Cited by 38Energy and Environment ImpactsEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations

Tackling fuel poverty through facilitating energy tariff switching: a participatory action research study in vulnerable groups

Open access
Lorenc, A., Pedro, L., Badesha, B., Dize, C., Fernow, I., Dias, L.·2013·Public Health

Abstract

Objectives A fifth of UK households live in fuel poverty, with significant health risks. Recent government strategy integrates public health with local government. This study examined barriers to switching energy tariffs and the impact of an energy tariff switching 'intervention' on vulnerable peoples' likelihood to, success in, switching tariffs.Study design Participatory Action Research (PAR), conducted in West London.Methods Community researchers from three voluntary/community organisations (VCOs) collaborated in recruitment, study design, data collection and analysis. VCOs recruited 151 participants from existing service users in three groups: Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities, older people (>75 yrs) and families with young children. Researchers conducted two semi-structured interviews with each participant, a week apart. The first interview asked about demographics, current energy supplier, financial situation, previous experience of tariff-switching and barriers to switching. Researchers then provided the 'intervention' - advice on tariff-switching, printed materials, access to websites. The second interview explored usefulness of the 'intervention', other information used, remaining barriers and information needs. Researchers kept case notes and a reflective log. Data was analysed thematically and collaboratively between the research coordinator and researchers. Quantitative data was analysed using SPSS, with descriptive statistics and Chi-squared tests. A total of 151 people were interviewed: 47 older people over 75 years, 51 families with young children, 51 BME (two were missing demographics).Results The majority were not White British or UK-born. Average household weekly income was £230. Around half described 'difficult' financial situations, 94% were receiving state benefits and 62% were in debt. Less than a third had tried to find a better energy deal; knowledge was the main barrier. After the intervention 19 people tried to switch, 13 did. Young families were most likely to switch, older people least. The main reasons for not switching were apathy ('can't be bothered'), lack of time, fear or scepticism and loyalty. Older people were particularly affected by apathy and scepticism. The personalized advice and help with websites was especially valued.Conclusions Low-income consumers appear to have considerable apathy to switching energy tariffs, despite potential savings and health benefits, in part due to their complex lives in which switching is not a priority. An independent, one-on-one, personalized 'intervention' encouraged switching, particularly for young families. However, older people still experience significant barriers to switching with specific interventions needed, which take account of their status quo bias, energy use habits and scepticism. The recent integration of public health and local government in the UK may provide the ideal environment for providing similar services which are desperately needed to reduce fuel poverty in these groups in line with the new Public Health Strategy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.puhe.2013.07.004

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Lorenc et al. (2013) showed that SQB is one of the reasons for 'fuel poverty', e.g., income weak individuals spending too much of their already low income on unfavorable energy tariffs and not switching to a different tariff.

    “In this regard, Lorenc et al. (2013) showed that SQB is one of the reasons for 'fuel poverty', e.g., income weak individuals spending too much of their already low income on unfavorable energy tariffs and not switching to a different tariff.”

    From How to measure the status quo bias? A review of current literature (2023) · cites this paper as Lorenc et al. (2013)

    The Discussion identifies status quo bias—preferring the current option—as an important factor in vulnerable consumers’ tariff-switching decisions. The Introduction links limited switching to missed potential savings, but the Conclusion only expresses hope that addressing tariff switching will reduce fuel poverty; the study does not establish that status quo bias causes fuel poverty. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Lorenc et al. (2013) allows better understanding of reasons why tariff switching occurs, reflected in changed argumentation from lack of knowledge to lack of time.

    “The work by Lorenc et al. (2013) is important as it allows us to better understand the reasons why tariff switching does occur. This reflects in the changed argumentation from lack of knowledge to lack of time.”

    From How to measure the status quo bias? A review of current literature (2023) · cites this paper as Lorenc et al. (2013)

    The Non-switchers section says lack of knowledge was the most common reason given before the intervention and identifies lack of time as a barrier for some participants. It does not describe a shift to lack of time as the main explanation afterward; apathy was the leading post-intervention reason, and lack of knowledge remained a barrier. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Lorenc et al. (2013) tested the effectiveness of an intervention to motivate energy tariff switching.

    “The approach by Lorenc et al. (2013) tested the effectiveness of an intervention to motivate energy tariff switching.”

    From How to measure the status quo bias? A review of current literature (2023) · cites this paper as Lorenc et al. (2013)

  • The Lorenc et al. (2013) findings offered researchers a better understanding of how to design measures to get people to choose their optimal tariff and provider.

    “These findings offered researchers a better understanding of how to design measures to get people to choose their optimal tariff and provider (Lorenc et al. 2013).”

    From How to measure the status quo bias? A review of current literature (2023) · cites this paper as Lorenc et al. 2013

  • In Lorenc et al. (2013), 19 individuals (13%) tried to switch and an additional 16 individuals (11%) booked appointments with an advisor to assist with a switch.

    “This led to 19 individuals (13%) who tried to switch and an additional 16 individuals (11%) booking appointments with an advisor to assist with a switch.”

    From How to measure the status quo bias? A review of current literature (2023) · cites this paper as Lorenc et al. (2013)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [14]14. Ofgem. The Retail Market Review: Findings and initial proposals. 2011.
  2. [23]23. Ofgem. The Retail Market Review: Domestic Proposals. 2011.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lorenc, A., Pedro, L., Badesha, B., Dize, C., Fernow, I., & Dias, L.
Affiliations
  • London South Bank University (GB)
  • Age UK (GB)
  • Westminster City Council (GB)
  • London North West Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Lorenc, A.
Venue
Public Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-10
Volume
127
Issue
10
Pages
894-901
ISSN
0033-3506 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2043637609
Cited by
38
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Age UK
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Energy and Environment Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Keywords
fuel poverty, vulnerable populations, older adults, families with young children, Black and minority ethnic communities, individual guidance, household energy costs, low-income households, community organizations, household debt, state benefits, West London
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Ethnicity, Family Characteristics, Female, Fossil Fuels, Humans, London, Male, Middle Aged, Minority Groups, Poverty, Public Policy, Vulnerable Populations, Qualitative Research, Black People, Community-Based Participatory Research, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review