Impact of fishing harbour on the living conditions of fishermen in muttom kanyakumari district

1. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 6, Issue 3, March (2015), pp. 96-105© IAEME
96
IMPACT OF FISHING HARBOUR ON THE LIVING
CONDITIONS OF FISHERMEN IN MUTTOM
KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT
Jasbin Bino.P
Ph.D. Research Scholar, School of Management,
Noorul Islam University, Kumaracoil, Kanyakumari District,
TamilNadu,India,
Dr.R.Radhika
Assistant Professor,
School of Management, Noorul Islam University,
Kumaracoil, Kanyakumari District,
TamilNadu, India
ABSTRACT
A fishing harbour offers enormous opportunity for the promotion ofcommon fishermen.The
main objectives of the study are to assess the impact of fishing harbour on the living conditions of
fishermen in terms of employment and income, ascertain the extent to which the facilities created at
the fishing harbours/fish landing centres are availed of by the fishermen, and identify the problem
faced by the fishermen before and after harbour. The study used both primary and secondary data.
The primary data was collected from the respondents through schedule method. The secondary data
was collected from prestigious journals and reports. Convenient sampling method is used to select
the respondents. In this study sample size of 55 respondents were selected. In analyzing data, both
descriptive and inferential statistics were used. For describing the overall situation of socio economic
conditions of fishermen, descriptive statistics like simple percentage was used and statistical tool
paired samples test was used. It is found that there are significant differences in relationship with
problems in sales before harbour and after harbour. It is concluded that harbour has impacted on the
relationship with problems in sales.
Keywords: Fishing Harbour, Fishermen, Employment and Income
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT (IJM)
ISSN 0976-6502 (Print)
ISSN 0976-6510 (Online)
Volume 6, Issue 3, March (2015), pp. 96-105
© IAEME: http://www.iaeme.com/IJM.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2015): 7.9270 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJM
© I A E M E

2. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 6, Issue 3, March (2015), pp. 96-105© IAEME
97
I. INTRODUCTION
A fishing harbour is a place where many things come together – fish, people and fishing
technology. It is a gathering point for buyers, sellers and service providers. It is a place of encounter
between public and private institutions. Moreover, it is a point of convergence between production
and trade. There is probably no other structure or facility in fisheries that matches the diversity of
stakeholders and activities in a fishing harbour. A fishing harbour offers enormous opportunity for
the promotion of responsible fisheries, specifically the reduction of wastes and preservation of fish
quality. The conditions prevailing in a fishing harbour may have consequences not only on human
and environmental health, but also on fish price and exports. While having the right infrastructure at
the right place is very important for the proper functioning of a fishing harbour, how it is managed
and maintained are crucial considerations as well. Stakeholders are a vital link to the sustainability of
a fishing harbour.
II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Fish marketing is confronted with certain peculiar problems: greater uncertainty in fish
production, highly perishable nature of fish, assembling of fish from numerous landing centres, too
many species and as many demand pattern, violent and frequent fluctuations in prices, difficulties in
adjusting supply to variations in demand and need for transportations of fish in specialized means of
transport. Seafood export is now recognized as a major avenue for export earnings. In order to meet
international standards, it is imperative to have world class fishing harbours. Kanyakumari stands to
gain with a number of fishing harbours.
III. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1) To assess the impact of fishing harbour on the living conditions of fishermen in terms of
employment and income.
2) To ascertain the extent to which the facilities created at the fishing harbours/fish landing
centres are availed of by the fishermen.
3) To identify the problem faced by the fishermen before and after harbour.
4) To offer suitable suggestions based on the findings of the study.
IV. METHODOLOGY
The study used both primary and secondary data. The primary data was collected from the
respondents through schedule method. The secondary data was collected from prestigious journals
and reports. Convenient sampling method is used to select the respondents. In this study sample size
of 55 respondents were selected. In analyzing data, both descriptive and inferential statistics were
used. For describing the overall situation of socio economic conditions of fishermen, descriptive
statistics like simple percentage was used and statistical tool paired samples test was used.
V. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
Although the study has been conducted in a systematic manner there are few limitations:
1) The study is restricted to sample size of 55 respondents.
2) The study area covered Muttomharbour, Kanyakumari district only.

3. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 6, Issue 3, March (2015), pp. 96-105© IAEME
98
VI. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
TABLE I: AGE WISE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS
Sl. No Age No. of Respondents Percentage
1. Below 25 07 12.7
2. 25 - 35 12 21.8
3. 36 - 45 17 30.9
4. 46 - 55 15 27.3
5. Above 55 04 7.3
Total 55 100
Source: Primary data
From the above table it is clear that 30.9 per cent of the respondents fall under the age group
of 36 - 45 years, followed by 27.3 per cent of the respondents under the age group of 46- 55 years,
and the very next 21.8per cent were under the age group of 25-35 years, below 25 years age group
were only 12.7 per cent, and finally 7.3 per cent of respondents were above 55 years of Age.
TABLE II: MARITAL STATUS WISE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS
Sl. No Marital Status No. of Respondents Percentage
1. Single 07 12.7
2. Married 48 87.3
Total 55 100
Source: Primary data
Table 2 reveals that 87.3 per cent of the respondents are married and 12.7 per cent of the
respondents are unmarried. It is evident from table that majority of the respondents are married.
TABLE III: EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION WISE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS
Sl. No Educational Qualification No. of Respondents Percentage
1. Illiterate 20 36.4
2. Up to 5th
09 16.4
3. 6th
to 10th
10 18.2
4. HSC 06 10.9
5. Undergraduate 03 5.5
6. Post graduate 02 3.5
7. Technical Courses 05 9.1
Total 55 100
Source: Primary data
Most of the fishermen are illiterate (36.4%). Only small portion (18.2%) of the respondents
are 6th
std to 10th
std, 16.4 per cent of the respondents are up to 5th
std, 10.9 per cent of the respondents
are HSC educational qualification, 9.1 per cent of the respondents are technical courses qualification,
5.5 per cent of the respondents are undergraduates and only 3.5 per cent of the respondents are post
graduates. It is evident from table that majority of the respondents are illiterate in the study area.

4. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 6, Issue 3, March (2015), pp. 96-105© IAEME
99
TABLE IV: IMPACT OF HARBOUR ON EMPLOYMENT OF FISHERMEN
Before Harbour After Harbour
Sl.
No
Occupation No. of Respondents Percentage No. of
Respondents
Percentage
1. Full time fishing 42 76.4 48 87.3
2. Part time fishing 08 14.5 05 9.1
3. Occasional
fishing
03 5.5 02 3.6
4. Other allied
activities
02 3.6 - -
Total 55 100 55 100
Source: Primary data
Before starting harbour in Muttom, 76.4 per cent of the fishermen were involved in fishing as
their main occupation. However, 14.5 per cent of the fishermen were involved in fishing as their part
time occupation. The present study has revealed that 5.5 per cent of the fishermen were engaged in
fishing as their occasional occupation and only3.6 per cent of the fishermen were engaged in fishing
as their allied occupation.
After starting harbour in Muttom, 87.3 per cent of the fishermen were involved in fishing as
their main occupation. However, 9.1 per cent of the fishermen were involved in fishing as their part
time occupation. The present study has revealed that 3.6 per cent of the fishermen were engaged in
fishing as their occasional occupation.
TABLE V: IMPACT OF HARBOUR ON MONTHLY INCOME OF FISHERMEN
Sl. No Monthly income
Before Harbour After Harbour
No. of Respondents Percentage No. of Respondents Percentage
1. Below Rs.5000 13 23.6 05 9.1
2. Rs.5000 – Rs.10000 21 38.2 04 7.3
3. Rs.10001 – Rs.20000 17 30.9 29 52.7
4. Above Rs.20000 04 7.3 17 30.9
Total 55 100 55 100
Source: Primary data
The selected fishermen were grouped into four categories based on the level of monthly
income. Before started harbour in Muttom, 38.2 per cent of the fishermen werevaried from Rs.5000
to 10000 and it was found that about 30.9 per cent of the fishermen had monthly income between
Rs.10001 to 20000, 23.6 per cent of the respondents had income of belowRs.5000 and only 7.3 per
cent of the respondents had monthly income of above Rs.20000.
Table clearly shows that after started harbour in Muttom, 52.7 per cent of the fishermen earn
a monthly income of Rs.10001 to Rs.20000, 30.9per cent of the respondents earn a monthly income
of above Rs. 20000, 9.1 per cent of the respondents earn a monthly income of below Rs. 5000 and
7.3 per cent of the respondents earn a monthly income of Rs. 5000 to Rs.10000. It is evident from
table that majority of the respondents earn a monthly income of Rs. 10001 to Rs. 20000.

5. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 6, Issue 3, March (2015), pp. 96-105© IAEME
100
TABLE VI: NUMBER OF YEARS INVOLVED IN FISHING
Sl. No
Number of Years involved
in fishing
No. of Respondents Percentage
1. Below 1 year 05 9.1
2. 1 to 5 years 12 21.8
3. 6 to 10 years 13 23.6
4. Above 10 years 25 45.5
Total 55 100
Source: Primary data
Table 6 reveals that 45.5 per cent of the respondents have been involved in fishing for above
10 years, 23.6 per cent of the respondents have been involved in fishingfor 6 to 10 years, 21.8 per
cent of the respondents have been involved in fishingfor 1 to 5 years and only 9.1 per cent of the
respondents have been involved in fishingfor below 1 year.
TABLE VII: METHOD OF FISHING ADOPTED
Sl. No
Method of fishing
adopted
Before Harbour After Harbour
No. of Respondents Percentage No. of Respondents Percentage
1. Trawlers 03 5.5 02 3.6
2. Gill netters 12 21.8 15 27.3
3. Liners 07 12.7 05 9.1
4. Ring seiners 08 14.5 04 7.3
5. Motorized 11 20.0 28 50.9
6. Non-motorized 14 25.5 01 1.8
Total 55 100 55 100
Source: Primary data
Table 7 clearly shows that before harbour, majority of 25.5 per cent of the respondents had
adopted non-motorized method of fishing, 21.8 per cent of the respondents had adopted gill netters
method of fishing and about 20 per cent of the respondents had adopted motorized method of fishing.
Table further shows that after harbour, majority of 50.9 per cent of the respondents has adopted
motorized method of fishing and 27.3 per cent of the respondents has adopted gill netters method of
fishing.
TABLE VIII: MARKETING OF FISH
Sl. No Particulars
Before Harbour After Harbour
No. of Respondents Percentage No. of Respondents Percentage
1. In a local market
(consumers)
18 32.7 03 5.5
2. Street vendor 05 9.1 02 3.6
3. Retailer 09 16.4 05 9.1
4. Commission agent 08 14.5 06 10.9
5. Exporting companies 04 7.3 28 50.9
6. Wholesaler 11 20.0 11 20.0
Total 55 100 55 100
Source: Primary data
Table 8 reveals that before harbour, 32.7 per cent of the respondents sold fish in the local
market, 20 per cent of the respondents sold fish through wholesaler, 16.4 per cent of the respondents
sold fish through retailer, about 14.5 per cent of the respondents sold fish through commission agent
and only 7.3 per cent of the respondents sold fish through exporting companies. Table further reveals

6. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 6, Issue 3, March (2015), pp. 96-105© IAEME
101
that after harbour, 50.9 per cent of the respondents sold fish through exporting companies, 20 per
cent of the respondents sold fish through wholesaler and 10.9 per cent of the respondents sold fish
through commission agent.
TABLE IX: PROBLEMS IN SALES BEFORE HARBOUR
Sl.No Problems
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
1.
Over exploitation by
middleman
27(49.1) 23(41.8) 3(5.5) 2(3.6) - 55(100)
2. Fluctuation in price 41(74.5) 5(9.1) 5(9.1) 1(1.8) 3(5.5) 55(100)
3. Inadequate demand 46(83.6) 9(16.4) - - - 55(100)
4.
Low price offered by
the buyer
29(52.7) 25(45.5) 1(1.8) - - 55(100)
5. Delay in payment 29(52.7) 26(47.3) - - - 55(100)
6. Quality issues 27(49.1) 25(45.5) 3(5.5) - - 55(100)
7.
Inadequate market
knowledge
20(36.4) 29(52.7) 5(9.1) 1(1.8) - 55(100)
8.
Competition from
other sellers
51(92.7) 3(5.5) 1(1.8) - - 55(100)
9. Perishability 17(30.9) 23(41.8) 13(23.6) 1(1.8) 1(1.8) 55(100)
Source: Primary data
Table shows that before harbour, 92.7 per cent of the respondents faced the problem of
competition from other sellers, 83.6 per cent of the respondents faced the problem of inadequate
demand and 74.5 per cent of the respondents faced the problem of fluctuation in price.
TABLE X: PROBLEMS IN SALES AFTER HARBOUR
Sl.No Problems
Strongly
Agree
Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
1. Overexploitation by
middleman
- - 3(5.5) 28(50.9) 24(43.6) 55(100)
2. Fluctuation in price - - 1(1.8) 32(58.2) 22(40) 55(100)
3. Inadequate demand 02(3.5) 03(5.5) 08(14.5) 17(30.9) 24(43.6) 55(100)
4. Low price offered by
the buyer
02(3.5) 05(9.1) 07(12.7) 14(25.6) 27(49.1) 55(100)
5. Delay in payment 07(12.7) 06(10.9) 02(3.5) 13(23.6) 27(49.1) 55(100)
6. Quality issues 04(7.3) 04(7.2) 05(9.1) 15(27.3) 27(49.1) 55(100)
7. Inadequate market
knowledge
03(5.5) 02(3.5) 02(3.5) 18(32.5) 30(54.5) 55(100)
8. Competition from
other sellers
04(7.3) 06(10.9) 08(14.5) 24(43.7) 13(23.6) 55(100)
9. Perishability 07(12.7) 05(9.1) 04(7.3) 17(30.9) 22(40) 55(100)
Source: Primary data
Table shows that after harbour, only few respondents’ face the problem of delay in payment,
perishability, quality issues and competition from other sellers.

7. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 6, Issue 3, March (2015), pp. 96-105© IAEME
102
TABLE XI: PROBLEMS IN SALES BEFORE AND AFTER HARBOUR – PAIRED SAMPLES TEST
Problems in Sales before and
after harbour
Mean Std. Deviation t df p Value
Overexploitation by middleman 1.9818 0.9524 15.432 54 0.000
Fluctuation in price 2.0727 1.2301 12.496 54 0.000
Inadequate demand 2.6364 0.6767 28.893 54 0.000
Low price offered by the buyer
1.1636 0.8769 9.841 54 0.000
Delay in payment 1.4182 0.5673 18.538 54 0.000
Quality issues 1.8364 0.6876 19.808 54 0.000
Inadequate market knowledge
1.9636 0.8812 16.527 54 0.000
Competition from other sellers
2.3818 0.7069 24.989 54 0.000
Perishability 1.4727 0.8789 12.428 54 0.000
Table 11 shows that since the ‘p’ value for overexploitation by middleman, fluctuation in
price, inadequate demand, low price offered by the buyer, delay in payment, quality issues,
inadequate market knowledge, competition from other sellers and perishability is less than 0.05, the
null hypothesis is rejected. It shows that there are significant differences in relationship with
problems in sales before harbour and after harbour. Hence it is concluded that harbour has impacted
on the relationship with problems in sales.
TABLE XII: AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE BEFORE HARBOUR
Sl.No Infrastructure
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
1. Fishing Vessels 03(5.5) 04(7.3) 11(20) 17(30.9) 20(36.4) 55(100)
2. Fishing Gears 02(3.6) 05(9.1) 08(14.5) 19(34.5) 21(38.2) 55(100)
3. Fuel Outlets 04(7.3) 06(10.9) 13(23.6) 12(21.8) 20(36.4) 55(100)
4. Landing Centre 02(3.6) 04(7.3) 09(16.4) 23(41.8) 17(30.9) 55(100)
5. Boat yards 06(10.9) 08(14.5) 12(21.8) 24(43.6) 05(9.1) 55(100)
6. Ice Plants 03(5.5) 02(3.6) 08(14.5) 28(50.9) 14(25.5) 55(100)
7. Cold Storage 02(3.6) 04(7.3) 06(10.9) 24(43.6) 19(34.5) 55(100)
8. Fishing Harbor - - - 25(45.5) 30(54.5) 55(100)
9. Refrigerated
Vehicles
05(9.1) 03(5.5) 07(12.7) 20(36.4) 20(36.4) 55(100)
10. Preservation
Facility
04(7.3) 05(9.1) 06(10.9) 22(40) 18(32.7) 55(100)
11. Processing Units 02(3.6) 05(9.1) 08(14.5) 24(43.6) 16(29.1) 55(100)
12. Waste disposal
Facility
04(7.3) 06(10.9) 07(12.7) 19(34.5) 19(34.5) 55(100)
Source: Primary data
Table shows that before harbour, majority of the respondents mentioned that they have no
infrastructure facilities such as fishing vessels, fishing gears, fuel outlets, landing centre, boat yards,
ice plants, cold storage, fishing harbour, refrigerated vehicles, preservation facility, processing units
and waste disposal facility.

8. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 6, Issue 3, March (2015), pp. 96-105© IAEME
103
TABLE XIII: AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE AFTER HARBOUR
Sl.No Infrastructure
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Total
1. Fishing Vessels 17(30.9) 15(27.3) 3(5.5) 9(16.4) 11(20) 55(100)
2. Fishing Gears 19(34.5) 15(27.3) 4(7.3) 11(20) 6(10.9) 55(100)
3. Fuel Outlets 13(23.6) 20(16.4) 20(36.4) 2(3.6) - 55(100)
4. Landing Centre 25(45.5) 30(54.5) - - - 55(100)
5. Boat yards 26(47.3) 28(50.9) 1(1.8) () () 55(100)
6. Ice Plants 28(50.9) 27(49.1) - - - 55(100)
7. Cold Storage 19(34.5) 30(54.5) 3(5.5) 1(1.8) 2(3.6) 55(100)
8. Fishing Harbor 53(96.4) 1(1.8) 1(1.8) - - 55(100)
9. Refrigerated
Vehicles
39(70.9) 10(18.2) 1(1.8) 3(5.5) 2(3.6) 55(100)
10. Preservation
Facility
17(30.9) 23(41.8) 13(23.6) 1(1.8) 1(1.8) 55(100)
11. Processing Units 47(85.5) 1(1.8) 1(1.8) 3(5.5) 3(5.5) 55(100)
12. Waste disposal
Facility
46(83.6) 7(12.7) 1(1.8) 1(1.8) - 55(100)
Source: Primary data
Table shows that after harbour, majority of the respondents mentioned that they have
benefitted by all the infrastructure facilities such as fishing vessels, fishing gears, fuel outlets,
landing centre, boat yards, ice plants, cold storage, fishing harbour, refrigerated vehicles,
preservation facility, processing units and waste disposal facility.
TABLE XIV: AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE BEFORE AND AFTER HARBOUR – PAIRED SAMPLES TEST
Availability of
infrastructure before and
after harbour
Mean Std. Deviation t df p Value
Fishing Vessels -1.1273 1.5992 -5.228 54 0.000
Fishing Gears -2.1455 1.4959 -10.636 54 0.000
Fuel Outlets -1.6364 1.5912 -7.627 54 0.000
Landing Centre -3.6182 .5267 -50.943 54 0.000
Boat yards -3.0182 .6524 -34.311 54 0.000
Ice Plants -3.4364 .6876 -37.066 54 0.000
Cold Storage -2.9818 .8496 -26.027 54 0.000
Fishing Harbor -2.5273 .5039 -37.199 54 0.000
Refrigerated Vehicles -2.7273 .9898 -20.433 54 0.000
Preservation Facility -2.4364 1.2136 -14.889 54 0.000
Processing Units -2.6182 1.1137 -17.434 54 0.000
Waste disposal Facility -2.9636 .6372 -34.491 54 0.000
Table shows that since the ‘p’ value for fishing vessels, fishing gears, fuel outlets, landing
centre, boat yards, ice plants, cold storage, fishing harbour, refrigerated vehicles, preservation
facility, processing units and waste disposal facility is less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected.
It shows that there are significant differences in relationship with availability of infrastructure before
harbour and after harbour. Hence it is concluded that harbour has impacted on the relationship with
availability of infrastructure.

9. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 6, Issue 3, March (2015), pp. 96-105© IAEME
104
VII. FINDINGS
The present study highlights some of the major findings as follows.
1) It is found that 30.9 per cent of the respondents fall under the age group of 36 - 45 years.
2) From the survey it is concluded that 87.3 per cent of the respondents are married.
3) Most of the fishermen are illiterate (36.4%) and only 3.5 per cent of the respondents are post
graduates.
4) Before started harbour in Muttom, 76.4 per cent of the fishermen were involved in fishing as
their main occupation. After started harbour in Muttom, 87.3 per cent of the fishermen were
involved in fishing as their main occupation.
5) The study reveals that 45.5 per cent of the respondents have been involved in fishing for above
10 years.
6) The study shows that before harbour, majority of 25.5 per cent of the respondents had adopted
non-motorized method of fishing and after harbour, majority of 50.9 per cent of the
respondents has adopted motorized method of fishing.
7) It is observed that before harbour, 92.7 per cent of the respondents faced the problem of
competition from other sellers and after harbour, only few respondents’ face the problem of
delay in payment, perishability, quality issues and competition from other sellers.
8) There are significant differences in relationship with problems in sales before harbour and after
harbour.
9) There are significant differences in relationship with availability of infrastructure before
harbour and after harbour.
VIII. SUGGESTIONS
The following are the important suggestions of the researcher.
1) More technical devices should be introduced in the fisheriesindustry. It will enable the
fishermen to catch more fish.
2) More markets and processing units should beopen for the marketing of the fish. It will boost up
their economy.
3) Basic steps should be taken by the authorities to save the fisher folk from their burning
problems they face at the sea and the seashore. It will encourage them and change their life
style.
4) The housing conditions, electricity for lighting, source of drinking water facilities and poor
sanitary conditions of fishermen must be studied in detail by the Governmental Agencies and
necessary remedial measures should be adopted. There should be a simple and timely
procedure of subsidized loan facility for the fishermen and Government must increase ceiling
of loan and subsidy.
5) The Fisheries planning is often hampered by the peculiar character of fishermen’s rural life.
The fishing villages are isolated from the main stream of the society. Lack of suitable roads,
proper transport and communication facilities also delays the implementation of different
schemes. So providing these facilities to these poor fishermen must be considered seriously by
the development schemes introduced by the Government.
6) Lack of coordination among various agencies connected with the implementation of different
fisheries programmes to raise the level of fish production is another reason, which hinders the
development in the fishing community. Necessary steps must be taken by the Fisheries

10. International Journal of Management (IJM), ISSN 0976 – 6502(Print), ISSN 0976 - 6510(Online),
Volume 6, Issue 3, March (2015), pp. 96-105© IAEME
105
Department for the effective coordination and implementation of different fisheries
programmes.
7) The fishermen must be brought out from their huts and should be made a part of the general
population. Awareness programmes on saving, education, income generating activity and asset
creation must be given to these people for improving their standard of living.
8) The fishermen have no sensible ideas about intelligent spending and saving of their income.
Educating these fishermen to save an amount from their income and additional income is
highly essential to help them to lead a secure life.
IX. CONCLUSION
The employment and monthly income of fishermen is very poor before harbour, but after
harbor the employment and monthly income of fishermen has increased. It shows that immense
scope for employment and income from fisheries activities because of harbour in Muttom. The
present study indicates that there is ample scope to increase the income of fishermen and intern the
income of fisher folk provided they adopt improved fishing. The social and educational status of the
fisher folk could also be improved by educating them in various aspects.
REFERENCES
1. Amutha.D.,“Socio- economic conditions of fishermen in Tuticorin.”, 1998.
2. Ganesan, “Marketing of marine fish – An empirical study in coastal villages in Kanyakumari”
Madurai, 1987.
3. Hector, M., “Over Fishing: An Economic Analysis”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol:
XXXI, No.2, May 1979.
4. Jessy Thomas.,“Socio- Economic Factors Influencing Educational Standards in a Marginalized
Community; A Case Study on Marine Fisher folk of Kerala”, M.Phil Dissertation, Jawaharlal
University, New Delhi, 1989.
5. Jose, R. V. and Thomas, P.M, (1998), “Socio-Economic Profile of Inland Fishermen and
Problems and Prospects of Inland Fishing in Kuttanad Region, A project on Kerala Research
Programme on Local Level Development (KRPLLD), Thiruvananthapuram”.
6. Kurup, B.M., “Socio-Economic Status of Fishermen Population in the Vicinity of Vembanad
lake”, Fishing Technology, Vol.29, 1992.