The contribution of estuarine ecosystems to fishers’ migration patterns and livelihood adaptation along Ghana’s coast

ABSTRACT

Globally, migration has become an important livelihood strategy for many poor households. Estuaries and seashores play a central role as points of human settlement and marine resource use. While access to a natural resources/biodiversity could be a pull factor for migration, biological and socioeconomic reasons such as overpopulation, reduced fish stocks, and environmental degradation may also compel fishers to migrate to other areas along the coast as a livelihood adaptation strategy. This study assessed the contribution of estuarine ecosystems to fishers’ migration patterns for livelihood adaptation along the coast of Ghana. Data from 652 household heads were used to analyse the linkage of estuarine ecosystems on fishers’ migration patterns along Ghana’s coast. The results show that having access to the river, sea and people from the same hometown/ethnicity were the factors that attracted about half of the respondents to settle in the selected estuarine communities. There was also a significant relationship between ethnicity and preference for unique features of the estuary. A proposed individual/household complementary migration framework best explains fisher migration in Ghana. This understanding of the migratory patterns of fishers is necessary for managing Ghana’s valuable coastal ecosystems, particularly estuaries. The findings of this study has significant implications for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 10.7 by 2030.

Edited by:

• Maraja Riechers

KEYWORDS:

• Estuaries
• migration
• livelihoods
• fishers
• ecosystems

1. Introduction

Migration is an outcome of a complex interplay of environmental, economic, social, and demographic variables (Singh and Basu 2019). Nomads and pastoralists historically migrated for water and food for their animals (Jägerskog and Swain 2016). The increasing diversity of human needs and challenges have eroded this narrow view of migration. According to Gemenne et al. (2018), people migrate in response to economic, environmental, sociocultural, and recreational changes. Trade-offs between socio-ecological systems have a livelihood mobility dimension as people move to regions with high ecosystem services for a living. This is especially true for fishers, who rely on coastal ecosystem goods and services. The livelihood of fishers is further worsened by the effects of climate change on fisheries characteristics, mobility of fish, individual fish species’ existence, growth, and distribution (Ojea et al. 2020). Migration has been seen as a livelihood adaptation strategy (Randall 2005) and a way to cope with the drastic decline of coastal fish stocks (Perry and Sumaila 2007; Failler 2020). For instance, Kramer et al. (2016) and Sugimoto (2016) estimate that fisher migrants account for at least a quarter of the population growth in coastal villages of North Sulawesi, Indonesia and 40% of Shiraho fisher communities in Okinawa, Japan respectively. Randall (2005) asserts that West African fisher migrants followed migrating fish. In recent decades, migration patterns and causes have diversified and sometimes migration changes a person’s livelihood (Choithani et al. 2021).

In Africa, fisher migration has attracted considerable attention (Overa 2001; Ngo Likeng 2006; Njock and Westlund 2010; Failler and Ferraro 2021). Among others, fewer regulations, open access to the fisheries and other coastal resources contribute to ease in fishers’ migration (Njock and Westlund 2008, 2010; Asiedu et al. 2022). It is found that open-access fisheries may increase the influx of migrant fishers, harming the ecosystem in isolated and poorly governed areas (Wamukota and Okemwa 2009). The form, nature and reasons for the migration are diverse may range from circular internal migration practices e.g. the Mousgoum fishers move from Lake Chad to Cameroon’s coast and back (Ngo Likeng 2006); migrations from marine to inland fisheries e.g. fishers from Saloum Delta to the inland fishing areas of Senegal (Samba and Faye 2006). In all these, fisher migration is a highly professional accomplishment and affords prospects for self-fulfilment through access to livelihood assets/capital beyond one’s local community, which can be used to improve situations back home (Overa 2001).

Estuaries and coastal seas have long been centres of human settlement and the use of marine resources in coastal areas, particularly in Ghana (Lotze et al. 2006). Oglethorpe et al. (2007) indicated that access to a particular natural resource/biodiversity could also be a pull factor for migration. Hartter et al. (2012) argue that cultural/ethnic diversity influence preferences toward ecosystem goods and services. Thus, ethnicity or culture may determine a particular ecosystem’s value and use and influence fisher migration patterns. Hometown/ethnicity of migrants are intricate connections of personal ties that connect migrants, ex-migrants, and non-migrants in their places of origin and destinations through familial relations, friendships, ethnicity, culture, and shared community origins (Massey et al. 1993). Hartter et al. (2012) argued that cultural/ethnic preferences exist for ecosystem goods and services and these preferences, according to Martín-lópez et al. (2012), differ widely between rural and urban residents. On the contrary, Goldbach et al. (2018) asserted that people’s occupational status determines the value they place on a resource. This claim holds especially true for fishers who attach great importance to resources that are directly connected to their livelihoods. For instance, fishers, farmers, and conservationists will value ecosystems that maintain an abundance of fish species, water for agricultural irrigation, habitat for endangered wildlife species, and recreational and aesthetic features (García-Llorente et al. (2012). Therefore, these ecosystems have the ability to impact migration patterns by acting as pull factors to destination regions.

The communities along the 550 km coastline of Ghana are fishing populations who fish in both local and international waters. There is a plethora of literature on Ghanaian fishers’ international migration (Overa 2001; Njock and Westlund 2008, 2010; Kraan 2009; Asiedu et al. 2022). Ghanaian fishers’ migration to The Gambia, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, and Benin has been documented (Kraan 2009). Overa (2001) noted that Moree fishers (Fante ethnic group) migrated to accumulate wealth and followed the fish species they exploited. However, these international migration patterns only represent a small fraction of fishers’ migration since internal migration is comparably much higher (King et al. 2008). Despite these studies on international fisher migration, there is little empirical data on internal fishers’ migration and the contribution of estuarine ecosystem to fishers’ migration in Ghana. In Ghana, low fish catch at home shores, lagoons, and estuaries force fishers to migrate (Kraan 2009) to similar coastal socioeconomic and cultural environments (Fellmann et al. 2005). Thus, Ghanaian fishers largely migrate for food security, income, and resources, contrary to the general assumption that people will migrate when faced with environmental challenges (e.g. Perry and Sumaila 2007; Batsaikhan et al. 2018; Teye and Nikoi 2022). For example, Hillmann et al. (2020) found that environmental and climate change consequences, such as coastal flooding, were insignificant for out-migration in Keta (a place in Ghana that has experienced severe environmental changes for several decades).

Kutir et al. (2022) identified a significant increase in the population (immigration) of estuarine communities resulting in estuarine degradation. Kyei‐Gyamfi (2023) documented the living circumstances, mobility patterns, lodging arrangements and difficulties of artisanal fishers in Ghana. However, a substantial knowledge gap exists on the contribution of the estuarine ecosystem to fishers’ migration patterns and how ethnicity determines the value placed on these estuarine ecosystem services in Ghana. Our paper analyses the livelihood adaptation-migration-estuary nexus as the basis for social intervention and policy actions, especially along the coast, and may help achieve SDG target 10.7 on implementing well-managed migration policies in the broader scheme of ‘Migration Governance’. It will also contribute significant inputs to the IOM’s (2017) position that migration-related laws and procedures must foster solid socioeconomic outcomes for migrants and origin, transit, and destination communities. We expand knowledge on migration studies by proposing an individual/household complementary migration framework that better explains migration by combining all existing theories.

2. Conceptual framework

The notion of livelihood stems from the ‘sustainable livelihood’ approach. It is generally perceived as a way of life that can withstand sudden changes and pressures, and at the same time, does not negatively impact the environment (Meikle et al. 2001). According to Tanle (2015), the economic, social, cultural, political, and environmental shocks influence an individual’s decision to migrate for livelihood adaptation. Fratzke and Salant (2018) concluded in their comprehensive review of 113 studies from six different global regions (as recognized by the World Bank) that, despite the multitude of reasons for migration, adaptation or opportunities for a better livelihood remained a constant cause for such movements. Thus, migration is largely a livelihood adaptation strategy for the rural households (Fuengfeld 2018).

Many theories have been used to explain migration in Ghana: neoclassical, push-pull, neoclassical economic theory, the push-pull theory, the new economics of labour migration theory, and the social network theory (Teye et al. 2019). According to the Neoclassical Theory, there is a link between global labour supply and demand and migration abroad. Countries with a shortage of workers and high demand will have high wages that entice immigrants from countries with a labour surplus. Thus, access to jobs and disparities in pay are the main drivers of migration. Although other elements that may have contributed to the migration, the individual higher pay benefit element occupies the central position. Early migration studies in Ghana used the neoclassical equilibrium theory to examine labour migration to ports, cocoa-growing regions, and mining regions (Awumbila et al. 2008). Some regions of Ghana experienced an increase in migration from other underdeveloped or resource-poor areas due to increased employment opportunities (on farms), industrial development, and higher wages (Beals and Menezes 1970; Arthur 1991; Anarfi et al. 2000). This neoclassical viewpoint explains some of Ghana’s internal migration in general and rural-urban migration.

Similarly, some Ghanaian migration research used the ‘push-pull’ theory. According to these researchers, unfavourable conditions in one place ‘push’ people out and favourable conditions in another ‘pull’ them in, and economics drives migration (Van der Geest 2011; Asare 2012; Awumbila et al. 2014). Lee’s (1966) push-pull theory of migration asserts migration is complicated. Four major considerations: (1) origin-area factors, (2) destination-area factors, (3) intervening impediments, and (4) personal factors. Lee suggests that unemployment and overpopulation drive people away from their homes, but job opportunities, natural resources, and social amenities would draw them there. Money, transportation, and distance are impediments and people must overcome these obstacles before moving. Sridhar et al. (2010) argue that Lee’s model assumes complete job knowledge and that potential migrants may be indifferent between their rural and uncertain destination income.

Many Ghanaian migration studies (Awumbila et al. 2008, 2017; Casentini 2018; Serbeh and Adjei 2020) use social network theory based on earlier studies by Durkheim (1893) and Tönnies (1887). Migrant social networks are webs of interpersonal links that bind migrants, former migrants, and nonemigrants in origin and destination places via kinship, friendship, and shared community roots (Massey et al. 1993). According to the proponents of the social networking theory, a connection to someone who has moved before can be a valuable resource. Social networks increase migration potential by lowering costs and risks while increasing expected net gains (Casentini 2018; Serbeh and Adjei 2020). People can use social networks for jobs and other socio-economic, cultural, and religious support. This network is self-reinforcing, such that increased migration leads to increased social network expansion, which leads to increased migration, and so on. According to the theory, migrants without social ties pay a high price, while those who have friends and family pay less. According to Light et al. (2017), social network theory enhances new immigrant arrivals while decreasing the job supply. For instance, Meier (2005) used network theory to study social peace in Accra and Tema. The social network theory has also been criticised for being a conceptual framework rather than a theory by Kurekova (2011).

In assessing the migration theories or conceptual frameworks, Teye et al. (2019) concluded that no single theory could explain all migrations in Ghana because the drivers are complex and multifaceted. Thus, a combination of migration theories would somewhat explain the different migrations in Ghana. Sarfo (2019) combined the New Economics of Labour Migration (NELM) theory and the push and pull theory of migration to explain out-migration in Ghana. NELM theory assumes people migrate temporarily to accomplish their goals in host communities, which serve as the foundation for their eventual return (Sarfo 2019). However, migrant fishers in Ghana’s estuarine communities are permanent migrants, and many have no plans to return home.

Whilst the earlier studies have relied on one or a combination of the social network and push-pull theories, they fail to explain the reinforcing role of the failed or successful migrant in the decision making at the source migration. We propose a new individual/household complementary migration framework by combining the push and pull and social network theories and highlighting how remittances, migrant success stories, and advice improve individual and household conditions (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Individual/household complementary framework of migration.

Coastal erosion, natural disasters, loss of ecosystem services, declining fish stocks, and climate change have contributed to the loss of fishers’ livelihood (Kraan 2009; Kutir et al. 2022), pushing them to migrate. Due to their rich biodiversity, natural beauty, and source of livelihood, estuaries have also been areas of major human settlements and attract (pull) migrants fishers (Kutir et al. 2022). Livelihood resources comprise natural, financial, human, social, cultural, traditional, and physical resources that individuals require to achieve their well-being objectives. Interventions aimed at sustaining livelihoods are usually structured to influence one or multiple distinct components of the sustainable livelihood’s framework, such as physical, financial, or human capital, among others (Fratzke and Salant 2018).

After assessing push and pull factors (while still at home), migrants must be certain and overcome issues/questions concerning distance, cost, and destination area knowledge. The social networks help fishers overcome these obstacles. Thus, having friends, family, and kin in destination communities could reinforce the site specific pull factors for fisher migration. A migrant’s livelihood outcomes can be positive, negative, or neutral. Successful migration implies improved food security, income, and assets (Tanle 2015) and increase connectivity and relationships with their home communities. Remittances improve conditions at the origin of individual/household level. Thus, from Figure 1, successful migrant fishers may send remittances home through the same social networks to improve conditions at home by building better houses and improving education and health care. These migration outcomes manifesting through remittances and migrant success stories could help resolve some intervening obstacles for future migrants. Migrant fishers may travel home for weddings, funerals, and festivals. Their success stories and improved personalities (which may be perceived or real) help shape potential migrants’ perceptions and aspirations about migrating. On the other hand, adverse outcomes may increase the migrant’s vulnerability and livelihood and decrease the connectivity with home. This individual/household complementary framework of migration therefore does not only combine the push-pull and social network theories but explains the critical role the outcomes of migration and intervening factors play on a person or household’s decision to migrate.

3. Methodology

3.1. Description of the study area

This research focuses on estuarine communities selected from major rivers along the coast of Ghana (Figure 2). The selected estuaries are the Pra, Ankobra, Densu, Kakum, and Volta. They are important Ghanaian rivers and discharge into the sea through estuaries.

Figure 2. The selected estuarine communities for the study.

Pra Estuary: This estuary is between 5° 01′0627′′ N and 1° 35′ 56′′ W in Ghana’s Shama District. The Pra River System is the second-largest freshwater discharge. Illegal alluvial gold mining activities upstream has turned the water very turbid.

Ankobra Estuary: The estuary is at 4°53′55′′N and 2°16′17′′W and contains woodlands, swamps, bamboo, mangrove, coconuts, and fish. Mangroves are cut for fuelwood and other purposes. Illegal alluvial gold mining activities upstream has increased siltation of the estuary.

Volta Estuary: The Volta River discharges into the sea at Ada. On each side of the estuary is the Keta and Songhor Ramsar sites. Estuary clamming is plentiful. The Volta estuary supports navigation, tourism, real estate, fishing, and tilapia aquaculture.

Densu Estuary: The Densu estuary is located between 5°30′N and 5°31′N and 0°17′W and 0°18’W. A diverse wetland surrounds the Densu Estuary (Densu Ramsar Site). The estuary is a crab and oyster hotspot.

Kakum Estuary: The Cape Coast-Takoradi route passes 3 km from this estuary. 5.05° N 1.20° W Estuary of Kakum and Sweet rivers. Kakum is bigger than Sweet. Daily tides affect the estuary and have granite’s shape and surface geology.

The locations for the study varied due to their estuarine nature, associated with every distinct main river in Ghana. Yet, they shared a similarity due to the dominance of Anlo Ewe migrants in all chosen estuarine communities, who established themselves there seeking resources for livelihood adaptation, except for the Iture (Kankum) estuary. The latter estuary, located in an urban area, did not host any significant fishing activities. Estuaries have historically been important human settlements due to their biodiversity, beauty, and income.

3.2. Sampling and data collection methods

The research investigated the spatiotemporal mobility of fishers. When fishers move away from their village/district/country to fish away from their local fishing grounds, they cross a spatial boundary and settle in the new place as permanent migrants as defined by Njock and Westlund (2008). On the temporal scale, the (second or third generation) time spent fishing away from one’s home, family, and birthplace at the destination was considered.

In this investigation, a multi-stage sampling method was employed. In the initial step of sampling, the settlement that was nearest to each estuary was purposefully chosen: River Pra (Shama Anlo Beach), Ankobrah (Sanwoma), Volta (Kewunor), Kakum (Iture), and Densu (Faana) as shown in Figure 2. The sample size for the study was then determined using the formula developed by Krejcie and Morgan (1970) Table 1.

Table 1. Selected study communities and number of respondents considered in assessing the movement of fisherfolk in Ghana.

Region	River	Estuarine community	No of Households	Sample Size
Western	Ankobra	Sanwoma (Ankobra)	256	153
	Pra	Anlo Beach	790	255
Central	Kakum	Iture	81	66
Accra	Densu	Faana	156	110
	Volta	Kewunor	84	68
Total			1367	652

Equation 1: Sample Size Formula

(1) $\mathrm{S}={\mathrm{X}}^2\mathrm{NP}\left(1-\mathrm{P}\right)/{\mathrm{d}}^2\left(\mathrm{N}-1\right)+{\mathrm{X}}^2\mathrm{P}\left(1-\mathrm{p}\right)$(1)

“Where: S = required sample size

X² = the table value of chi-square for 1 degree of freedom at the desired confidence level (3.841), which is 1.96 × 1.96 = 3.841

N = the population size.

p = the population proportion (assumed to be 0.50 since this would provide the maximum Sample size)

d = the degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion (0.05)”.

Three main data collection methods were used: semi-structured surveys, key informant interviews (KII), and focus groups (FGD). Migrant fishers were surveyed using a structured interview guide with close-ended and open-ended questions about migration, the estuary’s relevance to fishers’ livelihood, and preferred estuary features. Key Informants such as traditional leaders and chief fishers were interviewed. Based on the background information gathered interacting with respondents during the survey, in each community, an eight-person FGD was conducted with household heads who knew the migration trajectories well.

3.3. Data analysis

Questionnaire data were analysed quantitatively. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to summarize respondent demographics and estuary pull factors. Pattern analysis was used to determine migrant flows to estuarine communities based on origin, destination, and counts. Ten dominant flows and some outliers showed migration flows. A chi-square test was also used to determine a statistically significant link between ethnicity and estuary characteristics.

4. Results

4.1. Demographic of migrant fisherfolks

Nearly a quarter of the respondents were aged between 41 and 50, while 65% were married and in their economically active years (19 to 64). In addition, it was found that marital status, educational level, and ethnicity all influence fisherfolk migration. The association between marital status of fishers and migration was analysed using a chi-square test of independence. The relationship between these variables was found to be significant; implying that married fishers were more likely to migrate, (X² (3, N = 652) = 24.8, p = 0.001 with a Cramer’s V = 0.1952).

Similarly, the relationship between ethnicity and migration was significant. Thus, there was a significant strong positive association between ethnicity and migration among fishers (X² (4, N = 652) = 327.57, p = 0.000 with a Cramer’s V = 0.71). Equally, the relationship between educational status and migration was significant, (X² (4, N = 652) = 23.89, p = 0.000 with a Cramer’s V = 0.19). That is, educational level of fishers’ weakly influences fishers’ migration, with most fishers without formal education being the group that easily migrates.

However, gender, age of household heads, and fisher group membership were not significant factors in the study. In addition, most fishers, notably in Anlo Beach, Faana, and Kewunor were migrants of different generations (1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd). However, the reverse was seen in Iture and Ankobra communities, where the indigenes dominated the community.

4.2. Fishers’ migration to estuarine communities of Ghana

4.2.1. Temporal aspects of fisher’s migration along the coast of Ghana

Variations in fish stocks, catch, and social networks cause a constant influx of migrant fishers into estuarine communities. About 2% of 125 first-generation fisher migrants settled in Anlo Beach between 1930–1939. Most migrant fishers, 26%, arrived between 1970 and 1979. Relatively more recent migration occurred between 2000 –2009 whereby about 34% of the first-generation came to Ankobra, 50% to Iture 41% to Faana and 41% to Kewunor (Figure 3). However, 2nd and 3rd generation migrants were born in estuarine communities to first-generation migrants who still have ties to their original hometowns.

Figure 3. Temporal dimension of in-migration trajectory to estuarine communities along the coast of Ghana.

4.2.2. Spatial aspects of fisherfolk migration along the coast of Ghana

Internal migration is common in Ghana’s estuarine areas. Maps show fisher movements to selected estuaries from 1930 to 2020. Anlo-Ewes migrant fishers from Anloga, Dzita, and Keta dominated migration.

For the Ankobra estuary (Figure 4), the indigenous fishers dominated. Only a few migrants (mainly Anlo-Ewes and Fantes) were present. However, out of 35 first-generation migrant fishers in Ankobra, nearly half (12) migrated from Anloga.

Figure 4. The origin and destination of migrant fisher in Ankobra Estuary, Ghana.

Clear migration patterns emerged in the pattern analysis of Anlo Beach. We found a homogenous migrant community of fishers from the Volta Region, with significant proportions from Atiavi, Keta, Dzita and Agordome areas (Figure 5). They were mostly first- or second-generation Volta migrants. In the past, high tides, coastal erosion, and flooding hindered fishing at their home shore. Access to the river Pra and open sea made estuarine communities, especially Anlo Beach, suitable destination for migrants. A respondent noted, ‘access to varied fishing areas, including rivers and sea, enhances our catch, which motivates me to live near an estuary. Equally, the mangroves and other plants along the rivers are useful for their medicinal properties’.

Figure 5. The origin and destination of migrant fishers in Anlo Beach, Ghana.

For Faana, only a few residents were from the original population. Anlo-Ewes from Dzelukope, Anloga, Tegbi, and Keta flocked to this settlement in quest of fishing prospects. Most of the first-generation fisher migrants (18) originated from Keta, while only (1) came from Sagakope (Figure 6).

Figure 6. The origin and destination of migrant fishers in Faana, Ghana.

Iture received only a few migrants from Ankaful, Elmina, and Lome. Most of them were females who migrated for marriage (that is, marrying men in Iture) (Figure 7). Despite the estuary, fishing is very minimal in this community.

Figure 7. The origin and destination of migrant fishers in Iture, Ghana.

Likewise, the origin-destination flow to Kewunor (Figure 8) indicated that most of the fisher migrants of Kewunor originated from Azizakope, Anloga, and Keta of the Volta Region with nearly half (14) of the 35 first-generation migrants coming from Keta. In addition to the Ghanaian migrants, some fishermen came from Benin, Togo, and Cote d’Ivoire.

Figure 8. The origin and destination of migrant fishers in Kewunor Ghana.

4.3. Pull factors to estuarine communities

Pull factors to the selected estuarine communities differed from community to community. Our data show that having access to the river/sea/land and ethnicity were the main pull factors that attracted about a third (32.8%) of fishers to Anlo Beach and a little more than a third (37.1%) to Kewunor. Other reasons were reported in Iture: an overwhelming proportion (80%) joined their spouses. Our study shows that ethnicity as a basis for a social network cannot be underestimated as a pull factor (Figure 9). Similarly, 28.3% representing the majority of migrant fisherfolks, revealed having other people from their ethnicity as the reason for choosing Faana as a migration destination.

Figure 9. Major pull factors influencing migration into estuarine communities in the coast of Ghana.

4.4. The relationship between unique characteristics of the estuary and ethnicity

We determined which of the unique features of the estuary was of paramount value to fishers. Among the 652 respondents, the highest ranked characteristic of the estuary was the river (27%), followed by the open sea (26%). The least rated was the vegetation (5%). Complementing this finding was the ethnic differences in ranking these special features of the estuary (Figures 10 and 11). Ethnicity and culture influence preferences for ecosystem goods and services. Thus, the value placed on a feature varies among ethnic groups. The data revealed about 30% of the Anlo-Ewe ranked the highest river. They said staying by the estuary gives them alternative fishing options. During high tides, the river provides fish. Additionally, it is prohibited for fishermen in Ghana to go fishing on Tuesdays; thus, most fishermen go fishing in the river on these days to supplement their income. An Anlo-Ewe respondent who ranked the river first (1^st) explained that,

Figure 10. Preferred unique features of estuarine ecosystems among migrant fishers in Selected Estuarine Communities along the Coast of Ghana.

Figure 11. Preference of unique features of estuarine ecosystems among migrant fisherfolks in selected estuarine communities along the coast of Ghana.

‘The river is the wife of the sea; as such, the sea impregnates the river through the estuary and gives birth to more fishes that go back into the sea; wherever there is a river and a sea, there are more fish’.

To explain the influx of Anlo-Ewes at the Pra Estuary, a male fisherman said that, ‘news of the lucrative and bumper harvests spread around the coast of Volta Region, so the majority of us moved here to fish’. In comparison, most Fante ranked the open sea (28.6%) as their first choice. However, most Nzema fisherfolks ranked food/fish (41.8%) highest among the other characteristics. The shoreland was also ranked highest by the migrant fisherfolks of Faana (41.9%).

Complementing these results was the Chi-Square test which confirmed that a significant relationship exists between the preference for unique characteristics of the estuary and ethnicity. The relation between ethnicity and preference for estuary ecosystem goods and services was significant, (X² (12, N = 652) = 66.265, p = .000). Supplementing this finding is a Cramer’s Value of 0.2, which shows a weak association between ethnicity and preference for distinctive estuarine traits (Table 2).

Table 2. Assessment of the association between ethnicity and choice of unique characteristics of the estuarine environment in Ghana.

Ethnicity	Counts	Food (fish)	Shoreland	Sea	River	Vegetation	Total
Anlo-Ewe	Observed Counts	87	90	105	124	16	422
	Expected Counts	106.93	77.94	95.98	112.73	26.41
	Chi-square Contribution	3.7	1.9	0.8	1.1	−7.2
Fante	Observed Counts	19	14	22	17	5	77
	Expected Counts	19.6	14.3	17.6	20.7	4.8
	Chi-square Contribution	0	0	0.3	1.6	3.6
Nzema	Observed Counts	51	10	18	33	10	122
	Expected Counts	31.1	22.6	27.9	32.8	7.7
	Chi-square Contribution	16.9	7.1	8.5	0.2	0.7
Others	Observed Counts	9	13	6	3	0	31
	Expected Counts	8.4	6.12	7.5	8.7	2.1
	Chi-square Contribution	0.7	0.1	0.3	0.9	16.9
Total		148	127	169	177	31	652

5. Discussion

5.1. Fishers’ demographics and migration

Migration is influenced by demographics, migrant networks, and wealth disparities (Simpson 2022). It could be that married migrants achieve higher dividends from working together and collectively handle a longer part of the fisheries value chain. Their partners may help with post-harvest sales and value addition by smoking and processing fish. For example, Torell et al. (2015), found that fishers usually migrate with their wives or kin women, who act as their business associates or partners and receive the catch for processing and sale. It is our academic guess that, this initial social network (family/kinsman) is the bedrock and basis for expanding migration flows at destination places. Similar to the findings of Munshi (2014) relatives serve as support systems for new migrants by providing temporary accommodations, food, safety nets and even jobs to directly support the movement of groups of individuals. Aside the family level Lekarapa and Root (2014) also found that ethnicity facilitated access to jobs among construction artisans from various ethnic groups in the Western Cape. Though the age of the household head was not a significant factor influencing migration in this study, most fishers were in their active economic ages. This might be because being economically engaged improves one’s ability to handle stress and adopt labour-intensive livelihood measures to sustain their families. Thus, age which is a function of fishing experience, may be a determinant of productivity, output, and innovation adoption (Olaoye et al. 2012).

5.2. Temporal and spatial aspects of fisher’s migration along the coast of Ghana

It is unknown when the first fisherman migrated and settled in estuarine areas. However, Anlo Beach, Faana and Kewunor are among Ghana’s oldest migrant fisher estuarine communities. This continuous increase could be due to the hitherto lucrative nature of the fishing business, and the presence of alternative sources and species of fish (from rivers and sea). It could be deduced that, because there is no restriction or specialisation in habitat for fishing, the rivers and sea are alternative and sustainable sources of fish for a fisherman looking for a place to settle. For example, when the sea is rough, fishermen could rely on the rivers for fish. However, this unrestricted use could result in unstainable use of the estuaries and subsequent degradation if not managed properly. Applying Lee’s (1966) push-pull theory of migration, the dominant factors at the destination sites, such as bumper fish harvest having alternative sources of fish: the rivers and sea, further pulled a lot of fisher migrants to the study communities. The different generations of migrants encountered mean that there are still migrants’ inflows into the estuarine communities and be explained by the expansion of migrant social networks in the destination communities, as indicated by our individual/household complimentary migration theory. These findings also confirm the results of Wanyonyi et al. (2016) on artisanal fisher migration patterns in Kenya, Tanzania and the northern provinces of Mozambique. They indicated that the predominant factors driving fisher migration in were the already high number of fishers (social networks) at the destination sites, overfishing in the fishermen’s home shore areas, and bad fish harvest; and the temporal patterns of movement are unique to individual migrant fishers, and we cannot make generalisations about all fishers. While that of the Anlo-Ewe is permanent, the trigger for the onset of migration across the generations needs to be investigated.

The Anlo-Ewe dominate fisher migration to Ghana’s estuaries. Wanyonyi et al. (2016) also found that destination of migration, gear and fishing space differs among different fishing cultures. According to Akyeampong (2001), the Anlo-Ewes used the beach seine method of fishing, which helped them become a more permanent migratory fishing group. While the estuarine communities also had Fante and Ga fishers, they fish in different spaces using different gears. Migration of these fisherfolk is a livelihood issue to seek bumper harvests and higher incomes. Marquette et al. (2002) found that Ghanaian fisher migrants send their proceeds home to build houses, pay school fees, and fulfil other family responsibilities. These migrant fishers improved conditions back home by using migration incomes or remittances to buy livelihood assets for poverty alleviation (Deb et al. 2002). Since the person to initiate the migration are usually breadwinning males, it could be adduced that migration for fishing boosts male status in Ghana. Scarcity of fish (livelihood) couth therefore trigger this cultural or innate trait of the Anlo-Ewe, causing them to migrate. These findings are consistent with that of Ngo Likeng (2006) who also found that circular internal migration was practised by the Mousgoums fishers from Lake Chad who migrate to Cameroon’s coast for fishing.

5.3. Pull factors to estuarine communities along Ghana’s coast

From our proposed complimentary migration framework, we can infer that the decision to migrate is not always easy. While quality of the river, sea, and land access were major pull factors in destination areas, social networks also usually played a role just as in the findings of Wanyonyi et al. (2016). They discovered that open and easy access to the sea contributes to a greater likelihood of the entry of migrant fishers in East African regions that accept migrant fishers. In addition, despite the numerous pull factors, social network (ethnicity/relatives) inspired migration, especially among the Anlo-Ewes, as it was the most common reason among all other pull factors. This may be justified because these social networks are sources of initial free labour and financial assistance before the migrant goes independent. The results confirm Grafton (2005) claim that social networks and capital are important because they help fishers catch a certain amount of fish at a lower cost and increase the resource’s long-term sustainability. However, according to Crona and Bodin (2006), there may be repercussions for regional fisheries management if migrant fishermen lack a sense of place and a sense of connection to their host communities.

5.4. The relationship between unique characteristics of the estuary and the ethnicity

Geography, socioeconomics, culture, and life events influence a person’s view of ecosystem goods and services (Allendorf and Yang 2013). Priorities vary from person to person and between ethnic groups. This could explain why most of the Anlo-Ewes preferred the river over other estuary features whilst the Nzema’s preferred the food/fish among the other features. Also, most of these estuarine regions are rural and very much dependent of the direct abstraction of the river water for domestic uses of the river. The dominance of the Anlo-Ewes in these estuaries influences the appreciation and thereby rating the river most unique feature of the estuarine environment. Thus, the complementing role of the river/estuary for the livelihood security of migrant fishers is key. After settling into a community, migrants are challenged by the successes and failures of their predecessors to do better (Gustavsson and Riley 2018). As a sustainable livelihood endeavour, the opportunity to fish in the river when the sea is closed is critical to the migrant.

Using the same cultural basis Fantes prioritised the sea using the purse seine. for deep-sea fishing. Goldbach et al. (2018) assert that socioeconomic factors, such as employment status and resource relationship, are crucial to coastal resource valuation. The Faana fishermen who built their homes on the shore ranked the shoreland first because shelter is one of man’s basic psychological needs. Without shoreland, they couldn’t build homes. The difference in ranking among the different ethnic groups is in line with the findings of Orenstein and Groner (2014). They observed a noteworthy difference in ecosystem ranking between diverse ethnic groups in the southern Arabah Valley. Thus, understanding ecosystem users’ cultural preferences is crucial, especially for conservation efforts and local development planning that incorporates long-term livelihoods for ecosystem users (Hartter et al. 2012). These results are comparable to those of Cuni-Sanchez et al. (2016) who found that culture and ethnicity influence the value rural communities in Northern Kenyan placed on their forest resources and choice of plant species for providing ecosystem services. According to Troell et al. (2011), knowing how fishing activity relates to habitats and other spatial factors, as well as how migratory fishers select their destinations, may have implications for coastal resource management. Thus, the research presented in this paper will thereby make an important contribution to the management of estuaries along Ghana’s coast.

5.5. Management implications of findings

Our results show estuaries contribution to migration patterns of fishers along the coast of Ghana, with social capital playing a vital role in the choice of destination estuarine community, particularly among the Anlo Ewes, who were the dominant migrant group along the coast of Ghana. A positive association between ethnicity and preference for unique features of the estuary shows the important role culture plays in the value and use of ecosystem goods and services. Therefore, we encourage policymakers and managers of relevant institutions such as the fisheries agencies, municipal, metropolitan, and district assemblies (MMDAs) responsible for fisheries, coastal resource management, and community development to engage fishers in collaborative and participatory management of these valuable resources to ensure that the huge influx of migrant fishers does not exert undue pressures and subsequent degradation of the estuaries for the achievement of United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14 by 2030. Similarly, the MMDAs should help alleviate some of the push factors of migration, such as coastal flooding and related disasters reported yearly, by building seas defence and providing alternative livelihood opportunities to reduce out-migration, especially from the Volta region of Ghana. Our finding provides relevant insight and literature to migration governance institutions and policymakers such as the Ministry of Interior, and the Immigration Services, among others, in the quest to achieve SDG10.7 on facilitating orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well- managed migration policies in Ghana.

6. Conclusions

Ghana’s estuaries have drawn migrant fishers since the 1930s. Migrant fishermen migrated to estuarine communities because of the river, sea, and land access. Social capital was the dominant reason for choosing a destination community, especially among the Anlo-Ewes who were the dominant migrant group in the estuarine communities of Ghana because the estuary’s benefits drew this category of fishers. Estuaries/rivers provide alternative fishing grounds for migrant fishers. Anlo-Ewes, Fantis, Nzema’s, and other ethnic groups value these unique features differently, indicating a relationship between ethnicity and estuary preference. Coastal fisheries management requires understanding fisher migration trajectories.

Although this study focused on migrant fishers in estuarine communities, the approach could be used for other natural resources. The study recommends that interventions on fisher migration consider social capital (social network) as a pull factor and the value of ecosystem goods and services at destination areas. We show that valuable estuarine ecosystems could be a pull factor for in-migration. Thus, our complimentary framework for migration proposed in this study depicts the migration drivers of migration to estuarine communities which could be applied to other natural resource induced migration for livelihood adaptation. However, an uncontrolled influx of migrants could lead to overexploitation and resource degradation, threatening the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 14 by 2030. Thus, more research should be done in the origin areas to assess out-migration push factors.

Ethical consideration

The research protocols for the study were approved by the University of Cape Coast Institutional Review Board (UCCIRB). Therefore, UCCIRB/CANS/2020/05 is the clearance identification number.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this study came from the Centre for Coastal Management, an Africa Centre of Excellence for Coastal Resilience (ACECoR) and the World Bank Group. World Bank ACE [Grant Number 6389-G] at the University of Cape Coast, Ghana.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the World Bank Africa Centre of Excellence for Coastal Resilience (ACECoR) [World Bank ACE Grant Number 6389-G].