4.6 Article

Energy Poverty Evaluation Using a Three-Dimensional and Territorial Indicator: A Case Study in Chile

期刊

BUILDINGS
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/buildings12081125

关键词

energy poverty; energy affordability; energy inequality; three-dimensional energy poverty indicator; social housing

资金

  1. National Research and Development Agency of Chile (ANID), FONDECYT [1200551]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Energy poverty is a global issue that affects a large portion of the population, leading to unhealthy living conditions and hardships due to factors such as low income, poor housing quality, and limited access to energy.
Energy poverty (EP) is a problem that affects a large part of the world population, leaving those most vulnerable to suffer from unhealthy indoor conditions in their homes, being cold in winter months, struggling with their monetary situation, and even reducing social activities with relatives. In this context, it is important to assess EP situations and identify those factors that most affect each one. This paper, through the evaluation and adaptation of the Three-dimensional and Territorial Indicator of Energy Poverty (EPITT in Spanish), developed by the Energy Poverty Network in Chile (RedPE Chile), assesses the different EP situations in a social-housing case study located in south-central Chile. The results show different EP situations depending on the dimensions studied, e.g., 35% of households had food and hygiene issues, 27% had issues with lighting and electrical devices, 72% with climate control in the home, and 68% experienced equality in energy expenditure issues. It is possible to say that energy expenditure is the dimension that most influences the EP situation. Furthermore, the values in the different dimensions are below the national average, mainly because of the poor quality of housing, limitations in access to energy, and low income. In conclusion, the adaptation of EPTTI provides a better understanding of EP vulnerability at the local scale.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据