Energy poverty is a growing concern in the Netherlands due to the rising gas and electricity prices. There are three main contributors to energy poverty: low income, high fuel costs and energy inefficient homes. Energy poverty effects can have significant consequences, influencing both physical and mental health, increasing the chances of becoming trapped in a cycle of poverty and social isolation. Usually, policy making approaches to combat energy poverty mainly focus on financial support on a household scale or on prices regulating efforts. However, this study argues that actions on a community level could also contribute to alleviating the impacts that energy poverty has on citizens’ lives. For example, community centers in low-income neighborhoods could potentially play a catalyst role in alleviating the effects of energy poverty by exemplifying energy saving techniques, catering to the needs of residents, increasing social cohesion and inspiring collective action. This research explores strategic design interventions through a whole system’s lens; social, energy and nature, that can be applied to the new VanHouten community center in the Oosterpark district of Groningen, the Netherlands. This is a historic, former school building, under a restoration and reuse process, owned by the municipality. Literature reviews, participatory events and interviews have been used to explore the possibilities to mitigate energy poverty, within a research by design process. Beyond the local case, the findings lay the groundwork for more systematic studies on how to alleviate the impact of energy poverty on a community level.
DOCUMENT
Efforts to create age-friendly cities progressively intersect with goals for environmental sustainability. The older people’s beliefs, behaviours and financial aspects regarding environmental sustainability in their lives are an understudied topic and not well understood. Therefore, a representative survey was conducted using the psychometrically sound and comprehensive SustainABLE-16 Questionnaire. A total of 388 respondents, who were community-dwelling older people in The Hague, filled out the survey completely. Overall, the mean scores on the SustainABLE-16 for finance- and environment-driven pro-environmental behaviours, beliefs and the financial position among older people were positive for all districts of The Hague. Using the outcomes of the survey, a total of six unique typologies were identified through a two-step process combining hierarchical and k-means cluster analyses. These six typologies are 1 the staunch non-believers, 2 the finance-driven non-believers, 3 the everyday individuals, 4 belief-driven people with limited financial resources, 5 believing non-responders, 6 the affluent and engaging people. These six typologies each require different approaches from policymakers. Sustainabilityrelated policies should ideally focus on groups with high scores for pro-environmental behaviours but who have shortcomings in knowledge how to improve one’s everyday lifestyle and groups who lack the necessary financial means to live a more sustainable life.
MULTIFILE
Environmental unsustainability is due to both structural features and historically specific characteristics of industrial capitalism resulting in specific patterns of production and consumption, as well as population growth. Sustainability literature criticises the established corporate and political power hegemonies, interested in maintaining economic growth, as well as inability or unwillingness of citizen-consumers to counteract these hegemonic tendencies. Yet, official policies are still targeted at social and economic ‘development’ as a panacea for unsustainability challenges. Instead, renewed accent on social and economic objectives are outlined by a set of sustainable development goals (SDG) that include objectives of fighting poverty, promoting better health, reducing mortality, and stimulating equitable economic growth. What is less commonly critiqued is the underlying morality of unsustainability and ethical questions concerned with the ‘victims of unsustainability’ outside of socioeconomic discourse. The achievement of SDG goals, as will be further elaborated on in this article, is unlikely to lead to greater social equality and economic prosperity, but to a greater spread of unsustainable production and consumption, continuous economic as well as population growth that has caused environmental problems in the first place and further objectification of environment and its elements. This article argues that an invocation of ethical duty toward environment and its elements is required in order to move beyond the current status quo. Such ethical approach to unsustainability can effectively address the shortcomings of the mainstream sustainability discourse that is mainly anthropocentric and therefore fails to identify the correct locus of unsustainability. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in International "Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology" on 2015 available online: http://www.tandfonline.com https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2015.1111269 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
