IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

Research article
erd

Effects of Living Conditions on Livelihood Satisfaction in
Sri Lanka: Living Sectors and Tea Industry
YUKO FUKUDA*
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan
Email: yukotsu70@yahoo.co.jp

EIJI YAMAJI
Graduate School of Frontier Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan
Received 3 January 2018

Accepted 15 October 2018(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract The purpose of this study is to identify the disparity of living conditions and theeffec on he li ing anda d Sa i faction of the households in the Sri Lanka and on the
Tea Industry. Sri Lanka has progressively developed its status as middle low income
country, while regional income and social disparity has still remained, especially in estate
sector. Tea is a main industry of estates. Past studies indicated that people live in the low
quality of housing with low income, while different articles mentioned that number of low
income family in rural area is larger than in other sectors. This analysis applies a descriptive
method with binary logistic regression. Quantitative analysis relies on the secondary dataand qualitative descriptions rely on the primary survey. The qualitative analysis revealed
that people living on estates are more likely to feel dissatisfaction compared to those living
in urban, rural, and farming areas. Alternatively, the results of the survey showed that
residents in three residential areas on the tea industry are not much different regarding theirlivelihood satisfaction.
Keywords li elihood a i fac ion, co n

and eginal le el, di pa i , capabili

INTRODUCTION
The estate sector, which has been a mainstay of the economy of Sri Lanka, was developed during
the colonial area and has been primarily managed by private owners until the early 1970s, before
nationalization. Studies mentioned there is a historical legacy of poor living conditions with low
income, poor health, and lower levels of education, especially in tea industry (Salomonsen andGunasekera, 1995; Chandrabose, 2011), while a change to the estate sector has been recognized
after being privatized again in 1992 with the effort of the government and support of international
agencies. Other studies have explicated the disparity of each sector. Nine out of ten citizens live inthe rural sector, 86.8% of which accounted for the poor in 2013 (UN, 2015). The farmers, who arein the rural sector, cultivate mainly paddy, vegetable, black paper, tea, and grains and are describedas working from early morning until evening (Williges, 2004). The urban sector, where the poverty
rate is much lower than other sectors, shows higher disparity of income among the residents (Child
Activity Survey [CAS], 2009). Disparity in each sector and among sectors has been explored.
Factors have been found for each issue, but not many studies have focused on the effect of eachfac o ha ha infl enced e idena i fac ion and he diffe ence of effec on li ing anda dsatisfaction between the estate and other sectors. This paper aims to identify the disparity of living
conditions and the effects on the living standards of the households in the estate and in theresidential sectors of the tea industry, which is the main industry of estates.
METHODOLOGYThi anal i applie a de c ip i e me hod i h bina logi ic eg e ion. Q an i a i e anal ielie on econda da a f om CAS, hich a cond c ed b he Depa men of Cen
andⒸ ISERD

34

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

S a i ic (DCS), S i Lanka i h he In e na ional Labo O gani a ion in 2008 and 2009.
Q ali a i e de c ip ion e e ed fo b i ing hi
d , hich come f om he p imaea he Ko apola Di i ion of he Ma a a Di ic in 2013 and 2014. The capabili app oach oli elihood p o ide a heo e ical ba i fo iden if ing di pa i
i hin a m l idimen ional con e .
Characteristics of the Country Level
The objec i e of he CAS da a a o iden if he cha ac e i ic of S i Lankan child en. I al ode c ibed ho ing and ho ehold cha ac e i ic comp i ing 16,000 ho ehold co e ing he hole
co n . Li ing ec oe e cla ified in o h ee ca ego ie : ban,al, and e a e. The da aelec ed fo hi
d e e f om di ic
he e all h ee ec o e i . A a ie of occ pa ion inheal e e co e ed b no de c ibed e plici l . The main e po p od c ion f om he e a e
ec o i ea, he e mall holde and fa me ha e been inc ea ing. Th , he CAS da a e ee ac ed f om he
al ec o fo he fa me . Cha ac e i ic of he fa me a e li ing in a ingle
ho e, o ning land he e a lea one pa en i o king, and o ning li e ock of le han 10 coo goa and le han 100 chicken .
To deepen he nde anding of he li elihood of e iden in he m l idimen ional con e ,e amining he income and o he inde i nece a . The efo e, he li ing condi ion a iableho ehold income a adap ed fo hi anal i . Li ing condi ion e e di ided in o o a iable .
One i o foc on p i ac p o ec ion, and he o he one foc e on ho ing en i onmen . The
p i ac inde incl ded h ee indice , ch ape and o ne hip of ho ing, and he n mbe ofoom fo indi id al . The ho ing inde adap ed he da a of acceo afe d inking a e ,e cl i e oile , and elec ici fo ligh ing and cooking. A limi a ion of hi anal i i ha heda a did no co e he heal h inde , hich i impo an fo ell-being, and no na al cien ific
e idence.
Characteristics of District Level and Tea Industry
S i Lanka i geog aphicall ecogni ed ao one i h a ailable ain a e . The o he n pa ofhe co nhe e ea land ha e been e ended ecei e ample ainfall, hile he no he n pa ofco n a e he d
one and ecei e ca ce ain. S i Lanka comp i e 331 di i ion in 25 di ic .
P ima da a e e collec ed a Ko apola Di i ion of he Ma a a Di ic , hich i famo a a ea
c l i a ion a ea loca ed in Lo -g o n. The ho ing condi ion of heeillage a e
ecogni ed a he lo e ank in he Ma a a Di ic (DCS, 2013).
Table 1 Number of GN Division on quality of housing

Sri
Lanka

Fig. 1 Location of Deniyaya GN Division

MataraDistrict
Kotapola
Division
Survey
Areas

Very
Low

Low

Average

High

Very
High

538

1598

3052

4500

4344

31

86

177

216

140

10

12

14

1

---

3

1

---

---

---

Wi h he hi o ical change in he ea ind, i managemen
le i cla ified in o h ee
ca ego ie : egional plan a ion companie (RPC ), p i a e e a e (PE ), and indi id al fa me(IF ). The go e nmen c ea ed a e-o ned RPC , each of hich eached an ag eemen i h a
p i a e compan o imp o e he efficienc of p od c ion, and hei ea land ha e been lea ed f om
he go e nmen fo 99 ea (Wen lh eme , 2007; Dil han, 2012). In e ie and da a collec ion
e e cond c ed in he illage and e a e a o nd Deni a a and Mo o aka, hich a e famo foⒸ ISERD

35

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

he Sinha aja Fo e Re e e. The illage nea Deni a a a e anked a he lo e fo ho ing
condi ion in S i Lanka (DCS, 2013). The p ima
ample i e i 302 ho ing ni , hichcomp i e 103 ho ehold a 12 di i ion of RPC , 100 ho ehold a 19 PE , and 99 ho eholdof IF .
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of the analysis provide a different aspect of relations between living environments andlivelihood satisfaction. The satisfaction with Sri Lankan livelihood overall varies among the four
sectors, while that in Kotapola was not statistically significant between the three residential areas.
The previous studies indicated there were many poor in the rural areas, while the lowest level ofliving environment was in the estates. By focusing on the main industry of estates and the region
where tea cultivation is extended, a different aspect of the past is investigated.
Livelihood in Estate Sector
The CEPA (2005) stated that residents perceived the overall living conditions on estates to havedeteriorated over the last 15 years, while Ole and Hubert mentioned (1995) that positive changes tothe plantation sector have occurred since 19921. Housing built for temporary workers during thecoffee plantation era has remained in the traditional manner. Sri Lanka has been tackling ethnic andreligious conflicts, malnutrition, housing conditions, education, child labor, and other issues in theestate sector by establishing a ministry, enacting legislation, ratifying international laws, andreceiving international support.

Resource: CAS Data

Resource: CAS Data Fig. 2 Livelihood satisfaction and factors in country level

Fig. 2 represents
livelihoodSatisfaction
satisfaction andamongurban,inrural,
estate,and farming sectors.
Fig. 2 theLivelihood
Factors
Country
Level
The average satisfaction for livelihood was approximately 25% at the country level. Comparing
living sectors shows that highest unsatisfied residents were 59.2% in estates, about 20% in the ruralsector, followed by residents in the farming and urban sectors. The different degrees of satisfaction
1 A reason for the difference between the former and latter is the definition of plantations and estates. Under CAS, estateencompasses both large and small holdings managed by the state and RPCs that are individually or family managed,
while the plantation is defined as being more than 20 acres with not less than 10 residential laborers.
Ⓒ ISERD

36

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

lead us to exam the influential factors. Figs. 2a, 2b, and 2c explain the factors related to livelihood
satisfaction. Fig. 2b indicates that lower income households are more likely to be unsatisfied
compared to higher income households in all living sectors. Generally, in any country, the cost ofliving in the urban sector is higher than that of the rural sector, but Fig. 2b illustrates that the
dissatisfaction rate of the lowest income range in the estate is higher than in the urban sector. Fig.
2c depicts the distribution of housing conditions. The livelihood satisfaction in all living sectors
increases when the level of housing conditions is improved. A lower level of housing conditions
accounted for 46% in the estate sector, while other sectors comprised 6% to 11%. Satisfaction
varies by sector even at the same level. Fig. 2d delineates the distribution of the privacy index. The
results of the cross-sectional analysis describe the different trends of satisfaction in each sector. In
all living sectors, the more privacy is secured, the greater livelihood satisfaction has been increased.
Privacy in the estate sector is more likely to not be secured, and more than 60% of households livein line rooms with no ownership and not a room per a person, while other sectors are categorized as
middle or high privacy.
Comparative results of living conditions among sectors are not much different from those ofpast studies. Living conditions have been affected by regional characteristics. The cross-sectional
analysis of each index shows that it is statistically significant at the 1% level between living sectors
and each index. People in the estate sector have faced disadvantages on income, security of privacy,
and housing compared to those in urban, rural, and farming sectors. The satisfaction of people in
the estate sector is more likely lower than others even though each of the three indices are at thesame level.
Effect of Living Conditions on Livelihood Satisfaction
This study estimated that the binary logistic regression models contained three factors as
explanatory variables and the livelihood satisfaction was taken as a dependent variable. This study
coded livelihood satisfaction as 0 for unsatisfactory and 1 for satisfactory. This analysis categorizedhouse income into low, middle, and high, and coded it as 0 if the household income is not in that
range or 1 if it is in that range. Thus, low-income families are a natural base group. For housing
conditions, this study adopted three categories (low, middle, and high) for assessing sanitary andsafety conditions, and coded it as 0 if the families are not in that rank of house conditions or 1 if thefamilies are in that rank. Thus, low-ranking families are a natural base group. This analysis ranked
privacy into none, low, middle, and high to assess the protection of privacy and coded it as 0 if thefamilies are not ranked in that category or 1 if they are ranked in it.
Table 2 Logistic regression modelsⒸ ISERD

37

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

Table 2 describes the outcomes of five models. Model 1 explains how much livelihood
satisfaction is greater if living in urban, rural, or farming sectors compared with living in the estate
sector. Residents in the urban sector have 14.216(e2.654) times greater livelihood satisfaction thanthose living in the estate sector, 5.203(e1.649) times those in the rural sector, and 8.869(e2.183) times
those in the farming sector.
Model 2 contains the household income index in Model 1. Livelihood satisfaction is6.406(e1.857) times greater if the resident income is in the middle level and 52.33 (e3.958) times greater
if at the high-income level. Under the household income, the effect of the living sector on
livelihood satisfaction is reduced but is still statistically significant at the 1% level.
Model 3 includes the housing condition index. Livelihood satisfaction is 6.7 (e1.902) times
greater if at the middle level and 101.603(e4.621) times greater if at the highest level. Under the
housing conditions, the effect of the living sector on satisfaction is reduced in all three sectors,
especially in the rural sector. The livelihood satisfaction is still greater in three sectors incomparison with in the estate sector. It is statistically significant at the 1% level. The effect of theliving sectors remains.
Model 4 added the privacy protection index. Under the privacy index, the effect of the living
sector on satisfaction in urban, rural, and farming sectors are reduced. Highly protected families
have 6.266(e1.835) greater livelihood satisfaction than those with no privacy.
Model 5 contains all indices, which indicate that livelihood satisfaction in rural and farming
sectors is almost the same as living in the estate sector after the three factors are considered
individually. Living in the urban sector results in a 1.7(e0.588) times higher satisfactory level than in
the estate sector, which is statistically significant at the 1% level.
The models explain the satisfaction degree of each explanatory variable based on the basegroup and the change of effect of the living sector on livelihood satisfaction. Model 5 shows that
income, housing, and privacy are partial factors of disparity on livelihood satisfaction. Satisfactionin the estate sector is lower than in the other three living sectors, which agrees with other studies.
The next section focuses on the tea industry, which has been influenced by recent developments ineconomic growth, social and human development, and globalization. Unlike the country-level
analysis, the regional-level analysis shows a different aspect.
Livelihood of Tea Industry in Low-Country
During the colonial era, tea estates on the hillside were established by cutting through the forest,
while the low country was surrounded by villages when the estates were introduced (Bronkhorst2008). To explore the quality of life in the tea industry, this study focused on one area in the low
country. When focusing on satisfaction with their living based on the tea management style, thisstudy found a different vie of a pec on e iden
ell-being.
Fig. 3 illustrates the difference of livelihood satisfaction between RPCs, PEs, and IFs in thetea industry based on household income, security of privacy, and housing conditions. The results of
the analysis based on management style found that the difference of livelihood satisfaction cannot
be observed among the three residential areas. Thus, there is no difference in livelihood satisfactionin RPCs, PEs, and IFs, even though the trends of the three indices are different among the threeresidential areas. Compared with the CAS data, the residents in estates (RPC and PE) are at thesame or higher livelihood satisfaction, but the satisfaction of living as IFs in the survey area islower than for farmers at the country level.
Fig. 3a shows the income distribution and satisfaction level in the three residential areas basedon household income. The percentage of the lowest income families is similar in all residential
areas, but the median of household income in RPCs is between 20K and 30K, while those of PEs
and IFs are over 30K. It elucidates that residents in RPCs are more likely to receive lower income
than others. Fig. 3c demonstrates that housing conditions for farmers are more comfortable thanthose in RPCs and PEs. Fig. 3d explains the satisfaction with the security of privacy in eachresidential sector and shows that families in RPCs and PEs face difficulty attaining privacy.

Ⓒ ISERD

38

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

However, comparing satisfaction with privacy among each level except for none category, thecross-sectional analysis is not statistically significant.

Fig. 3 Livelihood satisfaction and factors in tea industry

Fig. 3 Livelihood Satisfaction and Factors in Tea Industry
While conducting the survey, residents in the estates expressed their hopes to own their line
room and a small amount of land in their estates and not rent it from the estate owners, even if they
are satisfied with free accommodations. They mentioned that they feel free, and there is no need tocare about others and worry about future if they could own it. Residents in RPCs also stated theyfelt satisfaction with having an exclusive toilet, but getting wood for cooking takes time, andkerosene for lighting is very dangerous. Individual farmers faced low income because of the tea
disease, which reduced the production. They mentioned that their income was insufficient for theirchild en ed ca ion and keeping hei ho e p ope l .
CONCLUSION
The secondary data analysis revealed that people living on estates are more likely to feeldissatisfaction compared to those living in urban, rural, and farming areas. The effect of the privacy
is greater influence on the living standard satisfaction rather than other factors. Living conditions
have been influenced by the characteristics of the living sectors. People in urban can easily access avariety of jobs with higher salary and live in a single house, and infrastructures are more developed.
Those living in rural and farming areas have lived under similar living environments, but farmers
live in a single house that protects their privacy. Income on estates is lower than in other areas.
Access to better housing conditions is also harder, and living in a line room on estates avoids
isolation and tightens the solidarity, while reducing privacy.
Alternatively, focusing on the tea industry in one area drives a different viewpoint on life in
the tea industry. The results of the survey showed that residents in three residential areas ofdifferent management styles are not much different regarding their livelihood satisfaction.
Exploring the relations between factors and satisfaction delineates the different distribution
tendencies of each factor among three residential areas, while the satisfaction level is same if
families belong to the same range in each factor.

Ⓒ ISERD

39

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation for the people who kindly gave me support, assistance, andadvice. I also thank all interviewees who allocated their valuable time for this study. I express mysincere gratitude to my academic supervisor and advisors for their guidance and considerable
encouragement on this analysis.
REFERENCES
CEPA. 2005. Moving out of poverty in the estate sector in Sri Lanka, Understanding growth and freedom
from the bottom up. Sri Lanka.
Chandrabose, A.S. and Sivapragasam, P.P. 2011. Red colour of tea-central issues that impact the tea
plantation community in Sri Lanka. Human Development Organization, Sri Lanka.
DCS, Government of Sri Lanka. 2013. Classification of administrative divisions by quality of housing. DCS,
Government of Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka.
Dilshan, A. 2012. Sri Lanka: Conflict mitigation through community-based water resource management, A
case study of tea plantation community Sri Lanka. CPCS Peace P ac i ione Re ea ch Confe ence, 2012.
Johannes, B. 2008. From coffee to tea cultivation in Ceylon, An economic and social hi o . B ill
Indological Library, Netherlands, 1880-1900.
Ole, S. and Hubert, G. 1995. Housing cooperatives for plantation workers in Sri Lanka. ILO, Geneva.
Roland, W. 2007. The Shinhalese contribution to estate labour in Ceylon, 1881-1891. Journal of the
Economic and Social History of the Orient, 41 ( 3), 442-458.
United Nations. 2015. Millennium development goals country report 2014, United Nations. Sri Lanka
Wal, S.V.D. 2008. Sustainability issues in the tea sector, A comparative analysis of six leading producing
countries. Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), Netherlands.
Williges, U. 2004. Status of organic agriculture in Sri Lanka with special emphasis on tea production system.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of Giessen, Gernany.

Ⓒ ISERD

40