Translator Disclaimer
28 November 2019 Does Awareness of Climate Change Lead to Worry? Exploring Community Perceptions Through Parallel Analysis in Rural Himalaya
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Human dimensions of climate change (HDCC) research overwhelmingly presents community perspectives on climate change and its impacts through single epistemic frameworks. This limits the possible platforms that community voices can access within scientific scholarship. Many HDCC interdisciplinary collaborations pursue the goal of data triangulation and attempt to address complex social–ecological problems through analytical integration. This raises questions about the comparative validity of different epistemologies and often leads to unequal power sharing between the different disciplinary practitioners. Our research addresses both of these issues by operationalizing a plural epistemological framework that depends on parallel analysis. This framework consists of a quantitative approach, inspired by hazards theory and land-change science research, and a qualitative approach, from political ecology. We explored perceptions of climate change in rural households in Uttarakhand in the Indian Himalayan region. While the results reveal a high awareness of climate change within the community, most individuals and households do not consider the impacts of climate change to be a significant worry. The results for each approach complement each other. They provide the community with more than one platform to voice their experiences and reveal the complex relationships producing climate change knowledge in the region. Future research should attempt such parallel analysis in other locations to validate its utility in addressing issues of equity and marginalization between research epistemologies, as well as between experts and local communities.

Introduction

Knowledge of climate and climate change has been constructed through various methodologies (Murphy 2011). In recent years, some approaches have attempted to incorporate nonexpert community perspectives into the analysis (Becken et al 2013; Joshi et al 2013; Finnis et al 2015). However, community perspectives have been overwhelmingly marginalized in the production of climate knowledge (Jasanoff 2010). Additionally, physical science dominates the more interpretive social science approaches (Murphy 2011). There is growing interest in considering a plurality of ways of “knowing” the climate. This acknowledges the different conclusions that emerge from different epistemologies (the way we understand the world) (Brace and Geoghegan 2011; Burnham et al 2016; Nightingale 2016; Popke 2016). However, such efforts are a minority in human dimensions of climate change (HDCC) research, where transdisciplinarity is often superficially integrated (Carr and Owusu-Daaku 2016; Fernández-Llamazares et al 2017). Different epistemologies of HDCC research explore differing material realities. Thus, severing analytical techniques from their ideological roots can be functionally unproductive (Yeh 2016).

Background and goals

The construction of a reflexive and democratic research method requires rethinking traditional notions of transdisciplinarity, based on data validation and triangulation, and a shift to addressing different partial dimensions of the whole research problem. This movement away from resolution of epistemological differences broadens the field by refusing to privilege some to the exclusion of others (Nightingale 2016; Yeh 2016). Additionally, it provides multiple avenues of negotiation between experts and communities, beyond the commonplace practice of transforming embodied personal experiences into bounded “observations” to be statistically verified for significance (Cote and Nightingale 2012; Fernández-Llamazares et al 2017). Ultimately, it brings the ideological assumptions about “social” and “ecological” processes underlying the different epistemologies together to construct an analytical framework that supports a range of methodological combinations (Ahlborg and Nightingale 2012; Yeh et al 2017).

Our aim was to operationalize such a method through parallel analysis. We followed the analytical trajectories of different routes of climate change knowledge production; and after the analysis we interrogated their points of convergence and divergence. We visualized a plural epistemological framework, where individual approaches were not held accountable to each other's philosophical traditions, but remained honest to their own assumptions and biases. We argue that this addresses 2 issues: First, it allows HDCC research to be transdisciplinary, addressing interepistemological concerns of power inequalities (Murphy 2011). Second, it provides the community with more than one platform of expression. The growing body of work on this issue inspires us (Goldman et al 2016; Abegunde 2017; Satyal et al 2017). However, much of the analytical methodology utilized in these works does not integrate the final conclusions of the different epistemic pathways (Boissière et al 2013; Ford et al 2013), remaining discursive (Stone-Jovicich 2015). Our parallel analysis focused on this, exploring issues of equity, representation, and validity in the production of knowledge.

We used 2 analytical starting points. The first was a theoretical quantitative framework rooted in climate science and natural hazards research. It was based on a literature review of biophysical climate change impacts, instrumental surveys, and statistical analysis (Wisener et al 2003; Turner and Robbins 2008). The second was a qualitative framework that draws on political ecology and uses ethnographic fieldwork and discourse/grounded analysis (Castree and Braun 2001; Nightingale 2016). This methodology was applied to a case study from the Indian Himalayan region.

The Himalayan case study

Global climate change is predicted to have significant impacts on land use, livelihood security, and overall stability of social–ecological systems in the Himalayan region (Schild 2008; Chaudhary and Bawa 2011; Hartmann and Buchanan 2014). As for other mountainous regions, HDCC research has recently expanded in the area, leading to a plethora of terminologies and constructs (Kelkar et al 2008; Sharma et al 2009; Gentle and Maraseni 2012; Pandey and Jha 2012; Ford et al 2013; Hoy et al 2016; Pandey et al 2017; You et al 2017). However, the lack of groundtruthing of model data, the scalar bias of nonregional simulations, and the diversity of biocultural terrain that such studies seek to represent have been questioned (Hewitt and Mehta 2012; Singh and Thadani 2015). Additionally, impact assessments have failed to incorporate community perceptions of their utility (Cote and Nightingale 2012). Our project aimed to address these issues within the processes of regional knowledge production.

Our analytical goal was to understand holistic precarity within small farmer households situated at intersections of climate change, land-use change, and sociocultural change (Chakraborty et al 2019). The household experience and engagement with such changes provide insight into lived realities versus scientific discourse/analysis. We specifically explored how rural households in the region view climate change (awareness) and whether they are concerned about it (worry). Our concepts of awareness and worry are rooted in “knowledge as embodied practice” (Yeh 2016: 36). Thus, the daily encounter between humans and their environment and the subsequent perception of changes are regarded as valid observations (Goldman et al 2018). The form in which such observations have been used for analysis was inspired by specific methodologies.

Given this, our research questions were:

  1. What does a parallel analysis using different methodological approaches reveal about community perspectives of climate change (awareness and worry) in rural Uttarakhand?

  2. What do these revelations convey about the limitations of each approach, and can they be used to inform a more inclusive and equitable regional research agenda for HDCC?

Study site: Uttarakhand, India

The empirical information, coproduced with the community, came from 4 villages in the Indian Himalayan state of Uttarakhand. Villages here are social entities and the outcome of multilocal processes and networks; as such, they vary (Mines and Yazgi 2010). This diversity allows the social and ecological particularities that represent local realities to emerge in the analysis. The 4 villages, Ghargaon, Mana, Inari, and Kamu (names changed in accordance with Institutional Review Board rules), are in the eastern sociocultural region of the state (Kumaon), in the lesser Himalaya (1200–3000 m). They differ in their connectivity to industrial markets, infrastructure access, livelihood spectrum, administrative realities, agrarian practices, and ecological characteristics.

The state has a heterogeneous topographic, climatic, and cultural terrain. Most of its 10.11 million inhabitants live in about 16,000 villages (World Bank 2012). About 70% of the regional population is dependent on agriculture, mainly subsistence (Negi et al 2009). Regional agriculture is characterized by small farm plots, often on steep gradients with river-valley and ridge-top agroclimates, with little mechanization and consolidation (Guha 2000; Goodman 2017). Additionally, agricultural production is highly gendered, with women taking primary responsibility, while men migrate to work in the armed forces, industrial manufacturing units, and the service industry (Jain 2010; Mamgain and Reddy 2016). In recent years, investments in industrial development, catalyzed by favorable business policies, have been significant, particularly in hydropower and manufacturing (Roy 2008; World Bank 2012). This rapid industrialization has seen a simultaneous decline in agriculture as part of the total gross domestic product (Tomozawa 2014). The state has extensive forestlands, managed by national, state, and local institutions (Singh 2013). The forests surrounding most villages provide sustenance for the household, but they also increase wildlife encounters (Ogra and Badola 2008).

Data collection

Data were gathered using a mixed-methods approach and included focused literature reviews, longitudinal regional rainfall data, and ethnographic and survey data from Uttarakhand. Field data were gathered over 24 months (2012–2016). These included 4 summer stints (3 months each) and one full year (2016). Months were spent with rural families, engaging with their daily activities. These included festivals, births, deaths, travel, family meetings, religious festivals, marriages, engagement with government institutions, and agropastoral activities. We built on relationships formed over a decade of engagement with these communities. This helped us to explore some vulnerable and personal topics. We present only those opinions families wished to reveal; households were not geotagged. Therefore, very different datasets were used to operationalize the 2 different approaches.

Quantitative approach

Literature review: A (nonexhaustive) list of scholarly articles analyzing historical, current, and projected changes in specific regional climatic features was compiled. This was used in the results to contextualize and triangulate the other datasets.

Long-term climatic data: We used two separate data repositories: the Indian Meteorological Division (IMD) gridded precipitation data at 0.25° and the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS). The former was purchased by one of the coauthors from IMD, and the latter was accessed through the GIOVANNI interface and averaged over the state of Uttarakhand (Acker and Leptoukh 2007; Pai et al 2014; Rodell and Beaudoing 2015). Rainfall, a proxy for precipitation, and temperature datasets, with the results of the literature review, were used as benchmarks for the biophysical rendition of regional climate.

Field data: Of the 500 surveys administered, 200 were completed. Households were surveyed using ICIMOD's poverty and vulnerability assessment (PVA) instrument, based on the Multidimensional Poverty Indicators framework (Gerlitz et al 2014). The surveys included ecological, socioeconomic, political, and demographic aspects, and they took 30–70 minutes to complete.

Qualitative approach

Literature review: Political ecology/economy case studies were reviewed (Turner 2004; Campbell 2007; Collins 2008; Robbins 2012; Birkenholtz 2016; Carey et al 2016). An extensive archive of local/regional news, analyses, and reports was compiled and used as a framing device.

Field data: Using a feminist epistemology approach, where the community was allowed to collaborate in defining the research objectives (Caretta 2017), ethnographic data were collected through participation in oral history sessions (10), focus groups (8), village government meetings (4), forest management cooperatives (3), district development workshops (5), social media profiles (120), video/photographic diaries (10), and semistructured interviews (500) with community members, district/state bureaucrats, regional scientists, civil society workers, and commercial business owners. Families and individuals decided when they wanted to communicate with us and to what extent.

Analytical tools and process

This project used 2, epistemologically different, analytical starting points:

Quantitative approach: The theoretical roots were drawn from extensive research traditions (Birkenholtz 2011). Frameworks considered included:

  • Resilience frameworks: ecological and systems concepts;

  • Land-change science: resource and behavioral economics, and ecological systems in dynamic models;

  • Climatology/climate change science: physical dynamics of terrestrial and atmospheric systems.

Our approach was based on the latter 2, considering statistical relationships among the model outputs, literature, and survey variables. The aim was to understand internal processes within the change experienced in the overall climatic profile on a regional scale (Turner and Robbins 2008; Muccione et al 2016).

This framework utilized measures of statistical significance and long-term spatio-temporal trends in biophysical variables for the region. The analysis was divided into 2 steps.

  • Awareness (triangulation): The literature review, analysis of the IMD and GLDAS datasets for Uttarakhand, and the community survey data (n = 188) were compared. We explored how knowledge about bounded climatic events in the community (awareness) related to data from the literature and the IMD and GLDAS data.

  • Worries (disaggregation): An inferential multivariate statistics model (ordinary least squares, OLS) was run on the survey data to visualize autocorrelations between climate change awareness and worries and other variables (gender, age, caste, economic wellbeing, debt, etc) for the surveyed households.

Qualitative approach: This approach is rooted in more “intensive traditions” (see Sayer 1984; Birkenholtz 2011), examining the particularity of processes of power and how these processes differentially affect human communities. The goal is to offer nuanced insights into aspirations and vulnerabilities within local communities and environments (Robbins 2012; Yeh 2016). These include insights from political ecology (Forsyth 2003; Turner 2014), and science and technology studies (Whatmore 2009; Rocheleau 2016). Our qualitative approach was based on political ecology and used testimonies of individuals, groups, and institutions to identify and qualify interactions across scales among higher-order processes, such as climatic transitions and local situations. This revealed the relationships within communities and the wider processes enmeshing them.

Results of the quantitative approach

Awareness

Table 1 summarizes our literature review. We also analyzed long-term climatic data and collated the surveys.

TABLE 1

Summary of literature review of the biophysical climatic changes over the Hindu Kush–Himalaya (HKH) mountains and the Tibetan Plateau over different time periods of the present climate.

img-z5-2_R35.gif

TABLE 1

Continued.

img-AJ9_R35.gif

Long-term temporal variation (rainfall/temperature) is shown in Figure 1. There are strong multidecadal epochs of wetness and dryness in annual rainfall. The amplitudes in epochal variability have increased for summer rains and declined for winter rains (Figure 1A). Figure 2 shows pixel-wise changes in 30-year averages of different rainfall characteristics over the past century. Mean annual rainfall has declined in the western and southern parts of the state; by contrast, rainfall has increased in the eastern area (Kumaon) (Figure 2A). Seasonal variability is most pronounced in winter, with a sharp recent decline (1991–2016) in the greater Himalayan (Himadri) region in the north (Figure 2B). The total numbers of rainy days per year have declined in the lower elevations (Shivaliks) and have increased in the higher elevations in the east (Figure 2C). This suggests that the total volume of rain falls on fewer days at lower elevations, resulting in intensification of rainfall in the southern and western parts of the state (data not shown here). The frequency of high-intensity events (>150 mm d–1) shows a tendency towards an even spread of fewer events across Uttarakhand in the last few decades (Figure 2D).

FIGURE 1

(A) Long-term spatio-temporal trends in annual and seasonal rainfall (1901–2016) from IMD data for Uttarakhand. (B) Long-term spatio-temporal trends in surface temperature plotted as annual mean, maxima, and minima using GLDAS data for Uttarakhand (1948–2010).

img-z6-3_R35.jpg

FIGURE 2

Spatial rainfall patterns at multidecadal scale (1901–2016).

img-z7-2_R35.jpg

These observations were confirmed by a trend analysis using Sen slopes (Sen 1968), which estimates the pairwise rate of change in a time series calculated pixel-wise and aggregated for ≤5% significance. The trend for total annual rainfall and number of rainy days decreases in the lower elevations in the south and increases in the higher elevations of northern Garhwal (Figure 3E, F). Seasonally, winter rainfall and duration has declined across elevations (Figure 3A, B). In monsoon and summers, reduction in rainfall and increase in number of rainy days has led to lowering of maximum daily rainfall and large storms (maximum 5-day cumulative rainfall) (Figure 3C, D), concentrated in west and south Uttarakhand (Figure 3G, H). Incidentally, the frequency of such large storms has increased in the Upper reaches of Garhwal, which are home to the highest peaks and glaciers in Uttarakhand (Figures 3G, H).

FIGURE 3

Changes in Sen slope trends in rainfall characteristics across seasons and elevations (left) and spatial patterns.

img-z8-2_R35.jpg

Temperature trends obtained from GLDAS data show clear warming trends in annual and winter minima (Sen slope: trend = 1.17°C, slope = 0.02, intercept = 2.6) and winter maxima (Sen slope: trend = 0.90°C, slope = 0.01, intercept = 8.59). The trends in mean annual temperature (trend = 0.31°C, slope = 0.006, intercept = 14) and maximum daily temperature (trend = –0.19°C, slope = –0.001, intercept = 23.8) were not significant (Figure 1B).

Figure 4 illustrates responses to questions about changes observed over the last 10 years. To summarize our climate-related conclusions, there have been:

  • A reduction/change in winter precipitation and increase in winter temperature;

  • A slight increase in overall temperature as well as an increase in maximum and minimum temperatures; and

  • Change in the intensity/occurrence of extreme/erratic (precipitation) events.

FIGURE 4

Awareness of disparate biophysical climatic variables: (A) observations of precipitation events; (B) observations of temperature events; (C) observations of unprecedented climatic/ecological events. The percentages represent the number of respondents from the total survey set of 188. Therefore, when reduction in snowfall is at 85% in graph A, 160 families observed the occurrence. (In C, the high responses to snow/blizzard represent the reduction observed and not the actual occurrence of the event.) In C, for the New Species category: fl, flora; fa, fauna.

img-z9-2_R35.jpg

Additionally, there has been a slight increase in mean annual rainfall in the eastern region of the state. Note: All our study villages were located within this region. However, the precipitation changes noted by respondents showed divided opinions, with 8% stating an overall increase and 11% stating a decrease. This could be due to the reduction in winter precipitation being the dominant narrative, biasing their experiences, and also the increase in fluctuations in precipitation. The increase in fluctuations, and the onset of a “climate of extremes,” is evident in the high percentage of erratic events observed by the community in Figure 4B and C. The community related these to the changing nature and quantity of winter precipitation and, to a lesser extent, to an increase in the intensity of precipitation during monsoon seasons. The climate-related conclusion of the total volume of rain falling over fewer days was corroborated by about half the survey sample (48%).

The rather strong response (67%) to “new animal species observed” (Figure 4C) does not represent an increase in the number of species; instead, it echoes increases in “pest” animals in the area and the corresponding increase in numbers of interactions with humans. The most-mentioned species are the most destructive to regional agriculture and livestock: rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta), porcupines (Hystrix indica), wild boars (Sus scrofa cristatus), and leopards (Panthera pardus fusca).

Worries

This segment consisted of 2 connected steps. Question 42.3 of the PVA survey tool (Gerlitz et al 2014) asked families to identify and rank the most important problems/shocks the household had faced in the past 12 months. These worries were tabulated to rank their significance based on number of responses. The 48 options given for local shocks/problems (worries) were drought, dry spell, flood, erratic rainfall, frost, hail, snow/ blizzard, avalanche, landslide/erosion, earthquake, volcanic eruption, typhoon/hurricane, tornado, strong wind, dust storm, high temperatures, low temperatures, subzero temperatures, fire, insect attack, crop pests, lack of fertilizer/too expensive, bad seeds, soil problems, livestock disease/death, irrigation problems, labor shortage, theft, low market prices crop/livestock, poor market access, family sickness, death of family member, debt, bandh (strike), local conflict, national conflict, taxes, unemployment, loss of house, business failure, personal violence, intimidation, corruption, imprisonment, electricity shortage, human–wildlife encounters, divorce or separation, and other (specify).

The most important worries identified (n =188) were:

  1. Other (21.80%);

  2. Human–wildlife encounters (20.21%);

  3. Unemployment (19.14%);

  4. Corruption (12.34%).

Figure 5A ranks the number of times these shocks were mentioned by households as the most important, second most important, and so on. Climatic/ecological problems or shocks (other than the human–wildlife encounters) were absent from the top 4 ranks of the most critical problem/ shock list; however, they are visualized in Figure 5B.

FIGURE 5

Ranked worries for households: (A) overall worries; (B) climatic/ ecological worries. The households were asked to choose and rank their top 4 worries from the list provided. The “other” category represents variables that were not part of the original survey but were added in responses by the community. The snow/blizzard responses in B represent a “reduction in snow or blizzard” and not the increase in or presence of it.

img-z10-2_R35.jpg

While most households were acutely aware of climatic changes and events, none of them included climatic/ ecological factors in their most significant household worries. The “other” category was the overarching worry expressed by households. This can be broken down into 9 different factors: education, healthcare, roads, telecommunication, alcohol/drug addiction, extramarital affairs, inability to sell land, migration of youth, and production of cold storage units. However, the majority of this category (72%) was dominated by 4 variables: education, healthcare, roads, and telecommunication. Different combinations of these variables dominated the overall identification of worries within the household.

Among the climatic/ecological factors, the main concern was human–wildlife encounters, which respondents claimed caused 25–80% yield losses. The next largest worry was that of erratic rainfall, which was generally the third or fourth most-pressing worry. Ultimately, from a list of 48 worries, across communities, the main worries congregated around the same few variables: employment, corruption, wildlife encounters, and dissatisfaction/lack of the services of education, healthcare, roads, and communication.

Correlations

To explore statistical relationships between the awareness of climate change impacts and worries about it, we performed a multiple regression analysis using an OLS model. The goal was to examine correlations between worries and awareness about climate change and socioeconomic variables. The category of worries was constructed by summing the 6 most-reported climatic/ ecological shocks from Figure 5B across all the households. The category of awareness was constructed by summing the same 6 climatic/ecological shocks mentioned by the households (Figure 4). These were used as dependent variables, with independent variables from the PVA list of critical socioeconomic variables for the Himalayan region (Gerlitz et al 2014; Table 2).

TABLE 2

Variables used in statistical analysis.

img-z10-9_R35.gif

Worries and awareness were used as dependent variables, in sequence. We attempted to run the multivariate models for individual villages, but given the lower sample sizes, the tests did not highlight any significance.

The regression analysis (Table 3) points to age being a significant factor in worries and awareness about climatic/ ecological events. This highlights the worries of the older generation, especially older men, within a transitioning world (see Chakraborty 2018). Furthermore, caste seemed to display a weak negative coefficient with worries, implying that lower-caste families are more likely to fear changes in climate. Lower-caste families were a minority in the villages (11% overall), and, therefore, along with historical marginalization (see Polit 2006), they also formed a minority within the dataset. Most families with higher livelihood overdependence were clustered around 2 livelihood types (salaried/wage work and agriculture). Therefore, families that were more dependent on agriculture and local wage labor to provide livelihood security were more aware of climatic/ecological events, since they often had to react to daily and seasonal changes. For farmers, this meant understanding changing precipitation regimes and invasive pest management. For wage laborers, it meant the availability of local contract work. For both dependent variables, families that were experiencing economic insecurity seemed to be important, suggesting broader issues of unemployment, livelihood instability, and economic exclusion were driving climatic relationships.

TABLE 3

Coefficient comparison of OLS results between awareness and worries (n = 188, the R2 values are unadjusted).

img-z11-2_R35.gif

Results of the qualitative approach

The intensive ethnographic data collection, its coding, and trend analysis, along with the literature review, revealed that community worries and awareness of climate change in rural Uttarakhand were connected to certain discursive and material events/processes. These are listed in Table 4.

TABLE 4

Analysis of important processes/events from Uttarakhand.

img-z12-2_R35.gif

Awareness

The events and processes identified above interacted differently in different villages to inform awareness of climate change in households.

Access and mobility: For households in villages with unreliable road and telecommunication infrastructure (Kamu and Inari), accessing state development schemes was almost impossible. However, this remoteness also meant a lack of state regulation and allowed most families to participate in the informal/illegal medicinal plant and Cannabis indica economy. Among the medicinal plants collected, Cordyceps sinensis (caterpillar fungus) was the most valuable, and, according to the community members, its collection in spring months from high-altitude pastures (>3000 m) was supported by a reduction in the winter snow and its faster melt rate. Additionally, the lack of winter snow in higher mountain passes also increased the ease of access for traders buying plants and transporting them to Nepal and the Tibetan Autonomous Region. Senior community members (>60 years) recalled that winter snow amounts between 1.6–2 m were commonplace. However, in the past 15 years, there has been less snow. Senior members validated their memories of winter snow by pointing to the present-day availability of medicinal plants in early spring (March, April), which in the past would have been unavailable due to the snow cover.

Commercial agriculture: Households in villages with significant commercial agriculture, especially horticulture, were transforming their agrarian practices most dramatically. A reduction in winter snow and erratic spring hailstorms were causing significant damage to their fruit crops—peaches, plums, apples, and apricots. Simultaneously, local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were supporting the construction of polyethylene greenhouses to produce supplementary vegetables to reduce household dependency on markets and bolster the nutritional value of diets. Most families had coupled the knowledge of greenhouse construction and the burgeoning market for vegetables in nearby cities, which was now accessible through newly constructed roads, and converted their subsistence operations into commercial ones. This allowed them to deal with the threats to their fruit crops—reduced winter precipitation, erratic spring hailstorms, and increasing crop pests. Most farmers identified this climatic change as it directly related to their valuable fruit trees, but they also directly related their ability to maintain greenhouses through the winter due to the reduction of snowfall. In the past, most such structures collapsed under the weight of the accumulated snow.

Kedamath floods: In all villages, most households were acutely aware of the threat from floods. They related the recent increase in this threat to climate change. However, this knowledge seemed to defy actual experiences of floods. Just 10% of the 500 individuals interviewed mentioned that their households or relatives had been adversely affected by floods; however, close to 30% of these same individuals also mentioned applying for government natural disaster relief funds. Therefore, knowledge of flash floods and their threat due to changing precipitation regimes was intrinsically tied to the availability of relief funds from the state. Despite filing claims for flood events and having in-depth knowledge of the Kedarnath flood (Table 4), most households had never experienced such floods. This was because much of the land in river valleys had been abandoned by households due to: its distance from roads, which are usually on ridge tops; the marked reduction in rice cultivation, which requires heavy irrigation and was grown next to rivers; and the fear of landslide debris, which had greatly increased in the past decade due to road construction. Additionally, most households (75%) had stopped the practice of transhumance—seasonal migration with livestock across elevations—and, therefore, their experience of climatic events is currently limited to specific elevations. For example, in the past, a majority of families in the villages of Mana, Kamu, and Inari (92%) used to spend the winters in the river valley and ridge located at 1500–1900 m and summer/monsoon with livestock in the meadows/ forestland located at 2450–3600 m. This practice is currently restricted to only 5% of households.

Migrant subjectivities: Migration was ubiquitous in the households, and 90% of all interviewed community members claimed to have migrants in the household. Most migrants moved between the mountains and the plains with varying degrees of frequency. Their periodic absence from the village allowed them to provide a different view of climatic transformations. Furthermore, they were also exposed to climatic and land-use changes outside of the village. The migrants described the mountain communities slowly becoming more like the plains communities, with electricity, roads, schools, and markets. Furthermore, just like their version of the plains, there was also a rise in temperatures, the appearance of mosquitoes, and changes in the dependability of weather. Therefore, while many families remained rooted to their agricultural land, industrial markets and motor roads were bringing the plains to them. Additionally, due to their interaction with media and discourses in cities that included migrants from many other parts of the country, they learned about similar changes occurring elsewhere. Thus, when they returned to the villages, they would universalize the transformation that the village elders saw in the community and relate it to broader transformations in climate and agricultural livelihoods beyond Uttarakhand and the Himalayas.

Worries

Public distribution system and horticulture: In villages, climatic changes in precipitation caused little worry in relation to food production. Interviewees made this connection just 4 times out of 500. While the awareness of the result of a change in precipitation regime was high (as noted above), the actual transformation of agricultural yields was seen to be more causally related to pest/storage/ transport-related damage, labor shortages, and quality of inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticide). Additionally, the public distribution system, which made cheap, industrially produced food grain available in most village grocery shops, had further reduced the cultivation of subsistence grains. None of the interviewees reported incidences of hunger or food insecurity. Commercial horticultural production was seen to be detrimentally impacted by locally rising temperatures, a reduction in winter snow, and erratic spring precipitation; however, greenhouse agriculture, especially focused on vegetables, was an adaptation practice that all households were transitioning toward. Despite the lower return on vegetable sales versus fruit sales, greenhouse agriculture made unpredictable weather events and pest damage much easier to control for most households.

Unpredictable futures: Diversification of livelihoods is a well-documented adaptation strategy in many rural parts of the world (Gautam and Andersen 2016; Martin and Lorenzen 2016). However, in this case, the rapid social–ecological transformation of rural Uttarakhand due to various sociopolitical factors, along with the climatic ones, made many young people wary of investing completely in any novel adaptation practice. Driven by widespread unemployment, illegal acquisition of village land by outsiders, and the dissolution of the village moral economy, the youth found it hard to trust anyone. In the past, diversification was pursued by many families, with an underlying faith in the processes that sustained legal, political, and ecological justice. However, the youth—having been relatively more exposed to urban life beyond the village—were overwhelmingly invested in short-term practices, with the understanding that the material conditions of their lives would change very soon, and they would have to change along with them. As Ramesh of Ghargaon village put it:

Today we are farming cabbage, tomorrow we may have to grow peas, and, who knows, maybe in a few years, we will go back to my grandfather's apple trees. I don't see this as a bad thing. Unlike our ancestors, we don't stick to a certain crop regime, or even livelihood regime. This uncertainty in the environment has forced us to experiment and be prepared for anything.

Here, Ramesh refers to the “environment” not just as a biophysical entity, but also as a sociocultural one. Therefore, effects of climatic change were understood as one of the many dynamic processes affecting their lives. Given their short-term focus on the material needs of the household and for personal wellbeing, their aspirations for the future were few. They believed the future to be highly unpredictable, compared to the social, cultural, and ecological predictability of the previous generations (see Smith 2013). Therefore, devoid of this trust in the benevolence of the larger socioecological systems around them, the youth appeared to be actually more fearful of the impacts of climate change than the elders.

When asked why the impacts of climatic change did not worry them relative to other mentioned factors, answers coalesced around 3 arguments. First, over half of the respondents (265/500) relegated the climate and ecological systems to a realm that was beyond the management of people and communities like to them. While they believed that “more powerful” entities, such as national governments or large corporations, could have an impact on the climate, such actions were beyond the purview of rural Himalayan farmers. They chose to focus their actions on worries that they could address. In this sense, the physical climate was inseparable from their religious and mythological renditions of it, which defined climatic realities as a manifestation of the whims of different sacred deities (see Gergan 2017). However, there was a marked difference in the faith in such “supernatural” explanations between older generations without a formal education and educated younger people. The youth were often more worried about natural disasters, having more access to media that regularly highlights the human cost and unpreparedness of regional institutions to deal with such events.

Culture of agriculture: Most respondents (452/500) saw agriculture as a dying tradition in their community/ household. None of the senior respondents interviewed wanted their children to be farmers. With the spread of formal schooling, temporary manufacturing, and service industry labor, and the increasing monetization of daily life, subsistence security-driven food production was seen as inadequate. Additionally, the growing incidence of commercial horticulture was often being pursued in the climate-controlled environments of the greenhouses. Potentially negative climatic effects on field crops were mitigated through crop insurance schemes, state-subsidized inputs, and cross-breeding. However, according to most respondents (490/500), while animal pests—monkeys, wild boars, porcupines, and bears—caused the greatest damage to fields, their populations and behavior were mediated through state laws, representatives, and management. This included the transport of feral animals from cities to rural Himalayan areas, the corrupt forest rangers that deforested and sold trees from government-owned forests, and strict fines tied to hunting. Therefore, the problem was not the wildlife encounters, but essentially a loss of community control over the management of local natural resources and mismanagement of such resources by the state guardians.

Corrumption and institutional mismanagement: Many respondents (473/500) related the increased occurrence of events such as floods, landslides, forest fires, and invasive species to political corruption and management failure. While most agreed that the changing climate was impacting such events, they saw the major cause as being local and national governmental mishandling and neglect of development in the region. As Sita Devi, a 67-year-old female farmer from Kamu village, said:

In this country, the lives of mountain people are very cheap. The lives of farmers are very cheap. We are both. The politicians, the scientists, the administrators, treat us like pawns in their powerful games, and when they screw up and there is a disaster, they blame everyone and everything but themselves.

While most respondents had heard of and even experienced the Kedarnath floods, massive forest fires in the region, and landslides during the monsoon season, they overwhelmingly blamed illegal deforestation, dynamite blasting used for road construction, and overcrowded tourism sites that ignored safe building practices and the biophysical characteristics of the land. Despite concerns about corruption and the material impacts, produced in conjunction with regional climate change, very few individuals saw migration as a long-term adaptation practice (3/500). This worldview was influenced by circular migrants that disseminated stories and experiences of the pollution, overpopulation, heat, and virulent corruption in the cities. Thus, in spite of their feelings of abandonment and exploitation by public officials and services, most locals preferred to retain their homes in the villages (see Korzenevica and Agergaard 2017; Koskimaki 2017).

Discussion

The parallel analysis, incorporating 2 approaches, leads to significant disciplinary-situated insights about regional climate knowledge. Here, we consider these with the goal of analyzing how the results of each approach converge with or diverge from the other. We explore how such a methodological exercise informs our understanding of community perceptions of regional climate change. The parallel analysis emerges as significant in 2 ways.

Supplementary conclusions

The results generated from both approaches irrespective of whether they seem to converge or diverge enhance our understanding of the other. A major impetus of HDCC research is pursuing complementary resolutions to mixed-methods research (Weatherhead et al 2010; Manandhar et al 2011; Fernández-Llamazares et al 2017). However, by maintaining the epistemic integrity of each method and addressing the inherently different goals of analysis, the conclusions of each approach provide contextual scaffolding for the other.

When the results converge: The climate is changing and has changed in the past decade: Both the quantitative approach and the qualitative approach identified the specific climatic parameters that appear to have transformed: winter precipitation, erratic and intense rainfall events, and temperature. However, the triangulation done through our IMD data analysis revealed that the responses of community members, though limited by certain scalar and temporal factors, reflect the broader changes in the region (Kwan and Schwanen 2009). The location of the villages at higher elevations on the eastern edge of the state provides a caveat to the overall experience of climate change. This allows the community experience to find validation at more than just the household or individual scale (Vincent 2007; Ahlborg and Nightingale 2012). Correspondingly, the awareness of erratic rainfall events, which emerged prominently in the quantitative approach, is situated within the politics of disaster relief and the socioeconomic valuation of particular socioecological experiences (floods) over others (reduction in winter snow). Thus, the awareness of climatic changes is produced by more than just the biophysical experience of the actual event (Goldman et al 2016), and often even in the absence of material experience. Instead of challenging the validity of community perceptions of knowledge, this fact reveals the myriad intersectional engagements with the spectrum of processes, both human and nonhuman, that together shape the experience of climate change (Nguyen et al 2016; Vedwan 2006). Furthermore, it challenges the framing of community knowledge as temporally/spatially static and existing in relative isolation (Goldman et al 2018).

When the results diverge: Generationally biased worries about the impacts of climate change and narratives of human–wildlife encounters: While the quantitative analysis assigned an age-based significance relationship to worries about climate change, the qualitative analysis apparently countered this insight, finding the youth more fearful about the impacts of climate change. However, eschewing the need for evaluation based on triangulation and instead following the parallel analysis, we posit that both these insights are true, albeit with caveats.

One of the reasons why older members of the community appear to be more worried in the statistical analysis is their relationship with state scientists and planners. Younger community members mistrust survey-based data gathering, given their similarity to census operations and NGO work, about which they have very ambivalent feelings (see Gergan 2014; Smith and Gergan 2015). The older members that grew up with more faith in the public bureaucracy versus private institutions, often due to the ubiquity of the former, responded to survey instruments with a sense of despair. This despair, according to their children, is a performative tool used to access development aid from the state. Another reason could be the insecurity that many older respondents feel in what they see as a rapid and vast transformation of their agrarian lifeworlds (Smith 2013). They ascribed this to the incursion of the state/private institutions through industrial investment, telecommunication infrastructure, formal schooling, and availability of cheap mass-produced goods, along with changes in sociocultural institutions and ultimately climate change. Thus, these generationally tethered relationships to different types of institutions stem from the region's history of ubiquitous colonial/state institutions, which have seen a wave of private capital/ industrialization in the last 2 decades (Mathur 2015; PHD Chamber of Commerce 2015; Whitmore 2018).

On the other hand, the youth, in informal settings with their peer group and unencumbered by the survey instrument, are more apt to discuss their fears and aspirations (Langevang 2008; Smith 2012). These differential reactions—in essence performances—are place based and are rooted in the strategies that different community members utilize to relate to both the state and scientific evaluations of their lives and environments (Mahony and Hulme 2016). The youth, with their access to formal education, better understanding of telecommunication, and transportation, aspire to futures that provide more freedom from communal and state institutions. However, the older members of the community, who are better versed in accessing state welfare schemes, represent themselves in a certain way (vulnerable/precarious) when they encounter scientific methodologies that mirror state evaluation programs. (In rural Uttarakhand, intergenerational relationships within the household are complex and require further context and unpacking. Unfortunately, this is beyond the scope of this paper. For a better understanding, see Chakraborty [2018], Nichols [2016], and Jeffrey and Dyson [2014].)

The different views on human–wildlife encounters also echo similar caveats. The survey instruments leave little room to unravel the conditions producing such views, such as the state catch-and-release program that moves monkeys from urban to rural areas (see Govindrajan 2015). While most individuals identified increasing animal populations as a menace to agricultural livelihoods, they added a significant addendum during more intimate interviews about poaching for smuggling into Tibet, corrupt practices of state forest officials, and transformations in agricultural/forestland management. The animals were a problem, but as Sher Singh of Inari put it, “a proximate effect, not the root cause.”

The parallel analysis revealed that each approach inherently pursued and explored knowledge about something different. The divergences and convergences were valuable insights, but what emerged were the limitations of both and their critical value in addressing alternative dimensions of the same problem. Furthermore, data production tools allowed specific sections of the community to voice their fears. The opinion of rural youth, which is often missing from such community perception datasets, emerged when we moved past the survey instruments.

While it is impossible to construct an unbiased, impartial perspective of social–ecological processes, this adherence to epistemic pluralism “produce(d) a richer understanding of the research problem, and in the process help(ed) unsettle the analytical boundaries between society and nature, science and social science” (Nightingale 2016: 46).

Democratic coproduction

Writing about her experiences of doing mixed-methods HDCC research with Tibetan herders, Yeh (2016) stated that knowledge itself can be thought of as 2 different entities. The first is a factual observation—a substance of evaluation that is acquired and static—while the second is embodied practice—a dynamic outcome of people's daily engagement with their environment. In much of HDCC research with local communities, this second idea of knowledge is marginalized (Popke 2016). While interpretive social science disciplines—anthropology, human geography, sociology, etc—have generated a significant scholarship countering such reductionist attempts, within the HDCC community, and especially in the Himalayan region, such attempts are rare (for exceptions, see Vedwan and Rhoades 2001; Cote and Nightingale 2012; Gagné 2016). Our work attempted to involve the community as coproducers of knowledge and thus required fieldwork that stretched across many years. The researchers lived and worked with over 1000 families in the region. They spent almost a decade engaging with the individuals beyond the geographical boundaries of the village and beyond the present research agenda. This allowed for a disaggregated view of local communities that transcended their reductionist representation as victims of a “remote and fragile landscape” (Gergan 2017).

Furthermore, community members often questioned the utility of our work, the need for this project, and its ability to honestly portray their complicated lifeworlds. The impacts of climate change, while presented as critical in many scholarly accounts, seemed to be of marginal relevance when compared to other pressing issues they were encountering. A phrase we heard often was, “Why are you so focused on the climate? Nature is not what marginalizes us and exploits us.” Community consensus seemed to echo the work of critical climate change adaptation scholars who question whether the large-scale political, scientific, and financial mobilization around this issue is removing the policy and research focus from the historical structural processes—colonization, state building, globalization—that continue to produce vulnerability in rural communities of the developing world (Ribot 2010; Taylor 2015).

Ultimately, the efficacy of attempting epistemological pluralism remains somewhat moot. This is largely a result of the intramethodological contentions into which we fail to delve. Therefore, convergences and divergences between the different forms of instrumentation used, the inherent dichotomies between “production” differences in precipitation data, varied statistical tests, and relationships between the vast lists of survey variables remain unexplored. Similarly, the varied narratives that emerge from different qualitative data production methods based on the intersectional identities of the subjects involved remain unaddressed. We hope to focus on these in future work.

Breaking the paper up into smaller, more thoroughly analyzed segments corrodes the actual objective: to present an authentic example of the contentious, uncomfortable, and somewhat disjointed process of transdisciplinary research. We believe that the sacrifice of more revelatory analysis at the cusps of the various internal frictions is necessary for a more egalitarian discussion of the various actors across the academy and society. This challenges the HDCC research community to pursue “an openness to explore how we know what we know, as well as a humility that entertains the possibility that others might have something to offer and have an equally valid perspective” (Murphy 2011, p. 505).

Conclusion

We have argued the need for epistemologically plural research designs when engaging with communities in the production of climate change knowledge within HDCC scholarship. The current research attempts overwhelmingly suffer from superficial attempts at interdisciplinarity. Additionally, in most research designs, local community perceptions are confined to monolithic avenues of representation. Our work addresses both these issues by operationalizing a parallel analysis, keeping each different analytical approach true to its own theoretical roots, of a case study in the Indian Himalayan region of Uttarakhand.

According to much HDCC scholarship, the Himalayan region will suffer catastrophic impacts of climate change. However, few scholars have questioned the validity of such claims, given their lack of groundtruthing, both through instrumentation and community perceptions. Our work explored the latter through a hybrid methodological approach. This study investigated the awareness of climate change and climate change impacts, and the worries associated with such impacts of the members of rural communities in the Indian Himalayas.

The results from our 2 different approaches can be summarized as follows. The quantitative approach highlighted extensive awareness of the impacts of climate change in the community; perceptions are similar to some of the conclusions reached through analysis of long-term rainfall and temperature data. The communities expressed that winter snow is declining, overall precipitation is more erratic and extreme, and temperature is increasing. Despite such changes, these are not the most critical worries of most community members. Instead, they are concerned about human–wildlife encounters, lack of healthcare and educational services, telecommunication, road connectivity, and political/institutional mismanagement and corruption. Additionally, disaggregating such worries along different social and economic features finds that older people are significantly more likely to worry about the impacts of climate change.

The results from the qualitative approach revealed a plethora of social, economic, and political processes that are closely intertwined with the changes in climate in producing community awareness. Therefore, ideas about the climate were rooted in changing livelihood aspirations, the politics of regional disaster relief, and changing access to the situation in the plains through the movements of migrants. Similarly, worries about the present and the future were a product of the encounters of communal and individual aspirations with transforming processes of governance, development, and security. Younger, more educated members are often more worried due to their inability to have faith in the benevolence of religious deities or the welfare state.

Ultimately, when these conclusions from the different analytical approaches were brought together, 2 insights emerged. First, the 2 approaches end up supplementing each other. Therefore, irrespective of whether their conclusions converge or diverge, each approach provides context for the other. Second, the overall research design, by allowing the community more than one platform through which to convey their perceptions and trepidations about climate change, provided a more democratic avenue for involving rural Himalayan farmers in scholarship on HDCC.

Data collection and evaluation problems still plague the overall analytical process. However, we believe attempting such a parallel analysis with other communities in different parts of the world can help to address these problems while also providing new insights into unfolding human engagement with climate change.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Chakraborty and Daloz acknowledge an Institute for Regional and International Studies (IRIS) grant, the Scott-Kloeck Jenson Fellowship, the Foundation of Urban and Regional Studies (FURS) studentship from the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research (IJURR), and a Trewartha Research Grant (University of Wisconsin–Madison) for funding parts of the fieldwork. Kumar acknowledges the National Mission on Himalayan Studies (NMHS)–Himalayan Fellowship for financial support. We also acknowledge Aline Carrara and Mayank Shah for valuable help in preparing the manuscript. This study was cofinanced by the Himalayan Climate Change Adaptation Programme (HICAP). HICAP is jointly implemented by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) in Kathmandu, the Center for International Climate Research in Oslo, and Global Resource Information Database (GRID) in Arendal, in collaboration with local partners, and is funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Swedish International Development Agency. Compliance with ethical standards: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. This research involved human participants, and informed consent was managed under IRB number 2015-0760-CR001.

REFERENCES

1.

Abegunde AA. 2017. Local communities' belief in climate change in a rural region of Sub-Saharan Africa. Environment, Development and Sustainability 19(4):1489–1522. Google Scholar

2.

Acker G, Leptoukh G. 2007. Online analysis enhances use of NASA Earth Science Data. Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 88(2):14, 17. Google Scholar

3.

Agrawal A. 1996. The community vs. the market and the state: Forest use in Uttarakhand in the Indian Himalayas. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9(1):1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01965667Google Scholar

4.

Ahlborg H, Nightingale AJ. 2012. Mismatch between scales of knowledge in Nepalese forestry: Epistemology, power, and policy implications. Ecology and Society 17:4.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05171-170416Google Scholar

5.

Basistha A, Arya DS, Goel NK. 2009. Analysis of historical changes in rainfall in the Indian Himalayas. International Journal of Climatology 29:555–572.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1706Google Scholar

6.

Becken S, Lama AK, Espiner S. 2013. The cultural context of climate change impacts: Perceptions among community members in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Environmental Development 8(1):22–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2013.05.007Google Scholar

7.

Bhatt MR, Pandya M, Goh HC, Gupta K, Ariyabandhu M, Verhagen J, Nath MK, Rath RP, Maitra H, Anand A, Singh CB, Kochher JS, Kaushik M, Anand N, Sahota SS, et al. 2013. Floods in Uttarakhand: A New Relief Deal. Experience Learning Series 60. [No place]: All India Disaster Mitigation Institute and Disaster Management Community of UN Solution Exchange.  http://www.coreconsulting.ae/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/60-floods-in-uttarakhanda-new-relief-deal1.pdf; accessed on 16 July 2019. Google Scholar

8.

Bhutiyani MR, Kale VS, Pawar NJ. 2007. Long-term trends in maximum, minimum and mean annual air temperatures across the northwestern Himalaya during the twentieth century. Climate Change 85:159–177. Google Scholar

9.

Bhutiyani MR, Kale VS, Pawar NJ. 2010. Climate change and the precipitation variations in the Northwestern Himalaya: 1866–2006. International Journal of Climatology 30:535–548.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1920Google Scholar

10.

Birkenholtz T. 2011. Network political ecology: Method and theory in climate change vulnerability and adaptation research. Progress in Human Geography 36(3):295–315.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511421532Google Scholar

11.

Birkenholtz T. 2016. Dispossessing irrigators: Water grabbing, supply-side growth and farmer resistance in India. Geoforum 69:94–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.12.014Google Scholar

12.

Boissière M, Locatelli D, Sheil D. 2013. Local perceptions of climate variability and change in tropical forests of Papua, Indonesia. Ecology and Society 18(4):13.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05822-180413Google Scholar

13.

Brace C, Geoghegan H. 2011. Human geographies of climate change: Landscape, temporality, and lay knowledges. Progress in Human Geography 35(3):284–302.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510376259Google Scholar

14.

Brohan P, Kennedy JJ, Harris I, Tett SFB, Jones PD. 2006. Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: A new dataset from 1850. Journal of Geophysical Resources 111:D12106.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006548Google Scholar

15.

Burnham M, Ma Z, Zhang B. 2016. Making sense of climate change: Hybrid epistemologies, socio-natural assemblages and smallholder knowledge. Area 48(1):18–26.  https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12150Google Scholar

16.

Campbell LM. 2007. Local conservation practice and global discourse: A political ecology of sea turtle conservation. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97(2):313–334. Google Scholar

17.

Caretta MA. 2017. Striving beyond epistemic authority: Results dissemination in smallholder irrigation farming research. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 4452(January):1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1261686Google Scholar

18.

Carey M, Jackson M, Antonello A, Rushing J. 2016. Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research. Progress in Human Geography 40(6):770–793.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515623368Google Scholar

19.

Carr ER, Owusu-Daaku KN. 2016. The shifting epistemologies of vulnerability in climate services for development: The case of Mali's agrometeorological advisory programme. Area 48(1):7–17.  https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12179Google Scholar

20.

Castree N, Braun B, editors. 2001. Social Nature: Theory, Practice and Politics, Controversies in Environmental Sociology. Padstow, United Kingdom: Blackwell.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804434.003Google Scholar

21.

Chakraborty R. 2018. The Invisible (Mountain) Man: Migrant Youth and Relational Vulnerability in the Indian Himalayas [PhD dissertation]. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison. UMI no. 10829862. Google Scholar

22.

Chakraborty R, Daloz AS, L'Ecuyer T, Hicks A, Young S, Kang Y, Shah M. 2019. A relational vulnerability analytic: Exploring hybrid methodologies in social–ecological systems research on the human dimensions of climate change in the Himalayas. In : Dimri AP, Bookhagen B, Stoffel M, Yasunari T, editors. Himalayan Weather and Climate and Their Impact on the Environment. Springer. Google Scholar

23.

Chaudhary P, Bawa KS. 2011. Local perceptions of climate change validated by scientific evidence in the Himalayas. Biology Letters 7(5):767–770.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2011.0269Google Scholar

24.

Collins T. 2008. The political ecology of hazard vulnerability: Marginalization, facilitation and the production of differential risk to urban wildfires in Arizona's White Mountains. Journal of Political Ecology 15:21–43.  http://userwww.sfsu.edu/∼parker/bio821/14April09/Collins2008b.pdfGoogle Scholar

25.

Cote M, Nightingale AJ. 2012. Resilience thinking meets social theory. Progress in Human Geography 36(4):475–489.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425708Google Scholar

26.

Dash SK, Jenamani RK, Kalsi SR, Panda SK. 2007. Some evidence of climate change in twentieth-century India. Climate Change 85:299–321. Google Scholar

27.

Dimri AP, Dash SK. 2012. Wintertime climatic trends in the western Himalayas. Climate Change 111(3):775–800.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0201-yGoogle Scholar

28.

Diodato N, Bellocchi G, Tartari G. 2012. How do Himalayan areas respond to global warming? International Journal of Climatology 32:975–982.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2340Google Scholar

29.

Fernández-Llamazares Á, Garcia RA, Diaz-Reviriego I, Cabeza M, Pyhala A, Reyes-Garcia V. 2017. An empirically tested overlap between indigenous and scientific knowledge of a changing climate in Bolivian Amazonia. Regional Environmental Change 17(6):1673–1685.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1125-5Google Scholar

30.

Finnis J, Sarkar A, Stoddart MCJ. 2015. Bridging science and community knowledge? The complicating role of natural variability in perceptions of climate change. Global Environmental Change 32:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.011Google Scholar

31.

Ford JD, McDowell G, Shirley J, Pitre M, Siewierski R, Gough W, Duerden F, Pearce T, Adams P, Statham S. 2013. The dynamic multiscale nature of climate change vulnerability: An Inuit harvesting example. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103(5):1193–1211.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.776880Google Scholar

32.

Forsyth T. 2003. Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Science. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Google Scholar

33.

Gagné K. 2016. Cultivating ice over time: On the idea of timeless knowledge and places in the Himalayas. Anthropologica 58(2):193–210. Google Scholar

34.

Gautam Y, Andersen P. 2016. Rural livelihood diversification and household well-being: Insights from Humla, Nepal. Journal of Rural Studies 44:239–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.02.001Google Scholar

35.

Gentle P, Maraseni TN. 2012. Climate change, poverty and livelihoods: Adaptation practices by rural mountain communities in Nepal. Environmental Science and Policy 21:24–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.03.007Google Scholar

36.

Gergan MD. 2014. Precarity and possibility: On being young and indigenous in Sikkim, India. Himalaya 34(2):67–80. Google Scholar

37.

Gergan MD. 2017. Living with earthquakes and angry deities at the Himalayan borderlands. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 107(2):490–498.  https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1209103Google Scholar

38.

Gerlitz JY, Banerjee S, Hoermann B, Hunzai K, Machhi M, Tuladhar S. 2014. Poverty and Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey Instrument for the Hindu Kush Himalayas. Kathmandu, Nepal: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.  http://lib.icimod.org/record/29972; accessed on 28 December 2018. Google Scholar

39.

Goldman MJ, Daly M, Lovell EJ. 2016. Exploring multiple ontologies of drought in agro-pastoral regions of northern Tanzania: A topological approach. Area 48(1):27–33.  https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12212Google Scholar

40.

Goldman MJ, Turner MD, Daly MA. 2018. Critical political ecology of human dimensions of climate change: Epistemology, ontology, and ethics. WIREs Climate Change 9:526.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.526Google Scholar

41.

Goodman R. 2017. Borrowing money, exchanging relationships: Making microfinance fit into local lives in Kumaon, India. World Development 93:362–373.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.033Google Scholar

42.

Government of India. 2013. District Wise Skill Gap Study for the State of Uttarakhand Report. New Delhi, India: National Skill Development Corporation. Google Scholar

43.

GOU [Government of Uttarakhand]. 2014. Uttarakhand Action Plan for Climate Change: Transforming Crisis into Opportunity. Dehradun, Uttarakhand: GOU, supported by the United Nations Development Program.  http://www.forest.uk.gov.in/files/USAPCC/Uttarakhand_SAPCC.pdf; accessed in December 2017. Google Scholar

44.

Govindrajan R. 2015. Monkey business. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 35(2):246–262.  https://doi.org/10.1215/1089201x-3139024Google Scholar

45.

Guha R. 2000. The Unquiet Woods: Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Google Scholar

46.

Guhathakurta P, Rajeevan M. 2008. Trends in the rainfall pattern over India. International Journal of Climatology 28:1453–1469.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1640Google Scholar

47.

Hartmann H, Buchanan H. 2014. Trends in extreme precipitation events in the Indus River Basin and flooding in Pakistan. Atmosphere-Ocean 52(1):77–91. Google Scholar

48.

Hewitt K, Mehta M. 2012. Rethinking risk and disasters in mountain areas. Revue de Géographie Alpine 100(1):1–13.  https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.1653Google Scholar

49.

Hoy A, Katel O, Thapa P, Dendup N, Matschullat J. 2016. Climatic changes and their impact on socio-economic sectors in the Bhutan Himalayas: An implementation strategy. Regional Environmental Change 16(5):1401–1415.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0868-0Google Scholar

50.

Huber A. 2019. Hydropower in the Himalayan hazardscape: Strategic ignorance and the production of unequal risk. Water 11(414):1–23. Google Scholar

51.

Jain A. 2010. Labour Migration and Remittances in Uttarakhand. Kathmandu, Nepal: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development. Google Scholar

52.

Jakimow T. 2012. Peddlers of information: Unintended consequences of information-centred development for North Indian non-government organizations. Voluntas 23(4):1014–1035.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-011-9250-0Google Scholar

53.

Jasanoff S. 2010. A new climate for society. Theory, Culture & Society 27:233–253.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409361497Google Scholar

54.

Jeffrey C, Dyson J. 2014. “I serve therefore I am”: Youth and generative politics in India. Comparative Studies in Society and History 56(4):967–994.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417514000462Google Scholar

55.

Joshi S, Jasra WA, Ismail M, Shrestha RM, Yi SL, Wu N. 2013. Herders' perceptions of and responses to climate change in northern Pakistan. Environmental Management 52(3):639–648.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0062-4Google Scholar

56.

Kelkar U, Narula KK, Sharma VP, Chandna U. 2008. Vulnerability and adaptation to climate variability and water stress in Uttarakhand State, India. Global Environmental Change 18(4):564–574.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.09.003Google Scholar

57.

Korzenevica M, Agergaard A. 2017. ‘‘The house cannot stay empty”: A case of young rural Nepalis negotiating multilocal householding. Asian Population Studies 13(2):124–139. Google Scholar

58.

Koskimaki L. 2017. Youth futures and a masculine development ethos in the regional story of Uttarakhand. Journal of South Asian Development 12(2):136–154. Google Scholar

59.

Kothawale DR, Kumar KR. 2005. On the recent changes in surface temperature trends over India. Geophysical Research Letters 32:L18714.  https://doi.org/101029/2005GL023528Google Scholar

60.

Kwan MP, Schwanen T. 2009. Critical quantitative geographies 1: Beyond the critical/analytical binary: Quantitative revolution; 2: The critical (re)turn. Professional Geographer 61(3):283–291.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00330120902931903Google Scholar

61.

Langevang T. 2008. ‘‘We are managing!” Uncertain paths to respectable adulthoods in Accra, Ghana. Geoforum 39(6):2039–2047.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.09.003Google Scholar

62.

Mahony M, Hulme M. 2016. Epistemic geographies of climate change. Progress in Human Geography 42:1–30.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516681485Google Scholar

63.

Mamgain RP, Reddy DN. 2016. Outmigration from the Hill Region of Uttarakhand: Magnitude, Challenges and Policy Options. Hyderabad, India: National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj.  www.nird.org.in; accessed on 26 December 2018. Google Scholar

64.

Manandhar S, Vogt DS, Perret SR, Kazama F. 2011. Adapting cropping systems to climate change in Nepal: A cross-regional study of farmers' perception and practices. Regional Environmental Change 11(2):335–348.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-010-0137-1Google Scholar

65.

Martin SM, Lorenzen K. 2016. Livelihood diversification in rural Laos. World Development 83:231–243.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.01.018Google Scholar

66.

Mathur N. 2015. Paper Tiger: Law, Bureaucracy and the Developmental State in Himalayan India. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar

67.

Mines DP, Yazgi N. 2010. Village Matters: Relocating Villages in the Contemporary Anthropology of India. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar

68.

Mishra A. 2014. Changing climate of Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Geology & Geosciences 3:163.  https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-6755.1000163Google Scholar

69.

Muccione V, Salzmann N, Huggel C. 2016. Scientific knowledge and knowledge needs in climate adaptation policy: A case study of diverse mountain regions. Mountain Research and Development 36(3):364–375.  https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00016.1Google Scholar

70.

Murphy BL. 2011. From interdisciplinary to inter-epistemological approaches: Confronting the challenges of integrated climate change research. Canadian Geographer 55(4):490–509.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2011.00388.xGoogle Scholar

71.

Naidu CV, Durgalakshmi K, Krishna KM, Rao SR, Satyanarayana GC, Lakshminarayana P, Rao LM. 2009. Is summer monsoon rainfall decreasing over India in the global warming era? Journal of Geophysical Research 114:D24108.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011288Google Scholar

72.

Negi VS, Maikhuri RK, Rawat LS, Bahuguna A. 2009. Traditional agriculture in transition: A case of Har-ki Doon Valley (Govind Pashu Vihar Sanctuary and National Park) in Central Himalaya. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 16(5):313–321.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500903194739Google Scholar

73.

Nguyen TPL, Seddaiu G, Virdis SGP, Tidore C, Pasqui M, Roggero PP. 2016. Perceiving to learn or learning to perceive? Understanding farmers' perceptions and adaptation to climate uncertainties. Agricultural Systems 143:205–216.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.01.001Google Scholar

74.

Nichols CE. 2015. Shifting production/shifting consumption: A political ecology of health perceptions in Kumaon, India. Geoforum 64:182–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.06.018Google Scholar

75.

Nichols CE. 2016. “Time Ni Hota Hai”: Time poverty and food security in the Kumaon Hills, India. Gender, Place & Culture 23(10):1404–1419.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2016.1160871Google Scholar

76.

Nickow A. 2015. Growing in value: NGOs, social movements and the cultivation of developmental value chains in Uttarakhand, India. Global Networks 15(s1):S45–S64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12087Google Scholar

77.

Nightingale AJ. 2016. Adaptive scholarship and situated knowledges? Hybrid methodologies and plural epistemologies in climate change adaptation research. Area 48(1)41–47.  https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12195Google Scholar

78.

Ogra M, Badola R. 2008. Compensating human–wildlife conflict in protected area communities: Ground-level perspectives from Uttarakhand, India. Human Ecology 36(5):717–729.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-008-9189-yGoogle Scholar

79.

Pai DS, Sridhar L, Rajeevan M, Sreejith OP, Satbhai NS, Mukhopadyay B. 2014. Development of a new high spatial resolution (0.25 × 0.25) long period (1901–2010) daily gridded rainfall data set over India and its comparison with existing data sets over the region. Mausam 65:1–18. Google Scholar

80.

Palazzi E, Hardenberg J, Provenzale A. 2013. Precipitation in the Hindu-Kush Karakoram Himalaya: Observations and future scenarios. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 118(1):85–100. Google Scholar

81.

Pandey AC, Soodan V, Kumar N. 2012. Effectiveness of Non-Government Organisations in Rural Development: A Case Study of Uttarakhand-India. Paper presented atthe International Conference on Innovative Strategies for Contemporary Management, Hisar, India, 24–25 March 2012, pp 28–36. ISBN 978-81-923446-1-4. Google Scholar

82.

Pandey R, Aretano R, Gupta AK, Meena D, Kumar B, Alatalo JM. 2017. Agroecology as a climate change adaptation strategy for smallholders of Tehri-Garhwal in the Indian Himalayan region. Small-Scale Forestry 16(1):53–63.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-016-9342-1Google Scholar

83.

Pandey R, Jha SK. 2012. Climate vulnerability index—Measure of climate change vulnerability to communities: A case of rural Lower Himalaya, India. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 17(5):487–506.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9338-2Google Scholar

84.

Pauls T, Franz M. 2013. Trading in the dark: The medicinal plants production network in Uttarakhand. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 34(2):229–243.  https://doi.org/10.1111/sjtg.12026Google Scholar

85.

PHD Chamber of Commerce. 2015. Vision 2025: Uttarakhand. New Delhi, India: PHD Chamber of Commerce.  http://www.yesinstitute.in/reports/statereport/PHD-VISION 2025 UTTARAKHAND report.pdf; accessed on 29 December 2017; PDF also available from the corresponding author of the present article. Google Scholar

86.

Polit KM. 2006. Keep My Share of Rice in the Cupboard: Ethnographic Reflections on Practices of Gender and Agency Among Dalit Women in the Central Himalayas [PhD dissertation]. Heidelberg, Germany: University of Heidelberg. Google Scholar

87.

Popke J. 2016. Researching the hybrid geographies of climate change: Reflections from the field. Area 48(1):2–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12220Google Scholar

88.

Ren YY, Ren GY, Sun X B, Shrestha AB, You QL, Zhan YJ, Rajbhandari R, Zhang PF, Wen KM. 2017. Observed changes in surface air temperature and precipitation in the Hindu Kush Himalayan region over the last 100-plus years. Advances in Climate Change Research 8(2017):148–156. Google Scholar

89.

Ribot J. 2010. Vulnerability does not fall from the sky: Towards multi-scale, pro-poor climate policy. In : Mearns R, Norton A, editors. Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World. Washington, DC: The World Bank, pp 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1307/6/34/342040Google Scholar

90.

Robbins P. 2012. Political Ecology: A critical introduction. 2nd edition (1st edition 2004). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar

91.

Rocheleau D. 2016. Rooted networks, webs of relation, and the power of situated science: Bringing the models back down to earth in Zambrana. In : Harcourt W, editor. The Palgrave Handbook of Gender and Development. London, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 213–231.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-38273-3_15Google Scholar

92.

Rodell M, Beaudoing HK. 2015. GLDAS Noah Land Surface Model L4 Monthly 0.25 × 0.25 Degree V2.0. Greenbelt, Maryland: Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC).  http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/datacollection/GLDAS_NOAH025_M_2.0.html; accessed on 24 March 2018. Google Scholar

93.

Roy D. 2008. Hydropower in Uttarakhand: Is “development” the real objective? Economic and Political Weekly 43:19–22. Google Scholar

94.

Roy SS. 2009. A spatial analysis of extreme hourly precipitation patterns in India. International Journal of Climatology 29:345–355.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1763Google Scholar

95.

Satyal P, Shrestha K, Ojha H, Vira B, Adhikari J. 2017. A new Himalayan crisis? Exploring transformative resilience pathways. Environmental Development 23:47–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2017.02.010Google Scholar

96.

Sayer A. 1984. Method in Social Science. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar

97.

Schild A. 2008. ICIMOD's position on climate change and mountain systems. Mountain Research and Development 28(3/4):328–331.  https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd.mp009Google Scholar

98.

Sen PK. 1968. Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall's tau. Journal of the American Statistical Association 63:1379–1389. Google Scholar

99.

Sharma E, Chettri N, Tse-ring K, Shrestha AB, Jing F, Mool P, Eriksson M. 2009. Climate Change Impacts and Vulnerability in the Eastern Himalayas. Kathmandu, Nepal: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88246-6Google Scholar

100.

Shrestha AB, Agrawal NK, Alfthan B, Bajracharya SR, Maréchal J, van Oort B, editors. 2015. The Himalayan Climate and Water Atlas: Impact of Climate Change on Water Resources in Five of Asia's Major River Basins. Kathmandu. Nepal: ICIMOD, GRID-Arendal, and CICERO.  http://www.icimod.org/wateratlas/index.html; accessed on 11 December 2018. Google Scholar

101.

Singh RB, Mal S. 2014. Trends and variability of monsoon and other rainfall seasons in Western Himalaya, India. Atmospheric Science Letters 15: 218–226.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asl2.494Google Scholar

102.

Singh S. 2013. Diverse property rights, institutions and decentralization: Forest management by village forest councils in Uttarakhand. Policy and Society 32(1):43–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2013.01.003Google Scholar

103.

Singh SP, Thadani R. 2015. Complexities and controversies in Himalayan research: A call for collaboration and rigor for better data. Mountain Research and Development 35(4):401–409.  https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00045Google Scholar

104.

Smith SH. 2012. Intimate geopolitics: Religion, marriage, and reproductive bodies in Leh, Ladakh. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102(6):1511–1528.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2012.660391  Google Scholar

105.

Smith SH. 2013. “In the heart, there's nothing”: Unruly youth, generational vertigo and territory. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38:572–585.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00547.xGoogle Scholar

106.

Smith SH, Gergan M. 2015. The diaspora within: Himalayan youth, education-driven migration, and future aspirations in India. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 33(1):119–135.  https://doi.org/10.1068/d13152pGoogle Scholar

107.

Sontakke NA, Singh HN, Singh N. 2009. Monitoring physiographic rainfall variation for sustainable management of water bodies in India. In : Jha MK, editor. Natural and Anthropogenic Disasters: Vulnerability, Preparedness and Mitigation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp 293–331. Google Scholar

108.

Sontakke NA, Singh N, Singh HN. 2008. Instrumental period rainfall series of the Indian region (AD 1813–2005): Revised reconstruction, update and analysis. The Holocene 18(7):1055–1066. Google Scholar

109.

Stewart IT. 2009. Changes in snowpack and snowmelt runoff for key mountain regions. Hydrological Processes 23:78–94.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7128Google Scholar

110.

Stone-Jovicich S. 2015. Probing the interfaces between the social sciences and social–ecological resilience: Insights from integrative and hybrid perspectives in the social sciences. Ecology and Society 20(2):25. Google Scholar

111.

Sun XB, Ren GY, Shrestha AB, Ren YY, You QL, Zhan YJ, Xu Y, Rajbhandari R. 2017. Changes in extreme temperatures events over the Hindu Kush Himalaya during 1961–2015. Advances in Climate Change Research 8(3):157–165.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2017.07.001Google Scholar

112.

Taylor M. 2015. The Political Ecology of Climate Change Adaptation: Livelihoods, Agrarian Change and the Conflicts of Development. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Google Scholar

113.

Tomozawa K. 2014. Industrialization and the development of regional economies in the State of Uttarakhand. Journal of Urban and Regional Studies on Contemporary India 1(2):9–20. Google Scholar

114.

Turner BL, Robbins P. 2008. Land-change science and political ecology: Similarities, differences, and implications for sustainability science. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33(1):295–316.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.33.022207.104943Google Scholar

115.

Turner MD. 2004. Political ecology and the moral dimensions of “resource conflicts”: The case of farmer–herder conflicts in the Sahel. Political Geography 23(7):863–889.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2004.05.009Google Scholar

116.

Turner MD. 2014. Political ecology I. Progress in Human Geography 38(4):616–623.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513502770Google Scholar

117.

Vedwan N. 2006. Culture, climate and the environment: Local knowledge and perception of climate change among apple growers in northwestern India. Journal of Ecological Anthropology 10(1):4–18.  https://doi.org/10.5038/2162-4593.10.1.1Google Scholar

118.

Vedwan N, Rhoades RE. 2001. Climate change in the Western Himalayas of India: A study of local perception and response. Climate Research 19(2):109–117.  https://doi.org/10.3354/cr019109Google Scholar

119.

Vincent K. 2007. Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and the importance of scale. Global Environmental Change 17(1):12–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.11.009Google Scholar

120.

Weatherhead E, Gearheard S, Barry RG. 2010. Changes in weather persistence: Insight from Inuit knowledge. Global Environmental Change 20(3):523–528.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.02.002Google Scholar

121.

Whatmore SJ. 2009. Mapping knowledge controversies: Science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise. Progress in Human Geography 33(5):587–598.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132509339841Google Scholar

122.

Whitmore L. 2018. Mountain, Water, Rock, God: Understanding Kedarnath in the Twenty-First Century. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Google Scholar

123.

Wisener B, Blaikie PM, Cannon T, Davis I. 2003. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability, and Disasters (2nd edition). London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Google Scholar

124.

World Bank. 2012. India Uttarakhand Economic Assessment. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit South Asia Region: 62493. Dehradun, India: World Bank. Google Scholar

125.

Yeh ET. 2016. “How can experience of local residents be ‘knowledge'?” Challenges in interdisciplinary climate change research. Area 48(1):34–40.  https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12189Google Scholar

126.

Yeh ET, Samberg LH, Gaerrang, Volkmar E, Harris RB. 2017. Pastoralist decision-making on the Tibetan Plateau. Human Ecology 45(3):33–343.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-017-9891-8Google Scholar

127.

You QL, Ren GY, Zhang YQ, Ren YY, Sun XB, Zhan YJ, Shrestha AB, Krishnan R. 2017. An overview of studies of observed climate change in the Hindu Kush Himalayan (HKH) region. Advances in Climate Change Research 8(3):141–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2017.04.001Google Scholar

128.

Zhan YJ, Ren GY, Shrestha AB, Rajbhandari R, Ren YY, Jayanarayanan S, Xu Y, Sun XB, You QL, Wang S. 2017. Changes in extreme precipitation events over the Hindu Kush Himalayan region during 1961–2012. Advances in Climate Change Research 8(3):166–175. Google Scholar

129.

Zhao H, Moore GWK. 2006. Reduction in Himalayan snow accumulation and weakening of the trade winds over the Pacific since the 1840s. Geophysical Research Letters 33:L17709.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027339Google Scholar

130.

Ziegler AD, Wasson RJ, Bhardwaj A, Sundriyal YP, Sati SP, Juyal N, Nautiyal V, Srivastava P, Gillen J, Saklani U. 2014. Pilgrims, progress, and the political economy of disaster preparedness: The example of the 2013 Uttarakhand flood and Kedarnath disaster. Hydrological Processes 28(24):5985–5990.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10349Google Scholar
© 2019 Chakraborty et al. This open access article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please credit the author and the full source.
Ritodhi Chakraborty, Anne Sophie Daloz, Manish Kumar, and A. P. Dimri "Does Awareness of Climate Change Lead to Worry? Exploring Community Perceptions Through Parallel Analysis in Rural Himalaya," Mountain Research and Development 39(2), (28 November 2019). https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-19-00012.1
Received: 1 June 2019; Accepted: 1 July 2019; Published: 28 November 2019
JOURNAL ARTICLE
PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top