hydrology

Article
Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change and Its Impacts
on Agriculture
Ramesh Shrestha 1 , Biplob Rakhal 2, *, Tirtha Raj Adhikari 3 , Ganesh Raj Ghimire 4 , Rocky Talchabhadel 5, * ,
Dinee Tamang 6 , Radhika KC 7 and Sanjib Sharma 8

1 Department of Geography, Durham University, Lower Mountjoy, South Rd, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
2 Engineering-GIS, United Nation’s World Food Programme, Country Office, Lalitpur Metro, Patan Dhoka Rd,
Lalitpur 44600, Nepal
3 Central Department of Hydrology and Meteorology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu 44618, Nepal
4 Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Bethel Valley Rd,
Oak Ridge, TN 37381, USA
5 Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University, El Paso, TX 79927, USA
6 Mercy Corps Nepal, Lalitpur Metro, Sanepa Rd, Lalitpur 44700, Nepal
7 Jami, Martin B Cohen Centre, Gould Way, Deansbrook Rd, Edgware HA8 9GL, UK
8 Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16801, USA
* Correspondence: [email protected] (B.R.); [email protected] (R.T.)

Abstract: Climate change and climate variability drive rapid glacier melt and snowpack loss, extreme
precipitation and temperature events, and alteration of water availability in the Himalayas. There
is increasing observational evidence of climate change impacts on water resource availability and
agricultural productivity in the central Himalayan region. Here, we assess the farmers’ perception of
Citation: Shrestha, R.; Rakhal, B.; climate change and its impacts on agriculture in western Nepal. We interviewed 554 households and
Adhikari, T.R.; Ghimire, G.R.; conducted eight focus group discussions to collect farmers’ perceptions of temperature and rainfall
Talchabhadel, R.; Tamang, D.; KC, R.; characteristics, water availability, onset and duration of different seasons, and the impacts of such
Sharma, S. Farmers’ Perception of changes on their lives and livelihoods. Our results indicate that the farmers’ perceptions of rising
Climate Change and Its Impacts on annual and summer temperatures are consistent with observations. Perception, however, contradicts
Agriculture. Hydrology 2022, 9, 212.
observed trends in winter temperature, as well as annual, monsoon, and winter precipitation. In
https://doi.org/10.3390/
addition, farmers are increasingly facing incidences of extreme events, including rainfall, floods,
hydrology9120212
landslides, and droughts. These hazards often impact agricultural production, reducing household
Academic Editors: Md Shahriar income and exacerbating the economic impacts on subsistence farmers. Integrated assessment of
Pervez, Naga Manohar Velpuri and farmers’ perceptions and hydrometeorological observations is crucial to improving climate change
Pierfranco Costabile impact assessment and informing the design of mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Received: 14 October 2022
Accepted: 24 November 2022 Keywords: climate change; temperature; precipitation; agriculture; farmers’ perception; mitigation
Published: 28 November 2022 and adaptation

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral

with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
1. Introduction
iations.
The Himalayan region is considered the water tower of Asia and plays a crucial role
in water resources available for agricultural production in South Asia. The region is expe-
riencing a strong influence of climate change on rainfall variability, extreme temperature,
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. permafrost thaw, glacier melt, and river water degradation [1]. Climate change exacerbates
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. hydroclimatic hazards (e.g., extreme rainfall, floods, and droughts) and the associated risks
This article is an open access article to water resources and agriculture [2–5]. Due to climate change, climate extremes, such as
distributed under the terms and heat and cold waves, droughts, floods, and extreme precipitation events, are becoming more
conditions of the Creative Commons frequent, concurrent, and damaging [6–8]. Strategies to manage these risks rely on how
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
local communities, decision-makers, and stakeholders perceive hazards and risks [9]. Risk
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
perception can vary with livelihood, vulnerability, adaptive capability, and past encounters
4.0/).

Hydrology 2022, 9, 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology9120212 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/hydrology

Hydrology 2022, 9, 212 2 of 15

with climate-induced hazards [10–12]. Understanding local communities’ perceptions of

climate change can help inform the design of risk management strategies [13,14].
Climate change and climate variability pose a huge constraint on farmers’ ability to
make strategic agricultural practice decisions, from seeding to harvesting [15,16]. Climate
change impact assessments are often constrained by observational data availability and
data quality [17–19]. In hydrometeorological data-scarce regions, local knowledge is quite
important in developing climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies [20–22]. While
subsistence farmers are highly vulnerable to climate change [23], they also possess rich
knowledge about local climatic conditions and historical extremes [24]. However, their
knowledge is often ignored in risk management policies and programs [25,26]. Emphasis
is given to the use and analysis of empirical observations and regional climate model out-
puts [27,28]. While such observations and climate model outputs are useful for adaptation
planning at regional scales, they might not be representative at local scales.
The economy of the central Himalayan country Nepal is largely dependent on agricul-
ture. The agricultural sector contributes one-third of the country’s gross domestic product
and provides employment for two-thirds of the population [29]. Agricultural practices
mostly depend on rainfall [30]. Any changes in rainfall characteristics such as intensity,
duration, and frequency can impact agricultural production and food security [15,31].
The recent increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall events, floods, and
droughts have impacted lives and agriculture-based subsistence livelihoods across the
country [32,33]. For example, the droughts of 2006 to 2009 affected over two million peo-
ple [34]. A prolonged drought in 2013 induced an irrigation water shortage and forced
the relocation of thousands of people in Northern Nepal [35,36]. Heavy rainfall in Au-
gust 2017 resulted in widespread floods and landslides with agricultural damage of over
60 million USD [37]. These impacts are expected to increase in the future as changing
climates can substantially alter temperature, precipitation, and river flow conditions in the
Himalayan region [38–40].
Several studies [32,41–44] have focused on assessing farmers’ perceptions of climate
change in the central Himalayan region. For instance, Muench et al. [45] reported the
development of adaptation strategies, such as crop diversification and soil conservation,
based on the high awareness of climate change by the smallholder tea farmers of Eastern
Nepal. However, their adaptation choices were constrained by the lack of access to infor-
mation, financial and agricultural extension services, availability of irrigation facilities, and
degree of training participation. Devkota [32] compared the climate change trends with
people’s perceptions in Western Nepal and found a close similarity between the observed
and perceived trends. Shrestha et al. [41] reported that local people accurately perceived
the shifts in temperature, but their perception of precipitation change differs from the
observational records. Luitel et al. [42] focused on climate change impact assessment on
crop yield in different ecological regions of central Nepal. Their study reported that the
decreasing trend in rainfall across different elevations generally matched the views of
respondents, with an exception in the temperate climatic region. People from the tem-
perate climatic region perceived that the current onset of snowfall was delayed, but the
amount of snowfall remained the same. Dawadi et al. [43] found a convergence between
the people’s perception and observational trends of precipitation and mean temperature
in the mountainous region. Budhathoki and Zander [44] analyzed the impacts of farmers’
climate change perceptions on their farming practices. They found that while perceptions
of changes in maximum temperatures aligned with the observed trends, the perceptions
differed for changes in minimum temperature and rainfall. The conclusions from these
studies have been mixed. Some have reported the large impacts of climate change on
agricultural practices and production [42], while others have found that the choice of
crop varieties and cropping patterns are often driven by technological and market-related
factors rather than climate change alone [44]. Hence, there is no consensus among previous
studies suggesting that neither local perception nor observational trend alone is sufficient
for climate change impact assessment on agriculture. Integrated analysis of farmers’ per-
Hydrology 2022, 9, 212 3 of 15

ceptions and the hydrometeorological observational dataset is crucial to quantify climate

change impacts on the agricultural sector and to inform the design of mitigation and
adaptation strategies [41,46–50].
Most studies comparing the farmers’ perception with instrumental observation have
focused on smaller geographical areas. Very few studies have compared people’s percep-
tions with scientific data covering multiple ecological regions. Such comparative studies
are very rare in the Far-western region of Nepal (See, for example, [41,42,44]). To the best of
our knowledge, this study is the first to compare farmers’ perceptions in different ecological
regions of Far-western Nepal with scientific data. This study compares farmers’ perceptions
of climate change and historical hydroclimatic observation in three different physiographic
regions of Far-western Nepal. The objectives of the study are to (i) analyze temporal trends
in historical temperature and precipitation observations, (ii) assess farmers’ perception of
changes in temperature and precipitation, and compare their perception with the observed
hydroclimatic trends, and (iii) examine the perceived impacts of climate change on agri-
culture. Farmers’ perceptions about hydroclimatic trends and impacts of climate change
were gathered through the questionnaire survey and focus group discussions (FGDs). The
insights gained from this study contribute to advancing our fundamental understanding
of the impacts of climate change on agricultural practices (such as farming patterns, crop
yield, mitigation, and adaptation strategies) in the Himalayan region that, in turn, could
help to inform the design of adaptation and mitigation strategies.

2. Study Area, Materials, and Methods

2.1. Study Area
This study focuses on four districts of Western Nepal, including Kailali, Kanchanpur,
Dadeldhura, and Baitadi (Figure 1). Western Nepal is highly vulnerable to climate change
impacts [51]. The region has below the national average score on Human Development
Index indicators such as health, income, and education [52]. The per capita income is
lower [53], whereas the population proportion under absolute poverty is higher than in
other parts of the country [54]. We selected the study region by adopting a purposive
sampling strategy [55,56] to incorporate diverse hydroclimatic hazards, physiographic
Hydrology 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17
regions, and socioeconomic conditions. For instance, Kailali and Kanchanpur are located in
the low-land Terai region, whereas Dadeldhura and Baitadi are situated in the Hilly region.

Figure 1. Map showing the study area and meteorological stations.

Figure 1. Map showing the study area and meteorological stations.

We analyzed temperature and precipitation observations at 7 and 13 stations, respec-

tively (Figure 1). Farmers’ perceptions of changes in temperature and precipitation pa-
rameters and their impacts were gathered from the farmers of eight different locations.
Two survey locations from each district were selected based on their high vulnerability to
climate-induced hazards as identified in the Disaster Preparedness and Response Plans
Hydrology 2022, 9, 212 4 of 15

We analyzed temperature and precipitation observations at 7 and 13 stations, re-

spectively (Figure 1). Farmers’ perceptions of changes in temperature and precipitation
parameters and their impacts were gathered from the farmers of eight different locations.
Two survey locations from each district were selected based on their high vulnerability to
climate-induced hazards as identified in the Disaster Preparedness and Response Plans
(DPRPs) of respective districts [57–60].

2.2. Meteorological Observations

Temperature and precipitation datasets were acquired from the Department of Hydrol-
ogy and Meteorology (DHM), Nepal. We assessed annual and seasonal trends for the pe-
riod 1970–2014. The seasonal trends were assessed for Pre-monsoon (March–May), Monsoon
(June–September), Post-monsoon (October–November), and Winter season (December–February).
We evaluated the monotonic trends at each station using non-parametric rank-based
Mann–Kendall tests [61,62]. The trend magnitude was estimated using Theil-Sen’s ap-
proach [63,64]. The Mann–Kendall test is robust against data gaps and outliers, and the
method is widely used in such hydroclimatic analyses. We show the trends at a 5% level
of significance.

2.3. Assessment of Farmers’ Perceptions

Farmers’ perceptions of trends and impacts of climate change were gathered through
the questionnaire survey and focus group discussions (FGDs). The survey was conducted
from October 2016 to April 2017. The sample size (n) for the questionnaire survey of each
of the surveyed locations was determined using the approach recommended by Arkin
and Colton [65]:
NZ2 P(1 − P)
n= (1)
Nd2 + Z2 P(1 − P)
where, N = total number of households, Z = Z-statistics (i.e., 1.96 at 95% confidence level),
P = estimated population proportion (0.05; this maximizes the sample size), and d = error
limit of 5%. Using Equation (1) and the population data from the census of 2011 (CBS, 2012),
the sample size for the questionnaire survey was obtained as 554. The randomly selected
554 households were then interviewed to collect household perceptions on climate change
trends and impacts over the past 30 years (1986–2016). The dominant respondents (52%)
were of 50–60 years of age, followed by those over 60 years of age (30%), and the remaining
18% were of 18–49 years of age. Most of the questions for household surveys were designed
as multiple-choice questions with answers in terms of one of the following: increased (I),
decreased (D), no change (NC), and do not know. The key aspects of the questionnaire are
shown in Supplementary Material, Table S3. The respondents who perceived an increase
or decrease in climatic parameters were further asked to mention three major impacts of
climate change on agriculture as well as mitigation and adaptation measures followed to
minimize the impacts.
Eight FGDs were conducted with farmers—one in each of the surveyed locations. In
total, 52 persons participated in the FGDs, of which 56% were female. Overall, 81% of the
participants were above 50–60 years of age, 12% were above 60, and the rest were 18–49 years
of age. Each FGD consisted of five to eight people of different ages, gender, and ethnicity.
The participating farmers were asked about their perceptions of changes in temperature
and rainfall patterns, water availability, onset and duration of different seasons, and the
impacts of such changes on their lives and livelihoods. The demographic composition of the
questionnaire survey and FGD participants are included in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2.

3. Results
3.1. Temperature and Precipitation Observation
Figure 2a–o present the temporal trends of temperature and precipitation. The annual
daily maximum temperature (Tmax) has decreased in two stations (both statistically in-
significant) and increased in the remaining five stations (refer to Figure 2n). Four stations,
 Hydrology 2022, 9, 212 5 of 15

namely Patan (West) and Dadeldhura of the middle mountain region, and Godawari (West)
and Mahendranagar of the siwaliks, show a statistically significant rising trend. The annual
trends range from −0.02 ◦ C y−1 to 0.1 ◦ C y−1 . Monsoon Tmax is significantly increasing
in three stations—two of which lie in the middle mountain and one in the Terai (lowland)
region (refer to Figure 2f). Similarly, as indicated in Figure 2h winter Tmax is significantly
Hydrology 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEWincreasing in Patan (West) and Dadeldhura stations—both of which lie in the middle moun-6 of 17
tains and is significantly decreasing in Mahendranagar and Chisapani stations—both of
which are in the Siwaliks (mid-hills).

Figure
Figure2. 2.
(a–o)
(a–o)Temporal
Temporal trends
trends inintemperature
temperatureandand precipitation
precipitation observations
observations across across meteorologi-
meteorological
calstations.
stations.

As shown in Figure 2o, annual daily minimum temperature (Tmin) is decreasing in

four stations (all statistically insignificant) and increasing in the remaining three stations,
with a significantly increasing trend in two of those stations—Chisapani and Mahen-
dranagar stations of siwaliks region. Mahendranagar station shows a statistically rising
Hydrology 2022, 9, 212 6 of 15

As shown in Figure 2o, annual daily minimum temperature (Tmin) is decreasing in

four stations (all statistically insignificant) and increasing in the remaining three stations,
with a significantly increasing trend in two of those stations—Chisapani and Mahendrana-
gar stations of siwaliks region. Mahendranagar station shows a statistically rising trend
for both annual Tmax and Tmin. Likewise, Patan (West) station, which lies in the middle
mountain region, shows an increasing trend for both annual Tmax and Tmin, whereas
Dhangadhi station, which lies in the lowland Terai region, shows a decreasing trend for
both annual Tmax and Tmin. The trends of annual Tmax and Tmin were just opposite for
the remaining four stations indicating the diurnal temperature range is relatively higher
in those locations (refer to Figure 2n–o). The annual trends range from −0.04 ◦ C y−1 to
0.03 ◦ C y−1 at, respectively Tikapur station (elevation: 140 masl) of Terai and Chisapani
station (elevation: 225 masl) of siwalik. Interestingly, these two stations are located in the
Kailali district and are only 24 km apart, exemplifying that the climates can vary over a
short distance. Such difference could be because of the multiple microclimatic regions
generated by the complex physiographic properties of the Himalayas [66] and highlights
the necessity of an adequate number of stations for climate change studies and adaptation
planning. The monsoon Tmin is found to be increasing in all stations except for Tikapur
(Figure 2j). Chisapani station shows a significantly increasing trend of monsoon Tmin (refer
to Figure 2j), whereas Dhangadhi (Terai) and Mahendranagar (Siwalik) stations show a
significantly increasing trend of winter Tmin (refer to Figure 2l).
In terms of precipitation, both the total annual and monsoon precipitation show a
mixed trend, i.e., six stations have a rising and seven stations have a falling trend, but across
different stations (Figure 2m). The winter precipitation has rising trends in most stations
(9 stations) while falling trends in the remaining four stations (refer to Figure 2d). Note that
the precipitation trends are statistically insignificant in all the stations, with their magnitude
ranging from −8.4 mm y−1 to 17.5 mm y−1 . Please refer to Supplementary Tables S4–S6 for
further details.

3.2. Farmers’ Perception of Change in Temperature and Precipitation

Data collected through questionnaire surveys and FGDs indicate that the farmers
perceived a considerable change in temperature and precipitation parameters (Figure 3).
Figure 3a–i present farmers’ perceptions of change in different climate parameters at
different locations. More than 70% of the respondents to the household survey perceived
that the overall summer and winter temperatures have increased over the last 30 years.
Similarly, more than 80% of the respondents perceived change in the duration of the
summer and winter seasons. While 82% of respondents perceived an increase in summer
duration, 77% of them perceived a decrease in winter duration (refer to Figure A1 in
Appendix A for further details).
There was a general consensus on the tendency of change in temperature patterns, with
the majority of respondents perceiving an increase in annual and seasonal temperatures.
However, the respondents have mixed perceptions of rainfall trends. While more than 50%
of respondents perceived an increase in annual and monsoonal rainfall, a huge proportion
of respondents—35% and 41% of respondents, respectively—perceived that the annual
and monsoon precipitation might have actually decreased. Likewise, there was a greater
consensus about the intensity of monsoon rainfall and the amount of winter rainfall. In all,
73% mentioned that the intensity of monsoon rainfall has increased, which has caused an
increase in the occurrence of rainfall extremes driven hazards, such as floods and landslides
in recent years. Similarly, 84% of respondents perceived that there had been a decrease
in the winter rainfall amount. Likewise, 55% of respondents perceived a decrease in the
number of rainy days. The majority of the FGD participants also highlighted the delay in
the onset and offset of monsoon compared to before.
Hydrology 2022,
Hydrology 9, x212
2022, 9, FOR PEER REVIEW 8 7ofof 17
15

Figure 3.
Figure (a–i) Farmers’
3. (a–i) Farmers’ perception
perception of
of temporal
temporal trends
trends of
of temperature,
temperature, precipitation,
precipitation, and
and drought.
drought.
3.3. Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture
3.3. Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture
3.3.1. Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change Impacts on Trends of Hazards’ Incidences
3.3.1. Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change Impacts on Trends of Hazards’ Incidences
Farmers have experienced not only changes in climate parameters but also the impacts
Farmers
of those haveon
changes experienced not onlyMore
their livelihoods. changes
thanintwo-thirds
climate parameters but also the
of the respondents of im-
the
pacts of those survey
questionnaire changesandonparticipants
their livelihoods.
of FGDs More than two-thirds
perceived of the respondents
that the incidences of floods and of
the questionnaire
landslides survey and
have increased. Theparticipants
perception of of FGDs perceived
an increase thatand
in flood the landslide
incidencesincidences
of floods
and
alignslandslides
with the have increased.
disaster database The perception
maintained byofthe
anNepal
increase in flood and
Government landslide
of Nepal inci-
Disaster
dences aligns with the disaster database maintained by the Nepal
Risk Reduction Portal (http://www.drrportal.gov.np/ accessed on 15 June 2022). The Government of Nepal
Disaster
databaseRisk Reduction
shows Portal trends
the increasing (http://www.drrportal.gov.np/
of fatal landslide and flood accessed
eventson 15 the
and June 2022).
number
The database
of affected shows in
families thestudy
increasing trends
districts. of fatal landslide
However, one shouldandbeflood events
careful andusing
while the num-
and
ber of affectedsecondary
interpreting families indatabases
study districts.
because However, one should
the increment could bealso
careful while
be due to using and
increased
interpreting secondary
reporting in recent yearsdatabases
[67,68]. because the increment could also be due to increased
reporting in recent years
Three-fourths of the[67,68].
participants perceived that water availability in wells, springs,
and Three-fourths of the purposes
rivers for domestic participants
andperceived
irrigationthat
haswater availability
decreased, in wells,
and more thansprings,
60% of
and rivers for domestic
the respondents of the purposes and irrigation
questionnaire has decreased,
survey perceived and more
an increase than
in the 60% of the
incidence of
droughts (SeeofFigure
respondents 3). The other noticeable
the questionnaire hazards reported
survey perceived by the
an increase infarmers during the
the incidence of
Hydrology 2022, 9, 212 8 of 15

questionnaire survey and FGDs were increased occurrences of forest fire and hailstorms
in the Hilly region and cold waves in Terai. The higher perception of the increase in the
incidences of floods, landslides, and droughts suggests the worrying situation of these
hazards in everyday lives.

3.3.2. Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change Impacts on Agricultural Production

Over 65% of the respondents to questionnaire surveys and FGDs mentioned that rice
and wheat production has decreased due to the change and uncertainty in the onset and
withdrawal of monsoon and winter rainfall. Variable timing and rainfall patterns have
impacted farmers’ decision-making in the seedbed preparation and transplantation of crops
and vegetables. Many shared the bitter experience of having been forced to transplant
older aged paddy and millet seedlings due to delayed rainfall. Approximately 80% of
the respondents of household surveys and participants of FGDs shared that the increased
incidence and severity of floods, flash floods, and landslides have led to reduced availability
of food and caused damage to several hectares of agricultural land, making large areas of the
farmland barren. The loss of agricultural land has further deepened the economic burden
and has increased the dependency on access to food from the market. Floods and landslides
cause the direct loss of agricultural land, crops, livestock, and infrastructure such as road
networks, foot trails, and water supply facilities. In addition, the increased dry spells and
decline in water availability for household and agricultural purposes, particularly in winter,
lead to a decline in agricultural productivity. The winter dry spell has impacted winter
crops and vegetables (wheat, barley, potato)—focused agricultural zones, livestock, and
fodders. The perceived decrease in rainfall during winter has affected the sown area of the
winter crop and, thereby, the food security of the communities/small-farm holders that are
highly dependent on winter agricultural production and sales.
Farmers perceive that the rising temperatures have reduced the soil moisture and
consequent decline in agricultural yield. The rising temperatures have also negatively
affected livestock rearing and the production of quality livestock derivative products. In
addition, farmers opined that pests, crop diseases, and weed infestation have increased due
to the rise in temperature and irregular rainfall patterns. Such perception of an increase in
pests, insects, and crop diseases is consistent with the study of Dawadi et al. [43] in Central
Nepal and Manandhar et al. [69] in the Kaligandaki River Basin of Western Nepal. Some of
the major problems shared by the farmers were the problems of aphids and caterpillars’
invasion in vegetables, borer and red rot in sugarcane, and leaf blight and seed blight in
rice plants. The farmers also shared their experience with the increase in the prevalence of
pests and weeds in recent years that have caused a decline in agricultural production and
the increase in their investment in weeding, chemical fertilizers, insecticides, pesticides,
and irrigation.
Many FGD participants also shared that the outmigration of male members of the
villages in search of alternative livelihood options has increased, which has ultimately
increased the overall workload of women and has compelled the women, children, and
elderly to live in vulnerable situations coping with climate-induced hazards like floods
and landslides. Many respondents from the Hilly region also reported the issues of in-
creased travel time in the collection of drinking water and fodder due to the reduction in
their availability.

3.3.3. Adoption of Coping and Adaptation Strategies

Farmers are adopting diverse coping and adaptation measures to climate change.
For example, in Terai region, many farmers reported shifting to flood-resistant hybrid
paddy species and sugarcane plantations in their flood-prone fields. According to those
farmers, sugarcane can withstand flooding more than paddy resulting in reduced losses.
Many Terai farmers also followed riverbed farming to grow, consume, and sell products
like watermelons, cucumber, pumpkins, bitter gourds, tomatoes, and other vegetables
during the dry season, adding income to their families. Those practicing riverbed farming
Hydrology 2022, 9, 212 9 of 15

mentioned that they relied on the use of generators to irrigate water from nearby rivers
and deep borings for watering the vegetables as required.
Terai farmers often used bio-dykes to mitigate flooding and bank-cutting. Many of
them also mentioned that they abandoned land and allowed the forage and tree species
such as Napier, Vetiver, wild sugarcane (Local name: Kaans), and Acacia catechu to grow
on the riverbanks and floodplains. Farmers in the mid-hills and middle mountains cleaned
drainages and rivulets and diverted rainwater effluents away from landslide-prone areas
by making canals, de-intensified or even abandoned cropping in landslide-prone fields for
a few months to years, practiced intercropping and agroforestry, and allowed tree species
to grow along the landslide-prone slopes to mitigate landslides. To cope with the loss
associated with landslides or de-intensifying cropping, several families in the hilly region
either adopted alternative livelihood options like opening tea and petty shops or worked
as skilled or unskilled labor in road and other infrastructure construction sectors.

3.4. Comparison between Perceptions and Observed Climatic Trends

Farmers’ perception of temperature aligned more than that of precipitation (Figure 4).
Perception of annual and summer temperatures coincided more than that of winter tem-
peratures with observed trends. There is a spatial variation in temperature perception.
Highly converging perceptions with the observed temperature trend are seen in the middle
mountain and mid-hills (siwaliks) regions compared to lowland Terai. Only two locations,
Hydrology 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17
Jogbuda and Aalital of mid hills region, represent a highly unmatched perception of winter
temperature trends.

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Comparison
Comparisonofof farmers’ perception
farmers’ and and
perception observed temporal
observed trend of
temporal precipitation
trend and tem-and
of precipitation
perature. Highly matched refers to the condition when the observed trend is significantly positive
temperature. Highly matched refers to the condition when the observed trend is significantly positive
(negative) in the nearest station, and the perception of more than 50% of the respondents also shows
an increase (decrease). Matched refers to the condition when the observed trend is positive (nega-
tive) in the nearest station, and the perception of more than 50% of the respondents also shows an
increase (decrease). Unmatched refers to the condition when the observed trend is positive or neg-
ative in the nearest station, but the perception of more than 50% of the respondents is just the oppo-
site. Highly unmatched refers to the condition when the observed trend is significantly positive or
negative in the nearest station, but the perception of more than 50% of the respondents is just the
Hydrology 2022, 9, 212 10 of 15

(negative) in the nearest station, and the perception of more than 50% of the respondents also shows
an increase (decrease). Matched refers to the condition when the observed trend is positive (negative)
in the nearest station, and the perception of more than 50% of the respondents also shows an increase
(decrease). Unmatched refers to the condition when the observed trend is positive or negative in the
nearest station, but the perception of more than 50% of the respondents is just the opposite. Highly
unmatched refers to the condition when the observed trend is significantly positive or negative in the
nearest station, but the perception of more than 50% of the respondents is just the opposite.

Farmers’ perception of precipitation trends is unmatched in most of the locations

(Figure 4). Jogbudha (mid-hills) is the only station where the perception of precipitation
during monsoon season tends to match with the observation. Monsoon precipitation has
implications for agricultural productivity. Nepal receives more than 75% of the annual
precipitation during the monsoon [70,71]. The monsoon season is the planting period
of major agricultural crops, including rice. Any alteration in monsoon precipitation can
impact the growth of rice crops and, in turn, the economy of the country. The lowland Terai
region has records of large-scale agricultural loss due to heavy monsoon rainfall in recent
decades [72]. Landslides and floods are often prominent during monsoons. Observational
evidence shows that landslides and floods are often driven by precipitation variability
and human activities, such as random earthen road construction, deforestation, and poor
agricultural land management [73]. Managing the increasing impacts of monsoon rainfall,
floods, and landslides on the agricultural sector requires improving the farmers’ perception
of climate change to inform the design of sustainable mitigation and adaptation strategies.

4. Discussion
This study compares the farmers’ perceptions of climate change and its impacts in
western Nepal. Our findings are consistent with the previous studies that underscore
the need for integrated analysis of hydroclimatic observational records and people’s per-
ceptions in climate change impact assessment [48,74]. Our study brings three key novel
understandings of climate change impacts. First, locals’ perceptions do not correlate well
with observational data across all instances. So, it is not wise to rely on local perception only
while developing local adaptation plans. In our study, farmers’ perception was, in general,
consistent with the observed trends of annual and monsoon temperature but generally
differed in terms of observed trends in winter temperature as well as annual, monsoon, and
winter precipitation. These differences between the perceptions and observed data could be
due to multiple reasons [75]. Spatial differences between the hydrometeorological stations
and locations where perceptions were collected can introduce “negative bias” [15,41,76].
Farmers also tend to overestimate the risks if they are affected by hazards in the past [44,77].
For example, farmers’ experience of a decrease in water availability for domestic and
irrigation purposes in the latter years could have influenced their perception of a decrease
in winter precipitation, although the longer-term observed winter precipitation shows
increasing trends [46,78]. Farmers could be precautious about the impacts of drought risks
on agricultural production regardless of what their nearest weather station recorded and
might have overemphasized the risks [44]. Hence, both scientific and qualitative data
should be used for such analyses, but this should be conducted with caution.
Second, our study highlights the farmers’ ability to perceive greater climate change
impacts, particularly when they have directly affected them. The majority of the farmers
perceived a decrease in the number of rainy days and an increase in the intensity of monsoon
precipitation, floods, and landslides occurrences. This finding is consistent with the study
by Pandey [79] in Western Nepal, where a majority of respondents perceived an increase in
flood and landslide incidences. The Desinventar database (http://www.drrportal.gov.np/
accessed on 15 June 2022) also exhibits increasing trends in the incidences of annual fatal
events and fatalities due to floods and landslides during 1984–2016 [80]. In FGDs, the farmers
also reported a decline in agricultural production as well as direct loss of agricultural land
and livestock due to the increased incidence and severity of climate-induced hazards. Several
Hydrology 2022, 9, 212 11 of 15

other studies on climate change impact assessment in the central Himalayas (e.g., [32,81,82])
have reported increasing impacts of climate-induced hazards on agricultural productivity.
Third, our study highlights that the risk and impacts of climate change are further
exacerbated by other anthropogenic activities. Many respondents of questionnaire surveys
and FGD are concerned about the potential impacts of deforestation, stone mining, and hap-
hazard development activities that can lead to floods, landslides, and water degradation.
The participants also complained that the government support mechanism was largely
response-focused, and pre-disaster preparedness activities were given very little attention.
Climate change coupled with unplanned development practices such as haphazard earthen
road construction can increase the incidences and impacts of floods and landslides [83].
Government and supporting agencies could strengthen efforts for proactive disaster pre-
paredness and climate change adaptation [84]. Several mitigation and adaptation strategies,
such as the provision of sustainable irrigation facilities, reliable agricultural extension
services, adoption of rainwater harvesting, distribution of flood and drought-resistant
crop species, and support for alternative livelihood opportunities, could help to develop
agricultural resilience. Furthermore, development activities should be risk-sensitive and
consider the fragile geology and climate change trends and projections.
Our study is not without limitations. This study is mostly focused on farmers’ perception
about climate change at annual and seasonal timescales; however, future study could explore
the perception at sub-seasonal to seasonal timescales. We used the district-level secondary data
to analyze the quantitative impacts of floods and landslides because the village or sub-district
level data were not maintained by the government’s database. We know that participatory
tools could be applied to collect quantitative information for further research in data-scarce
conditions. Additionally, we did not analyze differential perceptions and adaptation measures
in relation to age, ethnicity, landholdings, and gender. In future research, such considerations
could provide a better picture of climate change perceptions.

5. Conclusions
This study analyzes the historical trends of observed temperature and precipitation
in western Nepal. We compare the farmers’ perceptions with the observed temperature
and precipitation trends. We use questionnaire surveys and focus group discussions
to assess farmers’ perceptions about hydroclimatic trends and the impacts of climate
change on agriculture. Our results suggest that local perceptions can differ from the
observed trend in hydroclimatic variables. However, they can complement each other
in climate change impact assessment and support the formulation of resilient mitigation
and adaptation strategies. Farmers’ perceptions of an increase in annual and monsoon
temperature generally coincide with observed trends. However, their perception of an
increase in winter temperature contradicts the observed trends in most of the stations.
This indicates that the farmers’ perception is driven by certain changes in the climate
and associated weather patterns of the winter season, which a single parameter cannot
infer. Farmers also reported a substantial increase in annual and monsoon precipitation
and a decline in winter precipitation. However, the observed hydroclimatic records in
several stations reflect opposite trends. This could be partly due to the increasing frequency
of extreme climate events and their direct impact on the livelihood of farmers. Many
respondents also reported an increase in water scarcity and consequent impacts that
compelled respondents to change the cropping time and crop varieties to cope with the
climate change impacts. Several mitigation and adaptation strategies could help to enhance
resilience to climate change impacts in the central Himalayas. Example strategies could
involve strengthening agricultural extension services; promoting flood, landslides, and
drought-resilient crop varieties; stimulating nature-based solutions for hazard mitigation;
and developing reliable early warning systems for risk communication.
Further, the government support mechanism is generally response-focused. We call
for proactive disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation planning as neither
instrumental observation nor local perceptions alone are suitable for adaptation planning.
Hydrology 2022, 9, 212 12 of 15

Their comparison provides a better picture of climate change impacts and adaptation
needs. Similarly, since public perception is dynamic and influenced by multiple factors like
outreach activities conducted by NGOs, government agencies, and media, and past experi-
ences of climate change impact, further research is needed to improve our understanding
and confidence in making informed decisions. The issues of drought and decreases in
water availability were raised by many participants in questionnaire surveys and GGDs.
Another study on the types and impacts of drought in the study area could be of interest.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/hydrology9120212/s1, Table S1: Demographic composition of
the participants of questionnaire survey, Table S2: Demographic composition of the participants of
Focus Group Discussion (FGD), Table S3: Key aspects of the questionnaire used in the household
perception survey, Table S4: Observed trends of change in precipitation at different stations, Table S5:
Observed trends of change in maximum temperature at different stations, Table S6: Observed trends
of change in minimum temperature at different stations.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, and formal analysis,
R.S. and T.R.A.; investigation, R.S., R.K. and D.T.; resources, B.R. and D.T.; data curation, B.R., R.S.
and T.R.A.; writing—original draft preparation, R.S., B.R. and T.R.A.; writing—review and editing,
S.S., R.T., G.R.G. and R.K.; visualization, B.R.; supervision, T.R.A.; project administration, R.S. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Observed data of precipitation and temperature at the selected stations
were collected from the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
Hydrology 2022, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 (DHM)
of 17 Nepal (http://www.dhm.
np accessed on 15 March 2021). The data is not in open access. These data can be purchased (http:
//dhm.gov.np/pricelist.html accessed on 15 March 2021) and used by the individual(s)/institution
Funding: This research received no external funding.
for the academic/research work as authorized by the DHM. DHM data cannot be used for commercial
Data Availability Statement: Observed data of precipitation and temperature at the selected sta-
purposes. The other data and materials used in this study will be provided on request.
tions were collected from the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology (DHM) Nepal
(http://www.dhm.np accessed on 15 March 2021). The data is not in open access. These data can be
Acknowledgments: The authors accessed
purchased (http://dhm.gov.np/pricelist.html wouldonlike to thank
15 March theused
2021) and Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
by the individ-
(DHM) Nepalforfor
ual(s)/institution theproviding permission
academic/research to use by
work as authorized thethemeteorological
DHM. DHM data cannot data.be This study was supported by
used for commercial purposes. The other data and materials used in this study will be provided on
Mercy
request.
Corps Nepal’s Managing Risk through Economic Development (MRED) Program—phase I
and II implemented in Sudur Paschim Province of Nepal from 2012 to 2019 with funding support
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Department of Hydrology and Meteorol-
from Margaret
ogy (DHM) A.providing
Nepal for Cargillpermission
Foundation. Wemeteorological
to use the would like to This
data. thankstudythe
wasentire
sup- MRED team for their huge
ported by in
support Mercy Corps Nepal’s
conducting theManaging
study. WeRisk would
through Economic Development (MRED)
like to acknowledge Pro-
the respondents of the questionnaire
gram—phase I and II implemented in Sudur Paschim Province of Nepal from 2012 to 2019 with
survey and participants of FGDs. Special thanks to the reviewers
funding support from Margaret A. Cargill Foundation. We would like to thank the entire MRED of the paper and editors of the
team for their
journal for huge
theirsupport in conducting
constructive the study. We
feedback wouldmanuscript.
in this like to acknowledge the respond-
ents of the questionnaire survey and participants of FGDs. Special thanks to the reviewers of the
paper and editors of the journal for their constructive feedback in this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix
Appendix A
A

Figure A1. Farmers’ perceptions of different parameters of climate change and its impacts.
Figure A1. Farmers’ perceptions of different parameters of climate change and its impacts.
References
1. IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2021, in press. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-
report-working-group-i/ (accessed on 15 March 2022).
2. Chen, S.; Chen, X.; Xu, J. Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture: Evidence from China. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2016, 76,
105–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2015.01.005.
3. Iadanza, C.; Trigila, A.; Napolitano, F. Identification and Characterization of Rainfall Events Responsible for Triggering of De-
bris Flows and Shallow Landslides. J. Hydrol. 2016, 541, 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.01.018.
Hydrology 2022, 9, 212 13 of 15

References
1. IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2021. in press. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-
report-working-group-i/ (accessed on 15 March 2022).
2. Chen, S.; Chen, X.; Xu, J. Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture: Evidence from China. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2016, 76,
105–124. [CrossRef]
3. Iadanza, C.; Trigila, A.; Napolitano, F. Identification and Characterization of Rainfall Events Responsible for Triggering of Debris
Flows and Shallow Landslides. J. Hydrol. 2016, 541, 230–245. [CrossRef]
4. Li, M.-F.; Luo, W.; Li, H.; Liu, E.; Li, Y. Daily Extreme Precipitation Indices and Their Impacts on Rice Yield—A Case Study over
the Tropical Island in China. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2018, 132, 503–513. [CrossRef]
5. Tan, M.L.; Gassman, P.W.; Yang, X.; Haywood, J. A Review of SWAT Applications, Performance and Future Needs for Simulation
of Hydro-Climatic Extremes. Adv. Water Resour. 2020, 143, 103662. [CrossRef]
6. AghaKouchak, A.; Chiang, F.; Huning, L.S.; Love, C.A.; Mallakpour, I.; Mazdiyasni, O.; Moftakhari, H.; Papalexiou, S.M.; Ragno,
E.; Sadegh, M. Climate Extremes and Compound Hazards in a Warming World. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2020, 48, 519–548.
[CrossRef]
7. Pradhan, P.; Seydewitz, T.; Zhou, B.; Lüdeke, M.K.B.; Kropp, J.P. Climate Extremes Are Becoming More Frequent, Co-Occurring,
and Persistent in Europe. Anthr. Sci. 2022, 1, 264–277. [CrossRef]
8. Forzieri, G.; Feyen, L.; Russo, S.; Vousdoukas, M.; Alfieri, L.; Outten, S.; Migliavacca, M.; Bianchi, A.; Rojas, R.; Cid, A.
Multi-Hazard Assessment in Europe under Climate Change. Clim. Change 2016, 137, 105–119. [CrossRef]
9. Sullivan, A.; White, D.D. An Assessment of Public Perceptions of Climate Change Risk in Three Western, U.S. Cities. Weather
Clim. Soc. 2019, 11, 449–463. [CrossRef]
10. Elum, Z.A.; Modise, D.M.; Marr, A. Farmer’s Perception of Climate Change and Responsive Strategies in Three Selected Provinces
of South Africa. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 16, 246–257. [CrossRef]
11. Hansen, J.; Sato, M.; Ruedy, R. Perception of Climate Change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, E2415–E2423. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
12. Smith, R.-A. Risk Perception and Adaptive Responses to Climate Change and Climatic Variability in Northeastern St. Vincent.
J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2018, 8, 73–85. [CrossRef]
13. 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. [CrossRef]
14. Ogra, M.; Manral, U.; Platt, R.V.; Badola, R.; Butcher, L. Local Perceptions of Change in Climate and Agroecosystems in the Indian
Himalayas: A Case Study of the Kedarnath Wildlife Sanctuary (KWS) Landscape, India. Appl. Geogr. 2020, 125, 102339. [CrossRef]
15. Chapagain, D.; Dhaubanjar, S.; Bharati, L. Unpacking Future Climate Extremes and Their Sectoral Implications in Western Nepal.
Clim. Change 2021, 168, 8. [CrossRef]
16. Nesheim, I.; Barkved, L.; Bharti, N. What Is the Role of Agro-Met Information Services in Farmer Decision-Making? Uptake
and Decision-Making Context among Farmers within Three Case Study Villages in Maharashtra, India. Agriculture 2017, 7, 70.
[CrossRef]
17. Dinku, T. Challenges with Availability and Quality of Climate Data in Africa. In Extreme Hydrology and Climate Variability; Elsevier:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 71–80. ISBN 978-0-12-815998-9.
18. Karki, R.; ul Hasson, S.; Schickhoff, U.; Scholten, T.; Böhner, J. Rising Precipitation Extremes across Nepal. Climate 2017, 5, 4.
[CrossRef]
19. Talchabhadel, R.; Karki, R.; Parajuli, B. Intercomparison of Precipitation Measured between Automatic and Manual Precipitation
Gauge in Nepal. Measurement 2017, 106, 264–273. [CrossRef]
20. 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. Change 2017, 140, 195–208. [CrossRef]
21. McNamara, K.E.; Westoby, R. Local Knowledge and Climate Change Adaptation on Erub Island, Torres Strait. Local Environ. 2011,
16, 887–901. [CrossRef]
22. Negi, V.S.; Maikhuri, R.K.; Pharswan, D.; Thakur, S.; Dhyani, P.P. Climate Change Impact in the Western Himalaya: People’s
Perception and Adaptive Strategies. J. Mt. Sci. 2017, 14, 403–416. [CrossRef]
23. Limantol, A.M.; Keith, B.E.; Azabre, B.A.; Lennartz, B. Farmers’ Perception and Adaptation Practice to Climate Variability and
Change: A Case Study of the Vea Catchment in Ghana. SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 830. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. King, D.N.T.; Skipper, A.; Tawhai, W.B. Māori Environmental Knowledge of Local Weather and Climate Change in Aotearoa—
New Zealand. Clim. Change 2008, 90, 385–409. [CrossRef]
25. Zvobgo, L.; Johnston, P.; Williams, P.A.; Trisos, C.H.; Simpson, N.P. Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative Team The Role of
Indigenous Knowledge and Local Knowledge in Water Sector Adaptation to Climate Change in Africa: A Structured Assessment.
Sustain. Sci. 2022, 17, 2077–2092. [CrossRef]
26. IFRC. World Disasters Report: Focus on Culture and Risk. 2014. Available online: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/world-
disasters-report-2014-focus-culture-and-risk (accessed on 15 March 2021).
27. Mkonda, M.Y.; He, X.; Festin, E.S. Comparing Smallholder Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change with Meteorological Data:
Experience from Seven Agroecological Zones of Tanzania. Weather Clim. Soc. 2018, 10, 435–452. [CrossRef]
Hydrology 2022, 9, 212 14 of 15

28. Rankoana, S.A. Human Perception of Climate Change: Human Perception of Climate Change. Weather 2018, 73, 367–370.
[CrossRef]
29. Bhattacharjee, A.; Anadón, J.; Lohman, D.; Doleck, T.; Lakhankar, T.; Shrestha, B.; Thapa, P.; Devkota, D.; Tiwari, S.; Jha, A.; et al.
The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity in Nepal: Current Knowledge, Lacunae, and Opportunities. Climate 2017, 5, 80.
[CrossRef]
30. Pandey, C.L. The Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Adaptation in Nepal. Agribus. Inf. Manag. 2012, 4, 13–23.
31. Wheeler, T.; von Braun, J. Climate Change Impacts on Global Food Security. Science 2013, 341, 508–513. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Devkota, R.P. Climate Change: Trends and People’s Perception in Nepal. J. Environ. Prot. 2014, 05, 255–265. [CrossRef]
33. Gebreegziabher, Z.; Stage, J.; Mekonnen, A.; Alemu, A. Climate Change and the Ethiopian Economy: A CGE Analysis. Environ.
Dev. Econ. 2016, 21, 205–225. [CrossRef]
34. Bista, D.; Amgain, L.; Shrestha, S. Food Security Scenario, Challenges, and Agronomic Research Directions of Nepal. Agron. J.
Nepal 2013, 3, 42–52. [CrossRef]
35. Dahal, P.; Shrestha, N.S.; Shrestha, M.L.; Krakauer, N.Y.; Panthi, J.; Pradhanang, S.M.; Jha, A.; Lakhankar, T. Drought Risk
Assessment in Central Nepal: Temporal and Spatial Analysis. Nat. Hazards 2016, 80, 1913–1932. [CrossRef]
36. Khatri, N.R. Climate-Change Refugees in Nepal: The Need for Climate-Smart Capacity Building. In Climate Change and Disaster
Risk Management; Leal Filho, W., Ed.; Climate Change Management; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2013; pp. 351–357. ISBN 978-3-642-31109-3.
37. NPC Nepal Flood 2017: Post Flood Recovery Needs Assessment. 2017. Available online: https://www.npc.gov.np/images/
category/PFRNA_Report_Final.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2021).
38. Dahal, P.; Shrestha, M.L.; Panthi, J.; Pradhananga, D. Modeling the Future Impacts of Climate Change on Water Availability in the
Karnali River Basin of Nepal Himalaya. Environ. Res. 2020, 185, 109430. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Zhang, P.; Zhang, J.; Chen, M. Economic Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture: The Importance of Additional Climatic
Variables Other than Temperature and Precipitation. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2017, 83, 8–31. [CrossRef]
40. Miller, J.D.; Immerzeel, W.W.; Rees, G. Climate Change Impacts on Glacier Hydrology and River Discharge in the Hindu
Kush–Himalayas: A Synthesis of the Scientific Basis. Mt. Res. Dev. 2012, 32, 461–467. [CrossRef]
41. 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. Change 2019, 154, 315–334. [CrossRef]
42. 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. [CrossRef]
43. Dawadi, B.; Shrestha, A.; Acharya, R.H.; Dhital, Y.P.; Devkota, R. Impact of Climate Change on Agricultural Production: A Case
of Rasuwa District, Nepal. Reg. Sustain. 2022, 3, 122–132. [CrossRef]
44. Budhathoki, N.K.; Zander, K.K. Nepalese Farmers’ Climate Change Perceptions, Reality and Farming Strategies. Clim. Dev. 2020,
12, 204–215. [CrossRef]
45. Muench, S.; Bavorova, M.; Pradhan, P. Climate Change Adaptation by Smallholder Tea Farmers: A Case Study of Nepal. Environ.
Sci. Policy 2021, 116, 136–146. [CrossRef]
46. Marin, A. Riders under Storms: Contributions of Nomadic Herders’ Observations to Analysing Climate Change in Mongolia.
Glob. Environ. Change 2010, 20, 162–176. [CrossRef]
47. Ndamani, F.; Watanabe, T. Farmers’ Perceptions about Adaptation Practices to Climate Change and Barriers to Adaptation:
A Micro-Level Study in Ghana. Water 2015, 7, 4593–4604. [CrossRef]
48. Rehman, S.; Azhoni, A.; Chabbi, P.H. Livelihood Vulnerability Assessment and Climate Change Perception Analysis in Arunachal
Pradesh, India. GeoJournal 2022. [CrossRef]
49. Simelton, E.; Quinn, C.H.; Batisani, N.; Dougill, A.J.; Dyer, J.C.; Fraser, E.D.G.; Mkwambisi, D.; Sallu, S.; Stringer, L.C. Is Rainfall
Really Changing? Farmers’ Perceptions, Meteorological Data, and Policy Implications. Clim. Dev. 2013, 5, 123–138. [CrossRef]
50. 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, 15–30. [CrossRef]
51. MOE. National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) to Climate Change. 2010. Available online: https://unfccc.int/
resource/docs/napa/tls01.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2021).
52. Global Data Lab. Subnational Human Development Index. 2018. Available online: https://globaldatalab.org/shdi/2018/indices/
NPL/?levels=1%2B4&interpolation=0&extrapolation=0&nearest_real=0 (accessed on 15 March 2021).
53. Pangeni, R. Per Capita Income Highest in Province 3, Lowest in 7. 2018. Available online: https://myrepublica.nagariknetwork.
com/news/per-capita-income-highest-in-province-3-lowest-in-7/ (accessed on 15 March 2021).
54. CBS. Report on the Nepal Labour Force Survey 2017/18. 2019. Available online: https://nepalindata.com/media/resources/
items/20/bNLFS-III_Final-Report.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2021).
55. Campbell, S.; Greenwood, M.; Prior, S.; Shearer, T.; Walkem, K.; Young, S.; Bywaters, D.; Walker, K. Purposive Sampling: Complex
or Simple? Research Case Examples. J. Res. Nurs. 2020, 25, 652–661. [CrossRef]
56. Nichols, P. Social Survey Methods: A Fieldguide for Development Workers; Oxfam GB; Practical Action Publishing: Warwickshire, UK, 1991.
57. DDRC. Baitadi Baitadi Disaster Preparedness and Response Plan; UNFPA: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2016.
58. DDRC. Dadeldhura Dadeldhura Disaster Preparedness and Response Plan; UNFPA: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2016.
59. DDRC. Kailali Kailali Disaster Preparedness and Response Plan; UNFPA: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2016.
Hydrology 2022, 9, 212 15 of 15

60. DDRC. Kanchanpur Kanchanpur Disaster Preparedness and Response Plan; UNFPA: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2016.
61. Mann, H.B. Nonparametric Tests Against Trend. Econometrica 1945, 13, 245. [CrossRef]
62. Kendall, M. Rank Correlation Methods; Charles Griffin: London, UK, 1975; p. 202.
63. Sen, P.K. Estimates of the Regression Coefficient Based on Kendall’s Tau. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1968, 63, 1379–1389. [CrossRef]
64. Theil, H. A Rank-Invariant Method of Linear and Polynomial Regression Analysis. In Henri Theil’s Contributions to Economics
and Econometrics; Advanced Studies in Theoretical and Applied, Econometrics; Raj, B., Koerts, J., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, 1992; Volume 23, pp. 345–381. ISBN 978-94-010-5124-8.
65. Arkin, H.; Colton, R.R. Tables for Statisticians; Barnes & Noble Books: New York, NY, USA, 1951.
66. Karki, R.; Talchabhadel, R.; Aalto, J.; Baidya, S.K. New Climatic Classification of Nepal. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2016, 125, 799–808.
[CrossRef]
67. Adhikari, B.R.; Tian, B. Spatiotemporal Distribution of Landslides in Nepal. In Handbook of Disaster Risk Reduction for Resilience;
Eslamian, S., Eslamian, F., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 453–471. ISBN 978-3-030-61277-1.
68. Petley, D. Global Patterns of Loss of Life from Landslides. Geology 2012, 40, 927–930. [CrossRef]
69. Manandhar, S.; Pandey, V.; Kazama, F. Hydro-Climatic Trends and People’s Perceptions: Case of Kali Gandaki River Basin, Nepal.
Clim. Res. 2012, 54, 167–179. [CrossRef]
70. Shrestha, M.L. Interannual Variation of Summer Monsoon Rainfall over Nepal and Its Relation to Southern Oscillation Index.
Meteorol. Atmospheric Phys. 2000, 75, 21–28. [CrossRef]
71. Talchabhadel, R.; Karki, R.; Thapa, B.R.; Maharjan, M.; Parajuli, B. Spatio-Temporal Variability of Extreme Precipitation in Nepal.
Int. J. Climatol. 2018, 38, 4296–4313. [CrossRef]
72. Rayamajhee, V.; Guo, W.; Bohara, A.K. The Impact of Climate Change on Rice Production in Nepal. Econ. Disasters Clim. Chang.
2021, 5, 111–134. [CrossRef]
73. McAdoo, B.G.; Quak, M.; Gnyawali, K.R.; Adhikari, B.R.; Devkota, S.; Rajbhandari, P.L.; Sudmeier-Rieux, K. Roads and Landslides
in Nepal: How Development Affects Environmental Risk. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 18, 3203–3210. [CrossRef]
74. Byg, A.; Salick, J. Local Perspectives on a Global Phenomenon—Climate Change in Eastern Tibetan Villages. Glob. Environ. Chang.
2009, 19, 156–166. [CrossRef]
75. Niles, M.T.; Mueller, N.D. Farmer Perceptions of Climate Change: Associations with Observed Temperature and Precipitation
Trends, Irrigation, and Climate Beliefs. Glob. Environ. Change 2016, 39, 133–142. [CrossRef]
76. Stähli, M.; Sättele, M.; Huggel, C.; McArdell, B.W.; Lehmann, P.; Van Herwijnen, A.; Berne, A.; Schleiss, M.; Ferrari, A.; Kos, A.; et al.
Monitoring and Prediction in Early Warning Systems for Rapid Mass Movements. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 15, 905–917.
[CrossRef]
77. Lujala, P.; Lein, H.; Rød, J.K. Climate Change, Natural Hazards, and Risk Perception: The Role of Proximity and Personal
Experience. Local Environ. 2015, 20, 489–509. [CrossRef]
78. Foguesatto, C.R.; Artuzo, F.D.; Talamini, E.; Machado, J.A.D. Understanding the Divergences between Farmer’s Perception and
Meteorological Records Regarding Climate Change: A Review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 1–16. [CrossRef]
79. Pandey, R. Farmers’ Perception on Agro-Ecological Implications of Climate Change in the Middle-Mountains of Nepal: A Case of
Lumle Village, Kaski. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2019, 21, 221–247. [CrossRef]
80. Rakhal, B.; Sharma, S.; Ghimire, G.; Adhikari, T.; Shrestha, R. Nepal’s Communities Brace for Multihazard Risks. Eos 2021, 102, 1–11.
[CrossRef]
81. Chaudhary, B.R.; Acciaioli, G.; Erskine, W.; Chaudhary, P. Responses of the Tharu to Climate Change-Related Hazards in the
Water Sector: Indigenous Perceptions, Vulnerability and Adaptations in the Western Tarai of Nepal. Clim. Dev. 2021, 13, 816–829.
[CrossRef]
82. Dhungana, N.; Silwal, N.; Upadhaya, S.; Khadka, C.; Regmi, S.K.; Joshi, D.; Adhikari, S. Rural Coping and Adaptation Strategies
for Climate Change by Himalayan Communities in Nepal. J. Mt. Sci. 2020, 17, 1462–1474. [CrossRef]
83. Sudmeier-Rieux, K.; McAdoo, B.G.; Devkota, S.; Rajbhandari, P.C.L.; Howell, J.; Sharma, S. Invited Perspectives: Mountain Roads
in Nepal at a New Crossroads. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2019, 19, 655–660. [CrossRef]
84. Thakur, S.B.; Bajagain, A. Impacts of Climate Change on Livelihood and Its Adaptation Needs. J. Agric. Environ. 2019, 20, 173–185.
[CrossRef]