T.M. Croon
Please Note
13 records found
1
For the Few, Not the Many
Tracing the Residualist and Compensatory Nature of British Energy Support
Justice, Welfare, and the Energy Transition
Comparative Policy Pathways Towards Addressing Domestic Energy Deprivation
The analysis is grounded in a sufficiency-oriented view of justice, which holds that the primary moral imperative is to ensure that everyone has enough to live with dignity and participate fully in society. From this standpoint, domestic energy deprivation constitutes a fundamental injustice: when households cannot afford adequate warmth, light, or energy for daily routines, and effectively have to choose between “heating or eating”, they fall below a socially recognised threshold of basic capabilities, making full participation impossible. Alongside this sufficiency lens, the thesis draws on John Raws’ difference principle, which requires that social arrangements prioritise those who are least advantaged. In the context of the energy transition, measures that place unequal burdens across groups, such as carbon pricing, are legitimate only if the overall framework ultimately improves conditions for households most exposed to domestic energy deprivation and least able to adapt. Though distinct, these two lenses converge on the same core commitment: giving greatest moral weight to securing a minimum standard for all and improving the position of the worst-off, even when this entails trade-offs with aggregate efficiency.
Building on these foundations, this paper-based thesis pursues three strands of inquiry, undertaken within the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Training Network RE-DWELL. First, it refines problem diagnosis by integrating enhanced measurement with explanatory analysis of its underlying determinants. Second, it evaluates targeted measures at local and national levels, analysing which instruments work, for whom, and under what conditions. Third, it investigates how institutional logics and welfare traditions shape the incorporation of social provisions into energy and climate governance across the EU, UK, and selected US states. ...
The analysis is grounded in a sufficiency-oriented view of justice, which holds that the primary moral imperative is to ensure that everyone has enough to live with dignity and participate fully in society. From this standpoint, domestic energy deprivation constitutes a fundamental injustice: when households cannot afford adequate warmth, light, or energy for daily routines, and effectively have to choose between “heating or eating”, they fall below a socially recognised threshold of basic capabilities, making full participation impossible. Alongside this sufficiency lens, the thesis draws on John Raws’ difference principle, which requires that social arrangements prioritise those who are least advantaged. In the context of the energy transition, measures that place unequal burdens across groups, such as carbon pricing, are legitimate only if the overall framework ultimately improves conditions for households most exposed to domestic energy deprivation and least able to adapt. Though distinct, these two lenses converge on the same core commitment: giving greatest moral weight to securing a minimum standard for all and improving the position of the worst-off, even when this entails trade-offs with aggregate efficiency.
Building on these foundations, this paper-based thesis pursues three strands of inquiry, undertaken within the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Training Network RE-DWELL. First, it refines problem diagnosis by integrating enhanced measurement with explanatory analysis of its underlying determinants. Second, it evaluates targeted measures at local and national levels, analysing which instruments work, for whom, and under what conditions. Third, it investigates how institutional logics and welfare traditions shape the incorporation of social provisions into energy and climate governance across the EU, UK, and selected US states.
Cities as social investment frontrunners
The case of Amsterdam as innovator and welfare stopgap
Energy coaching and ‘fix team’ retrofitting to mitigate energy poverty
An ex-post analysis of treatment and interaction effects
Energy poverty alleviation by social housing providers
A qualitative investigation of targeted interventions in France, England, and the Netherlands
Juggling the basics
How much does an income increase affect energy spending of low-income households in England?
Energy poverty alleviation by social housing providers
Investigating targeted approaches in France, England, and the Netherlands
Energy poverty alleviation in social housing
Prototyping policies with practitioners
Since European social housing countries have become increasingly residualised, a significant share of households in or at risk of energy poverty are being accommodated by social housing providers (Poggio & Whitehead, 2017; Walker, 2008). However, while most practitioners acknowledge that social housing providers (SHPs) have a responsibility in energy poverty alleviation, targeted intervention approaches have hardly been explored (Desvallees, 2022). The body of scholarship on energy poverty measurement has grown rapidly, but its use in practice has hardly been addressed (Bouzarovski et al., 2021). Sherriff et al. (2019) note that a possible explanation might be that insights from research are inadequately communicated to policymakers and practitioners. Charlier and Legendre (2021) add that the sense of urgency has substantially differed across countries.
This paper aims to combat these gaps, by proactively engaging with practitioners across Europe to find out which targeted intervention approaches are considered most effective, what their benefits and potential (regulatory) obstacles are, and whether these perspectives differ in different policy contexts. We indirectly examine the responsibilities SHPs are willing to accept within a ‘just transition’, and explore whether, and if so how, their apparent techno-economic approach to retrofit provision could be altered (De Feijter et al., 2019). ...
Since European social housing countries have become increasingly residualised, a significant share of households in or at risk of energy poverty are being accommodated by social housing providers (Poggio & Whitehead, 2017; Walker, 2008). However, while most practitioners acknowledge that social housing providers (SHPs) have a responsibility in energy poverty alleviation, targeted intervention approaches have hardly been explored (Desvallees, 2022). The body of scholarship on energy poverty measurement has grown rapidly, but its use in practice has hardly been addressed (Bouzarovski et al., 2021). Sherriff et al. (2019) note that a possible explanation might be that insights from research are inadequately communicated to policymakers and practitioners. Charlier and Legendre (2021) add that the sense of urgency has substantially differed across countries.
This paper aims to combat these gaps, by proactively engaging with practitioners across Europe to find out which targeted intervention approaches are considered most effective, what their benefits and potential (regulatory) obstacles are, and whether these perspectives differ in different policy contexts. We indirectly examine the responsibilities SHPs are willing to accept within a ‘just transition’, and explore whether, and if so how, their apparent techno-economic approach to retrofit provision could be altered (De Feijter et al., 2019).
Beyond headcount statistics
Exploring the utility of energy poverty gap indices in policy design
Energiearmoede
Een ruimtelijk verdelingsvraagstuk