how moving home influences appliance ownership: a ... · how moving home influences appliance...

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

How moving home influences appliance ownership:a Passivhaus case study

Chris Foulds & Jane Powell & Gill Seyfang

Received: 11 July 2014 /Accepted: 2 June 2015 /Published online: 10 July 2015# The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract Low carbon dwellings shift the focus to elec-tricity consumption and appliances by significantly low-ering space heating energy consumption. Using a UKPassivhaus (low carbon) case study, interviews and pre/post-move-in appliance audits were employed to inves-tigate how moving home can change the appliancerequirements of appliance-using practices. Changes inappliance ownership were due to differences in howappliance-using practices (e.g. cooking, laundering,homemaking) were being performed. Existing/new ap-pliances complemented/conflicted with a new home onthe basis of whether the social meanings of specificappliance-using practices (e.g. stylishness, convenience,thermal comfort, cleanliness) could be met. This wasevident, when moving home more generally, by house-holds buying new modern appliances and managingspatial constraints. More specifically, regardingPassivhaus, hosting and homemaking practices wereperformed in ways that met thermal comfort expecta-tions, in addition to appliance purchasing also beinginfluenced by a fear that the Passivhaus technologiescould fail.Whilst skills and competences were needed toperform appliance-using practices, these were lessprominent in influencing appliance ownership changes.

Conclusions include reflections on how the elements ofappliance-using practices change when moving home,as well as what adhering to building standards couldmean for the standardisation of appliance-using prac-tices and domestic life more generally.

Keywords Electrical devices . Purchasing . Socialpractice theory . Domestic energy consumption . Lowenergy homes . Passivhaus

Introduction

Appliance ownership has been consistently increasingyear on year, with the total number of UK domesticelectrical appliances having grown by 27 % over1996–2011 and this trends shows little sign of relenting(DECC 2013). The appliances included in the scope ofthe DECC ownership survey are mainly the traditionallyhigh electricity-consuming white goods, with all homecomputing and consumer electronics (e.g. television,laptops, games consoles) and many cooking (e.g. mi-crowave, kettle) appliances excluded, despite calls togive these more attention (e.g. Owen 2007). In thisresearch paper, we take appliances to be electricity-consuming devices and only exclude lighting deviceswhich play a largely unique role in everyday life.

In light of climate change concerns, there is a press-ing need to reduce domestic energy consumption whichin 2012 accounted for 29 % of final energy usage(DECC 2013). Appliance usage, excluding lighting, isresponsible for 18 % of the carbon emissions attributed

Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:455–472DOI 10.1007/s12053-015-9364-0

C. Foulds (*)Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, EastRoad, Cambridge CB1 1PT, UKe-mail: [email protected]

J. Powell :G. SeyfangSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia,Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s12053-015-9364-0&domain=pdf

to UK households (calculated using UK DECC (2013)and Energy Saving Trust (2011) figures). UK domesticenergy policy focuses more on improving dwellingfabric and thermal efficiency (e.g. 2016 zero carbonhomes definition does not account for appliances(McLeod et al. 2012)); therefore, the proportion ofappliances-related consumption will only increase asspace heating demands lessen, and that is before evenaccounting for rises in appliance ownership. The em-phasis should not be put on the house, but instead thehome, so that research and policy considers how we liveour everyday lives within the walls of our houses. Howwe go about making a house a home (perhaps acrossdifferent technological contexts) needs further researchsince it shapes which appliances we choose to surroundourselves with.

Most appliances research has focused on identifyingvarious external economic (e.g. cost, information, tech-nology) and/or psychological (e.g. attitudes, values)factors, which affect an individual’s decision-makingregarding appliance ownership and use (e.g. Efstathiouet al. 2004; Leahy and Lyons 2010; Mansouri et al.1996; O’Doherty et al. 2008; Zimmermann et al.2012). Direct cause-effect relationships are thus typical-ly sought. However, if we want to understand why newappliances are purchased and used as part of everydaylife, these cause-effect viewpoints are too simplistic. Itslinearity usually fails to capture the social influences thatunderpin practices (e.g. cooking, hosting, washing)which have been shown to often produce a markedlynonlinearity from intervention to outcome(s). Critiqueshave hence advocated focusing on the organisation andperformance of practices (e.g. Gram-Hanssen 2010,2013; Hargreaves 2011; Shove et al. 2012; Shove2010). Switching the focus from individuals to the ac-tual doings and sayings (practices) of everyday life isvital because these practices push/pull individuals incertain directions (e.g. regarding appliance disposaland purchasing).

In addition to furthering the empirical application oftheories of social practice in domestic appliances re-search, other knowledge gaps also exist. Whilst it ishugely important that detailed discussion is given tokey appliances separately, so as to be able to appreciatethe historic role of specific appliances in trajectories ofsocial practices, few studies have broadened out thescope to include all appliances (e.g. freezer focus: Handand Shove 2007; Shove and Southerton 2000) or thewhole dwelling (e.g. kitchen focus: Hand and Shove

2004; Shove and Hand 2000; Southerton 2001). It is thewider technological configuration (i.e. how appliancesrelate to one another as well as the dwelling) that in partprovides opportunities for performing practices. Therehas been little research into how significant changes tothe wider technological configuration—such as movinghome—change the appliances-related requirements ofpractices. Wilhite (2012, p. 96) stated that moving homeoften stimulates ‘the purchase of new appliances andchanges in practices in the new home’. We argue that, inthis quotation, ‘and’ should actually be ‘due to’ becausepractices drive our appliance demands. More research isneeded to understand how moving home and differenttechnological contexts can influence appliance-usingpractices and so shape appliance ownership. It wouldbe particularly interesting to explore changes associatedwith moving into a low carbon dwelling because itwould provide insight into how the next generation of(unfamiliar) building technologies could shape our ev-eryday lives.

This paper aims to investigate how appliance-usingpractices, and thereby appliance ownership levels, maychange after moving home. This will be achievedthrough the following three objectives:

1. Provide illustrative examples of how technolo-gies—be they at the level of the building structure,or smaller-scale products that households bring withthem into the home—can complement and conflictwith appliances, showing how that can shape appli-ance ownership;

2. Consider building-level technologies associatedwith the Passivhaus (building energy efficiency)standard and discuss how that influences applianceownership. Specifically focus on the heating rolethat appliances acquire in Passivhaus settings;

3. Broaden the focus by identifying and exploring keyissues associated with howmoving homes can moregenerally influence appliance ownership.

These involve investigating how appliance-usingpractices are performed and how they can change as aresult of moving home, encountering different technol-ogies, and inter-appliance relationships. The wider tech-nological configuration is given explicit consideration,with attention given to what appliances householdschoose (consciously or not) to own as they appropriatea new material environment. This paper does not serveto provide an exhaustive list of all potential influences,

456 Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:455–472

instead detailing salient influences and everyday exam-ples found in one UK affordable housing case study.

The case study is a small tomedium-sized Passivhausdevelopment, which provides energy efficiency throughairtightness, super insulation, and Mechanical Ventila-tion with Heat Recovery (MVHR), in addition to a lowcarbon energy source through solar thermal technology.Homes built to this German design standard involve aset (or ‘configuration’) of technologies that are verydifferent to traditionally constructed homes (which tendto have higher air leakage rates), and thus will serve as auseful comparison, as part of exploring whether house-holds use different appliances across different techno-logical contexts.

We begin by introducing theories of practice andsummarising what it can offer analyses such as this(‘Theoretical context’). More detail is then providedon the case study employed, its observed changes inappliance ownership at move-in, and then the methodsadopted to explore the influences that underlie suchchanges (‘Methodology’). The core of the paper isstructured around presenting (‘Findings’) anddiscussing (‘Discussion’) findings associated with thethree objectives. Conclusions are then presented on thepractice-related changes that occur at move-in(‘Conclusions’).

Theoretical context

Theories of social practice draw on literature that haspulled away from the traditionally dominant individual-istic approaches. These individualistic theories, be theyrooted in more rational economics or the psychologicalperspective, typically model a number of factors (orcontextual cues) which cause individuals to behave incertain ways. Individuals are therefore the primarychange agent, as they respond to various contexts. Thisusually creates a theoretical linearity because individualbehaviours are products of rigid cause-effect relation-ships. For example, the Habit-Discontinuity hypothesis(Verplanken et al. 2008) posits that there are key ‘mo-ments of change’ (Thompson et al. 2011, p. 1)—such asmoving home—when behaviour is more deliberatelyconsidered, making us more prone to other behaviouralchanges (e.g. living with different appliances). Suchtheoretical perspectives miss out on broader social dy-namics and the often unanticipated consequences ofmajor life changes, which can be captured by using

practices as the central unit of analysis, as opposed toindividuals. For instance, moving home, to name a fewinfluences, could involve the following: new technolog-ical surroundings, exposure to different institutions, as-pirations of how to occupy that home according tosocietal expectations, and this all interpreted through alens based on past experience. These influences interact,sometimes unpredictably, in establishing new perfor-mances of everyday practices. Therefore, in many ways,moving home is actually a ‘moment of change’—indeedthis is fundamental to this paper—but the difference isthat we regard moving as an intervention in practice andnot as a change in contextual factors that individualslinearly respond to.

A practice is a ‘routinized type of behaviour’(Reckwitz 2002, p. 249) which are the constituents ofeveryday life. Practices thus range from flying, drivingand playing football to hosting guests, homemaking,cooking and showering. A ‘practical rationality’(Sandberg and Haridimos 2011) exists in that individ-uals and households make decisions, consciously or not,in accordance with the practices they undertake.Practices-related research demands examination ofbroader social processes, which do not simply treatpractices as additional contextual variables which indi-viduals are subjected to. The onus needs to be on prac-tices and how they are performed (by individuals andhouseholds being ‘practitioners’), instead of individualenergy consumers or appliance users. As McMeekinand Southerton reflect:

Conceptualising consumption in this way movesanalytic attention away from specific goods andservices and from individual expressions of pref-erences, towards an understanding of how prod-ucts are appropriated as a consequence of the waysin which practices are socially ordered. In makingsuch a conceptual shift, notions of demand, needand want are re-cast as the consequence of the‘doings’ (or practices) through which daily livesconsist: as Warde (2005, p. 137) puts it, ‘activitygenerates wants, rather than vice versa’.(McMeekin and Southerton 2012, p. 350)

This shifts the attention away from individual prefer-ences and/or specific appliances in themselves, toappliance-using practices which over time create andmaintain the need for specific appliances (e.g. launder-ing: washing machine, tumble dryer; cooking: oven,

Energy Efficiency (2016) 9:455–472 457

hobs, microwave). Such practices amass certain require-ments as they are performed, be they technological ornot, which in turn sustain further performances.

What these social practices require and how they areinfluenced has provided much debate amongst promi-nent social practice theorists. Indeed, the key theorists(who we now refer to) differ with regard to how theyconceptualise practice. The foundations of the practicesliterature can, in part, be found in the work of Bourdieu(1984) and Giddens (1984) who interestingly barelymention technologies, instead opting for almost wholly‘social’ theories. However in recent years, there hasbeen an increasing acknowledgment that ‘practices areintrinsically connected to and interwoven with objects’(Schatzki 2002, p. 106), which demonstrates a materialturn within a wider ‘practice turn’ (Schatzki et al. 2001)in contemporary social theory. However, despite thiscommonly shared turn, differences in how exactly tech-nologies are conceptualised as part of practices stillremain. For example, whilst Schatzki notes materialityas being important, he still contends it as being some-thing outside of a practice, and is hence why he talks of‘material arrangements’ (Schatzki 2011, p. 4) beingsomething distinct that bundles together with practicesin the construction of social life. In addition, Warde(2005) positions materiality—and thus, for instance,the consumption of appliances—as being guided bypractice and not as an element of practice. However,instead many have increasingly positioned materialityas a core influence (or element) of practice. This in-cludes the work of Shove (in Shove et al. 2012: ‘mate-rial’), Gram-Hanssen (2010a: ‘technologies and materi-al structure’) and Reckwitz (2002: ‘things’). As such,theories of practice literature now largely regard mate-riality as a key element of practice (Røpke 2009).

Materiality is 'constantly evolving and interrelatedwithin itself. It is not one manageable coherent entitythat can be targeted independently and manipulated atwill so as to push or pull practices in desired directions.For instance, domestic appliances would offer nothingwithout the wider infrastructure of power stations andtransmission lines that enable it. Appliance ownershipand usage also depend on other technologies situatedwithin the home, such as plug sockets or other appli-ances that already provide opportunities for practices.Appliances thus form part of a wider technologicalconfiguration.

Whilst technological configurations are the predom-inant focus of this paper, and has thus received the most

introduction, it is only one of the elements shapingpractices. Indeed, all the aforementioned theorists whotout technology as a key influence all agree thatpractices are constructed and organised in verycomplex ways. Practices are not only dependent ontechnologies relating to one another but also how thattechnological configuration relates to the configurationof the other practice elements across a range of differentpractices. For example, Shove et al. (2012) proposes thethree elements of materials (products, objects), mean-ings (images, social expectations) and competences(skills, practical know-how). These elements emphasisethe complexity of practices and that studies oftechnology-in-practice should investigate how technol-ogies relate to various modes of competences (be itexpert or tacitly derived) and meanings, as well as itssurrounding material structure. Understanding the nu-ances of practice organisation is important here becausehouseholds only own appliances because of the prac-tices that utilise them.

The literature emphasises that practices, and by ex-tension the appliances that assist them, depend onmessyrelationships (e.g. between practices; between the ele-ments). Through a practices perspective, we investigatesome of the underlying influences that underpin thesemessy relationships and thereby shape appliance own-ership. This paper empirically furthers discussions onhow appliances shape and in turn are shaped by domes-tic everyday practices.

Methodology

Case study description

A small to medium-sized UK Passivhaus affordablehousing development was adopted as a case study.Passivhaus is a German energy efficiency building stan-dard, which aims to achieve significant energy con-sumption savings through its super insulation and rela-tive airtightness that lowers heat loss rates (Feist et al.2005). Airtightness levels require the installation ofMVHR systems for air quality purposes. Solar thermaland gas-fired boiler systems provide space heatingthrough the MVHR (no radiators) and water heating.The very low heat loss rates mean that these systemsprovide very little space heating in actuality becauseheat is passively obtained through everyday life (e.g.appliance usage) and solar gain. As such, part of


becoming Passivhaus-certified usually involves provid-ing energy-efficient appliances, so as to mitigateoverheating risks. However for the development stud-ied, as with most UK social housing projects, no appli-ances were provided because that would have requiredmaintenance responsibilities. The consequence was thatthe residents controlled which of their own appliancesthey used in their new Passivhaus homes.

The households’ previous dwellings had been,contrastingly, more typical of the wide rangingUK housing stock. Housing types included semi-detached, detached, mid-terrace, end-terrace andflats. Housing age was similarly diverse, rangingfrom construction in the late 1800s to 2008. Alldwellings had a central heating system with radia-tors, but the constituent boilers had different fuelsupplies (e.g. gas, oil, wood, coal).

Around 29 % of the new Passivhaus homes wereshared ownership (i.e. part housing association andpart householder owned), with the remaining 71 %social tenants. The new occupants of the sharedownership homes were moving largely as part ofmaking their first property investment. The socialtenants were moving because of various differentcircumstances, including their previous sociallyrented dwelling was too small/large; they had losttheir job and/or home; were keen to move awayfrom their parents; wanted to live in a rural loca-tion; or were unhappy in their previous home (e.g.due to damp or safety concerns).

This Passivhaus development can provide uniqueinsights because, as far as we are aware, noresearch has yet explored appliance ownershipchanges in the Passivhaus context. In addition,Passivhaus homes represent an interesting (low en-ergy) case that was sufficiently different to the restof the housing stock. As such, the case study canprovide insights on what appliance ownershipschanges may occur in response to energy efficiencyimprovements to the housing stock more generally.But, beyond this, a detailed investigation of theinfluences underpinning appliance ownershipchanges around move-in also brings influences tothe fore that relate almost solely to the processes ofmoving and then making a new home. In addition,as we now go on to make clear, our methods reston collecting data before and after move-in (whichis rarely possible), and thus we are uniquely placedto explore these processes further.

Outlining the research problem: what were the changesin appliance ownership around move-in?

Energy consumption data were gathered to examinewhether energy usage had changed by moving home.Pre-move-in energy data were collected through pastbills (proportionally scaled up/down to find annual esti-mates), whereas manual gas and electricity meter read-ings (taken a year apart) were used for the post-move-incomparisons. Floor plan information enabled energyconsumption to be normalised on a per square metrebasis. Each household’s energy use was summed undereither electricity or heating fuel (e.g. coal, wood, oil,gas); this distinction was aided by the fact that nodwellings were electrically heated. These data providea useful context for understanding the broader energydemand-related consequences of potential changes inappliance ownership.

There was a marked reduction in space and waterheating fuel consumption when moving from conven-tional to Passivhaus dwellings (Fig. 1). Themean annualheating fuel consumption dropped by over 85 %, from219 kWh/(m2 a) (min-max, 141–284 kWh/(m2 a)) to32 kWh/(m2 a) (min-max, 20–61 kWh/(m2 a)). Thesefindings reflect a wider trend in thermal efficiency im-provements which, whilst lowering heating fuel usage,increases electricity’s proportion of total energy usageand thereby redirects attention from heating fuel toelectricity demand (Monahan and Powell 2011).

Many dwelling-level technologies (e.g. solar ther-mal, boiler, airtightness, insulation) directly shape howmuch heating fuel is used, and thus also the practicesthat require these fuels. In contrast, practices that con-sume electricity generally use smaller-scale technolo-gies that the households bring with them (e.g. appli-ances), as part of how they occupy and appropriate theirnew homes. On the surface, this may seem to fit wellwith Fig. 1 since it reveals how electricity consumptionin their previous conventional dwelling (mean, 47 kWh/(m2 a); min-max, 22–67 kWh/(m2 a)) and newPassivhaus dwelling (mean, 45 kWh/(m2 a); min-max,25–64 kWh/(m2 a)) are very similar. One could there-fore infer that similar electricity consumption is a con-sequence of households using the same electricalappliances.

However, the two appliance audits that were under-taken for each household suggest clear changes inhousehold appliance ownership around move-in. Thefirst audit was conducted around 2 months before


move-in (April–May 2011) and the second was around16 months after move-in (October–November 2012).The audits involved recording the existence of everyappliance, the specification of larger appliances (e.g.white goods), the approximate purchase date of eachappliance and whether it was second-hand. Ownershipincluded appliances that were regularly used, but notowned, by the household (e.g. loans) as well as thosethat were owned by household members.

The audits revealed that the total number of appli-ances owned by households dropped by 5 % to a meanaverage of 25 (min-max, 13–34) appliances post-move-in. A separate study of 251 English households showedaverage ownership to be 41 (min-max, 13–85) appli-ances (Owen 2012), thereby suggesting that the prac-tices of this study’s households use relatively fewerappliances. However, we argue that such averages can-not convey the full story because practices give technol-ogies very different meanings with, for instance, owningand using a kettle constituting something very differentto owning and using a washing machine. An issue forfurther investigation in this study is thus if (and perhapshow) the meanings attached to different appliances maychange around move-in, in addition to what that meantfor appliance ownership.

In relation to this, it is important to note that nohousehold kept all the same appliances between pre-and post-move-in. While ownership changes rangedconsiderably, from a decrease of 33 % to an increaseof 47%, there weremany similarities across the sampledhouseholds (see Table 1 for specific details). For exam-ple, almost 80% of cookers were replaced, in addition toboth 50 % of washing machines and cold appliances

with freezer capabilities. More broadly, around 39 % ofthe larger (and more electricity consuming) applianceswere replaced. Much of this study will implicitly con-sider the influences that underlie all these changes.

In purchasing replacements, considerably more ofthe larger appliances were bought new, which wouldhave consequently improved the energy efficiency ofthe respective appliances. Indeed there were very fewhouseholds that purchased second-hand replacements.In addition, the majority of the replacements occurred inthe weeks surrounding move-in itself. In fact if we wereto discount this round of move-in replacements, majorappliances (as per Table 1) were on average last pur-chased 4 years and 5 months before move-in. It istherefore clear that moving into these new homes coin-cided with ownership changes to a fairly stable stock ofappliances—thus, an issue which will be implicitly ex-plored in this paper is why replacing appliances sudden-ly became a priority.

Table 1 also serves to show that ownership levelsremained high (as was representative of UK householdsmore generally) and were largely unchanged in thatappliances were mostly purchased to substitute existingones. Few seemed to purchase new appliances that didnot replace an appliance that provided almost exactlythe same service. Consequently, every household owneda cooker, television and appliances with refrigerationand freezing capabilities. In addition, even fewer gotrid of appliances without introducing a replacement totheir home. For example, the proportion of householdsowning at least one specific appliance type only fell fortumble dryers, microwave ovens and dishwashers, andthis mainly because of spatial constraints (which we

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

min mean max min mean max

Pre-move-in (conven�onal UK dwellings) Post-move-in (Passivhaus)Ac

tual

ann

ual e

nerg

y co

nsum

p�on

(k

Wh/

(m2 ·a

))Time period of consump�on (dwelling type)

Hea�ng FuelElectricity

Fig. 1 Comparing actual energyconsumption: conventionalversus Passivhaus homes


discuss in detail in ‘Spaces: constraining and enablingpractices’). Furthermore, the only other appliance typeto fall in ownership was the washing machine but thatwas for only one household and, even then, they optedto regularly use their parents’ washing machine instead.Therefore, these appliance audits clearly suggest thatappliances are a non-negotiable component of everydaydomestic living—as is indeed clear from practicetheory’s positioning of materiality—and this is a keyfoundation that the rest of this study builds upon. In-deed, it is perhaps unsurprising then that multiple appli-ance ownership was very common for certain deviceswith, for instance, most households owning a secondlaptop/computer/tablet, andmany owning three ormore.

Qualitative methods: exploring why these applianceownership changes occurred

The appliance audits that provided the background con-text on the previous section were also used as a basis forthe semi-structured interviews that more deeply ex-plored the influences underlying the appliance owner-ship changes. A (2 months) pre-move-in interview ac-companied the first appliance audit, providing an oppor-tunity to immediately discuss how and why applianceswere owned and used in certain ways in their previoustechnological surroundings. The second appliance auditwas undertaken in the weeks before discussing it in the

final interview (16 months post-move-in). Additionalcontext was gleaned from informal discussions, partic-ipant observation (e.g. resident information evenings)and a further, third, round of (walkthrough) interviewswhich took place in between the other two rounds ataround 11 months post-move-in (March–June 2012).These additional methods were undertaken as part ofwider research on this case study, and whilst it had littleexplicit discussion of appliance ownership, it did helpprovide the foundations for interview discussions andlater analysis.

All these activities involved speaking to 28 individ-uals. Quotations in this paper are referenced using ‘1A’,whereby ‘1’ represents the individual and ‘A’ representsthe method (A = pre-move-in interview with first appli-ance audit reflections; B = interim walkthrough inter-view; C = final interview and second appliance auditreflections; D = participant observation and informaldiscussions).

Findings

Complementary and conflicting technologicalconfigurations

What makes an appliance complementary or conflictingto other technologies is how technologies come together

Table 1 Appliance ownership changes: comparing households’ pre-move-in to post-move-in stock of key domestic appliances

Appliance Ownership (% of households with ≥1 appliance) Replaced post-move-in(% of total households)

2 month pre-move-in(May 2011)

16 month post-move-in(Sept. 2012)

UK household meanaverage (2010)a

With newequivalent

With second-handequivalent

Cooker 100b 100 – 50 29

Washing machine/washer-dryer 100 93 96 43 7

Tumble dryer/washer-dryer 71 50 57 21 0

Refrigerator/fridge-freezer 100 100 – 43 7

Freezer/fridge-freezer 100 100 – 36 7

Dishwasher 21 7 40 0 0

Microwave oven 93 86 92 36 7

Laptop/desktop computer/tablet 86 86 77 29 0

Television 100 100 97 29 7

Mean average: 85 79 77 32 7

a Source: DECC (2013) Ownership mean percentages are based on 2010 surveys.b This total includes gas cookers (oven and hobs) as well as electrical equivalents.


to form a technological configuration that services therequirements of a specific practice. This section dis-cusses this more generally, as part of providing greatercontext for the following sections that together drawattention to four specific sets of influences—each ofwhich inherently depend on the relationships betweenappliances and other technologies, in the context ofpractices.

Table 2, which was produced using data from thehousehold interviews, presents ten examples of howappliance ownership was found to be influenced bya different domestic technological configuration (e.g.the new dwelling’s technologies). These ten exam-ples emphasise how observed changes in applianceownership relate to other (mainly new) domestictechnologies and, in particular, how that relationshipis strongly influenced by a practice’s images andmeanings: the social expectations of how to performa practice will impact how the relationship betweenappliances and other surrounding technologies ismanaged.

Table 2 implicitly highlights the important role thatstructural, building-level technologies play in shapingappliance ownership (e.g. MVHR and heating systemdesign; gas supply). Only two of the ten examples inTable 2 involved examining the relationship betweenappliances and other smaller-scale technologies that thehouseholds were themselves responsible for bringinginto their homes (e.g. sound-sound systems and televi-sions; mugs and eco-kettles).

Linked to this—as a matter of building design,rather than household purchasing and preference—is the issue of plug socket provision, which wascommonly raised during the household interviews.Indeed, domestic (appliance-using) practices havebecome increasingly dependent on plug sockets. Itis thus perhaps expected then that the provision ofplug sockets was an institutional expectation forthis new build development, with the housing as-sociation stipulating the number of plug sockets (ona per room basis) in the original brief. Each one-bedroom flat had 30 plug sockets, and the two-bedroom and three-bedroom houses had 40 and 44plug sockets, respectively (excluding fused spurs).This is consistent with English households’ meanappliance ownership being 41 (Owen 2012), as wellas a rising trend of plug socket provision: thenumber of plug sockets in a new build three-bedroom house, as recommended by the UK

National House Building Council, has risen from17 plugs in 1977, to 21 in 2000 and 38 in 2007(CDA 2000; Lane 2007).

It therefore unsurprising that surveys indicate that alack of plug sockets can be a real cause of residentdissatisfaction (CDA 2000) because they have the po-tential to prevent practices being performed in the waysthat households wish. Indeed, we have found that appli-ance ownership changes have tended to come aboutthrough households attempting to enable a preferred,and very often sustain an existing, way of performinga practice (as per Table 2). In considering this, one isthen drawn towards why households would want toperform practices in certain ways, leading onto a prac-tice’s associated social meanings and expectations. Forexample, the practices of homemaking and hostingguests seemingly demanded an expected level of ther-mal comfort and humidity, so as to provide a welcomingand ‘homely’ environment. This subsequently led tocertain appliances being bought (e.g. cooling fans forsummer cooling, especially when broken windowswould not open) or thrown away (e.g. de-humidifiers,as the MVHR successfully maintained air quality). Fur-thermore, the need to align with societal expectations ofstylishness and cleanliness influenced how and whichappliances were used in laundering. For instance, manywere unwilling for clothes (e.g. for work andsocialising) to dry slowly, so the rapid and convenientdrying offered by tumble dryers was a priority for them.However for those in less of a rush, but still unwillingfor clothes to dry naturally more slowly, their solar gainspaces (by the large south-facing windows) were usedinstead of purchasing a tumble dryer.

In considering how practices shape applianceownership, Table 2 therefore largely focuses onmeanings, aspirations, ideas, attachments and moti-vations (the meanings element of practice). Howev-er, skills, knowledges and competences are alsounderstood as a key influencing element of socialpractice (as discussed in ‘Theoretical context’). It isthus worth briefly reflecting on this here with regardto appliance ownership changes. There were a fewone-off examples of appliances being bought be-cause the household did not understand how to usethe Passivhaus technologies. For example, thosewho really struggled to understand how the externalblinds, windows, MVHR, remote thermostat andheated towel rail could help keep the house cool inthe summer usually owned a cooling fan. However


more generally, skills, of whatever form, were veryrarely a barrier to a household changing appliances.Indeed, when skills were raised in interviews, resi-dents commonly laughed it off by commenting onhow most appliances are based on similar principleswhich they have learnt through past experience.Therefore, whilst skills and knowledges are essentialto operating appliances and hence performingappliance-using practices, they had very little influ-ence on the household changing which appliancesthey owned. Whereas meanings and expectationswhich ‘engaged’ (c.f. Gram-Hanssen 2011) individ-uals in specific ways of performing a practice dom-inated ownership changes—this will continue to beapparent through the rest of this paper’s findings and

discussion, which largely focuses on technologiesand meanings of everyday practices.

Influences associated with moving into Passivhaushomes

This section considers two key sets of Passivhaus-specific influences that clearly shaped household appli-ance ownership around move-in. Specifically, these re-late to (1) how appliances play an active role in manag-ing thermal comfort in Passivhaus homes, and (2) howappliances could help tomitigate potential disruptions toeveryday life, which linked to the unfamiliarity ofemerging (e.g. Passivhaus-related) technologies.

Table 2 Illustrations of the interconnectedness, through practices, between the wider domestic technological configuration and domesticappliances

Wider domestic technologicalconfiguration

Observed change in domesticappliance ownership

Relating practices to appliance ownership changes

Predominant appliance-using domestic practice(s)

Relevant meanings of thatpractice

Lounge window fitted with thewrong hinges, thus could not beopened

Cooling fan bought for the loungeduring summer months

Hosting, homemaking,ventilating

Being welcoming, healthy, able torelax

No radiators (excluding a heatedbathroom towel rail)

Some who previously dried laundryon radiators bought tumble dryers

Laundering, working,socialising

Being clean, stylish, convenient

Large south-facing windowsproviding heat through solar gain

Good space for drying clothesquickly, which led to disposing oftheir tumble dryer


Being clean, stylish

No external outlet for a (non-condensing) tumble dryer due toairtightness

Condensing tumble dryers werebought to replace non-condensingequivalents


Being clean, stylish

No kitchen gas supply Replace gas with electric ovens andhobs

Cooking, hosting Being healthy, a good parent/friend, skilled, worldly,welcoming

Gaps under internal doors tofacilitate air circulation byMVHR

Less powerful hi-fi speakerspurchased to minimise noisedisruption

Homemaking, hosting Being polite, a good householdmember

Passivhaus’ need for airtightnessstrongly discourages drillingthrough external walls

Appliance purchases restricted bynumber, location andspecifications of plug, telephoneline, and aerial sockets

Communicating, hosting,homemaking

Being modern, connected, proudof one’s home, stylish, wealthy

MVHR system enables healthy airquality and humidity levels

Disposed of the de-humidifiers, usedin previous dwellings to inhibitdamp and mould growth

Hosting, homemaking Being clean, healthy, a goodparent

Recently bought a surround-soundsystem

Bought a new television that wascompatible with it

Hosting, homemaking Being modern, stylish, proud ofone’s home

Size of mugs Eco-kettle (max. capacity, half apint) replaced with a new one sothat more than one cup of teacould be made at the same time

Hosting Being polite, welcoming, timeefficient


The thermal role of appliances

Passivhaus technologies—specifically those that pro-vide airtightness and super insulation—significantlyminimise heat loss. Heat provided by the occupant’sown body warmth and, crucially for this discussion,the use of electrical appliances therefore helps heat one’shome. Figure 1’s rigid distinction between electricityand heating fuel is therefore blurred. Whilst the vacuumcleaner was the most commonly referred to device forgenerating heat, every household told stories of howalmost every appliance heated the home. Indeed, oftentoo much heat was generated with, for instance, theremote thermostat ‘display[ing] at least 27 degrees whenthe TV is switched on’ (2B). Passivhaus constructionhas thus imposed upon appliances the additional role ofbeing heaters. One resident spoke of a laptop not as acommunications device but as a heater for her daugh-ter’s bedroom, mainly because it remained powered onall of the time. Unsurprisingly, residents alsocommented on how they could ‘feel a change [in tem-perature] when more than one [appliance] is used at anyone time’ (11C). Practices which encompass appliancesin certain ways have hence gained new meanings (i.e.relating to temperature regulation) in addition to moreestablished and conventional meanings (e.g. of a televi-sion providing a reference point for relaxation andhosting). The shift in emphasis was demonstrated bysome residents pre-empting any concerns (they deemedwe would have) regarding electricity consumption, byexplaining in the interviews how usage was essential inmaintaining comfortable temperatures.

The implications of this additional (thermal) role indomestic appliance-using practices were evident uponappliance ownership. However, each household wasinfluenced in a different way because the thermal impactof an appliance depended upon how that appliance wasused in performing practices. For instance, one house-hold that watched a lot of television found their highelectricity consuming plasma screen to be overheatingtheir home frequently during summer months, whereasa household with a similarly inefficient screen whowatched much less television reported no such prob-lems. Interestingly, all members of the overheatedhousehold recalled conservations with each other aboutbuying an LCD television which would use less elec-tricity and thus affect temperatures less. Passivhaustechnologies had for many therefore brought energyefficiency to the fore in the purchasing of appliances,

not for environmental or monetary benefits, but becausethermal comfort expectations had becomemore relevantfor domestic practices.

Passivhaus buildings were rarely too cool, and, assuch, over half of the households disposed of plug-inheaters around move-in. In part this was because theappliances helped to fill that heating need, but it is morerelated to the significantly lower heat loss rates thatPassivhaus design ensured. Despite residents being toldby the housing association at pre-move-in informationsessions that they would not need plug-in heaters, resi-dents only disposed of any heaters they owned afterexperiencing it for themselves post-occupancy. Tacitlearning was shaping practices, and thus in part appli-ance ownership. The situation regarding ownership ofelectric cooling fans was slightly different in that a fewhouseholds disposed of their fans before moving home,rather than in response to experience. Nevertheless,because of post-occupancy experience, all of these samehouseholds regretted disposal with each buying a newfan to alleviate the higher than expected summer indoortemperatures—specific examples included needing acooling fan when watching television, vacuuming orcooking on warmer days.

There were some one-off examples of replacing orthrowing away appliances because of their effect ontemperature (e.g. replacing an old CRT television in asouth-facing bedroom), but on the whole very few ap-pliances were disposed of. Again, this relates to the factthat appliances are deeply embedded in the performanceof domestic practices. In response to appliances’ newthermal role, residents consciously or not typically madechanges to how and when rather than what and whichappliances were used. In this way, appliance-using prac-tices only needed to be slightly adjusted to achieve thesame ends within this new Passivhaus setting. Changesto the how largely centred on juggling performances ofmultiple practices alongside each other. Passivhaustechnologies seemed to establish closer associationsacross domestic everyday practices because they couldall influence and be influenced by thermal comfort. Theconsequence was that adjustments to both appliance-and non-appliance-using practices were needed to ac-commodate for there being little flexibility in the typesof appliances being used (e.g. clothing: nevervacuuming with a jumper on; cooking: summer mealchoices ensure the oven is used less). By extension, thisalso led to many households multi-tasking less duringthe summer (e.g. not vacuuming when cooking), which


discussion of daily routines in the pre-move-in inter-views showed to be common. Changes to the whenincluded a temporal stretching of some practices sothat the cumulative heating effect was more sparselydistributed (e.g. laundering: not using the tumble dryerimmediately after washing). Therefore, if thermal com-fort—or, as many residents described it, ‘cosiness’(11A; 19A; 2C; 13C; 14C)—was to be maintained,other adjustments to how and when practices wereperformed (away from what and which appliances)had to be made.

Maintaining practices and avoiding disruption:breakdown contingencies

If appliances were to break then the practices themselveswould have to change, even if it only temporarily untiltechnologies were repaired or replaced. Fear of disrup-tion was implicit to many resident discussions, with itclearly influencing appliance ownership.

There was safety in purchasing new appliancesbecause of the reliability offered and, in thedeemed unlikely event of a malfunction, repairscould be quickly organised through the product’swarranty, and this was said to be especiallyimportant because of a general fear that thePassivhaus technologies may in themselves causedisruption. Moreover, second-hand appliances wereoften deemed to not provide the required reliabilityand thus the surety that everyday life would beprotected. Interestingly, not one resident talked ofinsurances which could also provide protection,instead focusing on the appliances themselves, per-haps because replacement of broken old applianceswas deemed a burden on everyday life regardlessof who was paying. Such was the importance ofreliability that one household did happily buy asecond-hand refrigerator, but only because themanufacturer was regarded as reputable, and theyresolutely refused ‘to ever buy washing machinesor hoovers [vacuums] second-hand as [family(relative ‘experts’) had insisted that] they probablywouldn’t work’ (11C).

The wider technological configuration in which theappliances sat clearly influenced notions of reliability.Many households were genuinely concerned by theunfamiliar Passivhaus technologies because they hadvery few relevant skills and competences that could dealwith the breakdown of the MVHR and solar thermal

systems. The few households that did suffer breakdownsthus kept fan heaters, despite never using them, just incase a problem with heating was to arise again. In manyways this was about the residents not placing sufficienttrust in the Passivhaus technologies. Keeping certainappliances, such as a fan heater, therefore provided asafety net in case another breakdown was to occur. Suchappliances were consequently kept in reserve and notused simply because they were available.

Appliances are so embedded within domestic prac-tices that when certain appliances failed—in particularthe larger items and white goods—replacement as soonas possible was seen as essential. Such breakdownsoccurred for a few households when moving the appli-ances from their old to new home. When talking aboutthese past breakdowns, the panic it caused was clear tosee, particularly due to its timing. The frustration ofhaving to replace appliances at an already expensivetime was not ideal, but the residents talk as if they hadno choice but to buy them. Domestic practices (e.g.cooking, laundering) rely on washing machines, refrig-erators, cookers and the like. They were unwilling toeither stop performing these practices or significantlyadjust their performances to cope without an appliance,the reasons of which link back to a practice’s socialexpectations. Since buying a replacement appliancewas therefore seen as an urgent but costly need, thesame few households had to (in the interim at least)source replacements from friends and family or poten-tially buy the cheapest second-hand equivalent avail-able. In these instances, older energy-inefficient appli-ances were typically acquired which, whilst cheaper ormore convenient, could be detrimental to longer-termthermal comfort (as was explored further in ‘The ther-mal role of appliances’).

Influences associated with moving home

Although this study focuses on a sample of householdsmoving into new build Passivhaus homes, it was clearthat many of the appliance ownership changes could notbe solely attributed to Passivhaus. This section therebyconsiders two key sets of influences that are associatedmore generally with the processes of moving and mak-ing a home, which are also relevant beyond thePassivhaus context. Specifically, these relate to (1)how the spatial layout of a new home impacts uponwhat can be brought into it, and (2) how the expectations


attached to a ‘new’ home also led to the purchase of‘new’ appliances.

Spaces: constraining and enabling practices

Technological design and layout can both impose spatialconstraints and provide opportunities for conductingcertain practices in certain ways. Although this subsec-tion is largely couched in the context of dwelling spaceand how appliances fit within that, consideration is alsogiven to the capacity of appliances (e.g. refrigerator/freezers being large enough).

During most resident discussions, if there was oneissue that would spark a passionate response, it wasspace. However, whilst the most important issue formany, space was rather a non-issue for others. Whethera dwelling provides adequate space very much dependsupon the practices being undertaken within it. It isexactly for this reason that one resident explained howinitial worries of downsizing from a three-bedroom to aone-bedroom dwelling were unwarranted because ev-eryday life had changed her space demands, now shewas living on her own.

Looking at one particular element of space—spe-cifically, the capacity of certain appliances—furtherdemonstrates how practices are shaping applianceownership. One household that grew by one adulthalfway through the study considered buying a larg-er fridge-freezer as essential because of the changein household practices that the larger fridge-freezerwas capable of facilitating. For example, a largerfridge-freezer allowed for more storage as more foodneeded to be cooked and the likelihood of guestsvisiting for dinner increased. The foundations ofsuch deliberations can be found in how cookingpractices have developed over time, to the pointwhere they considerably rely on cold appliancesfor food storage. Otherwise, a smaller fridge-freezer or indeed no fridge-freezer could have beenadequate.

Shove and Southerton (2000) also explore space interms of cold appliances, discussing how practices andarrangements associated with the development of super-markets, frozen food, the microwave and kitchen designapproaches have normalised freezer ownership. Indeed,every household in this study owned a freezer (Table 1),which is perhaps unsurprising considering how coldchain technology ‘has made itself indispensable’(Garnett 2007, p. 5) in everyday life. Moreover, Shove

and Southerton (2000, p. 315) argue that the freezer cancurrently be seen as a ‘time machine’, in that it helps‘manage the otherwise intolerable demands of schedul-ing, ordering and co-ordination’. Most households werekeen to utilise the time-efficient shortcuts that greaterfreezer capacity provides:

I’m one of those people that can always fill thefreezer up! I could always do with more space! Itjust speeds up cooking meals. Plus, I can storemore, so don’t have to shop as much. But this[freezer capacity] is adequate, I suppose.(25C)

Many households would have preferred scope formore or larger freezers, often only being limited byspatial restrictions set by the kitchen design. Onesuch household talked of how they considered buy-ing a chest freezer, but had thought it an inefficientuse of space because it uses too much floor spacefor the amount of freezer capacity it provides. Sincejuggling the need for adequate freezer capacity with-in the dwelling’s own spatial constraints posed sucha challenge, most households owned a fridge-freezerdue to its efficient use of space—also meaning thathouseholds did not have to choose between having arefrigerator or freezer.

The space created by dwelling design can makehouseholds re-negotiate previously non-negotiableways of performing a practice. In reference to movingto a dwelling with different (often smaller) spaces, res-idents commonly spoke of how it made them ‘moreruthless in throwing things [appliances] out’ (9C).Whilst moving home was associated with meaningsand expectations of what a new home is meant to entail(as ‘New appliances for a new home: keeping up ap-pearances’ furthers), there was evidence to suggest thatthe moving of possessions to a new dwelling (with itsassociated spatial characteristics) contributed to aprioritisation of appliances. This was particularly salientregarding fitted kitchens which imposed certain spacesupon the household to fill with kitchen appliances. In themost basic sense, the limited space led households toprioritise appliances (e.g. not having a dishwasher) andby extension certain ways of performing a practice (e.g.washing up dirty dishes instead). For instance, the cook-er, refrigerator, freezer (central to cooking) and washingmachine (laundering) technologies were given primelocations. When discussing this in interviews, it became


apparent that these prioritisations were being shaped bythe social expectations of not only performing certaindomestic practices (e.g. cooking, laundering), butperforming them in rather specific ways (e.g. with spe-cific appliances).

Some appliances that were previously in prime posi-tions could now only be accommodated in less prefera-ble ‘empty spaces’ (1C) ‘because there was nowhereelse to put them’ (4B). This spillover into non-idealspaces provided a buffer for appliance ownership, help-ing the continuation of a practice in as near to itsprevious form as possible. We would infer that yearsof reperforming the same practice with the same appli-ances had reinforced that construction of everyday life,making it difficult for households to imagine life with-out those appliances. This meant that some householdswould do whatever they could—sometimes conscious-ly, sometimes not—to not throw away appliances thathad been regularly used previously. Interestingly, thosesame households began to normalise their new techno-logical interactions as time went by, emphasising thatlowering appliance ownership is likely to be met withhousehold disapproval potentially only in the short-term:

I did move the tumble dryer to my bedroom, but ithasn’t been used all the time I’ve been here. Icould run a lead through, but I’m not too happyabout that idea! My clothes dry just as well on aclothes-horse in the plant room. It is handy havingthe dryer, but I don’t feel there is all that muchspace for it, so it’s ended up in the shed, just incase I need it at some point in the future.(3C)

Whilst most spoke very positively about having noradiators which had previously restricted how objectswere organised in a room, those residents who relied onradiators for energy services beyond that of simplykeeping warm spoke about it much more negatively.For example, laundering in one household had alwaysrelied on the radiators for drying clothes quickly, whichwas essential for work purposes and a young child whowas ‘always getting dirty’ (27D). Not having adequatespace for a tumble dryer in addition to, as they saw it, nosuitable place for drying clothes only compounded thisproblem further. They bought a (high electricity-consuming) washer-dryer so that changes to their laun-dering practice (e.g. using a washer-dryer) would not

change their clothing practices (e.g. still did not have towear clothes more than once before laundering, as dic-tated by social notions of cleanliness). A lowerelectricity-consuming alternative to maintaining theircurrent clothing practices could be the provision of adesignated clothes drying area (e.g. a small cupboardconnected to the MVHR), as has been purposivelydesigned into other Passivhaus developments.

Marked spatial differences, relative to one’s previoushome, can also create opportunities for performingexisting practices, or even establishing new practices,in previously sought after ways. This was largely onlythe case for a few households who had previously beenliving in much smaller dwellings. As one resident ex-plained, ‘with having more space, sometimes I seethings that I’ve always wanted, and now I’ve got roomto put it’ (25C). One household had always dreamed ofhaving an outdoor hot tub to host friends and relax induring the summer, but they had not had a garden for theprevious 10 years. They still talk of even having thatpossibility very fondly and, needless to say, within amonth of moving in they bought a hot tub saying to oneanother, ‘well, we’ve got a garden now, this will begreat!’ (26C). Spatial constraints, as determined by theirtechnological surroundings, was therefore the key inhib-itor stopping them from purchasing this (highelectricity-consuming) appliance. These sorts of taleswere not uncommon, contributing to a shared ‘if you’vegot the space, fill it’ mentality.

New appliances for a new home: keepingup appearances

Moving home in itself involved the re-evaluation ofappliances, with a few households hiring a skip fordisposal of various items prior to moving. For some thiswas simply because there was no ‘point [in] movingthings to a new house that I won’t use again’ (12C), butfor most, moving home represented a ‘good time to startafresh’ (14C). It is what this fresh start means to house-holds that this subsection explores, in relation to whatappliances were deemed suitable. The situation is com-plex, going far beyond issues of functionality; other-wise, why would many households have each boughta new microwave with an almost identical specification(e.g. wattage) to replace older microwaves which, ac-cording to the households, were still in working order?

For many, new appliances were essential for a newhome, particularly as their new homes were new build


properties. There was a need for ‘more modern items forsuch a nice, new house’ (13C). It was very common todelay purchasing new appliances (‘making it last’(25C)) in the lead up to moving home, so that theenjoyment of having something new could be reaped,and presumably enhanced, by their ‘lovely new home’(8C). Discussions with the residents indicated that themeanings and expectations of performing practices withthese newer appliances were to convey social status,wealth, the ability to provide for one’s family, moderni-ty, stylishness, and that the new home was not regardedas out of one’s reach. This was particularly evident forhosting and homemaking practices. Consequently,when reviewing the market for appliances for their freshstart, second-hand items were not considered appropri-ate by most households:

It didn’t even occur to us to get second-hand[appliances] for this house [despite always doingso previously]. You’ve got a new house, a newkitchen, and you just want it all new!(24C)

You don’t want to fill your new house with rub-bish [i.e. second-hand appliances]. You want tostart as you mean to go on, so only good stuff [i.e.new appliances].(26C)

Aesthetics were intrinsic to these meanings surround-ing ‘keeping up appearances’. Having appliances whichmatched each other and the general decor was common-ly discussed across most interviews; thus, in manycases, non-matching appliances either had been or wereplanning to be disposed of. One resident spoke proudlyof how her recently bought kitchen items had beencarefully co-ordinated:

Have you seen that all my red things match? Theyare all the same make. The microwave, the [stor-age] pots, the kettle, the toaster. They have tomatch! We didn’t have them when we moved inhere. Once we bought one, we had to buy all theothers so they were co-ordinated!(19B)

Another household talked of how future purchases ofbrand new matching appliances had already beenplanned out for first few years of living in the property.

Their older appliances from their previous home werebeing treated as a stop-gap prior to buying the ones theyreally wanted. Savings schedules had effectively beendrawn up to replace old appliances with equivalents thatbetter suited the image of a new home, and thus themeanings of the practice of homemaking. It isworth noting here that this was actually the onlycontext in which money was raised when discussingappliance purchases during the interviews—i.e. howcosts could delay a purchase, en route to themperforming a practice in a desired way—with seem-ingly no consideration given to energy runningcosts by any of the households.

When questioned more generally about kitchen lay-out and appliances, several residents independentlyraised the issue of gaps in between appliances and thefitted kitchen’s work surfaces. It was usually raised toeither criticise neighbours who had gaps or, in one case,to pre-empt any concerns others may have about theirown gaps. This was in part aesthetic, but seemed largelyrooted in conventions of cleanliness in that gaps wouldattract dirt, dust and food waste which could not beeasily accessed and removed. This conflicted with thehomely conditions that a good host or homemaker wereexpected to provide. Some residents therefore criticisedother residents’ general competence in buying kitchenappliances because they did not understand the impor-tance of dimensions when ordering. Indeed, one residentcritically remarked, ‘our cooker fits in perfect [sic], butSusan’s over there, she didn’t check her measurementsbefore she ordered her oven, so she has gaps!’ (21C).Another resident was disappointed that ‘it never oc-curred to me I would need a washing machine thatwould fit exactly’ (10C). Social expectations of how tointeract with the material world (e.g. a fitted kitchen), asdetermined by hosting and homemaking practices,therefore influences the specification of purchased appli-ances (e.g. size, thus usually also electricity consumption).

The practices of every shared owner were to someextent influenced by these social expectations of howbest to create, maintain and present their new home.Whilst some tenants were similarly influenced, someexplicitly discussed how they were not worried aboutmaking the ‘perfect home’. In general, the sharedowners seemed to have more of an attachment andsense of pride relating to their dwelling. This may inpart be influenced by investing money and time intopurchasing (part of) the dwelling, but the purchasealso represented a commitment to living in their new


home for longer. The shared owner households henceaspired to future visions of living in their new home foryears to come, which consequently influenced appliancechoice. This wasmade especially clear by one householdwho made a distinction between what appliances weresuitable for her new home, as opposed to all her previoushomes which had only been occupied for a few monthsat a time.

Discussion

This section emphasises four cross-cutting themes. First,appliances are essential to domestic practices. Certainappliances were commonly referred to as a need. Thiswas reflected by many appliance types (e.g. cooker,television, refrigerator, freezer) being owned by everyhousehold both before and after moving home. Certainappliances were non-negotiable, and even those appli-ances that were not owned by every household were stillusually described as essential or a need to that specifichousehold’s everyday life. Indeed, appliances were sointegral to everyday life that fear of breakdown, whichcould disrupt the convenience or even possibility ofperforming a practice, strongly influenced appliancepurchases (e.g. reason for replacements, not buyingsecond-hand and/or having an alternative appliance op-tion available).

Second, appliances are relational; thus, the widertechnological configuration that the appliance(s) fitswithin needs consideration, specifically, how the con-figuration influences the practices that use it. For in-stance, dwelling-level materiality was shown to clearlyinfluence the appliances that households used in appro-priating their dwellings, both more generally with spa-tial constraints leading to prioritisation of appliances,and more specifically through Passivhaus technologiesgiving appliances a heating role. By giving practices thespotlight, the importance of inter-technological relation-ships became particularly apparent because of how prac-tices bind technologies together in respective configura-tions. Practices connect and make technologies relevant.

Third, changes to appliance ownership are largelyattributed to the ‘meanings’ (per Shove et al. 2012) ofeveryday practices. The expectations, aspirations andsymbolic associations attached to performing domesticappliance-using practices in certain ways dominated theinfluences underlying appliance ownership changes.The meanings element of practice therefore played a

more prominent role in shaping the materials element(including appliances), in comparisons to the compe-tences element which relatively rarely came to the fore.Whilst skills are needed to be able to perform a practice,they were only a small influence in changing applianceownership. More generally, the dominance of meaningswas illustrated by numerous examples in Table 2.

Moreover, the desire to keep up appearances (e.g. co-ordinated, clutter-free, modern) in the households’hosting and homemaking practices further emphasisesthe significant influence of the images and expectationsof practice. Even though spatial constraints and contin-gency planning may seem to have been the initial stim-ulus for some appliance ownership changes, these onlyoccurred so as to serve certain performances of practiceswhich upholds certain associated meanings. For in-stance, and more specifically related to the case studied,appliances also being heating devices led to new asso-ciations between appliances and thermal comfort socialexpectations (e.g. in turn leading to greater consider-ation of energy-efficient appliances that generate lessheat). Whilst there is no single linear solution to trans-form appliance-using practices and thus appliance own-ership, targeting the social significance and symbolicmeanings associated with appliances-using practices innew homes would certainly aid the transition.

Fourth, variety in the individual performances ofpractices led to each household owning different appli-ances. Throughout this paper, we have emphasised theembeddedness, stability and non-negotiability of prac-tices and the technologies that utilise them. Indeed, asocial practice is usually performed through roughlysimilar means to achieve roughly similar ends. In actu-ality, this, only rough, similarity means differences existin how the same social practices are individually per-formed. These performance differences can contributeto different (perhaps unanticipated) appliances becom-ing firmly embedded in an individual household’s ev-eryday practices. Unintended consequences are a com-mon product of practices and part of what makes themso very difficult to govern.

These four themes implicitly reinforce the conclu-sions of Shove et al. (2007, p. 141), regarding theirresearch on the practical usage of everyday objects,who emphasise that ‘things are acquired, discardedand re-designed with reference to culturally specificexpectations of doing and of having—not of havingalone’. As they simply put it, ‘doing matters for havingand having matters for doing’ (Shove et al. 2007, p.


142). Therefore in researching technological ownership(having)—in this case, of appliances—one is unable toseparate it from the performance of practices (doing).

Conclusions

This paper aims to investigate how moving home caninfluence appliance-using practices and thereby appli-ance ownership levels. A clear strength of this study isits methodological approach because it, unlike manysimilar studies, both audited the appliances andinterviewed the households before as well as aftermove-in. A Passivhaus development was used as a casestudy, as part of highlighting potential ownership chang-es that could occur as housing stocks improve theirenergy efficiency in the future. The electricity consumedby these households in their previous dwellings wasvery similar to the amount consumed in their newPassivhaus dwelling. Yet despite this, significant chang-es in appliance ownership were evident for every house-hold, both with regard to the total number and individualspecifications of each appliance type.

Changes in appliance ownership were caused bychanges in how appliance-using practices were beingperformed and, in particular, how these practicesresponded to the new surroundings that the householdswere attempting to call home. Some of these influenceswere largely specific to the Passivhaus context, such asappliances impacting thermal comfort, and the expecta-tion that Passivhaus technologies could go wrong andthereby disrupt everyday life. Whereas other influenceswere more relevant to moving home more generally,such as the expectation that new appliances best com-plement a new home, and that the spatial layout of abuilding will shape what appliances can brought into it.

This paper has reiterated how the elements ofappliance-using practices can change when movinghome. Whilst this is perhaps most obvious with regardto materiality (e.g. a new physical house that one cancall home), it was actually the relationship betweenmaterial changes and changes to the meanings ofappliance-using practices that was most important indriving changes to appliance ownership. In contrast,the competences of appliance-using practices did notinhibit the purchase or disposal of appliances, with itassumed by households that they had (or would rela-tively easily be able to acquire) the relevant knowledgesto operate newly purchased appliances in their new

home. Therefore, the images and social expectations ofhow households perform practices in a new home werecritical, and this was not only for the practice of home-making itself but also for almost every domestic practice(as these were now being performed at a new ‘site’).Indeed, a new home led to the enhancement of many ofthe meanings of cooking, laundering, hosting and ther-mal comfort practices (e.g. more stylish, modern, con-venient, clean), which tended to also make the practicesmore unsustainable.

As Passivhaus is a building standard, this case studyalso provides insight on how the standardisation ofbuildings could impact appliance-using practices, orindeed practices more generally. Admittedly, thePassivhaus standard does not prescribe a particular con-struction approach, but it does nevertheless (through thetargets it sets) pull buildings in a common direction (e.g.airtightness, super insulation), and it is this direction thathas directly influenced appliance ownership (e.g.through appliances now also being heaters). Similarly,but aside from Passivhaus, the default floor area stan-dards for what was deemed as a ‘normal’ size for three-or four-bedroom houses posed spatial constraints, whichinhibited certain performances of practice and hence theownership of certain types of appliances too. Broaderconsideration is thus needed of how standards that focuson building structure and form could begin to standard-ise how people live. However, there are also manyunspoken ‘standards’ (e.g. number of plug sockets) thatare institutionally engrained in design and constructionpractices, and these more informal standards also re-quire our attention. Indeed how many plug sockets, forinstance, will our homes have in 2050 and what impli-cations could that have for our energy reduction targets?Which specific design strategies are more likely to leadhouseholds to certain modes of everyday living? Howdoes the sizing of appliances relate to the default sizeassumption of building design? How is what is ‘normal’design and construction shaping what is ‘normal’ ev-eryday living for households? And should we even beattempting to ‘standardise’ building design in certain(more preferable) ways? Such questions are of vitalimportance as we consider how our next generation ofbuildings are constructed.

Acknowledgments Many thanks to Charlie Wilson and the twoanonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier ver-sions of this paper, and also to the Economic and Social ResearchCouncil for funding the primary researcher (Grant number: ES/H011129/1).


Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestrict-ed use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, providedyou give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate ifchanges were made.

References

Bourdieu, P. (1984).Distinction: a social critique of the judgementof taste. London: Routledge.

CDA. (2000). Electrical convenience in New build homes surveyreport. Hemel: Hempstead. Available: http://www.copperinfo.co.uk/residential/downloads/pub-140-electrical-convenience-new-build-for-builders.pdf.

DECC. (2013). Energy consumption in UK—chapter 1: overalldata tables (2013 update). London: Department of Energyand Climate Change. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/energy-consumption-in-the-uk.

Efstathiou, A., Grant, D., & Maxwell, S. M. (2004). The owner-ship and use of small kitchen domestic appliances: casestudy, Liverpool. International Journal of ConsumerStudies, 28(3), 305–311.

Energy Saving Trust. (2011). The elephant in the living room: howour appliances and gadgets are trampling the green dream.London: EST. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21164213.

Feist, W., Schnieders, J., Dorer, V., & Haas, A. (2005). Re-inventing air heating: convenient and comfortable withinthe frame of the passive house concept. Energy andBuildings, 37(11), 1186–1203.

Garnett, T. (2007). Food refrigeration: what is the contribution togreenhouse gas emissions and howmight emissions be reduced?(Food climate research networkworking paper series). Guildford:Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey.

Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: outline of thetheory of structuration. Cambridge: The Polity Press.

Gram-Hanssen, K. (2010). Standby consumption in householdsanalyzed with a practice theory approach. Journal ofIndustrial Ecology, 14(1), 150–165.

Gram-Hanssen, K. (2011). Understanding change and continuityin residential energy consumption. Journal of ConsumerCulture, 11(1), 61–78.

Gram-Hanssen, K. (2013). Efficient technologies or user behav-iour, which is the more important when reducing households’energy consumption? Energy Efficiency, 6(3), 447–457.

Hand, M., & Shove, E. (2004). Orchestrating concepts: kitchendynamics and regime change in good housekeeping and idealhome, 1922–2002. Home Cultures, 1(3), 1–22.

Hand,M., & Shove, E. (2007). Condensing practices: ways of livingwith a freezer. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7(1), 79–104.

Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practice-ing behaviour change: applyingsocial practice theory to pro-environmental behaviourchange. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 79–99.

Lane, M. (2007). A solution to the socket shortage? London:British Broadcasting Corporation. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6705313.stm.

Leahy, E., & Lyons, S. (2010). Energy use and appliance owner-ship in Ireland. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4265–4279.

Mansouri, I., Newborough, M., & Probert, D. (1996). Energyconsumption in UK households: impact of domestic electri-cal appliances. Applied Energy, 54(3), 211–285.

McLeod, R. S., Hopfe, C. J., & Rezgui, Y. (2012). An investiga-tion into recent proposals for a revised definition of zerocarbon homes in the UK. Energy Policy, 46, 25–35.

McMeekin, A., & Southerton, D. (2012). Sustainability transitionsand final consumption: practices and socio-technical systems.Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(4), 345–361.

Monahan, J., & Powell, J. C. (2011). A comparison of the energyand carbon implications of new systems of energy provision innew build housing in the UK. Energy Policy, 39(1), 290–298.

O’Doherty, J., Lyons, S., & Tol, R. S. J. (2008). Energy-usingappliances and energy-saving features: determinants of own-ership in Ireland. Applied Energy, 85(7), 650–662.

Owen, P. (2007). The ampere strikes back: how consumer electron-ics are taking over the world. London: Energy Saving Trust.

Owen, P. (2012). Powering the nation: household electricity-usinghabits revealed. London: Energy Saving Trust and theDepartment of Energy and Climate Change, andDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: a devel-opment in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of SocialTheory, 5(2), 243–263.

Røpke, I. (2009). Theories of practice—new inspiration for eco-logical economic studies on consumption. EcologicalEconomics, 68(10), 2490–2497.

Sandberg, J., & Haridimos, T. (2011). Grasping the logic ofpractice: theorizing through practical rationality. Academyof Management Review, 36(2), 338–360.

Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: a philosophicalaccount of the constitution of social life and change (first.).Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Schatzki, T. R. (2011). Where the action is (on large socialphenomena such as sociotechnical regimes). Manchester:Sustainable Practices Research Group Working Paper 1.

Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., & Von Savigny, E. (2001). Thepractice turn in contemporary theory. The practice turn incontemporary theory. London and New York: Routledge.

Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: climate change policy andtheories of social change. Environment and Planning A,42(6), 1273–1285.

Shove, E., & Hand, M. (2000). The restless kitchen: possession,performance and renewal (Kitchens and bathrooms: chang-ing technologies, practices and social organisation—implica-tions for sustainability, interdiscilinary workshop (pp. 1–15)).UK: University of Manchester. 27–28 January.

Shove, E., & Southerton, D. (2000). Defrosting the freezer: fromnovelty to convenience: a narrative of normalization. Journalof Material Culture, 5(3), 301–319.

Shove, E., Watson, M., Hand,M., & Ingram, J. (2007). The designof everyday life. Oxford and New York: Berg.

Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics ofsocial practice: everyday life and how it changes. London:Sage Publications.

Southerton, D. (2001). Consuming kitchens: taste, context and iden-tity formation. Journal of Consumer Culture, 1(2), 179–203.

Thompson, S., Michaelson, J., Abdallah, S., Johnson, V., Morris, D.,Riley, K., et al. (2011). BMoments of change^ as opportunities


http://www.copperinfo.co.uk/residential/downloads/pub-140-electrical-convenience-new-build-for-builders.pdf



https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/energy-consumption-in-the-uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/energy-consumption-in-the-uk

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21164213

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21164213

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6705313.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6705313.stm

for influencing behaviour: a report to the Department forEnvironment. London: Food and Rural Affairs. Available:h t tp : / / r andd .de f ra .gov.uk /Defau l t . a spx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=16193.

Verplanken, B., Walker, I., Davis, A., & Jurasek, M.(2008). Context change and travel mode choice: com-bining the habit discontinuity and self-activation hy-potheses. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2),121–127.

Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journalof Consumer Culture, 5(2), 131–153.

Wilhite, H. (2012). Towards a better accounting of the roles ofbody, things and habits in consumption. In A. Warde & D.Southerton (Eds.), The habits of consumption (pp. 87–99).Helsinki: COLLeGIUM of Studies Across Disciplines in theHumanities and Social Sciences.

Zimmermann, J.-P., Evans, M., Griggs, J., King, N., Harding, L.,Roberts, P., et al. (2012). Household electricity survey: astudy of domestic electrical product usage. Produced onbehalf of the Energy Saving Trust, Department of Energyand Climate Change, and Department for Environment,Food, and Rural Affairs, by AEA Technology, Intertek,Ipsos MORI and Enertech. London.


http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=16193



how moving home influences appliance ownership: a ... · how moving home influences appliance...

Documents