Report and toolkit
A virtual event conducted online (26-30 April 2021) at five hubs across Europe
Report by Siddharth Sareen (siddharth.sareen@uis.no), ENGAGER Working Group 2 co-lead
The ENGAGER Training School 2 (see https://www.engager-energy.net/trainingschool2/) addressed the challenge of mainstreaming innovative energy poverty (EP) metrics during 26-30 April 2021. It covered complementary aspects of the overarching theme: digitisation, composite indices, transport energy poverty, cooling and hidden energy poverty, all in relation to impact at scale. We built on our Training School 1 on mobilising data for energy poverty research and action, held during June 2019 (https://www.engager-energy.net/trainingschool1/).
Given the pandemic circumstances, this training school employed a trend-setting model of parallel hubs. We organised online as five small national clusters across Europe, each anchored by a group of nationally-based trainers and a diverse group of trainees. Read the detailed call for applications: https://www.engager-energy.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/TrainingSchool.pdf
Training school content was subsequently made available online for anyone to use. Read the training school programme: https://www.engager-energy.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/TS2-final-programme-20210419.pdf
Each hub anchored one day of the training school on five focus areas within the theme:
- 26 April: EP metrology and digitisation for low-carbon energy infrastructure (Norway)
- 27 April: Composite EP indicators and popularising innovative datasets (UK)
- 28 April: Measuring transport energy poverty and impact on wellbeing (Germany)
- 29 April: Mainstreaming EP metrics into NECPs including cooling (Portugal)
- 30 April: EP indicators, policy impact and hidden energy poverty (Spain)
Thematic summaries and trainee essays from each hub are featured below, as well as video recordings of curated content from each module with detailed guidance on resource re-use available on YouTube under CC-BY license.
Norway hub: EP metrology and digitisation for low-carbon energy infrastructure
Trainers: Siddharth Sareen, Tomas Skjølsvold, Tor Håkon Inderberg
As low-carbon energy transitions advance, energy infrastructure becomes increasingly digitised. Rapid evolution is apparent in European cities where retail electricity is remotely monitored and controlled through digital data flows of real-time use down to household scale. Applications across sectors are emerging, for instance with distributed rooftop solar photovoltaic generation and smart charging of electric transport solutions. Yet this digitisation risks excluding the energy poor or exacerbating existing disparities, unless it is explicitly designed to ensure just distributive effects. The Norway hub drew on fieldwork in urban Norwegian contexts to illustrate scope to make digitisation for low-carbon energy infrastructure an inclusive and fair process. It brought forth examples of emerging metrics and principles that can be widely applied as more contexts undergo digitisation in key energy infrastructure. The module features emerging insights from the JPI Climate funded project Responsive Organising for Low Emission Societies (ROLES) on socially inclusive digitisation of energy infrastructures.
Module video with detailed summary for re-use:
Norway hub trainee essay: Low-carbon transportation: On the road to inclusive digitalisation
By Vasileios Ntouros (National & Kapodistrian University of Athens), Ágos Gosztonyi (University of Helsinki), Rodrigo Felix (NOVA University of Lisbon), and Miguel Sequeira (NOVA University of Lisbon)
As the Norwegian city of Stavanger establishes its approach towards cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the transport sector, questions are raised on the role of digitisation in the measures laid out in the Climate and Environmental Plan, as well as its impacts on household transport energy poverty (EP).
Going from the transport sector’s two well-defined focus areas – namely “reducing scope of transport and changing travel habits”, and “promoting renewable fuel and technology in the transport sector” – into secondary objectives, each proposed measure offers specific contributions to the sector’s primary objective achievement, making its monitoring a crucial part of the implementation of the action plan.
Digitisation can in fact be of great assistance for that task. As discussed during the first day’s plenary session of the ENGAGER Training School 2, with contributions from researchers from various countries of Europe on mainstreaming innovative EP metrics, digitisation can provide various social-spatial and technological information through key monitoring tools to aid decision makers to achieve the main goal.
Air pollution monitoring, for example, can offer accurate information on the reduction of city-scale GHG exposure. Appropriate artificial intelligence (AI) or more simple econometric modelling tools operationalizing air pollution data can also provide valuable information.
Big data and AI can be used to map transportation patterns and uncover gaps in infrastructure coverage, possibly leading to increases in its efficiency and accessibility. It can also ensure transparency and accountability in some services (e.g. taxis and shared mobility apps) and improve their attractiveness. Furthermore, the digital world is a prime stage for information and communication campaigns, which are key to incentivise behaviour change.
GPS and GIS technologies can also be operationalized to reduce the negative impacts of long journeys and promote efficient commercial transport and urban logistics. Satellite data, including optical sources and thermal-infrared for heat mapping, could not only address traffic management issues but also issues such as substandard housing conditions, air quality and pollution tracking.
However great the contribution of digitisation on the monitoring and target achievement process can be, there are, nonetheless, potential risks associated with the exclusion of the most vulnerable and increase of inequalities may arise while it could also pose cyber security challenges.
In the case of low-carbon digitized transportation modes, for instance, main risks include creating a digitally driven gentrification, breakdown between city centers and suburbs and price increases.
The imparities of access to technological solutions may not only bring forward disparities in who can enjoy the benefits of developments, but it can also affect who the data is collected from.
The stigmatization or even the demonization of low income households may arise, identifying them as “polluters” without careful, critical and socially engaged interpretations.
Nevertheless, if designed to take into account the less digitally advanced sectors of the population, the same digitisation can be a positive and inclusive process, serving not only policy makers but delivering useful information to citizens as well.
Transportation data coupled with measurements from environmental sensors on GHG and other pollutants can, for example, be used to inform citizens and visitors about air pollution levels, not only leading to environmental-friendly and healthier alternative transportation choices, but acting on the transport energy poverty issue.
In essence, to reach the targets without leaving behind the most vulnerable, it is important to provide low-tech alternatives and make transportation gender and age inclusive. Interventions and initiatives, such as car ownership regulation, need to be assessed on its potential negative social impact and exacerbation of existing social and gender inequalities, making sure that, while achieving the defined goals, all citizens benefit from modern, healthy, and affordable modes of transportation.
UK hub: Composite EP indicators and popularising innovative datasets
Trainers: Harriet Thomson, Caitlin Robinson, Danielle Butler
As a highly multidimensional issue, composite indicators have an important role to play in how we measure and understand the distribution and intensity of energy poverty. The UK hub began with a conceptual exercise about designing composite indicators of energy poverty, combining insights from both qualitative and quantitative research. During the exercise participants mapped out key themes of interest, considering how to select innovative indicators that best represent each theme. They also reflected on the aggregation and weighting of different indicators. Participants then designed and visualised their own composite indicators using pan-European data, e.g. EU Energy Poverty Observatory indicators. These composite indicators provided a starting point for discussion about what data we are missing in Europe, both thematically (i.e. which aspects of energy poverty are we unable to represent with quantitative indicators?), and spatially (i.e. for which regions do we have a good understanding?). Our discussions informed an application for a European Social Survey rotating module on energy poverty in 2022.
Module video with detailed summary for re-use:
UK hub trainee essay: Composite EP indicators and popularising innovative datasets
By Lin Zhang (University of Leeds), Ioanna Kyprianou (Cyprus Institute), Luca Lamonaca (University Institute of Lisbon), and Pedro Palma (NOVA University Lisbon)
The “Clean Energy for All Europeans” legislative package mandates Member-States to address energy poverty in their Energy and Climate National Plans and propose a set of measures to tackle this issue (European Commission, 2019). There has been an ongoing debate at EU-level on the best indicators for measuring energy poverty. There is currently a great diversity of indicators and metrics, integrating different approaches to the problem. ENGAGER (2019) advocates for common methodologies in the EU, particularly focusing on regional level. Whilst simple comparable metrics are preferred by the European Union (Sébastian and Bauler, 2013; Sareen et al., 2020), researchers defend multidimensional composite indexes, for capturing the different facets of energy poverty in one single metric (Thomson et al., 2017; Baker et al. 2018). EU indicators only enable generic limited country comparisons between Member-States, whereas compositive metrics are difficult to transport to other contexts while maintaining their transparency and effectiveness.
To develop a common well-rounded pan-European composite indicator that tackles the mentioned shortcomings is not an easy undertaking. Energy poverty has a complex and uneven spatial distribution (Bouzarovski and Petrova, 2015), with different expressions across countries; thus, its determinants have different weights according to context. Common composite indicators tend to flatten analyses, not enabling nuanced evaluations. For instance, a holistic indicator, integrating winter domestic energy poverty, summer domestic energy poverty and transport energy poverty, can hide or misrepresent different vulnerabilities to these issues, preventing better targeting of policy interventions. In this case, a compositive indicator for each of these vulnerabilities seems to be ideal but the “unpacking” in different metrics should only go so far, in order not to underrepresent energy poverty’s multidimensionality, as well as not end up at the start – individual one-dimensional indicators producing different results and not capturing the wide extension of the problem. In their study, Sunnika-Blank and Galvin (2021) reinforce the importance of intersectionality approaches for analyzing energy poverty vulnerability. On the other hand, a rational weighting approach can be challenging to construct, due to its subjectivity and risk of arbitrariness. Selecting weights according to experts’ feedback can be a way to avoid bias.
Moreover, current EU databases are not complete – there is data missing for some indicators, and for others, data is either no longer being collected or collected just for ad hoc purposes. An important step towards a common metric would be the implementation of a transversal data collection process at country level, as suggested by Thomson et al. (2017). Potentially, this process could be mandatory by EU legislation, taking the form of an annual survey, and would enable the collection of relevant data to assess energy poverty more uniformly throughout, for comparison between the Member-States.
The type of indicators that are used and how they are framed is also a factor to consider. They can be used in a vulnerability framework, producing a degree of vulnerability, or result in a binary outcome – energy-poor or not energy-poor. The former are more flexible, enabling the impact assessment of different drivers, though their results have an intrinsic relativity; the latter provide more absolute results, perhaps easier to act upon in a practical level, namely on the policy arena. However, they make it harder to discern and unpack different situations of vulnerability. Perhaps a combination of both can be a solution towards an indicator that could provide a more comprehensive assessment of energy poverty for policy making at different scales. Lastly, in the policy context, energy poverty metrics should be integrative and also consider sustainability goals so to avoid silo mentality and measures promoting a trade-off between the policy objectives of energy poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation.
Germany hub: Measuring transport energy poverty and impact on wellbeing
Trainers: Philipp Biermann, Giulio Mattioli
While the focus of energy poverty research remains overwhelmingly on domestic energy consumption and affordability, similar issues in the transport sector are drawing increasing attention. Developing transport energy poverty metrics, however, requires more than just applying existing energy poverty metrics to a new sector. The Germany hub focused on this new area, and was structured in three components: i) a critical discussion and examination of existing transport energy poverty metrics; ii) a review of studies that have attempted to measure ‘double energy vulnerability’, i.e. the overlap between domestic and transport energy poverty; and iii) an introduction of empirical approaches to measure the impact of domestic and transport energy poverty on subjective well-being. The module relied on empirical studies conducted in France, the UK, Germany and Australia. We engaged with quantitative welfare assessment and survey data analysis with a focus on transport energy poverty indicators.
Module video with detailed summary for re-use:
Germany hub trainee essay: More than cars go: The challenge of identifying and measuring transportation EP
By Katherine Mahoney (NOVA University of Lisbon), Luka Majic (Society for Sustainable Development Design), Anais Varo (University of Girona), and Daniel Wuebben (Universidad de Rey Juan Carlos)
What are the additional challenges of measuring transport energy poverty, and assessing its impact on welfare and well-being, as compared to domestic energy poverty?
A limited focus on transport poverty at academic and policy levels has resulted in the lack of a standardised definition (Lucas et al., 2016). Transport poverty includes both domestic, public, and non-energy aspects (Robinson and Mattioli, 2020) and has therefore been framed as either “all kinds of inequalities related to transport and access” or “the affordability of transport costs” (Mattioli et al., 2017) (pg.95). Vulnerability to transport poverty shows some, but not complete overlap with vulnerability to energy poverty both in terms of groups affected and geographic manifestation. For instance, EU Member states performing well in mitigating energy poverty show limited correlation with those performing well in mitigating transport poverty (OpenEXP, 2019). Simcock et al. (2020) shows that groups susceptible to both conditions include low-income households, households with children, ethnic minority households and people with disabilities and/or health problems.
In our review of materials and discussion, we identified four key topics that should be addressed by transport every poverty metrics and measures: Elasticity, Transport vs. Domestic EP, Inclusivity, and Subjective Well-being.
It appears that most research on transport energy poverty has a focus on fuel poverty and oil prices. When oil and fuel prices rise, those who rely on gasoline or diesel vehicles as their primary means of transport can be unduly impacted. This may be more relevant in rural areas with little to no access to public transportation. Yet this is difficult to measure, because rather than shift behaviours or have visible challenges paying for petrol, these individuals often shift these higher transport energy costs to other, more elastic areas of their budget, making the impact on transport energy poverty harder to measure and define. In addition, the coupling of fuel poverty with transport energy poverty risks excluding those who do not own or have access to a vehicle with an internal combustion engine. Therefore, we identified the issue of “inclusivity” to suggest that transport EP metrics often leave out those who are without a personal vehicle or have access to public transport. We rely on more than cars, and we hope to know more about how efforts to decarbonize and “de-car” urban centers and offer more bike paths, scooters, and other forms of transport will impact transport EP. This leads to the last category and subjective well-being. Studies have shown how transport EP impacts well-being, but it is unclear how longer commute times, health risks associated with certain kinds of transport (ride shares, etc.) and the subtle psychological impact of associating all kinds of transport, and especially individual car ownership, with the devastating impacts of climate change.
The lack of recent data and the inability to conduct regional comparisons are common challenges to energy poverty and its transport manifestations (OpenEXP, 2019), (Sareen et al., 2020). The detailed nature of data required to measure transport poverty combined with the comparative lack of research are barriers to policy development in this field (Lucas et al., 2016). Both energy and transport are desired for their capacity to provide access to services rather than as goods in themselves. These desires are often socially and geographically specific with no agreed upon standard level of access (Day, 2016). In the case of transport, what constitutes the “right” or “just” level of access is further complicated by the sheer variability of distances travelled, time spent versus time available and transport mode preferences (Lucas et al., 2016), (Mattioli et al., 2017).
One last challenge, both in measuring transport poverty, but also in tackling it through specific policies, is the need to consider the four aforementioned elements (elasticity, the interaction with residential EP, inclusivity and subjective well-being) striking a fine-balance with other social objectives, such as decarbonisation targets and energy consumption reduction in a more general perspective.
Portugal hub: Mainstreaming EP metrics into NECPs including cooling
Trainers: Miguel Brito, Marta Panão, Ana Horta, João Pedro Gouveia
National Energy and Climate Plans (NECP) should tackle how nations can address and mitigate EP in the years to come. However, the EU Energy Poverty Observatory reported that EP is recognised by the NECPs in 18 out of 26 European countries, and only 14 of them explicitly mention the EP indicators used for monitoring. Summer energy poverty is a crucial challenge, especially for Southern European Countries, but it is only expressly addressed in the France NECP. The Portugal hub identified and discussed the main EP indicators used in various NECPs. Using examples at different spatial scales in Portugal, we considered: i) which data sources can be drawn for EP assessment; ii) how to identify EP households and vulnerable districts; iii) how to quantify the impact of EP policies (e.g., subsidised energy bills, buildings renovation); iv) which indicators or indexes should be combined for a comprehensive understanding of summer and winter EP and allow its monitoring; and v) how to decrease EP in a sustainable manner aligned with NECP and carbon neutrality goals.
Module video with detailed summary for re-use:
Portugal hub trainee essay: NECPs and energy poverty
By Adam Hearn (University of Basel), Irene Gonzalez-Pijuan (Sheffield Hallam University), Ricardo Barbosa (University of Minho), and Lidija Zivcic (Focus Association for Sustainable Development)
Projected climate warming events and heatwaves are expected to increase in frequency and intensity, leading to severe health impacts on urban dwellers. In the EU, about one fifth of the population cannot afford to keep their homes comfortably cool in summer [1].Studies show that heat waves could increase 50-fold by 2100, leading to an increased number of deaths caused by intense summer heat [2]. Coupled with signs that show more and more people are subject to various vulnerabilities (low income, unemployment or precarious employment, advanced age, etc), this leads to an estimate that summer energy poverty may increase in the future.
The EU required all Member States (MS) to produce integrated 10-year National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) by the end of 2019 and these have now been reviewed by the Commission. Although energy poverty is covered to some extent in most of the MS NECPS, they are also open to multiple interpretations and MS NECPS can be divided into those that fully or partially address energy poverty mitigation and those that fail to do so. Although for the most part, the NCEPs provide an assessment of the number of households affected, the majority of the plans lack concrete targets and objectives or a reference to the potential implications of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Summer vulnerability receives little attention and is not included in most energy poverty definitions [3], with the exception of Spain. While statistical services are monitoring winter energy poverty, little data is available on summer energy poverty [2], [4]. Indoor cooling is becoming an increasingly relevant issue in Europe, but data on the final energy demand for space cooling within the EU residential buildings’ profile is still scarce [5]. Summertime energy poverty and space cooling difficulties are relatively under-explored aspects of energy poverty in Europe, despite many researchers arguing for a year-round conceptualisation of the issue that includes all energy services in the home [4, 6].
National plans to address summer energy poverty could include creating more green spaces in cities, investments in comfortable energy-efficient dwellings, well-designed street vegetation, green roofs and walls providing insulation and shade to buildings [2, 4]. These plans need to be especially adjusted for the most vulnerable, taking into account the specificities of each climate. Added to social energy tariffs for vulnerable consumers, priority needs to be given to policies and strategies related to building retrofits in order to improve overall building stock energy efficiency and leverage the potential of renewable energy sources [5]. When retrofitting, it is necessary to consider occupants and their profiles as well as the dwelling construction details when choosing the most appropriate interventions [7]. Urban-scale interventions aimed at mitigating heat islands in urban areas are also important, such as the incorporation of green areas and urban shading systems [8]. Because studies have suggested that neither heat nor cold risks are perceived as personal risks by vulnerable individuals, raising awareness of temperature-induced health risk and inequalities remains important [9, 10].
Spain hub: EP indicators, policy impact and hidden energy poverty
Trainers: Raúl Castaño, Sergio Tirado Herrero
Following the legislative mandate of Directive 2019/944, EU member states have put in place monitoring and reporting frameworks that contribute to a better recognition of energy poverty. These metrics, however, emphasise indoor thermal discomfort, low incomes and high energy bills, which are symptoms rather than causes. This comes at the expense of hidden aspects (recognised in the literature, but not in practice) of the lived experience of energy poverty, such as household indebtedness, disconnections and precarious, informal or irregular connections. In this vein, the Spain hub aimed to critically examine existing institutional indicators and to discuss new metrics for better civic engagement and policy-making. The hub session relied on ongoing work of the host institution (UC3M) in the Energy Poverty Intelligence Unit (EPIU) project – an Urban Innovation Action that seeks to identify hidden energy poverty and establish advanced and innovative support mechanisms for vulnerable households in two neighbourhoods of the municipality of Getafe in Spain’s Madrid region.
Module video with detailed summary for re-use:
Spain hub trainee essay: A critique of the Spanish Strategy against Energy Poverty
By Minh Nguyen (University Institute of Lisbon), Flavia Carvalho (NOVA University of Lisbon), Cameron Ward (University of Liverpool), and Roberto Barrella (Comillas Pontifical University)
The Spanish Strategy against Energy Poverty (NESP) was proposed in October of 2018 with the aim of enabling energy transition and customer protection. From this, the National Strategy (published in April of 2019) has a set of policies due to run during 2019-2024.
Among its benefits however, there are clear critiques that need to be made to provide recommendations for improvements. Firstly, fuel poverty research tends to focus on those households who experience thermal discomfort in the winter months for a variety of reasons e.g. low incomes and an inefficient household. The strategy follows this trend, with the summer dimension largely ignored. With the threat of climate change, the frequency and duration of warm weather is going to increase, in dense urban areas the urban heat island will accelerate, and people may struggle to keep their homes cool. Part of Guevara’s research focused on the Spanish capital and discovered that areas of the city are hot and vulnerable to durations of warm weather (Guevara et al, 2019). The fact that the strategy largely ignores this dimension which will become more pronounced over time is a clear policy issue and needs to be addressed.
Regarding the metrics used to identify energy poor households, the Strategy lacks the monitoring of EPC in vulnerable households, secondary indicators (e.g. energy prices, type of energy carrier), a Minimum Income Standard approach, etc. Furthermore, the NSEP does not include the people who are excluded from the Spanish society, and often do not have access to the energy supply (invisible energy precarity): Roma communities, people living in informal dwellings, homeless people.
According to Karpinska and Smiech (2020) to be able to shelter the identified households or the income aspect of exposure to hidden energy poverty it is necessary to look at the various aspects e.g. under or over occupation, heating regime and socio-economic differences, income, as well as several housing indicators (type of housing, ownership, number of rooms, leaky dwelling, rotting in window frames among many more). In addition to this, the NSEP also lacks indicators that aggregate the frequency of disconnection from the electricity grid, debt burden and qualitative data (which can be combined with quantitative data).
However, to obtain a group of ideal indicators that will be applied to a location (neighbourhood, city, region, country), firstly, understanding daily life before attempting to intervene is necessary.
References used in the country hub trainee essays
References (UK hub trainee essay)
Baker, K. J., Mould, R., Restrick, S. (2018). Rethink fuel poverty as a complex problem. Nature Energy, 3(8), 610–612. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0204-2
Bouzarovski, S., Petrova S. (2015). A global perspective on domestic energy deprivation: Overcoming the energy poverty–fuel poverty binary. Energy Res Soc Sci 10: 31–40
ENGAGER (2019). Moving beyond the state of the art in energy poverty measurement. ENGAGER – European Energy Poverty: Agenda Co-Creation and Knowledge Innovation. COST Action 16232.
European Commission. (2019). Clean Energy for All Europeans. European Union. Available at: [https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b4e46873-7528-11e9- 9f05-01aa75ed71a1/language- en?WT.mc_id=Searchresult&WT.ria_c=null&WT.ria_f=3608&WT.ria_ev=search]
Sareen, S. Thomson, H. Herrero, S. H., Gouveia, J. P., Lippert, I., Lis, A. (2020). European Energy Poverty Metrics: Scales, Prospects and Limits. Global Transitions 2, pp 26-36
Sébastien, L., Bauler, T. (2013). Use and influence of composite indicators for sustainable development at the EU-level, Ecol. Indicat. 35, pp 3-12.
Sunikka-Blank, M., & Galvin, R. (2021). Single parents in cold homes in Europe: How intersecting personal and national characteristics drive up the numbers of these vulnerable households. Energy Policy, 150(January), 112134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112134
Thomson, H., Bouzarovski, S., & Snell, C. (2017). Rethinking the measurement of energy poverty in Europe: A critical analysis of indicators and data. Indoor and Built Environment 26(7), pp 879–901. https://doi.org/10.1177/1420326X17699260.
References (Germany hub trainee essay)
Day, R., Walker, G., Simcock, N. (2017). “Conceptualising energy use and energy poverty using a capabilities framework” Energy Policy. 93. pp. 255-264
Lucas, K., Mattioli, G., Verlinghieri, E., Guzman, A. (2016). “Transport poverty and its adverse social consequences” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers
Transport 169 December 2016 Issue TR6 pp. 353–365
Mattioli, G., Lucas, K., Marsden, G. (2017). “Transport poverty and fuel poverty in the UK: From analogy to comparison” Transport Policy. 59. pp. 93-105
OpenExp. (2019). European Energy Poverty Index-Assessing Member States’ Progress in Alleviating The Domestic and Transport Energy Poverty Nexus. OpenExp.
Robinson, C., Mattioli, G.(2020). “Double energy vulnerability: Spatial intersections of domestic and transport energy poverty in England” Energy Research & Social Science. 70. 101699
Sareen, S., Thomson, H., Tirado Herrero, S., Gouveia, J, P., Lippert, I., Lis, A. (2020). “European energy poverty metrics: Scales, prospects and limits” Global Transitions. 2. pp. 26-36
Simcock, N.,Jenkins, K., Mattioli, G., Lacey-Barnacle, M.,Bouzarovski, S., Martiskainen, M (2020). Vulnerability to fuel and transport poverty. CREDS Policy brief. May 2020. https://www.creds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/FAIR-vulnerability-briefing.pdf
References (Portugal hub trainee essay)
[1] Covenant of Mayors, “Alleviating energy poverty,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.eumayors.eu/support/energy-poverty.html. [Accessed: 21-Jul-2020].
[2] Friends of the Earth Europe, “The danger and the injustice of summer energy poverty,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.foeeurope.org/danger-injustice-summer-energy-poverty-240719.
[3] European Energy Network, “EnR Position Paper on Energy Poverty in the European Union,” 2019.
[4] H. Thomson, N. Simcock, S. Bouzarovski, and S. Petrova, “Energy poverty and indoor cooling: An overlooked issue in Europe,” Energy Build., vol. 196, pp. 21–29, 2019.
[5] P. Palma, J. Pedro Gouveia, and S. G.Simoes, “Mapping the energy performance gap of dwelling stock at high-resolution scale: Implications for thermal comfort in Portuguese households,” Energy Build., vol. 190, pp. 246–261, 2019.
[6] H. Thomson and S. Bouzarovski, “Addressing Energy Poverty in the European Union: State of Play and Action,” 2018.
[7] S. M. Porritt, P. C. Cropper, L. Shao, and C. I. Goodier, “Ranking of interventions to reduce dwelling overheating during heat waves,” Energy Build., vol. 55, pp. 16–27, 2012.
[8] C. Sanchez-Guevara, M. N. Peiró, J. Taylor, A. Mavrogianni, and J. N. González, “Assessing population vulnerability towards summer energy poverty: Case studies of Madrid and London,” Energy Build., vol. 190, pp. 132–143, 2019.
[9] Daniela D’Ippoliti et al., “The impact of heat waves on mortality in 9 European cities: results from the EuroHEAT project,” Environ. Heal., vol. 9, no. 37, 2010.
[10] J. Wolf, W. Adger, and I. Lorenzoni, “Heat waves and cold spells: an analysis of policy response and perceptions of vulnerable populations in the UK,” Environ. Plan., vol. 42, no. 11, pp. 2721–2734, 2010.
References (Spain hub trainee essay)
Sanchez-Guevara, C., Peiró, M.N., Taylor, J., Mavrogianni, A. and González, J.N., 2019. Assessing population vulnerability towards summer energy poverty: Case studies of Madrid and London. Energy and Buildings, 190, pp.132-143.
Karpinska, L., Śmiech, S., 2020. Invisible energy poverty? Analysing housing costs in Central and Eastern Europe. Energy Research & Social Science 70, 101670.
Middlemiss, L., Gillard, R., Pellicer, V., Straver, K., 2018. Plugging the Gap Between Energy Policy and the Lived Experience of Energy Poverty: Five Principles for a Multidisciplinary Approach, in: Foulds, C., Robison,R. (Eds.), Advancing Energy Policy. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 15–29.
Read the initial call for applications.
