Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) Interventions and Indicators in Nepal: Implications for Sustainable Adaptation

Gyanendra Karki, Balram Bhatta, Naba R Devkota, Ram P Acharya and Ripu M Kunwar
Additional contact information
Gyanendra Karki: Faculty of Forestry, Agriculture and Forestry University, Rampur 44200, Nepal
Balram Bhatta: Faculty of Forestry, Agriculture and Forestry University, Rampur 44200, Nepal
Naba R Devkota: Vice Chancellor Office, Gandaki University, Pokhara 33700, Nepal
Ram P Acharya: Centre for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba 4350, Australia
Ripu M Kunwar: Ethnobotanical Society, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 13, issue 23, 1-17

Abstract: We reviewed 76 climate change adaptation projects that were operational between 2010 and 2020. The review was followed by office and field visits for verification. The office visit helped crosscheck the findings, and the field observations carried out between December 2020 and April 2021 asked 24 key informants and collected supplementary information appraisal and indicator development. Of the CCA projects studied, the most ( n = 48, 32%) were community-based initiatives, while the least ( n = 12, 8%) were ecosystem-based interventions. The main environment-centered projects were Ecosystem-based Adaptations and Ecosystems Protecting Infrastructure and Communities (EPIC) while Enhanced Action of Inclusive CSOs for Participation in Climate Resilient Economic Growth (UTHAN), Initiative for CCA (ICCA), Support to Rural Livelihoods and Climate Change Adaptation in the Himalayas (HIMALICA), etc., adaptation projects were community-based. Capacity building and awareness-raising were the major thrust of the CbA projects, while the abatement of climate vulnerabilities and risks through nature-based solutions were priorities of EbA. Payment for Ecosystem services is a nature-based solution that can play a role in enhancing adaptation to climate change at a local scale by adopting community-based and culturally appropriate methods and enhancing and incentivizing adaptation measures and capacities. A set of 11 criteria and 40 indicators comprised the institutional and behavioral responses and the use of technologies, and the design of climate-resilient plans and climate-smart practices were proposed as appraisal measures to evaluate the success of CCA interventions. The importance of criteria and indicators lies in the fact that such a comprehensive assessment would lead to effective and efficient adaptation projects, which could help benefit beyond the borders. It also furthers ongoing adaptation interventions and is set to be an integral part of associated studies and monitoring and review of new adaptation interventions.

Keywords: disaster risk; resilience; adaptation; project; indicators; Himalaya (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13195/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13195/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13195-:d:690362

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().