district, nw nepal solar greenhouse technology for food...

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, researchlibraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

Solar Greenhouse Technology for Food Security: A Case Study From HumlaDistrict, NW NepalAuthor(s): Robert Fuller and Alex ZahndSource: Mountain Research and Development, 32(4):411-419. 2012.Published By: International Mountain SocietyDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-12-00057.1URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-12-00057.1

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, andenvironmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books publishedby nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance ofBioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiriesor rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-12-00057.1

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-12-00057.1

http://www.bioone.org

http://www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use

Solar Greenhouse Technology for Food Security:A Case Study From Humla District, NW NepalRobert Fuller1* and Alex Zahnd2

*Corresponding author: [email protected] School of Architecture and Building, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3217, Australia2 RIDS-Nepal Project Director and Murdoch University, Perth, Australia; Visiting Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, KathmanduUniversity, Nepal

Open access article: please credit the authors and the full source.

Food security is a

significant issue for many

people who live in remote

mountain areas around

the world. Most of these

people are also poor

because of the lack of

opportunity to earn cash.

Malnutrition is common

because the harsh climate

restricts production and access to fresh food. Simple

conventional greenhouses can provide some improvement of

growing conditions, but the benefits are limited because of the

high heat losses from these structures. Solar greenhouses,

however, which are designed to store some of the heat

generated within the structure can overcome these limitations.

This article describes the experiences of a nongovernmental

organization that has been introducing community and family-

owned solar greenhouses into the remote villages of Humla, a

mountainous district of northwest Nepal prone to food

insecurity. The overall result has been positive. Family-owned

greenhouses, which avoid the issues of community ownership

and operation, have been more successful. A validated

computer model based on the first solar greenhouse has been

used to predict the thermal performance of a new family-sized

design. Training and education are vital to the success of solar

greenhouse technology in remote mountain areas.

Keywords: Greenhouse; mountains; solar energy; food

security; northwest Nepal.

Peer-reviewed: August 2012 Accepted: September 2012

Introduction

The 2011 Report of the Secretary General to the UnitedNations (UN) Assembly acknowledges that many of theworld’s most impoverished people live in mountainregions and that they are particularly vulnerable to foodshortages (UN 2011). Food security is defined as having‘‘the physical, social and economic access to sufficient,safe and nutritious food at all times to meet the dietaryneeds and food preferences for an active and healthy life’’(FAO 2003: 28). One of the UN Assembly Report’srecommendations is that strategies and programs forfood security in mountain areas be elaborated to protectthese vulnerable people from the effects of rising foodprices and shortages caused by various factors, such asclimate change, water shortages, loss of ecosystems, andother environmental degradation. Solar greenhouses, thatis, greenhouses that have been designed to maximize theentry and storage of solar energy, have been shown to be aviable technology for mountain regions, capable ofextending food growing seasons, and even to permit year-round cropping, for example, in Bolivia (BAFI 2002) andTibet (TVP 2012).

This article describes the experiences of solargreenhouse technology in the mountainous district ofHumla, located between 29u359 and 30u709N; 81u189 and82u109E in northwest Nepal. This article initially

reiterates the nexus between food shortage, health, andpoverty, and then outlines the social and climaticconditions of Humla. The experiences with solargreenhouse technology in Humla are then described,illustrating the technical, economic, and social factorsthat can influence the success or failure of thistechnology.

Food security, health, and poverty

The links between food shortages, impoverishment, andmalnutrition have been established for some time (WorldBank 1986). The connection between poverty andextreme hunger was also emphasized by the MillenniumDevelopment Goals. Despite a reduction in poverty overthe past 20 years, the UN acknowledges that progress inrelieving food deprivation has either slowed or stalled inmany regions (UN 2012). This shortfall is reflected, forexample, in the proportion of children under 5 years oldwho are underweight, which—although now lower—stillremains at 18% in developing regions. Insufficient foodleads to low energy levels, which, in turn, translates intoan inability to work for the hours and/or at the intensityrequired for an active life, for example, to raise a family,grow food, tend animals, collect firewood, and earnmoney. The areas of the world that have the lowest levelsof labor productivity are also those with the highest

MountainDevelopmentTransformation knowledge

Mountain Research and Development (MRD)An international, peer-reviewed open access journalpublished by the International Mountain Society (IMS)www.mrd-journal.org

Mountain Research and Development Vol 32 No 4 Nov 2012: 411–419 http://dx.doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-12-00057.1 � 2012 by the authors411

proportion of people who are undernourished (UN 2012).Malnutrition from inadequate food is particularlyinsidious. Often called the ‘‘hidden hunger,’’ it ‘‘afflicts afar greater swath of humanity than insufficient calorieintake’’ (Cohen et al 2008: 14). Deficiencies in vitaminsand minerals can result in a susceptibility to disease andinfection, mental impairment, and subnormal growth. Forexample, according to Black et al (2008), maternal andchild undernutrition is the underlying cause for 3.5million deaths and 35% of the disease burden in childrenunder 5 years old.

Humla

Humla is a district of northwest Nepal adjacent to theborder with the Tibet Autonomous Region, which coversan area of 5655 km2 at elevations between 1524 and7031 m. Shown in Table 1 are some of the key climatic,demographic, and socioeconomic data for the district;and the typical houses and terrain of Humla areillustrated in Figure 1. Due to the climate, fresh foodproduction outside is limited to just 3–4 months duringthe year, and this has direct consequences on the healthand diet of the Humli people. For example, a survey byEmeriau (2006) found that global acute and chronicmalnutrition rates were 12.3% and 63.9% in the childrenof Humla. Candy (2009) has analyzed the average percapita daily nutritional intake for a typical 5-personHumli family in terms of some key minerals and vitamins(Figure 2). In all cases, the daily intake is well below therecommended dietary intake.

It is not coincidental that Humla has been judged tobe one of the poorest districts of Nepal. Of 75 districts

and when using a ranking of 1 (best) to 75 (worst), Humlawas ranked at 73rd position in terms of poverty anddeprivation (HDI 2012 [2003]). According to Roy et al(2009: 214), the livelihoods of Humli people have‘‘remained unchanged or actually worsened despite 3decades of project support by various donor agencies… ’’This stark reality led those researchers to develop theconcept of the ‘‘Humla Development Initiatives,’’ whichaims to reduce the dependency of the Humli people onexternal support by developing local resources. The mainfocus of the ‘‘Humla Development Initiatives’’ is foodsecurity.

Solar greenhouses in remote mountain areas

Greenhouses of all types are being used in remotemountain areas for crop protection, season extension,seedling production, and growth promotion. Most ofthese are basic constructions, similar to the plastic-covered tunnel structures used in temperate climates butoften using local materials such as bamboo for the frame(Nieuhys 2003). The increased use of these greenhouses toimprove dietary intake and even to provide early seasonvegetables for sale in the high mountain areas of northernIndia has been observed by Dame and Nusser (2011).

Solar greenhouses, however, are much less common.These are structures designed to maximize the entry andstorage of solar energy to moderate excessivetemperature swings, particularly through the use ofthermal mass and night-time insulation. Solargreenhouses are being successfully demonstrated anddisseminated in the cold regions of Asia. Thenongovernmental organization (NGO) GERES-India hasdeveloped a solar greenhouse design that has proved to beparticularly successful for vegetable production inLadakh, India (Triquet undated). The basic greenhouse is4.5-m wide and 9.7-m long. The south-facing wall is glazedwith ultraviolet (UV) resistant polyethylene sheets. It iscovered at night with straw mats to retain the heat withinthe structure. In summer, glazing panels can be removedto exhaust excess heat through vents in the walls, whichare made from 2 layers of mud brick and a straw-filledcavity to reduce heat losses. The rear and west-facing wallsare painted black to increase the heat absorption. Theroof is constructed of native willow and poplar logs.Although individual results vary, the performance of thegreenhouses has extended the growing season by aminimum of 4 months, with vegetables such as spinach,coriander, and carrot being cultivated in the winterseason. Inside the greenhouse, even when outsidetemperatures reach 220.0uC, the internal air temperaturehas been maintained above freezing (Mansouri andGuinebault 2005). An economic evaluation of these solargreenhouses indicated that it was possible to earn US$ 50a month for 2 hours of work per day from the sale of

TABLE 1 Climatic, demographic and socioeconomic data for Humla. PPP,purchasing power parity. (Sources: 1Fuller et al 2009; 2Government of Nepal2011; 3UNDP 2004).

Climatic1

Mean solar radiation (MJ/d/m2) 15.9

Mean monthly maximum temperature (6C) 18.6

Mean monthly minimum temperature (6C) 6.7

Demographic2

Population 51,008

Population density (person/km2) 9

Number of households 9494

Socioeconomic3

Life expectancy (y) 58.4

Adult literacy (%) 19.6

Income (PPP US$) 1014

Clean water access (%) 35.8

MountainDevelopment

Mountain Research and Development http://dx.doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-12-00057.1412

vegetables. More than 600 GERES-style greenhouses havebeen built around the world (solargreenhouse.org).

Solar greenhouses in Humla

RIDS-Nepal is an NGO that has been working in theHumla district since 2002 guided by a model of holisticcommunity development. It now has multiple projects in13 villages (RIDS-Nepal 2012). Requests from villagersthemselves are the basis for project selection, and thecontribution of villages depends on the project. Generallabor and local materials are supplied by villagers. Mostimported materials are beyond their financial capacityand thus highly subsidized.

Before a project is implemented, a baseline survey inthe village is conducted. Its core program is the ‘‘Family of4’’ in which basic indoor lighting systems (powered byrenewable energy), smokeless metal stoves, pit latrines,and improved water supply are seen as complementarytechnologies. The success of this program has prompted

FIGURE 1 Typical Humli houses and terrain. (Photo by Zahnd 2007)

FIGURE 2 Daily nutritional intake for a Humli family in winter as percentage ofthe recommended dietary intake (RDI). (Source: adapted from Candy 2009)

MountainDevelopment


its expansion to the ‘‘Family of 4 PLUS,’’ which includeshealth and food supply initiatives. As part of the latter,RIDS-Nepal has constructed a number of greenhouses inHumla. Their first greenhouse, built in 2004, is located attheir High Altitude Research Station (HARS) in Simikot,the main town of Humla (3000 m altitude).

The HARS greenhouse has been built predominatelyfrom local materials; the walls are constructed from stoneand mud, and the timber roof frame is sourced fromlocally prepared beams, which are supported by verticalposts. The double layer UV-stabilized polyethyleneglazing material, however, was imported from India. Theoverall size of the greenhouse is 10 m by 5 m, with a south-facing roof with a 15u slope (Figure 3). This inclinationwas dictated by the site and proved to be inadequate toshed snow, which damaged both the glazing and roofframe of the greenhouse.

Apart from this limitation, night-time internaltemperatures were found to be too low (,5uC) in wintermainly due to infiltration and lack of insulation. Overlylarge stone walls were also costly. Day-time temperatureswere conversely often too high (.30uC) in summer due toa lack of ventilation openings. In response, a second solargreenhouse was built by RIDS-Nepal at their field stationat Dharapori (2400 m altitude) in 2008 (Figure 4). Thegreenhouse was based on the GERES design, althoughwith some adaptation; double-layer rock walls with aninsulated cavity were substituted for the mud bricks usedin Ladakh. Corner flaps on the front face of thegreenhouse and rear roof ventilators are opened to avoidoverheating.

Although this greenhouse performs satisfactorily, itssize and cost are considered too great for a single Humlifamily. There is also scope to improve its thermalperformance. These factors have prompted the

development of a revised design that is more suitable for asingle family. The plan view and E-W section of thegreenhouse are shown in Figure 5. The final size of thegreenhouse is 6.6 3 4.5 m with a practical growing area ofapproximately 18 m2.

Instead of double stone walls with insulation betweenthe stone layers, only one layer of stone is used on theinside. Insulation is contained by half-round timbers. Thisconstruction method is intended to speed up the buildingprocess and reduce costs. The inner layer of stone stillacts as thermal mass to absorb incident solar radiationand reduce excessive temperatures swings. The smallerstructure also has reduced loads on the walls and the rooftimber spans are also smaller. Hinged insulated panels onthe south-facing wall are used to reduce heat losses atnight from the lower glazed section. This strategy hasbeen successfully used to prevent the freezing of solarwater collectors in Simikot (Zahnd and Malla 2006). Aninternal thermal blanket is drawn over the upper glazingpanels to complete the insulation process at night.Although yet to be constructed, the thermal performanceof the family-sized greenhouse has been evaluated withthe validated simulation model used to evaluate the HARSgreenhouse, offering a significant potential improvementin the growing conditions in the smaller greenhouse (seeTechnical Performance below).

Technical performance

Fuller et al (2009) measured various indicators of thethermal performance of the HARS greenhouse in thewinter months (November 2006 to March 2007) and thenused some of these data to validate a simulation model ofthe greenhouse. Measured hourly values of greenhousesoil temperature, internal air temperature, and relativehumidity were compared with model predictions, based

FIGURE 3 External view of HARS Greenhouse. (Photo by Zahnd 2007)

MountainDevelopment


on measured hourly climatic data for 1 week inNovember. The validated model was then used toinvestigate options to improve the thermal performanceof the greenhouse. The measurements showed that, in midJanuary during the night time, the subsurface soiltemperatures within the greenhouse were approximately7–9uC warmer than at a similar soil level outside. At600 mm below the surface, the soil temperature in thegreenhouse did not fall below 10.3uC. Air temperatureswithin the greenhouse in mid January were approximately7.5uC above the outside air temperature. Although notideal, the measurements over the winter monthsindicated that the growing conditions were certainlysuitable for some vegetable crops such as spinach, carrots,and beans.

The simulation model (TRNSYS) was used toinvestigate what improvements in growing conditionscould be made with some simple energy conservationstrategies. These were the following: the installation of a

night-screen (or thermal blanket), improved wallinsulation, and water-filled tubes (or solar sleeves) placedon the ground between crop rows. Individually, each ofthese strategies was found to raise the internal airtemperature of the greenhouse and, when used incombination, the minimum overnight greenhouse airtemperature was raised by 7.1uC. The averagegreenhouse air temperature between 6 PM and 6 AM waspredicted to be 15.5uC during the week investigated (16–22 November). Although this was not the coldest partof the winter, the improvements in internal airtemperatures are indicative of what might be achieved inother months.

As mentioned above, the same simulation model wasused to investigate the thermal performance of thesmaller family-sized greenhouse shown in Figure 5. Directcomparison with the measured performance of the HARSgreenhouse in November indicated that the overnightaverage temperature would be 2.4uC warmer in the

FIGURE 4 GERES-style greenhouse at Dharapori. (Photo by Fuller 2008)

MountainDevelopment


family-sized greenhouse. Predictions of the thermalperformance of this solar greenhouse have also beenmade on a monthly basis. Maximum and minimumtemperatures were predicted by using hourly climaticdata (solar radiation and ambient temperatures),generated for Simikot by using NASA satellite data(Sawyer and Fuller 2012).

Despite the elevations at which these greenhouses areconstructed, overheating can occur if there is inadequateventilation. This problem is particularly likely to occur insmall greenhouses. Individual strategies to improve theminimum overnight temperatures were investigated,

including reducing infiltration by supersealing, the use ofan internal night screen, and the use of externalinsulation shutters. Average overnight temperaturesbetween 5 PM and 7 AM were raised to 16.1uC when allthese strategies were combined. Similarly, strategies toreduce overheating, that is, 30% shading and increasedventilation (3 air changes per hour) were investigatedseparately and in combination. In the latter case,maximum daytime internal air temperatures of 31.5uC insummer were predicted. These simulations indicate thatgood growing conditions could be expected in the smallfamily-sized greenhouse.

FIGURE 5 Floor plan (A) and East–West section (B) of proposed family-sized greenhouse. (Design by Sawyer and Fuller 2012)

MountainDevelopment


In addition to the thermal conditions in thegreenhouse, there are several other technical issues thatneed to be considered when promoting greenhouses. Oneis their need for water because the lack of a reliable andeasily accessible source of water has been found to be oneof the reasons that a greenhouse may not live up to itspotential or even fail completely. Although annualaverage rainfall in Simikot is approximately 800 mm(DHM 2012), piped supply in Humli villages is virtuallynonexistent, and accessing water usually involves carryingit in containers. Therefore, a water supply system iscrucial to make greenhouses sustainable and successful inthe long term.

RIDS-Nepal has found that its ‘‘Family of 4’’ strategy, ofwhich the water supply is an integral part, thereforefacilitates and complements the introduction ofgreenhouses. Good seeds and soil are obviously alsoessential for the long-term success of a greenhouse. Lastyear, RIDS-Nepal witnessed the effect of severalgreenhouses when using poor-quality seeds. The crop didnot turn out to be as good as it could have been andmeans that some investigation by the promoting NGO isneeded to ensure that robust and appropriate seeds andseedlings are used. Soil fertility must also be monitored,and the new users need to be educated about maintaininggood soil conditions through composting.

Economic evaluation

Although measurements and computer simulation enablea technical evaluation of prototype greenhouses,economic and social evaluations present a far greaterchallenge. Humla has no roads, and, therefore, villagescan be accessed only on foot. Field visits involve walkingfor hours, or even days, on rocky mountain tracks.Meetings (community or individual) must be arranged onarrival because they cannot be set up in advance due tothe lack of electronic communications. Overnight staysare usually mandatory as a result. Due to these difficultconditions, it was not possible to conduct an in-depth andsystematic socioeconomic evaluation. However, some ofthe processes and challenges of introducing newtechnologies in Humla have been described by McKayet al (2007).

An economic evaluation of greenhouses in these areasis also difficult because of the lack of data and an accuratepicture of alternatives, and because the rules ofconventional financial accounting do not hold in societieswhere there is only a small reliance on cash for day-to-dayliving. When using 2012 data from Simikot, however,some indication of the financial viability of a small family-sized greenhouse can be demonstrated. In winter, freshvegetables, when they are available and can be delivered,are air freighted to Simikot from the southern town ofNepalgunj near the Indian border. The price of vegetablessuch as cauliflower, carrots, beans, onions, garlic, andtomatoes ranges from 150–350 NRs (1 US$ = 85 NRs as of

9 June 2012) per kg, whereas spices such as ginger andgarlic are 2–3 times these prices.

Most of the components for a family-sized greenhouseare locally sourced and often can be obtained for little orno cost except for family labor. The skills (masonry andcarpentry) required for construction are both availablelocally. The main component that must be imported tothese regions is the UV-stabilized polyethylene. Thecurrent cost of the material used by RIDS-Nepal is 83 NRsper m2. The cost of road transport to Nepalgunj and airfreight to Simikot is 135 NRs per kg. Delivery to villages isby animal or porter and is usually part of the villagers’voluntary participation. The material is UV stabilized,strong (120 g/m2), and can last 6 years. A small family-sizedgreenhouse of the type shown in Figure 5 would useapproximately 55 m2 of polyethylene, which costsapproximately 5456 NRs (,65 US$).

Vegetable output (kg) will vary, dependent on amultitude of factors. However, these figures indicate that anoutput of only 5–6 kg per year is required to achieve apayback of 4 years, similar to the greenhouses in Ladakh(Triquet undated). In the HARS solar greenhouse in Simikot,experience has shown that more than 80 kg of vegetables canbe harvested each year. It is therefore estimated that a well-kept and well-managed family-sized greenhouse in a villageshould be able to produce 30–40 kg per annum. The socialbenefits of improved health and food security wouldimprove the economic viability of the investment.

Community acceptance

RIDS-Nepal has built 42 greenhouses in 10 villages ofHumla over the past 7 years. Another six wereconstructed in one village in Jumla, a neighboring district.Approximately 25 of these are estimated to be stilloperating as intended. Another NGO has built some 20more greenhouses based on the Dharapori design in 4villages in the upper Humla region. Most (36) of the RIDS-Nepal greenhouses have been for individual use, theremainder being for community use with up to 10 familiesper community greenhouse. Due to the difficulties ofconducting surveys in Humla, the following evaluation isbased on the authors’ collected anecdotal data andobservations in the villages, rather than a comprehensivesurvey of users.

A community greenhouse, as expected, is much harder toestablish and keep functioning well, compared with a familyunit. The mutual trust required to operate and to harvestfrom the greenhouse is significant. It therefore usually takessome time for a community greenhouse project to besuccessful. If the tasks and benefits are not equallydistributed, this will cause social tension and ultimately maylead either to the collapse of the project or result in only oneperson doing all the work and receiving the benefits. Thiswas the outcome of one community greenhouse project inthe village of Sata. In general, therefore, individually ownedand managed greenhouses work better in Humla. However,

MountainDevelopment


despite this observation, some individual families have alsofailed to recognize the long-term benefits and theirgreenhouse has not been successful.

In Humla, it has also been observed that sometimesthere is a relative lack of enthusiasm for a greenhouseproject in the first year of operation. For example, inChala village (located at 3800 m altitude) vegetables arenever seen during the cold winter season. However, afterthe first winter when some vegetables were availablefrom the greenhouse, the villagers were much moreenthusiastic. Thus, after the first winter experience with2 greenhouses, the local people asked for more, andanother NGO has now built a further 8 greenhouses.This illustrates that the initial hurdle of ‘‘disbelief,’’ andat times hesitation and/or fear of new inventions, hasfirst to be overcome by results and once villagers haveseen and eaten the produce, their motivation andenthusiasm is much greater. In this example, the secondbatch of greenhouses is already operating moresuccessfully than the first 2 greenhouses did initially. It isimportant that attention is given to factors such asmotivation, enthusiasm, the fear and/or hesitation aboutnew developments, and more technical issues ifgreenhouse technology is to be implementedsuccessfully.

A long-term follow-up program to ensure that thegreenhouse structure and the soil fertility are maintainedis also vital to maintain user satisfaction. As mentioned,the ‘‘Family of 4 PLUS’’ program of RIDS-Nepal includesnonformal education and nutrition classes. These arebased on the projects being implemented to ensure thattheir benefits are maximized.

Conclusion

Solar greenhouses for community or family use offer areal prospect for improved food security and nutrition,and, in some cases, income generation, for people livingin remote mountain areas. The overall outcome ofintroducing solar greenhouses into the isolated villages ofHumla, a district of northwest Nepal, confirms the resultsof other programs promoting this technology to peopleliving in the mountainous regions of the developingworld. Solar greenhouses can be financially viable,assuming most of the materials can be obtained free ofcharge or at very low cost, and the greenhouse is built inpartnership with the owner or the community.

Although community-owned solar greenhouses canwork successfully, the experience in Humla has been thatfamily-owned greenhouses are more likely to succeedbecause some of the problems associated with communityownership and operation are avoided. Appropriate andimproved designs can be informed by computer modelingto predict general growing conditions in both winter andsummer. Introducing solar greenhouse technologyrequires education, training, and long-term follow-upvisits, and ideally should be part of a holistic approach tocommunity development. When this is done properly,experience has shown that the owners of solar greenhousesare enthusiastic about the technology. One of the UNAssembly Report’s recommendations was that strategiesand programs be developed to enhance the food security ofvulnerable mountain people. Solar greenhouses should bean integral part of such programs and be activelypromoted in these regions by policy-makers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to Don Cullen of The Tibetan Village Project Australia for sharing hisexperiences and information about greenhouses built and operating in Tibetanvillages. Alex Zahnd acknowledges the support of Murdoch University via anoverseas PhD scholarship for some of the work presented in this article.

REFERENCES

BAFI [Benson Agriculture & Food Institute]. 2002. Walipini Construction (TheUnderground Greenhouse). Provo, UT: Benson Agriculture & Food InstitutePublication, Brigham Young University.Black RE, Allen LH, Bhutta ZA, de Onis M, Mathers C, Rivera J. 2008.Maternal and child undernutrition: Global and regional exposures and healthconsequences. The Lancet 371:243–260.Candy S. 2009. Solar technology and food security in remote regions of Nepal.University of Melbourne, Civil and Environmental Engineering PostgraduateConference. http://people.eng.unimelb.edu.au/lua/Candy_Seona_Proc.pdf;accessed on 31 May 2012.Cohen MJ, Tirado C, Aberman N-L, Thompson B. 2008. Impact of ClimateChange and Bioenergy on Nutrition. Rome, Italy: International Food PolicyResearch Institute, Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).Dame J, Nusser M. 2011. Food security in high mountain regions: Agriculturalproduction and the impact of food subsidies in Ladakh, Northern India. FoodSecurity 3(2):179–194.DHM [Department of Hydrology and Meteorology]. 2012. Department ofHydrology and Meteorology. Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology,

Government of Nepal. http://www.dhm.gov.np/dpc/; accessed on 21September 2012.Emeriau S. 2006. Nutritional Exploratory Mission. Humla and Mugu Districts.21st February to 10th March, 2006. [No place]: Action Contre La Faim (ACF)International Network. http://www.un.org.np/node/10462; accessed on 21September 2012.FAO [Food and Agriculture Organisation]. 2003. Trade Reforms and FoodSecurity – Conceptualizing the Linkages. Rome, Italy: FAO.Fuller RJ, Aye L, Zahnd A, Thakuri S. 2009. Thermal evaluation of a greenhousein a remote high altitude area of Nepal. International Energy Journal 10(2):71–80.Government of Nepal. 2011. Preliminary Results of National PopulationCensus. Kathmandu, Nepal: Central Bureau of Statistics.HDI [Humla Development Initiative]. 2012. Remote Districts of Nepal.[Ranking of districts based on weighted scores; based on 2003 data]. http://www.hdihumla.org.np/remote-districts-of-nepal.htm; accessed 1 June 2012.Mansouri T, Guinebault A. 2005. Passive solar architecture for mountainagriculture. LEISA Magazine March:22–23.McKay KH, Zahnd A, Sanders C, Nepali G. 2007. Responses to innovation inan insecure environment in rural Nepal. Mountain Research and Development27(4):302–307.

MountainDevelopment


Nieuhys S. 2003. Construction Designs for Greenhouses in High Altitude Areas.Kathmandu, Nepal: Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV)-Nepal.RIDS-Nepal [Rural Integrated Development Service-Nepal]. 2012. RuralIntegrated Development Service-Nepal. http://www.rids-nepal.org; accessed on9 September 2012.Roy R, Schmidt-Vogt D, Myrhot O. 2009. ‘‘Humla Development Initiatives’’ forbetter livelihoods in the face of isolation and conflict. Mountain Research andDevelopment 29(3):211–219.Sawyer A, Fuller R. 2012. A family-sized greenhouse for a remote mountainregion of Nepal. Paper to be presented at the 50th Annual Conference of theAustralian Solar Energy Society, Melbourne 6–7 December 2012. Available fromcorresponding author of this article.Solargreenhouses.org. 2012. http://www.solargreenhouses.org; accessed on9 September 2012.Triquet M, Tashi T, Dorjai K, Stauffer V. [undated]. Passive Solar Greenhousein Ladakh: A Path to Income Generation and Livelihood Improvement. http://www.solargreenhouse.org/documentation.html; accessed on 7 September2012.

TVP [Tibetan Village Project]. 2012. Building Greenhouses in Tibet. TibetanVillage Project http://www.tibetanvillageproject.org/tvp/Blog/tabid/58/post/building-greenhouses-in-tibet/Default.aspx; accessed on 21 September 2012.UN [United Nations]. 2011. Sustainable Mountain Development. Report of theSecretary-General. 66th Session, United Nations General Assembly, August.New York, NY: United Nations.UN [United Nations]. 2012. The Millenium Development Goals Report 2012.New York, NY: United Nations.UNDP [United Nations Development Program]. 2004. Empowerment and PovertyReduction. Nepal Human Development Report. Kathmandu, Nepal: UNDP.World Bank. 1986. Poverty and Hunger. Issues and Options for Food Security inDeveloping Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.Zahnd A, Malla A. 2006. High altitude solar water heater community bathingcenter: Renewable energy utilised for a remote and impoverished Himalayanvillage in Humla, Nepal. In: [Unknown], editor. Clean Energy? Can Do! :Proceedings of Solar 2006, 44th Annual Conference, Canberra, Australia, 13 to15 September 2006. New Zealand Solar Energy Society (ANZSES) Conference2006. [Albert Park, Victoria]: ANZSES, [no page nunbers].

MountainDevelopment


district, nw nepal solar greenhouse technology for food...

Documents