Identifying Fuel Poverty Using Objective and Subjective Measures

Price, W. Bailey; Brazier,; Pham,; Mathieu,; Wang, Hong

doi:10.2139/ssrn.911597

Cited by 20 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Interest in fuel poverty has increased in the recent past with the result that there have been several new enquiries into both the nature of the phenomenon and its measurement (for example Healey and Clinch, 2004;Hills, 2011;Moore, 2012;Liddell et al, 2012;Price et al, 2006;Walker and Day, 2012). It is accepted that fuel poverty is a phenomenon in its own right and not simply a dimension of wider poverty and inequality issues (Hills, 2011) but aspects of the deprivation and the consequences of the insufficiency still seem unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting approaches to fuel poverty in New Zealand

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Household's spending on fuel is weakly related to self-reported fuel deprivation. Many older people spend more than 10% but do not go without. Many families who spend less than 10% but do go without fuel a r t i c l e i n f o We contrast two measures of fuel poverty in New Zealand. The first is based on estimated expenditure of over 10% of household income on fuel. The second is self-reported deprivation of fuel because of an inability to afford it. Households denoted as fuel poor on the two measures are mostly different and the findings suggest that research is needed to investigate if different households make different trade-offs between expenditure on fuel and other necessities.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting approaches to fuel poverty in New Zealand

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because the set of needs from which Qes is based is defined uniformly for all subjects populating the dataset (households living in Ile-de-France), the Qes of each household actually varies according to its socio-demographic and geographic characteristics. As opposed to what has been done in antecedent modelling studies (Penot -Antoniou and Tetu 2010; CERTU 2011), this study does not use the level of wealth that a household can dispose of (e.g., income, revenue), which is a variable typically used to first model energy consumption and then to determine a threshold for fuel poverty (Devaliére 2012; Waddams Price et al 2007). This is because Qes was (intentionally) defined in an independent fashion from revenue.…”

Section: Methods and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

A Tale of Sustainability and Equity: Defining a Safe Operating Space for Households’ Energy Vulnerability

Martellozzo¹

2017

EJSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The demand for natural resources to sustain human activities has dramatically increased in recent decades; as a consequence, we have potentially reached peak oil, poisoned much of the remaining natural ecosystem, and irreversibly compromised the atmosphere. The consequences of the increased anthropogenic pressure on the natural environment have forced us to confront the paradoxical coexistence of two factors required to sustain the development of a growing population: the need to access a larger natural resource base and the need to increase resilience by alleviating human pressure on the natural environment. Thus, limiting energy consumption, or increasing consumption efficiency, is a matter of urgent concern in decelerating the anthropogenic depauperation of the natural environment. Policy making has often interpreted this problem within a technical-reductionist framework. This mainstream perspective has led to neglect issues pertaining resilience and justice thus creating a fertile ground for the appearance of new forms of poverty, which affect not solely developing countries but also the western world. This study focuses in particular on fuel poverty, and its aims are threefold: revitalize the critics to the implicit unsustainable and inequitable principles conveyed through the technical-reductionist approach; elaborate an alternative methodological framework based on equitable and sustainable paradigms; discuss how this can support policy makers in identifying relevant areas for public intervention.

show abstract

“…The mEP indicator only overlaps with the pEP indicator for 15 % of the households being in mEP whereas this value rises to 17 % of households when hEP and pEP are compared in the same way. Although they build their measures on different assumptions, studies such as Waddams Price et al (2007) or Devalière et al (2011) have also commented on the partial overlap between the emphasizing the importance of subjective measures. However, and in contrast to the explanation raised in Dubois (2012: 109), our results show that the limited overlap between measured and perceived energy poverty can only be partly explained by hidden energy poverty.…”

Section: Different Indicators For Different Forms Of Epmentioning

confidence: 99%