Angelsen, ArildDokken, Therese2015-12-182015-12-182015-11https://hdl.handle.net/10986/23444This paper analyzes environmental reliance, poverty, and climate vulnerability among more than 7,300 households in forest adjacent communities in 24 developing countries. The data are from the detailed, quarterly income recording done by the Poverty Environment Network project. Observed income is combined with predicted income (based on households’ assets and other characteristics) to create four categories of households: income and asset poor (structurally poor), income rich and asset poor (stochastically non-poor), income poor and asset rich (stochastically poor), and income and asset rich (structurally non-poor). The income and asset poor generate 29 percent of their income from environmental resources, more than the other three categories. The income poor are more exposed to extreme and variable climate conditions. They tend to live in dryer (and hotter) villages in the dry forest zones, in wetter villages in the wet zones, and experience larger rainfall fluctuations. Among the self-reported income-generating responses to income shocks, extracting more environmental resources ranks second to seeking wage labor. Given high reliance on forest and other environmental resources, a concerning finding is that, in the Africa subsample (dominated by dry forests), the rate of forest loss is more than four times higher for the income asset poor compared with the income asset rich. Special attention should be given to the poorest households in dry areas, predominantly in Africa. They are (already) exposed to more extreme climate conditions, they suffer the highest forest loss, and the forest benefits are at risk in global warming scenarios.en-USCC BY 3.0 IGOHOUSEHOLD INCOMESIMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGEFEMALE EDUCATIONHOUSEHOLD SIZEINCOME FLUCTUATIONSUNCERTAINTIESPOVERTY LINECLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITYINCOME POVERTYFOOD CONSUMPTIONINCOMEEMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIESCLIMATESDEATHPORTFOLIORURAL LIVELIHOODSHOUSEHOLD POVERTYWELFAREPUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURERURAL LIVELIHOODSPOOR PEOPLEMODELSCLIMATE SCENARIOSPRICEMONETARY VALUEGLOBAL POVERTYLIVESTOCK INCOMECROP VARIETIESRURAL POPULATIONASSET HOLDINGSMEASURESEXTREME WEATHERSAFETY NETSPOVERTY REDUCTIONCOPING STRATEGIESCROP YIELDVULNERABLE GROUPSAVINGSCROP PRODUCTIONSCENARIOSRURAL HOUSEHOLDSDEVELOPMENT ECONOMICSECONOMIC RECESSIONHOUSEHOLD HEADLIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIESPOOR HOUSEHOLDRURAL INCOMEINCOME SHOCKVULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDSMARKETSHOUSEHOLD INCOMEPOVERTY STATUSCHRONIC POVERTYHOUSEHOLD SURVEYSHUMAN CAPITAL ASSETSSOCIAL PROTECTIONCLIMATE CHANGEINCOME RISKFARMERSRURAL WAGESENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICSCOVARIATE SHOCKSFOOD PRODUCTIONFOOD BUYERSLAND USECLIMATE VARIABILITYWAGE WORKCROP YIELDSHOUSEHOLD LEVELPOVERTY LINESCONSUMPTIONHUMAN CAPITALFOOD SECURITYCLIMATE CHANGEPOLICIESDROUGHTSCHOOL FEESFINANCIAL CAPITALMARKET PRICESVALUEINCOME SHOCKSPOLICY MAKERSEXTREME EVENTSPURCHASING POWERECONOMIC SECTORSCLIMATEHOUSEHOLD‐LEVELSAFETY NETRURAL POVERTYPRODUCTIVE ASSETSIMPACT OF SHOCKSAGRICULTURAL LANDHOUSEHOLD HEAD AGERURALNEGATIVE INCOME SHOCKCLIMATE CHANGESMARKETACCESS TO MARKETSPOLICYSOCIAL CAPITALHUMAN HEALTHTARGETINGMACROECONOMIC SHOCKSAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTSCLIMATIC CHANGECLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIOSINCOME SHARESFARM SELF-EMPLOYMENTRURAL AREASPOVERTYCLIMATE EXTREMESPOLICY RELEVANCEPOLICY IMPLICATIONSHOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTIONRISK MANAGEMENTPOVERTY DYNAMICSHOUSEHOLD WELFAREPOOREXTREME WEATHER EVENTSECOLOGICAL ECONOMICSPOOR MARKET ACCESSSHOCKFOOD PRICESINCOME LOSSECONOMIC SHOCKSINCOME LOSSESCROP INCOMEPRICESPOVERTY ANALYSISBENEFITSLAND ECONOMICSPOOR HOUSEHOLDSWorking PaperWorld Bank10.1596/1813-9450-7474