1. Introduction
The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) by Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported a trend of increase in the annual mean temperature at the country scale in South Asia (IPCC 2014). The AR5, based on studies in India (Attri and Tyagi 2010; Ganguly 2011), reported temperature increases of 0.56° and 0.68°C during 1901–2009 and 1880–2000, respectively. However, because of the dearth of data, there is uncertainty around temperature changes in several regions in Asia. Seasonal rainfall in South Asia showed interdecadal variability with a general trend of decline, however, that differ across regions (Li et al. 2006; Loo et al. 2015). In India, trends in rainfall (monthly, annual, and monsoonal) were reportedly insignificant from 1901 to 2009 (Attri and Tyagi 2010). A fall in rainfall in winter (January–February) and rise in postmonsoon (September–December) was reported for the administrative subdivisions covering Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) in the Himalayas; however, the records of precipitation in the region are poor, and, hence, the conclusions may be debatable.
The Himalayas, one of the world’s biodiversity hot spots, is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change (Myers et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2009). The region is also under rapid environmental changes with mounting exploitation of natural resources (Bawa et al. 2010). The human impact of climate change in the Himalayas would be severe as it is the source of eight major rivers sustaining 1.4 billion people (Immerzeel et al. 2010). Variations in air temperature and snow cover are sensitive indicators of climate change (Sharma et al. 2013). Studies on glaciers over the Hindu Kush, the Karakoram, and Indian Himalayas reported significant thinning from October 2003 to 2009, which is highest in J&K (0.66 ± 0.09 m yr−1) and lowest in the Karakoram (0.07 ± 0.04 m yr−1) (Kääb et al. 2012). Despite the well-known high sensitivity of Himalayan snow and glaciers to climate change, only a few studies related to them have been carried out (Archer and Fowler 2008; Kulkarni and Karyakarte 2014). There are even fewer studies of the small glaciers and ice caps in the Indian Himalayas, although these are the sources of rivers sustaining millions of human lives and ecologically sensitive and biodiversity-rich areas downstream.
The global average temperature increased by 0.8°C over the past century (decadal average 0.08°C since 1880) and the rate of warming has increased by 0.18°C decade−1 since 1981 (Hansen et al. 2006; Menne et al. 2018). In the Himalayas, the average temperature increased by 1.5°C (0.06°C yr−1), and precipitation increased by 163 mm (6.52 mm yr−1) from 1982 to 2006 (Shrestha et al. 2012). Similarly, glacier ice is diminishing, which causes serious consequences for regional water availability in Himalayas (Bhutiyani et al. 2010; Kraaijenbrink et al. 2017). The northwestern Himalayas also experienced significant increases in winter, monsoon, and annual temperatures and decreases in the monsoon precipitation from 1866 to 2006. In Gulmarg and Pahalgam in Kashmir Valley, the temperature increased by an average of 1.7°C from 1981 to 2010 (Dar et al. 2014). Studies have also shown a rise in temperature and a fall in rainfall at higher altitudes (Singh and Mal 2014; Xu et al. 2009). However, these meteorological conclusions might be difficult to be understood by the public, especially given that local climate varies considerably in the Himalayas (Shrestha et al. 2012).
It has been proposed that the public’s engagement with climate change comprises what one knows, how one understands this knowledge, and what actions one makes accordingly (Bohensky et al. 2013). Studies have shown that the public from different regions have perceived climate change and have taken some actions (Goldberg et al. 2016; Sullivan and White 2019). However, rather low attention has been given to confirm the exactness of the public’s perception of the local climate change as well as the consequential socioeconomic impacts. As highlighted recently (Hundera et al. 2019) people by and large relate climate change to a change in one of its parameters they experienced frequently. In particular, there is a lack of systematic analysis of the specific impacts of the changes on the ecosystem, biodiversity, and livelihood of the Himalayan people (Shrestha et al. 2012), and the strategies for adapting to or mitigating the impacts are also underinvestigated. Residents, especially in impoverished mountainous districts (like Rajouri), might have low understandings of the implications of the local climate change, and would potentially incur serious unforeseen financial and other risks if appropriate adaptive actions were not made. Seeking the residents’ participation and understanding in local climate change mitigation would help in the democratization of the policy-making process and the execution of climate change–related regulation (Russell-Smith et al. 2015). Although some studies have been conducted on public opinion and public engagement relating to diverse aspects of climate change across regions worldwide, (Ademe et al. 2020; Shi et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2020) not a single study has been conducted on this aspect from this important region of Himalaya. Further, most studies have not looked into the actual nature of climate change and that perceived by the locals (Bohensky et al. 2013; Hasan and Kumar 2019, 2020). Therefore, it is essential to examine the western Himalayan local residents’ knowledge of their changing environment and corroborate the veracity of their understanding.
The present study examines the local perception and engagement with climate change. The district Rajouri in J&K, the western Himalayas, was selected as a model based on the range of its altitudinal gradients, minimally developed industrial sector, and growing urbanization. The study attempts to address the following questions: (i) whether the local people perceive a change in climate and related environmental variables; (ii) whether the locals perceiving climate change (and the risk associated) are engaged in any adaptation actions; (iii) whether individual perceptions vary between rural and urban populations or by socioeconomic strata, and (iv) whether local perceptions on climate change are consistent with the climate records of the area.
2. Methods
a. Study area
Rajouri district (33°34′′–33°04′′N, 74°10′′–74°37′′E) is located in the foothills of the Pir Panjal range in the Inner Himalayan region. The district features a mountain range, running from east-southeast to west-northwest, ranging in elevation from 460 to 3900 m MSL (Fig. 1). The terrain is undulating with high peaks and dissected valleys, separated from the Kashmir Valley by the Pir Panjal range on the northeastern side. Total forest cover in the district is 1267 km2 (48% of the land area), with subtropical dry deciduous forest to subtropical pine forest and Himalayan moist temperate forest. The district, spread over 2630 km2, has a population of 642 415 (91.85% rural and 8.14% urban as per the Census of India; Ministry of Home Affairs 2011). It is subdivided into seven tehsils (administrative divisions), eight blocks (administrative division next lower to the tehsil), and 160 panchayats (or the village council, the lowest administrative unit).
Elevation profile of the Rajouri (highlighting Rajouri town).
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 13, 4; 10.1175/WCAS-D-21-0051.1
Agriculture is the primary livelihood in the area, as is the case of the whole J&K where 70% of the people (national average of India—58%) are engaged in agriculture. Rice, wheat, and maize are the major crops and the primary source of income (Zeeshan et al. 2017). Several perennial and numerous ephemeral streams, locally called “nullah,” flow through the district. The major streams Nullah Thanna, Nullah Darhal, Nullah Ans, and Nullah Kalakote join the river Munawar Tawi (one of the right tributaries of the river Chenab) flowing through Rajouri (Zeeshan and Azeez 2016). These streams are the key sources of water for irrigation and domestic use in the area. The climate in the area varies from semitropical in the south to temperate in the north.
b. Historical climate data
The climatologic series of daily temperatures and vapor pressure in the Rajouri area from 1983 to 2013 were retrieved from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) TS4.03 datasets. This dataset is gridded at a 0.5° × 0.5° spatial resolution (Harris et al. 2020; Mitchell and Jones 2005). Because the Rajouri area roughly covers a single grid, we retrieved the climatologic series from the grid without any interpolation. Besides, rainfall and wind data were obtained from WFDEI [WFDEI = WATCH (i.e, Water and Global Change) Forcing Data methodology applied to ERA-Interim data; Weedon et al. 2014] with the same approach (product “Rainf_WFDEI_CRU” and “Wind_WFDEI”). These datasets were analyzed to discern climate change in the Rajouri area. In this area, there is only one meteorological station, but the data are available only from January 2000 to December 2014. Moreover, the dataset was incomplete, missing maximum temperature (from January to May in 2000 and 2004), and minimum temperature (in January in 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006; from February to May in 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2005; from June to August in 2002 and 2005; in September in 2001, 2002, and 2005; and from October to December in 2001 and 2005). Hence, we only used these observatory data to check the fit between the CRU/WFDEI dataset and the station-based climatologic series.
c. People’s perception (household survey)
The survey of people’s perception was conducted using a questionnaire that had three sections; the first and second sections offered fixed choices as answers and the last section allowed descriptive answers (Table S1 in the online supplemental material). The first section included nine questions seeking responses relating to the change in rainfall, temperature, wind speed, humidity, pollution, trees, traffic, crop productivity, and crop varieties for the last three decades. The second section on engagement, adapted from Bohensky et al. (2013), had three questions probing household-level engagement on climate change. The questions on engagement are based on a conceptual model that involves three interconnected spheres: cognitive, affective, and behavioral (Lorenzoni et al. 2007). These spheres stand for what one knows, how one makes sense of the knowledge, and what actions one takes further to that. The third section of the questionnaire contains three questions for the respondents to describe their views on climate change in the area, the action they have taken, and their suggestions if any to improve the environment or adaptation actions to climate change. The survey was conducted using student-volunteers, who attended environmental awareness development programs that we had conducted earlier (Zeeshan et al. 2021). The students were instructed to draw answers from parents or elders at home through open discussions.
To select student volunteers for the survey, schools from a list obtained from the chief education officer of the district were shortlisted in a stratified random manner based on the location (urban vs rural) and status of the social segment (public vs private). This category was to differentiate their social well-being since those parents whose children are enrolled in public schools are considered economically weaker and characterized by lower income. Similarly, those respondents whose children are studying at private schools are generally from the lower to upper-income groups. Then, nine higher-secondary schools capable of facilitating the awareness development program and providing administrative help were selected for creating eco-friendly activities. Of the nine, five were urban schools and four rural, while six were government funded (public) and three private. The urban schools have students from almost all areas of the district (but the parents/guardians were living in the city) whereas rural schools have students from the respective tehsils where the schools are located. The survey was run jointly with an awareness development program, and volunteer students from the 11th and 12th standards based on their willingness were selected for the survey. After duly training them on filling the formats, the questionnaire (in vernacular) was handed over to gather their parents’ or elders’ perceptions of climate change and their engagement in related matters.
The survey was conducted from July 2013 to January 2014. Students were selected to represent each block (or the Panchayat) of the district. The blocks in the district were classified into urban and rural based on data from the district statistical office. The area was categorized under urban if its total population is more than 5000 with a density of 400 people per km2. Of the eight blocks in the district, one was urban and seven rural. The respondent’s age, gender, and village name were recorded during the survey (Table S1 in the online supplemental material). The students engaged in the survey were trained to ask questions to the parents or elders in an appropriate manner. Randomly selected students from the group were evaluated for their performance in completing the questionnaire. The students were instructed to ensure that the respondents are above 40 years’ age, are residents of the area, and gave informed consent to record their answers. Similar criteria were adopted in other studies earlier (Kai et al. 2014). Of the 717 respondents, the 642 who answered all of the questions were used for further analysis.
d. Statistical analysis
Answers to each question in the questionnaire were coded and tabulated for analysis. Answers on perception to change in their environment/climate change over the past 10–40 years were coded as “increase” = 3, “decrease” =2, “erratic” = 1, and “no change” = 0. Answers on the respondent’s engagement toward action against climate change (questions 1 and 3) were coded as “yes” = 1 and “no” = 0, while for question 2, “some” and “high” was changed to “yes,” and “none” was changed to “no” and, accordingly, respective scores were assigned to each. To test the significance of socioeconomic groups and location, a linear mixed model (LM) was applied to the summed scores for the answers on perception and engagement separately. Schools were included as a random component because that is only a broad indicator of parents’ status that may vary in effect on parents’ perception of global change and environmental awareness for reasons other than those that we were testing. We tested the importance of predictors using likelihood ratio tests (LRTs) on nested models (Baayen et al. 2008). Linear mixed effects modeling was performed using the lmer() function in the lme4 package of R (Pinheiro and Bates 2000).
We focused on individual responses, considering each question separately. To test the significance of school type and location on individual answers on perception and engagement, generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) were used. Answers were categorized as a binomial variable for the answers on engagement, and as an ordinal variable for the answers on perception to climate change, and they were analyzed accordingly (Table 3). We further performed a binomial variable analysis on each answer under the questions on perception. If the question was answered (regardless of what the answer is), a score of 1 was given, whereas no answer obtained a score of 0 (Table S2 in the online supplemental material). We used the same set of fixed and random predictors used for the summed variable analysis. The response variable was changed from binomial to Poisson for ordinal variable analysis. We ran the models using the glmer() function in the lme4 package of R (version 3.6.1). GLMM runs Wald tests on the predictor estimates, which we used to evaluate significant fixed effects directly without reverting to likelihood ratio tests. LM was also used for regression analysis to test significant changes in local temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, rainfall, and aboveground biomass for the periods 1983–2013. All analyses were conducted using R (version 3.6.1).
3. Results
The Rajouri area experienced a significant increase in mean annual temperature and a significant decrease in wind speed and aboveground biomass (forest cover), albeit with a strong interannual variation for both variables (Table 1). There was no discernible significant trend in precipitation and relative humidity across the years 1983–2013 (Fig. S1 in the online supplemental material). Therefore, most of the local residents had a misunderstanding about the increase in humidity and rainfall. The comparison between satellite-based and ground station-based climate series yielded an excellent fit for maximum temperature. However, the station-based minimum temperature is lesser than that of satellite-based. Precipitation estimated by satellite products is about 2 times higher than the measurements from the station (Fig. S2 in the online supplemental material).
The trend in select climate variables with respect to years. Temperature, rainfall, relative humidity, and wind speed are for the past three decades, and the aboveground biomass is for the past two decades. One and two asterisks indicate significance at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
Of the 642 respondents perceiving changes in at least one climatic or environmental variable (Fig. 2), more than half reported a rise in temperature (67.4%), rainfall (56.6%), and humidity (64.8%). They also reported rise in wind speed (45.3%), deforestation (67.7%), crop productivity (63.5%), environmental pollution (84%) and vehicular traffic (86.5%). The combination of responses from the same person to different questions was also investigated and two interesting cases were highlighted. Of those who have taken some action, either proactive or reactive (n = 565 among the total), only a tiny minority (n = 99) understood local climate change correctly, that is the person who reported increasing temperature, decreasing wind, and decreasing tree regardless of their responses to other questions (Table 2). Of those who have perceived the risk from climate change (n = 556), the dominant majority (n = 512) has taken either reactive or proactive action (Table 2).
Overall response in percentage (%) to the questions on climate change perception.
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 13, 4; 10.1175/WCAS-D-21-0051.1
Responses revealing the local residents’ understanding and action against local climate change. The boldface combination of responses was highlighted as a risky case in which people have taken action with an incorrect understanding of local climate change.
The answers for the questions on the perception among different categories of the respondents (urban vs rural and lower vs upper income) are summarized in Fig. S3 of the online supplemental material. For ease of understanding, we grouped the respondents under separate subcategories (such as urban or rural), so that the total of that subcategory would be 100%. Of the rural respondents, 63.1% reported an increase in the rainfall as compared with 30% from urban whereas 52% of urban respondents reported a decrease as compared with 24% rural (significant difference in responses for rainfall with GLMM; z = −2.17 at p < 0.05; Table S2 in the online supplemental material). Temperature is reported to have increased according to 74.8% of urban and 65.5% rural respondents (significant difference in responses for temperature; z = 3.14 at p < 0.01). The increase in the wind speed was reported by 49.2% of rural respondents while 36.2% of urban respondents reported a decrease (significant difference in responses for wind speed; z = −2.33 at p < 0.05; Table 3). No significant difference was seen between urban and rural respondents with respect to atmospheric humidity. An increase in pollution and traffic was reported by a high percentage of both urban and rural respondents (significant difference in responses for pollution and traffic; z = 2.70 and 2.61, respectively, at p < 0.01). A decrease in the number of trees was reported by 89.2% urban and 62.1% of rural respondents (significant difference in responses for trees; z = −5 at p < 0.001). An increase in crop productivity is reported by 85.8% of urban people while a lesser percentage (57.5%) of rural people reported the same (significant difference in responses for crop productivity; z= −0.75 at p < 0.05). No noticeable differences were seen in responses on crop varieties between urban and rural respondents. Notable variations in responses were found between those from lower to higher-income groups. For example, on rainfall, there were conflicting perceptions; 61% of the lower-income group reported a rise in rainfall while 64% of those from the upper-income group reported a fall. A temperature increase was reported by 88% of parents from the upper-income group and 64% from the lower-income group. An increase in the relative humidity was reported to be higher by the respondents from the upper-income group (78.6%) than those from the lower-income group (62.9%). An increase in environmental pollution was reported by all of the upper-income group and 81.8% of the lower-income group. A decrease in the number of trees was reported by 80.8% of the upper-income group and 65.9% of those from lower-income groups. Interestingly, a higher percentage of people from urban and economically better segments always made their answers right conforming to the climate data. Though overall perceptions vary but are more consistent from urban than rural and upper-income than lower-income groups. Further details on answers and respective levels of significance on each of the above parameters across the respondent’s backgrounds have been provided in Table S2 in the online supplemental material.
Results of the GLMM testing the difference in responses (perception) to climate change between upper vs lower socioeconomic groups (private vs public) and locations (urban vs rural), by considering overall responses under each parameter (answers with significant divergence reported).
People, from their responses, are found to be alert to the risks associated with climate change and are proactive toward engagement for adaptation action to climate change. Of the respondents who perceived climate change, 90.8% view climate changes as a risk, 86.6% are willing to take reactive action, and 83.2% are taking proactive action (Fig. 3). (The answers on people’s engagement, according to whether they are from a rural or urban area or lower-/upper-income groups are summarized in Fig. S4 of the online supplemental material.) All the respondents from the upper-income group and 89.5% from the lower-income group perceived climate change as a risk. Of the people from the upper-income group, 93.6% took reactive action, and of those from the lower-income group, 85.7% took reactive action. Similarly, 83% of the lower-income group and 84% of the upper-income group took proactive actions. Among urban respondents, 93% and rural parents 90% perceived climate change as a risk. Of this, 92% of urban parents and 85% of rural parents took reactive actions. Of those who adopted any actions, 86% of the urban group and 82% of the rural group took proactive actions.
Overall response (%) to the questions on engagement with climate change.
Citation: Weather, Climate, and Society 13, 4; 10.1175/WCAS-D-21-0051.1
Summed variable analysis for answers on both the sections in the questionnaire, ordinal variable analysis on perception and binomial variable analysis on engagement, showed no significant differences among the answers. Binomial variable analysis for answers relating to perception on climate change showed significant results for an increase in rainfall, temperature, wind speed, environmental pollution, trees, and traffic; a decrease in trees and crop productivity; and no change in wind speed and crop varieties with respect to school type and location (Table 3).
The descriptive answers obtained under the questions on possible actions in response to climate change are (i) building pucca (cement concrete) houses as during winter it is difficult to take out snow from the rooftop and during the rainy season, water seeps through the clay roof; (ii) using clay under cemented rooftop to make it cooler during summer; (iii) planting trees in their backyard; (iv) using air conditioner, electric fan, and electric cooler; and (v) shifting housing away from river flood plains. Under the second question about their perception of causes of climate change, the answers were an increase in vehicular emissions, deforestation, an increase in human population, construction of more houses, roads, and an increase in vehicular emission. Interestingly, many of them responded that it was a natural phenomenon and was due to “God’s will.” Tree plantation and reduction in vehicular emission are the answers (their views) for improving environmental or climate change in their locality.
4. Discussion
We aim to compare the locals’ perception of climate change with the climate records for three decades. Climate record data for three decades was used to reveal the actual trend in climate features in the area, to be within a reasonable period of the respondent’s memory span. The significant increase noted in the present study on temperature conforms to the earlier findings. Shrestha et al. (1999) reported an increase in temperature during 1971–94 in most of the middle mountains and Himalayan regions of Nepal. An overall rise in temperature in the Himalayas for the period 1982–2006 is also reported by Shrestha et al. (2012). Similar observations were made for the period 1979–2008 in the high altitude in the Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau by Prasad et al. (2009) and northwestern Himalayas for the period 1866–2006 by Bhutiyani et al. (2010), and for the period 1981–2010 in Pahalgam and Gulmarg by Dar et al. (2014).
Studies in the western Himalayas attribute deforestation (Yadav et al. 2004) and vehicular pollution (Gajananda et al. 2005) jointly with regional and global changes to rising temperatures due to black carbon (Ramanathan and Carmichael 2008). Some of the global-level studies that reported an increase in temperature relate it with an increase in the cloud cover in mountain regions (Karl and Knight 1998; Quintana-Gomez 1999) as well as land-use change and urbanization (Jones and Moberg 2003). Our study shows that a notable proportion of the locals is aware of the advancing climate change. The results on the people’s awareness generally agree with other studies that report the public to be highly aware of climate change (Chaudhary and Bawa 2011). However, according to the responses on perception, as always neglected in previous studies (Bohensky et al. 2013), the people who claimed “perceived climate change” mostly have related climate change with a change in temperature only. In our study, the respondents’ statements about rainfall, relative humidity, and wind speed were not in line with the climate records. It shows that their understanding of climate change probably is due to their personal higher exposure to temperature. Similarly, a recent study highlighted that people involved in agriculture experienced the variations in rainfall and relate that to climate change (Hundera et al. 2019). In our study area also their responses about rainfall, wind speed, and humidity could be prejudiced by frequent natural events such as drought during summer and flood during the rainy season for the past several years (Mishra 2015) and also during the year of the present survey. Our findings clearly indicate that people’s perceptions and climate records were not complying. That also suggest the need for improving people’s understanding of climate change, a key challenge, that could help them cope with the changes with improved adaptation practices.
In general, the local’s perception agrees to an extent with the facts on the temperature rise. Most people associate the increase in temperature with deforestation, land-use changes, and vehicular pollution. Although the majority of the respondents reported an increase in temperature, the response was higher from urban than rural ones, and those with better social status than those from the economically weaker segment of the society. The higher response from the urban area is possibly due to rapid urbanization, more vehicular emissions, and lack of trees and open space relative to rural localities. The respondents also hint that in urban areas people are more into the use of electric coolers and air conditioners that further raise the atmospheric temperature. The region with varying altitudes, ranging from 500 to 3900 above MSL with urban part located in lower altitudes, could also lead to a difference in the perceived temperature.
Precipitation, vital for maintaining vegetation cover and for providing freshwater to a large population in the mountainous region (Frei and Schär 1998), occurs with a regular seasonality in the area. Extreme precipitation events have increased in frequency worldwide (Karl and Knight 1998; Milly et al. 2002) leading to extensive damages (Changnon et al. 1997; Pielke and Downton 2000; Zhan et al. 2017). Our study did not find a significant change in precipitation, unlike other studies that have reported an increase from the western Himalayas (Singh and Kumar 1997). However, the proportion of the respondents, reporting a rise in precipitation, humidity, and wind speed was high, at variance with the actual trend (Fig. 3). The perceptions were also differing from rural to urban, and from economically well-to-do, possibly for the differences in their immediate and direct experiences in their specific environmental contexts. For example, higher responses reported from rural people could be due to their location of inhabitancy in higher altitudes due to which they experience more changes in environmental variables than those in the urban region (Singh and Mal 2014) (Fig. S2 in the online supplemental material). Thus, naturally, the increase was reported significantly higher by rural respondents than urban ones. The increase in wind speed affects crop yield, shattering and dislodging rice plants, and severe leaf damage in upland areas (Billings and Bliss 1959; De Datta and Zarate 1970). Moreover, people in this rural region are mostly engaged in agriculture and more prone to climate-related events that affect their livelihood and forced upon them more economic burden (Austin et al. 2020; Hughes et al. 2016). Similarly, the diverging perceptions among economically better to weaker segments could be due to their divergent experiences and also sources of information (Tol 2018; Wang et al. 2020). The students from the lower-income walk or use the public transport system to reach classes in public schools and, hence, rainfall and wind speed are of higher concern to them than those from better economic conditions as their children travel to private schools in contract-carriers or private vehicles. While the location of the respondent was not statistically significant with regard to perceived changes in rise in temperature or rainfall, the difference in the social segment is significant in the matter of registering the changes with respect to other related parameters and trends (Table 3). Increase in pollution and traffic was reported with significantly higher responses from the people with a better economic/social means (Table 3).
Studies over a period show a decrease in forest cover and its effects on environmental services associated with people’s livelihoods (Ahammad et al. 2019). In the present study also forest cover was found to fall significantly, and it is also reported by a higher proportion of respondents (Table 1). The responses are significantly higher from urban respondents, which could be due to a positive correlation between forest loss and urbanization (DeFries et al. 2010) or their better access to information. However, forest loss results due to a combination of direct and indirect factors (Kanninen et al. 2007) that are yet to be documented in the area. We suggest more studies to document the diversity of possible causes and underlying forces in this region.
Overall, the responses from the public report an increase in agriculture productivity and the varieties of crops raised in the area. It is interesting to see that there was no variation across varying backgrounds in terms of the perception of increase. However, when we focused on the responses showing a decrease in crop productivity, we found that it is significantly higher from urban and lower social/economic groups. Possibly those perceiving decreases in productivity are sustenance farmers with inadequate access to agricultural subsidies or governmental promotion packages. In some of the studies on the influence of climate change on crop production, some areas enjoy an increase while some other areas suffer a decrease (Adams et al. 1998). In our study, it is found that urbanites are also into cultivating high yield varieties of crops, mainly vegetables, and fruits that require higher agrochemical inputs, the rural cultivators are raising more traditional varieties of rice, wheat, and maize that require lesser agrochemical inputs. Although in general agriculture is the major occupation of the people in the area and agriculture in such areas is highly subject to the impacts of climate change, in the present study quantifying the impacts is not possible even while locals view the changes as affecting their livelihood. Further, many studies (Bandara and Cai 2014; Gornall et al. 2010; Singh et al. 2015) highlight the uncertainty around the impact of climate change on agriculture, emphasizing the need for more investigations to address the productivity changes to develop appropriate adaptation actions.
Adaptation to climate change is a process of adjustment in reducing the negative impacts of climate change (IPCC 2014). Apart from governance and associated technologies (Takao et al. 2004), public participation is important to reduce the effects of climate change (Lorenzoni et al. 2007). We correlated people’s perception of climate change with the adaptation practices they are undertaking. Of the total respondents who are cognizant of climate change, a very high proportion perceived the associated risks and take reactive as well as proactive actions (Table 2). However, we are uncertain whether respondents took action in line with their statements as already hinted at by some earlier studies (Smajgl and Bohensky 2012). The general responses on adaptation actions to climate change such as tree plantation and shifting residences away from the rivers to elevated areas seem to be broad environment-friendly activities. Usage of appropriate building materials for their roof that reduce heat radiation inward during the summer or heat loss during winter was found to be innovative as compared with measures reported in a recent meta-analysis (van Valkengoed and Steg 2019). The use of fans, coolers, and air conditioners was also reported as an effort toward adaptation, though it could be due to compulsions and a common strategy to temperature rise. Adaptations can also occur in the context of demographic, social, cultural, and economic changes, governance, social conventions and globalizing flows of capital and labor (O’Brien et al. 2004). We could not differentiate whether adaptation actions mentioned by the respondents were due to their social, economic, or environmental compulsions. However, we suggest that localized sustainable measures, as adaptation strategy, need to be promoted by drawing upon the indigenous knowledge base to be suitably strengthened with scientific and technological expertise. Primarily, climate change adaptation means ensuring resilience and livelihood and establishing a safety net that should essentially involve the locals both physically and ingeniously. As noted above, people’s perception did not match with quantifiable indicators of climate change except for temperature, which could be due to the higher rate of warming than the global mean, as the region falls under climate-sensitive region (Conway et al. 2019). Moreover, climate change is a long-term process that can be precisely detected through meteorological devices, and hence the possibilities of people’s lack of its understanding could be due to their short-term experience and past memories without any measurable devices (Weber 2010). In such contexts, taking adaptation actions without knowing the trends in climate parameters and their actual impact is futile, and thus we provide here baseline information for the policy makers to initiate adaptation actions for this sensitive region. For effective adaptation actions, perception should match with tangible climate change (Maddison 2007) for effective people’s participation. Besides, our study hints at the need for research focusing on climate parameters across altitudes from rural to urban regions and people from more diverse lifestyles.
People who perceived climate change were actively involved in reactive/proactive actions (Table 2). Although we found that they were aware of climate change, there was a variance in their understanding of actual and perceived changes. Thus, it is important to enhance awareness among people about climate change by imparting awareness through the education system, local media, scientific talks, workshops, and related activities to get across the appropriate scientific information about climate change. Communication media plays a key role in shaping people’s perception of climate change (Clayton et al. 2015). As people in this region mainly are occupied in agriculture, in line with several earlier studies we suggest disseminating precise scientific information among the people about local climate change (Imran et al. 2020; Liu et al. 2014) to publicly accessible media and that would help to equip them for adaptation actions to overcome upcoming challenges in environmental security, sustenance, and welfare.
5. Conclusions
To an extent, the residents are not appropriately informed and relate the local climate change to the increasing temperature only. However, most of them have been both proactive and reactive to mitigate climate change and adapt as per their awareness. It was found that perceptions of climate change vary significantly, reflecting the people’s socioeconomic and educational status. For an effective adaptation strategy, the public has to be well informed and motivated for participatory actions. This study highlights the dearth of scientifically correct information to the public and the need to propagate scientific and local-specific climate change knowledge to the local residents to encourage and enhance actions that address both causes of and adaptive responses to climate change. We also encourage researchers to look into the residents’ understanding, taking a larger cross section of people from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. Our study also indicates the requirement for more such studies to reveal how appropriate the adaptation actions suggested by the respondents are, whether the actions are due only to specific socioeconomic or other compulsions, and how to develop them further to be effective on a long-term basis. It will also be worth exploring the potentials of traditional knowledge toward climate change adaptation, and exploiting such potentials, especially in such a traditional, but changing, community.
Acknowledgments
The research work was conducted as part of the first author’s Ph.D. program under Rajat Jayanti Vigayan Sancharak Fellowship Award 2012 (NCO/S/TR/F18/2012), by the Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, Government of India. The authors are grateful to Professor Kamaljit Singh Bawa (University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts), Dr. Charles A Ogunbode, Dr. Randle Christopher, Dr. Jiashun, and the anonymous reviewers for their inputs. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Data availability statement
We have provided detailed information about the source of the data. One part of the data is available in the public domain. Because of privacy and ethical concerns, the personal information and related dataset cannot be made available in the public domain for this region. However, upon request the authors are happy to share the dataset that supports the analyses presented here.
REFERENCES
Adams, R. M., B. H. Hurd, S. Lenhart, and N. Leary, 1998: Effects of global climate change on agriculture: An interpretative review. Climate Res., 11, 19–30, https://doi.org/10.3354/cr011019.
Ademe, D., B. F. Ziatchik, K. Tesfaye, B. Simane, G. Alemayehu, and E. Adgo, 2020: Climate trends and variability at adaptation scale: Patterns and perceptions in an agricultural region of the Ethiopian Highlands. Wea. Climate Extremes, 29, 100263, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2020.100263.
Ahammad, R., N. Stacey, I. M. Eddy, S. A. Tomscha, and T. C. Sunderland, 2019: Recent trends of forest cover change and ecosystem services in eastern upland region of Bangladesh. Sci. Total Environ., 647, 379–389, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.406.
Archer, D. R., and H. J. Fowler, 2008: Using meteorological data to forecast seasonal runoff on the River Jhelum, Pakistan. J. Hydrol., 361, 10–23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.07.017.
Attri, S., and A. Tyagi, 2010: Climate profile of India. India Meteorology Department Environment Monitoring and Research Center Doc., 129 pp., http://uchai.net/pdf/knowledge_resources/Publications/Reports/Climate%20Profile%20India_IMD.pdf.
Austin, E. K., J. L. Rich, A. S. Kiem, T. Handley, D. Perkins, and B. J. Kelly, 2020: Concerns about climate change among rural residents in Australia. J. Rural Stud., 75, 98–109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.01.010.
Baayen, R. H., D. J. Davidson, and D. M. Bates, 2008: Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J. Mem. Lang., 59, 390–412, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.
Bandara, J. S., and Y. Cai, 2014: The impact of climate change on food crop productivity, food prices and food security in South Asia. Econ. Anal. Policy, 44, 451–465, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2014.09.005.
Bawa, K. S., L. P. Koh, T. M. Lee, J. Liu, P. S. Ramakrishnan, D. W. Yu, Y.-P. Zhang, and P. H. Raven, 2010: China, India, and the environment. Science, 327, 1457–1459, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185164.
Bhutiyani, M. R., V. S. Kale, and N. Pawar, 2010: Climate change and the precipitation variations in the northwestern Himalaya: 1866–2006. Int. J. Climatol., 30, 535–548, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1920.
Billings, W. D., and L. Bliss, 1959: An alpine snowbank environment and its effects on vegetation, plant development, and productivity. Ecology, 40, 388–397, https://doi.org/10.2307/1929755.
Bohensky, E. L., A. Smajgl, and T. Brewer, 2013: Patterns in household-level engagement with climate change in Indonesia. Nat. Climate Change, 3, 348–351, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1762.
Changnon, S. A., D. Changnon, E. R. Fosse, D. C. Hoganson, R. J. Roth Sr., and J. M. Totsch, 1997: Effects of recent weather extremes on the insurance industry: Major implications for the atmospheric sciences. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 425–436, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<0425:EORWEO>2.0.CO;2.
Chaudhary, P., and K. S. Bawa, 2011: Local perceptions of climate change validated by scientific evidence in the Himalayas. Biol. Lett., 7, 767–770, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0269.
Clayton, S., P. Devine-Wright, P. C. Stern, L. Whitmarsh, A. Carrico, L. Steg, J. Swim, and M. Bonnes, 2015: Psychological research and global climate change. Nat. Climate Change, 5, 640–646, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2622.
Conway, D., and Coauthors, 2019: The need for bottom-up assessments of climate risks and adaptation in climate-sensitive regions. Nat. Climate Change, 9, 503–511, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0502-0.
Dar, R. A., I. Rashid, S. A. Romshoo, and A. Marazi, 2014: Sustainability of winter tourism in a changing climate over Kashmir Himalaya. Environ. Monit. Assess., 186, 2549–2562, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-013-3559-7.
De Datta, S., and P. Zarate, 1970: Environmental conditions affecting the growth characteristics, nitrogen response and grain yield of tropical rice. Int. J. Biometeor., 14, 71–89.
DeFries, R. S., T. Rudel, M. Uriarte, and M. Hansen, 2010: Deforestation driven by urban population growth and agricultural trade in the twenty-first century. Nat. Geosci., 3, 178–181, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo756.
Frei, C., and C. Schär, 1998: A precipitation climatology of the Alps from high-resolution rain-gauge observations. Int. J. Climatol., 18, 873–900, https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0088(19980630)18:8<873::AID-JOC255>3.0.CO;2-9.
Gajananda, K., J. C. Kuniyal, G. Momin, P. Rao, P. Safai, S. Tiwari, and K. Ali, 2005: Trend of atmospheric aerosols over the north western Himalayan region, India. Atmos. Environ., 39, 4817–4825, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.01.038.
Ganguly, N. D., 2011: Investigating the possible causes of climate change in India with satellite measurements. Int. J. Remote Sens., 32, 687–700, https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2010.517789.
Goldberg, J., and Coauthors, 2016: Climate change, the Great Barrier Reef and the response of Australians. Palgrave Commun., 2, 15046, https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.46.
Gornall, J., R. Betts, E. Burke, R. Clark, J. Camp, K. Willett, and A. Wiltshire, 2010: Implications of climate change for agricultural productivity in the early twenty-first century. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc., 365B, 2973–2989, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0158.
Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D. W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade, 2006: Global temperature change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 14 288–14 293, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0606291103.
Harris, I., T. J. Osborn, P. Jones, and D. Lister, 2020: Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci. Data, 7, 109, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0453-3.
Hasan, M. K., and L. Kumar, 2019: Comparison between meteorological data and farmer perceptions of climate change and vulnerability in relation to adaptation. J. Environ. Manage., 237, 54–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.02.028.
Hasan, M. K., and L. Kumar, 2020: Meteorological data and farmers’ perception of coastal climate in Bangladesh. Sci. Total Environ., 704, 135384, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135384.
Hughes, L., L. Rickards, W. Steffen, P. Stock, and M. Rice, 2016: On the frontline: Climate change & rural communities. Climate Council of Australia Doc., 102 pp., https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/uploads/564abfd96ebac5cbc6cf45de2f17e12d.pdf.
Hundera, H., S. Mpandeli, and A. Bantider, 2019: Smallholder farmers’ awareness and perceptions of climate change in Adama district, central rift valley of Ethiopia. Wea. Climate Extremes, 26, 100230, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2019.100230.
Immerzeel, W. W., L. P. Van Beek, and M. F. Bierkens, 2010: Climate change will affect the Asian water towers. Science, 328, 1382–1385, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183188.
Imran, M., R. P. Shrestha, and A. Datta, 2020: Comparing farmers’ perceptions of climate change with meteorological data in three irrigated cropping zones of Punjab, Pakistan. Environ. Dev. Sustainability, 22, 2121–2140, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0280-2.
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. V. R. Barros et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 688 pp., https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-PartB_FINAL.pdf.
Jones, P. D., and A. Moberg, 2003: Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001. J. Climate, 16, 206–223, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<0206:HALSSA>2.0.CO;2.
Kääb, A., E. Berthier, C. Nuth, J. Gardelle, and Y. Arnaud, 2012: Contrasting patterns of early twenty-first-century glacier mass change in the Himalayas. Nature, 488, 495–498, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11324.
Kai, Z., T. S. Woan, L. Jie, E. Goodale, K. Kitajima, R. Bagchi, and R. D. Harrison, 2014: Shifting baselines on a tropical forest frontier: extirpations drive declines in local ecological knowledge. PLOS ONE, 9, e86598, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086598.
Kanninen, M., D. Murdiyarso, F. Seymour, A. Angelsen, S. Wunder, and L. German, 2007: Do trees grow on money? The implications of deforestation research for policies to promote REDD. Forest Perspectives, Vol. 4, CIFOR Doc., 73 pp., https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/002347.
Karl, T. R., and R. W. Knight, 1998: Secular trends of precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity in the United States. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 79, 231–242, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079<0231:STOPAF>2.0.CO;2.
Kraaijenbrink, P., M. Bierkens, A. Lutz, and W. Immerzeel, 2017: Impact of a global temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius on Asia’s glaciers. Nature, 549, 257–260, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23878.
Kulkarni, A. V., and Y. Karyakarte, 2014: Observed changes in Himalayan glaciers. Curr. Sci., 106, 237–244.
Li, C., W. Zhou, X. Jia, and X. Wang, 2006: Decadal/interdecadal variations of the ocean temperature and its impacts on climate. Adv. Atmos. Sci., 23, 964–981, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-006-0964-7.
Liu, Z., W. J. Smith, and A. S. Safi, 2014: Rancher and farmer perceptions of climate change in Nevada, USA. Climatic Change, 122, 313–327, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0979-x.
Loo, Y. Y., L. Billa, and A. Singh, 2015: Effect of climate change on seasonal monsoon in Asia and its impact on the variability of monsoon rainfall in Southeast Asia. Geosci. Front., 6, 817–823, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2014.02.009.
Lorenzoni, I., S. Nicholson-Cole, and L. Whitmarsh, 2007: Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environ. Change, 17, 445–459, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004.
Maddison, D., 2007: The perception of and adaptation to climate change in Africa. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4308, 53 pp., https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/7507/wps4308.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
Menne, M. J., C. N. Williams, B. E. Gleason, J. J. Rennie, and J. H. Lawrimore, 2018: The global historical climatology network monthly temperature dataset, version 4. J. Climate, 31, 9835–9854, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0094.1.
Milly, P. C. D., R. T. Wetherald, K. Dunne, and T. L. Delworth, 2002: Increasing risk of great floods in a changing climate. Nature, 415, 514–517, https://doi.org/10.1038/415514a.
Ministry of Home Affairs, 2011: Census of India 2011 provisional population totals. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner Doc., 58 pp., https://censusindia.gov.in/2011-prov-results/data_files/india/pov_popu_total_presentation_2011.pdf.
Mishra, A. K., 2015: A study on the occurrence of flood events over Jammu and Kashmir during September 2014 using satellite remote sensing. Nat. Hazards, 78, 1463–1467, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-1768-9.
Mitchell, T. D., and P. D. Jones, 2005: An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high-resolution grids. Int. J. Climatol., 25, 693–712, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1181.
Myers, N., R. A. Mittermeier, C. G. Mittermeier, G. A. Da Fonseca, and J. Kent, 2000: Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403, 853–858, https://doi.org/10.1038/35002501.
O’Brien, K., and Coauthors, 2004: Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: Climate change and globalization in India. Global Environ. Change, 14, 303–313, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.01.001.
Pielke, R. A., Jr., and M. W. Downton, 2000: Precipitation and damaging floods: Trends in the United States, 1932–97. J. Climate, 13, 3625–3637, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2000)013<3625:PADFTI>2.0.CO;2.
Pinheiro, J. C., and D. M. Bates, 2000: Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. Springer-Verlag, 528 pp.
Prasad, A. K., K.-H. Yang, H. El-Askary, and M. Kafatos, 2009: Melting of major glaciers in the western Himalayas: Evidence of climatic changes from long term MSU derived tropospheric temperature trend (1979–2008). Ann. Geophys., 27, 4505–4519, https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-27-4505-2009.
Quintana-Gomez, R. A., 1999: Trends of maximum and minimum temperatures in northern South America. J. Climate, 12, 2104–2112, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012<2104:TOMAMT>2.0.CO;2.
Ramanathan, V., and G. Carmichael, 2008: Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon. Nat. Geosci., 1, 221–227, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo156.
Russell-Smith, J., D. Lindenmayer, I. Kubiszewski, P. Green, R. Costanza, and A. Campbell, 2015: Moving beyond evidence-free environmental policy. Front. Ecol. Environ., 13, 441–448, https://doi.org/10.1890/150019.
Sharma, V., V. D. Mishra, and P. K. Joshi, 2013: Implications of climate change on streamflow of a snow-fed river system of the northwest Himalaya. J. Mt. Sci., 10, 574–587, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-013-2667-8.
Shi, J., V. H. Visschers, and M. Siegrist, 2015: Public perception of climate change: The importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews. Risk Anal., 35, 2183–2201, https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12406.
Shrestha, A. B., C. P. Wake, P. A. Mayewski, and J. E. Dibb, 1999: Maximum temperature trends in the Himalaya and its vicinity: An analysis based on temperature records from Nepal for the period 1971–94. J. Climate, 12, 2775–2786, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1999)012<2775:MTTITH>2.0.CO;2.
Shrestha, U. B., S. Gautam, and K. S. Bawa, 2012: Widespread climate change in the Himalayas and associated changes in local ecosystems. PLOS ONE, 7, e36741, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036741.
Singh, P., and N. Kumar, 1997: Impact assessment of climate change on the hydrological response of a snow and glacier melt runoff dominated Himalayan river. J. Hydrol., 193, 316–350, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03142-3.
Singh, R., and S. Mal, 2014: Trends and variability of monsoon and other rainfall seasons in western Himalaya, India. Atmos. Sci. Lett., 15, 218–226, https://doi.org/10.1002/asl2.494.
Singh, V. K., B. S. Dwivedi, A. K. Shukla, V. Kumar, B. Gangwar, M. Rani, S. K. Singh, and R. P. Mishra, 2015: Status of available sulfur in soils of north-western Indo-Gangetic plain and western Himalayan region and responses of rice and wheat to applied sulfur in farmer’s fields. Agric. Res., 4, 76–92, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-015-0149-7.
Smajgl, A., and E. Bohensky, 2012: When households stop logging—Evidence for household adaptation from East Kalimantan. For. Policy Econ., 20, 58–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2012.01.013.
Sullivan, A., and D. D. White, 2019: An assessment of public perceptions of climate change risk in three western U.S. cities. Wea. Climate Soc., 11, 449–463, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0068.1.
Takao, K., T. Motoyoshi, T. Sato, T. Fukuzondo, K. Seo, and S. Ikeda, 2004: Factors determining residents’ preparedness for floods in modern megalopolises: The case of the Tokai flood disaster in Japan. J. Risk Res., 7, 775–787, https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987031000075996.
Tol, R. S., 2018: The economic impacts of climate change. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, 12, 4–25, https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rex027.
van Valkengoed, A. M., and L. Steg, 2019: Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nat. Climate Change, 9, 158–163, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y.
Wang, W., X. Zhao, J. Cao, H. Li, and Q. Zhang, 2020: Barriers and requirements to climate change adaptation of mountainous rural communities in developing countries: The case of the eastern Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau of China. Land Use Policy, 95, 104354, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104354.
Weber, E. U., 2010: What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Climate Change, 1, 332–342, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.41.
Weedon, G. P., G. Balsamo, N. Bellouin, S. Gomes, M. J. Best, and P. Viterbo, 2014: The WFDEI meteorological forcing data set: WATCH Forcing Data methodology applied to ERA-Interim reanalysis data. Water Resour. Res., 50, 7505–7514, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015638.
Xu, J., R. E. Grumbine, A. Shrestha, M. Eriksson, X. Yang, Y. Wang, and A. Wilkes, 2009: The melting Himalayas: Cascading effects of climate change on water, biodiversity, and livelihoods. Conserv. Biol., 23, 520–530, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01237.x.
Yadav, R. R., W. K. Park, J. Singh, and B. Dubey, 2004: Do the western Himalayas defy global warming? Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, 31, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020201.
Zeeshan, M., and P. Azeez, 2016: Hydro-chemical characterization and quality assessment of a western Himalayan river, Munawar Tawi, flowing through Rajouri district, Jammu and Kashmir, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 188, 520, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5523-9.
Zeeshan, M., M. A. Ali, P. Azeez, and E. Baltrėnaite, 2017: Soil characteristics in the floodplains of Munawar Tawi in Rajouri, western Himalayas, India. Environ. Syst. Res., 6, 22, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-017-0099-0.
Zeeshan, M., L. Sha, K. W. Tomlinson, and P. A. Azeez, 2021: Factors shaping students’ perception of climate change in the western Himalayas, Jammu & Kashmir, India. Current Res. Environ. Sustainability, 3, 100035, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100035.
Zhan, Y.-J., and Coauthors, 2017: Changes in extreme precipitation events over the Hindu Kush Himalayan region during 1961–2012. Adv. Climate Change Res., 8, 166–175, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2017.08.002.
