Energy & Buildings 204 (2019) 109463

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy & Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Quality as a hidden dimension of energy poverty in

middle-development countries. Literature review and case study from

Chile

Anahí Urquiza a , b , c , g , Catalina Amigo a , b , g , Marco Billi a , b , d , g , ∗, Rubén Calvo a , b , g , Julio Labraña b , e , g , Tamara Oyarzún a , g , Felipe Valencia a , f , g

a Energy Poverty Network, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile b Center for Climate and Resilience Research (CR)2, Santiago, Chile c Social Sciences Faculty, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile d School of Government, Adolfo Ibáñez University, Santiago, Chile e Centre of Comparative Educational Policies, Diego Portales University, Santiago, Chile f Energy Research Centre (SERC-Chile), Energy Centre, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile g Nucleo de Estudios Sistémicos Transdisciplinarios (NEST), Universidad de Chile

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 30 June 2018

Revised 18 April 2019

Accepted 23 September 2019

Available online 24 September 2019

Keywords:

Energy poverty

Energy quality

Energy access

Energy equity

Middle-development country

Chile

a b s t r a c t

The paper proposes a literature review and meta-analysis on different dimensions and approaches with

respect to energy poverty and examines Chile as a case study for its manifestations in middle develop-

ment countries. This phenomenon has acquired greater relevance, with a variety of definitions, indicators

and methodologies being used to measure it. However, most of them are focused on either quantifying

the lack of access to modern energy services in poor countries or assessing the inequality produced by

the costs of accessing such services in developed countries. This results in the lack of a proper toolbox to

tackle middle development countries, such as Chile: where access-based measures assign thresholds that

are too low, so that almost nobody is energy poor; conversely, equality-based measures deploy exces-

sively high ones, so that a very large proportion of the population is energy poor. The paper argues that

this deficit is caused by the understanding of quality in terms of “standards” in access- and equality-based

measures, which restricts its potential in economically, culturally, and geographically diverse territories. A

context-sensitive three-dimensional framework to assess energy poverty is then proposed, and its policy

implications are briefly discussed.

© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1

l

[

r

g

t

c

i

c

n

t

p

t

i

a

w

p

a

i

b

c

p

f

h

0

. Introduction

Energy poverty (EP) has received increasing attention in pub-

ic policy. Since its first appearance in England during the 1990s

6] , the notion of EP has gained greater importance and has spread

apidly to a variety of countries, especially European ones [33] ,

iving rise to a growing number of studies, with varying defini-

ions and measurements of how to assess this phenomenon. In re-

ent years concerns for EP have spread around the world, being

ncluded among the Sustainable Development Goals [66] and be-

oming institutionalized in public policy thanks to the action of

ational and international organizations [1,37,67,77] .

Most studies have emphasized how EP entails direct effects in

erms of a decline in life quality, a deterioration of the physical and

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: mbilli@alumnos.uai.cl (M. Billi).

ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109463

378-7788/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

sychological health of household inhabitants, and a lack of oppor-

unities for economic and social development [12,22,71] . Moreover,

t has usually been highlighted that EP should not be treated as

n isolated phenomenon but should instead be tackled in synergy

ith energy transition and climate change issues [68,70] .

The growing relevance of EP in the specialized literature and in

ublic policy stemmed in turn an enhanced interest in generating

dequate indicators for its measurement, which would allow the

dentification of energy poor households and therefore provide a

etter focus and a finer design to policy solutions [45] .

However, as we will discuss in this paper, most EP indicators

an be classified according to whether they target ‘access’, i.e.

hysical and technological thresholds which prevent households

rom getting access to electricity and other modern energy services

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109463http://www.ScienceDirect.comhttp://www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuildhttp://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109463&domain=pdfmailto:mbilli@alumnos.uai.clhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109463

2 A. Urquiza, C. Amigo and M. Billi et al. / Energy & Buildings 204 (2019) 109463

s

r

2

1

U

o

t

s

p

U

E

w

c

M

a

n

d

t

a

t

c

p

p

p

l

p

[

h

w

c

i

a

m

i

c

t

c

r

v

o

n

p

p

l

[

h

fi

(

u

o

a

(ES), 1 or ‘equity’, that is, economic inequalities associated with ex-

cessive energy costs and how these shape the ES that families may

have at their disposal. Moreover, we also highlight how access and

equity indicators have tended to be employed, respectively, in the

context of low- and high-development countries, respectively, and

that the use of these measurements has generally resulted in the

quality dimension being formulated as an externally defined stan-

dard. The lack of an explicit reflection on energy quality considera-

tions can result, especially in middle-development countries, to the

application of criteria unable to properly account for the sociocul-

tural and territorial differences which ultimately shape how EP is

experienced within households. In particular, this may lead either

to the mistaken conclusion that very few households are in fact

energy poor because most of the population has access to mini-

mum ES, or to the false generalization that almost all of them are

poor because of the differences in the quality of the ES that dis-

tinct households may use. To address this problem, this article will

examine the consequences of the lack of attention to the dimen-

sion of quality in EP measurements and propose a multidimen-

sional framework to overcome these limitations. The text combines

a literature review and meta-analysis ( Section 2 ) with a focalized

case study of Chile, one key example of a middle-development

country ( Section 3 ). The fourth section builds on this a three-

dimensional framework which gives explicit importance to the def-

inition of context-sensitive energy quality standards upon which

appropriate thresholds for energy access and equity can be for-

mulated. The paper closes with conclusions and presents a multi-

dimension framework for EP based on the analysis (4).

2. Energy poverty indicators: access or equity?

In recent decades, interest in overcoming EP has been expressed

through the creation of different indicators, each reflecting differ-

ent aspects of the problem, so that a deeper understanding of the

multi-dimensional and complex nature of the issue may only be

obtained by combining multiple measures [49] .

As previously mentioned, these indicators can be differentiated

according to whether they focus on a) the economic cost that

households must uphold to meet their energy needs; or b) the

physical or technological inability of the household to enjoy ES

which may adequately respond to such needs. 2 Following a dis-

tinction common in the literature, in this article we will call these

two dimensions of EP, respectively, “equity” and “access” [9,10,12] .

EP, however, involves more than equitative access to ES: it also

supposes that such ES should comply with a high-enough qual-

ity standard [77] : along these lines, different contem porary studies

have highlighted variables such as supply fragility, the degree of

intra- and extra-domiciliary contamination, the energy efficiency

of households or cost/benefit ratio of energy use [8,21,35,36,64] .

This suggests the need to revise existing EP measurements, so as

to make the energy quality standards on which they are based

explicit and make such standards sensible to varying territorial

and socio-cultural contexts. We will discuss this claim in depth

in Section 2.4 . To provide context to such a discussion, we offer

in the next subsections a literature review meant to a) illustrate

the most common indicators proposed to measure both the eq-

uity (2.1) and access (2.2) dimensions of EP; and b) display both:

the relationship between the adoption of equity and access dimen-

1 For the sake of this paper, we will understand an Energy Service as a combina-

tion of a particular technology and of a related energy source aimed to satisfy one

or multiple energy needs. 2 Some authors, such as Gonzalez-Eguino [22] , further distinguish between phys-

ical and technological thresholds; in this paper, we will cluster them together in

opposition to economic thresholds.

I

d

i

t

ions, and the focus on either high- or low-development countries

espectively (2.3).

.1. Energy poverty as equity

Among the most important indicators focused on equity is the

0% (or Ten Percent) Rule, proposed by Boardman [6] for the

nited Kingdom with the objective of accounting for the problem

f affordable heating and other ES [40,74] . This measure considers

hat those households whose required energy expenditure repre-

ents more than 10% of their income are considered energetically

oor. This value is supported empirically by the fact that, in the

K of the early ’90s, both the average of the poorest 30% of the

nglish population and twice the median of the total population

as around this value [26,74] . Another indicator focused on equity

onsiderations like the afore-mentioned is the Twice the National

edian Share (2 M) of actual energy expenses, that emerges as an

daptation of the 10% measure to other countries where data is

ot comprehensive enough to model the energy requirements of

wellings.

The Low Income - High Cost (LIHC) measure points towards

he same direction. This indicator defines energy-poor households

s those having a) a required energy expenditure over the na-

ional median; and b) a residual income that falls below the offi-

ial poverty line, after that expenditure [26] . This indicator has re-

laced the 10% indicator in England’s public policy correcting the

roblem of false positives by focusing only on the lower income

opulations. 3

A third indicator frequently employed to evaluate equity prob-

ems associated with EP is the Minimum Income Standard (MIS)

roposed by Moore [40] , following the work of Bradshaw et al.

11] , to elaborate a minimum income needed by different types of

ouseholds. Moore states that energy poor households are those

hose net residual income, after housing costs, is insufficient to

over their energy expenses after covering the other minimum liv-

ng costs as defined by MIS. Variants of the MIS methodology, such

s MIS M/2 (which defines the MIS as 50% equivalized national

edian per capita overall consumption) have been introduced us-

ng different thresholds for specific cases [40,49] .

All the measures discussed above emphasize how economic

onditions can impact the access of households to ES but tend

o remain silent about the effective quality of the ES that are ac-

essed. Thus, they implicitly assume that households would natu-

ally meet their energy needs in full, independent of the cost in-

olved. However, it is possible that a household may forego part

f its energy requirements in the attempt to satisfy more urgent

on-energy related needs. The Hidden Energy Poverty (HEP) stems

recisely from this intuition, classifying as EP any household dis-

laying inadequately low energy expenses, identified as those be-

ow half the median of dwellings of a similar type and composition

49] , in some cases concentrating on the lower deciles to exclude

igh-end houses which may enjoy higher-than-average energy ef-

ciency [17] .

On the other hand, the Energy Poverty Multidimensional Index

EPMI) [7] delves into household perceptions regarding their ES sit-

ation, related to energy affordability and thermal efficiency, based

n minimum criteria of financial capability, infrastructural quality

nd energy comfort defined by the European Union Statistics on

ncome and Living Conditions (EU-SILC).

HEP and EPMI offer interesting com plements to the indicators

iscussed above, by advancing in highlighting the factors influenc-

ng the actual adequacy of ES in satisfying energy needs. However,

hey remain bounded to predefined standards about what said

3 However, the rest of UK retained Boardman’s rule for EP.

A. Urquiza, C. Amigo and M. Billi et al. / Energy & Buildings 204 (2019) 109463 3

‘

c

m

d

n

h

2

c

t

s

a

d

s

M

p

d

e

t

l

t

a

p

d

d

l

g

e

M

M

i

m

m

g

p

a

e

r

a

n

c

2

c

i

fi

p

e

a

m

n

A

d

b

c

v

E

w

s

a

b

l

h

t

(

h

(

t

t

P

a

c

f

a

c

O

h

c

o

m

t

4

b

a

t

I

t

s

t

d

a

a

m

s

P

P

t

t

fi

a

i

(

2

p

u

a

i

(

adequacy’ means, instead of accounting for the context-dependent

haracter of energy needs and services (cfr. Section 2.4 ).

To synthetize, within the energy equity dimension, there re-

ains implicit an energy quality threshold in the form of ES stan-

ards that must be satisfied without imposing an excessive eco-

omic burden on household budgets, and on whose basis house-

olds are classified as falling within and outside EP.

.2. Energy poverty as access

The first measures dealing with the ‘access’ to ES were mostly

oncentrated on electricity consumption, stressing the role of elec-

rification in the process of overcoming a country’s economic or

ocial underdevelopment [2,27,31] . Along these lines, some authors

rgued that a household suffers EP when its energy consumption

oes not increase together with its income -thus suggesting that

ome other non-economic barrier is in play [3] . Others, such as

odi [39] and IEA [28] labelled those households failing to com-

ly with a minimum annual electric consumption as EP.

Subsequent approaches struggled to develop more complex in-

icators for energy access which may include a broader variety of

nergy sources and their combination within complex ES. The Mul-

idimensional Energy Poverty Index (MEPI) [43] defines EP as the

ack of adequate ES, such as electricity, modern cooking fuels, en-

ertainment, education telecommunication and other electric appli-

nces, plus the existence of high indoor pollution levels. A similar

erspective is employed by the Energy Poverty in Households In-

ex [21] . While the theoretical proposal acknowledges the context-

ependent nature of EP, the concrete indicators it suggests remain

imited to the ownership of a predefined set of appliances, such as

as or electric stoves, modern refrigerators, televisions or comput-

rs, electrical lighting and so on.

Other methodologies, such as the Multi-Tier Framework for

easuring Energy Access [5] , the Energy Supply Index and the

inimum Standards of Domestic Energy Services (both discussed

n [48] ) attempt to incorporate quality considerations within the

easurement of energy access, for instance by introducing mini-

um levels of electricity consumption or lighting, maximum de-

rees of indoor air pollution, specific thresholds for indoor tem-

erature and comfort, appliance standards such as peak capacity,

vailability, reliability, health & safety, convenience, affordability,

tc. However, the definition of these criteria -i.e. of energy quality-

emains tied to a top-down approach, based on scientific research

nd guidelines from institutions such as the IEA or WHO, and

ot sensitive enough to account for varying territorial and socio-

ultural contexts.

.3. Equity and access: high and low-development countries

In addition to usually being addressed by different sets of indi-

ators, equity and access concerns have also tended to be polarized

n either high- or low-development countries [10,12,22] .

A meta-analysis of the international scientific literature con-

rms this statement. We examined a total of 120 WoS-indexed pa-

ers (cfr. Supplementary Material 1 for a full list), characterizing

ach paper’s geographical scope (country/continent), 4 the associ-

ted development level (using the Inequality-adjusted Human De-

4 99 papers studied only one country, while the other 14 considered two or

ore within the same continent and with similar IHDI scores. 7 papers either did

ot specify their scope or referred to general groups of countries (e.g., “Europe,

frica, Asia and South America”, “United Nations”, “UK and Global South”, “under-

evelopment countries”, among others) for which a univocal IHDI score could not

e assigned. Notice that to this paper’s effects, we only display results grouped by

ontinent.

t

m

t

a

elopment Index - IHDI, based on UNDP [75] ), 5 and whether the

P analysis was focused on access or equity dimensions. 6 Finally,

e applied the Keyness Test to compare the presence or absence of

pecific keywords in the abstracts [61] and employed a chi-square

nalysis to identify relevant word-wise similarities or differences

etween papers focusing on access and equity and on high- or

ow-development countries.

More than half of the papers analyze EP in countries with a

igh/very high IHDI (81 papers, 67,5%). In comparison, only 25 ar-

icles (20,8%) focus on countries with a low IHDI and only 7 papers

5,8%) in countries with an average IHDI ( Table 1 ).

As Table 1 shows, 81 papers refer to countries with a high/very

igh IHDI. Most of them focus on Europe (62), followed by Asia

11). Moreover, 75 measure the equity dimension through indica-

ors such as the Ten Percent Rule, the Low Income - High Cost,

he Middle Income Standard, the Harmonized Index of Consumer

rices (HICP), the Stochastic Model of Energy Poverty (SMEP) [44] ,

mong others. In contrast, only 2 papers focus on access, and both

orrespond to Asian countries. The issues addressed are access to

uel and access to renewable energies. Also, 4 papers use a mixed

pproach, combining equity and access dimensions.

The 25 documents relating to countries with a low IHDI con-

entrate either on Africa (18) or, in a minor degree, on Asia (7).

nly 5 focus on the equity dimension, most of them analyzing

ousehold expenses and fuel subsidy reduction impact in African

ountries. In contrast, 16 analyze topics related to the possibility

f accessing ES: in Africa, the main cause of concern is access to

odern services, fuels, and electricity and, while for Asian coun-

ries, heating technology and NCREs receive more attention. Finally,

papers which study African cases offer a combined approach.

Therefore, it should not be surprising that the EP measures

ased on access and equity dimensions tend to show a limited an-

lytical power in middle-development countries. Specialized litera-

ure has only rarely addressed EP issues in countries with average

HDI (only 7 out of 120 abstracts, and 6 are Latin American coun-

ries). EP studies are recent in this context and the phenomenon

hows a complexity that does not fit with mainstream interna-

ional measures reviewed in the sections above, due to the stan-

ards being too low for access dimension (anyone is energy poor),

nd too high for equity dimension (everyone is energy poor). In

ddition, the literature focusing in these countries pays roughly as

uch attention to equity and to the combination of both dimen-

ions. The former, in particular, relies on indicators such as the Ten

ercent Rule, the Fuel Poverty Potential Risk Index and the Energy

overty Penalty. As for the latter, the focus is on measuring access

o basic ES with some quality standards and considering income.

The hypothesis that the focus of EP research is correlated to

he target country’s degree of development receives further con-

rmation analyzing the recurring keywords in the selected papers’

bstracts. As shown in the graphs below, a strong term-wise co-

ncidence ( ⅝ ) was found between documents focusing on equity

Fig. 1 , Graph 1) and High/Very High IHDI countries ( Fig. 1 , Graph

), showing a coincidence between present and absent words: fuel,

overty, heating, impact and measures are the most frequently

sed words, while keywords associated to technological thresholds

nd modern ES are usually absent (modern, solar, access, light-

ng) in both cases. On the other hand, papers focusing on access

Fig. 1 , Graph 3) tend to favor keywords linked to technological

hresholds (solar, modern, lighting, energy consumption, develop-

ent) and physical ones (rural, access). Documents targeting coun-

ries with low IHDI ( Fig. 1 , Graph 4) display a similar set of words,

5 For 4 countries (China, Malasia, Singapore and Brunéi) the IHDI was not avail-

ble; in those cases, we used the corresponding unadjusted HDI [75] . 6 12 papers consider both access and equity dimensions in their analysis.

4 A. Urquiza, C. Amigo and M. Billi et al. / Energy & Buildings 204 (2019) 109463

Table 1

Number of articles analyzing EP on equity and access dimensions, by IDHI and continent.

IHDI

Dimension

High/Very High IHDI Average IHDI Low IHDI N/A Total

Europe Asia North America Oceania Latin America Asia Africa Asia Multiple countries

Equity 61 6 4 4 3 0 4 1 2 85

Access 0 2 0 0 1 0 10 6 3 23

Equity & Access 1 3 0 0 2 1 4 0 2 12

Total 62 11 4 4 6 1 18 7 7 120

81 7 25 7

Fig. 1. Human development index and research focus on energy poverty.

i

p

p

i

l

o

t

e

t

t

with again a coincidence of 5 out of 8 terms in present and ab-

sent words: solar, modern, access, lighting and India are the most

frequently used, while fuel, heating, risk and building appear the

least in both cases.

Graph 1. Words most and least frequently used, comparing ab-

stracts focusing on equity with all the rest (Left panel up). Graph 2.

Words most and least frequently used, comparing abstracts focus-

ing in High/Very High IHDI countries with all the rest (N °2 rightpanel up). Graph 3. Words most and least frequently used, com-

paring abstracts focusing on access with all the rest (left panel

down). Graph 4. Words most and least frequently used, compar-

ng abstracts focusing in Low IHDI countries with all the rest (right

anel down).

The previous results confirm the tendency we discussed in the

revious section: the pre-eminence of the use of threshold-based

ndicators to tackle equity and access dimensions of EP has led to

ess attention being given to aspects such as the appropriateness

f the very thresholds to the specific geographic and cultural con-

ext, and the effective capacity of ES to allow people to meet their

nergy needs. Consequently, these measurements are not adequate

o measure EP in middle-income countries: here, although most of

he population may benefit from access to energy in some form,

A. Urquiza, C. Amigo and M. Billi et al. / Energy & Buildings 204 (2019) 109463 5

i

r

p

T

o

2

p

f

i

o

q

p

o

E

a

m

i

a

g

l

e

A

a

s

t

e

E

q

m

m

v

s

w

s

‘

e

c

a

d

n

e

a

e

o

t

f

m

a

m

t

s

r

t

w

c

e

s

a

v

s

t

r

t

fi

g

e

o

m

u

3

m

d

t

t

t

c

a

o

c

l

c

a

n

e

t

d

m

s

m

a

e

a

r

i

h

fi

[

a

s

f

f

F

m

a

f

m

[

l

t

N

S

h

r

t

e

a

e

mportant gaps may persist regarding supply continuity and secu-

ity, quality of ES, and efficiency of buildings and appliances, as-

ects that, as we will see next, are disregarded in these analyses.

his is discussed in more detail in Section 3 , through an overlook

f the Chilean case.

.4. Energy quality as a hidden and contextual dimension of energy

overty

As discussed in previous sections, EP indicators to date have

ocused either on economic thresholds related to the affordabil-

ty of ES -especially in High/Very High-development countries- or

n the physical-technological barriers preventing access to ade-

uate ES -especially within low-development countries. Both ap-

roaches display a common tendency to adopt -either deliberately

r accidentally- predefined standards to establish what ‘adequate’

S are and to hypothesize a direct and causal relationship between

household’s income level and the kind of ES it uses. This is com-

only known as the “energy ladder” assumption [27,32,76] .

This assumption postulates an absolute hierarchy of ES separat-

ng those based on ‘primitive’ energy sources (e.g., firewood, but

lso trash and excrements) and those adopting ‘modern’ technolo-

ies (e.g., electricity) [62] . They assume that the latter infallibly

eads to higher performances as much in terms of satisfaction of

nergy needs, as in efficiency, safety, health and sustainability [69] .

ccordingly, the absence of modern ES would be enough to classify

household as energy poor and to justify effort s to make it tran-

ition to more high-tech solutions [59,62] .

Noticeably, allegedly ‘multi-dimensional’ approaches, i.e. ones

hat incorporate both access and equity dimensions, are not ex-

mpt from this problem. For instance, Reddy’s [52] definition of

P as the absence of a wide range of choice in accessing ade-

uate, affordable and high-quality ES to support economic and hu-

an development does not explicitly discuss what ‘high-quality’

eans, suggesting its linkage with modern and technologically ad-

anced solutions. Likewise, Gonzalez-Eguino [22] proposes con-

idering multiple ‘thresholds’ at once in the EP definition, but

ithout explicitly addressing the universal, top-down definition of

aid thresholds. Similarly, attempts to incorporate ‘subjective’ or

consent-based’ indicators based on household perceptions on their

nergy deprivation [23,68] also assume, one way or another, the

onvenience of using the energy ladder as a standard to differenti-

te energy-poor households from non-poor ones.

Adopting such a stark definition of energy quality based on the

istinction between ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’ ES does not pay the

ecessary attention to territorial and socio-cultural factors influ-

ncing as much the definition of energy needs as the adequacy of

set of ES to satisfy such needs. It particularly prevents acknowl-

dging the plurality of ways in which energy needs can be met

r recognizing the rational calculations performed by households

o decide which specific set of ES to adopt. Research suggests, in

act, the importance of context variables in the understanding and

easurement of EP, as well as in determining the opportunities

vailable to a territory to deal with it [58] .

Empirical evidence hints that households can often combine

ultiple ES -some classifiable as ‘modern’ and some as ‘primi-

ive’. Similarly, the very desirability of different energy alternatives

trongly depends on cultural norms and practices, climatic and ter-

itorial characteristics, socioeconomical and infrastructural condi-

ions, which influence both the identification of energy needs, as

ell as the quantity of energy necessary to satisfy these, the ac-

eptable quality of ES and the cost threshold that may be consid-

red as acceptable for a given household [16,20,21,54,55,58] .

Likewise, as numerous studies have shown, energy transition

uccess or failure does not only depend on technical factors, but

lso on the specific sectoral and institutional characteristics rele-

ant to the local socio-cultural context [34,57,63] ). Finally, the tran-

ition to modern ES should not be automatically identified with

he overcoming of EP, since it may in fact increase -instead than

educing- the vulnerability of the communities experiencing the

ransition [25,54,65] .

In synthesis, EP is neither synonymous with the use of

rewood-based forms of energy nor embracing modern technolo-

ies for overcoming such a condition. On the contrary, it is nec-

ssary to advance towards more complex, context-aware measures

f EP where the definition of suitable quality standards is explicitly

ade into a dimension of the analysis that determines how can we

nderstand and measure equity and access to energy.

. Limitations of energy poverty measurement approaches for

iddle-development countries: the Chilean case

Chile makes for a very illustrative case study of EP in middle-

evelopment countries to examine the downsides of using ei-

her access- or equity-based indicators. Chile’s economy has gone

hrough a radical revolution and a fast neo-liberal imprint during

he last few decades (termed ‘the Chilean miracle’ by its advo-

ates), replacing its traditional state-centered social structure with

more privatized one [19] . Furthermore, as was the case with

ther middle development countries, Chile has experienced an ac-

elerated economic growth rate of 5% in average per year for the

ast 25 years (equivalent to an increase of 250% in the average per

apita income) and it has been able to reduce the poverty rate to

quarter of where it was at the beginning of the 90s. This eco-

omic growth has taken place in a context of deep geographical,

conomic and cultural inequalities [53] .

This paradoxical situation has strongly shaped Chilean struc-

ures of EP. Although the country has recently become a candi-

ate for admission to the International Energy Agency –one of the

ain institutions for international cooperation for promoting more

ustainable, equitative and reliable energy systems– the country’s

ost important energy issues are intrinsically related to the char-

cteristics of inequality of its economy, as this agency has acknowl-

dged [29] .

In fact, the notion of EP has only recently been incorporated

s an official development goal for the country as part of the cur-

ent Chilean long-term energy policy [38] . Most of the public pol-

cy that had ventured into targeting this variable in previous years

ad focused exclusively on low-income sectors, without clearly de-

ned nation-level objectives or medium- and long-term strategies

4] . Unsurprisingly, this has led to a quite fragmented, sectorized

nd limited policy framework, something which has not shown

ign of changing as of yet. As we will see below, this gap in the

ormulation of appropriate EP policies may at least partly emerge

rom the absence of clear indicators to measure the phenomenon.

ew initiatives comprehensively address EP dimensions in Chile;

ost others focus only on access to ES, leaving aside all consider-

tions about questioning the quality standard that has been used

or cultural and climate-related differences that make the actual

anifestation of EP vary among households, as previously shown

45,50,51] .

A first step to characterize EP in Chile requires addressing the

imitations of available data related to this phenomenon. One of

he most important household-level databases is produced by the

ational Socio-Economic Characterization Survey (CASEN, from its

panish acronym), providing information on income, education,

ealth and housing conditions. While the survey is nationally rep-

esentative, it does not include information about energy expendi-

ures nor is the dwelling-related information it delivers detailed

nough so that it may be used to model energy requirements,

kin to what was within the BREDEM approach [24] . Other rel-

vant data come from the Households Budget Survey (EPF, from

6 A. Urquiza, C. Amigo and M. Billi et al. / Energy & Buildings 204 (2019) 109463

u

d

e

t

t

t

t

a

a

p

t

i

w

o

u

b

t

C

4

m

r

n

w

i

d

s

d

r

c

a

n

t

R

L

a

d

b

i

E

e

u

o

n

w

s

w

g

i

E

i

p

fi

e

a

l

P

i

L

its Spanish acronym), which provides information about actual

expenditure structure and consumption patterns for all the re-

gional capitals and main metropolitan areas in the country. How-

ever, the data cannot be considered representative outside the spe-

cific cities in which it is generated, nor does it account for rural

households.

With respect to energy equity, Cerda y González’ study [14] ap-

plied to the Chilean case a set of indicators among the most ac-

cepted in the international literature (Ten percent rule, MIS-based

approaches and Low Income-High Cost), based on data from the

EPF 2013. Results suggest EP figures ranging from 15.7% (MIS) to

12.9% (Ten Percent Rule) and 5.2% (Low Income-High Cost). MIS-

based poverty measures tend to focus only on the lowest three in-

come deciles, whereas the analysis based on the Ten Percent Rule

displays EP through all income deciles, even though its proportion

is reduced in the higher deciles.

These results are likely due to the fact that traditional indicators

are not calibrated to observe EP in countries with a high geograph-

ical, economic and cultural heterogeneity. As mentioned above, the

MIS marks as energy poor those households whose residual in-

come (after excluding energy and housing expenses) is sufficient

to account for minimum energy expenditure. Thus, the indicator

focuses on the most impoverished distribution sectors, preventing

a careful consideration of inequalities affecting the general distri-

bution of the population, and therefore attributing to the whole

country the conditions of a few groups. In contrast, the Ten Per-

cent Rule focuses on those households that spend more than 10%

of their income in ES and services and can thus include households

with a higher per capita income who expend an excessive propor-

tion of their livelihoods on energy. In doing so, this indicator could

present a bias to represent EP in Chile due to its high economic

inequality, expressed in a Gini index of 0.465.

The unidimensionality of equity indicators cannot properly ac-

count for Chile’s socioeconomic diversity. By using an external cri-

terion to differentiate between poor and non-poor people energy-

wise, these measures of EP fail to consider whether those that

spend less that the threshold do so because they are actually ef-

fectively satisfying their energy needs. HEP-based indicators may

partially supplement this need but, since they use actual en-

ergy expenses they cannot account for the existing differences be-

tween distinct sociocultural contexts and their idiosyncratic uses

of ES.

Considering the above, it is worth investigating whether mea-

surements focused on access offer a more accurate description of

the Chilean households’ energy conditions.

The application of the Multidimensional Energy Poverty Index

[43] yields noteworthy results. First, according to CASEN Survey

[72] and [13] , a low proportion of Chilean households would seem

to be energy poor according to this indicator as only 0.09% of ur-

ban households and 0.99% of rural households lack access to elec-

tricity; 3,2% do not own a refrigerator; 0,7% lack television appli-

ances; and 4.31% fail to own a fixed or mobile telephone. On the

other hand, the figure would raise to 7.4% of households consider-

ing the type of fuel used for cooking, due to the widespread use of

firewood in rural sector families, especially in the southern regions

of Chile [51] .

However, the usual justification for considering wood as a ‘fuel

for the poor’ –that is, indoor and outdoor pollution, is in fact less

associated to the use of wood per se, than to the use of low-

quality and cheaper firewood with high levels of humidity, ineffi-

cient burning technology and the scarce energy efficiency and ther-

mal insulation of buildings [56,60] . On the other hand, firewood

has been shown to be associated to sociocultural and socioeco-

nomic practices strongly rooted in the population, so that phasing

out of such a fuel may make poor families even poorer than they

were before [54] .

The Energy Supply Index [46–48] yields close results, since it

ses a similar data than the Multidimensional Energy Poverty In-

ex, such as the use of firewood and the degree of access to the

lectrical network.

Based on these access indicators, EP would seem to be ex-

remely reduced in Chile. However, a more careful examination of

he electric power service based on the System Average Interrup-

ion Index, which observes the number and length of service in-

erruptions, suggests a 18.77 h per year of power outage [15] (on

verage, not accounting for very strong differences between rural

nd urban areas), an issue that can seriously affect households, es-

ecially those families whose health depends on access to elec-

ricity. Moreover, such indicators do not account for the approx-

mately 1% of Chilean households that access electricity illegally,

hich affects the quality of service they receive and the possibility

f accidents due to the precarious nature of the connections they

se.

Similarly, when applying standards such as the ones proposed

y the Multi-Tier Framework for Measuring Energy Access [18] to

he Chilean case, we may observe that the average consumption of

hilean households is 1805 KWh, positioning the country in grade

of a maximum of 5 defined for this indicator [13] . However, we

ust consider that these data do not include measurements of ru-

al sectors with low connectivity exhibiting values below the inter-

ational EP standards. Although Chile is relatively well positioned

ith respect to standards designed for countries with low national

ncome, this does not necessarily mean that all Chilean households

o in fact have access to ES quality of a sufficiently high quality to

atisfy their needs.

For instance, in terms of access, while 99.8% of urban residents

eclare to have access to electrical power services, only 98% of

ural residents report doing so. This lack of connectivity is con-

entrated in the regions of Araucanía (31.2%), Los Lagos (9.7%)

nd Tarapacá (9.4%) [41] . In the same way, although 10.2% of the

ational population does not use or have access to hot water,

his percentage increases for households located in the regions of

egión Metropolitana (21.4% of households), Los Lagos (11.4%) and

a Araucanía (11.3%), as pointed out in [41] .

As we can see, traditional indicators focused on equity and

ccess show serious limitations when applied in a middle-

evelopment country such as Chile. Economic measures could be

iased due to the high economic inequality, and the comparabil-

ty of a homogeneous economic good is limited by the diversity of

S seen as culturally relevant to meet the energy needs and the

xistence of different climatic zones in this territory.

This diversity is evident looking to the heterogeneity of fuels

sed in different regions of the country. While a large proportion

f households do not employ any kind of heating system in the

orth region of Chile, this proportion decreases when moving to-

ards the center of the country whereas the use of energy sources

uch as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and kerosene increases. Fire-

ood is the main energy source for heating in the southern re-

ions except for the Magallanes Region (XII) in the south which is

nstead LPG based ( Fig. 2 ).

Using a consent-based approach, the results from the National

nergy Survey (ENE, from its Spanish acronym) of 2016 confirm the

mportant effect of EP in increasing inequality, since 34% of ‘poor’

eople declare suffering from cold temperatures during winter, a

gure which declines –but remains very high (21%)– when consid-

ring lower-middle class households [30] . Gender differences are

lso relevant, since households led by women are more likely to

ive in homes in poor conditions and hence, to suffer EP [42] .

Derived from the above, equity indicators such as the Ten

ercent Rule simplify the country’s situation by not considering

ts economic, cultural and territorial inequalities and diversities.

ikewise, indicators focused on a detailed description of energy

A. Urquiza, C. Amigo and M. Billi et al. / Energy & Buildings 204 (2019) 109463 7

Table 2

Comparison of results for different EP indicators in the Chilean case.

Dimension Measure or variable % households Source

Equity TPR 12,9% EPF, 2012–2013; [14]

MIS 15,7% EPF, 2012–2013; [14]

LIHC 5,2% EPF, 2012–2013; [14]

Access Use firewood for cooking 6,84% [72]

Do not have access to electricity (urban) 0,18% [72]

Do not have access to electricity (rural) 1,44% [72]

Hot water system using biomass or do not have any 14,47% [72]

Do not have fridge 3,2% [13]

Percentage of households living in cities with average SAIDI over 1 h (not considering force majeure) 18,1% [15,72]

Households who declare their house is cold in winter 21% [73]

Fig. 2. Main energy source for heating, by region, ordered left to right from northern to southern regions.

a

d

t

a

4

f

o

t

t

i

s

d

h

m

g

c

c

H

s

a

a

S

t

d

t

p

o

c

t

t

s

m

t

h

t

t

o

w

t

s

e

d

c

l

s

c

o

S

b

ccess such as the Multi-Tier Framework [5] or Energy Supply In-

ex [46–48] show very low precision in the Chilean case, since

he thresholds they employ are designed for low-income countries

nd, therefore, they are easily surpassed in this country ( Table 2 ).

. Discussion: towards a context-sensitive three-dimensional

ramework for EP

The purpose of this article was to bring to light a common but

verlooked problem of EP measures focused on access and equity:

heir reliance on an implicit standard of energy quality, most of-

en defined in a top-down fashion and with insufficient sensitiv-

ty to varying territorial and socio-cultural contexts. These quality

tandards provide the basis on which thresholds and criteria for

ifferentiating between energy-poor and non-energy-poor house-

olds are founded.

To ground this claim, we started in Section 2 by checking the

ost important EP indicators in the international context, distin-

uishing them according to whether they emphasize equity or ac-

essibility. Next, we observed how measures of equity and ac-

ess are strongly associated to studies focusing on countries with

igh/Very High IHDI and Low IHDI, respectively [10,12,22] . Con-

equently, the situation of countries with a medium IHDI, char-

cterized by a diverse mix of ES at the household level, is not

dequately described with traditional indicators. As discussed in

ection 3 , the application of these measurements to Chile shows

he limitations of these measurements in their analytical power in

eveloping countries, since they fail to tackle relevant aspects of

he characterization of EP, such as indoor and outdoor pollution

roduced by different ES, supply reliability and energy efficiency

f housing and services, as well as the territorially and culturally

onstructed nature of energy needs and satisfiers.

The critical reflections developed in this article have diverse re-

urns for EP studies. In the first place, they allow us to recognize

he context-dependent nature of EP and problematize the use of

tandards that do not consider the forms people and communities

ake use of ES. This is especially relevant for Latin American coun-

ries, as it makes it possible to visualize manifestations of EP that

ave traditionally been made invisible through indicators directed

o access and equity issues.

Secondly, our analysis allows us to make the necessarily arbi-

rary nature of EP quality standards explicit. Since any definition

f a quality standard is the product of a differentiation between

hat variables should be considered as relevant or irrelevant from

he point of view of an observer with explicit interest in the mea-

urement of EP, it cannot but be selective. Although this cannot be

liminated, it can be made explicit, as we did in this article, by

isplaying the importance of the dimension of energy quality.

Finally, this reflection sets the ground for the construction of a

ontext-sensitive three-dimensional framework for EP ( Fig. 2 ). Fol-

owing our previous analysis, we propose that such a framework

hould be grounded on an in-depth diagnosis of the bio-geo-

limatic, technical-infrastructural and socio-cultural specificities

f the territorial context in which energy poverty is measured.

uch a diagnosis may benefit from complementing top-down and

ottom-up sources of knowledge. Its results would allow to discuss

8 A. Urquiza, C. Amigo and M. Billi et al. / Energy & Buildings 204 (2019) 109463

Fig. 3. A context-sensitive three-dimensional approach to energy poverty.

f

a

b

i

c

o

o

t

g

c

p

n

t

a

p

o

e

D

A

a

N

C

u

s

S

f

R

and define -in conjunction, whenever possible, with key territorial

actors- the quality standards to which relevant ES-technologies and

related sources- should be held, concerning, at least, their degree

of reliability, security and indoor pollution, in addition to their

effective adequacy to respond to a broad variety of energy needs.

These needs, in turn, should include both fundamental human en-

ergy necessities -necessary to ensure minimum health conditions

of the members of the household- as well as basic energy re-

quirements deemed pertinent within the given territorial context.

The definition of these requirements should thus also consider the

results of the territorial diagnosis, as well as societal expectations

to guarantee everybody with minimum life standards and human

development capabilities. The designation of key energy needs and

quality criteria, finally, should inform the construction of thresh-

olds and weighing of indicators offering an integrative perspective

on both: access and equity dimensions of the phenomenon ( Fig. 3 ).

An EP framework as the presented above allows us to overcome

the limits of understanding EP merely in terms of electrification or

of the economic means available to vulnerable homes for energy

spending, favoring a broader description of the phenomenon that

does not assume a externally defined standards, as it is often the

case in measurements centered exclusively on the access and eq-

uity dimensions, and account for quality-related aspects relevant to

the analyzed territories [8,21,77] . Likewise, this approach makes it

also easier to address the needs of different territories, by promot-

ing synergy between EP and other policy objectives (for an analysis

of the use of this method in the Chilean case, see [51] ).

Finally, it should be acknowledged that the use of this frame-

work in highly dependent on the data available in each country

where it is used. For the examined Chilean case, this framework

could only be used as a heuristic tool, especially for what con-

cerns to the access dimension due to relevant data not being avail-

able. Nevertheless, we believe that the adoption of the described

framework may motivate the development of sophisticated data-

gathering tools for EP research and policy-making.

5. Conclusions

While EP has been gaining increased relevance in research and

public policy and a variety of indicators have been proposed to

measure it and distinguish EP households, most of these are either

ocused on equity- mostly within high-development countries- or

ccess -particularly within low-development countries. Moreover,

oth groups of indicators lack an explicit reflection on energy qual-

ty, its dependence on the specific territorial and socio-cultural

ontext, and its impact on defining equity and access thresh-

lds. Thus, they tend to be inadequate to depict the diversity

f the phenomenon, most notably in middle-development coun-

ries featuring highly heterogenous energy sources and technolo-

ies, such as Chile. To overcome these problems, we advanced a

ontext-sensitive three-dimensional framework for EP which ex-

licitly grounds equity and access measures on territorially perti-

ent quality tolerance thresholds. The framework would serve both

o guide deeper research on the heterogeneity and territorial vari-

bility of EP and to foster more context-aware and effective public

olicies on the matter; at the same time, it would spur the devel-

pment of more complete, sophisticated and territorialized data on

nergy needs and services.

eclaration of Competing Interest

None.

cknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Center of Resilience

nd Climate Research (CR)2 (FONDAP #1511009); FONDECYT

°11180824 , CONICYT; CONICYT PFCHA/DOCTORADO NA-IONAL/2017 – 21170615; and the Center of Comparative Ed-

cational Policies of Diego Portales University for funding and

upporting this research.

upplementary materials

Supplementary material associated with this article can be

ound, in the online version, at doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109463 .

eferences

[1] AGECC (2010). Energy for a sustainable future. Grupo Asesor del SecretarioGeneral sobre el Cambio Climático de las Naciones Unidas. doi: 10.1016/j.

enbuild.2006.04.011 .

https://doi.org/10.13039/501100002850https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109463http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2006.04.011

A. Urquiza, C. Amigo and M. Billi et al. / Energy & Buildings 204 (2019) 109463 9

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[

[2] D.F. Barnes , W.M. Floor , Rural energy in developing countries: a challenge foreconomic development, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. 21 (1996) 497–530 .

[3] D.F. Barnes , S.R. Khandker , H.A. Samad , Energy poverty in rural Bangladesh,Energy Policy 39 (2) (2011) 894–904 .

[4] Barrueto, C.M. (2014). Pobreza Energética, desafíos de política para Chile (Vol.1160).

[5] M. Bhatia , N. Angelou , Capturing the multidimensionality of energy access,Live Wire 16 (2014) .

[6] B. Boardman , Fuel Poverty: From Cold Homes to Affordable Warmth, Pinter

Pub Limited, London, 1991 . [7] C. Bollino , F. Botti , Energy poverty in Europe: a multidimensional approach,

PSL Q. Rev. 70 (283) (2017) 473–507 . [8] S. Bouzarovski, S. Tirado Herrero, The energy divide: integrating energy tran-

sitions, regional inequalities and poverty trends in the European Union, Eur.Urban Reg. Stud. 24 (1) (2017) 69–86, doi: 10.1177/0969776415596449 .

[9] S. Bouzarovski, S. Petrova, A global perspective on domestic energy depriva-

tion: overcoming the energy poverty–fuel poverty binary, Energy Res. Soc. Sci.10 (2015) 31–40, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.007 .

[10] S. Bouzarovski, S. Petrova, R. Sarlamanov, Energy poverty policies in the EU: acritical perspective, Energy Policy 49 (2012) 76–82, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.

033 . [11] J. Bradshaw , S. Middleton , A. Davis , N. Oldfield , N. Smith , L. Cusworth ,

J. Williams , A Minimum Income Standard for Britain, Joseph Rowntree Foun-

dation, York, 2008 July . [12] B.A. Bridge, D. Adhikari, M. Fontenla, Electricity, income, and quality of life,

Soc. Sci. J. 53 (1) (2016) 33–39, doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2014.12.009 . [13] CDT [Corporación de Desarrollo Tecnológico] (2010). Estudio de usos finales

y curva de oferta de la conservación de la energía en el sector residencial.Santiago.

[14] R. Cerda , L. Gonzales , Pobreza Energética e impuesto a Las Emisiones De CO2

En Chile, CLAPES UC, Santiago, 2017 . [15] Comisión Nacional de Energía (2018) Balance Energético Nacional. www.

energiaabierta.cl . [16] R. Day , G. Walker , N. Simcock , Conceptualising energy use and energy poverty

using a capabilities framework, Energy Policy 93 (2016) 255–264 . [17] B. Delbeke , S. Meyer , The Energy Poverty Barometer (2009–2013), King Bau-

douin Foundation, 2015 .

[18] ESMAP [Energy Sector Management Assistance Program], Beyond Connections.Energy Access Redefined, 2015 .

[19] M. Gárate , La Revolución Capitalista De Chile (1973–2003), Ediciones Universi-dad Alberto Hurtado, Santiago, Chile, 2012 .

20] R. García-Ochoa , Pobreza Energética En América Latina, CEPAL, SantiagoChile,2014 de .

[21] R. García Ochoa, B. Graizbord Ed, Privation of energy services in Mexican

households: an alternative measure of energy poverty, Energy Res. Soc. Sci.18 (2016) 36–49, doi: 10.1016/J.ERSS.2016.04.014 .

22] M. González-Eguino, Energy poverty: an overview, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.47 (2015) 377–385, doi: 10.1016/J.RSER.2015.03.013 .

23] J.D. Healy , Housing, Fuel Poverty, and Health: A Pan-European Analysis, Alder-shot, 2004 .

[24] Henderson, J., & Hart, J. (2013). BREDEM 2012 – a technical description of theBRE Domestic Energy Model. Garston: BRE. Retrieved 16 April 2019 from http:

//www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/bredem/BREDEM- 2012- specification.pdf .

25] M.J. Herrington, Y. Malakar, Who is energy poor? Revisiting energy (in) secu-rity in the case of Nepa, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 21 (2016) 49–53, doi: 10.1016/j.

erss.2016.06.025 . 26] Hills, J. (2012). Getting the measure of fuel poverty: final report of the Fuel

Poverty Review Report. London, UK. Retrieved from http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/43153 .

[27] R.H. Hosier , J. Dowd , Household fuel choice in Zimbabwe: an empirical test of

the energy ladder hypothesis, Resour. Energy 9 (1987) 347–361 . 28] IEA, World Energy Outlook 2015: Methodology for Energy Access Analysis, In-

ternational Energy Agency, Paris, 2015 Tech. Rep . 29] IEA. (2018). Energy Policies Beyong IEA Countries - Chile 2018. Retrieved from

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/EnergyPolicies BeyondIEACountriesChile2018Review.pdf .

30] INE - Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas (2016). Encuesta Nacional de Empleo

ENE 2016. Retriever on April 12th, 2019 from https://www.ine.cl/estadisticas/laborales/ene .

[31] G. Leach , The energy transition, Energy Policy 20 (1992) 116–123 . 32] G. Leach , R. Mearns , Beyond the Woodfuel Crisis: People, Land and Trees in

Africa, Earthscan, London, 1988 . [33] C. Liddell, Fuel poverty comes of age: commemorating 21 years of research

and policy, Energy Policy 49 (2012) 2–5, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.036 .

34] P. Lillo, L. Ferrer-Martí, A. Boni, Á Fernández-Baldor, Assessing managementmodels for off-grid renewable energy electrification projects using the human

development approach: case study in Peru, Energy Sustain. Dev. 25 (2015) 17–26, doi: 10.1016/j.esd.2014.11.003 .

[35] S. März, Assessing the fuel poverty vulnerability of urban neighbourhoodsusing a spatial multi-criteria decision analysis for the German city of Ober-

hausen, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (2018) 1701–1711, doi: 10.1016/J.RSER.

2017.07.006 . 36] L. Middlemiss, R. Gillard, Fuel poverty from the bottom-up: characterising

household energy vulnerability through the lived experience of the fuel poor,Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 6 (2015) 146–154, doi: 10.1016/J.ERSS.2015.02.001 .

[37] Ministerio de Energía (2014). Agenda de energía. Un desafío país, progresopara todos. Available at: [Accessed March 3, 2018] http://www.minenergia.cl/

archivos _ bajar/Documentos/AgendaEnergia.pdf . 38] Ministerio de Energía. (2015). Energía 2050. Política Energética de Chile. San-

tiago de Chile. 39] V. Modi , Energy Services for the Millennium Development Goals: [Achieving

the Millennium Development Goals], UNDP, New York, 2005 . 40] R. Moore, Definitions of fuel poverty: implications for policy, Energy Policy 49

(2012) 19–26, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.057 .

[41] Observatorio Social, Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica CASEN 2017,Stat. Dababase (2017) Retrieved April 12th, 2019 from http://observatorio.mini

steriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/casen-multidimensional/casen/casen _ 2017.php . 42] Observatorio Social, Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica CASEN 2015,

Stat. Dababase (2015) Retrieved April 12th, 2019 from http://observatorio.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/casen-multidimensional/casen/casen _ 2015.php .

43] P. Nussbaumer , M. Bazilian , V. Modi , K.K. Yumkella , Measuring Energy Poverty:

Focusing on What Matters, OPHI, Oxford, 2011 . 44] L. Papada, D. Kaliampakos, Measuring energy poverty in Greece, Energy Policy

94 (2016) 157–165, doi: 10.1016/J.ENPOL.2016.04.004 . 45] PNUD. (2018). Pobreza energética: análisis de experiencias internacionales

y aprendizajes para Chile. Retrieved from http://www.cl.undp.org/content/dam/chile/docs/medambiente/undp _ cl _ medioambiente _ pobrezaenergeticaex

perienciainternacional _ 5 _ 2 _ 18.pdf .

46] Practical Action, Poor People’s Energy Outlook 2010, Rugby, UK, 2010 . [47] Practical Action, Poor People’s Energy Outlook 2012, Rugby, UK, 2012 .

48] Practical Action, Poor People’s Energy Outlook 2014, Rugby, UK, 2014 . 49] Rademaekers, K. et al. (2014). Selecting indicators to measure energy poverty.

Trinomics: Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 50] Red de Pobreza Energética [RedPE]. (2017). Pobreza energética en Chile: ¿un

problema invisible? Análisis de fuentes secundarias disponibles de alcance na-

cional. Santiago de Chile. [51] Red de Pobreza Energética [RedPE]. (2018). Políticas públicas y pobreza en-

ergética en Chile: ¿una relación fragmentada? Santiago de Chile. 52] A.K.N. Reddy , Energy and social issues, in: J. Goldemberg (Ed.), World Energy

Assessment: Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability, United Nations Devel-opment Programme, New York, 20 0 0 .

53] A. Repetto , Crecimiento, pobreza y desigualdad: la vía chilena, Economía y

Política 3 (1) (2016) 71–101 . 54] R. Reyes, H. Nelson, F. Navarro, C. Retes, The firewood dilemma: human health

in a broader context of well-being in Chile, Energy Sustain. Dev. 28 (2015) 75–87, doi: 10.1016/j.esd.2015.07.005 .

55] R. Reyes , Consumo de combustibles derivados de la madera y transición en-ergética en la Región de Los Ríos, periodo 1991–2014. Informes Técnicos BES,

Bosques-Energía-Sociedad 3 (6) (2017) .

56] Reyes, R., Schueftan, A., & Ruiz, C. (2018). Control de la contaminación atmos-férica en un contexto de pobreza de energía en el sur de Chile: los efectos no

deseados de la política de descontaminación. Bosques, Energía y Sociedad (09),1-22.

[57] P. Rolffs, D. Ockwell, R. Byrne, Beyond technology and finance: pay-as-you-gosustainable energy access and theories of social change, Environ. Plann. A 47

(12) (2015) 2609–2627, doi: 10.1177/0308518X15615368 . 58] S. Scarpellini, P. Rivera-Torres, I. Suárez-Perales, A. Aranda-Usón, Analysis of

energy poverty intensity from the perspective of the regional administration:

empirical evidence from households in southern Europe, Energy Policy 86(2015) 729–738, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.009 .

59] N. Schlag, F. Zuzarte, Market Barriers to Clean Cooking Fuels in Sub-Saharan Africa: a Review of Literature, Stockholm Environment Insti-

tute, 2008 Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6965/b960ed89e9d 4b2514f7658c78b2aadbc73f2.pdf .

60] A. Schueftan, J. Sommerhoff, A.D. González, Firewood demand and energy pol-

icy in south-central Chile, Energy Sustain. Dev. 09 (2016) 26–35, doi: 10.1016/J.ESD.2016.04.004 .

[61] M. Bondi, M. Scott (Eds.), Keyness in Texts, John Benja, Amster-dam/Philadelphia, 2010 .

62] T. Takama , S. Tsephel , F.X Johnson , Evaluating the relative strength of prod-uct specific factors in fuel switching and stove choice decisions in Ethiopia: a

discrete choice model of household preferences for clean cooking alternatives,

Energy Econ. 34 (2012) 1763–1773 . 63] J. Terrapon-Pfaff, C. Dienst, J. Kónig, W. Ortiz, A cross-sectional review: im-

pacts and sustainability of small-scale renewable energy projects in develop-ing countries, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 40 (2014) 1–10, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.

2014.07.161 . 64] H. Thomson, C. Snell, S. Bouzarovski, Health, well-being and energy poverty

in Europe: a comparative study of 32 European countries, Int. J. Environ. Res.

Public Health 14 (6) (2017) 584, doi: 10.3390/ijerph14060584 . 65] H. Thomson, C. Liddell, The suitability of wood pellet heating for domes-

tic households: a review of literature, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42 (2015)1362–1369, doi: 10.1016/J.RSER.2014.11.009 .

66] United Nations (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda For Sus-tainable Development. United Nations – Sustainable Development knowl-

edge platform. Retrieved 16 April 2019. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/

post2015/transformingourworld . [67] UN-Energy (2005). The energy challenge for achieving the millennium devel-

opment goals. Retrieved from [Accessed June 1, 2018] http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environment .

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0001http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0001http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0001http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0002http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0002http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0002http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0002http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0003http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0003http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0003http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0004http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0004http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0005https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776415596449https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.007https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.033http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0009http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0009http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0009http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0009http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0009http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0009http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0009http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0009https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2014.12.009http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0011http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0011http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0011http://www.energiaabierta.clhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0012http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0012http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0012http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0012http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0013http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0013http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0013http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0014http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0016http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0016https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2016.04.014https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2015.03.013http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0019http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0019http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/bredem/BREDEM-2012-specification.pdfhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.06.025http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/43153http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0021http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0021http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0021http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0022http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/EnergyPoliciesBeyondIEACountriesChile2018Review.pdfhttps://www.ine.cl/estadisticas/laborales/enehttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0023http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0023http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0024http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0024http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0024https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.036https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2014.11.003https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2017.07.006https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2015.02.001http://www.minenergia.cl/archivos_bajar/Documentos/AgendaEnergia.pdfhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0029http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0029https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.057http://observatorio.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/casen-multidimensional/casen/casen_2017.phphttp://observatorio.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/casen-multidimensional/casen/casen_2015.phphttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0033http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0033http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0033http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0033http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0033https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2016.04.004http://www.cl.undp.org/content/dam/chile/docs/medambiente/undp_cl_medioambiente_pobrezaenergeticaexperienciainternacional_5_2_18.pdfhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0036http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0037http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0038http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0038http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0039http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0039https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2015.07.005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0041http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0041https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15615368https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.009https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6965/b960ed89e9d4b2514f7658c78b2aadbc73f2.pdfhttps://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESD.2016.04.004http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/othref0016http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0046http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0046http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0046http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0046https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.161https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14060584https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2014.11.009https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworldhttp://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environment

10 A. Urquiza, C. Amigo and M. Billi et al. / Energy & Buildings 204 (2019) 109463

[68] D. Ürge-Vorsatz, S. Tirado Herrero, Building synergies between climate changemitigation and energy poverty alleviation, Energy Policy 49 (2012) 83–90,

doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.093 . [69] B. Van der Kroon , R. Brouwer , P. Van Beukering , The energy ladder: theoretical

myth or empirical truth? Results from a meta-analysis, Renew. Sustain. EnergyRev. 20 (2013) 504–513 .

[70] C. Von Stechow, D. McCollum, K. Riahi, J.C. Minx, E. Kriegler, D.P. van Vuuren,. . . O. Edenhofer, Integrating global climate change mitigation goals with other

sustainability objectives: a synthesis, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 40 (1) (2015)

363–394, doi: 10.1146/annurev-environ-021113-095626 . [71] WHO – World Health Organization, Fuel for Life: Household Energy and

Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2006 . [72] Observatorio Social, Ministerio de Desarrollo Social. Encuesta de Carac-

terización Socioeconómica Nacional 2017. http://observatorio.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/casen-multidimensional/casen/casen _ 2017.php (Last ac-

cessed September 30, 2019).

[73] Ministerio de Energía. Encuesta Nacional de Opinión y percepción Públicaen Energía. 2016. http://dataset.cne.cl/Energia _ Abierta/Estudios/Minerg/

Encuesta%20Nacional%20de%20Opini%C3%B3n%20y%20percepci%C3%B3n%20P% C3%BAblica%20en%20Energ%C3%ADa.pdf (Last accessed September 30, 2019).

[74] B. Boardman , Low-energy lights will keep the lights on, Carbon Management5 (4) (2014) 361–371 .

[75] United Nations Development Program. Human Development Report 2016.http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016 _ human _ development _ report.pdf

(last accessed September 30, 2019).

[76] S. Baldwin , Biomass Stoves: Engineering Design, Development and Dissemina-tion, Arlington: VITA, 1986 .

[77] E. Llera-Sastresa, S. Scarpellini, P. Rivera-Torres, J. Aranda, I. Zabalza-Bribián,A. Aranda-Usón, Energy vulnerability composite index in social housing, from

a household energy poverty perspective, Sustainability 9 (5) (2017) 691, doi: 10.3390/su9050691 .

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.093http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0051http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0051http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0051http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0051https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-021113-095626http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref0053http://observatorio.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/casen-multidimensional/casen/casen_2017.phphttp://dataset.cne.cl/Energia_Abierta/Estudios/Minerg/Encuesta%20Nacional%20de%20Opini%C3%B3n%20y%20percepci%C3%B3n%20P%C3%BAblica%20en%20Energ%C3%ADa.pdfhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref1005http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref1005http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdfhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref1044http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0378-7788(18)31979-0/sbref1044https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050691

Quality as a hidden dimension of energy poverty in middle-development countries. Literature review and case study from Chile1 Introduction2 Energy poverty indicators: access or equity?2.1 Energy poverty as equity2.2 Energy poverty as access2.3 Equity and access: high and low-development countries2.4 Energy quality as a hidden and contextual dimension of energy poverty

3 Limitations of energy poverty measurement approaches for middle-development countries: the Chilean case4 Discussion: towards a context-sensitive three-dimensional framework for EP5 ConclusionsDeclaration of Competing InterestAcknowledgmentsSupplementary materialsReferences