Assessing the Effects of Flood Risk on Fish Farming in the Coastal Region of Delta State, Nigeria

Study Area

The research was conducted in the Delta North Agricultural Zone, situated within Delta State, Nigeria. A purposive and multistage sampling methods was used to choose the respondents. Initially, five local government areas were purposively chosen due to their high vulnerability to flood and active fish farming communities. These selected LGAs are Aniocha North and South, Oshimili North and South, and Ukwuani. Subsequently, 3 communities were arbitrarily picked from the selected LGAs, resulting in a total of 15 communities. From these communities, eight respondents were randomly chosen, totaling 120 farmers. Due to incomplete or inadequate information, four questionnaires had to be excluded, resulting in the use of 116 questionnaires. Primary data were gathered using structured questionnaires. Enumerators were also involved in collecting data to ensure comprehensive coverage. Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics were used to achieve the objectives.

Data Specification

The implicit form of the regression model is specified as

$$Y = \beta_0 + \beta_1X_1 + \beta_2X_2 + \beta_3X_3 + \beta_4X_4 + \beta_5X_5 + \beta_6X_6 + \beta_7X_7 + \ldots + e_i$$

Where:

• $Y$ = Flood severity risk (very severe=4, moderately severe=3, serious=2 and not severe=1)
• $X_1$ = mortality (number)
• $X_2$ = flood incidence (%)
• $X_3$ = insurance accessibility
• $X_4$ = incentive (yes=1,0’ otherwise)
• $X_5$ = credit accessibility (yes=1, otherwise = 0)
• $X_6$ = income level (N)
• $X_7$ = output level

Description of the Fish Farmers

Age Distribution of Respondents

The result of age distribution among respondents (Table 1) provides valuable acumens into the composition of the fish farming community, revealing a diverse range. With a mean age of 40 years serving as a central point around which age diversity clusters, the implications for the industry’s future become apparent. Notably, the largest segment falls within the 31-40-year age group, suggesting significant representation in prime working years and the potential for new perspectives and innovative approaches. The substantial presence of respondents aged 41-50 indicates experienced individuals who could bridge generational gaps, facilitating knowledge transfer and ensuring industry continuity. Furthermore, participants over 50 demonstrate both diversity and commitment to the sector, either through adherence to traditional practices or adaptability to evolving methods. The average age of 40 unveils a relatively youthful population within the fish agribusiness community, reflecting active engagement and the potential for long-term impacts. These findings corroborates with Gbigbi TM [22] research, highlighting the consistency of demographic patterns within the sector. Understanding the age distribution within the fish farming community can guide policymakers in crafting targeted interventions and support mechanisms. Recognizing the significant representation of individuals in their prime working years could inform strategies to harness their productivity and innovation potential.

Educational Status

The educational status of respondents emerges as a pivotal factor influencing their aptitude for adopting advanced fish farming practices and strategies. The survey’s findings delineate a diverse educational landscape within the fish farming community, with 5.2% reporting no formal education, an equivalent percentage having completed primary education, a substantial 56.9% possessing secondary education qualifications, and 32.8% attaining tertiary education. This array of educational backgrounds forms a critical lens through which to gauge the industry’s capacity for embracing modern technologies and acquiring relevant skills. The segment of respondents with no formal education or primary education suggests the coexistence of individuals who may face challenges in accessing and assimilating complex information and modern farming techniques. The ascendency of respondents with secondary education qualifications, comprising 56.9% of the surveyed group, signifies a significant portion of the fish farming community with a foundational level of formal education.

This demographic hold promises for the adoption of advanced practices and innovations, as secondary education typically equips individuals with basic literacy and numeracy skills, making them more receptive to new concepts and technologies. The 32.8% of respondents with tertiary education qualifications constitute a valuable cohort in the study location. Individuals with higher education backgrounds are likely to possess critical thinking skills, research acumen, and a capacity for innovation. Their presence indicates the potential for the fish farming sector to leverage advanced scientific knowledge and technology, leading to enhanced productivity, sustainability, and competitiveness.

The prevalence of education among respondents aligns with observations from Gbigbi TM, et al. [23] research, which highlighted the active engagement of educated individuals in artisanal fishery in Nigeria. This correlation underscores the status of education in facilitating participation and advancement within the fisheries subsector. Educated individuals are better equipped to comprehend and implement best practices, navigate regulatory frameworks, and adapt to evolving market dynamics. The positive relationship between education and the prospective for technology adoption is a crucial consideration for policymakers and industry stakeholders.

Fishing Experience

The result unveils a diverse range of experiences within the surveyed group, with 36.2% of respondents indicating 1-5 years of fishing experience, 53.5% reporting 6-10 years, a modest 5.2% with 11-15 years, and an equal percentage with over 15 years of experience. The mean fishing experience was 7 years, suggesting a considerable profundity of knowledge and expertise among the fish farmers, contributing to an enhanced awareness of the intricacies of fish farming. The dominance of individuals with 6-10 years of fishing experience indicates a substantial presence of seasoned practitioners within the fish farming community. This accumulation of experience over a significant period suggests that a considerable portion of the farmers may have witnessed and adapted to changes in fishing practices, technology, and market dynamics, which are critical aspects of the evolving field of fish farming. The noteworthy proportion of respondents with 1-5 years of fishing experience also implies the inclusion of individuals relatively new to the field. This subgroup may bring fresh perspectives, enthusiasm, and an eagerness to adopt innovative fish farming techniques. Their presence highlights the possibilities for knowledge exchange within the fishing community, as experienced individuals may mentor those newer to the industry, fostering a collaborative and dynamic learning environment.

The small but notable percentage of respondents with over 15 years of fishing knowledge underscores the reality of a group with a wealth of knowledge and possibly a deep- rooted connection to traditional fish farming practices. Their prolonged engagement in the industry positions them as potential stewards of indigenous knowledge, offering insights that complement contemporary approaches to fish production. Seasoned fish farmers are likely to possess a deep understanding of ecological patterns, breeding cycles, disease management, and market dynamics. This reservoir of knowledge can be harnessed for the benefit of the entire fish farming community through targeted training programs, knowledge-sharing initiatives, and collaborative research endeavours.

Marital Status

The marital status of individuals is a potential factor that crisscrosses various facets of their lives, including economic activities. The result reveals a diverse range of marital statuses among the participants, with 53.5% reporting being married, 13.8% single, 12.1% divorced, and 20.7% widowed. The preeminence of married respondents in fish farming suggests a connection between marital status and involvement in this sector. This observation prompts an exploration of how the dynamics of marriage may influence or be influenced by fish farming activities. Marriage often entails shared responsibilities, and the decision to engage in fish agribusiness could be a strategic choice for couples seeking additional sources of income and livelihood enhancement. The study’s findings resonate with Gbigbi TM [24] study on the oil spillage environment in Delta State, which identified a correlation between economic activities and household living standards. It implies that married individuals, constituting the mainstream of respondents, may view fish farming as a viable means to advance their households’ economic well- being. For single individuals, involvement in fish farming might be driven by different issues, such as self-reliance and independence. Meanwhile, divorced or widowed individuals may engage in fish farming as avenue of financial recovery or a way to navigate life changes. The correlation between marital status and fish farming involvement also has implications for the societal fabric of communities. A thriving fish farming sector can contribute not only to individual households but also to the overall resilience and prosperity of the community. The shared benefits and constraints of fish farming may foster a sense of community cooperation and support, especially among married couples who are jointly invested in the success of their ventures [25].

Membership of Cooperative Society

The results reveal a significant aspect of the organizational structure within the fish farming community, shedding light on the affiliation level of fish farmers with cooperative societies. A substantial 60.3% of participants reported not being affiliated with any fish farming cooperative society, while 39.7% indicated their membership in various cooperative societies related to fish farming. The absence of affiliation with a cooperative society for a majority of respondents suggests a notable segment of fish farmers operates independently. This independence may stem from various factors, including individual preferences, lack of awareness about cooperative opportunities, or even reservations about the effectiveness of such organizations. Understanding the reasons behind this non-affiliation is crucial for developing strategies that encourage greater participation and collaborations within the fishing community.

On the flip side, almost 40% of respondents who are members of fish farmers’ cooperative societies represent a more organized and interconnected segment of the industry. Cooperative societies have the capacity to serve as conduits for the exchange of knowledge, expertise, and resources among members. These organizations can facilitate collective decision-making, bulk purchasing of inputs, and joint marketing efforts, leading to increased productivity and profitability for the participating fish farmers. The influence of cooperative societies on knowledge dissemination within the fishing subsector cannot be overstated. These organizations provide a platform for members to share best practices, innovative techniques, and experiences. The collective wisdom amassed within cooperative societies can propel the overall improvement of fishing practices, addressing challenges and fostering continuous learning. Additionally, cooperative societies often collaborate with government agencies and NGOs, amplifying their capacity to access external resources, training programs, and market opportunities.

Gender of Respondents

The gender distribution among fish farmers in the survey provides valuable insights into the dynamics of participation. With 116 participants, the data highlights a notable gender disparity, with 81.0% of respondents identifying as male and 19.0% as female. This disparity prompts a deeper investigation of the reasons contributing to the skewed representation and its implications for the fishing industry. One significant aspect that emerges from the data is the predominance of males in fish farming. This could be attributed to various factors, including traditional gender roles, societal expectations, and the physical demands associated with the work. Historically, certain industries, including agriculture and fisheries, have been perceived as male-dominated, leading to limited female participation. The physically demanding nature of farming, which often involves tasks such as pond maintenance, net handling, and fish harvesting, may contribute to the observed gender distribution. It is crucial to recognize that gender disparities in fish farming may not solely result from inherent differences in abilities or preferences between men and women. Societal norms, cultural expectations, and access to resources can significantly impact individuals’ choices of occupation. Understanding this factor is indispensable for creating a more inclusive and equitable environment within the fish farming sector.

Household Size

The investigation of household size among respondents provides a crucial standpoint on the support and labour available for fishing activities. The result reveals a spectrum of household sizes within the fish farming community, with 6.9% of respondents having 1-3 persons in their households, 55.2% with 4-6 persons, 36.2% having 7-9 persons, and a minor 1.7% with more than 9 persons. The average family size was 6 persons, signifying a substantial support base for fish farming endeavours, aligning with the discoveries of Gbigbi (2019) and offering valuable insights into the demographic characteristics of individuals engaged in the industry. The prevalence of households with 4-6 persons, constituting the majority at 55.2%, suggests a significant reservoir of potential labour and support for fish farming activities. The existence of households with 7-9 persons, accounting for 36.2% of respondents, further underscores the potential for a robust support system. Larger household sizes typically imply a greater capacity for shared responsibilities, which is advantageous for the labour-intensive nature of farming. The collective efforts of family members can support various aspects of aquatic farming, including pond maintenance, feeding, harvesting, and marketing, fostering a collaborative and sustainable approach to the industry. These larger households also present opportunities for collaborative efforts to increased productivity and economic returns in fish farming. The average family size of 6 persons aligns with Gbigbi’s (2019) findings, suggesting that households engagement contribute effectively to the various facets of the fishing industry.

Costs and Revenues of Fish Farming

The study examined the cost and returns associated with fish farming before and after a flood event, utilizing a profit model outlined in Table 2. The results of this investigation unveiled a statistically significant disparity (P < 0.05) in both the cost and profit aspects of fishing before and after the flood. Before the flood, the cost of fingerlings was N21.72, while it rose significantly to N38.45 after the flood. The cost of feed also experienced a considerable increase, reaching N37612.07 after the flood, in stark contrast to the N 25103.45 before the flood. Fertilizer cost per bag stood at N2050.00 before the flood but escalated to N3253.45 after the flood. The price of lime increased from N 31206.90 before the flood to N3747.41 after the flood. The labour cost rose substantially after the flood, reaching N 45137.93, whereas it was N 31206.90 before the flood. Furthermore, the cost of pond construction significantly increased from N152017.24 before the flood to N 216586.21 after the flood. Transportation costs also surged from N 2933.43 before the flood to N 3700.86 after the flood, and the cost of drugs increased from N 2644.66 to N7870.69. The cost of water supply escalated from N2005.17 before the flood to N3743.10 after the flood. There was a noticeable disparity in fingerlings cost, with N4422.41 before the flood and N 3293.10 after the flood. Interestingly, the average unit price of fingerlings increased significantly from N 21.83 before the flood to N 74.66 after the flood.

The number of fish sold also exhibited a marked decrease, with 6150.00 fish sold before the flood compared to 2737.76 after the flood. In terms of income, the farmers realized N 133474.14 before the flood, which was substantially higher than N 54181.9 after the flood. Upon analyzing the cost- revenue relationship, it is evident that fish farmers were more profitable before the flood. This situation has implications for the fish catch output, which is expected to decrease, ultimately leading to reduced income for the fishermen and women in the industry.

Frequency of Flood Events Experienced Since 2014

Table 3 presents a comprehensive overview of the respondents’ experiences with flooding since 2014. Notably, 43.1% of the surveyed individuals reported that they had encountered flooding four times during this period. An additional 27.6% had experienced flooding five times, making it clear that a significant portion of the fishing community faces recurring flood events. Furthermore, 20.7% of respondents noted that they had to contend with flooding three times, while 8.6% had experienced it twice since 2014. These statistics demonstrate that flooding is an ongoing issue in the study area. The mean frequency of flood occurrences among the respondents was four times. This recurring decimal emphasizes the regularity of flooding events, highlighting the potential discouragement it poses to fishing activities. The high frequency of flooding events, as showed by the mean of four times, has significant consequences for the fishing community. Recurrent flooding disrupts fishing activities, leading to financial losses and economic instability for the fishermen and their families. Furthermore, the challenges posed by frequent flooding events extend to the broader community, affecting food security and local economies. It is crucial to recognize that such recurring floods can discourage fishermen from pursuing their livelihoods, potentially leading to a decline in the fishing industry. Additionally, the disruption caused by flooding can damage fishing equipment and infrastructure, further exacerbating the economic challenges confronted by the fishing community. These findings underscore the need for comprehensive planning and adaptation measures to reduce the detrimental effects of frequent flooding on fishing activities.

Flood Risk Severity Level

In Table 4, we examined the severity of flood risk and its implications for various aspects of fish farming. This analysis involved categorizing different stages of risk linked with flooding and ranking them according to their severity and impact on farm revenue. The results of this investigation shed light on the considerable consequences that floods have on fish farm output and income. Our findings reveal that flood poses the most significant risk to fish farming, resulting in substantial losses in fish farm output and income. This is indicative of the vulnerability of the aquaculture industry to extreme weather events such as floods. Additionally, the third most significant risk during flooding is the outbreak of diseases in fish farms, with a mean severity rating of 3.4138. This underscores the multifaceted challenges faced by fish farmers during flood events, including disease management. The fourth risk identified is the propensity of fish farmers to quit the industry resulting from the catastrophic scenarios that unfold during the flood season. This reflects the psychological and economic toll that flooding can have on individuals involved in fish farming. The fifth risk relates to the mortality of fish, with a notable number of fish deaths occurring during floods. Another risk factor identified in our analysis is the fluctuation in fish prices before and after flood events. The instability in prices can have a cascading consequence on the economic sustainability of fish farmers, further compounding the challenges faced during floods. Last but not least, theft emerges as the seventh risk faced by fish farmers during flooding, as desperate circumstances can drive individuals to pilfer fish from flooded ponds as a means of survival. The striking variation in fish prices before and after flooding exacerbates the overall impact on fish farming, as it reflects the immense economic strain on farmers. The occurrence of the flood is shown to make life extremely difficult for the citizenry, with the pilfering of fish from overflowing ponds becoming the only viable alternative for survival in dire circumstances. This, in turn, intensifies the decision of some fish farmers to quit the industry, leading to substantial financial losses. The flood risk severity index calculated in our study stands at 0.8227. This index signifies that a staggering 82% of the losses incurred by fish farmers can be directly attributed to flood events. This statistic underscores the immense and disproportionate toll that flooding takes on the fish farming sector both in terms of economic loss and the associated challenges that farmers must contend with. This highlights the urgency of implementing mitigation strategies and disaster preparedness measures to safeguard the aquaculture industry from the detrimental effects of floods and to ensure its long-term sustainability.

Farmer’s Propensity to Quit

The results reveal that a significant portion (60.3%) of fish farmers are inclined to quit their farming activities in the event of flooding. In contrast, 39.7% of respondents expressed their commitment to continue farming despite facing flood-related challenges. This highlights a crucial vulnerability within the fishing industry, with potentially severe consequences for food security of those dependent on this sector. These findings have several implications; the high proportion of fish farmers likely to quit during floods suggests a potential loss in income and economic instability within these communities. This underscores the importance of financial safety nets and risk mitigation strategies for the respondents. Fish is a major source of protein for many populations, particularly in regions where fish farming is prevalent. The inclination to quit farming during floods can lead to a shortage of fish products, impacting local food security. Identifying the factors that contribute to the propensity to quit farming during floods is critical. This knowledge can inform the advancement of resilience-building programs and support systems for the farmers, such as flood-resistant infrastructure, early warning systems, and financial resources access. These results emphasize the necessity for all-inclusive policies and regulations that address the unique challenges faced by the fisherfolks in flood-prone areas. The determination of 39.7% of respondents to continue fishing during floods provides hope for the industry’s resilience. The outcome accentuate the vulnerability of fisherfolks to flooding and the urgent attention for interventions to ensure the safety of the fishing industry. By addressing these challenges, we can support the resilience of fisherfolks and enhance food security in regions heavily dependent on aquafarming.

Is Your Farm Insured?

The result showed that among the surveyed farmers; 12.1% had opted for farm insurance, representing a minority who have actively embraced risk mitigation through insurance coverage. About 87.9% remained without farm insurance, highlighting the widespread susceptibility of the majority to flooding-induced financial uncertainties. The results of this study hold several important implications: The overwhelming lack of farm insurance among the surveyed farmers signifies a significant economic vulnerability. In the event of flooding disasters, 87.9% of uninsured farmers are at risk of severe financial losses, potentially jeopardizing their livelihoods and agricultural sustainability. The low adoption rate of farm insurance may reflect a need for improved awareness and education regarding the profits of such coverage. Understanding farmers’ perceptions of risk and their decision-making processes is vital for crafting effective risk management approaches. Policymakers should consider promoting incentives for farm insurance adoption, such as subsidies, favorable terms, or educational campaigns. Insurance providers could tailor their products to better meet the specific needs and constraints of agricultural communities, making insurance more accessible and appealing to farmers. Enhancing farm insurance adoption can contribute to greater agricultural resilience in the face of flooding disasters. Communities with higher insurance coverage are better positioned to recover and rebuild after such events, reducing the overall impact on the agricultural sector and society at large. This study opens avenues for further research into the underlying factors influencing farmers’ decisions to insure their farms.

Did You Receive Any Incentive?

The findings revealed a significant disparity in the distribution of government incentives among the surveyed population. A substantial majority (72.4%) reported that they had never benefited from any form of government incentives. In contrast, a minority (27.6%) acknowledged having received incentives from the government. These results have several implications, shedding light on potential constraints and opportunities in the government’s incentive distribution system. The overwhelming majority of individuals never receiving government incentives suggests that there may be an issue of inequitable access. This raises questions about whether the incentives are reaching those who need them most or if barriers are preventing certain groups from accessing these benefits. The relatively low percentage of individuals receiving government incentives highlights the need for policymakers to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs. These findings could influence decisions about resource allocation within the government. If a significant portion of incentives goes unused or unclaimed, it may be an opportunity to reallocate resources to more effective programs or channels of distribution. The distribution of government incentives can significantly impact the social and economic well-being of citizens. These results emphasize the importance of ensuring that incentive programs are designed to reach those who would benefit most, thereby contributing to overall societal welfare. The gap between those who receive incentives and those who do not underscore the need for awareness campaigns and outreach efforts. It may be beneficial for the government to explore strategies for informing eligible individuals about the availability of incentives and the application process. In a nutshell, the lopsided distribution of government incentives as revealed by this study calls for a deeper examination of the policy’s effectiveness, access, and overall impact. Addressing these implications can lead to more equitable and efficient government incentive programs, ultimately benefitting a larger portion of the population.

Did you have Access to Credit?

The result showed that a significant majority of the respondents, approximately 63.8%, faced a formidable challenge owing to credit inaccessibility, hindering their ability to enhance and expand their farming operations. Conversely, a smaller proportion, only 36.2% of fish farmers, reported having access to credit resources aimed at bolstering their farm enterprises, implying there is a potential for improved income and livelihoods. However, these findings underscore the pressing need for interventions and policy measures that can bridge this stark divide in accessing financial resources among fish farmers. The fact that nearly two-thirds of fish farmers lack access to credit highlights a critical issue of financial exclusion within the industry. Strategies to improve credit access could lead to increased production and, subsequently, greater food security. Limited access to credit may impede fish farmers’ ability to invest in improved equipment, better quality fish feed, or expanded production. As a result, this may hinder the overall productivity of the aquaculture sector. Given that fish farming is often concentrated in hinterland, improving credit accessibility can also have wider rural development implications. Access to credit can enable fish farmers to invest in sustainable and innovative farming practices. Increased income and livelihood opportunities for fish farmers can stimulate economic growth in rural communities, which can be crucial for poverty reduction and overall development. This may include the utilization of environmentally friendly technologies, responsible aquaculture practices, and reduced reliance on harmful inputs. Addressing the credit gap would sustain the fish industry. By addressing these implications, policymakers and stakeholders can work toward creating a more equitable and productive environment for the fish farmers, with the prospect for broader positive impacts on rural development, food security, and sustainable aquaculture practices (Table 5).

Mortality Rates

The results revealed a significant positive relationship between mortality rates and flood risk severity, with a statistically significant coefficient observed at the 5% level. This finding implies that a 1% increase in the mortality rate of fish leads to a corresponding increase in flood risk severity. This indicates that understanding the relationship between fish mortality rates and flood risk severity is pivotal for environmental management and conservation efforts. Policymakers and environmentalists can utilize this information to implement targeted approaches aimed at preserving fish populations, thereby potentially mitigating the severity of flood risks. The study’s findings accentuate the significance of integrating ecological factor, like fish mortality rates, into disaster preparedness plans and early warning systems. By considering these variables, authorities can enhance their ability to predict and respond effectively to floods, ultimately reducing the impact on both aquatic ecosystems and human populations residing in flood-prone areas. Understanding the connection between fish mortality and flood risk severity contributes valuable information to climate change adaptation strategies. Adapting fisheries management practices to changing climate conditions can aid in building resilience within aquatic ecosystems, potentially lessening the impact of floods on vulnerable communities. Efforts aimed at ecological restoration and biodiversity conservation can benefit significantly from this research. By focusing on maintaining healthy fish populations, restoration initiatives can create natural buffers against flood risks. Additionally, conserving diverse fish species can enhance ecosystem stability, thereby promoting resilience in the face of environmental disturbances like floods.

Insurance Access

The results reveal a statistically significant negative relationship at the 5% level between the coefficient of insurance access and flood risk severity. This signifies that a reduction in access to insurance is associated with a corresponding increase in the severity of flood risks. This finding carries significant implications for both policy and disaster management, as it underscores the crucial role of insurance accessibility in mitigating and managing flood- related risks. One of the foremost implications of this result is the need for governments, regulatory bodies, and insurance providers to focus on enhancing and expanding insurance access to vulnerable communities in flood- prone areas. By doing so, they can effectively reduce the severity of flood risks and their associated socioeconomic impacts. This might involve implementing policies that promote affordable insurance options, extending coverage to underserved populations, and raising awareness about the significance of flood insurance. The result highlights the usefulness of interdisciplinary collaboration between experts in insurance, risk assessment, and disaster management. By working together, these stakeholders can develop strategies to reduce the barriers to insurance access in flood-prone regions and thereby bolster resilience against flood-related disasters. Ultimately, the study’s findings serve as a valuable contribution to the field of disaster risk reduction and management, emphasizing the integral role of insurance access in addressing and mitigating the increasing challenges posed by flood events in a changing climate.

Incentive

The research findings suggest a significant inverse relationship between the coefficient of incentives and flood risk severity at a 1% probability level. This inverse relationship implies that a reduction in incentives provided to fish farmers is associated with a proportional increase in flood risk mortality. In practical terms, this means that if the incentives offered to fish farmers are reduced by one unit, the corresponding consequence is an elevated risk of flood-related fatalities within the studied context. These implications hold important relevance for policymakers, as they highlight the role of incentives in mitigating flood risk and potentially saving lives. The results underscore the need for careful consideration when designing and implementing incentive programs in regions susceptible to flood hazards. Reducing or withdrawing incentives for fish farmers in such areas may inadvertently heighten the vulnerability of these communities to flood-related disasters. Additionally, this finding emphasizes the importance of maintaining or enhancing incentives to bolster resilience and adaptive capacity among fish farming communities in flood-prone regions. Policymakers and stakeholders must recognize the vital role incentives play in reducing the impact of flood events and take proactive steps to align their policies with these findings. Furthermore, these results contribute to the broader discourse on disaster risk reduction strategies, shedding light on the interconnectedness of socioeconomic incentives and flood risk management.

Income

The findings reveal a noteworthy and statistically significant relationship between income and flood risk severity, as indicated by the negative coefficient of income at the 5% significance level. This outcome carries substantial implications for our understanding of how socioeconomic factors influence flood risk. Specifically, the negative coefficient for income underscores the inverse relationship between income levels and flood risk. This means that as income decreases by one unit, there is a corresponding increase in the severity of flood risk. In practical terms, this implies that individuals or communities with lower income levels are more susceptible to higher flood risk levels. These findings are of great importance to policymakers, disaster management authorities, and urban planners. They suggest that efforts aimed at mitigating flood risk should consider socioeconomic disparities, and targeted interventions may be required to protect vulnerable populations with lower incomes. Moreover, these results emphasize the need for equitable resource allocation and infrastructure development to reduce flood vulnerability in low-income areas.

Output

The findings reveal a compelling relationship between the coefficient of output and flood risk severity. The result has revealed that this coefficient is not only statistically significant but also exhibits a negative association with flood risk severity, as established at the 5% significance level. This crucial discovery underscores the consequential implications for flood risk management and disaster preparedness. To elaborate further, the negative and significant coefficient of output indicates that as the output level decreases by one unit, there is a corresponding and significant increase in flood risk severity. This observation fundamentally underscores the sensitivity of flood risk severity to changes in output levels. The implications of this finding are substantial, as they necessitate a re-evaluation of strategies and policies aimed at flood risk reduction. By recognizing the inverse relationship between output and flood risk severity, stakeholders can prioritize measures to enhance output stability and, thereby, reduce flood risk. This could involve investments in infrastructure resilience, climate change adaptation, and early warning signals, all of which would contribute to the overall goal of flood risk mitigation for meaningful production (Table 6).

What is the Level of Risk in Fish Farming?

The findings from Table 8 demonstrate the respondents’ perceptions of the level of risk they encountered. It is noteworthy that a significant majority, comprising 58.6% of the total respondents, reported a high-risk level of 75%. Additionally, 19% of the participants indicated a moderate risk level of 50%, while another 19% reported a relatively lower risk level of 25%. Only a small fraction of the respondents, 3.4%, perceived themselves to be facing the highest possible risk level of 100%. These results have significant implications for our understanding of risk perceptions within the studied population. The substantial percentage of respondents reporting a 75% risk level suggests that a majority of individuals in this finding consider themselves to be exposed to a substantial level of risk. Conversely, the presence of both 50% and 25% risk levels among the participants indicates variability in how risk is perceived, with some individuals viewing their circumstances as less risky. Furthermore, the presence of a insignificant but noteworthy proportion of fisherfolks perceiving 100% risk implies that there may be specific individuals who feel that they are in extremely high-risk situations, warranting further investigation. Overall, these findings shed light on the diverse risk perceptions among the respondents, highlighting the need for tailored risk management strategies and interventions to address the varying levels of perceived risk among respondents.

Coping Strategies before Flood

The results in Table 9 provide valuable insights into the coping methods employed by respondents before a flood event and their corresponding rankings based on mean scores. Among these strategies, the most prominent method used for protecting fish farms from the ingress of floodwater is the elevation of embankments, which secures the top position with a mean score of 3.53. Notably, this approach emerged as the most widely adopted and effective strategy in the context of the study. The second most favoured coping strategy was the utilization of tree branches and bamboo, with a mean score of 2.74.

Regularly used ≥ 2.50, not used ≤ 2.50 Table 9: Coping strategies utilized before the flood.

Cleaning the immediate surroundings of the fish farm took the third rank, receiving a mean score of 2.70. In the fourth position, we find the practice of preserving fingerlings for immediate fish culture, which obtained a mean score of 2.62. The fifth and sixth positions were occupied by the strategies of harvesting and selling larger fish from the flood-prone farm and harvesting brood fish before the onset of a flood, respectively. Interestingly, these strategies were acknowledged as being relatively rare by the fisherfolks in their usage. This results has indispensable implications for flood resilience and adaptation among fish farmers. The finding that only 63% of the available coping strategies were employed before flood events suggests the potential for further optimization and diversification of strategies to enhance production. Furthermore, these findings underscore the significance of embankment construction as a primary and highly effective strategy in mitigating flood-related risks to fish farming operations.

Post-Harvest Coping Strategies

The present study has systematically assessed and ranked the post-harvest coping strategies regularly used by fish farmers, shedding light on their relative utilization and implications. The investigation considered five distinct strategies and their rankings were determined based on mean utilization values. Remarkably, the results unveiled that two strategies emerged as the foremost choices among the fish farmers, each securing the top position with an identical mean value of 2.71. These strategies are “Taking help from relatives/friends” and “Liming flood-affected fish farms.” This notable finding suggests that these two approaches are the most frequently employed by the respondents, underscoring their significance and practicality in the context of post- harvest activities in fish farming. Furthermore, the analysis revealed that “Releasing previously-stored fingerlings” occupied the third position in the rankings, with a mean utilization value of 2.57. This strategy, although slightly less popular than the top two, remains a relevant and practical method used by fish farmers in their post-harvest endeavours. On the other hand, “Cleaning flood-affected fishery farms or ponds” and “Taking loans” were ranked fourth and fifth, with mean utilization values of 2.48 and 2.33, respectively. This placement highlights that while these strategies are not as commonly employed as the top three, they still hold significance as post-harvest coping mechanisms in the realm of fish farming. Notably, the cumulative mean utilization value of the post-harvest coping strategies, which amounts to 64%, suggests that the respondents’ utilization level is less than optimal, leaving room for improvement. Specifically, there is a 36% gap between the current utilization and the optimal level, signifying a substantial opportunity for enhancement in the adoption and implementation of these strategies by fish farmers. The implication here is that further efforts, education, and support could be directed towards encouraging and facilitating the more widespread and effective use of these post-harvest coping strategies to optimize their impact on fish farming operations (Table 10).