Georgiadou, M C; Greenwood, D; Schiano-Phan, R and Russo, F (2024) Assessing retrofit policies for fuel-poor homes in London. Buildings & Cities, 5(1), pp. 133-149. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Designing public retrofit programmes for tackling fuel poverty is a complex, global challenge affecting vulnerable households. This paper investigates how health and socio-economic inequalities shape the challenge of fuel poverty, with a focus on multilevel governance and retrofit programmes in London since 2021. The interrelationships between national metrics and local policy are analysed, as well as domestic retrofit programmes across various scales. Limitations are identified in how national and local policies incorporate inequalities, especially in the context of rising energy costs and climate change impacts. In London, there are related shortfalls in the operationalisation of the London Building Stock Model (LBSM). While this tool maps the energy performance certificates in homes, this requires cross-referencing with additional socio-economic databases to identify fuel-poor households, which are not publicly available. Further accountability issues exist due to the lack of binding targets from municipal government, and private-sector retrofits are mainly the responsibility of housing associations, which are not legally obliged to report on energy retrofits and fuel poverty. There is a clear need for inclusive metrics and retrofit programmes that incorporate wider inequality indicators to accurately identify households in fuel poverty. POLICY RELEVANCE This study examines the complex and dynamic interrelationships between net zero and climate change targets, rising energy prices, and the inequalities of households in fuel poverty. First, public retrofit funding programmes are designed for low-energy-performance properties by prioritising those with low EPC ratings, leading to a relative neglect of the wider health impacts and socio-economic disadvantages faced by more vulnerable households. Second, there is a need for more inclusive national metrics (e.g. Low Income Low Energy Efficiency) and assessment tools. These would map a broader range of local inequalities facing vulnerable households and evaluate the effectiveness of policies. Third, local authorities should set binding targets and lead place-based interventions at the city scale, investing in energy efficiency, local clean energy and vocational education and training, thus creating green jobs and specialised qualifications for domestic retrofits.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | energy efficiency; fuel poverty; health inequalities; London; retrofits; socio-economic inequalities; vulnerability |
| Index terms: | energy performance certificate, vulnerability, effectiveness, household, London, income, inequality, funding, net zero, climate change, housing association, vocational education and training, low energy, qualification, governance, maps, energy cost, municipal government, prioritizing, fuel poverty, energy efficiency, clean energy, efficiency, programme, accountability, database, local authority, building stock |
| Subjects: | educational resources, performance management, spatial and geospatial analysis, Geography, project controls, data management, demography, sociology, decision analysis, asset management, administrative law, cost management, student development, liability law, environmental hazards, business, climate science, institutional client, sustainability and energy, energy systems, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Time Control, Education, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Ethics, Quality Management, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Governance, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here