Beyond the Energy Poor/Non Energy Poor Divide: Energy Vulnerability and Mindsets on Energy Generation Modes in Hungary

The article of Adrienne Csizmady, Zoltán Ferencz, Lea Kőszeghy and Gergely Tóth makes a contribution to the literature on energy poverty in Hungary. It adds a third category ('transitional group') to the traditional theoretical division ('energy poor' and 'non energy poor' households) and compares the socio-economic characteristics and energy use attitudes of the three identified groups. With the new conceptual framework created, the study allows for a more detailed analysis of different energy poverty groups.

The full study is available HERE.

The methodology for measuring energy poverty is surrounded by a lush debate in the literature. Studies on the subject have identified three possible approaches: subjective indicators based on the perception of the concerned households, expenditure-based indicators that relate energy costs to total household income and methods that combine the two approaches. The aim of the paper is to produce and test a complex energy poverty indicator that goes beyond the bipolar interpretation of energy security in the Hungarian context, i.e. the division of households into ‘energy poor’ and ‘non energy poor’ categories.

The data collection process took place in 2017 and 2018; the researchers first conducted a focus group discussion and then created and distributed an energy poverty survey. The survey was used to collect data from a representative sample of 1000 people. In addition to the traditional groups of ‘energy poor’ and ‘non energy poor’ households, the paper identifies a third group, the so-called ‘transitional group’, which can be described with mixed characteristics and an increased risk of falling into energy poverty. The socio-economic characteristics of the three categories are summarised in the table below.

	Energy poor	Transitional group	Non energy poor
Location	Northern Hungary	Great Plain	Budapest and its surroundings
Place of living	Villages	Small towns	Big cities and suburban areas
Type of housing	Small family house	Multi-storey residential building	Large family house, housing estate
Rooms	1-2	2-3	>3
Floor area	<50 m2	60-80 m2	>100 m2
Education	Low or undereducated	Middle	High
Income	Low	Middle	High
Typical family size	>4 members	2 members	2 members
Technical problems with dwelling	Multiple problems	Some problems	No problems
Openness to innovative environmental solutions	None	Yes	Yes
Economic background to use innovations	None	None	Eligible
Typical heating	Solid fuel	Gas	Gas or central
Typical temperature of heated space	<19	20-22	23-24
Payment difficulties	Frequent	Occasional	Never
Source: (Csizmady et al. 2021, p. 10)

The article also assesses the energy use attitudes towards heating of the three distinct groups. While for energy poor households, micro-level economic considerations (e.g. low investment costs, availability of public subsidies) are the most important factors, non energy poor households tend to think at a macro level and to put environmental considerations above all others. The transitional group has a mixed attitude, valuing both low consumption and a low ecological footprint relatively highly.

The main added value of this study to the literature is the establishment of a comprehensive conceptual framework and methodology, taking into account both qualitative and quantitative considerations. This approach could provide a basis for a number of further research. In addition to the many other energy poverty indicators used in Hungary, which are mainly expenditure-based, it proposes a new, more complex indicator that can be used to better map the perceptions and motivations of the different energy poverty groups.