This document proposes a method to measure fuel poverty in the transport sector using a composite indicator. It summarizes existing ratio and LIHC indicators that do not fully capture mobility needs. The composite indicator measures three dimensions - financial resources, energy consumption, and conditions of mobility - to identify three levels of exposure to rising fuel prices: fuel poor, vulnerable in mobility, and car-dependent. Applying this to French data identified over 7 million households as exposed under the composite indicator. The document concludes existing indicators are insufficient for transport while the composite approach better reflects diverse mobility needs.

1. How to build fuel poverty
measurement in the
transport sector?
Audrey Berry*1
In collaboration with Nicolas Coulombel2, Céline Guivarch1, Yves Jouffe2
1 Centre International de la Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement, 45 Avenue de la Belle Gabrielle 94130 Nogent-sur-Marne, France
2 Laboratoire Ville Mobilité Transport, Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, 5 Boulevard Descartes 77420 Champs-sur-Marne, France
* First author: berry@centre-cired.fr
YEEES - 04 June 2015

2. Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015
Overview
1. A picture of fuel poverty in France
• Fuel poverty in France
• Opinion on mobility
2. Some difficulties induced by rising fuel prices
• Key drivers of fuel poverty
• The mobility side of the issue
3. How to measure exposition to rising fuel prices
• Existing indicators
• A composite indicator <— Our proposition
4. Conclusion
• Learnings and recommandations
2

3. Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015
Fuel poverty in France
of the French limiting car use is because of fuel prices****,
behind maintenance costs (35%), air pollution (31%) and traffic jams (30%) .
of the French usually commute by car***,
before public transport (15%), walking (11%) and cycling (6%).
of the French could not do without owning a car***.
of the French spend more than 10% of their budget on buying energy*.
more electricity supply disconnections in 2014**
than the previous year.
of the French suffer from cold in their home*,
because of insufficient heating system, poor insulation or financial constraints.
of the French cut back on heating to keep costs down*.
11%
14%
33%
17%
69%
82%
64%
The French are more
likely to limit car use for
financial reasons.
In today’s mobility, cars
remain essential.
Curbing down energy
expenses becomes a
strategy to save money.
The French face
increasing difficulties to
afford their energy bills.
* « Chiffre-clés de l’ONPE », data exploitation from ENL 2006
** « Chiffre-clés de l’ONPE », MNE for ONPE, data from 2014
*** Survey « Les Français et les transports », BVA for Doméo et Presse Régionale, 2015
**** Survey « Le baromètre de l’opinion des Français sur la mobilité durable », Vague 4, Harris Interactive for Les Ateliers de la terre, SNCF et Mobivia, 3

4. Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015 4
Key drivers of fuel poverty
Low income High fuel price
Poor energy performance Poor residential location
€
€ €

5. Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015
What matters when we talk
about mobility
• Allow for diverse mobility needs
• Detect restriction behavior
• Evaluate one’s capacity to adapt
5

6. How to measure fuel poverty
in the transport sector?

7. Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015
Case study: France
• Based on data from the National Transport Survey
(Enquête Nationale Transports et Déplacements)
• Conducted by INSEE every 10-15 years, last available from 2008
• Interviewed a sample of 20 200 French households
• Offers a detailed description of travel behaviors (compared to BDF)
at the national level (compared to EMD)
• Focus on places to work and study
7

8. Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015
How to measure?
• Ratio indicator
• LIHC indicator
• Composite indicator
Transposition from domestic fuel poverty
Our proposition
8

9. Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015
How to measure?
• Ratio indicator
• LIHC indicator
• Composite indicator
9

10. Equation:
Ratio indicator
Threshold:
2x median
Fuel spending
Income
Identify:
Disproportionate share of
income spent on fuel
Number of
households
% of
population
RATIO 2.6 millions 10,5 %
RATIO/IP 0.5 million 2.0 %
Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015 10

11. Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015
How to measure?
• Ratio indicator
• LIHC indicator
• Composite indicator
11

12. Equation:
LIHC indicator
Fuel spending
Number of active
individuals
Income - Fuel spending
Number of
consumption units
Identify:
High fuel
spending
Low residual
income
Threshold:
Median 60% median
Number of
households
% of
population
LIHC 840 000 3,3%
Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015 12

13. What are the differences
between the two approaches?

14. RATIO/IP vs LIHC
1
2
3
Differences:
1/ LIHC includes middle-class
households, whose standard of living is
lowered because of their fuel expenses.
2/ LIHC includes poor households,
whose individual motorized mobility is
higher than half the population.
3/ RATIO includes households with
high fuel ratio, whose financial
capacity is particularly low.
14Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015 14

15. Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015
But…
• It brings a normative approach to mobility though
mobility needs are diverse: how to interpret?
• Restriction and capacity to adapt are not
evaluated: don’t we miss essential features?
15

16. It calls for a new indicator to measure
the different dimensions of fuel poverty.

17. Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015
How to measure?
• Ratio indicator
• LIHC indicator
• Composite indicator
17

18. Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015
The composite indicator is a three-
dimensions indicator…
18
Dimensions Factors
Financial resources Low income
Fuel consumption
High spending
Restriction
Conditions of mobility
Poor spatial matching
No alternative
Low vehicle performance or No vehicle

19. Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015
…identifying three levels of exposition
to rising fuel prices.
19
Fuel
poor
Vulnerable
in mobility
Car
dependent

20. Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015
How?
20
Combinations of factors (gather at least)
Financial
resources
Fuel consumption Conditions of mobility
Low income
High
spending
Restriction
Poor spatial
matching
No
alternative
Low vehicle
performance
or No vehicle
x x
Fuel poor
Level of
exposition
x x
x x x
Vulnerable in
mobility
x x x
x x x
x x x Car-dependent

21. Measure:
Financial resource
Energy consumption
Conditions of mobility
Composite indicator
Threshold:
Per factor / Across factors
Identify:
Disadvantageous
combinations of factors
Number of
households
% of population
1.8 millions 7,1 %
2.1 millions 8,2 %
1.0 million 3,7 %
Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015 21

22. Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015
Summary of results
22
Factor
Threshold
(Exposed if)
Number of
households
exposed
Share among
households with
required mobility /
active households
Share among
French households
Financial resources Low income <1580 €/UC/month 9 260 000 57,7 % 36,9 %
Fuel consumption
High spending >64 €/active/month 2 450 000 15,3 % 9,8 %
Restriction 1 1 300 000 8,1 % 5,2 %
Conditions of mobility
Poor spatial matching >382 km/active/month 8 030 000 50,1 % 32,0 %
No alternative 1 7 190 000 44,8 % 28,7 %
Low vehicle performance
or No vehicle
>10c€/km or 1 2 560 000 15,9 % 10,2 %
Composite indicator
Fuel poor 1 770 000 11,0 % 7,1 %
Vulnerable in mobility 3 180 000 19,8 % 12,7 %
Car-dependent 1 870 000 11,7 % 7,5 %
LIHC indicator Fuel poor 840 000 5,2 % 3,3 %
Ratio indicator
Fuel poor 2 620 000 16,3 % 10,5 %
Fuel poor (restricted to income poor) 510 000 3,2 % 2,0 %

23. Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015
Conclusion
23
•Ratio and LIHC are not satisfactory in the transport sector.
•A good fuel poverty indicator should account for:
- diverse mobility needs - restriction behaviours - variable capacity to adapt
•A composite indicator can reflect the conditions of mobility and reveal
one’s exposition to rising fuel prices.
Thank you !
berry@centre-cired.fr