Are Low-Income Households in Sri Lanka Adequately Food Secure? An Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to the Rural Sector in Sri Lanka

Abstract

This study estimates the prevalence of food insecurity and coping mechanisms among low-income rural households in Sri Lanka, collecting primary data from 400 households in the Ayagama Divisional Secretariat in Rathnapura District. The results uncover that around 38.1% of the households faced food scarcity within a year prior to the survey date, with 77.9% being uncertain about maintaining a nutritious diet in the next 30 days. Notably, household dietary diversity scores reveal that they are either moderately (62%) or severely (22.3%) lacking essential nutrients, irrespective of the gender of the household head. The leading cause is the unaffordability of protein-rich foods and certain fruits. Coping strategies are primarily short-term and consumption-based, such as purchasing food on credit and reducing meal sizes, which propagate future food insecurity. The findings underscore the need for government interventions that combine short-term safety nets with long-term agricultural productivity improvements, alongside nutrition-sensitive practices and market stabilisation to enhance food availability and affordability. Consequently, targeted social protection programmes for vulnerable groups, combined with livelihood support and climate-resilient agriculture, could reduce reliance on harmful coping mechanisms. Lastly, this study proposes integrating food security goals within broader development frameworks and community initiatives as pivotal for long-term stability and resilience.

1. Introduction

Food is a basic human right, and food security is essential for a healthy life. It is defined as the consistent physical and economic access to sufficient, nutritious food that aligns with people’s preferences, enabling them to live healthily at all times (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2001). Food security rests on four key components: accessibility, availability, utilisation, and stability. Failing to meet any one of these components results in food insecurity (Sibrian 2008). A nutritious diet not only supports a healthy workforce but also strengthens economic development and reduces health-related costs.

Food insecurity is a severe problem that affects populations across the globe. In 2023, the Food Insecurity Experience Scale indicated that 10.7% of the global population faced severe food insecurity, while 28.9% experienced moderate or severe food insecurity (FAO et al. 2024). Additionally, 35.4% of people worldwide could not afford a healthy diet in 2022 (FAO et al. 2024). This issue is particularly acute in developing countries, where unique challenges require targeted efforts to improve food security (Abafita and Kim 2014; Bitana et al. 2023; Matita et al. 2021; Aziz et al. 2022). Recognising this urgency, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) emphasise the importance of eradicating hunger and achieving food security by 2030.

Beyond its immediate effects, food insecurity presents a major obstacle to both economic and social development within any country (Gadiso et al. 2024; Asante et al. 2024; Aziz et al. 2022; Sasson 2012). Insufficient nutrition leads to a range of health problems, such as malnutrition, undernourishment, stunting, wasting, underweight, and obesity—all of which diminish labour force quality and increase health-related expenditure (FAO et al. 2021, 2024; Sasson 2012; Mekasha et al. 2022; Ickowitz et al. 2019; von Grebmer et al. 2022). Furthermore, food insecurity can provoke social unrest, directly and indirectly fuelling economic downturns within affected nations.

Food insecurity remains a significant challenge in Sri Lanka. According to the most recent data, 41.1% of Sri Lankans are unable to afford a healthy diet (FAO et al. 2024). In recent years, global conflicts, the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, economic crises, high food inflation, inequality, and low productivity—especially among small-scale producers—have all exacerbated food insecurity (Nchanji and Lutomia 2021; Borman et al. 2022; FAO et al. 2021, 2024; Asante et al. 2024). This issue is particularly acute among low-income groups, who face compounded barriers from income constraints and other adverse socio-economic and environmental factors. Poverty in Sri Lanka is predominantly a rural phenomenon, with 82.2% of the nation’s poverty found in rural areas (Department of Census and Statistics 2022); similarly, about 80.9% of those classified as vulnerable live in the rural sector (United Nations Development Program 2023).

Given these patterns, it remains uncertain whether low-income households in rural Sri Lanka can consistently access nutrition-secure diets. While some research explores various aspects of food security, a comprehensive analysis specific to rural, low-income households is still lacking (Gunawardhana and Ginigaddara 2021; Wijesinghe et al. 2024; Mayadunne and Romeshun 2013; Kalansooriya and Chandrakumara 2014; Rathnasiri et al. 2015; Rathnayake et al. 2019; Gunatilake 2015; Gunarathna et al. 2021; Malkanthi et al. 2011; Gamage et al. 2025; Kalainathan et al. 2023; Samantha et al. 2024; Thirumarpan 2016). Therefore, it is vital to investigate food security among rural low-income households, especially since poverty and vulnerability are concentrated in marginalised rural areas where limited infrastructure—such as electricity, roads, and market access—directly affects food security.

This study aims to bridge this research gap by conducting a comprehensive analysis of the food security status of rural low-income households. The objectives include evaluating whether these households are sufficiently food secure to maintain a healthy diet, examining levels of food insecurity, and identifying coping and stabilisation strategies used in response. The study’s findings will provide valuable insights for policymakers designing initiatives to enhance food security for households living in poverty in marginalised settings.

The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: Section 2 provides a review of relevant literature, while Section 3 describes the methodology, including data collection and analytical methods. Section 4 presents the results and discussion, followed by the policy implications in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 concludes with directions for future research.

2. Literature Review

To conduct the literature review, studies published between 2011 and 2025 are considered, using the following key words: Sri Lanka, low-income households, rural sector, food security, household dietary diversity, prevalence of food insecurity, and food scarcity.

Food security is a multidimensional issue, and a range of indicators has therefore been used by different scholars to measure food security status. Commonly used indicators include the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) (Singh et al. 2023; Centre for Poverty Analysis 2022), the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) (Gunawardhana and Ginigaddara 2021; Nkoko et al. 2024), the Household Food Security Index (HFSI/FSI) (Gunatilake 2015; Kalainathan et al. 2023; Malkanthi et al. 2011; Sassi 2021), and the Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) (Bolarinwa et al. 2020; Kalansooriya and Chandrakumara 2014; Nkoko et al. 2024). The HFIAS captures the frequency and severity of food insecurity experiences, while the HFSI incorporates components such as the Food Consumption Score (FCS) and Food Expenditure Share (FES). The FCS (Gunawardhana and Ginigaddara 2021; Samantha et al. 2024; Sassi 2021; Tambe et al. 2023) is a widely used tool that reflects dietary diversity, consumption frequency, and nutritional value over a seven-day recall period, although some studies prefer a 24 h recall to enhance accuracy (Malkanthi et al. 2007; Weerasekara et al. 2020). Malkanthi et al. (2011) developed a comprehensive HFSI based on seven weighted indicators, including economic, social, dietary, and nutritional factors, as well as water and sanitation conditions, perceptions of food consumption, and coping strategies. The HDDS is crucial for understanding both the quantity and quality of food consumption and is calculated by summing responses across 12 food groups (Bolarinwa et al. 2020; Kalansooriya and Chandrakumara 2014; Nkoko et al. 2024). At the individual level, the Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W) and the Individual Dietary Diversity Score (IDDS) are used as proxies for micronutrient adequacy, particularly when assessing women’s nutritional status (Weerasekara et al. 2020; Centre for Poverty Analysis 2022). In addition to the FES, economic indicators such as the share of total household expenditure spent on food and per capita energy intake, benchmarked against the FAO’s minimum dietary energy requirement of 1810 kcal per day, are also employed to assess food security. The Rasch measurement model (Alam et al. 2016) has been widely applied in the food security literature, while the national poverty-line threshold serves as a critical benchmark for determining whether households meet their basic energy needs (Fikire and Zegeye 2022).

Households adopt a variety of food insecurity coping strategies, including consuming lower-quality food, reducing portion sizes, and prioritising children’s intake (Gunawardhana and Ginigaddara 2021), as well as financial measures such as buying on credit, mortgaging assets, and cutting non-food expenditure (Byker Shanks et al. 2022; Gunatilake 2015; Samantha et al. 2024; Sassi 2021; Singh et al. 2023). Migration and reliance on community or NGO assistance are also common, particularly during periods of climatic stress or economic shocks (Centre for Poverty Analysis 2022), while some households resort to temporary migration, daily wage labour, or foraging to cope (Gunatilake 2015). These behaviours underpin classifications such as extremely food insecure, moderately food insecure, vulnerable to food insecurity, and food secure, and many scholars have systematically examined such responses using coping strategy indices. The Livelihood Coping Strategy Index (LCSI), the Reduced Coping Strategy Index (RCSI), and Livelihood Coping Strategies for Food Security (LCSFS) (Samantha et al. 2024; Sassi 2021; Centre for Poverty Analysis 2022) are frequently used to capture both short-term and long-term coping mechanisms under food stress. For example, Thirumarpan (2016) applied the Coping Strategy Index (CSI), which multiplies the frequency of behaviours by severity scores, to assess household resilience in Sri Lanka.

The reviewed literature identifies a set of independent variables that influence food security. Many studies highlight household- and individual-level characteristics that enhance food security, including the education of the household head (Deyshappriya 2019b; Fikire and Zegeye 2022; Gunawardhana and Ginigaddara 2021; Nkoko et al. 2024; Rathnayake et al. 2019; Thirumarpan 2016), higher household income (Abaynew et al. 2024; Fikire and Zegeye 2022; Gunawardhana and Ginigaddara 2021; Kalainathan et al. 2023; Kalansooriya and Chandrakumara 2014; Nkoko et al. 2024; Rathnayake et al. 2019; Tambe et al. 2023; Thirumarpan 2016), food expenditure (Gunawardhana and Ginigaddara 2021; Malkanthi et al. 2011), and more secure forms of employment, particularly non-agricultural, government, or self-employment (Abaynew et al. 2024; Bolarinwa et al. 2020; Deyshappriya 2019a, 2019b; Fikire and Zegeye 2022). Asset ownership, such as livestock, cultivated land, and savings, also contributes positively (Abaynew et al. 2024; Bolarinwa et al. 2020; Deyshappriya 2019b). Households with more working members (Gunawardhana and Ginigaddara 2021; Rathnayake et al. 2019), higher female income shares (Kalansooriya and Chandrakumara 2014), off-farm income (Abaynew et al. 2024; Fikire and Zegeye 2022), and reliance on indigenous knowledge (Kalansooriya and Chandrakumara 2014) tend to have better food security outcomes, as do those benefitting from crop profits and in-kind payments (Bolarinwa et al. 2020). Conversely, several factors have been identified as barriers: larger household size (Bolarinwa et al. 2020; Fikire and Zegeye 2022; Thirumarpan 2016; Gunawardhana and Ginigaddara 2021; Rathnayake et al. 2019; Tambe et al. 2023), irregular employment such as seasonal or daily wage work, and high dependency ratios (Bolarinwa et al. 2020). Demographic and structural constraints—including female-headed households (Tambe et al. 2023), low educational attainment (Nkoko et al. 2024), and long distances to markets (Fikire and Zegeye 2022)—are also associated with poorer outcomes, while in some contexts savings have shown a counterintuitive negative association with food security (Kalainathan et al. 2023).

Gender dynamics in food security are complex. Several studies report that female-headed households are more food insecure than male-headed households (Abaynew et al. 2024; Kalainathan et al. 2023; Tambe et al. 2023; Pandey and Bardsley 2019). At the same time, Kalansooriya and Chandrakumara (2014) demonstrate that women play a central role in ensuring food availability, access, and utilisation—through their labour, income, and responsibility for meal preparation—though these contributions are often under-recognised. The positive association between women’s education and dietary diversity further underscores the importance of female empowerment for household food security (Kalansooriya and Chandrakumara 2014).

Evidence on urban–rural differences in food security is mixed. Alam et al. (2016) found no statistically significant difference between urban and rural areas, though a percentile-based assessment indicated slightly higher food security in urban (56.2%) than rural (50.5%) areas in Malaysia. In Sri Lanka, district-level analysis shows that food insecurity can be high even in more urbanised regions (Mayadunne and Romeshun 2013). Several interventions have demonstrated measurable improvements in food security: school meal programmes have been highlighted as critical for improving child nutrition (Fang et al. 2022), while cash transfers, nutrition education, and food distribution have also improved food outcomes, as evidenced by the Sri Lankan intervention study by Wijesinghe et al. (2024).

Gamage et al. (2025) and Gunaratne et al. (2021) examined the impact of climate change on food security via seasonal fluctuations in food availability, and Bolarinwa et al. (2020) noted that seasonal patterns substantially affect food security, with droughts posing particularly severe threats to crops and livestock. Overall, food security in Sri Lanka is heterogeneous across regions, communities, and seasons. Drought-prone areas, estates, rural and urban communities, fishing communities, and post-conflict regions face distinct challenges that are often obscured in national statistics, while pre-harvest periods can create short-term nutritional stress. Although many studies have explored food security across different locations and population groups, there is limited research that comprehensively focuses on the food security status of low-income households in the rural sector in Sri Lanka (

Table 1. Existing Literature on Food Security in Sri Lanka.

Author/s	Year	Community/Location
Gunawardhana and Ginigaddara	2021	Food security in urban slums
Wijesinghe et al.	2024	Food security of low-income households
Mayadunne and Romeshun	2013	Food security of low-income households
Deshappriya	2019b	Food security of low-income households
Kalansooriya and Chandrakumara	2014	Women’s Roles in Food Security
Rathnasiri et al.	2015	Food security in the rural and urban sectors
Rathnayake et al.	2019	Determinant of food insecurity in rural households
Gunatilake	2015	Impact of drought on food security in rural Sri Lanka
Deshappriya	2019a	Impact of landownership on food security
Gunarathna et al.	2021	Impact of climate change on food security
Malkanthi et al.	2011	Household food insecurity in the subsistence paddy farming sector
Gamage et al.	2025	Climate change on food security in the dry zone
Koperunthevy Kalainathan et al.	2023	Determinant of household food security in Northern province
Thamalini et al.	2015	Prevalence of malnutrition among pre-school children in food-insecure households
Samantha et al.	2024	The effect of the economic crisis on food security
Thirumarpan	2016	Determinant of household food security of paddy farmers

Source: Authors’ compilation based on systematic literature review.

).

Understanding their food security status, level of food insecurity, and coping strategies is essential for designing appropriate policies, as these households face multiple structural disadvantages inherent to the rural sector. This study therefore aims to fill this gap by comprehensively analysing the food security status, prevalence of food insecurity, and food security coping strategies among rural low-income households. The findings are expected to support policymakers in formulating targeted interventions to improve the food security of low-income households in marginalised areas.

3. Methodology

3.1. Data Collection

The current study is based on primary data collected from 400 households in the Ayagama Divisional Secretariat Division in the Rathnapura district in Sri Lanka. This includes 23 villages across 7 Grama Niladari (GN) Divisions. The purposive sampling technique was used to select the sample to represent the rural sector, marginalised and vulnerable areas, and low-income households. The low-income households were randomly selected from the list of Aswesuma1 beneficiary households. The sample size was selected according to Roscoe (1975).

3.2. Analytical Methods

3.2.1. Analysis of Food Security Status of Low-Income Rural Households

The household food security status was assessed using the Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS). The HDDS measures the diversity of foods consumed by household members and serves as a proxy for whether the household can maintain a nutrition-secure diet. It was calculated using foods consumed in the previous 24 h. Twelve food groups,2 representing the components of a healthy and nutritious diet, were used to construct the indicator. For each food group, a value of 1 was assigned if any household member had consumed it during the recall period and 0 otherwise. The HDDS was obtained by summing these values, yielding a score between 0 and 12, where higher scores indicate greater dietary diversity and, by implication, more nutritious diets.

Table 2. Benchmark Level of the Dietary Diversity Score.

HDDS	Dietary Diversity Level
07-12	High
04-06	Medium
00-03	Low

Source. Taruvinga et al. (2013), Ahmed et al. (2019), Kundu et al. (2021), Mehare et al. (2025).

presents the benchmark values used to categorise household dietary diversity levels. In the absence of a universally accepted categorisation approach in the methodological literature, a method considered most appropriate for the Sri Lankan context was adopted, following Taruvinga et al. (2013), Ahmed et al. (2019), Kundu et al. (2021), Mehare et al. (2025).

3.2.2. Analysis of Households’ Food Insecurity Status

The households’ food insecurity status was examined by focusing on the food scarcity, and the Households Food Insecurity Access Prevalence (HFIAP) indicator Coates et al. (2007).

• Food Scarcity

To understand the depth and dynamics of food insecurity among low-income households, it is essential to examine the food scarcity experienced by rural low-income households. Seasonal factors such as fluctuating rainfall, droughts, and harvest cycles directly affect the availability and affordability of food, particularly during lean periods. Macroeconomic challenges, food inflation, and household-specific circumstances further exacerbate food insecurity. In this study, the food scarcity status of rural low-income households was examined by considering seasonal variations in food availability as well as food scarcity arising from other factors.

Specifically, the following questions were used to measure the food scarcity.

• Has your household faced food scarcity during the last 12 months?
• What are the reasons for food scarcity?
• What are the strategies to overcome food scarcity?
• Do you think your household will be able to consume all 12 types of food items for the upcoming months?
• What are the reasons for insufficient consumption of food?
• What are you going to do to ensure food consumption for the coming years?
• Does your household face lack of food because of seasonal variation in some foods?
• Which type of foods have seasonal variation?

• Household Food Insecurity Access Prevalence Indicator

It is important to analyse the depth and breadth of food insecurity in vulnerable communities to formulate appropriate policies to enhance food security. The HFIAP is a key indicator for this purpose, as it shows whether households have reliable access to sufficient, nutritious food. It was calculated using a set of questions3 covering worry or anxiety about inadequate food, reduced quantity and quality of food, limited variety, skipped meals, and experiences of hunger over a 30-day recall period. For each question, if the response was affirmative, frequency of occurrence was recorded.

• Was the family worried about not having enough food to eat because of a lack of money or other resources?—Worried
• Was the family unable to eat healthy and nutritious food because of a lack of money or other resources?—Healthy
• Did the family eat only a few kinds of food because of a lack of money or other resources?—Few foods
• Did the family have to skip a meal because there were not enough money or other resources to get food?—Skipped
• Did the family eat less than thought because of a lack of money or other resources?—Ate less
• Did the household run out of food because of a lack of money or other resources?—Run out
• Was the family hungry but did not eat because there were not enough money or other resources for food?—Hungry
• Did the family go without eating for a whole day because of a lack of money or other resources?—Whole day

The methodology developed by Coates et al. (2007) was used to assess the prevalence of food insecurity based on the above questions. Households were categorised into three groups according to the frequency of food insecurity experiences, as detailed in

Table 3. Benchmark values for Frequency of Occurrence.

Code	Response Option	Frequency of Occurrence
1	Rarely	Once or twice in the past four weeks
2	Sometimes	Three to ten times in the past four weeks
3	Often	More than ten times in the past four weeks

Source: Coates et al. (2007).

.

As indicated by the HFIAP, households were classified into four categories of food insecurity: not food insecure, mildly food insecure, moderately food insecure, and severely food insecure. Households that reported more severe conditions and/or experienced them more frequently were classified as more food insecure. The classification scheme, summarised in

Table 4. Benchmark Conditions for Prevalence of Household Food Insecurity.

Question	Frequency
	Rarely 1	Sometimes 2	Often 3
1- Worried
2- Healthy
3- Few foods
4- Skipped
5- Ate less
6- Ran out
7- Hungry
8- Whole day
Categorization Scheme.
	Not food insecure		Moderately food insecure
	Mildly food insecure		Severely food insecure

Source: Coates et al. (2007).

, was adapted from Coates et al. (2007).

Households were classified into four levels of food insecurity according to the severity and frequency of conditions experienced:

• Not food insecure: No food insecurity conditions experienced or only rare worry about food sufficiency.
• Mildly food insecure: Sometimes or often worried about food, and/or rarely unable to access a healthy diet or variety of foods.
• Moderately food insecure: Sometimes or often unable to have a healthy diet and/or eat limited varieties, usually skipping meals, and occasionally having less food.
• Severely food insecure: Frequently having less food, running out of food, experiencing hunger, or going a whole day without eating at least once in the past four weeks.

This classification scheme aligns with the Household Food Insecurity Access Prevalence (HFIAP) guidelines adapted from Coates et al. (2007).

3.2.3. Analysis of Households’ Food Security Coping Mechanisms

This study examined coping mechanisms by analysing immediate food insecurity strategies alongside approaches aimed at ensuring long-term food security. The evaluation of these strategies focused on their impact on the household’s short-term and long-term welfare, distinguishing between those that may alleviate food insecurity without adverse consequences and those that could impose burdens on livelihoods or nutrition.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Socio-Economic Background of the Low-Income Rural Households

Understanding household characteristics is essential to contextualise the results. Food consumption and coping behaviours often vary by ethnicity (Zurita et al. 2021). In the sample, 80% of households are Sinhalese, 16.3% Sri Lankan Tamils, 3.5% Indian Tamils, and 0.3% Sri Lankan Moors—broadly representing Sri Lanka’s main ethnic groups.

Table 5. Socio-economic Background.

Variable	Mean	Max	Min	Standard Deviation
Total monthly income (LKR)	42,664	213,500	0	27,993.37
Number of household members	3.55	9	1	1.51
Age (Head of the household)	58.04	94	24	34.52
Monthly household expenditure (LKR)	34,869.06	151,433	7481	18,690.74
Monthly household food expenditure (LKR)	19,577.69	100,000	1500	10,326.77

Source: Authors’ calculation using survey data 2025.

summarises key socio-economic indicators.

The mean monthly household income is LKR 42,664, while the average monthly expenditure is LKR 34,869. More than half of this expenditure is devoted to food, indicating high vulnerability to price shocks, i.e., food inflation. The average household is headed by an individual in the late 50s and consists of four members.

Gender of the head of households is a crucial factor in examining the food security status of the low-income rural households since gender often influences access to resources, income opportunities, and decision-making power. Of the sample, 22.4% of households are female-headed and 77.6% male-headed.

Education is another important factor that influences the food security status of households since education directly influences knowledge, decision-making power and ability, and resource management related to food and nutrition. Conversely, low education may restrict opportunities for stable income generation and hinder the ability to build resilience to food insecurity.

Table 6. Education Background of the Respondents.

Education Level	Percentage of Persons
Never formal education	7.8
Primary education	27.8
Up to Grade 10	40.1
Passed G.C.E (O/L)	19.2
Passed Grade 12	2.3
Passed G.C.E (A/L)	2.5
Special education	0.3

Source: Authors’ calculation using survey data 2025.

illustrates the education level of the heads of households or decision makers when the head of the household is not responsible for the decision-making.

Education attainment is generally low: nearly 8% have no formal schooling despite Sri Lanka’s free education policies; most have studied up to Grade 10. Only 2.5% of respondents have completed secondary school education, while 27.8% have not pursued education beyond primary level.

4.2. Dietary Diversity Patterns of the Low-Income Rural Households

Household dietary diversity was used to assess food security, as nutritionally rich diets are fundamental to health and productivity.

Table 7. Dietary Diversity of the Households.

Dietary Diversity Level	Percentage of Households (Total Sample)	Percentage of Male-Headed Households That Fall in Each Dietary Diversity Level	Percentage of Female-Headed Households That Fall in Each Dietary Diversity Level
High	15.7	15.6	16.8
Moderate	62.0	62	60.7
Low	22.3	22.4	22.5
Total	100	100	100

Source: Authors’ calculation using survey data 2025.

summarises dietary diversity levels, measured by the HDDS, based on gender of household head.

Only 15.7% of households have high dietary diversity, while 62.0% report moderate and 22.3% indicate low diversity. Low-income households often consume cheaper, carbohydrate-rich foods and limited fruits or vegetables, consistent with prior findings (FAO et al. 2021; Headey and Ecker 2013). This notion is verified in

Table 8. Household Consumption Patterns of Various Food Types within the Past 24 h.

Food Group	Percentage of Households
Cereal	33.8
Tuber	40.7
Vegetables	81.2
Fruits	19.3
Meat	5.8
Eggs	30.3
Fish	40.3
Legumes	37.3
Milk	23.8
Oil	59.3
Sweets	21.5
Spice	87.8

Source: Authors’ calculation using survey data 2025.

which details the types of food consumed within 24 h.

Based on Table 8 vegetables are the most frequently consumed item, with 81.2% of households reporting intake, followed by spices (87.8%) and oil (59.3%). In contrast, only 5.8% of households had consumed meat. Consumption of fruits (19.3%) and milk (23.8%) also remains low, indicating limited access to nutrient-dense foods among low-income rural households. Although fish is generally more widely consumed than meat in Sri Lanka, meat consumption in this sample appears to be especially low relative to national dietary patterns. This divergence likely reflects the financial constraints faced by low-income rural households, for whom both meat and many varieties of fish remain prohibitively expensive.

Dietary diversity is similar across male- and female-headed households due to comparable income constraints. Notably, 77.9% of respondents are uncertain about maintaining a nutritious diet in the next 30 days.

4.3. Food Insecurity Status of the Low-Income Rural Households

Food insecurity was examined using (i) reported experiences of food scarcity and their causes, and (ii) the Household Food Insecurity Access Prevalence (HFIAP) indicator.

• Food Scarcity Status of Low-Income Households

The survey results show that around 38.1% of the households faced food scarcity within a year prior to the survey date.

Table 9. Reasons for Food Scarcity.

Reasons for Food Scarcity	Percentage of Households
Floods, storms or loss of expected harvest	3.4
Pest damage	1.4
Draught/Dry climate	2.0
Selling production for a low price/lack of market opportunities	0.7
Inability to cultivate in agricultural lands	0.7
Unusual increases in food prices	86.5
Individual or household-level challenges	10.8
Unavailability of food in nearby retail outlets	39.9
Inability to buy nutrient-rich food due to high prices (e.g., /meat or fish)	3.4

Source: Authors’ calculation using survey data 2025.

illustrates the most pressing reasons for the food scarcity of each household.

As shown in Table 9, the primary cause of food scarcity is the unexpected rise in prices. Approximately 86.5% of households reported insufficient food due to increased food prices in Sri Lanka (FAO et al. 2024). Other important factors include lack of permanent income and limited affordability, while around 40% of households noted that the absence of certain foods in nearby shops restricts their diets—particularly for items like dairy products, meat, and fish, which require specialised storage not commonly available in rural outlets. Additionally, low consumer demand, driven by high prices and supply chain issues, contributes to the unavailability of some foods locally. Households seeking these items often travel considerable distances at significant cost and inconvenience. Fikire and Zegeye (2022) also found that distance to market significantly affects poor food security status. Further challenges at the individual or household level include poor money management and reliance on other family members, both of which affect food scarcity. Natural factors, such as climate change and animal diseases, also play a role.

Sri Lanka, being a tropical country, does not experience pronounced seasonal changes, so seasonal variation has limited impact on most households’ food security. Agriculture depends primarily on rainfall patterns, and changes in rainfall, droughts, or harvest cycles directly influence food availability and affordability. Only 8.8% of households surveyed experienced food scarcity due to seasonal factors, typically a shortage of rice—the country’s staple food—and certain vegetables. Rice prices often rise before the paddy harvest, and adverse weather reduces affordability for low-income households, prompting them to substitute rice with roots, tubers, and alternative grains.

• Prevalence of Household Food Insecurity

Table 10. Prevalence of Food Insecurity.

Food Insecurity Category	Percentage of Households	Percentage of Male-Headed Households That Fall in Each Food Insecurity Level	Percentage of Female-Headed Households That Fall in Each Food Insecurity Level
Not food insecure	48.1	48.7	46.1
Mildly food insecure	10.6	10.1	12.4
Moderately food insecure	30.5	30.8	29.2
Severely food insecure	10.8	10.4	12.4

Source: Authors’ calculation using survey data 2025.

presents the prevalence of food insecurity based on the Household Food Insecurity Access Prevalence (HFIAP) indicator, which categorises households by food security levels, ranging from food secure to severely food insecure.

Almost half of low-income households are not food insecure over the 30-day recall period, as they did not experience significant food insecurity issues, aside from occasional worry about food insufficiency. However, this does not guarantee a consistently nutritious diet. Conversely, a substantial proportion (51.9%) experienced mild to severe food insecurity. Around 10% of households often or sometimes worried about food availability or consumed diets lacking essential nutrients, indicating mild insecurity. A notably high share (30.5%) was moderately food insecure, meaning they had access to food but in insufficient quantity or quality to meet dietary needs consistently. These households commonly skipped meals or reduced the quantity and quality of food, which adversely affects health. Nearly 10% were severely food insecure, experiencing hunger, spending entire days without main meals, or frequently running out of food.

National-level statistics differ markedly from these findings, underscoring the importance of analysing food security within specific communities to identify real needs and tailor interventions. For example, in 2024, only 16% of households were moderately food insecure nationally (World Food Programme 2025). However, this figure masks the situation of low-income households and better reflects “hotspot” districts characterised by high poverty, remoteness, limited livelihood diversity, and climate vulnerability. Food insecurity prevalence is slightly higher in female-headed households than male-headed ones, except in the moderately food-insecure category. Previous research by Abaynew et al. (2024), Kalainathan et al. (2023), Tambe et al. (2023) similarly finds that female-headed households face greater food insecurity due to poorer income opportunities.

4.4. Coping Strategies of Low-Income Rural Households

Identifying food insecurity coping strategies among low-income rural households is crucial, as inappropriate strategies can harm health, social dignity, and long-term economic wellbeing. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for developing effective interventions that enhance food security and promote sustainable rural development. Approximately one-quarter of households (24.5%) reported not using any coping strategies, while only 1.3% rarely relied on them. Around 20.8% used coping strategies occasionally, but over half (53.5%) frequently employed these methods, reflecting the severity of food insecurity in this group.

Table 11. Food Insecurity Coping Strategies of the Households.

Number	Coping Mechanism	Impact of Coping Strategies	Percentage of Households	Percentage of Male-Headed Households That Practice Each Coping Strategy	Percentage of Female-Headed Households That Practice Each Coping Strategy
1	Rely on less preferred and less expensive foods	Affect the nutrition level	41.5	39.9	46.1
2	Limit portion size	Affect the nutrition level	41.0	40.9	40.4
3	Restrict the consumption of adults in order for small children to eat	Affect the nutrition level	11.3	12.3	7.9
4	Feed working members of the household at the expense of non-working members	Affect the nutrition level	3.0	2.9	3.4
5	Ration the money	Affect the nutrition level	7.0	6.5	9.0
6	Reduce the number of meals eaten in a day	Affect the nutrition level	28.3	26.6	32.6
7	Skip entire days without eating	Affect the nutrition level	2.8	2.9	2.2
8	Less concern about the quality of food when buying	Affect the nutrition level	34.3	32.1	42.7
9	Less concern about the quality of food when preparing food	Affect the nutrition level	30.8	28.6	39.3
10	Borrow food or rely on help from a friend, relative, or others	Not sustainable	21.0	18.5	30.3
11	Gather wild food, hunt, or harvest immature crops	Not sustainable/ Affect long-term economic status	1.3	1.3	1.1
12	Consume seed stock held for next season	Affect long-term economic status	4.3	3.9	5.6
13	Purchase food on credit	Affect long-term economic status	45.3	45.8	44.9

Source: Authors’ calculation using survey data 2025.

summarises the coping strategies most commonly used by low-income households and their direct impact on wellbeing.

This aligns with findings showing widespread reliance on coping behaviours such as meal skipping, consuming less preferred foods, and borrowing food in Sri Lanka, especially amid ongoing economic challenges and inflation.

The survey reveals that common coping strategies among low-income rural households include purchasing food on credit (45.3%), consuming less preferred and cheaper food (41.5%), limiting portion sizes (41.0%), reducing meal frequency (28.3%), and compromising food quality at purchase (34.3%) or preparation (30.8%). Gunawardhana and Ginigaddara (2021) similarly report meal skipping, consuming smaller quantities, and poor-quality food as typical strategies. These coping behaviours adversely affect health, long-term economic wellbeing, and social dignity. For example, purchasing on credit increases indebtedness, reducing future purchasing power, while consuming low-quality or insufficient food undermines health. Some strategies, like borrowing food or seeking help from relatives, erode dignity by signalling deprivation and inducing shame. Though used less frequently, severe coping strategies such as skipping entire days without meals (2.8%) or consuming seed stocks (4.3%) highlight acute food insecurity, threatening both current wellbeing and future livelihoods.

Gender analysis shows slight differences: female-headed households more often rely on less preferred and inexpensive foods and informal social safety nets like borrowing food, while credit purchases are more common in male-headed households, although nearly half of female-headed households also use credit. Female-headed households also compromise more on food quality, reflecting constrained incomes (Saaka et al. 2017; Abaynew et al. 2024; Kalainathan et al. 2023; Tambe et al. 2023). All households predominantly employ consumption-based coping rather than livelihood-based strategies, underscoring a need for targeted interventions that improve affordable food access and nutrition. Enhancing income stability and promoting savings could reduce reliance on harmful coping mechanisms. Strengthening livelihood-based strategies would also enable smoother adaptation to food insecurity.

Given the vulnerability of low-income rural households to economic shocks, climate change, and market fluctuations, policies should promote sustainable food systems and stability by supporting these communities’ preparation for future challenges.

Table 12. Strategies Practices to Ensure Stability of Food Security.

Strategies	Percentage of Household
Enhancing production by using high-quality seeds	0.9
Keeping food stocks at households	2.6
Consuming low-quality foods	93.1
Avoiding the consumption of high-priced foods	49.1
Reducing the frequency of meals	9.5
Other	1.7

Source: Authors’ calculation using survey data 2025.

summarises the strategies households use to stabilise their food security.

According to Table 12, except for the use of high-quality seeds, the coping strategies employed by low-income rural households to ensure future food stability are largely inappropriate, as they negatively affect health and long-term wellbeing. Nearly all households rely on consumption-based rather than livelihood-based strategies, despite the latter being more sustainable for food security stability. While consumption-based strategies may provide short-term relief, their direct and indirect negative effects exacerbate food insecurity. The most common strategies are consuming low-quality foods (93.1%) and avoiding expensive foods (49.1%) to save money for future needs. However, only a few households (0.9%) invest in high-quality seeds, which have the potential to ensure sustainable food stability. Taken together, these findings highlight the urgent need for targeted interventions to promote more appropriate, livelihood-based strategies.

4.5. Limitations of the Study

This study is based on primary data from 400 households in a small number of villages within a single district, so the findings cannot be readily generalised to the whole country or to all communities. Food security among low-income households is shaped by diverse contextual factors, and future research should therefore use larger and more diverse samples to generate evidence better suited to national policy development. In this case, food security was assessed mainly through household dietary diversity, which may not capture the intake of individual members, particularly in marginalised households where women and adults often reduce their own consumption to prioritise others; subsequent studies would be better served by focusing on dietary diversity at the individual level. The use of the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) also introduces potential recall bias and intentional misreporting by respondents, despite efforts to minimise these issues. Moreover, the cross-sectional design does not capture seasonal or temporal variations in food consumption related to harvest cycles, festivals, shocks, or household circumstances. Finally, the largely descriptive analytical approach limits the depth and policy orientation of the findings, suggesting that future work should adopt more advanced statistical or econometric methods.

While these constraints restrict the extent to which the results can inform broad, definitive policy prescriptions, the evidence still offers valuable insights into the challenges faced by rural low-income households. On this basis, the following section outlines key policy implications that can guide more targeted interventions in resource-poor settings.

5. Policy Implications

The findings of this study reveal a critical policy gap that needs to be addressed to strengthen the food security of low-income rural households of Sri Lanka. Given the multidimensional nature of food insecurity in these communities, policy interventions should also be designed to reflect local realities and specific vulnerabilities. Evidence of low dietary diversity, limited intake of protein- and vitamin-rich foods, and reliance on harmful coping mechanisms underscores the urgent need for coordinated, multi-sectoral policy responses.

Improving dietary diversity can be pursued through nutrition-sensitive agricultural initiatives such as promoting home gardening and small-scale food production, coupled with integrating nutrition goals into agricultural and rural development programmes. Public nutrition awareness campaigns are also vital to foster healthier consumption habits, while embedding nutritional considerations into food-related social protection schemes would further enhance their impact.

Food scarcity, driven mainly by price volatility and uneven local availability, necessitates reinforcement of rural market systems. Policy measures should include improving rural transport infrastructure, establishing local food supply hubs, and supporting smallholder farmers to strengthen local supply chains and improve direct market access. Introducing rural food price monitoring and stabilisation mechanisms could mitigate the effects of sudden price fluctuations, ensuring that vulnerable households maintain physical and economic access to food. Additionally, targeted food price subsidies for key staples during periods of high inflation would safeguard affordability.

Expanding targeted food assistance programmes for vulnerable groups—such as children, pregnant and lactating women, and the elderly—remains essential for addressing severe food insecurity and improving nutritional outcomes. Food vouchers for nutrient-rich products could also reduce food insecurity risks among at-risk populations.

Livelihood-centred strategies, including rural employment generation, skills training for income diversification, and microfinance support for small-scale enterprises, can minimise reliance on negative coping mechanisms. Promoting climate-resilient agriculture and value-added agricultural ventures would both enhance household incomes and reduce vulnerability to environmental and economic shocks, acknowledging agriculture’s central role in the rural economy. Furthermore, promoting climate-resilient agricultural practices could help decrease dependence on harmful coping strategies. Although gender disparities in food insecurity appear limited, ensuring equal access to economic resources, opportunities, and decision-making processes is crucial in advancing food security outcomes.

To reduce dependency on short-term coping mechanisms and promote long-term stability, an integrated food security planning system should be established. This system should embed food security objectives within broader poverty reduction, rural development, and climate adaptation frameworks. Strengthening this approach through community-based initiatives—such as village food banks, savings and credit groups, and farmer cooperatives—would enhance local ownership and sustainability. National policy on funding panel data collection, particularly in harder-to-reach areas such as those inhabited by the ultra-poor, would further facilitate a more nuanced understanding of these vulnerable sub-populations and improve the evidence base for targeted interventions. Lastly, this study proposes integrating food security goals within broader development frameworks and community initiatives as pivotal to achieving lasting stability and resilience.

In essence, this study emphasises the need for a multifaceted strategy that combines immediate interventions with sustainable long-term solutions. Tackling low dietary diversity, poor consumption patterns, and limited food access require targeted subsidies, comprehensive social protection measures, and participatory community programmes. Sustainable food security will ultimately depend on income growth, enhanced agricultural productivity, and a cohesive policy framework that unites agriculture, nutrition, and social protection. Through such an integrated approach, Sri Lanka can progress toward poverty reduction, social equity, and rural development while building resilience and effectively combating food insecurity.

6. Conclusions and Directions for Future Research

Food insecurity persists as a serious challenge globally, and this is acutely evident among low-income rural households in Sri Lanka. This study assesses the food security status of these households, focusing on the Ayagama Divisional Secretariat in the Rathnapura district—a region marked by high poverty, vulnerability, and frequent natural disasters. By collecting and analysing primary data from 400 households, the research provides an in-depth understanding of food insecurity and coping mechanisms in this vulnerable sub-population.

The findings show that many households are not food secure; nearly 85% consume diets lacking diversity and essential nutrients, largely due to the unaffordability of protein-rich foods and certain fruits. Both male- and female-headed households exhibit similar trends in dietary diversity, and most cannot guarantee a nutritious diet for the coming month. Food scarcity affects about 40% of respondents, driven mainly by price volatility and accessibility challenges, while almost half experience some degree of food insecurity during a 30-day period. Most households rely on short-term consumption coping strategies—such as borrowing food, eating less preferred foods, or reducing meal size—rather than on long-term livelihood improvements. This reliance on short-term solutions increases the risk of malnutrition, non-communicable diseases, and future labour market challenges. Thus, targeted policies are essential to address the multidimensional causes of food insecurity among low-income rural households.

While this study provides valuable insights, several limitations also highlight directions for future research. Firstly, expanding the geographic scope to include multiple agro-ecological zones and socio-cultural contexts would allow for a nationally representative view of rural food security. Secondly, moving beyond household-level data to assess dietary diversity at the individual level could reveal intra-household allocations of resources and nutritional inequalities, particularly among women, children, and the elderly. Thirdly, employing mixed-methods—combining quantitative surveys with qualitative approaches like food diaries, direct observation, or interviews—would mitigate recall bias and uncover deeper coping strategies and perceptions.

Lastly, as longitudinal/panel data become available, analyses that capture seasonal fluctuations, price volatility, and post-disaster impacts would yield deeper insights into temporal dynamics and household resilience. Thus, future research would be better positioned to explore how social protection, market access, and infrastructure improvements—such as cash transfers, food subsidies, and rural connectivity—impact food security outcomes. Investigating these links would enable more targeted strategies for regions experiencing frequent environmental shocks. In that vein, the application of advanced econometric models and the development of vulnerability indices could enhance understanding of causal pathways, thereby supporting the design of more precise and effective policy instruments. Together, these research directions can deepen the understanding of food insecurity in rural Sri Lanka and support the creation of robust, evidence-based policies to improve the wellbeing and resilience of low-income households.