1. IMPACT OF WATER LOGGING ON FOOD SECURITY AT KOYRA UPAZILA UNDER KHULNA DISTRICT, BANGLADESH www.ePowerPoint.com

2. Introduction  Since independence in 1971, Bangladesh has made considerable progress in reducing extreme poverty and food insecurity. National availability of sufficient food does not mean that all households have access to sufficient food.  In local level like coastal region where livelihood security faces more difficulty has food insecurity greater extent because of its different features.  Koyra is a place where people are in most vulnerable condition with its occupation pattern, income level, education, natural hazards etc. www.ePowerPoint.com

3. Objective of the study  To determine food security status;  To identify the socioeconomic factor of food security;  To measure the influences of different factors on food security. www.ePowerPoint.com

4. Materials and Method  Study Area Source: Banglapedia, 2006 Map of the Khulna district and Koyra upazilla www.ePowerPoint.com

5. Map : Digitized base map of the study area  Study Area www.ePowerPoint.com

6. Materials and Method -----------------(1)(Kothari, 2009). Where, n=Sample size; z 2 =the value of the standard variant At a given confidence level; p=sample proportion; q=1-p; e=acceptance error and N= Population size of the village.  Sample size determination  Simple random sampling method is used for sample selection.  Sample size  Sample size=90.  The sample size was determined for data collection using the equation formulated by Kothari. www.ePowerPoint.com

7.  Primary data are mainly collected by questionnaire survey.  Secondary data are collected from relevant government and non-government published and unpublished papers. Materials and Method  Data collection www.ePowerPoint.com

8. Results and Discussion Socioeconomic factors Figure 2 : Shifting occupation Figure 1 : Occupational status www.ePowerPoint.com

9. Results and Discussion Figure 3: Land information Status Pre waterloggedPost waterloggedDecreasable (%) Total land 2.060.5573% Cultivated land 1.570.287% Table 3.2: Decreasable land of the respondents www.ePowerPoint.com

10. Results and Discussion Illness diarrhea dysentery skin diseases stomach pain malnutriti on fever never Households281911910122 Percentage31.1021.2012.221011.1113.332.22 Table 3.3: Illness of household member within a year. Figure 4: Sanitation facility www.ePowerPoint.com

11. Results and Discussion Food security status Figure 5: Acquisition of main food www.ePowerPoint.com

12. Results and Discussion Figure 6: Availability of various kinds of food. www.ePowerPoint.com

13. Results and Discussion Food security StatusStatementFrequencyPercent Cumulative Percent Quantitative Food insecure (Severe) Often not enough to eat 3336.66 Quantitative Food insecure (Average) Sometimes not enough to eat 4651.1187.77 Quantitative Food Secure Enough to eat 1112.22100 Total— 90100 Table 3.4: Quantitative food security measure Figure 7: Qualitative food security www.ePowerPoint.com

14. Results and Discussion Figure 8: Weekly food intake www.ePowerPoint.com

15. Figure 9: Meal intake period of womenFigure 10: Women illness frequency with respect to men Results and Discussion www.ePowerPoint.com

16. Results and Discussion Figure 11: Child food security status www.ePowerPoint.com

17. Results and Discussion Figure 12: Copping strategy of households www.ePowerPoint.com

18. Results and Discussion Figure13: Loss weight due to food insecurity www.ePowerPoint.com

19. Results and Discussion Influencing factor of food security Figure 14: Present problem in food production www.ePowerPoint.com

20. Results and Discussion Figure 15: Money problem to purchase www.ePowerPoint.com

21. Results and Discussion Figure 16: Seasonal variations in food security www.ePowerPoint.com

22. Results and Discussion Asset Type % Households owning before water logging % Households reporting “fully damaged” % Households reporting “partial damage” Fishing gher (nets, etc) 21.26.44.5 Fish pond 42.523.516.6 Shrimp gher 13.46.26.9 Table 3.5: Damages in fish stocks www.ePowerPoint.com

23. Figure 17: Loss of livestock. Results and Discussion www.ePowerPoint.com

24. Conclusion Conclusion  Qualitative food security status are most severe in study area. Only 7% household are qualitatively food secure.  The most influencing factor of food insecurity in study area is water logging and salinity. Education, occupation, culture etc. factors have influenced in food security.  Awareness about balanced diet, local food production, sufficient fresh water supply for irrigation, proper disaster management, better economic level, better transportation should be ensured to achieve sustainable food security in study area as well as in coastal area. www.ePowerPoint.com

26. Photographs

27. Materials and Method  Sample size determination Where, n=Sample size; z 2 =the value of the standard variant At a given confidence level; p=sample proportion; q=1-p; e=acceptance error and N= Population size of the village. When, p=4% of the population, i.e. 0.04; q= (1-0.4) = 0.96; z 2 = 1.96 [for 95% confidence level the value of ‘z’ is 1.96]; e= 0.04 [Since the estimate should be within 10% of the true value]. Here, N=total household of the study=8778. = 90. -----------------(1)(Kothari, 2009). www.ePowerPoint.com