This document discusses energy poverty related to transportation costs. It proposes using a normative approach to define transportation energy needs and measure mobility energy burden. A case study of Strasbourg, France found that working households were more prone to car dependence while non-working households were less affected when using a normative method with dynamic thresholds compared to a real costs method with fixed thresholds. Further validation on other case studies is needed to better distinguish vulnerable households and consider soft transportation modes and intermodality.

1. ECR Symposium20th September 2016 |
The two faces of energy poverty:
Can we talk about energy need in
transport sector?
Elise NIMAL
Rémi JABOEUF
Marie SEVENET

2. ECR Symposium20th September 2016 |
Previous work in EIFER
Heating budgets & Hills’ indicator
 Use of the LIHC indicator for both housing-related energy
expenses and transportation-related energy expense
˃ Dynamic threshold
˃ Measure the depth of the issue
˃ At both local and national levels
 Need for further researches regarding the integration of
transportation costs:
˃ Relies on real consumption
˃ Not coherent with calculations on housing expenses
˃ Impossible to include restrictive behaviours or the possibility
to shift modal habits
˃ Impossible to assess car dependence
2

3. ECR Symposium20th September 2016 |
3
Normative needs for transport
Specificities of mobility
An attempt of definition
Measuring the mobility energy burden: a
French case study
Application on Strasbourg urban area
Table of Content

4. ECR Symposium20th September 2016 |
Normative needs for transport
4

5. ECR Symposium20th September 2016 |
Normative needs for transport
The specificities of mobility
 Reference budgets (JRF and ONPES)
 Difficult to fix thresholds and define standards
˃ Car dependence depends on both spatial characteristics and
accessibility
˃ The importance of time budget: a relative acceptability? i.e. “affordable
mobility”?
 Necessity to combine spatial/territorial and social characteristics
 Constrained mobility budget shall include both financial and temporal
elements
5

6. ECR Symposium20th September 2016 |
6
Normative needs for transport
An attempt of definition
Normative approach
 Variable costs
 Households distribution according activity and family arrangement
 Spatial distribution (size, polarisation)
Car dependence
˃ Relative car budget =
(cost of average daily trips if held by car)
- (cost of average daily trips if made by public means)
Is inferior to
˃ Relative Alternative transport time budget =
[(Average daily duration of public transport use)
- (Average daily drive duration)] x income

7. ECR Symposium20th September 2016 |
Measuring the mobility energy burden: a
French case study
7

8. ECR Symposium20th September 2016 |
Measuring the mobility energy
burden: a French case study
Application on Strasbourg urban area
Normative costs
and dynamic
threshold
Real costs and
fixed threshold
indicator
6%9%
8
Main distinctions
 Working households are more prone to be car dependent
 Non-working households are less affected with the normative method
 Territories without efficient public transportation systems suffer more from
mobility fuel poverty with the normative method

9. ECR Symposium20th September 2016 |
Further steps….
 Validation on other case studies
 Distinguishing vulnerable and fuel poor households
 ONPES and JRF comparison
˃ Highlighting cultural context
 Considering the integration of soft transportation modes and
intermodality
9

10. ECR Symposium20th September 2016 |
Thank you…
Contact
Elise Nimal
nimal@eifer.org
+49 (0)721 - 6105 1709
EIFER
Emmy-Noether-Straße 11
76131 Karlsruhe
Germany
www.eifer.org
Copyright © EIFER 2016
10