Hier finden Sie wissenschaftliche Publikationen aus den Fraunhofer-Instituten.

Energy efficient technology adoption and low-income households in the EU - what is the evidence?

Updated version, July 2018
: Schleich, Joachim

Fulltext urn:nbn:de:0011-n-4972440 (84 KByte PDF) - Die Publikation wurde zurückgezogen und durch eine neue Version ersetzt.
MD5 Fingerprint: 861926eedcd139e5340fad426727ce42
Created on: 22.6.2018

Fulltext urn:nbn:de:0011-n-497244-18 (357 KByte PDF)
MD5 Fingerprint: 8e94c4706ec69f419d0436a7997ac59f
Created on: 7.8.2018

Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer ISI, 2018, 31 pp.
Working Paper Sustainability and Innovation, S 12/2018
European Commission EC
H2020; 649875; BRISKEE
Behavioural Response to Investment Risks in Energy Efficiency
Report, Electronic Publication
Fraunhofer ISI ()
energy poverty; energy efficiency; adoption; poor homeowner; subsidies; econometric

This paper studies the adoption of high-cost, medium-cost, and low-cost ener-gy-efficient technologies (EETs) by income categories across eight European Union countries. The statistical-econometric analyses allow the effects of in-come to differ by income quartiles and across countries. They rely on demo-graphically representative household surveys carried out simultaneously among about 15,000 households in France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom in 2016. For retrofit measures, the findings suggest that homeowners falling into the lowest income quartile exhibit lower adoption propensities than those falling into the highest income quartile. These findings provide support for policies targeting “poor homeowners”, particularly in lower-income countries with a high share of owner-occupiers such as Poland and Romania. Further, differences in adoption propensities across income quartiles also exist for medium- and low-cost EETs such as appliances and light bulbs. Finally, analyzing factors related to homeowners’ receiving financial sup-port from governments or utilities for retrofit measures suggests that differences in implementation rates between the highest and lowest income quartile would likely have been higher without such support schemes in place. For the United Kingdom (but not for other countries) these schemes appeared to have had a progressive effect.