[go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
A Nonlinear Wind Turbine Wake Expansion Model Considering Atmospheric Stability and Ground Effects
Next Article in Special Issue
LightGBM-, SHAP-, and Correlation-Matrix-Heatmap-Based Approaches for Analyzing Household Energy Data: Towards Electricity Self-Sufficient Houses
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Planning and Operation of Distributed Energy Systems in Smart Grids
Previous Article in Special Issue
Smart Readiness Indicator (SRI) as a Decision-Making Tool for Low Carbon Buildings
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 17
Issue 17
10.3390/en17174500
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Towards Energy Equity: Understanding and Addressing Multifaceted Energy Inequality

by
Lina Volodzkiene
* and
Dalia Streimikiene
Lithuanian Energy Institute, Breslaujos Str. 3, 44403 Kaunas, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2024, 17(17), 4500; https://doi.org/10.3390/en17174500
Submission received: 1 August 2024 / Revised: 2 September 2024 / Accepted: 6 September 2024 / Published: 8 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New and Future Progress for Low-Carbon Energy Policy)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Affordability of home heating in Lithuania: survey results (2023).</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Perceptions of housing costs as a financial burden among Lithuanian residents (2023).</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Prevalence of housing problems in Lithuania: survey results (2023).</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Given the pressing necessity to mitigate the consequences of climate change, it is of the utmost importance to establish a carbon-neutral society. Nevertheless, sustainability is significantly impeded by energy inequality. It is the term used to describe the unequal distribution, access, and utilization of energy resources among demographic groups, which has been further exacerbated by the pandemic and geopolitical tensions. This research aims to conceptualize and quantify energy inequality in Lithuania and compare it with EU data in order to bolster the ambitious objective of a climate-neutral Europe by 2050. This article elucidates the intricacy of energy inequality by utilizing a Lithuanian population survey and a literature review, which are supplemented by an EU macroeconomic analysis. The findings underline the necessity of locally tailored solutions and underscore the significant disparities in energy access between Lithuanian regions and demographic groups. Targeted policy measures are necessary to overcome economic, technological, and socio-political obstacles that impede progress toward a climate-neutral society. The necessity of a multidimensional approach and global cooperation is underscored by a comparative analysis of EU statistics, which reveals variable progress in addressing energy inequality. Theis research is a pertinent contribution to the discourse on sustainability and social justice, and it offers policy-makers, practitioners, and stakeholders guidance for a more inclusive and sustainable energy future.

1. Introduction

The background: Energy inequality is not merely a theoretical concept; it is a tangible issue with significant repercussions. It is a substantial impediment to the well-being and sustainability of future generations and undermines the quality of life in contemporary societies [1,2]. This inequality incorporates disparities in the access, distribution, and utilization of energy among various individuals, households, communities, or regions [3]. There are substantial disparities in the quality, affordability, and accessibility of energy among different demographic groups [4]. These disparities exacerbate the social and economic divides, impede development opportunities, and perpetuate the poverty cycle [5]. Additionally, energy inequality poses an enduring hazard to the health of the planet and its inhabitants, as it exacerbates climate change and contributes to environmental degradation [6,7]. The elimination of energy inequality is not only a moral obligation but also a practical necessity for the development of a more sustainable and equitable future [8].
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 7 aims to ensure that everyone has access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy by 2030. This includes ensuring universal access to electricity and clean cooking, increasing the share of renewable energy sources in the energy supply, and accelerating progress on energy efficiency. Achieving the goal of universal access by 2030 will require nearly 100 million people to be connected each year, but current progress suggests that the world is falling short of this target [9]. According to the latest figures from the International Energy Agency (IEA), an estimated 760 million people worldwide still have no access to electricity. However, forecasts predict a reduction to 745 million people without access to electricity by the end of the year [10]. Nevertheless, these figures are still worrying and pose a significant threat to the people and communities affected. Lack of access can hinder socio-economic development, limit educational opportunities, impede healthcare, and perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
While the problem of access to energy in the EU may not be as severe compared to regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, where four out of five people lack access [10], other factors underline the extent of energy inequality. These include low incomes, inefficient housing, which leads to high energy demand, and high energy prices. In the EU, the number of energy-poor citizens is between 50 and 125 million people [11]. This highlights the urgent need for action to improve the quality of life of citizens, especially if we want to promote sustainability in the transition to a climate-neutral society.
Energy inequality is exacerbated not only by unequal access to resources but also by the broader environmental and societal impacts of energy use. While some parts of the world are actively combating climate change in order to make the transition to a climate-neutral society and ensure the well-being of future generations, others are driving society towards irreversible damage. Ongoing military actions on several continents are contributing significantly to this damage. The world’s armed forces are responsible for an estimated 6% of all greenhouse gas emissions, and many governments do not even report data on emissions from military activities [12]. Militaries consume enormous amounts of fossil fuels, contributing directly to global warming. In addition, bombing and other methods of modern warfare directly harm wildlife and biodiversity, with the collateral damage of conflict often resulting in the death of up to 90% of large animals in the affected areas. The pollution caused by wars also contaminates water, soil, and air, making areas unsafe for humans [13]. Consequently, it can be asserted that wars not only devastate the lives of the warring countries and the progress that has been achieved thus far, but also have an impact on all countries that are not involved in the conflict, tranquil inhabitants, and even future generations. The general climate, the general well-being, and the general survival of society are compromised tremendously. These effects exacerbate the disparity between regions that have the financial resources to address environmental degradation and those that do not, thereby exacerbating global energy inequality. The most vulnerable populations in the world are left with fewer resources and less access to the energy they require for sustainable development as military conflicts continue to fuel climate change and environmental destruction.
In light of these considerations, it is appropriate to ask about the approach to transitioning to a climate-neutral society while promoting world peace, taking global responsibility for the environment, and ensuring the future prosperity of society. This prompts the exploration of methods that reconcile these goals while upholding the principles of energy justice and reducing energy inequality, which are seen as major obstacles to achieving a climate-conscious and socially responsible society.
Research questions: The article addresses the following research questions: What perspectives are there in the scientific literature on energy inequality? How can energy inequality be conceptualized, treated, and defined? Under which aspects is energy inequality examined in the scientific literature? What is the level of energy inequality in Lithuania, and how does it differ from the EU context?
Research objectives: Given the depth and substance of the problem, this research aims to conduct a review of recent literature to explore the content of energy inequality as well as to determine the extent of the problem of energy inequality in Lithuania and compare it with current trends in the EU context. It is clear that a smooth transition to a climate-neutral society will not be possible without addressing the problem of energy inequality. Therefore, it is essential to conduct research that analyzes the nature and extent of the problem in order to identify effective measures that can reduce energy inequality and ensure energy justice for all.
Research methods: The literature review method was used to collect and summarize the relevant scientific literature. The literature review was conducted according to the PSALSAR method. The scientific objective of this research was to conduct a literature review of the concept of energy inequality over the past five years as well as to find theoretical evidence that answers the following research questions: How has the concept of energy inequality been identified and defined? How does it differ from similar concepts? This research is conducted in several stages. First, a literature review is conducted to examine existing academic work on energy inequality and related concepts. This review serves as a basis for conceptualizing energy inequality and identifying key variables and determinants that contribute to disparities in energy access and distribution. Secondly, a representative survey of the Lithuanian population was conducted to collect empirical data on the extent and regional distribution of energy inequality. Through direct contact with communities, the survey aims to capture the experiences of individuals and households struggling with energy insecurity and vulnerability. Third, the methodology includes an analysis of macroeconomic statistics from EU countries to provide a broader comparative context for understanding trends in energy inequality. By comparing local data with international benchmarks, it aims to identify patterns and disparities that transcend national borders and to identify common challenges and best practices for addressing energy inequality.
The relevance of this research: Given the growing focus on energy inequality, it is crucial to clarify the word and its frequent confusion with related themes. The significance of this research is emphasized by its concentration on the multifaceted nature of energy inequality, providing a thorough conceptual framework and outlining its different elements. This study explores the complexities of energy inequality in Lithuania and the wider EU by connecting theoretical knowledge with empirical evidence. The literature study serves as the basis for this investigation, but the research’s originality is most apparent in its empirical analysis of Lithuania, which offers new perspectives on how the issue is manifested locally.
The practical implication: The practical value of this article is derived from its dual contribution: delineating the nature of energy disparity and assessing its magnitude in the Lithuanian and EU contexts. The dimensions and characteristics of energy inequality are clarified in this research, which also underscores the necessity of a standardized nomenclature in the scientific and policy communities. In order to accurately quantify energy inequality and develop effective solutions, it is imperative to establish common criteria and indicators. It is imperative to develop a comprehensive comprehension of the multifaceted nature of energy inequality in order to make significant strides in the study and mitigation of this issue. This entails the development of strategies that are tailored to the unique requirements and circumstances of the communities that are impacted, in addition to the refinement of measurement methodologies.
The results underscore the pressing necessity for interventions that are both localized and targeted in order to effectively address energy inequality. The substantial discrepancy between official statistics and survey data suggests that energy inequality may be more severe and pervasive than broad aggregate statistics suggest. This discrepancy emphasizes the necessity of addressing localized conditions and the lived experiences of vulnerable populations in order to develop more precise and effective solutions.

2. Theoretical Basis

A literature review was conducted to examine recent publications on the topic of energy inequality. The PSALSAR framework was used for this review, chosen for its clarity, adaptability, and replicability, making it an effective tool for review efforts. Furthermore, the integration of the SALSA framework into the analysis phase enabled effective presentation of results and facilitated the formulation of conclusive findings.
Following Mengist et al. (2020) and the new method presented, which consists of six steps, abbreviated as PSALSAR, and includes the following phases (Table 1): research protocol (defining the scope of this research), search (defining the search string and types of databases), appraisal (predefined criteria for inclusion and exclusion of literature and for quality assessment), synthesis (extraction and categorization of data), analysis (presentation of results and final conclusions) (SALSA), and reporting of results (indication of the procedures used and communication of results to the public) [14].
Stage 1: Protocol. In order to avoid an overload of analyzed literature, which could complicate the process of literature analysis as well as the qualitative investigation of certain content and hinder the systematization and categorization efforts, it was crucial to develop a strategy for tracking down relevant scholarly sources. In this way, a holistic view of the scientific landscape was ensured in order to avoid possible distortions caused by singular perspectives. It was essential to include publications on the following research questions: How has the concept of energy inequality been identified and defined? How does it differ from similar concepts?
Stage 2: Search. The Web of Science database was used for the review, which includes data from 2019 to 2023 and covers both the pre-pandemic and post-pandemic periods. In order not to overload the analysis with an excessive amount of scientific literature, it was decided to focus on articles containing the keyword “energy inequality” in their title for further investigation. A total of 87 articles were included in the analysis, offering potential insights into the scientific questions posed. These collected publications were then imported into the bibliography program Zotero, which simplified the initial screening process and allowed for a more in-depth analysis of the articles. The overall aim of this research was to provide a comprehensive insight into the current research landscape on energy inequality.
Stage 3: Appraisal. After an initial review of the articles, the sample was narrowed down to 51 articles, as it was assumed that these articles would provide the most accurate descriptions of the concept in question and answer the scientific questions posed. The exclusion of the remaining 36 articles from further analysis was justified by several factors. These included the focus on highly technical and specific aspects of energy inequality, the emphasis on mathematical modeling rather than substantive analysis of the concept itself, and the restriction to English-language articles for further review.
It should be noted that the majority of articles are published in the journals Environmental Science and Pollution Research (16%) and Energy Policy (8%) from the total sample of 51 targeted articles. Slightly fewer articles (6% each) were published in the journals Energies, Energy Research & Social Science, and Nature Energy. Further analysis reveals that 4% of the articles in the considered sample were published in journals such as Energy Economics, Energy Strategy Reviews, Environmental Research Letters, Environmental Research Letters, Journal of Environmental Management, and PLoS One. A more detailed distribution of the articles across various journals is presented in Table 2, highlighting a notable diversity.
The key bibliometric and model information from each of the 51 articles, which are directly relevant to the subject matter, were meticulously recorded and summarized in Table 3. The bibliometric details encompassed the research types (research articles or review articles), topics, keywords, purpose, and key findings examined in each paper. The research scales spanned global, regional, national, and local levels, encompassing a wide range of countries, multiple countries or economies, individual countries, and specific regions within countries. The geographic locations of the research areas were distinguished based on the respective regions—Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Africa, or global. The model information was thoroughly examined, including the types and methods utilized. Three distinct model purposes were identified: ex-ante analysis, which involves estimating future trends; ex-post analysis, which analyzes past data and assesses the impact of events, behaviors, or politics; and relationship exploration, which focuses on examining quantitative relationships between energy inequality or related factors across different scenarios or measuring its influence. Furthermore, the dimensions used to assess energy inequality and the specific indicators employed for measurement were also analyzed.
It is worth noting that the majority of articles included in the scope of the literature review are research articles, with only a few being review articles. In terms of model purposes, a significant portion of the articles (49%) focus on ex-post analysis, analyzing historical data. Another more than third of the articles (39%) concentrate on relationship exploration, examining quantitative relationships between energy inequality or related factors across different scenarios or measuring their influence. The remaining 12% of the articles analyze ex-ante scenarios, estimating future trends and potential impacts (Table 4).
In terms of research scales, most studies (39%) analyze the national context, while 28% each examine the global or regional context as well as local contexts, which account for 6% (Table 5).
Regarding geographic locations, 37% of the studies compare multiple countries in a global analysis, with 33% focusing on Asian countries, 14% on Europe, 6% each on North America and South America, and 4% on Africa (Table 6).
Stage 4: Synthesis. The selected articles were evaluated using a qualitative inductive content analysis aimed at deepening the understanding of the concept and consistently analyzing whether the concept of energy inequality is directly addressed in the analyzed article, if so, how it is defined, and if so, indirectly, how it is approached and what factors, perspectives, and categories define it.
Stage 5: Analysis. Despite the lack of a coherent approach to energy inequality, analysis of the literature has also revealed some common features of the approach and perception of the concept of energy inequality. It should be emphasized that the articles reviewed analyze energy inequality in terms of access to energy resources, energy consumption disparities, affordability, housing conditions, energy footprint differences, unequal distribution of energy efficiency, and renewable energy consumption. The content of this analysis is presented in more detail in the section dealing with the results of the empirical background.
Stage 6. Report. This section provides a comprehensive analysis of energy inequality in Lithuania by integrating data from a 2023 survey of Lithuanian citizens with a complete literature review. The literature review identifies common patterns and themes by consolidating crucial findings from prior research. In order to offer a comprehensive comprehension of energy distribution disparities in Lithuania, these insights are subsequently contrasted to survey data.
The empirical research conducted direct, in-person interviews with 1000 Lithuanian citizens aged 18 and older, thereby guaranteeing the high accuracy and reliability of the data. To represent a variety of demographic categories, including age, gender, and residence location, a probability sampling technique was implemented. This sample size, which is reflective of the broader public’s experiences with energy availability and consumption, offers a margin of error of ±3.1% with a 95% confidence level, given Lithuania’s population of approximately 2.86 million.
In order to contextualize Lithuanian data within a European framework, the survey results are compared with official EU statistics. This comparison reveals the prevalence of energy inequality in Lithuania and in comparison to other EU nations. This analysis emphasizes regional disparities and pinpoints the most impacted areas and population groups, thereby offering a more comprehensive understanding of energy disparity.
It is imperative to identify these vulnerable regions in order to effectively address energy inequality, which will facilitate targeted interventions at both the national and regional levels. This methodology establishes the foundation for the implementation of more effective policies and initiatives to ensure that Lithuanians have equitable access to energy resources.

3. Results of the Theoretical Background

Although articles dealing with energy inequality in their title were deliberately selected for the literature analysis, it is noteworthy that none of these articles contains a clear definition of the concept. This observation is particularly worrying as it indicates a lack of consensus within the scientific community regarding the precise definition, essential components, and differentiation from related terms such as energy poverty. It is imperative to establish a common understanding of the phenomenon, including its components and potential impacts in different areas, before effective strategies can be developed to mitigate and alleviate its effects.
While the analyzed literature has drawn attention to the challenge of developing a coherent approach to understanding and addressing energy inequality, literature analysis has also revealed certain common features in the way this concept is approached and perceived.
Access to energy resources: Access to basic energy services is essential for individual well-being and survival, yet a significant proportion of the world’s population still lacks access to electricity. Addressing global and specific energy consumption patterns by income class is essential to ensuring a just and equitable energy transition [15]. Energy inequality, which is deeply rooted in long-standing socio-economic differences, leads to an unequal distribution of energy resources [16]. The growing global problem of economic inequality affects various areas, including energy, health, housing, and social cohesion. Income inequality, which is particularly acute in low-income countries, impedes access to essential goods and services such as food, shelter, and education, with energy consumption patterns reflecting these disparities [17].
This inequality in energy access takes various forms, including differences in access to clean cooking facilities in urban areas or in the consumption of modern fuels [18,19]. Particularly in developing countries, greater income inequality exacerbates difficulties in accessing electricity [20]. In addition, energy inequality is clearly reflected in the varying duration of power outages during climatic events, which highlight vulnerabilities in electricity systems [21]. During disasters, energy inequality becomes a critical issue, leading to high mortality rates, ecological degradation, and weakened health systems in areas without electricity [16]. In addition, energy inequality also includes the unequal recovery of energy production after natural disasters [22].
Research indicates a negative correlation between energy use and income inequality, suggesting that increased energy access may be associated with reduced income inequality [23]. This correlation highlights the potential for improving energy access to contribute to more equitable income distribution, although a direct causal effect has yet to be firmly established. Considering energy inequality from an environmental justice and local air quality perspective aims to redress imbalances in environmental impacts and promote equitable access to clean energy resources for diverse populations and regions [24]. Unequal exposure to pollution and limited access to green spaces further exacerbate existing socio-economic inequality, negatively impacting the health, education, property values, and employment opportunities of affected populations. Studies suggest that income inequality, poverty, economic growth, energy consumption, and industrialization typically contribute to higher carbon dioxide emissions. However, access to electricity can help reduce emissions. The interaction between income inequality and economic growth aligns with the Kuznets Curve hypothesis, which traditionally asserts that environmental degradation tends to rise with initial economic development and income inequality but eventually declines as income levels and economic maturity lead to increased environmental awareness and more effective regulations [25]. This indicates that while early stages of economic growth and inequality may exacerbate environmental harm, advancing through higher income levels can eventually facilitate improvements in environmental quality.
Disparities in energy consumption and footprints: Energy inequality, a significant and persistent issue, is driven by disparities in both energy consumption and energy footprints across different socioeconomic groups and regions. As global energy demand continues to rise due to ongoing development, the growth is uneven, leading to pronounced differences in energy consumption. These disparities are closely linked to variations in wealth, access to resources, and economic growth, manifesting in unequal energy consumption patterns across various regions and demographic groups [17,26,27,28,29,30,31].
High-income individuals and regions tend to consume a disproportionate share of energy-intensive goods and services, contributing significantly to the overall energy footprint. For instance, research by Oswald et al. (2020) [15] and Zhong et al. (2020) [29] demonstrates that top earners consume far more energy-intensive resources compared to lower-income groups, with this gap widening further as income inequality increases. This pattern is particularly evident in urban areas, wealthier provinces, and higher-income groups, where energy consumption is more intensive due to better access to energy resources and infrastructure [32].
Moreover, an analysis of energy inequality reveals that economic factors such as subsidies, GDP disparities, and limited access to energy resources exacerbate these consumption differences, particularly in regions with significant economic inequality. Although economic subsidies are often designed to reduce energy costs, they frequently benefit higher-income households and businesses more than lower-income groups, further widening the gap in energy access and consumption [33,34]. Additionally, GDP disparities allow wealthier regions to invest more in energy-efficient technologies and infrastructure, leaving poorer areas at a disadvantage. In rural areas, for example, households often face higher energy costs due to less efficient infrastructure and higher distribution costs, deepening the regional divide in energy access and consumption [35].
The relationship between income distribution and carbon emissions also plays a crucial role in understanding energy inequality. As highlighted by Zhu et al. (2023), while emissions initially tend to rise with income, they may eventually decline at higher income levels, depending on a country’s stage of development and income distribution. However, income inequality often correlates with higher emissions, underscoring the complex dynamics between economic growth, energy consumption, and environmental impact [25,32].
Reducing these inequalities in energy consumption and footprints is essential for sustainable development and achieving climate goals. It requires challenging the notion that higher energy consumption is necessary for basic well-being and emphasizing the importance of equitable access to modern energy sources [36,37]. Addressing these disparities through targeted policies is critical to mitigating the broader social, economic, and environmental impacts of energy inequality.
Affordability: Energy inequality encompasses unequal access to energy resources in different economies and communities, leading to differences in productivity and economic growth. A critical aspect of this inequality is the affordability of energy resources, which has a significant impact on marginalized groups and rural populations [38,39,40,41]. In addition, there is a link between improving human capital and lower energy demand in the long term. However, increasing income inequality has an inhibiting effect on energy consumption, as it restricts access for marginalized population groups. Economic growth and physical capital generally have a positive effect on energy consumption, but these effects are counteracted by higher energy prices, which further exacerbate inequality [41].
Essentially, energy inequality refers to the unequal access to and distribution of energy resources, services, and benefits between different individuals, communities, or regions, with affordability playing a crucial role. It encompasses various dimensions, including economic, social, and environmental factors, and reflects unequal access to affordable and sustainable energy sources. It also highlights the different impacts of energy policies and practices on different population groups. Energy inequality not only exacerbates social and economic differences but also hinders efforts to achieve energy justice. Energy justice aims for fair and equal access to energy resources and benefits for all members of society and emphasizes the importance of addressing these disparities to promote inclusive and sustainable energy systems [42].
Housing conditions: Housing conditions play a central role in perpetuating energy inequality and shed light on the stark contrasts in energy poverty across neighborhoods. These disparities are due to a variety of factors, including housing quality, affordability, and socio-economic status. Marginalized communities, often living in substandard housing with inadequate insulation and outdated infrastructure, bear the brunt of energy inequality [43]. Disparities in access to energy resources and services further exacerbate the inequality faced by these communities. Limited access to modern heating and cooling systems, inefficient appliances, and inadequate insulation not only contribute to higher energy costs but also lead to higher energy consumption and a greater environmental impact. In addition, the lack of access to affordable, energy-efficient housing exacerbates the energy burden of marginalized households, perpetuating the cycle of poverty and inequality.
Efforts to address energy inequality must prioritize improving housing conditions in underserved communities. This includes investing in energy-efficient retrofits, upgrading infrastructure, and providing financial assistance to make housing more affordable and sustainable. Addressing housing-related energy issues could alleviate energy inequality, strengthen community resilience, and promote a more equitable and inclusive society.
Uneven distribution of energy efficiency: Energy inequality is characterized by a glaring disparity in the distribution of energy efficiency improvements that disproportionately impacts marginalized groups such as people of color, women, and low-income people. These groups often bear the brunt of energy poverty and insecurity due to limited access to energy-efficient technologies and resources [44]. The unequal distribution of energy efficiency exacerbates existing socio-economic inequality and widens the gap between privileged and marginalized communities. While some parts of society enjoy the benefits of energy-efficient technologies, others struggle with higher energy costs and environmental impacts.
Renewable energy consumption: Energy inequality is closely linked to renewable energy consumption and highlights the complex interplay between energy demand, economic growth, and environmental degradation. Switching to renewable energy sources is considered crucial for environmental sustainability as it reduces CO2 emissions and improves air quality energy [45,46,47]. Income inequality proves to be a decisive factor influencing the acceptance of renewable energies. While higher income usually has a positive effect on the demand for renewable energy, this effect is often hampered by income inequality, which hinders the widespread adoption of clean energy sources [48]. Studies show a complex relationship between income inequality, economic growth, renewable energy consumption, and carbon emissions. While income inequality and certain institutional indicators contribute to higher carbon emissions, renewable energy consumption and trade openness have the opposite effect [25,49]. Research by Asongu and Odhiambo (2021) also emphasizes the role of financial development in promoting renewable energy consumption, with income inequality hindering this effect, especially at the lower quantiles of the consumption distribution [50]. In addition, renewable energy consumption increases overall carbon productivity, but this improvement is hindered by income inequality and urbanization. On the contrary, non-renewable energy consumption worsens carbon productivity, with income inequality and urbanization exacerbating these negative effects [51].
This inequality manifests itself in various forms, including the unequal spatial distribution of renewable energy infrastructure, the unequal treatment of regions based on economic and environmental characteristics, and unequal access to decision-making processes in energy projects [52]. Addressing these disparities is critical to promoting equitable access to renewable energy resources and supporting sustainable development.
The analysis of the literature reveals a concerning lack of consensus on the definition of energy inequality. Nevertheless, common themes can be identified: access to energy is critical to individual well-being and development, but socioeconomic inequality leads to unequal distribution of resources and exacerbates inequality in essential services. Income disparities exacerbate this problem, as higher-income groups consume disproportionately more energy. Furthermore, marginalized groups are disproportionately affected by energy efficiency differences. Addressing housing-related energy issues is critical to reducing energy inequality and promoting a more equitable society. Overall, addressing these disparities is essential for sustainable development and achieving energy justice.

4. Outcomes of the Empirical Research

A literature review reveals that energy inequality presents itself as a multi-layered phenomenon manifesting through diverse criteria. Among these, factors such as access to energy resources, differences in energy consumption across different demographics, the affordability of energy services, and the quality of housing conditions play pivotal roles. Extending the analysis to these dimensions results in a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of energy inequality.
In 2022, 9.3% of people in the EU were unable to keep their homes adequately warm, according to statistics published by Eurostat [53]. This is most worrying in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Lithuania, Portugal, and Spain, where almost a fifth of households were without adequate heating. It is important to emphasize that the number of households unable to adequately heat their homes is increasing in the EU: 7.5% in 2020, 6.9% in 2021, and 9.3% in 2022 [53]. Although the latest figures for 2023 are not yet available, the future figures are worrying. Whether a dwelling is adequately heated depends on several variables, including the structural integrity of the building, the prevailing outside temperatures, and the affordability of energy sources. However, the increase in the latter indicator from 2020 is due to geopolitical tensions and the resulting protection of energy prices.
In 2022, energy prices in the EU rose to unprecedented levels, driven by a global surge in wholesale energy prices that began in 2021 in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and rising international energy demand. The Russian invasion of Ukraine further exacerbated the situation. As the EU is highly dependent on energy imports, the rise in import prices affected both companies and consumers from the second quarter of 2021 [54]. Between December 2020 and December 2021, energy import prices in the eurozone more than doubled, which is a remarkable escalation considering that energy import prices usually fluctuate by around 30% annually. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine, combined with Russia’s decision to cut off gas supplies to certain EU member states, drove gas prices to unprecedented levels and, as a result, electricity prices in the EU to record highs [54]. According to official EU statistics, similar trends can also be expected for 2023. Compared to the previous year, overall prices have risen in most EU Member States, and the largest increase was observed in the Netherlands (953.2%), followed by Lithuania (87.8%) and Romania (77.3%) [55]. Energy and utility costs, as well as cuts in subsidies and grants, were the main causes of the increase.
According to a representative survey of the Lithuanian population conducted at the end of 2023, 31.3% of the population cannot afford to heat their homes adequately due to a lack of financial resources and 12.8% for technical and other reasons (overall, 44.1% of the Lithuanian population cannot afford to heat their homes adequately). The survey thus reveals an even greater depth of the problem and also shows that only just over half of the Lithuanian population (55.9%) is able to afford adequate heating for their homes (Figure 1).
The gender-specific differences are even more pronounced: half of women (50%) compared to men (36.7%) cannot afford to heat their home sufficiently (Table 7). Older people are also the most disadvantaged: more than half of those aged between 60 and 69 (53.3%) cannot afford adequate heating, and the trend is even more pronounced in the over-70 age group, where 57.5% cannot afford adequate heating. In addition, 56% of divorced people and 64.1% of widowed people cannot afford adequate heating, particularly in small towns (48.9%) and rural areas (49.1%) (Table 7). When asked whether their household income allows them to heat their home sufficiently, more than a fifth (21.2%) answered no, and more than a quarter (27.4%) said that this is only possible if they at least partially forego satisfying their other necessary needs.
In this context, it is worth mentioning the housing cost overburden ratio, which indicates the percentage of the population living in households where total housing costs account for more than 40% of disposable income. Housing costs refer to the monthly expenses associated with the right to live in a home. In 2022, 8.7% of the EU population spent 40% or more of their disposable household income on housing [56]. Greece had the highest housing cost overburden rate at 26.7%. Other countries with a rate of over 10.0% were the Netherlands (10.0%), Germany (11.8%), Denmark (14.7%), Bulgaria (15.1%), and Luxembourg (15.2%). Conversely, the Member States with housing cost overburden rates below 4% were Slovakia and Cyprus with 2.5 each, followed by Malta (2.9%), Lithuania (3.5%), Croatia (3.8%), and Ireland (3.9%) [56].
It should be emphasized, however, that the survey of the Lithuanian population revealed other figures that show an opposite trend to the official statistics. When asked whether housing costs (including rent, heating, water, and electricity) are a major financial burden, 18.7% responded that they are a very big burden, 51% said that they are a burden to some extent (69.7% of respondents consider housing costs to be a financial burden in general), and only 30.2% do not consider them to be a financial burden (Figure 2).
It is worth noting that women (73.5%) are more likely than men (64.9%) to see housing costs as a financial burden, with housing costs being particularly pronounced in the 60 to 69 age group (78.5%) and the over 70 age group (80.2%) (Table 8). Housing costs are particularly burdensome for divorcees (76%) and widows (83.1%), people living alone (78.9%), and those living in rural areas (75.2%) (Table 8).
Another equally important indicator is the severe housing deprivation rate, which indicates the percentage of the population living in housing that is considered overcrowded and has at least one of the measures of housing deprivation, such as poor amenities, referring to those households with a leaking roof, no bath/shower, and no indoor toilet, or a dwelling considered too dark. In 2020, the severe deprivation rate in the EU was 5.8% and was highest in Latvia (15.8%), Italy (12.8%), Hungary (11.9%), and Lithuania (10.1%) [57].
According to a representative survey of the Lithuanian population, respondents are confronted with the following housing problems: cramped housing because there are no technical means to provide adequate ventilation when outside temperatures are high (21.6%), housing defects (dripping roofs, damp walls (floors and foundations), rotten windows, or floors) (19.7%), cold apartments because there are no technical means to provide adequate heating in winter (14.9%), dark housing, i.e., not enough daylight (12%), other (2%), and only 44.2% did not specify or stated that they did not experience severe deprivation (Figure 3).
With regard to the quality of housing and living conditions, it should be noted that the majority of respondents (57.5%) live in an apartment building with ten or more apartments, and only 34.5% of respondents live in a detached house (with a single apartment). 71.1% of respondents live in an apartment that was built before 1985, with 62.4% of apartments being unrenovated.
The extent of energy inequality within the EU is indeed worrying, as shown by a variety of indicators, statistics, and a representative survey of the Lithuanian population. This problem does not only affect a small part of society but a significant part of the population, with vulnerable people and people in certain regions being disproportionately affected. This underlines the urgent need for a comprehensive policy aimed at making energy more affordable, improving the quality of housing, and raising the overall standard of living. By addressing these factors, we can effectively reduce energy inequality and promote the well-being of all EU citizens.

5. Discussion

The absence of a unified definition and perception of energy inequality does not diminish its significance, but rather emphasizes its multidimensionality and complexity, as noted in the literature review. Key dimensions of the concept are evident in a variety of sources, despite the fact that the term “energy inequality” is not always explicitly addressed. As a result of its complexity, researchers frequently refrain from conducting direct analyses of energy inequality, which encompasses disparities in access, affordability, and the effects of energy resources on various population groups. This complexity presents a challenge in the context of comprehensive measurement. Furthermore, the lack of a definition that is widely accepted prompts researchers to concentrate on related concepts such as energy access, energy poverty, and energy justice, which address distinct aspects of the broader issue. The analysis is further complicated by the interdisciplinary nature of energy inequality, as scholars from a variety of disciplines employ varying methodologies and theoretical frameworks. Additionally, the analysis is impeded by data limitations, particularly in the areas of energy consumption and socio-economic indicators. The necessity for ongoing exploration and discourse in the field is underscored by the intricacy of energy inequality, despite these obstacles.
From all that has been examined, it can be said that energy inequality refers to the unequal access to and distribution of energy resources, services, and benefits between individuals, communities, or regions. It encompasses various dimensions, including economic, social, and environmental factors, and reflects disparities in access to affordable and sustainable energy sources. This inequality manifests itself in different energy consumption patterns, unequal access to energy, and differences in energy efficiency improvements. Income inequality exacerbates energy inequality, hinders access for marginalized groups, and widens the gap between privileged and marginalized communities. Efforts to address energy inequality are critical to achieving sustainable development and energy justice, which aim to provide fair and equal access to energy resources for all members of society.
Energy inequality refers to the unequal distribution of benefits and burdens associated with energy production, distribution, and access between different social groups, regions, or countries. It includes disparities in the affordability, availability, reliability, and environmental impacts of energy that can lead to social, economic, and environmental injustices. Energy inequality can manifest itself in various forms, including unequal access to modern energy services, disproportionate pollution burdens from energy production, and disparate impacts of energy policies and regulations on marginalized communities. Addressing energy inequality involves promoting equitable access to clean, affordable, and sustainable energy resources while mitigating negative social and environmental impacts [52].
The current data highlights the urgent necessity of addressing energy inequality, as it reveals a substantial and concerning discrepancy between the official statistics of the EU and the findings of a representative survey of the population. The stark contrast between these different outcomes is especially evident in Lithuania, where indicators of energy inequality are significantly higher than those suggested by aggregated EU data, despite the fact that a variety of factors may contribute to these differences. This disparity highlights the imperative necessity for targeted, localized interventions that surpass generalized regional averages, as it indicates that the issue is significantly more severe and widespread than the broad, accumulated statistics suggest. Energy inequality may be profoundly ingrained in specific regions, as indicated by the higher indicators in Lithuania. Therefore, it is imperative to address the underlying issues with immediate and focused attention.
Overall, 17.5% of Lithuanians were unable to maintain a sufficient level of warmth in their residences in 2022, as reported by Eurostat [53]. Nevertheless, the survey results indicate that 44.1% of the Lithuanian population is unable to adequately heat their homes, with the situation being even more difficult for vulnerable groups such as women, the elderly, widows, divorced individuals, and those residing in smaller towns or rural areas. The results are significantly higher than the previous survey. Additionally, over 25% of respondents (27.4%) indicated that they could only adequately heat their homes by at least partially forgoing other essential needs.
In addition, official EU statistics suggest that only 3.5% of Lithuanians are burdened by accommodation expenses that exceed 40% of their disposable income [56]. Conversely, the survey indicates a significantly more bleak outlook, with 69.7% of respondents reporting that housing costs are a financial burden (18.7% as a very significant burden and 51% as a burden to some extent). Eurostat also reported that in 2022, 10.1% of the population in Lithuania experienced acute housing deprivation. The survey, however, indicates that the figures are significantly higher: 21.6% of respondents reported living in cramped housing due to inadequate ventilation during high temperatures, 19.7% cited housing defects, 14.9% mentioned cold apartments due to insufficient heating in winter, and 12% reported living in dark housing, among other issues.
In Lithuania, the discrepancies between official EU statistics and survey results regarding energy inequality are the consequence of economic and methodological factors. Frequently, EU statistics are based on standardized, aggregate data, which may not accurately reflect regional or demographic details, resulting in an underestimation of issues such as energy inequality. On the other hand, localized surveys are indicative of the lived experiences of vulnerable populations and disclose the true extent of the issue, demonstrating that it is more severe than official data. In addition, the gap between reported statistics and current realities may be exacerbated by rapid economic changes, such as the increase in energy costs, which may not be entirely reflected in official data. Therefore, the survey offers a more realistic and imperative perspective on the issue, emphasizing the necessity of targeted, localized interventions to effectively address energy inequality.
Energy inequality, a major global challenge, is closely linked to economic development and climate goals [36]. Despite climate finance efforts, the transition to low-carbon energy requires significant investment [58]. Progress in renewable energy and reducing income inequality has been shown to improve environmental quality [46]. However, disparities in energy consumption between different income groups and countries persist, hindering the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [15].
Research indicates that a reduction in inequality can lead to an improvement in environmental quality [26]. However, current trends suggest that energy inequality could worsen in the coming decades, so there is an urgent need for action [15]. Addressing this challenge requires more than just public investment; it necessitates targeted policy measures designed to prioritize vulnerable groups and ensure equitable access to reliable energy sources [59]. While some advocate for decoupling economic growth from energy consumption, this approach is complex and may not be the most immediate or effective solution. Instead, comprehensive strategies that focus directly on reducing disparities in energy access and consumption across different socioeconomic groups are essential for mitigating energy inequality [38].
Urgent action is particularly needed in Eastern Europe, where disparities in carbon and energy intensity persist [59]. Efforts to tackle energy inequality must be accompanied by policies that prioritize social protection mechanisms and flexible frameworks. Carbon pricing and progressive compensation schemes are essential to reduce inequality [60]. In addition, investment priorities should take into account access and equity concerns to avoid exacerbating disparities in risk and vulnerability among marginalized populations [61].
The study by Millward-Hopkins, J. (2022) underlines the importance of bridging the widening gap in energy consumption between the super-rich and the rest of the world. It highlights that the top 1% will potentially consume as much energy as 1.7 billion people in Africa by 2050, which is a stark disparity [27]. While controlling population growth remains important, the study emphasizes that initiatives to empower women and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals are of paramount importance. Although lower population growth will not significantly reduce carbon emissions, it could reduce vulnerability to climate-related problems. Therefore, the study emphasizes the urgency of implementing practical strategies to address global differences and their profound environmental impacts.
In summary, energy inequality is a major challenge characterized by discrepancies in access, affordability, and environmental impact for different demographic groups. Although there is no universal definition, its complex nature underlines its importance. Exacerbated by income inequality, energy inequality hinders access for marginalized populations and undermines progress towards sustainable development and energy justice. There is an urgent need for action to reduce the growing gap in energy consumption between different population groups and regions, especially in the transition to a carbon-neutral society. Ensuring energy justice requires comprehensive strategies aimed at achieving global equity while mitigating environmental impacts. The discrepancies between official statistics and survey results highlight the need for more accurate assessments to inform policy interventions effectively.

6. Conclusions

This comprehensive analysis underlines the multifaceted nature of energy inequality and its far-reaching effects on society, the economy, and the environment. While the lack of a single definition reflects the complexity of the issue, commonalities can be identified that underscore the urgency of addressing disparities in access to energy resources, affordability, and consumption patterns. Energy inequality, defined as the unequal distribution of energy resources, services, and benefits between individuals, communities, or regions, encompasses various dimensions, including economic, social, and environmental factors.
Income and energy inequality are deeply interlinked, presenting significant challenges to achieving energy justice and sustainable development goals. As the world transitions to a carbon-neutral society, addressing energy inequality is crucial. Ensuring equitable access to clean and sustainable energy sources is essential not only for bridging social and economic divides but also for curbing environmental degradation and meeting climate goals.
The findings underscore the need for comprehensive strategies that prioritize vulnerable populations, promote energy justice, and support inclusive policies. In this context, it is essential for policy-makers, researchers, and stakeholders to work together and develop targeted interventions that address the root causes of energy inequality. This includes investing in energy infrastructure, improving affordability, and promoting energy efficiency measures, especially in marginalized communities. In addition, bridging the widening gap in energy consumption between different population groups and regions is crucial to building a more equitable and resilient society.
Overall, the article highlights the importance of taking a holistic approach to tackling energy inequality that incorporates social, economic, and environmental considerations. By prioritizing equity and justice in energy access and distribution, societies can strive for a more sustainable and inclusive future for all.
Limitations and further research directions: This article offers a comprehensive examination of energy inequality and its various components, while also acknowledging a number of its limitations. Although insightful, the literature review was restricted to scholastic articles published within the past five years and concentrated on those with the term “energy inequality” in the title. Although this method has been beneficial, it is probable that it overlooked additional pertinent research. In order to achieve a more thorough comprehension, future reviews should expand their scope by incorporating a broader array of studies and search queries. In addition, the article would be enhanced by a more thorough examination of related concepts such as “energy justice” and “energy equity”, which are crucial for comprehending the intricacy of energy-related issues.
Despite the fact that the article underscores the significance of energy inequality as a barrier to the establishment of a climate-neutral society, it predominantly provides theoretical insights. In order to identify and evaluate the specific factors that exacerbate energy disparity and to evaluate measures to mitigate these gaps, additional empirical research is required. Valuable insights for the development of more effective strategies to address energy inequality could be derived from a more thorough investigation of the interactions between these concepts. The integration of these perspectives into future research will improve our comprehension and facilitate the development of more sustainable, equitable, and effective energy solutions. It is imperative that we address these constraints in order to enhance our understanding and endeavors to attain equitable and sustainable energy access.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft preparation, L.V.; writing—review and editing, supervision, D.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the RESEARCH COUNCIL OF LITHUANIA (LMTLT), grant number S-PD-22-68.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Green, F.; Healy, N. How Inequality Fuels Climate Change: The Climate Case for a Green New Deal. One Earth 2022, 5, 635–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Islam, S.N. Inequality and Environmental Sustainability. United Nations DESA Working Paper, 2015, No. 145. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/desa/inequality-and-environmental-sustainability (accessed on 5 March 2024).
  3. Millward-Hopkins, J.; Oswald, Y. Reducing Global Inequality to Secure Human Wellbeing and Climate Safety: A Modelling Study. Lancet Planet. Health 2023, 7, e147–e154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Volodzkiene, L.; Streimikiene, D. Energy Inequality Indicators: A Comprehensive Review for Exploring Ways to Reduce Inequality. Energies 2023, 16, 6075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hamann, M.; Berry, K.; Chaigneau, T.; Curry, T.; Heilmayr, R.; Henriksson, P.J.G.; Hentati-Sundberg, J.; Jina, A.; Lindkvist, E.; Lopez-Maldonado, Y.; et al. Inequality and the Biosphere. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2018, 43, 61–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gereon, T.P.; Einarsdóttir, A.K.; Dillman, K.J.; Heinonen, J. Energy Consumption and Human Well-Being: A Systematic Review. Energies 2023, 16, 6494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Oswald, Y.; Steinberger, J.K.; Ivanova, D.; Millward-Hopkins, J. Global Redistribution of Income and Household Energy Footprints: A Computational Thought Experiment. Glob. Sustain. 2021, 4, e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Brand-Correa, L.I.; Steinberger, J.K. A Framework for Decoupling Human Need Satisfaction from Energy Use. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 141, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. International Energy Agency (IEA). Achieving Modern Energy for All by 2030 Seems Unlikely. 2024. Available online: https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-access (accessed on 5 March 2024).
  10. International Energy Agency (IEA). Access to Electricity Improves Slightly in 2023, But Still Far from the Pace Needed to Meet SDG7. 2023. Available online: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/access-to-electricity-improves-slightly-in-2023-but-still-far-from-the-pace-needed-to-meet-sdg7 (accessed on 6 March 2024).
  11. Enpor. Energy Poverty. 2024. Available online: https://enpor.eu/energy-poverty/ (accessed on 7 March 2024).
  12. The Guardian. World’s Militaries Avoiding Scrutiny over Emissions, Scientists Say. 2022. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/11/worlds-militaries-avoiding-scrutiny-over-emissions (accessed on 9 March 2024).
  13. McCarthy, J. How War Impacts Climate Change and the Environment. Global Citizen. 2022. Available online: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/how-war-impacts-the-environment-and-climate-change/ (accessed on 11 March 2024).
  14. Mengist, W.; Soromessa, T.; Legese, G. Method for Conducting Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis for Environmental Science Research. MethodsX 2020, 7, 100777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Oswald, Y.; Owen, A.; Steinberger, J. Large Inequality in International and Intranational Energy Footprints between Income Groups and across Consumption Categories. Nat. Energy 2020, 5, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tormos-Aponte, F.; Lopez, G.; Painter, M. Energy Inequality and Clientelism in the Wake of Disasters: From Colorblind to Affirmative Power Restoration. Energy Policy 2022, 158, 112550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nar, M. The Relationship Between Income Inequality and Energy Consumption: A Pareto Optimal Approach. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 613–624. [Google Scholar]
  18. Neto-Bradley, A.; Choudhary, R.; Challenor, P. A Microsimulation of Spatial Inequality in Energy Access: A Bayesian Multi-Level Modelling Approach for Urban India. Environ. Plan. B-Urban Anal. City Sci. 2022, 50, 895–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Baltruszewicz, M.; Steinberger, J.; Ivanova, D.; Brand-Correa, L.; Paavola, J.; Owen, A. Household Final Energy Footprints in Nepal, Vietnam and Zambia: Composition, Inequality and Links to Well-Being. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 025011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Murshed, M. A Regional Appraisal of Electricity Accessibility Determinants: The Relevance of International Remittances, Clean Energy, Income Inequality, and Institutional Quality. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 51228–51244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Coleman, N.; Esmalian, A.; Lee, C.; Gonzales, E.; Koirala, P.; Mostafavi, A. Energy Inequality in Climate Hazards: Empirical Evidence of Social and Spatial Disparities in Managed and Hazard-Induced Power Outages. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 92, 104491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gargani, J. Inequality Growth and Recovery Monitoring after Disaster Using Indicators Based on Energy Production: Case Study on Hurricane Irma at the Caribbean in 2017. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 79, 103166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sonora, R. A Panel Analysis of Income Inequality and Energy Use. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2022, 40, 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Diana, B.; Ash, M.; Boyce, J. Just Decarbonization? Environmental Inequality, Air Quality, and the Clean Energy Transition. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2023, 32, 304–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Khan, H.; Liu, W.; Khan, I.; Han, L. The Effect of Income Inequality and Energy Consumption on Environmental Degradation: The Role of Institutions and Financial Development in 180 Countries of the World. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 20632–20649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yao, X.; Yasmeen, R.; Padda, I.; Shah, W.; Kamal, M. Inequalities by Energy Sources: An Assessment of Environmental Quality. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0230503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Millward-Hopkins, J. Inequality Can Double the Energy Required to Secure Universal Decent Living. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 5028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Huang, W.; Li, Y.; Li, H. Embodied Energy in China: Drivers and Inequality at a Regional Level. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 64488–64502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Zhong, H.; Feng, K.; Sun, L.; Cheng, L.; Hubacek, K. Household Carbon and Energy Inequality in Latin American and Caribbean Countries. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 273, 110979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Semieniuk, G.; Weber, I. Inequality in Energy Consumption: Statistical Equilibrium or a Question of Accounting Conventions? Energy Inequality: Statistical Equilibrium or Accounting Convention? Eur. Phys. J.-Spec. Top. 2020, 229, 1705–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hafeez, M.; Yuan, C.; Khelfaoui, I.; Musaad, O.; Akbar, M.; Jie, L. Evaluating the Energy Consumption Inequalities in the One Belt and One Road Region: Implications for the Environment. Energies 2019, 12, 1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhu, Q.; Sang, X.; Li, Z. Economic Growth and Household Energy Footprint Inequality in China. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0282300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhang, A.; Patnaik, S.; Jha, S.; Agrawal, S.; Gould, C.; Urpelainen, J. Evidence of Multidimensional Gender Inequality in Energy Services from a Large-Scale Household Survey in India. Nat. Energy 2022, 7, 698–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ata, B.; Pakrooh, P.; Barkat, A.; Benhizia, R.; Penzes, J. Inequalities in Regional Level Domestic CO2 Emissions and Energy Use: A Case Study of Iran. Energies 2022, 15, 3902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, Q.; Fan, J.; Kwan, M.; Zhou, K.; Shen, G.; Li, N.; Wu, B.; Lin, J. Examining Energy Inequality under the Rapid Residential Energy Transition in China through Household Surveys. Nat. Energy 2023, 8, 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, M.; Liu, J.; Liu, L.; Zhou, D. Inequality in Urban Household Energy Consumption for 30 Chinese Provinces. Energy Policy 2023, 172, 113326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Asongu, S.; Odhiambo, N. Inequality and Renewable Energy Consumption in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implication for High Income Countries. Innov.-Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2021, 2021, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  38. Sinha, A.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Zafar, M.; Saleem, M. Analyzing Global Inequality in Access to Energy: Developing Policy Framework by Inequality Decomposition. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 304, 114299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Akter, S.; Bagchi, K. Is Off-Grid Residential Solar Power Inclusive? Solar Power Adoption, Energy Poverty, and Social Inequality in India. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 82, 102314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bayliss, K.; Mattioli, G.; Steinberger, J. Inequality, Poverty and the Privatization of Essential Services: A “systems of Provision” Study of Water, Energy and Local Buses in the UK. Compet. Chang. 2021, 25, 478–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sehrawat, M. Modelling the Nexus between Human Capital, Income Inequality, and Energy Demand in India: New Evidences from Asymmetric and Non-Linear Analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 3632–3643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Olner, D.; Mitchell, G.; Heppenstall, A.; Pryce, G. The Spatial Economics of Energy Justice: Modelling the Trade Impacts of Increased Transport Costs in a Low Carbon Transition and the Implications for UK Regional Inequality. Energy Policy 2020, 140, 111378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mari-Dell’Olmo, M.; Oliveras, L.; Vergara-Hernandez, C.; Artazcoz, L.; Borrell, C.; Gotsens, M.; Palencia, L.; Lopez, M.; Martinez-Beneito, M. Geographical Inequalities in Energy Poverty in a Mediterranean City: Using Small-Area Bayesian Spatial Models. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 1249–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Adua, L.; De Lange, R.; Aboyom, A. Differentiated Disadvantage: Class, Race, Gender, and Residential Energy Efficiency Inequality in the United States. Energy Effic. 2022, 15, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Muhammad, I.; Ozcan, R.; Jain, V.; Ramos-Meza, C.; Chawla, C. Do Drivers of Renewable Energy Consumption Matter for BRICS Economies? Nexus among Technological Innovation, Environmental Degradation, Economic Growth, and Income Inequality. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 30, 11321–11331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Muhammad, I.; Ozcan, R.; Jain, V.; Sharma, P.; Shabbir, M. Does Environmental Sustainability Affect the Renewable Energy Consumption? Nexus among Trade Openness, CO2 Emissions, Income Inequality, Renewable Energy, and Economic Growth in OECD Countries. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 90147–90157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, Y.; Uddin, I.; Gong, Y. Nexus between Natural Resources and Environmental Degradation: Analysing the Role of Income Inequality and Renewable Energy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sharma, R.; Rajpurohit, S. Nexus between Income Inequality and Consumption of Renewable Energy in India: A Nonlinear Examination. Econ. Chang. Restruct. 2022, 55, 2337–2358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yang, X.; Ramos-Meza, C.; Shabbir, M.; Ali, S.; Jain, V. The Impact of Renewable Energy Consumption, Trade Openness, CO2 Emissions, Income Inequality, on Economic Growth. Energy Strategy Rev. 2022, 44, 101003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Asongu, S.; Odhiambo, N. Inequality, Finance and Renewable Energy Consumption in Sub-Saharan Africa. Renew. Energy 2021, 165, 678–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, Q.; Li, L.; Li, R. The Asymmetric Impact of Renewable and Non-Renewable Energy on Total Factor Carbon Productivity in 114 Countries: Do Urbanization and Income Inequality Matter? Energy Strategy Rev. 2022, 44, 100942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bosch, S.; Schmidt, M. Wonderland of Technology? How Energy Landscapes Reveal Inequalities and Injustices of the German Energiewende. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2020, 70, 101733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Eurostat. Inability to Keep Home Adequately Warm—EU-SILC Survey. 2024. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/ILC_MDES01/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 11 March 2024).
  54. European Council (2024). Energy Price Rise Since 2021. Available online: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/energy-prices-2021/ (accessed on 11 March 2024).
  55. Eurostat. Electricity Price Statistics. 2023. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics (accessed on 11 March 2024).
  56. Eurostat. Living Conditions in Europe—Housing. 2023. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Living_conditions_in_Europe_-_housing&oldid=626953 (accessed on 11 March 2024).
  57. Eurostat. Severe Housing Deprivation Rate by Tenure Status. 2024. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tepsr_lm440/default/table?lang=en&page=RENT_MKT (accessed on 11 March 2024).
  58. Setyowati, A. Mitigating Inequality with Emissions? Exploring Energy Justice and Financing Transitions to Low Carbon Energy in Indonesia. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 71, 101817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nguyen, C.; Nasir, M. An Inquiry into the Nexus between Energy Poverty and Income Inequality in the Light of Global Evidence. Energy Econ. 2021, 99, 105289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jaccard, I.; Pichler, P.; Tobben, J.; Weisz, H. The Energy and Carbon Inequality Corridor for a 1.5 Degrees C Compatible and Just Europe. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 064082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Romero-Lankao, P.; Gnatz, D. Risk Inequality and the Food-Energy-Water (FEW) Nexus: A Study of 43 City Adaptation Plans. Front. Sociol. 2019, 4, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 17 04500 g001
Figure 1. Affordability of home heating in Lithuania: survey results (2023).
Figure 1. Affordability of home heating in Lithuania: survey results (2023).
Energies 17 04500 g001
Energies 17 04500 g002
Figure 2. Perceptions of housing costs as a financial burden among Lithuanian residents (2023).
Figure 2. Perceptions of housing costs as a financial burden among Lithuanian residents (2023).
Energies 17 04500 g002
Energies 17 04500 g003
Figure 3. Prevalence of housing problems in Lithuania: survey results (2023).
Figure 3. Prevalence of housing problems in Lithuania: survey results (2023).
Energies 17 04500 g003
Table 1. The PSALSAR framework for literature analysis.
Table 1. The PSALSAR framework for literature analysis.
StepsOutcomesMethods
PSALSAR FrameworkProtocol Defined study scope Only publications included in the Web of Science database that cover the period from 2019 to 2023.
SearchDefine the search strategy Identification of search steps that contain a systematic description of successive actions for efficient information retrieval.
AppraisalSelecting studies Defining inclusion and exclusion criteria.
SynthesisCategorize the data Preparation of data through categorization based on iterative definitions to facilitate subsequent analysis.
AnalysisData analysis The extracted data is subjected to quantitative categories, descriptions, and narrative analyses.
ReportResults and discussion Based on the analysis, trends are highlighted, gaps identified, and results compared, from which conclusions and recommendations can be derived.
Source: modified by the authors from Mengist et al., 2020 [14].
Table 2. Distribution of journals in which targeted articles have been published.
Table 2. Distribution of journals in which targeted articles have been published.
JournalNumber of ArticlesShare
Environmental Science and Pollution Research815.69%
Energy Policy47.84%
Energies35.88%
Energy Research & Social Science35.88%
Nature Energy35.88%
Energy Economics23.92%
Energy Strategy Reviews23.92%
Environmental Research Letters23.92%
Journal of Environmental Management23.92%
PLoS One23.92%
Competition & Change11.96%
Contemporary Economic Policy11.96%
Economic Change and Restructuring11.96%
Energy Efficiency11.96%
Energy Reports11.96%
Environment and Planning B Urban Analytics and City Science11.96%
European Physical Journal- Special Topics11.96%
Frontiers in Public Health11.96%
Frontiers in Sociology11.96%
Industrial and Corporate Change11.96%
Innovation- the European Journal of Social Science Research11.96%
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction11.96%
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health11.96%
Journal of Asian Finance Economics and Business11.96%
Journal of Quantitative Economics11.96%
Nature Communications11.96%
Renewable Energy11.96%
Resources Basel11.96%
Sustainability11.96%
Sustainable Cities and Society11.96%
Table 3. Key information recorded.
Table 3. Key information recorded.
Key InformationMeta-IndicatorDescription
Bibliometric informationAuthors, titles, publication date, etc.-
Research topics, keywords, purpose, findings, etc.-
Publication typesResearch articles or review articles.
Research scalesGlobal, regional, national, or local.
Geographic locationsDifferentiated by region (Europe, North America, South America, Australia, Asia, Africa, or global).
Model informationModel types and methods used-
Model spatial rangeGlobal, regional, national, or local.
Model purposesEx-ante analysis, ex-post analysis, relationships exploration.
DimensionsDimensions (approaches) through which energy inequality is assessed.
Indicators Indicators (variables) proposed to measure energy inequality.
Table 4. Distribution of articles analyzed in the literature review according to the model purpose.
Table 4. Distribution of articles analyzed in the literature review according to the model purpose.
Model PurposeNumber of ArticlesShare
Ex-post analysis2549.02%
Relationship exploration2039.22%
Ex-ante analysis611.76%
Table 5. Distribution of articles analyzed in the literature review according to the model spatial range.
Table 5. Distribution of articles analyzed in the literature review according to the model spatial range.
Model Spatial RangeNumber of ArticlesShare
National2039.22%
Global1427.45%
Regional1427.45%
Local35.88%
Table 6. Distribution of articles analyzed in the literature review according to the geographic locations.
Table 6. Distribution of articles analyzed in the literature review according to the geographic locations.
Geographic LocationsNumber of ArticlesShare
Global1937.25%
Asia1733.33%
Europe713.73%
North America35.88%
South America35.88%
Africa23.92%
Table 7. Representative population survey data showing the distribution of responses on the affordability of adequate housing heating.
Table 7. Representative population survey data showing the distribution of responses on the affordability of adequate housing heating.
The Share of the Target Audience’s ResponseYesNo
Gender-specific disparities (%)
Men63.3%36.7%
Women50.0%50.0%
Age-related disparities (%)
Under 2969.6%30.4%
30–3970.9%29.1%
40–4965.8%34.2%
50–59 53.7%46.3%
60–69 46.7%53.3%
71 and over42.5%57.5%
Demographic groups-related disparities (%)
Single67.8%32.2%
Married60.6%39.4%
Living unmarried63.6%36.4%
Divorced44.0%56.0%
Widow35.9%64.1%
Area of residence-related disparities (%)
Vilnius64.1%35.9%
Kaunas62.9%37.1%
Klaipeda92.3%7.7%
Siauliai25.0%75.0%
Panevezys46.9%53.1%
Smalls town51.2%48.8%
Rural areas50.9%49.1%
Table 8. Representative population survey data showing perceptions of housing costs as a financial burden among Lithuanian residents.
Table 8. Representative population survey data showing perceptions of housing costs as a financial burden among Lithuanian residents.
The Share of the Target Audience’s ResponseA BurdenNot a BurdenNot Specified
Gender-specific disparities (%)
Men64.9%35.1%
Women73.5%26.3%0.2%
Age-related disparities (%)
Under 2955.4%44.6%
30–3961.5%38.5%
40–4963.7%35.8%0.5%
50–59 66.5%33.5%
60–69 78.5%21.5%
71 and over80.2%19.9%
Demographic groups-related disparities (%)
Single63.3%36.7%
Married66.4%33.6%
Living unmarried66.3%33.7%
Divorced76.0%23.2%0.8%
Widow83.1%16.9%
Area of residence-related disparities (%)
Vilnius58.4%41.1%0.5%
Kaunas82.8%17.2%
Klaipeda59.6%40.4%
Siauliai83.3%16.7%
Panevezys71.9%28.1%
Smalls town65.9%34.1%
Rural areas75.2%24.8%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Volodzkiene, L.; Streimikiene, D. Towards Energy Equity: Understanding and Addressing Multifaceted Energy Inequality. Energies 2024, 17, 4500. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17174500

AMA Style

Volodzkiene L, Streimikiene D. Towards Energy Equity: Understanding and Addressing Multifaceted Energy Inequality. Energies. 2024; 17(17):4500. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17174500

Chicago/Turabian Style

Volodzkiene, Lina, and Dalia Streimikiene. 2024. "Towards Energy Equity: Understanding and Addressing Multifaceted Energy Inequality" Energies 17, no. 17: 4500. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17174500

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop