Table 4.

1 Demographic characteristic of household of study population (6-59 month's

children's)

Variable Tatopani RM Chandannath Total (%)

Municipality
n (%) N= 354
n (%)

Family Type

Nuclear 106(60) 120 (67.7) 226 (63.9)

Joint 71(40) 57 (32.2) 128 (36.1)

Family Size

1–4 93 (52.5) 107 (60.4) 200 (56.4)

5–8 46 (25.9) 63 (35.5) 109 (46.1)

9 -12 34 (19.2) 5 (2.8) 39 (11)

More than 12 4 (2.2) 2 (1.1) 6 (1.6)

House Type

Own 163 (92) 118 (66.6) 281 (79.4)

Rented 14 (8) 59 (33.3) 73 (20.6)

Head of household

Male 171(96.6) 159 (89.8) 330 (93.2)

Female 6 (3.3) 18 (10.1) 24 (6.8)

Father’s Education level

Illiterate 12(6.7) 4 (2.2) 16 (4.5)

Literate 56(31.6) 9 (5) 62 (17.5)

Primary 54(30.5) 32 (18) 86 (24.2)

 Secondary 27(15.2) 63 (35.5) 90 (25.4)

Bachelor 21(11.8) 47 (4) 68 (19.2)

Master 7(4) 22 (12.4) 29 (8)

Ethnicity

Brahmin 32(18) 58 (32.7) 90 (25)

Chhetri 87(48) 20 (11.2) 107 (30)

Dalit 56 (31.6) 82 (46.3) 138 (40)

Janajati 2 (1.1) 17 (9.6) 19 (5)

Table 4. 2 Socioeconomic characteristic of the household of study population

Variable Tatopani RM Chandannath Total (%)

Municipality
N= 354
N (%)
N (%)

Father occupation

Agriculture 92(52) 87 (49.1) 179 (50.5)

Job 23(13) 34 (19.2) 57 (16)

Labor 18(10) 22(12.4) 40 (11.2)

Business 7 (3.9) 28 (15) 35 (9.8)

Foreign Employment 37 (21) 6(3.3) 43 (12)

 Annual Income

<100,000 63(35.5) 52(29.3) 115 (32.4)

100,000 – 300,000 96 (54.2) 103 (58) 199 (56.2)

>300,000 18(10) 22(12.4) 40 (11.2)

Stored food last for

Daily earner 2(1) 13 (7.3) 15 (4.2)

3-6 months 87(49.1) 52 (29.3) 139 (39.2)

6-12 months 52 (29.3) 83 (46.8) 135 (38)

More than 12 months 36 (20.3) 29 (16.3) 65 (18.4)

4.2 Child characteristics

Table 4.3 Child characteristic of study population

Variable Tatopani RM Chandannath Total (%)

Municipality
n (%) N =354
n (%)

Gender

Male 92(52) 87 (49.1) 179 (50.5)

Female 85(48) 90 (50.8) 175 (49.5)

Age Group (Months)

6-12 32(18) 29 (16.3) 61 ( 17.2)

13-24 52 (29.3) 67(37.8) 119 (33.6)

25-36 27(15.2) 38(21.4) 65 (18.3)

37-48 40 (22.5) 26 (14.6) 66 (18.7)

 49-59 26(14.6) 17 (9.6) 43 (12)

Weight of child
during birth

Less than 2.5 kg 122 (69) 138 (78) 260 (73.4)

More than 2.5kg 26(14.6) 23 (13) 49 (13.9)

Not in memory 29 (16.3) 16 (9) 45 (12.7)

4.3 Child caring practices

Table 4. 4 Child caring characteristics

Variable Tatopani RM Chandannath Total (%)

Municipality
n (%) N= 354
n (%)

Initiation of breastfeeding

Within 1 Hour 133(75) 154(87) 287 (81)

Between1-8 hours 14(8) 7 (4) 21 (6)

Between 8-24 hours 8(4.5) 5(2.8) 13 (3.6)

After 24 hours 16(9) 9 (5) 24 (6.7)

Not in memory 6 (3) 2 (1) 8 ( 2.2)

Colostrum feeding

Yes 163(92) 171(96.6) 334 (94.3)

No 14(8) 6(3.3) 20 (5.7)

 Exclusive breastfeeding

Yes 112(63.2) 136(76.8) 248 (70)

No 65(36.7) 41(23) 106 (30)

Initiation of weaning food

Before 6 months 72(40.6) 32(18) 104 (29.3)

After 6 months 105(59.3) 145(82) 250 (70.6)

Types of complimentary food

Lito 97(54.8) 123(69.4) 220 (62.2)

Jaulo 37(21) 26(14.6) 63 (17.8)

Same as family member 43(24.2) 28(15.8) 71 (20)

Iodized salt

Yes 175(98.8) 176 (99) 351 (99.1)

No 2(1) 1(0.5) 3 (0.9)

4.4 Maternal Characteristics

Table 4.5 Maternal characteristics

Variable Tatopani RM Chandannath Total (%)

Municipality
n (%) N= 354
n (%)

Mother’s Education level

Illiterate 18(10) 6 (3.3) 24 (6.7)

Literate 74(41.8) 27 (15.2) 101 (28.5)

Primary 42(23.7) 56 (31.6) 98 (27.6)

Secondary 28(15.8) 34 (19.2) 62 (17.5)

Bachelor 12(6.7) 38 (21.4) 50 (14)

Master 3(1.6) 16 (9) 19 (5.3)

Mother Occupation

Agriculture 127 (71.7) 103 (58) 230 (65)

Job 15(8.4) 22 (12.4) 37 (10.4)

Housewife 18 (10) 13 (7.3) 31 (8.7)

Labor 12 (6.7) 17 (9.6) 29 (8)

Business 5 (2.8) 22 (12.4) 27 (7.6)

Age of mother

Less than 20 year 62(35) 53(30) 115 (32.4)

Between 20-30 year 97(54.8) 112(63.2) 209 (59)

More than 30 year 18(10) 12(6.7) 30 (8.4)

Iron and folate tablets

Yes 146(82.4) 162(91.5) 308 (87)

 No 24(13.5) 13(7.3) 37 (10.4)

Not familiar 7(4) 2(1) 9 (2.5)

Intake of vitamin within

45 days

Yes 133(75) 147(83) 280 (79)

No 31(17.5) 26(14.6) 57 (16)

Not familiar 13(7.3) 4(2.2) 17(4.8)

Knowledge on
malnutrition

Yes 141(79.6) 156 (88) 297 (83.8)

No 36(20.6) 21(11.8) 57 (16.2)

4.5 Environment and sanitation characteristics

Table 4.6 Environment and sanitation characteristics

Variable Tatopani RM Chandannath Total (%)

Municipality
n (%)
n (%)
N= 354

Source of drinking
water

Tap 174(98.3) 177 (100) 351 (99.2)

River 3(1.6) 0(0) 3 (0.8)

 Purification of water

Yes 74(41.8) 92 (52) 166 (47)

No 103(5.8) 85 (48) 188 (53)

Source of fuel

Wood 85(48) 68(38.4) 153 (43.2)

LPG 38 (21.4) 46 (26) 84 (23.7)

Both (wood/LPG) 54(30.5) 63 (35.5) 117 (33)

Toilet facility

Yes 159 (89.8) 171 (96.6) 330 (93.2)

No 18(10) 6 (3.3) 24 (6.8)

4.6 Prevalence of malnutrition

Tatopani RM Chandannath Municipility NDHD2022

K P Urban Karnali Province Rural
50 44.9
40.6 37.8
40 35.8
30 26.5 26.6
19.217.7 20.5 18 16.3
20 17.515.2 14.8
10 3.8 2.9 4.7
0
Stunting wasting Underweight MUAC<12.5

Figure 4.1 Prevalence of Malnutrition in the study are in compared to NDHS 2022

4.6.1 Distribution of malnutrition based on gender

Table 4. 7 Prevalence of malnutrition among gender

Variable Tatopani RM Chandannath Total (%)

Municipality
N (%)
N (%)

N=177 (Male=87,Female =
N=177(Male=92,Female
90)
= 85)

Stunting

Male 29(40.2) 26 (55.3) 55 ( 15.5)

Female 43(59.7) 21 (46.6) 64 (18)

Wasting

Male 12(38.7) 18 (66.6) 30 (8.5)

Female 19(61.2) 9 (33.3) 28 (8)

Underweight

Male 31(46.2) 16 (47) 47 (13.3)

Female 36 (53.7) 18 (53) 54 (15.3)

MUAC<12.5cm
 Male 19 (59.3) 17 (58.6) 36 (10)

Female 13 (40.6) 12 (41.3) 25 (7)

4.6.2 Distribution of malnutrition among age group

Table 4. 8 Prevalence of malnutrition age group

Variable Age Tatopani RM Chandannath Total (%)

group Municipality
n (%)
Months n (%)
N=354

6-12 11(15) 6(12.7) 17 (4.8)

13-24 16 (22) 10 (21.2) 26 (7.3)

Stunting 25-36 14 (19.4) 11 (23.4) 25 (7)

37-48 18 (25) 9 (19.1) 27 (7.6)

49-59 13(18) 11(23.4) 24 (6.7)

 6-12 8 (25.8) 5(18.5) 13 (3.6)

13-24 4 (12.9) 4(14.8) 8 (2.2)

Wasting 25-36 6 (19.3) 5 (18.5) 11(3)

37-48 7 (22.5) 7 (25.9) 14 (4)

49-59 6 (19.3) 6 (22.3) 12 (3.3)

6-12 16 (23.8) 7(20.5) 22 (6.2)

13-24 13 (19.4) 6 (17.6) 19 (5.3)

Underweight 25-36 18 (26.8) 10 (29.4) 28 (8)

37-48 8(11.9) 6 (17.6) 14 (4)

49-59 12 (17.9) 5 (14.7) 17 (4.8)

6-12 5(15.6) 3 (10.3) 8 (2)

13-24 7 (21.8) 5 (17.2) 12 (3.3)

MUAC<12.5cm 25-36 9 (28) 8 (27.5) 17 (4.8)

37-48 6(18.7) 9 (31) 15 (4.2)

49-59 5 (15.6) 4 (13.7) 9 (2.5)

4.7 Malnutrition and Local level

4.7.1 Factor associated with stunting

Table 4.9 (a) Factor associated with stunting and type of local government
Tatopani RM P-Value Chandannath
Municipality
P-value
Variables Stunted Normal Stunted Normal

Family type Nuclear 24 82 0.000 22 98 0.000

Joint 48 23 25 32

Family size 1–4 32 61 0.211 28 79 0.753

5–8 21 25 17 46

9 -12 18 16 2 3

More than 12 1 3

Mother Illiterate 9 9 0.850 1 5 0.135

education
level

Literate 30 44 9 18

Primary 17 25 21 35

Secondary 12 16 8 26

Bachelor 3 9 6 32

Master 1 2 2 14

Father’s Illiterate 7 5 0.214 1 3 0.000

education
level

Literate 27 29 2 7
 Primary 23 31 15 17

Secondary 7 20 16 47

Bachelor 6 15 6 41

Master 2 5 1 21

Ethnicity Advantage 38 81 0.006 18 60 0.353

group

Disadvantage 32 26 29 70
group

Father Agriculture 32 60 0.552 22 65 0.098

occupation

Job 10 13 8 26

Labor 9 9 11 11

Business 3 4 5 23

Foreign 18 19 1 5
Employment

Mother Agriculture 47 80 0.536 24 79 0.961

occupation

Job 7 8 5 17

House wife 9 9 3 10
 Business 2 3 5 12

Labor 7 5 5 17

Annual <100,000 29 34 0.514 13 39 0.293

income

100,000 – 37 59 24 79
300,000

>300,000 6 12 5 17

Exclusive Yes 34 78 .000 16 120 0.000

breastfeeding

No 38 27 26 15

Types of Lito 32 65 0.001 15 108 0.000

complimentary
food

Jaulo 12 25 16 10

Same as 28 15 11 17
family
member

Knowledge Yes 48 93 0.000 29 127 0.000

about
malnutrition
 No 24 12 13 8

The assessment of stunting in children of Tatopani Rural Municipality (RM) and Chandannath
Municipality provides some important findings regarding the causes of malnutrition. In both
locations, there is a clear correlation in family type and stunting with p-values of 0. 000 in both
Tatopani and Chandannath. This a strong positive correlation show that family type is an
important predictor of stunting in both areas. On the other hand, family size has no impact on
stunting in either region as shown by the p-values of 0.211 in Tatopani and 0. 753 in
Chandannath, indicating that family size does not have any significant effect on stunting
prevalence.

They further reveal that there is no correlation between the mother’s education level and stunting
in the two municipalities. However, the father's education level presents a contrasting scenario:
However, Tatopani has a non-significant p-value of 0. 214, Chandannath has the p-value 0. 000.
This can be viewed that the father education has higher impact on stunting in Chandannath than
Tatopani. Moreover, ethnicity is a variable influencing stunting in Tatopani at the level of 0.006,
meaning that ethnicity plays a more important role in stunting than in Chandannath (at 0.353).

Exclusive breastfeeding comes out as an important variable with both Tatopani and Chandannath
having a positive correlation (p = 0. 000). This has highlighted the need to practice exclusive
breastfeeding in order to minimize stunting in both areas. Likewise, the categories of
complementary foods given to children have shown a significant relationship with stunting with
p < 0. 001 in Tatopani and none. 000 in Chandannath, to highlight the significance of the
nutritional needs in the initial years of growth.

Further, the results suggest that the level of knowledge about malnutrition is highly significant to
stunting in both areas with p= 0. 000 in Tatopani and Chandannath locally: According to the
research conducted in Tatopani and Chandannath, the total population of the area is fifty
thousand. Hence, this call to more awareness and knowledge of the existence or instances of
malnutrition in eradicating stunting. Lastly, it is evident that the coefficients for some variables –
exclusive breastfeeding, the types of complementary food, and knowledge about malnutrition –
are statistically important overall; however, the father’s education and ethnicity effect vary
across regions. This can help provide directed approaches to mitigate the problem of stunting in
these societies.

Table 4.10 (a) Factor associated with Wasting and type of local government

Tatopani RM p-value Chandannath

Municipality
P-value

Variables Wasting Normal Wasting Normal

Family type Nuclear 13 93 0.025 11 109 0.001

Joint 18 53 16 41

Family size 1–4 12 81 0.166 12 95 0.156

5–8 10 36 13 50

9 -12 7 27 2 6

More than 12 2 2 0 0

Mother Illiterate 4 14 0.321 1 5 0.727

education
level

Literate 11 63 6 21

Primary 4 38 9 47

Secondary 8 20 6 28
 Bachelor 3 9 3 35

Master 1 2 2 14

Father’s Illiterate 4 8 0.681 1 3 0.266

education
level

Literate 8 48 2 7

Primary 11 43 9 23

Secondary 4 23 7 56

Bachelor 3 18 6 41

Master 1 6 2 20

Ethnicity Advantage 17 102 11 67 0.705

group

Disadvantage 14 44 0.106 16 83
group

Father Agriculture 9 83 0.013 8 79 0.024

occupation

Job 3 20 4 30

Labor 5 15 8 14

Business 1 6 6 22

Foreign 13 24 1 5
Employment
Table 4.10 (b) Factor associated with Wasting and type of local government

Tatopani RM P-value Chandannath

Municipality
P-value

Variables Wasting Normal Wasting Normal

Mother Agriculture 16 111 0.084 12 91 0.471

occupation

Job 4 11 3 19

House wife 6 12 3 10

Business 1 4 5 17

Labor 4 8 4 13

Annual <100,000 13 50 0.022 16 36 0.000

income

100,000 – 11 85 7 96
300,000

>300,000 7 11 4 18

Exclusive Yes 13 99 0.007 16 120 0.019

breastfeeding
 No 18 47 11 30

Types of Lito 10 87 0.013 12 111 0.005

complimentary
food

Jaulo 8 29 9 28

Same as 13 30 6 37
family
member

Knowledge Yes 18 123 0.001 19 137 0.002

about
malnutrition

No 13 23 8 13

The study on wasting in children from Tatopani RM and Chandannath Municipality reveals
several key findings as to the causes of malnutrition in these areas. Family type is another
variable which is highly significant in both Tatopani and Chandannath with p-values of 0. This
means that in both areas the structure and dynamic of the family influences wasting in children
significantly. On the other hand, the family size and the education level of the mother have no
correlations with wasting, which indicates these two aspects are not as influential in either of the
municipalities.

The father’s level of education is somewhat encouraging. This shows that in Tatopani the
association is non-significant (p = 0. 681), whereas in Chandannath the association is significant
(p = 0. 266), which means the father’s education has a greater impact on wasting in
Chandannath.

In both regions, the father’s occupation is influential, with p-values of 0. 013 in Tatopani. This
implies that the nature of job of the father and perhaps the social class likely plays a role in the
occurrence of wasting. Annual income is another important independent variable with the p-
values of 0. 022 in Tatopani and 0.275 in Chandannath, revealing that economic stability is
crucial to avoiding wasting.

There are highly significant relationships between exclusive breastfeeding with wasting in
Tatopani (p = 0. 007) in Chandannath (p = 0. 019) as well. This again underlines the importance
of breastfeeding practices in child health and breaking of wasting. The types of complementary
foods that are given to children are also related to wasting in both areas and the p-values are
0.013 in Tatopani and 0. 005 in Chandannath, which highlights the need for adequate and diverse
diet beyond the period of breastfeeding.

It was further observed that awareness of malnutrition is strongly linked to wasting in both
regions with p-values of 0. 564 in Tatopani and 0. 002 in Chandannath. This realisation
underscores the need for educationa campaigns that would effectively address the issue of
wasting. Conclusively, some variables are influential across all the study areas e.g., exclusive
breastfeeding, types of complementary diets, and knowledge on malnutrition while others have
differences in their coefficients, for instance, father’s education, and occupation, offering
relevant information on noteworthy health interventions to these communities.

Table 4.11 (a) Factor associated with underweight and type of local government
 Tatopani RM p-value Chandannath
Municipality
P-value

Variables Under Normal Under Normal

weight Weight

Family type Nuclear 29 77 0.000 16 104 0.004

Joint 38 33 18 39

Family size 1–4 28 65 0.169 13 94

5–8 21 25 17 46 0.006

9 -12 16 18 3 2

More than 12 2 2 1 1

Mother Illiterate 8 10 0.880 2 4 0.108

education
level

Literate 29 45 9 18

Primary 17 25 13 43

Secondary 9 19 3 31

Bachelor 3 9 4 34

Master 1 2 3 13
Father’s Illiterate 6 6 0.575 0 0.786
education
level

Literate 22 34 2 7

Primary 16 38 9 23

Secondary 13 14 12 51

Bachelor 8 13 8 39

Master 2 5 3 19

Ethnicity Advantage 36 83 0.003 18 60 0.246

group

Disadvantage 31 27 16 49
group

Father Agriculture 33 59 0.857 17 70 0.321

occupation

Job 11 12 4 30

Labor 7 11 7 15

Business 3 4 4 24

Foreign 13 24 2 4
Employment
Table 4.11 (b) Factor associated with Underweight and type of local government

Tatopani RM p-value Chandannath

Municipality
P-value

Variables Under Normal Under Normal

weight weight

Mother Agriculture 33 94 0.392 14 89 0.231

occupation

Job 9 6 7 15

House wife 6 12 3 10

Business 1 4 6 16

Labor 4 8 4 13

Annual <100,000 33 30 0.012 26 26 0.000

income

100,000 – 28 68 37 66
300,000

>300,000 6 12 4 18

Exclusive Yes 29 83 0.000 21 115 0.020

breastfeeding

No 38 27 13 28
 Types of Lito 30 67 0.077 25 98
complimentary
food

Jaulo 19 18 3 23 0.556

Same as 18 25 6 22
family
member

Knowledge Yes 43 98 0.000 23 133 0.000

about
malnutrition

No 24 12 11 10

The above table 4.11(a) and (b) shows Factor associated with Underweight on Tatopani Rural
Municipality (RM) and Chandannath Municipality. Family type strongly affects the proportion
of underweight children in both regions also the p value of (0. 000 in Tatopani and 0. 004,
Chandannath shows that it really matters whether the family consists of a nuclear or joint type.
Family size proves to be significant in Chandannath (p = 0. 006) and insignificant in Tatopani (p
= 0. 169) and hence large families in Chandannath could be supplementing underweight child
illness rates.

Mother's education level does not significantly influence the underweight status of children in
either region (Tatopani , p= 0.88 Chandannath, p = 0. 108. Similarly, education level of father
has no effect on underweight children as well in Tatopani (p = 0. 575) and Chandannath (p = 0.
786). This means that parental educational attainment may not be a significant determinant in
these fields.

Ethnicity is a highly significant in Tatopani, (p = 0. 003) as it influences the various ethnic

group’s children underweight status while the result shows that ethnicity has no significance in
Chandannath (p = 0. 246). Father's occupation does not significantly affect underweight status in
either Tatopani (p = 0. 857) or Chandannath (p = 0. 321), nor does mother's occupation
(Tatopani: p = 0.392, Chandannath: p = 0.231).

Annual income has a very high or significant level of association with the child underweight
issue both in Tatopani (p = 0.012) and Chandannath (p = 0. 000) indicating that economic
stability plays an influential role in addressing this problem. Exclusive breastfeeding shows a
significant association with underweight status in both areas Tatopani p = 0. 000, Chandannath: p
= 0. 020 highlighting the importance of the practices of breastfeeding. The types of
complementary food do not significantly affect underweight status in either region (Tatopani: p =
0. 077, Chandannath: p = 0. 556). Finally, knowledge about malnutrition is significantly
associated with underweight status in both areas (Tatopani, p=0.000 and (Chandannath p = 0.
000).

Table 4.12 (a) Factor associated with MUAC<12.5cm and type of local government

Tatopani RM Chandannath
Municipality
P- P-value
value

Variables MUAC Normal MUAC Normal

<12.5cm <12.5cm
Family type Nuclear 13 93 0.014 17 103 0.247

Joint 19 52 12 45

Family size 1–4 12 81 0.169 14 93 0.037

5–8 13 33 12 51

9 -12 6 28 3 2

More than 12 1 3 0 2

Mother Illiterate 4 14 0.223 2 4 0.493

education
level

Literate 9 65 7 20

Primary 6 36 8 48

Secondary 9 19 6 28

Bachelor 3 9 4 34

Master 1 2 2 14

Father’s Illiterate 2 10 0.279 1 3 0.006

education
level

Literate 8 48 3 6

Primary 7 47 8 24
 Secondary 9 18 11 52

Bachelor 4 17 2 45

Master 2 5 4 4

Ethnicity Advantage 13 106 0.000 11 67 0.928

group

Disadvantage 19 39 16 83
group

Father Agriculture 12 80 0.272 6 81 0.001

occupation

Job 5 18 5 29

Labor 6 12 9 13

Business 2 5 7 21

Foreign 7 30 2 4
Employment

Table 4.11 (b) Factor associated with MUAC<12.5cm and type of local government

Tatopani RM p-value Chandannath

Municipality
P-value

Variables MUAC Normal MUAC Normal

<12.5cm <12.5cm
Mother Agriculture 15 112 0.004 9 94 0.001
occupation

Job 4 11 3 19

House wife 6 12 6 7

Business 1 4 8 14

Labor 6 6 3 14

Annual <100,000 15 48 0.331 13 39 0.018

income

100,000 - 14 82 10 93
300,000

>300,000 3 15 6 16

Exclusive Yes 14 98 0.011 12 124 0.00

breastfeeding

No 18 47 17 24

Types of Lito 7 90 0.00 6 117 0.00

complimentary
food

Jaulo 14 23 14 12

Same as 11 32 9 19
 family
member

Knowledge Yes 20 121 0.008 17 139 0.00

about
malnutrition

No 12 24 12 9

The study looked at the variables related to children in Tatopani and Chandannath having a mid-
upper arm circumference (MUAC) of less than 12.5 cm. Family type was not substantially (p =
0.247) linked with MUAC in Chandannath, whereas it was in Tatopani (p = 0.014). In contrast,
there was a significant correlation between family size and Chandannath (p = 0.037) but not
Tatopani (p = 0.169). In neither case did the mother's educational attainment play a major role.
On the other hand, the father's educational attainment was significant in Tatopani (p = 0.279) but
not in Chandannath (p = 0.006). In Tatopani, ethnicity was a significant effect (p = 0.000),
whereas in Chandannath, it was not significant (p = 0.928). In Chandannath (p = 0.001), the
father's occupation was substantially correlated with MUAC, but not in Tatopani (p = 0.272).
Exclusive breastfeeding was a significant factor in both locations, with p-values of 0.011 in
Tatopani and 0.000 in Chandannath. Similarly, the types of complementary food provided were
significantly associated with MUAC in both Tatopani (p = 0.000) and Chandannath (p = 0.000).
Additionally, knowledge about malnutrition was significantly associated with MUAC in both
areas, with p-values of 0.008 in Tatopani and 0.000 in Chandannath.