Author

Ana Stojilovska

PhD Candidate at the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, CEU, Budapest

Contact: preveduvacka@yahoo.com

Energy poverty related to the type of heating – Macedonia as a case study

Introduction

Energy poverty has received more attention recently in the academic and policy circles; however in

reality it still poses an increasing issue. There have been debates around different dimensions of energy

poverty such as definitions (Boardman 1991), scope (Thomson and Snell 2013), causes (Boardman

2010), characteristics (Roberts et al. 2015), indicators or aspects (Moore 2012; Scarpellini et al. 2015;

Thomson and Snell 2013), geographies (Bouzarovski 2014), solutions of energy poverty (Tirado Herrero

and Ürge-Vorsatz 2012).

The literature on energy poverty points towards both consensus about some of the dimensions of

energy poverty such as low income and low energy efficiency as frequent causes of this problem

(Boardman 2010; Bouzarovski 2014); however very often there is different understanding of these

dimensions starting with the most essential one – what energy poverty is. In this line, despite the

overlapping of some of the commonalities about the dimensions to energy poverty, often the local

context is highlighted as a point of divergence (Bouzarovski 2014; Buzar 2007a). Having different

understanding of the various dimensions of energy poverty impacts the choice of solutions to this

problem.

More specifically, the literature talks about the significance of heating to energy poverty (Buzar 2007a;

Fahmy et al. 2011), and mentions how some of the heating types are related to energy poverty

(Boardman 2010; Bouzarovski et al. 2012; Bouzarovski et al. 2015; Brunner et al. 2012), but there is lack

of knowledge about how different types of heating are related to different aspects of energy poverty

such as affordability, access, comfort. This is important to be dealt with since it is crucial for the choice

of suitable solutions to energy poverty and; 2) contributes to further understanding of energy poverty as

a problem, both in theoretical and in practical aspect.

Macedonia, an EU candidate country and with communist past is in a state of a double-transition both

led by the EU: the electricity market is half-way liberalized, while the country is also to be set on the

path to low-carbon energy future. As both types of transition are related to energy vulnerability risks

(Boardman 2010; Bouzarovski and Tirado Herrero 2015; Buzar 2007a) , and the country is in the

geographical realm of regions with high share of energy poverty – Central and Eastern Europe

(Bouzarovski 2014), the probability of wide spread energy poverty in high, also confirmed by initial field

evidence showing that approx. half of the households in the country are affected by energy poverty

(Buzar 2007b).

Some scholars distinguish the types of energy/fuel poverty experienced by a developed or developing

country (Bouzarovski and Petrova 2015) differentiated mostly by the affordability or access issue,

respectively. However, Macedonia as well as the rest of the Western Balkan region as a whole might be

a specific hybrid case where affordability clashes with access and comfort issues. The crucial role in this

context has the heating system. To elaborate on this, approx. 91% of the households in Macedonia use

either electricity or fuelwood for heating (StateStatisticalOffice 2015), in which cases affordability might

not be the leading issue as households may reduce their comfort (heat fewer occupied rooms, heat for

shorter time period, have lower indoor temperature than desired) in order to pay for their heating costs.

Some households are heated by electricity due to lack of access to other options (Buzar 2007b). Access

issues in regard to changing heat supplier exist also in the households using district heat. The district

heating might also be related to issues of affordability as already been discussed in the context of post-

communist district heating systems (Tirado Herrero and Ürge-Vorsatz 2012). In addition, the switch to

fuelwood has been recognized as indication of energy deprivation (Bouzarovski et al. 2012; Bouzarovski

et al. 2015).

Therefore, the research questions arise:

What aspects of energy poverty (such as affordability, access, or comfort issues) do households with

different types of heating (for example fuelwood, electricity or district heating) in Macedonia

experience?

What are the relevant indicators of energy poverty for the different types of heating in Macedonia’s

households?

Literature review

In the literature indicators of energy poverty have been extensively discussed. Some indicators measure

mostly the affordability such as the energy expenditures in relation to household's income (Scarpellini

et al. 2015), arrears on utility bills, ability to pay to keep the home adequately warm (Thomson and Snell

2013); others the availability for example expressed in the indoor temperature (Moore 2012), while

Boardman (2010) used the standards of the World Health Organization that affordable warmth means

21 degrees Celsius in the living room and 18 degrees Celsius elsewhere in the occupied rooms. Contrary

to that, for the district heating in post communist countries, indoor temperature is not a good indicator

of energy poverty since the temperatures are adequate (Tirado Herrero and Ürge-Vorsatz 2012).

Another important indicator is access to energy services as households may use certain fuels because of

lack of access to other fuels as explained for the Asian context that energy poor households use

traditional solid fuels such as biomass for cooking and heating due to lack of access to adequate energy

services (Spagnoletti and O’Callaghan 2013), and similarly having limited choice of energy sources/ lack

of access to certain fuel types in the rural UK adds to the reasons for vulnerability to energy price

increases (Roberts et al. 2015).

It has been discussed that energy efficiency is important factor for energy poverty, so indicators in

direction of measuring the energy efficiency are relevant, one such is the presence of a leaking roof, and

damp walls or rotten windows (Thomson and Snell 2013). In addition, the ability to control volume and

coverage of heating enables households to reduce their comfort in order to be able to pay for the

heating bills. This about reducing the comfort Tirado Herrero and Ürge-Vorsatz (2012) calls to be typical

energy poverty. This finding is very relevant for Macedonia as about 78% of households use either

electricity or fuelwood for heating (Stojilovska 2015b), in which case they have full control of volume of

the heating and decisions about whether to heat all the rooms. My argument which I like to test is that

in non-district heating households in Macedonia energy poverty might not be only an affordability issue,

but a comfort issue as well, as households may reduce their comfort (reduce temperature, heat only

part of the home) in order to be able to pay for their energy bills. On this comfort -related topic, a

research on energy poor in Vienna has shown that a frequently used strategy for reducing costs is

heating only one room (Brunner et al. 2012), and in the same direction Waddams Price et al. (2012)

considers that energy poverty can be detected also by the extent to which the dwelling is fully heated.

The literature also discusses heating per its type and how it is related to issues such as access,

availability, affordability, comfort or more generally energy poverty. To begin with, Waddams Price et

al. (2012) considers that district heating is associated with households that are not energy poor as they

are more likely to have effective heating mechanisms and implemented energy efficiency measures. On

the contrary, Tirado Herrero and Ürge-Vorsatz (2012) relate district heating in Hungary with issues as

affordability as the households pay the highest heating costs per m2 and per person and access as the

households find difficult to change the supplier and to reduce their heating costs due to need of

approval from neighbors for energy efficiency measures and non-availability of individual heat

consumption meters. Due to these obstacles, the district heating, also a legacy from the communist

period, is considered a new type of energy poverty since the comfort is not affected – the district heated

households are adequately and fully heated (Tirado Herrero and Ürge-Vorsatz 2012).

The use of fuelwood has been associated with energy poverty or energy degradation as it has been the

less technologically advanced/ polluting fuel affected households have shifted towards as shown in

Bulgaria and Hungary (Bouzarovski et al. 2012; Bouzarovski et al. 2015). Bouzarovski et al. (2015) as a

reason for this shift towards fuelwood mention the need to reduce domestic energy expenditures in

order to cope with increasing energy poverty. Electric heating is found among energy poor households

as it brings high energy costs (Brunner et al. 2012). Poor rural UK households without access to natural

gas are likely to be in energy poverty and have polluting homes (Boardman 2010). She sums up that the

choice of the heating systems has a big impact on energy poverty and electric heated homes should be

among the first targeted with energy efficiency measures including solar collectors, biomass and co-

generation utilities if the heating fuel cannot be changed (Boardman 2010).

The mentioned energy degradation in the households in regard to choice of fuel in order to deal with

energy poverty, it can be interestingly contrasted with the discussion in the literature about the energy-

ladder model. Andadari et al. (2014) referring to a previous research of (D.F Barnes et al. 2005; D.F.

Barnes and Floor 1999; Leach 1992) have elaborated the so called energy-ladder model which explains

the household energy choices, although in the context is used for Indonesia. This model shows how

income and fuel prices define the fuels a household uses and envisions a three -stage fuel switching

process (Andadari et al. 2014). The first stage means use of biomass; in the second stage, households

switch to transition fuels such as coal, kerosene, and charcoal; and in the third phase, households use

natural gas, LPG, or electricity (Andadari et al. 2014). This comparison implies that fuelwood is a fuel for

poorest; a starting kit for the developing world; and fuel to which switching indicates probability of

energy poverty.

Methods

In order to analyze the possibility of exposure to energy poverty and the aspects of energy poverty

related to the type of heating in Macedonia’s households, in-depth interviews were conducted with 11

households. The selection was random, which means households that might be or not in energy poverty,

stratified by the type of heating. Out of 11 households, 2 are using district heating, 1 is using fuelwood, 5

are using electricity for heating (resistive heating) and 3 are using a combination of electricity and

fuelwood. All the interviewed households are living in urban area, 9 are in the capital of Skopje and 2 are

in other cities in the country.

A questionnaire was developed based on the findings in the literature to help estimating the

relationship between energy poverty and different heating systems. Based on the findings in the

literature, the questionnaire integrates questions depicting the energy poverty aspects such as access,

affordability and comfort related to the type of heating (Boardman 2010; Bouzarovski 2014; Brunner et

al. 2012; Buzar 2007b; Moore 2012; Scarpellini et al. 2015; Spagnoletti and O’Callaghan 2013; Thomson

and Snell 2013; Tirado Herrero and Ürge-Vorsatz 2012; Waddams Price et al. 2012); questions to capture

the transitional challenges (Boardman 2010; Bouzarovski 2014; Bouzarovski et al. 2012; Bouzarovski et

al. 2015; Brunner et al. 2012; Fahmy et al. 2011); existence of vulnerable groups (Boardman 2010;

Brunner et al. 2012; Buzar 2007b; Healy and Clinch 2004; Thomson and Snell 2013; Waddams Price et al.

2012); to assess the housing quality (Boardman 2010; Brunner et al. 2012; Healy and Clinch 2004;

Thomson and Snell 2013; Walker 2008) as well as more general questions to point out to further

differences in experiencing energy poverty coming from the type of heating. The transitional challenges,

vulnerable groups and housing quality-related questions serve the purpose of being “control” questions

or questions simply to check whether other factor rather than the type of heating were responsible for

existence of energy poverty.

Results and discussion

To begin with, it is to state what type of dwelling do the households have and how they are heated.

Most of them are apartments, which are heated by electricity (five), fuelwood and electricity (one), and

district heating (two). The houses are heated with fuelwood or electricity and fuelwood. It can be noted

that fuelwood is more present in houses, while district heating is absent in houses.

One method-relevant finding is that the generally accepted and applied index in assessing energy

poverty in the EU composed of the questions about the presence of leaking roof, arrears of energy

bills and the ability to heat the home adequately might not apply in the Macedonian context or might

not completely capture the complexity of issues especially the dwellings using electricity or fuelwood

for heating are experiencing. On the question whether households have arrears on energy services bills,

only one household heated on electricity replied positively. This may be explained by the fact that

households tend to reduce their comfort in order to be able to pay for the heating bills in the

households heated with electricity and/or fuelwood, thus the absence of paid heating bills may not

mean absence of energy poverty struggles. To support the latter , from the group of households that use

the combination of fuelwood and electricity for heating, one household replied to have the indoor

temperature at 17-18 degrees, while a second household heats one room at 22 degrees and the rest at

13 degrees. Having lower than the optimal indoor temperature is also one relevant energy poverty

indicator. In this sense, the lack of optimal indoor temperature if present, is mainly the issue of

households using electricity and/or fuelwood for heating.

On the other hand, the ability to pay to keep the home adequately warm is a relevant indicator in the

context of Macedonia. To this question the households that complained not to be able to have

adequate warmth were one household using electricity for heating, while one household using electric

heat and one using both electricity and fuelwood for heating replied to be able to some extent to keep

their homes sufficiently heated. This result can be interpreted in a way that if the dwelling is large

and/or has poor building quality, the heat produced from fuelwood and/or electricity might not be

sufficient to satisfy the household’s needs. The third and buildings quality-indicative indicator proves

also to be relevant and again is more relevant for households using fuelwood and/or electricity for

heating as seen from the interviewed households’ replies.

Relevant conclusions about potential energy poverty aspects such as access, affordability and comfort

from the general set of questions about why the current way of heating is used; is there a satisfaction

with the current way of heating and whether they would change their heating system. For the two

district heated households, for two of the electricity heated households and for one electricity and

fuelwood-heated household their heating choice is the one they have since it is more affordable.

However, two households which use the combination of electricity and fuelwood heats in this way due

to lack of access to other options such as district heating. Two households using electric heat and

fuelwood replied that it heats with electricity due to lack of access to district heating and/or lack of

storage for fuelwood. A second household heated with electricity does so due to the decision of the

dwelling’s owner, as the household rents the dwelling it lives in. In this regard a very important

statement can be made about the non-district heated households that often they are “forced” to use

fuelwood and/or fuelwood due to lack of district heating infrastructure.

By comparing the monthly household income and the monthly heating costs (although they are not for

some households present through the whole year, for simple calculation the costs for heating were

divided by 12 months), the households usually spend 10% or less of their monthly income on heating

costs. This objective criterion of existence of energy poverty might not fit with the subjective one about

the affordability and comfort of heating. This shows that both subjective and objective indicators are

relevant and need to be used when assessing energy poverty; the subjective might be more relevant

as it depicts issues such as comfort and not affordability only.

On the question about the satisfaction with the current type of heating, all three households using the

combination of fuelwood and electricity for heating replied not to be satisfied with this way of heating.

Some of their reasons include poor building quality, the need to wait for the heating to start when using

fuelwood, and not being able to heat the whole home. One of the households using electricity for

heating is satisfied with the type of heating to some extent as it means energy wasting. The other four

households with electric heat and the district heated households expressed generally satisfact ion with

the way they heat their homes. Some of these satisfaction reasons include the level of warmth (one

district heated household and one electricity heated household with small apartment and good

insulation); the affordability (one district heated household, two electricity heated households); as well

as the possibility to heat the whole apartment (one household with district heating), the ability to heat

fast and to control the temperature (one electricity heated household). From these results it can be

stated that heating on electricity and/or fuelwood might be source both of satisfaction (affordability,

good building quality) and dissatisfaction (due to poor building quality, reduced comfort).

Interesting is that all of 11 interviewed households if given the opportunity would change their way if

heating. Most of the households would change to either heat pumps or district heating; other options

mentioned were biomass, solar energy, electricity and natural gas. Among the conditions needed for the

wanted switch mentioned were: good insulation, the municipality to co-fund the project, finances, as

well as solving ownership issues. This could be interpreted in a way that there is need of better public

services provided to households in terms of heating, mostly in sense of infrastructure solutions or

financial support.

Relevant information about presence of energy poverty is whether and how households economize

their heating. From the interviewed households, only those that use district heating, the one that uses

fuelwood, and one household with electric heat reported not to economize through their heating

practices. Others use either energy efficiency techniques such as closing doors, heating when someone

is home, heating at night to keep the temperature for the next day, while one household using fuelwood

and electricity for heating reduced its comfort by not heating all rooms.

Related relevant question is whether the household considers the heating to be expensive. Three

households – one with district heating, and two on electric heating replied that it is not expensive. Two

other households (with electric heating) answered that it can be more affordable. Two households

mentioned the issue with achieving the comfort (both with fuelwood and electric heating), while three

explicitly mentioned that it is expensive (one fuelwood-heated, one electricity heated and one electricity

and fuelwood heated). As the price of heating is related to the household income too, what it is

interesting to note is the dissatisfaction with the comfort of heating in non-district heating

households.

One distinguishing energy poverty aspect between the district heated and non-district households, is

whether all occupied rooms are heated. Three households, using electricity and/or fuelwood for heating

replied that they do not heat all occupied rooms, while one households using electric heat partially

heats all occupied rooms. This finding is also related to the fact that generally non-district heating

households have control over how many rooms they heat, thus if needed they might prioritize paying

their energy bills over comfort in their home. One interviewed district heating household answered not

to have control over the number of rooms heated, while the second one replied to have such control. It

can be stated that the occurrence of reduction of heated space is present in non-district heating

households.

Similarly, in relation to the ability to control the indoor temperature in the heating period, all non-

district heating households replied to have such ability with the exception of the one fuelwood-heated

household; while one district heating household has such ability, and the other one does not. The one

with the ability to regulate its indoor temperature additionally explains that this possibility is not

reflected in the heating bill, as the heating is billed based on the heating spent in the whole building

divided by the size of its own apartment. All households, except for the three using the combination of

fuelwood and electricity are satisfied with their average level of indoor temperature. The latter explains

that in any case district heated households do not suffer comfort issues such as lower temperatures

than needed.

The other “control” questions depicting other factors causing energy poverty rather than ones strictly

related to the type of heating were raised in the questionnaire as they might be influencing energy

deprivation choices. Such questions for example are those discussed in the literature to bring challenges

along with the energy transition process – such as that the households are lagging behind in undertaking

energy efficiency measures (Brunner et al. 2012). From the conducted interviewed it is evident that

energy efficiency measures are not an unknown area. From the provided answers only two households

have not undertaken energy efficiency measures – one using district heating and another using

electricity for heating due to the fact that that households does not own the dwelling they live in, but

would like to undertake such measures. A third household replied that their dwelling has already had

good insulation. The district heated household that undertook energy efficiency measures replied that

its warmth improved, but that it still pays the same heating bill. A general statement can be made

that non-district heated households have better motivation to undertake energy efficiency measures

as it would reflect in their heating costs.

Another transitional-sensitive question is about whether the heating costs have increased in the past

few years. Three households replied that they have increased, one that they were reduced due to

better insulation in the case of the household heated with electricity; the rest did not rise in heating

expenditures. In this regard it can be stated that the external factor of prices increase might be a

factor, but has not affected all interviewed households. Third transitional issue might be the change of

the heating system especially if it is to a less technologically advanced (Bouzarovski et al. 2012;

Bouzarovski et al. 2015). This was experienced by one household which used to be heated by district

heating and now uses electricity and as it explains the price is lower, but the heat is lower as well.

Another household did the same change, but then again switched back to district heating. The question

of changing the heating system seems to be relevant indicator of experiencing energy poverty.

Another set of “control” questions is with questions that might reveal existence of vulnerable groups

such as having unemployed adults in the households (Brunner et al. 2012; Buzar 2007b) or the number

of persons living in the households (Buzar 2007b; Healy and Clinch 2004; Waddams Price et al. 2012).

The households have various number of households members ranging from 1 till 6. The fuelwood-

heated household which has 6 members replied that they consider their type of heating to be

expensive. This household has also unemployed adult(s). Besides that two more households reported

to have unemployed adult(s). The household that reported to have 5 adults is one of those struggling

with indoor temperature of 17-18 degrees. All households answered that their household head(s) have

higher education. The lack of diversity regard the location (urban/rural) and education of household

heads prevents more detailed analysis about the influence of these vulnerabilities, however having

more members in the households and unemployed heads might be related to energy poverty.

A further set of potential factors in the category of housing quality includes questions such as the age of

construction of the dwelling (Boardman 2010; Brunner et al. 2012; Healy and Clinch 2004). Only two

households are living in a dwelling not owned by a household member, for one which it was

expressed to be an issue to the way of implementing energy efficiency measures . The age of the

dwelling differs from 1945 up to new buildings from 2012 and 2013. One household which lives in one

of the newer buildings mentioned that it is well insulated, thus does not have heat losses. However,

one of the oldest dwelling analyzed here – that from 1945 has not reported energy poverty issues

such as lack of comfort or unsatisfactory level of warmth; important it is to notice that it uses district

heating. To conclude is that the housing quality plays an important role, but not in every case as other

factors might intervene.

Conclusions and policy implications

Regarding the research question about the indicators, the analysis has shown that the presence of

arrears in energy bills is not very relevant energy poverty indicator; however l ower than the optimal

indoor temperature is a relevant indicator. The ability to pay to have adequate warmth and the

presence of leaking roof are also relevant indicators; as well as strategies to economize the heating and

whether the heating system has been changed. Both subjective and objective indicators deem to be

relevant, however, subject might be more relevant as they reveal other characteristics beyond

affordability. Additional factors relevant to reveal energy poverty might be the presence of

unemployment, the number of household members, the housing quality, the ownership and the

increase of energy prices.

In regard to the research question about the different aspects of energy poverty related to the type of

heating, important is to underline that electricity and/or fuelwood heated households experience

poorer indoor temperatures whereby the comfort issue is recognizable and often have to use this type

of heating due to access issues. Non-district heated households are more motivated to enforce energy

efficiency measures than the district heated ones due to cost-reflection of their actions. District heated

households usually do not face comfort issues.

The policy recommendations to reduce energy poverty would be targeting the main two types of

heating differently. While district heated households need to be consumption-based billed, the non-

district heated ones need special focus to combat their comfort and access issues through infrastructure

projects or financial support for energy efficiency measures. Out of the analyzed households, those that

are non-district heated experience more often and/or severer state of energy poverty and need to be

tackled first.

Annex: the questionnaire

1. Your initials (not full name)

2. What type of heating does your household use?

a) Natural gas

b) Oil

c) Electricity

d) Fuelwood

e) District heating

f) Combination of two or more (please specify and say which is the main)

g) Other (please specify)

3. Explain what do you use for heating (radiators, air conditioners, fuelwood stove, electric heaters etc.)? Is the heating going through the whole dwelling? How many heating systems do you have (no. of air conditioners, fuelwood stoves, electric heaters etc.)?

4. If you use fuelwood, do you buy the supplies for the whole heating season at once? Do you pay at once?

5. If you use district heating, do you pay each month during the whole year or only during heating season?

6. Why do you use your current way of heating?

7. Have you changed the type of heating in the past few years? If yes, please explain how and why?

How that had an impact on the heating bills, electricity bills, level of comfort in the home?

8. Are you satisfied with your current way of heating? Why?

9. Would you use another heating type if there are possibilities? If yes, which heating type? Why?

Which conditions are needed for you to use your wanted heating type (more information, more

finances, help from the authorities)?

10. How much does your household spend for heating during one heating season on average?

11. Do you consider your heating to be expensive? Why? Please describe

12. Have the costs for heating in the household increased in the past few years? 13. Do you economize your heating? If yes, please explain how

14. Does the household have arrears on heating bills/costs?

15. Is the household able to pay to keep the home adequately warm?

16. Excluding heating, do you use other fuels in the household apart from electricity – for example

solar energy for hot water or gas for cooking?

17. What is your average monthly electricity bill during the heating season? 18. What is your average monthly electricity bill when it is not heating season?

19. Does the household have arrears on electricity bills? 20. What is the household income per month on average?

21. Has the household income decreased or remained the same in the past few years? 22. How many rooms do you have in your dwelling (all rooms excluding kitchen, bathroom and

hallway)?

23. Are all occupied rooms heated?

24. Do you have control over how many rooms are being heated? 25. What is the average level of indoor temperature in the heating period in your dwelling?

26. Do you have control over the indoor temperature in the heating period in your dwelling? 27. Are you satisfied with the average level of indoor temperature in the heating period in your

dwelling?

28. How many people live in your household? How many of them are adults (above 18) and how

many are children?

29. Do you have unemployed adults in your household?

30. What is the highest level of education of the household’s head(s)?

31. Living in rural or urban area? 32. Name of your city and municipality or village

33. In what kind of dwelling does your household live? a) House b) Apartment in a collective building c) Other -please specify

34. When the dwelling your household lives in was built?

35. Who owns the dwelling the household lives in? 36. Presence of leaking roof/ damp walls/rotten windows/condensation?

37. Has the household undertaken any energy efficiency measures (improving insulation, change of windows, change of lighting to eco light bulbs, other )? If yes, please explain them. How have they affected the heating bills, electricity bills, level of comfort in the home? If you have not undertaken energy efficiency measures, why is that so?

Bibliography

Andadari, R.K., Mulder, P. and Rietveld, P. 2014. Energy poverty reduction by fuel switching. Impact

evaluation of the LPG conversion program in Indonesia. Energy Policy 66 436-449.

Boardman, B. 1991. Fuel poverty from cold homes to affordable warmth. London: Belhaven Press.

________. 2010. Fixing fuel poverty : challenges and solutions. London ; Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Bouzarovski, S. 2014. Energy poverty in the European Union: landscapes of vulnerability. Wiley

Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment 3 (3):

Bouzarovski, S. and Tirado Herrero, S. 2015. The energy divide: Integrating energy transitions, regional

inequalities and poverty trends in the European Union. European Urban and Regional Studies

Bouzarovski, S. and Petrova, S. 2015. The EU Energy Poverty and Vulnerability Agenda: An Emergent Domain of Transnational Action. In Energy Policy Making in the EU: Building the Agenda, ed. J.

Tosun, S. Biesenbender and K. Schulze, 129-144. London: Springer London.

Bouzarovski, S., Petrova, S. and Sarlamanov, R. 2012. Energy poverty policies in the EU: A critical

perspective. Energy Policy 49 76-82.

Bouzarovski, S., Tirado Herrero, S., Petrova, S. and Ürge-Vorsatz, D. 2015. Unpacking the spaces and

politics of energy poverty: path-dependencies, deprivation and fuel switching in post-communist

Hungary. Local Environment 1-20.

Brunner, K.-M., Spitzer, M. and Christanell, A. 2012. Experiencing fuel poverty. Coping strategies of low-

income households in Vienna/Austria. Energy Policy 49 53-59.

Buzar, S. 2007a. Energy poverty in Eastern Europe Hidden Geographies of Deprivation . Ashgate.

________. 2007b. The ‘hidden’ geographies of energy poverty in post-socialism: Between institutions

and households. Geoforum 38 (2): 224-240.

D.F Barnes, K. Krutilla and Hyde, W. 2005. The Urban Household Energy Transition. Washington DC:

World Bank.

D.F. Barnes and Floor, W. 1999. Biomass energy and the poor in the developing countries. , J. Int. Aff

237–259.

Fahmy, E., Gordon, D. and Patsios, D. 2011. Predicting fuel poverty at a small -area level in England.

Energy Policy 39 (7): 4370-4377.

Healy, J.D. and Clinch, J.P. 2004. Quantifying the severity of fuel poverty, its relationship with poor

housing and reasons for non-investment in energy-saving measures in Ireland. Energy Policy 32

(2): 207-220.

Leach, G. 1992. The energy transition. Energy Policy 20 116–123.

Moore, R. 2012. Definitions of fuel poverty: Implications for policy. Energy Policy 49 19-26.

Roberts, D., Vera-Toscano, E. and Phimister, E. 2015. Fuel poverty in the UK: Is there a difference

between rural and urban areas? Energy Policy 87 216-223.

Scarpellini, S., Rivera-Torres, P., Suárez-Perales, I. and Aranda-Usón, A. 2015. Analysis of energy poverty

intensity from the perspective of the regional administration: Empirical evidence from

households in southern Europe. Energy Policy 86 729-738.

Spagnoletti, B. and O’Callaghan, T. 2013. Let there be light: A multi-actor approach to alleviating energy

poverty in Asia. Energy Policy 63 738-746.

2015. Energy consumption in households 2014 Skopje: Accessed

http://www.stat.gov.mk/Publikacii/6.4.15.03.pdf

Stojilovska, A. 2015b. Towards reforming the heat market in Macedonia: wishful thinking or future

reality? Accessed

http://www.analyticamk.org/images/Files/Commentary/comm201502_a3f42.pdf

Thomson, H. and Snell, C. 2013. Quantifying the prevalence of fuel poverty across the European Union.

Energy Policy 52 563-572.

Tirado Herrero, S. and Ürge-Vorsatz, D. 2012. Trapped in the heat: A post-communist type of fuel

poverty. Energy Policy 49 60-68.

Waddams Price, C., Brazier, K. and Wang, W. 2012. Objective and subjective measures of fuel poverty.

Energy Policy 49 33-39.

Walker, G. 2008. Decentralised systems and fuel poverty: Are there any links or risks? Energy Policy 36

(12): 4514-4517.