New Dimensions of Vulnerability to Energy and Transport Poverty

Abstract

Dr. Mari Martiskainen is a senior research fellow at Sussex Energy Group (SEG), Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), based at the University of Sussex. Martiskainen is also the theme lead for equity and justice at the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CREDS), based at University of Oxford. She is an expert in energy policy and sustainability transitions research, focusing on justice aspects of low-carbon transitions. Martiskainen has published widely in academic journals and regularly advises and works with different stakeholders and partners, including government, business, and not-for-profit organizations.Professor Benjamin Sovacool is a professor of energy policy, at University of Sussex and director of SEG. He is a distinguished expert in energy and climate policy research, with a particular focus on energy justice and energy poverty. Sovacool has managed over $20 million in research grants. He is the founding editor-in-chief of the journal Energy Research & Social Science, and a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s forthcoming Sixth Assessment Report.Dr. Max Lacey-Barnacle is a research fellow at the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex. His EPSRC-funded PhD focused on the energy justice implications of energy decentralization. He has published several articles stemming from his PhD, from a British Academy-funded project with Anglia Ruskin University’s Global Sustainability Institute and from a collaboration with RIPPLES, an early career research network focusing on local low-carbon activity. He has also previously worked in policy with the Energy Saving Trust. He is now working on the FAIR project (2020-2022), funded by CREDS.Dr. Debbie Hopkins is an associate professor in geography at University of Oxford. Her research uses innovative methodologies to investigate low-carbon mobility transitions across passenger and freight transport. She is the Editor of the AAG Review of Books and sits on the editorial board of the Journal of Transport Geography and Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Hopkins is an expert in energy demand reduction, low carbon transitions, and sustainable mobilities.Dr. Kirsten Jenkins is a lecturer at University of Edinburgh. Jenkins is a leading early career scholar in energy justice research. She carries expertise in energy policy, energy governance, energy justice, and energy transitions research. Jenkins is an associate fellow of the Durham Energy Institute, managing editor of the journal Energy Research & Social Science, and a member of the COP26 Universities Network Just Transitions Working Group, among other roles. She has published widely in the area of energy social science.Dr. Neil Simcock is a lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University. Simcock specializes in issues of environmental and energy justice, fuel poverty and vulnerability, and urban inequality. He has published widely on these issues via research projects funded by the EU, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, RGS-IBG, and the British Academy. He has served as chair of the RGS-IBG Energy Geographies Research Group and is a review editor for Frontiers in Sustainable Cities.Dr. Giulio Mattioli is a research fellow at the Department of Transport Planning, TU Dortmund University, and visiting research fellow at the School of Earth & Environment, University of Leeds. He has published widely on topics including carbon lock-in in the transport sector, car dependence, and transport poverty via projects funded by British and German research councils. With the research project (t)ERES (2014-2016), he has pioneered efforts to explore transport poverty’s connections with domestic energy poverty. He is on the editorial board of the journals Frontiers in Sustainable Cities and Active Travel.Professor Stefan Bouzarovski is a professor of human geography at the University of Manchester, where he directs the People and Energy program within the Manchester Urban Institute. He chairs the ENGAGER network of energy poverty experts, practitioners, and policy advocates, supported by European Co-Operation in Science and Technology. As an internationally leading expert in energy poverty and sustainability policy, he has provided expert advice to the European Parliament, European Commission, United Nations, World Bank, and International Energy Agency. In the 2019 EU Protects campaign, he was named an “ordinary hero” for his efforts to combat poverty and inequality across Europe. Dr. Mari Martiskainen is a senior research fellow at Sussex Energy Group (SEG), Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), based at the University of Sussex. Martiskainen is also the theme lead for equity and justice at the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CREDS), based at University of Oxford. She is an expert in energy policy and sustainability transitions research, focusing on justice aspects of low-carbon transitions. Martiskainen has published widely in academic journals and regularly advises and works with different stakeholders and partners, including government, business, and not-for-profit organizations. Professor Benjamin Sovacool is a professor of energy policy, at University of Sussex and director of SEG. He is a distinguished expert in energy and climate policy research, with a particular focus on energy justice and energy poverty. Sovacool has managed over $20 million in research grants. He is the founding editor-in-chief of the journal Energy Research & Social Science, and a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s forthcoming Sixth Assessment Report. Dr. Max Lacey-Barnacle is a research fellow at the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex. His EPSRC-funded PhD focused on the energy justice implications of energy decentralization. He has published several articles stemming from his PhD, from a British Academy-funded project with Anglia Ruskin University’s Global Sustainability Institute and from a collaboration with RIPPLES, an early career research network focusing on local low-carbon activity. He has also previously worked in policy with the Energy Saving Trust. He is now working on the FAIR project (2020-2022), funded by CREDS. Dr. Debbie Hopkins is an associate professor in geography at University of Oxford. Her research uses innovative methodologies to investigate low-carbon mobility transitions across passenger and freight transport. She is the Editor of the AAG Review of Books and sits on the editorial board of the Journal of Transport Geography and Journal of Sustainable Tourism. Hopkins is an expert in energy demand reduction, low carbon transitions, and sustainable mobilities. Dr. Kirsten Jenkins is a lecturer at University of Edinburgh. Jenkins is a leading early career scholar in energy justice research. She carries expertise in energy policy, energy governance, energy justice, and energy transitions research. Jenkins is an associate fellow of the Durham Energy Institute, managing editor of the journal Energy Research & Social Science, and a member of the COP26 Universities Network Just Transitions Working Group, among other roles. She has published widely in the area of energy social science. Dr. Neil Simcock is a lecturer at Liverpool John Moores University. Simcock specializes in issues of environmental and energy justice, fuel poverty and vulnerability, and urban inequality. He has published widely on these issues via research projects funded by the EU, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, RGS-IBG, and the British Academy. He has served as chair of the RGS-IBG Energy Geographies Research Group and is a review editor for Frontiers in Sustainable Cities. Dr. Giulio Mattioli is a research fellow at the Department of Transport Planning, TU Dortmund University, and visiting research fellow at the School of Earth & Environment, University of Leeds. He has published widely on topics including carbon lock-in in the transport sector, car dependence, and transport poverty via projects funded by British and German research councils. With the research project (t)ERES (2014-2016), he has pioneered efforts to explore transport poverty’s connections with domestic energy poverty. He is on the editorial board of the journals Frontiers in Sustainable Cities and Active Travel. Professor Stefan Bouzarovski is a professor of human geography at the University of Manchester, where he directs the People and Energy program within the Manchester Urban Institute. He chairs the ENGAGER network of energy poverty experts, practitioners, and policy advocates, supported by European Co-Operation in Science and Technology. As an internationally leading expert in energy poverty and sustainability policy, he has provided expert advice to the European Parliament, European Commission, United Nations, World Bank, and International Energy Agency. In the 2019 EU Protects campaign, he was named an “ordinary hero” for his efforts to combat poverty and inequality across Europe. There is an urgent need to decarbonize domestic energy and transport if we are to address climate change. This must, however, be done in a way that avoids worsening inequality: by reducing the most carbon intensive forms of consumption that cause the most emissions while also paying attention to the differentiated impacts for those who are vulnerable in society. Energy poverty generally refers to the inability to attain socially and materially necessitated levels of domestic energy services,1Bouzarovski S. Petrova S. A global perspective on domestic energy deprivation: Overcoming the energy poverty–fuel poverty binary.Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2015; 10: 31-40Crossref Scopus (387) Google Scholar such as heating, lighting, and hot water. Yet, while much research has focused on domestic energy poverty, significantly less attention has been paid to “transport poverty,” i.e., the inability to attain socially and materially necessitated levels of transport services.2Mattioli G. Lucas K. Marsden G. Transport poverty and fuel poverty in the UK: From analogy to comparison.Transp. Policy. 2017; 59: 93-105Crossref Scopus (45) Google Scholar Energy and transport services have direct impacts on people’s wellbeing, life chances, and the ability to fully participate in society. Living in energy poverty, for example, can mean not having access to or being able to afford the required technologies or appliances to keep a home at a comfortable temperature or cook hot meals. Someone experiencing transport poverty, meanwhile, may not be able to afford or access essential transport services, restricting their ability to travel for fundamental needs, such as employment, education, or healthcare.2Mattioli G. Lucas K. Marsden G. Transport poverty and fuel poverty in the UK: From analogy to comparison.Transp. Policy. 2017; 59: 93-105Crossref Scopus (45) Google Scholar Energy and transport poverty have largely been treated in isolation from one another in both research and policy, and they are often seen as having their own causes and consequences. Almost all energy poverty studies, for example, have focused on domestic energy services, even though the ability to use energy for transport is also vitally important to wellbeing and life chances. While not all aspects of transport poverty are directly related to energy consumption, many of them are, and yet they remain largely overlooked in energy poverty debates. This could be reflective of entrenched disciplinary boundaries, whereby energy research sees “energy demand” as something that occurs inside the home (or the office etc.), while the consumption of motor fuel, for example, falls under a separate “transport studies” tradition. Similarly, the governance of energy and transport has traditionally taken place through distinct policy areas, jurisdiction, budgets, and R&D projects, with limited capacity to design and implement overarching policies across different departments. This siloed approach contributes to different scholars and policy makers focusing on each of these domains, with the connections and similarities between them often missed. In this Commentary, we argue, first, that as we decarbonize societies, such transitions3Geels F.W. Sovacool B.K. Schwanen T. Sorrell S. The Socio-Technical Dynamics of Low-Carbon Transitions.Joule. 2017; 1: 463-479Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (187) Google Scholar can mean new forms of integration between domestic energy and transport systems—with implications for domestic energy and transport poverty. We also argue that to develop equitable low-carbon societies,4Patrizio P. Pratama Y.W. Dowell N.M. Socially Equitable Energy System Transitions.Joule. 2020; 4: 1700-1713Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (11) Google Scholar we need better recognition of those acutely vulnerable groups that are at greatest risk of experiencing both energy and transport poverty simultaneously and of the way the two issues are interlinked. It is therefore vital to break down traditional disciplinary silos to conduct research, and develop policy, that helps better understand and address these linkages. Taken together, the household and transport sectors consumed 56.6% of the final energy in the European Union (EU)-28 in 2018, and low-carbon transitions are likely to see increased integration and connection between energy and transport systems. There are several reasons why we should not neglect transport poverty in energy poverty debates—here, we focus specifically on affordability and access. As different indicators are used in different countries, there is no single statistic to show how many people live in energy and transport poverty. Europe has some level of comparative statistics available on expenditure and consumption. In 2018, on average EU households spent 13.2% of their income on transport and 24% on housing, water, electricity, gas, and other fuels.5EurostatHousehold consumption by purpose.https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Household_consumption_by_purpose#:∼:text=In%202018%2C%20EU%20total%20household,%2C%20gas%20and%20other%20fuelsDate: 2020Google Scholar The average share of household expenditure on the “operation of personal transport equipment” is higher than that on “electricity, gas, and other fuels” within the home in the majority of the EU-28 (6.5% versus 3.9%).5EurostatHousehold consumption by purpose.https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Household_consumption_by_purpose#:∼:text=In%202018%2C%20EU%20total%20household,%2C%20gas%20and%20other%20fuelsDate: 2020Google Scholar Based on official statistics, an estimated 44.5 million people lived in energy poverty in the EU in 2016.6Thomson H. Bouzarovski S. Addressing Energy Poverty in the European Union: State of Play and Action. EU Energy Poverty Observatory.https://www.energypoverty.eu/sites/default/files/downloads/publications/19-05/paneureport2018_updated2019.pdfDate: 2019Google Scholar Yet analogous statistics for transport poverty do not exist, illustrating how transport affordability issues are not widely recognized. While EU countries are increasingly adopting official indicators of energy poverty, currently France is the only EU member state with an official transport poverty indicator. Based on this official measure, an estimated 10.2% of households in France were in transport poverty in 2014 (versus 14.6% in energy poverty),7Données et études statistiquesPopulation exposée à la vulnérabilité énergétique Enjeu: raréfaction des ressources.http://www.donnees.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/lesessentiels/indicateurs/e36.htmlDate: 2015Google Scholar but alternative indicators suggest that transport poverty may well affect an even greater number of French households (21%) than energy poverty (18%).8Berry A. Measuring energy poverty: uncovering the multiple dimensions of energy poverty.HAL. 2018; https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01896838/documentGoogle Scholar In terms of affordability, public debates on energy and transport costs loom large in many countries, especially as carbon taxes, which may mean higher fuel prices that affect the cost of both energy and transport services, are introduced. This was demonstrated, for example, by the 2018–2019 Yellow Vests movement in France (see Figure 1), which originated as a protest against fuel price increases introduced as part of climate change policies. The disproportionate impact of rises in fuel prices on low-income households was central to many of the protesters’ concerns, although it quickly grew to include a wider range of social and political issues. Europe is not unique in facing such protests. The Myanmar government removed state subsidies on natural gas and diesel in 2007, leading to a doubling of domestic prices for bus fares and automobile fuel, which later spilled over into an increase in the price of basic commodities such as rice, beef, fish, milk, and eggs—hitting rural and poor households the hardest and leading to protests and a reactive state crackdown involving violent deaths. Plans to raise liquefied petroleum gas prices for mobility (used primarily by two-wheeled motorcycles and scooters) in India in 2000 were later abandoned after they provoked mass demonstrations; in the same year, farmers boycotted and blockaded petrol stations in the United Kingdom (UK) as the price of petrol had been raised to 80p/liter. Movements such as these in France, Myanmar, India, and the UK have a strong resonance with the energy community, as climate mitigation measures, such as carbon taxes, ultimately impact household costs for both energy and transport and typically affect some communities and groups disproportionately. This demonstrates a need for alternative forms of pricing design and related policy implementation that can ensure fairness.9Creutzig F. Javaid A. Koch N. Knopf B. Mattioli G. Edenhofer O. Adjust urban and rural road pricing for fair mobility.Nat. Clim. Change. 2020; : 591-594Crossref Scopus (15) Google Scholar A further overlap between energy and transport poverty is the increasing evidence of a ‘double vulnerability’ phenomenon, whereby some social groups are at greater risk of experiencing poverty of both energy and transport services simultaneously10Robinson C. Mattioli G. Double energy vulnerability: Spatial intersections of domestic and transport energy poverty in England.Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020; 70: 101699Crossref Scopus (13) Google Scholar,11Simcock N. Jenkins K.E.H. Mattioli G. Lacey-Barnacle M. Bouzarovski S. Martiskainen M. Vulnerability to fuel and transport poverty. CREDS Policy brief 010. Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions, Oxford2020Google Scholar (see Figure 2). Those on low incomes can be hit particularly hard as energy and transport costs take up a greater proportion of their incomes, and they often lack financial resources to invest in the most energy-efficient appliances or vehicles. Single-parent households and people belonging to ethnic minority groups can be at greater risk, partly as they tend to be over-represented in low-income groups and may be living in poorer-quality housing with fewer transport options. Households with children can also encounter relatively high energy and transport costs caused by, for example, increased space heating or space cooling demand, greater appliance use, and a higher frequency of journeys to transport children, which often induces car ownership. Those with chronic health conditions, disabilities, or mobility problems have a higher likelihood of experiencing both energy and transport poverty simultaneously due to lower incomes combined with increased energy and transport requirements. These can include, for example, a combined need for keeping higher room temperatures, running medical equipment, and making frequent trips to medical services. Finally, living in geographically isolated areas also increases the risk of both energy and transport poverty, primarily due to the need to travel longer distances to access key services and a reliance on expensive domestic energy and motor fuel. Crucially, for vulnerable households, the problem goes beyond simply experiencing energy and transport poverty simultaneously–there are also likely to be mutually reinforcing causal links between the two conditions. In terms of affordability, high transport costs reduce the disposable income people have available to pay for energy bills, and vice versa. For these households, expenditures on energy and transport are often traded off against each other in daily life, and they must either sacrifice spending on transport to pay for home energy services or ration their energy use to afford journeys that many take for granted.2Mattioli G. Lucas K. Marsden G. Transport poverty and fuel poverty in the UK: From analogy to comparison.Transp. Policy. 2017; 59: 93-105Crossref Scopus (45) Google Scholar,12Ortar N. Dealing with energy crises: Working and living arrangements in peri-urban France.Transp. Policy. 2018; 65: 72-78Crossref Scopus (15) Google Scholar In terms of access, a low-carbon transition could see some households having onsite energy generation and storage technologies coupled with electric vehicle charging points, thus enabling them to participate in new “flexibility” and “vehicle-to-grid” markets. Who can access and benefit from such systems, in addition to who can afford them, are key questions going forward. A continued neglect of transport poverty in these initiatives could have adverse policy effects, as could, for example, the development of energy-efficient housing in areas where there are limited low-carbon or public transport options, such as car-dependent periurban locations. In such cases, people may be living in newly built homes that consume less energy but still have to rely on energy-hungry and expensive private transport to obtain vital services due to poor access to public transport.2Mattioli G. Lucas K. Marsden G. Transport poverty and fuel poverty in the UK: From analogy to comparison.Transp. Policy. 2017; 59: 93-105Crossref Scopus (45) Google Scholar In some contexts where racial segregation is especially deep-rooted, such as South Africa and parts of the USA, transport and energy poverty can also reinforce the spatial marginalization of minority ethnic groups, who may be relegated to areas with both poor transport and housing infrastructure. There are substantial connections between energy and transport poverty, with some people and places at heightened risk of experiencing both problems simultaneously and in a mutually reinforcing manner. Without carefully designed policies to address these as one problem, we run the risk of one issue exacerbating the other. This highlights the need for a greater understanding of these links and risks, particularly if we are to achieve a just and equitable low-carbon transition and address high levels of consumption without causing new vulnerabilities. Previous research has shown that energy and transport poverty are not experienced equally but can affect particular communities and geographies more than others. We should pay attention to the spatial and temporal aspects of the role of transport within energy poverty debates and to the subsequent impacts on life chances across places and generations. Further understanding is therefore required, especially on how transport and energy costs are traded off against each other in the everyday lives of the most vulnerable in our societies. Future research should also examine the co-benefits of energy and transport poverty reduction and what that may mean, for example, for education and employment opportunities.