Abstract
Fishing is a hazardous occupation that exposes workers to physical strain, injuries, and psychological stress. Fishing is a major livelihood activity in East Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh; however, limited studies have explored the occupational hazards and occupational health issues faced by fisherfolk in this region. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and types of occupational hazards, assess occupational health issues, and suggest ergonomic measures among fisherfolk in the erstwhile East Godavari district, Andhra Pradesh. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 160 fisherfolk (107 males and 53 females) selected using a random walk sampling approach. Data were collected using a prestructured questionnaire. Descriptive statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, and the Chi-square test was applied to assess gender differences. Physical hazards were the most prevalent among both fishermen (93.4%, 95% CI: 86.9–97.3) and fisherwomen (86.7%, 95% CI: 74.6–94.5), followed by ergonomic hazards (77.5%, 95% CI: 68.4–85.1 and 64.1%, 95% CI: 49.8–76.9, respectively), while chemical hazards were the least reported in both groups. Fishermen more frequently reported prolonged sun exposure (74.8%) and heavy lifting (69.1%), whereas fisherwomen commonly reported poor sanitation and hygiene facilities (88.0%). Repetitive tasks associated with musculoskeletal pain were reported by 72.8% of fishermen and 64.2% of fisherwomen. Significant gender differences were observed for heavy lifting (69.1% in fishermen vs. 20.8% in fisherwomen; χ² = 33.3, P < 0.001). Fisherfolk face high occupational risks, highlighting the need to strengthen awareness, ergonomic interventions, and policy support to improve the well-being of this community.
Keywords: Ergonomic risks, fishermen, fisherwomen, occupational health, workplace hazards
INTRODUCTION
The fisheries sector is a vital component of India’s economy, contributing significantly to employment, food security, and national income.[1] India is the third-largest fish producer globally,[2] supporting the livelihoods of approximately 25 million fishers and fish farmers.[1] Andhra Pradesh holds a leading position in fisheries production, with the erstwhile East Godavari district plays a particularly important role due to its 161 km coastline and a thriving fisher population of over 76,000, involved in both marine and inland fishing operations.[3,4]
Fishing is one of the most hazardous occupations. Fishermen face extreme weather, sun exposure, slippery surfaces, heavy lifting leading to musculoskeletal disorders, skin conditions, and stress.[5,6] The fumes emanating from the fuel used to propel their fishing boats causes respiratory problems and exaggerates preexisting conditions like asthma. Fisherwomen, engaged in postharvest tasks like fish cleaning and vending,[7] face musculoskeletal strain from static posture, cuts, and injuries from sharp instruments. They are also prone to infections due to poor hygiene and contact with fish waste.[8]
Despite their contribution, limited research has addressed fisherfolk’s occupational health in erstwhile East Godavari. This study aims to identify prevalent hazards, related occupational health issues, and suitable ergonomic interventions.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted from October 2024 to April 2025 in the erstwhile East Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh to assess occupational hazards and occupational health issues among fisher folk. A total of 160 participants (107 males and 53 females) were recruited from inland and coastal fishing communities using a random walk sampling approach, as a complete sampling frame was not available. Participants were identified with the assistance of local leaders and ASHA workers, and in cases of nonresponse, the next eligible participant was selected using the same method. Inclusion criteria comprised active fishers engaged in fishing-related work who were willing to provide informed consent. Individuals who were retired, seriously ill, or unable to comprehend the study procedures were excluded. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews using a prestructured questionnaire developed based on literature review, validated through expert review and pilot testing, and administered in the local language (Telugu). The questionnaire captured information on sociodemographic characteristics, occupational exposures, and occupational health issues. All hazards were self-reported by participants based on their routine occupational activities and recorded as Yes or No.
The hazard categories were defined as follows: Physical hazards included prolonged sun exposure (working under direct sunlight), exposure to extreme weather conditions (cold, rain, or cyclones), noise exposure (from engines or crowds), falling overboard or near-drowning events, working on wet slippery or unstable boat surfaces, and handling sharp tools like knifes, hooks during fishing or cutting. Chemical hazards included exposure to fuel fumes (diesel or petrol), handling chemicals or disinfectants used for cleaning boats or surfaces, and contact with fish preservatives such as salt used during processing or storage. Biological hazards included fish throne or bite injuries, handling dead or decomposing fish, contact with marine organisms such as jellyfish stings, lack of adequate hygiene facilities, and absence of sanitary latrines. Ergonomic hazards included heavy lifting of fish loads, nets or equipment, repetitive movements such as net pulling, cutting or sorting, awkward or strained postures, and prolonged bending, sitting, or standing. Psychological hazards included financial insecurity due to irregular income, concern regarding the safety and welfare of family members, fear related to cyclones and death during adverse weather, long working hours without fixed schedules, social isolation due to prolonged time away from family, and conflicts with fish vendors during selling or price negotiation.
Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants after explaining the study purpose and assuring confidentiality and anonymity.
Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for prevalence estimates, were calculated using Microsoft Excel (2019). Gender differences in the prevalence of common occupational hazards were assessed using the Chi-square test in Jamovi statistical software (version 2.4.8). Results were considered statistically significant at a 95% confidence level, with a P-value less than 0.05.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the sociodemographic profile of the study population
Table 1.
Sociodemographic profile of the study population (n=160)
| Variable | Categories | Respondents | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 107 | 66.9% |
| Female | 53 | 33.1% | |
| Age | ≤40 | 95 | 59.4% |
| >40 | 65 | 40.6% | |
| Mean=41.5±12 | |||
| Level of education | Illiterate | 96 | 60% |
| Up to 10th | 63 | 39.3% | |
| Above 10th | 1 | 0.63% | |
| Habits among fishermen | Smoking | 33 | 30.8% |
| Alcohol | 68 | 63.6% | |
| Tobacco | 17 | 15.9% | |
| no habits | 33 | 30.8% | |
| Duration of employment among fisher folk | 3–25 yrs | 105 | 65.6% |
| 26–50 yrs | 55 | 34.3% | |
| Types of fishing activity among fishermen | Inland fishing | 25 | 23.4% |
| Marine fishing | 82 | 76.6% | |
| Roles among fisherwomen | Drying and processing | 14 | 26.4% |
| Fish selling | 18 | 34.0% | |
| Sorting and cleaning | 21 | 39.6% |
Table 2 shows prevalence of both major and subcategories of occupational hazards among fisher folk.
Table 2.
Prevalence of occupational hazards among study population (n=160)
| Occupational Hazards | Fishermen | Fisherwomen | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||
| n=107 | % | 95%CI | n=53 | % | 95%CI | |
| Physical hazards | 100 | 93.4% | 86.9–97.3 | 46 | 86.7% | 74.6–94.5 |
| Prolonged exposure to sun (UV rays) | 80 | 74.8% | 65.4–82.7 | 31 | 58.4% | 44.1–71.9 |
| Exposure to extreme weather conditions (cold, rain, cyclone) | 55 | 51.4% | 41.5–61.2 | 20 | 37.7% | 24.8–52.1 |
| Exposure to noise (from engines, crowds) | 40 | 37.4% | 28.2–47.3 | 17 | 32.0% | 19.9–46.3 |
| Fallen overboard or faced near drowning situation | 51 | 47.6% | 37.9–57.5 | — | — | |
| Slippery surfaces | 78 | 72.9% | 63.4–81.0 | — | — | |
| Handle sharp tools (knifes) | — | — | 28 | 52.8% | 38.6–66.7 | |
| Chemical hazards | 32 | 29.9% | 21.4–39.5 | 14 | 26.4% | 15.2–40.3 |
| Exposure to fuel fumes | 31 | 29.0% | 20.6–38.5 | — | — | |
| Use of chemicals or disinfectants | 11 | 10.2% | 5.2–17.7 | — | — | |
| Fish preservatives | — | — | 14 | 26.4% | 15.2–40.3 | |
| Biological hazards | 64 | 59.8% | 49.8–69.2 | 39 | 73.5% | 59.6–84.7 |
| Fish throne, fish bite | 59 | 55.1% | 45.2–64.8 | 32 | 60.4% | 46.0–73.5 |
| Handling of dead and decomposing fish | 12 | 11.2% | 5.9–18.8 | 24 | 45.3% | 31.5–59.6 |
| Contact with marine organisms (jelly fishes, etc.) | 63 | 58.9% | 48.9–68.3 | — | — | |
| Lack of adequate hygiene and sanitary facilities | — | — | 44 | 88.0% | 70.2–91.9 | |
| Lack of sanitary latrines | — | — | 35 | 66.0% | 51.7–78.5 | |
| Ergonomic hazards | 83 | 77.5% | 68.4–85.1 | 34 | 64.1% | 49.8–76.9 |
| Heavy lifting or carrying loads | 74 | 69.1% | 59.5–77.7 | 11 | 20.8% | 10.8–34.1 |
| Repetitive movements | 62 | 57.9% | 48.0–67.4 | 33 | 62.2% | 47.9–75.2 |
| Awkward postures while working | 31 | 28.9% | 20.6–38.5 | — | — | |
| Bending for long hours | — | — | 31 | 58.5% | 44.1–71.9 | |
| Sitting in same position for long hours | — | — | 30 | 56.6% | 42.3–70.2 | |
| Standing for long hours | — | — | 14 | 26.4% | 15.3–40.3 | |
| Psychological hazards | 76 | 71.0% | 61.5–79.4 | 28 | 52.8% | 38.6–66.7 |
| Financial constraints | 39 | 36.4% | 27.3–46.3 | 22 | 41.5% | 28.1–55.9 |
| Fear of family | 58 | 54.2% | 44.3–63.9 | — | — | |
| Fear of cyclone | 46 | 42.9% | 33.4–52.9 | — | — | |
| Long working hours | 40 | 37.3% | 28.2–47.3 | — | — | |
| Fear of death | 32 | 29.9% | 21.4–39.5 | — | — | |
| Social isolation | 12 | 11.2% | 5.9–18.8 | |||
| Conflicts with fish vendors | — | — | 13 | 24.5% | 13.7–38.3 | |
| Verbal abuse by buyers | — | — | 9 | 16.9% | 8.0–29.8 | |
Note: Values are presented as prevalence (%) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). n indicates the number of participants reporting the condition. Multiple responses were allowed. Participants could report more than one type of occupational hazard
Table 3 shows the prevalence of occupational health issues among fishermen and fisherwomen.
Table 3.
Prevalence of occupational health issues among study population (n=160)
| Occupational health issues | Fishermen (n=107) % | Fisherwomen (n=53) % | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||
| n | % | 95%CI | n | % | 95%CI | |
| Musculoskeletal pain | 78 | 72.8% | 63.4–81.0 | 34 | 64.2% | 49.8–76.9 |
| Injuries | 66 | 61.7% | 51.8–70.9 | 36 | 67.9% | 53.7–80.1 |
| Headaches | 56 | 52.3% | 42.5–62.1 | 33 | 62.3% | 47.9–75.2 |
| Skin issues | 58 | 54.2% | 44.3–63.9 | 21 | 39.6% | 26.5–54.0 |
| Stress & anxiety | 76 | 71.0% | 61.5–79.4 | 19 | 35.8% | 23.1–50.2 |
| Blurred vision | 45 | 42.2% | 32.6–52.0 | 15 | 28.3% | 16.8–42.3 |
| Respiratory issues | 24 | 22.4% | 14.9–31.5 | — | — | |
| Tingling, numbness | — | — | 22 | 41.5% | 28.1–55.9 | |
Note: Multiple responses allowed. Participants could report more than one occupational health issues
Musculoskeletal pain was reported among both groups. Among fishermen, shoulder pain was reported by 53.8% (95% CI: 48.9–68.3), followed by knee pain 49.5% (95% CI: 39.7–59.4) and neck pain 38.3% (95% CI: 29.0–48.2). Among fisherwomen, back pain was reported by 58.4% (95% CI: 44.1–71.9), followed by shoulder pain 54.7% (95% CI: 40.4–68.4) and knee pain 45.2% (95% CI: 31.5–59.6).
Table 4 shows the severity of occupational health issues among the study population. Severity was classified based on the number of occupational health issues reported by each respondent: 0–2 (mild), 3–4 (moderate), and 5–7 (severe). due to the absence of standardized composite scales.
Table 4.
Severity of occupational health issues among study population (n=160)
| Severity | Fishermen (n=107) % | Fisherwomen (n=53) % |
|---|---|---|
| Mild | 17 (15.9%) | 18 (34.0%) |
| Moderate | 56 (52.3%) | 17 (32.1%) |
| Severe | 34 (31.8%) | 18 (34.0%) |
To assess gender differences in exposure to common occupational hazards among the fishing community, Chi-square test was conducted. Among the hazards analyzed, statistically significant gender differences were found in heavy lifting (χ² =33.3, P < 0.001). A higher proportion of males (69.1%) reported heavy lifting compared to females (20.8%), indicating that fishermen are more frequently engaged in physically demanding tasks.
DISCUSSION
A high proportion of participants reported exposure to occupational hazards, with physical hazards being the most prevalent among both fishermen (93.4%) and fisherwomen (86.7%), similar to reports from Odisha[6] and Bangladesh.[8] Among men, ergonomic (77.5%) and psychological (71%) hazards were also frequent, caused by strenuous work such as hauling nets and long hours at sea. Prolonged sun exposure (74.8%) and slippery surfaces (72.9%) were major risks,[9] while falling overboard (47.6%) was notable and similar to findings reported in previous studies.[10,11] Fisherwomen experienced higher biological hazards (73.5%), aligning with studies from metropolitan India.[12] This has been attributed to poor sanitation, handling of fish waste, and lack of sanitary latrines, leading to conditions such as urinary tract infections, skin infections, consistent with findings from Visakhapatnam.[5] In addition, repetitive work (62.2%), bending (58.5%), and prolonged sitting (56.6%) were associated with back and shoulder pain among fisherwomen. Overall, fishermen faced intense physical and ergonomic risks, while fisherwomen were more exposed to biological and repetitive-task-related ergonomic hazards.
Based on the findings, several practical measures can help reduce occupational health risks among fisherfolk in the erstwhile East Godavari district. Covering the head and hands during peak sun hours helps prevent sunburn and heat stress. Using reusable gloves, splash-proof aprons, gumboots, and masks can minimize cuts, infections, and respiratory irritation. Each fishing group should maintain a basic first-aid kit with disinfectants, cotton, and bandages. Fisherwomen would benefit from clean toilets, waste bins, and proper drainage in fish markets to prevent infections. Ergonomic practices, such as alternating tasks every 30–45 minutes, raising cutting surfaces, and using cushioned or cloth-wrapped tool handles, can reduce musculoskeletal strain. Team lifting, using carts for heavy loads, and bending knees while keeping the back straight help prevent back and shoulder injuries. Using folded cloth for seating and periodic training on safe handling, posture correction, and first aid can further enhance occupational safety and well-being.
Limitations
Due to the nonavailability of a complete sampling frame, a random walk sampling method was used, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Also, all data were self-reported; hazards and occupational health conditions were based on participant experiences and were not clinically validated.
CONCLUSION
This study highlights the high prevalence of occupational hazards and occupational health issues among fisher folk in erstwhile East Godavari. Musculoskeletal pain, mental stress, and injuries were common across both genders. The findings underscore the need for better safety measures, ergonomic practices, and awareness to protect the health and well-being of this vulnerable workforce.
Key messages
Fisher folk are highly vulnerable to occupational hazards, especially physical and ergonomic risks. Focused ergonomic solutions and health awareness programs can substantially reduce their burden of work-related health problems, promote health and well-being.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgement
The University of Hyderabad, an Institution of Eminence notified by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, is gratefully acknowledged. Gratitude is extended to the fisherfolk community for their participation in the study. The support provided by the author’s parents during the fieldwork is sincerely acknowledged.
Funding Statement
Nil.
REFERENCES
- 1.National Fisheries Development Board. About Fisheries in India. Hyderabad: Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India; [[Last accessed on 2025 Sep 25]]. Available from: https://nfdb.gov.in . [Google Scholar]
- 2.Fish and Fisheries of India [Internet]. National Fisheries Development Board. [[Last accessed on 2025 Sep 25]]. Available from: https://share.google/gvO39YDru3t4Jz5JP .
- 3.Department of Fisheries, Government of Andhra Pradesh. About the Department. Vijayawada: Andhra Pradesh Fisheries Department; [[Last accessed on 2025 Sep 25]]. Available from: https://fisheries.ap.gov.in . [Google Scholar]
- 4.Fisheries Department East Godavari District, Government of Andhra Pradesh. East Godavari: Government of Andhra Pradesh. [[Last accessed on 2025 Sep 25]]. Available from: https://eastgodavari.ap.gov.in/fisheries-department/
- 5.Yalamanchi V, Vadlamani S, Vennam S. Occupational health problems and major risk factor profile of non communicable diseases among workers in the aquaculture industry in Visakhapatnam. J Family Med Prim Care. 2022;11:3071–6. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2137_21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Prusty S, Sharma A. Occupational hazards faced by inland fishers of Odisha state, India. J Agromedicine. 2023;28:425–32. doi: 10.1080/1059924X.2023.2178572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Rani UK, Ismal TM, Padmaja B. Socio-economic and health assessment of fisherwomen in Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh: India. J Women Empower Stud. 2023;4:29–40. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Halder CE, Das PP, Rahman SMT, Bhoumick LC, Tassdik H, Hasan MA, et al. Occupational hazards and risks among the women in fisher communities in Cox's Bazar and Chattogram, Bangladesh. PLoS One. 2024;19:e0297400. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Pukkalla D, Sharma BV. Occupational health risks and etiologies among the Jalari community of Northern District of Andhra Pradesh, India. J Hum Ecol. 2018;61:64–71. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Mandal S, Hasan I, Hawlader NH, Sultana I, Rahman M, Majumder SI. Occupational health hazard and safety assessment of fishermen community in Coastal zone of Bangladesh. Int J Health Econ Policy. 2017;2:63–71. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Melann P, Roopa R. Occupational hazards among fishermen in Mumbai. Int J Multidiscip Educ Res. 2023;12((6 Suppl 2)):32–8. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hadaye RS, Dey A. A cross-sectional study to assess the occupational health hazards among fisherwomen in a metropolitan city. J Family Med Prim Care. 2024;13:1271–7. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1325_23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]