Reduce poverty through industrial development is at the top of the five countermeasures of targeted poverty alleviation strategy，which is the fundamental way to achieve poverty alleviation. In recent years，the practiceof poverty alleviation through industrial development in Contiguous Destitute Areas has achieved obvious results for poverty alleviation，and has explored three types of development leading，poor aiming and poor relief and diverse concrete practice patterns，but also faced diverse challenges such as the pro-poor effect needed promotion，the sustainable development capability of poverty alleviation industry was weak，and failed to fully satisfythe essential requirements of poverty alleviation through industrial development. With the perspective of People-Industry-Land coupling synergistic relationship，this report first explains the poverty reduction logic of livelihood responsiveness-multi-dimensional pro-poor-sustainable poverty alleviation，and constructs a livelihood response measurement system that contains 4 dimensions and 3 kinds of intensity elements. Then，using the survey data of 2363 households in 28 towns and 55 villages of 4 sample counties in 4 Contiguous Destitute Areas such as wuling mountain area，this paper measured and compared the characteristics of farmers’ livelihood response to pro-poor industrial development and their influencing factors，and found that：（1）As a whole，the farmers’ livelihood response degree in 4 sample counties is in the medium level，but among the four dimensions，the response degrees are ranked as livelihood mode response，livelihood space response，livelihood output response and livelihood capital response，to the three kinds of response intensity，the perception and will of livelihood response are very similar，but there are a big gap with livelihood response action.（2）At the county level，the livelihood response of farmers in Weng’an county to pro-poor industrial development is obvious in all dimensions，while that in Huayuan county is relatively weak. At the group level，poor households have higher and more consistent responses to pro-poor industrial development than non-poor households. At the peasant household level，the material，human and financial capital responses in livelihood capital response and livelihood output response are quite different.（3）The external environment，such as geographic location，industry type，primary-level organization ability，rural social atomosphere，and internal family factors，such as resource endowment，source of income，age structure，physical condition，education status，labor force，policy trust，credit availability，social network，have significant impact on farmers’ livelihood response，but varies in different dimensions and different kinds of intensity. Finally，combining with poverty alleviation framework of “livelihood responsiveness-multi-dimensional pro-poor-sustainable poverty alleviation” and the challenges faced by poverty alleviation practice through industrial development，this paper puts forward suggestions that innovation of multi-dimensional pro-poor mechanisms which includes pro-poor by asset，income，capability and spirit etc.，innovation of using funds for pro-poor industrial development，urging pro-poor industrial development policy service-leading transformation，and promoting livelihood shift function of poverty alleviation through industrial development.