RIVERBANK EROSION INDUCED MIGRANTS’ LIVELIHOOD...

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).


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


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


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


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


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


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


0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1

2

3

4

5

Percentage

No

of

Ho

usi

ng

Str

uctu

res

Previous

Present


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


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


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


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


Figure 8: Number of Cattle of the Respondents


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


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


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


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.


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.

http://www.migrationdrc.org/publications/briefing_papers/RMMRU/Policy_brief_ISSUE_1.pdf



RIVERBANK EROSION INDUCED MIGRANTS’ LIVELIHOOD...

Documents

Transcript of RIVERBANK EROSION INDUCED MIGRANTS’ LIVELIHOOD...