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

Abstract

Adaptation has become a key priority in dealing with the 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 contribution 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 rural areas of Nepal.

Farmers' preferences for water-saving strategies in Brazilian eucalypt plantations

“…Our results from the latent class model moreover suggest that adaptation to climate change remains a major concern mainly for the most vulnerable out-growers (named Class 1), while other farmers who are less dependent on income from eucalypt plantations exhibit much less concern about it (named Class 2). These results are consistent with that highlighted by previous choice experiments involving farmers exposed to climate change in other regions of the world (Nthambi, Markova-Nenova, and Wätzold, 2021;Khanal et al, 2019;Schaafsma, Ferrini, and Turner, 2019) just to cite some recent ones). Our findings moreover suggest that adaptation policies should target the most vulnerable smallholders first (Donatti et al, 2018), whether with the objective of supporting the standard of living of households that depend on the cultivation of eucalypt or with the objective of preserving water resources.…”

Potato Importance for Development Focusing on Prices

“…Potato cultivation enjoys high suitability in some parts of China, where its benefits are now experienced and it is slowly heading to become a staple food article. In some more remote production areas, the potato is already a local staple, which is usual for developing countries, also more generally (Khanal et al 2019;Scott and Suarez 2012a). In Figure 3, the normal good status for the potato is found particularly in less wealthy countries where increasing income still increases potato share; reaching the staple status often means advancing wealth and inclusive welfare, but then also lowering consumption share eventually entails as the potato has transformed into an inferior good.…”

Estimating Benefits of Nature-based Solutions: Diverging Values From Choice Experiments With Time or Money Payments

“…A review of the literature indicates that most studies that use time payments in developing countries implement separate stated preference questions for both time and money payment vehicles (e.g. Gibson et al, 2016;Khanal et al, 2019;Endalew et al, 2020;Girma et al, 2020;Hagedoorn et al, 2020;Navrud and Vondolia, 2020;Alemu et al, 2021). This research design feature is likely due to the fact that combining both time and money attributes in one choice format rarely suits applications other than transportation and recreation demand studies.…”