See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331177442

Understanding Poverty-Environment Relationship from Sustainable

Development Perspectives

Article  in  Journal of Geography Environment and Earth Science International · February 2019

DOI: 10.9734/jgeesi/2019/v19i130077

CITATIONS READS
15 11,487

1 author:

Jeetesh Rai
University of Delhi
13 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Social Differentiation and Spatial Segmentation in an Urban Context: A Study of Varanasi View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jeetesh Rai on 30 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science
International

19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297

ISSN: 2454-7352

Understanding Poverty-Environment Relationship

from Sustainable Development Perspectives
Jeetesh Rai1*
1
Department of Geography, Kirori Mal College, Delhi University, Delhi, Postcode: 110007, India.

Author’s contribution

The sole author designed, analysed, interpreted and prepared the manuscript.

Article Information

DOI: 10.9734/JGEESI/2019/v19i130077
Editor(s):
(1) Dr. Badiora Adewumi Israel, Department of Urban & Regional Planning, College of Environmental Design & Management,
Wesley University, Ondo, Nigeria.
Reviewers:
(1) Antipas T. S. Massawe, Department of Chemical and Mining Engineering, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
(2) Williams Kweku Darkwah, College of Environment, Hohai University, China.
Complete Peer review History: http://www.sdiarticle3.com/review-history/46297

Received 19 October 2018

Policy Article Accepted 22 January 2019
Published 18 February 2019

ABSTRACT

Many observers conceptualize the environment-poverty link as “downward spiral,” with population
growth and social exclusion leading to environmental deterioration. However, recent micro and
small scale existential study challenges this model, showing striking heterogeneity in natural
resource management by the poor, including display of their success in adapting to environmental
change and the efficacy of policies in affecting outcomes. Using both conceptual and empirical
material, this article aims to assess the poverty-environment relationship. I will specifically examine
criticisms of the “poverty causes environmental degradation” approach, arguing that recent
scholarly work on the complex web of factors involved in the poverty-environment nexus provides a
more useful toolkit for assessing the poverty-environment link in local places. I will conclude by
analyzing how policies can more effectively address the interrelationship between poverty and
environmental degradation, highlighting promising areas of impact.

Keywords: Poverty; environmental degradation; poverty-environmental degradation nexus; power;

market failure and institutional failure.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Corresponding author: E-mail: jeeteshrai@gmail.com;


1. INTRODUCTION
Poverty and environmental degradation
represent two of the largest global challenges of
contemporary times. It has been more than thirty
years since world leaders congregated in
Stockholm to deliberate on the poverty-
environment nexus and declared the need for
“preservation and improvement of the human
environment, for the benefit of all the people and
for their prosperity” [1]. While some countries can
boast remarkable achievements in poverty
alleviation, global poverty remains a persistent
challenge in this millennium with more than 33%
of the world’s population living in a “condition of
absolute deprivation” [2]. Where achievements
have been made in improving the quality of life
and livelihoods of people [3,4,5], these have
rarely been without adverse environmental
impacts. In fact, if we look deeper into strategies,
the poverty-environment link [6] has been poorly
integrated into PRSPs 1 (Poverty Reduction
Strategies Papers) [7,8,9] and often has not been
operationalized [10]. The experience of the
UNDP and UNEP partnership
[11,12,13,14,15,16] show that there is still a
general lack of understanding of how
environment and poverty are linked and/or how
to include environmental sustainability in
national, sectoral and district development
process, including within environment ministries.
Fig. 1. Relationship between poverty and
environmental degradation
Source: [17]
2. THE GLOBAL IMPERATIVE TO
ADDRESS POVERTY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION
Finding ways to effectively address
environmental degradation and poverty is a
1
PRSPs – Poverty Reduction strategy Papers are prepared
by the member’s countries through a participation process
involving domestic stakeholders as well as external
development partners, including the World bank and
International monetary fund.
2
Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297
global imperative [18]. The United Nations
Millennium Development Goals (UNDP)
recognize that environmental sustainability is part
of economic and social well-being across the
globe. The Millennium ecosystem Assessment
(2005) found that 60% of ecosystem services are
used unsustainably and concluded that “any
progress achieved in addressing the goals of
poverty and hunger eradication, improved health,
and environmental protection is unlikely to be
sustained if most of the ecosystem services on
which humanity relies continue to be degraded
[19].” A large body of research [for example
20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27] including study
conducted from time to time by World Bank:
[28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35] and UNDP & EC
(European Commission) [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,
43] demonstrates that environmental conditions
and access to natural resources are closely
linked to the livelihoods, health and security of
people living in poverty—particularly women and
children. Greatly expanded public and private
investment in the productivity of these
environmental assets can generate strong
returns for poverty reduction and contribute to
pro-poor growth. Yet, despite their critical
importance, environmental assets continue to be
degraded at an alarming rate. Therefore,
integrating poverty-environment concerns into
the mainstream of development policy, planning
and investment is an urgent priority
(IIED/IUCN/UNDP/UNEP/WRI 2005)2 [44].
There are important relationship between
environmental management and poverty.
Numerous studies [for e.g. 45,6,7,18,21,46],
particularly research conducted by World Bank
[28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35] and World Resources
Institute (WRI) [47,48] have shown that
environmental damage can have particular
significance for the poor. Recent participatory
poverty assessments, conducted in 14
developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin
America, reveal a common perception by the
poor that the quality of the environmental is an
crucial factor in determinant of their health,
earning capacity, security, energy supplies and
housing quality [49]. Rural studies, particularly
conducted by UNDP, UNEP, European
Commission and Department for International
Development, London [11,12,13,14,15,16,45]
frequently suggest that poor people’s economic
dependence on natural resources makes them
2
This publication is a joint product of staff from UNDP, UNEP,
IIED, IUCN and WRI, prepared on behalf of the Poverty-
Environment Partnership. 2005 IIED/IUCN/UNDP/UNEP/WRI
(2005).

particularly vulnerable to environmental
degradation (Fig. 1) [50,51,52]. Other recent
studies, conducted by World Bank and
international centre for Tropical Agriculture,
Washington D.C. [53,54,55,56,57,58], World
Health Organisations (WHO) [59], National
Research Council, USA [60]; United States
Global Change Research Program (USGCRP )
[61,62,63], USDA [64] and IPCC [65], have
assessed the health damage suffered by poor
households that are directly exposed to pollution
of the air, water and land [66,67]. In addition,
conflicts over the environment may have
regressive effects because the marginalised
section is least capable of coping with these
disasters [68, also see 21,46].
3. DIFFERING APPROACHES TO THE
POVERTY-ENVIRONMENT NEXUS
There is much contention about the poverty-
environment relationship, demonstrated by two
differing general approaches and schools of
thought. The first postulates that poverty is a key
factor behind environmental degradation,
particularly in developing countries [69,70 page
2170; also see 6,23,7,8,9,10,28,29,30,31,32,
33,34,35]. This predominate approach argues
that in order for policy makers to address
environmental issues, they must first analyse and
give priority to tackle the poverty issues [71 ] and
is evidenced in the Bruntland Report [72], World
development Report [28] and also discussed
more carefully in Perrings [73,74].
A second broad school of thought argues,
through a variety of differing theories and
postulations that the generalisation of poverty-
environment direct link is too simple and the
nexus between them is governed by a complex
web of factors [for e.g. 69,70,75,74]. For
example, a body of economic literature [76,77,
78,79,80,5,22,25,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,
91,92] disputes the conventional theory by
asserting that this simple generalisation of
multifaceted problem is fallacious [75] and miss
many other complex factors such as institutional,
cultural and demographic that come into play in
the connection between environment and poverty
[70]. A complicated link of these factors in
addition to feedback loops between poverty and
environmental degradation [93] make the
process of identifying causality links between this
poverty and environment nexus a non-trivial
exercise [70].
In addition, critiques of theorizations of a
“downward spiral” [87,95] are furthered by
3
Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297
research [87,94,96,52,93] that suggests
marginalized section of rural areas is able to
adopt protective mechanism through collective
action that minimizes the negative outcomes of
environmental change [97]. Such research
indicates that some recent ideas related to
environmental degradation are based upon
misguided linkages of human activity on
environmental change [98] in effect bypassing
many of the most pressing environmental
problems that currently affect poor people [97].
To achieve the goal of poverty reduction and
environmental protection there is the urgent need
to deeply understand the critical link of
environmental degradation and poverty and at
the same time authorize policy options to
eliminate these two major problems.
4. THREE THEORIZATIONS OF THE
POVERTY-ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATION NEXUS
Among the theorists who are critical of an overly
simplistic generalizations that find poverty to
propel environmental degradation, Duraiappah
[70], Ekbom, [6], Nunan et al. [45], Aggrey et al.
[46]; Olinto P [22]; Gerber et al. [5], Peprah et
al. [71] [99], offers three other possible
relationships between poverty and the
environment. The similar relationship between
poverty and environment also supported by
many other researchers [for e.g. 5,23,96, 100-
103] and international research and
development institutes [for e.g. 7-10,18,28-43,
47,48,104,105,106] as well. Through analyzing
the above mentioned researcher’s postulations
about these possible relationships between the
environment and poverty, I will argue that the
poverty-environment relationship is highly
complex and varied, alluding any straightforward
generalizations about cause and effect. In
particular, I will contend that attention to local
dynamics and human’s interaction with particular
resources, such as land and water, support the
claim that multiple factors, including institutional
and market failures, further mediate the poverty-
environment nexus.
Instead of poverty being the primary culprit
leading to increased environmental problems,
one counter approach suggests that other factors
particularly wealth, greed and power are
responsible for environmental degradation in less
developed countries. For example, some
researcher such as Duraiappah [70]; Boyce
[107]; Nunan, [45]; Ahmed [96]; Peprah P, [71];
Olinto P, [22], describes this approach as one

that views the exploitative practices of the rich as
the primary factor forcing segments of the
population into poverty, and in turn exacerbating
environmental degradation. Duraiappah [70]
summarizes this linkage:
“One could argue that wealth, greed and power
can cause or exacerbate poverty which in turn
then causes environmental degradation. Then
the solution is to address the force causing the
poverty and in this case, it would be the
power/greed/wealth factor” [70].
This view both substantiates and complicates the
theory that poverty fuels environmental
degradation, as it finds the key factors
responsible for environmental degradation to be
greed, power and wealth, even as these
dynamics themselves fuel the forms of poverty
that jeopardize sustainability.
Citing the examples from developing countries
on environment-poverty relationship Leach and
Mearns [75], Reardon, Thomas and Stephen
Vosti [108] and Myers and Kent [109] discusses
how “downward spiral” is difficult to break in rural
areas and how it affects the poverty-environment
relations negatively with specific focus on market
and institutional failure. Following the study of
Leach and Mearns [75], Reardon, Thomas &
Stephen Vosti [108] and Myers & Kent [109]
Duraiappah [69,70] postulates a second possible
relationship, which highlights the links between
institutional failure and markets’ dynamics with
environmental degradation [70]. Specifically,
institutional and/or market failures are
hypothesized as the primary instigators of
environmental degradation [70]. Here,
understanding a clear distinction between market
and institutional failure is very necessary when
policy implications and instructions and
regulations are addressed, as specific types of
failures require unique prescriptions [70]. In most
of the conditions institutional failure is considered
to delineate both mechanisms. For example
policy implications for wrong (market related
failure) or manipulative price signals will be very
different from policy initiatives that are required to
establish and implement well defined property
rights (institutional failures). In many cases the
distinction between market and institutional
failure is not always clear but it should be made
very clear if policy analysis and prescriptions are
primary objectives [70].
The third and final possible relationship that
questions the conventional view is the conviction
that environmental degradation is a key factor
4
Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297
responsible for poverty. Boyce [107] , Baland,
Jean-Marie & Jean-Philippe Platteau [74]. Broad
R. [110], Mink, S [67]; Perrings, C. [73] are the
supportive of this view and later Duraiappah [70]
on the basis of their work discussed this third
relationship in detail.
According to this approach, if environmental
degradation is caused by only exogenous
poverty (or when other factors are responsible for
poverty than the degradation of the environment)
then the “poverty-induced environmental
degradation” [111,112,113,114] argument could
be accepted and that would be ideal from the
policy maker’s perspective to carry forward and
follow the idea of environmental protection
through poverty alleviation policies [70, page
2171]. However, if poverty is endogenous, or
itself caused by environmental degradation, then
a feedback loop is possible, where more
environmental degradation leads to further
endogenous poverty. In the end, this
theorization supports the “downward spiral” view
[87,95], demonstrating how environmental
degradation reinforces each other.
Although the majority of the literature that we
discussed in this article and reviewed by
Duraiappah [70] show marginal groups adopting
environmental degradation activities, very few
freely chose these activities and many had left
with no choices but to adopt unsustainable
practices [70]. Economic conditions and
increased vulnerabilities with regard to markets
and institutions as well as the environment, often
caused by the activities of elite and powerful
section of the society, left marginal groups with
very few other alternatives other than to adopt
resource mining activities [70]. Thus, the possible
link from poverty to resource degradation is not
so well established as the link from resource
degradation to poverty. From the above
discussion, the poor cannot blamed as the main
culprit behind environment degradation. Rather,
the poor in many cases are more aware about
local land, forest, and water resources, as their
lives and livelihoods are often more entangled
and dependent on these resources. In fact,
Broad et al 1994 discussed, in some cases the
poor are mobilizing to protest the high costs of
environmental degradation that they are
experiencing [110].
As Duraiappah and other scholars illustrates,
distinguishing the root causes and effect of the
poverty-environment relationship is critical for
creating effective policy. For instance, the
policies that are focused on eliminating

Fig. 2. Poverty environment relationship
Source: [70; 115]
endogenous poverty will have limited impact if
the key forces causing environmental
degradation are still present [70]. In other
instances, if environmental degradation is
caused by only power, wealth and greed then the
policy measure may be intricate by rent-seeking
activities by those who are wealthy and powerful
[70]. Thus, vested interests have the potential of
preventing the adoption of these solutions [70]. A
lack of discernment of the root causes and
connections between environmental degradation
and poverty could be one of the reasons why
most policies addressing the relation between
environmental degradation and poverty issue
had limited success [70].
5. PLACE-SPECIFIC DYNAMICS,
RESOURCES AND INSTITUTIONAL
FAILURES
From the examples of several case studies on
land and water, Duraiaapah [70] and others such
as Forsyth [97]; Scherr [116]; Scherr [117];
Olinto P [22]; Ahmed, 2014 [96]; Peprah P [71];
show the ways that multiple factors, including
local dynamics and institutional failures, impact
the poverty-environment degradation in place
and case-specific ways (Fig. 2). For example,
Duraiaapah [70] uses the example of an
institutional failure, specifically a lack of land-
tenure, as forcing impoverished populations to
5
Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297
resort to unsustainable land activities. In addition,
he points about that it is often higher income
groups with commercial interests that have the
potential to most dramatically degrade the
environment, disrupting the assumption that
poverty normally or usually fuels environmental
problems. Similarly, an absence and misuse of
property rights furthers the ineffective
governance of water resources, leading to
degradation. For example, Duraiaapah
summarizes:
“With the establishment of individual property
rights and the breakdown of traditional
institutional structures, the rights to water have
quite often meant benefits to high-income groups
who either had the resources to acquire the
water property rights or take advantage of the
access to government subsidized water supplies”
[70].
Here, the institutional structures regulating
property place the poor in a situation where there
only recourse is to degrade, rather than sustain,
the limited resources they have access to. While
poverty may ultimately propel environmental
degradation, specific local institutional
arrangements remain the root cause, a
distinction that remains critical if policy is to
effectively address the poverty-environment
relationship.

Local institutions thus provide the social fabric
within which poverty-environment interactions
are often determined [117]. Effective resource
management, whether for private, communal or
public resources, often requires collective
regulation (e.g. use or management restrictions
on privately-held resources to influence
environmental externalities) or collective
investment (e.g. establishment of community
drainage systems or trees for public use) [117].
Good local organisational and management skills
often underpin successful resource management
activities [117,118]. Cultural, demographic,
market and leadership factors and characteristics
of the resource base and local government affect
the emergence and success of local organisation
for natural resource management (NRM) [116].
A key indicator of equity in NRM organisations is
whether the poor, including women, take part
and have an effective voice [117].
Local institutions also provide community
physical and social infrastructure that
complements and supports the development of
non-farm activities, the commercialisation of
agriculture and urban–rural links [117,119].
Support services to the poor for agricultural
production and resource management (e.g.
technical assistance and marketing information)
influence their ability to respond positively to
NRM challenges [117]. Local endowments,
conditions for adoption of conservation
technology and local institutions thus appear key
to generating increased livelihood security for
poor people while also improving environmental
conditions [117].
Fig. 3. Scenarios in environmental
preservation and poverty reduction [11]
The most effective action for reducing poverty
and environmental degradation will thus depend
on the dynamics of local change and the relative
6
Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297
importance of key factors (resource-conserving
technology, local institutions and property rights)
influencing poverty–environment interactions
[117]. The following chart depicts the situation
when both poverty and environment goal can
achieve the win-win scenario.
6. POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
However, Duraiappah [70], Scherr [117] and
other scholars Forsyth et al. [97]; Reardon and
Vosti [108]; Cavendish [51] indicate that
economically disadvantaged populations often
are in a very different and unique position to
conserve resources, and often act to do so when
institutional and market failures are absent.
Research demonstrates the ways the poor are
uniquely positioned to be stewards of the
environment, and often act to preserve the
environmental resources for which they depend
on for sustenance and their livelihoods,
sometimes even reviving degraded resources.
For example, studies [11,92,120,121,122,123]
have found a wide range of environmental
outcomes under management by the poor and of
welfare outcomes following environmental
degradation. Researchers [91,124,125,126]
reveal that poor farmers adopt resource-
conserving practices nearly always because
these also contribute to increased productivity or
output stability and are economically viable in the
farmers’ context of risk and resource constraints
[117]. Such dual-purpose technologies are
essential to achieve poverty reduction (Fig. 3)
and environmental policy objectives [117].
Reardon and Vosti’s [108] concept of
‘conservation investment poverty’ highlights poor
people’s limited capacity to mobilise critical cash,
labour, machinery or other resources, even for
highly profitable and effective investments. This
is partly because of weak institutional
development and poor functioning of factor
markets in many poor rural areas [117].
A result of this new evidence of variability in
poverty–environment interactions has been an
emerging focus on “sustainable rural livelihoods”
[117]. Examinations of livelihood strategies [for
e.g. 90,98,127,128] have revealed that although
the rural poor may have limited resources, they
still have considerable capacity to adapt to
environmental degradation, either by mitigating
its effects on their livelihoods or by rehabilitating
degraded resources [117]. A wide variety of
coping mechanisms may be used to deal with
environmental stress [117]. Some of these
 Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297

responses imply further impoverishment (e.g.
reducing consumption, depleting household, or
moving),others may offset the welfare effects of
resource degradation without improving the
natural resource base (e.g. increasing off-farm
employment, exploiting common property
resources) [117]. Some strategies both improve
natural resources and reduce household poverty
by protecting and preserving the asset base,
diversifying and improving on-farm production
systems, or taking out credit to invest in future
production or resource protection [129,116].
The following diagram, Fig. 4, shows the poverty-
environment relationship. It depicts how
indirect drivers of change, specifically
economic factors and governance, influence the
direct drivers of change such as land use and
resource use change. These direct drivers of
change then impact ecosystem services
and poverty alleviation. These interactions occur
at the local level but are influenced by
occurrences at the national and global level as
well.

Fig. 4. Poverty and environmental connections [11]

Box 1: Why the Need for Integrated Ecosystem Assessments?

Integrated ecosystem assessments can perform the following useful functions:

 Identify priorities for action and analyse trade-offs, showing how gains in some services may
be achieved at the expense of losses in others
 Provide foresight concerning the likely consequences of decisions affecting ecosystems
 Identify response options to achieve human development and sustainability goals
 Provide a framework and source of tools for assessment, planning and management
 Act as a benchmark for future assessments and guide future research

Source: [155].

7
 Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297

7. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN URBAN
POVERTY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATION
To address the twin problems of poverty
reduction and environmental protection at the
global level, a sole focus on the poverty-
environmental degradation linkage in rural areas
remains insufficient. Examples from urban areas
further demonstrate that a host of complex
factors mediate the poverty-environmental
degradation relationship, not least how these two
processes are understood differently in urban
contexts. In particular, a number of challenges to
this conventional concept of environmental
degradation come from urban areas [97]. There
are thus important differences in poverty–
environment linkages and relationship in rural
and urban areas [20]: Firstly, in the rural areas
people’s livelihood is depend directly on natural
resources than in the urban areas where cash-
based income and assets are more significant;
Secondly, poor people tend to contribute less to
the factors causing environmental degradation in
urban areas; Thirdly, environmental degradation
in urban areas is basically associated with health
impacts [97,26,47,48].
Resultantly, causes and consequences of urban
deprivation are generally addressed via
economic policies and political interventions
rather than through direct intervention into
environmental processes [97]. Compare to rural
areas, in urban areas environmental problems
are experienced differently by various social
groups, and are also subject to various
misapprehension and errors in management and
measurement [97]. Forsyth et al. [97] also
discussed that trends related to environmental
problems are experienced differently in urban
areas compare to rural areas [97]. Forsyth et al.
also highlighted that in general environment
related problems in urban areas, particularly in
less developed counties, are “associated with the
world’s largest cities-– such as Sao Paulo, Cairo
and Mexico City” [97]. Yet most of the urban
population in less developed countries is residing
in smaller settlements of less than 20,000 or
between 20,000-250,000 population [97].
Researches
[20,22,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,47,48]
suggests that in urban areas marginalised
section of the population have shown greater
interest to mobilise in order to access basic
amenities, specifically in the case of shanty-
towns [97]. But research [for e.g. 36,37,38,
39,40,41,42,47,48] also suggests that local
institutions in urban areas, comparison to rural
areas, have many additional problems that make
adaptation difficult, particularly, in urban areas
these environment related problems are
generally defined in terms of negative impact on
health rather than water, soil, forest resources
and land productivity [97]. In addition, many
environmental risks (Health related problems)
are very difficult to respond to in urban areas
because sometimes these are beyond the
experience of marginalised section and also local
level authorities and institutional responses to
these risks depend more on the institutional
support by the State, investors and international
institutions rather than local groups and
communities [97]. Research further suggests that
poor population in urban areas, particularly the
poorest twenty percent could not take the benefit
of these schemes because of the problems of
poor institutional responses [97]. However, “such
institutional provision for the urban poor may take
second priority for national and local
governments with the emergence of prosperity
and local elites as the ‘green’ environmental
agenda (concerning conservation aspects of
environment) take precedence over ‘brown’
agendas (concerning housing, pollution,
sanitation etc.)” [97].

Box 2: How Does Climate Change Affect Ecosystem Services?

Ecosystems and services affected by climate change include the following:

• Marine and coastal ecosystems: fisheries, climate regulation, storm/flood protection, transportation,
freshwater and nutrient cycling, tourism, cultural value
• Forest and woodlands: pollination, food, timber, water regulation, erosion control, medicines, tourism,
cultural value
• Drylands: soil conservation of moisture, nutrient cycling, food, fibre, pollination, freshwater, water and
climate regulation, tourism, cultural value
• Mountain ecosystems: freshwater, food, medicinal plants, natural hazard and climate regulation,
rangeland for animals, tourism, cultural value
• Cultivated ecosystems: food, fibre, fuel, pollination, nutrient cycling, pest regulation, freshwater
Source: [156].

8
 Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297

Table 1. Contribution of the environment in achieving the MDGs

Goal Poverty-environment linkages

Poverty  Livelihood strategies and food security of poor households typically depend directly on ecosystem health and productivity and the diversity
1. Eradicate extreme of services they provide
poverty and hunger  Poor households often have insecure rights to land, water and natural resources, and inadequate access to information, markets and
rights to participate in decisions that affect their resource access and use, thus limiting their capability to use environmental resources
sustainably to improve their livelihoods and well-being
 Vulnerability to environmental risks—such as floods, droughts and the impacts of climate change—undermines people’s livelihood
opportunities and coping strategies, thus limiting their ability to lift themselves out of poverty or avoid falling into poverty
Gender and Education  Environmental degradation contributes to an increased burden on women and children (especially girls) in terms of the time required to
2. Achieve universal collect water and fuelwood, thus reducing the time they have available for education or income-generating activities
primary education  Including the environment within the primary school curriculum can influence the behaviour of young people and their parents, thereby
3. Promote gender equality supporting sustainable livelihoods
and empower women  Women often have limited roles in decision-making, from the community level to national policymaking, which prevents their voices from
being effectively heard, particularly with respect to their environmental concerns
 Women often have unequal rights and insecure access to land and natural resources, limiting their opportunities and ability to access
productive assets
Health  Water- and sanitation-related diseases (such as diarrhoea) and acute respiratory infections (primarily from indoor air pollution) are two of
4. Reduce child mortality the leading causes of under-five child mortality
5. Improve maternal health  Damage to women’s health from indoor air pollution or from carrying heavy loads of water and fuelwood can make women less fit for
6. Combat HIV/ AIDS, childbirth and at greater risk of complications during pregnancy
malaria and major  Malaria, annual killer of an estimated 1 million children under age five, may be exacerbated as a result of deforestation, loss of biodiversity
diseases and poor water management
 Up to a quarter of the burden of disease worldwide is linked to environmental factors—primarily polluted air and water, lack of sanitation
and vector-borne diseases; measures to prevent damage to health from environmental causes are as important, and often more cost-
effective, than treatment of the resulting illnesses
 Environmental risks, such as natural disasters, floods, droughts and the effects of ongoing climate change, affect people’s health and can
be life threatening
Development Partnership  Natural resources and sustainable environmental management contribute to economic development, public revenues, the creation of
7. Develop a global decent and productive work and poverty reduction
partnership for  Developing countries, especially small island States, have special needs for development assistance, including increased capacity to
development adapt to climate change and to address other environmental challenges, such as water and waste management
Sources: [157,158]

9

Key areas for policy action to improve poverty-environment link outcomes
1. Improving the quality of
growth
2. Enhancing the assets of the
poor
3. Improving the environmental
governance
Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297
Table 2. Key areas for policy action to improve poverty-environment link outcomes
 Increasing the use of ecosystem services and environmental valuation
 Integrating poverty-environmental issues into economic policies of the country
 Implementing pro-poor environmental fiscal reforms and encouraging private sector involvement in environment protection and
management agendas
 Focusing on the capacity building of the poor’s to manage the environment
 Strengthening the rights of the poor over natural resources
 Focusing on reducing the environmental risk and vulnerability of the poor
 Reducing environment related conflict
 Strengthening decentralisation and devolution of power to local communities
 Help communities identify the poverty-environment linkages relevant to their well-being and livelihoods
 Empowering NGOs and other stakeholders in marginalised groups
 Integrating poverty environment issues in national and international development frameworks
 Enhancing the contribution of multilateral environmental agreements to poverty alleviation
 Explore the possibility of a donor providing funding specifically for poverty environment linkages within the policy process
 Encouraging sustainable practices of natural resource management
 Promote future action on the basis of the poverty-environment issues highlighted in the policy document related to poverty alleviation
and natural resource management
 Work with mainstreaming champions from key institutions
Source: On the basis of data review from available literature on poverty-environment relationship
10

Many studies and institutions that follow the idea
of Brundtland Commission, that poverty
alleviation issue has to tackle before
environmental degradation [25,95,96,100,127,
130,131,132], may promote the idea of following
and adopting the policies that do not
acknowledge the different meanings of
environment to marginalized sections, and
macroeconomic responses that may increase
both environmental degradation and poverty in
rural and urban settings [97]. Contrary to this, our
experience suggests that acknowledging the
local rather than universal experience of poverty-
environment nexus will be important and to
provide favourable conditions for marginalised
section to create their own institutional response
to environmental changes [97]. The particular
approach of ‘environmental entitlements’ offers a
way to address these concerns [97].
‘Environmental entitlement’ approach
emphasizes on the interactions of various
institutional responses to environmental
management at a variety of scales and actors
[97]. Moreover, there is the dire need to develop
the better understandings of techniques to
strengthen local institutional responses to
change and methods and ways to make
international environmental policy objectives
more representatives of local, poor people’s
concerns [97].
The World Resources Report 2005 identifies a
number of actions needed to improve integration
of environment into Poverty Reduction Strategies
(PRS) processes, such as: recognizing the
importance of income from the environment and
natural resources, addressing tenure and access
to resources, tackling issues of decentralization
and management at local levels and developing
environmental indicators and monitoring that are
relevant to poverty [133]. In 2005, UNDP and
UNEP began the process of integrating their
respective poverty and environment programmes
to form the UNEP/UNDP Poverty –Environment
3
Initiative (PEI) , which currently operates in
eleven countries in Africa, Asia and Central
America [11,12]. The UNEP is promoting the
message that investment in environmental
management that benefits the poor will deliver
strong results in terms of sustained poverty
reduction, growth and achieving the Millennium
3 CPALI’S goal is to build broad based partnerships among
PEI- The UNDP-UNEP Poverty –Environment Initiative is a
joint programme to provide financial and technical support to
countries to build capacity for mainstreaming poverty-
environment linkages into national development planning
processes, such as PRSP’s and MDG achievement
strategies.
11
Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297
Development Goals (MDGs) [15,16]. Many
national and international non-profit
organizations like CPALI4 (Conservation through
Poverty Alleviation programme- a US based non
profit organization) are developing working
models for integrated, small scale, enter prise
systems that link rural livelihoods to natural
resource conservation. The World Bank’s
current focus is on the achieving of the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), calls for
the elimination of poverty and the implementation
of sustainable development [55,56]. The World
Bank (World Bank 2003), is currently
encouraging environmental mainstreaming in
Poverty Reduction Strategies [53,55,56].
7. CONCLUSION
Different case studies, for example of land, soil,
water and forest, examined by Durraiaph [70]
and other scholars show that power, greed,
market failure and institutional failure are the
major factors behind environmental degradation ,
not poor people themselves, while degradation
negatively impacts poor groups. Studies [for e.g.
[134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,
145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154] also
show that poor people often have a high level of
awareness about the environment, and are in a
position to protect the environment, as a
sustainable environment will support their
livelihoods. Hence, we can say that the ‘poverty
creates environmental degradation’ argument is
vastly insufficient for understanding the nature of
these processes. Many policies will not be
effective if they overlook the root causes and
only see one direct link between environmental
degradation and poverty, ignoring other
contributing factors and feedback loops. In
addition, Forsyth’s case study demonstrates that
the rural poverty-environment link and urban
poverty-environment link is highly different, both
practically and conceptually, affecting poor
groups differently. In rural areas, the poor directly
depend on natural resources (as part of their
livelihood) and experience the problem of
environmental degradation in terms of economy
and livelihood, while the urban poor depend on
cash-based income for their livelihoods,
experiencing environmental problems largely in
terms of health problems.
4
conservation and development organizations businesses,
governments and local communities that work to introduce
new ways that rural farmers can profit from sustainable use of
natural resources.
 Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297

This article has explored the dominant 5. Gerber N, Nkonya E, von Braun J.
approaches to understanding the ‘poverty- In marginality: Addressing the nexus of
environmental degradation’ nexus. Each of these poverty, exclusion and ecology (eds von
approaches has reviewed the problem from Braun J, Gatzweiler FW) 181–202
different lenses and accordingly generated policy (Springer, Dordrecht). A thorough and
options. The environmental needs of, and comprehensive review of the issues and
pressures on, the poor will certainly intensify in challenges in assessing the links between
coming decades. Hence, it is important to land degradation and poverty globally;
establish more effective micro-macro links of 2014.
poverty and environment related policies. As the 6. Ekbom A, Bojö J. Poverty and
examples and more detailed case studies above environment: evidence of links and
show, although the poverty environment integration into the country assistance
relationship is highly variable, the ‘downward strategy process. Environment Group,
spiral’ is both avoidable and reversible in many Africa Region, World Bank. Washington,
circumstances [117]. Meeting the challenge of D.C; 1999.
reconciling poverty reduction and environmental 7. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-
protection will require careful investigation and operation and Development). Poverty-
rethinking of the institutional arrangements on Environment Linkages. Working Party on
which such efforts so fundamentally depend. Development Cooperation and the
Poor people have an unrecognised potential for Environment. Paris; 2001a.
adaptation and innovation. Public policies can 8. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-
positively influence the micro-scale factors that operation and Development). Sustainable
determine how poor adapt to environmental Development, Critical Issues. Paris; 2001b.
pressures. However, more pro-active policies are 9. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-
required to achieve environmental and anti- operation and Development). The DAC
poverty objectives simultaneously, enhancing the Guidelines. Strategies for Sustainable
access to and productivity of poor people’s Development: Guidance for Development
natural resource assets and engaging them as Cooperation. Paris; 2001c.
partners in public resource management [117]. In 10. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-
essence, it can conclude that, poverty alleviation operation and Development). DAC
and environmental protection are complementary Guidelines on Integrating the ‘Rio
goals and should be treated jointly together as a Conventions’ in Development Cooperation.
central idea with a ‘win-win’ policy and with DCD/DAC19. Paris; 2002.
comprehensive programmatic approach. 11. UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment
Initiative. Mainstreaming poverty
COMPETING INTERESTS environment linkages into development
planning: A handbook for practitioners.
Author has declared that no competing interests UNDP-UNEP Poverty-Environment
exist. Facility; 2009.
REFERENCES 12. UNDP-UNEP Poverty Environment
Initiative. The economics of land
1. Report of the United Nations Conference degradation for the agriculture sector in
on the Human Environment, Stockholm. Tajikistan – A scoping study; 2012.
(United Nations publication, Sales No. Available:www.unpei.org (PDF)
E.73.II.A.14 and corrigendum). 1972;Chap. The Poverty - Environment Nexus in
11. Developing Countries: Evidence from
2. United Nations: Report of the World Ethiopia: A Systematic Review.
Summit on Sustainable Development Available:https://www.researchgate.net/pu
Johannesburg, South Africa; 2002. blication/324821925_The_Poverty_-
3. Bojö J, Bucknall J, Hamilton K, Kishor N, _Environment_Nexus_in_Developing_Cou
Kraus C, Pillai P. Environment. In Poverty ntries_Evidence_from_Ethiopia_A_System
Reduction Strategy Sourcebook. World atic_Review
Bank, Washington, D.C; 2001. [Accessed Jan 05, 2019]
4. Bojö J, Reddy RC. Poverty reduction 13. United Nations Development Program
strategies: A review of 40 interim and full (UNDP). Environmental justice: Compara-
PRSPs. Environment Department Paper. tive experiences in legal empowerment;
World Bank, Washington, D.C; 2002. 2014.

12
 Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297

14. UNEP (United Nations Environment 25. Barrett CB, Bevis LEM. The self-
Programme). Trade liberalization and the reinforcing feedback between low soil
environment: Lessons learned from fertility and chronic poverty. Nat.
Bangladesh, Chile, India, Philippines, Geosci. 2015;8:907–912.
Romania and Uganda. Environment and 26. Fritzell J, Rehnberg J, Bacchus Hertzman
Trade Unit, Geneva; 1999. J, Blomgren J. Absolute or relative? A
15. UNEP (United Nations Environment comparative analysis between poverty
Programme). Fisheries Subsidies and and mortality. Int. J. Publ. Health.
Marine Resource Management: Lessons 2015;60:101–110.
Learned from Studies in Argentina and 27. de Sherbinin A. Is poverty more acute
Senegal. UNEP/ETU/ 2001/7. Environment near parks? An assessment of infant
and Trade Unit, Geneva. 2002a;II. mortality rates around protected areas in
16. UNEP (United Nations Environment developing countries. Oryx. 2008;42:26–
Programme). Global environment outlook 35.
3: Past, present and future perspectives. 28. World Bank, (World Development Report):
Earthscan Publications, London; 2002b. Development and the Environment. Oxford
17. Vaghefi N, Siwar C, Aziz SAAG. A University Press, Oxford; 1992.
framework for green growth and socio- 29. World Bank. Five years after Rio:
economic development in Malaysia. Innovations in environmental policy.
Current World Environment. 2015;10(1). Environmentally Sustainable Development
Available:http://dx.doi.org/10.12944/CWE.1 Studies and Monographs Series No. 18.
0.1.04 Washington, D.C; 1997.
18. UNDP and EC (European Commission). 30. World Bank. Assessing Aid: What Works,
Attacking Poverty While Protecting the What Doesn’t, and Why. A World Bank
Environment: Towards Win-win Policy Policy Research Report. Oxford University
Options. Poverty and Environment Press, Oxford; 1998.
Initiative Synthesis Paper prepared by J. 31. World Bank. Greening industry: New roles
Ambler. UNDP, New York; 2000. for communities, markets, and
19. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment governments. Washington, D.C; 2000a.
Synthesis Report, Pre-publication Final 32. World Bank. Economic causes of civil
Draft Approved by MA Board on March 23, conflict and their implications for policy.
2005. A Report of the Millennium Washington, D.C; 2001a.
Ecosystem Assessment; 2005. 33. World Bank. Poverty reduction strategy
20. Songsore J, McGranahan G. Environment, sourcebook. Washington, D.C; 2001d.
wealth and health: Towards an analysis of 34. World Bank. Poverty and environment:
intra-urban differentials within the greater Understanding linkages at the household
Accra metropolitan area, Ghana. level. Environment and
Environment and Urbanization. Development. Washington, DC: World
1993;5(2):10–34. Bank. World Bank; 2007.
21. Vedeld P, Angelsen A, Bojö J, Sjaastad E, Available:https://openknowledge.worldban
Kobugabe BG. Forest environmental k.org/handle/10986/6924 License: CC BY
incomes and the rural poor. Forest Policy 3.0 IGO
Econ. 2007;9:869-879. 35. World Bank Group. Priorities for ending
22. Olinto P, Beegle K, Sobrado C, Uematsu extreme poverty and promoting shared
H. The state of the poor: Where are the prosperity. Systematic Country Diagnostic,
poor, where is extreme poverty harder to Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia;
end, and what is the current profile of the 2016.
World’s poor; 2013. [Report No: 100592-Et]
Available:www.worldbank.org/economicpre 36. UNDP and EC (European Commission). A
23. Leighton M. Environmental degradation better life…with nature’s help: Success
and migration. In Drylands, poverty and stories. Poverty and Environment Initiative.
development. Proceedings of the World UNDP, New York; 1999a.
Bank Round Table. World Bank, 37. UNDP and EC (European Commission).
Washington, D.C; 1999. Community and household water
24. Ghimire KB, Pimbert MP. Social change management: The key to environmental
and conservation. Earthscan Publications, regeneration and poverty alleviation.
London; 1997. Poverty and environment initiative

13

background paper 2 prepared. By Agarwal
A, Narain S. UNDP, New York; 1999b.
38. UNDP and EC (European Commission).
Economic reforms, globalization, poverty
and the environment. Poverty and
Environment Initiative Background Paper 5
prepared by D. Reed and H. Rosa. UNDP,
New York; 1999c.
39. UNDP and EC (European Commission).
Energy as it relates to poverty alleviation
and environmental protection. Poverty and
Environment Initiative Background Paper 4
prepared by Morris E, Rajan SC. UNDP,
New York; 1999d.
40. UNDP and EC (European Commission).
Forests and the poverty-environment
nexus. Poverty and Environment Initiative
Background Paper 6 prepared by Arnold
JEM, Bird P. UNDP, New York; 1999e.
41. UNDP and EC (European Commission).
Links between poverty and the
environment in urban areas of Africa, Asia
and Latin America. Poverty and
Environment Initiative Background Paper 1
prepared by Satterthwaite D. UNDP, New
York; 1999f.
42. UNDP and EC (European Commission).
Poverty-environment interactions in
agriculture: Key factors and policy
implications. Poverty and Environment
Initiative Background Paper 3 prepared by
S. Scherr. UNDP, New York; 1999g.
43. UNDP and EC (European Commission).
Attacking poverty while protecting the
environment: Towards win-win policy
options. Poverty and Environment Initiative
Synthesis Paper prepared by J. Ambler.
UNDP, New York; 2000.
44. IIED/IUCN/UNDP/UNEP/WRI. Sustaining
the environment to fight poverty and
achieve the MDGs: The economic case
and priorities for action – A massage to the
2005 world summit. Printed by Bedwick,
Jones Printing, Inc., UNDP, New York;
2005.
45. Nunan F, Grant U, Bahiigwa G, Muramira
T, Bajracharya P, Pritchard D, Jose Vargas
M. Poverty and the environment:
Measuring the links: A study of poverty
environment indicators with case studies
from Nepal, Nicaragua and Uganda.
Environment Policy Department, Issue
Paper No. 2. Department for International
Development, London; 2002.
46. Aggrey N, Wambugu S, Karugia J, Wanga
E. An investigation of the poverty-
environmental degradation nexus: A case
14
Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297
study of Katonga Basin in Uganda.
Research Journal of Environmental and
Earth Sciences. 2010;2(2):82-88.
47. WRI (World Resources Institute). World
Resources 1996–1997. The Urban
Environment. Oxford University Press,
Oxford; 1996.
48. WRI (World Resources Institute). World
Resources 2000–2001. People and
Ecosystems. Washington, D.C; 2000.
49. Brocklesby MA, Hinshelwoo E. Poverty
and the environment: What the poor say:
An assessment of poverty-environment
linkages in participatory poverty assess-
ments. Centre for Development Studies,
University of Wales Swansea, UK; 2001.
50. Ambler J. Attacking poverty while
improving the environment: Toward win–
win policy options. Background technical
paper prepared for the September 1999
Forum of Ministers Meeting under the
UNDP–EC Poverty and Environment
Initiative, UNDP; 1999.
51. Cavendish William. Empirical regularities in
the poverty- environment relationship of
rural households: Evidence from
Zimbabwe. World Development. Elsevier
Science Ltd, UK. 2000;28(11):1979-2003.
52. Narain U, Gupta S, van‘t Veld K. Poverty
and resource dependence in rural
India. Ecol. Econ. 2008;66:161–176.
53. World Bank: World development report:
Sustainable development in a dynamic
world-transforming institutions, growth, and
quality of life. World Bank; 2003.
Available:https://openknowledge.worldban
k.org/handle/10986/5985
54. World Bank. Bangladesh: Climate change
and sustainable development. Washington,
DC. © World Bank; 2000.
Available:https://openknowledge.worldban
k.org/handle/10986/15706 License: CC BY
3.0 IGO
55. World Bank. Climate-smart healthcare:
Low-carbon and resilience strategies for
the health sector. World Bank,
Washington, DC. © World Bank; 2017.
Available:https://openknowledge.worldban
k.org/handle/10986/27809 License: CC BY
3.0 IGO
56. World Bank Group. World Bank Group
approach and action plan for climate
change and health. World Bank,
Washington, DC. © World Bank; 2017.
Available:https://openknowledge.worldban
k.org/handle/10986/27808 License: CC BY
3.0 IGO

57. Bouley Timothy, Ebi Kristie Lee, Midgley
Amelia, Shumake-Guillemot Joy Shumake,
Golden Christopher De Weir.
Methodological guidance: Climate change
and health diagnostic: A country-based
approach for assessing risks and investing
in climate-smart health systems (English).
Washington, D.C. World Bank Group;
2018.
Available:http://documents.worldbank.org/c
urated/en/552631515568426482/A-
country-based-approach-for-assessing-
risks-and-investing-in-climate-smart-
health-systems
58. Sova Chase Anthony, Grosjean Godefroy,
Baedeker Tobias, Nguyen Tam Ninh,
Wallner Martin, Nowak Andreea, Corner-
Dolloff Caitlin, Girvetz Evan, Laderach
Peter, Lizarazo Miguel. Bringing the
concept of climate-smart agriculture to life:
Insights from CSA country profiles across
Africa, Asia, and Latin America. World
Bank, and the International Centre for
Tropical Agriculture, Washington, DCWorld
Bank; 2018.
Available:https://openknowledge.worldban
k.org/handle/10986/31064 License: CC BY
3.0 IGO
59. COP 24. Special report: Health and climate
change, WHO; 2018.
[ISBN: 978-92-4-151497-2]
60. NRC. Advancing the science of climate
change. National Research Council. The
National Academies Press, Washington,
DC, USA; 2010.
61. United States Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP). global climate
change impacts in the United States. Karl
TR, Melillo JM, Peterson TC (eds.). United
States Global Change Research Program.
Cambridge University Press, New York,
NY, USA; 2009.
62. States Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP). impacts of climate change on
human health in the United States: A
scientific assessment. Crimmins A, Balbus
J, Gamble JL, Beard CB, Bell JE, Dodgen
D, Eisen RJ, Fann N, Hawkins MD, Herring
SC, Jantarasami L, Mills DM, Saha S,
Sarofim MC, Trtanj J, Ziska L, Eds. U.S.
Global change research program,
Washington, DC. 2016;312.
DOI: dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0R49NQX
63. States Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP). Luber G, Knowlton K, Balbus
J, Frumkin H, Hayden M, Hess J,
McGeehin M, Sheats N, Backer L, Beard
15
Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297
CB, Ebi KL, Maibach E, Ostfeld RS,
Wiedinmyer C, Zielinski-Gutiérrez E, Ziska
L. ch. 9: Human health. Climate change
impacts in the United States: The Third
National Climate Assessment. Melillo JM,
Terese Richmond TC, Yohe GW, Eds.,
U.S. Global Change Research Program.
2014;220-256.
DOI: 10.7930/J0PN93H5
64. USDA. Climate change, global food
security, and the U.S. Food system. Brown
ME, Antle JM, Backlund P, Carr ER,
Easterling WE, Walsh MK, Ammann C,
Attavanich W, Barrett CB, Bellemare MF,
Dancheck V, Funk C, Grace K, Ingram JSI,
Jiang H, Maletta H, Mata T, Murray A,
Ngugi M, Ojima D, O'Neill B, Tebaldi C.
2015;146.
65. IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis
report. Contribution of working groups I, II
and III to the fifth assessment report of the
intergovernmental panel on climate change
[Core Writing Team, Pachauri RK, Meyer
LA. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
2014;151.
66. Bosch C, Hommann K, Rubio GM, Sadoff
C, Travers L. Water, sanitation and poverty
chapter, poverty reduction strategy papers'
Source Book, World Bank: Washington,
DC; 2001.
67. Mink S. Poverty, population and the
environment. World Bank Discussion
Paper No. 189, World Bank: Washington,
DC; 1993.
68. Myers N, Kent J. Environmental exodus -
An emergent crisis in the global arena,
Climate Institute: Washington, DC; 1995.
69. Duraiappah A. Poverty and environmental
degradation: A literature review and
analysis. CREED Working Paper Series
No.8, London, International Institute for
Environment and Development; 1996.
70. Duraiappah A. Poverty and environmental
degradation: A review and analysis, of the
nexus. World Development.
1998;26(12):2169-79.
71. Peprah P, Abalo EM, Amoako J, Nyonyo J,
Duah WA, Adomako I. The reality from the
Myth: The poor as main agents of forest
degradation: Lessons from Ashanti
Region, Ghana. Environmental and
Socioeconomic Studies. 2017;5(3).
72. World Commission on Environment and
Development: Our Common Future,
Report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development, Oxford
University Press: Oxford, UK; 1987.
 Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297

73. Perrings C. An optimal path to extinction: developing countries? Plos One. 2016;11:
Poverty and resource degradation in the e0152973.
agrarian economy. Journal of Development 87. Barbier EB. Poverty, development and
Economics. 1989;30(1):1-24. environment. Environ. Dev.
74. Baland Jean-Marie, Jean-Philippe Econ. Highlights the causes and
Platteau. Halting degradation of natural consequences of a potential poverty–
resources: Is there role for rural environment ‘downward spiral’;
communities? Food and Agriculture consistently one of the most read articles
Organisation; 1996. in Environment and Development
75. Leach, Mearns. Poverty and environment Economics. 2010;15:635–660.
in developing countries: An overview 88. Debela B, Shively G, Angelsen A, Wik M.
study. Institute for Development Economic shocks, diversification, and
Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, forest use in Uganda. Land
UK; 1995. Econ. 2012;88:139–154.
76. Mainstreaming environment and climate 89. Holden S, Shiferaw B, Pender J. Non-
for poverty reduction and sustainable farm income, household welfare, and
development – A handbook to strengthen sustainable land management in a less-
planning and budgeting processes. favoured area in the Ethiopian
UNDP−UN Environment Poverty Environ- highlands. Food Policy. 2004;29:369–392.
ment Initiative; 2015. 90. Dell’Angelo J, D’Odorico P, Rulli MC,
77. Global Land Outlook – First Edition; United Marchand P. The tragedy of the grabbed
Nations Convention to Combat commons: Coercion and dispossession in
Desertification, 2017. the global land rush. World
78. Communications and Outreach Bridge Dev. 2017;92:1–12.
Strategy; UNDP−UN Environment Poverty- 91. Davis KF, D’Odorico P, Rulli C. Land
Environment Action for Sustainable grabbing: A preliminary quantification of
Development Goals; 2018. economic impacts on rural
79. Grainger A. The threatening desert: livelihoods. Popul. Environ. 2014;36:180–
Controlling Desertification. Earthscan 192.
Publications; 1990. 92. FAO. The State of food and agriculture.
80. Grainger A. Is land degradation neutrality Leveraging Food Systems for Inclusive
feasible in dry areas? J. Arid Rural Transformation; 2017.
Environ. 2015;112:14–24. 93. Angelsen A. et al. Environmental income
81. Vogt JV, et al. Monitoring and assessment and rural livelihoods: A global-
of land degradation and desertification: comparative analysis. World
Towards new conceptual and integrated Dev. 2014;64:S12–S26.
approaches. Land Degrad. Dev. 2011;22: 94. Barbier EB, Hochard JP. The impacts of
150–165. climate change on the poor in
82. Stavi H, Lal R. Achieving zero net land disadvantaged regions. Rev. Environ.
degradation: Challenges and Econ. Policy. 2018;12:26–47.
opportunities. J. Arid Environ. 2015; 95. Pingali P, Schneider K, Zurek M.
112:44–51. In Marginality: Addressing the nexus of
83. West PC, et al. Leverage points of poverty, exclusion and ecology (eds von
improving global food security and the Braun J, Gatzweiler FW). Springer, Berlin.
environment. Science. 2014;345:325– 2014;151–168.
328. 96. Ahmed AU, Vargas Hill R, Naeem F.
84. Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P. Global land In Marginality: Addressing the nexus of
use change, economic globalization, poverty, exclusion and ecology. eds von
and the looming land scarcity. Proc. Braun J, Gatzweiler FW. Springer, Berlin.
Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2011;108:3465– 2014;85–99.
3472. 97. Forsyth T, Leach M, Scoones I. Poverty
85. Mirzabaev A, Nkonya E, von Braun J. and environment: Priorities for research
Economics of sustainable land and policy: An overview study. Prepared
management. Curr. Opin. Env. for the United Nations Development
Sustain. 2015;15:9–19. Programme and European Commission.
86. Barbier EB, Hochard JP. Does land Institute of Development Studies, Falmer,
degradation increase poverty in Sussex, UK; 1998.

16
 Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297

98. Holden S, Otsuka K. The roles of land 111. Anon. Definitions of environment degrada-
tenure reforms and land markets in the tion [online]. UTC. 2007;11:14
context of population growth and land use [Cited 2019 January 05]
intensification in Africa. Food Policy. 112. Mennonite. Poverty and environmental
2014;48:88–97. degradation. [Internet]. UTC. 2007;13:55.
99. Tajul Ariffin Marson, Yogeeswari [Cited 2019 January 05]
Subramaniam. Does poverty cause Available:Hhtp:restoringeden.org/resource
environmental degradation? Evidence from s/denominationalstatements/Mennonite
developing countries. Journal of poverty. 113. Andersen PP, Rajul PC. Poverty, food
2019;23. security, and the Environment. [Internet].
100. Barbier EB, López RE, Hochard JP. Debt, 2007;11:13:55.
poverty and resource management in a [Cited 2019 January 07]
rural smallholder economy. Environ. Available:http://www.ifpri.org/2020/briefs/n
Resource Econ. 2016;65:411–427. umber29.htm
101. Barbier EB. Links between economic 114. Roberson MR. Evolutionary biologists aim
liberalization and rural resource to protect Madagascar’s plants and
degradation in the developing animals; 2007.
regions. Agric. Econ. 2000;23:299–310. [Cited 2019 January 08]
102. Barbier EB. The economic linkages Available:http://www.actionbioscience.org/
between rural poverty and land evolution/roberson.html
degradation: Some evidence from Africa. 115. Hughes B, Irfan M, Khan H, Kumar K,
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000;82:355– Rothman D, Solórzano J. Reducing global
370. poverty: Patterns of potential human
103. Barrett CB, Garg T, McBride L. Well-being progress. 2009;1.
dynamics and poverty traps. Annu. Rev. 116. Scherr SJ. Poverty–environment
Resour. Econ. 2016;8:303–327. interactions in agriculture: Key factors and
104. DFID (Department for International policy implications. United Nations
Development). Achieving sustainability: Development Programme and the
Poverty elimination and the environment. European Commission, New York; 1999b.
Strategies for Achieving the International 117. Scherr SJ. A down word spiral? Research
Development Targets. London; 2000a. evidence on the relationship between
105. DFID (Department for International poverty and natural resource degradation.
Development). Integrating sustainability Food Policy. 2000;25(4):479-98.
into PRSPs: The case of Uganda. 118. White TA, CF Runge. Common property
Environmental Policy Department. London; and collective action: Lessons from
2000b. cooperative watershed management in
106. DFID (Department for International Haiti. Economic Development and Cultural
Development). Strategies for sustainable Change. 1994;43(1):1–41.
development: Can country-level strategic 119. Vosti SA, Reardon T. Sustainability, growth
planning frameworks converge to achieve and poverty alleviation: A policy and agro
sustainability and eliminate poverty? DFID ecological perspective. Johns Hopkins
Background Briefing. London; 2000c. University Press, Baltimore, MD; 1997.
107. Boyce JK. Inequality as a cause of 120. Narloch U, Bangalore M. The multifaceted
environmental degradation. Ecological relationship between environmental risks
Economics. 1994;11(3). and poverty: New insights from
108. Reardon, Thomas, Stephen Vosti. Links Vietnam. Environment and Development
between rural poverty and the environment Economics. 2018;23(3).
in developoing countries: Assets 121. Ravallion M. Are the World's poorest being
categories and investment poverty. World left behind? NBER Working Paper No.
Development. 1995;23(9):1495-1506. 20791. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
109. Myers N, Kent J. Environmental exodus: Economic Research, Inc; 2014.
An emergent crisis in the global arena. 122. Tschakert P. The ability of the poor to
Washington D.C: The Climate Institute; cope. Forthcoming as a World Bank Policy
1995. Research Working Paper; 2015.
110. Broad R. The poor and the environment: 123. Winsemius HC, Jongman B, Veldkamp TIE
Friends or foes? World Development. , Hallegatte S, Bangalore M, Ward PJ. Dis
1994;22(6):811-822. aster risk, climate change, and poverty:

17
 Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297

Assessing the global exposure of poor consistently one of the most read articles
people to floods and droughts. in Environment and Development
Environment and Development Economics. 2010;15:635-660.
Economics. 2018;23(3). 132. Barbier EB, Hochard JP. Poverty, rural
Available:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770 population distribution and climate change.
X17000444 Environment and Development
124. Wunder S, Börner J, Shively G, Wyman Economics. 2018;23(3).
M. Safety nets, gap filling and forests: A Available:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770
global-comparative perspective. A X17000353.Google Scholar
landmark and unique comparative study 133. World Resources Report. The wealth of
of uses of the surrounding natural the poor: Managing ecosystem to fight.
environment by rural households and World Resource Institute: Washington D.C;
communities worldwide. World Dev. 2014; 2005.
64:S29–S42. 134. Platteau JP, Abraham A. Participatory
125. Angelsen A, Dokken T. Climate exposure, development in the presence of
vulnerability and environmental reliance: A endogenous community imperfections.
cross-section analysis of structural and Journal of Development Studies.
stochastic poverty. Environment and 2002;39(2):104-136.
Development Economics. 2018;23(3). 135. UNDP: United Nations Development
Available:https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770 Programme Poverty Report: Overcoming
X18000013 Poverty, UNDP, New York; 2000.
126. Angelsen A, Jagger P, Babigumira R, Belc 136. United Nations (UN): Report of the world
her B, Hogarth NJ, Bauch S, Börner J, Smi summit on sustainable development
th-Hall C, Wunder S. Environmental Johannesburg, South Africa; 2002.
income and rural livelihoods: A global- 137. United Nations (UN): Transforming our
comparative analysis. World Development, world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable
Forests, Livelihoods, and Conservation. development; 2015.
2014;64:S12–S28. 138. Brunner J, Seymour F, Badenoch N,
Available:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev Ratner B. Forest problems and law
.2014.03.006 enforcement in southeast Asia: The role of
127. Eskander SMSU, Barbier EB. Tenure local communities. World Resources
security, human capital and soil Institute, Washington, D.C; 2000.
conservation in an overlapping generation 139. Nunan F, Grant U, Bahiigwa G, Muramira
rural economy. Ecol. Econ. 2017;135: T, Bajracharya P, Pritchard D, Jose Vargas
176–185. M. Poverty and the environment:
128. Robinson EJZ. Resource-dependent measuring the links. A study of poverty
livelihoods and the natural resource environment indicators with case studies
base. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. A from Nepal, Nicaragua and Uganda.
comprehensive review of the empirical Environment Policy Department, Issue
evidence of how poor rural households Paper No. 2. Department for International
depend on the surrounding natural Development, London; 2002.
environment. 2016;8:281–301. 140. Stephane Hallegatte, Mook Bangalore,
129. Debela B, Shively G, Angelsen A, Wik M. Laura Bonzanigo, Marianne Fay, Tamaro
Economic shocks, diversification, and Kane, Ulf Narloch, Julie Rozenberg, David
forest use in Uganda. Land Treguer, Adrien Vogt-Schilb. Climate
Econ. 2012;88:139–154. Chang and Develoment series. Shock
130. World commission on environment and waves climate change and development
development WCED. Our common future. series managing the impacts of climate
New York: Oxford University Press for the change on poverty. International Bank for
Brundtland Commission; 1987. Reconstruction and Development / The
131. Lufumpa CL. The poverty-environment World Bank 1818 H Street NW,
nexus in Africa. Afr. Dev. Rev. Washington, DC 20433; 2016.
2005;17:366–381. Barbier EB. Poverty, 141. de Graaf J, et al. Factors influencing
development and environment. Environ. adoption and continued use of long-term
Dev. Econ. Highlights the causes and soil and water conservation measures in
consequences of a potential poverty– five developing countries. Appl. Geogr.
environment ‘downward spiral’; 2008;28:271–280.

18
 Rai; JGEESI, 19(1): 1-19, 2019; Article no.JGEESI.46297

142. Shiferaw BA, Okello J, Reddy RV. prices. Proceedings of the National
Adoption and adaptation of natural Academy of Sciences. 2015;112:15827–
resource management innovations in 15832.
smallholder agriculture: Reflections on 151. Hallegatte S, Rozenberg J. Climate
key lessons and best practices. Environ. change through a poverty lens. Nature
Dev. Sustain. 2009;11:601–619. Climate Change. 2017;7:250–256.
143. Hallegatte S, et al. Shock waves: 152. Hulme D, Shepherd A. Conceptualizing
Managing the impacts of climate change chronic poverty. World Development.
on poverty (World Bank). A 2003;31:403–423.
comprehensive and path-breaking global 153. Karim A, Noy I. Poverty and natural
analysis of the impacts of climate change disasters: A meta-analysis. SEF Working
on the livelihoods of the poor; 2015. Paper Series 04/2014. Wellington: School
144. Battacharya H, Innes R. Income and the of Economics and Finance, Victoria
environment in rural India: Is there a University of Wellington; 2014.
poverty trap? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2013; 154. Wunder S, Noack F, Angelsen A. Climate,
95:42–69. crops, and forests: a pan-tropical analysis
145. Akter S, Mallick B. The poverty– of household income generation. Environ-
vulnerability–resilience nexus: Evidence ment and Development Economics.
from Bangladesh. Ecological Economics. 2018;23(3).
2013;96:114–124. 155. UNEP (United Nations Environment
146. Baulch B. Why poverty persists: Poverty Programme) and UNU (United Nations
dynamics in Asia and Africa. Cheltenham, University). Ecosystems and Human Well-
UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2011. Being: Conducting and Using Integrated
147. Brouwer R, Akter Assessments – A Training Manual.
S, Brander L, Haque E. Socioeconomic Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP; 2006.
vulnerability and adaptation to environ- 156. WRI (World Resources Institute).
mental risk: A case study of climate Ecosystem services: A guide for decision
change and flooding in Bangladesh. Risk makers. Washington, DC: WRI; 2008.
Analysis. 2007;27(2):313–326. 157. DFID (Department for International
148. Carter MR, Janzen SA. Social protection in Development), EC (European Commis-
the face of climate change: Targeting sion), UNDP (United Nations Development
principles and financing mechanisms. Programme) and World Bank. Linking
Environment and Development Poverty Reduction and Environmental
Economics. 2018;23. Management: Policy Challenges and
Available:https://doi.org/10.1017/ S135577 Opportunities. Washington, DC: World
0X17000407 Bank; 2002.
149. Castañeda A, Doan D, Newhouse D, Nguy 158. WHO (World Health Organization). Public
en MC, Uematsu H, Azevedo JP. A new Health and Environment and Quantifying
profile of the global poor. World Environmental Health Impacts; 2008.
Development. 2018;101:250–267. Available:www.who.int/topics/environment
150. Dennig F, Budolfson MB, Fleurbaey M, al_health/en/
Siebert A, Socolow RH. Inequality, climate [Accessed 22 February 2009]
impacts on the future poor, and carbon
_________________________________________________________________________________
© 2019 Rai; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://www.sdiarticle3.com/review-history/46297

19

View publication stats