46 COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2020)4/REV2 regulate their thermal comfort, either due lack of electricity in rural areas or insufficient incomes to buy or run a fan in urban areas (SEforALL, 2020[136]). Between 2000 and 2014, the proportion of the urban population living in slums declined from 28 to 23 %. However, this trend recently reversed course
growing back up 23.5 % in 2018 (UN, 2020[137]). These basic needs may be met in developed countries, but even in these countries, the pandemic has exposed latent disparities in society with respect to the quality of dwellings and their surroundings and how it is embedded in the fabric of the wider urban, social and natural environment. The lockdown illustrated how easy it is for low-income households even in developed countries to fall into energy poverty; more time at home led to higher energy bills, at times combined with temporary or permanent unemployment, which was further exacerbated by the fact that these households tend to live in lower quality and less efficient dwellings (Bouzarovski et al., 2020[138]). For those whose movement was geographically restricted during the lockdowns, individuals who lived in quality neighbourhoods - with easy access to a diversity of services, like nature and green spaces, were less disadvantaged than those who did not have access to such opportunities (with respect to physical and mental health). Many more affluent city dwellers left urban environments during lockdown for better conditions (more space or gardens 1; this was not necessarily a possibility for those who were worse off. The types of measures used in the housing sector could follow a Rebound, Decoupling, or Wider wellbeing (see section 2). The pathway chosen will have great implications for the future trajectory of GHG emissions from the residential sector and well-being in both the shorter and longer-term, as discussed below.
Mapping of selected recovery measures in the residential sector Figure 7 maps examples of recovery measures in the residential sector to the three pathways (Rebound, Decoupling, and Wider well-being) drawing on real-world examples at both national and sub-national level. The recovery measures are grouped into three main categories (labelled in blue on the left-hand side), which reflect three major foci for potential mitigation action and well-being outcomes. These are:
new builds (measures aimed at the construction of new homes),
retrofits (measures modifying existing dwellings), and
beyond the dwelling, which includes measures aimed at better spatial planning and the integration of housing with man-made and natural infrastructure.
Each of these three areas of focus is accompanied with an arrow in Figure 7. The labels within the arrow describe the types of measures that each pathway would include. The potential impact on mitigation is visualised by the colour gradient of the arrow from orange (negative or neutral impact on GHG mitigation) to green (positive effect on mitigation). As in the transport sector (see section 3), the package of recovery measures for the residential sector in a given country could comprise a mix of measures that align with different pathways. Moreover, subnational governments may employ measures that follow different pathways than at the national level. In fact, several examples in Figure 7 draw on the subnational level. Governments will need to adapt the frameworks and design specific measures in accordance with their specific context, and not every government will need every single measure listed under a given pathway. The names of countries and cities that have implemented measures consistent with Wider well-being are shown in Figure 7, which provides further detail on some of these cases. As shown below, measures consistent with Wider Well-being have so far been found mainly in OECD countries, which started developing recovery measures earlier than many developing countries, reflecting the spread of the pandemic. Nonetheless, the approach remains relevant and could benefit developing
Unclassified
