Aquaculture Reports 20 (2021) 100708

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Role of shrimp farming in socio-economic elevation and professional

satisfaction in coastal communities
Sunuram Ray a, Pronab Mondal b, Alok Kumar Paul c, Sonia Iqbal d, Usman Atique d, e, *,
M. Shahanul Islam f, Shahid Mahboob g, **, Khalid A. Al-Ghanim g, Fahad Al-Misned g,
Salma Begum b
a
Institute of Integrated Studies on the Sundarbans and the Coastal Ecosystems (IISSCE), Khulna University, Bangladesh
b
Environmental Science Discipline, Khulna University, Bangladesh
c
Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Fisheries, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh
d
Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan
e
Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Chungnam National University, South Korea
f
Faculty of Food Engineering and Biotechnology, Tianjin University of Science and Technology Tianjin, China
g
Department of Zoology, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, 11451, Saudi Arabia

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

Keywords: Shrimp culture economics has a significant influence on the socio-economic status of coastal communities. Here,
Shrimp farming we investigated the shrimp farmers’ financial and perceptual reactions to analyze shrimp farming’s direct impact
Economic uplift on their socio-economic status, sustainability, resilience, and the cultural environment. Our outcomes alluded
Coastal areas
that the farming community’s satisfaction level was higher than their concern for environmental impacts. Local
Sustainability
shrimp farming communities expressed satisfaction about their present income from shrimp farming compared to
Questionnaire method
pre-farming socio-economic status. Recently, shrimp farming has improved the financial gains of farming
communities than in the past, which encouraged them to excel in shrimp culture than agriculture. The household
construction style and materials used improved after shrimp farming. The shrimp farmers (56 %) expressed
salinity and abridged rice production as the leading reason for the shift to shrimp farming. The income level
showed a 72 % satisfaction level among the farmers. Profitability and daily fish demand were the positive im­
pacts, while the lack of fodder and destroying vegetation were listed as negative impacts of shrimp farming.
There was a decline in livestock and homegrown poultry farming and trees, which could also be linked with
increasing shrimp farming activities. Shrimp farming helped increase the income level from 26 % to 36 % for the
income range groups of USD 101–150 and > USD 150. The 78 % of participants strongly agreed that shrimp
farming was more profitable than rice culture, while 60 % expressed a preference for shrimp farming on
freshwater fish culture, especially for better production. In conclusion, shrimp farming has brought socio-
economic improvements in the household and lifestyles of the shrimp farming communities. This example is
of great learning for the marginalized and financially threatened coastal communities in developing and un­
derdeveloped nations.

1. Introduction (Hossain and Hasan, 2017). It started to grow slowly in a commercial

Bangladesh is ranked as the fifth-largest aquaculture-producing
nation (BBS, 2017; Uddin et al., 2019). The shrimp culture contributes
71.4 % to the total national production (BBS, 2017). The aquaculture
industry has shown rapid growth with a critical role in Bangladesh’s
economy, becoming the second-largest export industry after garments
mode of aquaculture in the middle 1970s (Tutu et al., 2006) due to
increasing demand in the international market (Alauddin and Tisdel,
1998). Shrimp culture mainly practices in Khulna, Satkhira, Bagerhat,
and Cox’s Bazar districts of Bangladesh. It is safe to say that shrimp
culture in these areas richly supports the sustainability, resilience, and
socio-economic status of the coastal shrimp farmer communities. The

* Corresponding author at: Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Chungnam National University, South Korea.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: physioatique@gmail.com (U. Atique), mushahid@ksu.edu.sa (S. Mahboob).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2021.100708
Received 25 June 2020; Received in revised form 13 March 2021; Accepted 20 April 2021
Available online 25 May 2021
2352-5134/© 2021 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/).
S. Ray et al.
fisheries sector contributed approximately 2.73 % of the total export
earnings and 22.21 % to the agricultural industry. Export earnings from
the fisheries sector have increased from USD 151,244,659 in 1995–1996
to USD 356,707,522 in 2009–2010 (Mondal et al., 2013), which is more
than double, hence shows a promising potential in this sector to uplift
the poor farming communities.
The booming shrimp farming industry generated diverse employ­
ment opportunities, with the 87,000 persons directly involved in
farming activities, while other 5000–6000 families working in the
shrimp processing and ancillary industries (BBS, 2017). The latest esti­
mates illustrate that a large area of saline land is under shrimp culti­
vation in Bangladesh (BBS, 2017), making it a reasonable stakeholder in
the national economy and bringing profitable usage of the uncultivable
Fig. 1. The study area map showing study three wards (administrative units) in Shyamnagar, Bangladesh.
2
Aquaculture Reports 20 (2021) 100708
land. Currently, shrimp farming and allied industries are the primary
income sources for the rural communities of south-western and south­
eastern coastal areas of Bangladesh (Bari, 2004). Among the aquaculture
types, shrimp aquaculture has shown rapid growth with a critical role in
Bangladesh’s economy (Hossain and Hasan, 2017).
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have reported approximately 2.1
lac hectares of the land went under shrimp farming. Out of which,
93,799 shrimp farms are Bagda (brackish water prawns), and Golda
(freshwater prawns) are cultured in 67,644 farms. Previously, the area
under brackish water prawn culture was 128,274 ha, while freshwater
prawns culture has grown to 28,411 ha, making 156945 ha. It repre­
sents about 80 % of the total area under shrimp cultivation in
S. Ray et al. Aquaculture Reports 20 (2021) 100708

Bangladesh (Zarin, 2014). 2.2. Sample size

Among the essential shrimp species, brackish water shrimp (Penaeus
monodon) farming is currently one of the most popular concerning the
national economy. In Southern Bangladesh, thousands of farmers have
transformed their none-profiting paddy fields to ’gher’ (local name for
typical shrimp farms) to start as a profitable shrimp culture practice
(Feroz et al., 2009). The P. monodon culture in Bangladesh is practiced in
the ponds situated alongside a river (Islam and Asaduzzaman, 2015).
The gher is an enclosure constructed for shrimp cultivation by modifying
rice-fields. This modification entails the construction of higher dikes by
excavating a deep enough canal inside, and the periphery of the dikes
facilitates entry of the water during the dry season (Ahmed et al., 2008).
The commercial shrimp culture began in the 1970s and radically
expanded in the ensuing decades (Chandra et al., 2013).
Shrimp farming plays a vital role in the economic uplift of coastal
populations in Bangladesh (Washim et al., 2020). Furthermore, it has
taken place mainly on the reclaimed mangrove forest areas in the Sun­
darban region at Shyamnagar Upazila of Satkhira District (Chandra
et al., 2013). We planned this study to highlight how modern shrimp
farming practices could have improved and influenced the livelihood
patterns, socio-economic status, household structures, and overall living
standards of the coastal communities in Southern Bangladesh as they are
directly involved in shrimp farming. We expected that the study could
provide better insights into promoting sustainable shrimp farming in
southwest coastal Bangladesh.
The main objectives of our study include the understanding of po­
tential changes in shrimp farming in the southwest coastal Bangladesh.
Therefore, we assessed shrimp farming’s major socio-economic status
indicators, indicating the significant phases and present shrimp farming
situation. We also surveyed for income and satisfaction levels among the
shrimp farming communities.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area demographics
The study area map denoting three wards (administrative units) is
showing in Fig. 1. We selected the study areas based on geographic and
economic conditions. The study was conducted in three wards of Ish­
waripur Union under Shyamnagar Upazila, Satkhira District, located
near the Sundarbans in southwest coastal Bangladesh. We randomly
selected the survey respondents among the shrimp farmers located in the
study area. The total population of the Ishwaripur Union is 45,202
(Bangladesh Tathya Batayan, 2017), with 49 % male and 51 % female
inhabitants. Muslim community dominates as 74 %, while the rest of
them are other religios communities (Hindus, Christians). The literacy
The respondents were selected from three different locations, i.e.,
location 1 (Dhummghat Shiltala), location 2 (Dhumghat Keoratoli), and
location 3 (Khagraghat) in Ishwaripur Union under Shyamnagar Upazila
of Satkhira, Bangladesh. A total of 50 respondents were interviewed by
questionnaire method, and 2 case studies were conducted among the
respondents. In these case studies, the sample size was determined by a
stratified proportionate sampling method through the total shrimp
farming household (1306 individuals). The total number of households
and sample size in each ward in the study area are shown in supple­
mentary material Table 2. The distribution of frequency and percentage
of respondents were categorized based on the land size in their farms is
shown in supplementary material Table 3.
2.3. In-field questionnaire survey
A questionnaire was designed to survey the socio-economic issues
due to shrimp farming and its implications on local livelihood. The
preliminary survey focused on the shrimp farmers current socio-
economic status. During this survey, the data were collected by the
pre-tested draft questionnaire from the two respondents of each cate­
gory. Then the questionnaire was finalized for collecting the necessary
data through the interview method. The survey method was conducted
through direct interviews with the different stakeholders. The infor­
mation was also collected about the earlier traditional social structure
and livelihood status of shrimp farming stakeholders, and we checked
they changed or not due to shrimp farming. We also analyzed the intra-
generational changes in the sustainability of livelihood framework such
as age group, educational status, alternative occupation, social status,
financial capital assets were also analyzed by DFID (2000) for deter­
mining the impacts of shrimp farming development at the coastal area of
Bangladesh and financial capital assets to determine the effects of
shrimp farming development in Bangladesh’s coastal region. The data
was collected through direct observation and transect walk (informal
surveys and this participatory studies known as a walk over the transect
of a place to observe and document the similarities and differences of
socio-economic and bio-physical features described by Participatory
Planning Monitoring and Evaluation (PPM&E) toolkit (2004).
Table 2
Impact of shrimp farming on the rearing status of trees and chicken/duck in the
coastal areas.
Tree

rate is reported at 55.04 percent with limited educational institutions Average Minimum Maximum
(Bangladesh Tathya Batayan, 2017). Please see the supplementary ma­ Before Shrimp Farming 7.04 ± 3 2 20
terial Table 1 for detailed information on educational institutions pre­ After Shrimp Farming 2.32 ± 1 0 8
sent in the study area. In Shyamnagar Upazila, a large number of farmers Chicken/Duck
are involved in shrimp farming.
Average Minimum Maximum

Before Shrimp Farming 11.62 ± 4 5 20

After Shrimp Farming 6.74 ± 2 3 15

Table 1
Impact of shrimp farming on the rearing status of cows and goats in the coastal areas.
Number of Cattle None 1− 3 4− 6 6<

Rearing Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency

Status

After shrimp farming 68 34 ± 16 28 14 ± 8 4 2 ± 0.7 0 0

Cow Before shrimp
14 7±3 4 2 ± 0.5 40 20 ± 8 42 21 ± 13
Farming
After shrimp farming 40 20 ± 11 22 11 ± 5 18 9±3 20 10 ± 4
Goat
Before shrimp Farming 10 5 ± 1.5 8 4 ± 1.5 50 24 ± 15 32 16 ± 6

3
S. Ray et al. Aquaculture Reports 20 (2021) 100708

Table 3
Cross-tabulation between Primary occupation of the respondents and total in­
come per month after shrimp farming.
Total income per month after shrimp farming (Number
Primary occupation of of People)
the Respondent USD$10- $51-$100 $101-$150 >$150
$50

Agriculture 13.30 ± 6 20 ± 11 40 ± 17 26.70±

Shopkeeper 50 ± 21 0 0 50 ± 11
Agriculture labor 0 100 ± 35 0 0
Non-agriculture 0 0 0 100 ± 41
unskilled labor
Fishing 8.30 ± 3 29.20 ± 9 37.50 ± 11 25 ± 11
Salaried worker 0 0 100 ± 32 0
Business 16.70 ± 6 33.30 ± 12 33.30 ± 11 16.70 ± 4
Total 12 26 36 26

*1 USD = 80 BDT (Bangladeshi Taka).

2.4. Collection of data and data analyses

The primary data were collected through the questionnaire survey

group discussion and interview. However, all the data were cross-
checked to ensure the accuracy of data collected from the re­
spondents. The Focus Group discussions were conducted to identify the
problems and collect fishermen’s recommendations regarding the issues
identified to develop an effective solution. We performed the data error
analyses, management, standardization, scaling, and other procedures.
According to the total response value of open-ended answers, the in­
formation was categorized (e.g., as high, medium, low) during data
processing. The tabulation was performed by using the Statistical
Package for Social Science (SPSS v. 22), while Microsoft Excel was used
to prepare the illustrations.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Demographic information of the respondents
3.1.1. Age group and educational status
The leading percentages of shrimp farmers age groups comprised of
the middle age, i.e., 36–40 years old (28 %) and above 40 years (48 %)
(Fig. 2a). Less than 30 years old farmers made up only 6%, with 31− 35
years old as 18 %. The previous studies have shown that most 16–30
aged displayed the highest involvement (45 %) in this occupation (Das
et al., 2015). The shrimp farmers age distribution provides valuable
insights into the decision-making and profitable farming operations
ability (Paul et al., 2018a). It is critical to notice that the younger people
displayed no interest in shrimp fishing (Paul et al., 2018b), which al­
ludes to looming crises if the situation prevails.
On the other hand, the respondents educational status was catego­
rized into six categories (illiterate, primary, secondary, S.S.C., HSC, and
BSC/Honors). The 24 % of the farmers obtained SSC and upper-level
education, while 76 % did not enter high school, with 14 % as illiter­
ates (Fig. 2b). It is alarming to note only 8% of farmers with university-
level education. Das et al. (2015) reported that 75 % of the fishing
community was illiterate. However, our study exhibited a different trend
believed to be improving due to the uplift of the shrimp farming com­
munities socio-economic status. Rahman (1994) reported that the fish­
ermen are socially, economically, and educationally disadvantaged and
lack sufficient financial resources to invest in education. Karim (1978)
and Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC, 1980) revealed
low or no education as the characteristic feature in rural life in some
villages.
3.1.2. Alternative occupations
Owing to higher financial stress, the shrimp farmers relied on
alternative occupations to meet their financial demands. This study
Fig. 2. Determination of predominant age classes and educational status of the
shrimp farmer communities.
showed the tendency of alternative careers among the shrimp farmers
(Fig. 3). We found that people in the study area were involved with
diverse professions. Fishing (48 %), agriculture (25 %), and private
businesses (12 %) remained the most preferred primary sources of in­
come among the shrimp farmers, while personal business (30 %) was the
most preferred secondary source of income. It indicated that a consid­
erable percentage of shrimp farmers relied upon various alternative
sources to meet their financial demands. Due to the higher subsistence
level, the seasonal and sometimes professional fishers are engaged in
multiple earning activities on a part-time basis, especially during the low
season for fishing (Paul et al., 2018a). Many fishers were also involved in
agricultural activities (Goswami et al., 2002; Rahman et al., 2016;
Hossain and Hasan, 2017; Islam et al., 2017). The increasing percent­
ages of executive involvement are noticeable in the study area, a
promising sign for the shrimp farming community.
3.2. Living standards
3.2.1. Availability and source of electricity and drinking water
The quality of life and living standard depend on the adequacy of
living resources, education status, industrial production, and agricul­
tural practices (Ali et al., 2014). More or less, electricity is inevitable to
maintain sustainable living standards. Our data revealed that 34 % of
the farmers have no access to electricity (Fig. 4a). For the rest of the
inhabitants, the primary sources of electricity are the Rural Electrifica­
tion Board (REB) and solar energy (SE), with other sources including
battery and oil engine generators. However, compared to the preceding
reports, the mainstream shrimp farmers can use electricity and allied
facilities in their households and farming units. It denoted significant
development and improvement in the coastal communities living stan­
dards directly linked to shrimp farming in Bangladesh (Sheikh and
Goswami, 2013; Khatun et al., 2013; Bhuyan et al., 2016). Most of the
people (66 %) used pond sand filter (PSF) facilities for drinking water
(Fig. 4b).
However, fewer people have to use rainwater (24 %) after harvesting
it while the rest (10 %) use water directly from the pond without any
filtration. Hossain et al. (2015) and Ali et al. (2014) observed that a large

4
S. Ray et al. Aquaculture Reports 20 (2021) 100708

Fig. 3. Alternative occupational status of the respondents from the shrimp farming community.

Fig. 4. Status of the access to electricity (a) and drinking water sources (b, c) in the study area (REB = Rural Electrification Board, SE = Solar Energy, PSF = Pond
Sand Filter).

share of collected water was brought from the government groundwater population (38 %) of people opined having no idea. Only 10 % pro­
tube well and neighboring tube-well in Bangladesh. Due to the critical nounced it as unsafe for drinking purposes (Fig. 4c). The provision of
and demanding nature of natural water supply, most of the population safe drinking water for livestock animals was not considered during this
(52 %) is concerned about drinking water safety, with a moderate study. Safe drinking water is of paramount importance for the human

5
S. Ray et al. Aquaculture Reports 20 (2021) 100708

populations as well as sustainable management of drinking waters is

equally essential as it is liable for health and public safety (Haider et al.,
2016; Iqbal et al., 2017; Atique et al., 2020, 2019). The government and
non-government organizations (NGOs) must come forward to raise
public awareness and the provision of safe drinking water to the coastal
communities.

3.2.2. The construction material of the households

An alternative measure of living standards and profitability of the
shrimp farming practices was comparing the farming communities
household construction materials in coastal areas. The results divulged
that before shrimp farming, about 82 % of the households’ wall con­
struction material was mud that dropped to 58 % after shrimp farming
(Fig. 5a). Usage of tin (16 %) and brick (26 %) materials in wall con­
structions increased after shrimp farming. The floor construction was
predominately made by mud (92 %) before shrimp farming that dropped
to 78 % after shrimp farming, while the use of bricks in floor con­
struction increased from 8% to 22 % (Fig. 5b). The use of tin for roof
construction increased from 26 % to 66 % before and after shrimp
farming, respectively (Fig. 5c). Instead of capture fisheries, shrimp
farming brought significant improvements in the housing construction
quality. Over 80 % of hut-like households were reported by Islam et al. Fig. 6. Possible reasons for the shift from rice cultivation to shrimp farming in
(2017), which indicated a declining tendency after shrimp farming coastal Bangladesh.
(Khatun et al., 2013; Bhuyan et al., 2016). The study made it feasible to
conclude that shrimp farming has resulted in a substantial uplift of the primary reason for the increased commercial saline-water Bagdashrimp
residents living and housing pattern. Based on previous reports, higher farming (Hossain et al., 2009; Saha, 2017). The saltwater ascension
salinity levels in the study area changed the soil quality that turned it worked as a double-edged sword. It resulted in a decline in rice pro­
unfit to build the house with a simultaneous decline in rice cultivation, duction while acting as a more profitable farming source for the coastal
causing an immense lack of straw for roof construction (Saha, 2017). communities. The saline water intrusion was the prime cause that forced
the study area people to shrimp farming instead of rice cultivation
(Saha, 2017).
3.3. Shift from rice to shrimp culture

Formerly a rice agriculture hub, this study’s coastal areas displayed a
substantial shift from rice culture to shrimp farming. We intended to
reveal the hidden reasons for this blue revolution, and the data showed
that over a half (56 %) of the farmers citing the prevailing salinity as the
leading reason for this shift from agriculture to shrimp farming (Fig. 6).
Apart from this, we also looked for other reasons compounding the
impact of increasing salinity, and the results showed that salinity and
poor rice production (20 %), salinity and more income (14 %) while only
10 % of farmers established the reason for poor rice production.
Akber et al. (2017) have reported similar findings in previous studies
targeting the same locality. The substantial economic benefit is the
3.4. Gross impact of shrimp farming
3.4.1. Impact of shrimp farming on livestock, poultry, and tree production
With declining land for grazing and fodder cultivation, shrimp
farming has brought overwhelming changes in the patterns of livestock
and poultry rearing as well as in the tree production in the coastal areas
in Bangladesh (Tables 1 and 2). After shrimp farming, the number of
people having no cows and goats increased from 14 % to 68 % and 10%–
40%, respectively. It indicated a tremendous decline in cows and goats
rearing practices in the study area. On the other hand, where small or
livestock raising for personal usage declined, the commercial level

Fig. 5. Dynamics of the living standards studied in terms of construction materials used in household walls, floor and roof construction before and after
shrimp farming.

6
S. Ray et al.
farming (< 6 cattle unit) of cows (42 %) and goats (32 %) increased
before shrimp farming times.
This massive revolution in livestock rearing practices alluded to the
potential economic solvency (Akber et al., 2017; Hossain and Hasan,
2017). The number of trees is also considered as wealth that can be
utilized in times of emergency. The presence and rearing of trees and
poultry birds displayed substantial decline after shrimp farming, and the
reason is apparent. The trees provide home and roosting sites to pred­
atory birds, while poultry farming could not have been profitable due to
changing climatic conditions and saltwater intrusion. Further,
increasing salinity levels could have compromised the suitability of soils
to grow trees and seedlings. Previous studies have reported that shrimp
farming decreases tree production (Islam et al., 2005), especially for
more profitable management, i.e., expanding shrimp farms (Deb, 1998;
Islam et al., 2002).
3.4.2. Comparison of income and satisfaction levels
Sustainable income brings satisfaction among the farming commu­
nities. The percentage of farmers with lower income was higher, having
income ranges lower than USD 51–100. It was noticed that the rate of
shrimp farmers having an income range of USD 101–150 jumped from
16 % to 36 % after shrimp farming practices (Fig. 7a). The farmers
having more than 150 USD income were only 2%, which soared to 26 %
after shrimp farming. It alluded to the sustainable increase in the income
levels of the coastal shrimp farming communities. With our findings, we
are correct to say that shrimp farming has become a new lucrative
business for the southwest coastal inhabitants rather than rice cultiva­
tion (Akber et al., 2017; Hossain and Hasan, 2017).
The rice and shrimp culture’s annual comparative cost and income
are shown in supplementary material Table 4. We also collected the
cultivable land prices in the rice and shrimp culture, and findings are
presented in supplementary material also. Shrimp farming has brought a
significant change in the stakeholders income level (Matin et al., 2016).
Approximately 72 % have shown absolute satisfaction after shrimp
farming, while 4% expressed as very satisfied (Fig. 7b). However, a 16 %
remained neutral with neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, while only 8%
showed dissatisfaction after shrimp farming. Previously, all the re­
spondents have expressed their satisfaction status regarding shrimp
farming comparing with rice cultivation as previous research (Islam
et al., 2002; Saha, 2017; Akber et al., 2017). The farmers expressed their
Fig. 7. Comparison of income range and level of satisfaction among the shrimp farmers after shrimp farming.
7
Aquaculture Reports 20 (2021) 100708
opinion based on their present socio-economic status and life patterns
that may lead to environmental consequences (Akber et al., 2017).
Those show exhibited satisfaction indicated said that the infrastructure
quality of locality is more developed than before. They were able to
maintain a family at a medium level and send their children to school.
They expressed shrimp farming aided in an increased purchasing power.
Some others opined though shrimp farming has benefitted them
economically, it leads them to buy all of the commodities they had to
cultivate before. Therefore, we can conclude that shrimp farming has
become beneficial to the study area as many respondents are satisfied. In
the wake of shrimp farming, an enormous increase has come in the re­
spondents income level compared to rice cultivation (Mitro et al., 2014).
In some cases, it has shown manifolds increase. Nevertheless, the
respondents also mentioned that when their gher (cultivation area)
infected by viral diseases, it critically affected their earning in huge
investments. So, this can be concluded as that shrimp farming’s income
could be unpredictable, which is similar to previous studies (Matin et al.,
2016; Primavera, 1997). This also provides a reasonable explanation for
the dissatisfaction among some of the shrimp farmers.
3.4.3. Occupation based income after shrimp farming
We studied the change in income status of the shrimp farming
communities after shrimp farming, and the results showed that shrimp
farming brought conspicuous changes in the income status (Table 3).
The primary occupations included agriculture shopkeeping, labor
(skilled and unskilled), fishing, salaried individuals, and private busi­
ness. The total percentages showed that income levels disclosed a
marked increase (36 %) in the range of 101–150 USD. The income
ranges of 51–100 USD and >150 USD obtained a 26 % increase, which
can be described as a marvelous improvement in the shrimp farming
communities economic status in the coastal areas of Bangladesh. These
findings indicated that shrimp farming increased the people’s income in
a reasonable way that could be projected to the elevated socio-economic
status of the coastal communities (Rahman et al., 2008).
3.5. Impacts and perception of shrimp farming
3.5.1. Positive and negative impacts
We studied the positive and negative impacts of shrimp farming on a
scale of 1− 10. The results displayed that the most positive impact was
S. Ray et al. Aquaculture Reports 20 (2021) 100708

Table 4
Survey of perceived impacts of shrimp farming concerning rice culture, profitability, salinity, and fry collection.
Variables Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Score

Frequency 39 ± 11 9±2 2 ± 0.5 0 0 50 ± 13.5

More profitable than Percentage 78 18 4 0 0 100
rice culture 39*5 9*4 2*3
Score 0 0 237
=195 =36 =6
Frequency 17 ± 4 30 ± 12 3 ± 0.5 0 0 50 ± 16.5
Percentage 34 60 6 0 0 100
More profitable than freshwater aquaculture
17*5 30*4 3*3
Score 0 0 214
=85 =120 =9
Frequency 10 ± 2 23 ± 11 12 ± 3 5 ± 0.7 0 50±
Percentage 25 46.9 20.3 7.8 0 100
Easy to enter saline water
10*5 23*4 12*3 5*2
Score 0 188
=50 =92 =36 =10
Frequency 0 22± 18± 10± 0 50±
Percentage 0 44 36.0 20 0 100
Easy to collect fry
22*4 18*3 10*2
Score 0 0 162
=88 =54 =20

the high profitable business (9.50) compared to the rice cultivation
(Fig. 8a). In contrast, the highest negative impact was the lack of fodder
(9.18) for livestock (Fig. 8b). The respondents firmly supported that
shrimp farming is more profitable than rice cultivation. Many others
believed that due to increasing shrimp farming, there was higher daily
demand for fish, increased land value, and increased daily income.
However, some mentioned that daily income from the gher is somewhat
dependent on other factors as well. The last one among the positive
impacts is that shrimp farming required less labour than rice cultivation
(Akber et al., 2017). Many believed that shrimp farming takes more time
than rice cultivation; there is no strenuous effort (Hossain et al., 2009).
All types of impacts are countable and help identify the fundamental
problems of shrimp farming. After the lack of fodder availability, 7.44
out of 10 were mindful of destroying vegetation and its effect on bathing
or drinking water. Some respondents poorly ranked (4.90) the lack of
employment opportunities due to shrimp farming. Rearing livestock and
cultivation of the homestead garden is an integrated part for the rural
households. Nevertheless, saline water intrusion has supplanted the
grazing land, which hampered the cattle rearing.
3.5.2. Overall perception regarding shrimp farming
We also investigated the overall impacts of shrimp farming perceived
by the shrimp farming communities in Bangladesh’s coastal commu­
nities. The survey was based on four preordained factors used to assess
the respondents overall perception of shrimp farming. The elements
used for comparing were rice cultivation, fish culture, salinity, and
shrimp fry collection (Table 4). The participants were asked to express
their opinion in five categories: strongly agreed, agree, neither agree nor
disagree, disagree, strongly disagree, and these were weighted by 5, 4, 3, 2,
1, respectively. The 78 % of participants strongly agreed that shrimp
farming is more profitable than rice culture, while 60 % agreed on its
higher profitability than freshwater fish culture. However, 46.9 % agreed
that it was easy to enter the saline waters for shrimp farming, while 44 %
agreed that it was easy to collect the shrimp fry. Using the weighted
index method, the total scores were 237, 214, 188, and 162, respec­
tively, for the stated four factors. The highest total score was 237 for
more profitable than rice culture, followed by 214 for more profitable
than freshwater aquaculture. These findings indicated shrimp farming as
a more profitable practice than rice cultivation with other supporting

Fig. 8. Assessment of negative (a) and positive (b) impacts of shrimp farming on the coastal shrimp farming communities in Bangladesh.

8
S. Ray et al.
factors.
4. Conclusions
We studied shrimp farming concerning the shrimp farming com­
munities qualitative and quantitative socio-economic dynamics. This
study has depicted some aspects to understand whether shrimp farming
has brought favorable changes in the livelihood to the stakeholders. Our
findings lead us to infer that shrimp farming has become more profitable
compared to rice cultivation. The study has also alluded that despite the
positive impacts of brackish-water shrimp farming, it has created severe
social and environmental problems. Shrimp farming is not a profitable
business for all classes of society. In conclusion, shrimp farming can
become a profitable venture for the deprived and poor communities in
the coastal regions. The poor farming communities have the golden
opportunity to harvest the benefits of shrimp farming and contribute to
the national economy in developing nations. Therefore, it is advisable to
take the necessary steps to help the stakeholders overcome the problems
to have better outcomes from this lucrative business.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by
any of the authors.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sunuram Ray: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Data curation, Writing - original draft, Visualization. Pronab Mondal:
Software, Formal analysis, Data curation, Visualization. Alok Kumar
Paul: Software, Formal analysis, Data curation, Visualization. Sonia
Iqbal: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis,
Data curation, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Usman Atique:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Investiga­
tion, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,
Visualization, Supervision. M. Shahanul Islam: Methodology, Soft­
ware, Formal analysis, Data curation, Visualization. Shahid Mahboob:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Su­
pervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition. Khalid A. Al-
Ghanim: Methodology, Formal analysis, Data curation, Funding
acquisition. Fahad Al-Misned: Methodology, Formal analysis, Data
curation, Funding acquisition. Salma Begum: Methodology, Formal
analysis, Data curation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors report no declarations of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors (SM, KAG and FAM) express their sincere appreciation
to the Research Supporting RSP Project No. (2021/24), the King Saud
University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
References
Ahmed, N., Brown, J., Muir, J.F., 2008. Freshwater prawn farming in gher systems in
Southwest Bangladesh. Aquac. Econ. Manage. 12, 207–223. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13657300802306111.
Akber, M.A., Islam, M.A., Ahmed, M., Rahman, M.M., Rahman, M.R., 2017. Changes of
shrimp farming in southwest coastal Bangladesh. Aquac. Int. 25 (5), 1883–1899.
Alauddin, M., Tisdel, C., 1998. Bangladesh’s shrimp industry and sustainable
development: resource use conflict and development. Asian Fish. Sci. 11 (2), 97–110.
Ali, M.M., Hossain, M.B., Minar, M.H., Rahman, S., Islam, M.S., 2014. Socio-economic
aspects of the fishermen of Lohalia River, Bangladesh. Middle-East J. Sci. Res. 19,
191–195.
Atique, U., Byungjin, L., Johee, Y., An, K.-G., 2019. Biological health assessments of lotic
waters by biotic integrity indices and their relations to water chemistry. Water 11,
436.
9
Aquaculture Reports 20 (2021) 100708
Atique, U., Kwon, S., An, K.-G., 2020. Linking weir imprints with riverine water
chemistry, microhabitat alterations, fish assemblages, chlorophyll-nutrient
dynamics, and ecological health assessments. Ecol. Indic. 117, 106652 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106652.
Bangladesh Tathya Batayan, 2017-http://www.satkhira.gov.bd/.
BARC, 1980. National Survey of Rural Bangladesh 197-199. Public Shed in ESCAP
Country Monograph Series No. 8.
Bari, M.M., 2004. Study on Small-scale Shrimp Farming Practices at Bagerhat District in
Bangladesh. M.SC. Thesis. Bangladesh Agricultural University Mymensingh.
BBS, 2017. Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics - 2017, Statistics and Informatics Division
(SID). Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh,
Dhaka.
Bhuyan, M.S., Akhtar, A., Saim, K.M., Islam, S., 2016. Present status of socio-economic
conditions of the fishing community of the Meghna river adjacent to Narsingdi
district, Bangladesh. J. Fish Livest. Prod. 4, 641–646.
Chandra, K., Chowdhury, A.R., Das, D.R., 2013. Shrimp culture practices at farmers’
level in Bagerhat District. Progress Agric. 21 (1-2), 173–185.
Das, M.R., Ray, S., Kumar, U., Begum, S., Tarafdar, S.R., 2015. Livelihood assessment of
the fishermen community in the South West region of Bangladesh. J. Exp. Biol.
Agric. Sci. 3, 353–361.
Deb, A.K., 1998. Fake blue revolution: environmental and socio-economic impacts of
shrimp culture in the coastal areas of Bangladesh. Ocean Coast Manage. 41 (1),
63–88.
DFID, 2000. Livelihood Assessment of Communities and Households and Technical
Assistance of Aquaculture Technologies and Methods. Northwest Fisheries Extension
Project-2, Livelihood. Review. DFID, Dhaka, p. 1.
Feroz, A.N., Rashid, M.H.A., Hossain, M., 2009. Profitability analysis of bagda farming in
some selected areas of Satkhira district. Progress Agric. 20 (1-2), 221–229.
Goswami, M., Sathiadhas, R., Goswami, U.C., Ojha, S.N., 2002. Socio-economic
dimension of fish farming in Assam. J. Indian Fish Assoc. 29, 103–110.
Haider, M.S., Ashraf, M., Azmat, H., Khalique, A., Javid, A., Atique, U., Zia, M., Iqbal, K.
J., Akram, S., 2016. Nutritive evaluation of fish acid silage in Labeorohita fingerlings
feed. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 44, 158–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09712119.2015.1021811.
Hossain, M.A.R., Hasan, M.R., 2017. An Assessment of Impacts from Shrimp Aquaculture
in Bangladesh and Prospects for Improvement, 618. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper No, p. 96.
Hossain, M.I., Siwar, C., Mokhtar, M.B., Dey, M.M., Jaafar, A.H., 2009. Socio-economic
condition of fishermen in seasonal floodplain beels in Rajshahi District, Bangladesh.
Res. J. Soc. Sci. 4, 74–81.
Hossain, S., Bhowmik, S., Hasan, M.T., Islam, M.S., Hossain, M.A., 2015. Socio-economic
conditions of Jatka fishers in some selected spots of Meghna estuary. Middle-East J.
Sci. Res. 23, 378–386.
Iqbal, S., Atique, U., Mughal, M.S., Khan, N., Haider, M.S., Iqbal, K.J., Akmal, M., 2017.
Effect of selenium incorporated in feed on the hematological profile of Tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus). J. Aquac. Res. Dev. 8, 1000513 https://doi.org/10.4172/
2155-9546.1000513.
Islam, R., Asaduzzaman, S.M., 2015. Impact of transition from rice cultivation to shrimp
culture in Bangladesh: a study on Khulna division. Int. J. Agric. Econ. Dev. 3 (2), 29.
Islam, M.S., Wahab, M., Miah, A.A., 2002. Socio-economic and environmental impacts of
alternate shrimp-crop farming in Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res. 25 (1),
63–76.
Islam, M.S., Milstein, A., Wahab, M.A., Kamal, A.H.M., Dewan, S., 2005. Production and
economic return of shrimp aquaculture in coastal ponds of different sizes and with
different management regimes. Aquac. Int. 13, 489–500.
Islam, S., Reza, M.S., Roknuzzaman, M., Razzaq, A., Joadder, M., et al., 2017. Socio-
economic status of fishermen of the Padma river in Chapai Nawabganj district,
Bangladesh. Int. J. Fish Aquat. Stud. 5, 101–104.
Karim, A., 1978. Socio-economic Survey of Village Sahapur. A Project Work Submitted in
the Department of Sociology. Rajshahi University, Bangladesh, pp: 48.
Khatun, S., Adhikary, R.K., Rahman, M., Sikder, M.N.A., Hossain, M.B., 2013. Socio-
economic status of pond fish farmers of Charbata, Noakhali, Bangladesh. Int. J. Life
Sci. Biotechnol. Pharm. Res. 2, 356–365.
Matin, M.A., Chakraborty, C., Amin, M.A., Ghosh, A., 2016. An assessment of shrimp
aquaculture in selected coastal areas of Bangladesh. J. Noami 33 (1&2), 103–116.
Mitro, S., Khatun, R., Baten, M., 2014. Socio-economic and environmental impacts of
shrimp culture in some selected areas of Bagerhat District. J. Environ. Sci. Nat.
Resour. 7 (1), 265–269.
Mondal, S., Rahman, M., Saha, D., Adhikary, R., Hossain, M.B., 2013. Present status of
good aquaculture practices (GAP) in shrimp farms of south-western coastal area,
Bangladesh. Middle East J. Sci. Res. 14 (6), 873–878.
Paul, A.K., Bashak, S.K., Islam, M.S., Hussain, M.A., 2018a. Comparative Socio-economic
Study with a Review on Fisherman’s Livelihood Around Tulsiganga River,
Joypurhat, Bangladesh. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 13, 29–38.
Paul, A.K., Shahanul, M.I., Paul, D., Mahfuj, S.E., Alam, M.M., 2018b. Socio Economic
Challenges with a Comparative Review of Fisherman’s Status around Little Jamuna
River, Dinajpur, Bangladesh. Middle East J. Sci. Res. 26 (6), 611–620.
PPM & E (Participatory Planning Monitoring and Evaluation), 2004. Managing and
Learning for Impact in Rural Development. Wageningen University Research,IAC
http://wv.rw.thedailystar.net/2006/01/31/d60131070286.h tm.
Primavera, J.H., 1997. Socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture. Aquac. Res. 28 (10),
815–827.
Rahman, A.K.A., 1994. The small scale marine fisheries of Bangladesh and socio-
economic issues in coastal fisheries management. In: Proceedings of the IPFC
Symposium. Bangkok, Thailand, pp. 170–175. November 23-26, 1993.
S. Ray et al.
Rahman, M.M., Flitner, M., Krause, G., Maniruzzaman, M., 2008. Socio-economic
assessment of shrimp farming in relation to local livelihoods in the southwest coastal
Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Fish Res. 12 (1), 109–120.
Rahman, M.M., Chowdhury, P., Islam, M.S., 2016. Socio-economic status of fish farmers
in DhumkiUpazila under Patuakhali district, Bangladesh. Int. J. Fish Aquat. Stud. 4,
288-29.
Saha, S.K., 2017. Socio-economic and environmental impacts of shrimp farming in the
south-western coastal region of Bangladesh. Int. J. Res. Land-use Sustain. 3,
128–137.
Sheikh, S., Goswami, M.M., 2013. Socio-economic condition of fishers of Chandakhola
Wetland, Dhubri, Assam, India. Bull. Environ. Pharmacol. Life Sci. 3, 257–261.
10
Aquaculture Reports 20 (2021) 100708
Tutu, A., et al., 2006. Grassroots perspectives on shrimp farming in south-west
Bangladesh. In: Rahman, A.A. (Ed.), Shrimp Farming and Industry: Sustainability,
Trade and Livelihoods. The University Press Limited, Dhaka, pp. 487–506.
Uddin, M.T., Goswami, A., Rahman, M.S., Dhar, A.R., 2019. How can governance
improve efficiency and effectiveness of value chains? An analysis of pangas and
tilapia stakeholders in Bangladesh. Aquaculture 510, 206–215.
Washim, M.R., Siddiky, M.M., Islam, M.S., Ahmmed, S., 2020. Improved extensive
shrimp farming uplifted yield of coastal ghers in Southwest Bangladesh. Int. J. Sci.
52 (1), 78–87.
Zarin, R., 2014. Livelihood activities of female labor engaged in shrimp farming in South-
Western region of Bangladesh. J. Business Tech (Dhaka) 9 (1), 1–22.