This presentation is based on a project aimed at exploring the theme of food and austerity through the lens of one of the most high profile, yet under-evidenced, phenomena in the current era of austerity: the decision to ‘heat or eat’. There is increased policy discussion about households having to make stark choices between ‘heating and eating’ and the driver of this phenomena is perceived to be the relative flexibility of food and fuel costs compared to other household expenses. However, the evidence base that exists is largely made up of single household case studies and small scale surveys conducted by NGOs, and is rarely the central focus of the research in which it appears. Moreover, existing evidence pays little or no attention to spatial disparities within such debates, largely ignoring the very different, and often more challenging circumstances faced by the rural poor, including disparate and more stretched public services, a limited and energy inefficient housing stock, and restricted access to cheaper forms of fuel such as mains gas. With support from National Energy Action and the Trussell Trust foodbank Network this project will scrutinise the ‘heat or eat’ dilemma in a rural context, investigating the legitimacy and complexity of such claims, and critically assessing existing and potential policy responses.

1. Heat or Eat: food and austerity in
Rural England
Dr. Hannah Lambie-Mumford
(University of Sheffield)
Dr. Carolyn Snell (University of York)

2. Introducing the project
• Pilot project: £25,000, 6 months
• Communities and Culture Network+ funded
project
• Given the popularity of the phrase ‘heat or
eat’ this project seeks to consider:
– the existing evidence base
– assess whether this reflects lived experiences
– and how and why such decisions are made
• Very early days/tentative findings..

3. Heat…aka fuel poverty
• Explicit policy concern since the 1990s
• In 2012, the number of households in fuel
poverty in England was estimated at around 2.28
million, representing approximately 10.4 per cent
of all English households (DECC 2014)
• Support for the fuel poor includes:
– Warm Home Discount
– Cold Weather Payments
– Winter Fuel Payments
• Energy Companies Obligation especially Carbon
Saving Communities Obligation

4. Eat…aka food poverty/food insecurity
• Combination of rising cost of living and falling
incomes has made food 20% less affordable for
those in the lowest income decile than in 2003
• Rapid rise in charitable food provision – 1 million
food parcels distributed by Trussell Trust in 2013-
14 representing a 610% increase since 2011-2012
• Food prices typically left to markets, but All Party
Parliamentary Inquiry of 2014 signified rising
policy concern

6. Assumed drivers of ‘heat or eat’
• Increasing food and fuel prices and decreasing
incomes
• Flexibility of food and fuel costs compared to
other outgoings
• However VERY limited evidence base, and
claims by NGOs/politicians are usually based
on single case studies/small scale surveys

7. Research aims
• To critically investigate the existing evidence
base and identify key research gaps
• To determine whether the characterisation of
a ‘heat or eat dilemma’ reflects lived
experience
• To understand factors that influence
household spending decisions around food
and fuel
• To consider the role for policy

8. Methodology
• Evidence review
• Secondary analysis of the Family Resources
Survey
– Investigate consensual measures of food/fuel poverty
• GIS mapping
– As a sample frame for the qualitative work & to
investigate the distribution of fuel poverty policy
priority areas and food banks
• Qualitative interviews with stakeholders and
households

9. Evidence review
• Very limited rigorous empirical research
– 6 academic studies have explicitly considered the ‘heat or eat’
tradeoff, 4 in the US/Canada, 2 in the UK.
– Studies are typically quantitative with a variety of approaches
including:
• Relationships between food & fuel expenditure and cold weather
• Biggest study considers the relationship between cold weather, food
expenditure and nutritional outcomes (e.g. dietary quality, vitamin
deficiencies etc.)
• Self reported questions around food intake, cold weather and energy
prices
• Typical focus on households with low incomes, elderly and children
– One qualitative study that considers the importance of warmth
to older people

10. Evidence review: gaps
• Terminology and methodology
– No consistency on what the term ‘heat or eat’ refers to
– very little of the existing research is actually identifying a
trade off, but rather fluctuations in spending
– A reduction in food expenditure does not necessarily
translate into reduced calorific intake
– Fuel expenditure remaining constant does not imply a
household is cold (or warm enough)
• The UK context
– Energy billing periods will make a very big difference to
household expenditure patterns (and whether a
household can ‘smooth’ over shocks)

11. Evidence review: gaps
• Existing research tends to ignore subjective factors
– about spending decisions, where food and fuel choices sit
amongst other outgoings, why and how these choices are
made
• Existing research does not sufficiently consider the
impact of different fuel payment methods:
– PPM customers most likely to be on low incomes & least
likely to be able to ‘smooth over’ high bills – thus facing
short term budgeting decisions
– Households paying on a quarterly basis may be exposed to
greater financial ‘shocks’, but these may be less often

12. Secondary analysis of consensual measures within
the Family Resources Survey (2012-2013)
Households that are (or have recently been)
behind with their gas bill are 2.2 times more
unlikely to say that they can afford a
meat/fish/vegetarian equivalent meal every
second day
Households that cannot afford to keep their
home adequately warm are 2.8 times are more
likely to say that they cannot afford a
meat/fish/vegetarian equivalent meal every
second day

13. Methodology: mapping
• Mapping of ECO 1.2/2 deprived rural, rural &
deprived areas by Trussell Trust foodbanks
• Mapping of LSOA fuel poverty rates by foodbanks
attempted but poor quality results
• Food banks in deprived rural LSOAs (ECO 1.2/2)
used as a sample frame for case study selection:
– Often off gas network (increased risk of FP), high
levels of poverty
– Technically households should be eligible for fuel
poverty support so good to test for this

16. Launceston
Bodmin
Liskeard
Bude

17. Regional stakeholder interviews
• Interviews with stakeholders working in relevant
organisations (CAB, NEA, Foodbank Managers, Housing
association etc.)
– Whether they think there is a ‘heat or eat’ issue
– Whether policy responses are sufficient
– What more could be done
• Interviews with individuals attending the selected food
banks
– Questions around household finances & budgeting,
spending priority exercise, specific questions about how
food and fuel spending choices are made, coping
strategies, access to policy support

18. Emerging themes…
• Within policy – recognition that a food voucher may need to be supported with an
energy top up to make it viable
• Householders constantly referred to food and fuel without being prompted
• Impact of the following exposes or insulates:
– housing arrangements
– benefit sanctions & delays in support
– support networks - taking children to friends and relatives’ houses to get a hot meal or bath
• Limited discussion of fuel poverty support despite being in an ECO priority area
• Impact of billing periods
– PPMs V big bills
• Rationing behaviours
– Using less fuel
– Self disconnection at end of benefit periods
– Eating differently
– Eating cold food
– Frequent reliance on food bank despite official referral system
• Stealing food
• Not paying other bills

19. Initial findings: impact of big bills
‘Yes, we get given our bill and this one was £690 and then it is broken
down over the next three months for what you pay until it is paid off.
At the end of the three months whatever is outstanding we will pay a
lump sum, which isn’t very good because sometimes it can be £200.
That is when we need help and we end up at the food bank’ (Hannah,
household with children)
‘I do try and keep my bills up to date so I am not chasing them all the
time. Some weeks it is really difficult. When I first moved in there it
was six months before I got a gas bill and it was £90-odd and that was
my giro gone’ (Jim, single household)

20. Initial findings: impact of PPMs – not
topping up in order to buy food
‘Bill: Yes. My house has got no electric at the
moment. Neither of us have any money at the
moment.
Interviewer: So you just let it run out?
Bill: Yes, it’s all we can do’ (Bill, 18, lives with
parent)

21. Heat or eat?
‘I would probably say eat because with the heating
there are blankets and stuff like that which could be
used to keep the kids warm and keep us warm. I
would make sure we ate’ (Hannah, household with
children)
‘I would rather have food than heat. As long as you
have got food inside you then you are heating
yourself because you have got fuel’ (Roger, single
household)

22. Next steps
• Full analysis of household data
• Full analysis of stakeholder data
• Policy roundtable event to discuss findings

23. Dr. Hannah Lambie-Mumford (University of Sheffield)
h.lambie-mumford@sheffield.ac.uk
Dr. Carolyn Snell (University of York)
Carolyn.snell@york.ac.uk
Project website:
http://www.communitiesandculture.org/projects/heat-
or-eat-food-and-austerity-in-rural-england/
Contacts