@article{KandelBavorovaUllahetal.2023, author = {Kandel, Giri Prasad and Bavorova, Miroslava and Ullah, Ayat and K{\"a}chele, Harald and Pradhan, Prajal}, title = {Building resilience to climate change: Examining the impact of agro-ecological zones and social groups on sustainable development}, series = {Sustainable Development}, volume = {31}, journal = {Sustainable Development}, number = {5}, publisher = {Wiley}, issn = {0968-0802}, doi = {10.1002/sd.2626}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-8226}, pages = {3796 -- 3810}, year = {2023}, abstract = {Nepal is one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change, which is negatively affecting agricultural production and food security. However, the role of agro-ecological zones and social groups in climate change adaptation (CCA) and its impact on smallholder farmers in Nepal remains unexplored. To fill this gap, this study aimed to identify the effect of agro-ecological zones and social groups on smallholder farmers' adaptation to climate change using the multivariate probit model. Multistage sampling was used to collect data from 400 households in three agro-ecological zones of Nepal. These zones were highland (mountainous region), midland (hilly region) and lowland (terai/plain region). The results of our study showed that farmers in the Mountain region are more likely to adopt off-farm activities and temporary migration as a CCA strategy than those in the Terai/plain agro-ecological zone. In the Terai/Plain, farmers mainly adopt small-scale irrigation and agroforestry. In terms of social groups, the Brahmin group was more likely to adopt new crop varieties and small-scale irrigation than the Sudra group. The Sudra farmers preferred temporary migration and off-farm activities more than the Brahmins. Our study shows that policies to promote the adoption of CCA strategies need to take into account location and social group differences in order to improve the adaptive capacity of the most vulnerable farmers. Mountain and Sudra farmers need support to adapt to climate change and sustain agriculture.}, language = {en} } @article{SeydewitzPradhanLandholmetal., author = {Seydewitz, Tobias and Pradhan, Prajal and Landholm, David M. and Kropp, Juergen P.}, title = {Deforestation Drivers Across the Tropics and Their Impacts on Carbon Stocks and Ecosystem Services}, series = {Anthropocene Science}, volume = {2}, journal = {Anthropocene Science}, number = {1}, publisher = {Springer Nature Singapore}, issn = {2731-3980}, doi = {10.1007/s44177-023-00051-7}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-9312}, pages = {81 -- 92}, abstract = {Abstract Globally, deforestation produces anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contributing substantially to climate change. Forest cover changes also have large impacts on ecosystem services. Deforestation is the dominant type of land cover change in tropical regions, and this land cover change relates to distinct causes recognized as direct deforestation drivers. Understanding these drivers requires a significant effort. Further, GHG emissions due to deforestation are quantified only in terms of biomass removal, while linking emissions from soil organic carbon (SOC) loss to deforestation is lacking. A closer picture of associated ecosystem service changes due to deforestation is also needed. We analyze for 2001-2010: (1) the magnitudes of deforestation drivers, (2) the related carbon loss, and (3) the ecosystem service value change. On the global scale, agriculture (90.3\%) is the primary deforestation driver, where grassland expansion contributed the most (37.5\%). The deforestation drivers differ in magnitude and spatial distribution on the continental scale. The total carbon loss by biomass removal and SOC loss accounted for 8797 Mt C and 1185 Mt C, respectively. Furthermore, tropical deforestation caused the ESV loss of 408 billion Int.\$ year -1, while the resulting land cover has the ESV of 345 billion Int.\$ year -1. Our findings highlight that agriculture substantially contributes to global carbon loss and ecosystem service loss due to deforestation. The deforestation drivers differ in magnitude and distribution for different continents. Further, we highlight the danger of putting a monetary value on nature.}, subject = {-}, language = {en} }