The study has been carried out following both qualitative and quantitative method. The survey, case study and focus group discussion have been used to assess the nature of vulnerability of the respondents. A census has been conducted in October, 2013 which was counted to 1414 as the population of this study. In this context to determine the sample size, half of the household heads (Total-707; female-143, male-564) were selected by using Simple Random Sampling. The respondents were selected from the poor vulnerable people of Rupsha (352), Khalishpur (156), Tutpara (127), Nirala (44) and Gollamari (28) of Khulna City. The study highlighted the importance of specific areas especially because of closure of many industries in Rupsha and Khalishpur, slum areas are responsible for the vulnerability of large groups of households which had pushed many households into near-destitution. To assess the vulnerability and their sustainable livelihood the household heads were selected as the respondents who have been residing at that area for at least 10 years. For focus group discussion the group of 10 respondents from each area were purposively selected. Moreover to understand the vulnerable situation of the urban poor 20 respondents were considered as cases. In this study five tools viz. household income, access to health (medical facilities), available natural resources, social resources and disaster situation are used to understand the sustainability of the livelihood. The study includes 5 types of assets; land, water, sunlight and air quality, trees and opens spaces as natural resource. To assess the social resource five tools such as family relation, relation with the outsider, political involvement, relation with wider institution and participation in community based organization are used.
To identify the poor people the estimates of household income for the typical household is based on family income not more than US $2 per day (World Bank, 2013). During the field survey from October, 2013 to March, 2015 the conversion rate of US$ 1 was equivalent to almost Taka 77.63 (Bangladeshi currency). In this regard the household heads having (78*4=312*30= Taka 9360) not more than Taka 10000 monthly income were considered as the unit of analysis.
Poor and vulnerable people of the study area: To measure the poverty situation standard analysis of urban poverty has been followed. It involves the use of poverty lines based on income or estimates of extreme poverty. It is measured by the proportion of people living on less than US$ 1.25 per day (World Bank, 2013) and moderate poverty as less than US$ 2. As the conversion rate of US$ 1 was equivalent to almost Taka 77.63 during field survey in this study the household earning Taka 6000 per month has been considered as absolutely poor (living on less than US$ 1.25 per day) and 10000 taka monthly earning household has been considered as moderately poor (living on less than US$2 per day). Regarding intake of food the study estimates the cost of acquiring enough food for adequate nutrition usually 2,100 kilo calories per person per day where the average calorie per person is estimated at nearly 1452 kilo calories.
The key components of the diet selected by the cost of the diet software are papaya, a green leafy vegetable called pui shak and coconut meat. Cheese has been identified by the software as an expensive source of protein, fat, vitamin A, vitamin B2, niacin, vitamin B12 (providing a 100% of the requirement for this nutrient) and calcium. Green leafy vegetables such as pui and palong shak have been identified as inexpensive sources of vitamin A, soluble B group vitamins, folic acid and iron. Recommended intakes for vitamin C and being provided primarily by pommel (similar to grapefruit) and ripe papaya.
The data indicate that the annual cost of the diet for the typical household is estimated to be 39,720 (BDT). The minimum cost of a diet that meets only a household’s energy need has been estimated at between 98 – 122 BDT per day, depending on the season and features found in the markets in the study areas of Khulna City.
Cumulative Vulnerability Index (CVI): In this study to measure the vulnerability of the respondents the Cumulative Vulnerability Index (CVI) has been constructed following the cumulative food security index of Maxwell (1995) and the cumulative empowerment index of Parveen and Leonhäuser (2004). The quantitative part correspond to five categories e.g., 1 = very low and 5 = very high. Each indicator assigned a quantitative rank from 1 to 5 according to the total score for access to and control over resources based on the field survey. The qualitative dimension is formed to rank the key seven indicators from total scores assigned by the respondents. Table 1 represents the way of constructing the CVI: Measurement of Explained (Dependent) Variables. CVI varies from 30 to 114 in which 30 denotes the highest level of vulnerability and 114 denotes the lowest level of vulnerability.