Beyond the Energy Poor/Non Energy Poor Divide: Energy Vulnerability and Mindsets on Energy Generation Modes in Hungary
24 November
The article of Adrienne Csizmady, Zoltán Ferencz, Lea Kőszeghy and Gergely Tóth makes a contributionto the literature on energy poverty in Hungary. It adds a third category ('transitional group') to the traditional theoretical division ('energy poor' and 'non energy poor' households) and compares the socio-economic characteristics and energy use attitudes of the ...
The article of Adrienne Csizmady, Zoltán Ferencz, Lea Kőszeghy and Gergely Tóth makes a contribution to the literature on energy poverty in Hungary. It adds a third category ('transitional group') to the traditional theoretical division ('energy poor' and 'non energy poor' households) and compares the socio-economic characteristics and energy use attitudes of the three identified groups. With the new conceptual framework created, the study allows for a more detailed analysis of different energy poverty groups.
The full study is available HERE.
The data collection process took place in 2017 and 2018; the researchers first conducted a focus group discussion and then created and distributed an energy poverty survey. The survey was used to collect data from a representative sample of 1000 people. In addition to the traditional groups of ‘energy poor’ and ‘non energy poor’ households, the paper identifies a third group, the so-called ‘transitional group’, which can be described with mixed characteristics and an increased risk of falling into energy poverty. The socio-economic characteristics of the three categories are summarised in the table below.
| Energy poor | Transitional group | Non energy poor |
Location | Northern Hungary | Great Plain | Budapest and its surroundings |
Place of living | Villages | Small towns | Big cities and suburban areas |
Type of housing | Small family house | Multi-storey residential building | Large family house, housing estate |
Rooms | 1-2 | 2-3 | >3 |
Floor area | <50 m2 | 60-80 m2 | >100 m2 |
Education | Low or undereducated | Middle | High |
Income | Low | Middle | High |
Typical family size | >4 members | 2 members | 2 members |
Technical problems with dwelling | Multiple problems | Some problems | No problems |
Openness to innovative environmental solutions | None | Yes | Yes |
Economic background to use innovations | None | None | Eligible |
Typical heating | Solid fuel | Gas | Gas or central |
Typical temperature of heated space | <19 | 20-22 | 23-24 |
Payment difficulties | Frequent | Occasional | Never |
| Source: (Csizmady et al. 2021, p. 10) | |||
The article also assesses the energy use attitudes towards heating of the three distinct groups. While for energy poor households, micro-level economic considerations (e.g. low investment costs, availability of public subsidies) are the most important factors, non energy poor households tend to think at a macro level and to put environmental considerations above all others. The transitional group has a mixed attitude, valuing both low consumption and a low ecological footprint relatively highly.
The main added value of this study to the literature is the establishment of a comprehensive conceptual framework and methodology, taking into account both qualitative and quantitative considerations. This approach could provide a basis for a number of further research. In addition to the many other energy poverty indicators used in Hungary, which are mainly expenditure-based, it proposes a new, more complex indicator that can be used to better map the perceptions and motivations of the different energy poverty groups.
Vissza a hírek oldalra