Elsevier

Applied Energy

Volume 84, Issue 2, February 2007, Pages 147-158
Applied Energy

Living in cold homes after heating improvements: Evidence from Warm-Front, England’s Home Energy Efficiency Scheme

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2006.06.001Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

To investigate explanatory factors for persistent cold temperatures in homes which have received heating improvements.

Design

Analysis of data from a national survey of dwellings and households (in England occupied by low-income residents) that had received heating improvements or repairs under the Warm Front Scheme.

Methods

Over the winters of 2001–02 and 2002–03, householders recorded living room and main bedroom temperatures in a diary. Entries were examined for 888 households, which had received high level heating interventions. Two hundred and twenty-two households were identified as occupying cold homes, with mean bedroom temperature below 16 °C or mean living room temperatures below 18 °C. Binary logistic regression was used to model dwelling and household features and then occupants’ behaviour and attitudes in the ‘cold homes’ sub-set compared with the remainder of the high intervention group. Seventy-nine supplementary, structured telephone interviews explored reasons given for lower temperatures. Using graphical and tabular methods, householders preferring cooler homes were distinguished from those who felt constrained in some way.

Results

Cold homes predominate in pre-1930 properties where the householder remains dissatisfied with the heating system despite major improvements funded by Warm Front. Residents of cold homes are less likely to have long-standing illness or disability, but more likely to experience anxiety or depression. A small sample of telephone interviews reveals those preferring lower temperatures for health or other reasons, report less anxiety and depression than those with limited control over their home environment. Their ‘thermal resistance’ to higher temperatures challenges orthodox definitions of comfort and fuel poverty.

Introduction

Warm Front (WF) is the UK government’s main programme for tackling fuel poverty in English households, providing grant-funded packages of insulation and heating improvements. Though the scheme has significantly raised average indoor temperatures [1], a minority of recipients maintain relatively low temperatures. This paper explores two possible explanations, ‘rational’ or ‘adaptive’, modelled schematically as routes 1 and 2 in Fig. 1.

A rational model suggests that low temperatures are explained by residual heating problems. Either Warm Front has not secured sufficient improvements in energy efficiency or recipient householders are unable to use the improved heating system effectively either because they find it difficult to operate [2] or because of the enduring financial constraints of fuel poverty [3]. The assumption here is of residents living below a human-comfort zone defined by a heat-balance model of the kind pioneered by Gagge [4] and Fanger [5]. Brager and Dear [6] describe the deterministic logic underpinning such a model as ‘physics  physiology  subjective discomfort.’ Originally developed in a laboratory, such models assume ‘that the effects of a given thermal environment are mediated exclusively by the physics of heat-and-mass exchanges between the body and environment.’ In summary, comfort is a function of temperature; low temperatures imply discomfort.

However, residents may prefer their homes colder than these modelled comfort zones. As an alternative to the deterministic model, an ‘adaptive’ model can account for such preferences. Brager and Dear [6] offer ‘the notion that people play an instrumental role in creating their own thermal preferences through the way they interact with the environment, or modify their own behaviour, or gradually adapt their expectations to match the thermal environment.’ For Chappells and Shove [7] comfort is a ‘malleable construct,’ either residents’ acknowledge cold living conditions and respond with more clothing and/or by altering their pattern of daily living, or alternatively, they may feel comfortable with low temperatures as a result of thermal experiences and expectations.

These two models of comfort suggest differing consequences for the health of recipients living in cooler conditions. The UK government has chosen the ‘rational’ option in developing a Fuel-Poverty Strategy, [8], [9] drawing on ample evidence of a direct physiological link between low temperatures and increased risk [10], [11], [12] of both circulatory and respiratory disease. A recommended minimum living room temperature of 18 °C can be traced back to a scientific review of evidence on healthy living conditions by the European Regional Office of the World Health Organization [13]. Later the Building Research Establishment [14] and Brenda Boardman in her influential work on fuel poverty [15] further distinguished health-related from comfort-related temperatures. The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy recommends ‘standard’ temperatures of 21 °C in living rooms and 18 °C in bedrooms to achieve comfort, automatically securing the lower threshold temperatures (18 and 16 °C, respectively) for avoiding risk to health.

An ethical dilemma arises if occupants of objectively cold homes report acceptable levels of thermal comfort. According to proponents of the adaptive model, these occupants may be exercising a degree of personal control, suggesting a psychosocial route to health. There is evidence that perception of control influences comfort, ontological security [16] and health [17], [18], [19], [12]. However, older residents especially, may feel in control and comfortable at low temperatures yet expose themselves to physiological health risk. There is clear evidence that ageing is associated with diminished cold-induced thermoregulation. Impaired capacity to discriminate low temperatures [20] may lead to a reduction in body temperature. In extremis, such an adjustment to cold stress, an inverted version of the ‘boiled frog syndrome,’ [21] can lead to hypothermia and death.

This article contributes evidence bearing on this ethical dilemma of choice verses risk. If choice is an illusion, heavily constrained by fuel poverty and building conditions, then the government has made a correct policy response to persistently low temperatures in some recipient households, enhancing the Warm-Front Scheme by introducing more extensive measures to lift energy-efficiency ratings [9]. If, on the other hand, low temperature is a genuine choice, then there is an ethical dilemma when the risk to health is increased. We seek to quantify the balance of choice and constraint.

Section snippets

Methods

The study drew on a sample of 888 households in receipt of new heating-systems or significant heating repairs: a sub-set of 3489 households was surveyed for a larger study of the Warm-Front Scheme in five urban areas of England: Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Southampton. University Ethical Protocols were followed for non-medical subjects. First, wave surveys were conducted in the winter of 2001/2, a second wave in the winter of 2002/03, targeting dwellings both before and

Results

Preliminary analysis of the data on post-intervention properties is consistent with a ‘rational’ explanation for low temperatures. Using the cold homes (not cold homes) outcome, Table 1 gives the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals for the initial model (model 1) on geographic area and individual respondent demographic characteristics.

Cold homes are least prevalent in Southampton which has the mildest climate of the five cities surveyed. Respondents from Birmingham,

Discussion

The Warm-Front Scheme is a major component of government strategy to eliminate fuel poverty in England and enable even the poorest households to maintain healthy indoor temperatures. Yet exactly a quarter of our sample of 888 households in receipt of the Scheme measures reported temperatures below the threshold set by the Government’s Fuel-Poverty Strategy.

A rational explanation assumes there are residual heating problems, either because Warm Front has not secured sufficient improvements in

Conclusion

Prima facie, headline evidence that a quarter of the 888 recipients of high-level energy-efficiency measures still maintained low living-room or bedroom temperatures, qualifies the success of the Warm-Front Scheme operating when our surveys were undertaken in the period 2001–2003 and lends support for the enhanced version of the scheme introduced in 2005 [9]. For a significant minority living in cold homes, new provisions to raise energy efficiency levels beyond a certain threshold will help

Acknowledgements

This study was undertaken as part of the national evaluation of the Warm-Front Scheme (England’s Home Energy Efficiency Scheme). It was supported by the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Welsh Assembly Government under contract to the Energy Saving Trust (EST contract number M47). The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funding departments. Paul Wilkinson is supported by a Public Health Career Scientist Award

References (33)

  • J. Goodwin

    Cold stress, circulatory illness and the elderly

  • K. Collins

    Cold, cold housing and respiratory illnesses

  • P. Wilkinson et al.

    Cold comfort: the social and environmental determinants of excess winter deaths in England, 1986–1996

    (2001)
  • WHO

    Health impact of low indoor temperatures

    (1987)
  • G. Raw et al.

    Building regulations, health and safety

    (2001)
  • B. Boardman

    Fuel poverty: from cold homes to affordable warmth

    (1991)
  • Cited by (118)

    • What are the effects of energy poverty and interventions to ameliorate it on people's health and well-being?: A scoping review with an equity lens

      2022, Energy Research and Social Science
      Citation Excerpt :

      Several studies targeted specifically vulnerable population groups. The most commonly used inequality axes as a sample selection factor were social class/income [23,24,28,32,33,43,45,50,58,59] and age, considering both young [36,45,46,48] and advanced age [26,27,35,38,53]. Gender was considered by one study that targeted women who had a child in the last 6 months [34].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    Members of the Warm Front Study Group. Bartlett School of Graduate Studies, University College London; Sung H Hong, Research Fellow; Tadj Oreszczyn, Professor; Ian Ridley, Lecturer; Sheffield Hallam University; Roger Critchley, Visiting Research Fellow; Jan Gilbertson, Research Fellow; Geoff Green, Professor of Urban Policy; Mike Grimsley, Senior Lecturer; Bernadette Stiell, Research Associate; London School of Hygiene, Tropical Medicine; Ben Armstrong, Reader; Zaid Chalabi, Lecturer; Jack Dowie, Professor; Shakoor Hajat, Lecturer; Emma Hutchinson, Research Fellow; Megan Landon, Research Fellow; Wendy MacDowell, Research Fellow; Maryjane Stevens, Consultant; Nicki Thorogood, Senior Lecturer; Paul Wilkinson, Senior Lecturer; National Centre for Social Research; Richard Boreham, Research Director.

    View full text