Scoping review of energy poverty research within the discipline of social policy: limited contribution

Over the past four decades, just twenty eight articles have been published in social policy journals that mention energy poverty (or cognate terms) at least once across the article. When narrowed to mentions in the title, abstract, and keywords the figure is just six articles, as summarised in Figure 2 below, demonstrating the marginal position of energy poverty within the discipline. Of these twenty eight articles, twenty two focus on one or more of the United Kingdom’s four nations, with a further three articles presenting single country studies of Ireland, Switzerland, and Zimbabwe, two comparative international studies, and one general piece with no geographical anchoring.

Figure 2. Frequency of articles in key social policy journals mentioning energy poverty and cognate terms between 1981-2022

The first mention came from Morrissey and Ditch (Reference Morrissey and Ditch1981), detailing amendments to the controversial 1971 Payments for Debt Act in Northern Ireland, first introduced in response to rent and rate strikes, and later expanded in 1978 to include gas and electricity due to concerns over growing debts and the difficulty for fuel boards to disconnect households as a result of heightened security during the Troubles. Therein followed a long break in publications until 1996 with a passing reference to energy poverty to housing and environment policy in the UK. It was not until 2004 that the first in-depth examination of energy poverty appeared in a social policy journal, with Wright (Reference Wright2004) outlining how government policies were failing older people, and issues of under-heating, narrow eligibility criteria for boiler schemes, and high energy bills. Energy poverty then continues to receive passing, or no mention until Gough (Reference Gough2013) examines the potential for domestic energy policies directed towards fuel poverty to moderate the distributional impact of carbon mitigation policies, via interventions to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy costs, and improve household income. In the same year, De Haro and Koslowski (Reference De Haro and Koslowski2013) carried out a community-based study of fuel poverty in high rise apartments in Edinburgh, Scotland, finding that these buildings were of very poor quality and hard to heat, compounded by exposure to severe weather conditions, resulting in significant health impacts. Later, Snell et al. (Reference Snell, Bevan and Thomson2015) presented the first in-depth study of fuel poverty among disabled people in England, highlighting the highly varied needs and eligibility for fuel poverty and welfare support within this group, despite disabled people typically being treated as a homogeneous grouping. Subsequently, Middlemiss (Reference Middlemiss2017) provided a critical take on the UK government’s transformation of the politics surrounding fuel poverty policy 2010-2015, including the change from an absolute definition of fuel poverty to a relative measure, signalling a shift in considering fuel poverty as a policy issue that should and could be eradicated, to a condition that can at best be alleviated. In Snell et al. (Reference Snell, Lambie-Mumford and Thomson2018), the concept of ‘heat or eat’ was explored, contributing knowledge around the importance of energy billing periods, household composition, and social networks in shaping household experience.

Until Forster et al. (Reference Forster, Hodgson and Bailey2019), there had been minimal focus on ethnicity and fuel poverty within the discipline, which Forster and colleagues contributed to addressing with an evaluation of energy advice for Traveller Communities. Important contributions are also made by Chipango (Reference Chipango2020), who provided the first non-British study, examining the pervasive social scarcity of electricity in Zimbabwe via the lens of social justice. The final study to engage meaningfully with energy poverty came from Bertho et al. (Reference Bertho, Sahakian and Naef2021), who continued the internationalisation of the topic, with a study of energy efficiency and ‘eco-social interventions’ in Switzerland, in which they reveal the invisibility of fuel poverty as a policy concern. A commonality across all papers is a concern for distributional impacts, eligibility for government support, and revealing social injustices. However, except for a handful of papers, the intersection of energy poverty with climate change does not feature heavily.

Integrative review of energy poverty and climate change: tensions and cohesion building

The prevalence of social pillars and vulnerable groups mentioned in the reviewed articles is summarised in Table 2 and Table 3 by country category. We used World Bank country classification by income level of low, middle, and high income countries, calculated based on gross national income per capita (Hamadeh et al., Reference Hamadeh, Van Rompaey, Metreau and Eapen2022). We listed as many social pillars and vulnerable groups as identified in each article, even if one article mentioned multiple categories. We can observe that housing and health are the most referenced social pillars, which are of significant concern to high income countries but not mentioned by articles concerning low income countries. Middle income country studies most frequently mention rural households as a spatially disadvantaged group, whereas high income countries do not mention them. Studies on high income countries deem social class, energy poverty, and age as the most relevant vulnerability categories, which is consistent with what these countries consider as relevant social pillars (housing and health) at the energy poverty and climate change nexus.

Table 2. Mention of key social pillars in the analysed manuscripts shown by income level of referenced countries

Table 3. Mention of vulnerable groups in the analysed manuscripts shown by income level of referenced countries

The consequences of climate change on energy poverty are discussed in various countries, particularly in low and middle income countries (LMICs), as well as in some high income countries with warmer climates. One of the key issues identified is higher temperatures during summer, which increase the demand for cooling (Castaño-Rosa et al., Reference Castaño-Rosa, Barrella, Sánchez-Guevara, Barbosa, Kyprianou, Paschalidou, Thomaidis, Dokupilova, Gouveia, Kádár, Hamed and Palma2021; Thomson et al., Reference Thomson, Simcock, Bouzarovski and Petrova2019) and further exacerbate climate change. Summer energy poverty poses a clear threat to both electricity grid capacity and human health. Climate vulnerability affects vulnerable groups the most (Falchetta and Mistry, Reference Falchetta and Mistry2021; Okoko et al., Reference Okoko, Reinhard, von Dach, Zah, Kiteme, Owuor and Ehrensperger2017). Moreover, users of traditional energy, such as fuelwood, are often stigmatised for using solid fuels exacerbating climate change (Pérez et al., Reference Pérez, Islas-Samperio, Grande-Acosta and Manzini2022). However, Munro et al. (Reference Munro, van der Horst and Healy2017) contend that the climate change impacts of fuelwood consumption have been exaggerated; and, in the case of Sierra Leone, they have enabled the uncritical rollout of imported liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) across the country, leaving rural communities with reduced sources of income.

We have observed that energy poor and social class are among the most common vulnerability categories mentioned. This emphasises the close relationship between energy poverty and income, with climate change expected to significantly reduce households’ ability to deal with increased energy prices. Energy prices can increase as a result of policies aimed at mitigating climate change, such as carbon taxes, or as a result of integrating renewable energy into the energy mix (Henry et al., Reference Henry, Baker, Shaw, Kondash, Leiva, Castellanos, Wade, Lord, Van Houtven and Redmon2021; Ürge-Vorsatz and Tirado Herrero, Reference Ürge-Vorsatz and Tirado Herrero2012). In some LMICs, dealing with the climate emergency is seen as an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. This is meant by both mitigating climate change and improving energy access through renewable energy projects which will provide low-carbon electrification (Nadimi and Tokimatsu, Reference Nadimi and Tokimatsu2018). This is especially relevant for rural populations lacking adequate access to modern energy services (Gebreslassie and Khellaf, Reference Gebreslassie and Khellaf2021; Setyowati, Reference Setyowati2020). To ensure inclusive participation, the agency of women is discussed. For example, some LMICs encourage the entrepreneurship of women to enable them to access the tools and skills necessary to participate in the energy transition (Antwi, Reference Antwi2022; Bhallamudi and Lingam, Reference Bhallamudi and Lingam2019).

A group of papers mention the need for cohesion between efforts to address climate change and energy poverty. This is because measures aimed at reducing energy poverty might increase energy use and carbon footprints (Chakravarty and Tavoni, Reference Chakravarty and Tavoni2013; Okushima, Reference Okushima2021). On the other hand, without a cohesive approach, energy poor households will likely be left out of opportunities to use renewables and energy efficient appliances (Powells, Reference Powells2009; Suppa et al., Reference Suppa, Steiner and Streckeisen2019). Furthermore, some scholars advocate for ‘sharing energy burdens and benefits’ when deciding policy proposals (Sovacool et al., Reference Sovacool, Heffron, McCauley and Goldthau2016) which aligns with energy justice scholarship claims (Sovacool and Dworkin, Reference Sovacool and Dworkin2015). Nevertheless, when energy access and climate concerns clash regarding whether to build a coal power plant or not, research suggests that enabling energy access is a human right, but the source of energy matters as well (Bedi, Reference Bedi2018). An important aspect is to assess energy needs based on future climate predictions, especially for locations with harsher climates (Sánchez-Guevara Sánchez et al., Reference Sánchez-Guevara Sánchez, Neila González and Hernández2018).

Most papers discuss the use of various technical measures to bridge the gap between reducing energy poverty and mitigating the impacts of climate change. In the LMIC context especially, renewable energy electrification has been identified as a clear solution (Bhide and Monroy, Reference Bhide and Monroy2011). Many of the studied countries in this context, especially in rural areas, lack electricity access. Addressing the fundamental issue of energy poverty through climate-friendly energy access is suggested for these countries. By comparison, in high income economies, the proposed measures focus on improving the energy efficiency of housing. However, this policy can harm those in energy poverty where there are increases in rental prices resulting from energy efficiency improvements. The energy vulnerable cannot afford this increased rent and have to move, a phenomenon referred to as ‘renoviction’ (Grossmann, Reference Grossmann2019). Additionally, vulnerable groups may not have the means to undertake energy efficiency interventions. Some common solutions discussed include solar water heating and low-cost cooling appliances, especially relevant in the context of material deprivation and increasing summer temperatures (Nicholls and Strengers, Reference Nicholls and Strengers2018; Worthmann et al., Reference Worthmann, Dintchev and Worthmann2017).

A diverse set of social measures has been proposed to tackle the impacts of climate policies on the energy poor in the short and mid-term periods. The most common include social tariffs, energy subsidies, and direct financial support (Mayne et al., Reference Mayne, Fawcett and Hyams2017; Okushima, Reference Okushima2021). In some cases, there is an emphasis on overall consumer protection and even a disconnection ban (Nagaj, Reference Nagaj2022). There is debate in a few cases about combining various social and technical measures, but there are also concerns that techno-economic measures may conflict with welfare policies (Webb et al., Reference Webb, Hawkey, McCrone and Tingey2016).

A dozen papers discuss the need to rethink the current governance system, including the participation of a wide range of actors, such as vulnerable groups (Hitchings and Day, Reference Hitchings and Day2011; Richardson et al., Reference Richardson, Kagawa and Nichols2008). For example, Bangladeshi activists have demanded the protection of energy rights and climate policies in a project with India that increases domestic emissions (Bedi, Reference Bedi2018). To alleviate energy poverty and mitigate climate change, community groups, energy initiatives, and collaboration, in general, should be prioritised. Many arguments in this direction stress the importance of understanding the needs of vulnerable groups, such as low-income households dependent on fuelwood. An interim solution could be evaluating fuelwood quality and introducing efficient stoves (Pérez et al., Reference Pérez, Islas-Samperio, Grande-Acosta and Manzini2022). The ‘human’ factor needs to be considered in housing or energy efficiency policies (Santangelo and Tondelli, Reference Santangelo and Tondelli2017). For example, a priority is to refurbish the dwellings where the elderly live as they are the most at risk of increasing summer temperatures. When conducting energy efficiency assessments, occupant energy usage behaviour should be considered. Moreover, cross-governmental bodies can account for the cross-sectoral impacts of the tension between climate and social policies (Macmillan et al., Reference Macmillan, Davies, Shrubsole, Luxford, May, Chiu, Trutnevyte, Bobrova and Chalabi2016).