对于绝对贫困来说，最大的问题是如何确定“最低生存标准”。传统上认为绝对贫困最具显著的特征是收入低下，难以满足最低生存标准。但是，由于个体的脆弱性和贫困的持久性，纯粹的收入界定似乎难以全面评估贫困，因此，从经济学角度看，获得收入的能力、个体健康程度、受教育水平、资产状况、公共产品可获性都作为农户“基本能力”的一个方面，影响到贫困的程度。那么，作为农业与农村生产息息相关的自然地理环境，其是否能作为“基本能力”之一，也深刻影响到贫困呢？从自然地理环境角度看，针对中观层面的研究发现，自然地理环境的贫困效应显著地固化在县域层面，尽管可以通过经济、社会发展和政策支持加以改善，但却不可以完全消弭。本文通过对秦巴山和六盘山两大连片特困区的312户农户调查研究，发现从微观层面看，农户个体收入的不平等主要是由内部不平等所导致，存在于农户之间，而非区域间。将自然地理环境作为贫困的一个维度，与农户物质资产、医疗健康、教育、公共产品、卫生环境、社会资本、主体性与赋权、心理福祉和主观福祉等8个维度一起对农户贫困进行测度。从单维度看，自然地理环境的对多维度贫困指数（）的贡献率最高，但随着贫困缺失维度（k）的增加，它的贡献率会逐渐降低。这一趋势与农户自身禀赋相关的指标正好相反，说明自然地理环境的影响并没有固化到农户层面——越来越集中于最贫困的群体中，它的影响仍然存在于区域层面。从区域分解角度看，随着贫困缺失维度（k）增加，秦巴山片区较于六盘山区的贫困程度会越来越严重。这一结果似乎显示，自然地理环境的贫困效应尽管对农户个体不直接产生影响，但却仍然间接地在起作用。村庄——作为介于县域和农户之间的一个单元，其自然地理环境贫困效应的作用会怎样？是否是自然地理环境贫困效应固化的最基本的单元？通过本研究，我们提出这个问题，有待进一步分析确认。

For research on absolute poverty, the biggest problem is how to determine the minimum living standards. Traditionally, people think that the most significant feature of absolute poverty is low income, which is difficult to meet the minimum living standards. However, due to the individual vulnerability and poverty persistence, pure definition only on income seems difficult to fully assess poverty, therefore, from an economic perspective, the ability to obtain revenue, the health of individuals, education level, assets, access to public goods can be can be all considered as the “basic capabilities” of farmers, which affect the extent of poverty. Then, as closely related to agriculture and rural production, can natural geographical environment be considered as one of the “basic capabilities”, which has also important effect on poverty? From the view of natural geographical environment, our previous study at the meso-level show that effect of natural geographical environment on poverty is significantly solidified at the county level, although it can be improved by economic, social development and policy support, but it cannot completely eliminate. Based on research of 312 farm households survey from two contiguous poverty-stricken areas – Qinba Mountain and Liupan Mountain, we found that at the micro level, the individual farmer income inequality is mainly caused by the internal inequalities exist between farmers, rather than different areas. Then, the natural geographical environment is used as an additional dimension of poverty measurement for rural households, together with other eight dimensions: farmers’ material assets, health, education, public goods, health environmental, social capital, subjectivity and empowerment, psychological well-being and subjective well-being. The poverty incidence of natural geographical environment is highest among all nine dimensions if poverty is measured with only one dimension, but it will decrease with increasing of missing dimensions. Overall, this result shows that natural geographical environment has a relatively big impact on poverty, but is not solidified to household level. From the view of domain decomposition, with the increasing of missing poverty dimensions, compared to Liupan Mountain Area, the poverty level of Qinba Mountain Area will become increasingly serious. This result seems to indicate that, despite natural geographical environment has decreasingly direct poverty impact for individual farmers, but it still has indirect effects on rural households. Village - as a unit between the county and individual farmer, what is the role of its natural geographical environment on poverty? Is the village the most basic unit of solidified national environment poverty effect? Through this study, we raised this issue, pending further analysis to confirm.