A global perspective on domestic energy deprivation: Overcoming the energy poverty-fuel poverty binary

Abstract

This paper offers an integrated conceptual framework for the research and amelioration of energy deprivation in the home. It starts from the premise that all forms of energy and fuel poverty - in developed and developing countries alike - are underpinned by a common condition: the inability to attain a socially and materially necessitated level of domestic energy services. We consider the functionings provided by energy demand in the residential domain in order to advance two claims: first, that domestic energy deprivation in its different guises and forms is fundamentally tied to the ineffective operation of the socio-technical pathways that allow for the fulfilment of household energy needs, and as such is best analyzed by understanding the constitution of different energy services (heating, lighting, etc.) in the home. Second, we emphasize the ability of vulnerability thinking to encapsulate the driving forces of domestic energy deprivation via a comprehensive analytical matrix. The paper identifies the main components and implications of energy service and vulnerability approaches as they relate to domestic energy deprivation across the world.

Full text

Energy
Research
&
Social
Science
10
(2015)
31–40
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Energy
Research
&
Social
Science
jo
ur
nal
homepage:
www.elsevier.co
m/locate/erss
Original
research
article
A
global
perspective
on
domestic
energy
deprivation:
Overcoming
the
energy
poverty–fuel
poverty
binary
Stefan
Bouzarovski
∗
,
Saska
Petrova
School
of
Environment,
Education
and
Development,
University
of
Manchester,
Arthur
Lewis
Building,
Oxford
Road,
Manchester
M13
9PL,
United
Kingdom
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
4
December
2014
Received
in
revised
form
16
June
2015
Accepted
18
June
2015
Available
online
9
July
2015
Keywords:
Energy
services
Energy
poverty
Fuel
poverty
Vulnerability
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
This
paper
offers
an
integrated
conceptual
framework
for
the
research
and
amelioration
of
energy
depri-
vation
in
the
home.
It
starts
from
the
premise
that
all
forms
of
energy
and
fuel
poverty
–
in
developed
and
developing
countries
alike
–
are
underpinned
by
a
common
condition:
the
inability
to
attain
a
socially
and
materially
necessitated
level
of
domestic
energy
services.
We
consider
the
functionings
provided
by
energy
demand
in
the
residential
domain
in
order
to
advance
two
claims:
first,
that
domestic
energy
deprivation
in
its
different
guises
and
forms
is
fundamentally
tied
to
the
ineffective
operation
of
the
socio-technical
pathways
that
allow
for
the
fulfilment
of
household
energy
needs,
and
as
such
is
best
analyzed
by
understanding
the
constitution
of
different
energy
services
(heating,
lighting,
etc.)
in
the
home.
Second,
we
emphasize
the
ability
of
vulnerability
thinking
to
encapsulate
the
driving
forces
of
domestic
energy
deprivation
via
a
comprehensive
analytical
matrix.
The
paper
identifies
the
main
com-
ponents
and
implications
of
energy
service
and
vulnerability
approaches
as
they
relate
to
domestic
energy
deprivation
across
the
world.
©
2015
The
Authors.
Published
by
Elsevier
Ltd.
This
is
an
open
access
article
under
the
CC
BY
license
(
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
1.
Introduction
When
Boardman
[1]
published
her
seminal
book
on
fuel
poverty
in
the
UK,
this
predicament
was
almost
unknown
within
main-
stream
academic
and
policy-making
domains.
More
than
20
years
later,
fuel
poverty
‘has
come
of
age’,
as
highlighted
by
the
editors
of
a
special
section
of
the
journal
Energy
Policy
dedicated
to
the
histor-
ical
development
and
present
state
of
the
art
of
scientific
work
on
the
issue
[2].
The
plight
of
developed-world
households
suffering
from
inadequately
heated
homes
has
been
widely
publicized
in
the
extensive
amount
of
scholarly
attention
and
advocacy
work
dedi-
cated
to
such
problems,
including
a
number
of
papers
published
in
this
journal
[3].
From
an
‘occasional
area
of
interest
amongst
a
tiny
group
of
demographers
and
survey
statisticians’
[2]
that
failed
to
garner
mainstream
political
acknowledgement
for
a
long
time,
fuel
poverty
has
gradually
become
a
widely
recognized
societal
chal-
lenge
among
key
academic,
practitioner
and
policy-making
circles.
Problems
of
energy
deprivation
in
the
home
are
also
com-
monly
described
via
the
term
‘energy
poverty’.
This
concept
has
traditionally
been
used
to
capture
problems
of
inadequate
access
to
energy
in
developing
countries,
involving
a
host
of
economic,
∗
Corresponding
author.
Tel.:
+44
1612755502.
E-mail
addresses:
stefan.bouzarovski@manchester.ac.uk
(S.
Bouzarovski),
saska.petrova@manchester.ac.uk
(S.
Petrova).
infrastructural,
social
equity,
education
and
health
concerns
[4,5].
Addressing
the
technological
and
economic
aspects
of
energy
poverty
is
otherwise
a
key
component
of
the
wider
relationship
between
energy
and
development
[6],
in
terms
of
both
gov-
ernance
aspects
and
everyday
life
[5,7,8].
At
the
same
time,
a
number
of
authors
have
been
using
energy
poverty
frameworks
to
encapsulate
developed-world
issues
at
the
nexus
of
energy
efficiency
and
affordability
[9–12].
‘Energy
poverty’
is
widely
used
to
describe
issues
of
domestic
energy
deprivation
in
many
European
countries,
including
Germany
[13],
Belgium
[14],
Greece
[11],
Spain
[15],
Poland
[16]
and
Slovakia
[17],
while
the
notion
of
‘energy
precariousness’
has
become
enshrined
in
official
policies
and
discourses
in
France
[18].
The
term
‘energy
poverty’
is
also
incorporated
in
the
European
Union’s
‘Third
Energy
Package’
as
well
as
a
number
of
policy
documents
adopted
by
the
various
bodies
of
this
organization
[19].
It
is
being
employed
in
contexts
where
domestic
energy
deprivation
has
not
received
scientific
or
policy
attention
to
date,
such
as
the
US
and
Australia
[9,10].
As
a
result
of
these
developments,
there
is
an
increasing
need
for
exploring
the
conceptual
relationship
between
the
energy
and
fuel
poverty
paradigms,
and
the
governance
implications
of
the
emergent
terminological
diversity
surrounding
the
lack
of
energy
services
in
the
home.
Based
on
an
extensive
review
of
existing
scholarship
in
the
domains
of
energy,
poverty,
human
geography,
environmental
policy
and
social
practices,
this
paper
investigates
the
possibility
of
cross-pollinating
the
fields
of
‘energy
poverty’
and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.007
2214-6296/©
2015
The
Authors.
Published
by
Elsevier
Ltd.
This
is
an
open
access
article
under
the
CC
BY
license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

32
S.
Bouzarovski,
S.
Petrova
/
Energy
Research
&
Social
Science
10
(2015)
31–40
‘fuel
poverty’,
as
well
as
other
ways
of
approaching
domestic
energy
deprivation.
Its
overarching
purpose
is
to
contribute
towards
the
formulation
of
a
genuinely
global
and
integrated
perspective
on
the
driving
forces
and
systemic
impacts
of
inadequate
domestic
energy
delivery,
in
its
multiple
guises
and
forms.
In
the
first
instance,
there-
fore,
we
aim
to
identify
the
commonalities
that
underpin
existing
approaches
towards
the
study
of
domestic
energy
deprivation,
and
can
help
develop
a
more
nuanced
and
inclusive
framework.
The
paper
then
focuses
on
the
material
and
social
aspects
of
the
rela-
tionship
between
‘energy
services’
[20,21]
and
poverty,
as
one
of
the
entry
points
for
articulating
a
global
perspective
on
the
issue.
We
subsequently
move
onto
an
exploration
of
this
relation-
ship
via
‘vulnerability’
thinking,
with
the
aim
of
introducing
the
wider
systemic
drivers
of
deprivation
as
they
vary
across
time
and
space.
The
paper
concludes
by
highlighting
the
implications
of
such
approaches
for
policy
and
science.
2.
Unpacking
the
dichotomy
between
fuel
and
energy
poverty
The
recognition
of
‘fuel
poverty’
as
a
significant
systemic
prob-
lem
is
best
established
in
academic
and
policy
discourses
within
the
UK
and
Ireland
–
states
that
have
developed
the
longest
tradition
in
researching
and
addressing
problems
of
cold
and
energy-inefficient
homes
in
particular,
with
their
associated
impacts
for
well-being
and
health
[22–31].
In
the
UK,
fuel
poor
households
were
ini-
tially
defined
as
needing
to
spend
more
than
10%
of
their
income
on
energy
in
order
to
keep
the
home
in
a
satisfactory
condition
(
www.poverty.org.uk).
A
more
recent
definition,
principally
used
in
England,
sees
households
as
fuel
poor
if
required
energy
costs
are
higher
than
those
of
the
nation-wide
median,
while
push-
ing
them
below
the
‘official
poverty
line
(www.gov.uk).
In
this
geographical
context,
therefore,
fuel
poverty-related
debates
and
discussion
have
principally
been
motivated
by,
and
focused
on,
the
poor
affordability
of
energy
for
space
heating
(and
other
related
domestic
services)
as
a
result
of
low
household
incomes
or
energy
inefficient
homes.
Recent
years
have
seen
the
expansion
of
scholarship
and
policy
on
these
topics
onto
the
post-socialist
countries
of
East-
ern
and
Central
Europe
[12,32–38],
as
well
as
France
[39–41],
Germany
[42–45],
Spain
[46–48],
Austria
[49],
Italy
[50,51],
Greece
[11,52–54],
Australia
[9,55],
New
Zealand
[56]
and
even
the
US
[10].
The
diversity
of
this
body
of
work
means
that
it
does
not
easily
lend
itself
to
cumulative
summaries.
Nevertheless,
many
such
studies
have
sought
to
highlight
the
broad
range
of
systemic
circumstances
that
lead
to
the
emergence
of
domestic
energy
deprivation:
institu-
tional
factors,
political
economies,
infrastructural
legacies,
housing
structures,
income
differentials
and
changes
in
the
affordability
of
utility
services.
With
national-scale
policy
measures
being
devel-
oped
in
many
of
these
national
settings,
transnational
bodies
such
as
the
European
Union
have
become
increasingly
interested
in
for-
mulating
agendas
that
can
provide
wider
and
more
comprehensive
frameworks
to
address
the
problem
[57].
The
diversity
of
geograph-
ical
perspectives
on
developed-world
energy
deprivation
has
also
been
associated
with
a
greater
awareness
on
its
health
impacts
and
amelioration
policies,
with
issues
such
as
mental
health
and
well-
being
becoming
recognized
as
important
in
this
context
alongside
the
more
traditional
focus
on
respiratory
and
circulatory
morbidity
and
‘excess
winter
deaths’
[[29,58,59]
also
see
Table
1].
At
the
same
time,
a
number
of
international
development
organizations
and
scholars
have
been
focusing
on
the
persistent
deficiency
of
energy
infrastructure
provision
across
large
parts
of
Africa,
Asia,
and
South
America.
Despite
a
long
history
of
interna-
tional
involvement
and
high
profile
political
attention,
more
than
1.2
billion
people
across
the
world
still
lack
access
to
electricity,
Table
1
Principal
elements
of
‘energy
poverty’
and
‘fuel
poverty’
frameworks
in
traditional
understandings
of
the
two
concepts.
Element
Developing
world
‘energy
poverty’
Developed-world
‘fuel
poverty’
Recognition
Explicitly
acknowledged
in
isolated
documents
during
the
early
1970s
[95].
Subsequent
debates
mainly
focused
on
technological
expansion.
More
recent
research
addresses
participation
and
governance
challenges.
First
mentions
date
back
to
the
late
1970s
and
1980s,
principally
referring
to
rising
energy
costs
and
‘the
right
to
fuel’
in
countries
like
the
UK
[96,97].
Later
research
allowed
for
a
wider
understanding
of
the
problem
[1].
Driving
forces
Primarily
low
levels
of
electrification
and
other
forms
of
networked
energy
provision
due
to
economic
under-development
and
non-functional
institutions.
High
or
rising
energy
prices
vs.
low
household
incomes.
Inefficient
housing,
heating
systems
and
appliance
stocks.
Expression
Lack
of
access
to
adequate
facilities
for
cooking,
lighting
and
electric
appliances,
but
also
other
services
such
as
space
cooling
and
heating.
Mainly
inadequate
heating
in
the
home;
importance
of
other
services
(particularly
space
cooling,
lighting,
appliances,
IT)
is
increasingly
recognized
in
recent
years.
Consequences
Detrimental
impacts
on
health,
gender
inequality,
education
and
economic
development
more
generally.
Long
and
short-term
mental
and
physical
health,
inadequate
participation
in
society.
Principal
policies
Support
for
transitions
to
‘modern’
energy
fuels,
investment
in
power
grid
expansion
or
micro-scale
renewables;
income
support.
Combination
of
income
support,
provision
of
energy
at
lower
costs,
and
energy
efficiency
investment.
while
a
further
2.8
billion
have
no
choice
other
than
traditional
biomass
for
cooking
and
heating
[60].
Termed
‘energy
poverty’,
this
condition
has
received
significant
academic
and
policy
attention
[4,61,62],
often
as
a
result
of
its
extensive
impacts
on
well-being
and
health:
the
inability
to
access
modern
fuels
in
the
home
means
that
households
are
often
forced
to
rely
on
open
fires,
which
in
leads
in
high
levels
of
indoor
air
pollution.
Thus,
fumes
and
smoke
from
open
cooking
fires
are
estimated
to
contribute
to
the
deaths
of
1.5
million
people
per
year,
predominantly
women
and
children
[60].
Developed-world
energy
poverty
also
has
significant
impacts
on
issues
such
as
personal
safety,
household
time
budgets,
labour
productivity
and
income
[63].
It
is
a
highly
gendered
problem,
with
women
bearing
the
brunt
of
the
consequences
of
inadequate
energy
access
while
suffering
from
systemic
discrimination
as
well
decreased
access
to
resources
and
decision-making
[64,65].
Traditionally,
energy
poverty
research
in
the
developing
world
has
been
mainly
focused
on
supply-side
issues,
emphasizing
the
need
for
expanding
electricity
grids
based
on
the
experience
of
developed
world
countries
[66,67].
Work
undertaken
by
orga-
nizations
such
as
the
World
Bank
in
particular
has
highlighted
the
benefits
of
extending
the
coverage
of
power
grids
into
rural
areas
[68–71],
as
well
as
the
economic,
social
and
technical
bar-
riers
to
modern
energy
access
[72]
including
the
lack
of
adequate
institutional
infrastructures
and
financial
capital
[73–78].
This
has
been
demonstrated
in
case
studies
from
Africa,
South
America
and
Southeast
Asia
alike.
The
principal
policies
to
address
energy
poverty
have
been
largely
driven
by
the
‘electrification
for
devel-
opment’
imperative,
as
has
been
the
mainstream
identification
of
the
driving
forces
and
consequences
of
the
problem.

S.
Bouzarovski,
S.
Petrova
/
Energy
Research
&
Social
Science
10
(2015)
31–40
33
In
more
recent
years,
scientific
and
policy
attention
has
turned
to
the
poverty-amelioration
potential
of
micro-generation
and
renewable
energy
investment
as
an
alternative
to
top-down
power
grid
expansion
[79,80].
There
has
been
an
increased
awareness
of
the
cultural
and
political
determinants
of
household
energy
tran-
sitions
towards
the
use
of
modern
fuels
in
developing
countries
[81–84].
Also
of
relevance
in
this
context
is
scholarship
on
the
dis-
tributional
and
fiscal
implications
of
state-led
policies
to
address
energy
consumption
[85–87],
as
well
as
the
pathways
through
which
increased
access
to
modern
fuels
contributes
to
livelihood
improvement
and
human
development
more
generally
[8,88–90].
Debates
on
the
‘other
energy
crisis’
[91],
therefore,
have
grad-
ually
evolved
from
a
supply-dominated
logic
underscoring
the
under-development
of
technical
infrastructures
to
a
more
nuanced
understanding
of
the
multilayered
political
economies
and
rela-
tions
of
power
that
drive
the
emergence
and
persistence
of
energy
poverty
[92].
As
was
pointed
out
above,
global
issues
of
energy
equity
have
been
historically
considered
within
two
relatively
separate
scientific
and
policy
registers.
While
discussions
and
measures
sur-
rounding
‘fuel
poverty’
have
been
largely
seen
within
the
context
of
unaffordable
warmth
in
the
home
–
and
as
such
have
mainly
fallen
under
the
remit
of
economists,
sociologists,
environmen-
tal
scientists
and
engineers
–
perspectives
on
energy
poverty
in
the
global
South
have
been
closely
articulated
in
relation
to
the
interdisciplinary
field
of
development
studies,
in
addition
to
focus-
ing
on
issues
of
access,
equity
and
investment
in
socio-technical
systems.
Most
of
the
literature,
therefore,
displays
a
marked
cleavage
along
developed–developing
world
lines
–
partly
as
a
result
of
the
specific
historical
and
geographical
trajectories
in
the
scientific
recognition
of
domestic
energy
deprivation
(Table
1).
Other
areas
of
distinction
include
the
conceptual
understanding
of
the
driving
forces
of
energy
and
fuel
poverty,
as
well
as
the
policies
to
address
them
and
their
impacts
on
everyday
life
(where
a
clear
division
emerges
the
lack
of
heating
vs.
the
lack
of
access
to
electricity
–
see
the
third
row
in
Table
1).
The
health
impacts
of
domestic
energy
deprivation
are
perhaps
the
only
area
in
which
similarities
exist
among
dominant
understandings,
even
if
the
energy
poverty
liter-
ature
is
predominantly
preoccupied
with
indoor
air
pollution
while
fuel
poverty
is
focused
on
cold
air
exposure
(see
the
fourth
row
in
Table
1).
It
should
also
be
pointed
out
that
the
fuel-energy
poverty
binary
is
not
universally
applicable:
in
a
limited
number
of
cases,
the
term
‘fuel
poverty’
has
been
used
to
capture
the
policies
and
measurement
approaches
that
underpin
access
to
non-traditional
energy
sources
[93],
while
some
authors
use
‘fuel
poverty’
and
‘energy
poverty’
interchangeably
to
describe
conditions
in
either
developing
[4,94]
or
developed
[28]
countries.
But
such
studies
have
tended
to
gloss
over
–
rather
than
directly
engage
with
–
the
distinct
intellectual
and
policy
traditions
that
are
associated
with
the
public
recognition
and
amelioration
of
the
two
sets
of
conditions.
The
increasing
globalization
and
marketization
of
energy
flows,
accompanied
by
the
proliferation
of
research
on
developed
world
energy
deprivation
–
in
contexts
where
this
condition
previously
received
little
public
recognition
–
has
started
to
challenge
estab-
lished
understandings.
Thus,
‘energy
poverty’
is
no
longer
confined
to
developing
world
debates,
while
the
access-affordability
binary
is
gradually
being
dismantled
and
challenged.
As
was
pointed
out
above,
policy
and
scholarship
in
many
European
countries
–
and
even
the
European
Union
itself
–
uses
the
term
‘energy
poverty’
to
encompass
questions
of
access,
infrastructure,
health
and
equity
in
addition
to
the
more
established
issues
of
affordability
and
efficiency.
And
questions
of
security,
justice,
and
socio-technical
transition
are
jointly
entering
the
vocabularies
of
energy
and
fuel
poverty
researchers
across
the
world
[98–100].
The
destabilization
of
the
traditional
conceptual
boundaries
of
fuel
and
energy
poverty
has
created
a
need
for
exploring
the
rela-
tionship
between
these
frameworks
and
the
wider
socio-spatial
mechanisms
that
characterize
the
lack
of
adequate
energy
services
in
the
home.
But
other
than
statements
that
the
two
terms
have
the
same
meaning
in
developed-world
contexts
[28,57,101]
an
explicit
conceptual
discussion
of
the
relationship
between
energy
and
fuel
poverty
has
been
lacking
for
a
long
time.
Li
et
al.
[102]
are
among
the
limited
number
of
authors
who
have
ventured
into
this
terri-
tory,
by
arguing
that
fuel
and
energy
poverty
are
distinct
problems
that
can
be
associated
with
accurate
descriptors:
access
to
electric-
ity,
education,
health,
and
the
International
Energy
Agency’s
Energy
Development
Index
(EDI)
or
Nussbaumer
et
al.’s
[94]
Multidimen-
sional
Energy
Poverty
Index
(MEPI)
in
the
case
of
energy
poverty;
and
affordability,
thermal
comfort
and
Hills’
[103]
Low
Income
High
Cost
(LIHC)
measure
in
the
case
of
fuel
poverty.
They
elaborate
such
claims
by
insisting
that
‘fuel
poverty
mostly
occurs
in
rela-
tively
wealthy
countries
with
cold
climates’
(such
as
residents
of
the
UK,
Ireland
and
New
Zealand),
whereas
‘energy
poverty
occurs
across
all
climates
but
mostly
in
poor
countries’
(mainly
Central
South
America
sub-Saharan
Africa
and
central
Asia)
[102].
The
only
people
who
may
experience
both
fuel
and
energy
poverty
at
the
same
time
are
those
‘living
in
a
cold
climate,
and
they
have
diffi-
culty
in
getting
access
to
electricity
or
modern
cooking
facilities,
and
with
indoor
heating
at
an
appropriate
cost’
[102];
they
include
‘areas
of
northern
rural
China,
Nepal,
India
and
scattered
instances
of
homeless
people
in
developed
countries’
[102].
However,
it
remains
unclear
how
Li
et
al.’s
[102]
bracketing
of
the
conceptual
remit
of
energy
poverty
and
fuel
poverty
would
work
in
the
case
of
households
who
experience
domestic
energy
deprivation,
while
living
in
relatively
affluent
countries
with
warm
climates.
A
wide
range
of
authors
–
from
Healy
[104]
to
Tirado-
Herrero
et
al.
[48]
–
have
found
that
relatively
affluent
countries
in
Southern
Europe,
such
as
Portugal,
Greece,
Spain,
Cyprus,
Malta
and
Italy,
contain
record
numbers
of
households
who
lack
adequate
energy
provision
in
the
home.
This
concerns
both
suboptimal
lev-
els
of
space
heating
in
winter
and
residential
cooling
in
summer,
and
can
be
attributed
to
a
combination
of
infrastructural,
income
and
cultural
factors.
Also,
what
to
make
of
middle-income
states
in
regions
like
Central
Asia
or
South
America,
where
governments
face
parallel
problems
of
energy
access
and
affordability
in,
respectively,
predominantly
rural
and
urban
areas?
It
is
clear
that
the
traditional
pathways
of
scientific
and
policy
thinking
in
the
existing
energy
and
fuel
poverty
literature
become
untenable
when
faced
with
the
diversity
of
conditions
and
practices
that
capture
energy
demand
across
the
world.
We
embrace
the
emergent
terminological
messiness
developing
around
the
two
concepts
to
argue
that
the
blurring
of
conventional
definitions
offers
opportunities
for
advancing
scientific
and
policy
debates
on
the
fundamental
relationships
among
energy
access,
affordability
and
state
policy.
Our
claim
is
based
upon
the
premise
that
that
all
forms
of
household-scale
energy
deprivation
share
the
same
consequence:
a
lack
of
adequate
energy
services
in
the
home,
with
its
associated
discomfort
and
difficulty.
When
cross-
referenced
with
the
most
widely
acceptable
definition
of
relative
income
poverty
(a
condition
with
a
global
definition
–
see
[105])
fuel
and
energy
poverty
alike
can
be
considered
under
the
same
conceptual
umbrella:
as
a
set
of
domestic
energy
circumstances
that
do
not
allow
for
participating
in
the
lifestyles,
customs
and
activities
that
define
membership
of
society
[32].
3.
Unpacking
energy
services
If
there
is
one
common
thread
that
connects
both
developed
and
developing
world
countries
with
respect
to
the
underconsumption

34
S.
Bouzarovski,
S.
Petrova
/
Energy
Research
&
Social
Science
10
(2015)
31–40
of
energy
in
the
home,
it
is
the
pivotal
role
of
‘energy
services’.
Commonly
understood
as
the
‘benefits
that
energy
carriers
pro-
duce
for
human
well
being’
[106],
energy
services
allow
for
shifting
the
perspective
away
from
‘fuels’
such
as
‘coal,
oil,
natural
gas,
and
uranium,
and
even.
.
.
sunlight
and
wind,
along
with
complex
technologies
such
as
hydrogen
fuel
cells,
carbon
capture
and
stor-
age,
advanced
nuclear
reactors,
and
superconducting
transmission
lines,
to
name
a
few’
[107]
onto
the
notion
that
‘people
do
not
demand
energy
per
se
but
energy
services
like
mobility,
washing,
heating,
cooking,
cooling
and
lighting’
[108].
As
a
result,
policy
goals
can
start
to
revolve
around
issues
such
as
achieving
‘adequate
levels
of
light
rather
than
delivering
kWh
of
electricity’
[107].
This
opens
the
path
for
approaching
the
insecurity
of
demand-side
energy
services
as
a
distinct
societal
challenge,
allowing
for
an
‘integrated
approach
to
gauge
the
resilience
of
a
society
to
meet
the
needs
of
its
population.
.
.
over
longer
timescales
ahead
from
various
interrelated
perspectives’
[20].
Energy
service
approaches
also
highlight
the
inadequacy
of
existing
measurement
frameworks
for
understanding
and
moni-
toring
energy
delivery
in
the
home,
which
is
mainly
captured
by
the
number
of
energy
units
consumed
by
the
carrier,
or
the
effect
that
the
conversion
process
has
on
affected
spaces
(such
as
levels
of
temperature
or
illumination).
Neither
of
these
metrics
properly
describe
the
utility
and
satisfaction
received
by
the
final
user,
partly
because
the
effect
of
the
energy
service
on
his
or
her
requirements
–
principally
a
comfortable
and
well-functioning
home
–
is
largely
dependent
on
subjective
variables
[12,109].
It
thus
becomes
impor-
tant
to
consider
the
individual,
household
and
community-level
determinants
of
energy
dynamics
in
the
residential
environment,
by
taking
into
account
environmental,
cultural,
technical
and
archi-
tectural
factors
in
influencing
[110–112].
Thinking
about
energy
in
terms
of
the
domestic
functions
that
it
affords
also
allows
for
considering
the
wider
technologies
and
dynamics
involved
in
the
operation
of
modern
homes.
The
rela-
tively
simple
(and
somewhat
out
of
date)
classification
of
energy
services
provided
by
authors
such
as
Reister
and
Devine
[113]
and
further
enshrined
in
the
‘energy
ladder’
and
‘fuel
stacking’
models
[107,107,114–116]
–
space
heating,
water
heating,
space
cooling,
refrigeration,
cooking,
drying,
lighting,
electronic
services,
and
appliance
services
–
quickly
starts
to
break
down
when
the
relevance
of
other
processes
in
the
home
is
considered
within
this
context.
The
inherently
multifunctional
nature
of
energy
services
means
that
carriers
with
one
primary
purpose
often
serve
a
range
of
secondary
roles,
many
of
which
are
not
explicitly
linked
to
energy.
Thus,
a
wood-burning
stove
can
provide
space
heating,
hot
water,
cooking,
drying
and
light,
as
well
as
a
feeling
of
coziness,
comfort
and
a
focal
point
in
the
home
[117–119].
At
the
same
time,
a
single
energy
service
can
be
supplied
by
a
range
of
different
fuels:
‘illu-
mination,
for
example,
can
come
from
candles,
kerosene
lamps,
or
electricity’
[21].
Further
testifying
to
the
multifaceted
nature
of
energy
ser-
vices
is
their
complex
composition,
which
entails
‘different
inputs
of
energy,
technology,
human
and
physical
capital,
and
environ-
ment
(including
natural
resources)’
[108].
This
means
that
energy
services
cannot
be
understood
in
solely
technological
or
social
terms,
but
rather
represent
hybrid
‘assemblages’
[120,121]
operat-
ing
across
a
multitude
of
scales
and
sites,
beyond
the
confines
of
the
home.
As
such,
they
consist
of
‘composite
accomplishments
gen-
erating
and
sustaining
certain
conditions
and
experiences’
[122]
that
are
deeply
embedded
in
the
‘orchestration
of
devices,
sys-
tems,
expectations
and
conventions’
[122].
Energy
services
embody
social
practices
that
are
‘configured
by
the
“hanging
together”
of
institutional
arrangements,
shared
cultural
meanings
and
norms,
knowledges
and
skills
and
varied
material
technologies
and
infras-
tructures’
[123].
The
routines
that
coalesce
around
systems
of
provision
can
thus
be
studied
via
a
social
practice
approach
that
requires
‘stepping
back
from
energy
itself’
[123]
and
moving
beyond
issues
of
technological
or
behavioural
efficiency
in
the
series
of
transformations
that
lead
to
the
production
of
useful
energy
–
however
important
these
may
be
–
onto
the
manner
in
which
end-use
energy
demand
is
articulated
in
time
and
space
[123–125].
At
a
more
fundamental
level,
energy
services
are
driven
by
needs,
which
reflect
what
the
recipients
of
this
system
of
provision
effectively
require:
‘a
cooked
meal,
a
well
lit
room,
a
fast
computer
with
an
internet
connection,
a
cold
beer,
a
warm
bed,
mechani-
cal
power
for
pumping
or
grinding’
[21].
As
such,
the
fulfilment
of
energy
needs
is
a
crucial
component
of
the
functionings
that
enable
individuals
to
perform
their
everyday
life
and
achieve
well-being
[126–128].
But
needs
are
themselves
closely
conditioned
by
the
social
practices
that
inform
the
social
expectations
and
settings
in
which
energy
use
takes
place.
This
is
particularly
obvious
in
the
case
of
electricity,
whose
technical
versatility
and
flexibility
[129]
has
often
prompted
actors
on
the
supply
side
to
actively
manage
and
produce
energy
demand.
Despite
its
intractability
and
vastness,
therefore,
the
entire
electricity
system
can
be
seen
‘as
an
element
of
electricity-consuming
social
practices,
informing
what
makes
sense
for
householders
to
do
during
(and
outside)
peak
periods’
[130].
Given
the
pivotal
role
of
energy
services
in
understanding
the
underlying
dynamics
that
lead
to
poverty,
it
is
remarkable
how
little
systemic
attention
they
have
received
outside
the
familiar
tropes
of
engineering
or
economic
evaluation.
While
studies
of
consumption
and
sustainability
have
often
explored
how
partic-
ular
patterns
of
energy
use
are
normalized
via
social
practices
and
everyday
routines
[130,131],
there
has
been
little
work
on
the
lev-
els
of
domestic
energy
services
that
households
require
for
the
full
participation
in
society
within
different
geographical
and
cul-
tural
settings.
Nevertheless,
the
suggestion
that
energy
consumers
throughout
the
world
require
service
standards
that
would
allow
them
to
have
‘effective
opportunities
to
undertake
the
actions
and
activities
that
they
want
to
engage
in,
and
be
whom
they
want
to
be’
[131]
provides
a
starting
point
for
moving
beyond
some
of
the
conceptual
quandaries
at
the
access–affordability
nexus,
as
described
above.
In
the
first
instance,
this
suggests
that
thinking
about
fuel
or
energy
poverty
in
terms
of
‘basic
needs’
[132,133]
does
not
adequately
capture
the
full
array
of
household
require-
ments
and
functionings.
Moreover,
the
fact
that
energy
services
are
themselves
the
outcomes
of
a
complex
set
of
conversions
and
networks
implies
that
the
driving
forces
of
domestic
energy
depri-
vation
are
multidimensional
and
hybrid,
while
extending
beyond
the
developed–developing
country
distinctions
that
some
authors
have
attempted
to
make.
At
this
point,
it
should
be
emphasized
that
the
literature
on
developing
world
energy
poverty
generally
offers
a
more
sophis-
ticated
understanding
of
the
relationship
between
energy
services
and
household
needs
[see,
for
example,
[107]].
While
much
of
this
work
lacks
an
explicit
theorization
of
the
everyday
grain
of
energy
needs
and
services,
it
does
offer
an
invigorated
perspective
on
the
importance
of
human
security,
democratic
participation
and
social
cohesion
for
the
development
of
energy
systems
as
they
relate
to
individual
household
requirements.
Thus,
van
Els
et
al.
[90]
high-
light
that
market
mechanisms
have
not
been
sufficient
to
guarantee
the
economic
sustainability
of
rural
electrification
projects
in
the
Amazon,
underlining
the
need
for
a
paradigm
shift
towards
local
mobilization
and
organization
via
development
initiatives
so
as
to
partnership
between
local
new
actors
in
the
electricity
sector
and
governmental
bodies.
At
the
same
time,
arguments
about
the
importance
of
‘just
grids’
and
‘good
governance’
[134]
have
been
accompanied
by
an
increased
awareness
of
the
importance
of
polit-
ical,
institutional
and
cultural
factors
in
influencing
energy
poverty
[72]
beyond
more
conventional
economic,
financial
and
technical

S.
Bouzarovski,
S.
Petrova
/
Energy
Research
&
Social
Science
10
(2015)
31–40
35
considerations.
Energy
service
approaches
have
also
underlined
the
importance
of
moving
beyond
electrification
onto
the
provision
of
heating
and
cooking
services
in
the
home
[135],
as
well
as
the
need
for
considering
broader
issues
of
geopolitical
risk
and
uncertainty
in
the
governance
of
systems
of
provision
[20,136].
Such
concerns
have
also
started
to
permeate
the
work
of
policy-making
organizations
at
different
scales.
In
response
to
the
omission
of
energy
in
the
UN
Millennium
Development
Goals,
work
undertaken
by
the
UN
Development
Programme
report
pro-
posed
practical
steps
towards
‘scaled-up
investments
in
health,
education,
and
infrastructure,
alongside
efforts
to
promote
gen-
der
equality
and
environmental
sustainability’
[106].
In
2012,
the
Sustainable
Energy
for
All
initiative
gave
prominence
to
the
impact
of
international
and
local
policies
on
the
provision
of
energy
services
at
the
local
scale,
while
foregrounding
the
need
for
integrated
thinking
to
address
concerns
of
climate
change,
nat-
ural
resource
scarcity,
and
global
income
inequality
[137].
Also
of
note
is
the
UK
Department
For
International
Development’s
statement
that
‘energy
in
a
development
context
is
not
about
technology
provision
first.
.
.
but
about
understanding
the
role
that
energy
services
play
within
people’s
lives’
[138]
calling
for
a
‘people-centred
approach,
reaching
beyond
the
technical
issues,
to
deliver
energy
services
that
meet
peoples’
needs
and
priorities’
[138].
A
shift
of
perspective
away
from
the
supply
of
fuels
onto
end-
use
services
in
conceptualizations
of
fuel
and
energy
poverty
opens
the
path
for
considering
domestic
energy
deprivation
issues
via
a
joint
framework
(see
Table
2).
This
approach
identifies
the
need
for
meeting
household
energy
needs
–
diverse
and
socially
con-
tingent
as
they
are
–
as
a
global
challenge.
At
the
same
time,
the
developed–developing
country
binary
starts
to
break
down
as
the
commonalities
that
characterize
the
absence
of
socially
and
mate-
rially
necessitated
levels
of
energy
services
come
to
the
fore.
Both
fuel
and
energy
poverty
can
be
encased
within
the
broader
notion
of
‘energy
service
poverty’.
Such
an
approach
allows
for
the
entire
range
of
circumstances
that
describe
the
experience
of
domes-
tic
energy
deprivation
to
be
integrated
into
a
single
conceptual
approach.
4.
Energy
vulnerability:
exploring
the
drivers
of
deprivation
via
systems
of
provision
Identifying
a
shared
set
of
energy
services
required
by
house-
holds
in
both
developed
and
developing
countries
can
only
provide
an
initial
step
towards
the
formulation
of
a
planetary
approach
towards
domestic
energy
deprivation.
It
is
also
necessary
to
high-
light
any
commonalities
in
the
driving
forces
of
energy
poverty
throughout
the
supply
chain
that
leads
to
the
delivery
of
the
final
service.
In
developing
a
common
framework
for
this
purpose
(see
Fig.
1)
we
have
relied
on
two
approaches.
The
first
is
the
‘systems
and
infrastructures
of
provision’
paradigm
[152–155]
which,
put
briefly,
describes,
the
institu-
tional
dynamics
and
material
cultures
surrounding
the
rise
of
commodity-specific
chains
that
connect
production,
distribution
and
consumption
activities.
By
assigning
a
‘vertical’
logic
[156]
to
the
circulation
of
commodities
and
services,
systems
of
provision
approaches
affirm
the
multiple
interdependencies
and
standard-
izations
that
allow
for
the
delivery
of
specific
goods
and
services
to
the
final
consumer.
In
the
case
of
energy,
they
bring
to
light
the
complex
concatenation
of
activities,
infrastructures
and
resources
necessary
to
provide
households
with
energy.
It
also
becomes
apparent
that
the
energy
chain
[157]
extends
well
into
the
home,
involving
multiple
conversions
from
fuel
carriers
into
end-use
ser-
vices.
A
household’s
energy
needs
are
at
the
final
point
of
this
system
while
driving
its
emergence.
Table
2
Deprivation
issues
as
they
relate
to
different
types
of
domestic
energy
services.
Type
of
energy
service
Relevance
for
domestic
energy
deprivation
Space
heating
Principally
a
problem
for
households
in
cold
climates
–
in
developed-world
countries
this
includes
low
income
groups,
as
well
as
those
living
in
inefficient
homes.
Access
to
more
effective,
comfortable
or
efficient
methods
of
domestic
heating
is
associated
with
the
situation
in
developing
countries
[139].
The
two
problems
may
combine
in
countries
with
relatively
mild
winters
where
households
do
not
have
adequate
heating
systems
in
their
homes–in
Europe,
the
highest
numbers
of
excess
winter
deaths
are
found
in
countries
like
Cyprus
and
Portugal
[140].
Water
heating
Poverty
implications
mainly
discussed
in
relation
to
developing-world
contexts
[141],
although
this
service
is
a
significant
component
of
energy
consumption
in
developed-world
countries
[142].
Space
cooling
An-energy
related
problem
for
households
living
in
climates
with
unbearably
hot
summers,
and
urban
areas
in
particular.
Climate
change-related
heatwaves
have
exacerbated
the
issue
[9].
Both
the
inadequacy
and
access
to
the
service
may
be
an
issue.
Research
on
developing-world
contexts
is
lacking
beyond
large-scale
models
[143,144].
Lighting
A
global
domestic
energy
deprivation-related
challenge.
Mainly
researched
in
developing
world
context
in
connection
with
the
lack
of
electricity
access
[145,146],
although
the
reduction
of
indoor
lit
spaces
in
relation
to
affordability
issues
has
also
been
observed
[32].
Cooking
Most
of
the
literature
explores
this
service
in
relation
to
developing
world
energy
poverty,
where
the
lack
of
access
to
electricity
is
a
major
obstacle
towards
economic
development
and
well-being
[147,148].
Drying
Rarely
connected
to
energy
deprivation,
although
the
lack
of
adequate
facilities
for
this
service
in
colder
climates
(whether
provided
by
networked
infrastructures
or
not)
has
been
connected
with
adverse
health
impacts
[149,150].
Refrigeration/
appliances/IT
These
services
are
directly
linked
to
the
affordability
and
availability
of
electricity
infrastructures,
and
as
such
can
be
found
across
the
world.
Levels
of
consumption
are
culturally
and
socially
conditioned
[151],
which
means
that
deprivation
‘thresholds’
are
highly
context-specific
[7].
Energy
vulnerability
thinking
provides
the
second
lynchpin
of
our
framework.
This
approach
helps
draw
a
distinction
between
energy
or
fuel
poverty
as
a
descriptor
of
a
state
within
a
certain
temporal
frame,
on
the
one
hand,
and
vulnerability
as
a
set
of
con-
ditions
leading
to
such
circumstances,
on
the
other
[158,159].
One
of
the
departure
points
for
the
vulnerability
approach
is
the
realiza-
tion
that
households
who
are
described
as
‘energy
service
poor’
at
a
given
point
in
time
may
exit
the
condition
in
the
future
by
changing
some
of
their
circumstances;
and
vice
versa,
fuel
or
energy
poverty
may
affect
households
who
are
not
described
as
such
at
the
moment
of
consideration
[160].
In
essence,
therefore,
energy
vulnerability
thinking
is
probabilistic:
it
highlights
the
factors
that
affect
the
likelihood
of
becoming
poor.
When
combined
with
the
systems
of
provision
approach,
energy
vulnerability
identifies
the
role
of
‘hor-
izontal’
factors
within
different
components
of
the
energy
chain.
These
extend
beyond
the
affordability–access
binary
to
encompass
the
nature
and
structure
of
the
built
environment
of
the
home,
as
well
as
the
articulation
of
social
practices
and
energy
needs.
In
the
mainstream
literature
on
developed
world
‘fuel
poverty’,
the
dynamics
that
underpin
the
condition
are
mainly
identified
within
the
narrow
triad
of
low
household
incomes,
high
energy
prices,
and
inadequate
levels
of
energy
efficiency.
But
these
are
only
part
of
the
factors
that
describe
the
likelihood
of
experienc-
ing
a
socially
and
materially
inadequate
level
of
energy
services
in
the
home.
The
interplay
between
built
environment
flexibility
and

36
S.
Bouzarovski,
S.
Petrova
/
Energy
Research
&
Social
Science
10
(2015)
31–40
Fig.
1.
Dimensions
influencing
the
delivery
of
energy
services
to
the
home,
and
the
emergence
of
domestic
energy
deprivation.
energy-related
social
practices
means
that
domestic
energy
depri-
vation
may
arise
as
a
result
of
a
mismatch
between
the
heating
or
cooling
system
installed
in
the
dwelling,
on
the
one
hand,
and
the
energy
service
needed
by
the
occupant
household,
on
the
other.
For
example,
electric
night
storage
heating
is
not
the
most
eco-
nomic
option
for
households
who
only
use
the
home
in
the
evenings
[97,161,162]
;
and
district
heating
systems
that
do
not
have
individ-
ual
controls
or
thermostats
may
prove
unaffordable
for
residents
who
end
up
‘trapped
in
the
heat’
at
undesirable
times
of
the
day
[38]
.
In
situations
where
the
structural
fabric
of
the
building,
hous-
ing
tenure
and
other
legal
obstacles
do
not
allow
for
switching
to
a
more
suitable
heating
system,
the
household
affected
by
the
situa-
tion
may
find
itself
suffering
from
inadequate
energy
services
even
if
it
is
otherwise
able
to
afford
the
energy
that
it
consumes,
while
living
in
a
home
that
is
well
insulated
[32,163].
Moreover,
bring-
ing
needs
into
the
equation
leads,
inter
alia,
to
the
conclusion
that
individuals
who
spend
a
greater
degree
of
the
day
at
home
(such
as
pensioners
or
unemployed
people)
or
have
specific
energy
require-
ments
(including
disability
or
the
presence
of
small
children)
are
more
likely
to
suffer
from
domestic
energy
deprivation
than
the
rest
of
the
population,
as
their
socio-demographic
circumstances
mean
that
such
households
demand
above-average
amounts
of
end-use
energy
[34,164–166].
This
situation
can
transpire
irrespective
of
the
affordability
of
energy
prices,
or
the
lack
of
residential
energy
efficiency.
Vulnerability
thinking
can
also
destabilize
dominant
under-
standings
of
the
driving
forces
of
this
condition
in
developing
countries.
A
recognition
of
the
need
for
energy
as
a
socially
necessitated
phenomenon
above
basic
biological
requirements
problematizes
the
idea
that
minimum
standards
can
provide
for
adequate
individual
functionings.
Given
the
multiple
socio-
technical
trajectories
through
which
any
given
service
can
be
procured,
this
suggests
that
the
reduction
of
energy
poverty
measurement
and
indicator
frameworks
to
particular
carriers
[in
contributions
such
as
[167]]
cannot
capture
the
entirety
of
household
needs
and
situations
across
the
world.
Of
particular
importance
here
are
claims
that
the
households
primarily
desire
an
energy
supply
that
is
reliable,
affordable
and
accessible
[107]
whereby
‘the
use
and
security
of
energy
services
is
not
ingrained
but
rather
conditioned
strongly
by
income
and
relative
wealth
within
societies’
[107].
The
linear
logic
of
the
energy
ladder
model
–
which
implies
that
households
move
towards
more
techno-
logically
sophisticated
energy
services
as
their
incomes
increase
and
higher
levels
of
national
economic
development
are
reached
[107,114,115]
is
also
destabilized
by
the
multiple
functions
enabled
by
energy
services,
ranging
from
domestic
comfort
to
personal
identity.
For
example,
the
use
of
traditional
biomass
is
predicated
upon
‘active
decision
making
on
the
part
of
individual
households
according
to
their
preferences
and
broader
lifestyle
considerations’
[168]
in
developing
and
developed
countries
alike.
Alongside
issues
of
access
to
infrastructure
(located
at
the
left
side
of
the
energy
chain)
the
affordability
of
energy
is
a
key
underpinning
of
energy
vulnerability.
This
is
because
the
man-
ner
in
which
state
bodies
and
utilities
choose
to
price
energy
or
support
particular
groups
plays
a
powerful
role
in
determining
whether
a
household
is
likely
to
live
in
conditions
of
domestic
energy
deprivation.
Injustices
of
distribution,
procedure
and
recog-
nition
[169]
become
important
factors
in
driving
fuel
or
energy
poverty
before
even
considering
income,
price
or
efficiency.
Indi-
rect
subsidies
embedded
in
the
energy
tariffs,
for
example,
have
a
significant
impact
in
determining
patterns
of
deprivation
[37,170].
Also
of
relevance
in
this
case
are
fiscal
or
pricing
measures
target-
ing
particular
types
of
fuel;
while
taxes
on
diesel
and
petrol–and
even
natural
gas–are
generally
less
harmful
to
the
poor,
it
has
been
demonstrated
that
placing
the
tax
burden
onto
electric
bills
often
disproportionately
affects
poor
households
(see,
for
example,
[171]).
In
addition,
it
should
be
pointed
out
that
‘schemes
that
put
a
price
on
carbon
emissions
further
upstream
.
.
.
have
an
effect
not
only
on
downstream
energy
prices
but
also
on
all
other
goods
and
services
owing
to
the
higher
price
of
the
energy
used
in
their
production’
[172].
In
some
cases,
fuel
or
energy
poverty
assistance
programmes
can
structurally
exacerbate
the
very
condition
that
they
are
meant
to
target
by
privileging
particular
groups
over
oth-
ers.
Regulatory
obstacles,
information
scarcity
and
socio-cultural
factors
often
prevent
socially
excluded
groups
from
accessing
sup-
port
[28].
Moving
towards
a
global
understanding
of
energy
vulnerabil-
ity
factors
(Table
3)
also
helps
highlight
the
manner
in
which
the
driving
forces
of
deprivation
can
belong
to
circumstances
that
are
either
internal
or
external
to
the
household.
It
becomes
apparent
that
external
spheres
of
action
tend
to
be
located
at
the
far
ends
of
the
provision
system
–
this
also
includes
the
domains
of
needs
and
practices.
Such
thinking
is
not
only
useful
in
identifying
groups

S.
Bouzarovski,
S.
Petrova
/
Energy
Research
&
Social
Science
10
(2015)
31–40
37
Table
3
A
typology
of
energy
vulnerability
factors
and
their
constituent
elements.
Factor
Driving
force
Sphere
of
action
Access
Poor
availability
of
energy
carriers
appropriate
to
meet
household
needs.
External/internal
Affordability
High
ratio
between
cost
of
fuels
and
household
incomes,
including
role
of
tax
systems
or
assistance
schemes.
Inability
to
invest
in
the
construction
of
new
energy
infrastructures.
External/internal
Flexibility
Inability
to
move
to
a
form
of
energy
service
provision
that
is
appropriate
to
household
needs.
Internal/external
Energy
efficiency
Disproportionately
high
loss
of
useful
energy
during
energy
conversions
in
the
home.
Internal
Needs
Mismatch
between
household
energy
requirements
and
available
energy
services;
for
social,
cultural,
economic
or
health
reasons.
Internal/external
Practices
Lack
of
knowledge
about
support
programmes
or
ways
of
using
energy
efficiently
in
the
home.
Internal/external
that
may
be
at
risk
of
falling
into
energy
poverty
in
the
future,
but
can
also
help
place
the
combination
of
social,
economic,
political
and
infrastructural
factors
that
have
contributed
to
the
position
of
households
who
are
facing
the
predicament
in
the
present.
This
is
particularly
true
in
the
case
of
developed-world
urban
households
living
in
transitory
housing
arrangements
–
mainly
young
people,
tenants
in
private
rental
housing,
and
residents
of
informal
settlements–which
are
difficult
to
detect
and
target
via
conventional
policy
frameworks
[173–175].
In
developing
country
contexts,
the
framework
highlights
the
crucial
importance
of
ensur-
ing
that
the
technical
and
financial
availability
of
energy
carriers
is
matched
with
socially
necessitated
household
needs.
5.
Conclusion:
implications
for
research
and
policy
This
paper
has
spoken
to
on-going
debates
about
the
defini-
tions,
driving
forces
and
extent
of
domestic
energy
deprivation
across
developed
and
developing
countries.
We
have
argued
that
the
inability
to
secure
adequate
energy
services
lies
at
the
heart
of
this
condition,
as
opposed
to
the
focus
on
fuel,
energy
efficiency,
and
affordability
that
dominates
most
scientific
and
policy
discus-
sions.
While
thinking
in
terms
of
energy
services
allows
for
all
of
these
factors
to
be
included
into
a
single
framework,
it
also
empha-
sizes
that
deprivation
in
the
home
is
deeply
embedded
in
‘not
only
the
resources
(energies)
necessary
for
its
upkeep,
but
also
the
appli-
ances,
infrastructures,
social
norms
and
human
action’
[176]
within
which
the
residential
environment
of
the
home
is
‘bound
and
repro-
duced’.
At
the
same
time,
this
approach
has
helped
us
identify
the
pathways
through
which
households
become
unable
to
attain
socio-materially
sufficient
levels
of
domestic
energy
functioning,
while
highlighting
the
importance
of
considering
more
complex
and
nuanced
questions
of
need
and
social
practice
in
the
under-
standing
of
such
processes.
The
arguments
presented
here
hint
at
the
theoretical
obsoles-
cence
of
the
notion
of
‘fuel
poverty’,
even
if
the
concept
is
widely
recognized
in
policy
and
scientific
circles.
In
purely
discursive
terms,
fuel
poverty
incorrectly
places
an
emphasis
on
the
supply
of
energy
carriers
to
the
home,
despite
the
fact
that
conceptual
debates
on
the
subject
have
significantly
advanced
past
such
understandings.
We
would
also
argue
in
favour
of
the
need
for
considering
energy
service
poverty
as
a
planetary
problem,
which
is
just
as
much
a
question
of
ensuring
an
adequate
match
between
energy
resources,
technical
infrastructures
and
household
needs,
as
it
is
about
access,
incomes
and
energy
efficiency.
This
needs
to
transpire
alongside
the
continued
need
for
context-specific
research
and
advocacy
on
questions
of
energy
access
and
depriva-
tion,
underlining
the
specific
political
circumstances
that
underpin
the
sheer
absence
of
adequate
infrastructures
in
some
cases,
and
their
inefficient
operation
in
others.
The
conceptual
commonalities
highlighted
in
the
paper
are
not
aimed
at
reincarnating
the
much
criticized
‘one
size
fits
all’
approaches
previously
promoted
by
some
international
donors
and
multilateral
organizations;
rather
we
have
sought
to
underline
the
binding
together
of
services,
needs
and
practices
in
driving
domestic
energy
deprivation
as
a
planetary
problem.
At
the
same
time,
the
paper
has
emphasized
the
need
for
inte-
grating
temporal
dynamics
[123]
with
understandings
of
energy
services.
Of
particular
importance
in
this
context
is
the
frame-
work
of
‘energy
vulnerability’,
which
provides
an
encapsulation
of
the
risk
factors
that
contribute
to
the
precariousness
of
particu-
lar
spaces
and
groups
of
people.
Energy
vulnerability
thinking
can
help
challenge
the
predominantly
socio-demographic
approaches
that
pervade
much
of
the
literature
and
policy
on
‘vulnerable
con-
sumers’
in
the
UK
and
the
EU
[for
an
example,
see
[177]].
This
is
because
defining
vulnerability
in
terms
of
purely
social
categories
such
as
‘households
on
very
low
incomes,
including
pensioners,
female
single
parent,
and
benefit
recipients’
[178]
neglects
the
role
of
housing
and
socio-technical
factors
in
conditioning
the
propen-
sity
of
a
household
to
become
unable
of
meeting
its
energy
needs,
while
extending
the
debate
to
groups
who
may
not
necessarily
face
precarious
household
energy
circumstances.
Policy-wise,
moving
the
focus
of
state
programmes
towards
energy
services
can
lead
towards
the
implementation
of
strate-
gic
measures
aimed
at
ensuring
that
the
needs
and
functionings
of
vulnerable
households
are
satisfied,
thus
supplementing
exist-
ing
efforts
to
supply
raw
fuels
to
particular
groups
and
places
[21].
A
widening
of
energy
poverty
amelioration
frameworks
towards
the
notion
of
‘services’
also
brings
to
the
attention
issues
of
pub-
lic
engagement,
democracy
and
politics
[179],
potentially
allowing
affected
publics
to
have
a
voice
over
the
kinds
of
services
and
forms
of
utility
provision
that
they
need.
Overall,
it
emphasizes
the
importance
of
access,
reliability
and
built
environment
effi-
ciency,
by
helping
devise
policies
that
address
energy
as
a
broader
issue
of
demand-side
energy
security.
This,
in
turn,
can
help
gen-
erate
a
wider
awareness
of
energy
poverty
as
a
global
challenge,
rather
than
a
predicament
specific
to
particular
geographic
set-
tings.
Energy
services
and
vulnerability
approaches
allow
for
a
more
explicit
focus
on
the
geographic
aspects
of
domestic
energy
depri-
vation,
as
dimensions
such
as
energy
access,
flexibility,
efficiency
and
needs
are
unevenly
distributed
across
space.
This
implies
that
planning
frameworks
need
to
be
mobilized
so
as
to
ensure
that
some
of
the
broader
structural
problems
surrounding
energy
service
poverty
can
be
dealt
with
in
a
systematic
and
comprehen-
sive
manner,
alongside
fiscal
policies
to
support
the
low
carbon
transition.
Specific
measures
may
include
supporting
neighbour-
hoods,
cities
and
regions
to
address
domestic
energy
deprivation
via
affordable
and
locally
sourced
low
carbon
energy,
as
well
as
ensuring
the
pooling
of
household
resources
via
various
informal
or
formal
networks
so
as
to
reduce
individual
energy
needs.
In
the
policy
and
regulatory
domains,
associated
actions
can
include
the
formulation
of
governance
processes
and
practices
that
can
support
fuel
and
supplier
switching
and
facilitate
energy
efficiency
invest-
ment:
particularly
in
the
private
rented
sector,
housing
in
multiple
occupancy,
and
apartment
blocks.
Developed-country
contexts
in
particular
may
benefit
from
the
implementation
of
area-based
approaches,
while
building
the
capacity
of
community
organiza-
tions
and
local
authorities
to
address
retrofits
in
‘hard-to-treat’
properties.

38
S.
Bouzarovski,
S.
Petrova
/
Energy
Research
&
Social
Science
10
(2015)
31–40
Acknowledgements
The
research
leading
to
this
paper
has
received
funding
from
the
European
Research
Council
under
the
European
Union’s
Seventh
Framework
Programme
(FP7/2007–2013)/ERC
grant
agreement
number
313478.
Stefan
Bouzarovski
is
a
Visiting
Professor
at
the
Institute
of
Geography,
University
of
Gdansk.
The
authors
are
grate-
ful
to
the
anonymous
referees
and
reviewers
at
the
University
of
Sussex’s
Science
Policy
Research
Unit
for
their
comments
on
earlier
drafts
of
this
paper.
References
[1]
B.
Boardman,
Fuel
poverty:
from
cold
homes
to
affordable
warmth,
Bellhaven,
London,
1991.
[2]
C.
Liddell,
Fuel
poverty
comes
of
age:
commemorating
21
years
of
research
and
policy,
Energy
Policy
49
(2012)
2–5,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2012.02.036
[3]
R.
Walker,
C.
Liddell,
P.
McKenzie,
C.
Morris,
S.
Lagdon,
Fuel
poverty
in
North-
ern
Ireland:
humanizing
the
plight
of
vulnerable
households,
Energy
Res
Soc
Sci
4
(2014)
89–99,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.10.001
[4]
S.
Pachauri,
D.
Spreng,
Energy
use
and
energy
access
in
relation
to
poverty,
Econ
Polit
Wkly
39
(2004)
271–278.
[5]
M.
Bazilian,
S.
Nakhooda,
T.
Van
de
Graaf,
Energy
governance
and
poverty,
Energy
Res
Soc
Sci
1
(2014)
217–225,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.
03.006
[6]
B.K.
Sovacool,
What
are
we
doing
here?
Analyzing
fifteen
years
of
energy
scholarship
and
proposing
a
social
science
research
agenda,
Energy
Res
Soc
Sci
1
(2014)
1–29,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.003
[7]
F.
Birol,
Energy
economics
a
place
for
energy
poverty
in
the
agenda?
Energy
J
(2007)
28,
http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/ISSN0195-6574-EJ-Vol28-No3-1
[8]
L.C.
Zulu,
R.B.
Richardson,
Charcoal,
livelihoods,
and
poverty
reduction:
evi-
dence
from
sub-Saharan
Africa,
Energy
Sustain
Dev
17
(2013)
127–137,
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2012.07.007
[9]
L.
Chester,
A.
Morris,
A
new
form
of
energy
poverty
is
the
hallmark
of
liber-
alised
electricity
sectors,
Aust
J
Soc
Issues
46
(2011)
435.
[10]
C.
Harrison,
J.
Popke,
Because
you
got
to
have
heat:
the
networked
assemblage
of
energy
poverty
in
Eastern
North
Carolina,
Ann
Assoc
Am
Geogr
101
(2011)
1–13.
[11]
N.
Katsoulakos,
Combating
energy
poverty
in
mountainous
areas
through
energy-saving
interventions,
Mt
Res
Dev
31
(2011)
284–292,
http://dx.doi.
org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-11-00049.1
[12]
S.
Petrova,
M.
Gentile,
I.H.
Mäkinen,
S.
Bouzarovski,
Perceptions
of
ther-
mal
comfort
and
housing
quality:
exploring
the
microgeographies
of
energy
poverty
in
Stakhanov,
Ukraine,
Environ
Plan
A
45
(2013)
1240–1257,
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1068/a45132
[13]
M.
Frondel,
S.
Sommer,
C.
Vance,
The
burden
of
Germany’s
energy
transi-
tion:
an
empirical
analysis
of
distributional
effects,
Econ
Anal
Policy
45
(2015)
89–99,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2015.01.004
[14]
F.
Bartiaux,
M.
Van
der
Linden,
N.
Debast,
A.
Baudaux,
La
pauvreté
énergétique,
in:
I.
Pannecoucke,
W.
Lahaye,
J.
Vranken,
R.
Van
Rossem
(Eds.),
Pauvreté
en
Belgique
–
Annuaire
2015,
POS,
CeRIS,
Gent,
Mons,
2015.
[15]
S.
Dimitriou,
Pobreza
Energética:
La
Coyuntura
Espa
˜
nola,
Barcelona
Univer-
sitat
Politècnica
de
Catalunya,
2013.
[16]
P.
Kurowski,
Ubóstwo
energetyczne
w
Polsce
na
podstawie
bada
´
n
GUS
z
2008
r,
Polityka
Spoeczna
27
(2011)
17–22.
[17]
D.
Gerbery,
R.
Fil
ˇ
cák,
Exploring
multi-dimensional
nature
of
poverty
in
slo-
vakia:
access
to
energy
and
concept
of
energy
poverty,
Ekonomick
`
y
ˇ
Casopis
18
(2014)
579–597.
[18]
F.
Bafoil,
F.
Fodor,
D.
le
Roux,
What
energy
for
the
Europe
of
the
poor?
A
European
comparison
of
Great
Britain,
France,
Germany,
Poland,
Hungary,
Presses
de
Sciences
Po,
Paris,
2014.
[19]
S.
Bouzarovski,
S.
Petrova,
The
EU
energy
poverty
and
vulnerability
agenda:
an
emergent
domain
of
transnational
action,
in:
J.
Tosun,
S.
Biesenbender,
K.
Schulze
(Eds.),
Energy
policy
making
in
the
EU,
Springer,
London,
2015,
pp.
129–144.
[20]
J.C.
Jansen,
A.J.
Seebregts,
Long-term
energy
services
security:
what
is
it
and
how
can
it
be
measured
and
valued?
Energy
Policy
38
(2010)
1654–1664,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.047
[21]
B.K.
Sovacool,
Security
of
energy
services
and
uses
within
urban
households,
Curr
Opin
Environ
Sustain
3
(2011)
218–224,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2011.06.004
[22]
R.
Campbell,
Fuel
poverty
and
government
response,
Soc
Policy
Adm
27
(1993)
58–70.
[23]
D.A.
Lawlor,
The
health
consequences
of
fuel
poverty:
what
should
the
role
of
primary
care
be?
Br
J
Gen
Pract
51
(2001)
435–436.
[24]
W.
Baker,
G.
Starling,
D.
Gordon,
Predicting
fuel
poverty
at
the
local
level:
final
report
on
the
development
of
the
fuel
poverty
indicator,
Centre
for
Sustainable
Energy,
Bristol,
2003.
[25]
J.D.
Healy,
J.P.
Clinch,
Quantifying
the
severity
of
fuel
poverty,
its
relation-
ship
with
poor
housing
and
reasons
for
non-investment
in
energy-saving
measures
in
Ireland,
Energy
Policy
32
(2004)
207–220.
[26]
G.
Walker,
Decentralised
systems
and
fuel
poverty:
are
there
any
links
or
risks?
Energy
Policy
36
(2008)
4514–4517.
[27]
C.
Liddell,
The
health
impacts
of
fuel
poverty
on
children.
Save
the
children,
University
of
Ulster,
Belfast,
2009.
[28]
B.
Boardman,
Fixing
fuel
poverty:
challenges
and
solutions,
Earthscan,
Lon-
don,
2010.
[29]
C.
Liddell,
C.
Morris,
Fuel
poverty
and
human
health:
a
review
of
recent
evi-
dence,
Energy
Policy
(2010)
2987–2997.
[30]
E.
Fahmy,
D.
Gordon,
D.
Patsios,
Predicting
fuel
poverty
at
a
small-area
level
in
England,
Energy
Policy
39
(2011)
4370–4377.
[31]
A.
Jansz,
P.
Guertler,
The
impact
on
the
fuel
poor
of
the
reduction
in
fuel
poverty
budgets
in
England,
Association
for
the
Conservation
of
Energy,
Lon-
don,
2012.
[32]
S.
Buzar,
Energy
poverty
in
Eastern
Europe:
hidden
geographies
of
depriva-
tion,
Ashgate,
Aldershot,
2007.
[33]
S.
Buzar,
The
“hidden”
geographies
of
energy
poverty
in
post-socialism:
between
institutions
and
households,
Geoforum
38
(2007)
224–240.
[34]
S.
Buzar,
When
homes
become
prisons:
the
relational
spaces
of
post-socialist
energy
poverty,
Environ
Plan
A
39
(2007)
1908–1925.
[35]
S.
Fankhauser,
S.
Tepic,
Can
poor
consumers
pay
for
energy
and
water?
Euro-
pean
Bank
for
Reconstruction
and
Development,
London,
2005.
[36]
A.
Kova
ˇ
cevi
´
c,
Stuck
in
the
past:
energy,
environment
and
poverty
in
Serbia
and
Montenegro,
United
Nations
Development
Programme,
Belgrade,
2004.
[37]
C.
Ruggeri
Laderchi,
A.
Olivier,
C.
Trimble,
Balancing
act
cutting
energy
subsi-
dies
while
protecting
affordability,
The
World
Bank,
Washington,
DC,
2013.
[38]
S.
Tirado
Herrero,
D.
Ürge-Vorsatz,
Trapped
in
the
heat:
a
post-communist
type
of
fuel
poverty
Energy
Policy
49
(2012)
60–68,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2011.08.067
[39]
M.
Derdevet,
La
précarité
énergétique,
un
chantier
européen
prioritaire,
Géoé-
conomie
(66)
(2013)
37–50,
http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/geoec.066.0037
[40]
I.
Devalière,
L’inconfort
thermique
au
cœur
des
inégalités
entre
les
ménages.
Appui
sur
l’Enquête
Nationale
Logement
2006,
Flux
(89–90)
(2013)
58–66.
[41]
U.
Dubois,
From
targeting
to
implementation:
the
role
of
identification
of
fuel
poor
households,
Energy
Policy
49
(2012)
107–115.
[42]
G.
Billen,
Energie-Sozialtarife:
Antwort
auf
drohende
Energiearmut?
Wirtschaftsdienst
88
(2008)
489–490.
[43]
P.
Heindl,
Measuring
fuel
poverty:
general
considerations
and
application
to
German
household
data.
Mannheim:
ZEW
Discussion
Paper
No.
13-046,
2013.
[44]
M.
Kopatz,
Energiearmut
in
Deutschland:
Brauchen
wir
einen
Sozialtarif?
Energiewirtschaftliche
Tagesfragen
59
(2009)
48–51.
[45]
K.
Tews,
Fuel
poverty
in
Germany:
from
a
buzzword
to
a
definition,
GAIA
–
Ecol
Perspect
Sci
Soc
23
(2014)
14–18,
http://dx.doi.org/10.14512/gaia.23.1.
6
[46]
S.N.
Bilbao,
M.A.
Castro,
Pobreza
energética.
Cruz
Roja
ayuda
a
combatir
la
pobreza
energética
en
Espa
˜
na.
Energía
de
Hoy.com,
2013,
pp.
80–83.
[47]
S.
Tirado
Herrero,
J.L.
López
Fernández,
P.
Martín
García,
Pobreza
energética
en
Espa
˜
na,
Potencial
de
generación
de
empleo
directo
de
la
pobreza
derivado
de
la
rehabilitación
energética
de
viviendas,
Asociación
de
Ciencias
Ambientales,
Madrid,
Spain,
2012.
[48]
S.
Tirado-Herrero,
L.
Jiménez-Meneses,
J.L.
López-Fernández,
J.
Martín-García,
E.
Perero-Van-Hove,
Pobreza
energética
en
Espa
˜
na.
Análisis
de
tendencias,
Asociación
de
Ciencias
Ambientales,
2014.
[49]
K.-M.
Brunner,
M.
Spitzer,
A.
Christanell,
Experiencing
fuel
poverty.
Cop-
ing
strategies
of
low-income
households
in
Vienna/Austria,
Energy
Policy
49
(2012)
53–59,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.076
[50]
R.
Miniaci,
C.
Scarpa,
P.
Valbonesi,
Distributional
effects
of
price
reforms
in
the
Italian
utility
markets,
Fisc
Stud
29
(2008)
135–163.
[51]
P.
Valbonesi,
R.
Miniaci,
C.
Scarpa,
Fuel
poverty
and
the
energy
benefits
sys-
tem:
the
Italian
case,
R&R
for
Energy
Policy,
2014.
[52]
A.
Dagoumas,
F.
Kitsios,
Assessing
the
impact
of
the
economic
crisis
on
energy
poverty
in
Greece,
Sustain
Cities
Soc
(2014),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.
2014.02.004
[53]
M.
Santamouris,
K.
Kapsis,
D.
Korres,
I.
Livada,
C.
Pavlou,
M.N.
Assimakopoulos,
On
the
relation
between
the
energy
and
social
characteristics
of
the
residen-
tial
sector,
Energy
Build
39
(2007)
893–905.
[54]
M.
Santamouris,
J.A.
Paravantis,
D.
Founda,
D.
Kolokotsa,
P.
Michalakakou,
A.M.
Papadopoulos,
et
al.,
Financial
crisis
and
energy
consumption:
a
house-
hold
survey
in
Greece,
Energy
Build
65
(2013)
477–487,
http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.enbuild.2013.06.024
[55]
L.
Chester,
The
failure
of
market
fundamentalism
how
electricity
sector
restructuring
is
threatening
the
economic
and
social
fabric,
Rev
Radic
Polit
Econ
45
(2013)
315–322,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0486613413487163
[56]
P.
Howden-Chapman,
H.
Viggers,
R.
Chapman,
K.
O’Sullivan,
L.
Telfar
Barnard,
B.
Lloyd,
Tackling
cold
housing
and
fuel
poverty
in
New
Zealand:
a
review
of
policies,
research,
and
health
impacts,
Energy
Policy
(2012)
134–142.
[57]
S.
Bouzarovski,
S.
Petrova,
R.
Sarlamanov,
Energy
poverty
policies
in
the
EU:
a
critical
perspective,
Energy
Policy
49
(2012)
76–82.
[58]
S.
Royston,
P.
Guertler,
Fact-file:
families
and
fuel
poverty,
London
Association
for
the
Conservation
of
Energy,
2013.
[59]
N.
Shortt,
J.
Rugkåsa,
The
walls
were
so
damp
and
cold
fuel
poverty
and
ill
health
in
Northern
Ireland:
results
from
a
housing
intervention,
Health
Place
13
(2007)
99–110,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2005.10.004
[60]
World
Bank,
Energy
–
the
facts,
2014,
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/
EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTENERGY2/0,contentMDK:22855502∼pagePK:
210058∼piPK:210062∼theSitePK:4114200,00.html

S.
Bouzarovski,
S.
Petrova
/
Energy
Research
&
Social
Science
10
(2015)
31–40
39
[61]
N.
Gunningham,
Managing
the
energy
trilemma:
the
case
of
Indonesia,
Energy
Policy
54
(2013)
184–193,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.11.018
[62]
A.D.
Sagar,
Alleviating
energy
poverty
for
the
world’s
poor,
Energy
Policy
33
(2005)
1367–1372.
[63]
R.J.
Elias,
D.G.
Victor,
Energy
transitions
in
developing
countries:
a
review
of
concepts
and
literature.
Program
on
energy
and
sustainable
development,
working
paper,
Stanford
University,
Stanford,
2005.
[64]
J.
Clancy,
F.
Ummar,
I.
Shakya,
G.
Kelkar,
Appropriate
gender-analysis
tools
for
unpacking
the
gender-energy-poverty
nexus,
Gend
Dev
15
(2007)
241–257,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13552070701391102
[65]
S.
Pachauri,
N.D.
Rao,
Gender
impacts
and
determinants
of
energy
poverty:
are
we
asking
the
right
questions?
Curr
Opin
Environ
Sustain
5
(2013)
205–215,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.04.006
[66]
K.S.
Lee,
A.
Anas,
G.-T.
Oh,
Costs
of
infrastructure
deficiencies
for
manufactur-
ing
in
Nigerian,
Indonesian
and
Thai
Cities,
Urban
Stud
36
(1999)
2135–2149,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0042098992593
[67]
M.
Munasinghe,
Rural
electrification
in
the
third
world,
Power
Eng
J
4
(1990)
189,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/pe:19900038
[68]
D.F.
Barnes,
The
challenge
of
rural
electrification,
in:
D.F.
Barnes
(Ed.),
The
challenge
of
rural
electrification:
strategies
for
developing
countries,
RFF
Press,
Washington,
DC,
2007,
pp.
1–17.
[69]
P.
Cook,
Infrastructure,
rural
electrification
and
development,
Energy
Sustain
Dev
15
(2011)
304–313,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2011.07.
008
[70]
G.
Foley,
Rural
electrification
in
the
developing
world,
Energy
Policy
20
(1992)
145–152,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(92)90108-E
[71]
M.G.
Pereira,
M.A.V.
Freitas,
N.F.
da
Silva,
Rural
electrification
and
energy
poverty:
empirical
evidences
from
Brazil,
Renew
Sustain
Energy
Rev
14
(2010)
1229–1240,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.12.013
[72]
J.
Watson,
R.
Byrne,
M.
Morgan
Jones,
F.
Tsang,
J.
Opazo,
C.
Fry,
et
al.,
What
are
the
major
barriers
to
increased
use
of
modern
energy
services
among
the
world’s
poorest
people
and
are
interventions
to
overcome
these
effective?
CEE
Review
11-004.
Collaboration
for
Environmental
Evidence,
Collaboration
for
Environmental
Evidence,
Bangor,
2011,
www.environmentalevidence.
org/SR11004.html
[73]
S.C.
Bhattacharyya,
Energy
access
problem
of
the
poor
in
India:
is
rural
elec-
trification
a
remedy?
Energy
Policy
34
(2006)
3387–3397,
http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2005.08.026
[74]
A.
Brew-Hammond,
Energy
access
in
Africa:
challenges
ahead,
Energy
Policy
38
(2010)
2291–2301,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.12.016
[75]
J.M.
Green,
S.H.
Erskine,
Solar
(photovoltaic)
systems,
energy
use
and
busi-
ness
activities
in
Maphephethe,
KwaZulu-Natal,
Dev
S
Afr
16
(1999)
221–237,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03768359908440074
[76]
C.M.
Haanyika,
Rural
electrification
in
Zambia:
a
policy
and
institutional
anal-
ysis,
Energy
Policy
36
(2008)
1044–1058,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2007.10.031
[77]
E.
Ilskog,
B.
Kjellström,
M.
Gullberg,
M.
Katyega,
W.
Chambala,
Electrifica-
tion
co-operatives
bring
new
light
to
rural
Tanzania,
Energy
Policy
33
(2005)
1299–1307,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2003.12.006
[78]
K.
Steel,
Dynamics
of
growth
and
investment
in
the
Kenyan
electric
power
sector,
IEEE
Power
Eng
Soc
Gen
Meet
(2007)
1–5,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
PES.2007.385906
[79]
E.
Adkins,
S.
Eapen,
F.
Kaluwile,
G.
Nair,
V.
Modi,
Off-grid
energy
services
for
the
poor:
introducing
LED
lighting
in
the
millennium
villages
project
in
Malawi,
Energy
Policy
38
(2010)
1087–1097,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2009.10.061
[80]
A.
Bhide,
C.R.
Monroy,
Energy
poverty:
a
special
focus
on
energy
poverty
in
India
and
renewable
energy
technologies,
Renew
Sustain
Energy
Rev
15
(2011)
1057–1066,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.11.044
[81]
B.M.
Campbell,
S.J.
Vermeulen,
J.J.
Mangono,
R.
Mabugu,
The
energy
transition
in
action:
urban
domestic
fuel
choices
in
a
changing
Zimbabwe,
Energy
Policy
31
(2003)
553–562,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00098-8
[82]
C.F.
Link,
W.G.
Axinn,
D.J.
Ghimire,
Household
energy
consumption:
com-
munity
context
and
the
fuelwood
transition,
Soc
Sci
Res
41
(2012)
598–611,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.12.007
[83]
J.T.
Murphy,
Making
the
energy
transition
in
rural
east
Africa:
is
leapfrogging
an
alternative?
Technol
Forecast
Soc
68
(2001)
173–193,
http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0040-1625(99)00091-8
[84]
R.
Sehjpal,
A.
Ramji,
A.
Soni,
A.
Kumar,
Going
beyond
incomes:
dimensions
of
cooking
energy
transitions
in
rural
India,
Energy
68
(2014)
470–477,
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.01.071
[85]
I.
Dube,
Impact
of
energy
subsidies
on
energy
consumption
and
supply
in
Zimbabwe.
Do
the
urban
poor
really
benefit?
Energy
Policy
31
(2003)
1635–1645,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00229-X
[86]
S.
Karekezi,
J.
Kimani,
Status
of
power
sector
reform
in
Africa:
impact
on
the
poor,
Energy
Policy
30
(2002)
923–945,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-
4215(02)00048-4
[87]
B.
Lin,
Z.
Jiang,
Estimates
of
energy
subsidies
in
China
and
impact
of
energy
subsidy
reform,
Energy
Econ
33
(2011)
273–283,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
eneco.2010.07.005
[88]
K.
Kaygusuz,
Energy
services
and
energy
poverty
for
sustainable
rural
devel-
opment,
Renew
Sustain
Energy
Rev
15
(2011)
936–947,
http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2010.11.003
[89]
N.S.
Ouedraogo,
Energy
consumption
and
human
development:
evidence
from
a
panel
cointegration
and
error
correction
model,
Energy
63
(2013)
28–41,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.09.067
[90]
R.H.
van
Els,
J.N.
de
Souza
Vianna,
A.C.P.
Brasil
Jr.,
The
Brazilian
experience
of
rural
electrification
in
the
Amazon
with
decentralized
generation
–
the
need
to
change
the
paradigm
from
electrification
to
development,
Renew
Sustain
Energy
Rev
16
(2012)
1450–1461,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.11.
031
[91]
E.
Eckholm,
The
other
energy
crisis:
firewood,
Worldwatch
Institute,
Wash-
ington,
DC,
1975.
[92]
B.K.
Sovacool,
The
political
economy
of
energy
poverty:
a
review
of
key
chal-
lenges,
Energy
Sustain
Dev
16
(2012)
272–282,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
esd.2012.05.006
[93]
Y.G.
Hailu,
Measuring
and
monitoring
energy
access:
decision-support
tools
for
policymakers
in
Africa,
Energy
Policy
47
(Suppl.
1)
(2012)
56–63,
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.065
[94]
P.
Nussbaumer,
M.
Bazilian,
V.
Modi,
Measuring
energy
poverty:
focusing
on
what
matters,
Renew
Sustain
Energy
Rev
16
(2012)
231–243,
http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.150
[95]
J.R.
Johnson,
Ceramics
in
advanced
energy
systems,
in:
V.D.
Fréchette,
L.D.
Pye,
J.S.
Reed
(Eds.),
Ceramic
engineering
and
science,
Springer
US,
1974,
pp.
75–91.
[96]
P.
Lewis,
Fuel
poverty
can
be
stopped,
National
Right
to
Fuel
Campaign,
Brad-
ford,
1982.
[97]
J.
Osbaldeston,
Fuel
poverty
in
UK
cities,
Cities
1
(1984)
366–373,
http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/0264-2751(84)90009-X
[98]
R.
Fouquet,
The
slow
search
for
solutions:
lessons
from
historical
energy
tran-
sitions
by
sector
and
service,
Energy
Policy
38
(2010)
6586–6596,
http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.06.029
[99]
A.
Goldthau,
B.K.
Sovacool,
The
uniqueness
of
the
energy
security,
justice,
and
governance
problem,
Energy
Policy
41
(2012)
232–240.
[100]
S.
Pachauri,
L.
Jiang,
The
household
energy
transition
in
India
and
China,
Energy
Policy
36
(2008)
4022–4035,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.
06.016
[101]
R.
Schuessler,
Energy
poverty
indicators:
conceptual
issues.
Part
I.
The
ten-
percent-rule
and
double
median/mean
indicators,
ZEW-Centre
for
European
Economic
Research
Discussion
Paper,
Mannheim,
2014.
[102]
K.
Li,
B.
Lloyd,
X.-J.
Liang,
Y.-M.
Wei,
Energy
poor
or
fuel
poor:
what
are
the
differences?
Energy
Policy
68
(2014)
476–481,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2013.11.012
[103]
J.
Hills,
Getting
the
measure
of
fuel
poverty:
final
report
of
the
fuel
poverty
review,
Centre
for
Analysis
of
Social
Exclusion,
London
School
of
Economics
and
Political
Science,
London,
2012.
[104]
J.D.
Healy,
Housing,
fuel
poverty
and
health:
a
Pan-European
analysis,
Ash-
gate,
Aldershot,
2004.
[105]
J.E.
Foster,
Absolute
versus
relative
poverty,
Am
Econ
Rev
88
(1998)
335–341.
[106]
V.
Modi,
S.
McDade,
D.
Lallement,
J.
Saghir,
Energy
services
for
the
millennium
development
goals,
The
International
Bank
for
Reconstruction
and
Develop-
ment/The
World
Bank/ESMAP,
Washington
D.C,
2005.
[107]
B.K.
Sovacool,
Conceptualizing
urban
household
energy
use:
climbing
the
energy
services
ladder,
Energy
Policy
39
(2011)
1659–1668,
http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.041
[108]
R.
Haas,
N.
Nakicenovic,
A.
Ajanovic,
T.
Faber,
L.
Kranzl,
A.
Müller,
et
al.,
Towards
sustainability
of
energy
systems:
a
primer
on
how
to
apply
the
con-
cept
of
energy
services
to
identify
necessary
trends
and
policies,
Energy
Policy
36
(2008)
4012–4021,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.028
[109]
S.
Karjalainen,
Gender
differences
in
thermal
comfort
and
use
of
thermostats
in
everyday
thermal
environments,
Build
Environ
42
(2007)
1594–1603,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.01.009
[110]
M.
Aune,
Energy
comes
home,
Energy
Policy
35
(2007)
5457–5465,
http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.007
[111]
L.
Lutzenhiser,
A
cultural
model
of
household
energy
consumption,
Energy
17
(1992)
47–60.
[112]
J.
Stephenson,
B.
Barton,
G.
Carrington,
D.
Gnoth,
R.
Lawson,
P.
Thorsnes,
Energy
cultures:
a
framework
for
understanding
energy
behaviours,
Energy
Policy
38
(2010)
6120–6129,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.069
[113]
D.B.
Reister,
W.D.
Devine
Jr.,
Total
costs
of
energy
services,
Energy
6
(1981)
305–315,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(81)90074-8
[114]
O.R.
Masera,
B.D.
Saatkamp,
D.M.
Kammen,
From
linear
fuel
switching
to
mul-
tiple
cooking
strategies:
a
critique
and
alternative
to
the
energy
ladder
model,
World
Dev
28
(2000)
2083–2103.
[115]
A.
Nansaior,
A.
Patanothai,
A.T.
Rambo,
S.
Simaraks,
Climbing
the
energy
ladder
or
diversifying
energy
sources?
The
continuing
importance
of
house-
hold
use
of
biomass
energy
in
urbanizing
communities
in
Northeast
Thailand,
Biomass
Bioenergy
35
(2011)
4180–4188,
http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.046
[116]
W.
Peng,
Z.
Hisham,
J.
Pan,
Household
level
fuel
switching
in
rural
Hubei,
Energy
Sustain
Dev
14
(2010)
238–244,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2010.
07.001
[117]
J.
Cupples,
V.
Guyatt,
J.
Pearce,
Put
on
a
jacket,
you
wuss:
cultural
identities,
home
heating,
and
air
pollution
in
Christchurch,
New
Zealand,
Environ
Plan
A
39
(2007)
2883–2898,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a3932
[118]
L.K.
Petersen,
Autonomy
proximity
in
household
heating
practices:
the
case
of
wood-burning
stoves,
J
Environ
Policy
Plan
10
(2008)
423–438,
http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/15239080802503626
[119]
I.
Reeve,
J.
Scott,
D.W.
Hine,
N.
Bhullar,
This
is
not
a
burning
issue
for
me:
how
citizens
justify
their
use
of
wood
heaters
in
a
city
with
a
severe
air
pollution
problem,
Energy
Policy
57
(2013)
204–211,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.
2013.01.042

40
S.
Bouzarovski,
S.
Petrova
/
Energy
Research
&
Social
Science
10
(2015)
31–40
[120]
J.
Bennett,
The
agency
of
assemblages
and
the
North
American
blackout,
Public
Cult
17
(2005)
445.
[121]
C.
McFarlane,
The
city
as
assemblage:
dwelling
and
urban
space,
Environ
Plan
D:
Soc
Space
29
(2011)
649–671,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d4710
[122]
E.
Shove,
Comfort,
cleanliness
and
convenience:
the
social
organization
of
normality,
Berg,
Oxford,
2003.
[123]
G.
Walker,
The
dynamics
of
energy
demand:
change,
rhythm
and
synchronic-
ity,
Energy
Res
Soc
Sci
1
(2014)
49–55,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.
03.012
[124]
G.
Bridge,
S.
Bouzarovski,
M.
Bradshaw,
N.
Eyre,
Geographies
of
energy
tran-
sition:
space,
place
and
the
low-carbon
economy,
Energy
Policy
53
(2013)
331–340,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.066
[125]
M.
Jalas,
J.
Rinkinen,
Stacking
wood
and
staying
warm:
time,
temporality
and
housework
around
domestic
heating
systems,
J
Consum
Cult
(2013),
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/1469540513509639
,
1469540513509639.
[126]
M.C.
Nussbaum,
Creating
capabilities,
Harvard
University
Press,
Cambridge,
MA,
2011.
[127]
R.
Saith,
Capabilities:
the
concept
and
its
operationalisation,
Queen
Elizabeth
House,
Oxford,
2001.
[128]
A.
Sen,
The
idea
of
justice,
Belknap
Press/Harvard
University
Press,
Cambridge,
2009.
[129]
V.
Smil,
Energy
at
the
crossroads:
global
perspectives
and
uncertainties,
MIT
Press,
Cambridge,
2003.
[130]
Y.
Strengers,
Peak
electricity
demand
and
social
practice
theories:
refram-
ing
the
role
of
change
agents
in
the
energy
sector,
Energy
Policy
44
(2012)
226–234,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.046
[131]
I.
Robeyns,
The
capability
approach:
a
theoretical
survey,
J
Hum
Dev
6
(2005)
93–117,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/146498805200034266
[132]
S.
Pachauri,
A.
Mueller,
A.
Kemmler,
D.
Spreng,
On
measuring
energy
poverty
in
Indian
households,
World
Dev
32
(2004)
2083–2104.
[133]
P.
Makdissi,
Q.
Wodon,
Fuel
poverty
and
access
to
electricity:
comparing
households
when
they
differ
in
needs,
Appl
Econ
38
(2006)
1071–1078,
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036840600649948
[134]
M.
Bazilian,
A.
Sagar,
R.
Detchon,
K.
Yumkella,
More
heat
and
light,
Energy
Policy
38
(2010)
5409–5412,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.06.007
[135]
M.
Bazilian,
P.
Nussbaumer,
C.
Eibs-Singer,
A.
Brew-Hammond,
V.
Modi,
B.
Sovacool,
et
al.,
Improving
access
to
modern
energy
services:
insights
from
case
studies,
Electr
J
25
(2012)
93–114,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2012.
01.007
[136]
M.
Bradshaw,
Global
energy
dilemmas:
a
geographical
perspective,
Geogr
J
176
(2010)
275–290.
[137]
A.
Mahama,
2012
international
year
for
sustainable
energy
for
all:
African
Frontrunnership
in
rural
electrification,
Energy
Policy
48
(2012)
76–82,
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.046
[138]
Department
for
International
Development
(DFID),
Energy
for
the
poor:
underpinning
the
millennium
development
goals,
DFID,
London,
2002.
[139]
C.A.
Miller,
C.
Altamirano-Allende,
N.
Johnson,
M.
Agyemang,
The
social
value
of
mid-scale
energy
in
Africa:
redefining
value
and
redesigning
energy
to
reduce
poverty,
Energy
Res
Soc
Sci
5
(2015)
67–69,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.erss.2014.12.013
[140]
T.
Fowler,
R.J.
Southgate,
T.
Waite,
R.
Harrell,
S.
Kovats,
A.
Bone,
et
al.,
Excess
winter
deaths
in
Europe:
a
multi-country
descriptive
analysis,
Eur
J
Public
Health
(2014)
cku073,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cku073
[141]
P.
Purohit,
A.
Michaelowa,
CDM
potential
of
solar
water
heating
systems
in
India,
Solar
Energy
82
(2008)
799–811,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.
2008.02.016
[142]
T.
Oreszczyn,
S.H.
Hong,
I.
Ridley,
P.
Wilkinson,
Determinants
of
winter
indoor
temperatures
in
low
income
households
in
England,
Energy
Build
38
(2006)
245–252,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2005.06.006
[143]
V.
Krey,
B.C.
O’Neill,
B.
van
Ruijven,
V.
Chaturvedi,
V.
Daioglou,
J.
Eom,
et
al.,
Urban
and
rural
energy
use
and
carbon
dioxide
emissions
in
Asia,
Energy
Econ
34
(Suppl.
3)
(2012)
S272–S283,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.04.
013
[144]
U.K.
Rout,
Prospects
of
India’s
energy
and
emissions
for
a
long
time
frame,
Energy
Policy
39
(2011)
5647–5663,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.
04.026
[145]
H.
Winkler,
S.
Thorne,
Baselines
for
suppressed
demand:
CDM
projects
con-
tribution
to
poverty
alleviation,
S
Afr
J
Econ
Manag
Sci
5
(2002)
413–429.
[146]
E.
Dugoua,
J.
Urpelainen,
Relative
deprivation
and
energy
poverty:
when
does
unequal
access
to
electricity
cause
dissatisfaction?
Int
J
Energy
Res
38
(2014)
1727–1740,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/er.3200
[147]
T.
Sesan,
Navigating
the
limitations
of
energy
poverty:
lessons
from
the
pro-
motion
of
improved
cooking
technologies
in
Kenya,
Energy
Policy
47
(2012)
202–210,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.058
[148]
M.
Kees,
L.
Feldmann,
The
role
of
donor
organisations
in
promoting
energy
efficient
cook
stoves,
Energy
Policy
39
(2011)
7595–7599,
http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.030
[149]
B.K.
Sovacool,
M.
Dworkin,
Overcoming
the
global
injustices
of
energy
poverty,
Environ:
Sci
Policy
Sustain
Dev
54
(2012)
14–28,
http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00139157.2012.711669
[150]
J.E.
Fischer,
E.
Costanza,
S.D.
Ramchurn,
J.
Colley,
T.
Rodden,
Energy
advi-
sors
at
work:
charity
work
practices
to
support
people
in
fuel
poverty,
in:
Proceedings
of
the
2014
ACM
International
Joint
Conference
on
Pervasive
and
Ubiquitous
Computing,
2014,
pp.
447–458,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/
2632048.2636081
[151]
H.
Watkins,
Beauty
queen,
bulletin
board
and
browser
rescripting
the
refrigerator,
Gender
Place
Cult
13
(2006)
143–152,
doi:10.1080/
09663690600573742.
[152]
B.
Fine,
E.
Leopold,
The
world
of
consumption,
Routledge,
London,
1993.
[153]
G.
Seyfang,
A.
Haxeltine,
Growing
grassroots
innovations:
exploring
the
role
of
community-based
initiatives
in
governing
sustainable
energy
transitions,
Environ
Plan
C
30
(2012)
381.
[154]
D.
Southerton,
H.
Chappells,
B.
van
Vliet
(Eds.),
Sustainable
consumption:
the
implications
of
changing
infrastructures
of
provision,
Edward
Elgar
Publish-
ing,
2004.
[155]
H.
Wilhite,
E.
Shove,
L.
Lutzenhiser,
W.
Kempton,
The
legacy
of
twenty
years
of
energy
demand
management:
we
know
more
about
individual
behaviour
but
next
to
nothing
about
demand.
Society,
behaviour,
and
climate
change
mitigation,
Springer,
2000,
pp.
109–126.
[156]
B.
Fine,
Modernity,
urbanism,
and
modern
consumption:
a
comment,
Environ
Plan
D:
Soc
Space
11
(1993)
599–601,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d110599
[157]
J.D.
Chapman,
Geography
and
energy
commercial
energy
systems
and
national
policy,
Longman,
Harlow,
1989.
[158]
S.
Bouzarovski,
Energy
poverty
in
the
European
Union:
landscapes
of
vul-
nerability.
Wiley
Interdisciplinary
Reviews,
Energy
Environ
(2013),
http://
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wene.89/abstract.
doi:10.1002/wene.
89
[159]
S.M.
Hall,
S.
Hards,
H.
Bulkeley,
New
approaches
to
energy:
equity,
justice
and
vulnerability.
Introduction
to
the
special
issue,
Local
Environ
18
(2013)
413–421,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.759337
[160]
L.K.
Middlemiss,
R.
Gillard,
How
can
you
live
like
that?
Energy
vulnerability
and
the
dynamic
experience
of
fuel
poverty
in
the
UK,
Sustainability
Research
Institute,
University
of
Leeds,
Leeds,
2014.
[161]
G.
Milne,
B.
Boardman,
Making
cold
homes
warmer:
the
effect
of
energy
efficiency
improvements
in
low-income
homes.
A
report
to
the
energy
action
grants
agency
charitable
trust,
Energy
Policy
28
(2000)
411–424.
[162]
J.
Rudge,
Coal
fires,
fresh
air
and
the
hardy
British:
a
historical
view
of
domestic
energy
efficiency
and
thermal
comfort
in
Britain,
Energy
Policy
49
(2012)
6–11,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.064
[163]
S.
Buzar,
The
institutional
trap
in
the
Czech
rental
sector:
nested
circuits
of
power,
space
and
inequality,
Econ
Geogr
82
(2005)
381–405.
[164]
S.
Roberts,
Demographics,
energy
and
our
homes,
Energy
Policy
36
(2008)
4630–4632,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.064
[165]
W.
Wrapson,
P.
Devine-Wright,
Domesticating
low
carbon
thermal
tech-
nologies:
diversity,
multiplicity
and
variability
in
older
person,
off
grid
households,
Energy
Policy
67
(2014)
807–817,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2013.11.078
[166]
Y.G.
Yohanis,
Domestic
energy
use
and
householders’
energy
behaviour,
Energy
Policy
41
(2012)
654–665,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.
028
[167]
S.
Pachauri,
Reaching
an
international
consensus
on
defining
modern
energy
access,
Curr
Opin
Environ
Sustain
3
(2011)
235–240,
http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.cosust.2011.07.005
[168]
G.
Hiemstra-van
der
Horst,
A.J.
Hovorka,
Reassessing
the
energy
lad-
der:
household
energy
use
in
Maun,
Botswana,
Energy
Policy
36
(2008)
3333–3344,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.05.006
[169]
G.
Walker,
R.
Day,
Fuel
poverty
as
injustice:
integrating
distribution,
recog-
nition
and
procedure
in
the
struggle
for
affordable
warmth,
Energy
Policy
49
(2012)
69–75,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.044
[170]
C.L.
Freund,
C.I.
Wallich,
The
welfare
effects
of
raising
household
energy
prices
in
Poland,
Energy
J
17
(1996)
53–77.
[171]
H.
Poltimäe,
A.
Võrk,
Distributional
effects
of
environmental
taxes
in
Estonia.
Discussions
on
Estonian
economic
policy:
theory
and
practice
of
economic
policy,
2009,
pp.
17.
[172]
M.
Büchs,
N.
Bardsley,
S.
Duwe,
Who
bears
the
brunt?
Distributional
effects
of
climate
change
mitigation
policies,
Crit
Soc
Policy
31
(2011)
285–307,
http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261018310396036
[173]
S.
Bouzarovski,
S.
Petrova,
M.
Kitching,
J.
Baldwick,
Precarious
domesticities:
energy
vulnerability
among
urban
young
adults.
Energy
justice
in
a
changing
climate:
social
equity
and
low-carbon
energy,
Zed
Books,
London,
2013,
pp.
30–45.
[174]
C.
Jencks,
P.E.
Peterson
(Eds.),
The
urban
underclass,
Brookings
Institution
Press,
Washington,
DC,
2001.
[175]
E.
Visagie,
The
supply
of
clean
energy
services
to
the
urban
and
peri-urban
poor
in
South
Africa,
Energy
Sustain
Dev
12
(2008)
14–21,
http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0973-0826(09)60004-1
[176]
O.
Bates,
A.K.
Clear,
A.
Friday,
M.
Hazas,
J.
Morley,
Accounting
for
energy-
reliant
services
within
everyday
life
at
home.
Pervasive
computing,
Springer,
Berlin
and
Heidelberg,
2012,
pp.
107–124.
[177]
European
Commission
Vulnerable
Consumer
Working
Group
Guidance
Doc-
ument
on
vulnerable
consumers,
November
2013,
European
Commission,
Vulnerable
Consumer
Working
Group,
Brussels,
2013.
[178]
T.
Jamasb,
H.
Meier,
Energy
spending
and
vulnerable
households,
Cambridge
Faculty
of
Economics,
2011.
[179]
V.
Castán
Broto,
Symbolic
violence
and
the
politics
of
environmental
pollution
science:
the
case
of
coal
ash
pollution
in
Bosnia
and
Herzegovina,
Antipode
45
(2013)
621–640,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2012.01059.x.