stirado abajomi evaluate budapest workshop

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%


% 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%


% of total income

% h

ouse

hold

s

<10%

10-20%

20-30%

30-40%

40-50%

>50%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%


% 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%


Number of unheated rooms

% h

ouse

hold

s

0 1 2 3 40%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%


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%


% 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%


% 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%


% 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%


% h

ouse

hold

s


Energy poverty is a problem in our country

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Don't know0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


% h

ouse

hold

s


Energy poverty is acknowledged by the government

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Don't know0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%


% h

ouse

hold

s


Energy companies are treating consumers fairly

Strongly disagree

Strongly agree

Don't know0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


% 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

stirado abajomi evaluate budapest workshop

Science