Human activities have already caused some irreparable changes to ecosystem. Hence, it is necessary to think about how we will regulate not only the specific changes but also the new improbability about our future climate. This is particularly pertinent for developing countries, where it will be necessary to attend many institutional and capability issues in order to ensure sustainable livelihood approach through entire state of climate change. Since the objective of this research was to evaluate the role of floating bed cultivation practice on rural livelihood, Barishal district was selected as the study area because the area remain submerged for a longer period of time in post monsoon. Accordingly, to cope with this situation, floating cultivation is largely practiced as an indigenous method of cultivation in this region. Two unions of Banaripara Upazila were selected purposively from Barishal district. The sample size was 80 taking 40 farmers from each union, namely Biswarkandi and Illuhar. During the pilot survey, the researchers observed that most of the people in this area concentrated in this traditional practice. A purposive sampling technique was adapted to fulfill the objective of the research..
The study was mainly primary data based and a structured questionnaire was used for data collection. To measure the sustainability aspect of floating cultivation as a livelihood option, Ian Scoone’s Livelihood framework had been used. The framework identified vulnerability as the key issue of assessing the sustainability of livelihood. There are two aspects of livelihood vulnerability: one is the external threat to livelihood security i.e. stress and shock and the other is the ability to cope with them i.e. adaptation and resilience. The livelihood outcomes are the gauge of sustainability: if a livelihood option can create adequate income without risking the continuity, that livelihood can be considered sustainable. The framework identified some outcome variables which could measure the extent of sustainability. The livelihood outcomes are the end results of the livelihood strategies, i.e. income, well-being, reduced vulnerability and improved food safety. The livelihood outcomes are altered from assets that depend upon the access to assets. Livelihood outcomes are not comparable, since assets change over point in time among people. Also some parts of the outcome are conceptual and subjective, which cannot be measured. Sustainable livelihood framework identifies five different kind of capital assets which are vital to make a livelihood sustainable: human, social, natural, financial, and physical. Five livelihood assets are discussed below: Human assets: Human assets refer to peoples’ ability and knowledge, as well as good physical condition and ability to work, which together allow people to track different livelihood strategies and achieve their livelihood objectives. Human assets are necessary for making use of any other possessions available and are, therefore, required for creating revenue. Social assets: Social asset consists of social resources (for example, networks, social claims, social relations, affiliations, associations). Social assets are important, since they create a safety net and a buffer against shocks. The livelihood strategies are beneficial when social capital building lump together. Natural assets: Natural capital is the stocks, from which natural resources are being consumed. The natural assets represent the access to natural capital (DFID, 1999). Many people get their income directly from the natural resources, making the natural assets very important for their livelihoods. Floating cultivation is a natural resource based practice. Physical assets: Physical assets incorporate infrastructure, production equipment and technologies. All infrastructure and equipment supporting the livelihood are physical assets. As for instance, floating cultivation is an adaptive technology which might be an effective physical asset to defend shocks during disaster.
Economic or financial assets: Financial assets mean capital base (for example, cash, credit/debt, savings and other economic assets). This research showed how this type of floating cultivation practice would help vulnerable people to cope with capital requirement. To measure livelihood outcome of floating cultivation, three dimensions had been considered: environmental, social and economic dimensions.
To identify the main motivational factors of practicing floating cultivation based on the opinion of the farmers, Weighted Mean Index (WMI) had been constructed. The probable motivational factors to practice floating cultivation that have been incorporated in measurement of WMI.