Coastal Resource Management In Kanniyakuamari Coast, Tamil Nadu, India. Using Remote Sensing and Geographical Information System

Hajeeran Beevi.N et al. Int. Journal of Engineering Research and Applications www.ijera.com
ISSN: 2248-9622, Vol. 5, Issue 7, (Part - 2) July 2015, pp.88-102
www.ijera.com 88 | P a g e
Coastal Resource Management In Kanniyakuamari Coast, Tamil
Nadu, India. Using Remote Sensing and Geographical
Information System
Hajeeran Beevi.N, 2. Sivakumar.S, and 3. Vasanthi.R
1. Department Of Geography, Periyar E.V.R. College ( Autunomus),Trichirappalli – 23. Tamil Nadu, India.
2. Department Of Geology, National College, Trichirappalli-1, Tamil Nadu, India.
3. Department of Industries & Earth Sciences, Tamil University, Thanjavur- 613 010, Tamil Nadu, India.
Abstract
The Coastal Resource Management of Kanniyakumari coast which is Located in the Southern Part of Tamil
Nadu (India) is situated in this article. They study has made use of Socio economic data to identify the Resource
Management status of the study Area. The software like ArcGis are used to demarcated the coastal Resource
management of Kanniyakumari coast. The Total area 715 Sq.m. Kanniyakumari coast about 42 Fishing Landing
Centers the distribution of fishing villages in Kanniyakumari coast. The total annual Fish production is 42716.60
tonnes during to 2011-212.
I. INTRODUCTION
Broadly speaking, natural resources are any
elements of nature that can be used by humans
including drinking water, oil and gas, minerals, sea
food game animals, fodder, fuel wood, timber and
pharmaceutical products usually, however, the term
natural resources is used an economic sense to mean
any resources occurring in nature that can create
wealth and is controlled by a particular state or
authority. Distinctions are made between living and
non- living resources, as well. A non-renewable
resource is a resource that is not replaced or is
replaced only slowly by natural processes. Primary
examples of non-renewable resources are minerals
and the fossil fuels that is oil, natural gas and coal. A
renewable resource, in contract, is a resource that is
replaced rapidly by natural processes. Examples of
resources are sunlight, and wild life products.
Coastal resources are rich in both terrestrial and
marine natural resources. In recent years, sea weed
and pearl forming have been encouraged as well as
agriculture to prevent depletion of fishery resources.
The coastal zone is a finite “resources” in that it
can only support a certain amount of activity before
its limitations are realized. This process is often
termed the “carrying capacity” of the coast. The
coastal fishery is a highly productive sector in Tamil
Nadu as well as in Kanniyakumari coast. It is also a
source of valuable food and employment. An attempt
has been made in this chapter to study the marine fish
production and development and operational
practices of Kanniyakumari coast, Tamil Nadu.
Social and environmental indicators research is
experiencing a renaissance at present, especially in
the arena of sustainability science. For example, the
United Nations development programmes. Human
Development Index (UNDP, 2000) provides a
composite indicator of human well being, as well as
indicator of gender disparity and poverty among
nations – measures that has been used for more than
one decade. Similarly, the World Bank (2001)
provides data on the links between environmental
condition and human welfare, especially in
developing nations, to monitor national progress
toward a more sustainability future. An index has
been developed to measure the environmental
sustainability of national economies.
Meanwhile, a set of indicator to monitor and
assess ecological conditions for public policy
decision has been proposed (National Research
Council, 2000). Similarly, the U.S environmental
protection agency (2002) is using a small set of
environmental indicators to track progress in
hazardous waste remedies. Finally, the social capital
embodied in various communities has been surveyed
in selected communities to determine a baseline, and
a comparative assessment of American Social and
civic engagement at the local level (Social Capital
Community Benchmark Survey, 2002). Despite these
efforts, is still no consistent set of metrics used to
assess Vulnerability to environmental hazards,
although there have been call for just such an index.
II. STUDY AREA
The study area selected for the present research
is the Kannyakuamari coast of Tamil Nadu State
extending from south of Tamirabarani river bank to
India Ocean, in the south and a breadth of 10 km in
RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS

east – west direction. Thus totaling length of 71.5 km
(east coast west coast 60km and 11.5 km and total
area coverage is 715 km2) (Fig 1) it is bounded by
the north latitudes 80˚04’N and 80˚17’N the east
longitudes of 77˚32’E and 74˚54’E and falling in
parts of survey of India topographic sheets (SOI) and
58 H/12, 58 H/8, 58 H/4, on 1:50000 scale. The study
area has well developed network of roads and railway
lines providing good linkages with major cities in
Tamil Nadu and also with rest of the country. Many
major towns of, Pilgrimage attraction
(Kannyakumari,) tourist’s importance are located in
the study area.
Kannyakumari coast is bounded by Tirunelveli
District the north and the Gulf of Manner is in the
east, on the south and southwest bounded by Indian
ocean and Arabian sea and the North West it is
bounded by Kerala.
III. OBJECTIVES
The present study aims to analyses the important
coastal resources through inventory and mapping
with following objectives. To evaluate and to
demarcate the natural resources of the coast of
Kannyakumari using appropriate methods of
assessment. in addition to that require details through
pre-field investigation finding and demarcate the
resource region. To assess Land Use and Land cover
status for the past ten years with help of IRS IC
(LISS III). To analyze the marine fish production in
the study area. To identity impact zonation along the
coastal zone with their environmental problems.To
integrated coastal resources with their management
strategies and planning.
IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Base map with all physical and cultural details
has been prepared from the topographical sheets
published by the Survey of India (SOI) on 1: 50000
scale. After having set up the objectives of the study
primary and secondary base line data have been
collected and analyzed in order to understand the
existing condition of the study area (Profile) in detail
on various physical economic and social attributes as
it reveals the human relationship between man and
resources of the study area. An understanding of such
relationship is a path finder to any evaluation for an
area to how present status could be preserved,
changed or improved. 42 village papers have been
referred for bringing socio-economic profile of the
study area, apart from the published and unpublished
report of different departments. Preparing Location
map based on Gis. The fishery management of these
sectors is delineated nearly 42 fishery villages to
engage the fishing activities, and study included the
collection of information, estimation of marine fish
production, employment, and management activities,
in addition to that field visit and coastal use by the
public and interview by various respondents along
the study area.

LOCATION MAP OF THE STUDY AREA
Figure 1
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 MARINE FISH PRODUCTION IN
TAMILNADU AND KANNIYAKUMARI
COAST
Tamil Nadu is one of the leading maritime states
of India and ranks third in marine fish production.
Tamil Nadu has about 442 fishing villages and 356
fish landing centers and 8 fishing harbors. The total
annual fish production is 426735.44 tonnes during
the year 2011-2012. There are forty seven species
catching in Tamil Nadu.
Kanniyakumari coast has about 42 fish landing
centers (Fig2) the distribution of fishing villages in
Kanniyakumari coast. The total annual fish
production is 42716.60 tonnes during 2011-2012 is
given in the table 4.1. Marine fish production is
increasing from 29235 tonnes during 2001-2002 to
49951 tonnes during 2001-2012, in Kanniyakumari
coast. But, marine fish production is increasing from
31, 7716 tonnes during 2001-2002 to 373861 tonnes
during 2001-2003 and 426734.44 in 2011-2012 in
TamilNadu. The prevalent fish production comes
from capture fisheries. In marine fish production
Kanniyakumari coast stands in the third rank during
2001-2002 and 2011-2012. The given figure 3 shows

the fish production of TamilNadu in the year 2001-
2002, 2002-2003 and 2011-2012.
The marine fish production is included pelagic
varieties and demarsal varieties. The demarsal
species of fish are mostly bottom dwelling and
pelagic species are surface living. Most of the
economically valuable species like lobsters, cuttle
fish, prawn, crabs and rays belonged to demarsal
varieties. The other important demarsal varieties are
pomfrets, soles, perches, shark, red mullets, catfishes
and silver bellies. The contribution by the demarsal
varieties is always more over TamilNadu and
minimum in Kanniyakumari. The pelagic varieties
included many sweaty fishes like caranx fishes,
mural fish, seer fish, ribbon fish, flying fish, sardines
and anchoviella. The contribution by the pelagic
varieties is minimum over Tamil Nadu and maximum
in Kanniyakumari coast.
The total number of fishing crafts in
Kanniyakumari coast is 15 percent of the total
number of crafts in Tamil Nadu; it is only contributed
to 10.01 percent of the total fish production in the
state in 2011-2012. This indicates the declining state
in fish production of the crafts in the coast. Over the
years, the relative share of the Kanniyakumari coast
was low in 9.20 percent are increased in 2001-2002 is
about 13, 36 percent are given in Table 1 and the
figure 2
The terms catch landings and productions are
used synonymously. Trends in marine fish production
in Kanniyakumari coast are discussed in composition
with the production of Tamil Nadu. The analysis is
based on the secondary data collected from Director
of Fisheries, Chennai.
The actual fish production of Tamil Nadu and
Kanniyakumari are given in table 1 and Figure 2,3
Table 1
FISH PRODUCTION IN TAMILNADU AND KANNIYAKUMARI COAST
Year Tamil Nadu Kanniyakumari
1999-2000 299942 29235
2000-2001 307349 32178
2001-2002 317716 32291
2002-2003 330729 37740
2003-2004 341317 46440
2004-2005 350780 38310
2005-2006 356487 41652
2006-2007 377483 49716
2007-2008 373926 49951
2008-2009 372402 19643
2009-2010 373861 32107
2010-2011 379214 236345
2011-2012 426735.44 426735.44
Fig 2
0
500000
1000000
FISHPRODUCTION
INTONNES
YEARS
Kanniya…

Fig 3
TREND ANALYSIS FOR TAMIL NADU FISH PRODUCTION
In order to assess the nature of fish production over the years, a linear trend line y = a+bx is fitted and
the results are given below the table 2.
Table 2
MODEL SUMMARY FOR FISH PRODUCTION OF TAMILNADU
R R2 ADJUSTED R2 Std. Error of the
Estimate
0.958 0.918 0.910 8625.20660
From the above model summary Table2, the R² is 0.918 which indicates that the variability in marine fish
production is 91.8 percent that is explained by variable x ( year
Table 3
CO-EFFICIENT TABLE FOR THE PRODUCTION OF TAMILNADU
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig
B Std.Error Beta
Constant 298807.8 5308.44 56.289 .000
Year 7634.902 721.276 0.958 10.585 .000
From the table above co-efficient Table 3 the trend line as y=298807.80 + 7634.902x. Here 7634.902
are the annual increment rate of marine fish production of TamilNadu. Here, the co-efficient is significant.
TREND LINE OF FISH PRODUCTION IN KANNIYAKUMARI COAST DURING
1999-2012
Fig 4
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
FISHPRODUCTIONIN
TONNES
YEARS
Kanniyakumari
TamilNadu
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
2011-2012
FISHPRODUCTIONINTONNES
YEARSTamilNadu

From the above trend line, it is Tamil Nadu increases steadily. It is predicted that the fish production
for the year 2005-2005 as 405696.43 tonnes and for the year 2011-201 as 4, 26735.44 tonnes. Figure are shown
in 4.
TREND ANALYSIS OF FISH PRODUCTION IN KANNIYAKUMARI COAST
In order to assess the nature of trend of fish production of Kanniyakumari coast, a linear trend line y =
a+bx is fitted and the results are given below.
Table 4
MODEL SUMMARY FOR FISH PRODUCTION OF KANNIYAKUMARY COAST
R R2 ADJUSTED R2 Std.Error of the Estimate
0.090 0.008 -0.102 9507.24637
From the model summary Tables 4, the R² is 0.008, which means that the variability in marine fish
production is 0.8 percent, explained by the variable x.
Table 5
CO-EFFICIENT TABLE FOR FISH PRODUCTION OF KANNIAYAKUMARI COAST
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t sg
B Std.Error Beta
Constant 66237.336 6962.Error 9.513 .000
Year -246.100 906.480 -090 -271 -792
From the above co-efficient Table 5 the trend is y=66237.336-246.100x. Here 246.1 are the annual
decrement rate of marine fish production of Kanniyakumari coast. However the co-efficient is non-significant
FISH PRODUCTION IN TONNES OF KANNIYAKUMARI COAST
Fig 5
Figure 5 Trend line of fish production in Kanniyakumari coast During 1999-2001 to 2011-2012.From
the above trend line it is understood that the trend line is not in increasing pattern. Using the above trend line,
we cannot product for the future, as R² of the model is very low.
5.2 MARINE FISH PRODUCTION OF MECHANIZED CRAFT SECTOR IN KANNIYKUMARI
COAST
In order to find the trend of Kanniyakumari coast fish production using mechanized crafts a linear trend
line is filled. The result of the trend analysis is given below Table 6
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
FISHPRODUCTIONINTONNES
YEARS
Kanniyakumari
TamilNadu

Table 6
MODEL SUMMARY FOR MECHANISED CRAFT’S FISH PRODUCTION – KANNIAYAKUMARI
COAST
0.200 0.040 -0.056 4889.17344
From the above model summary Table 6 the R² is 0.40. This indicates that the variability in production
of mechanized craft sector is 4 percent, which is explained by the variable x.
Table 4.7
CO-EFFICIENTS TABLE FOR MECHANISED CRAFT’S FISH PRODUCTION KANNIYAKUMARI
COAST
Coefficients
Standardied
Coefficients
t SigB Std.Error
Beta
Constant 40352.526 2701.460 14.937 .000
Year 262.304 406.491 .200 .645 .533
From the above coefficient Table 4.7 the trend as y=40352.526+262.304x. Here 262.304 are the annual
increasing rate in fish production of mechanized craft sector in Kanniyakuamri coast. The co-efficient was non-
significant.
In the case of non-mechanized craft sector, the regressing of marine production is calculated as.
5.3 NON MECHANIZED CRAFTS SECTOR IN KANNIYAKUMARI COAST
In order to find the trend of Kanniyakumari coast’s fish production using non-mechanized craft, a linear
trend line is fitted. The result of the trend analysis is given below.
Table 8
MODEL SUMMARY FOR NON-MECHANISED CRAFT’S FISH PRODUCTION-
KANNIYAKUMARI COAST
0.153 0.023 -0.740 5109.96788
From the above Model summary Table 8, the R² IS 0.023, which indicates that the variability in marine
fish production of non-mechanized crafts sector is 2.3 percent, which is explained by the variable x.
Table 9
C0-EFFICIENT TABLE FOR NON-MECHANISED CRAFT’S FISH PRODUCTION
KANNIYAKUMARI COAST
Coefficients
Standardied
Coefficients
t SigB Std.Error
Beta
Constant 23137.638 2823.457 8.195 .000
Year -207.848 424.848 -153 -489 .635
From the above Co-efficient Table 9 the trend as y=23137.636-207.848x. Hence 207.848 are the annual
decreasing rate of fish production of non-mechanized craft sector in Kanniyakuamri Coast; however, the co-
efficient is not significant.
Fish production is decreased over the years in Kanniyakumari coast. But number of Crafts has increased
from 5594 during 2000-2001 to 10114 during 2011-2012. Due to increasing the number of crafts, the fish
production has declined. Large number of crafts led to over catching or exploitation, which is the prime cause
for decrease in fish production.

5.4 GEAR WISE PRODUCTION
A Fishing gear is the tool with which aquatic resources are captured. The same fishing gear can be used in
different ways. A common way to classify fishing gears and methods is based on the principles of how fish or
other preys are captured and, to a lesser extent, on the gear construction. Gear wise marine fish production in
Kanniyakumari coast is given in Table 10 and Figure 6.
Table 10
GEAR-WISE MARINE FISH PRODUCTION IN KANNIYAKUARI COAST 2011-2012
GEAR PRODUCTION PERCENTAGE
TRAWL NET 28342 64.67
SURROUNDING NETS 0 0
GILL NETS 11300 25.78
SEINE NETS 280 0.50
TANGLE NETS 382 0.87
LIFT NETS 1137 2.60
HOCK NETS 2100 4.79
BACK NETS 350 0.79
TOATAL 43819 100
GEAR-WISE MARINE FISH PRODUCTION IN KANNIYAKUARI COAST 2011-2012
Fig 6
Trawl net is the major gear used by mechanized craft (64.67 percent). Gill nets are generally used by
traditional crafts. However, they are also used by mechanized crafts. Gill nets contribution is 25.78 percent. As
could be seen from data given in Table 10, trawl net, gill net seine nets, tangle nets, lift nets, back nets and hock
net are the gears used in Kanniyakumari coast. Trawl net, gill net and block nets are the main gears taken
together accounted for more than 96 percent of catch.
5.5 SEASONAL VARIATION OF FISH PRODUCTION IN KANNIYAKUMARI COASTS
The seasonal variation of fish production in Kanniyakumari coast is given in the table 4.11 and Figure
7,8.
Table 11
SEASONAL VARIATION IN FISH PRODUCTION OF KANNIYAKUAMRI COAST
YEAR QUARTER I QUARTER II QUARTER III QUARTER IV
2005-2006 18023 21471 12251 19425
2006-2007 17250 22170 12808 17984
2007-2008 17072 23212 13035 17965
2008-2009 18143 21145 11989 19145
2009-2010 16589 20563 11650 17200
2010-2011 16444 20725 12054 17025
2011-2012 10450 14523 8090 10911
TOTAL 113971 143809 81877 119655
AVERAGE 16281.57 20544.14 11696.71 17093.57
SEASONAL
VARIATION
99.25 125.24 71.30 104.20
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
GEAR-WISEMARINE
PRODUCTIONINTONNES
YEARS
PRODUCTION
PERCENTAGE

SEASONAL VARIATION IN FISH PRODUCTION OF KANNIYAKUAMRI COAST
Fig 7
Fig 8
From the above Table 4.11 it is observed that in the first quarter the fish production is near normal i.e.99.25
percent, which is very close to 100 whereas in second quarter it is 25.24 percent more than normal i.e.125.24
percent. In the third quarter is 29 percent less production compared to the normal production i.e.71.30 percent.
In the fourth quarter it is slightly more than normal production i.e.104.20. July – September is the peak time of
fishing in Kanniyakumari coast, which is almost same as in the case of TamilNadu. In the third quarter i.e.
October- December, low fish catch is due to heavy rainfall and cyclone over Bay of Bengal.
5.6 SPECIES WISE PRODUCTION IN KANNIYAKUMARI COAST
Trend analysis has been made to species wise production of Kanniyakumari coast. Following is the
results of trend analysis.
5.6.1 DEMARSAL VARIETY OF FISH PRODUCTION IN KANNIYAKUMARI COAST
In order to find the significance of demarsal variety of fish production in Kanniyakumari coast
following Model summary has been used.
Table 12
MODEL SUMMARY FOR DEMARSAL VARIETY OF FISH PRODUCTION- KANNIYAKUMARI
COAST
0.839 0.704 0.556 4924.28445
From the above Model summary Table 12, the R² is the variable x explains 0.704, which indicates that
the variability in production of demarsal fish variety in Kanniyakumari coast is 70.4.
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
SEASONALVARIATIONINFISH
PRODUCTION
YEARS
QUARTER IV
QUARTER III
QUARTER II
QUARTER I
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
SEASONALVARIATIONINFISH
PRODUCTION
YEARS
QUARTER I
QUARTER II
QUARTER III
QUARTER IV

Table 13
C0-EFFICIENT TABLE FOR DEMARSAL VARIETY OF FISH PRODUCTION KANNIYAKUMARI
COAST
Coefficients
Standardied
Coefficients
t SigB Std.Error
Beta
Constant 40391.500 6030.992 6.697 .022
Year .4799.900 2202.207 .839 .1.96 .45
a. Dependent Variable: DEMER_NA
From the above Co-efficient Table 13 the trend line as y=40391.5-4799.9x. Here the co-efficient is 4799.9,
which is significant at 5 percent level. The demarsal fish production decreases at the rate of 4799.9 tonnes
annually in Kanniyakumari coast.
5.6.2 PELAGIC VARIETY OF FISH PRODUCTION IN KANNIYAKUMARI COAST
In order to find the significance of pelagic variety of fish production in Kanniyakumari coast following
Model summary has been used.
Table 14
MODEL SUMMARY FOR PELAGIC VARIETY OF FISH PRODUCTION- KANNIYAKUMARI
0.876 0.767 .650 2686.96276
From the above Model summary Table 14, the R² is 0.761, which indicates that the variability in pelagic
fish production in Kanniyakumari is 76.1 percent, which is explained by the variable x.
Table 15
C0-EFFICIENT TABLE FOR PELAGIC VARIETY OF FISH PRODUCTION KANNIYAKUMARI
COAST
Coefficients
Standardied
Coefficients
t SigB Std.Error
Beta
Constant 40745.500 3290.844 12.381 .006
Year -3080.800 1201.646 .876 .2.564 .124
a Dependent Variable : PELAG_NA
From the above Co-efficient Table 15 the trend line as y=40745.50-3080.80x. Here 3080.80 are the annual
decrement rate of pelagic fish in Kanniyakumari coast. The variable is not significant.
Comparatively, from the above analysis, the production rate decrease much for demarsal variety rather than
pelagic fish variety.
5.7 COMPOSITION OF MARINE FISH PRODUCTION
The trawl net has been used by mechanized crafts. All types of demarsal varieties and few pelagic varieties
are obtained with the help of trawl nets. Traditional crafts are using different gears for the catching of different
varieties. For each species like prawn, crabs, lobsters, cuttle fish, skates and rays separate type of gears are used.
The composition of the various species of fish caught in Kanniyakumari coast is given in Table 16 and Fig 9.

Table 16
COMPOSITION OF MARINE FISH PRODUCTION- KANNIAYAKUARI COAST SPECIES WISE
Species 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
Fishes 58345
(83.41)
62855
(88.55)
57182
(81.50)
52678
(80.11)
53915
(81.69)
35309
(80.58)
Silver bellies 4092
(5.85)
2228
(3.14)
4347
(6.20)
5263
(8.00)
4059
(6.15)
1492
(3.40)
Perches 3727
(5.30)
2879
(4.01)
4128
(5.90)
3564
(5.42)
4221
(6.40)
3523
(8.04)
Crabs 2300
(3.33)
2034
(2.9)
2831
(4.00)
2508
(3.82)
2245
(3.40)
1752
(4.00)
Oil 1478
(2.11)
985
(1.4)
1681
(2.40)
1742
(2.65)
1558
(2.36)
1743
(3.98)
Total 69942
(100)
70981
(100)
70169
(100)
65755
(100)
65998
(100)
43819
(100)
COMPOSITION OF MARINE FISH PRODUCTION- KANNIAYAKUARI COAST SPECIES WISE
Fig 9
It is observed that the contribution on prawns and fishes are slowly coming down. The contribution of prawn
had come down from eight percent in 2009-10 to 3.40 percent in 2011-12. The share of skates and rays has been
increasing from 5.42 percent in 2009-10 to 8.04 percent in 2011-12. Similarly, the share of sharks has been
increasing from 1.4 percent in 2007-2008 to 3.98 percent in 2011-2012. Contribution of fish has come down
from 88.55 percent in 2007-2008 to 80.58 percent in 2011-2012; Generally, Marine fish production is getting
down.
The following is the observation from the above analysis in respect of marine fish production in Kanniyakumari
coast:
1. The Kanniyakumari coast is lowered down from second position to forth position in respect of
production, among the TamilNadu coastal districts.
2. In the gear wise production, Trawl net is playing in vital role, followed by gill nets.
3. The marine fish production is decreasing.
4. The study area stands sixth place in terms of fish landings per km of coastline.
5. The share of mechanized sector in the total marine fish production of the district is high i.e. more than
60 percent.
6. The study area stands first to have much number of mechanized boats and catamarans.
7. The relative share of economically valuable species like prawns in composition of landing exhibited a
decline trend.
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
COMPOSITIONOFFISHPRODUCTIONSPECIES
WISE
YEARS
Oil

5.8 DETERMINING FACTORS FOR FISH CATCH THROUGH FIELD SURVEY
A field survey was undertaken in selected coastal villages of the Kanniyakumari coast. The objective
of the field study was to estimate the value of catch per unit effort for both mechanized crafts and non-
mechanized crafts. The finding that emerged out of the analysis of the primary data collected in this regard
is presented in the successive paragraphs.
Out of 42 villages, there are only 4 major landing centers and 42 minor landing centers. The total
number of mechanized crafts and non-mechanized crafts was 1465 and 4,129 respectively in
Kanniyakumari coast. This number increased to 2,419 and 7,695 respectively during 2011-2012.
5.9 CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT
Details of estimated annual production and their value for 60 mechanized crafts are given in Table 17.
Catch per unit effort has been worked out with reference to quantity as well as value. On an average, a
mechanized crafts has 120 fishing operations per annum. The catch per unit effort worked out to 450 kg and
in terms of money value of it is reckoned at Rs 9,000%.
Table 17
ESTIMATED CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT FOR MECHANISED CRAFTS 2011-2012
Landing
Centers
No. of
Sample
Crafts
Total
Production
per annum (in
tones)
Value of Per
catch per
annum (in
lakhs)
No.of Fishing
trips per
annum
Catch Per Unit effort
Quantity (kg) value (Rs)
Colachal 20 1100 235 2400 458 9160
Cinnamuttom 20 1074 220 2400 448 8960
Cape Comerin 20 1066 229 2400 444 8880
Total 60 3240 684 7200 450 27000
Source: Primary data
The composition of catch per unit effort for mechanized crafts is presented in Table 18
Table 18
COMPOSITION OF CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT FOR MECHANIZED CRAFTS IS PRESENTED IN
TABLE
Species Catch per unit effort
(Quntity)
Catch Per unit effort ( Value)
Kilo grams Percent Rupee Percent
Assorted Fishes 290 64 5800 64
Lobster 17 4 680 8
Crabs 13 3 390 4
Silver bellies 60 13 1200 13
Skates and Rays 25 6 250 3
Caranx 45 10 680 8
Total 450 100 9000 100
An analysis of the composition of catch per unit effort for mechanized crafts revealed that trash fishers
accounted for the maximum in terms of both quantity and value. Though the prawn’s accounts for just four
percent of the total fish catch in terms of weight have contributed eight percent of the total fish catch in terms of
weight have contributed eight percent of the total value.

Table 19
ESTIMATED CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT FOR NON-MECHANISED
Sample Landing
Centers
No .of
Sample
Crafts
Total
Production per
annum (tones)
Value of catch
per annum (in
lakhs)
No.of fishing
trips per
annum
Catch per Unit effort
Quantity Vale
Chinnamuttom 10 57.20 11.44 2600 22.0 440
Vaniakudi 10 63.75 12.75 2550 25.0 500
Seruthur 10 67.86 13.57 2610 26.0 520
Melamuttom 10 51.84 10.37 2880 18.0 360
Poothurai 10 54.20 10.84 2930 18.5 370
Neerodi 10 41.12 8.22 2570 16.0 320
Melamanakudi 10 60.37 12.07 2625 23.0 460
Periavilai 10 62.50 12.50 2500 25 500
Chinnavilai 10 34.20 6.84 2850 12 240
Colachal 10 52.82 10.56 2780 19 380
Total 100 545.86 109.16 26895 20.30 406
Ten landing centers are covered for the sample study. It is found that on an average a country craft can have
270 fishing trips per annum. The catch per unit effort for a country craft worked out to 20.30 kilograms and the
money value is Rs.406. The differences in the catch per unit effort for the country crafts among the 10 landing
centers are due to the go in the crafts and number of or more persons used to go in the craft. In Chinnamuttom,
Vaniakudi, Seruthur on an average, three or more persons go in the craft for fishing. In three centers vi,
Melamuttom, Poothurai and Neerodi two persons used to go in a crafts. In the remaining four centers, viz.,
Melamanakudi, Periavilai, Chinnavilai, and Colachal street, just one person ventured into the sea along with the
country craft.
The composition of catch per unit effort for a country crafts is presented in Table 20. Fisherman
operating country craft earned more from prawns than from various other species of fishes.

Table 20
Composition of Catch per Unit Effort for Non-Mechanized Crafts
Species Catch Per Unit effort
(Quantity)
Catch per Unit Effort ( Value)
Kilo grams Percent Rupee Percent
Trash Fishes 11.30 55.67 226 55.66
Squids 6.00 29.55 60 14.78
Lobster 3.00 14.78 120 29.56
Total 20.30 100 406 100
Catch per unit effort estimated on the basis of data collected for the empirical study could also be used for
arriving at the total marine fish production for Kanniyakumari coast in the 2011-2012. In terms of quantity catch
per unit effort for mechanized craft is 450 kilograms. There are 2,419 mechanized crafts made 120 fishing trips.
Hence, total production worked out to 1, 30,626 tonnes.
Similarly, for a non-mechanized crafts, catch per unit effort is 20, 30 kilograms and average numbers of
trips are 270 per year. For the 7,695 crafts, the production amounted to 42,176 tonnes. A comparison of
estimated production aimed with that of figures obtained from secondary source given by the fisheries
Department is an under estimation both for mechanized sector and traditional sector. According to secondary
source, the production in mechanized sector is 33,882 tonnes source, the production in mechanized sector is
33,882 tonnes during 2011-2012 comapred to 1, 30,696 tonnes worked out from primary survey and it was
about 74 percent less.In respect of traditional sector, the Fisheries Department’s figure is 9,937 tonnes against
42,176 tonnes from empirical study, the under estimation being 76 percent.
VI. ANALYSIS BY FITTING FUNCTION
The main objectives of this analysis to study the impact of various input factors on total marine fish
production. The analysis has been attempted for mechanized crafts only. The analysis has been attempted for
mechanized crafts only. Production function expresses the functional relationship between input and output
(Gupta, 1973). Cobb-Douglas function is widely used in empirical analysis (Earl, 1969) and it has been chosen
for the present analysis.
Marine fish production depends on a number of factors. However, labour charges paid, capital invested
and the depth of the sea up to which the crafts used to make their trips are considered as the principal factors. In
the case of non-mechanized crafts, the expenditure on maintenance and repairs constituted only a small amount.
But, with regard to mechanized crafts the proportion of working capital is large compared to fixed capital.
For the purpose of the analysis, working capital is taken into account for mechanized crafts and
working capital includes expenditure on repairs, fuel, replacement, license fee, insurance premium etc. Data
collected in respect of 60 samples – mechanized crafts are utilized for the analysis and the reference year is
2011-2012.
The Cobb-Douglas production function used for the present analysis in specified as:
Y = ax1 β1 x2 β2 x3 β3 u …………………….. (1)
Where, y - Value of output per mechanized crafts per year expressed in terms of money value;
x1 – Working capital per craft per annum
x2 - Labour charges per craft per annum
x3 – Depth of the sea ( fathoms)
and β1,β2, and β3 are unknown parameters, u is an error term which is assumed to be normally distributed with
N ( o,o2 ) 𝜎𝑒 𝑥
= 1 +
𝑥
1!
+
𝑥2
2!
+
𝑥3
3!
+ ⋯ , −∞ < 𝑥 < ∞ and is the intercept.
The equation ( 1) may be rewritten as
Log Y = Log a + β1Logx1 + β2 Logx2 + β3 Log x3 + Log u
That is,
Y = a1+ β1x1+β2x2 + β3x3 + u1 ………………………….. (2)
The values of regression co-efficient of input factors are estimated by using the least square method and they are
presented in Table 4.41

Table 21
Estimated Values Of Regression Co-efficient of Input Factors- Mechanized Crafts
Co-efficient of Production Sum of the
Co-efficient
β1+β2+β3
R2 F Value for D.O.F
(3,56)
β1 β2 β3
-0.467
(.233)
1.157
(.370)
-5.79
(.177)
0.68 .561 5.956
Figure in parameters denote standard error of the
respective estimates
The following inferences can be drawn from the
Table 21.
1. Among the variable considered working capital
and labour should have a significant effect on
total fish production i.e. value of fish
production. While a labour show a positive
significant effect, and working capital shows a
negative significant effect on the fish
production. The value of the regression co-
efficient β1 is negative and significant at five
percent level, which implies that for one
percent increasing labour, keeping others
factors constant, the value of output would
decrease by 0.467 percent. Similarly the value
of output of β2 is positive significant at five
percent level means that for one percent
increase in the labour, keeping other factor
constant, the value of production would
increase by 1.157 percent. The regression co-
efficient β3 is found to be insignificant.
Therefore, the working capital and the labour
are found to be the main input factors influence
in the total fish production.
2. The sum of the co-efficient β1, β2, and β3 is
0.68. It implies that if specified input factors
are increased by one percent, the output could
be increased by 68 percent. This means that the
mechanized crafts are operating under
diminishing returns to scale.
3. The co-efficient of determination, R² Worked
to be 0.561. This implies that the three input
factors taken together explained for 56 percent
variation in the total fish production.
4. The calculated value of F was 5.956 for (3.56)
degrees of freedom, whereas the table value of
F (3, 56) at 5 percent level is 2.78. It is
therefore concluded that F is significant.
VII. CONCLUSION
Kanniyakumari coast has 71,5km of coastline,
Due to the longest coast, the fishing villages
concentrated along the coast. There are 42 fishing
villages found in the Kanniyakumari coast. Those
fishing villages have facilities such as wharf or T’
Jetty, auction hall, net mending, shed, water supply
arrangement, toilet block, sanitation, approach road,
sodium vapour lamp and fish dying platform, called
as fish landing centers. In Kanniyakumari coast 42
fish landing centers are located.
To find out the reason for the declining trend of
fishing, rainfall has considered as the natural factor
that might be controlled fish population. It needs to
understand the relationship between fisheries and the
environmental and between fisheries management
and development. Owing to the understanding that
fishing over capacity and the districts reach of
fishing operations continue to have deleterious
effects on fish stocks, it is becoming more widely
recognized that long-term fisheries management and
investment need to take into account the
environment and natural long-term climate
fluctuations. There is a relationship between rainfall
and fish production in Kanniyakumari coast.
Fishing crafts are classified into mechanized
and non-mechanized Crafts without motor
considered as non-mechanized. Both types of crafts
are used in Kanniyakumari coast. In order to find the
trend of Tamil Nadu fish production using
mechanized crafts increases.
The fish production varies from season to
season due to climatic factors. In the northeast
monsoon season and south west monsoon season in
Kanniyakumari coast has been experiencing the
rainy and stormy events. In those days fishing is
almost absence. Fishing year begins in the month of
April and ends in March.
BIBILOGRAPHY
Gupta, M.C. et al. (1973) Brackish water
aquaculture site selection using techniques of
Geographical Information System (GIS). Scientific
Note, Space Application Centre, Ahmadabad.
RSAM/SAC/CMASS/SN/08.95.56 P.
Earl (1969), Towards a European integrated coastal
zone management (ICZM) strategy: general
principles and policy options. Luxembourg:
European Communission. 31p
World Bank (2001) “Guidelines for Integrated
Coastal Zone Management”. Issued at the World
Coast Conference, Noordwijk, And The
Netherlands.
Us (1981), United States Coast Pilot,
Vol.9.U.S.Department of Commerce

Coastal Resource Management In Kanniyakuamari Coast, Tamil Nadu, India. Using Remote Sensing and Geographical Information System

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Coastal Resource Management In Kanniyakuamari Coast, Tamil Nadu, India. Using Remote Sensing and Geographical Information System (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Coastal Resource Management In Kanniyakuamari Coast, Tamil Nadu, India. Using Remote Sensing and Geographical Information System