Energy Poverty and Territorial Resilience: An Integrative Review and an Inclusive Governance Model

Abstract

Energy poverty presents a variety of complex challenges relating to equity, public health and territorial sustainability. Despite growing attention across European policy agendas, responses remain fragmented and often disconnected from local needs. This study proposes a strategic framework to promote social inclusion, territorial resilience, and multilevel governance in addressing energy poverty. The methodological approach is divided into three main phases. First, a literature review based on PRISMA guidelines was conducted, covering reports and pilot projects from 2010 to 2024. An inductive–deductive model was then used to analyse the literature, identifying five thematic areas and recurring gaps. The ultimate goal was to develop a framework that would tackle energy poverty. The results reveal persistent gaps: fragmented indicators, underdefined vulnerable groups, weak integration between energy and health policies, limited financial accessibility, and uncoordinated governance. In response, the paper introduces the Integrated Energy Resilience and Inclusion Network (IERIN), a governance-based framework structured around four conceptual pillars: equity, adaptability, participation, and proximity. The Nesima district of Catania is proposed as an exploratory context to test the framework and refine participatory tools. The study outlines practical strategies for achieving energy equity through co-design, cross-sectoral planning, and inclusive financing. The study outlines practical strategies for achieving energy equity through co-design, cross-sectoral planning, and inclusive financing.

1. Introduction

In recent years, energy poverty has emerged as one of the most pressing challenges for European public policy. This is in a context marked by energy crises, rising prices, the ecological transition, and growing social inequality. This phenomenon concerns more than just access to energy; it also has a profound impact on health, housing, social justice and territorial resilience. According to Eurostat [1], over 41 million European citizens currently live in energy poverty, which has a direct impact on their physical and mental well-being (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Inability to keep home adequately warm, 2022 (% of total population). Source: Eurostat [2].

Despite growing recognition, energy poverty remains unevenly defined and measured across countries. According to Eurostat, approximately 9.3% of the EU population was unable to keep their home adequately warm in 2022, with peaks exceeding 20% in countries such as Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal and Spain [2].

In Italy, recent estimates suggest that over 16% of households experience energy-related hardship, particularly in southern regions and among elderly populations. The OIPE 2020 Report [3] highlights that energy poverty in Italy particularly affects southern regions and older segments of the population (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Frequency of energy poverty in Italian regions. Source: OIPE report 2020 [3].

Outside the EU, energy poverty manifests differently: in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, it is primarily linked to lack of access to electricity [4] (Figure 3), while in Latin America and the Middle East, it often stems from high fuel costs and inefficient housing [5] (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Share of population with access to electricity. Source: IEA SDG7 Report [4].

The lack of harmonized indicators, ranging from expenditure-based metrics to climate-adjusted thresholds, complicates cross-country comparisons and policy alignment. This diagnostic fragmentation underscores the need for integrated frameworks capable of adapting to diverse territorial and socio-economic contexts [6].

Energy poverty is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon that interlinks issues of social justice, economic accessibility and environmental sustainability [7]. It is not merely an economic shortfall, but significantly affects individuals’ quality of life, health, and social inclusion. In the current global context, marked by increasing socio-economic inequalities and worsening climate impacts, energy poverty has become central in both scientific and political agendas [8,9]. According to the 2022 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction, the building sector accounts for 37% of global CO₂ emissions, making energy retrofitting crucial not only for climate targets but also for improving the living conditions of vulnerable populations [10,11,12]. Despite ongoing regulatory advancements at European and national levels, critical gaps remain in how energy poverty is defined, measured, and addressed [13]. Previous studies have primarily focused on distinct aspects such as fuel poverty indicators [14], urban energy strategies [15], or financial barriers, without integrating them into a cohesive framework. This lack of interdisciplinary coordination limits the effectiveness of mitigation strategies and hinders long-term energy resilience [16].

This review further evaluates major European initiatives and projects addressing energy poverty. The Clean Energy for All Europeans Package (2019) marks a significant policy milestone, recognizing energy poverty as an institutional priority [17,18]. Complementary projects, such as RENOVERTY [19], ASSERT [20], and CoolToRise [21], provide targeted interventions aimed at rural communities, disabled individuals, and households vulnerable to extreme heat exposure [8].

Beyond financial and technological aspects, this review underscores the social and health consequences of energy poverty. Single mothers and women-led households often face higher risks due to income disparities and caregiving responsibilities [22,23,24]. The elderly and disabled populations are more susceptible to health complications linked to inadequate indoor temperatures [25,26]. Epidemiological evidence links energy poverty to increased respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, mental health challenges and broader social isolation [24,25,26,27,28,29]. To overcome financial barriers, innovative financial instruments and public–private partnerships (PPPs) are explored [30]. Strategies such as energy leasing, allowing access to renewable technologies without ownership burdens [31], and energy microcredits supporting small-scale energy improvements, are critically assessed. PPPs’ potential to deliver affordable energy solutions through coordinated government-private sector actions aligns with EU Green Deal objectives. Forward-looking solutions highlighted include technological and social innovations. Internet of Things (IoT) enables real-time monitoring and optimization of energy consumption [32,33,34]. Urban Building Energy Modelling (UBEM) simulates neighborhood-scale energy demand reduction [35,36,37,38]. Energy communities, cooperatives producing and consuming renewable energy locally, democratize energy access and foster community engagement [39,40]. Comparative analysis of European and international case studies underscores contextual adaptability and intervention transferability, often overlooked in existing research [40]. Within a geopolitical landscape characterized by accelerating climate change and widening socio-economic disparities, ensuring a just energy transition demands inclusive and integrated strategies [41,42,43].

This study proposes a multidimensional framework for developing strategies to combat energy poverty. To develop this framework, we will conduct a structured literature review using PRISMA articles, institutional reports and pilot projects to identify macro-areas based on the deductive-inductive model.

The developed framework will then be applied experimentally to the Nesima neighbourhood in Catania.

This review contributes to ensuring a just energy transition, emphasizing inclusive and integrated strategies to combat energy poverty locally and internationally.

The paper is organized in the following sections (Figure 4):

Figure 4. Research design and conceptual flow.

• Section 2 introduces the methodological approach;
• Section 3 reports the results;
• Section 4 proposes some reflections on the results, introduces a novel governance model designed to bridge existing gaps and introduces territorially embedded solutions using IERIN; it also identifies the limits and the lines of future development of this research;
• Section 5 summarises and highlights the main issues and findings of this study.

2. Methods

To critically examine existing approaches to energy poverty and identify recurring strategic logics, an integrative review was conducted, combining scientific literature, institutional reports, and pilot projects published between 2010 and 2024. The research followed an inductive–deductive approach, aimed at constructing a conceptual framework through thematic analysis of the selected sources.

To do this, the work is divided into phases (Figure 5):

Figure 5. Methodological flowchart of the study.

• Phase 1. An integrated review of scientific literature, institutional documents and European pilot projects, aimed at identifying critical issues and systemic gaps.
• Phase 2. Inductive thematic analysis of the selected sources, leading to the identification of five macro-domains and four recurring strategic logics.
• Phase 3. Deductive synthesis of the findings, resulting in the formulation of a strategic proposal to address energy poverty through integrated and territorially adaptable interventions.

The methodological choice of an integrated review, conducted using the PRISMA 2020 guidelines [44], is motivated by the multidimensional nature of the phenomenon analysed, which requires the inclusion of heterogeneous sources and a critical reading capable of generating new theoretical and operational perspectives.

2.1. Phase 1

The analysis is grounded in a careful selection of peer-reviewed academic literature, institutional reports and data from official sources [11]. A structured literature search was carried out using major academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar (Figure 6). The search covered publications from 2010 to 2024. Keywords were selected to reflect core themes relevant to the study, such as “energy poverty,” “fuel poverty,” “inclusive energy transition,” and “energy justice,” and combinations like “building retrofit” with “low-income households,” or “smart energy systems” with “vulnerability” [28,45]. The selection process followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines [44], which provide a four-stage flow diagram: identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. These phases ensure transparency and replicability in literature filtering.

Figure 6. Research methodology flowchart, phase 1.

The review focused on studies that addressed energy poverty, vulnerability or equity in relation to energy access or building performance. Particular attention was given to analyses of policies, financial instruments or technological innovations aimed at reducing energy poverty. European case studies were prioritized, but global comparisons were also included to broaden the perspective. Mendeley Reference Manager Version 2.138.0 was used to organise and manage the bibliography and citations.

2.1.1. Inclusion Criteria

Scientific literature was selected through a systematic search across major academic databases (Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar), based on the following inclusion criteria: only peer-reviewed contributions, journal articles and book chapters were selected, provided they were indexed in Scopus or Web of Science, published in English, and met specific bibliometric criteria, including year of publication, country of corresponding author, and the journal’s Scientific Journal Rankings (SRJ) quartile at the time of release. The second track of the review addressed institutional sources, encompassing European and national policy reports and validated project documentation. These materials were collected from official institutional platforms, primarily in English, and selected for their relevance to energy poverty governance and implementation practices [17,19].

2.1.2. Exclusion Criteria

Exclusion criteria included non-English language sources (except for select high-relevance institutional documents, e.g., official Italian strategies or national project documents), opinion pieces and grey literature lacking methodological transparency.

3. Results

3.1. Phase 1

The initial database search returned approximately 320 documents, of which 60% consisted of journal articles and book chapters, and 40% comprised institutional reports and official documentation. After screening titles and abstracts, 160 were selected for full-text review. Additional sources were identified through snowballing, by screening the reference lists of selected articles. Ultimately, 116 documents were retained for inclusion in the final synthesis, based on their relevance and methodological quality.

3.2. Phase 2

The selected information was categorized into thematic areas aligned with either the overarching objectives of the study or with an integrated analytical framework structured around four pillars: technology, finance, governance, and community. A thematic analysis was conducted by organizing the content into five key areas, each aligned with the overarching research goals (Figure 7):

Figure 7. Research methodology flowchart, phase 2.

• Definitions and indicators of energy poverty [10,14,46]
• Evaluation of European initiatives and pilot projects [17,19,21]
• Socio-health impacts associated with energy poverty [26,27,28]
• Financial mechanisms and public–private partnerships [31]
• Technological and social innovation pathways [32,35,39]

3.2.1. Definitions and Indicators of Energy Poverty

A crucial aspect in understanding energy poverty is the measurement methodologies employed. The Low-Income High Cost (LIHC) indicator, originally developed in the UK, classifies a household as energy-poor when its residual income after energy costs falls below the official poverty threshold and its energy expenses exceed the national median [14,16]. However, the LIHC model presents limitations in capturing regional climatic variability, necessitating the adoption of climate-responsive metrics, such as Heating Degree Days (HDDs) and Cooling Degree Days (CDDs), to refine policy interventions [7,10]. The incorporation of climate-based indicators allows policymakers to develop adaptive solutions, including insulation subsidies, dynamic pricing models, and targeted social assistance, addressing seasonal disparities in energy demand [25].

Over the past two decades, the conceptualization of energy poverty has shifted from a single-threshold economic issue to a multidimensional condition encompassing income, energy efficiency, climatic needs, and subjective perceptions. The traditional “10% rule” [47,48], which classified households as energy-poor if they spent more than 10% of their income on energy, has been gradually replaced or supplemented by more refined indicators. The LIHC (Low Income High Cost) approach, proposed by Hills (2012) [14], incorporates both the cost burden and the resulting disposable income, offering a dual-lens perspective. However, as our comparative table demonstrates (Table 1), these economic indicators alone fail to capture the full scope of deprivation, especially in diverse climatic zones [49]. Subjective indicators such as the Inability to Keep Home Warm (IKHW) and Arrears on Utility Bills (AUB), based on EU-SILC data, reveal the psychosocial dimension of energy deprivation (Bouzarovski & Petrova, 2015) [15]. Climatic indicators like Heating and Cooling Degree Days (HDDs/CDDs) allow regional sensitivity—particularly relevant for southern Europe, where summer energy poverty is rising [21,50,51]. The Italian PNIEC (2020) combines these dimensions in a hybrid index aligned with Eurostat’s Housing Conditions Indicator (HCI) [52]. This evolving typology suggests a growing convergence toward composite, multidimensional metrics that integrate subjective experiences, structural housing conditions, and climatic context [10,53]. Yet, harmonization across Member States remains a critical bottleneck.

Table 1. Definitions and indicators of energy poverty.

Indicator/Approach	Description	Strengths	Limitations	Used In	References
10% Rule	Household spends more than 10% of income on energy bills	Simple, widely used historically	Insensitive to regional energy needs and income variation	UK, early EU studies	[54]
LIHC (Low Income High Cost)	Household has high energy costs and residual income below poverty line	More nuanced; includes both cost and income	Requires detailed income and expenditure data	UK (Hills Report, 2012)	[54]
2M Indicator	Data	Highlights extreme energy burden	Overly broad; may capture non-poor	Italy (PNIEC), EU comparative metrics	[55,56]
M/2 Indicator	Abnormally low energy spending potentially indicating forced deprivation	Flags hidden energy poverty	May misidentify households with low energy use by choice	Italy (PNIEC), EU studies	[56]
IKHW (Inability to Keep Home Warm)	Households self-report inability to keep home adequately warm	Captures subjective thermal comfort	Subjective; relies on self-reporting	EU-SILC surveys	[57]
AUB (Arrears on Utility Bills)	Households behind on energy bill payments	Reflects economic stress related to energy costs	Affected by household attitudes and payment practices	EU-SILC surveys	[57]
Heating Degree Days (HDD)	Metric for cold-related heating needs based on temperature thresholds	Climate-sensitive; useful for targeting winter energy poverty	Needs accurate local climate data	All EU climate zones	[58]
Cooling Degree Days (CDD)	Metric for cooling needs in warm climates based on temperature thresholds	Addresses summer energy poverty	Less commonly integrated in EU definitions	Southern Europe, Mediterranean countries	[58]
Housing Conditions Indicator (HCI)	Composite indicator measuring housing quality, dampness, access to basic energy services	Integrates multiple aspects of housing-energy interaction	Data-intensive; methodology may vary by country	Eurostat, EPAH, some national strategies	[57]

3.2.2. Policy Initiatives and Project-Based Interventions

European policy has progressively recognized the strategic importance of energy poverty mitigation [59].

Table 2 outlines the major legislative and programmatic instruments, ranging from the EU’s Clean Energy for All Europeans Package (2019) [17,45] to national strategies such as Italy’s 2017 roadmap [60]. The Energy Efficiency Directive (EU 2023/1791) mandates Member States to include energy poverty reduction in national energy savings plans [17], while the Just Transition Mechanism mobilizes climate finance for vulnerable regions (European Commission, 2024) [61] (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Concept map of European and Italian policies [45,62].

Project-based initiatives like RENOVERTY [19], ASSERT and CoolToRise [21] offer insights into locally embedded, inclusive approaches. RENOVERTY employs the DREEM model to retrofit rural homes; ASSERT focuses on user-centered interventions for people with disabilities; CoolToRise promotes passive summer cooling through community engagement. These efforts reflect the increasing emphasis on adaptive, bottom-up strategies [45]. Nonetheless, disparities in policy implementation persist. While northern and western European states typically display more integrated frameworks, others, like Italy, struggle with fragmented governance and insufficient local administrative capacity [62].

Table 2. Policy initiatives on energy poverty.

Policy/Initiative	Description	Geographic Scope	Target Groups	Strengths	Limitations	Years of Implementation	Sources
Clean Energy for All Europeans Package	EU-level legislative framework recognizing energy poverty and mandating national action plans	European Union	Vulnerable consumers, low-income households	Institutionalizes energy poverty at EU level	Implementation varies by Member State	Adopted in 2019	[63]
Energy Efficiency Directive (EU 2023/1791)	Obligates Member States to monitor and reduce energy poverty, with binding energy savings targets	European Union	Low-income and vulnerable energy users	Legally binding targets; forces national engagement	Monitoring tools still under development	Entry into force 10 October 2023; (Member States have until 11 October 2025 to transpose the provisions of the directive into their national legislation)	[64]
Just Transition Mechanism (EU Green Deal)	Funds vulnerable regions during energy transition; includes the Climate Social Fund	European Union (focus on fossil fuel regions)	Vulnerable regions and social groups	Large budget and redistributive focus	Disparities in allocation; complex bureaucracy	Launched in January 2020	[65]
National Strategy on Energy Poverty (Italy, 2017)	Defines poverty thresholds and suggests metrics, yet lacks legal enforcement	Italy	Italian low-income households	Pioneering national definition and awareness	No legal binding or monitoring	Adopted in 2017	[66]
RENOVERTY Project	Deep retrofitting in rural and vulnerable communities using the DREEM model	Italy, Spain, Portugal, others	Rural families in energy-inefficient housing	Customized solutions and community involvement	Requires strong local coordination	Project duration 2024–2027	[19]
ASSERT Project	Inclusive design and retrofits for people with disabilities	EU-wide	People with physical disabilities	User-centered retrofits, inclusive design	Dependent on continued EU funding	Project duration 2024–2027	[20]
CoolToRise Project	Behavioral and passive cooling strategies in Mediterranean countries	Southern Europe	Low-income households facing summer overheating	Climate-specific innovation	Effectiveness limited in poorly insulated buildings	Project duration 2021–2024	[21]
PNIEC (Italy)	Sets national targets for climate and energy; integrates poverty indicators	Italy	General population, with focus on energy-poor	Integrates poverty and sustainability	Slow implementation; mixed local capacities	Implementation period 2021–2030	[67]
EPBD—Energy Performance of Buildings Directive	Mandates renovation strategies, prioritizing buildings with vulnerable occupants	European Union	Tenants in low-performance housing	Links energy and social policy	Implementation differs across Member States	Entered into force on 28 May 2024. Member States are required to transpose the directive into national law by 29 May 2026	[68]

Table 2. Policy initiatives on energy poverty.

Policy/Initiative	Description	Geographic Scope	Target Groups	Strengths	Limitations	Years of Implementation	Sources
Clean Energy for All Europeans Package	EU-level legislative framework recognizing energy poverty and mandating national action plans	European Union	Vulnerable consumers, low-income households	Institutionalizes energy poverty at EU level	Implementation varies by Member State	Adopted in 2019	[63]
Energy Efficiency Directive (EU 2023/1791)	Obligates Member States to monitor and reduce energy poverty, with binding energy savings targets	European Union	Low-income and vulnerable energy users	Legally binding targets; forces national engagement	Monitoring tools still under development	Entry into force 10 October 2023; (Member States have until 11 October 2025 to transpose the provisions of the directive into their national legislation)	[64]
Just Transition Mechanism (EU Green Deal)	Funds vulnerable regions during energy transition; includes the Climate Social Fund	European Union (focus on fossil fuel regions)	Vulnerable regions and social groups	Large budget and redistributive focus	Disparities in allocation; complex bureaucracy	Launched in January 2020	[65]
National Strategy on Energy Poverty (Italy, 2017)	Defines poverty thresholds and suggests metrics, yet lacks legal enforcement	Italy	Italian low-income households	Pioneering national definition and awareness	No legal binding or monitoring	Adopted in 2017	[66]
RENOVERTY Project	Deep retrofitting in rural and vulnerable communities using the DREEM model	Italy, Spain, Portugal, others	Rural families in energy-inefficient housing	Customized solutions and community involvement	Requires strong local coordination	Project duration 2024–2027	[19]
ASSERT Project	Inclusive design and retrofits for people with disabilities	EU-wide	People with physical disabilities	User-centered retrofits, inclusive design	Dependent on continued EU funding	Project duration 2024–2027	[20]
CoolToRise Project	Behavioral and passive cooling strategies in Mediterranean countries	Southern Europe	Low-income households facing summer overheating	Climate-specific innovation	Effectiveness limited in poorly insulated buildings	Project duration 2021–2024	[21]
PNIEC (Italy)	Sets national targets for climate and energy; integrates poverty indicators	Italy	General population, with focus on energy-poor	Integrates poverty and sustainability	Slow implementation; mixed local capacities	Implementation period 2021–2030	[67]
EPBD—Energy Performance of Buildings Directive	Mandates renovation strategies, prioritizing buildings with vulnerable occupants	European Union	Tenants in low-performance housing	Links energy and social policy	Implementation differs across Member States	Entered into force on 28 May 2024. Member States are required to transpose the directive into national law by 29 May 2026	[68]

3.2.3. Social and Health Impacts

Energy poverty has demonstrable consequences for health and well-being, disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable. As illustrated in Table 3, cold, damp housing environments contribute significantly to respiratory illnesses such as asthma and bronchitis [26]. Cardiovascular risks are exacerbated by inadequate heating, particularly among the elderly [26]. Mental health deterioration, manifesting as anxiety, stress and depression, often stems from constant financial insecurity and thermal discomfort [28]. The gendered impact is pronounced: 44% of female-headed households in Italy are behind on utility bills, and single mothers are particularly exposed [22,23]. People with disabilities face further risks due to their reliance on stable indoor conditions and powered medical devices, as highlighted by the ASSERT project and EPAH reports. Educational outcomes are also compromised: children living in energy-deprived homes report higher rates of fatigue and absenteeism due to poor thermal comfort and lighting. Addressing these impacts requires holistic mitigation strategies, from retrofitting and insulation to psychosocial support and digital outreach, tailored to intersecting vulnerabilities.

Table 3. Social and health impacts of energy poverty.

Impact Area	Description	Affected Groups	Mitigation Measures	Sources
Respiratory Illnesses	Cold and damp housing conditions increase incidence of bronchitis, asthma, and infections	Children, low-income families in cold homes	Improved insulation, ventilation	[26,27]
Cardiovascular Diseases	Inadequate indoor temperatures contribute to heart stress and increased mortality risk	Elderly, cardiovascular patients	Stable indoor temperature, monitoring	[15]
Mental Health (Anxiety, Depression)	Inability to pay bills or heat home increases stress, depression, and anxiety	Adults in fuel-deprived households	Energy coaching, psychosocial support	[23,28]
Social Isolation	Energy-poor households tend to withdraw from social interactions	All vulnerable households	Community energy programs	[26,45]
Gendered Vulnerability	Women-headed households, especially single mothers, face higher energy cost burdens	Female-headed and single-parent households	Gender-sensitive subsidies	[22,23,69,70]
Elderly Susceptibility	Older adults are at higher risk due to lower mobility and temperature sensitivity	Elderly in inadequately heated homes	Priority retrofit programs for elderly homes	[26]
Disability-related Risks	People with disabilities need stable indoor temperatures and powered medical devices	Disabled individuals	Tailored design and energy supply stability	[20,71]
Household Financial Stress	High energy bills lead to arrears, debt, and rationing of other essentials	Low-income families	Bill subsidies, payment plans	[52]
Educational Disruption (Children)	Lack of heating or lighting impairs children’s study and sleep quality	Children in underheated homes	Targeted school and housing support	[26,45]

3.2.4. Financial Instruments and Public–Private Partnerships

Financing remains one of the major barriers to scaling up energy transitions for the poor. Table 4 presents a range of financial instruments, from Pay-As-You-Save (PAYS) programs that recover investment through bill savings [31], to microcredit systems like Grameen Shakti and SELCO that empower rural households to adopt renewable technologies. Energy leasing models, such as those used by SonnenCommunity and Enercoop, allow access to photovoltaic systems without ownership constraints [31,72] A similar approach has been tested in Madrid, where rooftop PV systems on affordable housing have demonstrated both economic and social utility through cooperative models [73]. While PPPs like CER Lecco demonstrate the feasibility of multi-actor governance [74], European funding streams, such as the Just Transition Fund, FESR, LIFE Programme, and Horizon Europe, further bolster investment in structural and technological solutions [19,75]. As Galvin (2017) argues [76], retrofit policies that aim for deep technical transformation often neglect the social and institutional realities of low-income households, where incremental approaches and trust-building are essential. However, these instruments face significant challenges: implementation complexity, limited administrative bandwidth, and mistrust among low-income users. To overcome these, local actors must be empowered with both financial guarantees and technical assistance, as illustrated in the Italian PNRR and CER support schemes [74].

Table 4. Financial instruments and PPPs for energy poverty.

Model/Instrument	Description	Case Studies	Target Beneficiaries	Strengths	Limitations	Years of Implementation	Sources
Pay-As-You-Save (PAYS)	No upfront cost: energy efficiency upgrades repaid via savings on bills	1. Kansas (USA) 2. UK 3. Australia	Low-income renters and homeowners	Removes upfront investment barrier	Requires reliable utility/program administration	1. from 2000 2. from 2010 3. from 2022	[77,78,79]
Energy Microcredit	Micro-loans for installing renewable technologies or efficient systems	Grameen Shakti (Bangladesh), SELCO (India)	Rural households, developing country communities	Enhances financial inclusion, builds resilience	Risk of insolvency; needs microfinance infrastructure	1. founded 1996 2. founded in 1995	[80,81]
Energy Leasing	Households rent renewable installations (e.g., solar panels) with monthly fees	SonnenCommunity (Germany), Enercoop (France)	Families with low capital liquidity	Enables immediate access to energy savings	Contract duration and ownership issues	1. 2015 2. Founded in 2005	[82,83]
Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs)	Joint ventures between public entities and private sector to deliver energy services	CER Lecco (Italy), local microgrids	Citizens, municipalities, SMEs	Shares risk and cost, leverages expertise	Complex governance, bureaucratic delays	Constituted on 18 June 2024	[84]
Just Transition Fund	Supports vulnerable regions in transitioning away from fossil fuels	Poland, Eastern Europe coal regions	Communities in carbon-intensive regions	Redistributes climate transition funds	Uneven access and fund allocation	2021–2027	[65]
FESR (EU Regional Funds)	Funds energy efficiency in disadvantaged EU regions	Greece, Portugal energy upgrades	Low-income regions in EU	Large-scale support for structural projects	High bureaucracy, limited absorption capacity	2021–2027	[85]
LIFE Programme	Pilots and replicates innovative and inclusive energy projects	LIFE ReHABITA (Spain)	Vulnerable populations, local authorities	Supports innovation, good replicability	Competitive funding, fragmented impact	2021–2027	[86]
Horizon Europe (Tech Innovation)	Finances cutting-edge energy poverty solutions and research	SENDER, REACT, Sharing Cities	Universities, startups, public agencies	Drives technological and systemic change	High administrative burden	2021–2027	[87]
PNRR Incentives (Italy)	Grants and tax credits for retrofits and renewables, often linked to local planning	Superbonus 110%, CER support schemes	Italian families and small enterprises	Boosts local green economy and equity	Discontinuity and bureaucratic complexity	2021–2026	[88]

3.2.5. Technological and Social Innovations

Innovative technologies play a transformative role in alleviating energy poverty. Table 5 highlights diverse solutions, including Urban Building Energy Modelling (UBEM) for targeted retrofitting [35] and IoT-based energy monitoring for real-time consumption feedback [32]. When paired with energy coaching, as in the Amsterdam pilot, these tools lead to measurable behavioral changes [89]. Decentralized systems like microgrids (e.g., Brooklyn Microgrid) [90] and community renewables (e.g., CER Tuscany) democratize energy access and empower users [39,91]. AI-powered systems [92], used in REACT and Energiesprong, further enhance efficiency through predictive load management. Participatory platforms like Sharing Cities facilitate citizen engagement and transparency in energy planning [93,94]. While promising, these technologies often require high upfront investments, digital literacy, and enabling regulatory frameworks. Thus, their diffusion depends on a balanced approach that combines innovation with social equity and user inclusion.

Table 5. Technological and social innovations for energy poverty.

Innovation/Tool	Description	Case Studies	Impact	Limitations	Years of Implementation	Sources
Internet of Things (IoT) Systems	Sensors and digital tools monitor and optimize household energy use	SENDER project; smart homes in Spain/Finland/Austria	Improved energy awareness and reduced consumption	Upfront device cost and privacy concerns	Started in October 2020 and completed in September 2024	[95]
Smart Energy Coaching	Combines real-time feedback with behavioral change interventions	Amsterdam pilot; Llewellyn et al., 2025	Behavioral savings and user empowerment	Requires long-term support and user trust	Measurements between October 2023 and December 2023 (117 homes); revisited to measure the impact of the intervention from February 2024 to March 2024 (73 homes)	[89,96]
Renewable Energy Communities (CERs)	Local cooperatives jointly produce and consume renewable energy	1. CER Lecco 2. CER Elba, Tuscany	Energy autonomy and social inclusion	Regulatory barriers, bureaucratic setup	1. Constituted on 18 June 2024 2. Association created in 2023	[84,97]
Microgrids with Blockchain	P2P energy trading using blockchain-enabled microgrids	Brooklyn Microgrid (USA)	Enhanced local resilience and democratization	Legal uncertainty around energy exchange	Initiative started in April 2016	[98]
Decentralized Solar Solutions	Off-grid solar systems for rural or underserved areas	1. Mera Gao Power (India), 2. Ilumexico	Low-cost access to clean energy	Limited capacity, maintenance needs	1. Set up in 2011 2. Set up in 2010	[99,100]
AI for Predictive Energy Management	Uses machine learning to optimize consumption and grid interaction	1. REACT (HORIZON 2020 EU) 2. Energiesprong	Grid stability and efficiency for vulnerable zones	Complex implementation, needs data infrastructure	1. January 2019– June 2023 2. From 2010	[101,102]
Digital Participatory Platforms	Engages citizens in energy planning via online platforms	Sharing Cities (EU)	Increased civic engagement and transparency	Depends on digital literacy and platform uptake	Started in 2016—completed in 2021	[103]
Energy Retrofit Packages	Pre-packaged interventions for insulation, HVAC, renewables	1. ASSERT 2. RENOVERTY 3. LIFE ReHABITA	Improved living conditions and cost savings	Funding and integration challenges	1. From 2022 to 2025 2. From 2024 to 2027 3. From 2023 to 2027	[19,20,104]

3.3. Phase 3

Through an inductive thematic analysis of 116 sources selected via PRISMA guidelines, five macro-thematic areas were identified as central to the discourse on energy poverty: indicators and definitions, socio-health impacts, financial mechanisms, governance structures, and technological and social innovation (Figure 9). Within these macro-areas, a recurring set of operational logics has emerged which concern the following themes: energy justice, territorial resilience, social and health inclusion, and multilevel governance.

Figure 9. Research methodology flowchart, phase 3.

These four approaches were not predefined but rather they have been identified from the cross-cutting patterns observed across literature and practice.

They reflect the multidimensional nature of energy poverty and the need for integrated responses. To translate these approaches into actionable components, the framework consolidates them into four strategic pillars: equity, adaptability, participation and proximity. These pillars serve as the foundation for designing inclusive, resilient, and territorially embedded interventions, ensuring that the framework is both conceptually grounded and operationally adaptable.

3.4. The IERIN Proposal

Energy poverty remains a persistent challenge across Europe and globally, yet existing approaches fail to provide long-term and adaptive solutions. Despite numerous interventions addressing financial aid, technological retrofitting, and policy frameworks, these efforts often remain disconnected, limiting their overall effectiveness. A comparative analysis of European and international case studies highlights three recurring barriers: weak policy coordination, financial inaccessibility, and a lack of structured community engagement. These factors reveal the urgent need for an integrated governance model that aligns energy, social inclusion, housing, health, and financial strategies into a cohesive framework. In response, this study proposes the Integrated Energy Resilience and Inclusion Network (IERIN) (Figure 10), a novel governance framework model, designed to bridge existing gaps and introduce solutions embedded in specific territorial contexts.

Figure 10. IERIN Framework. Conceptual framework for achieving equity through urban and community planning. The diagram illustrates four sequential components—Local Planning Hubs, Inclusive Financial Tools, Community-Scale Infrastructure, and Intersectoral Governance—connected by downward red arrows to indicate progressive implementation. Side arrows suggest feedback loops and dynamic interconnections among the components. The framework is bounded by four guiding principles: Equity (top), Adaptability (bottom), Participation (left), and Proximity (right). Source: author’s elaboration.

3.4.1. Operational Components

Rather than adding another isolated strategy to an already fragmented landscape, IERIN combines diagnostics, financing, infrastructure, and participatory governance into a flexible, adaptable framework.

At its core, the model introduces local energy planning hubs, institutional platforms embedded within municipalities or regional consortia. These hubs act as coordination centers, offering comprehensive assistance for energy audits, financial access, renovation guidance, and health-related interventions. One of the defining aspects of IERIN is its emphasis on inclusive participation. Rather than implementing solutions through a top-down approach, the model actively involves local communities, frontline workers, and civil society organizations in decision-making processes.

In addition to its governance structure, IERIN innovates financing mechanisms by blending public grants, cooperative loans, and community dividends from shared renewable systems. This model enhances accessibility, particularly for renters, informally housed populations, and households experiencing multidimensional vulnerabilities. Beyond financial mechanisms, IERIN prioritizes collective infrastructure solutions to democratize energy access. Shared solar fields, neighborhood energy loops, and communal retrofitting schemes form the foundation of this framework, enabling an optimized energy distribution system within vulnerable communities.

Drawing upon the successes of Renewable Energy Communities (CERs) [39], IERIN extends beyond conventional energy production models to incorporate capacity-building programs, real-time energy monitoring, and local economic development initiatives. These operational principles converge into four core components that define how IERIN functions in practice. Each reflects a strategic lever for enabling inclusive energy transitions:

• Local Planning Hubs: local centres that coordinate energy, construction and social initiatives.
• Inclusive Financial Tools: accessible financial instruments for vulnerable families.
• Community-Scale Infrastructure: shared energy solutions at neighbourhood level.
• Intersectoral Governance: Models of coordination between public bodies, technical experts, social organisations, and citizens.

This holistic perspective ensures that interventions do not merely address technical energy efficiency but also enhance broader social resilience.

3.4.2. Implementation of the IERIN

To translate IERIN into actionable policy, a four-step methodology has been designed to facilitate implementation (Figure 11):

Figure 11. Structure of the IERIN framework.

• Composite vulnerability index: aggregates variables such as income deprivation, building inefficiency, climate stress (HDD/CDD), and socio-health indicators
• Geographic mapping: applies the index to identify neighborhoods most in need of intervention
• Hub establishment: sets up IERIN hubs in high-need areas to enable participatory planning
• Impact monitoring: tracks outcomes through metrics such as energy cost reduction, improved indoor comfort, and reduced hospitalization rates

The framework is designed to be scalable and replicable, offering a flexible infrastructure for coordinated and inclusive energy transition-making across diverse urban and regional contexts.

The following section discusses the theoretical and strategic implications of the IERIN framework, evaluating its contribution to energy justice, territorial resilience, and inclusive governance.

4. Discussion

This section discusses the findings of the review through a critical lens, emphasizing both the fragmented nature of current approaches to energy poverty and the systemic opportunities highlighted across the five thematic domains. The integration of empirical insights with broader literature reveals how isolated measures, such as retrofitting programs, financial incentives or technological innovations, often fail to deliver long-term, equitable outcomes due to weak coordination, limited scalability and social exclusion. First, the results show that while composite indicators (e.g., LIHC, HDD/CDD, subjective deprivation) have enriched the diagnostic capacity of policymakers [10,14,15,105,106,107], their lack of harmonization across countries undermines comparability and strategic coherence. Furthermore, the use of subjective indicators in Mediterranean countries provides critical granularity but remains underutilized in many national strategies. This inconsistency reinforces the need for an integrated measurement framework grounded in both territorial adaptation and cross-national standardization. Second, policy initiatives and pilot projects like RENOVERTY and ASSERT have demonstrated that community-based and inclusive approaches can yield substantial benefits [19,21,108,109]. However, as the results highlight, these initiatives are often temporally limited and poorly connected to broader institutional structures. The gap between European policy ambition and national administrative implementation remains one of the most persistent obstacles, particularly in countries like Italy where energy poverty is formally acknowledged but insufficiently operationalized [17,52,60,110]. Third, socio-health impacts emerging from energy poverty remain critically under-addressed in mainstream policy. Despite robust epidemiological evidence linking energy deprivation to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, mental health distress and educational inequality [26,27,28,111,112,113], health agencies are rarely involved in energy planning. This represents a missed opportunity for co-benefits, as indicated in municipal experiments that link social services with energy advisory centers. Fourth, financial instruments, though increasingly diversified—from Pay-As-You-Save schemes to microcredits—often fail to reach energy-poor households due to complexity, inaccessibility and institutional fragmentation [31,74,114,115]. The findings confirm that without a coherent financial architecture embedded in local support structures, even the most generous funding schemes (e.g., Italy’s Superbonus 110%) may unintentionally reinforce socio-economic disparities. Fifth, the technological innovations reviewed, including UBEM tools and IoT-based energy monitoring, demonstrate significant potential, but their effectiveness is contingent on equitable access, digital literacy, and local facilitation [32,35,116]. Community energy systems such as CERs show promise in redistributing energy wealth but are still in early stages and lack standardized governance models.

In response to these systemic gaps, the IERIN framework was developed as a strategic synthesis of the recurring operational logics identified across the five thematic domains. Rather than proposing isolated interventions, IERIN integrates diagnostic tools, inclusive financial mechanisms, community-scale infrastructure, and participatory governance into a coherent and adaptable structure. The four strategic pillars, equity, adaptability, participation and proximity, translate the systemic goals of energy justice, territorial resilience, social and health inclusion, and multilevel governance into actionable components. By embedding local planning hubs within municipal or regional structures, IERIN addresses the fragmentation of institutional coordination and enhances proximity to vulnerable populations. Its emphasis on participatory planning and shared infrastructure directly responds to the limitations of temporally bounded pilot projects, while its financial architecture is designed to overcome the accessibility barriers of conventional schemes. Moreover, by linking energy planning with social and health services, IERIN operationalizes the co-benefits that remain underutilized in mainstream policy. In this sense, the framework offers a replicable infrastructure for inclusive energy transition-making, capable of bridging the gap between European ambitions and territorial realities.

4.1. Case Study

IERIN is not a fixed model, but a flexible infrastructure that adapts to local contexts through planning hubs, inclusive financial tools, shared infrastructure, and participatory governance. Its implementation methodology, comprising vulnerability indexing, geographic mapping, hub activation, and impact monitoring, enables scalable and replicable interventions.

Although the formal implementation methodology of IERIN, based on the Composite Vulnerability Index and geographic mapping, has not yet been applied, the selection of Nesima as a case study is grounded in preliminary territorial evidence and municipal data (Figure 12). Nesima is a historically marginalized urban area characterized by degraded housing stock, high summer heat exposure, and socio-economic fragility. Local indicators reveal elevated rates of elderly and low-income households, low building energy performance, and limited access to energy-related social services. These conditions align with the multidimensional vulnerability criteria that the IERIN framework seeks to address. Therefore, Nesima is proposed as a prototypical context for testing the framework’s applicability, allowing for the refinement of diagnostic tools and participatory planning mechanisms in a real-world setting.

Figure 12. Nesima district.

This pilot could become a demonstrator for scaling IERIN in other Sicilian or Mediterranean urban contexts where climatic stress and social disadvantage intersect for a fixed program but a flexible and replicable infrastructure for coordinated and inclusive transition-making. It translates the review’s findings into an actionable framework, overcoming the fragmentation, short-termism and social exclusion that currently limit the effectiveness of energy poverty interventions. As such, it stands as the main innovative proposal of this review, grounded in evidence, informed by practice and aligned with the broader agenda of energy justice and territorial equity.

4.2. Limits and Future Development

The limitations of this research relate to the decision to prioritise results on the subject from scientific literature over those from institutional or administrative experience.

Future developments may include the expansion of such hubs to other vulnerable districts, enhanced data integration across municipal departments, and the scaling of community-led energy planning models as a permanent component of urban welfare strategies.

While this approach ensured methodological rigour, it may have excluded valuable insights gained from practical implementation in the field. A critical issue is the lack of, or difficulty in finding, information on household disposable income, needs and habits. Understanding the socio-economic profile is fundamental to grasping the phenomenon. In addition to the lack of up-to-date population and economic data, there is no data on the state of the existing building stock, which makes it difficult to assess its energy efficiency. Given the limited availability of data and their quality, developing the IERIN framework is quite complex.

Future developments in this research will focus on the empirical validation of the IERIN. The framework will be tested and implemented for the development of projects in urban areas with varying degrees of vulnerability. The application of the IERIN framework to the pilot project in the Nesima neighbourhood will be instrumental in testing its adaptability, community involvement and the integration of policies aimed at combating energy poverty. Horizon Europe or equivalent national frameworks could offer strategic support for such experimentation.

Other priorities include refining financing strategies, particularly those that leverage community-led economic models.

The enhancement of community-led energy planning models as permanent components for the development of urban welfare strategies could promote inclusive governance processes. Furthermore, advances in real-time monitoring technologies, such as IoT-based thermal comfort sensors or AI-driven GIS mapping for renovation prioritisation, could significantly improve responsiveness and decision-making within the IERIN framework.

The findings suggest that addressing energy poverty requires technical interventions, inclusive governance, and financial accessibility. To ensure long-term energy equity, policymakers should prioritise territorially embedded planning hubs, support cooperative financing schemes, and promote community-scale infrastructure. The IERIN framework offers a scalable model for integrating these elements into local and regional energy strategies.

5. Conclusions

This review has examined the complexities of energy poverty across Europe, focusing on the Italian context, where institutional and policy responses, despite increasing attention, remain fragmented and often misaligned with the lived experiences of affected populations. While the evolution of measurement indicators has led to more sophisticated, context-sensitive indices, a harmonized methodological framework is still lacking. European directives have provided a strategic foundation, yet national implementation, particularly in Italy, continues to suffer from weak policy coordination, limited enforceability, and sectoral misalignment. Energy poverty transcends mere technical or economic constraints, exerting profound impacts on health, dignity, and social inclusion. Despite advancements in financial and technological solutions, persistent accessibility barriers, digital divides, and institutional inertia hinder their full potential. Furthermore, the socio-health consequences, ranging from respiratory illnesses and cardiovascular conditions to educational disparities and psychological distress, remain inadequately addressed, reinforcing the need for a comprehensive, integrated governance model capable of aligning diagnostics, financial tools, inclusive technologies, and participatory decision-making. IERIN emerges as a response to these systemic challenges, presenting an innovative governance structure that translates the principles of equity, proximity, and participation into actionable strategies. Rather than serving as a static theoretical construct, IERIN functions as a dynamic framework that restructures energy poverty interventions, shifting them from fragmented and reactive responses to cohesive, forward-thinking pathways for resilience and equitable resource distribution. However, despite its conceptual robustness, several critical limitations require further examination. Empirical validation through large-scale demonstrator projects remains essential to assess scalability and real-world effectiveness. Additionally, the financial viability of IERIN depends on an intricate balance between public funding, cooperative investment models, and private-sector engagement, necessitating further inquiry into sustainable financing mechanisms. Community acceptance represents another potential challenge, as decentralized governance approaches may encounter cultural and institutional resistance, highlighting the need for structured stakeholder engagement strategies. Finally, regulatory alignment must be thoroughly examined to ensure that IERIN integrates effectively within existing national and EU energy policies while maintaining legislative coherence and operational feasibility. Looking ahead, future research should prioritize pilot implementations in urban areas with varying degrees of vulnerability, enabling empirical assessment of adaptability and effectiveness. Horizon Europe or equivalent national frameworks could serve as platforms for evaluating feasibility and policy integration. Additionally, refining financing strategies, particularly those leveraging community-driven economic models, could enhance accessibility and long-term sustainability. Further advancements in real-time monitoring technologies, such as IoT-based thermal comfort sensors or AI-driven GIS mapping for retrofit prioritization, would significantly improve efficiency, responsiveness, and decision-making within IERIN. By evolving alongside technological innovations and policy refinements, IERIN holds the potential to become a transformative mechanism for reshaping energy poverty mitigation and territorial governance. Ultimately, IERIN should not be regarded as a rigid blueprint, but rather as a flexible and adaptive infrastructure, evolving in response to emerging territorial and technological challenges. Its successful implementation necessitates further empirical research, policy experimentation, and institutional alignment, yet it presents a compelling vision for bridging existing gaps between policy, finance, and community-driven solutions. If effectively operationalized, IERIN could redefine territorial energy governance, reinforcing the notion that combating energy poverty is not solely a technical mandate, but a democratic imperative requiring institutional commitment, community empowerment, and bold policy innovation. In doing so, this review contributes to the broader academic and policy discourse on energy justice, offering a replicable framework that integrates theory, evidence, and territorial action.