy farmers in Nepal [80] as well as in India [16]. The subsidy program of the Nepal government is limited to wheat and paddy and needs to be expanded to include pulses and oilseed crops [81].
Organic farming has high potential in Nepal due to ecological diversity [82], which was already introduced into the country (the 10th Five Year Plan 2002–2007), and the government of Nepal also promoted the use of organic fertilizer [81]. Organic agricultural practices provide several benefits, such as environmental protection, improved food quality and soil health, conservation of non-renewable resources, as well as human health [83]. Therefore, it is found to be the alternative option for better livelihoods in the context of Nepal [84], which needs to be widely extended in order to achieve an environmentally friendly production system with the formulation of effective policies for organic agricultural products and their trade [84].
The farmers’ various observations do not provide a good basis for adaptation planning; however, these observations should be addressed in adaptation policies [46]. To cope with climate change adaptation strategies, there also need to be formulated plans and policies to support the appropriate technologies and strategies [11]. Conservation agriculture practices through minimum investment, such as crop diversification, crop rotation, tillage, and cover crops are could be a better way to reduce the impacts of climate change in different terrains in Nepal [52]. In addition, drought tolerance crops, changing cropping patterns, crop diversification, and water resource management should be properly practiced in the study area. Moreover, an increase in the number of livestock may also support to increase production by using dung. Likewise, water resources should be properly managed for sustainable use. The development works mainly on the construction of roads and buildings as well as natural disasters such as landslides and floods also destroy the water resources in the Hill and Mountain regions of Nepal, which need to be preserved properly for drinking and farming. Farmers should be aware of climate change, adaptation practices and weather forecasting. In addition, many farmers do not have adequate knowledge of using an amount of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on their crops. The government also should provide necessary subsidies, grants and training to the farmers on time. The local level training on agriculture was found to be the most important factor for climate change adaptation practices to the farmers [78].

5. Conclusions

This study assessed the farmers’ perceptions of climate changes in the transboundary GRB. Among the various indicators of climate change, the key determinants of these climate change perceptions by the GRB farmers were the family size, total number of livestock, lack of irrigation facility, change in temperature and precipitation, age, education level, and profession of the head of the household. Climate change had more impact in the Tarai and GP regions than in other regions. Climate change indicators, such as changes in temperature and precipitation, were very commonly experienced (more than 80%) by the farmers in the GRB. Floods and droughts were other vital indicators of climate change, and the events were frequently observed in the Mountain and GP regions, respectively. Furthermore, about 74% of farmers observed climate-induced diseases and pests in their crops. In addition, the vegetation cover was impacted more in the Mountain region than in the other regions. The various perceptions of climate change observed by the farmers in different physiographic areas can be influenced by farmers’ geographic location and biophysical and social factors.

Author Contributions

Y.Z. and R.R. had the original idea for this manuscript. R.R. had prepared the database and written this manuscript. Y.Z., B.P., J.Y. and N.R.K. had reviewed the manuscript and provided effort in writing and finalizing the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research (Grant No. 2019QZKK0603), the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDA20040201), the President’s International Fellowship Initiative for Visiting Scientists of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. 2023VCC0005).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. IPPC-Secretariat. Scientific Review of the Impact of Climate Change on Plant Pests—A Global Challenge to Prevent and Mitigate Plant Pest Risks in Agriculture, Forestry and Ecosystems; FAO on behalf of the IPPC Secretariat: Rome, Italy, 2021; pp. 1–72. [Google Scholar]
  2. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers in Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  3. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty; Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., et al., Eds.; World Meteorological Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 1–32. [Google Scholar]
  4. Gurung, G.; Bhandari, D. Integrated approach to climate change adaptation. J. For. Livelihood 2009, 8, 91–99. [Google Scholar]
  5. ADB; WBG. Climate Risk Country Profile: Nepal; World Bank Group and the Asian Development Bank (ADB): Washington, DC, USA; Manila, Philippines, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  6. Paudel, B.; Acharya, B.S.; Ghimire, R.; Dahal, K.R.; Bista, P. Adapting agriculture to climate change and variability in Chitwan: Long-term trends and farmers’ perceptions. Agric. Res. 2014, 3, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. GoB. Bihar State Action Plan on Climate Change; Government of Bihar: Patna, India, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  8. Rao, C.A.R.; Raju, B.; Rao, A.; Rao, K.; Rao, V.; Ramachandran, K.; Nagasri, K.; Dupdal, R.; Samuel, J.; Shankar, K.R. Climate change in Uttarakhand: Projections, vulnerability and farmers’ perceptions. J. Agrometeorol. 2018, 20, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dey, T.; Pala, N.A.; Shukla, G.; Pal, P.K.; Das, G.; Chakarvarty, S. Climate change perceptions and response strategies of forest fringe communities in Indian Eastern Himalaya. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2018, 20, 925–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Karki, S.; Burton, P.; Mackey, B. Climate change adaptation by subsistence and smallholder farmers: Insights from three agro-ecological regions of Nepal. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2020, 6, 1720555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Manandhar, S.; Vogt, D.S.; Perret, S.R.; Kazama, F. Adapting cropping systems to climate change in Nepal: A cross-regional study of farmers’ perception and practices. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2011, 11, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Thapa, S.; Piras, G.; Thapa, S.; Goswami, A.; Bhandari, P.; Dahal, B. Study on farmers’ Pest management strategy, knowledge on pesticide safety and practice of pesticide use at Bhaktapur district, Nepal. Cogent Food Agric. Food Secur. 2021, 7, 1916168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Platt, R.V.; Ogra, M.; Kisak, N.; Manral, U.; Badola, R. Climate change perceptions, data, and adaptation in the Garhwal Himalayas of India. Clim. Dev. 2021, 13, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Srivastava, S.; Mehta, L.; Naess, L.O. Increased attention to water is key to adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2022, 12, 113–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. KC, A. Perception of climate change in Nepal. In Climate Change Perception and Changing Agents in Africa & South Asia; Tume, S., Tanyanyiwa, V., Eds.; Vernon Press: Wilmington, DE, USA, 2018; pp. 75–96. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mehta, L. The manufacture of popular perceptions of scarcity: Dams and water-related narratives in Gujarat, India. World Dev. 2001, 29, 2025–2041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mehta, L.; Allouche, J.; Nicol, A.; Walnycki, A. Global environmental justice and the right to water: The case of peri-urban Cochabamba and Delhi. Geoforum 2014, 54, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shrestha, A.B.; Wake, C.P.; Mayewski, P.A.; Dibb, J.E. Maximum temperature trends in the Himalaya and its vicinity: An analysis based on temperature records from Nepal for the period 1971–1994. J. Clim. 1999, 12, 2775–2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Malla, G. Climate change and its impact on Nepalese agriculture. J. Agric. Environ. 2008, 9, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bajracharya, S.R.; Maharjan, S.B.; Shrestha, F. Glaciers shrinking in Nepal Himalaya. In Climate Change—Geophysical Foundations and Ecological Effects; InTech: Dhaka, Banglades, 2011; pp. 445–458. [Google Scholar]
  21. Paudel, B.; Zhang, Y.; Yan, J.; Rai, R.; Li, L.; Wu, X.; Chapagain, P.S.; Khanal, N.R. Farmers’ understanding of climate change in Nepal Himalayas: Important determinants and implications for developing adaptation strategies. Clim. Chang. 2019, 158, 485–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Basannagari, B.; Kala, C.P. Climate change and apple farming in Indian Himalayas: A study of local perceptions and responses. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e77976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Singh, N.P.; Anand, B.; Khan, M.A. Assessment of household perceptions to climate adaptation for resilient rural development planning in India. Indian J. Tradit. Knowl. 2019, 18, 376–382. [Google Scholar]
  24. Chatterjee, B.; Khadka, M. Farmers’ Perceptions about Climate Change and Food Security: Evidence from South Asia. In Redefining Paradigms of Sustainable Development in South Asia; Sang-e-Meel Publications: Lahore, Pakistan, 2013; pp. 67–105. [Google Scholar]
  25. Chalise, S.; Maraseni, T.N.; Maroulis, J. Adapting to climate variability: The views of peasant farmers in Nepal. Int. J. Glob. Warm. 2015, 7, 380–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pradel, W.; Gatto, M.; Hareau, G.; Pandey, S.K.; Bhardway, V. Adoption of potato varieties and their role for climate change adaptation in India. Clim. Risk Manag. 2019, 23, 114–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Devkota, R.P.; Pandey, V.P.; Bhattarai, U.; Shrestha, H.; Adhikari, S.; Dulal, K.N. Climate change and adaptation strategies in Budhi Gandaki River Basin, Nepal: A perception-based analysis. Clim. Chang. 2017, 140, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. KC, A.; Thapa Parajuli, R.B. Climate change and its impact on tourism in the Manaslu conservation area, Nepal. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2015, 12, 225–237. [Google Scholar]
  29. Dhungana, A.R. Factors Associated with Farmers’ Perception towards Climate Change in Pokhara. Janapriya J. Interdiscip. Stud. 2018, 7, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shrestha, R.; Rakhal, B.; Adhikari, T.R.; Ghimire, G.R.; Talchabhadel, R.; Tamang, D.; KC, R.; Sharma, S. Farmers’ perception of climate change and its impacts on agriculture. Hydrology 2022, 9, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sujakhu, N.M.; Ranjitkar, S.; Niraula, R.R.; Pokharel, B.K.; Schmidt-Vogt, D.; Xu, J. Farmers’ perceptions of and adaptations to changing climate in the Melamchi valley of Nepal. Mt. Res. Dev. 2016, 36, 15–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Poudel, D.D.; Duex, T.W. Vanishing springs in Nepalese mountains: Assessment of water sources, farmers’ perceptions, and climate change adaptation. Mt. Res. Dev. 2017, 37, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gautam, Y. Seasonal migration and livelihood resilience in the face of climate change in Nepal. Mt. Res. Dev. 2017, 37, 436–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhai, S.-Y.; Song, G.-X.; Qin, Y.-C.; Ye, X.-Y.; Leipnik, M. Climate change and Chinese farmers: Perceptions and determinants of adaptive strategies. J. Integr. Agric. 2018, 17, 949–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Alam, G.M.; Alam, K.; Mushtaq, S. Climate change perceptions and local adaptation strategies of hazard-prone rural households in Bangladesh. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 17, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pandey, G.; Neupane, H. Climate Change: Trends and Farmers Perceptions in Chepang Community of Chitwan District, Nepal. Asian J. Agric. Ext. Econ. Sociol. 2017, 21, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Khand, P.; KC, V.; Dhungana, A.; Dhungana, S. Assessing the trend of climate change in the Western Nepal. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2020, 16, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Paudel, B.; Zhang, Y.; Yan, J.; Rai, R.; Li, L. Farmers’ perceptions of agricultural land use changes in Nepal and their major drivers. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 235, 432–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Banerjee, R.R. Farmers’ perception of climate change, impact and adaptation strategies: A case study of four villages in the semi-arid regions of India. Nat. Hazards 2015, 75, 2829–2845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hou, L.; Huang, J.; Wang, J. Farmers’ perceptions of climate change in China: The influence of social networks and farm assets. Clim. Res. 2015, 63, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Li, C.; Tang, Y.; Luo, H.; Di, B.; Zhang, L. Local farmers’ perceptions of climate change and local adaptive strategies: A case study from the Middle Yarlung Zangbo River Valley, Tibet, China. Environ. Manag. 2013, 52, 894–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Menike, L.; Arachchi, K.K. Adaptation to climate change by smallholder farmers in rural communities: Evidence from Sri Lanka. Procedia Food Sci. 2016, 6, 288–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Harvey, C.A.; Saborio-Rodríguez, M.; Martinez-Rodríguez, M.R.; Viguera, B.; Chain-Guadarrama, A.; Vignola, R.; Alpizar, F. Climate change impacts and adaptation among smallholder farmers in Central America. Agric. Food Secur. 2018, 7, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kidanu, A.; Kibret, K.; Hajji, J.; Mohammed, M.; Ameha, Y. Farmers perception towards climate change and their adaptation measures in Dire Dawa Administration, Eastern Ethiopia. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. 2016, 8, 269–283. [Google Scholar]
  45. Cherinet, A.; Mekonnen, Z. Comparing Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change and Variability with Historical Climate Data: The Case of Ensaro District, Ethiopia. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Nat. Resour. 2019, 17, 555966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shrestha, U.B.; Shrestha, A.M.; Aryal, S.; Shrestha, S.; Gautam, M.S.; Ojha, H. Climate change in Nepal: A comprehensive analysis of instrumental data and people’s perceptions. Clim. Chang. 2019, 154, 315–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rai, R.; Zhang, Y.; Paudel, B.; Acharya, B.K.; Basnet, L. Land Use and Land Cover Dynamics and Assessing the Ecosystem Service Values in the Trans-Boundary Gandaki River Basin, Central Himalayas. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rai, R.; Zhang, Y.; Paudel, B.; Khanal, N.R. Status of Farmland Abandonment and Its Determinants in the Transboundary Gandaki River Basin. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rai, R.; Zhang, Y.; Paudel, B.; Li, S.; Khanal, N.R. A synthesis of studies on land use and land cover dynamics during 1930–2015 in Bangladesh. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Harrell, F.E. Binary logistic regression. In Regression Modeling Strategies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 219–274. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rai, M.K.; Paudel, B.; Zhang, Y.; Khanal, N.R.; Nepal, P.; Koirala, H.L. Vegetable farming and farmers’ livelihood: Insights from Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. Sustainability 2019, 11, 889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Luitel, D.R.; Siwakoti, M.; Jha, P.K. Climate change and finger millet: Perception, trend and impact on yield in different ecological regions in Central Nepal. J. Mt. Sci. 2019, 16, 821–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Joshi, D.R.; Ghimire, R.; Kharel, T.; Mishra, U.; Clay, S.A. Conservation agriculture for food security and climate resilience in Nepal. Agron. J. 2021, 113, 4484–4493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hamal, R.; Thakuri, B.M.; Poudel, K.R.; Gurung, A.; Yun, S.J. Farmers’ perceptions of climate change in Lower Mustang, Nepal. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2022, 194, 606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. CBS. Envornnment Statistics of Nepal 2019; Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission, Central Bureau of Statistics: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  56. Skendžić, S.; Zovko, M.; Živković, I.P.; Lešić, V.; Lemić, D. The impact of climate change on agricultural insect pests. Insects 2021, 12, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Regmi, H.; Regmi, P.; Dutta, J.; Dangol, D. Farmers’ perception on climate change and ecological hazards in Riu and Rapti waterbasin, Chitwan, Nepal. J. Agric. Environ. 2017, 18, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rijal, J.P.; Regmi, R.; Ghimire, R.; Puri, K.D.; Gyawaly, S.; Poudel, S. Farmers’ knowledge on pesticide safety and pest management practices: A case study of vegetable growers in Chitwan, Nepal. Agriculture 2018, 8, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Panta, H. Supply chain of subsidized chemical fertilizers in Nepal. J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 2018, 35, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mishra, V.; Tiwari, A.D.; Aadhar, S.; Shah, R.; Xiao, M.; Pai, D.; Lettenmaier, D. Drought and famine in India, 1870–2016. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2019, 46, 2075–2083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ansari, M.; Joshi, S.; Raghuvanshi, R. Understanding farmers perceptions about climate change: A study in a North Indian State. Adv. Agric. Environ. Sci. Indian J. 2018, 1, 85–89. [Google Scholar]
  62. Chauhan, B.S.; Mahajan, G.; Randhawa, R.K.; Singh, H.; Kang, M.S. Global warming and its possible impact on agriculture in India. Adv. Agron. 2014, 123, 65–121. [Google Scholar]
  63. Tesfaye, K.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Mequanint, F.; Shirsath, P.B.; Stirling, C.M.; Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Rahut, D.B. Climate variability and change in Bihar, India: Challenges and opportunities for sustainable crop production. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hussein, H. Lifting the veil: Unpacking the discourse of water scarcity in Jordan. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 89, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kattel, R.R.; Nepal, M. Rainwater harvesting and rural livelihoods in Nepal. In Climate Change and Community Resilience; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 159–173. [Google Scholar]
  66. Shrestha, R.P.; Nepal, N. An assessment by subsistence farmers of the risks to food security attributable to climate change in Makwanpur, Nepal. Food Secur. 2016, 8, 415–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bastakoti, R.C.; Prathapar, S.A.; Okwany, R.O. Community pond rehabilitation to deal with climate variability: A case study in Nepal Terai. Water Resour. Rural Dev. 2016, 7, 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. More, H. A review of indian traditional method of Rain Water Harvesting. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2020, 9, 2080–2086. [Google Scholar]
  69. Bagale, S. Climate ready crops for drought stress: A review in Nepalese context. Rev. Food Agric. 2021, 2, 83–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Adhikari, B.; Mehera, B.; Haefele, S. Selection of drought tolerant rice varieties for the western mid hills of Nepal. J. Inst. Agric. Anim. Sci. 2015, 33–34, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ghimire, B.; Maharjan, N.; Dotel, J. Drought assessment on barley and millet production in Karnali Province, Nepal. Nepal J. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Biggs, E.M.; Tompkins, E.L.; Allen, J.; Moon, C.; Allen, R. Agricultural adaptation to climate change: Observations from the Mid-Hills of Nepal. Clim. Dev. 2013, 5, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jha, C.K.; Gupta, V.; Chattopadhyay, U.; Sreeraman, B.A. Migration as adaptation strategy to cope with climate change: A study of farmers’ migration in rural India. Int. J. Clim. Chang. Strateg. Manag. Res. 2017, 10, 121–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Dulal, H.B.; Brodnig, G.; Thakur, H.K.; Green-Onoriose, C. Do the poor have what they need to adapt to climate change? A case study of Nepal. Local Environ. 2010, 15, 621–635. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sugden, F.; Maskey, N.; Clement, F.; Ramesh, V.; Philip, A.; Rai, A. Agrarian stress and climate change in the Eastern Gangetic Plains: Gendered vulnerability in a stratified social formation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 29, 258–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Dilshad, T.; Mallick, D.; Udas, P.B.; Goodrich, C.G.; Prakash, A.; Gorti, G.; Bhadwal, S.; Anwar, M.Z.; Khandekar, N.; Hassan, S.T. Growing social vulnerability in the river basins: Evidence from the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH) Region. Environ. Dev. 2019, 31, 19–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Chand, S.; Kumar, D. Farmers Perception on Climate Change and Its Management Strategies: A Micro Analysis of Rajasthan. Indian Res. J. Ext. Educ. 2018, 18, 49–56. [Google Scholar]
  78. Joshi, K.; Kandpal, A.; Roy, M.; Mukharjee, A.; Pattanayak, A.; Meena, V.S.; Panday, S. Farmers’ perception of climate change and management strategies in the mid-Himalaya, India. Curr. Sci. 2023, 124, 1201–1210. [Google Scholar]
  79. Sagar, K. Climate change perception and adaptation strategies among various stakeholders in Nalanda District of Bihar (India). Disaster Adv. 2017, 10, 39–47. [Google Scholar]
  80. Shrestha, M.K. Agricultural support policy of Nepal: Cases of subsidies. Int. Multidiscip. Res. J. 2021, 1, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bista, D.R.; Dhungel, S.; Adhikari, S. Status of fertilizer and seed subsidy in Nepal: Review and recommendation. J. Agric. Environ. 2016, 17, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Singh, M.; Maharjan, K.L.; Singh, M.; Maharjan, K.L. Status and scope of organic farming in Nepal. In Sustainability of Organic Farming in Nepal; Springer Nature Singapore Private Limited: Singapore, 2017; pp. 21–36. [Google Scholar]
  83. Parajuli, S.; Shrestha, J.; Ghimire, S. Organic farming in Nepal: A viable option for food security and agricultural sustainability. Arch. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2020, 5, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Pokhrel, D.M.; Pant, K.P. Perspectives of organic agriculture and policy concerns in Nepal. J. Agric. Environ. 2009, 10, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 12 02054 g001
Figure 1. Location of the GRB and selected villages within the different physiographic regions (Mountain, Hill, Tarai, and GP). The data for the land cover are taken from [47].
Figure 1. Location of the GRB and selected villages within the different physiographic regions (Mountain, Hill, Tarai, and GP). The data for the land cover are taken from [47].
Land 12 02054 g001
Land 12 02054 g002
Figure 2. Overall research framework of the study.
Figure 2. Overall research framework of the study.
Land 12 02054 g002
Table 1. Number of households interviewed from each village in the different physiographic regions of the GRB.
Table 1. Number of households interviewed from each village in the different physiographic regions of the GRB.
SNVillage and DistrictPhysiographic RegionNo. of HouseholdsCountry
1Pisang, ManangMountain40Nepal
2Lomangthang, MustangMountain53Nepal
3Gatlang, RasuwaMountain55Nepal
4Phalate, NuwakotHill53Nepal
5Lamgaun, BaglungHill55Nepal
6Turlungkot, LamjungHill54Nepal
7Jyamire, NawalpurTarai54Nepal
8Basantapur, ChitwanTarai55Nepal
9Chisapani, MakwanpurTarai55Nepal
10Kamal Pipra, Purba ChamparanGP54India
11Aswan, SaranGP56India
12Chankunwa, Pashim ChamparanGP55India
Total639
Table 2. Summary of variables with their definitions.
Table 2. Summary of variables with their definitions.
VariablesDescriptionRelation
Family sizeA large family size may result in more opportunities to obtain knowledge and information from various sources.Positive
Gender of household headMale heads of the household may have more knowledge than females. Males are predominantly the heads of the household, and these individuals make visits outside of the home, which results in more opportunities to obtain knowledge on climate change.Positive
Age of household headIt is presumed that older heads of the household may have more experience and knowledge about climate change and its impacts on agriculture.Positive
Education of household headLiterate farmers may obtain knowledge about climate change and its impact on agriculture from different sources (literate = 1, illiterate = 0).Positive
Profession of household headFarmers perform mainly agricultural work, so they are more likely to have knowledge and experience as compared with other professions; however, other respondents with non-agricultural professions may also know have knowledge from other sources.Positive, negative
Number of livestockRespondents with a large number of livestock may have more knowledge about climate change.Positive
Farmland sizeRespondents with a large farmland size may have more information on climate change and its impact on agriculture.Positive
Lack of irrigationFarmers with irrigation problems are likely to have more knowledge about climate change and its impact on agriculture.Positive
Temperature changeTemperature changes (mainly an increase) are an indicator of climate change and a positive a positive indicator of climate change to a farmer.Positive
Precipitation changePrecipitation changes (increase and decrease) are an indicator of climate change. Farmers may have both positive and negative awareness of these changes.Positive, negative
Increase in droughtsIt is assumed that increases in drought are another indicator of climate change. If droughts increase, a farmer may notice the effect of climate change and its impact on agriculture.Positive
Increase in floodsAn increase in floods is expected to be an indicator of climate change for farmers.Positive
Climate-induced diseases/pestsClimate-induced diseases and pests are an indicator of the impact of climate change impact on agricultural activities, which is expected to have a positive impact on the farmer.Positive
Impact on stable cropsThe adverse impact on stable crops may be an indicator of the effects of climate change, which the farmer may observe as a positive impact of climate change.Positive
Impact on vegetationThe impact on vegetation (mostly trees and grass) may be an indicator of climate change, which supports a farmer’s awareness of climate change.Positive
Impact on livestock productionIf a farmer’s livestock production was negatively impacted, this will likely have a positive impact on a farmer’s awareness of climate change.Positive
Decrease in agricultural productionIf the total agricultural production decreases, a farmer may notice the impact of the unfavorable climate on crops. It is positive support to a farmer for climate change impact.Positive
Table 3. Characteristics of the respondents and their families by physiographic region in the GRB.
Table 3. Characteristics of the respondents and their families by physiographic region in the GRB.
Household CharacteristicsDetailsTotalRegion
MountainHillTaraiGP
Family size (number)Average family size5.534.735.495.076.77
Gender of household head (number)Male556120134148154
Female8329271611
Age of household head (years)Average age52.6050.7557.6350.2352.08
Education of the household headLiterate34165989583
Illiterate29884636982
Profession of household headAgriculture4659912399144
Others17450386521
Table 4. Agricultural characteristics of farmers by physiographic regions in the GRB.
Table 4. Agricultural characteristics of farmers by physiographic regions in the GRB.
Agricultural CharacteristicsDetailsTotalRegion
MountainHillTaraiGP
Farmland size (ropani)Average farmland10.116.938.107.5417.54
Number of livestockAverage number of livestock2.443.482.742.721.14
Lack of irrigation facilityYes503109120127148
No13640423717
Note: 1 ropani = 0.050 hectares or 508.74 m2 area.
Table 5. Summary of the observed indicators of climate change by farmers in the GRB.
Table 5. Summary of the observed indicators of climate change by farmers in the GRB.
IndicatorResponseRegions
MountainHillTaraiGP
YesNoχ2 TestYesNoYesNoYesNoYesNo
Temperature change5351040.00012820124381372714619
Precipitation change5151240.00012919120421273713926
Increase in droughts4312080.00011434112506210214223
Increase in floods2913481.000118306696331317491
Climate-induced diseases/pests4721670.0001222695671263812936
Impact on stable crops4372020.000737592701323214124
Impact on vegetation3452940.0031222682801174724141
Impact on livestock production2613780.05911533541084711745120
Decrease in agricultural production2823570.24712028107551814637128
Chi-square (χ2) (two-tailed test); probability level p ≤ 0.05. The chi-square test was calculated based on data collection from 639 households.
Table 6. Summary of results from the BLR models in GRB.
Table 6. Summary of results from the BLR models in GRB.
Explanatory VariableβSEWaldSignificance (p)
A. Household characteristics
Family size−0.2000.0708.2040.004 **
Gender of household head0.5350.4061.7310.188
Age of household head0.0210.0104.0540.044 **
Education of household head−1.1940.32113.8570.000 **
Profession of household head−0.8990.3028.8630.003 **
B. Agricultural characteristics
Number of livestock0.2220.06113.2790.000 **
Farmland size−0.0130.0073.4940.062
Lack of irrigation−1.3760.30620.1570.000 **
C. Biophysical variables
Temperature change−1.0330.3807.3710.007 **
Precipitation change−1.9000.33731.7360.000 **
Increase in droughts−0.5850.3273.2040.073
Increase in floods0.2050.3150.4240.515
Climate-induced diseases/pest−0.0660.4180.0250.874
D. Impact variables
Impact on stable crops−0.6380.4312.1890.139
Impact on vegetation−0.4550.3251.9530.162
Impact on livestock0.3360.3470.9410.332
Decrease agriculture production−0.0320.3220.0100.921
Note: ** indicates a significance level of 95%.
Table 7. Details of the variables used in the BLR models in the different physiographic regions of the GRB.
Table 7. Details of the variables used in the BLR models in the different physiographic regions of the GRB.
Explanatory VariableSignificance (p)
Region
MountainHillTaraiGP
A. Household characteristics
Family size0.5400.4740.3080.762
Gender of household head0.6900.0710.6850.218
Age of household head0.2230.9700.6700.335
Education of household head0.008 **0.029 **0.3580.010 **
Profession of household head0.009 **0.043 **0.1460.334
B. Agricultural characteristics
Number of livestock0.1400.1170.7170.037 **
Farmland size0.2570.1700.5670.591
Lack of irrigation0.5590.029 **0.011 **0.006 **
C. Biophysical variables
Temperature change0.8730.2720.042 **0.997
Precipitation change0.028 **0.018 **0.017 **0.003 **
Increase in droughts0.5320.018 **0.5940.002 **
Increase in floods0.2550.0940.3500.805
Climate induced diseases/pest0.042 **0.9600.2470.515
D. Impact variables
Impact on stable crops0.3100.8270.043 **0.352
Impact on vegetation0.032 **0.5990.3650.199
Impact on livestock0.4870.4090.9460.130
Decrease agriculture production0.7590.025 **0.045 **0.001 **
Abbreviation: ** indicates the significance level at 95%.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rai, R.; Zhang, Y.; Paudel, B.; Yan, J.; Khanal, N.R. Analysis of Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate Changes and Adaptation Strategies in the Transboundary Gandaki River Basin. Land 2023, 12, 2054. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12112054

AMA Style

Rai R, Zhang Y, Paudel B, Yan J, Khanal NR. Analysis of Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate Changes and Adaptation Strategies in the Transboundary Gandaki River Basin. Land. 2023; 12(11):2054. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12112054

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rai, Raju, Yili Zhang, Basanta Paudel, Jianzhong Yan, and Narendra Raj Khanal. 2023. "Analysis of Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate Changes and Adaptation Strategies in the Transboundary Gandaki River Basin" Land 12, no. 11: 2054. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12112054

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop