ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, my all praises belong to the Almighty Allah, who has endowed us with the capability
and potential to accomplish this fieldwork undertaken as a part of course GRLb-208: Research
Methods and Fieldwork in Human Geography and Environment, in Second year in Department
of Geography and Environment, University of Dhaka. The fieldwork in Nazirartek, Cox’s Bazar
would not possible without the valuable support of certain pivotal individuals.

First and foremost, I extend my sincere gratitude to our course teachers Professor Dr. Nazmun
Nahar, Associate Professor Dr. Asib Ahmed and Assistant Professor Dr. Farzana Ahmed
Mohuya for spearheading the initiative to organize this field work in Nazirartek, Cox’s Bazar.
Without their unwavering encouragement and timely counsel, the execution of this research
endeavor would have been unattainable.

I also extend my appreciation to all my classmates who participated in the fieldwork and helped
to make it successful. I would like to express my gratefulness to the honorable respondents of
Nazirartek, Cox’s Bazar, who helped us the survey.

MS. Tujmila Khanam Maisha

Session: 2022-2023

i
 ABSTRACT
The present study was carried out to assess the socio-economic conditions of fishing community
in Nazirartek, Cox’s Bazar. It seeks to identify the key economic and environmental challenges
faced by this community, explore opportunities for improving their livelihhod, and evaluate
existing coping mechanisms. Data were collected by well-structured questionnaire survey
through through individual and key informant interviews, and focus group discussions. A total
of 236 fishermen were selected randomly for interview. The findings of the presents study
revealed that most of the fishermen were Muslim (98%) and belonged to age group 18-25 years
(25.6%). Most of the fishing family (63%) is usually consisted of 5-8 members. Among the
fishing community about 37% was illiterate, 44% was primary group and 15% was secondary
group. The current survey showed that the monthly income by fishing was BDT 5001–15000 and
mostly 44% are engaged in secondary jobs. The findings also showed that the community faces
challenges such as seasonal stress (70.7% report minimized profit), health hazards (35.9% suffer
costly treatment), and natural disasters causing displacement (48.7%) and property loss (55.1%).
Marine pollution (37.2%) and salinity intrusion (31.2%) contribute to reduced fish stock and
livelihood instability. Additionally, issues like middleman exploitation (30.3% low profit), poor
communication (29.1% hazard exposure), and weak law enforcement (17.9% face fines) also
strain their socio-economic conditions. For coping with these challenges most of them (42%)
take loan from NGOs. Their homes were kacha dwellings, with half of them have poor sanitary
facilities and About 86.7% of the fishermen used tube-well water for drinking. For waste
management most of them(42.2%) use trash bins and they think environmental pollution is a
local issue. Wide-ranging initiatives from both government and non-government organizations
need to be taken to improve the well-being of fishers of Naziratek which will ultimately help in
ensuring sustainable use and management of fisheries resources of adjacent areas.

Key Words: Socio- Economic; Coastal Fishing Community; Livelihood Challenges; Seasonal
Variability; Nazirartek

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..............................................................................................................................i

ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................ii

LIST OF FIGURES.....................................................................................................................................vii

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................................ix

CHAPTER ONE............................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Conceptual Background of the Study..................................................................................................2

1.3 Problem Statement...............................................................................................................................5

1.4 Literature Review.................................................................................................................................6

1.4.1 The socio-economic conditions of fishing communities..............................................................6

1.4.2 Financial Vulnerability and Credit dependency...........................................................................8

1.4.3 Climate Change and Environmental Vulnerability.......................................................................9

1.4.4 Gender Roles and Social Inclusion.............................................................................................10

1.4.5 Institutional Support and Livelihood Sustainability...................................................................10

1.5 Research Gap.....................................................................................................................................11

1.6 Objectives of the Study......................................................................................................................12

1.7 Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................................................13

CHAPTER TWO.........................................................................................................................................14

METHODS OF THE STUDY.....................................................................................................................14

iii
 2.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................14

2.2 Methods of the Study.........................................................................................................................15

2.2.1 Data Collection...........................................................................................................................17

2.2.2 Data Processing...........................................................................................................................19

2.2.3. Data Analysis and Report Presentation......................................................................................19

2.3 Study Area.........................................................................................................................................20

2.4 Selection of the study area.................................................................................................................21

CHAPTER THREE.....................................................................................................................................22

RESULTS OF THE STUDY.......................................................................................................................22

3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................22

3.2 Demographic Profile of the Respondents..........................................................................................23

3.2.1 Age Group...................................................................................................................................23

3.2.2 Religion.......................................................................................................................................23

3.2.3 Gender Composition...................................................................................................................23

3.2.4 Education Level..........................................................................................................................23

3.2.4 Marital Status..............................................................................................................................24

3.2.5 Occupation Status.......................................................................................................................24

3.2.6 Family Size.................................................................................................................................24

3.2.7 Housing Structure.......................................................................................................................24

3.3 Socio-Economic Status of the Fishing Community...........................................................................25

3.3.1 Household Income and Expenditure Patterns.............................................................................25

3.3.2 Employment Structure and Livelihood Strategies......................................................................25

iv
 3.3.3 Seasonal Variation in Fish Abundance.......................................................................................25

3.3.4 Financial Inclusion, Savings and Credit Access.........................................................................26

3.3.5 Land Tenure and Access to Fishing Equipment.........................................................................26

3.3.6 Market Perceptions.....................................................................................................................26

3.3.7 Occupational Safety Practices.....................................................................................................27

3.3.8 Road and Transport Infrastructure..............................................................................................27

3.3.9 Post- Harvest Fish Storage Methods...........................................................................................27

3.3.10 Fish Transportation System and Costs......................................................................................27

3.4 Challenges and Coping Mechanisms.................................................................................................28

3.4.1 Major Challenges in Fishing Livelihoods...................................................................................28

3.4.2 Coping Mechanisms and Community Adaptation......................................................................31

3.6 Opportunities for Livelihood and Business Improvement.................................................................31

3.7 Health and Environmental Conditions...............................................................................................33

3.8 Overall Observation on Community Infrastructure and Environmental Conditions.........................34

CHAPTER FOUR........................................................................................................................................35

DISCUSSION..............................................................................................................................................35

4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................35

4.2 Demographic Composition and Its Implications for Livelihood Resilience.....................................35

4.3 Income Patterns, Expenditure Trends, and Economic Vulnerability.................................................40

4.4 Correlation between Income and Expenditure...................................................................................43

4.5 Correlation between Earning Members and Income.........................................................................44

4.6 Regression Analysis...........................................................................................................................44

v
 4.7 Seasonal Variability in Fish Availability and Its Socioeconomic Consequences..............................45

4.8 Multidimensional Challenges Affecting Fishing Livelihoods...........................................................47

4.9 Access to Financial Services and Indebtedness.................................................................................51

4.10 Opportunities for Livelihood and Business Improvement...............................................................52

4.11 Public Health, Sanitation, and Environmental Practices.................................................................56

4.12 Cross Tabulation Analysis...............................................................................................................58

CHAPTER FIVE.........................................................................................................................................60

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................................60

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................62

APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................................67

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Flow Chart of Methods of the Study...............................................................................16

Figure 2 Student Taking Interview of the Respondents................................................................18

Figure 3 Student Conducting KII..................................................................................................18

Figure 4 Study Area Map of Nazirartek, Cox's Bazar.......................................................................

Figure 5 Age of the Respondents...................................................................................................36

Figure 6 Gender Composition.......................................................................................................36

Figure 7 Education Level of the Respondents...............................................................................38

Figure 8 Fishermen Type...............................................................................................................38

Figure 9 House Structure...............................................................................................................40

Figure 10 occupation of the Respondents......................................................................................40

Figure 11 Household Income and Expenditure.............................................................................42

Figure 12 Off-season Occupation of the Respondents..................................................................43

Figure 13 Seasonal Variation in Fish Abundance.........................................................................47

Figure 14 Sources of Loans...........................................................................................................52

Figure 15 Respondents Perception on Access to Financial Support.............................................54

Figure 16 Respondents Perception on Disaster and Risk Management........................................55

Figure 17 Respondents Perception on Usage of Modern Technology..........................................55

Figure 18 Respondents Perception on Direct Market Access.......................................................56

Figure 19 Health Facilities.............................................................................................................57

vii
Figure 20 Latrine Type in the Community....................................................................................57

Figure 21 Dry Fish Processing......................................................................................................72

Figure 22 Fish Drying Yard...........................................................................................................64

Figure 23 Dry Fish Processing......................................................................................................73

Figure 24 Fish Waste Processing for Animal Feed.......................................................................73

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Correlation between Income and Expenditure.................................................................43

Table 2 Correlation between Income and Earning Members........................................................39

Table 3 Multiple Regression Analysis...........................................................................................45

Table 4 Challenges Faced by Fishing Community........................................................................51

Table 5 Crosstab Analysis.............................................................................................................59

ix
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Socio-economic analyses (SEA), as an established method to evaluate the costs and benefits of
actions. A socioeconomic assessment is a way to learn about the social, cultural, economic and
political conditions of stakeholders including individuals, groups, communities, and
organizations. The socio-economic study intended to:

 Assess the prevailing socio-economic conditions in the study site. This includes provision
of a baseline study and characterizing the existing state of the study site. This will assist
in identifying the main areas of concern.
 Analyze the impacts of the prevailing environmental conditions on the socioeconomic
structure of the study sites.
 Develop a set of guidelines for establishing viable communities.

Socioeconomic assessment deals with dynamic variables, including economic impacts,

demography; employment, health, and community resources including political, social,
economic and cultural conditions .

 Economic Condition: indicators( Economic structure, Income levels, Job opportunities)

 Community structure, institutions, and infrastructure
 Demography
 Employment
 Gender
 Community resources

1
Economic Conditions include Economic structure Income, level Job opportunities. Community
structure, institutions, and infrastructure covers Health and social services in study area,
including health, workforce, law enforcement, fire protection, water supply, wastewater
treatment facilities, solid waste collection and disposal, and utilities. Transportation systems in
study area, including highway, rail, air, and motorway. Tourism and recreational opportunities
in the study site Tax levels and patterns in the study area, including land, sales, and income
taxes Institutional structure Community cohesion, including organized community groups
Social orders including community attitudes, lifestyle and history of the community, Distinct
settlements of ethnic groups. Demography focuses on General trends in population size for study
site Migration trends in the study area Population characteristics in the study area including
distribution by age, gender, ethnic groups, educational level and family size
Demographic conditions poverty and wealth distribution. Employment covers Employment
composition, Unemployment rate, Employment Availability of job opportunities and
their nature. Gender analysis focuses on Employment composition, Unemployment rate
Employment Availability of job opportunities and their nature. Community resources include
Land use patterns and controls for study site Land values in the study area Housing
characteristics in the study area, including types of housing and occupancy levels and age and
condition of housing Community resources Areas of unique significance (Muddock et al, 1986).
The socio-economic condition, which is inseparable from the geographic-ecological
condition of coastal areas, influences certain characteristics of the people.

1.2 Conceptual Background of the Study

This study focuses on the socio-economic conditions of the fishing community in Nazirartek,
located in the southeastern coastal region of Bangladesh. This case study aims to examine the
livelihoods, working conditions, and social dynamics of the people involved in the dry fish
industry — a key sector of the local economy. It is a descriptive socio-economic study which is
completed by using mixed method to gather both qualitative and quantitative data.

2
Small-scale fisheries and aquaculture make critical contributions to development in the areas of
employment, with over 41 million people worldwide, the vast majority of whom live in
developing countries, working in fish production; food security and nutrition, with fish
constituting an important source of nutrients for the poor and often being the cheapest form of
animal protein; and trade, with a third of fishery commodity production In developing countries
destined for export. With most capture fisheries worldwide considered fully exploited or
overexploited, aquaculture will be central to meeting fish demand, which will continue to
increase with population growth, rising incomes and increasing urbanization. Employment in
fishing and aquaculture has grown rapidly over the past few decades, increasing more than
threefold from 13 million people in 1970 to over 41 million in 2004. Employment in the fisheries
sector has grown more rapidly than both world population and employment in agriculture. Most
of this growth is in Asia, where over 85 percent of the world’s fisher folk live, and is largely due
to the expansion of aquaculture in this period (FAO 2006, FAO 1999). While the number of
people employed in fisheries and aquaculture in developing countries has been growing steadily,
it has been stagnant or declining in most industrialized countries. This decline has been most
pronounced in capture fisheries while employment in aquaculture has increased in some
industrialized countries. Women play a major role in fish processing in many parts of the world,
both using traditional preservation methods and working in commercial processing plants. In
addition to affecting food supply, the status of fish stocks in capture fisheries is likely to threaten
the livelihoods of small-scale fisher folk and traditional fish processors as competition for
limited resources increases. Larger-scale operators with greater access to capital and gear are
already emerging in many areas, leading to changes in the structure and location of post-harvest
activities and concentrating ownership and control of resources. In India, for example, fishing
practices are changing with rising investment, and higher levels of mechanization and motor
sation are leading to greater centralization of landings and competition over the catch. In the
past, small-scale traders were able to purchase fish from local fishers at decentralized beach-
based landings, sometimes accessing fish through husbands or taking the fish on credit and
paying once they had sold it. The increasing centralization of landings, however, has led to fierce
competition at landing sites, favoring those with greater access to credit and infrastructure and
marginalizing traditional fish processors and petty traders (FAO 2007). FAO (2006) esti mates
that marine capture fisheries production will remain between 80 and 90 million tons per year,

3
and freshwater fisheries, which face environmental degradation and competition for use of
freshwater resources from other sectors such as hydropower and agriculture, are unlikely to
expand significantly either. Per capita fish supply in low-income food deficit countries (LIFDCs)
(excluding China) has increased from 5.0 to 8.3 kg since 1960, due primarily to the growth of
aquaculture and to increased production from inland capture fisheries in developing countries
(FAO 2007). In sub-Saharan Africa, however, per capita fish supply is declining, dropping from
a peak of 9.9 kg in 1982 to 7.6 kg in 2003. This is due to rapid population growth, stagnant
capture fishery production, and the slow expansion of aquaculture in the region (FAO 2006). A
large portion of fish production is destined for export, around 40 percent of global production
being traded internationally, and exports from developing countries accounting for some 60
percent of this. They are now net exporters of fish to developed countries, having shifted
dramatically from being net importers (over 1.2 million metric tons in 1985) over the past two
decades (Delgado et al. 2003).

Over 30 percent of fishery commodity production in developing countries is destined for export
(FAO 2005a), and it is an important source of foreign exchange for many countries, including
Chile, Mozambique, Senegal, and Thailand.

The fisheries sector, in Bangladesh, plays a particularly crucial role among poor as a main or
additional source of employment, livelihood and income. The sector is the second largest part-
time and fulltime employer in rural areas. It provides a crucial source of income and food to
Bangladesh, and is second only to agriculture in the overall economy of the country. Bangladesh
produced 3.26 million tons of fish during 2011-12 from inland and marine water bodies and
aquaculture contributed more than 50% of the total production. Fisheries accounts for 4.4% of
Bangladesh GDP, 22.8% of agriculture sector and 2.5% of total export earnings. It also
contributes 60% of the animal protein intake in Bangladesh, and even higher in populations
living in the coast. The overseas fish trade is an important source of foreign currency earnings
for the country and provides benefits at both the macro and microeconomic levels. Fish is the
third largest contributor to Bangladesh’s export earnings and is growing annually by 5-8 %.
Revenue from exports of non-fish agricultural goods is gradually being outpaced by fish
products, to the extent that fish has become the most important primary commodity that
Bangladesh exports (Dey et al. 2008). An estimated 1.2 million people of Bangladesh are fishers

4
and earn their livelihood from fishing. A further 12 million people indirectly earn their livelihood
from fisheries and aquaculture and related activities, and employed in the backward and forward
linkages of the value chain such as the downstream activities of fish trading, fish seed
production, collection of shrimp and prawn seed, fish handling, processing and marketing, net
making, input supply and processing. The number of fish farmers and shrimp/prawn farmers
presently are 13.86 millions and 0.83 millions, respectively. Among the people involved in the
sector 10% are women(Hussain,2014). During 1960s, the inland capture fisheries contributed
about 90% of the country’s total fish production. Production from inland capture fisheries has
declined significantly over the years and in 2010-11 it accounted only about 42%
(Hussain,2014).

Nazirartek, a renowned fish drying village situated in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. The dried fish
processing sector in Nazirartek employs between 16,000 and 17,000 workers. This workforce
includes a significant number of daily wage laborers, and notably, about 20% of the workers are
children(Munir,2023). Over 50% fishers had an annual income of 81,000 to 100,000 BDT while
70% wholesalers earned above 100,000 BDT year-1. The socio-economic livelihood of the
fishers and wholesalers is deeply influenced by their income, fishing experience, number of
earning members, savings and loan. Due to their small income, the fishers faced many obstacles
accessing the Pearson correlation between age, experience and income of dry fishers and
wholesalers in the Nazirertek, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh (Kamal et al,2023).

1.3 Problem Statement

"Socio-economic and Environmental Challenges of the Fishing Community in Nazirartek, Cox's

Bazar: Assessing Livelihoods, Resilience, and Coping Mechanisms in the Face of Economic
Instability and Climate Change"

The fishing community in Nazirartek, Cox's Bazar, plays a crucial role in Bangladesh's coastal
economy, particularly through traditional fish drying practices. Despite their contributions, these
communities face significant socio-economic challenges that threaten their livelihoods and well-

5
being (Mitu et al,2021). Many fishers in this area have low literacy rates, with about 56.66%
having only primary education, whereas 60% of wholesalers had attended secondary school.
Over 50% earning an annual income between 81,000 to 100,000 BDT. In contrast, wholesalers
tend to have better educational backgrounds and higher incomes, with 70% earning above
100,000 BDT annually. (Kamal et al,2023). Environmental factors, such as vulnerability to
extreme weather events, further exacerbate the community's challenges. Limited access to
modern fishing equipment, insufficient government support, and lack of training facilities hinder
the adoption of improved fishing techniques. Moreover, the expansion of tourism and urban
development in Cox’s Bazar has led to land-use conflicts, posing additional threats to the
traditional livelihoods of the fishing community (Mitu et al,2021). Environmental factors, such
as vulnerability to extreme weather events, further exacerbate the community's challenges.
Limited access to modern fishing equipment, insufficient government support, and lack of
training facilities hinder the adoption of improved fishing techniques. Moreover, the expansion
of tourism and urban development in Cox’s Bazar has led to land-use conflicts, posing additional
threats to the traditional livelihoods of the fishing community (Mahmud et al,2015).

1.4 Literature Review

1.4.1 The socio-economic conditions of fishing communities

The socioeconomic condition of coastal fishing communities have garnered a lot of attention
because of their susceptibility to socioeconomic difficulties and environmental changes.
Bangladesh offers an important context for these kinds of studies because of its vast coastline
and reliance on the fishing industry, particularly in southeastern coastal areas like Cox's Bazar
and Nazirartek.

6
A study by Mitu et al. (2021) examined the socio-economic conditions of fishing communities in
the south-east coastal region, specifically the Cox’s Bazar region, of Bangladesh. This study
aimed to assess the socio-economic profile, livelihood strategies, and resilience of the
communities engaged in fish drying on the south-east coast using a mixed-methods approach and
an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The study’s findings revealed that communities involved
in drying were socio-economically undeveloped due to their lower literacy, unstable incomes,
and labor-intensive occupations. Apart from notable child labor employed in fish drying in
Nazirertek, female workers had relatively higher participation than males. Nevertheless, the
female workers had less control over their daily wages and reported working at USD 3.54–5.89
per day, which was relatively lower than male workers who received USD 4.15–8.31 per day.
Among the people involved in drying, dried fish producers and traders had better livelihoods
than workers due to their high annual incomes, occupation, ownership of their assets, and
seasonal investments in fish drying. In the fish drying season, 30% of dried fish producers in
Nazirertek earned USD 2359–5898 year−1, whereas the highest income was earned by dried fish
traders (4%), varying from USD 5898–11,794 year−1. Among the fish drying workers, 21%
earned USD 825–943 year−1, whereas fishermen’s annual income ranged from USD 1061–1187
year−1 . In addition to suffering from various shocks and constraints, dried fish processors and
workers, dried fish traders, off-season income, an abundance of fish species, fish drying
facilities, trader’s association, and social interrelationship played a significant role in maintaining
community resilience. As the fish drying communities on the south-east coast are highly
vulnerable to seasonality and extreme weather conditions, these people face many socio-
economic constraints to sustaining their livelihoods, such as capital crisis, lack of social
securities, and poor institutional support for borrowing money. Due to the relatively low
education rate in the dry fish community, people have always been lagging in improving
sustainable livelihoods, income diversification, modern technology adaptation, and socio-
economic welfare. The study also found that half of the respondents (50%) of Nazirertek dwell
in rented houses. Fish drying activities in the study areas were highly seasonal, and most of the
respondents, especially the fish drying workers, were employed on a seasonal basis (Mitu et
al,2021).

Kamal et al, (2023) conducted a comprehensive study on the small scale dry fish producers and
wholesalers in Nazirartek, a renowned fish drying village situated in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh.

7
The study found that the dry fishers lived in underdeveloped conditions characterized by low
income, low income, limited literacy, poor living standards, and malnutrition. In contrast,
wholesalers have high economic status. The study also found that over 50% of fishers had annual
incomes ranging from BDT 81,000 to 100,000, while 70% of wholesalers earned above BDT
100,000 annually. Many fishers in this area have low literacy rates, with about 56.66% having
only primary education, whereas 60% of wholesalers had attended secondary school. The major
constraints encountered by the communities are vulnerability to extreme weather, reliance on
loans due to low wages, inadequate off-season income opportunities, lack of good treatment
facilities, no prior training and scarcity of technological facilities.

1.4.2 Financial Vulnerability and Credit dependency

Islam et al, (2024) conducted an in-depth investigation into the economic challenges faced by
small scale hilsa fishers in Bangladesh, particularly the implications of traditional dadon loan
system. The study employed a mixed method approach with quantitative and qualitative
interviews across four fishing regions: Chittagong, Cox’s Bazar, Chandpur, and Patuakhali. The
study found that limited access to formal credit, escalating fishing costs, and insufficient
governmental support compel fishers to dadon loans. The study suggested some alternative
solutions such as government-backed loans, community-based financing schemes, and the
promotion of diversified livelihoods to enhance the socio-economic resilience of these fishing
communities.

The FAO (2020) report provides a comprehensive analysis on the socio-economic condition of
coastal fishing communities of Bangladesh. The report highlights the severe economic hardship
faced by fishers such as limited financial resources, often relying on informal credit system with
high interest rates. The living conditions of the community are characterized by overcrowding,
inadequate housing, and limited access to essential services such as clean water and sanitation.
The report also emphasized the low social and educational status of the fishermen which
contribute to a cycle of poverty and limited access to advancement. Overpopulation, lack of
alternative employment opportunities and other environmental challenges further strain their
resources and resilience. The report highlights the need for integrated policy intervention that

8
addresses these issues for the resilience and sustainability of the small scale fishing community
of Bangladesh.

1.4.3 Climate Change and Environmental Vulnerability

Sultana et al, (2023) conducted a study on the socio-ecological vulnerability of fishing

community in Bangladesh in the context of climate change. Using the PRISMA (Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework, the study assessed the
level of exposure, susceptibility, and adaptive capacity among these communities. The study
emphasized how environmental hazards such as sea level rise, cyclones, salinity intrusion
severely affect the livelihood of fishermen. The study also found socio-economic constraints,
including limited access to healthcare, education, formal credit system, which collectively
exacerbate community vulnerability. Moreover, it highlighted the critical gap in risk governance,
particularly the marginalization of local communities in policy making process related to disaster
preparedness and climate adaptation. The author highlighted the importance of integrated,
ecosystem based adaptation strategies and inclusive government frameworks to enhance the
resilience and long term sustainability for coastal fishing livelihoods.

Sazzad et al, (2024) conducted a study to assess the socio-economic conditions and adaptive
strategies and opportunities for resilience enhancement of small scale fisherman. A mix method
was employed, including surveys of 300 fishing households, six focus group discussion, and key
informant interviews. The data were analyzed through DFID Sustainable Livelihood Framework
which helped to identify the key challenges faced by this community. The study captured both
quantitative and qualitative data. It found that 70% of household earn below the poverty line,
with high literacy rate (48%) and limited access to formal financial systems. Moreover, the
fishers face environmental challenges such as declining fish stock, exacerbated by illegal fishing
practices and climate change, were identified as critical concerns by 85% of respondents. The
study also revealed that seasonal fishing bans further strained livelihoods, with only 35% of
affected households receiving compensation. Despite all the challenges, fishers have developed
some adaptive strategies included alternative income-generating activities (e.g., poultry farming,
vegetable gardening), seasonal migration, and community-based initiatives such as shared

9
resource ownership and informal savings clubs. Despite their potential, these measures remain
underutilized due to skill gaps, financial constraints, and limited institutional support. The study
concluded that the livelihoods of Meghna River fishers are shaped by interlinked environmental,
social, and institutional challenges and recommended targeted interventions in education, skill
development, and resource management. It also highlighted that government policies should
prioritize transparent compensation mechanisms, community-based conservation efforts, and
livelihood diversification programs.Additionally the importance of strengthening climate-
resilient infrastructure and fostering collaborations among stakeholders which will ensure the
long-term sustainability of both fishing communities and the Meghna River ecosystem.

1.4.4 Gender Roles and Social Inclusion

A detailed research by Md et al, (2020) examined the livelihood status of fisherman in

Muradnagar Upazila, Comilla. The study focused on the involvement of both men and women in
fishing and related activities. It employed Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques which
included household surveys, interviews and focus group discussion. One of the key finding of the
study was the role of women in post-harvest activities. The study also found that due to gender
based inequalities women had limited access to decision making and economic resources. It also
highlighted the importance of improving women access to social and financial resources to
improve the overall socio-economic condition of the community. It also emphasized the
importance of targeted interventions to address gender inequality while promoting sustainable
livelihood for both men and women (Md et al, 2020).

Mitu et al. (2021) also found that although women in Nazirartek were more involved in fish
drying activities than men, they received significantly lower wages and lacked decision-making
power over their earnings, reflecting systemic gender disparities in the sector.

10
1.4.5 Institutional Support and Livelihood Sustainability

Another Study by Bunting et al, (2013) conducted in the old Branhaputra river in Bangladesh
examined the socio-economic challenges faced by small scale fishing communities. The study
aimed to find sustainable management practices through socio-economic surveys and ecological
assessment. The study found that local fishing is so much unsustainable due to overfishing,
environmental degradation, and ineffective government policies. The study highlighted the
importance of integrated approach and community involvement for conservation and livelihood
improvement (Bunting et al, 2013).

A study by Mursheduzzaman et al, (2020) focused on the socio-economic conditions of

fisherman community in the Ichamoti River of Pabna District. It was conducted by household
survey and interviews to assess the income levels, livelihood strategies and environmental
impact on fishing communities. The study found that many fisherman face difficulties due to a
lack of modern fishing technologies and markets. It also found that seasonal variation in fish
stock significantly impacted their income levels. The research highlighted vulnerability of the
community to climate change and the role of social capital for providing economic and social
support and also a community based networks for surviving during the hard time
(Mursheduzzaman et al, 2020).

1.5 Research Gap

While several studies have explored the socio-economic conditions of fishing communities
across Bangladesh, critical gaps remain especially when it comes to localized analyses of the dry
fish industry in Nazirartek, Cox’s Bazar. For instance, Islam et al. (2024), explored the economic
challenges of small-scale fishers. He highlighted persistent income instability, dependence on
informal loans, and exploitation under the traditional dadon credit system. Similarly, Sultana et
al. (2023) addressed the gendered marginalization within fisheries, highlighting how women face

11
systematic exclusion from decision-making processes and fair employment. However, these
works either lacked regional focus or did not consider the specific dynamics of the dry fish
subsector, which is central to livelihoods in Nazirartek.

A more localized study by Kamal et al. (2023) provided valuable insight into the income levels
and occupational roles of dry fishers and wholesalers. He highlighted how fishers often remain
underpaid and vulnerable, while mohajons dominate the trade with greater financial security.
Nevertheless, the study did not examine the climate-related vulnerabilities, intergenerational
poverty, or lack of infrastructure that compound the economic insecurity of dry fish workers.
Meanwhile, broader national-level research—such as that of Ahmed et al. (2013) and Islam et al.
(2021) has documented the socio-economic conditions of small-scale fishers in rivers and
estuaries. However, these studies often overlook the unique environmental risks, occupational
health concerns, and informal labor structures found in dry fish hubs like Nazirartek.

International reports, such as those by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2020;
2022), emphasizes the global significance of small-scale fisheries and advocate for inclusive
policy frameworks. However, these reports typically generalize data across regions and fail to
capture the micro-level experiences of communities working in unsanitary, climate-exposed, and
under regulated dry fish processing environments. Moreover, very few studies examine the
adaptive strategies that local communities adopt in response to seasonal unemployment,
cyclones, or market disruptions.

Therefore, while previous research provides important foundations, a significant gap persists in
terms of a comprehensive, community-based investigation into the socio-economic conditions,
gender roles, environmental impacts, and livelihood resilience of dry fish workers in Nazirartek.
By addressing these gaps, the present study aims to contribute a context-specific, evidence-based
understanding of the socio-economic conditions and challenges faced by the fishing community
of Nazirartek.

1.6 Objectives of the Study

12
  To analyze the socio-economic conditions of the fishing community in Nazirartek, Cox’s
Bazar.

 To identify key economic and environmental challenges faced by the community.

 To explore opportunities for improving livelihood conditions.

 To evaluate coping strategies and potential policies to improve the well-being of the
community.

1.7 Limitations of the Study

The following limitations and constrains are anticipated in conducting the study:

 Technological Constrains: The study was conducted in a geographically remote area

with limited infrastructure. During questionnaire survey the data were collected
manually. The unavailability of GPS enabled devices limited the opportunities for spatial
analysis of socio-economic pattern. For data analysis we only relied on basic tools such
as Microsoft Excel and SPSS. The study could not apply more advanced statistical
modeling or geospatial analysis.

 Resource Constrains: Availability of study related secondary data information is found

inadequate. Limited financial and logistical resources restricted the scale and duration of
fieldwork. Again, we could not use advance techniques in our study.

 Willingness Limitation: Many respondents were reluctant to reveal their personal

information regarding income, savings, amount of loan and use of chemical in fish
processing.

13
  Lack of Professionalism: The questionnaire survey was taken by students for
educational purposes. So, there was lack of experience and Professionalism.

CHAPTER TWO

METHODS OF THE STUDY

2.1 Introduction

Methodology refers to the systemic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied during the
research process. It encompasses the principles, procedures, and techniques used to collect,
analyze, and interpret data in a study. Methodology outlines the framework for conducting
research h and ensures that the study is structured, valid, and replicable. It includes various
elements such as research design, data collection methods, sampling techniques, and data
analysis procedures. The study was based on an Empirical Field Study aimed at exploring the
socio-economic dynamics of the fishing community in Nazirartek, Cox’s Bazar. The study
employed a mixed-methods- design, integrating both qualitative and quantitative data collection
techniques. Quantitative data ware collected through household questionnaire surveys to assess
demographic patterns, income levels, employment status, and housing conditions. Qualitative
data were gathered through key informant interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), and
direct field observations to better understand community challenges, coping mechanisms, and
local knowledge systems.

14
2.2 Methods of the Study

The study employed an empirical field-based approach to explore the socio-economic condition
of the fishing community in Nazirartek, Cox’s Bazar. A qualitative and quantitative mixed
method design was adopted to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complex socio-
economic and environmental realities faced by the community. The research was primarily
guided by four key objectives: 1) To analyze the socio-economic conditions of the fishing
community in Nazirartek, Cox’s Bazar. 2) To identify key economic and environmental
challenges faced by the community. 3) To explore opportunities for improving livelihood
conditions. 4) To evaluate coping strategies and potential policies to improve the well-being of
the community.

Data were collected through structured surveys and open-ended interviews, targeting diverse
participants including fishermen, dry fish workers, traders, and community members. The
questionnaire consisted of 41 questions. They were divided into sections such as Section A:
Demographic Information, Section B: Socio-economic Information, Section C: Challenges and
Coping Mechanisms, Section D: Opportunities for Improving Your Business, Section E: Health
and Environment. Additionally, key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted with
community leaders, wholesalers.

To analyze the socio-economic conditions of the fishing community, structured household

surveys were carried out among randomly selected respondents, including fishermen, dried fish
workers, and traders. The questionnaire consisted of both close and open-ended questions that
collected information on income levels, occupation, education, housing, access to healthcare, and
family structure.

15
To identify the economic and environmental challenges faced by the community, in-depth
interviews and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were conducted with local stakeholders,
including experienced fishermen, community leaders. These interviews explored issues such as
income instability, the impacts of natural disasters, seasonal unemployment etc.

The study followed a well-defined research process, starting with questionnaire design,
followed by field data collection, data cleaning and coding, and then analysis using SPSS
software.

16
Figure 1 Flow Chart of Methods of the Study

17
2.2.1 Data Collection

To explore the socio-economic conditions of the fishing community of Nazirartek in Cox’s

bazaar a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods were employed to ensure
comprehensive understanding of the study area.

 Primary Data Collection

The primary data was collected directly from the field using structured household surveys, key
informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and direct observation.

The household survey was conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire that included both
open-ended and close-ended questions. It covered various aspects such as income levels,
employment status, education, access to services, gender roles, perceptions on environmental
risks. The total of 236 respondents were randomly selected, ensuring representation of fishers,
dry fish workers, traders, and women involved in the dry fish industry.

Key Informant Interview were conducted with community leaders, dry fish traders. These
interviews helped to capture valuable insight on demographic information, socio-economic
conditions, challenges and coping mechanisms, opportunities for improving business, health
facilities and environmental conditions.

Focus Group Discussion (FGD) were carried out fish traders, wholesalers and fishermen to
understand their insight on socio-economic dynamics, seasonal vulnerabilities and challenges
and copping mechanisms.

18
Figure 2 Student Taking Interview of the Respondents

Figure 3 Student Conducting KII

19
  Secondary Data Collection:

To complement empirical field-based data, secondary data were also collected from a wide range
of credible sources. These include included government publications such as reports from the
Department of Fisheries and the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, which provided essential
demographic, economic, and fisheries-related data. Academic and peer-reviewed articles
accessed through platforms like Google Scholar, JSTOR, and Research Gate were reviewed to
understand existing research and theoretical frameworks related to coastal fishing communities
and dry fish production in Bangladesh.

2.2.2 Data Processing

The data processing phase involved organizing, cleaning and preparing both qualitative and
quantitative data for analysis. After data collection, all completed questionnaires and field notes
were reviewed for consistency, accuracy, and completeness. The data were processed using
various software such as for analyzing socio-economic data Microsoft Excel. Afterwards, the
generated dataset was imported to the SPSS software to conduct data analysis and produce the
required charts and graphs.

2.2.3. Data Analysis and Report Presentation

Collected data was entered into a frequency table and processes in SPSS for analysis. Primary
and secondary data was analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The findings from both
qualitative and quantitative sources were integrated to provide a comprehensive understanding of
the socio-economic conditions of the Nazirartek fishing community. The final report was
structured to reflect each research objective, supported by narrative interpretation, data tables,
and visual aids such as charts and graphs for better presentation.

20
2.3 Study Area

The research was conducted in Nazirartek, a coastal village situated approximately 3 kilometers
from Cox’s Bazar town in southeastern Bangladesh. Established in 1987 as a designated fish
drying zone, Nazirartek has evolved into the country's largest traditional dry fish processing
hub, commonly referred to as "Shutki Palli." Geographically, Nazirartek is located at
approximately 21.4512° N latitude and 91.9683° E longitude. Nazirartek's economy is
predominantly centered around the production and trade of dried marine fish, with activities
intensifying from mid-October to mid-February.

Figure 4 Study Area Map of Nazirartek, Cox's Bazar

21
2.4 Selection of the study area

Nazirartek, located in the Cox’s Bazar district of southeastern Bangladesh, was selected as the
study area due to its significant contribution to the country’s dry fish industry and the
concentration of fishing-dependent communities. This coastal village is widely recognized as the
largest dry fish production and trading center in Bangladesh, supporting the livelihoods of
thousands of fishers, laborers, and small-scale entrepreneurs.

The selection of Nazirartek as our study area was motivated by several compelling factors.
According to the Department of Fisheries (DoF, 2022), over 25,000 people are directly or
indirectly involved in fish drying, trading, and transportation activities in Nazirartek. The
majority of the population here is dependent on small-scale marine fishing and post-harvest
activities, making it a critical zone for socio-economic and environmental research.

One of the main reasons for choosing this area is its unique occupational structure and
vulnerability profile. Nazirartek exhibits high levels of income instability, seasonal
unemployment, child labor, and gender-based wage disparities. These factors make it a
representative site to understand the broader challenges faced by coastal fishing communities in
Bangladesh.

Moreover, the region is highly vulnerable to environmental and economic shocks, such as
cyclones, sea-level rise, market dependency, and lack of access to financial and institutional
support. These vulnerabilities make it an ideal location to study the real-life challenges faced by
coastal fishing communities, especially under conditions of poverty, marginalization, and climate
stress.

Lastly, despite its economic and ecological importance, Nazirartek remains underrepresented in
academic literature, especially in terms of detailed empirical analysis focused on the intersection
of socio-economic vulnerability, labor dynamics, and adaptive strategies. This research attempts
to bridge that gap and contribute to informed policy discourse regarding sustainable livelihoods
in Bangladesh’s coastal fishing sector.

22
 CHAPTER THREE

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the major findings derived from the empirical field study conducted in
Nazirartek, Cox’s Bazar. The primary objective of this chapter is to analyze and interpret the
data collected from the respondents through questionnaire survey and key informant interview.
The data were processed and analyzed using SPSS. By analyzing the surveyed information the
findings have been described under the following broad categories in this chapter.

 Demographic Profile of the Respondents

 Socio-Economic Status of the Fishing Community
 Challenges and Coping Mechanisms
 Opportunities for Livelihood and Business Improvement
 Health and Environmental Conditions
 Overall community observation

The findings provide a comprehensive understanding of the existing socio-economic landscape

and the pressing needs of the community, which will form the basis for further discussion and
policy suggestions in the following chapters.

23
3.2 Demographic Profile of the Respondents

The demographic profile of the respondents includes the information of their family type, size,
household and livelihood factors, for our sampled 280 surveyed respondents in the study area.

3.2.1 Age Group

In our study area highest proportion of the respondents, 25.6% belongs to the 18-25 age group.
This is followed closely by the 34-41 years group, comprising 25.2% of the respondents. The 26-
33 years group accounts for 19.7% and 42-49 years group accounts for 11.5%. 11.1%
respondents belongs to 50-57 years range, 6.8% belonged to over 58 years.

3.2.2 Religion

The majority of the people in the study area are Muslim. From the survey, it was found that
almost 98% of the respondents in the area are the follower of Islam, whereas only 2% belongs to
Hindu Religion.

3.2.3 Gender Composition

In our study we collected primary data from 280 respondent fishermen from Nazirartek , Cox’s
Bazar. Among them 71% respondents were male and 29% were female.

3.2.4 Education Level

In our study, the respondents were split up into five groups, mostly according to their educational
attainment. Almost 44% of our surveyed respondents had completed primary education and 37%
of the respondents had no formal education. Only 15% of the respondents completed secondary

24
education. Only 3% had achieved higher secondary education and a minimal 2% hold a graduate
degree.

3.2.4 Marital Status

According to the survey, 86% of the respondents were married, 12% were unmarried and only
1% were widowed.

3.2.5 Occupation Status

The survey revealed that, the largest proportion of respondents (29%) were worker and
approximately 24% of the respondents were dry fish seller. Fishermen constitute 16% of the
respondents. Additionally, 14% of individuals were owner of the fish shop and 9% working as
fish seller. Among the fishermen, 29% fishermen fished professionally while 14% fished
seasonally. A small proportion 2% were subsistence and 55% did not provide any specific
comment regarding their fishing status.

3.2.6 Family Size

Family patterns come in many forms. Four of these familial groupings have been the subject of
studies. Of all families, only 6% had more than 12 members. Almost 63% of families had
members 5-8, 13% had members 9-12 and 18% had members less then 4.

3.2.7 Housing Structure

The study revealed that, 48% of the respondents resided in kutcha houses—structures typically
made with mud, bamboo. About 31% lived in semi-pucca houses. A smaller percentage 14%
lived in pucca houses and 6% of the respondents resided in Jhupri.

25
3.3 Socio-Economic Status of the Fishing Community

3.3.1 Household Income and Expenditure Patterns

The analysis of household income and expenditure reveals that the majority of households
earned between 5001-15000 BDT, which is 38%. While 21% earn over 35000 BDT. 20% within
BDT 15001-25000, 16% within BDT 25001-35000, and only 5% earned less than 5000 BDT. In
terms of expenditure, 44% of households monthly expenditures were between 5001-15000 BDT,
followed by 26% spending 15001-25000 BDT. 15% above BDT 35000, 13% between BDT
25001- 35000 and only 3% spent less than BDT 5000.

3.3.2 Employment Structure and Livelihood Strategies

The employment structure of the surveyed respondents revealed that 48% had only one earning
member, followed by 29% with two, 15% with three, and only 8% with more than three earning
members. Regarding off-season employment, a significant portion of respondents had no
alternative livelihood activities which is 56%. Among those engaged in off-season work, 12%
were involved in fish drying, 8% in agriculture, 8% in small business, and 7% in handicrafts.

3.3.3 Seasonal Variation in Fish Abundance

During the monsoon season, the fish abundance is at its lowest, with approximately 78.2%
respondents reporting little abundance. In contrast, the post- monsoon season, around 71.7%
respondents experienced moderate abundance and only 17.2% respondents experienced high
abundance. In the winter season, about 72% respondents experienced high abundance in fish
production.

26
3.3.4 Financial Inclusion, Savings and Credit Access

From the surveyed respondents, a significant proportion (63%) were unable to save or invest
from their income, while only 37% manage to do so. Moreover, 59% of respondents had taken
loans, while 41% had not. Among those who had accessed loans, NGOs were the most common
source, which is 42%. 28% of the respondents relied on banks for loans. Additionally, 12% of
the respondents did not specify their loan source, while 11% relied on other informal means, and
7% obtained financial support from co-workers or relatives.

3.3.5 Land Tenure and Access to Fishing Equipment

Land ownership pattern among the respondents revealed that 47% lived on rented land, while
46% owned their land. Only 6% of the respondents received land through government grants and
1% lived on other types of land arrangements. Regarding access to fishing boats, 31% of
respondents used shallow engine-run boats, while 20% used other types. However, 42% did not
comment. In terms of boat ownership, 42% of the respondents relied on rented boats, 17% shared
ownership, and only 10% owned their boats outright. Notably, 31% did not comment on boat
ownership.

3.3.6 Market Perceptions

Over the past ten years, respondents experienced notable shifts in the local market dynamics.
Among the surveyed respondents, 69% experienced a significant increase in market prices, while
a smaller portion about 9% of the respondents experienced an increase in labor wages. Only 3%
of the respondents experienced syndicate pressure in local markets, meanwhile 18% did not
comment on market changes.

27
3.3.7 Occupational Safety Practices

The study found a significant gap in the adoption of safety measures among the respondents
engaged in fishing activities. A majority of the respondents (54%) did not use any safety
equipment while fishing. Only 22% used life jackets, while 9% relied on floating tubes, 3% on
rescue boats, and 12% on other unspecified safety measures.

3.3.8 Road and Transport Infrastructure

In the study area, 56% of the respondents used non-metalled road for transporting fish and
fishing-related goods, while 44% used metalled road.

3.3.9 Post- Harvest Fish Storage Methods

Among the surveyed respondents, 47% relied on storage containers of storing fish, while 33%
used freezing boxes. The remaining 20% respondents used other storage methods.

3.3.10 Fish Transportation System and Costs

For transportation of fish majority of the respondents (64%) used trucks, while 37% of the
respondents used vans, and 8% used other vehicles. However, transportation costs varied widely:
33% of the respondents spent BDT 1000-5000, 24% spent BDT 5001-10000, another 24% spent
over BDT 15000, and 19% spent BDT 10001-15000.

28
3.4 Challenges and Coping Mechanisms

3.4.1 Major Challenges in Fishing Livelihoods

 Seasonal Stress: The seasonal stress significantly impact both the social and economic
lives of the fishing community of Nazirartek. In terms of social impact, among the
surveyed respondents 50% experienced less work during certain season. On the other
hand, 26% experienced extreme work pressure and the remaining 24% did not comment.
On the economic front, 70.7% respondents reported minimized profit and 29.3% had no
comment.

 Health Hazards: Health hazards have a notable impact on both the social and economic
aspects of the fishing community lives. Among the respondents 35.9% reported
suffering from fever or dengue, while 32.9% suffered from skin diseases and a smaller
portion which is 11.5% suffered from experienced muscle pain. The remaining 19.7% did
not comment. From the economic standpoint, about 35.9% respondents stated that
treatment is expensive, while 14.5% respondents stated that hospital is far from them.
Meanwhile, 49.6% did not comment.

 Natural Hazards: Based on the collected data from 234 respondents the impact of
natural hazards on both social and economic life of the fishing community in Nazirartek
is quite significant. About 48.7% respondents mentioned displacement as a major issue,
while 26% reported that natural hazards hamper their work and 14.1% experienced
anxiety and mental stress. A small portion 11.1% did not comment. On the economic
front, the most dominant issue was property loss mentioned by 55.1% respondents, while
12.4 % were unable to work. The remaining 32.5% did not comment.

29
 Marine Pollution: The data reveals that the most common social impact of marine
pollution is plastic throwing mentioned by 37.2% respondents. About 25.6% respondents
experienced air or water pollution, 16.2% respondents experienced biodiversity loss and
only 4.7% respondents expressed concerns about decrease in income or price hike. While
16.2% respondents did not comment. From an economic perspective, about 17.9%
respondents experienced decrease in fish abundance, while 10.3% mentioned that
pollution results in them not able to afford necessities. About 7.7% pointed out that
marine pollution affects tourism, while majority of the respondents 64.1% did not
mentioned any impact which indicates a gap in economic awareness.

 Salinity Intrusion: Salinity intrusion has both social and economic impact on the people
of Nazirartek. Socially, 31.2% respondents indentified the lack access to drinking water,
12.4% respondents experienced loss of livelihood or displacement, and 54.5%
respondents refrained from commenting on social impact. Economically, 12.4%
respondents experienced hamper in fish production, 18.8% experienced decline in
agriculture, and the remaining 68.8% respondents provided no comments regarding
economic impact.

 Decline in Fish Stock: The decline in fish stock emerged as a crucial factor which affect
both the social and economic life of the fishing community of Nazirartek. Socially, the
most frequently reported consequence was the decrease in the quality of lifestyle which
was reported by 35% respondents, while 35.5% respondents were unable to support their
family, and 8.5% respondents had to migrate to another occupation. The remaining
20.9% respondents refrained from commenting on social impact. In economic
perspective, 58.1% respondents earned little profit, while 41.9% respondents provided no
comment.

30
 Middleman Exploitation: In terms of social impact, 18.4% respondents reported that the
presence of middlemen reinforces power imbalance, 16.7% respondents stated that the
presence of middlemen create mistrust within community, and the remaining 65% did not
provide any comment. In economic perspective, 30.3% respondents experienced losses or
an inability to make desired profit, 16.2% respondents could not afford basic necessities,
12% respondents identified overpricing. Similar to social dimension 41.5% of
participants refrained from commenting on economic impacts.

 Lack of Communication Devices: The absence of effective communication devices

presents considerable challenges to the fishing community in Nazirartek. Socially, most
significant concern identified was increased vulnerability to natural hazards. About
29.1% respondents fell to natural hazards due to lack of communication devices, 10.7%
respondents delayed in receiving disaster alerts, 10.3% highlighted the inability to
maintain contact with family members, 7.7%, stated that the absence of communication
devices causes anxiety. The remaining 42.3% respondents did not provide any comment.
Regarding economic impact, 13.3% reported that the lack of early hazards warning has
resulted in boat damage, while 86.7% respondents did not provide comment.

 Non-compliance of Laws: Non-compliance with existing legal framework has a

significant impact on both the social structure and economic stability of fishing
community in Nazirartek. From a social perspective, 14.1% respondents identified that
non-compliance of laws leads conflict within the community, 11.5% identified illegal
fishing practice, remaining 74.4% offered no comment. On the economic front, 17.9%
respondents faced financial penalties, 9.8% respondents reported increased extortion, and
significant 74.4% gave no responses.

31
3.4.2 Coping Mechanisms and Community Adaptation

 Coping Strategies Adopted by community: To cope with the challenges faced by

fishing community in Nazirartek, they adopted various strategies. About 40.7%
respondents relied on past experience, while 30.7% relied on loan, and 28.6% adopted
others coping mechanisms.

 Perception of Insurance Policy as a Support Mechanism: Majority of the respondents

viewed insurance positively. 60.1% respondents expressed the belief that an insurance
policy would be helpful, while 39.9% of respondents stated that they do not believe
insurance would be helpful

3.6 Opportunities for Livelihood and Business Improvement

 Access to Financial Support: The analysis shows a strong consensus among the fishing
community regarding access to financial support. Among the 234 surveyed respondents,
59.8% respondents considered financial as the most important, 20.1% considered as
highly important, 7.7% regarded it as moderately important, while 3.8% and 8.5%
regarded it as less important and least important.

 Vocational Training and Education: The data reveals a significant appreciation for
vocational training and education among the respondents. Notably, 25.3% respondents
considered vocational training to be of the most important, with an equal percentage
25.3% considered it highly important. 17.2% respondents regarded it moderately

32
 important, another 17.2% regarded it as least important, while 15.0% considered it less
important.

 Usage of Modern Technology: The survey results indicate a recognition of the

importance of modern technology among the fishing community. 34.3% respondents
considered usage of modern technology as highly important, followed by 18.0% who
viewed it as most important. 22.3% rated it as moderately important, while 12.9% and
12.4% perceived it as less important and least important.

 Direct Market Access and Better Pricing: A significant portion of the respondents
39.5% considered direct access to market and better pricing as mostly important, while
17.2% regarded it highly important. Another 17.2% respondents found it moderately
important, and 15.9% and 10.3% perceived it as less and least important.

 Adoption of Sustainable Fishing Practices: The significant portion of the respondents

13.7% rated adoption of sustainable fishing practices as most important, 31.2%
considered it highly important. Additionally, 33.3% perceived it as moderately important,
11.5% regarded it as less important, and 10.3% considered it as least important.

 Development of Alternative Livelihoods: A notable 22.6% respondents considered

Importance of Developing Alternative Livelihoods most important, while 19.7% viewed
it as highly important. Additionally, 33.3% rated it as moderately important, 16,2%
regarded it as less important, and 11.1% as least important.

 Health and Social Safety Nets: The study reveals a generally high levels of recognition
regarding the importance of health and society safety nets among the fishing community.
23.6% respondents identified it as most important, 24.5% considered as highly important,

33
 27.9% regarded it moderately important. In comparison, 15.5% viewed as less important,
and 8.6% as least important.

 Environmental Conservation Measures: The data reveals a moderate to high levels of

awareness about environmental conservation among the respondents. Among the
respondents, 10.7% rated environmental conservation as most important, while 18.4%
considered it highly important. Additionally, 37.2% viewed it as moderately important.
On the other hand, 20.1% and 13.7% classified it as less important and least important,
respectively.

 Disaster Relief and Risk Management Initiatives: The data shows a high levels of
consensus regarding the importance of disaster relief and risk management among the
fishing community. A significant 44.4% respondents considered this issue as most
important, while 22.2% rated it highly important. 16.7% respondents regarded it
moderately important, only 9.0% and 7.7% of participants considered it less important
and least important, respectively.

3.7 Health and Environmental Conditions

 Availability of Health Facilities: The majority of the respondents 77.4% relied on Cox’s
Bazar Hospital. A smaller portion 11.1% used local pharmacies, while only 3.8% each
reported accessing NGO health care services, other facilities, or having no hospital access
at all.

 Sanitation and Access to Fresh Drinking Water: The data reveals a notable disparities
in access to basic sanitation among the fishing community. Nearly half of the respondents
47.6% used kutcha latrines, an equal proportion of respondents (26.2% each) use pucca

34
 and semi-pucca latrines. In terms of drinking water source, majority of the respondents
86.7% relied on tube well, 12.9% used tap water, and 0.4% used other sources.

 Use of Plastics and Chemicals in Fish Processing: The data reveals that the widespread
use of plastic containers for fish storing among the community. A total 80.5% of
respondents used plastic containers for fish storing, while 19.5% did not. Regarding the
use of chemicals, 20.4% used chemicals, while a majority 79.6% of respondents did not
use chemicals for fish storing.

 Waste Management and Environmental Pollution: The data reveals a notable trend in
waste management among the respondents. A majority of the respondents 42.2% used
trash bins as their primary method of waste disposal. 19.8% respondents adopted burial,
12.9% reused fish related waste as fish food. Other disposal methods included dumping
in the sea (10.3%), burning (7.3%), and a variety of other methods (7.3%). In terms of
environmental awareness, 44.2% of respondents perceived pollution as a present issue
within their surroundings. Conversely, 55.8% did not consider environmental pollution to
be a problem.

3.8 Overall Observation on Community Infrastructure and Environmental

Conditions

The overall observation gathered from the respondents provide a notable insight into the
infrastructure and environmental challenges faced by fishing community in Nazirartek. The most
prominent concern was the absence of a proper waste management system. Educational
infrastructure was also appeared limited. Environmental degradation was another visible
concern. Inadequate sanitation facilities were evident, often characterized by poor drainage and

35
lack of hygienic toilet systems. The roads were found to be in poor condition which made the
transportation and access more difficult for residents

CHAPTER FOUR

DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the analysis of the key findings of the study on socio-economic conditions
of the fishing community in Nazirartek, Cox’s Bazar. It connects the empirical findings with the
existing literature about the community's socio-economic challenges, coping strategies,
opportunities for livelihood improvements, and long-term sustainability. The objective of this
chapter is to provide a deeper understanding of the empirical data presented in previous chapter.
Each thematic area of analysis such as demographic features, income patterns, environmental
risks, health issues, coping strategies, and potential interventions examined in relation to both the
survey results and scholarly research.

4.2 Demographic Composition and Its Implications for Livelihood Resilience

A comprehensive understanding about demographic attributes of the respondents is very crucial

for assessing their socio-economic vulnerabilities, livelihood patterns, and adaptive strategies in
the face of environmental and economic stressors. In the context of Nazirartek, Cox’s Bazar the
demographic data gathered from field survey provides a valuable insight into the household
structure, labor force availability, and potential resilience within the coastal fisheries-dependent
population.

The age structure of the community in present study reveals a predominantly working age
population. A majority of the respondents fall between the ages 26-45. A research by Kamal et

36
al (2023) in Nazirartek reported 60% of fishers were of young age (<35 years), whereas 30% and
10% of fishers were middle and old aged, respectively. The study is slightly related with present
study.

Age Group

7%
11% 26% 18 – 25 years
26 – 33 years
12% 34 – 41 years
42 – 49 years
50 – 57 years
20%
Over 58 years
25%

Figure 5 Age of the Respondents

Gender

29%

Male Female

71%

Figure 6 Gender Composition

37
In the study area, the majority of the fisherman was Muslim (98.3%) and Hindu (1.7%). The
study of Kamal et al (2023) in Nazirartek showed that all fishermen were Muslim. Mitu et al
(2021) studied in Nazirartek and Chitapara and showed that majority of the fishermen were
Muslim ( 94% Nazirartek, and 86% Chitapara). These studies are also related to our present
study.

BBS classifies literate person as those who can write a letter in any language. In the study area
there was found 3% H.S.C pass, 14.5% S.S.C pass, 1.7% were graduated, 43.6% had primary
education, and 37.2% had no formal education. These results were similar to Alam et al (2024).
Forty-two percent of fishermen knew only their signature, they had no opportunities education
for financial crisis and lack of social opportunities. Then thirty percent of respondents were
illiterate, they didn't sign or read. Twenty-four percent of respondents were primarily educated
and a percent were SSC qualification. Only one percent are educated HSC level. Shuchi et al
(2022) in Nazirartek fishing community reported that a considerable number of respondents
had completed their primary education (45%) and few of them had. higher secondary
(8%) education. Most of the women had no schooling. Faruque et al. (2012) reported two types
of reported that about 20% of respondent have no schooling at all. Nayeem et al. (2010) found
that 25% of respondent had acceptable level of formal education. So, they can at least read
and write and solve simple mathematical equation also. He also reported that 18% of
respondent had education up to secondary school level.

38
 50.0
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
Percentage (%) 15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
ar
y C) C) te n
ir m (SS (HS dua atio
y y a c
P ar r Gr du
nd nda la E
co co
Se Se rm
er Fo
gh No
Hi
Education Level

Figure 7 Education Level of the Respondents

It was observed that 29.2% fishermen fished professionally, 13.5% were seasonal fishermen, and
2.1% were subsistence fishermen. A similar study by Sunny AR et al (2021) found that 55.5%
were professional fishermen following seasonal 35% and subsistence 9.5% in Shariatpur. Rana et
al (2018) found 91% professional fishers and 9% seasonal fishers in Padma River.

Figure 8 Fishermen Type

39
In the study area 79.5% fishermen lived in own house and 19.7% lived in rented house. It was
observed that 48.3% of housing structures were Katcha, 31.2% were semi pucca, 14.1% were
pucca and 6.4% were jhupri. Shuchi et al (2022) reported that It was found that 25%
households of the producers were in tin shed with bamboo, 60% households were t in shed
with tin wall and, 15% households were respectively. Study by Himu et al (2020) in
Sunamganj found that majority of the fishermen live in the houses made of tin (58.3%)
followed by straw component (26.7%), semi-concrete (11.7%) and concrete buildings (3.3%)
. As per the national survey, 90.8% of roof and 48% of the walls of the rural households
are made of corrugated tin. Similar study by Mia et al. (2015) stated that 75% fishers of
Meghna River lived in kacha house where 7.5% lived in semi-concrete buildings. As well,
Islam et al. (2018) observed 92.6% of the roof and 94.7% of the walls of fishermen of
Meghna River basin are made of tin.This study is more or less related with these studies.

Most of the fishermen had small family size. 63.1% fishermen had 5-6 members in their family,
17.6% had 1-4 members, 13.3% had 9-12 members and 6% had more than 12 members. A study
conducted by Kamal et al (2023) in Nazirartek found that 46.66 % of dry fishers had small-
size family ( 2- 3 members), followed by 30% and 23.33% of fishers were medium (4-5
members) and large-size family (6-7 members).

40
 50.0
45.0
40.0

Percentage (%)
35.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
Pucca Semi Pucca Kutcha Jhupri
House Structure

Figure 9 House Structure

Occupation
Housewife 6.8
Other (Making bara with
bamboo) 1.7
Worker 28.6

Owner of Fish Shop 13.7

Dry Fish Seller 23.9

Fish Seller 9.0

Fisherman 16.2

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

Figure 10 occupation of the Respondents

4.3 Income Patterns, Expenditure Trends, and Economic Vulnerability

Understanding income distribution and expenditure behaviors within fishing communities is

essential to gauging their economic well-being, capacity for savings, and resilience against socio-

41
environmental shocks. In coastal settlements like Nazirartek, where livelihoods are closely tied
to the seasonality and uncertainty of marine resources, income instability and expenditure
patterns serve as direct indicators of economic vulnerability (Allison & Horemans, 2006; Béné et
al., 2009).

The study showed that monthly average income in this study area was found around 21000 BDT
and (37.8%) fishermen monthly income between 5001-15000 BDT, (21%) fishermen monthly
income over 35000 BDT, (19.7%) fishermen income between 15001-25000 BDT, (16.3%)
fishermen income between 25001-35000 BDT and (5.2%) fishermen income below 5000 BDT.
These results were more or less similar to the findings of Kamal et al (2023). 56.66% of fishers
earned 81,000-100,000 BDT per year, 20% earned above 100,000 BDT per year, 13.33% earned
40,000- 60,000 BDT per year, and 10% earned 61,000-80,000 BDT per year. In contrast, 70% of
wholesaler earned above 100,000 BDT per year and 20% earned 81,000-100,000 BDT per year.
Study by Himu et al (2020) in Sunamganj found that more than half (56.7%) of the
fishermen’s monthly income was found Tk 5,001 to Tk 10,000, and about one-quarter (23.3%)
earn less than Tk 5,000 in a month. Only 5% mentioned that their monthly remuneration is
more than Tk 20,000. On the other hand, 15% responded that their earning is in between ten to
twenty thousand taka per month. Whereas, the national average income per household per
month is BDT 11,479 (USD 144) (BBS, 2013). Patwary (2014) recorded monthly income
Tk 6,000–10,000 (44%), less than Tk 5,000 (22%), Tk 11,000–20,000 (10%) and more than
Tk 30,000 (6%) of Hilsha fishers of Haimchar, Chandpur. Similarly, Islam et al. (2018)
more than Tk 30,000(6%) of Hilsha fishers of Haimchar, Chandpur. Similarly, Islam et al.
(2018) described the monthly income of fishers’ community of Meghna River basin where
the observed majority of the households (53.2%) monthly income was between BDT 5000–
10,000. Another study in Chandakhola wetland, Assam revealed that the monthly income
of fishermen was low (<USD 40) for 35% of the respondents followed by USD 40 - 60 (20%
respondents) and USD 60 – 80 (30% respondents) (Sheikh and Goswami, 2013).

Expenditure patterns demonstrate a similarly stratified distribution. 43.6% fishermen spend

between 5001-15000 BDT, 25.6% fishermen spend between 15001-25000 BDT, 14.5%
fishermen spend over 35000 BDT, and 13.2% fishermen spend between 25001-35000 BDT, and
3% fishermen spend below 5000 BDT. This close proportionality between income and

42
expenditure indicates a limited capacity for saving and highlights the economic fragility of the
fishing community.

Household Income and Expenditure

Over 35,000

25,001 – 35,000

15,001 – 25,000

5,001 – 15,000

Less than 5,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Expenditure (%) Income (%)

Figure 11 Household Income and Expenditure

In the off-season, most people were out of work because drying and processing were their main
occupations; nevertheless, they had to rely on other alternative professions to maintain their
livelihoods and manage their food. Beside the main profession the fishermen involved in
agriculture (8.1%), fish drying (12.4%0, small business (7.7%), salt processing (4.3%), Fishing
net making (3.8%), and tourism (0.9%). Kamal et al (2023) reported in his study Beside the
main professions, the dry fishers involved with agriculture(16.66%), animal rearing
(16.66%) and others (10%). Another study by Billah et al (2018) in coastal area Chittagong
found that, full time fishing activities were not the main occupation for all fishermen; instead of
this, majority number of fishermen had their secondary occupation, like small scale business
(40%), agriculture (36%) and rickshaw pulling (24%) for their livelihood which is more or less
similar to the present study

43
 Off-Sason Occupation
Salt Processing
4% Fish Drying
12% Agriculture
8% Tourism
1 Small Business
%
56% Fishing Net Making
8%
Handicraft
7% 4 No Work
%

Figure 12 Off-season Occupation of the Respondents

4.4 Correlation between Income and Expenditure

Pearson correlation between income and expenditure were observed in table: The income is
positively significantly correlate with the expenditure (r = 0.655, p < 0.001). This suggests that
individuals or families with higher income tend to have higher monthly expenditures. The
strength of the relationship is moderate which indicate that income is a meaningful predictor of
expenditure patterns in this fishing community.

Table 1 Correlation between Income and Expenditure

44
4.5 Correlation between Earning Members and Income

The correlation between earning members and income revealed a Pearson correlation coefficient
of 0.071, which indicates a very weak positive relationship. This relationship is statistically
insignificant at the 5% level (p = 0.281). It indicates that household income does not
significantly increase with the earning members. It reflects that households additional earning
members contribution in income may be marginal if they are engaged in low wage or seasonal
income.

Table 2 Correlation between Income and Earning Members

4.6 Regression Analysis

The multiple regression examines the effect of age group, number of earning members,
occupation, education level, and family size on monthly household income was statistically
significant overall (F(5,226) = 2.703, p = 0.021), although it explained only 5.6% of the variance
in income (R² = 0.056). The significant negative coefficient for occupation highlights that within
the community the types of job matters more than household size or formal education.

45
 Variable Unstandardized Standard Standardized t- p-value
Coefficient (B) Error Coefficient (Beta) value (Sig.)

(Constant) 3.080 0.393 – 7.839 0.000

Education -0.075 0.047 -0.109 - 0.111

1.598

Family Size 0.048 0.119 0.028 0.398 0.691

Occupation -0.108 0.051 -0.146 - 0.035

2.117

Earning 0.125 0.089 0.096 1.402 0.162

Members

Age Group 0.100 0.056 0.123 1.802 0.073

Table 3 Multiple Regression Analysis

4.7 Seasonal Variability in Fish Availability and Its Socioeconomic

Consequences

Seasonal fluctuations in fish availability are crucial determinant of the the livelihood stability
and socio-economic well-being of fishing communities (Islam et al., 2022). The field data
collected from Nazirartek, Cox’s Bazar reveals significant seasonal variance in fish production
across different periods of the year. During the summer season, there was a moderate abundance
of fish reported by 55.1% fishermen. During the monsoon season brought a substantial decline in
fish availability; notably, 67.1% of respondents reported little abundance. This decline can be
attributed to rough sea conditions, fishing bans to conserve fish stocks, and restrictions imposed
during breeding seasons (Hossain et al., 2021). During the post monsoon season there was a
moderate recovery in fish abundance reported by 60.3% respondents. This improvement aligns
with findings by Mohsin et al. (2014), who noted that fish availability tends to increase as river

46
and coastal water levels stabilize after the monsoon. The winter season emerged as the most
favorable period for fishing, as 71.7% fishermen experienced high fish abundance. According to
Hossain et al. (2021), catch rates are generally highest during the winter months due to calmer
sea conditions, better access to fishing grounds, and the seasonal migration patterns of certain
commercially important fish species. A study by Alam et al (2025) in Dharla River found that
fish abundance peaked in the post-monsoon season, while the lowest number of fish species was
observed during the pre-monsoon.

These seasonal shifts not only affect catch volumes but also have direct socioeconomic
consequences. During periods of low abundance, particularly in the monsoon, many fishers
experience severe income shortages. As a result they have to rely on alternative livelihood.
During off season, the fishermen involved in agriculture (8.1%), fish drying (12.4%0, small
business (7.7%), salt processing (4.3%), Fishing net making (3.8%), and tourism (0.9%). Kamal
et al (2023) reported in his study Beside the main professions, the dry fishers involved with
agriculture(16.66%), animal rearing (16.66%) and others (10%). Another study by Billah et al
(2018) in coastal area Chittagong found that, full time fishing activities were not the main
occupation for all fishermen; instead of this, majority numberof fishermen had their secondary
occupation, like small scale business (40%), agriculture (36%) and rickshaw pulling (24%) for
their livelihood which is more or less similar to the present study.

47
 Seasonal Variation in Fish Abundance
80
60 Little Abundance (%)
40
Percentage (%)
Moderate Abundance
20 (%)
0 High Abundance (%)
er on on r
m te
m nso nso in
Su o o W
M t-M
s
Po
Season

Figure 13 Seasonal Variation in Fish Abundance

4.8 Multidimensional Challenges Affecting Fishing Livelihoods

5.5.1 Environmental and Climatic Pressures: Seasonal Stress and Natural Disasters

Based on the survey findings, seasonal shifts exert profound impacts on fish availability and
fishing operations. During the monsoon majority of the fishermen (67.1%) experienced low fish
abundance. They also face inadequate work opportunities (50%) due to seasonal disruptions. Due
to seasonal stress the fishermen also suffered economically from minimized profit (62.4%). A
study by Rahman et al (2018) found that seasonal fluctuations significantly depress incomes in
coastal fisheries, forcing households into cycles of debt and poverty. Another study conducted by
Kamal et al (2023) on the dry fish community in Nazirartek reported that as drying activities are
seasonal work, the fishers did not get enough reimbursements during the off seasons and so
they had to take extra labor intensive workload.

similar observations in Cox’s Bazar.

48
In addition to seasonal stress, natural disasters such as cyclones, tidal surges, and coastal floods
identified as the major disruptive forces. In the study area, displacement (48.7%) was the direct
consequence of natural hazards. Moreover, it hampered their work (26.1%) and they also
suffered from anxiety and mental stress (14.1%). Due to natural disaster, the fisher experienced
property loss (55.1%) and also became unable to work (12.4%). Mitu et al (2021) conducted a
study on dry fish community in Cox’s Bazar reported that the fish drying communities face a
great deal of bad weather condition in the coastal areas including storms, cyclones and
erosion. The activities of fish drying were highly dependent on environmental conditions. Due
to their vulnerability to extreme weather conditions, the fish drying communities face
several socio-economic obstacles for sustaining their livelihoods, such as capital crisis, lack
of social securities, and poor institutional support for borrowing money. Mandal et al (2017)
reported that the fishermen of Boga community face mainly tropical cyclone during fishing
basically in rainy season. Without that they also face ocean storm and heavy rainfall which can
hamper their daily activities or can create health/life risks. In the rainy season the risks of
fishermen life is extremely high compared to the winter season. About 56% fishermen said that
they have faced severe cyclonic event during fishing where 22% have faced sudden ocean storm
caused by the deep ocean depression.

5.5.2 Public Health Hazards and Limited Medical Access

The study found that 35.9% fishermen suffered from skin diseases, 32.9% fishermen suffered
from fever or dengue, and 11.5% suffered from muscle pain. Moreover, healthcare access
remains the main obstacle. 35.9% fishermen identified high treatment cost, and 14.5% fishermen
identified distance to medical facilities as the primary barriers. Mandal et al (2017) reported the
fishermen face some physical problem during fishing like dizziness, vomit, fever, abdominal
pain, acidity and dehydration. 75 percent of the total fishermen face dizziness in time of fishing
because of the ocean waves. 70 percent of the total fishermen fells vomit and it occurs by the
same reason of ocean waves come again, again and again and the fishing boat started to swing.
55 percent of the total fishermen face fever also during fishing and could occur due to the all-
time direct contact with ocean and rain water. 33 percent of total fishermen face acidity problem
because of the food habit at first during fishing. 25 percent of the total fishermen face abdominal

49
pain, 30 percent of total fishermen face diarrhea and 10 percent of total fishermen fell the
dehydration problem. 60% of the fishermen mentioned that poverty is the main cause which
increase health problem. Lack of education facilities are identified as a key factor determining
the incidence of health problem for fishing community. 40% of the fishermen identified the
impact of population density as the cause of different kind of diseases such as fever and ARI etc.
40% respondents are extremely vulnerable due to pure drinking water and it increases their
disease. Food security (45%) is the major cause for increasing health problem in the coastal area
of Bangladesh.

5.5.3 Economic Insecurity and Market Exploitation

The fishermen of Nazirartek faces several economic insecurity such as decline in fish stock, middlemen
exploitation, unstable market dynamics etc. The survey result found that socially 35% fishermen reported
decline in their quality life, 35.5% fishermen could not support their family, and 8.5% fishermen had to
migrate to another occupation due to the impact of declining fish availability on livelihood security. The
economic consequences were similarly concerning, 58.1% fishermen earned minimal profit, which can
reduce their income stability. Sazzad et al (2024) found that approximately 85% of the fishermen indicated a
decline in fish supply during the last ten years, ascribed to overfishing, illicit gear use, and environmental
deterioration.

In this study 18.4% fishermen reported middlemen reinforced power imbalance within the fishing
community, 16.7% stated the dominance of middlemen created mistrust among community members. This
impact is equally profound economically. 30.3% respondents experienced financial losses or an inability to
achieve their expected profit margin, 16.2% struggled to afford their basic necessities, and 12% identified
issues related to overpricing. These results are consistent with Islam et al (2023), who stated that the
participants (40 %) mentioned ‘Average’ market has limited access, (30 %) of respondents
mentioned ‘Very High’, and (25 %) of participants selected ‘Very’ in the fish market controlled
by brokers or syndicates. Middlemen often dominate the price setting mechanisms due to their financial
power and control over market access. Similarly, Kamal et al(2023) observed that fishermen in coastal
Bangladesh often sell their catch at significantly undervalued prices due to the monopolistic
influence of middlemen.

50
5.5.4 Governance and Institutional Barriers to Sustainable Livelihoods

The fishing community in Nazirartek faces significant government and institutional challenges
such as lack of communication infrastructure and non-compliance of laws. Due to their inability
to receive timely warnings 29.1% fishermen reported increased vulnerability to natural disasters,
10,7% experienced delays in receiving disaster alerts, 10.3% fishermen faced difficulties in
maintaining communication with their family members, and 7.7% stated that communication
limitation caused anxiety. Economically, 13.3% fishermen indicated that lack of early warning
system led to boat damage.

Similarly, non-compliance of laws has emerged as a serious governance issue. 14.1%

respondents reported that non-compliance caused conflict among the community, 11.5%
observed an increase in illegal fishing practice. Economically, 17.9% fishermen faced financial
penalties, 9.8% reported being subjected to extortion. These findings are consistent with earlier
studies (Islam et al., 2023; Sazzad et al., 2023), which argue that weak institutional frameworks,
poor enforcement of regulations, and inadequate technological infrastructure significantly
undermine the socio-economic stability of small-scale fishing communities in Bangladesh.

Challenge Social Impact Economic Impact

Seasonal Stress Less work (50%), Excess work (26%), Minimized profit (70.7%),
No comment (24%) No comment (29.3%)

Health Hazards Fever/Dengue (35.9%), Skin diseases Treatment costly (35.9%),

(32.9%), Muscle pain (11.5%), No Hospital far (14.5%), No
comment (19.7%) comment (49.6%)

Natural Hazards Displacement (48.7%), Work Property loss (55.1%),

hampered (26%), Anxiety (14.1%), No Unable to work (12.4%), No
comment (11.1%) comment (32.5%)

Marine Pollution Plastic throwing (37.2%), Air/Water Less fish (17.9%), Can't

51
 pollution (25.6%), Biodiversity loss afford needs (10.3%),
(16.2%), No comment (16.2%) Tourism loss (7.7%), No
comment (64.1%)

Salinity Intrusion No drinking water (31.2%), Fish production loss (12.4%),

Displacement (12.4%), No comment Agri decline (18.8%), No
(54.5%) comment (68.8%)

Decline in Fish Low living quality (35%), Can't Less profit (58.1%), No
Stock support family (35.5%), Job change comment (41.9%)
(8.5%), No comment (20.9%)

Middleman Power imbalance (18.4%), Community Low profit (30.3%), Can't

Exploitation mistrust (16.7%), No comment (65%) afford needs (16.2%),
Overpricing (12%), No
comment (41.5%)

Lack of Exposed to hazards (29.1%), Delay in Boat damage (13.3%), No

Communication alerts (10.7%), No contact with family comment (86.7%)
(10.3%), Anxiety (7.7%), No comment
(42.3%)

Law Non- Community conflict (14.1%), Illegal Fines (17.9%), Extortion

compliance fishing (11.5%), No comment (74.4%) (9.8%), No comment (74.4%)

Table 4 Challenges Faced by Fishing Community

4.9 Access to Financial Services and Indebtedness

The survey result reveals that 58.8% fishermen in Nazirartek reported having taken loan because
of the economic vulnerability. About 41.9% took loans from NGOs, 28.5% received loan from
bank, 11% from other informal or unclassified sources, and 7% received loan from co-workers
and relatives. A study by Jaman et al (2024) reported that 31.67% of fishermen did not get any
loan, 8.33% acquired loans from neighbors and 11.67% received loans from relatives, while

52
48.33% of fishermen received loans from non-governmental organizations. kamal et al (2023)
conducted a research in Nazirartek and found that 70% fishers took loan from NGOs and 30%
from bank. Mitu et al (2021) found that in Nazirertek, 44% of respondents did not need any
financial help or did not take any loan, whereas 36% of respondents borrowed money from co-
operatives, 11% from NGOs or banks, and 9% borrowed from their neighbors. Billah et al.
(2018) found that 47% of the fishermen used their own money for their financial assistance, 26%
of the fishermen received loan from bank and 27% of the fishermen received loan from other
sources like different NGOs in Chittagong. These findings are relevant to our present study.

Sources of Loans

No Comments

Others

Bank

NGO

Co-workers/Relatives

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Figure 14 Sources of Loans

4.10 Opportunities for Livelihood and Business Improvement

The fishing community in Nazirartek faces so many socio-economic vulnerabilities. However,

alongside the challenges there are some opportunities which can significantly improve the
livelihood and economic well being of the community. Access to reliable financial support
emerged as the topmost priority of the respondents. The study found that a significant portion of
fishermen rely on informal moneylenders at exploitative interest rate. In our study, 59.8% of the

53
fishermen rated it as the most important factor for improving their livelihood. This aligns with
findings by Rahman et al (2018) who reported that over 60% of small-scale fishers in coastal
Bangladesh depend on informal credit sources due to limited access to formal financial
institutions. To mitigate this financial exclusion, the World Bank’s Sustainable Coastal and
Marine Fisheries Project (2023) promotes microfinance access and financial literacy training,
with a specific focus on empowering women and youth in fishing communities.

Vocational training and skill diversification were also identified as a crucial factor for improving
alternative livelihood. In our study, the majority of the respondents expressed a willingness to
participate in skill-based training especially during off-peak season. Similar recommendations
were made in the IFAD (2021) Haor Infrastructure and Livelihood Improvement Project, which
discussed the importance of farm and non-farm skill training programs in ensuring year-round
income security. The report showed that vocational training not only reduces dependency on
fishing but also promote entrepreneurship, especially among younger populations.

In terms of technological advancement the fishermen in Nazirartek continue to employ in

traditional, low efficiency fishing gear, which limits catch potential and increases labor intensity.
The survey results highlighted the importance of technology with 52.3% of fishermen rated its
adoption as highly important. Islam et al. (2016) emphasized the role of technology in increasing
productivity and reducing drudgery and also recommended government-supported access to
modern fishing tools and safety equipment. Furthermore, the introduction of digital platforms for
direct market access can improve profit margins and reduce the exploitative practices of
middlemen, by cutting out intermediaries as also highlighted in Ahmed et al. (2019).

To address the seasonal nature of fishing, 42.3% of respondents supported the development of
alternative livelihoods such as fish drying, seaweed cultivation, small-scale aquaculture, or
tourism services. A study by Al Mamun et al. (2023) found that alternative livelihoods improved
economic stability and helped buffer seasonal shocks among coastal fishers in Barisal and
Chattogram.

Health protection and insurance mechanism identified as a vital yet underdeveloped component
of livelihood security. The survey data revealed limited awareness and virtually no access to
formal health insurance among the respondents in Nazirartek. This mirrors findings from the

54
study by Hossain et al. (2022), which emphasized that out-of-pocket health expenses often push
fishing households further into debt. He also suggested the urgent need for community-based
health insurance schemes tailored to informal labor sectors.

Environmental conservation practices and climate resilience planning are essential for sustaining
fisheries-based livelihoods in the long term. The FAO/UNDP/GoB midterm evaluation (2022) of
a coastal community empowerment project found that environmental education, mangrove
reforestation, and awareness of sustainable fishing practices improved both ecosystem health and
community income. In the present study, respondents acknowledged the degradation of local
marine resources and expressed support for initiatives promoting environmental protection.
Islam and Chuenpagdee (2013) argue thatsustainable fishing practices and coastal resource
management are vital to long-term food security and economic stability.

Access to Financial Supports

Most Important

Highly Important

Moderately Important

Less Important

Least Important

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Figure 15 Respondents Perception on Access to Financial Support

55
 Disaster Management and Risk Management

Most Important 44.4

Highly Important 22.2

Moderately Important 16.7

Less Important 9.0

Least Important 7.7

Figure 16 Respondents Perception on Disaster and Risk Management

Usage of Modern Technology

Most Important

Highly Important

Moderately Important

Less Important

Least Important

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0

Figure 17 Respondents Perception on Usage of Modern Technology

56
 Direct Access to Market
Most Important 39.5

Highly Important 17.2

Moderately Important 17.2

Less Important 15.9

Least Important 10.3

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0

Figure 18 Respondents Perception on Direct Market Access

4.11 Public Health, Sanitation, and Environmental Practices

Access to health facilities in the study were highly centralized and limited. They were in the
very worst situation. Majority of the respondents (74.4%) go to Cox’s Bazar Sadar Hospital for
medical treatment, which indicated the lack of proximate and community based health
infrastructure. A small portion of respondents accessed local pharmacies(11.1%), NGO- operated
health services (3.8%) and other minor alternatives. The findings are consistent with early
observations by Jaman et al (2024), who noted that the fishermen's medical facilities were
inadequate. The majority of them first visit the Upazilla Health Complex (35%) and the local
physician (46.67%). They attend the Mymensingh Medical fishermen was meager College
Hospital (18.33%). Haque et al (2024) also reportedthat most of the fishermen go to the village
medical doctor (64.10 %) and Kobiraj (11.97 %) and Upazila health complex (23.93 %).

57
 90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0

Percentage(%)
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Cox's Bazar Local NGO health Others No Hospital
Hospital pharmacy care
Health Facilities

Figure 19 Health Facilities

The level of sanitation in the study area was unsatisfactory because of low income and a lack of
knowledge. Nearly half of the people (47.6%) used kutcha latrines, only 26.2% used pucca toilet.
Haque et al (2024) reported that of the people 76% used kutcha latrines, and 18% semi pucca and
6% had no sanitary facilities which was more or less similar to the present findings. The majority
of the fishermen (86.7%) relied on tube wells for drinking water and 12.9% used tap water.
Jaman et al (2024) discovered that the majority of fishermen (86.67%) utilized tube wells for
drinking water and 13.33% used deep tube wells, which was consistent with the present st

Figure 20 Latrine Type in the Community

58
Fish processing practices of fishermen includes the use of plastics and chemical, which raise
serious environmental and public health concerns. In the study area, majority of the fishers
(80.5%) used plastic containers which caused plastic pollution and long term ecological harm.
20.4% fishermen used chemical during fish drying. Hossain et al (2022) reported that chemical
use in fish drying often driven by pressure to extend shelf life can cause direct risks to consumer
health and undermines the credibility of local dry fish industries. For waste management in the
study area 42.2% respondents used trash bins, 19.8% buried them, 12.9% reused fish waste as
animal feed. However, environmentally harmful practices reported in study area such as
dumping into the sea(10.3%), and open burning (7.3%).These findings correspond with those of
Rahman et al. (2018), who documented the inadequacy of municipal waste management in
coastal fishing zones. The survey result showed that respondents were unaware about
environment. 44.2% respondents perceive pollution as pressing issue, while 55.8% did not
perceived it as a problem. It indicates a critical gap in environmental awareness among the
respondents which can hinder future conservation efforts and reflects an urgent need for
community-based environmental education.

4.12 Cross Tabulation Analysis

The cross tabulation analysis between education and occupation among 234 respondents shows
that majority of those with no formal education or only primary education are engaged in low-
skilled job such as fishing, dry fish selling and worker. Higher education is less common and
those with higher education are mostly fish shop owners and seller. The data shows a strong link
between low education and labor intensive work in the fish sector.

59
 Other (e.g.,
Dry Owner
Education Fish Bamboo
Fisherman Fish of Fish Worker Housewife Total
Level Seller Bara
Seller Shop
Maker)

No Formal
12 8 23 5 31 0 8 87
Education

Primary 22 7 21 11 33 1 7 102

Secondary
4 3 9 11 3 3 1 34
(SSC)

Higher
Secondary 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 7
(HSC)

Graduate 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 4

Total 38 21 56 32 67 4 16 234

Table 5 Crosstab Analysis

60
 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

The study explored the socio-economic conditions, livelihood challenges, coping strategies, and
development opportunities of the fishing community in Nazirartek, Cox’s Bazar. The study
Employed field-based empirical data to examine the interrelationship between occupational
hazards, economic vulnerability, gender dynamics, environmental degradation, and health risks
within this coastal community.

The findings reveal that while the fishing and dry fish processing sector are very crucial for
sustaining local livelihoods and contributing to national economic growth, the community
involvement remains socio-economically marginalized. Limited access to education, healthcare,
credit facilities, safe working conditions, and institutional supports hamper their capacity to
improve their well-being. Particularly, women and children are disproportionately affected by
these limitations. They tend to bear the brunt of exploitation and health hazards in informal labor
settings.

This study contributes to the broader discourse on coastal livelihoods, labor informality, and
rural development in Bangladesh. It challenges mainstream development discourse by
providing grounded insights into a specific but under-studied coastal sub-sector and highlights
the urgency for inclusive and sustainable policy intervention. From findings of the study, the
following recommendations can be made for improving the socio-economic condition of the
fishermen :

 The government should formalize the dry fish sector to ensure legal protection, fair
wages, and elimination of child labor.

 Immediate improvements in sanitation and access to healthcare are needed to address the
serious health risks in the work environment.

61
  Skill development programs should be introduced, especially for women, to enhance
income opportunities and reduce exploitation.

 Financial support and better market access should be provided to reduce dependence on
middlemen and ensure fair pricing for producers.

This study has laid the foundation for understanding the socio-economic conditions of the
fishermen in Nazirartek, Cox’s Bazar and also highlights the need for further in-depth and
focused research. Future studies could undertake comparative research across different coastal
regions in Bangladesh to assess the similarities and distinctions in livelihoods, labor practices,
and gender roles within the fishing sector. Longitudinal studies would be particularly useful in
evaluating the long term impacts of policy interventions and development programs to improve
socio-economic conditions. Environmental assessment of current fish drying methods may also
yield important information regarding ecological sustainability and the need for environmentally
friendly alternatives.

The findings of this study have significant applicability across various sectors and stakeholders.
For policymakers, the study provides empirical ground which can support the formation of labor
laws, occupational health and safety standards, targeted rural development strategies needed for
fishing community. NGOs working in the fields of education, health, and livelihood
development can use the insights to design programs to address the specific vulnerabilities of
fishermen. The study provides local leaders and community members with data-driven insights
to promote for better services and institutional support.

62
REFERENCES

Ahmed, N., Bunting, S. W., Rahman, S., & Garforth, C. J. (2013). Community-based climate
change adaptation in aquaculture and fisheries: A review of best practices in Asia. Reviews in
Aquaculture, 5(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12022

Alam, M. F.,Demaine, H., & Phillips, M. J. (2010). Progress in coastal fisheries resource
management in Bangladesh: Lessons learned and future prospects. WorldFish Center.

Alam, M. S., & Thomson, K. J. (2001). Current constraints and future prospects for dry fish
production in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Economics, 24(2), 127–138.

Ali, H., & Rahman, M. M. (2016). Sanitation and waste management condition in the coastal
areas of Bangladesh: A case study on the Saint Martin’s Island. International Journal of
Scientific & Engineering Research, 7(3), 292–298.

BBS. (2022). Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh 2022. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics,

Ministry of Planning.

BOBLME. (2015). Socioeconomic baseline survey of the fisheries sector in Bangladesh.

Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project.

Das, T. K., & Ullah, M. H. (2013). Socioeconomic status of fish drying workers at Nazirartek
in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research, 38(2), 279–291.
https://doi.org/10.3329/bjar.v38i2.15885

DoF. (2022). Yearbook of Fisheries Statistics of Bangladesh 2020-21 (Vol. 38). Department
of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Government of Bangladesh.
http://fisheries.gov.bd

63
FAO. (2014). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2014: Opportunities and
challenges. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
https://www.fao.org/3/i3720e/i3720e.pdf

Haque, M. M., Islam, M. A., & Naser, M. N. (2015). Dry fish marketing and socio-economic
conditions of the fish drying workers in the coastal region of Bangladesh. Journal of Sylhet
Agricultural University, 2(2), 261–267. https://doi.org/10.3329/jsau.v2i2.23751

Hasan, M. R., Hossain, M. A., Sultana, N., & Rahman, M. M. (2023). Assessment of fishing
gear efficiency, species diversity, and socioeconomic impacts on fishermen along the Jamuna
River, Bangladesh. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377222950

Hossain, M. A. R. (2014). An overview of fisheries sector of Bangladesh. Research in

Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, 1(1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.3329/ralf.v1i1.22370

Hossain, M. S., Rahman, M. J., & Hoq, M. E. (2014). Waste generation and management in
the marine dry fish industry in Bangladesh. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 88(1–2), 240–246.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.08.035

Hussain, M. G., Hoq, M. E., & Haroon, A. K. Y. (2017). Fisheries resources, fishing
operations and socio-economic condition of the fishing communities in Cox’s Bazar.
Bangladesh Fisheries Research Forum (BFRF).

Islam, M. M., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2013). Negotiating risk and poverty in mangrove fishing
communities of the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Marine Policy, 39, 84–92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.005

Islam, M. M., & Chuenpagdee, R. (2013). Negotiating risk and poverty in small-scale fishing
communities of Bangladesh. Marine Policy, 39, 18–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.005

Islam, M. M., et al. (2023). Local Ecological Knowledge Can Support Improved
Management of Small-Scale Fisheries in Bangladesh. Frontiers in Marine Science.

64
Islam, M. R., & Haque, M. (2018). Socio-economic status of dry fish processors in the
coastal region of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research, 43(3), 521–530.
https://doi.org/10.3329/bjar.v43i3.37674

Kamal, M. M., et al. (2023). Socio-economic Conditions of Dry Fishers and Wholesalers: A
Case Study of the Coastal Dry Fishing Communities of Bangladesh. Asian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Research, 25(4), 149–158.

Mahmud, M. A. P., & Wahid, S. M. (2008). Water quality in coastal areas of Bangladesh.
Journal of Engineering Science, 3(1), 31–41.

Mahmud, S., Haq, A. Z. M., & Nahar, N. (2015). Social aspects of fishermen of Cox’s Bazar
in Bangladesh. PIJSS: Proceedings of the International Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2), 46–
60. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.32.4660

Mitu, S. J., Schneider, P., Islam, M. S., & Alam, M. (2021). Socio-economic context and
community resilience among the people involved in fish drying practices in the south-east
coast of Bangladesh. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
18(12), 6242. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126242

Mostafa, M. G., Haque, M. M., & Karim, M. R. (2018). Socio-economic condition of

fishermen in coastal region of Bangladesh: A case study in Cox’s Bazar. International
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 3(2), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijae.20180402.11

Munir, M. M. H. (2023). Social development and sustainable fisheries: Bangladesh.

International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF).

Musheduzzaman, M. (2021). Socio-economic status of fishing community: A case study on

the Rabnabad Channel at Galachipa Upazila under Patuakhali district. Pathfinder of
Research, 1(1), 8–17. https://pathfinderpub.com/index.php/pathfinder-of-research/article/
view/18

65
Paul, A., & Vogl, C. R. (2011). Impacts of shrimp farming in Bangladesh: Challenges and
alternatives. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54(3), 201–211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.12.001

Rahman, M. H., & Hossain, M. Y. (2010). Socio-economic aspects of dry fish production in
the coastal region of Bangladesh. Research Journal of Social Sciences, 5(3), 41–50.

Rahman, M. M., & Shafiq, M. (2013). A socio-economic study of fishermen in Bangladesh.

International Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 3(4), 101–106.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijaf.20130204.11

Salim, M. A., & Ullah, M. H. (2015). Livelihood status of the fishermen of the Turag River,
Bangladesh. International Journal of Life Sciences Biotechnology and Pharma Research,
4(2), 24–33.

Sazzad, S. A., Begum, K., Selim, S. K., & Foysal, A. M. (2024). Socioeconomic
vulnerabilities and adaptive strategies of small-scale fishers in developing country. Applied
Agriculture Sciences, 2(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.25163/agriculture.2110027

Shah, M. T. R., & Ahmed, K. N. (2020). Challenges and prospects of traditional fish drying
industry in Bangladesh. Journal of Fisheries, 8(3), 861–867.
https://doi.org/10.17017/jfish.v8i3.2020.400

Sultana, M., Hasan, M. R., & Hossain, M. B. (2020). Socio-economic status of dry fish
processors at Nazirartek, Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. International Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Studies, 8(1), 50–55.

Uddin, M. J., & Zafar, M. A. (2021). Economic valuation and livelihood dependency on
fisheries in the Cox’s Bazar region of Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural
Development, 11(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.ajard.2021.112.143.153

Winrock International. (2023). An Information Service Hub for the Dried Fish Sector
Community. https://winrock.org/resources/an-information-service-hub-for-the-dried-fish-
sector-community

66
World Bank. (2020). Bangladesh: Enhancing coastal resilience in a changing climate.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications

WorldFish. (2022). Small-scale fisheries and aquaculture: A life-changing livelihood for

millions. WorldFish Center. https://digitalarchive.worldfishcenter.org/bitstreams/fa6dfc34-
ed48-4e36-a101-15ce19c56753/download

67
 APPENDICES

Survey Questionnaire

68
69
70
71
72
73
Figure 21 Dry Fish Processing

Figure 22 Fish Drying Yard

74
 Figure 23 Dry Fish Processing

Figure 24 Fish Waste Processing for Animal Feed

75