IMPACT OF WATER LOGGING ON FOOD SECURITY AT KOYRA UPAZILA UNDER KHULNA DISTRICT, BANGLADESH

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.

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.

Materials and Method  Study Area Source: Banglapedia, 2006 Map of the Khulna district and Koyra upazilla

Map : Digitized base map of the study area  Study Area

Materials and Method (1)(Kothari, 2009). Where, n=Sample size; z 2 =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.

 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  Secondary data are collected from relevant government and non-government published and unpublished papers.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

Results and Discussion Socioeconomic factors Figure 2 : Shifting occupation Figure 1 : Occupational status

Results and Discussion Figure 3: Land information Status Pre waterloggedPost waterloggedDecreasable (%) Total land % Cultivated land % Table 3.2: Decreasable land of the respondents

Results and Discussion Illness diarrhea dysentery skin diseases stomach pain malnutriti on fever never Households Percentage Table 3.3: Illness of household member within a year. Figure 4: Sanitation facility

Results and Discussion Food security status Figure 5: Acquisition of main food

Results and Discussion Figure 6: Availability of various kinds of food.

Results and Discussion Food security StatusStatementFrequencyPercent Cumulative Percent Quantitative Food insecure (Severe) Often not enough to eat Quantitative Food insecure (Average) Sometimes not enough to eat Quantitative Food Secure Enough to eat Total— Table 3.4: Quantitative food security measure Figure 7: Qualitative food security

Results and Discussion Figure 8: Weekly food intake

Figure 9: Meal intake period of womenFigure 10: Women illness frequency with respect to men Results and Discussion

Results and Discussion Figure 11: Child food security status

Results and Discussion Figure 12: Copping strategy of households

Results and Discussion Figure13: Loss weight due to food insecurity

Results and Discussion Influencing factor of food security Figure 14: Present problem in food production

Results and Discussion Figure 15: Money problem to purchase

Results and Discussion Figure 16: Seasonal variations in food security

Results and Discussion Asset Type % Households owning before water logging % Households reporting “fully damaged” % Households reporting “partial damage” Fishing gher (nets, etc) Fish pond Shrimp gher Table 3.5: Damages in fish stocks

Figure 17: Loss of livestock. Results and Discussion

Conclusion 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.

Photographs

Materials and Method  Sample size determination Where, n=Sample size; z 2 =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. When, p=4% of the population, i.e. 0.04; q= (1-0.4) = 0.96; z 2 = 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. = (1)(Kothari, 2009).