Evaluation of the Stockton on Tees ECO scheme Heather Brown & Gulnar Fattakhova
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Evaluation of the Stockton on Tees ECO scheme Heather Brown & Gulnar Fattakhova
Background• Approximately 50% of fuel poor
households live in solid wall properties
More Background• In January 2013, Energy Company Obligation (ECO)
Scheme was meant to herald a step change in deployment of solid wall insulation.
• In December 2012 before it was even fully implemented government decided it was too costly of an energy efficiency measure and scaled it back
• External wall cladding was delivered to 2,252 of the most deprived households spread across 8 of the most deprived wards in Stockton-on-Tees
Aims
• To assess the health and economic benefits of an ECO-
funded external wall cladding scheme in Stockton-on-Tees.
Research Questions
1) Has the ECO scheme made a significant difference to fuel poverty among participating residents?2) Has the ECO scheme made a significant difference to health, health care usage and wellbeing among participating residents?3) Does the ECO scheme provide a significant positive ROI to Stockton council and is it cost-effective?
Study Sample
• A postal questionnaire containing questions on fuel poverty, health related quality of life and health care utilisation was sent out to:
1) Early cladders - 1,149 households that received the intervention in autumn 2012 as part of the first cohort;
2) Late cladders - 1,103 households that have recently received the intervention, as part of the final cohort of this phase of the scheme;
3) Control group – a non-exposed group, consisting of 1,004 households, whose home would otherwise have been eligible for external wall insulation if the scheme continued.
Methods• Compare prevalence of fuel poverty and health related quality of life
between the 2 intervention groups and the control group.
• Return on Investment Model (ROI)• ROI (%) = (Benefits – Investment Costs)/Investment Costs
• Benefits measured as a monetary value and includes health care usage, fuel bills and health related quality of life.
• Cost – (Stockton-on-Tees Council) project costs including both start-up and any ongoing costs of the scheme.
• Dividend - a summary table showing the potential or actual return on the investment that has been made.
• The ROI analysis included early cladders and control group only as it is assumed that early cladders should have received maximum possible benefit from intervention.
Results: Fuel Consumption
Early cladders Control group Benefit
(Adjusted difference between
Control group/Early cladders)
Total fuel
expenditure per
year
£1,596
£1,836
Total fuel saving = £40*12*3,256 =
£1,562,880
(3,256 households)
Results: Health Related Quality of Life
Early cladders Control group Benefit
(Adjusted difference between
Control group/Early cladders)
EQ-5D-3L 0.68 0.73 0.01*£20,000*3,256 = £651,200
(3,256 participants)
Results: Health Care Usage
Early cladders Control group Benefit
(Difference between Control group/Early
cladders)
Outpatient appointments and hospital
admissions
£4,185,665 £3,111,284 -£1,074,381
Medical procedures £887,609 £1,159,201 £271,592
Medication £60,254 £168,008 £107,754
Total £5,133,528 £4,438,493 -£695,035
Return on InvestmentCosts (£) Benefits (£)
Project implementation= £14,780,612 Fuel (gas and electricity combined)= £1,562,880
(£6,251,520 for the period of 4 years)
Maintenance= £0 Health-related quality of life = £651,200
(£2,604,800 for the period of 4 years)
Healthcare = (-) £695,035
(- £2,780,140 for the period of 4 years)
Total costs = £14,780,612 Total benefits = £1,519,045 per year
(£6,076,180 for the period of 4 years)
Dividend (return on investment) (%) =
(Benefits – Costs)/Costs = -59%
So what does this mean
• Evidence of reduction in fuel spending
• No significant improvement in health related quality of life or significant change in health care usage - potentially confounded by sample of respondents
• In terms of cost-benefit analysis negative ROI (project more costly to implement than returns received)
Taking this forward/Points for discussion
• Tailor health outcomes=>potentially through qualitative interviews
• Other outcomes that may be of interest and should be considered?
• Difficulty engaging with local population. A postal questionnaire didn’t work. Any thoughts on the best way to engage people with this type of research question?
Related Documents
