The range of choices and tradeoffs available to the poor, and their dependence on the surrounding environment, is also affected by their access to key markets, such as for land, labor, credit as well as goods and services, as well as the quality and state of the surrounding environment on which their livelihoods depend (Barbier 2005; Barrett 2004; Carter and Barrett 2006; Caviglia-Harris 2004; Dasgupta 1993 and 2003; Gray and Mosley 2005; Pattanayak et al. 2003; Reardon and Vosti 1995; Scherr 2000; World Bank 2008). As summarized by Dasgupta (1993, p. 475) “in rural communities of poor countries a great many markets of significance (e.g. credit, capital, and insurance) are missing, and a number of commodities of vital importance for household production (potable water, sources of fuel and fodder, and so forth) are available only at considerable time and labour cost.” In the absence of local labor markets capable of absorbing all the poor and landless households looking for work, or well-functioning rural credit markets to lend needed capital, the landless and near landless in rural communities fall back on the use of common-property and open access resources for their income and nutritional needs. Because of missing or inaccessible markets, therefore, the “asset-less” poor often depend on exploiting the surrounding environment and its ecological services for survival (Barbier 2010). This is especially the case in remote rural areas, where local markets are isolated from larger regional and national markets and essential public services are lacking (Barrett 2008).

Lack of assets and access to key markets may also constrain the ability of poor households to adopt technologies to improve their farming systems and livelihoods. In conducting a meta-analysis based on 120 cases of agricultural and forestry technology by smallholders across the developing world, Pattanayak et al. (2003) find that credit, savings, prices, market constraints, and access to extension and training, as well as tenure and plot characteristics, such as soil quality and landholding size, are important determinants of adoption behavior. Not surprisingly, the result is low adoption rates for sustainable agricultural and forestry technologies among poor smallholders, especially those with lower quality soils. In Mozambique, market access through an adequate road network and transport services is crucial in determining the successful adoption of improved agricultural technologies, and may even compensate for the disadvantages of marginal environments, such as poor rainfall (Cunguara and Darnhofer 2011). In Nepal and Ethiopia, the lack of vital infrastructure, such as roads, irrigation and infrastructure, severely constrains the ability of poor farmers in remote and environmentally fragile areas to adopt new technologies and increase agricultural incomes (Dercon et al. 2009; Dillon et al. 2011).

The asset-less poor are also highly vulnerable to natural disaster shocks, such as droughts, hurricanes, tsunamis, floods and other extreme events (Badola and Hussein 2005; Barbier 2008; Carter et al. 2007; Das and Vincent 2009; Laso Bayas et al. 2011; McSweeney 2005; Takasaki et al. 2004). On the other hand, positive income shocks and targeted programs to the poor can reduce pressure on natural resources (Fisher and Shively 2005). For example, two studies based on the 1999 cyclone that struck Orissa, India, found that mangroves significantly reduced the number of deaths as well as damages to property, livestock, agriculture, fisheries and other assets (Badola and Hussain 2005; Das and Vincent 2009). Statistical analysis indicates that there would have been 1.72 additional deaths per village within 10 km of the coast if the mangrove width along shorelines had been reduced to zero (Das and Vincent 2009). Losses incurred per household were greatest ($154) in a village that was protected by an embankment but had no mangroves compared to losses per household ($33) in a village protected only by mangrove forests (Badola and Hussain 2005). However, evidence from Thailand indicates that poor coastal households are less willing to participate in mangrove replanting schemes, even 8