Using the American Housing Survey (AHS), this study compared two groups of seniors, namely fuel poor (FP) households and non-fuel poor (NFP) households (N = 6604). In this study, the FP group is defined as comprising households that must spend approximately 3.8% of its household income on heating, based on natural gas consumption on heating. The results show that seniors in the FP group paid significantly higher heating costs while earning much less in income compared to those in the NFP group. The respondents in the FP group were more likely to be older, females, widowed, comprising single-person households and in poorer health, compared to those in the NFP group. The FP households tend to live in houses that are 10 years older and 138 square foot (12.8206 m2) smaller with worse building envelope quality than the NFP households. The income of nearly half of these seniors suffering fuel poverty records just above the income standards of the energy support programmes, and hence they spend considerable amount of their income on heating. This is one of the main reasons why many seniors in the U.S. experience fuel poverty. The results of this study can help inform policy regarding future services for those U.S. seniors who experience FP.
U.S. Census Bureau. 65+ in the United States: 2010, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2014.
2.
Applied Public Policy Research Institute for Study and Evaluation. LIHEAP energy burden evaluation study: final report, Princeton, NJ: Division of Energy Assistance Office of Community Services, 2005.
3.
MorrisEWWinterM. Housing norms. The encyclopedia of housing, Vliet WV. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc, 1998, pp. 287–288.
4.
BakerKBaldwinPDonahueKFlynnAHerbertCJeunesseE. Housing America’s older adults: meeting the needs of an aging population, Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2014.
HernándezDBirdS. Energy burden and the need for integrated low‐income housing and energy policy. Poverty Public Policy2010; 2: 5–25.
9.
FowlieMGreenstoneMWolframC. Do energy efficiency investments deliver? Evidence from the weatherization assistance program, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2015.
10.
AllcottHGreenstoneM. Is there an energy efficiency gap?J Econom Perspect2012; 26: 3–28.
11.
KazaN. Understanding the spectrum of residential energy consumption: a quantile regression approach. Energy Policy2010; 38: 6574–6585.
12.
EwingRRongF. The impact of urban form on US residential energy use. Housing Policy Debate2008; 19: 1–30.
CohenR. Weatherization, Washington, DC: AARP Public Policy Institute, 2010.
23.
U.S. Census Bureau. American Housing Survey for the United States: 2009, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2011-4-7,. https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/h150-09.pdf (2011, accessed 18 September 2016).
AndersonWWhiteVFinneyA. Coping with low incomes and cold homes. Energy Policy2012; 49: 40–52.
27.
BerkoJIngramDSahaSParkerJ. Deaths attributed to heat, cold, and other weather events in the United States, 2006-2010. National health statistics reports, Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 2014.
28.
RichardsonGEickS. Is England’s warm front programme going to improve the country’s health?Indoor Built Environ2008; 17: 395–396.
29.
PressV. Fuel poverty and health: a guide for primary care organisations, and public health and primary care professionals, London: National Heart Forum, 2003.
30.
WoodhouseP. Why do more old people die in winter?J Hong Kong Geriatr Soc1992; 3: 23–29.
31.
O’neillTJinksCSquireA. “Heating is more important than food” older women’s perceptions of fuel poverty. J Hous Elderly2006; 20: 95–108.
32.
OreszczynTRidleyIHongSHWilkinsonPGroupWFS. Mould and winter indoor relative humidity in low income households in England. Indoor Built Environ2006; 15: 125–135.
33.
BeanWBMillsCA. Coronary occlusion, heart failure, and environmental temperatures. Am Heart J1938; 16: 701–713.
34.
CollinsK. Low indoor temperatures and morbidity in the elderly. Age Ageing1986; 15: 212–220.
35.
LeeTKChoSHKimJT. Residents’ adjusting behaviour to enhance indoor environmental comfort in apartments. Indoor Built Environ2012; 21: 28–40.
36.
KidsonMNorrisE. Implementing the fuel poverty strategy, London: Institute for Government, 2001.
Teller-ElsbergJSovacoolBSmithTLaineE. Fuel poverty, excess winter deaths, and energy costs in Vermont: Burdensome for whom?Energy Policy2016; 90: 81–91.
FerreiraMAlmeidaM. Benefits from energy related building renovation beyond costs, energy and emissions. Energy Proc2015; 78: 2397–2402.
45.
HillsJ. Getting the measure of fuel poverty: final report of the fuel poverty review, London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, 2012.
46.
Brown MA, Berry LG, Balzer RA and Faby E. National impacts of the weatherization assistance program in single-family and small multifamily dwellings. Weatherization Assistance Programs Division, U. S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Lab., TN, May 1993, https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/10179419 (1993, accessed 19 March, 2017).
47.
JinSHParkECHwangIC. A study on definition of energy poverty and estimation of policy target. J Korean Assoc Policy Stud2010; 19: 161–182.
48.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Guide to determining climate regions by county, Richland, WA: U.S. Department of Energy, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory & Oak Ridge National Laboratory, December 2007. https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/10/f27/ba_climate_region_guide_7.3.pdf (2015, accessed 23 March 2017).
Econometrica Inc. Codebook for the American Housing Survey, public use file: 1997 and later. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2011.
54.
HairJFBlackWCBabinBJAndersonRE. Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008.
55.
ChoiDLeeMChunH. Energy consumption characteristics and evaluation of thermal insulation performance in accordance with built year of apartment complex. Int J Korea Inst Ecol Archit Environ2014; 14: 79–86.
56.
MooreTG. Health and amenity effects of global warming. Econom Inquiry1998; 36: 471–488.
