This document discusses fuel poverty indicators in England and analyzes the spatial distribution of households considered fuel poor under different indicators. It finds that while the new Low Income High Costs (LIHC) indicator reduced the total number of fuel poor households, fuel poverty remains an increasingly urban issue. A regression analysis shows the LIHC indicator more closely associates increases in fuel poverty with non-gas heating and pensioners, while the old 10% indicator associates it more with unemployment and families with young children. The document argues the LIHC fails to represent the full range of vulnerabilities and that a vulnerability-based indicator may be needed.

1. Multiple vulnerabilities?
Interrogating the spatial distribution of fuel
poverty indicators in England
Cait Robinson
EPSRC Centre for DoctoralTraining in Power Networks
Collaboratory for Urban Resilience and Energy (CURE)

2. Getting the measure of fuel poverty
Fuel poverty as driven by low income, energy efficiency, energy price
LIHC indicator10% indicator
Vulnerability as the likelihood of a household falling into fuel poverty
(Middlemiss and Gillard 2015)
Energy related practices,needs,flexibility
To what extent does the new LIHC indicator represent more complex
understandings of vulnerability to fuel poverty?

3. Spatial distribution of DECC indicators
10% Indicator LIHC Indicator Change
ONS 2011, DECC 2014
Considerable reduction in fuel poverty
771,014 fewer households fuel poor
An increasingly urban phenomenon
8.1% decrease in rural LSOA, no change in urban LSOA
Lower Super Output Area (LSOA) Scale:400-1200 households

4. Multiple vulnerabilities methodology
Limiting disability or illness
Young children
All pensioner household
Private renter
Unemployment
Non-gas central heating
Lone pensioner household
10% fuel poverty indicator
Linear regression
Single estimate for the
whole of England.
Regression equations
explore relationship
between vulnerability
variables and fuel poverty
indicators
LIHC fuel poverty indicator
Census (ONS 2011)
(DECC 2015)
(See Fotheringhamet al. 2002 for more detail)

5. For a 1% increase in fuel poor households using DECC indicator..
National regression
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Estimate(%)
10%
Indicator
LIHC
Indicator
Non-gas and pensioners à Unemployment and families with young children
Reflect that the 10% indicator is closely aligned with changes in fuel price

6. Missing vulnerabilities
Increasingly urban phenomenon
Reflected in vulnerability variables represented
Non-gas and the elderly à unemployment and young children
Use of narrow triad of drivers means that LIHC struggles to represent
range of vulnerabilities e.g.lone parent households
Disconnect between indicators and those most in need
(Snell et al. 2015,Walker et al.2014)
Issue of distributional and recognition injustice (Walker and Day 2012)
Need for an indicator framed using vulnerability?

7. caitlin.robinson@manchester.ac.uk
@caithrobin