This blogpost is authored by Hannah Janßen, Sabine Preuß and Iska Brunzema (Fraunhofer ISI), and summarises research done for the EU-funded HouseInc project presented at the eceee summer study 2026.
Across three presentations and one workshop in an informal conference session, we explored the following questions:
- How is housing inequality related to discrimination?
- How is vulnerability to energy poverty shaped by household characteristics and place-based factors?
- How do low-income tenants perceive a compensatory policy aiming to support them in the context of energy renovations?
- The role of discrimination for housing inequality
Our first presentation examined the role of systemic discrimination in shaping housing quality and hence, housing inequalities. We define housing inequality as insufficient access to affordable, quality housing (i.e., meeting basic human needs) amidst sustainability challenges. While existing literature examines racial and ethnic discrimination in the housing sector, less attention has been paid to subjective experiences of multi-faceted discrimination (e.g., due to income and age) and how these affect people’s perceptions of housing quality. Using a mixed-method design, we combined nationally representative survey data of more than 3300 participants from the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy and Romania with 51 interviews and focus groups in four regional case studies.
The results show distinct country differences, but also shared mechanisms of exclusion. For instance, poor housing quality — including problems such as mould — was especially widespread in Romania. Our statistical analysis further suggests that discrimination related to housing, especially based on income, age, disability, family status and ethnic/immigrant background is associated with poorer housing conditions. The qualitative research results help to explain the underlying reasons: exclusion emerges through limited transport access, language barriers, and forms of informality that restrict access to housing and labour markets. These findings underline that systemic discrimination leads to spatial, social, and economic exclusion in housing. Hence, norms, infrastructures and policies may be drivers of the relationship between housing discrimination and housing quality. We suggest a multilevel governance perspective considering intersecting household characteristics and systemic exclusion to tackle the issue.
- Typologies of energy poverty across Germany
Our second presentation focused on energy poverty in Germany as an important challenge in the energy transition. The study explores how vulnerability to energy poverty, in this case measured through the inability to adequately heat one’s apartment and having been in arrears with energy bills, is shaped by both household characteristics and place-based factors, including household characteristics, housing conditions and access to energy and transport infrastructure.
Using nationally representative survey data (n = 1,097), we applied cluster analysis and identified six distinct household types, The results differ systematically in terms of socio-economic characteristics, dwelling quality, heating systems, and infrastructural contexts.
The results show that issues with heating unaffordability are particularly common among renters in flats and families living in areas with limited transport access. In contrast, payment arrears are most pronounced among younger homeowner families in highly energy-efficient homes equipped with renewable heating systems.
This approach is used in further research to link statistical typologies with lived experiences, assessed in focus groups, and contributes to a better understanding of energy poverty in Germany. It also provides a basis for thinking about more equitable energy efficiency policies.
- Socially just renovations need social protection
Our third presentation addressed a policy question at the center of current debates: how can energy renovations be made socially just for tenants? Energy-efficient renovations can reduce emissions, lower energy demand and improve living conditions. But they can also create new burdens if landlords pass costs on to tenants through higher rents.
We therefore examined how low-income tenants in eight European countries perceive one possible compensatory measure: state support for rent increases after energy renovations. Based on survey data from Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Great Britain, Italy and Romania (n = 3,245), we found that this policy is viewed rather positively overall.
Support, however, varies across countries. In all countries except Estonia and Italy, more than half of low-income tenants supported the measure, with particularly high acceptance in Great Britain, Finland and Romania. We also found that support is higher among tenants living in less energy-efficient homes and among those for whom housing costs already pose a financial burden.
In short, the data suggest that low-income tenants are generally open to compensation for renovation-related rent increases, especially when they already face poor efficiency or high housing cost burdens.
- What the workshop added
Our workshop discussion with conference participants helped sharpen the broader implications of this work. After a short overview of the HouseInc project and the thematic challenges, we discussed the following three main questions with the results from the HouseInc project in the back of our minds:
- What frameworks help us define and understand housing inequalities?
- How do we conceptualize and measure vulnerability?
- What practical approaches have proven effective in reaching marginalized communities?
One key aspect of the discussion was to be precise when talking about vulnerability. People are not simply “vulnerable” in general; they are vulnerable to specific stresses, under specific structural conditions, and with differing access to resources that can buffer these risks.
Participants also stressed that vulnerability is often produced by systems— through policy design, institutional barriers or discriminatory practices. This means that research should not only identify vulnerable groups but also examine the structures that create vulnerability in the first place.
A second important point concerned research practice. Reaching groups affected by housing inequality requires trust. Researchers therefore need to be transparent about what participation offers and how research can serve participants’ interests. Working with trusted intermediaries, such as NGOs or community organisations, can be crucial in this regard.
Conclusion
Taken together, our contributions highlight that housing inequality and energy poverty are shaped not only by household resources, but also by discrimination, place-based conditions and policy design. They also show the value of combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to better understand how these dynamics are experienced by different groups and across different contexts.
