Recommendation: Apply ‘triple-win’ thinking to all energy efficiency measures
People spend 85-90% of their time indoors. Indoor temperature and air quality have a big effect on health and well-being. At the same time, households represent 25% of total energy consumption. People in lower-socio-economic groups are more likely to live in bad quality housing that uses energy inefficiently. They are therefore more likely to spend a higher percentage of their income on energy, but nevertheless suffer the consequences of badly heated, insulated and/or ventilated housing. Focus group reactions to the INHERIT scenarios reflect that many people like the idea of locally produced, green energy. Some like the idea of smart homes and of using technology as a way to save energy and money, but others struggle with the privacy implications.
[…] I don’t agree completely that the government should be the only one to invest. We should all try to make an effort: start with saving somehow and maintain the nature, energy and all.
[…] I think makes sense if energy is produced where it is used and where it can be consumed, which may not always be possible, but in principle I find the idea already charming.
[…] If we speak realistically we have [government] subsidies today as well, but how much of them have been used I do not have information. I have heard that not too many people can get the solar panels. If they make, everybody to get some subsidy it will be good.
Where I would really go into resistance would be if the devices were all networked together. Then I think … will register everything and my private smart home is networked with other smart homes and that will be statistically evaluated in any data centres. My privacy would go with it, too.
[…] it worries me not so much that the home has the control but that there would be people that couldn’t have access because of lacking resources, as it would be big companies who provide without government’s cooperation.
INHERIT triple-win case studies
More information on the INHERIT case studies can be found in the Annex: triple-win case studies
Considered the costs and benefits of four energy efficiency measures (loft insulation, double glazing, draught-proofing and boiler replacement) targeting low-income households in the UK, with a focus on their link to health. Results highlight that although the impacts on the environment are likely to be unambiguously positive, due to energy and carbon savings, the picture for health is more mixed, potentially contributing to increased health inequalities.
Development of peer-to-peer training about household energy saving and waste disposal strategies among refugees in the city of Pforzheim, Germany. Evaluation results highlight the need for sensitivity to take into account educational and language barriers, and the necessity for innovative evaluation methods taking into account the specific characteristics of the target group (such as unstable residency status).
Tool: INHERIT Promising practice database
Additional Reading from INHERIT
Staatsen, B., van der Vliet, N., Kruize, H., et al. (2017) INHERIT: Exploring triple-win solutions for living, moving and consuming that encourage behavioural change, protect the environment, promote health and health equity, Chapter 5