《ICS：2024我們的凈零脫碳之旅：英國綠色轉型家庭與社區參與研究報告（英文版）（114頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《ICS：2024我們的凈零脫碳之旅：英國綠色轉型家庭與社區參與研究報告（英文版）（114頁）.pdf（114頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、Our journey to net zero:Understanding household and community participation in the UKs transition to a greener futureReport sharing findings and recommendation from a two-year programme of research|February 2024Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 20242Funded by the

2、 Nuffield FoundationThe Nuffield Foundation is an independent charitable trust with a mission to advance social wellbeing.It funds research that informs social policy,primarily in education,welfare,and justice.The Nuffield Foundation is the founder and co-funder of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics,

3、the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.The Foundation has funded this project,but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the Foundation.Website:www.nuffieldfoundation.orgTwitter:NuffieldFoundAuthorsSamanthi Theminimulle(Institute for Communit

4、y Studies),Tania Carregha(Institute for Community Studies),Emily Morrison(Institute for Community Studies),Lucie Middlemiss(University of Leeds),Carolyn Snell(University of York),Yekaterina Chzhen(Trinity College Dublin),Kelli Kennedy(University of York).This research was done in partnership with th

5、e University of Leeds,University of York and Trinity College Dublin.The authors would also like to thank members of our Advisory Group:Alex Beer,Patrick Gould,Liz ODriscoll,Prof.Jane Wills,Andrew Richmond,David Craine,Helen Stockton,Dr Elizabeth Blakelock,Prof.Jane Robinson,Jonathan Bradshaw,Amelie

6、Trepass,and Harriet Thompson.We would also like to extend thanks to Anne Owen(University of Leeds),Gill Main,Richard Harries(The Young Foundation),Jess Moore(The Young Foundation)and Helen Goulden(The Young Foundation).About the Institute for Community StudiesThe Institute for Community Studies is a

7、 research and evidence centre with people at its heart.We believe that involving communities leads to better decision-making.Powered by the not-for-profit organisation,The Young Foundation,we work to influence positive change,bridging the gap between communities,research,and policymaking.Website:ics

8、tudies.org.ukTwitter:icstudiesukAcknowledgementsContentsConclusion93Bibliography94Executive summary4Presentation of approach,findings and recommendations from this research.Introduction11The existing policy and research landscape of transition,key terms,and frameworks.Research objectives and methodo

9、logy14Understanding the value of lived experience and community voice in research about net zero.Section one:Towards a just transition16Understanding fairness,justice and inclusion within transition to net zero.Section two:Changes we expect under net zero24Understanding scenarios for net zero and th

10、eir impact on households and communities.Section three:Understanding participation today36Presenting the findings of research with the community panel on readiness to participate in transition.Section four:Policy implications and recommendations79Understanding what this means for designing effective

11、 household and community policy for transition.Section five:Towards an integrated system to deliver net zero88Proposing a different,system-based approach to deliver net zero with and for the public and communities.Annex A:Methodology103Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I Fe

12、bruary 20244Executive summaryReaching the UKs decarbonisation goals requires the participation of everyone,in all parts of the UK.But it carries risk,due to the need for large-scale change in how we live,spend,travel,work,eat and have fun.Current debates about the transition to net zero focus mainly

13、 on industry and technological solutions.There is a lack of discussion,evidence and policy that addresses real,human questions about the action needed from different households and communities,different sectors and places,and the impacts that transition will bring.This is a significant gap when esse

14、ntially,transition to net zero requires change by households to every area of life.The research documented in this report aims to change where the debate currently sits,to bring to the fore the human impacts,and positive opportunities for communities,of net zero transition.A just transition seeks to

15、 ensure that the benefits of net zero transition are shared widely and to mitigate harms or provide support to those who stand to lose.However,if policymakers fail to consider the distribution of costs and benefits,and to organise policy to fairly deliver the impacts and opportunities of transition

16、across households and communities,there is a risk that existing inequalities in society will be exacerbated,and new ones created.This research develops and explores scenarios for how the transition to net zero might affect households and communities.It identifies where there are chances of unequal i

17、mpacts or risks of households being left behind,and the barriers to and opportunities for households taking part in a just transition.It also finds many opportunities for how participation in low-carbon living can be built across different areas of household and community life and shows the potentia

18、l,positive benefits people see transition having for their lives at home,their local communities,and their experience of fairness in how key areas of life are organised.Undertaken by the Institute for Community Studies at The Young Foundation,the University of York,the University of Leeds,and Trinit

19、y College Dublin,the first stage of the research brought together,for the first time,in-depth participatory primary research,a systematic review of the poverty and social justice literature,with literature and data on scenarios of change towards the UKs net zero future.Findings were then shared with

20、 local government and with communities in four local authorities in a process of policy co-production,looking at what incentives,levers and policies might unlock greater,inclusive participation in transition.This process produced an original framework for use by policymakers,profiles of households a

21、nd communities most at risk,and key recommendations for what a different system to support people through transition could look like.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 20245Through this work,our research presents a framework to support policymakers,investors and c

22、ivic actors to strategically and collectively plan for a just transition.The framework prioritises how to achieve fairness outcomes alongside decarbonisation in the necessary,collective shift to low-carbon living required for a sustainable future for the UK.It is intended to support policymakers,inv

23、estors and civic actors to strategically plan for and manage a just transition,in a way that unlocks households capabilities for transition and identifies pathways to build inclusive,fair participation.Figure 1 presents this framework,below.A person-centred,place-based framework for policymaking in

24、net zero transition Figure 1:A person-centred,place-based approach to supporting household and community capability for net zero.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 20246The framework demonstrates the need for a radically different approach to shaping policies for

25、a just transition.It presents what we call a person-centred,place-based approach that accounts for the variable opportunities and risks faced by different households and communities.The framework is built from understanding in the round how areas of life will change for households in transition to n

26、et zero and the way the risks of exclusion,types of participation,and mediating effect of place and community conditions interact to make change harder or easier.As achieving the UKs decarbonisation goals requires action from every household,person-centred means we focus on policy that offers a numb

27、er of necessarily differing pathways to build inclusive,fair participation across all households.Our research also recognises that people have intersecting barriers to participation that need to be removed for them to participate.Place-based reflects that households exist within local communities,wh

28、ich have different social,economic and infrastructural conditions that make net zero transition and those pathways to participation more or less accessible.This approach recognises that changes in each area of life will be shaped by peoples ability to participate,which is in turn affected by the hou

29、sehold they are part of,and the features of their community,including social and geographic factors.Moreover,peoples vulnerabilities to change in different areas of life are found to be interdependent in the context of net zero transition.Where a household faces greater pressure in one area(eg,incre

30、ased food or energy prices)this will have knock-on effects to their access to and agency for change in other areas of life(such as greener transport or leisure activities).Applying the framework to design policy with communities therefore helps us understand the interconnectedness of the areas of li

31、fe affected by net zero,and see where removing one key barrier,or putting in place one key policy lever,can unlock multiple low-carbon choices and build participation.Applying the framework as part of a policy process enables policymakers to:understand key profiles of household and communities at ri

32、sk;recognise different starting points to making low-carbon choices for households;identify different pathways for participation where barriers need to be removed;prioritise opportunities to build participation that can in turn be designed into policy.The key findings and policy recommendations for

33、each part of the framework are as follows.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 20247Risks of exclusion from net zero transition Without change to existing policy and strategies around transition,the evidence and data reviewed in this research finds multiple existing

34、 inequalities will entrench or fluctuate throughout transition,and new,unique inequalities will emerge and need to be addressed.We already find that even working and once managing families have struggled with the recent increases in food and fuel prices.Families facing such struggles are less able t

35、o make low-carbon choices because they do not have the resources,financial or social security,or time,required for such behavioural change.There is little evidence that current national government schemes focused on the poorest households work at all,with support for upfront costs for investing in t

36、he majority of forms of household decarbonisation unattainable.The evidence in this report shows if these households are left behind running old technologies and inefficient energy systems whilst other households switch;or if they cannot change to low-carbon diet,work,shopping and leisure options;th

37、ey will likely face higher costs,deepening economic inequalities.If they are unable to access the means to retrofit homes or to change from polluting vehicles to electric cars or green public transport,the same households may also incur penalties and tariffs.These are just two parts of a poverty pre

38、mium emerging around net zero,meaning households who cannot take part pay more and incur more volatile financial risk;whilst households who can share the cost of adaptation with government schemes or financing,avoid penalties and see reduced costs over time.As indicated above,financial struggles,spe

39、cifically spending power,debt,and credit ratings,have the greatest impact on enabling or restricting meaningful participation.As high-carbon job markets close and economies shift to green sectors,the risks of exclusion from the current lack of reskilling opportunities for poorest households,are two

40、additional economic exclusion factors affecting household transition to net zero.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 20248Despite the political commitment to net zero being uncertain and in flux at national government level,our research finds a majority of househol

41、ds and communities want to see change towards a greener future and to understand their routes to participate.This research reveals compounding factors are making vulnerable households and communities willing to participate in transition.Extreme weather impacts,and experiences of fluctuating living s

42、tandards,budgets and security in the cost-of-living crisis,are all contributing to the urge to see change and leadership towards net zero.Taking an approach that recognises household agency,we conceptualise that the changes in each area of life that are required to reach net zero will be shaped by p

43、eoples ability to participate.Household participation in net zero can be characterised as falling into four different categories:economic;social;civic and political;and employment,education and skills.How readily a household can participate in each of the different areas of life,determines how a hou

44、sehold can envisage,afford and choose to engage in transition.This is a core part of the person-centred framework we propose from this research.Participation is also empowered or constrained by the features of community,including social and geographic factors.This research finds varying levels of pl

45、ace readiness for net zero across local authorities and hyper-local places in the UK and proposes how a comprehensive Readiness Index for assessing local places can be developed.The structural and infrastructural conditions;composition,diversity and legacy of industry,housing and the local economy;c

46、ommunity assets,community strength and social infrastructure;and crucially the agency communities themselves hold all mediate or accelerate how easily households can participate in net zero transition.Participation of households and communities in net zero transition Enabling economic participation

47、underpins all the other areas of participation by which households can reach net zero.Our research shows if the economic barriers to low-carbon choices are removed,and the economic risks to households of changing their homes,transport choices and ways of life are accounted for by financial schemes a

48、nd incentives,then households feel more able tomake low-carbon choices in the home.We also find economic participation will enable households to feel they can participate more actively in all other aspects of participation(civic,social and education/skills)and change necessary to decarbonise their l

49、ives.Our research also found many other levers for change that can transform households capability to engage with low-carbon living and facilitate them to participatein net zero transition.From community-led housing retrofit to micro sharing economies at neighbourhood level;to shared,local plans ove

50、r green space use opportunities are many.However,they are currently underappreciated and underused by governments and not considered as a part of net zero policy or approaches.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 20249From our findings,we can identify and recommend

51、how policy,systems,local institutions and communities,and households themselves,can take collective action within a just transition to net zero.The research contributes a framework to support policymakers,investors and civic actors to strategically plan for and manage a just transition in a way that

52、 unlocks households capabilities and identifies how to build inclusive,fairer outcomes.We propose this requires clear division of responsibilities and accountabilities across multiple layers of devolution and government,and by diverse sets of actors,working towards net zero.This is because our frame

53、work shows factors that either leverage or create barriers to participation are interdependent at the household level,and households capabilities are in turn constrained or enabled by the infrastructure,economy,governance system and characteristics of the places they are part of.Building fairer outc

54、omes requires the participation of households in the design of policy and schemes to support net zero transition,in order to understand the barriers and risks in the round that could occur from policy choices.This requires more than just community voice in consultation it needs processes of policy e

55、ngagement designed and accessible at hyperlocal and local level.Our research provides a Methods Playbook as a toolkit for some approaches we have found to work.Taking collective action to support participation in net zero transitionWe find a lack of information is holding back participation.Consiste

56、nt,trusted information campaigns are needed to inform and drive the types of participation needed from households and communities.The research indicates the importance of reinforced,consistent messaging from government,local government,and from key actors who carry influence and leverage such as emp

57、loyers on areas for household action.Our research also finds that schools,colleges,social networks and community infrastructure in many places,are already supporting peoples climate and consumption literacy and creating the intergenerational support and cooperation we find households need to take th

58、e steps towards sustainable living.However,these key civic institutions,and households and communities themselves,are disconnected from policymakers leading net zero,meaning the efforts in each individual silo are failing to add up to the collective action that could accelerate a just transition.Reg

59、ionalOur journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202410Key recommendations from this research Apply the framework of a person-centred,place-based approach to policy development at local and national government level.Revisit existing net zero policies particularly those wit

60、h limited or unfair uptake to identify how these are being constrained by,or could be enabled better by,the person-centred approach;and consideration of the levers or barriers of local environments.1National policy should remove the most significant barriers for the poorest households and take a per

61、son-centred approach to design economic incentives that support participation in transition.Policies for economic support must account for households whole spending power and budget constraints,and a whole-household foundational grant should be provided to the poorest to enable home adaptation.2Expl

62、ore alternative levels of governance for net zero policy with distributed powers.3We propose an integrated system for a fair transition,with policy built within place around both decarbonisation and fairness aims,based on the integrated care system,with clear strategies for distributed effort across

63、 local authorities,employers,anchor institutions and communities.Engage households and communities in the design of fairness outcomes.4Local government and key civil society actors need to engage communities in place-focused,inclusive debates on what fairness outcomes look like during,and as a resul

64、t of,net zero transition.Government should recognise and engage the role of other trusted actors.6Local employers are found on the majority to be key influencers of participation for households in making low-carbon choices;alongside research identifying a greater role for investors and the private s

65、ector in enabling greater upskilling and transition into the green economy.Local leaders,civic actors and investors should adopt a data-driven,place readiness approach.5Local government need to make investment in place evidence-led on the basis of addressing areas of capacity and vulnerability in ne

66、t zero,so in-bound investment and action is targeted to accelerate net zero.Update the existing Climate Change Committee(CCC)Risk Assessment.7Extend the existing CCC Assessment to fully account for place,expanding its current scope beyond hard infrastructure,and accounting for a much greater set of

67、social,asset-based,social infrastructure measures.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202411IntroductionTo date,the transition to net zero has mainly been thought about in terms of technical change to policy and systems,rather than the impacts it will have on peopl

68、es lives or the communities they live in.The research presented in this report seeks to challenge this perspective:by exploring how all households,communities and places can participate in the transition to net zero.This research stems from hearing repeatedly from communities that the UKs journey to

69、 net zero lacks a local narrative.Over two-thirds of UK households fear being left behind in transition,and the majority of families struggle to draw transition down to a local level to understand how it will affect their lives and how they can engage to make low-carbon changes(Institute for Communi

70、ty Studies,2020).Net zero transition requires mass engagement to be successful,within a short but sustained time horizon.This is important both to reach the decarbonisation necessary in all areas of life and society,but also to ensure people are not left behind by the fundamental changes that must h

71、appen in order to become a green society.We argue that supporting public participation in net zero,and ensuring that net zero policies do not produce unwanted,harmful or unfair impacts on people,are critical and intertwined parts of policy for a just transition.Recognising that different actors hold

72、 different roles and powers in the transition,the findings shared in this report intend to support the ecosystem of people and institutions who hold power and decision-making over net zero transition.We understand this ecosystem as made up of many:those designing policy,strategy and incentives in na

73、tional and local government,those supporting different groups to take action at home,hyper-locally and through support programmes and campaigns in the voluntary and community sector;and those working to transform homes,services,infrastructure and systems within place through public-private partnersh

74、ip.The findings and recommendations seek to support this ecosystem to work inclusively with households and communities to build participation and to ensure no place or household is left behind in transition.In particular,the research seeks to encourage these actors to integrate and mitigate the risk

75、s of social exclusion into their planning and policy development.Conversely it also seeks to inform all these actors how to maximise equality of participation and fairer outcomes in how places and people experience and progress to reach net zero.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommenda

76、tions I February 202412Neither the magnitude and breadth of change in the way peoples lives are lived,nor the potential for unequal impacts on different households and communities,are currently emphasised in policy,in evidence-based comment,or in political visions of net zero.Yet,the disadvantages t

77、hat may happen to different groups,such as the question of the human impact of tariffs on non-electric cars for those households who are car-reliant,but cannot afford new technology,are frequently emphasised by those who are against transition to net zero,sometimes provoking political flashpoints an

78、d civic revolts concerning rights and freedoms.A good example is recent discussion around low emissions zones,leading to so-called protest votes in a local by-election.The lack of a strong,positive narrative from government is creating a space for transition policy to be misunderstood and mobilised

79、against the chance for positive change.This risks polarising communities on environmental policy and holding back political leadership.Similarly,existing research and engagement is typically limited to a focus on one dimension of change(eg,transport),often narrowing discussions to technical risks or

80、 public perception.Our research departs from this,working directly with households and local communities at risk of being left behind in the transition,to build rich and detailed accounts of what meaningful participation would look like in the context of different peoples everyday lives.Existing and

81、 emerging inequalities will shape who is adversely affected by both climate change and mitigation measures.This necessitates deep reflection on the risks of how net zero policy is designed.Our research aims to facilitate a just transition,as well as the eventual goal of reaching a fairer,sustainable

82、 society.This means we consider how to achieve the decarbonisation necessary to reach net zero while seeking to ensure fairness.It is vital that net zero transition does not become a discriminatory process;that no one is excluded or left behind.Identifying risks of social exclusion is therefore,crit

83、ical.Equally,recognising trade-offs between different areas of life,and different policy designs,will be necessary to mitigate such risks.The potential unintended consequences of decarbonising supply chains,infrastructure and home environments for entrenching social inequalities are profound.As such

84、,in this research,we seek to find ways to reconcile decarbonisation and justice outcomes across all areas of policy.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202413In this report,we introduce a person-centred,place-based approach to the UKs transition to net zero,conside

85、ring the multiple and intersecting impacts of low carbon policies,and peoples ability to meaningfully participate.We articulate the different areas of everyday life that are likely to be affected,built inductively from our analysis of scenarios for net zero transition.We used this approach to enter

86、into dialogue with people from neighbourhoods in Leeds and Newcastle,sharing with them the existing visions of net zero in the public domain.We asked them to reflect on the likely impacts the wide-ranging changes expected under net zero might have on their everyday lives and the agency,or lack there

87、of,they have to affect this.It is well understood that changeextremely rapid social changeis the most important fact of life today(Nolan and Lenski,2011,p.xiii).We consider net zero transition to be a significant if not the most significant,all-encompassing process of social change since the industr

88、ial revolution.Our research draws together how macro,micro and psychological dimensions intersect:in family life,and in local communities,and places.We also foreground the notion of agency through a capabilities approach,looking at what people must do in transition,and the assets,resources and agenc

89、y they have or do not have to participate.The rest of this introduction sets out our research objectives and methodology.Section one introduces our conceptual person-centred,place-based approach which has been developed from findings from an extensive evidence review and primary research,and which w

90、e put forward as valuable to others engaging in research and policymaking on the transition to net zero.Section two presents our analysis of the changes we expect to see in order to achieve net zero,and our assessment of how these will affect households and local communities.This assessment is taken

91、 from the existing evidence base through the extensive evidence review we conducted for this project.Section three presents our findings from the secondary and primary research.Section four puts forward policy recommendations in support of a person-centred,place-based approach for a just transition.

92、Finally,section five proposes a plan for a different,integrated system that could deliver on these recommendations.Introducing a new approach to policymakingOur journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202414Research objectives and methodologyResponding to the research aims

93、,the research sought to address the following research questions:1How can we systematically evidence the current and anticipated impact of the transition to net zero on households and communities?2How can we understand different profiles of risk and capability in households and communities to guide

94、local and national policy considerations in welfare and net zero transition?3How can we collectively understand and mitigate the inequalities of social,economic and wellbeing impacts on households and local communities in the transition to net zero?4How can we identify and understand the interaction

95、s of community and place-based factors to the vulnerabilities and risks for households during net zero transition?Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202415The research took a mixed-methods approach.An extensive review of existing evidence was undertaken,to underst

96、and the possible impact of scenarios of transition on families.For the purpose of consistently modelling the challenge of decarbonisation for families and how this would vary according to social and spatial inequalities,we found it was essential to select households as the unit of analysis that repr

97、esents the family in this study.We appreciate that most families do not live in single household structures,and our review of the evidence therefore also explores what is known about relationships between families and how this may be affected by transition to net zero.The participatory research we c

98、onducted with representatives within communities then also explores familial structures and interdependencies between household units,in order to overcome the limitation of the majority of relevant statistical and survey data being organised per household.Some 375 pieces of evidence were reviewed,br

99、inging together a technical literature base around the policy changes needed to reduce carbon emissions and the policy instruments most likely to achieve this(eg,subsidies,taxation,etc),with literature on environment and climate justice,social policy,social inequalities,and social exclusion.The revi

100、ew of literature sought to understand the impacts on families and communities and consider how to reconcile or mitigate these within transition.Secondary survey data analysis referenced in the literature was used to identify how the carbon footprint and,therefore,the challenge of decarbonisation,var

101、ied between different profiles of households.Finally,secondary survey analysis of the UK household carbon footprint survey;ONS surveys;Understanding Society and the Community Life Survey was also conducted to understand what is already known about individual,household and community capacity to engag

102、e in the transition to net zero.Seeking to fill the gap between integrating social policy insights about inequalities today,and policy to bring about net zero futures,findings were distilled into a conceptual framework orientated around participation.The framework set out to identify opportunities a

103、nd barriers to household and community participation,that would enable action towards decarbonisation,mitigate negative net zero policy impacts on households,and increase fairness and justice in the transition to net zero.In depth primary research was undertaken to test the validity of the conceptua

104、l framework and ground it in lived experience.This involved repeatedly engaging over 100 people living across seven urban neighbourhoods in the north of England as a panel,through neighbourhood level workshops.Given the transition to net zero today is not explicitly grounded in principles of inclusi

105、on and social justice,the primary research sought to respond to the reality that those who might be defined as vulnerable are often denied full participation in research(Aldridge,2016),by adopting qualitative participatory research approaches.People taking part in the research attended three compens

106、ated workshop sessions,which prioritised mutual learning and building autonomy amongst participants(Vaughn and Jacquez,2020).Those we worked with represented a range of family and household economic and social circumstances,with a particular focus on financial precarity.A more detailed account of ou

107、r approach and methodology can be found in Annex A.We recognise that research and policy often risk leaving out the experiential knowledge of those considered vulnerable,overlooking contextual and needs-orientated insights about their experiences(Goedhart et al,2021).As such,we have developed a meth

108、ods playbook,sharing our approach and lessons learned,for the benefit of other practitioners and policymakers.This can be found in Annex B.This group is the first time anyone has asked my opinion on net zero.Participant,LeedsOur journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 2024

109、16This section introduces the conceptual approach we have developed to understand the risks of social exclusion within existing net zero transition policies.Our approach aims to build understanding of how fairness outcomes can be managed during,and as a result of,transition,and proposes a person-cen

110、-tred,place-based framework for supporting household participation in a just transition.The framework has been developed from the findings of the extensive evidence review,and refined using insights from primary research.It is intended to be valuable to,and applied by,national and local policymakers

111、,to design policies that empower participation whilst reconciling fair outcomes for house-holds on the journey through net zero transition.Towards a just transitionSECTION ONEOur journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202417Participation for a just transition tonet zeroEf

112、fective participation that accounts for different barriers to taking part,is the key to ensuring no families and communities are left behind during a transition to net zero.As this research focuses particularly on the poorest households,it is important to remember that these households have particul

113、ar challenges that may already exclude them from participation in society(Lister,2004).Their active participation is fundamental to achieving social inclusion within our society,as explained in Levitas et al(2007).Taking this logic and applying it to the concept of a just transition that foregrounds

114、 fair and inclusive outcomes for all,means the poorest and most disadvantaged families and communities must be able to remain active and involved participants in our society as we experience the shift towards new and different ways of living sustainably.Having established that all households and com

115、munities must be active participants in net zero if we are to realise a just transition,we can then ask the question what can people do to contribute to achieving this aim in an asset-based,rather than deficit-based,way.All households can make changes,if they have the resources and the agency to mov

116、e towards low-carbon living,but they must be enabled to do so.We need to ask what barriers they face,and what opportunities can be provided,to enable them to move towards net zero living.At the same time,we must acknowledge that the skills,capacity,resources and access to opportunities of households

117、 and communities can and will change over time,affording greater or lesser risks of inclusion and taking part.There is a risk that we see the process of transition as a series of static,isolated moments in time and the status of households ability and accessibility to take part as finite.The opportu

118、nities to participate and the risks of exclusion will change as economies,infrastructure and the ways we need to live our lives adapt to meet decarbonisation targets and to mitigate climate impacts.For this,we integrate the work of Sen(1999)namely,the capabilities approach.This considers how the opp

119、ortunities to which people have access are made feasible,or are constrained,by personal and external factors,and that this is a constantly changing process.Building on Lister,and integrating Sen and Levitas,offers a conceptual understanding by which people gain resources,capacity and choice to take

120、part in a societal shift as fundamental as transition to net zero(Sen,1999).This goes beyond the current,dominant discussions in the academic and policy literature about engaging the public in net zero policies,which have foregrounded behavioural change as the dominant concept,and nudging or complia

121、nce with net zero measures as the principal approach.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202418Furthermore,it is important that communities and households understand that they have agency alongside choice political and otherwise to determine how they live and parti

122、cipate in a green society;that they are able to build a life they see value in,that is also low or carbon neutral,and have agency to shape their households and communities futures.The changes needed to reach net zero will become evident in all aspects of peoples lives as the UK moves towards decarbo

123、nisation;but if access to transition is to be fair and equitable,then people must have choices about how this is achieved.We understand this as a trade-off,between reaching the levels of decarbonisation necessary and protecting fair outcomes for peoples lives,which can be managed more fairly with th

124、e voice and participation of the households and communities it affects.In drawing together the literatures on fairness,social exclusion and inclusion,and the literature on capabilities for participation,we can see that participation is a powerful lever of change by which vulnerable households and co

125、mmunities can more inclusively reach net zero.We begin to see participation is a process that can unlock opportunities for households and communities to move towards net zero,transforming nascent or low participation starting points into a powerful movement towards decarbonisation,on fair terms.Take

126、n together,the conceptual framework we present in this study provides new,people-centred grounds for understanding what the risks and opportunities are in net zero,and a new approach for policymakers and leaders to act through,to accelerate the transition of households and communities to net zero.Ou

127、r journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202419To create a comprehensive view of participation in everyday life,first,we consider four key ways in which people interact in society:economic;social;political and civic;and through education and employment(Levitas et al,2007)

128、.The following examples show how the four types of participation materialise in the transition to net zero,as identified in the existing evidence base.What does participation look like in the transition to net zero?Social participation Taking part in common social activities that use energy,produce

129、waste or require travel-including leisure or culture opportunities.Holding meaningful social roles including decision-making over energy use and spend on food,fuel or how the home is run.Travelling to take part in other social activities.Using public and green spaces.Economic participation Making ec

130、onomic decisions to reduce carbon emissions,which requires spending power and the ability to take financial risks.Making upfront investments in technology that contributes to the reduction of carbon emissions,which requires access to capital or affordable credit.Access to decent paid employment.Abil

131、ity to withstand budget change,through personal and household financial resilience.Civic and political participation Having a say about the transition to net zero,including through voting and peaceful,lawful protest.Participation in formal engagement mechanisms around the transition to net zero(eg g

132、overnance processes,citizens juries).Access to trusted information about how the net zero transition will happen,which in turn requires digital access and access to civic spaces.Education,employment,and skills participation Access to knowledge,training,and life skills to adopt low-carbon behaviours.

133、Acess to education and(re)training to take up jobs in a low-carbon economy.Access to educational materials and information about the transition to net zero,including online and in local communities.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202420From the evidence base,we

134、 understand that participation is affected by household and community characteristics and conditions.Our approach therefore focuses on what people can and cannot do at different points and times,with the resources available to them.This means we can both see where people have agency(are able to part

135、icipate)and understand the structural constraints that prevent peoples capabilities for participation(Emmel,2017).Looking at opportunities for participation helps us to understand the interconnectedness of the areas of life affected by net zero,and see what affects the ability of people,households a

136、nd communities to engage or not with changes to low-carbon practices.Bringing these ideas together with the findings from our literature review,we characterise in Figure 2,a person-centred,place-based approach to net zero.What we mean by areas of life How people are affected by the transition to net

137、 zero will depend on how and where they live,where they work and their occupation,what they eat,what they do in their free time and how they spend their money.We use language that can be understood by people who are not experts in the field.For instance,where we go is more intuitive than mobility or

138、 transport.Further,we know that people visualise their own lives in this way thinking about home(where we live)and leisure(what we do for fun)as being associated with different needs,having various resources or monetary costs associated with them,and having a range of priorities in decision-making a

139、nd budgeting.Figure 2:A person-centred,place-based approach to net zero;showing the interconnectedness of the areas of life affected,individual,household and community characteristics.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202421This approach recognises that changes i

140、n each area of life will be shaped by peoples ability to participate,which is in turn affected by the household in which they live,and the features of their community,including social and geographic factors.Moreover,changes in one area of life will affect the ability of individuals,households and co

141、mmunities to participate in change in other areas.Where a household faces greater pressure in one aspect(eg,increased food or energy prices)this will have knock-on effects in other areas of life(such as mobility or leisure).The person-centred,place-based approachshows that households and communities

142、 are taken as two critical and intimately linked forms of social relations,that shape peoples ability to take action,and affect their associated vulnerability in the contexts of changes happening in their life.Policymakers and those acting towards transition need to acknowledge that households;their

143、 resources;and decision-making constraints,are all inter-related.Households intersect with communities,and people have agency in both spaces depending on their circumstances(Hargreaves and Middlemiss,2020).The changes expected in the transition to net zero need to consider the quality of peoples soc

144、ial relations as potential mitigating or leverage factors to support their agency for change,as well as the potential impact of policy changes on these relations(ibid).Accounting for place conditions that make transition easier or harder for households within a location is then important.The place c

145、onditions that make transition easier or harder may be due to availability and proximity of green and public infrastructure,services,green spaces,and amenities;to the diversity,resilience and green potential of the local economy;or to the existence of assets,engagement structures,and social infrastr

146、ucture that support trusted information sharing,civic engagement and the enabling of agency.All are identified in the existing evidence base,even if how they will affect the efficacy of local net zero strategies is not currently discussed in the round.This is a further gap that this research seeks t

147、o contribute to.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202422What could greater,more inclusive participation mean for transition policy?Understanding participation through the person-centred,place-based approach helps identify opportunities for policy to respond more

148、effectively,to build in greater inclusivity and wider participation in the transition process.It allows us to cut across the usual presentation of the role of individual behaviours and public choices in net zero,which is typically only shown through distinctive policy areas,such as housing or transp

149、ort.Instead,participation allows us to consider the more rounded impacts transition could have on peoples lives;and also a more holistic sense of the potential benefits.For example,transition to a more sustainable way of life is likely to improve peoples sense of wellbeing,or make them more involved

150、 in their community,thereby reducing any feelings of isolation.It may also have a positive effect on their social mobility through improved education,employment and participation in the green economy locally.We must also acknowledge via the integration of Sens(1999)work on capabilities,the need to e

151、nsure people can lead full and dignified lives and sustain engagement through the decades-long period of net zero transition.Sens work highlights equity,and the integration of this enables us to consider how to mitigate the risks of entrenching inequalities or backsliding during transition,as well a

152、s how to achieve fairer social,economic,place and equity outcomes.But we also need to look beyond this.There is a foundational need for greater inclusivity,which connects participation to the fundamental rights of citizenship and to the social contract that should determine how the UK collectively r

153、eaches a fairer,more sustainable society(Arnstein,2007;McBride,2012).This relates to the need for policy and political decision-making,including net zero policy,to take a do no harm principle,if the social contract is to be maintained between people and government.Central to the human dimension of n

154、et zero transition,will be the ability to manage volatility and build collective resilience to protect households and communities from fluctuations or degradations in the decency,quality and cost of living,while empowering lives and livelihoods to take part in becoming carbon neutral.This is importa

155、nt because we understand how economic circumstances,such as poverty,already constrain agency,and specifically restrict a households or communities ability to respond to circumstances that require immediate or shorter-term changes to behaviour,practices or areas of life.The likelihood of these volati

156、le,short term changes alongside the long-term shifts to foundational areas of life such as the efficiency of the home,or the regular mode of transport is amplified in the net zero context because of how significantly and rapidly systems that households rely on have to change from energy,to food secu

157、rity,to the availability of employment.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202423Understanding the transition to becoming a net zero society through a person-centred approach,allows us to understand it as a challenge of ensuring the fullest possible participation i

158、n society.It helps us to tackle the shortcomings of current policy design outlined above,and the consistent failure to take into account existing inequalities within how people and communities experience environmental policy.Importantly,it mitigates the tendency to approach net zero as solely a tech

159、nical,not a social problem.SummaryThe next section discusses scenarios of change expectedunder net zero and how and where they will affect areas of life in households and local communities.It discusses characteristics that variate and exacerbate how certain income groups may be affected,and profiles

160、 how different households and communities may experience changes in the transition to net zero.These different areas of change,and the variations in how households and communities will be affected,need to be understood if we are to respond strategically to the transition to net zero.Our journey to n

161、et zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202424This section summarises findings from our evidence review of what is known about the changes required by households and communities in the transition to net zero.It draws on scenarios of how all areas of life,from economy,to infrastructure

162、,to housing,to community life,need to decarbonise to achieve net zero.These scenarios were informed by the evidence and policy literature and from them,we are able to characterise the expected changes that will affect households and communities,and the likely timeframes they will occur within.From t

163、hese expected changes,we identify key factors of place and community that will affect how easy or hard those changes will be for households to make.This is presented as a new Index of Place Readiness for Net Zero,with 32 factors by which places different starting points and journeys through transiti

164、on can be understood and measured.Changes we expect under net zeroSECTION TWOOur journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202425Identifying key changes in six areas of life The transition to net zero means households and local communities will need to change many aspects of

165、 daily life over a relatively short and continuously shifting timeperiod.This represents a radical social transformation.Decarbonisation in the UK has been described by some as both a unique opportunity and threat(IPPR 2018:3),and several attempts have been made at forecasting scenarios for how a ne

166、t zero future may look.(eg,BEIS,2021;CREDS 2021;Climate Assembly UK,2020;CCC 2021,2020a,2020b).The research we reviewed details the areas of life that are likely to change for people,the expected developments and advancements in technology,and the things people will have to do to meet net zero targe

167、ts.However,these scenarios present a largely uniform vision of life under net zero,which is often technical and focused on discreet policy areas.They do not reflect the diverse experiences of individuals,their families and communities.Looking at transport,for example:there is detailed discussion by

168、the CCC on how to reduce the climate impact of transport systems through a shift from petrol and diesel to electric vehicles,a ban on the sale of new internal combustion engine vehicles in the early 2030s,and the electrification of public transport systems.However,what is rarely discussed in any det

169、ail,is how a day-to-day reduction in mobility,through reduced access to public services or increased remote working for jobs,might affect family life and peoples ability to socialise.Table 1 below presents a summary of what is known from evidence and literature about the changes required across hous

170、eholds and community life,in order to reach the decarbonisation measures needed to achieve net zero.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202426Area of lifeWhere we live Key changes that may be required for the transition to net zero Where we goWhat we eat What we do

171、 for fun More localised energy systems for heating the home Increased home or community-based energy micro-generation Greater use of heat pumps and other energy sources such as hydrogen,or more flexible use of energy Increased used of smart home technology and systems Greater reduction in home energ

172、y use through more efficient appliances How we spend our money Shift away from petrol or diesel to electric vehicles Provision of infrastructure for active travel,such as cycling Provision of green public transport Reduce number,and length,of journeys What we do for work More jobs in the green econo

173、my and fewer in carbon-based industries,such as mining or steel Increased access to(re)training and skilling for green work More flexible,and home,working arrangements Shift towards plant-based or lower-carbon diet Less food waste Reduction in carbon footprint of food,including less packaging and sh

174、ift towards locally sourced and seasonally available foods Changes to agricultural practices to reduce emissions Shift towards local or virtual social and leisure activities Development of infrastructure to increase green social and leisure activity Reduced carbon-intensive activities,such as flight

175、s for overseas holidays Flexible buying and consuming:some high-carbon products become more expensive as a result of taxation,while low-carbon products become cheaper Discontinuation of some products as standards and regulations require lower-carbon production and consumption Preference for househol

176、ds and communities to shop locally to reduce buyer and supply chain carbon emissions Reduction of waste,such as packaging and single use products Table 1:A summary of the changes likely to come about under net zero,summarised from the scenarios created by government,citizens and academics(Climate As

177、sembly UK,2020;BEIS,2021;CREDS 2021;CCC 2021,2020a,2020b).Some of these changes,such as a shift to EVs or retrofitting homes,are already happening(Skidmore,2022).Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202427What we know about peoples starting points for transition to

178、net zero The evidence is clear that net zero transition will lead to potential trade-offs between social,economic and environmental objectives.Both evidence and policy assessment suggest that these objectives are challenging to satisfy concurrently(Gillard et al.,2017;Hasegawa et al.,2018;Hussein et

179、 al.,2013;Robinson and Shine,2018),and there is an urgent need for greater policy integration(Mandelli 2022).As the UK governments own Mission Zero(2022)report notes:transition is not risk free for households and communities.We can see from the evidence that households and communities in the UK do n

180、ot start their journey towards transition from a place of equality.Households have different carbon footprints currently(see Figure 3)and different existing inequalities that affect their quality of life,opportunities,and lived experiences,of the different areas of life where changes will have to oc

181、cur to reach net zero(see Table 2,below).As a result,substantial concerns have been raised about the potential for the transition to net zero to disproportionately impact those already experiencing disadvantages(Caplan,2017;Kennedy and Snell,2021;Snell,2022).If these trade-offs are poorly managed,th

182、e transition risks pushing already vulnerable families and communities further into deprivation,exclusion and crisis.Furthermore,these groups are most likely to be affected by both climate change impacts,and policy choices associated with net zero.Table 2 sets out the existing and new inequalities l

183、ikely to be associated with a transition to net zero.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202428Area of lifeWhere we live Existing inequalitiesWhere we goWhat we eat What we do for fun Poor quality,inefficient,cramped housing(producing energy poverty);housing stock

184、variable across regions and by tenure type(eg,privately rented are in a worse condition).How we spend our money Affordability of private transport,and inaccessibility of public transport;lack of safe,appropriate active travel,such as cycling.What we do for work Limited employment and training opport

185、unities and options.Availability of affordable and nutritious food,such as fresh fruit and vegetables.Affordability and availability of local leisure,such as health clubs and cinemas.Affordability of existing products.New inequalitiesInequalities of what is called flexibility injustice,with resident

186、s locked in to old,increasingly expensive systems and technology;and an escalating digital divide.People forced to retain old vehicles that are increasingly expensive to maintain;lack of access to,and poor EV charging,infrastructure.Unemployment as carbon-intensive industries restructure;area-based

187、decline.More expensive food;risk of stigmatising groups who do not have means to change from cheaper diets.Localising leisure and cultural activities may reduce opportunities for fun and interaction.People with high-carbon needs may have to pay more.Table 2:Existing and new inequalities likely to be

188、 associated with a transition to net zero.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202429To understand the changes that might occur in transition,it is useful to consider the distribution of carbon emissions across different areas of life,and between households with dif

189、ferent characteristics.Differences across income levels are particularly marked.Figure 3 shows the environmental impact of household consumption by income decile,divided into the different areas of life we have identified in our review.1It is clear that environmental impact increases with income.Tho

190、se on the highest incomes(decile 10)have a carbon footprint more than two times larger that of the lowest decile for equivalent household composition.The relationship between income and environmental impact is well known and holds true both within and between nations(Bchs and Schnepf,2013;Hubacek et

191、 al.,2017;Ivanova and Wood,2020;Oswald et al.,2020;Owen and Barrett,2020;Steinberger et al.,2010).Where we live shelter and warmthWhere we go mobilityWhat we eat foodWhat we do for fun leisureSpending power consumables1 Household spends have been equivalised for comparison to show the impact of a tw

192、o-adult household in each decile,the standard household type used by the OECD and UK government when making comparisons by income decile.Figure 3:Equivalised two-adult household carbon footprints(UK-wide,2018 data,Source:Owen,A,University of Leeds).Income decile of householdCarbon footprint per hous

193、eholdOur journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202430We can see lower income households have a lesser carbon footprint,yet emissions do not increase with income across all the areas of life.For instance,in the UK emissions associated with where we live remain largely con

194、sistent regardless of income decile.While this means changes to homes must be consistent across income deciles,they will likely be experienced differently across level of income.For example,low-income households might reduce energy consumption by radically changing consumption habits at home,but hig

195、her-income households might switch to more energy efficient technology(which is often costly),without much change to their consumption habits(Khaykin and Kreacic,2023).In contrast,emissions associated with where we go and what we do for fun vary drastically with income level.The emissions associated

196、 with where we go(through commuting and essential journeys)and what we do for fun(namely leisure and holidays)are almost four and almost five times larger for the highest income decile,than for the lowest decile.The requirement to reduce carbon emissions in these aspects of life is therefore unequal

197、 across households of different incomes.Changes to where we go and what we do for fun would require change that is proportional to current use level.For example,between 2006 and 2018,20%of households in the UK took 75%of flights,with much of the discrepancy in use associated with wealth(Bchs and Mat

198、tioli,2021).Here we have demonstrated differences in the experiences of the transition to net zero across income.However,other existing inequalities for example gender,race and ethnicity,disability,age,education,citizenship status and geography are all highlighted within the literature as factors th

199、at may mediate how people experience change.Community is also acknowledged as an organising force.At the local level,capacity,assets,information flows,social ties and community strength may mediate positively or negatively households cooperation with,and capability to participate in,net zero.The dis

200、tribution of local and national government resources over the last 10 years(Harris et al.,2019),and different approaches to leadership in declaring climate emergencies,has also resulted in a situation where some places and communities are further ahead than others in shaping,determining and implemen

201、ting their transition strategies.Understanding which households are currently contributing more or less to climate change emissions,and in what ways,helps us understand the scale of household change that might be required in order to participate in the transition.It also helps us understand what cha

202、nges in which areas of life require more or less action by which household profiles.Alongside this,reviewing the evidence on existing inequalities helps us assess what capacity,and what barriers,exist,for different households to take action towards shifting to low-carbon living as part of the transi

203、tion.Additionally,household and community inequalities are often embedded,and intertwined with,the inequalities experienced at different scales of place from hyperlocal to regional level(McCann,2016).Indeed,our person-centred,place-based approach highlights the intimate links between household,commu

204、nity,and place.As such,understanding the different starting points across whole places such as neighbourhoods in which households and communities experience daily life,is crucial for enabling more inclusive and widespread participation in net zero transition.Our journey to net zero|Report findings a

205、nd recommendations I February 202431The second phase of our project drew from the likely net zero scenarios and the evidence on how local communities will be affected,to identify whether it was possible to assess how much vulnerability a community had to net zero transition through a data-led approa

206、ch.Through interviews with local authorities and review of the literature,the concept of readiness was raised:with different local places aware they had different starting points for decarbonisation due to their unique make up of infrastructural,economic,housing,population and other factors-but unab

207、le to statistically evidence the scale of the challenge,or to see it in the round.This section introduces the concept of an Index of Place Readiness,which responds to this need to understand and break down the relative and variable challenge for different places to specific factors,and to be able to

208、 measure progress against these factors.Our evidence review finds that transition to a net zero carbon economy will take place within an existing structure of societal inequalities(Caplan,2017;Kennedy and Snell,2021;Snell,2022).This includes deeply entrenched place-based inequalities.The findings fr

209、om the participatory research,shared in the following section,also highlight this and can inform policymakers and those shaping transition strategies.While households and communities participation and readiness are shaped by individual socio-economic and demographic inequalities,they are also deeply

210、 affected by place;in other words,the social and economic factors affecting their neighbourhood,local authority,city,or region(McCann,2016).Disparities between regions in the UK are profound and persistent,with notably high levels of inequality by international standards(Carrascal-Incera et al.,2020

211、;Department for Levelling Up,Housing and Communities,2022;Xu and Overman,2022).Historical macroeconomic shifts,including de-industrialisation and economic crises,have left deep marks on the social and economic fabric of places across the UK.Despite large-scale investment in local economic developmen

212、t and regeneration,research has found there has been no change,on average,in relative deprivation(Institute for Community Studies,2021b;The Young Foundation,2019).At the same time,the Levelling Up White Paper acknowledges that differences within UK regions and cities are larger than differences betw

213、een regions on most performance metrics,referring to differences between individuals and households within a place(Department for Levelling Up,Housing and Communities,2022).These regional inequalities affect the ability of local government to prioritise and resource the transition;both as a policy a

214、rea requiring incentives and resourcing,but also because of other priorities relating to the deprivation,crime,health inequality and poverty an area may face compared to a more affluent place.Additionally,the level of deprivation,the distribution of access to public services and economic opportuniti

215、es,and the availability of community assets determine,structurally and relationally,how well a household can participate in the transition;particularly when it may constrain their access to services,resources and assets from other places which they rely on in everyday life.Understanding different st

216、arting points:An index of readinessOur journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202432To understand how different places have different starting points,a data-based assessment of readiness would be valuable.It would diagnose how well places can access the opportunity of,and

217、 respond to the challenges of,transition to net zero,across different indicators.By readiness,we mean the combined level of perceptions;acceptance;tools,levers and resources,and the agency of the place-based community,to shift to low-carbon living through participation.This will fluctuate and change

218、 over the period of transition,and therefore readiness is dynamic,not static.In the proposed assessment,we acknowledge and account for factors that are determined by local conditions,resources,heritage,and governance(eg,public service infrastructure and quality of housing);structural factors that ar

219、e determined by macro dynamics of power and resources that go beyond just being determined by place(eg,poverty,vulnerability and strength of economy);and agency factors determined by micro dynamics of power and resources,experienced at the person or household level(eg,social relationships,income and

220、 tenure).The performance,condition and interdependency of all these factors can either prohibit or facilitate the unlocking of a communitys capabilities,making transition to net zero easier or harder to achieve.The impact of these factors in some cases are consistent;however,the interdependency of f

221、actors is unique to each place.The technical note in Annex C provides information about the data integration and metrics used to pilot a calculation of readiness in net zero.The aim of the index is to support local policy design,and steer priorities for the distribution of public funding and powers

222、and priorities for investment.This includes intelligence for where public-private partnerships and their Environmental,Social and Governance(ESG)commitments can target their investment to increase a places readiness.It will require collaboration between local authorities and private investment to id

223、entify how to respond to the Index in order to start,or accelerate,a places transition to net zero.It is important to state that understanding place readiness does not reduce the need for foundational support for the poorest households.Our research corroborates the Treasurys assessment(2022)that the

224、 poorest households will need a foundational financial grant to make the big changes necessary to reach net zero.Exploring household barriers to participation with participants adds detail to the understanding of what a foundational support package should entail.A combination of welfare,public educa

225、tion,public finance,and skills-focused support within a policy or scheme for economic support for households might better activate mass participation of the poorest households in net zero transition,rather than the one-off grants for energy switching or boiler upgrades that are currently available.A

226、dditionally,our research has captured the distinctive risks,challenges,opportunities and pathways individual neighbourhoods and local authorities face as they move towards net zero.We have drawn on our findings to identify various metrics(see Table 3)that reflect the different place,structural and a

227、gency factors that affect readiness.Our proposed index goes beyond previous analyses of the spatial distribution of risks and opportunities of different industries,job markets,and regions in transition,to arrive at the hyperlocal level,where these challenges and opportunities are most immediately an

228、d strongly felt.Taking a sample of the 20 Lower Layer Super Output Areas(LSOAs)in other words,neighbourhoods with the highest overall readiness scores,and 20 LSOAs with the lowest overall readiness scores(out of a possible 33,755 LSOAs),this shows those with the highest readiness scores are all in L

229、ondon.However,while many more LSOAs in the south of England have a higher readiness score,the index identified a dynamic beyond the typically cited North-South divide.The 20 LSOAs with the lowest readiness scores are concentrated across coastal areas in the east of England,in particular between Norf

230、olk and the East Riding of Yorkshire,and the east coast of County Durham.This suggests significant shared characteristics and conditions,despite the vast geographical stretch.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202433The findings from this scoping exercise also ind

231、icate common relationships between three different factors at the hyperlocal level.Of the LSOAs with the 20 highest and 20 lowest place factor scores,those with higher place factor scores(average 0.94)had slightly higher structural factor scores(average 0.58)but lower agency scores(average 0.21).Mea

232、nwhile LSOAs with significantly lower place factor scores(average 0.08)had relatively low structural factor scores(average 0.399)but much higher agency scores(average 0.58).This might indicate an inverse relationship between place and agency factors;caused by how places enable or prohibit a househol

233、ds ability to make low-carbon choices.For example,if Place A has really good public transport infrastructure but it is costly,so people with low incomes cannot enjoy it;or place B includes more households with higher spending power but no local,green economy or no choices of low-carbon technology to

234、 spend it on.We have identified some common dynamics such as these,but many are specific to their place,so we would suggest that this is further explored through participatory processes with households and communities,with the aim of understanding the levels of commonality and difference in how diff

235、erent factors of economy,agency and place impact on households participation in net zero transition.1(Least ready)10(Most ready)987659432Figure 4:A heat map visualising the spatial distribution of readiness scores across England.Annex C provides a brief technical note of how these scores were calcul

236、ated.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202434ConstructSpending power:Families experiencing income deprivation,food insecurity and fuel poverty are at greater risk of exclusion because they cant afford to participate in the transition to net zero or have greater f

237、inancial risk aversion as a means of resilience.Metric(s)Inflexible costs:Families experiencing inflexible costs,including costs due to disability and limiting health conditions,or family composition given age/size,face more barriers to adopting changes that would come with transition.Tenure:Familie

238、s face specific challenges to participation depending on their housing tenure and the restrictions it may impose.Private rented tenants,including those living in unlawfully rented properties,and those in temporary accommodation and social rented tenants,will have very limited bargaining power to mak

239、e decisions about changes to their home.Homeowners under leasehold may also face some restrictions regarding what structural changes they can make given freehold or planning restrictions.Agency factorsHousehold income;food insecurity;fuel poverty;disposable income;savings*.Presence of disability or

240、long-term health condition;household composition(size,age)*;proximity to extended family*.Political disengagement:Families and communities who are civically or politically disengaged have poorer access to decision-making mechanisms about how the transition to net zero will affect their lives.Politic

241、al participation;community strength*;residents with non-voting citizenship*.Tenure status.StructuralfactorsEconomic decline:Long-term economic decline will affect how families and communities experience and participate in the transition to net zero across multiple areas of life.This includes how eco

242、nomic decline causes conditions for unemployment,reducing resources available to households,communities and places to manage both current and future decision-making,and leading to political disengagement.Economic decline;job density;unemployment.Public perception and knowledge:Broader negative publi

243、c perception and knowledge of the transition to net zero can reduce participation.This includes details of the transition and related changes,perceptions of fairness and equality,trust in decision-makers,and division of roles and responsibilities.This can also impact on building collective bargainin

244、g power and influencing decision-making.Trust in government*;awareness of net zero*.Table 3:Metrics used to build the Index against the key findings from the research.Marked with an asterisk(*)are metrics desired for inclusion that are currently unavailable at the necessary geographic level.Our jour

245、ney to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202435ConstructMetric(s)Place factorsPhysical connectivity:The transition to net zero will reduce mobility generally and increase dependence on electrified transport systems and active travel,such as cycling.Families and communities livi

246、ng in places that experience poor infrastructure or expensive transport connections,will find it challenging to participate.Access to green space:Families and communities living in places with limited access to public and private green or outdoor space,will be limited in their options for nearby soc

247、ial and leisure activities,and sourcing local food.Housing stock:Some places are populated with homes and buildings that are harder or more expensive to decarbonise,due to the nature of the build or the state of disrepair.Such families and communities are less likely to be able to make the home impr

248、ovements required in transition,such as installing new technology or making structural changes to improve energy efficiency.Access to public transport;EV charging points;active travel infrastructure;ruralness*.Access to green space.Social and community infrastructure:Places with less social and comm

249、unity infrastructure result in families and communities having less social interaction and poor access to public services that might otherwise help them build knowledge,access resources and tools,and manage trade-offs during the transition to net zero.Digital exclusion*;local authority borrowing or

250、debt;community strength*.Net zero-friendly heating;EPC rating;local green energy production*.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202436This section presents the lived experience and household perception of each of the four types of participation in the transition t

251、o net zero,as introduced in Section one.We draw on our person-centred,place-based approach to a just transition,to think about participation comprehensively and how it surfaces in everyday life and practice.Below,we explain what is meant by each type of participation economically;socially;politicall

252、y and civically;and through education and employment.We summarise existing evidence about risks of exclusion from participation across all four types in the short,medium and long-term.We then collate accounts and examples of peoples participation today from the participatory research conducted with

253、the poorest households and communities,drawing out consistencies in how households told us they are currently able to participate,and where there are structural constraints that prevent them in doing so in the context of transition to net zero.Finally,we reflect on what our findings mean for existin

254、g policy interventions that exist today.Our findings paint a comprehensive picture of how the change associated with net zero will impact on households and communities,and what can be done about this.This is intended to help policymakers identify,understand and support two key outcomes in the just t

255、ransition:to mitigate negative net zero policy impacts as outlined in Table 2 of Section two:Changes we expect to see under net zero,and to increase fairness and justice in how families and communities experience the transition and how equitably,and how far,they can take part.Understanding participa

256、tion todaySECTION THREEOur journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202437Economic participationEconomic participation relates to whether or not people can keep up with the cost of changes associated with the transition to net zero.It also considers whether they have the ca

257、pabilities to make economic decisions that enable them to reduce their carbon emissions.Being able to participate economically is about being able to live a decent life(as noted in Table 1 of Section two:Changes we expect to see under net zero).Under net zero,economic participation will involve bein

258、g able to afford change to small purchasing decisions,such as shifting to lower-carbon food sources or greener consumables,as well as large investments in essential home retrofit and new equipment related to the home,transport or energy-saving.To afford the high upfront costs of new low-carbon techn

259、ology households will need capital or affordable credit,flexibility of spending power,and the ability to take financial risks.The size,timescale and pressure on their overall budget impacts the ability of different households to participate.Economic participation is necessary in most of areas of lif

260、e under net zero.Where we live,where we go,what we eat,what we do for fun,and how we spend our money require direct spending by households and any changes to the cost of goods and services will affect households ability to participate.Such changes could be a direct result of policy(the tariff on pla

261、stic bags being a micro but impactful example),or due to changes in markets that make goods,particularly technology more accessible.Equally,access to decent employment that complies with net zero goals,ie,what we do for work,will also shape households ability to participate economically.Our journey

262、to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202438Table 4 summarises the existing evidence on the risks shaping net zero transition in the short,medium and long-term,and the policy instruments that might be used to mitigate these.The Treasurys assessment warns that within each technol

263、ogy transition,there will be a range of factors that affect the degree to which a household could be exposed to costs,and how soon they could experience the benefits of the new,low carbon economy(HM Treasury 2021,6).The key population of concern,with regard to economic participation,is low-income ho

264、useholds,where coping with price fluctuations is hard or impossible.Low-income households might have limited or no money to fund changes to the home or low-carbon choices in transport,lifestyle,housing or even,diet(Gillard et al.,2017).The risk is not exclusive to households which are low income,how

265、ever;other characteristics affect this differently.Some middle-income households that were not previously experiencing financial precarity,might now be due to the rising cost of living in the UK.Focusing on low-income households for the moment,they are unevenly distributed,both socially and spatiall

266、y,across the UK.For instance,higher wages are concentrated in a handful of cities(notably London)and the south of England,while the north of England and some coastal and rural areas have lower average wages(Xu and Overman,2022).The bottom 10%of earners make a similar amount everywhere(8-9 per hour),

267、placing low-income households in high-income regions at a greater disadvantage.What evidence already exists about economic participation in the transition to net zero?Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202439What key risks might emerge?Fuel poverty prevents engage

268、ment with net zeroWhat might some of these risks be,according to the literature?Fuel-poor households are struggling with current aspects of the transition for multiple reasons,exacerbated by socio-economic,demographic and spatial inequalities with evidence of north-south,urban-rural disparities(Calv

269、er and Simcock,2021;Chapman and Okushima,2019;Gillard et al.,2017;Johnson,2020;Kelly et al.,2020;Powells and Fell,2019;Snell et al.,2018a).When might key risks emerge?Present day issues that are holding back the transitionProhibitive cost of upgrading poor quality housingLess energy-efficient homes

270、largely owned by people on low incomes who struggle with higher costs of renovations(LGA,2022).Spatial impacts of fuel poverty indicate north-south and urban-rural inequalities(BEIS 2023).Poverty premium leaving insufficient funds for net zeroLess energy-efficient homes largely owned by people on lo

271、w incomes who struggle with higher costs of renovations(LGA,2022).Spatial impacts of fuel poverty indicate north-south and urban-rural inequalities(BEIS 2023).Rising costs of living leaving insufficient funds for net zero transition measuresHigh cost of basic goods and services hits low-income house

272、holds hardest(Davis et al.,2021).No control over decision making for net zero transitionTenants have to pay more for energy because landlords will not upgrade home due to split incentive(Ambrose et al.,2016).Medium term(within next five years)Financial risk aversion resulting in being left behind Ho

273、useholds are reluctant to invest in risky expensive technology(Calver et al.,2022;Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi,2019;Snell et al.,2018).Prohibitive upfront costs for retrofit and vehicles technology Buying an electric car(Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi,2019),converting heating from gas to electric(Calver e

274、t al.,2022),investing in solid wall insulation is out of reach for low-income households.Financial impact of increasing use of Demand Side Management(DSM)to manage electricity gridFinancial risk of higher energy prices for those who cant engage with DSM(where energy prices are briefly increased duri

275、ng the course of the day).(Adams et al.,2021;Skidmore,2023;Calver and Simcock 2021;Powells and Fell 2019).Long-term(within next 10 years and beyond,as policies interact and accelerate)Rising costs of more desirable,energy-efficient housing Risk of renoviction,green gentrification,and rising rents as

276、 results of increased investment in housing and changing energy regulations(Platten et al 2020;Skidmore,2023;Goulden and Healy,2023).Rising costs associated with electric vehicle gentrification Installation of low-cost electric vehicle charging points in low-income areas can attract wealthy newcomer

277、s,risking disruption and displacement of established communities.Significant spatial impacts(Henderson 2020).Table 4:Key risks shaping economic participation in net zero in the short,medium,and long-term.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202440Potential increased

278、 energy costs associated withnet zeroConcerns that heat pump and hydrogen roll-out has the potential to increase energy costs in the north of England initially(without appropriate intervention).(Savage et al.2021;Scott and Powells 2020).Increased transport poverty as a result of net zeroWhere net ze

279、ro polices are focused on private transport,they could force more low-income households to give up their cars on the basis of cost(Sovacool et al.,2019c).This is described by Henderson as creating a kinetic elite.In terms of leisure,net zero-associated taxes on flying could reduce access to tourism

280、for those on low incomes(BIT,2023).Phasing out of cheaper high-carbon products,and higher financial penalties associated with their use(eg,carbon taxes)resulting in households being left behind Expensive to run and maintain internal combustion engine(ICE)cars and inefficient homes(Simcock et al.,202

281、1;Sovacool et al.,2019c).ICE car owners miss out on green incentives,such as reduced vehicle excise duty(King,2020),congestion charges,and parking charges(BIT,2023).Where financial policy instruments are introduced to encourage low-carbon living(including charges on energy,fuel,clothing,electrical g

282、oods,household goods,food),this could result in skewed or limited food choices for those on low incomes(BIT,2023)Policies to ensure a just transitionPresent day and medium term:Provision of capital funding to households that cannot afford outlay.Investment in infrastructure eg,a large-scale rollout

283、of deep retrofit targeted at the poorest households,to remove the largest cost burden from them.Public and active transport networks.Regulation that penalises non-compliance with net zero policies;and,in turn,regulation that supports take up of new zero schemes(eg,policies that incentivise landlords

284、 to insulate homes;support them to adopt insulation schemes;and finally penalizes them if they do not make homes more energy efficient).Place-based approaches for housing-related issues(NZIPb,2022).Interventions that improve trust or incentivise investment for those who can afford it(eg,one stop sho

285、ps for advice on retrofit(Nice and Sasse,2023).Long-term:Preventative measures so that households are not left behind(see above).Caution taken with regard to carbon taxes and impact on fuel poverty(Berry,2019;Bouzarovski and Simcock,2017;Robins et al 2019).Our journey to net zero|Report findings and

286、 recommendations I February 202441Most people taking part in our research were experiencing some kind of financial uncertainty(see Annex A for more detail on our sampling approach).They expressed fears that the transition would exacerbate any existing financial challenges and economic inequalities t

287、hey faced.Their accounts described struggling to meet the costs of basic needs,reduced spending power,and greater aversion to financial risk.These were all noted as barriers to making changes to low-carbon living,and additional to existing financial coping strategies.The research was carried out dur

288、ing an energy and cost-of-living crisis,which saw consumption-related expenses dramatically increase for many.However,data(Institute for Community Studies,2021)shows economic participation as the highest barrier to taking part in transition likely pre-dates these crises.People taking part in the res

289、earch expressed concerns for low-income families and communities,as well as an emerging group with significantly reduced,disposable income,due to the cost-of-living crisis.Risks to this group were raised given they were often not eligible for grants or government support to make changes and particip

290、ate in the transition,due to the thresholds set.At the same time,participants demonstrated a strikingly high consumption literacy meaning they were aware how much energy they were using and could estimate where the non green parts of their lifestyle exist.In particular,they were motivated to partici

291、pate in changes to the transition to net zero where it created cost-saving benefits,conditional on those changes being accessible to them.Our research identified the following key concerns in relation to building economic participation in net zero transition.What people taking part in the research s

292、aid about economic participation in the transition to net zeroHigh upfront costs,and high running costs of technologies that are not green or sustainableMaking changes to either the energy efficiency of the physical fabric of the home,or to home-based consumption,were the highest areas of interest a

293、nd most frequently discussed issues.Participants gave examples of exercising agency to make changes on the scale that was economically viable for them.This was typically small scale for poorer households(for example,discussing home energy-saving hacks such as bulk cooking,or the installation of draf

294、t excluders).However,most said any changes in transition that required high upfront costs were unattainable.This was mostly discussed in the context of making structural adaptations to the home(double glazing,insulation)and investing in larger-scale,energy-efficient technologies including changes to

295、 home energy sources(electric vehicles,heat pumps,solar panels).Weve done all we can in the house to reduce our energy consumption all I could afford.Ive got a new boiler,but its not the heat pump one because.I cant afford it.Im making draft excluders,Im going to make curtains to some of the doors.n

296、ot turning the heating on and all that.But,of course,thats more economic necessity.I cant afford anything more than Ive done.#2,Neighbourhood 11Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202442Additionally,uncertainty and lack of clarity about the future running costs of

297、new technology was discussed as a barrier to upfront investments.Participants reflected on the risk of future policy U-turns or changes to guidance,and how this reduced appetite today for making investments.This was connected both to trust and to past,lived experience.Many reflected on the guidance

298、on technologies that had changed over the years,such as diesel cars.This reduced their trust in adopting technologies such as electric vehicles and lowered their sense of a likely return on investment.This is despite the promise of personal return on investment,and the drive to contribute personally

299、 to reaching a greener society,being strong drivers for economic participation for many households.The possibility of saving money on monthly costs;and the perception that reaching net zero would have a positive impact on their lives,were also strong drivers.However,many participants had low confide

300、nce that the options for low carbon living,particularly in transport,would not be overturned in the future.This sense that trusted guidance or the expectation of how to make changes might shift,was a strong barrier to economic decision-making and participation.Ongoing fluctuation to living costs as

301、net zero changes come inParticipants shared concerns about the financial implications if households were unable to keep up with the cost of net zero-related changes.They reflected on the cost-of-living crisis and what that exposed about the fragility of our energy,food,fuel,and supply and purchasing

302、 security.The recent experience of rising and fluctuating prices had created these concerns,and those taking part in the research shared the impact this had on their households financial wellbeing.Among most participants,there was a fear of not being able to withstand fluctuating and rising prices i

303、n household budgets.This,coupled with a reduction in household savings,meant basic needs took priority over investment in the transition to net zero,even if such changes would directly benefit them.This was identified as a significant barrier to investing in goods or technology associated with decar

304、bonisation.Its a resource issue.And if you havent got resources,then you can bang on about it all you like but people,you know,cant afford it.They cant afford it.#542,Neighbourhood 6If electric vehicles were.cheaper,I would switch.How do we know if an electrics not going to be,like,more expensive th

305、an gas?How do we know that electric is not going to go up so much as gas is going up,or even more?.It could go sky high.#101,Neighbourhood 22Cost of living and everything has hit us all at the same time.So if you were already struggling if youre already thinking how am I going to feed and heat my ki

306、ds,Im not then replacing anything unless it comes from the charity shop.Net zero is just not going to be possible.#289,Neighbourhood 2Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202443Restricted choice in available capital fundingParticipants did not view government grants

307、 to be widely available or easy enough to access.Further,repayable loans or grant funding to cover a portion of overall costs were not seen as viable options for low-income households.Information about choice was seen as limited,and untrustworthy.While several government grants are currently availab

308、le to make adaptations to the home,a large proportion of people taking part in the workshops did not know about,or had not tried to access,them.Those who had some awareness of financial support available to help to afford new technology towards decarbonisation said uneven access due to strict eligib

309、ility criteria limits the efficacy and take up of grants.This included income and non-income related eligibility criteria.One participant shared the example of not being able to meet the conditions of a grant,because they could not afford to replace all their windows,making them ineligible for a gra

310、nt to install new insulation in their home.Some participants discussed exploring capital funding through non-government funded loans or financed investments.However,they raised that poor credit or low disposable income prevented them from accessing these alternative means.I just worry about this cur

311、rent cost-of-living crisis weve got and whether they.are prepared to invest more because it will cost even more to make all of this happen.Unless they are willing to offer people who cant afford to put in a new heat pump or whatever,its not going to happen.#96,Neighbourhood 1You can be.just 2 over t

312、he limit for being eligible for a government grant.Yeah,my mums in this categorywho finally got the pension.And shes something like 3 over not being able to claim anything at all thats ridiculous.#79,Neighbourhood 1And if I apply for solar panels,first thing,all these companies do a credit search.Th

313、ey do a soft credit search instantly to see if you can afford it.#810,Neighbourhood 23This was strongly felt by low-income households,but was also a consistent finding across different groups engaging in the research.Notably,this included newly struggling households facing high levels of financial p

314、recarity as a direct result of the cost-of-living crisis.This also demonstrated inflexibility of budgets due to income,debt,lack of savings,and dependencies.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202444Split financial incentivesA strong finding across our research was

315、 that those who do not own their homes,particularly private renting tenants,were especially vulnerable to being left behind in the transition,due to the power relations embedded within tenancy relationships.It was consistently raised that tenants have limited capacity to upgrade the energy efficienc

316、y of their home,due to their lack of agency in making financial decisions about their home environment.From peoples experiences,this appeared primarily due to the so-called split incentive where it is argued that landlords,seeing no gains from energy-efficiency improvements in the home,are less like

317、ly to make changes.Split financial incentives also surfaced where participants sought to justify their lack of motivation to participate in changes that would support home decarbonisation.For example,homeowners whose house was expensive or hard to adapt given the nature and quality of the build,incl

318、uding newbuilds,did not feel like they should have the burden of the cost of home energy efficiency improvements.Some participants reported that when they had purchased their homes,it was difficult to find out about the energy efficiency of the property,nor was it something they were aware they shou

319、ld do.Considering that theres so many houses that are rented.the landlord obviously didnt care about us.Even if we ask for things,they dont want to make that investment.I mean,I dont know what the rules are about the new energy performance certificate regulations for rented properties.But yeah,I gue

320、ss its really hard to make landlords pay for.tenants saving on the bill.#81,Neighbourhood 1Its quite hard,I dont really want to rip out the old windows and replace them with double glazing,which costs a fortune.so basically,dont put heating on as much,I put jumpers on.#577,Neighbourhood 74Our journe

321、y to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202445Enabling economic participation by removing economic barriers and improving financial resilience strongly underpins all other types of participation pivotal to achieving the just transition.At the same time,constraints on economic pa

322、rticipation were the most significant barrier raised by participants in enabling households transition to net zero.Low spending power is the most significant factor we identify in our study to achieving fair outcomes and net zero outcomes.If the general economic resilience of low-income households a

323、nd households with high levels of debt is not strengthened,and the widening inequalities between high and low-income households are not addressed,the UK risks a large proportion of households entering transition poverty in addition to the current energy,food and fuel poverty they face.This is acute

324、and poses grave and avoidable justice risks.Transition poverty can be defined as the impact of household budgets not being able to keep up with changing costs associated with net zero transition,impacting on households quality of life and ability to meet basic needs.These costs can be caused by clim

325、ate impacts affecting the market cost and supply of energy,fuel,food and other services,or by net zero policy not accounting for the cost burden to the poorest households of not being able to switch to low-carbon living and therefore how tariffs and fines can push households further into poverty.In

326、particular,given domestic energy use,home adaptation poses the most significant opportunity for unlocking household agency towards participation and achieving household decarbonisation and fairness outcomes.Home inefficiency,and the resulting energy costs,produce the highest carbon footprint for the

327、 poorest households and,as our research shows,create the most significant conditions of poverty and economic risk.SummaryOur findings demonstrate how barriers related to high upfront costs for home adaptation coupled with little or no economic agency due to tight or deficit household budgets create

328、a version of the Matthew effect unique to net zero transition.2 This will only worsen as energy,food and fuel systems go through further periods of crisis and change during transition.Removing the financial burden is highly likely to have a positive impact on net zero goals,and will also have the co

329、-benefit of reducing fuel poverty.An area of life with greater potential for improvement is in increasing households agency to make small but significant changes to consumption,cooking and waste management practices in the home,contributing to goals of household decarbonisation.Yet,policies supporti

330、ng the mass adoption of low-carbon living strategies at household,community and in local areas are at a level that can best be described as unsophisticated.Campaigns focusing on the little things that work to reduce energy costs,which have been prominent since last winter,connect energy-saving measu

331、res solely to the cost-of-living agenda and the potential for household savings,not to reaching net zero.2 The Matthew effect refers to where poorer households accumulate disadvantage,whilst richer households accumulate advantage of social,economic,and in this case faster,lower cost decarbonisation

332、due to their starting points of access or lack of assets.Our journey to net zero|Report findings and recommendations I February 202446While our research showed saving money to be a leverage point for supporting households participation,we also found households taking social and health risks in terms

333、 of going without of heating;adopting unsafe cooking,fuel and heating behaviours;and even attempting DIY insulation measures that may pose fire or safety risks.Constructive,trusted information to regulate and promote safe sustainable household practices is much needed with maintaining fair,decent and healthy standards of life,as well as saving energy,and saving money,needing to be the transparent