stirado abajomi evaluate budapest workshop
Post on 13-Aug-2015
75 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Preliminary findings of the EVALUATE survey in Budapest
Districts VIII and XIX
Sergio Tirado HerreroStefan Bouzarovski
Saska PetrovaUniversity of Manchester
Anna Bajomi, Ádám Pintér and Mirjam SágiKritikai Városkutatás Műhely
Kritikai
Városkutatás
Műhely
Case study districts
• Budapest VIII- Multi-family residential buildings pre-WWI
(bérház) with housing estates (lakótelep)- Complex social structure: low/high income
areas, gentrification, Roma population• Budapest XIX
- Single-family houses, prefabricated socialist housing estates and Wekerletelep
- Income and real estate prices below city centre
Case study districts
VIII
XIX
Implementation of the survey• Surveyers:
- 3 members of Critical Urban Research Workshop (Kritikai Városkutatás Műhely)
- 10 social sciences students• Timing
- February – April: the warmer the weather became the more pressure we felt to finish
Implementation of the survey
• Distribution of the questionnaires: - Weekdays: randomly during
daytime + 17pm - 19pm- Saturday: organised „swarm-
outs” 10 am - 18 pm- Sunday: afternoons
Implementation of the survey
• Difficulties and challenges encountered- Houses with zero response
rate or locked corridors- Large scale of human
reactions: from rudeness to extreme kindness
- Facing severe poverty issues- Discovering a rich
architectural heritage in a run-down condition
Sampling method – BP VIII
Szavazókörök62 electoral micro-districts with a 602 to 1,383 voting-age populationSampling addressesrandomly calculated for each electoral micro-district Actual sampling points: completed questionnaires
Sampling method – BP XIX
Szavazókörök58 electoral micro-districts with a 592 to 1,169 voting-age populationSampling addressesrandomly calculated for each electoral micro-district
Actual sampling points: completed questionnaires
Key survey descriptors• District 8 (BUA)
- 293 valid cases (households)- 758 people- 87 to 100% valid responses
across variables
• District 19 (BUB)- 228 valid cases (households)- 603 people- 93 to 100% valid responses
across variables
Socio-demographic composition
Household characteristic District VIII District XIXHousehold size (persons per household) 2.6 2.6Households with children 28% 21%Households with children under age 5 20% 9%Households with pensioners 41% 49%Households with only pensioners 25% 28%Average age of the respondent (years old) 48 55
Highest level of completed education District VIII District XIXPrimary education 10% 6%
Secondary education 42% 49%Tertiary education 46% 44%
Income levels
Net monthly monetary income District VIII District XIX
Less than 90.000 Ft 13% 7%
91.000 - 180.000 Ft 35% 34%
181.000 - 270.000 Ft 27% 25%
271.000 - 360.000 Ft 10% 8%361.000 - 450.000 Ft 6% 7%
451.000 - 540.000 Ft 1% 4%
541.000 Ft or more 0% 1%
MEDIAN
75% 66%
Building age and typologyYear of construction District VIII District XIXAfter 1991 4% 4%1951-1991 14% 52%Before 1951 54% 36%Primary residence of the households District VIII District XIX
Apartment in a building with multiple flats 97% 64%Individual family home 2% 36%Who owns your house? District VIII District XIX
Your household 60% 82%
A housing co-operative (with owner rights) 1% 1%
The municipality or the state 13% 3%
Rented from a private landlord 22% 9%
Rented from a housing co-operative, etc. 1% 0%
Main building typologies
District VIII
District XIX
Main heating method
Heating method District VIII
District XIX
Individual electric heater 5% 1%Individual wood stove 1% 2%Individual coal / solid fuel stove 0% 0%Individual liquid fuel stove 1% 0%Individual gas stove (konvektor/kazán) 46% 32%Individual multi-fuel stove 1% 1%Electric-powered central heating 1% 0%Liquid- or solid-fuel powered central heating 1% 1%Gas-powered central heating 33% 27%District heating 7% 36%Air conditioning unit 0% 0%Other 1% 0%
Housing and energy costsHousing costsEnergy costs
<10%
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
>50%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40% District 8District 19
% of total income
% h
ouse
hold
s
<10%
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
>50%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30% District 8District 19
% of total income
% h
ouse
hold
s50% 47%
Housing and energy costsHousing costsEnergy costs
<10%
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
>50%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40% District 8District 19
% of total income
% h
ouse
hold
s
<10%
10-20%
20-30%
30-40%
40-50%
>50%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30% District 8District 19
% of total income
% h
ouse
hold
s
25% 23%
Self-reported indicators
Unable to keep the home adequately warm
in winter
Unable to pay energy bills on time
With damp on walls and floor, mould or a leaking
roof
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%District 8District 19
% o
f pop
ulati
on
HU 2014
HU 2014
HU 2012
Household typology District VIII District XIX District VIII District XIX
Households with children 20% 21% 52% 51%Households with pensioners 24% 20% 56% 55%Households with only pensioners 23% 21% 47% 57%Household with students 23% 22% 52% 49%Monthly net monetary income District VIII District XIX District VIII District XIX
Less than 270,000 HUF 25% 19% 57% 58%271,000 to 450,000 HUF 9% 15% 23% 21%More than 450,000 HUF 11% 17% 42% 28%Highest level of education District VIII District XIX District VIII District XIX
Primary and secondary 28% 19% 55% 52%Tertiary 14% 18% 45% 41%
Disaggregated results (1)Inability to keep
home warmEnergy costs >20% income
Disaggregated results (2)
Year of construction District VIII District XIX District VIII District XIXAfter 1991 15% 30% 8% 50%1971-1990 7% 14% 33% 48%1951-1970 21% 22% 36% 57%1931-1950 29% 38% 35% 56%1901-1930 22% 20% 47% 40%Before 1900 25% 0% 64% 20%Who owns your house? District VIII District XIX District VIII District XIX Your household 20% 19% 47% 48%A housing co-operativeThe municipality or the state 33% 29% 56% 43%Rented 21% 14% 54% 43%
Inability to keep home warm
Energy costs >20% income
Disaggregated results (3)
Main heating method District VIII District XIX District VIII District XIX
Individual electric heater 40% 67% 67% 67%Individual wood stove
Individual coal / solid fuel stove
Individual liquid fuel stove
Individual gas stove 27% 25% 50% 50%Individual multi-fuel stove
Electric-powered central heating Liquid- or solid-fuel powered central heating
Gas-powered central heating 10% 11% 52% 46%District heating 20% 15% 35% 44%
Inability to keep home warm
Energy costs >20% income
Unheated/partially heated roomsUnheated rooms Partially heated rooms
0 1 2 3 40%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% District 8District 19
Number of unheated rooms
% h
ouse
hold
s
0 1 2 3 40%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% District 8District 19
Number of partially heated rooms
% h
ouse
hold
s
Unheated rooms vs. EP indicators
% of households with one or more unheated rooms
Less than 20% of their income
on energy
More than 20% of their income
on energy
Unable to keep their home their home adequately
warm
Able to keep their home adequately
warm
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25% District 8District 19
% h
ouse
hold
s
Self-reported vs. expenditure
Inability to keep the home adequately warm% energy cost vs. income District VIII District XIX
Less than 10% 17% 10%10-20% 23% 8%20-30% 18% 22%30-40% 15% 27%40-50% 40% 40%More than 50% 44% 55%
Additional energy poverty-related indicators
% households District VIII District XIXDwelling not comfortably warm during winter 31% 20%Dwelling not comfortably cool during summer 40% 41%When it is cold outside, the home is generally not heated throughout the day 49% 31%Electricity disconnected due to unpaid bills in the last 12 months 6% 3%Receiving energy or housing benefits
13% 4%Receiving other forms of social assistance from the state 16% 7%
Energy efficiency
Have you installed or are you planning to install…?
Last
10 years
Next 5 years
Not
planned
Last
10 years
Next 5 years
Not
planned
Last
10 years
Next 5 years
Not
planned
Last
10 years
Next 5 years
Not
planned
Last
10 years
Next 5 years
Not
planned
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100% District 8District 19
% h
ouse
hold
s
WINDOWS
HEATING SYSTEM
INSULATION
SOLAR PANELS
APPLIANCES
Perceptions and opinions
Our household pays its energy bills on time
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Don't know0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% District 8District 19
% h
ouse
hold
s
Perceptions and opinionsThe state should do more to support households who cannot pay for energy
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Don't know0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60% District 8District 19
% h
ouse
hold
s
Perceptions and opinions
Energy poverty is a problem in our country
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Don't know0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60% District 8District 19
% h
ouse
hold
s
Perceptions and opinions
Energy poverty is acknowledged by the government
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Don't know0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30% District 8District 19
% h
ouse
hold
s
Perceptions and opinions
Energy companies are treating consumers fairly
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree
Don't know0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40% District 8District 19
% h
ouse
hold
s
Summary and next steps• High energy poverty levels in BP/Hungary
- Perhaps the highest across EVALUATE countries - District VIII > District XIX
• Driving factors of energy vulnerability- Socio-demographics, education/income, age of the
building, ownership, heating method- Significance of factors depending on the district
• Widespread concern about energy poverty and demand for state intervention
• Further bi-variate and multi-variate analysis
Thank youurban-energy.org@stiradoherrero@stefanbuzar@curemanchester
top related