Next Article in Journal
Bridging the Gap: Assessing Sanitation Practices and Community Engagement for Sustainable Rural Development in the King Sabatha Dalindyebo Municipality, South Africa
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Indoor Thermal Environment and Air Quality in Stone Cave Dwellings in Northern Shanxi, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
GHG Accounting and Gendered Carbon Accountability in a Shipping Agency: A Single-Case Study with Ethnographic Elements
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 23
10.3390/su172310564
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Nutrition-Sensitive Homestead Pond Polyculture Technology Empowers Women in Rural Bangladesh

by
Rumana Akter
1,2,*,
Shakuntala H. Thilsted
3 and
Nobuyuki Yagi
2
1
Nutrition Foundation of Bangladesh, Institute of Public Health Nutrition Building, Room No: 197-201, Mohakhali, Dhaka 1213, Bangladesh
2
Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 1138657, Japan
3
WorldFish, Jalan Batu Maung, Batu Maung, Bayan Lepas 11960, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(23), 10564; https://doi.org/10.3390/su172310564
Submission received: 6 October 2025 / Revised: 13 November 2025 / Accepted: 19 November 2025 / Published: 25 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Gender Equality: Empowering Women and Girls for Sustainable Development)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Women’s empowerment in aquatic food systems play a critical role in increasing production and ensuring food and nutrition security. This study used qualitative data from a mixed-method study to assess whether participation in a nutrition-sensitive homestead pond polyculture systems, targeting both women and men, strengthens women’s decision-making power in fish culture, harvesting, and household food purchase. The project promoted pond polyculture technology of nutrient-rich small and large fish species, which was adopted by the majority of project households (86.3%). Fish harvesting for family consumption and sale was more frequent in project households (24% twice/week; 54.9% once/year) compared to non-project households (13%; 47.8%). Joint decision-making by both women and men on the types of fish species to culture (80.39%) and harvesting time for sale (54.9%) was more common in project households, compared to non-project households (43.48% and 21.74%, respectively). More women in project households (41.2%) decided which fish species to harvest for family consumption, including harvested fish for family consumption (7.8%) and sale (3.9%), compared to non-project households (26.1%, 4.4% and none respectively). The findings reveal three interlinked empowerment pathways: the consumption pathway, via frequent fish harvesting, the income pathway, through fish sales, and the empowerment pathway, through enhanced decision making.

1. Introduction

Despite women making up nearly 50% of the workforce in capture fisheries and aquaculture, they often face limited access to resources, financial support, and decision-making power [1,2,3,4]. Women’s participation is largely confined to post-harvest processing [5]. These gender-based inequalities hinder the performance and inclusivity of agrifood systems, particularly in aquaculture and capture fisheries [6]. To enhance the performance and equity in aquatic food systems, we need to tackle the challenges women face in production, markets, and food choices [7].
Studies have shown that women are up to ten times more likely than men to spend their earnings on family well-being, including education, nutrition, and child health [7,8]. Therefore, women’s empowerment is increasingly recognized as a key strategy to enhance household food and nutrition security [2,9,10]. Several studies have also highlighted the direct impact of women’s empowerment on agricultural productivity and household food and nutrition security [11,12,13,14]. Empowerment is a process by which an individual acquires the capacity for self-determination and the confidence to choose one’s own path [13]. However, the specific domains of empowerment that influence food and nutrition security are not yet fully understood.
The complex and multidimensional nature of women’s empowerment, especially in the agricultural sector, is difficult to measure [3]. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has emphasized that closing the gender gap is essential for increasing agricultural productivity, improving food and nutrition security, and reducing hunger [15,16]. Donor agencies, local governments, and NGOs are increasingly prioritizing women and girls by placing them at the center of development efforts. Women’s empowerment and gender equity are now widely recognized as core objectives of development policy [17,18].
In Bangladesh, subsistence farming of crops and livestock is the mainstay livelihood for nearly 80% of the rural population [11]. Women are predominantly responsible for household duties and childcare. In addition, they also play a vital role in homestead agriculture, poultry rearing, and animal husbandry, thereby contributing significantly to household food and nutrition security. However, their potential is often constrained by a range of barriers. These include limited education, restricted access to learning opportunities, and socio-cultural norms that limit mobility. In addition, inadequate control over productive assets and income further hinders their ability to improve their own health and well-being and that of their families [7,19].
In the context of aquaculture, women’s participation is similarly shaped by gendered expectations. When women are involved in aquaculture, their roles are often confined to post-harvest tasks, such as drying, processing, and cooking. They are rarely engaged in decision-making related to production, pond management, harvesting, sale, or purchasing [20]. Cultural expectations around women’s mobility restrict their access to markets, training, and extension services [21]. Men, on the other hand, traditionally take responsibility for growing, selling, and purchasing food. As a result, men generally make decisions about the family’s diet and control major financial decisions.
Closing these gender gaps is essential, not only for improving women’s well-being and that of their households, but also to strengthen the social and economic sustainability of food systems, improved livelihood resilience, and accelerate progress toward national and global food and nutrition security goals [7,22,23].
Women’s empowerment in aquaculture entails more than participation; it requires meaningful engagement in related productive decisions [24]. In Bangladesh, existing evidence, though limited, indicates substantial gender-based inequities in aquaculture systems [25]. Inadequacies in financial empowerment and asset control remain key barriers to gender equity [24]. However, little is known about the specific roles women play or the extent to which their participation translates into genuine empowerment [26].

Study Context

Studies have shown that dietary intakes in subsistence farming households largely depend on the food supply from their own production [27,28]. Feed the Future (FTF) was a United States Government initiative, explicitly aimed at improving food and nutrition security for rural communities, in 19 focal countries, including Bangladesh [20,29], through food production (consumption pathway: eating nutrient-rich foods from own production or from the market), income generation (indirect pathway: purchasing nutrient-rich foods from the market, using the earnings from selling home-grown agricultural produce) and women’s empowerment (Figure 1).
Aquaculture is the fastest growing agricultural sector globally, and Bangladesh is the fifth largest aquaculture fish producer [31]. About 20% of rural households operate or have access to household ponds, which are used for multiple purposes: bathing, washing clothes and cooking utensils, and watering animals. In addition, these ponds are often used for subsistence fish farming with little or no management: stocking wild fish species that enter during the flooding season, or stocking fish fries and fingerlings harvested from nearby canals, rivers or lakes [32].
One of the FTF’s initiatives was to make use of these under-utilized homestead ponds to maximize fish yields, through engaging women and men in a nutrition-sensitive aquaculture production system (an approach that seeks to maximize agriculture’s contribution to nutrition). It aimed to empower women, through improving their technical skills and capacity on homestead pond polyculture, using a proven fish production technology that integrates small and large fish species [33]. This approach was designed to contribute to improved food and nutrition security of the households through direct consumption and income generation.
It is worth noting that fish is the most commonly consumed animal-source food (ASF) in Bangladesh, compared to other ASFs such as meat (beef, lamb and mutton, sheep, goat, and pork) milk, egg, and chicken; although the quantity of intake is small [34]. Furthermore, fish is the preferred ASF in the study areas and across Bangladesh [35]. However, inadequate intake of ASFs is one of the major factors contributing to poor diet quality and micronutrient (vitamin and minerals) inadequacy among children and women in Bangladesh, as stated by the FAO [36,37].
This study assesses whether nutrition-sensitive homestead pond polyculture, targeting both women and men, was adopted by project households; increased frequency of fish harvesting for family consumption and sale; and was associated with enhanced women’s decision-making power over key aspects of aquaculture and nutrition domains. These domains include fish species selection, the choice of fish culture technologies, timing of fish harvests for both family consumption and sale, participation in harvesting activities, and household food choices, compared to non-project households.

2. Materials and Methods

This study primarily draws on qualitative data, with the exception of fish harvesting frequency, from a previously conducted mixed-methods study carried out in February 2018 in Barisal, a rural district in southern Bangladesh (Figure 2). Barisal district was selected to include households which had participated in a large-scale United States Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded project for five years. Based on the resources available for this study, participants from both project and non-project households were purposively selected from similar socio-demographic backgrounds, to ensure comparability across groups. Details of the methodological approach are described in Akter et al. (2019) [35]. Since the study aimed to assess women’s empowerment in the context of homestead pond aquaculture, the qualitative data used in this study were drawn from households with access to a pond (either owned or leased) and actively practicing aquaculture. Households without pond access were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 75 households (50 project households and 25 non-project households) from the original 100 households included in the parent study. Women of the households with ponds were interviewed to understand who makes decisions regarding fish species selection, types of fish production technology to be used in the homestead pond, time of fish harvesting for family consumption and sale, species of fish to harvest, and person harvesting fish for family consumption and sale.
It is worth noting that women as well as men in the project households had received technical training on nutrition-sensitive fish production technology (polyculture of the small fish species, mola carplet with large fish, such as carp species, and/or tilapia, and/or catfish). Additionally, the training sessions incorporated discussions on equitable workload sharing among household members, promoting a gender-transformative perspective. Selection of mola carplet in the polyculture system was due to this species being a rich source of multiple micronutrients, including vitamin A, vitamin B12, folic acid, calcium, iron, and zinc [38,39,40], which are deficient among the Bangladeshi people [41].
Polyculture of small and large fish species was promoted in the project with the concept that the self-generating, nutrient-rich small indigenous fish mola grows fast and requires partial and frequent harvesting, which encourages households to consume it regularly [33]. Furthermore, large fish species take time to grow and are harvested at the end of the season (after about six months from stocking fingerlings), with the majority being sold for household income [42], which is also used to purchase other foods and non-food items. In this project, women were targeted for aquaculture training, through group sessions and hands-on demonstrations. This initiative aimed to strengthen their technical knowledge and practical skills in homestead pond aquaculture, enabling them to generate income, enhance their mobility, and build negotiation skills (Figure 3).
In contrast, non-project households did not receive any training or support, although they were conducting pond aquaculture on their own. Consistent with the revised Helsinki Declaration in 1983, informed consent was obtained orally from all participants, before interviews were conducted. Furthermore, the study was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of the University of Tokyo.

2.1. Training and Data Collection

Four Bengali-speaking enumerators who had previous experience conducting similar household surveys were recruited. The enumerators received two days of intensive training on administering the semi-structured questionnaire and practical training on conducting an interview. Pre-testing of the questionnaire was conducted and adjustments made accordingly. The semi-structured questionnaire captured both qualitative and quantitative information. Qualitative information included names of cultured fish species, including harvesting technologies used, frequency of fish harvesting for family consumption and sale, person/s in the household making decisions regarding fish species selection and type of fish production technology to be used, time of harvesting for family consumption and sale, person/s harvesting fish for family consumption and sale, and person/s deciding food purchase of the household. Quantitative information for this study included frequency of fish harvesting for family consumption and sale.

2.2. Data Management and Statistical Analysis

Interview responses were manually transcribed and systematically organized. A preliminary codebook was developed based on the study’s core domains: fish production technology, harvesting, food purchase, and intra-household roles related to these activities. Qualitative data were manually coded by trained researchers fluent in Bengali to ensure accurate interpretation of cultural and contextual nuances. To enhance reliability, coding was validated by a second researcher who independently reviewed a subset of transcripts. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus.
Once coding was complete, the data were transferred into Microsoft Excel (Version 2018, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) for organization, quantification, and comparison across households. Thematic categories were quantified by tallying response frequencies across project and non-project households. These frequencies were then converted into percentages using Stata (Version 15.1, StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA), enabling systematic comparison across key indicators. All results are presented as percentages to support clarity and cross-group comparison. Given the primarily qualitative nature of the study, its mixed-methods design, and the use of purposive sampling tailored to the study context, women’s empowerment was assessed using indicators recommended by the Gender and Agricultural Research Network of the CGIAR [43].

3. Results

3.1. Type of Fish Production Technology Practiced by Households

The majority of project households (86.3%) practiced polyculture of the small fish, mola, and large fish species (carp species and/or tilapia, and/or catfish), whereas only about half of non-project households (52.2%) practiced similar polyculture technology (Figure 4). Furthermore, one-third of non-project households (30.4%) practiced polyculture of only large fish species, followed by monoculture of large fish (13.1%), which was much lower among project households (9.8% and 3.9%, respectively).

3.2. Frequency of Fish Harvesting for Family Consumption

About one-quarter of project households (24.0%) harvested fish twice/week for family consumption (Figure 5), while this proportion for non-project households was roughly half that of project households (13.0%). A small proportion of project households (6.0%) even harvested fish three times/week, which was absent in non-project households. One-third of project households (30.0%) reported weekly fish harvesting for family consumption, nearly twice the rate observed in non-project households (17.4%). Frequent fish harvesting was more prevalent among project households, in contrast to the lower harvesting frequency observed among non-project households. Nearly half of non-project households (43.5%) harvested fish monthly for family consumption which was much lower in non-project households (25.5%).

3.3. Frequency of Harvesting Fish for Sale

A majority of project households (54.9%) harvested fish for sale annually (Figure 6), which was lower in non-project households (47.8%). However, nearly two-fifths (39.1%) of non-project households did not sell any fish, almost double that of project households (21.6%). A small proportion of project households harvested fish monthly (3.9%), five times a year (2%), or four times a year; however, this practice was absent in non-project households.

3.4. Decision Making on the Type of Fish Species to Be Cultured

A majority of respondents (80.4%) in project households reported that women and men jointly decided what fish production technology to be used in the homestead ponds (Figure 7). In non-project households, this proportion was about half of project households (43.5%). Men making such decisions alone was four times more common in non-project households (47.8%) than in project households (11.8%). Joint decision-making involving women, men, and other family members was relatively uncommon across both types of households.

3.5. Decision Making on Time of Harvesting Fish for Sale

Joint decision making (Figure 8) by women and men regarding the timing of fish harvesting for sale was more common in project households (68.3%) than in non-project households (33.3%). In contrast, male-only decision-making occurred in the majority of non-project households (60%), whereas it was substantially lower in project households (17.1%). Other decision-making structures, such as engagement of sons, neighbors, or in-laws, was low in both project and non-project households.

3.6. Decision-Making over Types of Fish to Harvest for Family Consumption

More women in project households (41.1%) had decision-making power over types fish to harvest for family consumption (Figure 9) compared to non-project households (26.1%). In non-project households, men were dominant at making this decision (52.2%) compared to project households (31.4%). Joint decision-making by both women and men was similar across both household types (project households, 17.7%, and non-project households, 17.4%).

3.7. Person Harvesting Fish for Family Consumption

Proportion of men harvesting fish for family consumption was substantially lower (37.3%) in project households (Figure 10) compared to non-project households (65.2%). More than one-quarter (27.5%) of project households reported that both women and men harvested fish for family consumption, depending on their availability and workload. For non-project households, it was even less than half of project households (13%). Women-only harvesting of fish for family consumption was reported by few households from both project and non-project households; the proportion was slightly higher in project households (7.4% vs. 4.4%). Harvesting of fish by men/son/father-in-law (17.6%) and women/men/father-in-law (7.8%) depending on their availability at home were also reported by project households and non-project household (8.7% and none respectively).

3.8. Person Deciding Which Foods to Purchase for Family Consumption

Male dominancy in households’ food purchase is reflected in the below graph (Figure 11), although more women in project households made such decisions compared to non-project households. More than a quarter of women in project households (27.5%) made decision on ‘which foods to buy from the market for family consumption’ which was much lower in non-project households (17.4%). More men in non-project households (73.9%) made such decisions compared to project households (54.9%). Moreover, joint decision making by women and men in the household was higher in project households (17.7%) compared to non-project households (8.7%).

4. Discussion

Adoption of polyculture technology with the small fish, mola, and large fish (carp species and/or tilapia and/or catfish) by a large proportion of project households indicated the effectiveness of this technology (Figure 4). Furthermore, close proximity of non-projects households to the project households may have indirectly influenced the adoption of this technology in many non-project households. This finding aligns with previous evidence showing that farmer-to-farmer knowledge transfer is a key mechanism for the dissemination of aquaculture technologies in Bangladesh and in African contexts [44,45].
Studies have shown that homestead pond polyculture systems that combine the nutrient-rich small fish mola with large fish species can substantially improve household micronutrient intake, particularly of vitamin A, vitamin B12, folic acid, calcium, iron, and zinc. This nutritional improvement is largely driven by availability and regular accessibility to small fish, mola, from household production, which enables families to incorporate micronutrient-dense fish into daily meals rather than relying solely on market purchases. [33,38,39,40,46,47]. More frequent fish harvesting for family consumption by the project households highlights nutrition-sensitive aquaculture as a practical pathway for improving household dietary quality (Figure 5). These results are aligned with quantitative findings from Akter et al. (2019) [35], which demonstrated significantly higher per capita fish consumption among project households relative to non-project households [35,48]. Furthermore, self-recruiting small fish like mola require partial and frequent harvesting because they reproduce continuously (spawn multiple times a year), grow quickly, and can overcrowd ponds if left unchecked. This production system necessitates partial and frequent harvesting, which in turn promotes increased frequency and quantity of household fish intake [33,42]. Studies have shown that 47% of all mola produced in homestead ponds were consumed by the households [38,49]. As fish is the most commonly consumed [50,51] and preferred ASF [35] in Bangladesh, ready access to fish at households increase the likelihood of higher consumption, both in frequency and in quantity. This pattern is consistent with evidence that smallholder farmers tend to eat the food they produce and is available at home [52,53]. These findings are reflected in the words of a woman from a project household: ‘following our engagement with the project, now we harvest and eat more mola than before’. Homestead pond farmers (women and men of the household) view fish farming as a source of constant fish supply which lessens their dependency on buying fish from market [45,54]. ‘We harvest fish whenever we need to eat’, said another woman from a project household. Availability and accessibility of fish through increased production as well as nutrition education might have influenced greater fish consumption in project households compared to non-project households [55].
More frequent harvesting of fish for sale (Figure 6) by project households is expected, given the nature of the polyculture technology promoted by the project. This aligns with previous studies indicating that polyculture production systems of small and large fish species, along with women and men participating in aquaculture and nutrition education sessions, enhance both production and productivity. These practices can maximize nutritional benefits from homestead ponds, increasing yields by 23% annually and household income by 30% [56,57,58], through both consumption and income pathways [30,59]. Income derived from homestead ponds can be used for other food and non-food expenditures, such as health care, water and sanitation, and education), which illustrates the broader income–nutrition link in agriculture (Figure 1). This finding is captured in the words of a woman from a project household: ‘we bought egg using the money earned from selling fish to feed my young child.’
To track and evaluate women’s empowerment, the gender and agricultural research network of the CGIAR recommends two indicators [3,43]. The first indicator is women’s control over productive resources such as land, agriculture, aquaculture, livestock, fertilizer, income from sales of agricultural products; the second one is women’s decision-making power over time use and income [60]. Although traditionally women in Bangladesh are deeply involved in post-harvest processing, storage, and other labor-intensive agricultural tasks, they often lack decision-making power and control over economic activities [61,62]. Targeting women in this nutrition-sensitive aquaculture intervention project was through: training women and men on the technical aspects of aquaculture, providing men opportunities to be more receptive of their wives’ knowledge and abilities and seek advice and inputs, and collaborating together, through sharing the workload in the field and at home [19]. In most project households, women and men jointly decided on the fish species to culture and the technologies applied in homestead ponds (Figure 4). This pattern illustrates the effectiveness of women-targeted aquaculture interventions in promoting gender-equitable participation and shared control over production resources. In contrast, non-project households rely more heavily on male-dominated decision structures, which may limit women’s agency and shared control over production and marketing. This pattern is further reinforced by the findings that joint decision-making by both women and men regarding market related decisions, particularly the timing of fish harvesting for commercial sale in project households (Figure 8). In contrast, non-project households remain more male-dominated decision making, especially in financial matters. These findings support the argument that aquaculture interventions designed with a gender lens can shift household dynamics, fostering more equitable participation in both production and marketing decisions [20,63].
A higher proportion of women in project households decided which fish to harvest for family consumption compared to non-project households, suggesting an important dimension of women’s decision-making power (Figure 9). In contrast, in non-project households, more than half of men made this decision alone. Furthermore, it was encouraging to see that, in project households, both women and men harvested fish for family consumption based on their availability and workload (Figure 10), whereas, in non-project households, the majority reported that men were solely responsible for this task. This shift toward more equitable roles is reflected in the words of a woman from a project household: ‘if my husband is busy with outside work, then I harvest fish for family consumption.’ More women in project households decided what foods to purchase, including fish from the market, whereas fewer women made this decision in non-project households (Figure 11). In contrast, the percentage of men making these decisions alone was significantly higher in non-project households compared to project households. These results are consistent with studies that show the most notable impact of women’s engagement in aquaculture projects is their increased participation in household decision-making [58,64], intra-household bargaining, and their growing respect and voice within the family and community [64,65].

4.1. Practical Implication of the Study

The study demonstrated that existing homestead ponds that are under-managed or under-utilized can be transformed into productive resources for household nutrition and income generation. This low-cost, resource-efficient approach could be scaled in other low- and middle-income countries, with adaptation to local contexts. This approach fosters shared decision-making and reduces gender asymmetries in aquaculture. This insight is valuable for NGOs, government programs, and donors involved in designing inclusive agricultural interventions. Furthermore, the homestead pond polyculture system is recognized as a climate-resilient strategy, particularly through the integration of self-generating small fish species like mola, which require minimal or no inputs, grow rapidly, and adapt well to seasonal variability [66]. This technology holds promise for enhancing household nutrient resilience in the face of climate change. This approach aligns with broader efforts to build resilient, nutrition-sensitive food systems in vulnerable contexts.

4.2. Research Significance

This study contributes to the limited empirical literature linking nutrition-sensitive aquaculture to women’s empowerment. It reinforces the conceptual understanding that agricultural interventions can simultaneously enhance nutrition, promote income generation, and strengthen gender equity.
The findings of the study also align with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). The promotion of nutrition-sensitive homestead pond polyculture supports SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) by increasing household access to nutrient-rich small fish such as mola, thereby reducing the risk of food and nutrition insecurity, particularly for women and children. By enhancing women’s participation in aquaculture-related decision-making and improving their technical knowledge, skills, and control over productive resources, the study contributes to SDG 5 (Gender Equality). The use of low-input, ecologically balanced polyculture practices align with SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) by promoting efficient resource use and sustainable food production. The cultivation of small indigenous fish species within diversified pond ecosystems contributes to SDG 14 (Life Below Water) by maintaining aquatic biodiversity, reducing pressure on wild capture fisheries, and fostering environmentally sustainable aquaculture practices.

4.3. Policy Implications of the Study

The findings of this study underscore the transformative potential of gender-responsive, nutrition-sensitive aquaculture in advancing food and nutrition security in rural Bangladesh. The observed transition from male-dominated to joint decision-making within households underscores the importance of inclusive training and skill development approaches that actively involve both women and men. Moreover, the diffusion of polyculture practices beyond direct project households suggests that community-based knowledge transfer can be a scalable strategy. These insights call for policy frameworks that institutionalize women’s empowerment as a core objective in aquaculture development, linking production technologies with nutrition outcomes and equitable resource governance.

4.4. Policy Recommendations

Policymakers should promote homestead pond polyculture systems that integrate nutrient-rich small indigenous fish species, such as mola, alongside larger fish species. This approach enables frequent harvesting for household consumption, improving family nutrition, while periodic harvesting of larger fish for sale generates income that can be used to purchase other nutritious foods.
To maximize impact, agricultural policies should support inclusive aquaculture training that engages both women and men, fosters joint decision-making, and enhances women’s access to productive resources. These findings underscore the need for gender-responsive, nutrition-sensitive aquaculture programs that strengthen women’s agency across household food production, harvesting, marketing, and consumption.

5. Conclusions

The study provides empirical evidence that nutrition-sensitive pond polyculture, combined with gender-responsive training and capacity development involving both women and men, can contribute to women’s empowerment across three interrelated domains. These include dietary consumption, through frequent harvesting of nutrient-rich fish for family use; income generation, via fish sales that strengthen women’s economic roles; and decision-making, reflected in increased participation in aquaculture production, harvesting, and food-purchasing decisions.
Comparative analysis between project and non-project households revealed that a higher proportion of project households adopted polyculture practices, harvested fish more frequently for both consumption and sale, and involved women more actively in decisions related to aquaculture management, harvesting, sale, and household food purchases. These findings suggest that aquaculture interventions designed with a gender lens can shift intra-household dynamics, promote shared control over productive resources, and contribute to improved household nutrition and income. Scaling such approaches in resource-constrained settings with pond access may offer a viable strategy to advance gender equity and food security.
Limitations of the study: The qualitative data for this study was derived from mixed-methods research that included both aquaculture and non-aquaculture households. However, the qualitative component was limited to households with access to a pond (either owned or leased) and actively practicing homestead aquaculture. Consequently, the insights presented in this study are specific to households engaged in aquaculture. These findings should not be generalized to the broader population included in the original study.
While qualitative research prioritizes depth over representativeness, the unequal sample sizes (50 project households and 25 non-project households) may have influenced the comparative richness of insights. This asymmetry should be considered when interpreting cross-group patterns in decision-making and empowerment.

Author Contributions

R.A. conceptualized and designed the study, analyzed the data, and prepared the original draft; N.Y. guided the overall survey design and reviewed the questionnaire, fund acquisition; S.H.T. and N.Y. reviewed, edited, and contributed to formulating the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding for conducting the survey was provided by the JSPS, Grant number: 16H02565.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the research ethics roles of the University of Tokyo. The University of Tokyo introduced a new system for the applications and approvals for surveys targeting to human and animals in 2020. The Bangladesh survey was conducted in 2018, prior to the implementation of this system, and no records are currently retrievable. The supervisor has confirmed the above information.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). The authors would like to acknowledge the data collection team for their integrity and hard work. We thank Rida Rahman for her valuable support in the visualization and refinement of the conceptual framework underpinning our exploration of women’s empowerment trajectories.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Ahmed, M.K.; Sadeka, H.; Shamima, S. Participation of women in aquaculture in three coastal districts of Bangladesh: Approaches toward sustainable livelihood. World J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 8, 253–268. [Google Scholar]
  2. Verhart, N.; van den Wijngaart, A.; Dhamankar, M.; Danielsen, K. Bringing agriculture and nutrition together. AIDS 2015, 30, 1403-1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Akter, S.; Rutsaert, P.; Luis, J.; Htwe, N.M.; San, S.S.; Raharjo, B.; Pustika, A. Women’s empowerment and gender equity in agriculture: A different perspective from Southeast Asia. Food Policy 2017, 69, 270–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Food and Agriculture Organization. Gender in Fisheries and Aquaculture. Available online: https://www.fao.org/gender/learning-center/thematic-areas/gender-in-fisheries-and-aquaculture/en (accessed on 19 June 2025).
  5. Akter, S.; Krupnik, T.J.; Rossi, F.; Khanam, F. The influence of gender and product design on farmers’ preferences for weather-indexed crop insurance. Glob. Environ. Change 2016, 38, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Anderson, C.; Tiitii, U.; Madar, L.; Tanielu, E.; Larson, S.; Swanepoel, L. Unpacking gendered roles across the seaweed value chain in Samoa using photo elicitation methods. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2023, 232, 106420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Adam, R.; Lam, R.D.; Lozano Lazo, D.P.; McDougall, C.; Rajaratnam, S.; Ouko, K.; Rossignoli, C.M. Using a sustainable food systems framework to examine gender equality and women’s empowerment in aquatic food systems. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2024, 8, 1327798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Maertens, M.; Verhofstadt, E. Horticultural Exports Female Wage Employment and Primary School Enrolment: Theory and Evidence from Senegal. Food Policy 2013, 43, 118–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Richards, E.; Tolhurst, R.; Theobald, S. Gender Influences A Narrative Review on Child Survival, Health and Nutrition; United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF): New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  10. Galiè, A.; Teufel, N.; Girard, A.W.; Baltenweck, I.; Dominguez-Salas, P.; Price, M.J.; Jones, R.; Lukuyu, B.; Korir, L.; Raskind, I.; et al. Women’s empowerment, food security and nutrition of pastoral communities in Tanzania. Glob. Food Sec. 2019, 23, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sraboni, E.; Malapit, H.J.; Quisumbing, A.R.; Ahmed, A.U. Women’s empowerment in agriculture: What role for food security in Bangladesh? World Dev. 2014, 61, 11–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Harper, S.; Zeller, D.; Hauzer, M.; Pauly, D.; Sumaila, U.R. Women and fisheries: Contribution to food security and local economies. Mar. Policy 2013, 39, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. SPRING Project. Understanding the Women’s Empowerment Pathway; Improving Nutrition through Agriculture Technical Brief Series, Brief #4; Strengthening Partnerships, Results, and Innovations in Nutrition Globally (SPRING), JSI Research & Training Institute, Inc.: Arlington, VA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  14. Smith, L.C.; Ramakrishnan, U.; Ndiaye, A.; Haddad, L.; Martorell, R. The importance of women’s status for child nutrition in developing countries. Food Nutr. Bull. 2003, 24, 287–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Galiè, A.; Jiggins, J.; Struik, P.C.; Grando, S.; Ceccarelli, S. “Women’s empowerment through seed improvement and seed governance: Evidence from participatory barley breeding in pre-war Syria”. NJAS—Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2017, 81, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. FAO. Women in agriculture: Closing the gender gap for development. In The State of Food and Agriculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gates, M.F. Putting women and girls at the center of development. Science 2014, 345, 1273–1275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. World Bank. World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  19. WFP; FAO; UNICEF. Role of Food Security and Nutrition Interventions in Empowering Women; FAO: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  20. Choudhury, A.; Mcdougall, C.L.; Rajaratnam, S. Women’s Empowerment in Aquaculture: Two Case Studies from Bangladesh. 2017. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319477804 (accessed on 1 November 2025).
  21. Food and Agriculture Organization. Women’s Empowerment in Aquaculture in Bangladesh and Indonesia: Insights from Four Case Studies Background: Women in Aquaculture in Bangladesh and Indonesia; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  22. Matovu, B.; Bleischwitz, R.; Alkoyak-Yildiz, M.; Arlikatti, S. Invigorating women’s empowerment in marine fishing to promote transformative cultures and narratives for sustainability in the blue economy: A scoping literature review from the Global South. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Chang. 2024, 29, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Closing the gender gap in agriculture. Gender and Agriculture Research Network; Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR): Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  24. Njogu, L.; Adam, R.; Farnworth, C.R. Assessing women’s empowerment, participation, and engagement in aquaculture in Bangladesh. Aquac. Int. 2024, 32, 6303–6331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ishita, I.J. Sustainability of Aquaculture and its Impact on Rural Women of Bangladesh; North South University: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kruijssen, F.; Adam, R.; Choudhury, A.; Danielsen, K.; McDougall, C.L.; Newton, J.; Smits, E.; Shelley, C. A Gendered Aquaculture Value Chain Analysis in Northwestern Bangladesh; USAID: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
  27. Yu, B. From Plot to Plate: Linking Agricultural Productivity and Human Nutrition in Bangladesh. In Proceedings of the International Association of Agricultural Economists, Foz do Iguacu, Brazil, 18–24 August 2012. [Google Scholar]
  28. Parasuraman, S.; Rajaretnam, T. Agriculture, food security and nutrition in Vidarbha: A household level analysis. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 2011, 46, 42–50. [Google Scholar]
  29. Feed the Future, the U.S. Government’s Global Hunger and Food Security Initiative. Available online: https://www.feedthefuture.gov/about/ (accessed on 18 September 2019).
  30. Herforth, A.; Harris, J. Improving Nutrition through Agriculture Technical Brief Series: Understanding and Applying Primary Pathways and Principles; USAID/Strengthening Partnerships, Results, and Innovations in Nutrition Globally (SPRING) Project: Arlington, VA, USA, 2014.
  31. WorldFish. Gender and Aquaculture: Sharing the Benefits Equitably; WorldFish: Penang, Malaysia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  32. Belton, M.B.; Karim, M.; Thilsted, S.; Murshed-E-Jahan, K.; Collis, W.; Phillips, M. Review of Aquaculture & Fish Consumption in Bangladesh Review of Aquaculture and Fish Consumption in Bangladesh; WorldFish: Penang, Malaysia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  33. Castine, S.A.; Bogard, J.R.; Barman, B.K.; Karim, M.; Hossain, M.; Kunda, M.; Mahfuzul Haque, A.B.M.; Phillips, M.J.; Thilsted, S.H. Homestead pond polyculture can improve access to nutritious small fish. Food Secur. 2017, 9, 785–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). Preliminary Report on Households Income and Expenditure Survey 2016; Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS): Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2017.
  35. Akter, R.; Thilsted, S.H.; Hossain, N.; Ishihara, H.; Yagi, N. Fish is the Preferred Animal-Source Food in the Rural Community of Southern Bangladesh. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. FAO/WHO. Bangladesh Country Paper—Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  37. Headey, D.D.; Hirvonen, K.; Hoddinott, J.F. Animal Sourced Foods and Child Stunting. IFPRI Discussion Paper 1695; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  38. Roos, N.; Islam, M.M.; Thilsted, S.H. Small Indigenous Fish Species in Bangladesh: Contribution to Vitamin A, Calcium and Iron Intakes. J. Nutr. 2003, 133, 4021S–4026S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Shaheen, N.; Rahim, A.T.M.A.; Mohiduzzaman; Banu, C.P.; Bari, L.; Tukun, A.B.; Mannan, M.A.; Bhattacharjee, L.; Stadlmayr, B. Food Composition Table for Bangladesh; Institute of Nutrition and Food Science, Center for Advanced Research and in Sciences: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bogard, J.R.; Thilsted, S.H.; Marks, G.C.; Wahab, M.A.; Hossain, M.A.R.; Jakobsen, J.; Stangoulis, J. Nutrient composition of important fish species in Bangladesh and potential contribution to recommended nutrient intakes. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2015, 42, 120–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. ICDDR’B, UNICEF, Bangladesh, GAIN. Final Report: National Micronutrients Status Survey 2011-12; Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  42. Milstein, A.; Wahab, M.A.; Kadir, A.; Sagor, M.F.H.; Islam, M.A. Effects of intervention in the water column and/or pond bottom through species composition on polycultures of large carps and small indigenous species. Aquaculture 2009, 286, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. CGIAR. Common Gender & Empowerment IDO. CGIAR Gender and Agriculture Research Network; CGIAR: Montpellier, France, 2014. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10947/3171 (accessed on 18 September 2019).
  44. Izuchukwu, A.; Erezi, E.; Emeka, E.D. Assessing the Impact of Farmer-to-Farmer Communication Networks on Knowledge Sharing and Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Africa. Int. J. Agric. Earth Sci. 2023, 9, 58–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jahan, K.M.; Belton, B.; Hazrat, A.; Goutam, C.D.; Ara, I. Aquaculture Technologies in Bangladesh: An Assessment of Technical and Economic Performance and Producer Behavior; WorldFish: Penang, Malaysia, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. WorldFish. Polyculture of Carps and Mola in Ponds and Ponds Connected to Rice Fields; WorldFish: Penang, Malaysia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  47. Roos, N. Fish Consumption and Aquaculture in Rural Bangladesh: Nutritional Contribution and Production Potential of Culturing Small Indigenous Fish Species (SIS) in Pond Polyculture with Commonly Cultured Carps. Ph.D. Thesis, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  48. Parrao, C.G.; Shisler, S.; Moratti, M.; Yavuz, C.; Acharya, A.; Eyers, J.; Snilstveit, B. Aquaculture for improving productivity, income, nutrition and women’s empowerment in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2021, 17, e1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ahmmed, A.U.; Nahiduzzaman, M.; Sayeed, M.A.; Akter, M.; Hossain, M.A.R. Consumption pattern of small indigenous species (SIS) of fish with special emphasis on mola (Amblypharyngodon mola) among growers and non-growers level. J. Agrofor. Environ. 2008, 2, 167–170. [Google Scholar]
  50. James P Grant School of Public Health and National Nutrition Services. State of food security and nutrition in Bangladesh 2015; James P Grant School of Public Health and National Nutrition Services: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  51. Thorne-Lyman, A.L.; Valpiani, N.; Akter, R.; Baten, A.; Genschick, S.; Karim, M.; Thilsted, S.H. Fish and Meat Are Often Withheld From the Diets of Infants 6 to 12 Months in Fish-Farming Households in Rural Bangladesh. Food Nutr. Bull. 2017, 38, 354–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Castro, A.F. An Approach to the Food Habits of Three Communities in Timor-Leste; Care International Timor-Leste: Dili, Timor-Leste, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  53. Stellmacher, T.; Kelboro, G. Family Farms, Agricultural Productivity, and the Terrain of Food (In)security in Ethiopia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Janči, T.; Putnik, P. Sustainable fish production: Aquaculture systems and environmental impacts. In Environmental Remediation in Agri-Food Industry Using Nanotechnology and Sustainable Strategies; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2025; pp. 7–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Herforth, A.; Ahmed, S. The food environment, its effects on dietary consumption, and potential for measurement within agriculture-nutrition interventions. Food Secur. 2015, 7, 505–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wahab, M.; Kadir, A.; Milstein, A.; Kunda, M. Manipulation of species combination for enhancing fish production in polyculture systems involving major carps and small indigenous fish species. Aquaculture 2011, 321, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. E-Jahan, K.M.; Ahmed, M.; Belton, B. The impacts of aquaculture development on food security: Lessons from Bangladesh. Aquac. Res. 2010, 41, 481–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Faruque, G. An Exploration of Impacts of Aquaculture Production and Marketing on Rural Livelihoods in Three Regions in Bangladesh. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  59. Webb, P. Impact Pathways from Agricultural Research to Improved Nutrition and Health: Literature Analysis and Research Priorities; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Alkire, S.; Meinzen-Dick, R.; Peterman, A.; Quisambing, A.R.; Seymour, G.; Vez, A. The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index; OPHI Working Paper No. 58. Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative, University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  61. Akhtar, S. Contributions of women in the agriculture sector of Bangladesh. CGIAR GENDER Platform annual conference 2023. Poster. In Proceedings of the CGIAR GENDER Conference “From Research to Impact: Towards Just and Resilient Agri-Food Systems”, New Delhi, India, 9–12 October 2023. [Google Scholar]
  62. Chakma, K.; Ruba, U.B. Role of Bangladeshi Women in Diverse Agricultural Production: A Review. Eur. J. Agric. Food Sci. 2021, 3, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dupuis, S.; Hennink, M.; Wendt, A.S.; Waid, J.L.; Kalam, A.; Gabrysch, S.; Sinharoy, S.S. Women’s empowerment through homestead food production in rural Bangladesh. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Samina Shirajee, S.; Salehin, M.M.; Ahmed, N. The changing face of women for small scale aquaculture development in rural Bangladesh. Aquac. Asia Mag. 2012, 15, 9–16. [Google Scholar]
  65. Farnworth, C.R.; Sultana, N.; Kantor, P.; Choudhury, A. Gender Integration in Aquaculture Research and Technology Adoption Processes: Lessons Learned in Bangladesh; WorldFish: Penang, Malaysia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  66. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 10564 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual Pathways between Agriculture and Nutrition. Women’s empowerment pathway is highlighted in blue [30].
Figure 1. Conceptual Pathways between Agriculture and Nutrition. Women’s empowerment pathway is highlighted in blue [30].
Sustainability 17 10564 g001
Sustainability 17 10564 g002
Figure 2. Study site: Barisal district, Bangladesh.
Figure 2. Study site: Barisal district, Bangladesh.
Sustainability 17 10564 g002
Sustainability 17 10564 g003
Figure 3. Conceptual Framework: Women’s Empowerment Pathways in Nutrition-Sensitive Pond Polyculture Systems and Associated Impacts. Empowerment outcomes are indicated in green.
Figure 3. Conceptual Framework: Women’s Empowerment Pathways in Nutrition-Sensitive Pond Polyculture Systems and Associated Impacts. Empowerment outcomes are indicated in green.
Sustainability 17 10564 g003
Sustainability 17 10564 g004
Figure 4. Fish production technology practiced by households (%).
Figure 4. Fish production technology practiced by households (%).
Sustainability 17 10564 g004
Sustainability 17 10564 g005
Figure 5. Frequency of harvesting fish for family consumption (%).
Figure 5. Frequency of harvesting fish for family consumption (%).
Sustainability 17 10564 g005
Sustainability 17 10564 g006
Figure 6. Frequency of fish harvesting for sale (%).
Figure 6. Frequency of fish harvesting for sale (%).
Sustainability 17 10564 g006
Sustainability 17 10564 g007
Figure 7. Decision making on type fish species to culture (%).
Figure 7. Decision making on type fish species to culture (%).
Sustainability 17 10564 g007
Sustainability 17 10564 g008
Figure 8. Person deciding on fish harvesting times for sale (%).
Figure 8. Person deciding on fish harvesting times for sale (%).
Sustainability 17 10564 g008
Sustainability 17 10564 g009
Figure 9. Person deciding which fish species to harvest for family consumption (%).
Figure 9. Person deciding which fish species to harvest for family consumption (%).
Sustainability 17 10564 g009
Sustainability 17 10564 g010
Figure 10. Person harvested fish for family consumption (%).
Figure 10. Person harvested fish for family consumption (%).
Sustainability 17 10564 g010
Sustainability 17 10564 g011
Figure 11. Person decided which foods to purchase for family consumption.
Figure 11. Person decided which foods to purchase for family consumption.
Sustainability 17 10564 g011
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Akter, R.; Thilsted, S.H.; Yagi, N. Nutrition-Sensitive Homestead Pond Polyculture Technology Empowers Women in Rural Bangladesh. Sustainability 2025, 17, 10564. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172310564

AMA Style

Akter R, Thilsted SH, Yagi N. Nutrition-Sensitive Homestead Pond Polyculture Technology Empowers Women in Rural Bangladesh. Sustainability. 2025; 17(23):10564. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172310564

Chicago/Turabian Style

Akter, Rumana, Shakuntala H. Thilsted, and Nobuyuki Yagi. 2025. "Nutrition-Sensitive Homestead Pond Polyculture Technology Empowers Women in Rural Bangladesh" Sustainability 17, no. 23: 10564. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172310564

APA Style

Akter, R., Thilsted, S. H., & Yagi, N. (2025). Nutrition-Sensitive Homestead Pond Polyculture Technology Empowers Women in Rural Bangladesh. Sustainability, 17(23), 10564. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172310564

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop