Geographies of injustice: the socio-spatial determinants of energy poverty in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary

Figures & data

Figure 1. Evolution of the Gini index in Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland. Source: World Bank.

Figure 2. Evolution of median household income and domestic energy expenditures in Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland (2006=100). Source: Authors’ own analysis of HBS data.

Figure 3. Percentages of households with an energy burden above 20%. Source: Authors’ own analysis of HBS data.

Figure 4. Percentages of households in the LIHC category. Source: Authors’ own analysis of HBS data.

Figure 5. Percentages of people with self-reported thermal comfort and utility bill payment difficulties. Source: Authors’ own analysis of SILC data.

Figure 6. Percentages of people living in a dwelling that is uncomfortably cool during summer. Source: SILC ad hoc module on housing conditions (only for 2007 and 2012).

Table 1. Socio-demographic indicators of vulnerability to energy poverty. In the table, ‘category’ refers to the share of households who are considered vulnerable to the given indicator within the specific socio-demographic category; ‘total’ refers to the cumulative share of households in the sample (i.e. as a proportion of all households) who are considered vulnerable to the given indicator. Above-average values of the ‘category’ shares are italicised.

Indicators	Energy burden exceeds 20%		LIHC		Dwelling insufficiently* warm in winter		Dwelling insufficiently* cool in summer
Household share	Category	Total	Category	Total	Category	Total	Category	Total
Households with children under 15
Hungary	23	31	10	13	19	20	29	27
Poland	21	20	16	14	12	13	19	19
Households headed by or containing pensioners**
Hungary	37	31	15	13	21	20	24	27
Poland	22	20	17	14	13	13	19	19
Czech Republic	18	12	22	9	–	–	–	–
Households for whom social benefits provide the primary source of income
Poland	40	20	26	14	32	13	30	19
Czech Republic	19	12	13	9	–	–	–	–
Low educational attainment***
Hungary	47	31	21	13	30	20	26	27
Poland	26	20	23	14	24	13	22	19
Czech Republic	100	12	67	9	–	–	–	–
Income lower than 60% of the median
Hungary	73	31	29	13	39	20	28	27
Poland	38	20	31	14	23	13	23	19
Czech Republic	39	12	30	9	–	–	–	–
‘Very poor’**** self-reported financial status of the household
Hungary	45	31	20	13	37	20	34	27
Poland	35	20	26	14	33	13	31	19

^* The Hungarian survey uses the phrasing ‘uncomfortably’.

^** This measure refers to the presence of pensioners in surveyed households in Hungary and Poland, and the head of the household being a pensioner in the Czech Republic.

^*** Defined as 8–10 years of completed primary school by the head of household in Hungary, and completed primary school in Poland and the Czech Republic.

^**** The Hungarian survey uses the phrasing ‘inability to make ends meet with great difficulty’.

Source: Authors’ analysis of 2012 Polish, 2012 Czech and 2011 Hungarian HBS data.

Table 2. Energy poverty indicators for selected demographic groups in Poland (expressed as shares of households in the relevant category within all households). Above-average values are italicised.

Indicators	Energy burden exceeds 20%	LIHC	Dwelling insufficiently warm in winter	Dwelling insufficiently cool in summer
Total household share	20	14	13	19
Workers	17	11	12	20
Farmers	22	19	4	4
Self-employed	20	10	9	15
Pensioners	22	17	14	20
Informal income earners*	29	20	24	25

^* Excluding agricultural workers.

Source: Authors’ own analysis of 2012 Polish HBS data.

Table 3. Energy poverty indicators for selected demographic groups in the Czech Republic (expressed as shares of households in the relevant category within all households). Above-average values are italicised.

Indicator	Energy burden exceeds 20%	LIHC
Total household share	12	9
Couple without children	3	8
Nuclear family	4	6
Extended family without children*	0	60
Extended family**	9	13
Single parent	9	11
One-person household, male	18	18
One-person household, female	21	22
Household headed by a man	5	9
Household headed by a woman	17	19

^* Couple living with relatives other than children (e.g. in-laws, grandchildren).

^** Nuclear family living with relatives.

Source: Authors’ own analysis of 2012 Czech HBS data.

Table 4. Housing-related indicators of vulnerability to energy poverty. In the table, ‘category’ refers to the share of households who are considered vulnerable to the given indicator within the specific socio-demographic category; ‘total’ refers to the cumulative share of households in the sample (i.e. as a proportion of all households) who are considered vulnerable to the given indicator. Above-average values of the ‘category’ shares are italicised.

Indicators	Energy burden exceeds 20%		LIHC		Dwelling insufficiently* warm in winter		Dwelling insufficiently* cool in summer
Household share	Category	Total	Category	Total	Category	Total	Category	Total
Solid or liquid fuels provide the main source of indoor warmth
Hungary	38	31	16	13	27	20	19	27
Poland	25	20	19	14	35	13	26	19
Czech Republic	19	12	11	9	–	–	–	–
Electricity provides the main source of indoor warmth
Hungary	39	31	16	13	34	20	30	27
Poland*	22	20	11	14	26	13	20	19
Czech Republic	15	12	14	9	–	–	–	–
District heating provides the main source of indoor warmth
Hungary	20	31	8	13	11	20	55	27
Poland	14	20	10	14	8	13	23	19
Czech Republic	7	12	6	9	–	–	–	–
Households living in dwellings constructed before 1945**
Hungary	31	31	13	13	28	20	20	27
Poland	23	20	16	14	27	13	22	19
Czech Republic	17	12	10	9	–	–	–	–
Households living in dwellings constructed between 1945 and 1960
Hungary	36	31	16	13	23	20	18	27
Poland	23	20	17	14	15	13	19	19
Czech Republic	14	12	13	9	–	–	–	–
Households living in rented accommodation***
Hungary	20	31	6	13	32	20	44	27
Poland	10	29	7	14	20	13	25	19
Czech Republic	7	12	6	9	–	–	–	–
Households living in free or reduced rent accommodation****
Hungary	29	31	9	13	23	20	35	27
Poland	24	29	18	14	29	13	29	19
Czech Republic	14	12	10	9	–	–	–	–

^* Also includes gas.

^** Does not include dwellings older than 1900 for Hungary.

^*** In Czechia and Poland this is the non-weighted average of households living in rent-controlled and free market rental accommodation as reported by the HBS.

^**** Free accommodation in Hungary and the Czech Republic, reduced rent accommodation in Poland.

Source: Authors’ own analysis of 2012 Polish, 2012 Czech and 2011 Hungarian HBS data.

Table 5. Energy poverty indicators for selected housing typologies in Hungary (expressed as shares of households in the relevant category within all households). Above-average values are italicised.

Indicators	Energy burden exceeds 20%	LIHC	Dwelling un-comfortably warm in winter	Dwelling un-comfortably cool in summer
Total household share	31	13	20	27
Urban area	21	7	24	31
Housing estate, apartment block	19	7	15	52
‘Garden suburb’*	15	7	14	18
Suburban area**	36	14	21	17
Village	41	19	20	16
Industrial area	19	7	37	40
Area with poor housing	36	16	73	53
Other	66	13	22	22

^* Cottages, dwellings in multi-apartment buildings.

^** Detached houses.

Source: Authors’ own analysis of 2012 Czech HBS data.

Table 6. Energy poverty indicators for selected housing typologies in Hungary (expressed as shares of households in the relevant category within all households). Above-average values of the ‘category’ shares are italicised.

Indicator	Energy burden exceeds 20%		LIHC		Dwelling insufficiently warm in winter		Dwelling insufficiently cool in summer
Household share	Category	Total	Category	Total	Category	Total	Category	Total
Area with a high population density
Poland	15	20	10	14	14	13	24	19
Czech Republic	8	12	6	9	–	–	–	–
Medium population density
Poland	21	20	15	14	11	13	17	19
Czech Republic	13	12	10	9	–	–	–	–
Low population density
Poland	25	20	18	14	14	13	16	19
Czech Republic	15	12	11	9	–	–	–	–

Source: Authors’ own analysis of 2011 HBS data.

Figure 7. Regional variation in the shares of households who experienced energy burdens above 20%. Source: Authors’ own analysis of 2012 Czech, 2012 Polish and 2011 Hungarian HBS data.

Figure 8. Regional variation in the shares of households who were energy poor according to the LIHC indicator. Source: Authors’ own analysis of 2012 Czech, 2012 Polish and 2011 Hungarian HBS data.

Figure 9. Regional variation in the shares of households who experienced inadequately warm or cool homes, mapped against PPP-adjusted GDP per capita figures. Thermal comfort data are not available for the Czech Republic. Source: Authors’ own analysis of 2012 Czech, 2012 Polish and 2011 Hungarian HBS data.

Figure 10. Shares of households in the LIHC (right-hand x-axis) and high energy burden (left-hand x-axis) categories in different settlement size categories, Czech Republic. Source: Authors’ own analysis of 2012 Czech HBS data.