Tackling fuel poverty through facilitating energy tariff switching: a participatory action research study in vulnerable groups
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 measuredLorenc 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 measuredLorenc 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)
In Lorenc et al. (2013), prior to intervention, lack of knowledge was the reason given most often; after intervention, the main reasons were lack of time, apathy, and skepticism.
“Prior to intervention, lack of knowledge was the reason given most often. After the intervention, the main reasons were lack of time, apathy, and skepticism.”
From How to measure the status quo bias? A review of current literature (2023) · cites this paper as Lorenc et al. (2013)
It is not enough to give individuals more information on their energy tariffs to address the rational decision-making aspect.
“As the example of Lorenc et al. (2013) shows, it is not enough to give individuals more information on their energy tariffs and thereby address the rational decision-making aspect.”
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
Taylor, K. M. G., Nettleton, S., & Harding, G. (2010) · Taylor & Francis eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203381175_chapter_9 · Cited by 14,635 · see citing works
Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.2004.028662 · Cited by 2,420 · see citing works
Marmot, M. G., & Bell, R. (2012) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2012.05.014 · Cited by 1,090 · see citing works
Marmot, M. G., & Bell, R. (2010) · Nursing Standard · doi:10.7748/ns2010.10.25.6.30.p4603 · Cited by 1,044 · see citing works
Walker, G., & Day, R. (2012) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.044 · Cited by 632 · see citing works
Fuel poverty and human health: A review of recent evidence
Liddell, C., & Morris, C. (2010) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.01.037 · Cited by 627 · see citing works
Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer for 1965
Department of Health and Children (DOHC) (1967) · Sexually Transmitted Infections · doi:10.1136/sti.43.1.60 · Cited by 301 · see citing works
Old and Cold: Older People and Policies Failing to Address Fuel Poverty
Wright, F. (2004) · Social Policy and Administration · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9515.2004.00403.x · Cited by 96 · see citing works
An Analysis of Energy Consumption Patterns by Stage of Family Life Cycle
Fritzsche, D. J. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224378101800209 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Tod, A., Lusambili, A. M., Homer, C. V., et al. (2012) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000922 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
1. Participatory Action Research
Mcintyre, A. (2022) · New York University Press eBooks · doi:10.18574/nyu/9780814723890.003.0005 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
An Analysis of Energy Consumption Patterns by Stage of Family Life Cycle
Fritzsche, D. J. (1981) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3150956 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Left out in the cold? New energy tariffs, low‐income households and the fuel poor
Bennett, M., Cooke, D., & Price, C. W. (2002) · Fiscal Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1475-5890.2002.tb00058.x · Cited by 33 · see citing works
The Effect of Liberalizing UK Retail Energy Markets on Consumers
Price, C. W. (2005) · Oxford Review of Economic Policy · doi:10.1093/oxrep/gri007 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Practice papers all power to the consumer? Complexity and choice in consumers' lives
Nelson, W. (2002) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.99 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Irrationality in Consumers’ Switching Decisions: When More Firms May Mean Less BenefitPreprint
Wilson, C. M., & Price, C. W. (2005) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Fuel poverty, older people and cold weather: An all-island analysis
Goodman, P., McAvoy, H., Cotter, N., Monahan, E., Barrett, E., Browne, S., & Zeka, A. (2011) · Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) · doi:10.82163/179 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
The health consequences of fuel poverty: what should the role of primary care be?
Lawlor, D. A. (2001) · PubMed · Cited by 12 · see citing works
The Golden Economy - the consumer marketplace in an ageing society
Sinclair, D., Atkinson, A. B., & Hayes, D. A. (2010) · University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Energy Spending and Vulnerable HouseholdsPreprint
Jamasb, T., & Meier, H. (2011) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.17863/cam.5216 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [14]14. Ofgem. The Retail Market Review: Findings and initial proposals. 2011.
- [23]23. Ofgem. The Retail Market Review: Domestic Proposals. 2011.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
How to measure the status quo bias? A review of current literature
Godefroid, M.-E., Plattfaut, R., & Niehaves, B. (2023) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-022-00283-8 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
- 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.
- ORCID
- 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
- Open access
- 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