1. Introduction
Climate change is emerging as a critical threat to biodiversity and climate-sensitive occupations [1]. In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there was a broad international consensus that climate change is human induced [2]. A change in land use and unprecedented resource use patterns are vastly responsible for changes in climate and wildlife occupancy globally [3]. A change in environmental conditions disrupts viable production in climate-sensitive occupations, which therefore affects the livelihood of farmers [1]. For example, studies outside of Bhutan have indicated that climate change affects agriculture negatively [4,5,6]. Changes in wildlife habitat have resulted in species range shifts, changes in plant diversity, including indigenous foods, and plant-based medicines [7]. The general effect of human-induced climate change may result in shifts in habitat conditions and quality with the movement of several species poleward or upward to higher elevations from their current locations. Species may move southward or northward depending on the hemisphere in which we are observing the changes, up mountains, or both as responses to hotter and dryer conditions [8]. Globally, there is evidence of a shift in species movements towards the north or to higher elevations for species dwelling in the transition zone between subalpine and alpine vegetation zones [9].
Given Bhutan’s geographic location in the Eastern Himalayas and economic dependency on climate-sensitive renewable natural resources, it remains highly vulnerable to climate change impacts. Bhutan faces increasing threats from climate hazards such as flash floods, glacial lake outburst floods (GLOF), windstorms, and landslides [10]. Aspects in Bhutan that are most vulnerable to climate change include forests and biodiversity, water and land resources, glacial lakes, and the health sector for humans, animals, and plants [11]. A population involved in one of the most climate-sensitive occupations tends to experience the effects of climate change as first hand observations. For instance, farmers living in and around Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve (TSNR) and Jigme Dorji Wangchuck National Park (JDNP) have observed changes in the forest composition, pests and diseases, natural calamities, erratic weather, and changes in wildlife occurrences [12]. Realizing these threats from climate change, Bhutan has instituted several policy responses to adapt and mitigate its impacts. For instance, Bhutan, as a nation-state, is committed to remaining carbon neutral, as decided during the 15th and 21st Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) [12]. Due to the similar geographical settings and altitudinal variation of our study area (BC 07 and 08) with TSNR and JDNP, farmers primarily reliant on agriculture and livestock farming are very vulnerable to the negative consequences of climate change impacts. These corridors also play a vital role in establishing habitat links and safe havens for numerous globally endangered species, such as Royal Bengal tigers (Panthera tigris), Snow leopards (Panthera uncia), red pandas (Ailurus fulgens) and endangered avifauna species [13]. Therefore, with a focus on social indicators such as agriculture and livestock farming, associated forest resources, and human–wildlife interactions, this study examines farmers’ perceptions of climate change and how severely they are affected. We also aim to determine the dynamic interrelationship between ecology and livelihood as a result of associated climate change impacts. Consistent with the findings of this study, we intend to suggest appropriate adaptation measures for the benefit of farmers and conservation partners in the biological corridors.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Area
We conducted the study in Bhutan’s Biological Corridors 07 and 08 (Figure 1), which spread across four districts in the eastern, central, and western regions. With a total area of 1182.49 km2, these two corridors interconnect Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park (JSWNP), Phrumsengla National Park (PNP), Wangchuck Centennial National Park (WCNP), and Bumdeling Wildlife Sanctuary (BWS). The long strands of connectivity encompass a broad spectrum of ecosystems that support diverse fauna in Bhutan’s mountainous landscape. The corridors are dominated by mixed conifer, fir, and broadleaf forest interspersed with thick undergrowth of bamboo and rhododendron, which hosts diverse wild animals, including high-profile conservation species such as the Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris), clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa), wild dog (Cuon alpinus), Asiatic golden cat (Catopuma temminckii), the red panda (Ailurus fulgens), sambar (Rusa unicolor), musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster), and a rich diversity of birds [13,14]. In addition, migratory domestic livestock also graze in these corridors. Elevation in our study area ranges from 1072 m above sea level (BC 07) to about 4580 m (BC 08).
About 18,623 people [15] live in and around the two BCs, and are primarily engaged in agriculture and livestock farming practices. Common cereal crops grown include paddy and maize in the lower elevations, while wheat, barley, and buckwheat are grown mostly in the highlands. Potatoes and chilies are the main cash crops, besides turnips and radishes, that are used as feed for cattle. Livestock farming is an integral component of the agriculture-based livelihoods of farmers. Farmers graze their stock in and around the corridors either on a sedentary or migratory basis. Farmers also depend on the two BCs for sourcing timber, firewood, and non-wood forest products such as the highly prized caterpillar fungi (Ophiocordyceps sinensis).
2.2. Data Collection
We applied stratified random sampling [16,17] to collect qualitative data for the study. Two study blocks discerned by Biological Corridor number (BC 07 and 08) were divided into 15 compartments (sampling frames) according to the established administrative boundary of the sub-district (Geog). From 15 sampling frames, we sampled 31.26% (n = 136) of 435 households randomly, thus covering 52 hamlets. We used open-ended questions and conducted face-to-face interviews, which lasted for about an hour for each. To avoid bias and maintain data quality, we never predetermined the respondents and therefore represented a mixed group for age and gender. We collected data in June and July 2019.
Qualitative data generated out of questionnaire surveys were sorted out, segregated, entered into MS Access, and processed using an MS Excel 2013—Pivot Table and SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Scientists, version 23.0). We analyzed data for the main themes of climate change: farmers’ knowledge, pattern, wildlife occurrence, impact severity, and adaptation strategies.
2.3. Determining Social Vulnerability
Consistent with the contextual demographic, social, and economic factors in the study area, we considered social indicators such as agriculture and livestock farming, forest resource collection, and human–wildlife interactions [1,18] in our assessment of the vulnerability of the rural community to climate change. The above-mentioned social vulnerability indicators were composed of several climate proxy variables that coherently influence variability across space and time in the two BCs. The proxy variables—temperature, precipitation, snowfall, plant phenology, and migratory fauna—were accounted for in assessing the farmers’ sensitivity to climate change and emerging patterns [18]. Geographical areas of agroecological zones associated with mean annual rainfall and temperature were adopted to discern which farmers were impacted across the two BCs (Table 1).
2.4. Determining the Severity of Climate Change Impact
Following the previous study by [18], this study used drought, flood, landslide, hailstorm, wind, early rain, delayed rain, prolonged rain, scanty rain, diseases, and pests as proxy variables to determine the impacts of climate change. We accounted for these effects over the past 10 years and assessed tangible impacts based on different determinants or proxies. The study categorized the impact into three levels of intensity: severe impact, moderate impact, and low impact (Table 2). We measured the magnitude of the damage caused by each variable using the prefixed matrix within the scope of the three levels of impact intensity categories as defined below.
2.5. Determining Climate Change Adaptation
We considered changes in agriculture and livestock farming patterns as indicators of climate resilient adaptations, besides technological mitigation measures. The indicators include prominent observations of a paradigm shift in farmers’ preferences for cattle breeds and agricultural crop varieties.
3. Results and Discussions
This study revealed that climate change and its impacts have become a reality in Bhutan’s Biological Corridors 07 and 08 in the last ten years. Since this study covered three regions, the respondents’ reports were deliberated comparatively without generalizing to offer an in-depth understanding of farmers’ perceptions on climate change on four broad themes: farmers’ knowledge with respect to the pattern of climate change; farmer-wildlife interactions as consequences of climate change effects; climate change impact severity; and strategized adaptation measures. Farmers reported that climate change has strong interconnections with air, soil, plants, wild animals, including birds, and pests and diseases. The changing climate has posed impacts at various levels, places, and times across different sections of farmers, whose perceptions of climate change impacts varied in relation to demographic, geographic, and economic perspectives.
3.1. Farmers’ Knowledge and Sensitivity to Climate Change
“Have you ever heard the term “climate change?” was the question we asked the farmers. In this response, over 83% farmers reported that they knew the term “climate change” and its changing pattern, while 17% of respondents had never heard of the term. Farmers’ sensitivity to climate variables varied from individual to individual, and in this respect, we observed a substantial influence of geographical location (space and time), demography (age), and socio-economic (occupation) factors. About 61% of the respondents reported a lengthy spell of summer associated with rising temperatures, which is the most sensitive climate change indicator. This assertion that farmers from our study area made conformed with the results of earlier studies [18,19], which reported a steady rise in summer mean annual temperature in temperate and sub-tropical agroecological zones and a decline in winter mean annual temperature in the temperate zone. Bhutan shows a steady rise in temperature of about 1 degree Celsius in summer and 2 degrees Celsius in winter, which is a trend observed since 2000 [18]. Hence, birds that usually occur in a warmer region, such as the common myna (Acridotheres tristis), wedge-tailed pigeon (Treron sphenurus), and mammals like the Assamese macaque (Macaca assamensis), are now reported to occur in the cool temperate zone. To substantiate this statement, the authors personally sighted a pair of Kalij pheasants (Lophura leucomelanos), male and female, at an elevation of 2667 m and a troop of Assamese macaques in agricultural fields at 2560 m in Chumig geog, Bumthang in the summers of 2016 and 2017, respectively. A study [12] in two protected areas of Bhutan reveals a distinct shift in wildlife occurrence.
Few respondents who reported that they did not know about climate change were barely involved in agriculture, and some respondents were relatively young youths. This finding corroborates a report from Ghana [20], where farmers who live and work closely with agricultural fields and water bodies have relatively good knowledge of the changing climate. Respondents from BC 08, as most of them live in the temperate zone, noticed an increase in rainfall and temperature, and a change in snowfall, plant phenology, and migratory avifauna compared with those from BC 07 in the dry sub-tropical and humid sub-tropical agro-ecological zones (Figure 2). The erratic rainfall pattern reportedly corroborates the study [19], which shows a substantial decrease in annual rainfall pattern (2005–2014) in the sub-tropical zone compared to that in the temperate zone. Farmers at lower elevations also observed fluctuating flowering and budding seasons, while farmers at higher elevations reported lesser amounts of snowfall.
3.2. Climate Change Impact on the Livelihood
Climate change is reported to pose significant impacts on agriculture due to changes in temperature, precipitation, and glacial run-off [5,21]. Bhutan’s climate change impact, predicted using the International Model for Policy Analysis of Agriculture, Commodities, and Trade (IMPACT), indicates both positive and negative effects on agriculture production [19]. Despite positive effects, agriculture, which is an integral component of rural livelihood in Bhutan, is becoming increasingly challenging due to climate change impacts such as increasing soil erosion, rapid loss of soil fertility, increasing incidences of pests and diseases, drought, erratic rainfall, windstorms, and hail [22]. In the last 10 years, climate variables that severely affected the farmers’ livelihoods across the two BCs in focus here were floods, hail, windstorms, and prolonged rain.
About 36% of households reported a severe impact related to climate change because they lost their house, land, livestock, agricultural crops, or a combination thereof. At least 3% of respondents from Lhuntse in BC 07 reported the loss of human lives due to floods that were caused by incessant and high-intensity rainfall (Figure 3). This corroborates the study of [22], which reveals that incessant rainfall intensified landslides and floods in the last decade and caused many disasters in Bhutan. Owing to the maximum area on steep slopes allocated for agriculture, changes in precipitation directly affected the frequency and intensity of water flow, causing rapid drainage and soil erosion, reducing the available area of arable land for food production, and damaging roads and related infrastructure. The Department of Agriculture reports that landslides and flash floods damaged over 2000 acres of agricultural land and several farm roads and irrigation channels, thus affecting 4165 households [23]. A large number of households (48%) reported having been moderately affected by climate variables such as drought, scanty rain, floods, pests, and diseases on agriculture crops and livestock (Figure 3). Approximately 11% of respondents reported relatively low climate change impacts because they vastly depend on livestock farming and barely cultivate agricultural crops. At least 5% of respondents reported never suffering from any climate change-related effects because they neither own agricultural land nor livestock.
Despite being in the same locality and time, major determining factors were age, nature of occupation, and intensity of farming practices for individual households across the two BCs. A major segment of farmers (70%) from Trongsa, Bumthang, and Wangdue in BC 08 reported adverse impact trends related to climate change that had increasingly affected their livelihoods in the last ten years, while 20% of respondents asserted that not much had changed from their observations over the same period. In the case of Lhuntse farmers in BC 07, 40% of respondents reported an increasing trend of adverse impacts on livelihood due to climate change, while for over 50% of respondents, it was more or less the same in the past ten years. Over 15% respondents across the two BCs reported that they ‘do not know’ about climate change impact severity and the reported trends. The main driving factors for trends of adverse impacts from climate change effects were erratic rain, windstorms, pests, and diseases that damaged agriculture crops. This assertion made by farmers supports the findings of [23], which revealed that hail and windstorms damaged more than 5000 acres of agriculture crops in 2010. The last incidence was observed in 2018 when large areas of maize and areca nut were damaged, affecting more than 240 households in the eastern and southern regions of Bhutan [22].
3.3. Farmer-Wildlife Interactions under Climate Change
Ref. [7] reported that a change in wildlife habitat quality, which is correlated with a change in environmental conditions, results in species range shifts and changes in plant diversity. More recently, Ref. [1] asserted that a change in environmental conditions disrupts production for those engaged in climate-sensitive occupations such as cropping and grazing. Our findings from this study substantiate this assertion. Farmers in our study area experienced correlations between changes in air, soil, plant, and wild animal distribution, abundance, and occurrence, including diseases in this milieu. Farmers perceive climate change as one of the underlying driving forces that has inflicted more human–wildlife conflict as a consequence of the shift in altitudinal range and population growth of some mammals and birds. Similarly, rising temperatures were perceived and observed to facilitate the growth of abundant, palatable plants for wild ungulates, which resulted in increased crop depredation in the last decade. The study that [24] carried out best supports these perceptions of farmers, where the warming trend apparently influences the succession rate of forests, accelerating the growth of abundant forage for wild ungulates. Sambar (Rusa unicolor), muntjac (Muntiacus muntjak), and wild pig (Sus scrofa) were reported taking refuge along the forest edges adjacent to agricultural fields and close to human settlements due to overwhelming pressure from predators in the forest. According to farmers, these wild ungulates were seen to depredate agricultural crops opportunistically. Earlier studies [16,25] revealed that evidence of herbivorous muntjac and sambar and their predators, tigers and leopards, was found more often in fallow shifting cultivation fields and seasonal grazing forest land than in adjacent dense forest. Also, larger numbers and occurrences of wild pigs and muntjac were found along the valleys nearer to agricultural settlements, which enabled the prediction of higher densities of wild pigs and muntjacs at low elevations near agricultural fields and planted conifer habitats in and around human habitations [25,26]. The wild animals most responsible for crop damage across the two BCs in the study area were wild pigs, followed by sambar and muntjac (Figure 4). In the case of Lhunste farmers in BC 07, sambar deer were the ungulates mostly at fault for crop damage, followed by muntjac, rodents, and wild pigs, while farmers from Trongsa and Bumthang in BC 08 reported wild pigs as being mostly responsible for crop damage, followed by muntjac, sambar, and rodents. These wild animals raided almost all crops as well, including paddy, maize, millet, wheat, mustard, and vegetables. Among several rodents, the porcupine was reported to be more destructive to crops across the two BCs.
Bhutan’s climate modeling indicates the northward movement of wildlife due to the direction in which habitat quality is changing accordingly [24], thus expanding a suitable habitat for wild animals that prefer warm environmental conditions. In this connection, abundant forage and pastures for grazing animals have resulted from climate change affecting vegetation changes in temperate forests, which has resulted in wild ungulate population growth, which is the prey for many large mammal predators. But these same mammal predators often prey upon livestock, according to the farmers’ observations across the two BCs, and as wildlife ecologists, we know this to be factual. Out of four top predators, such as tiger (Panthera tigris), leopard (Panthera pardus), wild dog (Cuon alpinus), and Himalayan black bear (Ursus thibetanus) [27], it was wild dogs that were mostly responsible for livestock predation in the case of Wangdue farmers, while leopards and tigers were secondary predators for them. In the case of Lhuntse farmers, wild dogs were the most active predators, followed by leopards, both of which were higher-order predators in the food chain that commonly preyed on cattle and equines. Significant losses of cattle to tigers were reported from Trongsa and Wangdue in BC 08. Farmers in Bumthang also reported losses of caprine to Himalayan black bears, while the leopard was considered a secondary predator. Overall, wild dogs were responsible for 54% of the livestock losses, followed by leopards at 26% across the two BCs (Figure 4). In the last ten years, the tiger, although not reported from BC 07, was responsible for 24% of the loss of livestock that mainly included cattle and equines, according to reports from farmers in BC 08 (Figure 4).
3.4. Climate Change Adaptation Strategy
Climate change impacts on farmers at higher elevations were observed to have positive effects. Ref. [22] found that cardamom, citrus, and vegetables, usually suitable for growing in sub-tropical areas, are now commonly grown in warm temperate agroecological zones. About 51% of the respondents reported a change in agricultural cropping patterns and seasons in the last 10 years. Farmers in Bumthang, who erstwhile cultivated wheat and barley at higher elevations, are reported to have switched over to vegetable cultivation such as chili, cabbage, broccoli, asparagus, and paddy (rice) in the face of increasing annual temperatures. The government’s agriculture extension office supplied and promoted the planting of seeds for these agricultural crops due to variations in seasons across the two BCs. To overcome the pest and disease outbreak in agriculture crops, some farmers in Trongsa switched over to horticulture and the cultivation of asparagus and mushrooms over paddy cultivation. On the flip side, 30% of respondents in the study area reported that agriculture cropping has not changed for them in the last ten years. It was reported that terracing, planting hedges, and planting fodder trees on steep slopes were specific changes made to practices in an effort to combat landslides.
Farmers living above 2600 m and dependent on subsistence livestock farming systems in BC 08 reported that, concurrently, with rising temperatures, they are switching to improved cattle breeds such as the Jersey and Brown Swiss in place of yaks and local cattle. They asserted that exotic breeds are doing well in terms of health and milk production compared with local breeds. Improved pasture lands were established, and cattle were tethered instead of free-range grazing in the forests; thus, the risk of losing them to predators was minimized.
4. Conclusions and Policy Implications
Despite Bhutan’s commitment to be carbon neutral, a tide of climate change effects seemed to arise from two populous countries, China and India, affecting farmers in Bhutan owing to its location. Climate change in Bhutan’s Biological Corridors 07 and 08 is a reality, as farmers have reported, and is associated with the losses they are going through—loss of houses, land, agriculture, and livestock—all of which can be attributed to climate change impacts. As agriculture is an integral component of the livelihoods of rural populations in Bhutan, it is imperative that special attention be paid from a policy perspective in order to combat the consequences of climate change.
To combat climate change’s adverse effects and enhance food security for biological corridor farmers, policymakers must prioritize devising mitigation and adaptation strategies. Collaboration with global organizations for climate-smart agriculture expertise is essential. Urgent investment in national capacity—infrastructure, skills, and technology—is crucial. Empirical research, backed by monitoring and extension services, is vital for policymaker support and NGO engagement. Given the northward habitat shift and species movement in Bhutan due to climate change, a comprehensive long-term study is imperative to formulate an effective national human–wildlife conflict management strategy, fostering coexistence between wildlife and farmers.
U.N.: survey designing, data collection, data sorting, entry, analysis and writing original draft manuscript, fund seeking and management. S.D.: Survey designing, data analysis and interpretation, writing original manuscript, fund seeking. W.-K.L.: Survey designing, data interpretation, and writing the manuscript and edition. S.W.W.: Survey designing, data validation, edition and corresponding author. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Approval of Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Royal Government of Bhutan was obtained for this study.
On the body of approval of Royal government of Bhutan, subsequent local government’s approval was accorded to conduct questionnaire survey with local people who participated voluntarily. Royal Government of Bhutan’s approval was obtained for this study.
Raw data are available with first author and ready for submission.
The authors would like to thank the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2021R1A6A1A10045235) and the OJEong Resilience Institute at Korea University for supporting this study.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Map showing study areas in the northern biological corridors of Bhutan.
Climatic and agricultural details of agroecological zones.
| Crops and Livestock | Sub-District (Gewogs) | Agroecological Zones | Mean Annual Rainfall (mm) | Mean Annual Temp. (°C) | Altitude Range (m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yak, buckwheat | Sephu, Gangtey, Phobji, Kazhi Chumey, Chokhor, | Alpine | <650 | 5.5 | 3600–7500 |
| Yak, buckwheat, wheat, cattle, horse, sheep, potato, vegetable, | Sephu, Gangtey, Phobji, Kazhi, Nyisho, Dangchu, Athang, Bjenag, Chumey, Chokhor | Cool temperate | 650–850 | 9.9 | 2600–3600 |
| Vegetable, potato, cattle, horse, pulse, fruit, buckwheat, wheat | Nubi, Tangsibji, Langthil, Kazhi, Dangchu, Nyisho, Athang, Bjenag, Minjay, Menbi, Gangzur, Khoma | Warm temperate | 650–850 | 12.5 | 1800–2600 |
| Maize, paddy, vegetable, potato, pulse, fruit, local cattle, exotic cattle (Jersey), horse, poultry, piggery | Nubi, Tangsibji, Langthil, Dangchu, Nyisho, Athang, Bjenag, Minjay, Menbi, Gangzur, Khoma | Dry sub-tropical | 850–1200 | 17.2 | 1200–1800 |
| Minjay, Menbi, Khoma, Gangzur, Bjenag, Nubi, Tangsibji, Langthil | Humid sub-tropical | 1200–2500 | 19.5 | 600–1200 |
Source: MoAF, 2015.
Definition of the three levels of impact intensities.
| Category of Impact Intensity | Definition |
|---|---|
| Severe impact | Severe impact is defined as loss/damage of properties or lives within the specified range in the last ten year: human lives (1 people and above), agriculture crop damage (2.1–5 acres or more), house damage (completely demolished), and livestock loss (3–5 heads/more), land washed away in floods (2.1 acres or more). |
| Moderate impact | Moderate impact is defined as loss/damage of properties excluding human life within the specified range in the last ten year: agriculture crop damage (1–2 acres), house damage by flood (partially or 50% demolished), livestock loss (1–2 heads), land washed away in floods (1–2 acres). |
| Low impact | Low impact is defined as loss/damage of properties excluding human life within the specified range in the last ten year: agriculture crop damage (less than 1 acre), house damage (1/3 demolished), livestock loss (1 head), land washed away in floods (less than 1 acre). |
References
1. Dumenu, W.K.; Obeng, E.A. Climate change and rural communities in Ghana: Social vulnerability, impacts, adaptations and policy implications. Environ. Sci. Policy; 2015; 55, pp. 208-217. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.10.010]
2. IPCC. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001; 1032.
3. IPCC. International Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
4. Beaumont, L.J.; Pitman, A.; Perkins, S.; Zimmermann, N.E.; Yoccoz, N.G.; Thuiller, W. Impacts of Climate Change on the world’s most exceptional ecoregions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA; 2011; 108, pp. 2306-2311. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007217108] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21262825]
5. Dinar, A.; Hassan, R.; Mendelsohn, R.; Benhin, J. Climate Change and Agriculture in Africa: Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies; Earthscan: London, UK, 2008; pp. 100-106.
6. McCarthy, J.; Canziani, O.F.; Leary, N.A.; Dokken, D.J.; White, C. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001.
7. Chogyel, N.; Kumar, L. Climate change and potential impacts on agriculture in Bhutan: A discussion of pertinent issues. Agric. Food Secur.; 2018; 7, 79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40066-018-0229-6]
8. Pearce, D.; Cline, W.; Achanta, A.; Fankhauser, S.; Pachauri, R.; Tol, R.; Vellinga, P. The social costs of climate change: Greenhouse damage and benefits of control. Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change; Bruce, J.; Lee, H.; Haites, E. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1996.
9. McClean, C.J.; Lovett, J.C.; Küper, W. Hannah. L.; Sommer, J.H.; Barthlott, W.; Termansen, M.; Smith, G.F.; Tokumine, S.; Taplin, J. African Plant Diversity and Climate Change. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard.; 2005; 92, pp. 139-152.
10. Worboys, G.L. Large scale connectivity conservation in mountains: A critical response to climate change. 2008. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Protected Area Management and Biodiversity Conservation, East Asia; Taipei, Taiwan, 2–3 September 2008.
11. Hickling, R.; Roy, D.B.; Hill, J.K.; Fox, R.; Thomas, C.D. The distribution of taxonomic groups are expanding pole wards. Glob. Chang. Biol.; 2006; 12, pp. 450-455. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01116.x]
12. NEC. Bhutan State of the Environment; National Environment Commission, Royal Government Bhutan: Thimphu, Bhutan, 2016; ISBN 978-99936-865-5-2
13. Pandit, M.K.; Sodhi, N.S.; Koh, L.P.; Bhaskar, A.; Brook, B.W. Unreported yet massive deforestation driving loss of endemic biodiversity in Indian Himalaya. Biodivers. Conserv.; 2007; 16, pp. 153-163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9038-5]
14. RGoB. Report on the Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity and Livelihood in Toorsa Strict Nature Reserve—Jigme Dorji National Park Northern Biological Corridor; Department of Forests and Park Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests: Thimphu, Bhutan, 2011.
15. RGoB. Forests and Nature Conservation Rules and Regulations; Department of Forests and Park Services, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests: Thimphu, Bhutan, 2017.
16. RGoB. Forest and Nature Conservation Act; Department of Forests Services, Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan: Thimphu, Bhutan, 1995.
17. NSB. National Statistics Bureau, Royal Government of Bhutan. 2022; Available online: https:www.nsb.gov.bt/bhutan-interactive-data-portal/population (accessed on 3 April 2023).
18. Namgyel, U.; Siebert, S.F.; Belsky, J.M. Participation and Governance Challenges along the Nabji Community-Based Ecotourism Trail in Bhutan; Bhutan Ecological Society, Royal Government of Bhutan: Thimphu, Bhutan, 2014.
19. Nyaupane, G.P.; Thapa, B. Perceptions of Environmental Impacts of Tourism: A Case Study at ACAP, Nepal. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol.; 2006; 13, pp. 51-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504500609469661]
20. UNDP. Bhutan Vulnerability Baseline Assessment; UNDP: Thimphu, Bhutan, 2016.
21. MoAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Forests). Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Bhutan; Department of Forests and Park Services, Ministry of Agriculture & Forests, Royal Government of Bhutan: Thimphu, Bhutan, 2017.
22. Kemausuor, F.; Dwamena, E.; Bart-Plange, A.; Kyie-Baffour, N. Farmers’ perception of climate change in the Ejura-Sekyedumase district of Ghana. ARPN J. Agric. Biol. Sci.; 2011; 6, pp. 26-37.
23. Funk, C.; Dettinger, M.D.; Michaelsen, J.C.; Verdin, J.P.; Brown, M.E.; Barlow, M.; Hoell, A. Warming of the Indian Ocean threatens eastern and southern African food security but could be mitigated by agricultural development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.; 2008; 105, pp. 11081-11086. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0708196105] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18685101]
24. Tenzin, J.; Phuntsho, L.; Lakey, L. Climate smart agriculture: Adaptation & mitigation strategies to climate change in Bhutan. Climate Smart Agriculture: Strategies to Respond to Climate Change; Shrestha, R.B.; Boktiar, S. SAARC Agriculture Centre: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2019; pp. 37-61.
25. DoA. Agriculture Statistics 2015; Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Royal Government of Bhutan: Thimphu, Bhutan, 2015.
26. Lhendup, P.; Wikramanayake, E.; Freeman, S.; Sindorf, N.; Gyeltshen, K.; Forrest, J. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment of Wangchuck Centennial Park, Bhutan; World Wildlife Fund (WWF): Wangchuck Centennial Park (WCP): Thimphu, Bhutan, 2011.
27. Wang, S.W.; Macdonald, D.W. Livestock predation by carnivores in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Biol. Conserv.; 2006; 129, pp. 558-565. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.024]
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Woo-Kyun, Lee 3
; Wang, Sonam Wangyel 4 1 Department of Forests and Park Services, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu 11001, Bhutan;
2 Department of Forests and Park Services, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu 11001, Bhutan;
3 Division of Environmental and Ecological Science, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea;
4 OJeong Resilience Institute, Division of Environmental Science and Ecological Engineering, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Republic of Korea