Sustainability Science

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 1027–1040 | Cite as

Influence of payment modes on farmers’ contribution to climate change adaptation: understanding differences using a choice experiment in Nepal

  • Uttam Khanal
  • Clevo Wilson
  • Boon L. Lee
  • Viet-Ngu Hoang
  • Shunsuke ManagiEmail author
Original Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Climate Change Mitigation, Adaption, and Resilience


Adaptation has become a key priority in dealing with climate change issues. However, successful implementation of climate change adaptation entails substantial financial investment. This study examines differences in Nepalese farming households’ willingness to contribute to the implementation of adaptation programs across monetary and non-monetary modes of payments. To this end, we undertake discrete choice experiments with monetary payment and labor contributions as the payment vehicles. We find that farmers are interested in participating in and financially supporting the implementation of climate change adaptation initiatives that increase the availability of climate-adaptive crop varieties, improve soil quality, expand irrigation and build farmers’ capacity in terms of climate-adaptive farming. Factors influencing farmers’ participation in adaptation programs include age, income, access to extension services, size of land holdings, number of farm parcels, climate change perception and climate change experience. Furthermore, the findings reveal significant heterogeneity in the farmers’ preferences across three agro-ecological regions in Nepal. Our findings also strengthen the methodological validity of the results of the choice experiment, which indicated that farmers are willing to pay significantly more when asked to make a payment in terms of a labor contribution compared to a monetary payment for the implementation of adaptation programs. Overall, the findings of this study justify the relevance of implementing agricultural adaptation programs in Nepal.


Agriculture Climate change adaptation Choice experiment Random parameter logit Willingness to pay 


  1. Abramson A, Becker N, Garb Y, Lazarovitch N (2011) Willingness to pay, borrow, and work for rural water service improvements in developing countries. Water Resour Res 47:W11512Google Scholar
  2. Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J (1998) Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agric Econ 80(1):64–75Google Scholar
  3. Akter S, Bennett J, Ward MB (2012) Climate change scepticism and public support for mitigation: evidence from an Australian choice experiment. Glob Environ Change 22(3):736–745Google Scholar
  4. Alam K (2006) Valuing the environment in developing countries: problems and potentials. Asia Pac J Environ Dev 13(1):27–44Google Scholar
  5. Alvarez-Farizo B, Hanley N, Barberan R, Lazaro A (2007) Choice modeling at the “market stall”: individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 60(4):743–751Google Scholar
  6. Asquith NM, Vargas MT, Wunder S (2008) Selling two environmental services: in-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecol Econ 65(4):675–684Google Scholar
  7. Bajracharya RM, Sherchan DP (2009) Fertility status and dynamics of soils in the Nepal Himalaya: a review and analysis. In: Lucero DP, Boggs IE (eds) Soil Fertility. Nova Science Publishers Inc, New York, pp 111–135Google Scholar
  8. Bajracharya J, Rana R, Gauchan D, Sthapit B, Jarvis D, Witcombe J (2010) Rice landrace diversity in Nepal. Socio-economic and ecological factors determining rice landrace diversity in three agro-ecozones of Nepal based on farm surveys. Genet Resour Crop Evol 57(7):1013–1022Google Scholar
  9. Below TB, Mutabazi KD, Kirschke D, Franke C, Sieber S, Siebert R, Tscherning K (2012) Can farmers’ adaptation to climate change be explained by socio-economic household-level variables? Glob Environ Change 22(1):223–235Google Scholar
  10. Bennett J, Birol E (2010) Choice experiments in developing countries: implementation, challenges and policy implications. Edward Elgar Cheltenham, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  11. Bhattarai B, Beilin R, Ford R (2015) Gender, agrobiodiversity, and climate change: a study of adaptation practices in the Nepal Himalayas. World Dev 70:122–132Google Scholar
  12. Boxall PC, Adamowicz WL, Swait J, Williams M, Louviere J (1996) A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol Econ 18(3):243–253Google Scholar
  13. Clay EJ (1986) Rural public works and food-for-work: a survey. World Dev 14(10):1237–1252Google Scholar
  14. Colombo S, Hanley N, Calatrava-Requena J (2005) Designing policy for reducing the offarm effects of soil erosion using choice experiments. J Agric Econ 56(1):81–95Google Scholar
  15. Colombo S, Hanley N, Louviere J (2009) Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture. Agric Econ 40(3):307–322Google Scholar
  16. Deressa TT, Hassan RM, Ringler C, Alemu T, Yesuf M (2009) Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Glob Environ Change 19(2):248–255Google Scholar
  17. Dharmarathna WRSS, Herath S, Weerakoon SB (2014) Changing the planting date as a climate change adaptation strategy for rice production in Kurunegala district, Sri Lanka. Sustain Sci 9(1):103–111Google Scholar
  18. Di Falco S, Veronesi M, Yesuf M (2011) Does adaptation to climate change provide food security? A micro-perspective from Ethiopia. Am J Agric Econ 93(3):829–846Google Scholar
  19. FAO (2010) Implications of climate change for agriculture and food security and adaptation priorities in Nepal. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  20. Finger R, Hediger W, Schmid S (2011) Irrigation as adaptation strategy to climate change—a biophysical and economic appraisal for Swiss maize production. Clim Change 105(3–4):509–528Google Scholar
  21. Gibson J, Rigby D, Polya D, Russell N (2016) Discrete choice experiments in developing countries: willingness to pay versus willingness to work. Environ Resour Econ 65(4):697–721Google Scholar
  22. Goibov M, Schmitz PM, Bauer S, Ahmed MN (2012) Application of a choice experiment to estimate farmers preferences for different land use options in northern Tajikistan. J Sustain Dev 5(5):2Google Scholar
  23. Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz V (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environ Resour Econ 11(3–4):413–428Google Scholar
  24. Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright RE (2001) Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuatioin? J Econ Surv 15(3):435–462Google Scholar
  25. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2005) Applied choice analysis: a primer, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH (2015) Applied choice analysis, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Huang J, Wang Y, Wang J (2015) Farmers’ adaptation to extreme weather events through farm management and its impacts on the mean and risk of rice yield in China. Am J Agric Econ 97(2):602–617Google Scholar
  28. Karunarathna KMR (2012) Agricultural biodiversity, farm level technical efficiency and conservation benefits: an empirical investigation. PhD thesis, Queensland University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  29. Khanal U, Adhikari A, Wilson C (2017) Evaluating smallholder farmers’ demand for rice variety attributes in Nepal. J Crop Improv 31(3):438–452Google Scholar
  30. Khanal U, Wilson C, Hoang VN, Lee B (2018) Farmers’ adaptation to climate change, its determinants and impacts on rice yield in Nepal. Ecol Econ 144:139–147Google Scholar
  31. Lancaster KJ (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74(2):132–157Google Scholar
  32. MoAD (2012) Statistical information on Nepalese agriculture 2011/12. Ministry of Agricultural Development, KathmanduGoogle Scholar
  33. MoE (2010) National Adaptation programme of action to climate change. Ministry of Environment, KathmanduGoogle Scholar
  34. MoE (2011) Climate change policy, 2011. Ministry of Environment, KathmanduGoogle Scholar
  35. Narain U, Margulis S, Essam T (2011) Estimating costs of adaptation to climate change. Clim Policy 11(3):1001–1019Google Scholar
  36. Nguyen TC, Robinson J, Kaneko S, Komatsu S (2013) Estimating the value of economic benefits associated with adaptation to climate change in a developing country: a case study of improvements in tropical cyclone warning services. Ecol Econ 86:117–128Google Scholar
  37. Nguyen TC, Robinson J, Kaneko S, Nguyen TC (2015a) Examining ordering effects in discrete choice experiments: a case study in Vietnam. Econ Anal Policy 45:39–57Google Scholar
  38. Nguyen TC, Robinson J, Whitty JA, Kaneko S, Nguyen TC (2015b) Attribute non-attendance in discrete choice experiments: a case study in a developing country. Econ Anal Policy 47:22–33Google Scholar
  39. O’Garra T (2009) Bequest values for marine resources: how important for indigenous communities in less-developed economies? Environ Resour Econ 44(2):179–202Google Scholar
  40. Rai RK, Scarborough H (2013) Economic value of mitigation of plant invaders in a subsistence economy: incorporating labour as a mode of payment. Environ Dev Econ 18(2):225–244Google Scholar
  41. Rai RK, Shyamsundar P, Nepal M, Bhatta LD (2015) Differences in demand for watershed services: understanding preferences through a choice experiment in the Koshi Basin of Nepal. Ecol Econ 119:274–283Google Scholar
  42. Ruben R, Pender J (2004) Rural diversity and heterogeneity in less-favoured areas: the quest for policy targeting. Food Policy 29(4):303–320Google Scholar
  43. Seo SN, Mendelsohn R (2008) An analysis of crop choice: adapting to climate change in South American farms. Ecol Econ 67(1):109–116Google Scholar
  44. Shyamsundar P, Kramer RA (1996) Tropical forest protection: an empirical analysis of the costs borne by local people. J Environ Econ Manag 31(2):129–144Google Scholar
  45. Smith JB (2011) Development and climate change adaptation funding: coordination and integration. Clim Policy 11(3):987–1000Google Scholar
  46. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131Google Scholar
  47. UNFCCC (2014) Background information on the NAPAs. Accessed 14 July 2014

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Uttam Khanal
    • 1
  • Clevo Wilson
    • 1
  • Boon L. Lee
    • 1
  • Viet-Ngu Hoang
    • 1
  • Shunsuke Managi
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.QUT Business SchoolQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Urban and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Urban InstituteKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations