Submitted:
04 April 2024
Posted:
07 April 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
1.1. The Sustainability of ECA
2. Study Area and Methods
2.1. Data Collection and Sampling Design
- n = sample size
- N = total number of households (2,462)
- Z = confidence level (at 95% level, Z = 1.96)
- p = estimated population proportion (0.5, this maximizes the sample size)
- d = error limit of 5% (0.05)

2.2. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Socio-Demographic and Farm-Related Data of Farmers in Namobuddha Municipality
3.2. Perception and Knowledge of Climate Change and ECA among Farmers
3.3. Spearman Correlation of Farmers’ Perception of ECA’s Sustainability with Socio-Demographic and ECA-Related Variables
3.4. Relationship of Farmers’ Perception of ECA Sustainability with Variables Related to Climate Change, ECA, and Socio-Demographic Characteristics, Using Ordinal Logistic Regression
3.5. Decision Tree of Namobuddha Farmers with Regards to Their Perception of ECA’s Sustainability
4. Discussion
4.1. Economic Sustainability of ECA
4.2. Environmental Sustainability of ECA
4.3. Social Sustainability of ECA
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
References
- Adhikari, S., Rawal, S., & Thapa, S. (2022). Assessment of Status of Climate Change and Determinants of People's Awareness to Climate-Smart Agriculture: A Case of Sarlahi District, Nepal. Advances in Agriculture, 2022, Article 1556407. [CrossRef]
- Bai, X. X., Huang, Y. W., Ren, W., Coyne, M., Jacinthe, P. A., Tao, B.,... Matocha, C. (2019). Responses of soil carbon sequestration to climate-smart agriculture practices: A meta-analysis. Global Change Biology, 25(8), 2591-2606. [CrossRef]
- Bhatta, G. D., & Doppler, W. (2010). Socio-economic and environmental aspects of farming practices in the peri-urban hinterlands of Nepal. The Journal of Agriculture and Environment, 11.
- Brooks, N., Stucker, T., & Bailey, J. (1986). Income and well-being of farmers and the farm financial crisis. Rural Sociology, 51(4).
- Dinesh, D., Frid-Nielsen, S., Norman, J., Mutamba, M., Loboguerrero Rodriguez, A. M., & Campbell, B. M. (2015). Is Climate-Smart Agriculture effective? A review of selected cases. CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).
- FAO. (2017). The future of food and agriculture - Trends and challenges. Rome, Italy: FAO Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/i6583e/i6583e.pdf.
- FAO. (2019). Conservation Agriculture: Training guide for extension agents and farmers in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Rome: FAO Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/i7154en/i7154en.pdf.
- Gartaula, H. N., Chaudhary, P., & Khadka, K. (2014). Land Redistribution and Reutilization in the Context of Migration in Rural Nepal. Land, 3(3), 541-556. [CrossRef]
- Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M., & Tittonell, P. (2009). Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics' view. Field Crops Research, 114(1), 23-34. [CrossRef]
- Gonzalvo, C. M., Aala, W. J. F., & Maharjan, K. L. (2021). Farmer Decision-Making on the Concept of Coexistence: A Comparative Analysis between Organic and Biotech Farmers in the Philippines. Agriculture, 11(9), 857. [CrossRef]
- Gonzalvo, C. M., Aala, W. J. F., & Maharjan, K. L. (2022). Is Implementing a Biotech Ban Correct or Not? Analysis of Farmer Perceptions and Attitudes on the Philippine Supreme Court’s Ban on Biotech Crops. Sustainability, 14(13), 7919. [CrossRef]
- Gonzalvo, C. M., Tirol, M. S. C., Moscoso, M. O., Querijero, N. J. V. B., & Aala, W. F., Jr. (2020). Critical factors influencing biotech corn adoption of farmers in the Philippines in relation with the 2015 GMO Supreme Court ban. Journal of Rural Studies, 74, 10-21. [CrossRef]
- ILO. (2019). Eight Ways to Grow Nepal's Agricultural Sector. Switzerland: International Labour Organization Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/documents/publication/wcms_713334.pdf.
- Joshi, N. P., & Maharjan, K. L. (2007). Assessment of Food Self-Sufficiency and Food Security Situation in Nepal. Journal of International Development and Cooperation, 13(1), 209-230.
- Lipper, L., Thornton, P., Campbell, B. M., Baedeker, T., Braimoh, A., Bwalya, M.,... Torquebiau, E. F. (2014). Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nature Climate Change, 4(12), 1068-1072. [CrossRef]
- MAFF. (2020). Summary of the Annual Report on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas in Japan. Japan: MAFF.
- Maharjan, K. L., Gonzalvo, C., & Aala, W. (2022a). Dynamics of Environmental Conservation Agriculture (ECA) Utilization among Fujioka Farmers in Japan with High Biodiversity Conservation Awareness but Low ECA Interest. Sustainability, 14(9), Article 5296. [CrossRef]
- Maharjan, K. L., Gonzalvo, C. M., & Aala, W. F. (2022b). Drivers of Environmental Conservation Agriculture in Sado Island, Niigata Prefecture, Japan. Sustainability, 14(16), Article 9881. [CrossRef]
- Maharjan, K. L., Singh, M., & Gonzalvo, C. M. (2023). Drivers of environmental conservation agriculture and women farmer empowerment in Namobuddha municipality, Nepal. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 13(100631). [CrossRef]
- Maharjan, S. K., & Maharjan, K. L. (2020). Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA): A Systematic Assessment and Analysis of Policies/plans and Practices in South Asia, Particularly Focusing on Nepal and India. Journal of contemporary India studies(10), 17-30. [CrossRef]
- Manandhar, S., Vogt, D. S., Perret, S. R., & Kazama, F. (2011). Adapting cropping systems to climate change in Nepal: a cross-regional study of farmers' perception and practices. Regional Environmental Change, 11(2), 335-348. [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries. (1994). Basic concept of environmental conservation type agriculture promotion. Retrieved from http://www.library-archive.maff.go.jp/viewer/001510452_0001?p=7.
- MOF. (2021). Economic Survey 2020/21. Singh Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal.
- Neate, P. J. H. (2013). Climate-smart agriculture success stories from farming communities around the world. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) and the Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA).




| Variable | Frequency (n=303) | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Female | 159 | 52.5 |
| Male | 144 | 47.5 |
| Age | ||
| 20-40 | 111 | 36.6 |
| 41-60 | 133 | 43.9 |
| 61 and above | 59 | 19.5 |
| Caste/Ethnicity | ||
| Dalit | 28 | 9.2 |
| Janajati | 92 | 30.4 |
| Bahun | 162 | 53.5 |
| Chhetri | 16 | 5.3 |
| Madhesi | 5 | 1.7 |
| Education | ||
| None | 108 | 35.6 |
| Primary (1 to 8 years) | 97 | 32.0 |
| Secondary (9 to 12 years) | 85 | 28.1 |
| Tertiary (13 years and above) | 13 | 4.3 |
| Years of farming experience | ||
| 10-20 | 79 | 26.1 |
| 21-30 | 76 | 25.1 |
| 31-40 | 70 | 23.1 |
| 41-50 | 54 | 17.8 |
| 51-60 | 20 | 6.6 |
| 61 and above | 4 | 1.3 |
| Farming type | ||
| Self-farming | 35 | 11.6 |
| Mixed farming (self-farming with hired laborers) | 262 | 86.5 |
| Farming by laborers (only hired laborers are farming) | 6 | 2.0 |
| Farming method | ||
| Organic farming | 4 | 1.3 |
| Special farming (using chemicals and pesticides less than half of the conventional farming) | 150 | 49.5 |
| Conventional farming (using chemical fertilizers and pesticides as much as needed) | 149 | 49.2 |
| Variable | Frequency (n=303) | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Farming affected by climate change in the last 10 years | ||
| Strongly no | 0 | 0.0 |
| No | 5 | 1.7 |
| Not sure | 33 | 10.9 |
| Yes | 235 | 77.6 |
| Strongly yes | 30 | 9.9 |
| Effects of climate change * | ||
| Heavy rain, flood | 192 | 63.4 |
| Rise of sea temperature, extreme hot days | 49 | 16.2 |
| Cyclone, typhoons, hailstorm | 74 | 24.4 |
| Change in distribution of plants/crops | 34 | 11.2 |
| Change in season/duration | 55 | 18.2 |
| Melting of glaciers, sea-level rise | 1 | 0.3 |
| Drought | 283 | 93.4 |
| Damage to houses/buildings | 9 | 3.0 |
| Damage to land/farmland | 85 | 28.1 |
| Damage to crops/farm products | 101 | 33.3 |
| Farming adaptation to climate change * | ||
| Planting high-temperature/heat/drought-tolerant variety | 52 | 17.2 |
| Change in planting time/season | 95 | 31.4 |
| Choose alternative crop/seed | 32 | 10.6 |
| Proper water management | 41 | 13.5 |
| Ameliorate pests/diseases | 147 | 48.5 |
| Change in land use pattern (e.g., crop diversification, agroforestry, etc.) | 31 | 10.2 |
| Soil nutrient management | 31 | 10.2 |
| Technological adaptation/adjustment (e.g., use of ICT, social media, apps, etc.) | 0 | 0.0 |
| Planting high-yielding crop varieties | 78 | 25.7 |
| Market-related adjustments/initiatives (e.g., insurance, market exchange, etc.) | 10 | 3.3 |
| Interested in ECA | ||
| Strongly no | 1 | 0.3 |
| No | 12 | 4.0 |
| Not sure | 87 | 28.7 |
| Yes | 176 | 58.1 |
| Strongly yes | 27 | 8.9 |
| Farming method is climate resilient or climate smart | ||
| Strongly no | 2 | 0.7 |
| No | 76 | 25.1 |
| Not sure | 179 | 59.1 |
| Yes | 46 | 15.2 |
| Strongly yes | 0 | 0.0 |
| Government/NGOs promote ECA | ||
| Yes | 93 | 30.7 |
| No | 210 | 69.3 |
| Desire to discuss or learn more about ECA | ||
| Strongly no | 16 | 5.3 |
| No | 144 | 47.5 |
| Not sure | 23 | 7.6 |
| Yes | 114 | 37.6 |
| Strongly yes | 6 | 2.0 |
| ECA is economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable | ||
| Strongly no | 1 | 0.3 |
| No | 26 | 8.6 |
| Not sure | 188 | 62.0 |
| Yes | 81 | 26.7 |
| Strongly yes | 7 | 2.3 |
| ECA can achieve sustainable income and productivity, improve adaptive capacity and resilience, and reduce greenhouse gases | ||
| Strongly no | 1 | 0.3 |
| No | 42 | 13.9 |
| Not sure | 136 | 44.9 |
| Yes | 119 | 39.3 |
| Strongly yes | 5 | 1.7 |
| Selling place for ECA products * | ||
| Direct to consumers | 52 | 17.2 |
| Cooperatives | 11 | 3.6 |
| Supermarkets | 1 | 0.3 |
| Restaurants/hotels | 4 | 1.3 |
| Middlemen/traders | 216 | 71.3 |
| Local market/hat bazar (periodical open-market) | 120 | 39.6 |
| Processors/millers | 11 | 3.6 |
| Self-consumption only | 26 | 8.6 |
| Gets premium price for ECA products | ||
| Yes | 82 | 27.1 |
| No | 221 | 72.9 |
| Price satisfaction for ECA products | ||
| Strongly not satisfied | 76 | 25.1 |
| Not satisfied | 133 | 43.9 |
| Not sure | 7 | 2.3 |
| Satisfied | 85 | 28.1 |
| Strongly satisfied | 2 | 0.7 |
| Will practice ECA | ||
| Yes | 252 | 83.2 |
| No | 51 | 16.8 |
| Reason to practice ECA * | ||
| To build trust with consumers | 25 | 8.3 |
| To improve local and global environment | 15 | 5.0 |
| Self-health | 243 | 80.2 |
| Good/higher price | 87 | 28.7 |
| To meet growing demand of consumers | 45 | 14.9 |
| To supply better food to all | 134 | 44.2 |
| To decrease the cost of chemicals and pesticides | 84 | 27.7 |
| Recommended by NGO, cooperatives, agricultural officer, local government, etc. | 1 | 0.3 |
| Incentives or subsidies from the government | 10 | 3.3 |
| Appropriate policy support and market facilities | 2 | 0.7 |
| Expected impact of ECA * | ||
| Climate change mitigation | 3 | 1.0 |
| Agro-biodiversity conservation | 26 | 8.6 |
| Control water quality | 38 | 12.5 |
| Ground water conservation | 21 | 6.9 |
| Quality improvement of agricultural products | 41 | 13.5 |
| Decrease of climate hazards | 142 | 46.9 |
| Increase agriculture-related income | 71 | 23.4 |
| Local industry/economy promotion | 163 | 53.8 |
| Locality stabilization and promotion of people’s lives | 23 | 7.6 |
| Gets ECA subsidy | ||
| Yes | 30 | 9.9 |
| No | 273 | 90.1 |
| Subsidy is helpful in ECA farming | ||
| Strongly no | 101 | 33.3 |
| No | 96 | 31.7 |
| Not sure | 80 | 26.4 |
| Yes | 21 | 6.9 |
| Strongly yes | 5 | 1.7 |
| Will continue farming for the next 5 to 10 years | ||
| Yes | 272 | 89.8 |
| No | 31 | 10.2 |
| Future farming plan * | ||
| Will expand area using the same farming method | 0 | 0.0 |
| Will expand current farming towards ECA | 15 | 5.0 |
| Area no change, same farming method | 66 | 21.8 |
| Area no change, but towards ECA | 124 | 40.9 |
| Decrease area, same farming method | 59 | 19.5 |
| Decrease area, towards conventional farming | 11 | 3.6 |
| Will not continue farming anymore | 12 | 4.0 |
| Reason why it’s good to switch to ECA * | ||
| To build trust with consumers | 27 | 8.9 |
| To improve local and global environment | 20 | 6.6 |
| Self-health | 235 | 77.6 |
| Good/higher price | 106 | 35.0 |
| To meet growing demand of consumers | 48 | 15.8 |
| To supply better food to all | 117 | 38.6 |
| To decrease the cost of chemicals and pesticides | 69 | 22.8 |
| Recommended by NGO, cooperatives, agricultural officer, local government, etc. | 1 | 0.3 |
| Incentives or subsidies from the government | 9 | 3.0 |
| Perception that ECA can empower women | ||
| Strongly no | 1 | 0.3 |
| No | 6 | 2.0 |
| Not sure | 86 | 28.4 |
| Yes | 186 | 61.4 |
| Strongly yes | 24 | 7.9 |
| Variable | Estimate | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | .008 | .885 |
| Age | .027 | .637 |
| Caste/Ethnicity | -.123 | .033 * |
| Education | .014 | .806 |
| Years of farming experience | .047 | .417 |
| Farming type | .020 | .733 |
| Will continue farming for the next 5 to 10 years | .144 | .012 * |
| ECA interest | .369 | .000 ** |
| Desire to discuss or learn more about ECA | .139 | .016 * |
| Perception that farming method is climate resilient or climate smart | -.091 | .112 |
| Perception that ECA can achieve sustainable income and productivity, improve adaptive capacity and resilience, and reduce greenhouse gases | .069 | .231 |
| Perception that ECA can empower women | .245 | .000 ** |
| Government/NGOs promote ECA | .014 | .804 |
| Gets premium price for ECA products | -.076 | .188 |
| Price satisfaction for ECA products | -.072 | .208 |
| Will practice ECA | .268 | .000 ** |
| Subsidy is helpful in ECA farming | -.095 | .097 |
| Variable | Estimate | Odds Ratio | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effects of climate change | |||
| Heavy rain, flood | -0.264 | 130.21% | 0.094 |
| Rise of sea temperature, extreme hot days | 0.051 | 95.03% | 0.779 |
| Cyclone, typhoons, hailstorm | -0.178 | 119.48% | 0.310 |
| Change in distribution of plants/crops | 0.222 | 80.09% | 0.310 |
| Change in season/duration | 0.397 | 67.23% | 0.023 * |
| Melting of glaciers, sea-level rise | -0.796 | 221.67% | 0.538 |
| Drought | 0.099 | 90.57% | 0.708 |
| Damage to houses/buildings | -0.242 | 127.38% | 0.541 |
| Damage to land/farmland | -0.039 | 103.98% | 0.803 |
| Damage to crops/farm products | -0.335 | 139.79% | 0.025 * |
| Reason to practice ECA | |||
| To build trust with consumers | 0.286 | 75.13% | 0.244 |
| To improve local and global environment | -0.312 | 136.62% | 0.321 |
| Self-health | 0.521 | 168.37% | 0.004 ** |
| Good/higher price | 0.185 | 83.11% | 0.233 |
| To meet growing demand of consumers | 0.028 | 97.24% | 0.884 |
| To supply better food to all | 0.093 | 91.12% | 0.494 |
| To decrease the cost of chemicals and pesticides | 0.293 | 74.60% | 0.053 |
| Recommended by NGO, cooperatives, agricultural officer, local government, etc. | -0.523 | 168.71% | 0.681 |
| Incentives or subsidies from the government | -0.027 | 102.74% | 0.944 |
| Appropriate policy support and market facilities | 0.04 | 96.08% | 0.96 |
| Expected impact of ECA | |||
| Climate change mitigation | -0.007 | 100.70% | 0.992 |
| Agro-biodiversity conservation | 0.074 | 92.87% | 0.796 |
| Control water quality | -0.456 | 157.78% | 0.037 |
| Ground water conservation | 0.16 | 85.21% | 0.597 |
| Quality improvement of agricultural products | -0.11 | 111.63% | 0.61 |
| Decrease of climate hazards | -0.268 | 130.73% | 0.056 |
| Increase agriculture-related income | 0.487 | 61.45% | 0.005 ** |
| Local industry/economy promotion | 0.302 | 73.93% | 0.034 |
| Locality stabilization and promotion of people’s lives | -0.225 | 125.23% | 0.43 |
| Reason why it’s good to switch to ECA | |||
| To build trust with consumers | 0.811 | 44.44% | 0.002 ** |
| To improve local and global environment | 0.693 | 50.01% | 0.02 * |
| Self-health | 0.596 | 55.10% | 0.001 ** |
| Good/higher price | 0.578 | 178.25% | 0.000 ** |
| To meet growing demand of consumers | 0.42 | 152.20% | 0.049 * |
| To supply better food to all | 0.304 | 73.79% | 0.052 |
| To decrease the cost of chemicals and pesticides | -0.197 | 121.77% | 0.244 |
| Recommended by NGO, cooperatives, agricultural officer, local government, etc. | -0.769 | 215.76% | 0.557 |
| Incentives or subsidies from the government | -0.775 | 217.06% | 0.078 |
| ECA-related variables | |||
| ECA interest | -0.177 | 119.36% | 0.113 |
| Desire to discuss or learn more about ECA | 0.566 | 56.78% | 0.000 ** |
| Perception that farming method is climate resilient or climate smart | 0.151 | 85.98% | 0.041 * |
| Perception that ECA can achieve sustainable income and productivity, improve adaptive capacity and resilience, and reduce greenhouse gases | 0.709 | 49.21% | 0.003 ** |
| Perception that ECA can empower women | -0.215 | 123.99% | 0.240 |
| Government/NGOs promote ECA | 0.087 | 91.67% | 0.436 |
| Gets premium price for ECA products | -0.009 | 100.90% | 0.975 |
| Price satisfaction for ECA products | -0.103 | 110.85% | 0.349 |
| Will practice ECA | 0.292 | 74.68% | 0.021 * |
| Subsidy is helpful in ECA farming | -0.001 | 100.10% | 0.987 |
| Socio-demographic variables | |||
| Gender | 0.097 | 90.76% | 0.505 |
| Age | 0.11 | 89.58% | 0.494 |
| Caste/Ethnicity | -0.242 | 127.38% | 0.007 ** |
| Education | 0.128 | 87.99% | 0.164 |
| Years of farming experience | 0.046 | 95.50% | 0.603 |
| Farming type | 0.013 | 98.71% | 0.948 |
| Will continue farming for the next 5 to 10 years | 0.879 | 41.52% | 0.000 ** |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).