A cross-country analysis of sustainability, transport and energy poverty

The study asks whether minorities and low-income households across diverse national contexts face a simultaneous or “double energy vulnerability” comprising both energy and transport poverty. It situates the research within persistent global poverty and inequality, setbacks from recent crises (e.g., COVID-19), and the widening gap in access to modern energy and clean cooking (SDG 7). It highlights that energy and transport poverty are multidimensional and interrelated, affecting affordability, reliability, accessibility, and health and safety. Transport poverty’s contribution to social exclusion and SDG underperformance is emphasized. The authors respond to calls for research beyond WEIRD contexts by comparing Northern Ireland, Mexico, the Republic of Ireland, and the UAE, arguing that place, culture, and development stage shape vulnerabilities and policy needs. The research aims to test the overlap of energy and transport poverty and to refine indicators for comprehensive energy and transport poverty indices.

The paper reviews evidence of global economic inequality and its translation into energy consumption and emissions disparities (carbon inequality). Prior studies show minority groups face higher risks of energy poverty, climate impacts, lower adoption of clean energy technologies, and poorer housing energy efficiency. Energy poverty is recognized as multidimensional and not confined to income-poor households. Transport poverty—lack of resources for mobility—impacts health, wellbeing, social participation, and productivity and is linked to multiple SDGs. Decarbonization policies can affect both energy and transport poverty, potentially exacerbating vulnerabilities; yet much prior work focuses on WEIRD countries. Literature on place-based attachment and context illuminates differing public preferences for energy transitions across Global North/South. Calls exist to collect original data in non-WEIRD contexts and to consider sector coupling (e.g., electrification) that links energy and transport.

Design: Mixed-methods cross-country study in Northern Ireland, Mexico, the Republic of Ireland, and the UAE. - Surveys: Three nationally representative surveys with quantitative and qualitative items: UAE (N=1141), Mexico (N=1205), Ireland including Republic and Northern Ireland (N=1860). Administered by Dynata; translated to Spanish and Arabic as needed. Data quality checks removed problematic responses (rushers, speeders, flat-liners) with resampling in the UAE. Demographics balanced by gender, location, age, and income. - Focus groups: Seven groups (N=58 total): UAE (2 groups; N=16), Northern Ireland (3 groups; N=24), Mexico (2 groups; N=18), mixing rural/urban participants to capture differences in access and barriers. - Household interviews: 138 interviews across 15 locations with highly vulnerable groups: slum dwellers in Mexico City Metropolitan Area (n=51), Gypsies and Travellers in Northern Ireland (n=41), and temporary migrants in UAE labour camps (n=46). Interviews lasted 15–60 minutes, recorded, transcribed/translated, and inductively coded. - Site visits: 17 naturalistic observations across contexts. Geographies: Data gathered from urban, rural, and periurban settings, with working definitions for each and attention to how settlement context shapes access and needs. Measures and analysis: - Constructed Energy Poverty Index (EPI) and Transport Poverty Index (TPI) using 5 energy vulnerability questions and 6 transport inaccessibility questions, recoded to dummy variables (8 energy, 12 transport). Applied Nonlinear Principal Components Analysis (NLPCA) to derive first components for EPI and TPI. - Examined correlation between first components of EPI and TPI and compared indices across gender and minority status using robust statistics (e.g., Yuen’s trimmed means, Holm-adjusted pairwise comparisons). Ethics: Approved by University of Sussex SSA Cross-Schools Research Ethics Committee (ER/DDF20/2). Qualitative data from vulnerable groups not publicly shared due to ethical concerns.

- Overlap of energy and transport poverty: The first components of EPI and TPI are positively correlated (rho=0.552), evidencing a systematic overlap between energy and transport poverty. - Vulnerable groups disproportionately affected: Minority groups have significantly higher TPI and EPI scores than non-minority respondents across countries (95% confidence). Females have higher TPI than males; gender differences in EPI are smaller and generally not significant within minority/non-minority groups. - Affordability pressures: - Energy: In the UAE, some labourers reported 30–35% of income spent on energy. In Northern Ireland, inability to pay for heating was described as a matter of survival. In Mexico, participants reported switching to wood for cooking due to higher prices; more than half of the Mexican interview sample reported electricity theft due to cost and irregular settlements. - Transport: High costs burdened households; NI rail passes could exceed mortgage payments; Mexican participants reported spending so much on taxis/buses that other essentials (e.g., clothing, meals) were sacrificed; UAE low-income migrants faced prohibitive taxi costs that reduced remittances and leisure. - Reliability deficits: - Energy: Frequent outages and low voltage in Mexican periurban/rural areas damaged appliances; Gypsies and Travellers lacked sufficient power for appliances; UAE labour camps experienced AC failures for days in extreme heat (>44 °C) harming health. - Transport: Rural/periurban unreliability was pervasive—Mexico City commuters reported up to 6 hours/day; NI participants faced inaccurate timetables and car dependence in the countryside; UAE buses were unpredictable with unsafe, unshaded stops. - Accessibility barriers: - Energy: Structural exclusion (e.g., lack of grid poles in Mexican ejidos; frozen pipes and low-power connections in NI caravans); limited agency over energy use in UAE labour camps (e.g., shared control of AC). - Transport: Sparse or nonexistent public transport in periurban/rural NI; limited coverage and high temperatures in UAE restrict walking/cycling; design and service gaps for disabled users in Mexico. - Health and safety harms: - Energy: Cold homes and wood burning linked to chest infections and mental stress in NI; wood use in Mexico raised fears of respiratory harm and death; AC-related illness reported in UAE camps. - Transport: Exposure to dangerous driving, crime/violence, pollution, and lack of walking/cycling infrastructure; gendered violence and harassment in public transport in Mexico and NI. - Structural discrimination and spatial injustice: Participants across countries reported marginalization, unequal tariffs/benefits (e.g., perceived differential pricing in UAE), poor distribution of public services, and exclusion from decision-making. Peripheralization of camps/settlements limited both energy and transport access. - SDG implications: Findings contest feasibility of achieving SDGs by 2030, noting concurrent multidimensional poverty in high-income contexts and shortfalls across SDGs 1, 3, 7, 10, and 11 despite attention to SDG 13 and 7.

The study demonstrates that energy and transport poverty are intertwined through common drivers—affordability of fossil-fuel-dependent services, reliability of infrastructure, and accessibility barriers—validating the hypothesis of a “double energy vulnerability.” The positive correlation between EPI and TPI and significantly higher burdens among minorities and women (for transport) show that vulnerability persists across diverse socioeconomic contexts and is not confined to low-income countries. Qualitative evidence reveals how affordability trade-offs (e.g., heating vs. food or transport), infrastructure deficits, and lack of user agency degrade health, wellbeing, and participation in society. These overlaps suggest that sector-coupling policies (e.g., electrification) and decarbonization strategies must explicitly account for poverty interactions to avoid exacerbating inequities. The results have direct relevance for SDG attainment, indicating that without targeted, place-based interventions and improved resource distribution to marginalized microregions, progress toward multiple SDGs will remain inadequate.

The research provides cross-country evidence that minorities and low-income households are at heightened risk of experiencing both energy and transport poverty simultaneously. Affordability, reliability, accessibility, and health/safety dimensions are all critical, and their manifestations vary by context but converge on similar harms. The work challenges the likelihood of meeting SDGs by 2030 without significant policy shifts. Key implications include integrating energy and transport poverty in policy design, prioritizing investments in reliable and accessible infrastructure and social services, and addressing sector coupling effects from decarbonization. The authors highlight the need for context-sensitive, sub-national (microregional) approaches and for measures that ensure affordability and safe, legal access. Future work should continue refining comprehensive Transport Poverty and Energy Poverty indices, expand evidence from non-WEIRD contexts, and evaluate the distributive impacts of decarbonization policies on vulnerable groups.

- Geographic scope covers specific contexts (Mexico, Ireland/Northern Ireland, UAE) and selected vulnerable groups (slum dwellers, Gypsies and Travellers, migrant workers), which may limit generalizability. - Cross-sectional surveys and qualitative interviews capture perceptions and experiences at a point in time; causal inferences are limited. - Self-reported data may be subject to recall and social desirability biases. - Some institutional affiliations and local infrastructure conditions vary sub-nationally; microregional heterogeneity may not be fully represented. - Ethical constraints prevent sharing of qualitative transcripts from vulnerable groups, limiting external validation of qualitative findings.