Adaptive watershed management in a changing climate: an importance-performance analysis of user perspectives in central Nepal Open Access

Watershed management plays a critical role in socio-ecological sustainability and economic development (Sáez-Ardura et al. 2025; Talampas et al. 2023). However, watershed degradation driven by global climate change and other contributing factors poses a risk to ecosystem integrity and diminishes essential services (Singh et al. 2004; MoFE 2021; IPCC 2022; Rawat et al. 2024; Nugroho et al. 2025). This degradation poses substantial risks to socio-ecological systems, global food and water security, economic development, and the livelihoods and well-being of communities dependent on watersheds (Mekonnen & Hoekstra 2016; Scott et al. 2019; Saber et al. 2025).

Effective watershed management is essential for ensuring the long-term sustainability of, resource use, economic development, ecological integrity, and climate change adaptation (Sriyana et al. 2020; Yang & Solangi 2024). As highlighted by Sriyana et al. (2020), comprehensive watershed resource management is crucial for sustainability, and its success relies on a thorough understanding of community perspectives and the use of integrated approaches (Armas Vargas et al. 2022). Accordingly, the significance of watershed management has become increasingly apparent (Achouri 2006; Aryal et al. 2019), alongside a growing recognition of the need to develop integrated, context-sensitive strategies that address the complexities of shifting socio-political and environmental conditions (Achet & Fleming 2006; MoEWRI 2020; Ojha et al. 2021; Mungekar et al. 2025; Sáez-Ardura et al. 2025). This issue is particularly pressing in mountainous regions, such as Nepal, where the challenges of sustainable watershed service provision and community well-being are most pronounced.

Nepal is one of the world's most water-rich countries, with more than 6,000 rivers. Its watersheds play critical roles in the country's agrarian community and economy, sustaining livelihoods, providing significant hydropower potential, and maintaining the region's ecological balance (Gautam & Acharya 2012; Poudyal et al. 2021; Upreti 2023; Khadka et al. 2024). Watershed resources – such as water, forests, land, and biodiversity – are crucial national assets for Nepal, contributing to local livelihoods, national economic development, and tackling global environmental challenges like climate change and disasters (Achet & Fleming 2006; Bhatta et al. 2019; MoEWRI 2020; Adhikari et al. 2021a; b; Ojha et al. 2021; Dhungana et al. 2025). Nepal's unique geographical features – characterized by steep terrains, fragile mountain ecosystems, and monsoon-driven climatic patterns (such as erratic rainfall and changes in intensity) – make it highly vulnerable to soil erosion, landslides, and flooding (Pandit et al. 2007; Adhikari et al. 2021a, b; Ranabhat et al. 2023; Acharya & Basu 2025). These environmental challenges are further exacerbated by unsustainable land use practices, deforestation, and the expansion of agriculture into ecologically sensitive areas (Thapa et al. 2022; Arshed et al. 2023; Ghimire et al. 2024). Consequently, these factors collectively contribute to soil degradation and watershed deterioration, threatening both agricultural productivity and the country's broader socioeconomic development (Thapa et al. 2022).

To address this issue, the Government of Nepal has acknowledged and recognized the importance of watershed management in the country's uplands since the Third Five-Year Plan (1965–1971) and has implemented a range of policies, strategies, and programs. The government of Nepal has collaborated with various organizations and introduced watershed management initiatives that have led to noteworthy improvements in several aspects of the livelihood framework (Tiwari et al. 2009; Reddy et al. 2017). However, these initiatives have not fully achieved their intended outcomes due to insufficient attention to the social factors critical for watershed management. This oversight has weakened the socio-ecological system and resulted in a limited understanding of the priorities, needs, and perspectives of local communities living within watershed areas (Achouri 2006; Thapa et al. 2022; Dhungana et al. 2025; Silwal et al. 2024).

Achieving the goal of managing and protecting watershed resources requires a comprehensive approach that includes a robust policy framework, active collaboration, and a platform for ongoing dialogue among diverse stakeholders, including policymakers, practitioners, and local communities. This approach aligns with the principles outlined in Sustainable Development Goal 6.6, which emphasizes the importance of community involvement, alongside broader efforts in international cooperation and capacity-building, to preserve and restore watershed resources (Zhang et al. 2019; Sanjo et al. 2024). This approach seeks to bridge the gap between upstream and downstream ecological dynamics, thereby improving the well-being of local communities and enhancing the overall health of the watershed. However, current policies, programs, and practices are not effectively aligned with the goals of watershed management (Pandit et al. 2007; Ojha et al. 2021; Poudel et al. 2024). In the pragmatic world, a significant disconnect exists between upstream and downstream communities, revealing disparities in their understanding, perception, and equitable sharing of the benefits derived from watershed management strategies, especially in the context of a changing socio-climatic environment (Reddy et al. 2017; Ojha et al. 2021; Thapa et al. 2022). This gap has led to conflicts over the use and control of watershed resources, which are further exacerbated by limited comprehension of community preferences (Ojha et al. 2021; Poudel et al. 2024). These challenges have the potential to escalate multi-stakeholder conflicts, water rights disputes, and a lack of incentives for effective watershed management (Achouri 2006; Reddy et al. 2017; Ojha et al. 2021; Silwal et al. 2024). Many scholars argue that people's perceptions and behaviors are the primary causes of environmental challenges (Savari et al. 2020). Therefore, understanding local perceptions of the need for and importance of watershed management is crucial for facilitating adaptive management strategies in the face of changing socio-climatic conditions (Achouri 2006; Sapkota et al. 2020; Paudel et al. 2021; IPCC 2022; Dhungana et al. 2025).

In this context, it is imperative for policymakers and practitioners to gain a comprehensive understanding of the perceptions of both upstream and downstream communities in order to develop tailored strategies that align with community preferences for adaptive watershed management in a shifting socio-climatic context. In the current context, importance-performance analysis (IPA) is progressively being adopted in environmental issues management to assess community satisfaction and prioritize strategies that reflect local needs and concerns (Sever 2015; Gai et al. 2023; Lin & Lee 2023). This study seeks to explore the perceptions of watershed resource users regarding adaptive watershed management strategies, with the goal of designing user-oriented programs and assessing their policy implications in a changing socio-climatic context. The research is guided by three primary questions:

• 1. What are the key strategies for adaptive watershed management? Drawing on the adaptive capacity framework for climate change proposed by Cinner et al. (2018), we hypothesize that strategies aimed at enhancing community assets, flexibility, social organization, learning, and agency will significantly contribute to effective adaptive watershed management within an evolving socio-climatic environment.

• 2. Do significant differences exist in the perceived importance and performance ratings of adaptive watershed management strategies across different watershed levels? We hypothesize that disparities will be evident, particularly between the overall watershed level and upstream versus downstream areas, in terms of the importance and performance of these strategies.

• 3. Is there a significant relationship between socio-demographic characteristics and their impact on perceived importance and performance? We hypothesize that factors such as gender, household size, education, occupation, and awareness will influence individuals' perceptions of the importance and performance of adaptive watershed management strategies.

To address these questions, we conducted a case study in the Khageri Khola watershed in central Nepal. In particular, this watershed was selected for its representative mountain ecosystems, the critical dependance of both upstream and downstream communities on its resources, and Nepal's progressive policy framework promoting participatory natural resource management. Nepal was selected for this study due to its abundant mountain-based watershed resources, which deliver vital ecosystem goods and services at both local and global scales – particularly under the growing pressures of climate change (Ojha et al. 2021; Thapa et al. 2022; Dhungana et al. 2025; Silwal et al. 2024). The country has actively prioritized mountain and climate change issues in international platforms such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Integrated watershed management, with a strong emphasis on community participation, has gained increasing significance in Nepal as a means to promote sustainable resource use and improve the livelihoods of both upstream and downstream populations. In this context, understanding local perceptions of climate change impacts has become increasingly important, especially in mountain regions like Nepal, where human–environment interactions are central to national policy agendas and global climate discourse.

The water flowing from the watershed and the Khageri irrigation canal helps recharge Ramsar sites such as Beeshhazari Tal, along with other associated lakes and ponds, which are key destinations for eco-tourism (MoFSC 2015). However, human activities continuously exert pressure on watershed areas, and the impacts of climate change further exacerbate the degradation of upstream regions. This degradation is primarily driven by excessive extraction of forest and river resources, unregulated open grazing, and the construction of rural roads without adequate conservation measures. These factors contribute to accelerated soil erosion and sediment deposition in the streams. The depletion of watershed resources – such as declining soil fertility and reduced water availability – threatens the livelihoods and food security of thousands of farmers. Furthermore, the depletion of water that sustains other wetlands within Chitwan National Park poses a significant risk to endangered wildlife (DSCO 2017; Shrestha et al. 2020).

We have developed a set of adaptive watershed management strategies, as outlined in Table 1, based on well-established empirical studies aimed at enhancing community adaptive capacity in the context of changing socio-climatic conditions. These strategies are informed by key dimensions of adaptive capacity; specifically: access to multiple assets (Assets), flexibility to change strategies (Flexibility), social organization for collective action (Organization), the capacity to learn, plan, and adjust to change (Learning), and the capacity for agency to exercise adaptive management (Agency), as outlined in studies by Marshall et al. (2013), Whitney et al. (2017), and Cinner et al. (2018). These concepts provide a structured and comprehensive framework for developing strategies to enhance adaptive capacity in the face of dynamic environmental and social challenges. In addition, we conducted semi-structured interviews with sixteen watershed management experts – each with a decade of experience and representing diverse backgrounds, including academia, national and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community-based organizations, and government agencies – to verify these strategies and gather their suggestions.

We selected 12% (n = 440) of the 3,686 households using stratified random sampling for household surveys (Hayes 2020). The selected households directly depend on Khageri Khola watershed resources, such as water, fodder, fuelwood, and timber, for daily needs. The sample size allowed generalization of findings with a 95% confidence level and less than 5% precision (Israel 1992). Using a five-point Likert scale, respondents rated the importance (strongly unimportant to strongly important) and performance (strongly disagree to strongly agree) of strategies for adaptive watershed management. The sample included individuals over 18 years old. The survey was conducted from March to August 2023.

The development of the questionnaire was informed by an integrative approach combining a systematic review of relevant literature and targeted expert consultations. Five key dimensions related to strengthening community adaptive capacity (see Section 2.2) were first identified through the literature review. These dimensions subsequently served as a framework for conducting expert interviews, which facilitated the identification of potential watershed management strategies. Prior to the formal survey administration, a pilot study was conducted with 50 households located both upstream and downstream to refine the questionnaire design. Based on participant feedback, several items were either reworded for clarity or removed entirely to improve comprehensibility and relevance. To minimize potential bias, households that participated in the pilot study were excluded from the final survey sample. To conduct the household survey, we designed a questionnaire with three sections. Part A gathered information on watershed users' awareness and understanding of adaptive watershed management. Part B assessed the importance and performance of ten strategies using a five-point Likert scale. The importance scale ranged from ‘strongly unimportant’ to ‘strongly important,’ while the performance scale ranged from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree.’ Part C included questions on respondents' socio-demographic characteristics. Before conducting the survey, we obtained all necessary permissions and individual consent from the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (Letter No. 079/80,133) and the Department of Forest and Soil Conservation (Letter No. 079/80), Nepal, in accordance with government policies and guidelines.

The IPA method was first proposed by Martilia and James to determine customer satisfaction (Martilla & James 1997). IPA helps management (policymakers or practitioners) to identify key attributes, strengths, and weaknesses in products or services, enabling effective prioritization and resource allocation to enhance customer satisfaction and optimize resource utilization (Abalo et al. 2007; Sever 2015). It has been applied across diverse fields, including tourism, environmental management, forest management, disaster management, and plastic waste management (Kang et al. 2007; Lin & Lee 2023; Thanh et al. 2023). For instance, studies in India employed IPA to evaluate perceptions of wetland ecosystem services (Das & Basu 2020; Das et al. 2022), while research in China and Vietnam used it to assess urban river ecosystem services (Hua & Chen 2019) and community-based plastic waste management strategies (Thuy Phan et al. 2023), respectively. IPA tool identifies critical areas for adaptive and effective management decision-making, specifically strengths and weaknesses (Abalo et al. 2007). It assists policymakers and practitioners in allocating scarce resources and taking appropriate action to improve services (Sever 2015).

In watershed management, the IPA is used to evaluate disparities between the perceived importance of services and their actual performance. It helps identify these disparities through a two-dimensional matrix. The larger the disparity, the greater the need for effective policy and action to improve watershed management in a changing socio-climatic context (Das et al. 2022).

These quadrants are used to generate recommendations for effective and adaptable management (Boley et al. 2017). To enhance statistical stability and ensure standardization, Z-scores were calculated. With a mean of zero (origin) and a standard deviation of 1 (interval), the Z-scores were applied to create comparative measures for the perceived importance and performance of all adaptive watershed management strategies (Das et al. 2022).

The data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22. To assess the reliability of the questionnaire and ensure the internal consistency of various adaptive watershed management strategies, we calculated Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the characteristics of the respondents and their understanding of watershed management. To test the significance of the differences between respondents' perceived importance and performance scores, Mauchly's sphericity test and paired sample t-tests were applied, following the approach outlined by Lai & Hitchcock (2015). Additionally, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to explore the influence of socio-demographic variables on the importance and performance scores.

A matrix consisting of four quadrants was constructed based on the mean importance and performance ratings provided by respondents. These mean values were plotted on a two-dimensional coordinate system, where Z-scores calculated from the mean importance and performance were represented along the x-axis (labeled ‘performance’) and the y-axis (labeled ‘importance’). This approach of centering the scores around a scale was selected, as it offers a more intuitive and comprehensible representation of the findings, facilitating clearer interpretation compared to presenting the raw mean data (Oh 2001).

Out of the 440 respondents in the household survey, 330 were from upstream and 130 from downstream. Of the total, 237 were male (53.9%) and 203 were female (46.1%). The respondents' ages ranged from 18 to 66 years, with the largest proportion (39.5%) in the 29–39-year age group. Approximately, one-fourth of participants had completed primary education (24.5%). The sample exhibited considerable occupational diversity, with farmers constituting the largest group (53.2%), followed by individuals working in government, non-governmental organizations, private services, remittances, and daily labor. Table 2 provides a breakdown of the respondents' characteristics, separated by upstream and downstream locations.

The findings reveal a high level of awareness among respondents, with 88.2% having knowledge of climate change and 95% demonstrating knowledge of watershed management. As we analyzed by location, 87.1% of upstream users stressed awareness of climate change, while 93.5% had a certain understanding of watershed management, whereas, downstream respondents exhibited slightly higher awareness, with 90.7% being aware of climate change and 98.5% demonstrating knowledge of watershed management. Notably, a minority of respondents across both regions reported a lack of knowledge in these areas, ranging from 1.5 to 12.9%.

The results of Cronbach's α coefficient show that all strategies exceed the threshold of 0.6, demonstrating a strong level of internal consistency and reliability. Mauchly's test revealed a significant violation of the sphericity assumption (p < 0.001). To account for this, the degree of freedom was adjusted using the Huynh–Feldt estimate of sphericity (ε = 0.587). These findings suggest significant variations in the importance ratings among respondents (F = 143.629, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the individual paired sample t-test reveals yielded p-values of 0.000, indicating substantial discrepancies between the perceived importance and performance ratings. Similarly, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results comparing upstream and downstream perspectives (F = 82.990, p < 0.001; F = 48.835, p < 0.001) further confirm the significant difference in how watershed users access the importance and performance of various strategies.

The findings of the IPA are summarized in Table 3, presenting results at the watershed level (for all respondents) as well as disaggregated by location, distinguishing between upstream and downstream perspectives. Across all cases – watershed-wide, upstream, and downstream – there is a consistent and statistically significant disparity between the perceived importance and actual performance of various adaptive watershed management strategies. These results show that while watershed users recognize the high importance of these strategies, their satisfaction with their implementation and effectiveness remains comparatively low.

At the watershed level, notably, Benefit (J) and Institution (F) strategies emerge as the most crucial, both receiving the highest mean importance score of 4.925. In contrast, Finance (B) is perceived as the least important, with a mean importance score of 4.241. On the performance side, Benefit (J) ranks highest, with a mean score of 3.245, followed by Empower (I) at 2.927. A comparative analysis of user ratings shows notable differences between upstream and downstream communities. The mean importance score is higher among downstream respondents (4.76) compared to their upstream counterparts (4.51). Conversely, this trend is reversed in performance ratings, where upstream respondents indicate a higher mean score (2.63) than downstream respondents (2.08) (Table 3). Across both areas, Benefit (J) and Institution (F) remain the most important strategies, while Benefit (J) consistently achieves the top-performing rating. Interestingly, while importance ratings remain consistent across locations, the upstream users report higher overall strategy performance compared to downstream users. Furthermore, Finance (B) is consistently rated as the least important strategy in both upstream and downstream areas (Table 3).

In both cases, the second quadrant comprises approximately 30% of the total strategies, including NbS (C), Empower (I), and Benefit (J). These strategies are considered highly significant and exhibit strong performance, leading to high levels of satisfaction among watershed users. Meanwhile, in the third quadrant, Finance (B) is grouped alongside Policy (H) (which received varying ratings across upstream and downstream users). Similarly, Finance (B) is perceived as both low in importance and poor in performance by respondents at both the watershed and location-specific levels. This lower rating may stem from the challenges associated with the establishment of a sustainable financing mechanism, which is often complex. The complexity arises from the autonomous and regulatory authority of local governments in Nepal, coupled with the misalignment between administrative and watershed boundaries, which hinders integrated watershed management. Finally, the fourth quadrant includes only Stakeholders €, characterized by high performance but low importance, indicating that users are satisfied with stakeholder engagement while they do not prioritize critical strategy in watershed management.

We conducted a multiple regression analysis to explore the linkage between respondents' socio-demographic characteristics – including household location, gender, education, occupation, household size, watershed knowledge, and watershed dependence – and their perceptions of the importance and performance of adaptive watershed management strategies based on the theoretical and conceptual basis of the study (Table 4). This aimed to understand how these socio-demographic factors influenced the perceived importance and effectiveness of various strategies.

The regression models for both importance and performance as dependent variables successfully passed the F-test, confirming their statistical significance. The F-statistic for importance was 9.285 (p = 0.000, p < 0.01), while for performance, it was 24.845 (p = 0.000, p < 0.01). Furthermore, Multicollinearity was assessed, and all variables had Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values below 2, well within the acceptable threshold (VIF <5), confirming the reliability of our regression estimates (James et al. 2013). These results underscore the importance of the seven socio-demographic variables presented in Table 4, as they collectively influence respondents' evaluations of adaptive watershed management strategies. Further analysis of the regression coefficients provided additional insights. Household location, gender, and watershed dependence were identified to significantly affect importance scores. However, performance scores were influenced by household location, education, occupation, household size, and watershed knowledge. These findings underscore the role of socio-demographic factors in shaping perceptions of watershed management strategies, emphasizing the need for targeted policy interventions to enhance both perceived importance and actual performance.

Understanding the diverse perceptions and practices of upstream and downstream watershed users is crucial for enhancing adaptive and sustainable watershed management (Thapa et al. 2022). These distinct perspectives play a critical role in shaping resource allocation, ecosystem health, water quality, and community engagement across watersheds which is important for developing effective strategies that address the needs and priorities of both upstream and downstream communities.

The comparative analysis of user perceptions across different watershed levels showed significant variation in both overall importance and performance scores among watershed level, upstream, and downstream users (p < 0.001) (Table 3). A comparison of average importance scores highlighted those downstream users assigned the highest scores, followed by watershed-level users, with upstream users ranking the lowest. Specifically, watershed-level users emphasized the importance of both Institution (F) and Benefit (J), whereas upstream and downstream users prioritized only Benefit (J). Conversely, Finance (B) consistently received the lowest ratings across all groups. The particularly high importance ratings assigned by downstream users are noteworthy and may be attributed to their greater reliance on water resources for livelihood activities. Increasing challenges, including climate variability and environmental degradation in upstream watershed areas, have led to a decline in both water quality and availability, with the most severe impacts observed in downstream regions (DSCO 2017; Adhikari et al. 2020; Shrestha et al. 2020).

Likewise, the comparative analysis of performance scores indicated that upstream users assigned the highest ratings to various strategies, followed by users at the watershed level, with downstream users providing the lowest ratings. In particular, users across all watershed levels rated Institution (F) as having strong performance. However, downstream users distinctly assigned significantly lower performance scores to Mainstream (D).

Watershed resources, particularly land, water, and forests, play a vital role in the economic and ecological sustainability of countries like Nepal, where agriculture is a primary economic driver (Achouri 2006). These resources serve as the foundation of livelihood, shaping economic activities, cultural practices, and overall well-being. To balance resource conservation with development objectives, watershed management approaches have been widely implemented. These kinds of initiatives have contributed to risk mitigation, community development, and livelihood enhancement of the community (Thapa et al. 2022). However, existing management strategies often fail to consider the rapidly changing socio-environmental context – such as climate variability leading to declining water availability and quality, increasing population pressures on limited resources, and shifts in socio-demographic dynamics. In addition, the lack of integration of local user expectations, particularly regarding economic benefits, has hindered the effectiveness of these strategies, failing to satisfy the community needs (Singh et al. 2004; Bhatta et al. 2019; Sapkota et al. 2020; MoFE 2021). Therefore, understanding and addressing local demands and satisfaction levels play a significant role in the sustainable management of watersheds and their resources (Kolavalli & Kerr 2002).

First, our study offers crucial insights with significant implications for adaptive watershed management, specifically in uncovering a notable degree of awareness among respondents. The findings reveal a majority of participants with a high level of awareness regarding both climate change and watershed management. Notably, the disparity in awareness between upstream and downstream users is minimal. Similar findings have been reported in other parts of Asia, including studies conducted in China and Iran (Wang et al. 2014; Khoshmaram et al. 2020). These results suggest a positive correlation between environmental awareness and enhanced environmental perception, which, in turn, promotes the adoption of environmentally sustainable practices (Savari et al. 2020).

The findings of this study also highlight a significant shift in dependency on watershed resources. Despite heavy reliance on these resources, a significant portion of respondents reported a declining trend, prompting concerns about the long-term sustainability of current resource-use practices. This observation aligns with prior research underscoring the need to comprehend the evolving relationship between society and the environment (Bhatta et al. 2019; Paudel et al. 2021).

Prior studies have demonstrated that demographic shifts, income fluctuations, and changes in agricultural practices have significantly impacted natural resource management, often creating a disconnect between the actual benefits generated from these resources and the community expectations (Sapkota et al. 2020; Paudel et al. 2021). Furthermore, the economic benefits associated with natural resource management programs, particularly community forestry, are often limited, not always evident, and distributed unevenly (Paudel et al. 2022). The complex interplay between social and ecological challenges, compounded by climate change, may further exacerbate resource degradation and intensify conflicts related to resource use (Gurung et al. 2013; Ojha et al. 2021; Sedhain & Galang 2022).

Second, our study uncovers significant disparities in the perceived importance of watershed management strategies across different user groups at the watershed, upstream, and downstream levels. These disparities suggest that when the importance rating of a strategy significantly exceeds its performance rating, users' expectations are not being achieved, leading to dissatisfaction. This finding is consistent with existing literature in the field of environmental management in different locations. For instance, Armitage et al. (2012) emphasize the challenges of aligning expectations and outcomes in social-ecological systems, particularly in participatory natural resource management. In the Nepali context, where community forestry programs play a crucial role in watershed management, studies by Sapkota et al. (2020) and Paudel et al. (2021) also center the need for more effective program implementation to bridge the gap between expectation and actual performance. Among the 10 strategies for adaptive watershed management examined, our findings indicate that improvements are particularly needed in Technology (A), Institutions (F), Access (G), and Policy (H), both in policy formulation and practical application. However, from location-specific perspectives, notably downstream users, constituting approximately 30% of the total participants, expressed lower satisfaction levels, particularly concerning Policy (H). This suggests that while these strategies are key for community well-being and watershed sustainability, a more targeted, context-specific approach is required for effective policy implementation. These observations align with prior research that underscores the critical role of robust institutional support and adaptive policy frameworks in achieving successful water management (Folke et al. 2005; Ojha et al. 2021).

Furthermore, this study emphasizes the necessity of tailoring management strategies to address the distinct needs and expectations of different user groups based on their geographic areas, supporting insights from earlier studies (Stringer et al. 2006). This study advances theoretical debates on participatory governance by empirically validating the persistent gap between its normative centrality in watershed management frameworks and its practical implementation (Newig & Fritsch 2009; Ostrom 2010). By uncovering disparities in stakeholder perceptions and engagement, the research underscores how institutional and contextual barriers hinder the operationalization of participatory principles, despite their established theoretical importance. These findings critically extend Elinor Ostrom's principles of polycentric governance and Newig and Fritsch's arguments on democratic environmental decision-making, offering a nuanced lens to reconcile theory with practice in decentralized resource management (Newig & Fritsch 2009; Ostrom 2010).

A significant majority of users, approximately 66% across different watershed levels, express dissatisfaction with the existing watershed management approaches and strategies, perceiving them as insufficient in addressing challenges emerging from evolving socio-environmental conditions. For example, studies conducted in Nepal (Eriksson et al. 2009; Mudbhari et al. 2022) highlight the increasing challenge of watershed management due to shifting socio-ecological and climatic dynamics. Within our study region, users focus on the need for an integrated approach that includes both revising existing policies and designing new programs while strongly incorporating community learning and traditional practices. This reflects a growing recognition of the significance of policy adjustments in tandem with active community engagement. Prior studies have also underscored the importance of adaptive policies and collaborative governance structures in ensuring effective management of socio-ecological systems (Folke et al. 2005; Armitage et al. 2012). Additionally, enhancing user satisfaction is likely to increase behavioral motivation toward sustainable watershed practices (Ajzen 1991; Homburg et al. 2006; Floress et al. 2015). Therefore, understanding user satisfaction is critical for strengthening the long-term sustainability of watershed resources and community well-being. Our findings reveal user dissatisfaction with current watershed management strategies and static governance models (Morçöl 2014), empirically validating the need for adaptive, community-driven approaches. By integrating traditional knowledge with iterative learning, we advance adaptive governance theory (Folke et al. 2005) and extend collaborative governance frameworks (Armitage et al. 2015). These insights culminate in a novel feedback-loop model, theorizing how adaptive policies and community co-production synergistically enhance resilience – bridging theoretical gaps between institutional design and human behavior in watershed governance.

Third, our study identifies key socio-demographic factors – such as age, education, and income influential in shaping respondents' perceptions of both the importance and performance of watershed-related ecosystem services. This finding aligns with earlier research by Gai et al. (2023), who reported that users' demographic characteristics significantly affect how they value and assess the cultural ecosystem services provided by urban parks in Beijing. Their study emphasized that differences in personal background can lead to varying expectations and evaluations of ecosystem services, reinforcing the importance of accounting for demographic diversity in the assessment and management of natural resources. Consistent with existing literature, our study reveals significant variation in how different watershed users, whether at the watershed level, upstream, or downstream, perceive adaptive watershed management strategies (Gai et al. 2023). Notably, household location (upstream or downstream) consistently emerges as a significant factor affecting both importance and performance scores. Furthermore, we found that household location, gender, and watershed resource dependency have a notable influence on importance scores, while household location, education, occupation, household size, and watershed management knowledge significantly shape performance scores. These insights underscore the importance of accounting for socio-demographic characteristics when designing and implementing adaptive watershed management strategies to ensure their effectiveness and inclusivity (Babel et al. 2007; Mwadzingeni et al. 2022; Nixon et al. 2022; Gai et al. 2023).

The disparities in importance and performance scores across different watershed levels emphasize the need for tailored strategies that address the specific requirements and challenges faced by these users at each level. This approach is consistent with prior research, such as that conducted by Olsson et al. (2004). Thus, it is imperative to thoroughly consider the diverse needs of users throughout the watershed when formulating policies and designing strategies. Furthermore, our findings demonstrate that involving users in the planning, design, and management of watershed strategies leads to a notable improvement in user satisfaction, supporting conclusions drawn by Gai et al. (2023).

This study addressed three core research questions and provided actionable insights for advancing adaptive watershed management in Nepal's dynamic socio-climatic and federal governance context.

First, we identified ten major strategies that enhance users' capacities, including assets, flexibility, social organization, learning, and agency. However, satisfaction with these strategies varies across watershed levels, signaling the need for inclusive governance approaches that reflect the priorities of diverse user groups. Policymakers across all levels, federal, provincial, and local, must ensure that the voices from diverse social groups are meaningfully integrated into planning, decision-making, and implementation processes.

Second, the observed discrepancies between the perceived importance and actual performance of adaptive strategies underscore a persistent implementation gap in the pragmatic world. Bridging this divide requires locally tailored solutions, strengthened upstream–downstream linkages, and robust institutional mechanisms that translate policy intent into action.

Lastly, our findings highlight the significant impact of socio-demographic characteristics on users' perceptions of adaptive watershed management strategies. However, this impact is clearer in performance evaluations than in importance ratings. These findings highlight the nuanced and multifaceted role of socio-demographic factors in shaping users' assessments of watershed management efforts. They also underscore the need for targeted, tailored, and context-specific approaches to effectively engage diverse user groups. Watershed programs and policies must move beyond one-size-fits-all approaches by integrating socio-demographic factors into decision-making and implementing context-specific interventions that effectively promote inclusive and equitable engagement of diverse user communities.

Amid Nepal's evolving federal governance, this study offers timely insights to shape adaptive, inclusive, and sustainable watershed policies. By addressing diverse user needs, strengthening institutional support, and embedding socio-demographic realities into decision-making, watershed governance can become more effective, inclusive, and equitable. Our findings reinforce the urgency of translating policy into action – ensuring user engagement, localized solutions, and alignment with SDG 6.6 goals for sustainable water management by 2030.

We sincerely thank the local communities of the watershed area for sharing their knowledge and experiences during the field investigation. We also appreciate the support of government and non-governmental organizations, and the valuable feedback from reviewers.

N.D. conceptualized the work, developed the methodology, investigated the work, wrote the original draft, rendered support in formal analysis. C.-H.L. conceptualized the work, developed the methodology, supervised the process, validated the study. N.D., C.-H.L., and S.A. wrote and reviewed and edited the article. All authors read and approved of the final manuscript.

This study did not receive any funding.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.