TYPE Original Research

PUBLISHED 09 January 2023

DOI 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1016404

Factors affecting adoption

OPEN ACCESS intensity of climate change
adaptation practices: A case of
EDITED BY
Sendhil R.,
Pondicherry University, India

REVIEWED BY
Suresh Kurup,
smallholder rice producers in
Chitwan, Nepal
Central Institute of Fisheries
Technology (ICAR), India
Shokhrukh-Mirzo Jalilov,
Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation
(CSIRO), Australia Sreedhar Upendram1*, Hari P. Regmi2 , Seong-Hoon Cho1 ,
*CORRESPONDENCE James C. Mingie1 and Christopher D. Clark1
Sreedhar Upendram
1
[email protected] Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, The University of Tennessee Institute of
Agriculture, Knoxville, TN, United States, 2 Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University,
SPECIALTY SECTION
West Lafayette, IN, United States
This article was submitted to
Land, Livelihoods and Food Security,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems This study examines how smallholder rice producers’ adoption intensity
RECEIVED 10 August 2022 for climate change adaptation practices (i.e., improved varieties, irrigation
ACCEPTED 16 December 2022 practices, direct seeded rice, integrated pest management, and adjustment in
PUBLISHED 09 January 2023
crop calendar) is influenced by access to Extension services, training, weather-
CITATION
Upendram S, Regmi HP, Cho S-H,
related information, and membership in farmer groups or cooperatives
Mingie JC and Clark CD (2023) Factors (referred to as “institutional resources”). We use survey data collected from
affecting adoption intensity of climate 359 smallholder rice producers in the Chitwan district of Nepal in 2019. The
change adaptation practices: A case of
smallholder rice producers in Chitwan, results indicate that: (1) access to institutional resources significantly enhance
Nepal. the likelihood of adoption of more climate change adaptation practices; (2)
Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6:1016404.
high intensity climate change adaptation practice measured by the adoption of
doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1016404
three, four, and five practices significantly increases with access to institutional
COPYRIGHT
© 2023 Upendram, Regmi, Cho, resources; (3) intensity of adoption of climate change adaptation practices is
Mingie and Clark. This is an reduced with greater adaptation alternatives available to rice producers; and (4)
open-access article distributed under
lack of information and technical knowledge are the most important reasons
the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY). The use, for non-adoption of climate change adaptation practices by smallholder rice
distribution or reproduction in other producers. The results are valuable for policy makers and planners to prioritize
forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright training opportunities and allocate scarce resources to enhance climate
owner(s) are credited and that the change adaptation and improve sustainability of rice production practices.
original publication in this journal is
cited, in accordance with accepted
academic practice. No use, distribution KEYWORDS

or reproduction is permitted which climate change, small land holders, adaptation, non-adoption, Nepal, intensity
does not comply with these terms.

Introduction
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century, threatening
human nutrition, health, and development. Climate extremes continue to adversely
affect agricultural productivity and food security in many regions around the world
(IPCC, 2019). Smallholder producers in developing countries rely heavily on subsistence
agriculture and their livelihoods are particularly vulnerable to climate change (Wheeler
and Von Braun, 2013; Bandara and Cai, 2014; Harvey et al., 2014; Sarker et al., 2014).
The impacts of climate change on agriculture vary substantially and are dependent on

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 01 frontiersin.org

Upendram et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1016404

risk mitigation measures that improve the resilience of systems on adoption intensity of multiple climate change adaptation
and promote sustainable development (Smit and Wandel, 2006; practices by rice farmers in Chitwan, Nepal (see Figure 1).
Morton, 2007; Aryal et al., 2020). We focus on how access to four types of institutional
As the benefits of climate change adaptation to farmers resources (i.e., membership in farmers’ group and cooperatives,
have been well established (Teklewold et al., 2013; Aryal Extension services, training related to farming practices, and
et al., 2020), a branch of literature has emerged on methods weather-related information) affect adoption intensity of five
to encourage smallholder producers to adopt climate change of climate change adaptation practices [i.e., planting improved
adaptation practices in developing countries (Morton, 2007; varieties, adopting enhanced irrigation practices, direct seeded
Kurukulasuriya and Rosenthal, 2013). The literature using rice (DSR), integrated pest management (IPM), and adjusting
case studies find that: (1) understanding producer behavior planting due to monsoon].
is important to design effective climate change adaptation Quantifying the effect of institutional resources on the
practices and improve overall sustainability of agricultural intensity of climate change adaption enables a decision maker to
production (Feola et al., 2015); (2) climate risk perception prioritize farm practices. Understanding the effects on climate
and psychological elements influence smallholder producers’ change adoption can help streamline resource allocation for
adaptation behavior (Azadi et al., 2019); and (3) access institutional resources. Under this premise, if, for example,
to institutional resources such as Extension services, skill improving accessibility to one institutional resource is superior
enhancement training, location specific adaptation options, to another in increasing the adoption intensity of multiple
climate and weather information, membership in co-operatives climate change adaptation practices, financial incentives can
in addition to education, support services and lines of credits improve adoptability of practices.
have a positive effect on producer attitudes toward climate
change adaptation (Bryan et al., 2009; Deressa et al., 2009;
Gbetibouo, 2009; Tazeze et al., 2012; Piya et al., 2013; Mulwa Materials and methods
et al., 2017; Zamasiya et al., 2017; Aryal et al., 2018; Khanal et al.,
2018). Study area
The different level of role of the access to institutional
resources on climate change adaptation is a key takeaway from Chitwan district of central Nepal was deliberately chosen as
the existing literature as the information has clear implications a case study because it is a prominent rice-producing district
for smallholder producers in developing countries. Despite the (Figure 1) with smallholder producers experiencing the adverse
contributions of many studies on climate change adaptations impacts of climate change on their farming practices (Gurung
in developing countries, a major gap in literature is that and Bhandari, 2009). The average farm size is 0.46 hectares (1.13
most of the studies have only examined the effect of the acres) in Chitwan district. Specifically, climate change adversely
access to institutional resources with a single climate change impacted rice farming in the plains (terai region) of Nepal in
adaptation practice at a time. Adjusting planting dates to terms of acreage, production, and yield (Gumma et al., 2011;
coincide with monsoon onset, use of drought tolerant varieties Karna, 2014; Khanal et al., 2018). According to Karna (2014),
and late harvest to mitigate impacts of monsoon are a few if the day-time maximum temperature surpasses 29.9◦ C, rice
ways in which smallholder rice producers adapt to climate yields start to decline. Gumma et al. (2011) in their study found
change. In practice, a producer in each crop season has the that variability in the rainfall pattern resulted in 13% reduction
choice of adopting multiple climate change adaptation practices in rice acreage in 2006.
at the same time. For example, climate change adaptation Agriculture constitutes one-third of Nepal’s gross domestic
practices include planting drought-tolerant, short-duration, product and rice is the most cultivated crop of the country
disease-resistant varieties (referred to as “improved varieties”), (>50% of total cultivated area) (MoAD, 2015; MOF, 2018).
practicing soil and water conservation measures, adjusting In Nepal, only 18% of total cultivable land is under irrigation
planting dates due to delayed monsoon, adopting enhanced throughout the year, and nearly 46% of land under cultivation
irrigation practices, and diversifying crops (Deressa et al., 2009; is primarily dependent on monsoon (natural rainfall) for
Gbetibouo, 2009; Tazeze et al., 2012; Tilahun and Bedemo, 2014; irrigation, potentially leading to high vulnerability to climate
Gadédjisso-Tossou, 2015; Thinda et al., 2020;). Despite this change (Ministry of Energy, Water Resources, and Irrigation,
practical consideration, studies addressing multiple dimensions 2018; MOF, 2018). Furthermore, the country’s rice yield is <4
of climate change adaptation are absent from the literature. metric tons/hectare, much lower than the rice yield of other
The objective of this research is to determine the role major rice-producing countries (7–8 tons/hectare) (FAO, 2020;
of the access to institutional resources on smallholder rice National Planning Commission, 2020).
producer decision-making to adopt multiple climate change The study area may experience temperature fluctuations
adaptation practices. As a case study, we develop an empirical and greater variability in precipitation patterns in the future.
model to estimate the effect of access to institutional resources McSweeney et al. (2010) projects Nepal’s temperature to increase

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 02 frontiersin.org

Upendram et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1016404

FIGURE 1
Map of Nepal showing Chitwan district and three villages in Chitwan district.

by 1.80 C by 2030 and 2.80 C by 2060, and the FAO (2014) disasters from 2017 to 2018 (MOF, 2014, 2018). Under projected
projects more intense rainfall events during the rainy season climate change scenarios, rice yields may decline further unless
but an overall rainfall decline in the range of 20 mm to 100 mm considerable mitigation efforts target address adverse climate
by 2050. Long-term variation in climatic parameters (primarily change impacts.
rainfall and temperature) and frequent occurrence of extreme
weather events such as droughts and floods affect soil-water-
plant relationships and results in reduced crop yields (Karna, Survey design
2014). Rainfall variability, longer periods of drought, late onset
of monsoon, and increasing temperatures have increased the Out of the seven administrative units in Chitwan district, the
vulnerability of the monsoon-dependent rice production system largest administrative unit–Bharatpur was deliberately selected.
in Nepal (Karna, 2014; MOF, 2014). Spatial and temporal In consultation with the district agricultural Extension office
distribution of rainfall has a noteworthy influence on rice (Chhetri, 2019; Agricultural Knowledge Center, Chitwan), we
acreage in Nepal. Between 2013 and 2014, rainfall variability implemented the survey in three villages where rice is primarily
adversely affected more than 50,000 hectares of rice and about cultivated–Patihani, Jagatpur and Sharadanagar (Figure 1).
127,000 hectares of agricultural land was affected by natural Survey data were collected using a random sampling technique

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 03 frontiersin.org

Upendram et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1016404

at the household level within the three villages. To collect important adaptation practices to adapt to climate change and
relevant information on climate change adaptation and rice variability (Manandhar et al., 2011; Biggs et al., 2013; Piya
production, we conducted on-site surveys by interviewing et al., 2013). A study by Khanal et al. (2018) reported the use
farming households at their respective households, farms, and of varieties, improved irrigation, direct seeded rice, fertilizer
local gathering spots in the three villages in June 2019. Sample management, and adjustment of timing of farm operations
size was determined following Krejcie and Morgan (1970) are all major adaptation practices adopted by rice producers
sample size determination: in Nepal.

χ 2 NP (1 − P)
Sample size = 2 (1)
d (N − 1) + χ 2 P (1 − P)
Where, Institutional resources

χ 2 = Chi-square tabulated value at desired confidence The four institutional resources play a vital role in
level (95%), adaptation to climate change in rice production, and imparting
N = Total population size (number of households), skills among small-holder rice producers to enhance adaptation
P = Population proportion (assumed to be 0.5), at the local level as described below:
d = Degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion (0.05).
• Membership in Farmer’s Cooperatives or Groups:
Following Krejcie and Morgan (1970) a sample of 352 out Producers who are members of cooperatives or groups are
of a total of 4,090 farming households (N) was determined better equipped in learning from each other in adapting
to be representative to produce parameter estimates at a 95% to climate change. The purpose of a cooperative is to help
confidence interval. Out of 383 farming households contacted, producers share best farm management practices, obtain
359 (or 94%) agreed to participate in the survey while 24 needed farm products and services, improve income
(or 6.3%) declined to participate in the survey. We trained opportunities, reduce input costs, and manage risk (Aza,
four enumerators (undergraduate students at Agriculture and 2021). A cooperative also provides a supportive network
Forestry University in Chitwan) to complete the questionnaire for producers to discuss challenges and learn from each
with adults in the farming households, and each respondent other in adopting climate change adaptation techniques.
read a consent statement following Institutional Review Board • Extension: Extension agents conduct farm visits and host
guidelines about participant involvement, privacy protection producers in their offices to answer queries on agricultural
and ensuring confidentiality of responses. Upon receiving problems and challenges. Specifically, Extension agents
consent that the participant understood the information and provide technical expertise and provide information to
agreed to participate, enumerators asked questions in a face- producers on topics including improved farm management
to-face interaction that lasted approximately 15 min. Within the practices, climate change adaptation techniques, newer
village, households were selected randomly to participate in the technologies, and plant protection measures (Regmi et al.,
survey. The survey was composed of the following five sections: 2022). By organizing field days, agricultural fairs, farm visits
(1) farm household characteristics; (2) producer perceptions of Extension agents disseminate technical information to
climate change and variability; (3) adaptation to climate change; motivate producers to adopt improved farming practices.
(4) producer risk attitudes; and (5) usage status of institutional Producers are more likely to contact Extension agents and
resources (see Supplementary material for the survey). vice versa if the district office is not very distant and
We examined five climate change adaptation practices: use easily accessible. A typical timeframe for a farm visit or an
of varieties, irrigation, DSR, IPM, and planting adjustment Extension office visit is one day (Singh, 1997).
based on a recent National Adaptation Program of Action • Training: Government and non-governmental agencies
(NAPA) report (MoE, 2010). NAPA was implemented by provide trainings on climate change adaptation to help
the government of Nepal in 2010 to reduce the impacts of producers identify, adapt, and mitigate the negative impacts
climate change. Since agriculture is one of the prioritized on production practices and profitability (Regmi et al.,
sectors in NAPA, many adaptation practices in the agricultural 2022). The purpose of the trainings is to use latest
sector such as selection of drought-tolerant and short-duration technology and practices, efficient use of local resources
varieties, investment in improved irrigation, use of local plant and best management practices. Producers are encouraged
extract and bio-pesticides for pest management were detailed to attend these 2–3-day trainings, in-service workshops, or
in the program (MoE, 2010). Numerous studies indicated field demonstrations at a central location. At times, trainers
that selection of crop varieties, investment in water harvesting provide producers a scholarship or stipend to compensate
and improved irrigation practices, adjustment of crop planting for their time away from farm and encourage participation
dates, integrated pest management, and crop diversification are in these trainings (Singh, 1997).

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 04 frontiersin.org

Upendram et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1016404

TABLE 1 Producers’ perceptions of climate change in Chitwan district

in the past 10 years (2009–2018).
Empirical model

Climate change % of respondents who Theoretically, farmers’ adoption intensity of climate change
perceptions perceived climate change adaptation practices is higher if farmers’ utility gained from
in the past 10 years
(2009–2018) cumulative effects of five practices is greater than non-
adoption. Following Teklewold et al. (2013), we specify the total
Weather unpredictability 99.6%
number of climate change adaptation practices to represent the
Hailstorms 97.8% adoption intensity and hypothesize that access to four types of
High summer temperature 86.9% institutional resources positively influence the farmers’ adoption
Late onset of monsoon rain 86.2%
intensity. The number of practices adopted i.e., the adoption
intensity may serve as a count variable with an assumption of
Intensity of rainfall 80.8%
equal probability of occurrence (Wollni et al., 2010). However,
Overall change in climate patterns 76.6% the likelihood of adopting the first practice may differ from
Dry spells 71.4% adopting additional practices since experienced producers are
High winter temperature 61.9%
more exposed to technical information (Teklewold et al., 2013).
Therefore, the number of adaptation practices adopted serves
Floods 29.1%
as an ordinal variable instead of a count variable. The ordered
Source: Regmi, 2020.
probit model presented in equations 2–4 as following:

Y∗ i = X′ i β + ε i for j = 1, .., M practices (2)

• Information: A mass-contact method to quickly
disseminate timely information to producers is through we define
factsheets, publications, brochures, booklets, progress
Yi = j if α j−1 < Y∗ i ≤ α j (3)
reports, Television/radio agricultural progress, weather
forecasts, extreme weather events and weather advisories Then,
(Regmi et al., 2022). Access to print and digital media are
dependent on the literacy of producers and ability to access P Yi = j|X = 1 − φ αj−1 − X′ i β



(4)
programs through print, Television, radio, or internet.
Many Extension publications are typically available for where Y∗i represents a latent variable (utility of adoption of
producers to access at Extension offices (Singh, 1997). producer i (i = 1, . . . . . . , N)) indicating adoption of j number
of adaptation practices adopted j = 1, . . . . . . , M , X ′ i is a

vector of explanatory variables, β is a vector of parameters

to be estimated, α j are threshold parameters (cutoffs), εi is an
Producers’ perceptions of climate unobservable error term (normally distributed; zero mean and
change and variability unitary variance), and P represents probability and φ is the
standard normal cumulative distribution function (cdf). The
In the survey, information about producers perceptions regression parameters, β, and threshold parameters (cutoffs), α j ,
were gathered on local weather patterns over the past 10 years. are estimated through maximum likelihood estimation. We use
Specifically, we collected data on changes in temperatures, oprobit command in STATA 16 to estimate the ordered probit
rainfall, dry periods, floods, hailstorms, unpredictability of model (StataCorp, 2019). The coefficients from ordered probit
weather, groundwater table and onset as well as retreat of estimation indicate how each institutional resource enhances
monsoon. Climate change is a long-term phenomenon and intensity of adoption. Thus, we estimate marginal effects to
researchers use long-term time series analysis of climatic quantify how each explanatory variables affect intensity of
variables, such as temperature and precipitation, however, adoption. The marginal effect of change in X ′ on the likelihood
we used producers’ perceptions within past 10 years periods. of having jth category is:
Producers respond to survey questions based on their memory
∂P(Yi = j)
= [φ αj−1 − X′ i β − φ αj − X′ i β ]β



of the recent past and we chose 10 years period as a reference (5)
∂Xi
timeframe in this study. Table 1 presents the percentage of
respondents who perceived climate change in the past 10 years We use the post-estimation command, mfx after fitting
from 2009 to 2018 (Regmi, 2020). If producers perceived changes ordered probit model in Stata 16 to estimate marginal effects.
in weather patterns, the probability of adopting climate change We hypothesize that access to four institutional resources
adaptation practices are high (Nhemachena and Hassan, 2007; (i.e., membership, Extension, training, and information)
Nhemachena et al., 2014; Khanal et al., 2018). positively influence the producer’s decision to adopt climate

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 05 frontiersin.org

Upendram et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1016404

change adaptation practices. Following Deressa et al. (2009), we almost a quarter of producers did not adopt any climate
hypothesize that access to Extension, and information influence change adaptation practice (23%). Among the five climate
the adoption of climate change adaptation practices. Following change adaptation practices, majority of producers adjusted
Piya et al. (2013), our hypothesis is that membership, training, their crop calendar (73%), adopted improved varieties (65%),
and information affect the adoption of multiple climate change and invested in irrigation practices (61%), while less than a
adaption practices. Likewise, Zamasiya et al. (2017) indicate quarter of producers adopted IPM practices (22%) and DSR
that access to Extension, information, and membership to social practices (16%) in the past 3 years. More than half of producers
groups enhance the adoption of climate change practices among (54%) had access to local agricultural Extension services and
smallholder producers. weather-related information through television, radio, mobile
The control variables as a part of X ′ i include farmers’ phone applications, text messages, or publications in the past
and farm characteristics that may influence farmers’ decisions year. About 44% of producers participated in climate change
to adopt multiple adaptation practices. Farmers’ household adaptation training programs, and more than two thirds of
characteristics such as gender of the household head, household producers (68%) were members of agricultural groups or
size, years of farming experience, and education level are cooperatives in the past 3 years.
potential key determinants of adoption (Ali and Erenstein, 2017; The farmers’ demographic characteristics indicate that 20%
Mulwa et al., 2017). We hypothesize that gender of farmers’ head of heads of farmers’ households were female, and the ratio
of household influences the decision to adopt. Following Deressa of dependent family members to economically active family
et al. (2009), we hypothesize that greater educational attainment members that are working age (16–60 years old) was 0.49. Nearly
of the household head implies better access to information on half (45%) of producers had at least one household member
improved farming practices, and, thus, greater likelihood of who migrated to another country for employment in the past
adaptation to climate change. A dependency ratio, which is year. The average education of heads of farmers’ households
the total number of dependent family members divided by the was 7.9 years, the average farming experience of producers was
total number of economically active members in the household, 26.0 years, and average annual household income was equivalent
serves as a proxy for household labor availability. A family to $2,091 (USD). The rice farm characteristics show that the
with a lower dependency ratio has greater availability of labor average number of plots under rice cultivation was 1.65 and
to adopt additional labor-intensive farming practices (Deressa average rice cultivated area for each farm was 0.46 hectares
et al., 2009). We include years of farming of household head (1.137 acres). Over three-fourths of the rice producers (78%)
to hypothesize that producers with many years of farming sold rice in their local marketplace in the past year.
experience are more likely to adopt multiple adaptation practices
(Deressa et al., 2009). We hypothesize that households whose
members have migrated (for employment abroad) can influence Results from empirical model
the adoption decision in either way (positive and negative). As
noted by Hassan and Nhemachena (2008), Nhemachena et al. We report parameter estimates and marginal effects of
(2014), Ali and Erenstein (2017), and Mulwa et al. (2017) we the ordered probit model in Table 3. The likelihood ratio
hypothesize that household income has a positive effect on chi-squared statistic for the ordered probit model is 324.56,
adoption as higher income provides opportunities to improve the log-likelihood value is −434.87 and highly significant
farming practices. We hypothesize that producers are more (Prob > χ 2 = 0.000), indicating that the variables sufficiently
likely to adopt climate change adaptation practices if they explain the ordered probit model and goodness of fit
perceived changes in local weather patterns. measure of the model with the data. Multicollinearity was
Following Nhemachena et al. (2014) and Mulwa et al. (2017) assessed by calculating conditional index values for each
we include farm characteristics such as size and number of explanatory variable of the ordered probit model (Belsley, 1991).
parcels as additional factors influencing the adoption of multiple Multicollinearity can be a concern in regression models with
climate change adaptation practices. many variables as in the ordered probit model. A condition
index value is used to detect multicollinearity (Belsley, 1991).
An informal rule of thumb suggests that the condition index
Empirical results and discussion value above 30 indicates multicollinearity. The condition index
value of our model is 9.48, and thus there is no evidence of
Data discussion multicollinearity among the variables.
The coefficients of the ordered probit model can be
We present summary statistics from the data used for interpreted only in terms of their signs, and the magnitudes
the empirical model in Table 2. More than three-fourths of of the effects of the variables are shown in their marginal
producers (77%) perceived changes in local weather patterns effects where all the other covariates are held at the means.
in Chitwan over the past 10 years. Our data indicate that Our results indicate that if producers perceive variability in

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 06 frontiersin.org

Upendram et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1016404

TABLE 2 Variable descriptions and summary statistics (n = 359).

Variable Description Mean Standard Expected

deviation sign
Climate change adaptation
Variety 1 if adoption of drought tolerant and short-duration rice varieties; 0 0.65 0.47 N/A
otherwise

Irrigation 1 if producer invested in improved irrigation; 0 otherwise 0.61 0.48 N/A

DSR 1 if adoption of direct seeded rice; 0 otherwise 0.16 0.36 N/A

IPM 1 if adoption of integrated pest management; 0 otherwise 0.22 0.41 N/A

Adjustment 1 if adjusted crop planting date; 0 otherwise 0.73 0.44 N/A

Institutional resources
Membership 1 if any household member is a member of a farmers group or 0.68 0.46 +
cooperative; 0 otherwise

Extension 1 if producer contacted Extension agent in the past year; 0 otherwise 0.54 0.50 +

Training 1 if producer received agricultural training in the past year; 0 otherwise 0.44 0.48 +

Information 1 if producer received agricultural and weather information through 0.54 0.49 +
TV/FM radio, phone applications, text messages, and publications; 0
otherwise

Demographics
Gender 1 if head of the household is female; 0 otherwise 0.20 0.40 +/−

Dependency ratio Ratio of number of dependent family members to number of 0.49 0.65 -
economically active family members aged 16–60 years

Out-migration 1 if any of household member migrated to another country for 0.45 0.49 +/−
employment; 0 otherwise

Education Formal education years of producer 7.92 4.12 +

Farming years Years of farming experience of producer 26.01 10.81 +

Income Annual household Income (USD) 2,090.90 1,472.01 +

Climate change perception

Climate 1 if perceived changes in local weather over the past 10 years; 0 0.77 0.42 +
otherwise

Farm characteristics
Rice plots Number of plots under rice cultivation 1.65 0.79 +

Rice sold 1 if sold rice in the market; 0 otherwise 0.78 0.41 +

Rice area Hectares of rice area 0.46 0.30 +/−

local weather patterns, the likelihood of adopting more climate multiple climate change adaptation practices increases (see
change adaptation practices increases. The marginal effects of Figure 2). We analyzed and interpreted intensity of adoption
the variable suggest that changing from unperceived to perceived as high intensity and low intensity. For example, low intensity
variability in local weather patterns decreases the probability includes adoption of one or two climate change adaptation
of not adopting, or adopting one, and two climate change practices and high intensity includes adoption of three or more
adaptation practices by 17.8, 15.3, and 3.7%, respectively. In climate change adaptation practices. Our analysis focuses on
contrast, the same change increases the probability of adopting examining high intensity of adoption measured by the adoption
three, four, and five climate adaptation practices by 23.7, 9.9, and of three, four, and five climate change adaptation practices.
3.2%, respectively. The positive effect of the membership in farmer groups or
Our results also indicate that if producers are a member of cooperatives is consistent with literature by Teklewold et al.
farmer groups or cooperatives and have access to Extension, (2013) and Aryal et al. (2018) who find that membership in
training, and information services, their likelihood of adopting farmer groups and cooperatives increases the likelihood of

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 07 frontiersin.org

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems

Upendram et al.
TABLE 3 Parameter estimates and marginal effects from ordered probit model (Dependent variable: Climate adaptation intensity).

Explanatory variable Coef. St.Err Marginal effect

Prob = (Y=0|X) Prob = (Y=1|X) Prob = (Y=2|X) Prob = (Y=3|X) Prob = (Y=4|X) Prob = (Y=5|X)
Institutional resources
Membership 0.410∗∗ 0.178 −0.059∗∗ −0.072∗∗ −0.028∗∗ 0.090∗∗ 0.051∗∗ 0.017∗∗

Extension 0.595∗∗∗ 0.148 −0.080∗∗∗ −0.103∗∗∗ −0.044∗∗∗ 0.120∗∗∗ 0.078∗∗∗ 0.029∗∗∗

Training 0.407∗∗∗ 0.144 −0.050∗∗∗ −0.070∗∗∗ −0.033∗∗ 0.077∗∗∗ 0.056∗∗∗ 0.021∗∗

Information 0.509∗∗∗ 0.162 −0.068∗∗∗ −0.088∗∗∗ −0.038∗∗∗ 0.103∗∗∗ 0.067∗∗∗ 0.025∗∗

Demographics
Gender −0.294∗ 0.150 0.042∗ 0.052∗ 0.020∗∗ −0.066∗ −0.036∗∗ −0.012∗

Dependency ratio 0.060 0.085 −0.007 −0.010 −0.004 0.012 0.008 0.003

Out-migration −0.042 0.120 0.005 0.007 0.003 −0.008 −0.005 −0.002

08

Education 0.082∗∗∗ 0.021 −0.010∗∗∗ −0.014∗∗∗ −0.006∗∗∗ 0.016∗∗∗ 0.011∗∗∗ 0.004∗∗∗

Farming years 0.001 0.005 −0.001 −0.001 −0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
Income 0.001 0.000 0.001 −0.001 −0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001∗∗

Climate change perception

Climate 0.961∗∗∗ 0.186 −0.178∗∗∗ −0.153∗∗∗ −0.037∗∗∗ 0.237∗∗∗ 0.099∗∗∗ 0.032∗∗∗

Farm characteristics
Rice plots 0.111 0.086 −0.014 −0.019 −0.009 0.022 0.015 0.005

Rice sold 0.206 0.166 −0.028 −0.036 −0.015 0.045 0.026 0.009

Rice area −0.269 0.213 0.034 0.047 0.022 −0.054 −0.036 −0.013
Log-likelihood ratio χ2 (24) = 324.56; Prob > χ2 = 0.000.

10.3389/fsufs.2022.1016404
Number of observations = 359.
Log-likelihood = −434.87.
∗∗∗ , ∗∗ , and ∗ refers to significance at 1%, 5%, and 10 % levels, respectively.
frontiersin.org
Upendram et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1016404

FIGURE 2
Intensity of adoption of climate change adaptation practices across membership status.

adopting climate change adaptation practices such as adopting having access to Extension service decreases the likelihood of
stress-tolerant crop varieties, crop rotation, and tillage practices. adopting zero, one, and two climate change adaptation practices
The positive effect of the access to Extension service aligns by 8.0, 10.3, and 4.4%, respectively. In contrast, the same change
well with previous studies (FAO, 2003; Etwire et al., 2013; increases the likelihood of adopting three, four, and five climate
Mulwa et al., 2017; Rickards et al., 2018; Atube et al., 2021) change adaptation practices by 12.0, 7.8, and 2.9%, respectively.
that find educational programs through Extension services help Overall, consistent with the findings of Aryal et al. (2018),
improving the capacity of smallholder producers to mitigate the likely impact of each institutional factors reduces as the
negative impacts of climate change. The positive effect of climate level of intensity increases. For example, access to Extension
change adaption training implies that producers who attend services enhances the likelihood of adopting three climate
such training programs are more likely to adapt to climate change adaptation practices by 12.0% whereas the likelihood of
change by adopting improved crop varieties, adjusting farm adopting five climate change adaptation practices increase by
calendar, following weather forecasts, and intercropping (Trinh only 2.9%. These findings indicate that adoption of a greater
et al., 2018). The positive effect of access to weather information number of adaptation practices reduced with the increasing
supports previous findings (Mwalukasa, 2013; Upadhyay and availability of multiple adaptation practices.
Bijalwan, 2015; Islam and Nursey-Bray, 2017; Mulwa et al., 2017; It is noteworthy to identify that there are consistently
Owusu et al., 2021) that access to climate-related information negative marginal effects of the four institutional resources when
enhances the likelihood of climate adaptation practices. producers do not adopt or up to two climate change adaptation
The marginal effects of the four institutional resources show practices (low intensity of adoption) while consistently positive
that, keeping other covariates at their means, changing from marginal effects of the four institutional resources on three
non-member to member of farmer groups or cooperatives and to five adaptation practices (high intensity of adoption). The
changing from not having to having access to Extension service, reason behind this clear and consistent pattern is as follows:
training program, and information decrease the likelihood our data indicates that majority of producers who have a
of adopting zero, one, and two climate change adaptation membership (78%), and have access to Extension service (82%),
practices. In contrast, the same changes under the same training program (84%), and information (84%) choose to
conditions increase the likelihood of adopting three, four, adopt three or above climate change adaptation practices or
and five climate change adaptation practices. Out of the four high intensity adopters (see Table 4, Figure 2). In contrast,
institutional resources, access to Extension service has the majority of producers who do not have a membership (80%)
highest absolute marginal effects across all six climate change and do not have access to Extension service (66%), training
adaptation practices. For example, changing from not having to program (59%), and information (69%) choose not to adopt

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 09 frontiersin.org

Upendram et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1016404

TABLE 4 Intensity of adoption (number of practices) based on producer’s access to extension, training, and information (institutional resources).

Producer’s access to:

Intensity of adoption (number of practices) Extension Training Information
Yes No Yes No Yes No
0 6 68 0 74 0 74

1 14 25 10 29 13 26

2 15 16 15 16 18 13

Less than or equal to 2 (low intensity) 35 109 25 119 31 113

3 85 39 69 55 81 43

4 44 11 39 16 51 4

5 31 5 25 11 33 3

More than or equal to 3 (high intensity) 160 55 133 82 165 50

or adopt up to two climate adaptation practices or low and improved farming practices, and membership in producer
intensity adopters. groups/cooperatives on adoption intensity of climate change
The parameter estimates and their marginal effects of the adaptation practices. As a case study, we collected smallholder
control variables are also presented in Table 3. Results reveal that rice producer data in 2019 through household surveys in
male-headed households are more likely to adopt at least three Chitwan, Nepal. We used an ordered probit model estimation
climate change adaptation practices (high intensity of adoption) to examine how institutional resources influence adoption
compared with households headed by female. Results also show intensity of practices.
that farmers with higher levels of education and income are less Smallholder rice producers face many adverse impacts
likely to adopt less than two climate change adaptation practices resulting from climate change. Along with reduced yields, the
(low intensity of adoption) and more likely to adopt at least three most serious challenges faced by smallholder rice producers
climate change adaptation practices (high intensity of adoption). in Chitwan include greater incidence of disease, pests, and
In contrast, farm characteristics such as number of rice plots, weeds, delays in rice transplantation, and reduced availability
whether harvested rice is sold in market, and rice acreage are of irrigation water. Smallholder producers adopted several
not significant factors in the decision to adopt climate change practices to reduce the negative impacts of climate change and
adaptation practices. variability on rice production. Results indicate that 76.6% of
We found that 23.4% of producers did not adopt any rice producers adopted at least one adaptation practice. Lack of
climate change adaptation practices. We analyzed the potential information and technical knowledge on adaptation practices
reasons for smallholder producers not adopting climate change and insufficient financial resources are main reasons for non-
adaptation practices (see Table 5). Results indicate that lack of adoption of adaptation practices.
relevant information and inadequate technical knowledge are The findings indicate that: (1) access to institutional
two prominent reasons for not adopting improved varieties, resources significantly enhanced the likelihood of adopting
DSR, IPM, and adjustment in crop calendar, while affordability multiple climate change adaptation practices; (2) the adoption
is the main reason farmers to not adopt irrigation practices. of three, four, and five climate change adaptation practices
Overall, we find that for four out of five adaptation practices (high intensity of adoption) significantly increased with access
(except improved irrigation), lack of information and lack of to institutional resources; (3) intensity of adoption of climate
technical knowledge are the most important reasons for not change adaptation practices reduced with more adaptation
adopting climate change adaptation practices. These findings alternatives available to smallholder rice producers; and (4) lack
suggest that improved education and providing technical of information and technical knowledge are the most important
training along with financial support to producers may improve reasons for non-adoption of climate change adaptation practices
adoption of climate change adaptation practices. by smallholder rice producers.
The findings of this study are valuable for policymakers
and local agencies to prioritize resource allocation to enhance
Conclusions intensity of climate change adaptation among smallholder rice
producers. The results from this study are limited to the
This study evaluated the influence of agricultural Extension intensity of adoption of climate change adaptation practices
services, agricultural training, and information on weather and have no bearing on the effectiveness or the impact of

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 10 frontiersin.org

Upendram et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1016404

TABLE 5 Reasons for non-adoption of climate change adaptation practices (%).

Reasons for non-adoption Varieties Irrigation DSR IPM Crop calendar

adjustment
Lack of information 41.1 7.4 41.0 47.3 32.8

Unable to afford 15.2 59.6 2.1 4.5 11.4

Lack of technical knowledge 34.2 12.1 38 43.9 34.8

Requires more effort/not profitable 0.9 3.3 5.1 2.4 2.7

Not applicable 4.4 17.3 13.5 1.7 17.0

Unavailable 4.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0

the practices. For example, holding other factors at mean, preparation. JM contributed to data analysis and manuscript
access to Extension services enhanced the likelihood of adopting preparation. All authors contributed to the article and approved
three, four, and five climate change adaptation practices (high the submitted version.
intensity of adoption) by 12.0, 7.8, and 2.9%, respectively, which
is higher than the impacts of access to agricultural training
services, access to weather information, and membership in Acknowledgments
producer co-operatives or farmer’s groups. Local governments
can enhance intensity of adoption by prioritizing resources We acknowledge the support and cooperation of rice
to Extension services first, followed by access to weather- producers in Chitwan, Nepal. We are grateful to National
related information, training support, and membership in Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS),
producer groups/cooperatives. University of Tennessee, Knoxville for providing financial
support for travel and to conduct the field survey in
Chitwan, Nepal.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are Conflict of interest
included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries
can be directed to the corresponding author. The authors declare that the research was conducted in
the absence of any commercial or financial relationships
that could be construed as a potential conflict
Ethics statement of interest.

The studies involving human participants were Publisher’s note

reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Board,
University of Tennessee. The patients/participants All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
provided their written informed consent to participate in authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
this study. organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed
Author contributions or endorsed by the publisher.

HR led the primary data collection, analyzed the data,

conceptualized the model, and contributed to manuscript Supplementary material
preparation. SU conceptualized the study, contributed to survey
development, data analysis, and contributed to manuscript The Supplementary Material for this article can be
preparation. S-HC and CC assisted with survey development, found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/
data analysis, model estimation, and contributed to manuscript fsufs.2022.1016404/full#supplementary-material

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 11 frontiersin.org

Upendram et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1016404

References
Ali, A., and Erenstein, O. (2017). Assessing farmer use of climate change Harvey, C. A., Rakotobe, Z. L., Rao, N. S., Dave, R., Razafimahatratra, H.,
adaptation practices and impacts on food security and poverty in Pakistan. Clim. Rabarijohn, R. H., et al. (2014). Extreme vulnerability of smallholder farmers to
Risk Manag. 16, 183–194. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2016.12.001 agricultural risks and climate change in Madagascar. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 369,
20130089. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0089
Aryal, J. P., Rahut, D. B., Maharjan, S., and Erenstein, O. (2018). Factors affecting
the adoption of Multiple Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices in the Indo-Gangetic Hassan, R. M., and Nhemachena, C. (2008). Determinants of African farmers’
Plains of India. Natural Resources Forum. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. strategies for adapting to climate change: multinomial choice analysis. African J.
Agric. Resour. Econ. 2, 83–104. doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.56969
Aryal, J. P., Sapkota, T. B., Khurana, R., Khatri-Chhetri, A., Rahut, D. B.,
and Jat, M. L. (2020). Climate change and agriculture in South Asia: adaptation IPCC. (2019). Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate
options in smallholder production systems. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 22, 5045–5075. Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food
doi: 10.1007/s10668-019-00414-4 Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems, eds P. R. Shukla, J.
Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai,
Atube, F., Malinga, G. M., Nyeko, M., Okello, D. M., Alarakol, S. P., and Okello-
R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M.
Uma, I. (2021). Determinants of smallholder farmers’ adaptation strategies to the
Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi,
effects of climate change: evidence from northern Uganda. Agric. Food Secur. 10,
and J. Malley (Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press). p. 896.
1–14. doi: 10.1186/s40066-020-00279-1
doi: 10.1017/9781009157988
Aza, O. (2021). The Factors Influencing the Leader’s Perceptions of Success of
Islam, M. T., and Nursey-Bray, M. (2017). Adaptation to climate change in
Dairy Cooperatives: The Case of Cumbal Nariño Dairy Associations (Master’s
agriculture in Bangladesh: the role of formal institutions. J. Environ. Manage. 200,
Thesis). Tennessee: The University of Tennessee. Available online at: https://trace.
347–358. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.092
tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/6303/ (accessed November 26, 2022).
Karna, P. K. (2014). “The impact of climate change on rice production in Nepal,”
Azadi, Y., Yazdanpanah, M., and Mahmoudi, H. (2019). Understanding
in Working paper, South Asian Network for Development and Environmental
smallholder farmers’ adaptation behaviors through climate change beliefs, risk
Economics. Kathmandu, Nepal.
perception, trust, and psychological distance: Evidence from wheat growers in Iran.
J. Environ. Manage. 250, 109456. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109456 Khanal, U., Wilson, C., Hoang, V. N., and Lee, B. (2018). Farmers’ adaptation
to climate change, its determinants and impacts on rice yield in Nepal. Ecol. Econ.
Bandara, J. S., and Cai, Y. (2014). The impact of climate change on food crop
144, 139–147. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.08.006
productivity, food prices and food security in South Asia. Econ. Anal. Policy. 44,
451–465. doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2014.09.005 Krejcie, R. V., and Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for
research activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 30, 607–610. doi: 10.1177/0013164470030
Belsley, D. A. (1991). A guide to using the collinearity diagnostics. Comput. Sci.
00308
Rev. 4, 33–50.
Kurukulasuriya, P., and Rosenthal, S. (2013). Climate Change and Agriculture:
Biggs, E. M., Tompkins, E. L., Allen, J., Moon, C., and Allen, R. (2013).
A Review of Impacts and Adaptations. Agricultural and Rural Development
Agricultural adaptation to climate change: observations from the Mid-Hills of
Department, World Bank. Available online at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.
Nepal. Clim. Develop. 5, 165–173. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2013.789791
org/handle/10986/16616 (accessed November 26, 2022).
Bryan, E., Deressa, T. T., Gbetibouo, G. A., and Ringler, C. (2009). Adaptation to
Manandhar, S., Vogt, D. S., Perret, S. R., and Kazama, F. (2011). Adapting
climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: options and constraints. Environ. Sci.
cropping systems to climate change in Nepal: a cross-regional study of
Policy. 12, 413–426. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2008.11.002
farmers’ perception and practices. Reg. Environ. Change. 11, 335–348.
Chhetri, P. (2019). Personal Communication. Chitwan, Nepal: Agricultural doi: 10.1007/s10113-010-0137-1
Officer, Agricultural Knowledge Center (AKC).
McSweeney, C., New, M., Lizcano, G., and Lu, X. (2010). The UNDP Climate
Deressa, T. T., Hassan, R. M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T., and Yesuf, M. Change Country Profiles: improving the accessibility of observed and projected
(2009). Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate climate information for studies of climate change in developing countries. Bull.
change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Glob. Environ. Change. 19, 248–255. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 91, 157–166. doi: 10.1175/2009BAMS2826.1
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.002
Ministry of Energy, Water Resources, and Irrigation. (2018). Way Forward
Etwire, P. M., Al-Hassan, R. M., Kuwornu, J. K., and Osei-Owusu, Y. (2013). of Energy, Water Resources, and Irrigation. Kathmandu: Consumer Information
Smallholder farmers adoption of technologies for adaptation to climate change in Platform.
Northern Ghana. J. Agric. Ext. 5, 121–129. doi: 10.5897/JAERD13.0481
MoAD. (2015). Selected Indicators of Nepalese Agriculture and Population.
FAO (2003). World Agriculture Toward 2015/2030. Rome, Italy: An Kathmandu: Government of Nepal.
FAO perspective.
MoE. (2010). National Adaptation Plan of Action to Climate Change. Kathmandu:
FAO (2014). Managing Climate Risks and Adapting to Climate Change in the Government of Nepal.
Agriculture Sector in Nepal. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.
MOF. (2014). Economic Survey. Fiscal Year 2013/14. Kathmandu: Government
FAO (2020). Rome, Italy: FAOSTAT. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/ of Nepal.
faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize (accessed November 26, 2022).
MOF. (2018). Economic Survey. Fiscal Year 2017/18. Kathmandu: Government
Feola, G., Lerner, A. M., Jain, M., Montefrio, M. J. F., and Nicholas, K. A. of Nepal.
(2015). Researching farmer behaviour in climate change adaptation and sustainable
Morton, J. F. (2007). The impact of climate change on smallholder
agriculture: lessons learned from five case studies. J. Rural Stud. 39, 74–84.
and subsistence agriculture. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 104, 19680–19685.
doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.03.009
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701855104
Gadédjisso-Tossou, A. (2015). Understanding farmers’ perceptions of and
Mulwa, C., Marenya, P., and Kassie, M. (2017). Response to climate risks among
adaptations to climate change and variability: The case of the Maritime, Plateau
smallholder farmers in Malawi: a multivariate probit assessment of the role of
and Savannah regions of Togo. Agri. Sci. 6, 1441–1454. doi: 10.4236/as.2015.612140
information, household demographics, and farm characteristics. Clim. Risk Manag.
Gbetibouo, G. A. (2009). “Understanding farmers’ perceptions and adaptations 16, 208–221. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2017.01.002
to climate change and variability, the case of the Limpopo Basin, South Africa,”
Mwalukasa, N. (2013). Agricultural information sources used for climate change
In International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Discussion Paper No.
adaptation in Tanzania. Library Rev. 62, 266-292. doi: 10.1108/LR-12-2011-
00849. Washington D.C. USA: Environment and Production Technology Division,
0096
International Food Policy Research Institute.
National Planning Commission, Nepal. (2020). Fifteenth Plan. Fiscal Year
Gumma, M. K., Gauchan, D., Nelson, A., Pandey, S., and Rala, A. (2011).
2019/20-2023/24. Kathmandu, Nepal.
Temporal changes in rice-growing area and their impact on livelihood over
a decade: a case study of Nepal. Agricult. Ecosyst. Environ. 2, 382–392. Nhemachena, C., and Hassan, R. (2007). Micro level analysis of farmers’
doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.06.010 adaptation to climate change in Southern Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00714.
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, United States.
Gurung, G. B., and Bhandari, D. (2009). Integrated approach to climate change
adaptation. J. Forest Livelihood. 8, 91–99. Available online at: https://www. Nhemachena, C., Hassan, R., and Chakwizira, J. (2014). Analysis of determinants
scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-79956061397&partnerID=40&md5= of farm-level adaptation measures to climate change in Southern Africa. J. Dev.
418591d7238733208a103ffbb77115d4 Agric. Econ. 6, 232–241. doi: 10.5897/JDAE12.0441

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 12 frontiersin.org

Upendram et al. 10.3389/fsufs.2022.1016404

Owusu, V., Ma, W., Renwick, A., and Emuah, D. (2021). Does the use of climate Regional State of Ethiopia. J. Econ. Sustain. Dev. 3, 1–12. Available online at: https://
information contribute to climate change adaptation? Evidence from Ghana. Clim. scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=18176727552038859967&hl=en&as_sdt=0,15
Dev. 13, 616–629. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2020.1844612
Teklewold, H., Kassie, M., and Shiferaw, B. (2013). Adoption of multiple
Piya, L., Maharjan, K. L., and Joshi, N. P. (2013). Determinants of adaptation sustainable agricultural practices in rural Ethiopia. J. Agric. Econ. 64, 597–623.
practices to climate change by Chepang households in the rural Mid-Hills of Nepal. doi: 10.1111/1477-9552.12011
Reg. Environm. Chang. 13, 437–447. doi: 10.1007/s10113-012-0359-5
Thinda, K. T., Ogundeji, A. A., Belle, J. A., and Ojo, T. O. (2020).
Regmi, H. P. (2020). Climate Change and Variability: Producers’ Perceptions and “Understanding the adoption of climate change adaptation strategies among
Determinants of Adaptation Strategies in Rice Farming in Chitwan, Nepal (Master’s smallholder farmers: Evidence from land reform beneficiaries in South Africa.” In
Thesis). Tennessee: University of Tennessee. Available online at: https://trace. Land Use Policy 99. Available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.
tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/6246/ (accessed November 26, 2022). 104858 doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104858
Regmi, H. P., Upendram, S., Cho, S.-H., and Clark, C. D. (2022). Tilahun, B., and Bedemo, A. (2014). Farmers’ perception and adaptation to
Examining complementarity relationships among climate change adaptation climate change: Heckman’s two stage sample selection model. Ethiop. J. Environ.
practices of rice producers in Chitwan, Nepal. Clim. Dev. 1–21. Stud. Manag. 7, 832–839. doi: 10.4314/ejesm.v7i2.3S
doi: 10.1080/17565529.2022.2107980
Trinh, T. Q., Rañola Jr, R. F., Camacho, L. D., and Simelton, E.
Rickards, L., Alexandra, J., Jolley, C., and Frewer, T. (2018). Final Report: (2018). Determinants of farmers’ adaptation to climate change in agricultural
Review of Agricultural Extension. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Centre for production in the central region of Vietnam. Land Use Policy. 70, 224–231.
International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.023
Sarker, M. A. R., Alam, K., and Gow, J. (2014). Assessing the effects of climate Upadhyay, A. P., and Bijalwan, A. (2015). Climate change adaptation: services
change on rice yields: an econometric investigation using Bangladeshi panel data. and role of information communication technology (ICT) in India. Am. J. Environ.
Econ. Anal. Policy 44, 405–416. doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2014.11.004 Protect. 4, 70–74. doi: 10.11648/j.ajep.20150401.20
Singh, K. N. (1997). “Agricultural extension education” in Handbook of Wheeler, T., and Von Braun, J. (2013). Climate change impacts on global food
Agriculture, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, 5th Edn (New Delhi: Indian security. Science. 341, 508–513. doi: 10.1126/science.1239402
Council of Agricultural Research), p. 668–703.
Wollni, M., Lee, D. R., and Thies, J. E. (2010). Conservation agriculture, organic
Smit, B., and Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability.
marketing, and collective action in the Honduran hillsides. Agri. Econ. 41, 373–384.
Glob. Environ. Change 16, 282–292. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008
doi: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00445.x
StataCorp (2019). Stata Statistical Software: Release 16. College Station, TX:
StataCorp LLC. Zamasiya, B., Nyikahadzoi, K., and Mukamuri, B. B. (2017). Factors influencing
smallholder farmers’ behavioural intention towards adaptation to climate change
Tazeze, A., Haji, J., and Ketema, M. (2012). Climate change adaptation strategies in transitional climatic zones: A case study of Hwedza District in Zimbabwe. J.
of smallholder farmers: the case of Babilie District, East Harerghe Zone of Oromia Environ. Manage. 198, 233–239. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.073

Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 13 frontiersin.org