Abstract
The concept of ‘double energy vulnerability’ describes a circumstance whereby people are at heightened risk of energy poverty and transport poverty simultaneously – a particularly severe form of energy injustice. However, analysis of which people and places are most likely to experience this phenomenon remains limited. This paper begins to address this lacuna via a review of academic literature, aiming to pinpoint the overlapping socio-demographic and spatial factors that can increase vulnerability to both energy and transport poverty and thereby identify those most at-risk of experiencing double energy vulnerability. A systematic review of an extensive 5-year sample period is complemented by a narrative review of key papers. Combined, this encompasses a state-of-the-art analysis of 250 papers across 8 different academic databases. We find several overlaps in the socio-demographic groups rendered most vulnerable to energy and transport poverty, including people on low-incomes, older people, households with children or dependents, people with pre-existing health conditions or disabilities, women, and people from ethnic minorities. Spatially, however, there are more differences and contextual variations between the two problems, with inner-urban areas generally posing greater risks for energy poverty and suburban areas for transport poverty. Rural areas appear to be the spatial settings that have the greatest overlap in vulnerability. Overall, our results indicate that the highest level of double energy vulnerability is among households that face a combination of multiple socio-demographic disadvantages alongside relative spatial peripheralisation. We signal future research directions and policy implications arising from these findings.
Highlights
Energy poverty and transport poverty have been identified as serious forms of deprivation warranting further and urgent attention from in side and beyond academia, with each having severe and detrimental impacts upon wellbeing, health and life chances [1,2]
We reflect on the implications of the above findings for our second research question: what social groups and geographical settings are most vulnerable to experiencing energy poverty (EP) and transport poverty (TP) simultaneously, and so at increased risk of exposure to DEV? Overall, there are some differences in the groups vulnerable to each problem, our results reveal that there is a substantial degree of overlap – and it is at these overlaps where there is a heightened risk of DEV
Little research has focused on the intersection between do mestic energy poverty (EP) and transport poverty (TP)
Summary
Energy poverty and transport poverty have been identified as serious forms of deprivation warranting further and urgent attention from in side and beyond academia, with each having severe and detrimental impacts upon wellbeing, health and life chances [1,2]. Energy Research & Social Science xxx (xxxx) xxx poverty to refer to, and result from, situations in which people are un able to access sufficient and reliable energy services1 [3]. Research into both issues is well-established (see [15] for energy poverty in particular), they have typically been analysed as separate problems with distinct patterns of vulnerability. Some have proposed that transport poverty should be considered a particular form or dimension of energy poverty [19] In this vein, Robinson and Mattioli [20] use the term “transport energy poverty” to refer to a lack of accessible and affordable transport services, and “domestic energy poverty” to refer to inadequate energy services in the home (see [18]). We use the terms “transport poverty” and “energy poverty”, respectively, as these are most commonly used in the literature; we agree that the overlaps between transport and domestic energy poverty issues warrant further attention
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
