This document summarizes a study on the relationship between energy poverty and type of household heating in Macedonia. It reviews literature on definitions and indicators of energy poverty, focusing on how they relate to heating type. The study interviewed 11 households with different heating sources (district heating, fuelwood, electricity, or a mix) about aspects of energy poverty. Key findings include: 1) Lower indoor temperatures and reduced heating of rooms indicate energy poverty for households relying on electricity and fuelwood heating. 2) Some non-district heated households use fuelwood/electricity due to lack of access to alternatives like district heating. 3) Satisfaction with heating type varied, with mix-fuel households least satisfied due to comfort and building issues.

1. Author
Ana Stojilovska
PhD Candidate atthe Departmentof EnvironmentalSciencesandPolicy,CEU,Budapest
Contact: preveduvacka@yahoo.com
Energy poverty relatedto the type of heating – Macedoniaas a case study
Introduction
Energy poverty has received more attention recently in the academic and policy circles; however in
reality it still poses an increasing issue. There have been debates around different dimensions of energy
poverty such as definitions (Boardman 1991), scope (Thomson and Snell 2013), causes (Boardman
2010), characteristics (Roberts et al. 2015), indicators or aspects (Moore 2012; Scarpellini et al. 2015;
Thomson and Snell 2013), geographies (Bouzarovski 2014), solutions of energy poverty (Tirado Herrero
and Ürge-Vorsatz2012).
The literature on energy poverty points towards both consensus about some of the dimensions of
energy poverty such as low income and low energy efficiency as frequent causes of this problem
(Boardman 2010; Bouzarovski 2014); however very often there is different understanding of these
dimensions starting with the most essential one – what energy poverty is. In this line, despite the
overlapping of some of the commonalities about the dimensions to energy poverty, often the local
context is highlighted as a point of divergence (Bouzarovski 2014; Buzar 2007a). Having different
understanding of the various dimensions of energy poverty impacts the choice of solutions to this
problem.
More specifically, the literature talks about the significance of heating to energy poverty (Buzar 2007a;
Fahmy et al. 2011), and mentions how some of the heating types are related to energy poverty
(Boardman 2010; Bouzarovski et al. 2012; Bouzarovski et al. 2015; Brunner et al. 2012), but there is lack
of knowledge about how different types of heating are related to different aspects of energy poverty
such as affordability, access, comfort. This is important to be dealt with since it is crucial for the choice
of suitable solutions to energy poverty and; 2) contributes to further understanding of energy poverty as
a problem,bothintheoretical andinpractical aspect.
Macedonia, an EU candidate country and with communist past is in a state of a double-transition both
led by the EU: the electricity market is half-way liberalized, while the country is also to be set on the
path to low-carbon energy future. As both types of transition are related to energy vulnerability risks
(Boardman 2010; Bouzarovski and Tirado Herrero 2015; Buzar 2007a), and the country is in the
geographical realm of regions with high share of energy poverty – Central and Eastern Europe
(Bouzarovski 2014), the probability of wide spread energy poverty in high, also confirmed by initial field

2. evidence showing that approx. half of the households in the country are affected by energy poverty
(Buzar2007b).
Some scholars distinguish the types of energy/fuel poverty experienced by a developed or developing
country (Bouzarovski and Petrova 2015) differentiated mostly by the affordability or access issue,
respectively. However, Macedonia as well as the rest of the Western Balkan region as a whole might be
a specific hybrid case where affordability clashes with access and comfort issues. The crucial role in this
context has the heating system. To elaborate on this, approx. 91% of the households in Macedonia use
either electricity or fuelwood for heating (StateStatisticalOffice 2015), in which cases affordability might
not be the leading issue as households may reduce their comfort (heat fewer occupied rooms, heat for
shorter time period, have lowerindoor temperature than desired) in order to pay for their heating costs.
Some households are heated by electricity due to lack of access to other options (Buzar 2007b). Access
issues in regard to changing heat supplier exist also in the households using district heat. The district
heating might also be related to issues of affordability as already been discussed in the context of post-
communist district heating systems (Tirado Herrero and Ürge-Vorsatz 2012). In addition, the switch to
fuelwood has been recognized as indication of energy deprivation (Bouzarovski et al. 2012; Bouzarovski
et al. 2015).
Therefore,the researchquestionsarise:
What aspects of energy poverty (such as affordability, access, or comfort issues) do households with
different types of heating (for example fuelwood, electricity or district heating) in Macedonia
experience?
What are the relevant indicators of energy poverty for the different types of heating in Macedonia’s
households?
Literature review
In the literature indicators of energy poverty have beenextensively discussed. Some indicators measure
mostly the affordability such as the energy expenditures in relation to household's income (Scarpellini
et al. 2015), arrears on utility bills, ability to pay to keep the home adequately warm (Thomson and Snell
2013); others the availability for example expressed in the indoor temperature (Moore 2012), while
Boardman (2010) used the standards of the World Health Organization that affordable warmth means
21 degrees Celsius in the living room and 18 degrees Celsius elsewhere in the occupied rooms. Contrary
to that, for the district heating in post communist countries, indoor temperature is not a good indicator
of energy poverty since the temperatures are adequate (Tirado Herrero and Ürge-Vorsatz 2012).
Another important indicator is access to energy services as households may use certain fuels because of
lack of access to other fuels as explained for the Asian context that energy poor households use
traditional solid fuels such as biomass for cooking and heating due to lack of access to adequate energy
services (Spagnoletti and O’Callaghan 2013), and similarly having limited choice of energy sources/ lack
of access to certain fuel types in the rural UK adds to the reasons for vulnerability to energy price
increases (Roberts etal. 2015).

3. It has been discussed that energy efficiency is important factor for energy poverty, so indicators in
direction of measuring the energy efficiency are relevant, one such is the presence of a leaking roof, and
damp walls or rotten windows (Thomson and Snell 2013). In addition, the ability to control volume and
coverage of heating enables households to reduce their comfort in order to be able to pay for the
heating bills. This about reducing the comfort Tirado Herrero and Ürge-Vorsatz (2012) calls to be typical
energy poverty. This finding is very relevant for Macedonia as about 78% of households use either
electricity or fuelwood for heating (Stojilovska 2015b), in which case they have full control of volume of
the heating and decisions about whether to heat all the rooms. My argument which I like to test is that
in non-district heating households in Macedonia energy poverty might not be only an affordability issue,
but a comfort issue as well, as households may reduce their comfort (reduce temperature, heat only
part of the home) in order to be able to pay for their energy bills. On this comfort-related topic, a
research on energy poor in Vienna has shown that a frequently used strategy for reducing costs is
heating only one room (Brunner et al. 2012), and in the same direction Waddams Price et al. (2012)
considersthatenergypovertycanbe detectedalsobythe extenttowhichthe dwellingisfullyheated.
The literature also discusses heating per its type and how it is related to issues such as access,
availability, affordability, comfort or more generally energy poverty. To begin with, Waddams Price et
al. (2012) considers that district heating is associated with households that are not energy poor as they
are more likely to have effective heating mechanisms and implemented energy efficiency measures. On
the contrary, Tirado Herrero and Ürge-Vorsatz (2012) relate district heating in Hungary with issues as
affordability as the households pay the highest heating costs per m2 and per person and access as the
households find difficult to change the supplier and to reduce their heating costs due to need of
approval from neighbors for energy efficiency measures and non-availability of individual heat
consumption meters. Due to these obstacles, the district heating, also a legacy from the communist
period,is considered a new type of energy poverty since the comfort is not affected – the district heated
householdsare adequatelyandfullyheated (TiradoHerreroandÜrge-Vorsatz2012).
The use of fuelwood has been associated with energy poverty or energy degradation as it has been the
less technologically advanced/ polluting fuel affected households have shifted towards as shown in
Bulgaria and Hungary (Bouzarovski et al. 2012; Bouzarovski et al. 2015). Bouzarovski et al. (2015) as a
reason for this shift towards fuelwood mention the need to reduce domestic energy expenditures in
order to cope with increasing energy poverty. Electric heating is found among energy poor households
as it brings high energy costs (Brunner et al. 2012). Poor rural UK households without access to natural
gas are likely to be in energy poverty and have polluting homes (Boardman 2010). She sums up that the
choice of the heating systems has a big impact on energy poverty and electric heated homes should be
among the first targeted with energy efficiency measures including solar collectors, biomass and co-
generationutilitiesif the heatingfuel cannotbe changed (Boardman2010).
The mentioned energy degradation in the households in regard to choice of fuel in order to deal with
energy poverty, it can be interestingly contrasted with the discussion in the literature about the energy-
ladder model. Andadari et al. (2014) referring to a previous research of (D.F Barnes et al. 2005; D.F.
Barnes and Floor 1999; Leach 1992) have elaborated the so called energy-ladder model which explains
the household energy choices, although in the context is used for Indonesia. This model shows how

4. income and fuel prices define the fuels a household uses and envisions a three-stage fuel switching
process (Andadari et al. 2014). The first stage means use of biomass; in the second stage, households
switch to transition fuels such as coal, kerosene, and charcoal; and in the third phase, households use
natural gas, LPG, or electricity (Andadari et al. 2014). This comparison implies that fuelwood is a fuel for
poorest; a starting kit for the developing world; and fuel to which switching indicates probability of
energypoverty.
Methods
In order to analyze the possibility of exposure to energy poverty and the aspects of energy poverty
related to the type of heating in Macedonia’s households, in-depth interviews were conducted with 11
households. The selectionwas random, which means households that might be or notin energy poverty,
stratified by the type of heating. Out of 11 households, 2 are using district heating, 1 is using fuelwood, 5
are using electricity for heating (resistive heating) and 3 are using a combination of electricity and
fuelwood. All the interviewed households are living in urban area, 9 are in the capital of Skopje and 2 are
inothercitiesinthe country.
A questionnaire was developed based on the findings in the literature to help estimating the
relationship between energy poverty and different heating systems. Based on the findings in the
literature, the questionnaire integrates questions depicting the energy poverty aspects such as access,
affordability and comfort related to the type of heating (Boardman 2010; Bouzarovski 2014; Brunner et
al. 2012; Buzar 2007b; Moore 2012; Scarpellini et al. 2015; Spagnoletti and O’Callaghan 2013; Thomson
and Snell 2013; Tirado Herrero and Ürge-Vorsatz 2012; Waddams Price et al. 2012); questions to capture
the transitional challenges (Boardman 2010; Bouzarovski 2014; Bouzarovski et al. 2012; Bouzarovski et
al. 2015; Brunner et al. 2012; Fahmy et al. 2011); existence of vulnerable groups (Boardman 2010;
Brunner et al. 2012; Buzar 2007b; Healy and Clinch 2004; Thomson and Snell 2013; Waddams Price et al.
2012); to assess the housing quality (Boardman 2010; Brunner et al. 2012; Healy and Clinch 2004;
Thomson and Snell 2013; Walker 2008) as well as more general questions to point out to further
differences in experiencing energy poverty coming from the type of heating. The transitional challenges,
vulnerable groups and housing quality-related questions serve the purpose of being “control” questions
or questions simply to check whether other factor rather than the type of heating were responsible for
existence of energypoverty.
Resultsand discussion
To begin with, it is to state what type of dwelling do the households have and how they are heated.
Most of them are apartments, which are heated by electricity (five), fuelwood and electricity (one), and
district heating (two). The houses are heated with fuelwood or electricity and fuelwood. It can be noted
that fuelwoodismore presentinhouses,while district heatingis absentin houses.
One method-relevant finding is that the generally accepted and applied index in assessing energy
poverty in the EU composed of the questions about the presence of leaking roof, arrears of energy
bills and the ability to heat the home adequately might not apply in the Macedonian context or might
not completely capture the complexity of issues especially the dwellings using electricity or fuelwood

5. for heating are experiencing. On the question whether households have arrears onenergy services bills,
only one household heated on electricity replied positively. This may be explained by the fact that
households tend to reduce their comfort in order to be able to pay for the heating bills in the
households heated with electricity and/or fuelwood, thus the absence of paid heating bills may not
mean absence of energy poverty struggles. To support the latter , from the group of households that use
the combination of fuelwood and electricity for heating, one household replied to have the indoor
temperature at 17-18 degrees, while a second household heats one room at 22 degrees and the rest at
13 degrees. Having lower than the optimal indoor temperature is also one relevant energy poverty
indicator. In this sense, the lack of optimal indoor temperature if present, is mainly the issue of
householdsusingelectricityand/or fuelwoodforheating.
On the other hand, the ability to pay to keep the home adequately warm is a relevant indicator in the
context of Macedonia. To this question the households that complained not to be able to have
adequate warmth were one household using electricity for heating, while one household using electric
heat and one using both electricity and fuelwood for heating replied to be able to some extent to keep
their homes sufficiently heated. This result can be interpreted in a way that if the dwelling is large
and/or has poor building quality, the heat produced from fuelwood and/or electricity might not be
sufficient to satisfy the household’s needs. The third and buildings quality-indicative indicator proves
also to be relevant and again is more relevant for households using fuelwood and/or electricity for
heatingas seenfromthe interviewedhouseholds’replies.
Relevant conclusions about potential energy poverty aspects such as access, affordability and comfort
from the general set of questions about why the current way of heating is used; is there a satisfaction
with the current way of heating and whether they would change their heating system. For the two
district heated households, for two of the electricity heated households and for one electricity and
fuelwood-heated household their heating choice is the one they have since it is more affordable.
However, two households which use the combination of electricity and fuelwood heats in this way due
to lack of access to other options such as district heating. Two households using electric heat and
fuelwood replied that it heats with electricity due to lack of access to district heating and/or lack of
storage for fuelwood. A second household heated with electricity does so due to the decision of the
dwelling’s owner, as the household rents the dwelling it lives in. In this regard a very important
statement can be made about the non-district heated households that often they are “forced” to use
fuelwoodand/or fuelwooddue to lack of district heating infrastructure.
By comparing the monthly household income and the monthly heating costs (although they are not for
some households present through the whole year, for simple calculation the costs for heating were
divided by 12 months), the households usually spend 10% or less of their monthly income on heating
costs. This objective criterion of existence of energy poverty might not fit with the subjective one about
the affordability and comfort of heating. This shows that both subjective and objective indicators are
relevant and need to be used when assessing energy poverty; the subjective might be more relevant
as it depicts issuessuchas comfort and not affordabilityonly.

6. On the question about the satisfaction with the current type of heating, all three households using the
combination of fuelwood and electricity for heating replied not to be satisfied with this way of heating.
Some of their reasons include poor building quality, the need to wait for the heating to start when using
fuelwood, and not being able to heat the whole home. One of the households using electricity for
heating is satisfied with the type of heating to some extent as it means energy wasting. The other four
households with electric heat and the district heated households expressed generally satisfaction with
the way they heat their homes. Some of these satisfaction reasons include the level of warmth (one
district heated household and one electricity heated household with small apartment and good
insulation); the affordability (one district heated household, two electricity heated households); as well
as the possibility to heat the whole apartment (one household with district heating), the ability to heat
fast and to control the temperature (one electricity heated household). From these results it can be
stated that heating on electricity and/or fuelwood might be source both of satisfaction (affordability,
good buildingquality) and dissatisfaction(due to poor buildingquality, reducedcomfort).
Interesting is that all of 11 interviewed households if given the opportunity would change their way if
heating. Most of the households would change to either heat pumps or district heating; other options
mentioned were biomass, solar energy,electricity and natural gas. Among the conditions needed for the
wanted switch mentioned were: good insulation, the municipality to co-fund the project, finances, as
well as solving ownership issues. This could be interpreted in a way that there is need of better public
services provided to households in terms of heating, mostly in sense of infrastructure solutions or
financial support.
Relevant information about presence of energy poverty is whether and how households economize
their heating. From the interviewed households, only those that use district heating, the one that uses
fuelwood, and one household with electric heat reported not to economize through their heating
practices. Others use either energy efficiency techniques such as closing doors, heating when someone
is home, heating at night to keep the temperature for the next day, while one household using fuelwood
and electricityforheatingreduceditscomfortbynotheatingall rooms.
Related relevant question is whether the household considers the heating to be expensive. Three
households – one with district heating, and two on electric heating replied that it is not expensive. Two
other households (with electric heating) answered that it can be more affordable. Two households
mentioned the issue with achieving the comfort (both with fuelwood and electric heating), while three
explicitly mentioned that it is expensive (one fuelwood-heated, one electricity heated and one electricity
and fuelwood heated). As the price of heating is related to the household income too, what it is
interesting to note is the dissatisfaction with the comfort of heating in non-district heating
households.
One distinguishing energy poverty aspect between the district heated and non-district households, is
whether all occupied rooms are heated. Three households, using electricity and/or fuelwood for heating
replied that they do not heat all occupied rooms, while one households using electric heat partially
heats all occupied rooms. This finding is also related to the fact that generally non-district heating
households have control over how many rooms they heat, thus if needed they might prioritize paying

7. their energy bills over comfort in their home. One interviewed district heating household answered not
to have control over the number of rooms heated, while the second one replied to have such control. It
can be stated that the occurrence of reduction of heated space is present in non-district heating
households.
Similarly, in relation to the ability to control the indoor temperature in the heating period, all non-
district heating households replied to have such ability with the exception of the one fuelwood-heated
household; while one district heating household has such ability, and the other one does not. The one
with the ability to regulate its indoor temperature additionally explains that this possibility is not
reflected in the heating bill, as the heating is billed based on the heating spent in the whole building
divided by the size of its own apartment. All households, except for the three using the combination of
fuelwood and electricity are satisfied with their average level of indoor temperature. The latter explains
that in any case district heated households do not suffer comfort issues such as lower temperatures
than needed.
The other “control” questions depicting other factors causing energy poverty rather than ones strictly
related to the type of heating were raised in the questionnaire as they might be influencing energy
deprivation choices. Such questions for example are those discussed in the literature to bring challenges
along with the energy transition process – such as that the households are lagging behind in undertaking
energy efficiency measures (Brunner et al. 2012). From the conducted interviewed it is evident that
energy efficiency measures are not an unknown area. From the provided answers only two households
have not undertaken energy efficiency measures – one using district heating and another using
electricity for heating due to the fact that that households does not own the dwelling they live in, but
would like to undertake such measures. A third household replied that their dwelling has already had
good insulation. The district heated household that undertook energy efficiency measures replied that
its warmth improved, but that it still pays the same heating bill. A general statement can be made
that non-district heated households have better motivation to undertake energy efficiency measures
as it would reflectintheir heatingcosts.
Another transitional-sensitive question is about whether the heating costs have increased in the past
few years. Three households replied that they have increased, one that they were reduced due to
better insulation in the case of the household heated with electricity; the rest did not rise in heating
expenditures. In this regard it can be stated that the external factor of prices increase might be a
factor, but has not affected all interviewed households. Third transitional issue might be the change of
the heating system especially if it is to a less technologically advanced (Bouzarovski et al. 2012;
Bouzarovski et al. 2015). This was experienced by one household which used to be heated by district
heating and now uses electricity and as it explains the price is lower, but the heat is lower as well.
Another household did the same change, but then again switched back to district heating. The question
of changing the heating systemseemsto be relevantindicator ofexperiencingenergypoverty.
Another set of “control” questions is with questions that might reveal existence of vulnerable groups
such as having unemployed adults in the households (Brunner et al. 2012; Buzar 2007b) or the number
of persons living in the households (Buzar 2007b; Healy and Clinch 2004; Waddams Price et al. 2012).

8. The households have various number of households members ranging from 1 till 6. The fuelwood-
heated household which has 6 members replied that they consider their type of heating to be
expensive. This household has also unemployed adult(s). Besides that two more households reported
to have unemployed adult(s). The household that reported to have 5 adults is one of those struggling
with indoor temperature of 17-18 degrees. All households answered that their household head(s) have
higher education. The lack of diversity regard the location (urban/rural) and education of household
heads prevents more detailed analysis about the influence of these vulnerabilities, however having
more membersinthe householdsand unemployedheadsmightbe relatedto energypoverty.
A further set of potential factors in the category of housing quality includes questions such as the age of
construction of the dwelling (Boardman 2010; Brunner et al. 2012; Healy and Clinch 2004). Only two
households are living in a dwelling not owned by a household member, for one which it was
expressed to be an issue to the way of implementing energy efficiency measures. The age of the
dwelling differs from 1945 up to new buildings from 2012 and 2013. One household which lives in one
of the newer buildings mentioned that it is well insulated, thus does not have heat losses. However,
one of the oldest dwelling analyzed here – that from 1945 has not reported energy poverty issues
such as lack of comfort or unsatisfactory level of warmth; important it is to notice that it uses district
heating. To conclude is that the housing quality plays an important role, but not in every case as other
factors might intervene.
Conclusionsand policyimplications
Regarding the research question about the indicators, the analysis has shown that the presence of
arrears in energy bills is not very relevant energy poverty indicator; however lower than the optimal
indoor temperature is a relevant indicator. The ability to pay to have adequate warmth and the
presence of leaking roof are also relevant indicators; as well as strategies to economize the heating and
whether the heating system has been changed. Both subjective and objective indicators deem to be
relevant, however, subject might be more relevant as they reveal other characteristics beyond
affordability. Additional factors relevant to reveal energy poverty might be the presence of
unemployment, the number of household members, the housing quality, the ownership and the
increase of energyprices.
In regard to the research question about the different aspects of energy poverty related to the type of
heating, important is to underline that electricity and/or fuelwood heated households experience
poorer indoor temperatures whereby the comfort issue is recognizable and often have to use this type
of heating due to access issues. Non-district heated households are more motivated to enforce energy
efficiency measures than the district heated ones due to cost-reflection of their actions. District heated
householdsusuallydonotface comfortissues.
The policy recommendations to reduce energy poverty would be targeting the main two types of
heating differently. While district heated households need to be consumption-based billed, the non-
district heated ones need special focus to combat their comfort and access issues through infrastructure
projects or financial support for energy efficiency measures. Out of the analyzed households, those that

9. are non-district heated experience more often and/or severer state of energy poverty and need to be
tackledfirst.
Annex:the questionnaire
1. Your initials(notfull name)
2. What type of heatingdoesyourhouseholduse?
a) Natural gas
b) Oil
c) Electricity
d) Fuelwood
e) Districtheating
f) Combinationof twoor more (please specifyandsaywhichisthe main)
g) Other(please specify)
3. Explain what do you use for heating (radiators, air conditioners, fuelwood stove, electric heaters
etc.)? Is the heating going through the whole dwelling? How many heating systems do you have
(no.of air conditioners,fuelwoodstoves,electricheatersetc.)?
4. If you use fuelwood, do you buy the supplies for the whole heating season at once? Do you pay at
once?
5. If you use district heating, do you pay each month during the whole year or only during heating
season?
6. Why doyou use yourcurrent wayof heating?
7. Have you changed the type of heating in the past few years? If yes, please explain how and why?
How that hadan impact onthe heatingbills,electricitybills,levelof comfortinthe home?
8. Are you satisfiedwithyourcurrent wayof heating?Why?
9. Would you use another heating type if there are possibilities? If yes, which heating type? Why?
Which conditions are needed for you to use your wanted heating type (more information, more
finances,helpfromthe authorities)?
10. How much doesyour household spendforheating duringone heatingseasononaverage?
11. Do youconsideryourheatingtobe expensive?Why?Pleasedescribe
12. Have the costsfor heatinginthe householdincreased inthe pastfew years?
13. Do youeconomize yourheating?If yes,pleaseexplainhow
14. Doesthe householdhave arrearson heatingbills/costs?
15. Is the householdable topaytokeepthe home adequatelywarm?
16. Excluding heating, do you use other fuels in the household apart from electricity – for example
solarenergy forhot wateror gas for cooking?
17. What isyour average monthlyelectricitybill duringthe heatingseason?
18. What isyour average monthlyelectricitybill whenitisnotheatingseason?
19. Doesthe householdhave arrearson electricitybills?
20. What isthe householdincome permonthonaverage?
21. Has the householdincome decreasedorremainedthe same inthe pastfew years?
22. How many rooms do you have in your dwelling (all rooms excluding kitchen, bathroom and
hallway)?

10. 23. Are all occupiedroomsheated?
24. Do you have control overhowmanyrooms are beingheated?
25. What isthe average level of indoortemperatureinthe heatingperiod inyourdwelling?
26. Do youhave control overthe indoortemperature inthe heatingperiod inyourdwelling?
27. Are you satisfied with the average level of indoor temperature in the heating period in your
dwelling?
28. How many people live in your household? How many of them are adults (above 18) and how
manyare children?
29. Do youhave unemployedadultsinyourhousehold?
30. What isthe highest level of educationof the household’shead(s)?
31. Livinginrural or urbanarea?
32. Name of your cityand municipalityorvillage
33. In what kindof dwellingdoesyourhouseholdlive?
a) House
b) Apartmentina collective building
c) Other-please specify
34. Whenthe dwellingyourhouseholdlivesinwasbuilt?
35. Who ownsthe dwellingthe householdlivesin?
36. Presence of leakingroof/dampwalls/rottenwindows/condensation?
37. Has the household undertaken any energy efficiency measures (improving insulation, change of
windows, change of lighting to eco light bulbs, other )? If yes, please explain them. How have
they affected the heating bills, electricity bills, level of comfort in the home? If you have not
undertakenenergyefficiency measures,whyisthatso?
Bibliography
Andadari, R.K., Mulder, P. and Rietveld, P. 2014. Energy poverty reduction by fuel switching. Impact
evaluationof the LPGconversionprograminIndonesia. Energy Policy 66 436-449.
Boardman,B. 1991. Fuel povertyfromcold homesto affordablewarmth.London:BelhavenPress.
________. 2010. Fixing fuel poverty: challengesand solutions.London;Sterling,VA:Earthscan.
Bouzarovski, S. 2014. Energy poverty in the European Union: landscapes of vulnerability. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews:Energy and Environment 3 (3):
Bouzarovski, S. and Tirado Herrero, S. 2015. The energy divide: Integrating energy transitions, regional
inequalitiesandpovertytrendsinthe EuropeanUnion. European Urban and RegionalStudies

11. Bouzarovski, S. and Petrova, S. 2015. The EU Energy Poverty and Vulnerability Agenda: An Emergent
Domain of Transnational Action. In Energy Policy Making in the EU: Building the Agenda, ed. J.
Tosun,S. BiesenbenderandK.Schulze,129-144. London:SpringerLondon.
Bouzarovski, S., Petrova, S. and Sarlamanov, R. 2012. Energy poverty policies in the EU: A critical
perspective. Energy Policy 49 76-82.
Bouzarovski, S., Tirado Herrero, S., Petrova, S. and Ürge-Vorsatz, D. 2015. Unpacking the spaces and
politics of energy poverty: path-dependencies, deprivation and fuel switching in post-communist
Hungary. Local Environment 1-20.
Brunner, K.-M., Spitzer, M. and Christanell, A. 2012. Experiencing fuel poverty. Coping strategies of low-
income householdsinVienna/Austria. Energy Policy 49 53-59.
Buzar, S.2007a. Energy povertyin Eastern EuropeHidden Geographiesof Deprivation.Ashgate.
________. 2007b. The ‘hidden’ geographies of energy poverty in post-socialism: Between institutions
and households. Geoforum 38(2):224-240.
D.F Barnes, K. Krutilla and Hyde, W. 2005. The Urban Household Energy Transition. Washington DC:
WorldBank.
D.F. Barnes and Floor, W. 1999. Biomass energy and the poor in the developing countries. , J. Int. Aff
237–259.
Fahmy, E., Gordon, D. and Patsios, D. 2011. Predicting fuel poverty at a small-area level in England.
Energy Policy 39 (7): 4370-4377.
Healy, J.D. and Clinch, J.P. 2004. Quantifying the severity of fuel poverty, its relationship with poor
housing and reasons for non-investment in energy-saving measures in Ireland. Energy Policy 32
(2): 207-220.
Leach,G. 1992. The energytransition. Energy Policy 20 116–123.
Moore,R. 2012. Definitionsof fuel poverty:Implicationsforpolicy. Energy Policy 49 19-26.
Roberts, D., Vera-Toscano, E. and Phimister, E. 2015. Fuel poverty in the UK: Is there a difference
betweenrural andurbanareas? Energy Policy 87 216-223.

12. Scarpellini, S., Rivera-Torres, P., Suárez-Perales, I. and Aranda-Usón, A. 2015. Analysis of energy poverty
intensity from the perspective of the regional administration: Empirical evidence from
householdsinsouthernEurope. Energy Policy 86 729-738.
Spagnoletti, B. and O’Callaghan, T. 2013. Let there be light: A multi-actor approach to alleviating energy
povertyinAsia. Energy Policy 63 738-746.
2015. Energy consumption in households 2014 Skopje: Accessed
http://www.stat.gov.mk/Publikacii/6.4.15.03.pdf
Stojilovska, A. 2015b. Towards reforming the heat market in Macedonia: wishful thinking or future
reality? Accessed
http://www.analyticamk.org/images/Files/Commentary/comm201502_a3f42.pdf
Thomson, H. and Snell, C. 2013. Quantifying the prevalence of fuel poverty across the European Union.
Energy Policy 52 563-572.
Tirado Herrero, S. and Ürge-Vorsatz, D. 2012. Trapped in the heat: A post-communist type of fuel
poverty. Energy Policy 49 60-68.
Waddams Price, C., Brazier, K. and Wang, W. 2012. Objective and subjective measures of fuel poverty.
Energy Policy 49 33-39.
Walker, G. 2008. Decentralised systems and fuel poverty: Are there any links or risks? Energy Policy 36
(12): 4514-4517.