How to build fuel poverty measurement in the

transport sector?

Audrey Berry*1 In collaboration with Nicolas Coulombel2, Céline Guivarch1, Yves Jouffe2

1 Centre International de la Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement, 45 Avenue de la Belle Gabrielle 94130 Nogent-sur-Marne, France 2 Laboratoire Ville Mobilité Transport, Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée, 5 Boulevard Descartes 77420 Champs-sur-Marne, France

* First author: berry@centre-cired.fr

YEEES - 04 June 2015

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015

Overview

1. A picture of fuel poverty in France• Fuel poverty in France • Opinion on mobility

2. Some difficulties induced by rising fuel prices• Key drivers of fuel poverty • The mobility side of the issue

3. How to measure exposition to rising fuel prices• Existing indicators • A composite indicator <— Our proposition

4. Conclusion• Learnings and recommandations

2

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015

Fuel poverty in France

of the French limiting car use is because of fuel prices****, behind maintenance costs (35%), air pollution (31%) and traffic jams (30%) .

of the French usually commute by car***, before public transport (15%), walking (11%) and cycling (6%).

of the French could not do without owning a car***.

of the French spend more than 10% of their budget on buying energy*.

more electricity supply disconnections in 2014**than the previous year.

of the French suffer from cold in their home*, because of insufficient heating system, poor insulation or financial constraints.

of the French cut back on heating to keep costs down*.

11%

14%

33%

17%

69%

82%

64%The French are more likely to limit car use for financial reasons.

In today’s mobility, cars remain essential.

Curbing down energy expenses becomes a strategy to save money.

The French face increasing difficulties to afford their energy bills.

* « Chiffre-clés de l’ONPE », data exploitation from ENL 2006** « Chiffre-clés de l’ONPE », MNE for ONPE, data from 2014*** Survey « Les Français et les transports », BVA for Doméo et Presse Régionale, 2015 **** Survey « Le baromètre de l’opinion des Français sur la mobilité durable », Vague 4, Harris Interactive for Les Ateliers de la terre, SNCF et Mobivia, 3

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015 4

Key drivers of fuel povertyLow income High fuel price

Poor energy performance Poor residential location

€€ €

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015

What matters when we talk about mobility

• Allow for diverse mobility needs

• Detect restriction behavior

• Evaluate one’s capacity to adapt

5

How to measure fuel poverty in the transport sector?

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015

Case study: France

• Based on data from the National Transport Survey (Enquête Nationale Transports et Déplacements)

• Conducted by INSEE every 10-15 years, last available from 2008

• Interviewed a sample of 20 200 French households

• Offers a detailed description of travel behaviors (compared to BDF) at the national level (compared to EMD)

• Focus on places to work and study

7

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015

How to measure?

• Ratio indicator

• LIHC indicator

• Composite indicator

Transposition from domestic fuel poverty

Our proposition

8

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015

How to measure?

• Ratio indicator

• LIHC indicator

• Composite indicator

9

Equation:

Ratio indicator

Threshold:2x median

Fuel spending

Income

Identify:Disproportionate share of income spent on fuel

Number of households

% of population

RATIO 2.6 millions 10,5 %

RATIO/IP 0.5 million 2.0 %

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015 10

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015

How to measure?

• Ratio indicator

• LIHC indicator

• Composite indicator

11

Equation:

LIHC indicator

Fuel spendingNumber of active

individuals

Income - Fuel spendingNumber of

consumption units

Identify:High fuel spending

Low residual income

Threshold:Median 60% median

Number of households

% of population

LIHC 840 000 3,3%

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015 12

What are the differences between the two approaches?

RATIO/IP vs LIHC

1

23

Differences: 1/ LIHC includes middle-class households, whose standard of living is lowered because of their fuel expenses.

2/ LIHC includes poor households, whose individual motorized mobility is higher than half the population.

3/ RATIO includes households with high fuel ratio, whose financial capacity is particularly low.

14Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015 14

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015

But…

• It brings a normative approach to mobility though mobility needs are diverse: how to interpret?

• Restriction and capacity to adapt are not evaluated: don’t we miss essential features?

15

It calls for a new indicator to measure

the different dimensions of fuel poverty.

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015

How to measure?

• Ratio indicator

• LIHC indicator

• Composite indicator

17

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015

The composite indicator is a three-dimensions indicator…

18

Dimensions Factors

Financial resources Low income

Fuel consumptionHigh spending

Restriction

Conditions of mobility

Poor spatial matching

No alternative

Low vehicle performance or No vehicle

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015

…identifying three levels of exposition to rising fuel prices.

19

Fuel poor

Vulnerable in mobility

Car dependent

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015

How?

20

Combinations of factors (gather at least)

Financial resources Fuel consumption Conditions of mobility

Low income High spending Restriction Poor spatial

matchingNo

alternativeLow vehicle performance or No vehicle

x xFuel poor

Level of exposition

x x

x x x

Vulnerable in mobilityx x x

x x x

x x x Car-dependent

Measure:Financial resource Energy consumption Conditions of mobility

Composite indicator

Threshold:Per factor / Across factors

Identify:Disadvantageous combinations of factors

Number of households % of population

1.8 millions 7,1 %2.1 millions 8,2 %1.0 million 3,7 %

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015 21

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015

Summary of results

22

Factor Threshold(Exposed if)

Number of households

exposed

Share among households with

required mobility / active households

Share among French households

Financial resources Low income <1580 €/UC/month 9 260 000 57,7 % 36,9 %

Fuel consumptionHigh spending >64 €/active/month 2 450 000 15,3 % 9,8 %

Restriction 1 1 300 000 8,1 % 5,2 %

Conditions of mobility

Poor spatial matching >382 km/active/month 8 030 000 50,1 % 32,0 %

No alternative 1 7 190 000 44,8 % 28,7 %

Low vehicle performance or No vehicle

>10c€/km or 1 2 560 000 15,9 % 10,2 %

Composite indicator

Fuel poor 1 770 000 11,0 % 7,1 %

Vulnerable in mobility 3 180 000 19,8 % 12,7 %

Car-dependent 1 870 000 11,7 % 7,5 %

LIHC indicator Fuel poor 840 000 5,2 % 3,3 %

Ratio indicatorFuel poor 2 620 000 16,3 % 10,5 %

Fuel poor (restricted to income poor) 510 000 3,2 % 2,0 %

Audrey Berry YEEES - 04 June 2015

Conclusion

23

•Ratio and LIHC are not satisfactory in the transport sector.

•A good fuel poverty indicator should account for: - diverse mobility needs - restriction behaviours - variable capacity to adapt

•A composite indicator can reflect the conditions of mobility and reveal

one’s exposition to rising fuel prices.

Thank you ! berry@centre-cired.fr