IMPACT OF WATER LOGGING ON FOOD SECURITY AT KOYRA UPAZILA UNDER KHULNA DISTRICT, BANGLADESH .
27
IMPACT OF WATER LOGGING ON FOOD SECURITY AT KOYRA UPAZILA UNDER KHULNA DISTRICT, BANGLADESH www.ePowerPoint.com
-
Upload
janice-margery-flowers -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
2
Transcript of IMPACT OF WATER LOGGING ON FOOD SECURITY AT KOYRA UPAZILA UNDER KHULNA DISTRICT, BANGLADESH .
IMPACT OF WATER LOGGING ON FOOD SECURITY
AT KOYRA UPAZILA UNDER KHULNA DISTRICT, BANGLADESH
www.ePowerPoint.com
www.ePowerPoint.com
Introduction
Since independence in 1971, Bangladesh has made considerable progress in reducing extreme poverty and food insecurity. National availability of sufficient food does not mean that all households have access to sufficient food.
In local level like coastal region where livelihood security faces more difficulty has food insecurity greater extent because of its different features.
Koyra is a place where people are in most vulnerable condition with its occupation pattern, income level, education, natural hazards etc.
www.ePowerPoint.com
Objective of the study
To determine food security status;
To identify the socioeconomic factor of food security;
To measure the influences of different factors on food security.
www.ePowerPoint.com
Materials and MethodStudy Area
Source:
Ban
gla
ped
ia,
20
06
Map of the Khulna district and Koyra upazilla
www.ePowerPoint.com
Map : Digitized base map of the study area
Study Area
www.ePowerPoint.com
Materials and Method
pqzNe
pqNzn
22
2
)1( -----------------(1)(Kothari, 2009).
Where, n=Sample size; z2=the value of the standard variant At
a given confidence level; p=sample proportion; q=1-p;
e=acceptance error and N= Population size of the village.
Sample size determination
Simple random sampling method is used for sample selection.
Sample size
Sample size=90.
The sample size was determined for data collection using the
equation formulated by Kothari.
www.ePowerPoint.com
Primary data are mainly collected by questionnaire survey.
Secondary data are collected from relevant government and non-government published and unpublished papers.
Materials and Method
Data collection
www.ePowerPoint.com
Results and Discussion
Socioeconomic factors
14.44%
21.11%
20%12.22%
18.89%
13.33%
Occupational status
BusinessShrimp farmerFishing in riverHouse wifeAgricul-tureOthers
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 33
1511
13
710
15
9
2427
13
48
Shifting of occupation
Pre-wa-ter log-ging
Post-water logging
Figure 2 : Shifting occupationFigure 1 : Occupational status
www.ePowerPoint.com
Results and Discussion
Total Land Cultivated Land0
0.51
1.52
2.5 2.061.57
0.550.2
Average land information in bigha
Pre-water loggingPost-water logging
Figure 3: Land information
Status Pre waterlogged Post waterlogged Decreasable (%)
Total land 2.06 0.55 73%Cultivated land
1.57 0.2 87%
Table 3.2: Decreasable land of the respondents
www.ePowerPoint.com
Results and Discussion
Illness diarrhea
dysentery
skin diseases
stomach pain
malnutrition
fever never
Households 28 19 11 9 10 12 2
Percentage 31.10 21.20 12.22 10 11.11 13.33 2.22
Table 3.3: Illness of household member within a year.
16.67%
83.33%
Sanitation status
SanitaryNon-sanitary
Figure 4: Sanitation facility
www.ePowerPoint.com
Results and Discussion
Food security status
4.44%
86.67%
8.89%
Acquisition of main food
Own produc-tionPurchase
Both
Figure 5: Acquisition of main food
www.ePowerPoint.com
Results and Discussion
8.89%
91.11%
Availability of various kinds of food
Yes
No
Figure 6: Availability of various kinds of food.
www.ePowerPoint.com
Results and Discussion
Food security Status Statement Frequency Percent Cumulative
PercentQuantitative Food insecure (Severe)
Often not enough to eat33 36.66 36.66
Quantitative Food insecure (Average)
Sometimes not enough to eat 46 51.11 87.77
Quantitative Food Secure
Enough to eat11 12.22 100
Total — 90 100
Table 3.4: Quantitative food security measure
7%
93%
Qualitative food security
yesno
Figure 7: Qualitative food security
www.ePowerPoint.com
Results and Discussion
0%
50%
100%88.89%86.67%
2.22%
66.67%
8.89%
Weekly food intake
Figure 8: Weekly food intake
www.ePowerPoint.com
64.2%
35.8% At last
same time 63%
3%
34%MoreLessSame
Figure 9: Meal intake period of women
Figure 10: Women illness frequency with respect to men
Results and Discussion
www.ePowerPoint.com
Results and Discussion
25%
46%18%
10%
Child food security
Food secure
Average food insecure
Moderate food insecure
Severe food insecure
Figure 11: Child food security status
www.ePowerPoint.com
28.89%
31.11%
20.00%
13.33%
6.67%
Coping strategies of households
Substitute less expensive food
Reduce variety of food
Eating less quantity of food
Help from fam-ily, neighbors or friends
Working more
Results and Discussion
Figure 12: Copping strategy of households
www.ePowerPoint.com
Results and Discussion
73.33%26.67%
Weight loss
Yes
No
Figure13: Loss weight due to food insecurity
www.ePowerPoint.com
Results and DiscussionInfluencing factor of food security
42.22%
25.56%
32.22%
Food production problem
Water Logging Salinity Both
Figure 14: Present problem in food production
www.ePowerPoint.com
Results and Discussion
60.60%
39.40%
Yes No
Figure 15: Money problem to purchase
www.ePowerPoint.com
Results and Discussion
4.8%6.1%
50.3%18.2%
20.6%
Seasonal variation in food
January-february
March-april
August-sep-tember
May-june
No variation
Figure 16: Seasonal variations in food security
www.ePowerPoint.com
Results and Discussion
Asset Type % Households owning before water logging
% Households reporting “fully damaged”
% Households reporting “partial damage”
Fishing gher (nets, etc) 21.2 6.4 4.5
Fish pond 42.5 23.5 16.6Shrimp gher 13.4 6.2 6.9
Table 3.5: Damages in fish stocks
www.ePowerPoint.com
Livestock
Goat Hen Duck Sheep Buffalo0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
33.02%
13.21%
55.66%
26.42%
3.77% 1.89%10.44%
7.65%
21.55%15.65%
1.10% 0.25%
Loss of livestock
Pre-water logging
Post-water logging
Figure 17: Loss of livestock.
Results and Discussion
www.ePowerPoint.com
Conclusion
Qualitative food security status are most severe in study area. Only 7% household are qualitatively food secure.
The most influencing factor of food insecurity in study area is
water logging and salinity. Education, occupation, culture etc. factors have influenced in food security.
Awareness about balanced diet, local food production, sufficient fresh water supply for irrigation, proper disaster management, better economic level, better transportation should be ensured to achieve sustainable food security in study area as well as in coastal area.
www.ePowerPoint.com
THANKS TO ALL
www.ePowerPoint.com
Photographs
www.ePowerPoint.com
Materials and Method
Sample size determination
Where, n=Sample size; z2=the value of the standard variant Ata given confidence level; p=sample proportion; q=1-p;e=acceptance error and N= Population size of the village.
When, p=4% of the population, i.e. 0.04; q= (1-0.4) = 0.96; z2= 1.96 [for
95% confidence level the value of ‘z’ is 1.96];e= 0.04 [Since the estimate should be within 10% of the true
value].
Here, N=total household of the study=8778. = 90.
pqzNe
pqNzn
22
2
)1( -----------------(1)(Kothari, 2009).
96.004.096.1)18778(1.0
877896.004.096.122
2
xx
xxxn
