MASARYK UNIVERSITY
Faculty of Social Studies
Energy poverty: Causes, effects and policy solutions
Commentary to Habilitation Thesis
Brno, 2023 Hedvika Koďousková, Ph.D.
2
Abstract
Over the years, there has been a noticeable increase in energy availability. However, energy poverty,
which is defined as the lack of socially and materially adequate levels of domestic energy services,
continues to persist globally, including within the European Union. The situation of energy-poor
households could worsen if they are left behind in the ongoing low-carbon energy transition or
overlooked due to the absence or inadequacy of public policies. This thesis, using the Czech Republic
as a case study, aims to enhance our comprehension of energy poverty and critically examine policies
in this realm.
Drawing from an interpretivist perspective and employing primarily exploratory research methods, this
study encompasses several theoretical approaches and analytical frameworks. It promotes a holistic
outlook on energy poverty, which may uncover hidden causes and effects specific to the local context.
For instance, it delves into the non-material aspects playing a role in household energy poverty, as well
as the numerous pathways leading to energy vulnerability and poverty in Czech municipalities. Local
research adds depth and meaning to quantitative indicators, and reveals what may remain out of
scope.
The thesis also adds to the discursive side of energy poverty, a perspective often overlooked in
research. By presenting different stakeholder perspectives at various levels, it shows how conflicting
views complicate effective solutions to energy poverty. An illustrative example is the comparison
between the real-life experiences of vulnerable households and the official narratives surrounding
energy poverty. Moreover, through the analysis of how energy poverty is framed, this thesis offers
initial insights into the policymaking process and its potential implications in this field. Finally, it
critically examines and evaluates emerging policies aimed directly or indirectly at addressing energy
poverty and vulnerability. It demonstrates that these policies do not fully realize their potential in
addressing the issue.
Ultimately, this thesis points to several future research areas, including energy poverty governance,
further work on integrating different research methods, and active engagement of target groups and
key stakeholders to refine policy design, among other crucial avenues of inquiry.
3
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have been possible without the boundless support of my husband, who has taken
on many roles in order to give me more space to carry out my research and has thus shown me on a
daily basis how much he believes in my work.
Many thanks to my long-time friend and colleague, Jana Urbanovská, who not only during our annual
mountain hikes, but also outside of it, patiently listened to the hardships of a researcher and was
always ready to help.
Finally, I owe where I am today to my colleagues, co-authors and friends from the Department of
International Relations and European Studies and the International Institute of Political Science (IIPS)
of the Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University. Special thanks to those colleagues who share my
passion for exploring the myriad ways in which energy and society interact. Upon my return from
maternity leave, they gave me a positive (re)start and encouragement to pursue research on energy
poverty - a topic that I was only just beginning to explore at the time.
My thanks also go to all research participants, as well as anonymous reviewers, editors and other
colleagues and partners who provided valuable comments through peer review and other feedback. I
particularly value the several years of collaboration with researchers and practitioners of the ENGAGER
COST Action network (CA16232). I appreciate the discussions at the conferences where we met, but
also the countless online meetings such as the „energy poverty cafes“. Thank you for all your hard
work and willingness to share both accomplishments and difficulties in the field of research and
assistance to energy-poor households. You contributed greatly to my development as a researcher.
I also gratefully acknowledge the financial support of IIPS and funding from the Technology Agency of
the Czech Republic (projects TK03010086 and TQ01000302).
4
Table of contents
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Theoretical foundations and research methods ............................................................................. 9
3. The manuscripts constituting the thesis ....................................................................................... 13
4. Major findings and concluding remarks........................................................................................ 16
4.1 Empirical and methodological findings ................................................................................... 16
4.2 Policy implications................................................................................................................... 20
4.3 Future directions and the thesis limits.................................................................................... 22
References......................................................................................................................................... 23
5
1. Introduction
Over time, due to technological development and powerful political and economic forces among
others, energy availability has been on the rise (Bridge et al., 2018). Humanity has become accustomed
to its constant flow and energy has become an integral part of our society (Hoppe et al., 2016). Energy
sources, key instrumental goods, became material prerequisites for meeting human needs and
demands (Bridge et al., 2018; Brugger, 2016; Sovacool et al., 2014). They are transformed into various
useful forms such as fuels or heat and finally provide energy services such as heating, lighting,
communication/information, or transportation (Bridge et al., 2018). As such, energy services are
indispensable facilitators and protectors of goods that we consider essential to achieve human wellbeing,
including better health, greater knowledge and education. Energy services even affect social
status, social cohesion or political representation, as much daily communication now takes place
through electrically powered devices or intensive domestic and international transport (Brugger,
2016). Moreover, as energy-intensive modern industrial economies have spread around the world
through globalisation (Sovacool et al., 2014), the majority of the world´s population now lives in
a world where human needs can only be met through the provision of energy services. This raised
scholarly debates about energy as a fundamental right (Brugger, 2016; Sovacool et al., 2014).
Unfortunately, 759 million people around the world were short of access to electricity and about
2.6 billion people lacked access to modern technologies for cooking and heating in 2019 (International
Energy Agency, 2021). Despite past transitions to modern energy sources, much of the population in
the Global South still relies on polluting fuels and technologies with negative health, social and
environmental consequences. Nevertheless, energy poverty also affects the Global North. In the
European Union (EU), an estimated 40 million people are considered energy poor, mostly, but not
exclusively, due to unaffordability of energy services and inadequately heated (cooled) homes
(Bouzarovski & Thomson, 2019).
Energy poverty is typically defined, as „a socially and materially necessitated level of domestic energy
services“ (Bouzarovski & Petrova, 2015, p. 31). Such a definition recognises that a household requires
a certain standard of domestic energy services for a decent way of life, while acknowledging that the
required level may vary depending on the socio-cultural context and the actual needs and practices of
the household. The traditional triad of low incomes, high energy costs, and low energy efficiency is
usually considered to be the cause of inadequate energy services at the domestic level. But existing
research has already significantly expanded the list of causal factors (see Chapter 2) from those arising
from the political, economic or social settings in a given society to those less visible in the private
sphere of a given household (Gillard et al., 2017; Middlemiss, 2022).
Inadequate access to energy services is accompanied by a number of symptomatic factors including
doing without energy, indebtedness linked to energy bills, and the „heat or eat“ dilemma (Bartiaux et
al., 2021; Eisfeld & Seebauer, 2022; Grevisse & Brynart, 2011; Karpinska & Śmiech, 2020). As far as the
consequences are concerned, living in energy poverty affects health due to insufficiently heated or
cooled homes, and leads to mental health problems as „residential environment stops acting as a place
of comfort, shelter and security and turns into and additional burden and concern for its inhabitants“
(Bouzarovski et al., 2016, p. 1153). This may aggravate feelings of isolation or social exclusion
(Bouzarovski et al., 2016) and result in multiple „vicious circles“ at the household level (see Chapter 2).
Ultimately, energy poverty can present difficulties in „participating in the lifestyles, customs and
activities which define membership of society“ (Buzar, 2007b, p. 1910) and, when widespread, even
6
have macroeconomic consequences (Poputoaia & Bouzarovski, 2010), as recently experienced by the
EU during the energy crisis. The crisis also revealed a larger population that is energy vulnerable,
meaning they could easily face energy deprivation if external (internal) conditions change and they fall
into energy poverty.
The current situation therefore demands action and raises many questions about how to sustainably
deliver energy services to all households and make them less vulnerable (Sovacool et al., 2014; Wood
& Roelich, 2019). The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by 193 developed and
developing countries in 2015, are perhaps the most visible global initiative to realise this call. Also
known as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the goals for the first time include a specific
target to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all (Goal 7). While
not without criticism for being too „techno-materially oriented“ (Munro et al., 2017; Samarakoon,
2019), for many a separate goal focussed on energy access signals a broader recognition of the
centrality of energy in achieving other goals and overcoming some of the pressing challenges the world
faces today, including poverty eradication, gender equality, or adaptation to climate change
(International Energy Agency, 2017). SDGs are thus an „important normative pursuit“ (Samarakoon,
2019, p. 1) in this broader endeavour.
One of the features that SDG 7 encompasses is a quest for inclusivity (Lippert & Sareen, 2023). In the
EU, the issue of inclusion (represented by the EU“s determination to „leave no one behind“) has
gradually become an integral part of its transitional efforts, with the aim to come up with more
accountable solutions in terms of greater access to clean, sustainable and affordable energy (Primc et
al., 2021). Existing research confirms that energy poverty is highly unevenly distributed across the EU.
It follows a west-east, but also a north-south divide, where Mediterranean and Central and Eastern
European Member States (MS) are the most affected (Bouzarovski & Tirado Herrero, 2017b). There is
a strong assumption among researchers that the energy transition may exacerbate existing inequalities
between regions, states or urban areas if the uneven socio-spatial distribution of the issue is not taken
into account (Bouzarovski & Simcock, 2017; Bouzarovski & Tirado Herrero, 2017b; Golubchikov
& O“Sullivan, 2020; O“Sullivan et al., 2020).
Above mentioned ideas consequently raised energy poverty to the top of the EU agenda. The European
Commission (EC) sets the targets and provides guidance to the MS on how to define, measure and
tackle energy poverty, as well as how to protect vulnerable households from falling into the condition
(Bouzarovski, 2018b). The main source of the EU energy poverty policies, the Third Energy Package
(2009/72/EC and 2009/73/EC), was reinforced by a sequence of additional legislation (Bouzarovski et
al., 2021). From the latest initiatives, the European Green Deal ties energy poverty to the idea of „just
and fair“ energy and climate transitions, „through designing measures for households unable to afford
key energy services, financing renovation schemes, and reducing energy bills“ (Widuto, 2022, p. 2).
The Fit for 55 package presents greenhouse gas emissions reduction and social fairness as twin goals
to be achieved in the European future. Its aim is to identify the main factors contributing to energy
poverty, while also considering structural approaches to mitigate vulnerabilities and address
underlying inequalities (Directorate-General for Energy, n.d.). Additionally, numerous research
projects have been initiated and jointly funded by the EC (among others, Pye & Dobbins, 2015;
Rademaekers et al., 2016). The outcomes of these projects are intended to provide MS with essential
insights for shaping their domestic endeavours in addressing this problem. Energy Poverty Advisory
Hub (EPAH) now serves as a chief platform of energy poverty expertise within the EU intended to serve
various stakeholders (Directorate-General for Energy, 2022).
7
Overall, an important social and environmental discourse has emerged at EU level, as articulated in
the recent critical examination of the „right to energy debate“ (Jiglau et al., 2023). At the same time,
new ideas are competing with the EU“s traditional market mechanism, with still unclear outcomes.
Moreover, the question of how to tackle energy poverty and vulnerability is still largely in the hands of
individual MS, which are not always aware, able and willing to provide the necessary support to
affected households (see Jiglau et al., 2023, p. 8).
The efforts to provide sustainable energy services to all households therefore also raise the question
of which political structures are responsible for the provision of energy services or, conversely, for the
governance of energy poverty (Sovacool et al., 2014). After the turn of the century the emergence of
new challenges has led to the return of a more „interventionist paradigm“ in the energy field (Bridge
et al., 2018; Goldthau, 2012). Amidst the evolving energy landscape, markets retained their
significance; however, they were no longer unchallenged in terms of their ability to achieve crucial
energy objectives. Subsequent developments have demonstrated their potential shortcomings in
ensuring reliable supplies at affordable prices. Indeed, the years after 2000 have witnessed numerous
instances of potential supply disruptions due to geopolitical rivalries and notable power failures
attributed to aging infrastructure. Furthermore, markets´ capacity to ensure „universal energy access“
has come under scrutiny, and their ability to adequately incorporate negative externalities such as
greenhouse gas emissions and climate change has been questioned. This has led to a revived emphasis
put on the role of the state and subnational governments as „stakeholders of public interest“ in the
post-2000 era (Bridge et al., 2018; Goldthau, 2012; Hall et al., 2013; Haney & Pollitt, 2013). As noted
by Hoppe et al. (2016), where markets might prove insufficient in resolving critical energy-related
issues, governments are expected to intervene. Overall, energy landscapes are inherently political
(Bridge et al., 2018), as „all aspects having to do with energy consumption, energy distribution, and
energy production are to a large extent determined by governmental policies“ (Hoppe et al., 2016,
p. 12).
It is therefore assumed that accelerating the „energy access“ imperative requires a stronger role for
the state and its institutions in designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating effective public
policies. The current state of energy poverty policies differs significantly between MS, however
(Bouzarovski, 2014; Bouzarovski et al., 2021; Pye & Dobbins, 2015). As underlined by Bouzarovski et
al. (2021, p. 2), the disparities among MS are „reflected in the quality and extent of the mitigation
programmes and strategies within this domain“. Not all nations are inherently in agreement with the
objectives set forth by the EC. In fact, scholars have demonstrated that there were even endeavours
to impede or oppose the ambitions on the EU level (Bouzarovski et al., 2016; Jiglău et al., 2021; LaBelle,
2017).
This brings us to a crucial point. Whilst considered necessary to solve some of the current problems in
the energy sector, public policies can themselves be a contributing factor to energy poverty, mainly if
they do not recognize or mis-recognize the phenomenon. Non-existent or sub-optimal policies can
„(re)produce the condition´s material or energy affordability inequalities“ (Bouzarovski & Simcock,
2017, p. 645). Ultimately, long-term neglect of certain areas, either geographically (uneven sociospatial
distribution of benefits and burdens stemming from the energy sector) or in terms of
procedures and policies, may create discontent and endanger legitimacy of the state (Bazilian et al.,
2014), while populist discourses and measures implemented for this purpose only, if successfully raised
8
to the highest political level, may ultimately trap households in energy poverty, as shown e.g. by the
Hungarian case study (Bouzarovski et al., 2016; Jiglău, 2021).
As a result, scholars have subjected institutional and normative settings, politics, and policies in the
energy poverty realm to critical scrutiny. For example, Grossmann & Kahlheber (2018) see energy
deprivation from an „intersectional perspective“. Next to the households´ socio-demographic
conditions as the problem defining characteristic, they critically examine policies and domains, whose
settings can create or exacerbate the phenomena (welfare policies, energy, and housing markets).
Similarly, Samarakoon (2019, p. 7-8) takes a critical view of the „political and social structures that
govern decisions about energy systems.“ At the same time the author underlines the positive role of
informed institutions that can minimise the energy decisions´ negative environmental and social
impacts. In a similar vein, Heffron & McCauley (2017) suggest the use of „restorative justice“ as a
practical tool to prevent harmful actions towards local communities, society, and the environment.
Overall, vis-à-vis pressing issues in the energy area, for Hoppe et al. (2016) there is much to study for
scholars of policy studies. They suggest examining various types of energy policies and their impacts,
aiming to offer guidance to policymakers in shaping or redesigning these policies. It is therefore worth
exploring how MS deal with the energy poverty agenda.
In the Czech Republic, an energy poverty working group was established at the ministerial level as early
as in 2015 (David & Koďousková, 2023). Despite expectations, however, bureaucrats were quite
uncertain about certain aspects of this complex phenomenon and held various different positions
(Koďousková & Lehotský, 2021a). The country stood before the task of defining energy poverty
officially, creating tools for its assessment and monitoring, and implementing policies specifically
designed to combat the issue (Bouzarovski & Thomson, 2020). Social policies, subsidy programs, and
consumer protection policies partially addressed the problem, but it wasn´t until autumn 2021 that it
gained significant political and media attention due to factors such as rising energy prices and the
bankruptcy of several energy service providers, which had adverse effects on vulnerable households.
These external events have sparked discussions about the various challenges faced by energy-poor and
vulnerable households in meeting their energy needs, emphasizing the importance of developing
suitable policies in this context (David & Koďousková, 2024).
Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), including the Czech Republic, has also been under-represented in
qualitative energy poverty analyses until recently (Palma & Gouveia, 2022). Although academia had
considerably progressed in the examination of regional specificities (Bouzarovski, 2018a), there were
only a few studies which exclusively focused on Czechia by 2019, at the time I began my research
(Bouzarovski et al., 2017; Bouzarovski & Thomson, 2018; Petrova & Simcock, 2019). Moreover, the
country assessments mostly derived from statistical data, common indicators or newly created models
(Bouzarovski & Tirado Herrero, 2017a; Karásek & Pojar, 2018) or gathered data in the capital city of
Prague, as for example in the case of Bouzarovski & Thomson (2018). Only the ground-breaking work
by Buzar (2007a) was more complex. Overall, although the scholars provided the desired initial
understanding of the problem, we lacked more nuanced picture of national specificities and the issue´s
socio-spatial distribution. The problem also deserved an in-depth focus on contributing factors within
the private sphere of affected Czech households (outside Prague). Above all, there were also no
contributions on the discursive side of the phenomenon. Yet, how energy poverty is perceived by
different actors at different levels shapes the overall picture of the problem, which may have a positive
9
or negative impact on its successful treatment. Finally, the examination of current policies that directly
or indirectly address the issue was rather limited, although they can be an important part of the
problem itself as well as its solution. The Czech Republic therefore represented an ideal case study for
examining energy poverty its causes, effects and policy solutions.
The overarching aim of my research is two-fold. Firstly, using the Czech (and to a lesser extent the
Slovak) case, and through exploratory research, predominantly embedded in the interpretivist
perspective, I seek to advance our understanding of energy poverty. Although the focus is on a single
case study and in-depth understanding, a number of empirical and methodological lessons can be
drawn from the research. Simultaneously, I undertake a critical examination and normative evaluation
of emerging policies and processes, both direct and indirect, that target energy poverty and
vulnerability. How are current policies serving the needs of energy poor and the imperative of
preventing and tackling energy poverty? Despite acknowledging the limitations of the Czech and Slovak
case studies, I derive insightful findings, broader recommendations, and policy implications that are
potentially transferable to other contexts.
My research objectives therefore primarily focus on empirical work. I utilize established theories and
methodologies to gather and analyse new data, to explore and interpret this pressing social issue as
summarized in Chapter 2. Triangulation of theoretical and analytical approaches, enables a more
comprehensive view of the problem, which can then be translated into more effective policy making.
To a lesser extent, I also contribute to research methods within the field of energy poverty (Sovacool
et al., 2018) for instance, by introducing a mixed-method approach combining quantitative and
qualitative analysis. Next to structural and agential factors, I highlight the discursive side of the
phenomena, often overlooked in the energy poverty research.
2. Theoretical foundations and research methods
With the dual aim of achieving a nuanced understanding of energy poverty and critically examining
policies and practices that directly and indirectly address the phenomena, I employed a wide range of
theoretical approaches, conceptual frameworks and analytical tools. The following diagram (Figure 1)
summarizes major perspectives. The schema resulted from a conceptual review of the most common
theoretical approaches to energy poverty in the academic literature, which I worked on with my
colleagues and subsequently presented to the researchers and practitioners in the field (Koďousková
et al., 2021). What the perspectives have in common is their ambition to clarify or explain the problem
(explanatory force); and to provide some road map for how to conduct empirical research
(applicability) (Sovacool & Hess, 2017). These theories thus provide essential insights into what to
investigate and how to interpret the data. In my research I apply them as guiding tools to examine the
nuanced features of energy poverty. Furthermore, I employ the energy justice perspective to critically
assess and normatively evaluate existing policies. This approach, characterized by its top-down
orientation and heightened emphasis on ethical and moral considerations (as detailed below), aligns
well with this goal. In this chapter, I provide a concise overview of the key theoretical perspectives.
More detailed debates can be found in the listed manuscripts below (David & Koďousková, 2023;
Koďousková et al., 2023; Koďousková & Bořuta, 2022).
10
Figure 1: Theoretical clusters in the field of energy poverty and their dialogue
Source: Derived from (Koďousková et al., 2021)
The first cluster encompasses the mid-range perspectives of assemblage and vulnerability, which offer
a comprehensive viewpoint and foundation for the subject understanding. Both approaches seek to
move the analysis of energy poverty beyond a purely economic perspective and the traditional focus
on household´s income, energy prices and energy efficiency. They take into account a plethora of
structural and agential factors, that may cause a household to fall into or be trapped in energy poverty
(Koďousková et al., 2021).
The assemblage approach is rooted in relational geography, yet it also draws inspiration from
theoretical frameworks in science and technology studies, such as actor-network theory, and
incorporates insights from critical theory, such as urban political ecology (Buzar, 2007b; Day & Walker,
2013; Harrison, 2013; Harrison & Popke, 2011; summarized in Koďousková et al., 2021). For example
Harrison & Popke (2011, p. 950), understand energy poverty as „a geographical assemblage of
networked relations of various kinds, including flows of energy, infrastructures of production and
distribution, the properties of the built environment, and the social and economic networks that
sustain communities“. Their research not only examines material and social factors and how they
interact, but also considers time and space as crucial concepts. From one perspective, the assemblage
approach examines energy poverty as a convergence of historical developments, current
circumstances, and future aspirations. This examination reveals exposes a range of path dependencies
and lock-ins that have played a role in shaping the existing conditions among other elements
(Koďousková et al., 2021). In terms of the role of space, stemming from a relational perspective, it
offers a broader view that considers technological networks and broader political and economic
processes extending beyond the specific focal point of analysis. For example, energy poverty can be
influenced by local heating preferences as well as world oil prices and subsequent volatilities in LPG
affordability (Harrison & Popke, 2011). Overall, the assemblage perspective explores how the networks
of actors and materialities described above come together in situations of energy poverty.
11
The vulnerability approach also considers the dimensions of time and space, albeit in a slightly different
manner. It emphasizes that energy poverty is not a static condition, but has a dynamic nature.
A household can enter into it and become trapped, but it can also escape from it through changes in
internal and external factors (Bouzarovski et al., 2018; Bouzarovski & Thomson, 2018; Grossmann &
Kahlheber, 2018; Middlemiss et al., 2019). The approach thus „highlights the distinction between
energy poverty as a descriptor of a state at a given point of time, on the one hand, and vulnerability as
a set of conditions that characterize the emergence and persistence of deprivation, on the other“
(Bouzarovski et al., 2018, p. 3). In this context, it delves deeper into the probability of a household
falling into energy poverty. What began as an „system of provision paradigm“ underlying vulnerability
factors and their constituent elements along the energy supply chain toward household needs and
practices (Bouzarovski & Petrova, 2015) has gradually evolved into one of the most prominent
approaches in the energy poverty research. It concentrates not only on shifts in vulnerability factors
over time, but also on their socio-spatial distribution (see Koďousková et al., 2023). Scholars within
this cluster typically consolidate features that are likely to increase vulnerability into multidimensional
indices striving to pinpoint „hotspots“ where local action is needed (Gouveia et al., 2019; Robinson et
al., 2019; R. Walker et al., 2013). Furthermore, researchers underline that transitional processes
unaware of the issue can exacerbate pre-existing disparities (Bouzarovski et al., 2017; Bouzarovski
& Tirado Herrero, 2017b; Golubchikov & O“Sullivan, 2020).
Foundational ideas identified in the first cluster (focus on transitional settings and emphasis on the
lived realities of affected households) were later extended by other approaches (Koďousková et al.,
2021). The energy justice perspective primarily examines the structural processes and conditions that
give rise to various forms of injustice, including energy poverty, often approaching the domestic energy
deprivation from a systemic institutional „top down“ level. This provides an analytical framework that
is broadly applicable to the energy sector, as well as a decision support tool to „assist energy planners
in making more informed energy choices“ (Sovacool & Dworkin, 2015, p. 435). The framework typically
comprises separate but interrelated and reinforcing principles (Jenkins et al., 2016; Sovacool
& Dworkin, 2015; G. Walker & Day, 2012). The even distribution of energy system costs and
externalities across society („burdens“); equitable access to modern energy systems and services
(„benefits“); and assurance that energy decision-making respects due process and representation
(„procedures“). Furthermore, marginalized or vulnerable populations should receive special
consideration („recognition“) (McCauley, 2018). Using the framework to critically examine past and
proposed policies should avoid misleading trajectories that lead to unjust outcomes. The energy justice
perspective therefore questions the prevailing economic and technocratic perspectives (often driving
transition efforts) and introduces ethical and moral concepts for examining questions concerning the
energy lifecycle (see Koďousková & Bořuta, 2022).
Finally, the approaches in the third cluster tend to delve deeper into the actual lived realities of people
experiencing energy poverty, taking a more „bottom-up“ approach to the issue. It pays attention to
their daily experiences, perceptions and interactions. It can therefore identify what remains invisible
as being hidden in households“ private spheres (Dubois, 2021) including various material and nonmaterial
factors contributing to energy poverty and vulnerability (see David & Koďousková, 2023).
Most importantly, diverse „vicious circles“ (related to health, behaviour, emotions or social relations)
may play a role not only as consequences of energy poverty, but also as its drivers (DellaValle, 2019;
Hernández, 2016; Longhurst & Hargreaves, 2019; Oliveras et al., 2021; Porto Valente et al., 2022).
As an example, recent research has drawn attention to the role of trust. Lack of confidence in
12
institutions can prevent households from seeking help and deny them potential benefits (Grossmann
et al., 2021). This could additionally diminish a household´s ability to adapt and result in less-than-ideal
solutions (David & Koďousková, 2023). This cluster thus pays a great deal of attention to the coping
strategies of the household or, more generally, its ability to deal with the circumstances of energy
poverty (Stojilovska et al., 2021). As a consequence, this branch of research typically focuses on
households, whose agency is limited by various obstacles and barriers (elderly, young adults, lone
parents, social housing tenants...) and who are often overlooked, for example, in housing and energy
policies (Middlemiss, 2022; Papantonis et al., 2022; Robinson et al., 2019; Snell et al., 2015; SunikkaBlank
& Galvin, 2021; Willand & Horne, 2018). Scholars in this cluster offer frameworks and tools to
capture drivers and interactions on household level calling for more nuanced mitigation policies.
Apparently, all of the theoretical perspectives mentioned above understand energy poverty as
a multidimensional phenomenon that cuts across multiple domains. However, we also see major
differences in terms of the theories´ primary focus (Sovacool et al., 2018) and how they contribute to
the larger „structure/culture/agency“ debate (McAnulla, 2002). The debate is probably most visible in
those approaches that focus on the lived realities of the energy poor, where the agency of the
household is under scrutiny. Although individuals are definitely not considered to be without the ability
to act and may even reshape social institutions (Malakar et al., 2018b; Middlemiss et al., 2019), the
message here is that capacity for action may be substantially impeded by both individual circumstances
and the macro sociocultural context and technological infrastructure (Sovacool et al., 2018). In terms
of the former, individuals may be constrained by the condition of scarcity and under emotional load,
which leads to suboptimal solutions or even contributes to energy poverty (DellaValle, 2019; Longhurst
& Hargreaves, 2019). In case of the latter, social norms may also serve as strong cognitive shortcuts
which result in individuals tending to reproduce routine practices embedded in the local sociocultural
settings, including behaviours leading to energy poverty (Malakar et al., 2018a, 2018b). The holistic
approaches of assemblage and vulnerability consider a broad spectrum of socio-material elements,
actors, and networks across different scales, acknowledging their performative roles and attributing
agency to multiple factors. Finally, whilst the energy justice perspective focuses mainly on the
institutional, technical and social structures that underpin energy systems and how these can (re-)
produce vulnerabilities that lead to energy poverty, it adds a normative perspective. It aims to assess
„whether a technology, practice, policy or other unit of analysis is a net positive or negative for society
or individuals“ (Sovacool et al., 2018, p. 15). Therefore, it has the potential to reveal power relations,
the (re)production of distributional, procedural and recognitional inequities in a given society and,
more generally, systemic impacts on (vulnerable) households.
In my research I adopt a hybrid perspective. I take into account „the complex interactions among
agency and structure“ (Sovacool et al., 2018, p. 15). Moreover, I add on the discursive side of the
phenomena, which is often left out of research on energy poverty (Koďousková & Lehotský, 2021).
In accordance with the interpretivist paradigm, I share the view that reality is, to some extent, socially
constructed (Sovacool et al., 2018). I consider language as a powerful tool that structures and organizes
the terms in which we understand social reality, a site „in which social meanings are formed and
reproduced, social identities are shaped, and social facts are established“ (Tonkiss, 2012).
Consequently, I attach significance to the analysis and interpretation of individuals“ subjective
perspectives and actions within their own contexts (Sovacool et al., 2018). Overall, the way in which
energy poverty and vulnerability are perceived by different actors can have a profound impact on the
13
understanding of the problem and on how it is (successfully or not) addressed and managed (David &
Koďousková, 2023).
Adhering to the interpretivist paradigm, the predominant research methods and techniques I employ
are qualitative in nature. I utilize methods such as framing analysis, content analysis, or thematic
analysis, and work largely inductively with primary data (semi-structured interviews or documents
representing national-level policies). In many cases, the data were derived from interviews with hardto-reach
stakeholders (national and sub-national governments, energy-poor households). In one
particular instance (Koďousková et al., 2023), I adopted a mixed-method approach, using a two-phase
exploratory research design that combined and integrated both quantitative and qualitative analysis.
The papers listed below provide a more detailed description of the research designs used in my work.
Although in most cases I am the leading author, my research was always carried out in collaboration
with one or more of my colleagues. For the sake of clarity, in the following chapter I give a brief
summary of the papers that form the basis of the habilitation thesis. I always indicate, both in
percentages and by assigning individual research activities to each researcher, how I contributed to
the research.
3. The manuscripts constituting the thesis
Paper 1
Hidden energy poverty: The case of the Czech Republic
KOĎOUSKOVÁ, Hedvika and Lukáš LEHOTSKÝ. Hidden Energy Poverty: The Case of the Czech Republic.
In George Jiglau, Anca Sinea, Ute Dubois, Philipp Biermann. Perspectives on Energy Poverty in PostCommunist
Europe. 1st ed. London: Routledge, 2021. p. 173-194. Routledge Explorations in Energy
Studies. ISBN 978-0-367-43052-8. doi:10.4324/9781003000976-12.
Abstract: The Czech Republic does not seem to be affected by energy poverty to a great extent. The
overall prevalence of energy poverty in the country, as measured by both consensual and expenditurebased
indicators, appears to be low compared to most other EU Member States. Although the Czech
situation compares favourably with the rest of the EU, this should not lead us to conclude that energy
poverty is a minor problem in the country. Our thesis is that, despite good overall results, certain
sections of the population are more energy deprived. We argue that due to the „hidden“ nature of
energy poverty, there is a risk that those specific groups of the population who are in fact experiencing
high levels of energy deprivation may be systematically overlooked or misrecognized in government
policies. There is evidence that two types of policies (related to the housing needs and energy
efficiency of the housing stock) are reasonably well placed to address the problem. So far, however,
these policies have not realised their full potential. As such, they do not mitigate the phenomenon, but
rather facilitate the growth of inequalities in the accessibility and affordability of energy services.
Authorship contribution statement:
Main author: Hedvika Koďousková (50%), supervision, conceptualization, investigation, writing.
Co-author: Lukáš Lehotský (50%), investigation, writing.
14
Paper 2
Energy poverty in the Czech Republic: Individual responsibility or structural issue?
KOĎOUSKOVÁ, Hedvika and Lukáš LEHOTSKÝ. Energy poverty in the Czech Republic: Individual
responsibility or structural issue? Energy Research & Social Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2021, vol.
72, February, p. 1-9. ISSN 2214-6296. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101877.
Abstract: Although energy poverty is now high on the EU agenda, pressing Member States to adopt
targeted policies, there are considerable differences in the state of play across individual countries. In
this context, it is worth investigating how this agenda translates into policy. We aim to contribute to
this underrepresented strand of research in the energy poverty domain by focusing on the discursive
side. This paper starts with the theoretical assumption that bureaucrats are especially important in the
initial stages of new policy formation. It further presupposes framing as a process that typically occurs
in tackling the complex reality of an emerging policy problem. We have chosen the Czech Republic as
a case study as it does not currently have any official energy poverty policies though a working group
on the ministerial level has been tasked to define the issue in the Czech context. The research reveals
how relevant Czech bureaucrats frame the question of energy poverty. We identify three distinctive
frames. Whereas two frames follow the broader ideological debate on poverty (individualizing
vs. structural view), the third builds on the concept of vulnerability. None of the frames is clearly
predominant. Besides their conflicting views about the causes of energy poverty, responsibilities and
policies, there are also disagreements over the appropriate level (national or regional) of governance
and a widely held belief that external research actors should shed more light on the issue. The
complexity of the discussion may complicate finding a common approach.
Authorship contribution statement:
Main author: Hedvika Koďousková (50%), supervision, conceptualization, investigation, writing.
Co-author: Lukáš Lehotský (50%), methodology, formal analysis, resources, visualization, writing.
Paper 3
Energy poverty in Slovakia: Officially defined, but misrepresented in major policies
KOĎOUSKOVÁ, Hedvika and Dominik BOŘUTA. Energy poverty in Slovakia: Officially defined, but
misrepresented in major policies. Energy Policy. Oxford: Elsevier, 2022, vol. 168, September, p. 1-10.
ISSN 0301-4215. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113095.
Abstract: Slovakia is one of the few countries with an official energy poverty definition. Nevertheless,
it is listed among the ten most lagging EU Member States in terms of progress in alleviating energy
poverty. There are also concerns about the fairness of measures to combat it. This paper builds on the
energy justice perspective and a spatially sensitive evaluation to critically analyse Slovak policies
directly and indirectly tackling the issue. Do they reflect the three fundamental pillars of energy
justice? And, given the issue“s uneven socio-spatial occurrence in the country, are these policies
designed and implemented to reduce pre-existing inequalities? We reveal that the multidimensional
15
nature and specificities of energy poverty in Slovakia remain misrecognized in major policies.
Moreover, there are shortcomings in the policies“ distributional and participatory aspects. Most
importantly, social welfare benefits are hard to access for energy-poor households, as are energy
efficiency support schemes. Though some policies address dimensions linked to the issue, energy
poverty“s uneven incidence is not reflected. We conclude by pointing to the untapped potential of
major policies in solving the problem.
Authorship contribution statement:
Main author: Hedvika Koďousková (60%), conceptualization, methodology, visualization, writing.
Co-author: Dominik Bořuta (40%), investigation, resources, writing.
Paper 4
Official narratives vs. lived experiences: Contrasting views on energy poverty in the Czech Republic
DAVID, Dominik and Hedvika KOĎOUSKOVÁ. Official narratives vs. lived experiences: Contrasting views
on energy poverty in the Czech Republic. Energy Research & Social Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2023,
vol. 97, March, p. 1-9. ISSN 2214-6296. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2023.102991.
Abstract: In the Czech Republic, energy poverty assessments have primarily relied on traditional
indicators. Despite performing well compared to other countries in the region, there is a risk that those
suffering from energy poverty are misrecognized and receive insufficient support. This research aims
to bring a missing perspective on households“ lived experiences and connect it to official narratives on
energy poverty. We examine the interplay among material, non-material factors in households“
experiences, and external „contextual soup“, and reveal major challenges. The contrast between
households“ experiences and prevailing assumptions about energy poverty may pose difficulties
finding a workable solution. However, in the face of the current energy crisis, we call for a joint effort
between the state and non-state sectors to find appropriate tools to address the growing risk of
households falling into and being trapped in energy poverty.
Authorship contribution statement:
Main author: Dominik David (60%), supervision, investigation, resources, writing.
Co-author: Hedvika Koďousková (40%), conceptualization, methodology, visualization, writing.
Paper 5
Energy transition for the rich and energy poverty for the rest? Mapping and explaining district
heating transition, energy poverty, and vulnerability in Czechia
KOĎOUSKOVÁ, Hedvika, Adriana ILAVSKÁ, Tereza STAŠÁKOVÁ, Dominik DAVID and Jan OSIČKA. Energy
transition for the rich and energy poverty for the rest? Mapping and explaining district heating
transition, energy poverty, and vulnerability in Czechia. Energy Research & Social Science. Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 2023, vol. 100, June, p. 1-14. ISSN 2214-6296. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2023.103128.
16
Abstract: This paper considers the planned transformation of the district heating sector as an
opportunity to protect households from energy poverty, while also acknowledging the potential for
increased susceptibility. We aim to contribute to energy vulnerability research through a two-phased
sequential explanatory research design, which is uncommon in energy poverty research. In the first
stage, we develop an index to reveal the detailed socio-spatial distribution of urban energy
vulnerability in Czechia. This index can be used as a primary tool for targeted regional and local policies.
In the second stage, we confirm the validity and disaggregation of the index through local research.
In addition, this process uncovers vulnerabilities not captured by the index or that add meaning and
depth to known vulnerability factors. We identify multiple pathways of energy vulnerability stemming
from socioeconomic and material-technical factors, as well as combinations thereof. Our research
shows that urban energy vulnerability is rooted at different levels, ranging from the household to the
state, and is influenced both by past deregulation/liberalisation efforts and rising energy prices, which
can jeopardize planned projects. Our analysis highlights the crucial role of district heating systems in
urban energy vulnerability, their socio-economic fragility, and their inherently political nature.
Authorship contribution statement:
Main author: Hedvika Koďousková (53%), supervision, project administration/funding acquisition,
conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing.
Co-author: Adriana Ilavská (20%), methodology, investigation, resources, formal analysis, data
curation, visualization.
Co-author: Tereza Stašáková (12%), conceptualization, investigation.
Co-author: Dominik David (10%), investigation.
Co-author: Jan Osička (5%), conceptualization, writing.
4. Major findings and concluding remarks
In the realm of energy poverty, my research had two primary objectives. Firstly, I conducted
exploratory research primarily focused on the Czech context, with some attention to Slovakia, to
deepen our comprehension of energy poverty and vulnerability. Additionally, I employed various tools
for exploring and interpreting this critical social issue. Simultaneously, I engaged in a critical
assessment and normative evaluation of emerging policies and processes aimed at addressing energy
poverty and vulnerability. The following section provides a summary of key empirical and
methodological findings, outlines policy implications, and suggests some future directions for this field.
4.1 Empirical and methodological findings
At its core, my work advocates a comprehensive approach that integrates various methodologies and
embraces an interpretivist perspective in addition to the conventional quantitative analysis of energy
poverty. Traditional metrics, encompassing both objective and subjective indicators, offer valuable
initial insights into the state of energy poverty within a given area. However, since these indices are
17
based on well-established indicators, they may fall short in capturing other factors that contribute to
energy poverty and vulnerability within the local context and its specificities. Consequently, these
analyses may prove incomplete for informed policymaking in this domain.
For example, the first paper by Koďousková & Lehotský (2021b), mostly relied on secondary sources
and statistical data to evaluate the extent and basic characteristics of energy poverty in the Czech
Republic. Our findings confirmed that energy poverty is not evenly distributed across society. While
overall energy poverty rates, measured by both objective and subjective national indicators, appeared
low, certain demographic groups and household types, such as low-income households, single parents,
and the elderly, experienced high levels of energy deprivation. An interesting finding emerged
regarding Czech pensioners. Despite facing significant housing and energy costs, they view energy
debts negatively and prioritize housing and energy expenses over essentials like food or healthcare.
Gender also plays a role in energy poverty, particularly among elderly individuals living alone or single
parents, who are predominantly women (Koďousková & Lehotský, 2021b).
While statistical data provided valuable insights, they proved insufficient for a comprehensive
understanding of the factors underlying household´s energy poverty and its uneven distribution across
society. To bridge this gap, we integrated the previously missing perspective of affected households in
the Czech Republic. In the research conducted by David & Koďousková (2023), we directed our
attention towards the less obvious (non-material) aspects of energy poverty within the private sphere
of households. This encompassed their perceptions, norms, and practices. Furthermore, we examined
their interactions, ranging from immediate support networks to NGOs and government institutions.
This approach allowed us to identify factors contributing to energy poverty while simultaneously
evaluating household agency and identifying both facilitators and barriers to addressing the issue.
As far as major findings are concerned, unsurprisingly, material factors, including inefficient housing,
heating, and appliances, played a role in the experiences of energy-poor households. They had to
allocate a significant portion of their income to energy expenses but still struggled to adequately heat
their homes. These households were not unaware of their energy consumption. Nonetheless, their
efforts to conserve energy and implement small energy efficiency measures were insufficient to
improve their situation. Fundamental changes in the built environment are therefore necessary to
alleviate energy poverty, but regrettably, in their current form, out of the reach for energy poor (see
below).
Less obviously, a complex interplay between household norms and external influences complicated
the issue. Amongst our respondents, we observed feelings of shame or stigma, certain resistance to
outside help, and a lack of trust in government institutions. Notably, energy-poor households tended
to downplay the poor quality of their dwelling and were reluctant to consider moving. This emotional
attachment to the place of living, common to all ages, seems linked to fears of losing local support
networks. Households also feared personal failure, given the insurmountable barriers to improving
their housing situation by moving. This leads us to the second part of the problem. The Czech context,
characterized by a lack of affordable and energy-efficient housing and rising energy prices, presents
challenges that go beyond the agency of energy-poor households. The absence of specific policies to
address energy poverty contribute to the issue. We believe that a comprehensive approach involving
engagement with these households are needed to overcome the combination of entrenched norms
and external influences. We recommend a collaborative approach involving both government and nonprofit
sectors further discussed below.
18
Clearly, whilst statistical data and area-based analysis provide initial insights, qualitative research is
essential for uncovering the less visible causes of energy poverty and vulnerability and barriers to their
solution. Our study on the socio-spatial distribution of energy vulnerability in the Czech Republic
confirms this assumption (Koďousková et al., 2023). In this study, we combined quantitative data from
the „energy vulnerability index“ with interviews of representatives from the most vulnerable
municipalities. Index data, visualized into maps, revealed uneven presence of energy vulnerability,
with the worst-performing locations primarily in the northwest and northeast. Some individual cities
near regional borders also faced significant challenges. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the index´s
breakdown into its socio-economic and material-technical indicator groups also yield valuable insights.
Municipalities grappling with severe socio-economic challenges cluster in the northwest and
northeast, followed by cities in four eastern regions. Conversely, cities facing poor material-technical
conditions are distributed more evenly across the map. Furthermore, when delving into the most
affected areas, we encounter geographically proximate municipalities with widely divergent index
performances. Overall, the index underscores the existence of multiple energy vulnerability pathways.
For a more holistic understanding, we therefore employed localized inquiry. It unveiled vulnerabilities
that elude the index´s scope or enriched our understanding of already well-established vulnerability
factors. To name some of them, we identified the presence of a „downward spiral of energy
vulnerability“ in socially excluded areas and underprivileged urban neighbourhoods characterized by
deteriorating building conditions, heat and hot water cut-offs, people switching to more expensive
devices, cycles of indebtedness. Local actors also reported on the growing vulnerability of the middle
class and small entrepreneurs, which is not reflected in the indicators of the index. Some of mentioned
vulnerabilities result from past (e.g., housing sector deregulation and liberalization), while others stem
from escalating energy prices. For example, rising energy expenses could jeopardize future municipal
projects aimed at enhancing energy efficiency. To sum up, while energy vulnerability index is as
a valuable informative tool, it provides a relatively static perspective on the issue. In contrast, the local
enquiry portrays energy vulnerability as an inherently dynamic phenomenon with many non-obvious
features, intricately tied to various trends, and a trend it itself. Integrating both quantitative and
qualitative assessments can provide valuable insights not only into where to focus potential
interventions, but also which elements of a problem to target.
The above-mentioned studies suggest a diversity of perspectives from various actors at different levels.
Incoherence of even conflicting views may complicate energy poverty´s effective solution. A striking
example from our research centres around the comparison of vulnerable households“ real-life
experiences with the official narratives on energy poverty (David & Koďousková, 2023). In Koďousková
& Lehotský (2021a), we uncovered three primary energy poverty narratives within the ranks of
ministerial bureaucrats, none of which enjoyed clear dominance. In a nutshell, the first two narratives
align with the broader ideological debate on poverty; the third is built around the issue of energy
vulnerability. The first narrative attributes the causes of energy poverty and its potential solutions to
individual responsibility, while the second to the wider institutional and infrastructural settings. In
terms of proposed solutions, the „information deficit model“ and increased access to state subsidy
programs clash with uncertainties surrounding „technocratic approaches“ and the call for individually
tailored remedies. This ideological divide leads to conflicting perspectives on the scope and nature of
state social policies, ranging from stringent to relatively generous measures.
Interestingly, the lived realities of our respondents challenge the assumptions of the „individual
responsibility frame“. Our study (David & Koďousková, 2023) has not observed irresponsible
19
behaviour, such as wastefulness, excessive heating, or reckless spending, which the narrative posits as
a key cause. The norms within energy-poor households do play a role in perpetuating the issue, albeit
not in the manner portrayed by the narrative. While an information deficit may have a role to play, it
is not primarily due to a lack of awareness or unjustifiable concerns about administrative complexities,
but rather, feelings of shame, and a lack of trust in state institutions mentioned above that discourage
households to seek assistance. These findings align with those of an Australian study that found
households „not sufficiently confident, self-deserving, pre-disposed or resourced in the various ways
required to proactively access energy services support“ (Willand & Horne, 2018). As a consequence, if
the „individual responsibility narrative“ prevails in designing new policies, they may fall short of
effectively addressing the challenges faced by energy poor households.
We therefore also see the significance of employing discursive analysis in energy poverty research, as
it offers valuable insights into the policymaking process and its potential outcomes. In our previous
work (Koďousková & Lehotský, 2021a), we argue that examining the agenda-setting phase is pivotal
for a deeper comprehension in this area. In cases where there is a lack of pre-existing policies (such as
in the Czech context), but external pressure exists to design and implement functional energy poverty
solutions (e.g., from the EU level), policymakers are essentially starting from scratch. To gain the
necessary expertise, they often turn to specialized civil servants, such as bureaucrats, responsible for
collecting data, preparing reports, and creating initial policy proposals (Berling & Bueger, 2015; Fischer,
2009; Workman et al., 2017). This expertise often involves simplifying the complexity of reality through
interpretive schemas or „framing,“ which highlights specific elements while downplaying others (Hajer
& Laws, 2008).
As mentioned earlier, among Czech bureaucrats, we identified conflicting ideological perspectives
none of them clearly predominant. Furthermore, our findings indicate that the institutions in question
often have an unclear understanding of the issue. In fact, bureaucrats responsible for overseeing the
matter frequently expressed doubts about certain aspects of the problem and believed that additional
expertise from external research institution is needed. This starkly contrasts with our initial assumption
that bureaucracy plays a central role in defining the issue. It therefore appears likely that actors beyond
the ministries and governmental agencies will co-shape the still emerging future of Czech energy
poverty policies.
This leads us to the second focal point of my study, which is the examination of policies themselves.
During our research, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, had no policies or measures directly targeting
energy poverty or preventing vulnerable households from falling into this condition. However,
a number of indirect measures have been implemented. In the course of our research, we contend
that these policies do not fully realize their potential in solving the issue. Instead, they contribute to
unequal access to energy services among households. In the light of recent developments, such as
rising energy prices, the bankruptcy of energy suppliers and supply uncertainties due to the war in
Ukraine, some of these policies were subsequently adjusted to increase the number of potential
beneficiaries and to better serve households. But the fundamental design of the policies remained
unchanged.
In Koďousková & Lehotský (2021b), we analysed two major policies. The first deals with housing needs,
providing housing allowances for rent and/or energy costs to prevent energy poverty among lowincome
households. However, there are still marginalized populations living in dire conditions due to
20
a lack of social housing or high debts (including energy debts), leading to illicit housing practices known
as „poverty entrepreneurship“ and giving rise to the „energy paradox,“ where the least affluent
households bear the heaviest housing costs. The second policy focuses on improving housing energy
efficiency. Although they serve the mainstream public well, these programs are often complex and
challenging for potential beneficiaries to navigate. They typically involve financial grants that require
a set of eligibility criteria and co-financing. If approved, the grantee must cover the initial investment
costs (e.g., boiler installation or retrofitting) and is only later reimbursed upon completion. Therefore,
energy efficiency subsidies are often inaccessible to energy-poor and vulnerable households.
Unfortunately, this situation reinforces inequalities in access to energy services and energy poverty´s
structural nature in the Czech Republic. The risk prevails that households currently excluded from
support programs are at even greater risk of not being involved into future initiatives aiming to foster
low-carbon transition. Interviews with sub-national officials confirm the still unresolved nature of
above mentioned issues (Koďousková et al., 2023). Some promising practices include boiler
replacement pilot schemes for low-income households with greater involvement of sub-national
governments, local housing initiatives with social support, and city-led efforts to mediate between
energy providers and debt-prone tenants (Koďousková & Lehotský, 2021b).
Slovakia´s policies indirectly addressing energy poverty exhibit similar characteristics, as analysed in
Koďousková & Bořuta (2022) using the energy justice principles. The framework, encompassing
recognition, distribution, participation, and spatial sensitivity, revealed shortcomings and untapped
potential in the policies. Firstly, they fail to recognize energy poverty as a distinct and urgent issue
within their domains, risking the misrecognition or complete oversight of energy poverty and its
specificities in Slovakia (Dokupilová & Filčák, 2021). Secondly, the lack of emphasis on energy poor
households results in their limited access to social benefits and energy-efficient housing solutions.
Finally, specialized programs, information dissemination, and guidance for affected households are
absent, hindering their active engagement. In terms of spatial consideration, some plans and strategies
address aspects related to energy poverty but do not directly acknowledge its uneven distribution.
Notably, the colder climate and socio-economic disparities in certain Slovak regions, which can
exacerbate energy poverty for already vulnerable families, remain unaddressed in these policies,
further underscoring overall inadequate representation of the issue.
4.2 Policy implications
An analysis of how energy poverty is framed at the official level reveals that government officials
responsible for overseeing this issue are uncertain about specific aspects of the problem. They believe
that further analysis is necessary to address this question effectively. Our research reveals, that while
quantitative analysis, based on well-established indicators, can provide valuable initial insights, it falls
short in uncovering hidden aspects of the problem. These hidden factors often reside within the private
spheres of affected households or arise from a unique combination of socio-material factors at the
local level. Furthermore, the resolution of energy poverty relies heavily on how various stakeholders
perceive the issue. Differences in comprehending the fundamental nature of the problem can
complicate finding a practical solution.
In terms of policy implications, it is crucial to design and implement policies that take into account the
uneven socio-spatial distribution of energy poverty. Creating maps that illustrate the socio-spatial
distribution of energy vulnerability can serve as a fundamental tool for more targeted regional and
21
local remedies (Koďousková et al., 2023). Priority should be given to regions or localities identified as
the most energy vulnerable. Our on-going research indicates that many of the most affected clusters
have perceived prolonged neglect by the state (Koďousková & David, 2023). This neglect can
significantly erode confidence in state policies and the legitimacy of the state as a whole (Jiglău, 2021),
particularly during energy crises when these areas face additional burdens, such as energy price hikes
or loss of energy suppliers. To rebuild trust, the state must acknowledge regional and local disparities,
pay greater attention to local specificities and social inequalities, and foster communication and
cooperation with subnational actors. Fully recognizing the uneven socio-spatial incidence of the issue
should be followed by the development of long-term goals and strategies to address it.
This leads us to the second point, emphasizing the importance of involving the target group and key
stakeholders in the policy-making process. If the voices of affected households and subnational
officials and local actors are not sought and considered, the state misses out on the rich experience of
energy poverty and vulnerability that originates from the affected individuals themselves. This
experience is crucial for the improved design of relevant policies. Given the multidimensional and
cross-sectional nature of the issue, interdepartmental cooperation, including the active involvement
of regional and local institutions, seems necessary. These institutions can transfer valuable knowledge,
values, and stories from the local level to national decision-makers (Jenkins et al., 2016). Engaging
these stakeholders in ministerial-level working groups can facilitate information dissemination and the
development of coherent policies (Koďousková & David, 2023).
Increasing opportunities for energy-poor households to participate in existing and intended support
schemes is also important. It includes addressing the identity aspects and overcoming social barriers
such as feelings of shame, stigma, and mistrust. We advocate for tailored solutions that can effectively
address both the material and non-material aspects of the problem. To accomplish this, it requires
a collective effort involving various stakeholders. For example, it involves aligning the financial support
provided by the state, like social benefits and subsidy programs, with increased participation of local
actors, such as subnational officials, social workers, NGOs. These stakeholders can play a pivotal role
in several ways. They can help eliminate the stigma associated with energy poverty among households,
thereby promoting greater utilization of available social benefits. Furthermore, they can contribute to
refining the focus of programs aimed at supporting energy-efficient housing. If the state makes these
programs more adaptive, subnational officials may help prioritize actions like insulation for the homes
of low-income households in one region, while in another, the emphasis may shift towards the
construction of energy-efficient starter homes or social housing. In summary, our central message
underscores the value of community engagement and collaboration in the effort to address energy
poverty.
In practical terms, scholars identify four key strategies for addressing energy poverty (Kyprianou et al.,
2019), among them protection against disconnection, social benefits, subsidy programs for energy
efficiency and renewable energy, and information provision. In the Czech Republic, these measures
exist but fall short of effectively addressing the issue. Firstly, protection against disconnections,
exemplified by the 2021 bankruptcy of Bohemia Energy, whilst preventing disconnections, failed to
protect against unaffordable deposit payments, especially impacting energy-vulnerable households
(David & Koďousková, 2024). Secondly, social benefits, including energy and housing allowances, are
underutilized due to stigma, preventing eligible individuals from claiming them (David & Koďousková,
2023). Thirdly, subsidy programs for energy efficiency and renewable energy benefit the general
population but struggle to effectively reach and engage energy-poor households, who face barriers
22
such as limited savings and difficulties to navigate complex support schemes (Koďousková & Bořuta,
2022; Koďousková & Lehotský, 2021b). The information campaigns, although recently initiated, lack
a specific focus on energy poverty and primarily target energy consumption patterns. However, our
previous research has indicated that energy-poor households are already quite energy-conscious
within the boundaries of their dwellings technical state (David & Koďousková, 2024; Koďousková
& Bořuta, 2022). In summary, addressing energy poverty comprehensively in the Czech Republic
requires substantial efforts in these four areas, along with tackling the shortage of energy-efficient
(social) housing and monitoring rental housing standards, especially in deprived neighbourhoods
(Koďousková et al., 2023). The solutions suggested by our research are based on a comprehensive
understanding of energy poverty, the importance of recognising its uneven socio-spatial distribution,
prioritising areas identified as most energy vulnerable, and involving stakeholders and target groups
in the policy-making and implementation process.
4.3 Future directions and the thesis limits
The above findings show that while much has been researched in the field of energy poverty, there is
room for further investigation into the characteristics of the problem and the policies that aim to
address it. I propose three key areas for future research.
Repeatedly, our studies have raised questions regarding the energy poverty governance (Koďousková
et al., 2023; Koďousková & Bořuta, 2022; Koďousková & Lehotský, 2021a). It is imperative to focus not
only on the nature of energy poverty policies and measures but also on the allocation of responsibility
for their design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. It appears that harnessing government
financial assistance and subsidies, in combination with the capacity of the non-profit sector and local
actors, to identify the most vulnerable households and provide non-financial support, may help
address not only obvious but also less visible factors rooted in household norms and practices (David
& Koďousková, 2023). However, little is known about the perspectives of sub-state actors themselves
on this issue. Our ongoing interpretivist research is dedicated to understanding municipalities´ ability
and willingness to address it.
Secondly, with regards to methodology, I strongly advocate for a more extensive exploration of mixedmethod
assessments within the domain of energy poverty. Our research findings, as reported by
Koďousková et al. (2023), point to the need for further work on integrating quantitative and qualitative
analysis. For instance, we intend to develop of a functional typology focusing on „local pathways to
energy vulnerability,“ which not only ensures that policies are accurately targeted but also that they
properly reflect the unique local contexts and problems. Whilst the index may provide insights into the
geographical areas with the highest vulnerability, by conducting local surveys, we can delve deeper
into specific attributes, aiding in the evolution and enhancement of this typology. Additionally, it
appears feasible to deconstruct indices based on specific factors, as exemplified in the gender-specific
evaluation conducted in England (Robinson, 2019).
Lastly, while household surveys provide valuable insights into the energy poverty causes and
consequences, they may also be used, to refine policy design. Although Hoppe et al. (2016) emphasize
the importance of involving the target group and key stakeholders in the policy-making process,
a German study (Hanke et al., 2023) highlights the current exclusion of energy-poor households from
the energy transition narrative. Recently established programs like the „New Green for Savings Light“
in the Czech Republic, designed for low-income households, pensioners, and households with
23
disabilities, therefore warrant scrutiny from the eligible household´s point of view. The results can
further enrich our understanding of how to design policies that are effective in meeting the twin goals
of energy access and sustainable development.
Allow me to conclude by acknowledging the limitations of my research. The primary objective of my
study was exploratory, aimed at enhancing our comprehension of energy poverty and vulnerability.
Simultaneously, I conducted a critical assessment and normative evaluation of emerging policies
designed to combat it. Consequently, I did not endeavour to provide an exhaustive explanation of the
underlying aspects of the problem nor the policies designed to address it. For instance, my work falls
short of clarifying the link between policies and the political order and the policy-making process. More
specifically, although we have identified several energy poverty narratives on the official level
(Koďousková & Lehotský, 2021a) we have not delved into the tracing of the ideological foundations
underpinning these frames nor the dynamics among major actors. Consequently, whilst some scholars
caution against attempting to encompass all three contributions - theoretical, empirical, and
methodological - deeming such research prone to confusion or incoherence (Sovacool et al., 2018), my
research did not harbour theoretical ambitions in terms of new theory building or refinement.
However, by applying several frameworks and tools, my research has shown that recent theoretical
contributions are immensely valuable in advancing knowledge and addressing this critical social issue.
References
Bartiaux, F., Day, R., & Lahaye, W. (2021). Energy Poverty as a Restriction of Multiple Capabilities: A
Systemic Approach for Belgium. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 22(2), 270–
291. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2021.1887107
Bazilian, M., Nakhooda, S., & Van de Graaf, T. (2014). Energy governance and poverty. Energy
Research & Social Science, 1, 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.006
Berling, T. V., & Bueger, C. (Eds.). (2015). Security Expertise: Practice, Power, Responsibility (1st ed.).
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Bouzarovski, S. (2014). Energy poverty in the European Union: landscapes of vulnerability. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 3(3), 276–289.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.89
Bouzarovski, S. (2018a). Energy poverty: (Dis) Assembling Europe´s Infrastructural Divide. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bouzarovski, S. (2018b). Energy Poverty. Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69299-9
Bouzarovski, S., & Petrova, S. (2015). A global perspective on domestic energy deprivation:
Overcoming the energy poverty–fuel poverty binary. Energy Research & Social Science, 10, 31–
40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.007
Bouzarovski, S., & Simcock, N. (2017). Spatializing energy justice. Energy Policy, 107, 640–648.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.064
Bouzarovski, S., Simcock, N., Thomson, H., & Petrova, S. (2018). Introduction. In Energy Poverty and
Vulnerability: A Global Perspective (pp. 1–11). Routledge.
Bouzarovski, S., & Thomson, H. (2018). Energy Vulnerability in the Grain of the City: Toward
24
Neighborhood Typologies of Material Deprivation. Annals of the American Association of
Geographers, 108(3), 695–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1373624
Bouzarovski, S., & Thomson, H. (2019). Addressing Energy Poverty in the European Union: State of
Play and Action.
Bouzarovski, S., & Thomson, H. (2020). Towards an inclusive energy transition in the European Union:
Confronting energy poverty amidst a global crisis.
Bouzarovski, S., Thomson, H., & Cornelis, M. (2021). Confronting Energy Poverty in Europe: A
Research and Policy Agenda. Energies, 14(4), 858. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14040858
Bouzarovski, S., & Tirado Herrero, S. (2017a). Geographies of injustice: the socio-spatial determinants
of energy poverty in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Post-Communist Economies,
29(1), 27–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2016.1242257
Bouzarovski, S., & Tirado Herrero, S. (2017b). The energy divide: Integrating energy transitions,
regional inequalities and poverty trends in the European Union. European Urban and Regional
Studies, 24(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776415596449
Bouzarovski, S., Tirado Herrero, S., Petrova, S., Frankowski, J., Matoušek, R., & Maltby, T. (2017).
Multiple transformations: theorizing energy vulnerability as a socio-spatial phenomenon.
Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 99(1), 20–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.2016.1276733
Bouzarovski, S., Tirado Herrero, S., Petrova, S., & Ürge-Vorsatz, D. (2016). Unpacking the spaces and
politics of energy poverty: path-dependencies, deprivation and fuel switching in postcommunist
Hungary. Local Environment, 21(9), 1151–1170.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2015.1075480
Bridge, G., Barr, S., Bouzarovski, S., Bradshaw, M., Brown, E., Bulkeley, H., & Walker, G. (2018).
Energy and Society: A Critical Perspective. Routledge.
Brugger, E. C. (2016). Reflections on the moral foundations of the right to energy. In L. Guruswamy
(Ed.), International Energy and Poverty: The emerging contours (pp. 68–83). Routledge.
Buzar, S. (2007a). The „hidden“ geographies of energy poverty in post-socialism: Between institutions
and households. Geoforum, 38(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.02.007
Buzar, S. (2007b). When Homes Become Prisons: The Relational Spaces of Postsocialist Energy
Poverty. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 39(8), 1908–1925.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a38298
David, D., & Koďousková, H. (2023). Official narratives vs. lived experiences: Contrasting views on
energy poverty in the Czech Republic. Energy Research & Social Science, 97, 102991.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.102991
David, D., & Koďousková, H. (2024). Connected Yet Suffering: The Lived Experiences of Czech
Households through Energy Service Provider Bankruptcies. In P. V. Herrejón, B. Lennon, & N.
Dunphy (Eds.), Living with Energy Poverty (Routledge, pp. 104–114). Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group.
Day, R., & Walker, G. (2013). Household energy vulnerability as „assemblage.“ In K. Bickerstaff, G.
Walker, & H. Bulkeley (Eds.), Energy Justice in a Changing Climate: Social equity and low-carbon
energy (pp. 14–29). Zed Books Ltd.
DellaValle, N. (2019). People“s decisions matter: understanding and addressing energy poverty with
behavioral economics. Energy and Buildings, 204, 109515.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109515
25
Directorate-General for Energy. (n.d.). Energy poverty in the EU.
https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/markets-and-consumers/energy-consumer-rights/energy-
poverty-eu_en
Directorate-General for Energy. (2022). Introduction to the Energy Poverty Advisory Hub (EPAH)
Handbooks: A Guide to Understanding and Addressing Energy Poverty. https://energy-
poverty.ec.europa.eu/discover/publications/publications/introduction-energy-poverty-
advisory-hub-epah-handbooks-guide-understanding-and-addressing-energy_en
Dokupilová, D., & Filčák, R. (2021). Regional disparities as roots of energy poverty in Slovakia. In G.
Jiglău, A. Sinea, U. Dubois, & P. Biermann (Eds.), Perspectives on Energy Poverty in PostCommunist
Europe (pp. 206–221). Routledge.
Dubois, U. (2021). Introduction: Energy poverty and its drivers in post-communist Europe. In G.
Jiglău, A. Sinea, U. Dubois, & P. Biermann (Eds.), Perspectives on Energy Poverty in PostCommunist
Europe (pp. 1–21). Routledge.
Eisfeld, K., & Seebauer, S. (2022). The energy austerity pitfall: Linking hidden energy poverty with
self-restriction in household use in Austria. Energy Research & Social Science, 84, 102427.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102427
Fischer, F. (2009). Democracy and Expertise: Reorienting Policy Inquiry. Oxford University Press.
Gillard, R., Snell, C., & Bevan, M. (2017). Advancing an energy justice perspective of fuel poverty:
Household vulnerability and domestic retrofit policy in the United Kingdom. Energy Research &
Social Science, 29, 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.05.012
Goldthau, A. (2012). From the State to the Market and Back: Policy Implications of Changing Energy
Paradigms. Global Policy, 3(2), 198–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2011.00145.x
Golubchikov, O., & O“Sullivan, K. (2020). Energy periphery: Uneven development and the precarious
geographies of low-carbon transition. Energy and Buildings, 211, 109818.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109818
Gouveia, J. P., Palma, P., & Simoes, S. G. (2019). Energy poverty vulnerability index: A
multidimensional tool to identify hotspots for local action. Energy Reports, 5, 187–201.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2018.12.004
Grevisse, F., & Brynart, M. (2011). Energy poverty in Europe: Towards a more global understanding.
CURRENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY POLICIES, 537–549.
Grossmann, K., Jiglau, G., Dubois, U., Sinea, A., Martín-Consuegra, F., Dereniowska, M., Franke, R.,
Guyet, R., Horta, A., Katman, F., Papamikrouli, L., Castaño-Rosa, R., Sandmann, L., Stojilovska,
A., & Varo, A. (2021). The critical role of trust in experiencing and coping with energy poverty:
Evidence from across Europe. Energy Research & Social Science, 76, 102064.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102064
Grossmann, K., & Kahlheber, A. (2018). Energy poverty in an intersectional perspective. In Energy
Poverty and Vulnerability: A Global Perspective (pp. 12–32). Routledge.
Hajer, M., & Laws, D. (2008). Ordering through Discourse. In R. Goodin, M. Moran, & M. Rein (Eds.),
The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy (pp. 251–268). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548453.003.0012
Hall, D., Lobina, E., & Terhorst, P. (2013). Re-municipalisation in the early twenty-first century: water
in France and energy in Germany. International Review of Applied Economics, 27(2), 193–214.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2012.754844
Haney, A. B., & Pollitt, M. G. (2013). New models of public ownership in energy. International Review
of Applied Economics, 27(2), 174–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/02692171.2012.734790
26
Hanke, F., Grossmann, K., & Sandmann, L. (2023). Excluded despite their support - The perspectives
of energy-poor households on their participation in the German energy transition narrative.
Energy Research & Social Science, 104, 103259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103259
Harrison, C. (2013). The historical-geographical construction of power: Electricity in Eastern North
Carolina. Local Environment, 18(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.748728
Harrison, C., & Popke, J. (2011). „Because You Got to Have Heat“: The Networked Assemblage of
Energy Poverty in Eastern North Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
101(4), 949–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2011.569659
Heffron, R. J., & McCauley, D. (2017). The concept of energy justice across the disciplines. Energy
Policy, 105, 658–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.018
Hernández, D. (2016). Understanding „energy insecurity“ and why it matters to health. Social Science
& Medicine, 167, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.029
Hoppe, T., Coenen, F., & van den Berg, M. (2016). Illustrating the use of concepts from the discipline
of policy studies in energy research: An explorative literature review. Energy Research & Social
Science, 21, 12–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.06.006
International Energy Agency. (2017). Energy Access Outlook 2017: From Poverty to Prosperity.
International Energy Agency. (2021). TRACKING SDG7: THE ENERGY PROGRESS REPORT 2021.
https://trackingsdg7.esmap.org/
Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H., & Rehner, R. (2016). Energy justice: A conceptual
review. Energy Research & Social Science, 11, 174–182.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.10.004
Jiglău, G. (2021). Conclusios: Energy poverty as a threat to democracy in post-communist countries.
In G. Jiglău, A. Sinea, U. Dubois, & P. Biermann (Eds.), Perspectives on Energy Poverty in PostCommunist
Europe (pp. 222–228). Routledge.
Jiglau, G., Hesselman, M., Dobbins, A., Grossmann, K., Guyet, R., Tirado Herrero, S., & Varo, A. (2023).
Energy and the social contract: From „energy consumers“ to „people with a right to energy.“
Sustainable Development. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2727
Jiglău, G., Sinea, A., Dubois, U., & Biermann, P. (Eds.). (2021). Perspectives on Energy Poverty in PostCommunist
Europe. Routledge.
Karásek, J., & Pojar, J. (2018). Programme to reduce energy poverty in the Czech Republic. Energy
Policy, 115, 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.045
Karpinska, L., & Śmiech, S. (2020). Conceptualising housing costs: The hidden face of energy poverty
in Poland. Energy Policy, 147, 111819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111819
Koďousková, H., & Bořuta, D. (2022). Energy poverty in Slovakia: Officially defined, but
misrepresented in major policies. Energy Policy, 168, 113095.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113095
Koďousková, H., & David, D. (2023). Exploring energy poverty governance: Perspectives from energy
vulnerable cities in the Czech Republic.
Koďousková, H., Ilavská, A., Stašáková, T., David, D., & Osička, J. (2023). Energy transition for the rich
and energy poverty for the rest? Mapping and explaining district heating transition, energy
poverty, and vulnerability in Czechia. Energy Research & Social Science, 100, 103128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103128
Koďousková, H., Kimbrell, C., & Stašáková, T. (2021). Theorizing Energy Poverty: A Conceptual Review.
Koďousková, H., & Lehotský, L. (2021a). Energy poverty in the Czech Republic: Individual
27
responsibility or structural issue? Energy Research & Social Science, 72.
Koďousková, H., & Lehotský, L. (2021b). Hidden energy poverty. The case of the Czech Republic. In G.
Jiglau, A. Sinea, U. Dubois, & P. Biermann (Eds.), Perspectives on Energy Poverty in PostCommunist
Europe (pp. 173–194). Routledge.
Kyprianou, I., Serghides, D. K., Varo, A., Gouveia, J. P., Kopeva, D., & Murauskaite, L. (2019). Energy
poverty policies and measures in 5 EU countries: A comparative study. Energy and Buildings,
196, 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.05.003
LaBelle, M. C. (2017). In pursuit of energy justice. Energy Policy, 107, 615–620.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.054
Lippert, I., & Sareen, S. (2023). Alleviation of energy poverty through transitions to low-carbon
energy infrastructure. Energy Research & Social Science, 100, 103087.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103087
Longhurst, N., & Hargreaves, T. (2019). Emotions and fuel poverty: The lived experience of social
housing tenants in the United Kingdom. Energy Research & Social Science, 56, 101207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.05.017
Malakar, Y., Greig, C., & van de Fliert, E. (2018a). Structure, agency and capabilities: Conceptualising
inertia in solid fuel-based cooking practices. Energy Research & Social Science, 40, 45–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.12.002
Malakar, Y., Greig, C., & van de Fliert, E. (2018b). Resistance in rejecting solid fuels: Beyond
availability and adoption in the structural dominations of cooking practices in rural India. Energy
Research & Social Science, 46, 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.025
McAnulla, S. (2002). Structure and Agency. In D. Marsh & G. Stoker (Eds.), Theory and Methods in
Political Science (pp. 271–291). Palgrave Macmillan.
McCauley, D. (2018). Energy Justice: Re-balancing the Trilemma of Security, Poverty and Climate
Change. Palgrave Macmillan.
Middlemiss, L. (2022). Who is vulnerable to energy poverty in the Global North, and what is their
experience? WIREs Energy and Environment, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.455
Middlemiss, L., Ambrosio-Albalá, P., Emmel, N., Gillard, R., Gilbertson, J., Hargreaves, T., Mullen, C.,
Ryan, T., Snell, C., & Tod, A. (2019). Energy poverty and social relations: A capabilities approach.
Energy Research & Social Science, 55, 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.05.002
Munro, P., van der Horst, G., & Healy, S. (2017). Energy justice for all? Rethinking Sustainable
Development Goal 7 through struggles over traditional energy practices in Sierra Leone. Energy
Policy, 105, 635–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.01.038
O“Sullivan, K., Golubchikov, O., & Mehmood, A. (2020). Uneven energy transitions: Understanding
continued energy peripheralization in rural communities. Energy Policy, 138, 111288.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111288
Oliveras, L., Peralta, A., Palència, L., Gotsens, M., López, M. J., Artazcoz, L., Borrell, C., & MaríDell“Olmo,
M. (2021). Energy poverty and health: Trends in the European Union before and
during the economic crisis, 2007–2016. Health & Place, 67, 102294.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102294
Palma, P., & Gouveia, J. P. (2022). Bringing Energy Poverty Research into Local Practice.
Papantonis, D., Tzani, D., Burbidge, M., Stavrakas, V., Bouzarovski, S., & Flamos, A. (2022). How to
improve energy efficiency policies to address energy poverty? Literature and stakeholder
insights for private rented housing in Europe. Energy Research & Social Science, 93, 102832.
28
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102832
Petrova, S., & Simcock, N. (2019). Gender and energy: domestic inequities reconsidered. Social &
Cultural Geography, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2019.1645200
Poputoaia, D., & Bouzarovski, S. (2010). Regulating district heating in Romania: Legislative challenges
and energy efficiency barriers. Energy Policy, 38(7), 3820–3829.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.03.002
Porto Valente, C., Morris, A., & Wilkinson, S. J. (2022). Energy poverty, housing and health: the lived
experience of older low-income Australians. Building Research & Information, 50(1–2), 6–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2021.1968293
Primc, K., Dominko, M., & Slabe-Erker, R. (2021). 30 years of energy and fuel poverty research: A
retrospective analysis and future trends. Journal of Cleaner Production, 301, 127003.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127003
Pye, S., & Dobbins, A. (2015). Energy poverty and vulnerable consumers in the energy sector across
the EU: analysis of policies and measures. www.insightenergy.org
Rademaekers, K., Yearwood, J., Ferreira, A., Pye, S., Hamilton, I., Agnolucci, P., Grover, D., Karásek, J.,
& Anisimova, N. (2016). Selecting Indicators to Measure Energy Poverty Under the Pilot Project
„Energy Poverty – Assessment of the Impact of the Crisis and Review of Existing and Possible
New Measures in the Member States: Final Report.
Robinson, C. (2019). Energy poverty and gender in England: A spatial perspective. Geoforum, 104,
222–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.05.001
Robinson, C., Lindley, S., & Bouzarovski, S. (2019). The Spatially Varying Components of Vulnerability
to Energy Poverty. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 109(4), 1188–1207.
https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2018.1562872
Samarakoon, S. (2019). A justice and wellbeing centered framework for analysing energy poverty in
the Global South. Ecological Economics, 165, 106385.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106385
Snell, C., Bevan, M., & Thomson, H. (2015). Justice, fuel poverty and disabled people in England.
Energy Research & Social Science, 10, 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.07.012
Sovacool, B. K., Axsen, J., & Sorrell, S. (2018). Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social
science: Towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design. Energy
Research & Social Science, 45, 12–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.007
Sovacool, B. K., & Dworkin, M. H. (2015). Energy justice: Conceptual insights and practical
applications. Applied Energy, 142, 435–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.002
Sovacool, B. K., & Hess, D. J. (2017). Ordering theories: Typologies and conceptual frameworks for
sociotechnical change. Social Studies of Science, 47(5), 703–750.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717709363
Sovacool, B. K., Sidortsov, R. V., & Jones, B. R. (2014). Energy Security, Equality, and Justice.
Routledge.
Stojilovska, A., Yoon, H., & Robert, C. (2021). Out of the margins, into the light: Exploring energy
poverty and household coping strategies in Austria, North Macedonia, France, and Spain.
Energy Research & Social Science, 82, 102279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102279
Sunikka-Blank, M., & Galvin, R. (2021). Single parents in cold homes in Europe: How intersecting
personal and national characteristics drive up the numbers of these vulnerable households.
Energy Policy, 150, 112134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112134
29
Tonkiss, F. (2012). Discourse analysis. In C. Seale (Ed.), Researching Society and Culture (pp. 405–423).
SAGE Publications Ltd. http://www.uk.sagepub.com/
Walker, G., & Day, R. (2012). Fuel poverty as injustice: Integrating distribution, recognition and
procedure in the struggle for affordable warmth. Energy Policy, 49, 69–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.044
Walker, R., Liddell, C., McKenzie, P., & Morris, C. (2013). Evaluating fuel poverty policy in Northern
Ireland using a geographic approach. Energy Policy, 63, 765–774.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.047
Widuto, A. (2022). Energy poverty in the EU.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/733583/EPRS_BRI(2022)733583_
EN.pdf
Willand, N., & Horne, R. (2018). „They are grinding us into the ground“ – The lived experience of
(in)energy justice amongst low-income older households. Applied Energy, 226, 61–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.05.079
Wood, N., & Roelich, K. (2019). Tensions, capabilities, and justice in climate change mitigation of
fossil fuels. Energy Research & Social Science, 52, 114–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.014
Workman, S., Shafran, J., & Bark, T. (2017). Problem definition and information provision by federal
bureaucrats. Cognitive Systems Research, 43, 140–152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2016.11.002