Introduction

As Europe experiences more frequent and intense heatwaves, affordable cooling is increasingly recognised as an important component of climate adaptation and public health. A recent report on Climate Adaptation in Public, Cooperative and Social Housing highlights that many existing homes were not designed to cope with rising temperatures, while vulnerable households are disproportionately affected by overheating and other climate-related risks. Within these wider discussions, the experiences of one group receive comparatively little attention: people with disabilities, whose energy needs are often shaped by health, safety, and everyday functioning. 

Drawing on findings from the LIFE ASSERT project, this article presents the experiences of people with disabilities facing energy poverty across Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy and Spain. Through focus groups and interviews, participants described how housing conditions, accessibility, energy affordability and disability-related needs interacted to influence their ability to maintain safe indoor environments during hot weather.

The experiences shared through ASSERT suggest that affordable cooling cannot be understood simply as access to cooling technologies or lower electricity prices. For many people with disabilities, remaining safe during periods of extreme heat also depends on the homes they live in, their ability to interact with them, and whether appropriate adaptations are possible. By bringing forward voices that are rarely heard in discussions about building performance, this article presents the main findings from the focus groups and interviews, and explores how affordable cooling is influenced by the interaction between accessibility, housing conditions and energy poverty. The findings also formed the basis for the development of practical ASSERT training materials, translating participants’ lived experiences into accessible guidance to support people with disabilities and other stakeholders in addressing everyday energy challenges.

When energy becomes a health requirement

Discussions on affordable cooling and overheating in buildings often focus on improving building performance, reducing energy demand and adopting more efficient cooling technologies. The experiences gathered through the project suggest that another question deserves equal attention: who is the building expected to work for? Across the five countries, participants described how hot indoor environments affected far more than thermal comfort. For many, keeping their homes cool during summer was closely linked to protecting their health, maintaining their independence and carrying out everyday activities safely.

Several participants explained that maintaining relatively stable indoor temperatures formed part of managing symptoms and preventing deterioration in their health, with one participant mentioning maintaining indoor temperatures of around 21–22°C. This illustrates that thermal requirements were not simply matters of personal preference but, for some people, an essential part of everyday healthcare. These needs also coincided with longer periods spent at home. Many participants reported remaining indoors for 11–19 hours each day because of reduced mobility, retirement or long-term health conditions, increasing their exposure to indoor overheating and their dependence on the thermal performance of their homes.

ASSERT focus groups also highlighted that energy use among people with disabilities differs from that of many other households. Electricity played a fundamentally different role in participants' lives. Beyond lighting and household appliances, it was essential for powering medical equipment, charging mobility aids and operating assistive technologies that supported health and independent living. As one participant explained, ‘I am completely dependent on electricity. If there's a power outage tomorrow, my only option is to go to the hospital.’ For many households, electricity therefore represented a critical support system and could not simply be reduced during periods of financial hardship or rising energy prices. Cooling became part of this wider network of essential energy needs, supporting health and everyday functioning rather than simply improving comfort.

Living with heat and thermal discomfort

Across the five participating countries, participants described heatwaves as periods during which their homes became progressively more difficult to live in. Although they lived in different climates, housing types and policy contexts, many experiences were remarkably similar. Homes remained hot long after outdoor temperatures had begun to fall, offering little opportunity to recover from successive hot days. Many participants described homes that trapped heat, with several reporting indoor temperatures reaching 35–40°C, while others described the middle of the day as ‘unbearable’ because their homes offered little protection from the heat.

The consequences extended well beyond thermal discomfort. Participants described disrupted sleep, persistent fatigue and increasing difficulty carrying out everyday activities as periods of extreme heat continued. Some explained that excessive heat affected their concentration, mobility and overall wellbeing, while others reported that it aggravated existing health conditions or made symptom management considerably more difficult. As temperatures remained high over successive days, homes that were expected to provide comfort and recovery instead became an additional source of physical and mental strain. The impacts described by participants affected health, emotional wellbeing, independence and everyday functioning, as summarised in Figure 1.

_{Figure 1: Physical and emotional impacts of energy poverty reported by participants during the ASSERT focus groups and interviews. Source: Adapted from the dissemination material for ASSERT project (Deliverable 2.2), based on findings from the focus groups and interviews conducted across the five participating countries.}

To cope with these conditions, households combined a range of measures including natural ventilation, external shading where available, fans and air conditioning. However, participants consistently explained that fans alone became ineffective during prolonged periods of extreme heat, particularly when indoor temperatures remained high throughout both the day and the night. In many cases, air conditioning represented the only reliable means of restoring acceptable indoor conditions. Yet for many participants, the cost of running it meant that it could not always be used when it was needed most. For many participants, cooling was not a matter of convenience but something that enabled them to sleep, recover, maintain their health, carry out everyday activities and remain independent during periods of extreme heat (Figure 2).

_{Figure 2: Participants described a clear distinction between indoor conditions that supported health and everyday functioning and those that increased physical strain, health risks and functional limitations during periods of extreme heat. Source: Adapted from the dissemination material for ASSERT project (Deliverable 2.2), based on findings from the focus groups and interviews conducted across the five participating countries.} 

Buildings that were never designed for ‘everyone’

The experiences shared through the project showed that vulnerability to extreme heat was shaped not only by personal circumstances, but also by the buildings in which participants lived. For many participants, the existing housing stock offered little protection from prolonged hot weather. Many lived in older apartment buildings that retained heat well into the evening, while poor insulation, ageing windows, prolonged solar exposure and limited opportunities for effective ventilation contributed to increasingly uncomfortable indoor environments. Top-floor apartments were often described as particularly challenging during summer. Rather than moderating external conditions, these buildings frequently amplified them, allowing heat to accumulate indoors over successive days and making recovery increasingly difficult during heatwaves.

However, thermal performance was only one part of the problem. Participants also described barriers that limited their ability to interact with the buildings or respond independently when the indoor temperatures increased. Windows could be inaccessible or physically difficult to operate, environmental controls were not always designed with accessibility in mind, and centralised heating or cooling systems often provided little individual control over indoor conditions. For many tenants, opportunities to install air conditioning, external shading or other retrofit measures were further constrained by tenancy agreements or shared ownership arrangements. Consequently, maintaining a comfortable indoor environment, in addition to being dependent on occupant behaviour, also relied on whether the building itself and the constraints associated with it enabled effective adaptation.

These barriers had important implications for personal autonomy. Several participants described practical difficulties in coping with heat. Actions such as adjusting windows, thermostats, shading devices, moving to cooler rooms, or changing daily routines often depended on a level of physical ability and autonomy that many participants did not have. They sometimes required assistance from family members or caregivers because the controls were inaccessible or difficult to use. Responding to changing indoor conditions was therefore not always immediate or independent. During periods of extreme heat, the inability to control one's own indoor environment became an additional source of vulnerability, reducing both comfort and independence.

Taken together, the findings demonstrate that buildings shape how easily occupants can interact with their environment and whether they are able to respond effectively as conditions change. Participants repeatedly identified three broad groups of barriers: limitations associated with the housing itself, restricted access to environmental controls, and constraints on maintaining suitable indoor temperatures (Figure 3). For people with disabilities, resilience to extreme heat therefore depends not only on how well buildings reduce heat gains during summers, but also on whether they support safe, accessible, and independent use. 

_{Figure 3: Housing- and accessibility-related barriers identified by participants during the ASSERT focus groups and interviews. Source: Adapted from the dissemination material for ASSERT project (Deliverable 2.2), based on findings from the focus groups and interviews conducted across the five participating countries)}

When adaptive behaviour is no longer enough

Living with prolonged periods of hot weather required continual adaptation for many participants. Opening windows during cooler hours, closing shutters to reduce solar gains, relying on natural ventilation wherever possible, using fans instead of air conditioning, cooling only occupied rooms and adjusting daily routines to avoid the hottest parts of the day formed part of everyday life for many households. These were not occasional responses to heatwaves, but well-established strategies developed through experience and necessity.

Despite these efforts, participants consistently explained that behavioural adaptation alone was often insufficient during prolonged periods of extreme heat. Once indoor temperatures remained high throughout both the day and the night, opportunities to remain comfortable without mechanical cooling became increasingly limited. The strategies described by participants suggest that many were already familiar with commonly recommended measures for managing hot weather. However, putting these into practice was often constrained by rising energy costs and limited financial resources, in addition to the accessibility needs mentioned previously. Although air conditioning was widely recognised as the most effective means to maintain safe indoor conditions, many households described delaying its use, limiting operating hours or restricting cooling to a single room because essential household energy needs and rising energy costs left little flexibility. Others continued relying on fans even when they no longer provided meaningful relief. These experiences illustrate the difficult compromises many households faced in trying to balance health needs with everyday energy costs.

Participants also described barriers that extended beyond managing energy use within the home. Several reported that available support schemes frequently failed to recognise disability-specific energy needs. Eligibility criteria often focused primarily on household income rather than the additional costs associated with disability, while administrative procedures were frequently described as complex and difficult to navigate. Limited awareness of available support, together with inaccessible or poorly communicated information, further reduced access to assistance. As a result, many households relied primarily on their own coping strategies rather than formal support mechanisms.

Beyond energy efficiency: rethinking affordable cooling

The experiences shared through the ASSERT project suggest that extreme heat challenges some of the assumptions underlying how building performance is commonly assessed. Building performance is typically evaluated in terms of energy efficiency, thermal comfort and compliance with technical standards. Recent reports, including the Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction 2025-2026 and Climate Adaptation in Public, Cooperative and Social Housing, similarly highlight that adapting the existing building stock to increasingly frequent heatwaves requires moving beyond energy efficiency alone and considering the resilience of buildings and their occupants, particularly those most vulnerable to climate-related risks. The findings presented here support these wider concerns, including the growing concern of cooling poverty, by showing that these conventional performance measures alone do not fully capture whether a building continues to meet the needs of its occupants during periods of extreme heat.

This perspective also broadens the way affordable cooling can be understood. Improving the thermal performance of buildings through passive measures remains fundamental because it reduces heat gains, cooling demand, and occupants' exposure to extreme temperatures. However, the experiences shared through ASSERT also demonstrate that passive measures alone may not eliminate the need for active cooling to protect health during prolonged periods of extreme heat. Even where cooling technologies are available, they may remain financially inaccessible to some households. Likewise, environmental controls and other building features may not always be designed to support independent use by people with disabilities. These findings suggest that building performance should therefore be evaluated by its ability to reduce energy demand, in addition to its capacity to provide safe, accessible and resilient indoor environments that continue to support occupants under increasingly challenging climatic conditions, especially for people with disabilities.

The findings also challenge the role traditionally assigned to occupants in managing overheating. Much of the guidance provided during heatwaves assumes that people can adapt by adjusting windows, shading devices, cooling systems or daily routines. The experiences presented here demonstrate that this assumption does not hold equally for everyone. Physical ability, health conditions, financial resources and housing circumstances all influence whether these actions are feasible. Designing resilient buildings therefore means reducing reliance on constant occupant intervention and creating environments that remain safe and usable even when people's capacity to adapt is limited.

Conclusions

The ASSERT findings presented here show that affordable cooling is only one part of a wider challenge faced by people with disabilities. Nevertheless, as Europe continues to adapt its building stock to a warmer climate, affordable cooling should be recognised as more than a technical or economic challenge. The experiences portrayed here suggest that it is shaped by four closely related considerations: building performance, accessibility, health needs and energy affordability. Considering these together shifts the discussion beyond individual technologies or energy metrics towards the overall ability of buildings to protect the people who use them. 

The findings discussed in this article are presented in greater detail in the ASSERT deliverable Report on Needs, Comfort Expectations and Energy Practices of Energy Poor Disabled People (D2.2). One practical outcome of this work is the development of the ASSERT training materials. Drawing on the needs, experiences and everyday practices identified through a series of focus groups, the training materials were developed to provide practical and accessible guidance. They aim to support people with disabilities, caregivers, and other relevant stakeholders to better manage energy at home and improve indoor environment conditions while promoting more inclusive approaches to affordable cooling.