worried about gas poverty and people unable to heat their homes adequately are not new to the UK, but these concerns have been increased by significant increases in energy costs and the cost of living crisis. And as winter approaches, things are going to get much worse.
Despite a relatively mild climate, the UK has higher levels of winter excess deaths (deaths associated with cold weather) than many colder countries. This greater exposure to cold, despite a more temperate climate, is related to the poor quality of housing, the high cost of heating housing, and poverty.
We know a lot about how living in a house that you can’t keep warm enough affects your physical health. colder temperatures suppress the immune system, for instance. But we know relatively little about the effects on mental health. our new research shows that living in a cold home is a significant mental health risk.
cold comfort
Living in a cold home can affect your mental health in a number of ways. For many, heating costs are a source of stress and financial strain. Not being able to keep your home and family comfortably warm reduces feelings of control and autonomy over your environment. People who cannot heat their homes often adopt coping mechanisms that limit socializing — for example, not having friends over and going to bed early to stay warm. And many people are simply exhausted from the drudgery of an entire winter from being uncomfortably cold.
Wearing data From a large cross-section of adults in the UK, we followed people over many years and tracked the effect of not being able to keep the house warm on mental health.
When people’s homes got colder, the risk of serious mental disorders increased significantly. For people who did not previously have mental health problems, the odds of severe mental distress doubled when they had a cold home, while for those who had some (but not severe) mental health symptoms, the risk tripled (see chart below). We found these effects even after accounting for many other factors associated with mental health, including income.
Unfortunately, the risk of living in a cold home differs greatly among the UK population. Single parents and people who are unemployed or sick for a long time are much more likely to live in cold homes. There is also significant inequality between ethnic groups: more than 12 percent of blacks live in cold homes compared to less than 6 percent of white Britons, for example. Those who rent rather than own their homes are also much more likely to live in cold houses, for social renters, this despite the fact that, on average, higher quality and efficiency of social rental housing.
Throwing on another sweater won’t be enough to get many in the UK through the coming winter. And mental health distress is just one consequence. Cold homes cause significant personal and societal costs, from individual health effects to increased pressure on the NHS, as well as broader economic losses due to lack of work. Rishi Sunak’s new government needs to help people live in adequately warm homes this winter. But how?
The age of the dwelling in the UK is strongly implicated in the high cold levels of the UK. Support for energy efficiency improvements is therefore a possible means of reducing cold homes. This will also mean tackling the so-called “split incentive” in the private rental sector, which is home to a significant proportion of households. The split incentive refers to the challenge of the benefits of improvements not experienced by owners but by tenants, thus reducing the incentive for owners to invest. This results in lower quality and more expensive housing for tenants.
Heat or eat?
The high proportion of cold homes in the social housing sector, despite having the best average energy efficiency due to insulation and building types (floors), shows that energy efficiency improvements alone will not eliminate the cold. Income in the UK is falling. The benefits are painfully low and made worse by policies including benefit caps, two-child caps, and penalties. Years of cuts and below inflation rises means that the term “heat or eat”, used to describe difficult spending decisions for low-income households, is now out of date, as many can afford none.
The combination of low family income with rising energy costs has created devastating pressure on family budgets. While the energy cap has limited energy cost increases to below worst estimates, energy bills have more than doubled in the last year. And prepaid meters mean that those who have less end up paying more.
There are therefore many areas for possible government intervention and clear evidence that failure to intervene will cause harm to health.
This article was originally published on The conversation by Amy Clair at the University of Essex and Emma Baker at the University of Adelaide. Read the original article here.
