Subjective versus objective energy burden: A look at drivers of different metrics and regional variation of energy poor populations

Agbim, Chinelo N.; Araya, Felipe; Faust, Kasey M.; Harmon, Dana

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111616

Cited by 29 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Beyond the UK, expenditure-and perception-based FP are compared in Spain by Phimister et al (2015), in Greece by Papada and Kaliampakos (2016) and Ntaintasis et al (2019), in Belgium by Meyer et al (2018), in the US by Agbim et al (2020), in France by Fizaine and Kahouli (2019) and in the Republic of Ireland by Scott et al (2008). Direct comparison of the results is difficult due to the variations in the precise definitions of the expenditure-based indicators and different wording of the perception-based indicators, although all studies find a consistent lack of overlap between the two types of indicator.…”

Section: Existing Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is difficult to provide direct comparisons with the regression results in Agbim et al (2020) and Fizaine and Kahouli (2019) because they use alternative FP definitions. Agbim et al analyse Texan data and identify household spending above 8% of income on electricity (roughly twice the local median) as "objectively energy burdened", while also considering whether (i) households had difficulty paying their electricity bill, and (ii) their electricity bill was causing them stress or mental discomfort.…”

Section: Existing Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fuel Poverty: Potentially Inconsistent Indicators and Where Next?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The measurement of fuel poverty is critical for judgements about the significance of the problem and the design of policies to address it. Reducing fuel poverty has been a government objective in the UK for many years, and is generally seen through the lens of the government's official fuel poverty statistics. We compare the households identified as fuel poor according to three metrics: (i) the 10% indicator; (ii) the Low Income High Consumption indicator; and (iii) whether households self-report an inability to afford to keep their home warm, using data from the British Household Panel Survey. We find substantial differences in the households identified according to each of these indicators; this highlights a lack of clarity about which households might be considered truly fuel poor. In particular, a surprisingly low proportion of those identified by the 10% and LIHC indicators report an inability to afford to keep their home warm. While this could raise concerns that current fuel poverty policies in the UK are misdirected, instead we emphasise the difficulties of drawing policy conclusions from the differences between the indicators, unless it can be combined with information on households' heating preferences and the in-home temperatures achieved.

show abstract

Section: Existing Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Existing Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Fuel Poverty: Potentially Inconsistent Indicators and Where Next?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The energy burden, i.e., the percentage of household income used for energy expenditures, is a widely used objective metric to assess energy poverty in terms of affordability of energy services (Reames, 2016;Bednar et al, 2017;Thomson et al, 2017;Tirado Herrero, 2017;Agbim et al, 2020;Drehobl et al, 2020;Kontokosta et al, 2020). Drehobl et al (2020) describes that the intensity of energy burdens is a consequence of the physical characteristics of the household (e.g., location, housing type, number and type of appliances, heating and cooling systems), the resident's socioeconomic status and behavioral patterns (e.g., recurrent income level, ability to afford up-front costs of energy-related investments, energy-saving practices), and the availability of policy-related resources (e.g., direct or indirect subsidies for bill assistance and energy efficiency).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Brown et al (2020), low-income households often make tradeoffs between meeting alternative critical household expenditures like rent, food, healthcare or telecommunications, to avoid energy shut-offs. This can lead to or exacerbate poor health due to constant thermal discomfort and stress caused by the uncertainty of affording energy bills (Agbim et al, 2020;Drehobl et al, 2020;Memmott et al, 2021). However, high energy burdens might also be explained by high energy requirements or low levels of energy-saving practices (Evergreen Economics, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterizing the Energy Burden of Urban Households in Mexico: The Impact of Socioeconomic and Temperature Conditions Across Metropolitan Areas

Molar-Cruz

Rodríguez

Hamacher

2022

Front. Sustain. Cities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The transition toward sustainable cities requires evaluating current energy policies to reshape established patterns of energy supply and use. Ignoring socioeconomic and geographic differences among households in the energy policy-making process jeopardizes the government's ability to achieve a fair distribution of resources and advance energy equity. Hence, tailored urban energy strategies that address specific opportunities to improve local sustainable development and energy justice are needed. In this paper, we use the energy burden, i.e., the share of household income spent on energy services, as a metric to characterize energy affordability for urban households in Mexico. We estimate the electricity and gas consumption as well as their resulting financial burden for 17,850 urban households in 72 metropolitan areas. The calculated median monthly energy consumption of Mexican urban households is 453 kWh and is dominated by gas consumption. This results in a median energy burden of 3.5%. However, we observe a large diversity among households in energy consumption and, consequently, in energy burden, due to variations in energy use among urban households derived from their socioeconomic and geographic conditions. In addition, we analyze the role of the temperature-based residential electricity subsidy. We find that even with subsidized electricity prices, the current subsidy scheme is insufficient to alleviate energy vulnerability in urban Mexico, and at the same time, it has a regressive effect by benefiting those consuming more. Based on the analysis of the energy burden at the city level, we highlight evident problems and potential solutions missed by one-size-fits-all energy policies. This analysis provides a better understanding of the drivers and distribution of energy burden in urban households. It also presents practical insights that could help policymakers ensure that energy is available to all households according to their needs and that demands for reductions in energy consumption as well as for adoption of clean energy technologies and energy efficiency measures come from each according to their capacity.

show abstract

“…Energy burden is one measure of energy poverty and a potentially important addition to the determinants of public health [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Energy burden reflects household expenditure on energy utilities relative to the household’s gross income capacity [ 18 ]. Disproportionate distributions of energy burden (both positive and negative) are evident in particular positions in social and economic systems, such as wealth, education, race or ethnic origin.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Nexus of Energy Burden, Social Capital, and Environmental Quality in Shaping Health in US Counties

Reames

Daley

Pierce

2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United States spends more on health care than any other OECD country, yet the nation’s health is declining. Recent research has identified multiple sources for this decline, including one’s position in social and economic structures, environmental quality, and individual and collective social capital. This paper assesses the primary hypotheses that the health effects of household energy burden, social capital and environmental quality on aggregated community health levels remain while controlling for other determinants. The analysis moves beyond prior research by integrating multiple secondary data sources to assess those effects across US counties. Three indicators of public health are analyzed (premature mortality, self-reported health, and life expectancy). The county-level energy burden is measured by the percent of household income spent on housing energy bills for low- and moderate-income households. In addition to energy burden, social capital, environmental quality and other determinants are included in the analysis. The results produced by multivariate regression models support the primary hypotheses, even while a number of control variables also have a significant effect on health. The paper concludes that public health is associated with a complex nexus of factors, including environmental quality and social capital, and that energy burden needs to be among the considerations.

show abstract

Subjective versus objective energy burden: A look at drivers of different metrics and regional variation of energy poor populations

Cited by 29 publications

References 28 publications

Fuel Poverty: Potentially Inconsistent Indicators and Where Next?

Fuel Poverty: Potentially Inconsistent Indicators and Where Next?

Characterizing the Energy Burden of Urban Households in Mexico: The Impact of Socioeconomic and Temperature Conditions Across Metropolitan Areas

Exploring the Nexus of Energy Burden, Social Capital, and Environmental Quality in Shaping Health in US Counties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About