The study was conducted at six upazilas as Bhaluka, Trishal, Muktagachcha, Fulbaria, Phulpur, and Mymensingh sadar covering twenty-one villages. Several types of water bodies and fish farms located in different villages and urban areas were selected and monitored. Most of the areas were also out of flood. Hundred percent of ponds of this region were perennial. Major parts of produced fish are distributed from Mymensingh district to others. To prepare the population frame, voter lists were used and sub-assistant agriculture officers (SAAOs), Upazila Fisheries Officers, NGO workers and local elites were also consulted. To ensure the involvement of respondents in pond fish culture, 438 pond fish farmers were identified where 10 pond fish farmers were selected randomly from each village. Consequently, the sample size stood at 210. For this reason, it is necessary to use a systemic approach (Fussel & klein 2006; Carr 2014) to obtain a more complete livelihood assessment. Both primary and secondary information was collected through the survey, monitoring, participatory rural appraisal (PRA) tool such as twenty-four (24) focus group discussion (FGD), six key informants and face to face interviews with seventeen participants in each group. For face to face interviews, a set of preplanned interview schedule was prepared to address several issues of pond fish culture, and livelihood capitals of fish farmers. In addition, a number of published books, journals, annual reports, and internet documents were considered for secondary information. The following analytical technique has been utilized to investigate the relationship between livelihood capitals and pond fish culture using Stata software. Relationship between livelihood capitals and pond fish culture: Livelihood is not simply a localized phenomenon, but connected with environmental, economic, political and cultural process to wider national, regional and global arenas (Carney 2002; Complain 1998; Redelift 1990). While Frank Ellis (2000) provided a good working definition as “the assets (natural, physical, human, financial, and social capitals), the activities, and the access to these (mediated by institutions and social relations) that together determine the living gained by the individual or household.” To measure the relationship between livelihood capitals (financial, natural, physical, human and social) and pond fish culture and catch out the changes of livelihood capitals, the ordered probit regression model used in this study (Della Lucia et al., 2013). The livelihood capital framework for sustainable development was adopted here. These livelihood capitals included natural, financial, physical, social, and human capital (Carney, 1998; Davies, 1996; Soussan et al., 2000). Each of these capitals was, in turn, dependent on various indicators. Financial capital was dependent on income, employment and savings; physical capital was dependent on household assets, road and transport, market and health care service; natural capital were dependent on water, land, and temperature; social capital was dependent on the social institutional role (early marriage, dowry), decision ability, social prestige, solve conflict and cooperation and human capital was dependent on health, education, training, knowledge and skills, etc.