Achieving deep-energy retrofits for households in energy poverty

Abstract

Climate change and energy poverty are two sustainability challenges that can be addressed through deep-energy retrofits for homes. This systematic review identifies which factors influence the achievement of energy retrofits for households vulnerable to energy poverty. It covers both energy-poor households and the landlords or building owners of energy-poor households. The results identify a range of influential factors across several themes: financial, policy and organizational, trust and communication, technical, attitudes and values, and health. Health and quality of life are particularly influential motivating factors among households vulnerable to energy poverty, as is the presence of trust and communication between stakeholders. Multiple financial considerations are also important, such as the availability of no-cost retrofit options and the prospect of lower energy and maintenance costs. Lastly, government requirements to retrofit and minimum energy standards are motivating, particularly in the social housing sector. These findings and the lack of focus on energy poverty within the energy retrofit literature and policies point to a need for further research on this topic, and for retrofit policies specifically targeted to households vulnerable to energy poverty. Policy relevance Energy retrofit policies targeting households vulnerable to energy poverty could be more effective if they: Improve access to low or no-cost retrofit options alongside tenant protection mechanisms Include requirements for resident consent and engagement Build capacity to collect, centralize and publicize information about building stocks to align retrofit projects with necessary upgrades Disseminate knowledge of retrofit programs through trusted communicators Increase stakeholders’ understanding of retrofit benefits Take a holistic approach by emphasizing the co-benefits of energy retrofits in energy-poor households Implement government requirements to pursue energy retrofits aligned with overarching government climate policies, particularly for publicly owned housing.

To What Extent Could Alternative Economic Models Increase Investment in the Renovation of and Reduce Energy Poverty in Social Housing in Flanders?

“…To reduce energy poverty, the results showed that a deep renovation is necessary, in line with the findings of Tozer, MacRae and Smit [33]. With the current high energy prices, only a deep renovation results in a ratio of the cost for heating compared to the income of around 5%, which is in line with the situation of the unrenovated building before the energy crisis.…”

“…Based on the results for the income of the SHCs and the costs for the tenants with low income, the first alternative economic model, with a limited cost of living based on the incomes, seems to be most interesting as this is most beneficial for the tenants and results in a higher income for the SHCs compared to the current model. The selection of an alternative economic model that is beneficial for both the housing association and the tenants is supported by the findings of Tozer, MacRae and Smit [33], who claim that access to low-or no-cost retrofit options alongside tenant protection mechanisms would make energy retrofit policies aimed at vulnerable households more effective. Adapting the current economic model to the more service-based 'COL 2.5%' model is in line with the findings of Bouzarovski and Petrova, who mention, amongst other suggestions, that widening energy poverty amelioration frameworks towards 'services' might enable a form of public engagement, where the tenants can participate in the utility provision [13].…”

“…Based on the results for the income of the SHCs and the costs for the tenants with low income, the first alternative economic model, with a limited cost of living based on the incomes, seems to be most interesting as this is most beneficial for the tenants and results in a higher income for the SHCs compared to the current model. The selection of an alternative economic model that is beneficial for both the housing association and the tenants is supported by the findings of Tozer, MacRae and Smit [33], who claim that access to lowor no-cost retrofit options alongside tenant protection mechanisms would make energy…”