UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

In many developing regions, poor households rely directly on common forests, grazing lands and water bodies for fuel, fodder and livelihoods. When these resources are degraded through overuse or external pressures, the poor lose crucial support systems. This can trap them in a vicious circle where poverty drives resource overuse, and degradation further entrenches poverty. Therefore, the statement linking heavy dependence with vulnerability to environmental degradation accurately describes the poverty–environment nexus.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it recognises the two-way relationship: poverty can force people to exploit resources unsustainably, and the resulting degradation can push them deeper into deprivation. This understanding underlies many community-based and sustainable livelihood programmes.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect since poor households do use natural resources extensively, often with limited alternatives. Ignoring their role misrepresents both their dependence and their potential contribution to conservation when given secure rights.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because environmental damage is not caused only by rich households. While high consumption by the wealthy has large footprints, the survival needs of the poor also shape land use and resource conditions.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect as numerous studies show that poverty and environment are closely linked in developing contexts. Policies often try to address both together through integrated rural development and natural resource management.

The poverty–environment nexus highlights a vicious cycle where poor households rely heavily on nearby land, forests and water for survival. Lacking alternatives, they may overexploit these resources, for example through excessive fuelwood collection or cultivation on steep slopes. Degradation of the resource base then reduces productivity, pushing them into even deeper poverty. This interconnected spiral is a central concern of people-centred environmental policy.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because scarcity and lack of alternatives often force the poor into unsustainable practices despite low overall consumption.

Option B:
Option B is correct; it clearly expresses how poverty and environmental degradation can reinforce each other, creating a difficult trap to escape.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect as many studies show strong links between environmental quality and livelihood security, especially for resource-dependent communities.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because the poor are often the most vulnerable to environmental decline, lacking savings and insurance to cushion shocks.

Statements A, B, D and E are correct because they outline how poverty and environment interact in both directions and how policy can change the relationship. Overuse of resources can degrade environments, which then deepens poverty, but sustainable livelihoods, clean energy and secure tenure can reduce pressure and vulnerability. Statement C is false because the relationship is context-specific and complex, and F is false because poor communities do participate, though they may face barriers. Therefore, the correct combination is A, B, D and E only.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect as it lists only A and B and omits D and E. While A and B capture the basic two-way link, they ignore policy levers such as livelihood diversification and improved access to energy and land, which are central to breaking traps.

Option B:
Option B is correct because it covers both the negative feedbacks and the main positive interventions in the poverty–environment discussion. It also excludes simplistic or disempowering views represented by C and F.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect since it includes F and excludes D. F wrongly suggests poor communities never participate, ignoring examples of community forest management and other initiatives, while leaving out D underplays the role of sustainable livelihoods.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect as it again accepts F and excludes A. By omitting A, it fails to acknowledge how survival strategies can cause degradation, while still retaining a false statement about participation.