Aquaculture Reports 21 (2021) 100895

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aquaculture Reports
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aqrep

Livelihood status of coastal shrimp farmers in Bangladesh: Comparison

before and during COVID-19
Md. Sadique Rahman a, *, Monoj Kumar Majumder b, Md. Hayder Khan Sujan c,
Shirajum Manjira a
a
Department of Management and Finance, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka, Bangladesh
b
Department of Agricultural Economics, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka, Bangladesh
c
Department of Development and Poverty Studies, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka, Bangladesh

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The impacts of COVID-19 are jeopardizing the lives of coastal shrimp producers in Bangladesh. This study
Aquaculture compares shrimp farmers’ livelihood status before and during the COVID-19 pandemic by employing the Sus­
Coastal areas tainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) developed by the Department for International Development (DFID). A
Pandemic
total of 250 shrimp farmers were surveyed to achieve the objectives. Findings indicated that COVID-19 had a
Profit
detrimental effect on the livelihood status of shrimp farmers. The total livelihood diversification score was higher
Sustainable livelihood framework
(0.53) before COVID-19 than during COVID-19 (0.43). During COVID-19, the cost of shrimp production
increased considerably compared to before COVID-19, reducing profitability. Ensuring adequate capital supply,
access to health facilities, and appropriate coverage of social safety-net programs might help mitigate the
negative effects on livelihood status.

1. Introduction indirectly. The lockdown in Bangladesh formally started on March 26th,

Agricultural development disruptions and their consequences for
livelihoods in developing countries such as Bangladesh have been
highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. These consequences are espe­
cially severe in the fisheries sector due to reduced domestic demand
during the pandemic (Ahmmed et al., 2021). Fisheries sector supply the
bulk of animal protein, job opportunities, food security, economic
growth, and foreign earnings in Bangladesh (FRSS, 2017). They create
around 18 million job opportunities in Bangladesh and contribute to the
country’s economic prosperity (FRSS, 2017). In 2018, this sector
contributed 3.61% to the national gross domestic product (GDP) and
24.41% to agricultural GDP (DoF, 2017). Because of its high export
earnings and potential for employment creation, brackish-water shrimp
farming has developed as a major fisheries sub-sector (Begum et al.,
2013; Akter, 2017). Shrimp farming is critical to the economic devel­
opment of coastal communities in Bangladesh (Washim et al., 2020).
However, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on
this sub-sector. Fear of the virus and uncertainty about the future have
overwhelmed many people working in this sector, both directly and
2020, impeding all stages of shrimp culture in Bangladesh. Furthermore,
owing to stay-at-home orders, most hotels, restaurants, catering facil­
ities, and local markets in Bangladesh were closed in 2020. Approxi­
mately 85% of Bangladesh’s frozen shrimp exports are destined for
Europe. However, the second wave of the pandemic has caused Euro­
pean countries to ban imports from other countries. Foreign buyers
canceling orders has had a significant impact on the shrimp sub-sectors
(Islam et al., 2021). As a result, lower demand for shrimp products in
both local and international markets has had a detrimental influence on
income and livelihood patterns, particularly for small farmers. In gen­
eral, they also lost money from farming because they were unable to
market their harvests or were forced to sell at low prices. According to
one survey, approximately one-third of small fish farmers were unable to
begin a new farming period due to unsold fish, which also reduced the
sale price of fish (Sunny et al., 2021). The onset of the COVID-19
pandemic decreased shrimp output, severely cut market prices, and
significantly impacted their income and livelihoods (Ahmmed et al.,
2021). To deal with the crisis, many farmers have sold their assets and
drained their savings. To compensate for the losses, they may have

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: saadrhmn@yahoo.com (Md.S. Rahman), monoj003@yahoo.com (M.K. Majumder), mhksujan@gmail.com (Md.H.K. Sujan), info.bonna14@
gmail.com (S. Manjira).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100895
Received 2 May 2021; Received in revised form 3 September 2021; Accepted 4 October 2021
Available online 7 October 2021
2352-5134/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Md.S. Rahman et al.
decreased their expenditures for health care, nutrition, and children’s
education, which might have a serious impact on their livelihood status.
As a result, it is high time to examine the livelihood condition of shrimp
producers under two scenarios: before and during COVID-19.
According to studies, the major consequences of a shock are reduced
employment possibilities, land use change, fishery destruction, and
economic uncertainty (Solayman, 2017). According to a study on the
effects of COVID-19 on the aquatic food system in Bangladesh,
COVID-19 prohibited small fish farmers from working on their ponds,
collecting inputs, and selling their goods in the market (Sunny et al.,
2021). COVID-19 substantially disrupted the aquatic food value chain,
with the bulk of the impacts affecting the supply and accessibility of
aquatic foods (Belton et al., 2021). According to Ahmmed et al. (2021),
shrimp production operations were severely impeded by a lack of inputs,
a labor problem, and a breakdown in communication. A few other
studies (Azra et al., 2021; Waiho et al., 2020) showed that COVID-19
had a major influence on aquaculture activities in Malaysia due to
market demand and logistical limitations. Due to COVID-19 restrictions,
shrimp production in India may decline by 40%, resulting in a 1.50
billion USD economic loss between 2020 and 2021 (Kumaran et al.,
2021). According to Demirci et al. (2020), the pandemic had the most
detrimental impact on Turkey’s fisheries exporters.
It is clear from above discussion that the majority of previous
research focused on the impact of COVID-19 on the broader aquaculture
sector and aquatic food value chain. There has been a dearth of studies
on the comparative livelihood status of coastal shrimp farmers prior to
and during COVID-19. Bangladesh’s coastal areas, which account for
10% of the country’s population, are already vulnerable to natural di­
sasters (Rahman and Ahmad, 2018). Shrimp farming, one of the primary
livelihood choices in Bangladesh’s coastal districts, is critical to the
economic upliftment of coastal people (Hoque et al., 2018; Washim
et al., 2020). In this circumstance, the COVID-19 epidemic might have a
substantial influence on shrimp productivity and, as a result, on coastal
shrimp producers’ livelihoods. Considering these issues, the present
study was undertaken to fulfill the research gap and to determine
appropriate policy options.
This study compares the livelihood status of shrimp farmers by
developing a novel dataset that include information on 250 shrimp
farmers from coastal areas of Bangladesh. The Sustainable Livelihoods
Framework (SLF) developed by the Department for International
Development (DFID) provided a way to measure the livelihood status of
shrimp farmers before and during the pandemic. This study contributes
to the literature in the following ways: first, no previous studies in
Bangladesh or elsewhere have investigated and compared livelihood
status before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, the SLF
provides a comparison between the pre- and post-outbreak livelihood
status based on five types of capital. Finally, this study provides some
recommendations for improving the livelihoods of coastal shrimp
farmers in Bangladesh. The study is structured as follows: Section 2
outlines the data and methodology, Section 3 describes the empirical
findings, and Section 4 contains conclusions and policy
recommendations.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Data sources
The study was conducted in two coastal districts1: Khulna and Sat­
khira based on the availability of shrimp farmers. In terms of total
infected people, these two shrimp farming districts were the most
afflicted by COVID-19 (DGHS, 2021). The study areas are shown in
1
Administrative unit.
2
Aquaculture Reports 21 (2021) 100895
Fig. 1. From each district, two upazilas2 were selected in consultation
with the upazila fisheries office. From each upazila, 2 or 3 villages were
selected to conduct the survey. A total of 10 villages were selected from
the two districts. The following formula was used to determine the
appropriate sample size for this study (Kanyenji et al., 2020):
z2 pq (1.96)2 ∗ 0.5 ∗ 0.5
n0 = = = 227 ≅ 250 (1)
e2 (0.065)2
where no is the sample size, z2 is the 95% confidence interval (which is
1.96 for commonly used 95% confidence interval), p is the estimated
proportion of an attribute that is present in the population, which is
equal to 50% (p = 0.5), q is 1-p, and e is the desired precision level,
which is assumed to be ± 6.5%. First, our enumerators identified 4 or 5
potential shrimp farmers from each of the selected villages. These
farmers were asked to prepare a list of shrimp farming households in
each village, which served as the sampling framework for the present
study. Then, for each village, 25 shrimp farmers were randomly selected
from that list. Thus, a total of 250 shrimp farmers were interviewed to
achieve the objectives.
This study focuses on the livelihood patterns of shrimp farmers since
shrimp farming is the primary source of income for coastal people and
the principal exportable fisheries item produced in Bangladesh, which
has been badly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (Bari, 2004;
Ahmmed et al., 2021; Ray et al., 2021). Data were collected from the
same household heads considering two situations: before the COVID-19
outbreak and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since COVID-19 was first
identified in Bangladesh in early March 2020, six months (March­
–August) were considered to represent the period during COVID-19. The
period from September 2019 to February 2020 was considered as rep­
resenting the situation before COVID-19. A pre-tested interview
schedule was used to collect necessary data. The data were collected
during August and September of 2020. Each interview lasted approxi­
mately 35 min. Two local enumerators were hired from the study areas
to collect the data. During data collection, the enumerators keep a safe
distance and wear all necessary protective gear. The interview schedule
sought information on demographic profiles, perceptions of the impact
of COVID-19 on livelihood indicators, and shrimp farming costs and
returns.
2.2. Analytical techniques
A paired t-tests were performed to assess the differences in the
quantitative variables such as production cost, productivity, and profit
in the before-COVID-19 and during-COVID-19 situations. Production
costs and profit were measured in USD (1 USD = Tk. 84.78 on 20 April
2021, Tk. is Bangladeshi currency). To compare the livelihood status of
the shrimp farmers in the two situations, a livelihood assessment index
(LAI) was constructed following the DFID’s sustainable livelihood
framework (SLF) (DFID, 2000). The SLF provides a way of breaking
down the complexity of people’s lives and livelihood strategies by
addressing their access to a range of assets (human, social, financial,
physical and natural). In the context of stress, shock, and seasonality,
SLF primarily focuses on livelihood as an integrated function of liveli­
hood capitals (Sarker et al., 2020). It provides a more realistic frame­
work for analyzing the direct and indirect effects on people’s living
conditions than, say, one-dimensional productivity or income metrics
(Chuong et al., 2015). According to DFID, livelihood is a function of
following five types of capital:
Livelihood = f (human, natural, social, financial and social capital)
To measure and compare the livelihood status, major livelihood
2
Lower administrative unit, below the district level but above the village
level.
Md.S. Rahman et al.
Fig. 1. Map of study areas.
components were translated into a composite index based on the five
types of capital mentioned above. The subcomponents of the five capital
types were estimated by equal weighting to obtain a full picture of the
livelihood status of shrimp farmers in the two time periods (Sarker et al.,
2020). The selection of subcomponents and their weights was subjective
(Eriksen and Kelly, 2007; Alam et al., 2018; Sarker et al., 2020). In this
study, the subcomponents were selected based on previously-published
studies and field experiences (Table 1). Though the five major capital
types comprise various subcomponents, each of them contributed
equally to the index. Since a specific scale was used for each specific
component, standardization was performed using Eq. (2):
SV − Smin
IndexSV = (2)
Smax − Smin
where SV is the original subcomponent value of situation V, Smin is the
3
Aquaculture Reports 21 (2021) 100895
minimum value of subcomponents, and Smax is the maximum value of
the subcomponents.
After finding an index value for each subcomponent, the index value
of each component was calculated using the following equation:
∑
n
IndexSVi
MVJ = i=1 (3)
n
where MVJ is the value of major component J for situation V, IndexSVi
denotes the value of subcomponents, indexed by i, of major component
MJ; and n represents the number of subcomponents in major component
MJ.
Once values for each of the five major capital types for a particular
situation (for example, before COVID-19) were calculated, they were
averaged following Eq. (4) to obtain the LAI for situation V:
Md.S. Rahman et al. Aquaculture Reports 21 (2021) 100895

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Description of livelihood components. Livelihood Subcomponents Justification Value Sources
Livelihood Subcomponents Justification Value Sources capital
capital types
types
help increase
1.Human Access to health Access to health Yes = 1 Alam income.
capital care services can No = 0 (2016), Transportation Owning a means of Yes = 1 Monwar
contribute to a Sarker ownership transportation can No = 0 et al.
healthy life. et al. enable the pursuit (2014)
(2020) of diversified
Health condition The health Not Sarker livelihood
condition of the sick = 1 et al. strategies.
household head Sick = 0 (2020) Ownership of a Agricultural asset Yes = 1 Sarker
affects livelihood tiller/shallow is a positive factor No = 0 et al.
status. tube-well of livelihood (2020)
Child schooling Education can aid Yes = 1 Alam diversification.
in diversifying No = 0 et al. 5.Financial Service income Availability of Yes = 1 Sarker
livelihood. (2018), capital service income can No = 0 et al.
Aryal etal help increase (2020)
(2014) livelihood status.
Number of A higher number Number Ayana Investment Income from Yes = 1 Monwar
earning of earning member et al. income investment can No = 0 et al.
members can increase (2021) increase livelihood (2014)
income and status.
livelihood status. Savings Savings can be Yes = 1 Monwar
Skill The skills of Training Sarker used to overcome No = 0 et al.
development household receive = 1 et al. difficult situations. (2014)
members can No = 0 (2020) Access to formal Access to credit Yes = 1 Sarker
increase income credit can be a major No = 0 et al.
and livelihood factor in livelihood (2020),
status. diversification. Monwar
2.Natural Safe drinking Unsafe drinking Yes = 1 Alam et al.
capital water water can be a No = 0 et al. (2014)
source of many (2018), Business income Income from Yes = 1 Alam
diseases and Tambo business can No = 0 et al.
illnesses which can (2016) further improve (2018),
hamper income Monwar
livelihood. diversification. et al.
Pond ownership Households that Yes = 1 Monwar (2014)
own a pond can No = 0 et al.
culture fish and (2014)
increase income. ∑
n

Cropland Possession of land Yes = 1 Monwar WMJ MVJ

ownership can increase No = 0 et al. LAI V = i=1∑
n (4)
income and (2014) WMJ
livelihood status. i=1
3.Social Taking support Support from Yes = 1 Sarker
Eq. (4) can also be written as follows:
capital from relatives or others may No = 0 et al.
friends increase the (2020) WH HV + WN NV + WS SV + WP PV + WF FV
possibilities to LAI V = (5)
diversify income.
WH + WN + WS + WP + WF
Providing Communication Yes = 1 Sarker
support to increases the No = 0 et al. where LAIV is the livelihood assessment index of situation V; WMJ is the
relatives or possibilities to (2020) weight of component J; and WH, WN, WS, WP, and WF are weight values
friends diversify of human, natural, social, physical, and financial capital, respectively.
livelihood
HV, NV, SV, PV, and FV are the index values of human, natural, social,
strategies.
Face-to-face A social network Yes = 1 Sarker physical, and financial capital in situation V. Appendix A contains the
contact with may help in No = 0 et al. details of the calculating procedure.
community increasing (2020) The human capital index includes access to health (HA), health
leaders livelihood status. condition (HC), child schooling (HS), earning member (HE) and skill
Membership in Membership in a Yes = 1 Sarker
development (HSK) and was calculated as follows:
societal societal No = 0 et al.
organizations organization (2020), WA HA + WC HC + WS HS + WE HE + WSK HSK
increases Monwar Human capital index(HV ) =
livelihood status. et al.
WA + WC + WS + WE + WSK
(2014) (6)
4.Physical House Housing can be a Yes = 1 Monwar
capital ownership significant factor No = 0 et al. Where WA, WC, WS, WE and WSK represent weight for access to health
in livelihood (2014) (HA), health condition (HC), child schooling (HS), earning member (HE)
assessment.
and skill development (HSK) respectively.
Fishing boat A fishing boat can Yes = 1 Monwar
ownership help increase No = 0 et al. The natural capital index includes safe drinking water (NSD), pond
income. (2014) ownership (NPW), and cropland ownership (NCL) and was calculated as
Fishing net A fishing net is a Yes = 1 Monwar follows:
ownership major asset for fish No = 0 et al.
farmers and can (2014) WSD NSD + WPW NPW + WCL NCL
Naturalcapitalindex(NV ) = (7)
WSD + WPW + WCL

4
Md.S. Rahman et al. Aquaculture Reports 21 (2021) 100895

Where WSD, WPW, and WCL represent weight for safe drinking water Table 2
Livelihood status of shrimp farmers.
(NSD), pond ownership (NPW), and cropland ownership (NCL)
respectively. Sub-components Value of sub- Major Value of capitals
components capitals
The social capital index includes taking support from relatives (STS),
providing support to relatives (SPS), face-to-face contact with commu­ Before During Before During
nity leader (SL), and societal membership (SSM) and was calculated as COVID- COVID- COVID- COVID-
19 19 19 19
follows:
Access to health 0.83 0.67 Human 0.70 0.62
WTS STS + WPS SPS + WL SL + WSM SSM care capital
Socialcapitalindex(SV ) = (8)
WTS + WPS + WL + WSM Health condition 0.88 0.83
Child schooling 0.92 0.90
Where WTS, WPS, WL, and WSM represent weight for taking support from Number of earning 0.42 0.38
members
relatives (STS), providing support to relatives (SPS), face-to-face contact
Skill development 0.46 0.32
with community leader (SL), and societal membership (SSM) Safe drinking 0.78 0.78 Natural 0.57 0.53
respectively. water capital
The physical capital index includes ownership of house (PH), Pond ownership 0.70 0.63
ownership of fishing boat (PFB), ownership of fishing net (PFN), trans­ Cropland 0.24 0.19
ownership
portation ownership (PTW) and ownership of power tiller (PPW) and was Taking support 0.39 0.24 Social 0.36 0.18
calculated as follows: from relatives or capital
friends
WH PH +WFB PFB +WFN PFN +WTW PTW +WPW PPW Providing support 0.76 0.28
Physical capital index(PV ) =
WH +WFB +WFN +WTW +WPW to relatives or
(9) friends
Face-to-face 0.21 0.12
Where WH, WFB, WFN, WTW and WPW represent weight for ownership of contact with
community
house (PH), ownership of fishing boat (PFB), ownership of fishing net
leaders
(PFN), transportation ownership (PTW) and ownership of power tiller Membership in 0.10 0.10
(PPW) respectively. societal
The financial capital index includes service income (FSI), investment organizations
income (FII), savings (FS), access to formal credit (FFC) and business in­ House ownership 0.83 0.82 Physical 0.61 0.60
Fishing boat 0.49 0.48 capital
come (FBI) and was calculated as follows: ownership
WSI FSI + WII FII + WS FS + WFC FFC + WBI FBI Fishing net 0.89 0.88
Financial capital index(FV ) = ownership
WSI + WII + WS + WFC + WBI Transportation 0.41 0.38
(10) ownership
Ownership of a 0.41 0.41
Where WSI, WII, WS, WFC and WBI represent weight for service income tiller/shallow
(FSI), investment income (FII), savings (FS), access to formal credit (FFC) tube-well
Service income 0.13 0.04 Financial 0.39 0.22
and business income (FBI) respectively. Details of the methodology are
Investment income 0.12 0.07 capital
available in Hahn et al. (2009) and Sarker et al. (2020). Savings 0.86 0.37
Access to formal 0.73 0.55
3. Results and discussion credit
Business income 0.10 0.05
Overall livelihood index
3.1. Livelihood status Before COVID-19 0.53
During COVID-19 0.43
Table 2 represents the comparative livelihood status of coastal
shrimp farmers before and during the COVID-19 situation. The overall
livelihood index for shrimp farmers (0.53) was higher before COVID-19 disrupted the shrimp supply chain system and caused a great loss of
compared to during COVID-19 (0.43). The total livelihood index employment, income, and savings (Kumaran et al., 2021; FAO, 2020;
decreased by 18.86% during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to Heck et al., 2020; Pu and Zhong, 2020; Waiho et al., 2020). When
before the pandemic. This is mostly due to the nationwide lockdown that dealing with adverse situations, farmers look for alternative livelihood
has been in effect since April 2020, restricting both producer and con­ options, but due to movement restrictions, these alternative income
sumer movement. sources have become unavailable (Karim and Mustari, 2015).
Among the five major livelihood components, the social and finan­ The lower index value for social capital is due to social distancing
cial capital components were severely affected by the COVID-19 and constraints on movement. COVID-19 can be prevented by keeping a
outbreak. This result is consistent with the findings of Bennett et al. safe distance from others and avoiding social gatherings. As a result,
(2020) and FAO (2020). During COVID-19, the index value of social and during the COVID-19, social contacts decrease.
financial capital components decreased by 50% and 43.6%, respectively. The average index value of human capital before COVID-19 (0.70)
Shrimp producers were unable to sell their products due to market was higher than the index value during COVID-19 (0.62). A large dif­
disruptions in Bangladesh and overseas during the lockdown. Therefore, ference was found in access to health services and skill development
they have faced a severe economic crisis that prevented them from program participation. Due to lockdown restrictions, farmers were un­
providing support to relatives or friends, resulting in a lower index able to access appropriate health care services (Bodrud-Doza et al.,
value. The index values for service income, investment income, savings, 2020). Additionally, the healthcare system may lack the capacity to fully
formal credit facilities, and business income were also found to be lower combat the COVID-19 pandemic (Bodrud-Doza et al., 2020).
in the period during COVID-19, indicating that COVID-19 has badly The index value of natural and physical capital was nearly similar in
disrupted the coastal shrimp farmers’ normal economic activities. two situations. There was some variation in the pond and cropland
Movement restrictions and decreased international demand have ownership subcomponents of the natural capital component. The
transportation ownership subcomponent differed slightly from the other

5
Md.S. Rahman et al. Aquaculture Reports 21 (2021) 100895

subcomponents of the physical capital component.

Five subcomponents were identified to compare human capital sta­
tus before and during COVID-19 (Fig. 2). A higher index value denotes a
relatively higher livelihood status. Among the subcomponents, access to
health care showed the maximum variation, followed by skill develop­
ment opportunities, and health condition. Before COVID-19, 83% of
respondents had access to health care services and 46% had access to
skill development opportunities. However, these subcomponents have
decreased to 67% and 32% during the COVID-19 pandemic. Skills,
knowledge, and access to health services enable farmers to pursue their
livelihood objectives (Monwar et al., 2014), but the pandemic situation
has disrupted the livelihood strategies of shrimp farmers.
Some deviation was observed in the natural capital subcomponents
for shrimp farmers (Fig. 3). During COVID-19, respondents crop land Fig. 3. Comparison of natural capital subcomponents before and during
ownership decreased from 24% to 19%, while their pond ownership COVID-19.
status decreases from 70% to 63%. Disruption of the shrimp supply
chain system due to COVID-19 has increased economic vulnerability
(Waiho et al., 2020). Therefore, shrimp farmers might have to sell or
lease their ponds or croplands to alleviate financial shock. However, we
were unable to determine what percentage of total land is sold by
households. Respondents reported similar experiences related to their
access to safe drinking water both before and during COVID-19. His­
torically, the study areas have been prone to salinity and have drinking
water concerns. It was further assumed that owing to the restrictions on
keeping social distance, households with no safe drinking water sources
may encounter difficulties accessing another residence during the
pandemic. However, the data reveal that families were not subjected to
any limitations when it came to collecting drinking water.
A very large difference was also found between the social capital
subcomponents of shrimp farmers’ livelihoods before and during
COVID-19 (Fig. 4). During the COVID-19 pandemic, 22% of respondents
could take support from their relatives or friends, compared to 40%
Fig. 4. Comparison of social capital subcomponents before and during
prior to the pandemic; 29% of respondents were able to provide support COVID-19.
to their relatives and friends during the pandemic, compared to 77%
before the pandemic. Because of the financial crisis, shrimp producers
pandemic has disrupted the components of social capital by physically
were unable to help family and friends. During the pandemic, 13% of
distancing people (Pitas and Ehmer, 2020).
respondents are able to maintain face-to-face contact with community
The physical capital of the shrimp farmers was not affected by the
leaders, compared to 21% before the pandemic. Communication with
COVID-19 pandemic (Fig. 5). The results reveal that about 89%, 83%,
community leaders enables people to obtain assistance in overcoming
and 41% of respondents own a fishing net, house, and power tiller (or
adversity. However, during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic,
shallow tube-well), respectively, both before and during COVID-19.
community leaders may keep them away from the broader public out of
Only a 1% and 3% deviation were found in fishing boat and trans­
concern of social distance. Lower communication with community
portation ownership status, respectively. This might be because assets
leaders might possibly be attributed to COVID-19 demonstrating the
such as a fishing net and a boat can be used to capture fish from any open
rising enabling environment of mobile payment systems for disbursing
water source, such as a canal or a river. If farmers are unable to culture
money under many social safety net programs (SSNPs) in Bangladesh
fish in their ponds due to financial constraints, they can at least utilize a
(Hebbar et al., 2020). Higher social capital subcomponents could
fishing net and boat to capture fish for home consumption.
contribute to improving the farmers’ livelihoods, but the COVID-19
The subcomponents of financial capital differed the most between

Fig. 2. Comparison of human capital subcomponents before and during Fig. 5. Comparison of physical capital subcomponents before and during
COVID-19. COVID-19.

6
Md.S. Rahman et al. Aquaculture Reports 21 (2021) 100895

pre-COVID-19 conditions and conditions during the pandemic (Fig. 6).

Savings ability, credit facilities, investment income, service income, and
business income dropped from 86%, 73%, 12%, 13%, and 10% to 37%,
55%, 7%, 4%, and 5% respectively during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Movement restriction and closures of factories, markets, and service-
providing activities prevented farmers from retaining their alternative
sources of income. Decreased international demand reduced the income
and savings ability of the farmers (Bennett et al., 2020; FAO, 2020;
Waiho et al., 2020).

3.2. Comparative profitability

The average shrimp productivity during COVID-19 was 252 kg ha− 1,

which was 29% lower than the productivity before COVID-19 (Table 3).
Kumaran et al. (2021) estimated a 40% decrease in shrimp production in
Fig. 6. Comparison of financial capital subcomponents before and during
India due to the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak. The COVID-19
COVID-19.
outbreak caused a 191% reduction in profitability while the produc­
tion cost increased by 19%; these differences were statistically signifi­
cant. Movement restrictions and market closings due to COVID-19 Table 3
hampered the free flow of production materials (Bennett et al., 2020). Comparative productivity and profitability of shrimp farming.
COVID-19 wreaked havoc on aquatic food value chains, notably through Variable Before During % higher/ Mean t-
its effects on transportation and logistics (Belton et al., 2021). During COVID- COVID-19 lower difference value
COVID-19, transportation expenses were 20–60% more than in a normal 19
circumstance (Islam et al., 2021). For continuing production in these Production cost 1284 1533 19 249*** 4.75
circumstances, farmers must purchase their necessary supplies at a (USD/ha.)
higher price from the local markets. According to Belton et al. (2021),
***
Productivity 324 252 - 29 - 72 8.62
(Kg/ha)
the price of feed between April and September 2020 was 10–15% more ***
Profitability 1015 348 - 191 - 667 10.19
than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, decreasing interna­ (USD/ha)
tional demand for shrimp greatly reduces profitability (Kumaran et al.,
2021; FAO, 2020; Site, 2020a, 2020b).
clinics and sub-district hospitals. The provision of mobile payment ser­
4. Conclusions and policy implications vices may aid in the expansion of SSNP coverage in this pandemic.
Nevertheless, this study has some limitations. Data on the situation
This study was conducted to assess and compare the livelihood status prior to the pandemic were gathered based on the memories of the
of coastal shrimp farmers before and during COVID-19. The findings household head. This study relied mostly on farmers’ perceptions rather
indicate that the overall livelihood index of shrimp farmers decreased than objective methods to determine the sub-component values of
during the outbreak of COVID-19. Social and financial capital were livelihood index; consequently, future studies may add objective mea­
affected more than other components of livelihood. Reduced interna­ sures to gain a better understanding of the issue. Access to land through
tional demand and low market prices of shrimp caused severe negative rental markets has been a significant source of increasing the operating
impacts on financial capital. The strategy of maintaining social farm size to an optimal level in countries such as Bangladesh. However,
distancing to control the disease outbreak contributed greatly to re­ due to a lack of data, we were unable to evaluate access to the rental
ductions in the social capital components of livelihood. The COVID-19 market as a sub-component of the livelihood index. Future research may
preventative lockdown procedures have restricted movement and explore the influence of the rental market on livelihood status by include
decreased market prices for shrimp, lowering profit. Decreasing pro­ access to the rental market as a sub-component of the livelihood index.
ductivity and profitability of shrimp farming also negatively affected the Furthermore, we were unable to pinpoint the causes of decreased pro­
livelihood components of shrimp farmers. duction during COVID-19 in this study. In addition to COVID-19 limi­
Based on our findings, a number of policy recommendations can be tations, shrimp producers may reduce their investment in shrimp
made that can be generalized to other developing countries with similar farming, resulting in lower production. More research in this aspect is
impacts of COVID-19 like in South Asia. Maintenance of the efficient required before recommending relevant policy options to improve the
flow of production materials and continuing production activities with situation.
health hygiene may promote stronger economic activity. Regular
peddling of captured shrimp by household members within the local CRediT authorship contribution statement
communities may assist to enhance income and livelihood status.
Transferring funds from the public and private sectors to revive the Md. Sadique Rahman: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
aquaculture sector can contribute to improving the livelihoods of shrimp analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Monoj
farmers in coastal areas. Establish frequent dialog mechanisms at the Kumar Majumder: Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing –
national and local levels between concerned authorities and shrimp review & editing. Md. Hayder Khan Sujan: Data curation, Writing –
producers in order to promptly detect new problems and agree on and review & editing. Shirajum Manjira: Writing – review & editing.
implement solutions. Scope of alternative income generating activities
could also improve the situation for coastal shrimp farmers. In addition, Declaration of Competing Interest
ensuring access to formal credit facilities and necessary health care, and
providing proper coverage for SSNPs, may be effective to aid recovery The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
from this disadvantaged livelihood state in coastal areas. Local gov­ interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
ernment authorities should support and regulate village-level health the work reported in this paper.
services. Shrimp producers should be encouraged and assisted in gaining
access to enhanced health care offered by government-run community

7
Md.S. Rahman et al. Aquaculture Reports 21 (2021) 100895

Acknowledgements data collectors for their excellent support and cooperation.

Thanks, and appreciation are extended to the respondents and the

Appendix A

Calculation of livelihood index (before COVID-19):

Sub-components for human Sub-component Maximum sub-component Minimum sub-component Index Human capital component
capital values value value value value

Access to health care 0.83 1 0 0.83 0.70

Health condition 0.88 1 0 0.88
Child schooling 0.92 1 0 0.92
Number of earning members 1.68 4 0 0.42
Skill development 0.46 1 0 0.46
0.83 − 0
Step 1 (repeat for all sub-component indicators): Indexaccess to health= 0.83
=
1− 0
0.83 + 0.88 + .92 + 0.42 + 0.46
Step 2 (repeat for all major components): Human capital = = 0.70
5
∑n
WMJ MVJ
5 ∗ 0.70 + 3 ∗ 0.57 + 4 ∗ 0.36 + 5 ∗ 0.61 + 5 ∗ 0.39
Step 3 (repeat for both situations): LAI = i=1n = 0.53
∑ 5+3+4+5+5
WMJ =
i=1

References DFID, 2000. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Department for International
Development. 〈https://www.livelihoodscentre.org/documents/114097690/
114438878/Sustainable+livelihoods+guidance+sheets.pdf/594e5
Ahmmed, S., Washim, M.R., Rubel, A.K.M.S.A., Islam, M.L., 2021. Outbreak of COVID-
ea6-99a9-2a4e-f288-bb4ae4bea8b?t=1569512091877〉.
19: impact on socio-economic condition of shrimp farmers in south-west coastal
DGHS, 2021. Directorate General of Health Services. Retrieve from 〈http://dashboard.
Bangladesh. Asian J. Fish. Aquat. 12 (2), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajfar/
dghs.gov.bd/webportal/pages/covid19.php〉.
2021/v12i230230.
DoF, 2017. Department of Fisheries, Annual report, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock.
Akter, F., 2017. The export trend of shrimp industries in Bangladesh: an analysis. Sci.
Government of Bangladesh.
Res. J. 5 (9), 80–95.
Eriksen, S.H., Kelly, P.M., 2007. Developing credible vulnerability indicators for climate
Alam, G.M.M., 2016. An Assessment of the Livelihood Vulnerability of the Riverbank
adaptation policy assessment. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 12, 495–524.
Erosion Hazard and its Impact on Food Security for Rural Households in Bangladesh
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-006-3460-6.
(Phd Thesis). University of Southern Queensland.
FAO, 2020. How is COVID-19 affecting the fisheries and aquaculture food systems.
Alam, G.M.M., Alam, K., Mushtaq, S., Filho, W.L., 2018. How do climate change and
Retrieve from 〈www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca8637en/〉.
associated hazards impact on the resilience of riparian rural communities in
FRSS, 2017. Fisheries Resources Survey System (FRSS). Department of Fisheries,
Bangladesh? Policy implications for livelihood development. Environ. Sci. Policy 84,
Fisheries Statistical Report of Bangladesh.
7–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.02.012.
Hahn, M.B., Riederer, A.M., Foster, S.O., 2009. The livelihood vulnerability index: a
Aryal, S., Cockfield, G., Maraseni, T.N., 2014. Vulnerability of Himalayan transhumant
pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change-a case
communities to climate change. Clim. Change 125, 193–208. https://doi.org/
study in Mozambique. Glob. Environ. Chang. 19, 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1007/s10584-014-1157-5.
gloenvcha.2008.11.002.
Ayana, G.F., Megento, T.L., Kussa, F.G., 2021. The extent of livelihood diversification on
Hebbar, M., Muhit, S., Marzi, M., 2020. Towards Shock-responsive Social Protection
the determinants of livelihood diversification in Assosa Wereda, Western Ethiopia.
Systems: Lessons From the COVID-19 Response in Bangladesh. Oxford Policy
GeoJournal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-021-10379-5.
Management, Oxford. 〈https://maintainsprogramme.org/wp-content/uploads/VF
Azra, M.N., Kasan, N.A., Othman, R., Noor, G.A.G.R., Mazelan, S., Jamari, Z.B., Sarà, G.,
Maintains-COVID19-SRSP-responses-Bangladesh-final-case-study_LS.pdf〉.
Ikhwanuddin, M., 2021. Impact of COVID-19 on aquaculture sector in Malaysia:
Heck, S., Campos, H., Barker, I., 2020. Resilient agri-food systems for nutrition amidst
findings from the first national survey. Aquac. Rep. 19, 100568 https://doi.org/
COVID-19: evidence and lessons from food-based approaches to overcome
10.1016/j.aqrep.2020.100568.
micronutrient deficiency and rebuild livelihoods after crises. Food Secur. 12,
Bari, M.M., 2004. Study on Small-scale Shrimp Farming Practices at Bagerhat District in
823–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-020-01067-2.
Bangladesh (M.S Thesis). Bangladesh Agricultural University Mymensingh.
Hoque, S.F., Quinn, C., Sallu, S., 2018. Differential livelihood adaptation to social-
Begum, E.A., Hossain, M.I., Papanagiotou, E., 2013. Technical efficiency of shrimp
ecological change in coastal Bangladesh. Reg. Environ. Change 18, 451–463. https://
farming in Bangladesh: an application of the stochastic production frontier
doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1213-6.
approach. J. World Aquac. Soc. 44, 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwas.12062.
Islam, M.M., Khan, M.I., Barman, A., 2021. Impact of novel coronavirus pandemic on
Belton, B., Rosen, L., Middleton, L., Ghazali, S., Mamun, A., Shieh, J., Noronha, H.S.,
aquaculture and fisheries in developing countries and sustainable recovery plans:
Dhar, G., Ilyas, M., Price, C., Nasr-Allah, A., Elsira, I., Baliarsingh, B.K., Padiyar, A.,
case of Bangladesh. Mar. Policy 131, 104611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Rajendran, S., Mohan, A.B.C., Babu, R., Akester, M.J., Phyo, E.E., Soe, K.M.,
marpol.2021.104611.
Olaniyi, A., Siriwardena, S.N., Bostock, J., Little, D.C., Phillips, M., Thilsted, S.H.,
Kanyenji, G.M., Oluoch-Kosura, W., Onyango, C.M., Nganga, S.K., 2020. Prospects and
2021. COVID-19 impacts and adaptations in Asia and Africa’s aquatic food value
constraints in smallholder farmers’ adoption of multiple soil carbon enhancing
chains. Mar. Policy 129, 104523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104523.
practices in western Kenya. Heliyon 6, e03226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Bennett, N.J., Finkbeiner, E.M., Ban, N.C., Belhabib, D., Jupiter, S.D., Kittinger, J.N.,
heliyon.2020.e03226.
Mangubhai, S., Scholtens, J., Gill, D., Christie, P., 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic,
Karim, A.H.M.Z., Mustari, S., 2015. Shrimp cultivation and coastal livelihood: a focus on
small-scale fisheries and coastal fishing communities. Coast. Manag. 48, 336–347.
Bangladesh coastal vulnerability. Asian Soc. Sci. 11 (28), 109–115. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2020.1766937.
10.5539/ass.v11n28p109.
Bodrud-Doza, M., Shammi, M., Bahlman, L., Islam, A.R.M.T., Rahman, M.M., 2020.
Kumaran, M., Geetha, R., Antony, J., Vasagam, K.P.K., Anand, P.R., Ravisankar, T.,
Psychosocial and socio-economic crisis in Bangladesh due to COVID-19 pandemic: a
Angel, J.R.J., De, D., Muralidhar, M., Patil, P.K., Vijayan, K.K., 2021. Prospective
perception-based assessment. Front. Public Health 8, 341. https://doi.org/10.3389/
impact of Corona virus disease (COVID-19) related lockdown on shrimp aquaculture
fpubh.2020.00341.
sector in India- a sectoral assessment. Aquaculture 531, 735922. https://doi.org/
Chuong, O.N., Thao, N., Ha, T.L., 2015. Rural livelihood diversification in the South-
10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735922.
Central Coast of Vietnam. Retrieve from 〈https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitst
Monwar, M.M., Mustafa, M.G., Khan, N.A., Hossain, M.S., Hossain, M.M., Majumder, M.
ream/handle/10625/54706/IDL-54706.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y〉.
K., Chowdhury, R.M., Islam, M.A., Chowdhury, M., Alam, M.S., 2014. Indigenous
Demirci, A., Simsek, E., Can, M.F., Akar, O., Demirci, S., 2020. Has the pandemic
adaptation practices for the development of climate resilient ecosystems in the hail
(COVID-19) affected the fishery sector in regional scale? A case study on the fishery
haor, Bangladesh. Glob. Soc. Welf. 5, 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40609-
sector in Hatay province from Turkey. Mar. Life Sci. 2 (1), 13–17.
014-0014-9.

8
Md.S. Rahman et al.
Pitas, N., Ehmer, C., 2020. Critical issues and trends social capital in the response to
COVID-19. Am. J. Health Promot. 1 (3) https://doi.org/10.1177/
0890117120924531.
Pu, M., Zhong, Y., 2020. Rising concerns over agricultural production as COVID-19
spreads: lessons from China. Glob. Food Secur. 26, 100409 https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.gfs.2020.100409.
Rahman, M.M., Ahmad, S., 2018. Health, livelihood and well-being in the Coastal Delta
of Bangladesh. In: Nicholls, R., Hutton, C., Adger, W., Hanson, S., Rahman, M.,
Salehin, M. (Eds.), Ecosystem Services for Well-Being in Deltas. Palgrave Macmillan,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71093-8_7.
Ray, S., Mondal, P., Paul, A.K., Iqbal, S., Atique, U., Islam, M.S., Mahboob, S., Ghanim, K.
A., Al-Misned, F., Begum, S., 2021. Role of shrimp farming in socio-economic
elevation and professional satisfaction in coastal communities of Southern
Bangladesh. Aquac. Rep. 20, 100708 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100708.
Sarker, M.N.I., Wu, M., Alam, G.M., Shouse, R.C., 2020. Livelihood diversification in
rural Bangladesh: patterns and determinants in disaster prone riverine islands. Land
Use Policy 96, 104720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104720.
Site, T.F., 2020a. How Indian shrimp farmers can bounce back from Covid-19. Retrieve
from 〈https://thefishsite.com/articles/how-indian-shrimp-farmers-can-bounce-bac
k-from-covid-19〉.
Aquaculture Reports 21 (2021) 100895
Site, T.F., 2020b. Shrimp aquaculture: a tale of two pandemics. Retrieve from 〈https://th
efishsite.com/articles/shrimp-aquaculture-a-tale-of-two-pandemics〉.
Solayman, H.M., 2017. Impacts of cyclone on livelihood: study on a coastal community.
Int. J. Nat. Soc. Sci. 4 (4), 56–64.
Sunny, A.R., Sazzad, S.A., Prodhan, S.H., Ashrafuzzaman, M., Datta, G.C., Sarker, A.K.,
Rahman, M., Mithun, M.H., 2021. Assessing impacts of COVID-19 on aquatic food
system and small-scale fisheries in Bangladesh. Mar. Policy 126, 104422. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104422.
Tambo, J.A., 2016. Adaptation and resilience to climate change and variability in north-
east Ghana. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 17, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2016.04.005.
Waiho, K., Fazhan, H., Ishak, S.D., Kasan, N.A., Liew, H.J., Norainy, M.H.,
Ikhwanuddin, M., 2020. Potential impacts of COVID-19 on the aquaculture sector of
Malaysia and its coping strategies. Aquac. Rep. 18, 100450 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.aqrep.2020.100450.
Washim, M.R., Siddiky, M.N.S.M., Islam, M.S., Ahmmed, S., 2020. Improved extensive
shrimp farming uplifted yield of Coastal Ghers in Southwest Bangladesh. Int. J. Sci.:
Basic Appl. 52 (1), 78–87.