riverbank erosion induced migrants’ livelihood...
TRANSCRIPT
RIVERBANK EROSION INDUCED MIGRANTS’ 75
Oriental Geographer
Vol. 60, No. 1&2, 2016
Printed in March 2019
RIVERBANK EROSION INDUCED MIGRANTS’
LIVELIHOOD PATTERN CHANGES AND MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES: A CASE STUDY OF CHARBHADRASAN
UPAZILA, FARIDPUR
BIDDUT KUMAR GHOSH1
Abstract: Riverbank erosion is a very common and regular natural hazard in Bangladesh
that causes many problems in societal and economical life. It compels people to migrate
from their parental place and makes them shelter less. This paper focuses on socio-
economic background, changes of occupational pattern and management, comparing
households’ resources between present and before erosion and livelihood management
strategies of the migrated households in Charbhadrasan Upazila. Mostly primary data and
some secondary data were used in conducting this study. The socio-economic condition
of erosion induced victims of Charbhadrasan Upazila is sub-standard compared to non
affected people due to loss of income sources and properties including valuable land
property. They faced unavoidable problems like lose of livelihood, income and shelter
and also faced employment crisis. Some head of the victim households (37.5%) changed
their occupation to cope with this hazard and most of the people displaced from first
destination and moved to another places and some of them migrated as livelihood
management strategies.
Keywords: Riverbank erosion, Occupational pattern, Employment crisis and Livelihood
management strategies.
INTRODUCTION
Riverbank erosion induced migrants are helpless and get their lifestyle lowered compared
to previous condition when they were affected by erosion. These people are vulnerable
people by societal and economic perspectives. They adapt some management strategies
by ad hoc basis to tackle their worst situations. These people take initiative to migrate for
surviving themselves. Migration is always considered as an important livelihood
management strategy for the riverbank erosion induced migrated households (RMMRU,
2007). The number of migrated households found in Charbhadrasan Upazila was 10132
during 1988-2013 due to the mighty Padma Riverbank erosion (Ghosh and Mahbub,
2014). This involuntary migration affects directly on regular sources of income and
income generating activities of the migrated households. This change constrains in every
step of uncertain life of the affected people. The effect of livelihood pattern change is
severe on the migrated households caused by riverbank erosion (Islam and Rashid, 2011).
1 Biddut Kumar Ghosh is Lecturer, Department of Geography and Environmental Science, Begum Rokeya University,
Rangpur, Bangladesh
76 ORIENTAL GEOGRAPHER
Riverbank erosion induced migration is different from other types of migration. That is
why the migrants of Charbhadrasan Upazila faced difficulties to find new sources of
income in new settlement areas. They took shelter in different near and distant places by
their capacity or migrated to urban areas. Sometimes, they faced some problems within
their family. Some landless and workless heads of the erosion induced households
migrate alone under financial pressure. Women of those households have to struggle hard
to maintain their families. So, it can be claimed that women and children are the most
vulnerable group of people for riverbank erosion like any natural disasters (Kafi, 1993).
AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
This study aims to emphasize on the livelihood pattern changes and management
strategies of the riverbank erosion induced migrants in Charbhadrasan Upazila under
Faridpur District. The migrants of this Upazila have adopted some survival strategies to
manage their lives and livelihood.
The objectives of this study are:
To focus on the changes in occupational pattern of the victims caused by
riverbank erosion;
To illustrate the socio-economic background of the migrants; and finally
To evaluate the livelihood management strategies of the affected HHs.
METHODOLOGY
This study is based on the inductive approach of geographical research. Mostly primary
and some secondary data are the main source of quantitative data. All qualitative data of
this study were collected from primary sources. Questionnaire survey at household level
and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted as primary data collection method.
The questionnaire was semi-structured. The head of the households was considered as the
respondent and while head was absent the homemaker was chosen as the respondent. A
simple random cluster sampling and 304 target households (3%) as sample size from
10,132 riverbank erosion induced migrated households during 1988-2013 were selected
to continue the questionnaire survey in the study area. Eight FGDs have been conducted
to progress this study. Microsoft Excel Software and SPSS 17.0 were applied to analyze
the data and ArcGIS 10.1 was used to produce map. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics,
international and national research papers and journal articles are the secondary sources
of this paper.
SELECTION OF THE STUDY AREA
Charbhadrasan Upazila in Faridpur District is one of the most vulnerable Upazilas for
riverbank erosion (Ghosh and Mahbub, 2014). This Upazila was selected as study area to
carry out this study. The total area of this Upazila (study area) shown in (Fig. 1) is 154.65
sq. km. The absolute location of this Upazila is between 23º 33´ and 23º 40´ north
latitudes and between 89º 53´ and 90º07´ east longitudes (BBS, 2012 cited in Ghosh and
Mahbub, 2014).
RIVERBANK EROSION INDUCED MIGRANTS’ 77
Figure 1: Study Area
Source: Base map collected from LGED, 2013
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Changes in Occupational Pattern of the Respondents
Migrants’ living standard depends on their occupational pattern. The respondent
households’ head were asked about their occupational pattern change in the post-
migration situation due to riverbank erosion. It is found that 114 respondents (37.5%)
changed their occupation after being victim of bank erosion (Fig.2). They changed their
occupation by themselves to survive and tackle difficulties after losing their employment
sources as well as lands.
Figure 2: Changes in Occupational Pattern of the Respondents
Source: Field Survey, 2013
37.5%
62.5%
Changed
No Changed
78 ORIENTAL GEOGRAPHER
Fig. 3 indicates the comparison of respondents’ conducting occupation. Insignificant
portion respondents (3%) are practicing agriculture after being victim by erosion in where
18.1% of the respondents had practiced agriculture before riverbank erosion. This fact
may be explained by the fact that these migrated people lost their valuable agricultural
land by the mighty Padma Riverbank erosion. Riverbank erosion induced victims tried to
engage themselves into non-agricultural activities that is common phenomenon
throughout Bangladesh (Islam et al, 2004).
Figure 3: Present and Before Riverbank Erosion Occupation of the Respondents
Source: Field Survey, 2013
Almost half of the respondents (52%) are having other occupations like rickshaw puller,
carpenter, painter, fisherman, engine driven boat driver and others and less than half of
the respondents (43.1%) had other occupations at pre-migration stage (Fig. 3). The
migrated households of this Upazila were compelled them to live a sub-standard life by
losing income sources and homestead land; they could not continue their way of living
even parallel to the way before riverbank erosion.
Income Sources of Respondents
There are two preferences for main income sources of respondents’ households. Most of
the respondent’s first preference at present is non-agricultural labour (26.32%) due to
lack of land. But, before riverbank erosion agriculture (23.68%) was the first preference
as source of income. The respondents’ income sources are shown in (Table 1).
Household Size
There are 1666 family members recorded by 304 sample households. The average
household size of the migrated households is 5.42. This is higher than the overage
household size of the Charbhadrasan Upazila. The average household size recorded by
Censuses at Charbhadrasan Upazila is 4.43 and 5.09 in 2011 and 2001 Census year
respectively (BBS, 2012). This shows that the household size is becoming smaller with
time and this is mainly due to rising number of nuclear families in Bangladesh. Most of
the migrated households in the study area have 4 family members. The minimum and
maximum members found in respondents’ household were 2 and 10 respectively.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Agriculture Business Day labour Housewife Old/ ill/
disable
Other
Occupations
Percen
tag
e
Occupation
Present
Previous
RIVERBANK EROSION INDUCED MIGRANTS’ 79
Table 1: Income Sources of the Respondents
Main Income Sources of
Households
At Present Before River Bank erosion
1st Preference 2
nd Preference 1
st Preference 2
nd Preference
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Land/ Agriculture 5 1.65 - - 72 23.68 7.00 2.30
Homestead Garden - - 6 1.97 - - 11.00 3.62
Small Business 52 17.11 - - 35 11.51 9.00 2.96
Agricultural Labourer 24 7.89 - - 37 12.17 - -
Peasant 12 3.95 - - - - - -
Non-agricultural Labourer 80 26.32 5 1.60 29 9.54 15.00 4.93
Relief (Rice) - - 10 3.29 - - - -
Rickshaw Puller 32 10.53 - - 13 4.28 - -
Carpenter 30 9.87 - - 34 11.18 - -
Fishing 8 2.63 - - - - - -
Engine Driven Boat Driver 12 3.95 - - - - - -
Painter 5 1.16 - - 6 1.97 - -
Shop/Tea Stall 7 2.30 - - - 5.00 1.64 -
Abroad 9 3.00 - - - 2.00 0.66 -
Note: Multiple responses considered Source: Field Survey, 2013
Monthly Income of the Respondents’ Households
Fig. 4 shows the present monthly income and previous monthly income of the
respondents. Two-third respondents’(64.8%) monthly income had ranging group of Tk.
5,000-10,000 before erosion while half of the respondents’ (51.3%) present monthly
income is of that range. About 4.6% migrants’ previous monthly income belonged to
ranging from Tk. 15,001 to Tk. 20,000 that ranging is absent at present monthly income
of the people (Fig. 5). The previous (before riverbank erosion) economic condition of the
respondents’ households was better than present condition.
Figure 4: Monthly Income of the Respondents in Taka
Source: Field Survey, 2013
47.7 51.3
1
27.3
64.8
3.3 4.60
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
<5000 5000-10000 10001-15000 15001-20000
Percen
tag
e
Level of Income in Taka
Present Income
Previous Income
80 ORIENTAL GEOGRAPHER
Monthly Expenditure of the Respondents’ Households
Regarding the monthly expenditure, less than Tk. 5,000 was for the two-third
households’ (66.4%) at pre-migration and is 47% household’s at present. About (30.6%)
and (51%) respondents’ at present and at previous monthly expenditure respectively are
in the ranging group of Tk. 5,000- 10,000. About 1% and 2% of the respondents’
monthly expenditure at present and previous are in Tk. 10,001-15,000 respectively. Small
portion of respondents’ (1%) present and previous monthly expenditure is recorded
within the range of Tk. 15,001-20,000. The present monthly expenditure is higher than
previous monthly expenditure mainly for rising new demands due to loss of property
through riverbank erosion. The price of goods or daily necessities is high compared to
previous. Monthly expenditure is linked to number of family member for fulfillment of
daily needs and money inflation.
Households’ Resources
The resources of the respondents’ households were higher than present that lost due to
bank erosion of the Padma River. This is a silent disaster that destroys homesteads,
erodes cultivable land and reduces employment opportunities (Ghosh and Mahbub, 2014;
Uddin and Basak, n.d). Such losses bound them to displace and migrate in such a place
where little or no opportunity remains to survive. It has an adverse impact on livelihood
pattern of the migrants as well as rural economy and society (Uddin and Das, 2004).
Number of House of the Respondents
House is considered as living place where people take shelter. Fig. 5 shows the
comparison of the number of exiting housing structures at present and owned housing
structures before the riverbank erosion. This figure indicates the number of housing
structure (one and two structures) at two periods is more or less same, but the highest
number of housing structures (5 housing structures) prevailed previously and does not
exist at present among the migrants (fig. 5). This indicates the lowering down of socio-
economic status than the previous time.
Figure 5: Number of Housing Structures of the Respondents
Source: Field Survey, 2013
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
1
2
3
4
5
Percentage
No
of
Ho
usi
ng
Str
uctu
res
Previous
Present
RIVERBANK EROSION INDUCED MIGRANTS’ 81
Homestead Land of the Respondents
Homestead land is the main habitat for the respondents. Less than 10 decimal, ranging
group 10-20 decimal and 21-30 decimal land prevailed among 40.1%, 26.3% and 3% of
the migrated households respectively and those portions of land prevail among 2.3%,
1.3% and 0.99% households at present respectively. About 8.9%, 3%, 2% and 16.8% of
the respondents had homestead land ranging 31-40 decimal, 41-50 decimal, greater than
50 decimal lands and no land respectively before riverbank erosion. But, these
percentages of respondents having those holding decimal lands are not found at present
due to erosion and their socio-economic condition.
Agricultural Land of the Respondents
Agricultural land is the vital resource for the people living in Bangladesh specially those
who live in rural areas and bank line. Only a few of the victims (1.65%) caused by bank
erosion in Charbhadrasan Upazila holds agriculture land. Fig. 6 shows about half (49%)
of them were holding agriculture land before riverbank erosion and dependent of
agriculture. This was approximately same as Census data in 2011 that almost 48% of the
total population in Bangladesh directly lives on agriculture (BBS, 2012). About 0.99%
and 0.66% respondents have less than 20 decimal and ranging from 21-40 decimal
agricultural lands respectively at present shown in (Fig. 6). The poor especially riverbank
erosion affected have less amount of land to support their famil (Uddin and Basak, n.d).
. Figure 6: Agricultural Land of the Respondents
Source: Field Survey, 2013
Tube-well Ownership Tube-well is only source of drinking water of surveyed households. Table 2 indicates the
ownership of tube-well of the households. Over half (54.6%) of respondents do not own
any tube-well and rest of percentage (45.1%) of the households have one tube-well.
These migrants have not much money to install tube-well. On the other hand they have
no permanent residence.
0
5
10
15
20
25
<20 21-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 >100
Percen
tag
e
Agricultural Land in Decimal
Present
Previous
82 ORIENTAL GEOGRAPHER
Table 2: Ownership of Tube-well of the Respondents
No of
Tube well
owned
At Present Previous (Before riverbank erosion)
Frequency (N) Percentage (%) Frequency ( N) Percent (%)
1 137 45.1 177 58.2
2 - - 3 1.0
Not owned 167 54.9 124 40.8
Total 304 100.0 304 100.0 Source: Field Survey, 2013
Tress Ownership Tree plantation within the homestead is a very common culture in our rural areas. It has a
wider implication or benefit both economic and environmental. Very insignificant
percentage of the surveyed households (1.9%) has homestead tress at present but almost
third-fourth households (72.7%) had homestead tress before riverbank erosion (Fig. 7).
This figure also represents the holding of homestead tress of the respondents in
comparison between present and previous. The message of the figure is horrible.
Riverbank erosion not only loses homestead lands, agricultural lands, houses, roads and
property but also responsible for permanent damage of trees and different socio-
economic facilities (Uddin and Das, 2004).
Figure 7: Homestead Trees of the Respondents
Source: Field Survey, 2013
Number of Cattle Owned by the Respondents
Cattle (cow and goat) are the source of meat and milk; also source of money for the
erosion affected households. Two-third (69.1%) of the respondents have cattle at present
in their home for their livelihood management and over half (54.6%) of the respondents
had cattle before riverbank erosion (Fig. 8). But at present the number of owned cattle is
lower than before mainly due to shortage of homestead land of the affected households
than that prevailed before bank erosion. Rearing cattle is a way of leading livelihood for
some households.
0
5
10
15
20
25
<25 26-50 51-75 76-100 >100
Percen
tag
e
Number of Trees
Present
Previous
RIVERBANK EROSION INDUCED MIGRANTS’ 83
Figure 8: Number of Cattle of the Respondents
Source: Field Survey, 2013
Poultry Ownership
Poultry is the source of meat and egg of the respondents’ households. It is also source of
protein and money for them. Two-third (69.4%) of the respondents have poultry at
present. But, almost half (51.3%) of the respondents had poultry before riverbank
erosion. About 57.6%, 10.5% and 1.3% of respondents have less than 6 poultry, ranging
group of 6-10 poultry and 11-15 poultry respectively at present. On the other hand about
34.4% and 11.5%, 3% and 2% of respondents had less than 6 and ranging group of 6-10
poultry, 11-15 poultry and 16-20 poultry respectively before the riverbank erosion. The
number and percentage of poultry (hens and ducks) of the respondents’ households at
present are less than before erosion. The migrated households do not have sufficient
homestead land for rearing poultry.
Pond Ownership
Pond is the source of water for households work and bath of the surveyed households, but
in most cases not for drinking. It is the source of fishing. An insignificant percentage
(1%) of the respondents has pond at present and 13.3% of the respondents had pond
before riverbank erosion (Table 3). This table indirectly indicates the having off own land
of the victims at present and before erosion.
Table 3: Pond Ownership
No of Pond Present Pond of the Respondents Previous Pond of the Respondents
Frequency (N) Percentage (%) Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
1 3 01.00 41 13.50
No pond owned 301 99.00 263 86.50 Source: Field Survey, 2013
Crops of the Respondents
Crops produced by the respondents include paddy, wheat, onion, garlic, nut, mustard, pea
etc. Only about 1% of the respondents produce crops at present for not having
agricultural land, rest percentage of the victim households and about almost half (50.1%)
of the respondents used to produce crops before riverbank erosion (Table 4).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
<3 3-4 5-6 >6
Percen
tag
e
Number of Cattle
Present
Previous
84 ORIENTAL GEOGRAPHER
Table 4: Crops produced by the Respondents
Crop production
in Mon*
Present Crops Production Previous Crops Production
Frequency (N) Percentage (%) Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
<20 2 0.7 35 11.4
20-40 - - 41 13.6
41-60 1 0.3 22 7.3
61-80 - - 8 2.6
81-100 - - 30 9.9
>100 - - 16 5.3
No Crop 301 99.0 151 49.9
Total 304 100.0 304 100.0
Note: * One Mon equivalent to 37.5 kilogram
Source: Field Survey, 2013
Adapting Capacities of Migrated Households with Riverbank Erosion
Adapting capacities implies to cope with riverbank erosion easily. Most of the riverbank
erosion induced migrated households (74.36%) of the study area adapted themselves to
take shelter by agreement (lease). Table 5 shows how the victim households adapted
themselves.
Table 5: Adapting Capacities of Migrated Households with Riverbank Erosion
About Housing About Livelihood
Topic Frequency
(N=78)
Percentage
(%) Topic
Frequency
(N=78)
Percentage
(%)
Temporary Living 37 47.44 Same Livelihood Pattern 28 35.9
Living beside Riverbank 32 41.00 Different Livelihood Pattern 49 62.82
Living on the Road 41 52.56 Agricultural Labour 22 28.21
Agreemental Land 58 74.36 Non-agricultural Labour 31 39.74
Relative’s House 14 17.95 Rickshaw Puller 24 30.77 Note: Multiple responses considered
Source: FGD, 2013
Causes of not Migration
Some households did not migrate although they faced the impacts of riverbank erosion
and the reasons for not migration are extracted by conducting FGD (Table 5). Most of the
households (92.31%) did not migrate from riverbank due to not having land (Table 6).
Table 6: Causes of not Migration from riverbank
Topic Frequency (N=78) Percentage (%)
Economic Crisis 45 57.69
Labourer 25 32.00
Lease Crisis 32 41.00
Fisherman 17 21.79
Engine Boat Driver 19 24.36
Local Business 44 56.41
No Having Relatives 29 37.18
No Having Land 72 92.31
No Having Wealth 62 79.49
Thought at long Distance 15 19.23 Note: Multiple responses considered
Source: FGD, December 2013
RIVERBANK EROSION INDUCED MIGRANTS’ 85
Some households’ head are laobourer, fisherman, engine driven boat driver and local
businessman that did not force to migrate from riverbank. Some households among them
have no land, relatives, wealth and lease opportunities which compel to live beside
riverbank. Almost one-tenth of the bank erosion induced pauperized people migrate in
big cities and nearby urban centre for their livelihood management (Hossain, 1984).
Some of them (19.23%) have thought about long distance which is the lowest portion of
respondents (Table 6).
CONCLUSION Livelihood changes and strategies management of the migrated households’ head is
important for coping with riverbank erosion. Migration is the first step for livelihood
management. Then changing occupation is another phenomenon for migrated people.
Riverbank erosion induced migrants faced lots of problem associated with their living,
livelihood, and other social aspects, especially at the new place of destination. It is also
very difficult to get adequate and appropriate employment at the place of destination. As
a result their economic condition and social status at destination remains sub-standard for
long period after migration. The situation becomes worst, if the migrants and their
families didn’t get proper attention to rehabilitation.
Acknowledgement
This article is derived from the author’s MS Thesis. The author gratefully thank Professor Dr. A Q
M Mahbub, Department of Geography and Environment, University of Dhaka, for his sincere
supervision.
REFERENCES
BBS (2012). Population and Housing Census-2011, Community Report, Zila: Faridpur, Dhaka:
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics.
Ghosh, B.K., and Mahbub, A.Q.M. (2014). Riverbank Erosion Induced Migration: A Case Study
of Charbhadrasan Upazila, Faridpur, Oriental Geographer, Vol. 58 (1), pp. 59-71.
Hossain, M.Z. (1984). Riverbank Erosion and Population Displacement: A Case of Kazipur in
Pabna. Unpublished Thesis in Department of Geography and Environment, Jahangirnagar
University, Savar, Dhaka.
Islam, A.S.M.M. Islam, S.J. and Alam, M.S. (2004). River Bank Erosion and Associated
Consequences: a Case Study of Chilmari Thana, in R. M. Ahsan and H. Khatun (eds.)
Disaster and the Silent Gender: Contemporary Studies in Geography, Dhaka: The
Bangladesh Geographical Society.
Islam, M. F. and Rashid, A.N.M. B. (2011). Riverbank Erosion Displacees In Bangladesh: Need
For Institutional Response And Policy Intervention, Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics. Vol.
2(2), pp. 4-19. Retrieved June 29, 2013 from http://www. banglajol, info/ index, php/
BIOETHICS/ article/ download/...7070.
Kafi, S.A. (1993). What People can do to Reduce the Disastrous Effects of River Erosion. A
Training Manual For River Erosion Preparedness At Family and Community Level. Dhaka:
Pact-Bangladesh/PRIP.pp.1-12.
86 ORIENTAL GEOGRAPHER
RMMRU (2007). Coping with Riverbank Erosion Induced Displacement, Policy Brief 1. Dhaka,
Bangladesh.http://www.migrationdrc.org/publications/briefing_papers/RMMRU/Policy_bri
ef_ISSUE_1.pdf. [Accessed on July 14, 2013].
Uddin A.F.M. A. and Basak, J. K. (n.d). Effects of Riverbank Erosion on Livelihood, Dhaka:
Unnayan Onneshan-The Innovators, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Available at:
http://www.unnayan. Org/…/Effect_of _Riverbank_Erosion_ on _Livelihood.pdf
[Accessed on July 22, 2013].
Uddin, M.N. and Das, P.P. (2004). The Arial Khan: River Bank Erosion, in R. M. Ahsan and H.
Khatun (eds.) Disaster and the Silent Gender: Contemporary Studies in Geography, Dhaka:
The Bangladesh Geographical Society.