Coping strategies for housing dairy animals during the 2018 Floods in Kerala, India

Introduction

In rural India, livestock is more than just a source of income; it represents a secure investment and a mark of social status. India maintains one of the world's most massive livestock populations, exceeding 535 million animals, with Kerala alone contributing roughly 17.5 million across various species (Mandal et al., 2022) [4] . Despite this economic importance, Kerala's geographywith 40% of its land vulnerable to inundation-leaves the sector highly exposed to monsoonal disasters. This was most evident during the 2018 floods, which impacted over 200,000 animals and caused widespread displacement, disease, and feed shortages (Sachin et al., 2019) [7] . (Shanthi and Veerakumaran, 2019) [9] . The districts of Idukki, Thrissur, and Ernakulam were particularly hard-hit, suffering massive disruptions to milk production and significant fodder scarcity. In Idukki, the Periyar River's overflow submerged 25,000 hectares of land, while the dairy-intensive communities in Thrissur and Ernakulam saw every village designated as flood-affected (United Nations., 2018) [10] (SDMA, 2018) [6] .

Materials and Methods

Based on United Nations data, seven districts in Keralaincluding Alappuzha, Ernakulam, Idukki, Kottayam, Pathanamthitta, Thrissur, and Wayanad experienced the most severe impacts during the 2018 floods. For this investigation, Thrissur, Ernakulam, and Idukki were specifically selected due to the dramatic declines in milk procurement they recorded: 33.58%, 29.58%, and 16.92%, respectively. Although Pathanamthitta experienced a higher percentage drop (67.74%), its lower overall baseline milk production made the other three districts more representative of the sector's broader regional crisis. Based on the severity of flood four panchayats from each district were selected. From each selected panchayat a sample of 15 affected farmers were randomly selected based on the secondary data available with the Kerala State Animal Husbandry Department and Department of Dairy Development. Thus the final sample size comprised of 180 respondents from 12 panchayats of three districts. In this context, "coping strategies" refer to the deliberate cognitive and behavioural actions taken by farmers to navigate or reduce the stress caused by flooding. Following the framework established by Lazarus et al., (1984) [3] , these actions are divided into active problem-solving-aimed at fixing the physical threat-and emotion-focused approaches. This study specifically focused on how these housing-related strategies were implemented by dairy farmers to protect livestock and maintain sustainable livelihoods in the face of disaster. To assess post-flood coping strategies for dairy animal housing, potential strategies were identified through literature review and expert consultations. Responses were measured on an adoption scale, where farmers indicated if they continuously adopted the strategy, had discontinued it, or never adopted it. This three-point scoring approach was designed to reflect the recurring annual flood risks faced by dairy farmers in Kerala. Scores were recorded on a continuum scale as follows: www.extensionjournal.com

Results

In Thrissur district, the survey results detailed in Table 1 show a unanimous reliance on geographic elevation, with all participants (100%) constructing their livestock shelters on higher ground. This was closely followed by the practice of relocating herds to highland areas during active flooding (93.33%) and the installation of protective dykes around shelters (78.33%). Additionally, a significant number utilised public infrastructure, such as government buildings, for temporary housing (63.33%) or shared space with neighbours on higher ground (61.67%), while the construction of permanent concrete (pucca) sheds was the least common approach at 23.33%. Similarly, in Idukki district, the most universal response was the immediate movement of livestock to high-altitude areas during the disaster (100%). Most farmers also prioritised building their primary sheds on elevated terrain (93.33%) and made extensive use of government facilities as emergency shelters (81.67%). While over two-thirds of respondents utilised dykes (68%), there was a lower tendency to share private shelters with others (33.33%) or invest in permanent concrete housing (27%). In Ernakulam district, the data follows a similar trend of prioritising elevation, with every respondent (100%) building animal shelters on high ground. This was followed by the near-universal practice of moving livestock to highlands during flood events (98.33%) and utilizing government buildings for temporary shelter (78.33%). The construction of dykes was also a common measure (75%), while communal sharing of highland sheds (46.67%) and the building of permanent concrete structures (41.67%) were less frequent, though still higher than in the other surveyed districts. An analysis of the indexing scores across the three districts confirms a clear hierarchy of adaptation strategies. In Thrissur, building on high ground was the primary mechanism (Score: 1.00), with relocation to highlands closely behind (0.97). In Idukki, the priorities were slightly reversed, with herd relocation ranking first (1.00) and elevated construction second (0.94). Ernakulam mirrored Thrissur's rankings, placing elevated construction at the top (1.00), followed by highland relocation (0.98).(Table 2) Across all regions, using government infrastructure and building dykes served as consistent mid-tier solutions, while the construction of permanent "pucca" concrete sheds consistently ranked as the least adopted housing strategy. Constructing dykes around the animal shed 0.78(iii) 0.69(iv) 0.76(iv) Values in parenthesis indicates the order of merit of preferences by the respondents column wise

Discussion

The study's results highlight a strong preference for geographic solutions in housing management, with building shelters on elevated terrain and relocating livestock to highlands emerging as the primary coping strategies. These were followed by the utilisation of government infrastructure as temporary housing and the installation of protective dykes. In contrast, the least common approach was the investment in permanent concrete (pucca) structures. These findings align with previous research by Paul and Routray (2010) [5] , who observed that farmers initially move animals to higher sections of their own property before relocating to safer roadside elevations as floodwaters rise. The strategy of seeking temporary refuge also mirrors observations by Suriya et al. (2012) [8] during the Chennai floods and Danso et al., (2017) [1] in Ghana, where residents relied on the upper floors of buildings or the homes of neighbours. The necessity of building on high ground is driven by the reality that low-lying farm areas are prone to stagnation even during routine rainfall, making them highly dangerous during extreme flood events. Strategically, using government buildings and veterinary hospitals as makeshift shelters proved effective not only because these structures are typically more resilient and located in safer areas, but also because they centralise the herd. This centralisation allows authorities to streamline the distribution of emergency relief, including fodder, clean water, and medical treatments (Kuriakose., 2019) [2] . www.extensionjournal.com

Conclusion

This research underscores the essential role of both structural planning and rapid behavioural responses in protecting Kerala's dairy livestock from flood-related disasters. The most effective strategies identified were proactive, such as building shelters on high ground, and reactive, such as the organised relocation of herds to highland regions. The widespread reliance on public infrastructure and communal shed-sharing highlights the necessity of community-based disaster management and the utility of pre-identified institutional shelters. However, the minimal adoption of permanent concrete (pucca) sheds points toward significant economic or logistical obstacles that prevent farmers from investing in long-term, flood-proof infrastructure. To bolster the resilience of the dairy industry, future policy interventions should focus on the following pillars:

• Financial Incentives: Providing subsidies or lowinterest loans for the construction of elevated, floodresilient animal housing. • Logistical Frameworks: Developing standardised evacuation protocols and "green channels" for moving livestock quickly to highland zones. • Infrastructure Accessibility: Strengthening and designating more sturdy public buildings as emergency shelters to facilitate easier distribution of veterinary aid and fodder.

References

1. Danso SY, Addo IY. Coping strategies of households affected by flooding: a case study of Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolis in Ghana. Urban Water J. 2017;14(5):539545.
2. Kuriakose S. Rebuilding Kerala: a disaster risk management perspective. In: Towards disaster risk reduction in Kerala: experiences, perspectives and way forward. Trivandrum: Institute for Sustainable Development & Governance; 2019. p. 34-40.
3. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 1984.
4. Mandal A, Roy I, Rahman M, Karunakaran M. Genetic resources of livestock and poultry in coastal ecosystems of India. In: Transforming coastal zone for sustainable food and income security: proceedings of the International Symposium of ISCAR on Coastal Agriculture; 2021 Mar 16-19; Cham. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 387-402.
5. Paul SK, Routray JK. Flood proneness and coping strategies: the experiences of two villages in Bangladesh. Disasters. 2010;34(2):489-508.
6. State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA), Kerala. Kerala floods -2018. Kerala: SDMA; 2018. https://sdma.kerala.gov.in/wpcontent/uploads/2019/08/ Memorandum1-Floods2018.pdf
7. Sachin BP, Biya AJ, Prasad A, Singh B, Sruthi S, Sunitha T, et al. Impact of Kerala flood on milk production in the state. In: Compendium of the National Conference on Innovations in Animal Production for Sustainability and Doubling Farmers' Income and XXVI Annual Convention of the Indian Society of Animal Production and Management; 2019 Jan 23-25;
8. Mannuthy, India. Mannuthy: Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University; 2019. p. 365.
9. Suriya S, Mudgal BV, Nelliyat P. Flood damage assessment of an urban area in Chennai, India, Part I: methodology. Nat Hazards. 2012;62:149-167.
10. Santhi SL, Veerakumaran G. Impact assessment of Kerala flood 2018 on agriculture of farmers in Edathua Panchayat, Kuttanad Taluk of Alappuzha District. Shanlax Int J Econ. 2019;7(4):24-28.
11. United Nations. Kerala post disaster needs assessment: floods and landslides, August 2018. Thiruvananthapuram: Government of Kerala; 2018. p. 1-13.