from modern housing to sustainable suburbia: how occupants and their dwellings are adapting to...

This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]On: 25 September 2013, At: 00:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Housing, Theory and SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/shou20

From Modern Housing to SustainableSuburbia: How Occupants and theirDwellings are Adapting to ReduceHome Energy ConsumptionMichelle Gabriel a & Phillipa Watson aa Housing and Community Research Unit, School of Sociology andSocial Work , University of Tasmania , Hobart , AustraliaPublished online: 19 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Michelle Gabriel & Phillipa Watson (2013) From Modern Housing to SustainableSuburbia: How Occupants and their Dwellings are Adapting to Reduce Home Energy Consumption,Housing, Theory and Society, 30:3, 219-236, DOI: 10.1080/14036096.2013.775183

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2013.775183

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/shou20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14036096.2013.775183

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2013.775183

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

From Modern Housing to SustainableSuburbia: How Occupants and theirDwellings are Adapting to Reduce HomeEnergy Consumption

MICHELLE GABRIEL & PHILLIPA WATSON

Housing and Community Research Unit, School of Sociology and Social Work, University of Tasmania,Hobart, Australia

ABSTRACT In this paper, we examine how occupants and their dwellings adapt to reducehome energy consumption. Our analysis is informed by recent studies which emphasize themateriality of the home, as well as the impact of technological change within the home.Such approaches are important in clarifying the relationship between home design and homepractices, as well as understanding processes of change such as sustainable home adapta-tion. Drawing on people’s experiences of installing solar hot water systems, we found thatsustainable home adaptation was not a straightforward process whereby occupant aspira-tions were delivered through building adaptation, but rather adaptation arose from the dif-fering capacities and practices of occupants and their buildings, and how these werenegotiated over time. In particular, we found that successful adaptations were dependent onthe integration of the occupant’s “folk knowledge” of their home along with the “technicalknowledge” provided by tradespeople, suppliers or the occupant themselves. In contrast tomid-century Australian housing new sustainable modes of living demand: workingknowledge of the dwelling, reflection on home practices, and case-specific adjustments ofdwellings that reflect the needs and capacities of occupants.

KEY WORDS: Sustainable, Adaptation, Material culture, Technology

Introduction

In this paper, we examine how occupants and their dwellings are adapting to reducehome energy consumption. Our analysis is informed by recent studies whichemphasize the materiality of the home (i.e. the relationship between occupantpractices and the physical features of the home) (Hicks 2010, 77; Miller 2001), aswell as the impact of technological change within the home (Hand, Shove, andSoutherton 2007; Shove 2003). Such approaches are important in clarifying the

Correspondence Address: Michelle Gabriel, Housing and Community Research Unit, School ofSociology and Social Work, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 17, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia.Fax: +61 3 6226 2279; Tel.: +61 3 6226 2361; Email: [email protected]

� 2013 IBF, The Institute for Housing and Urban Research

Housing, Theory and Society, 2013Vol. 30, No. 3, 219–236, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2013.775183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

relationship between home design and home practices, as well as understandingprocesses of change such as sustainable home adaptation. Drawing on people’sexperiences of installing solar hot water (SHW) systems, we found that sustainablehome adaptation was not a straightforward process whereby occupant aspirationswere delivered through building adaptation, but rather adaptation arose from the dif-fering capacities and practices of occupants and their buildings, and how these werenegotiated over time. In particular, we found that successful adaptations weredependent on the integration of the occupant’s “folk knowledge” of their homealong with the “technical knowledge” provided by tradespeople, suppliers or theoccupant themselves. In contrast to mid-century Australian housing which providedan increasingly standardized form of home living built around labour-saving butenergy-intensive appliances, sustainable suburbia demands: working knowledge ofthe dwelling, reflection on home practices, as well as case-specific adjustments ofdwellings that reflect the needs and capacities of occupants.

Addressing Environmental Sustainability in Housing Research

Since the energy crisis of the mid-1970s, concerns about global environmental con-ditions have gained traction in international policy-making forums and generatedactivity focused on sustainability and sustainable development (Baker 2005). Grow-ing interest in sustainable housing research (Bhatti and Dixon 2003; Edwards andTurrent 2000; Goldie, Douglas, and Furnass 2005; Jenks and Dempsey 2006) hasraised important questions about the robustness and limitations of existing theoreti-cal frameworks and methodological approaches applied within housing studies. Incontrast to existing work on the delivery of social housing policy and housingaffordability, sustainable housing requires greater attention to architectural matterssuch as house design and modes of living within a home, while remaining cogni-zant of issues of structural change, resource distribution and equity. This is a pointpreviously raised by Maller and Horne (2011) and Maller, Horne, and Dalton(2011) in their recent work on how home owners are incorporating sustainabilityinto their renovations and home practices. Of particular concern is how housingresearchers can accommodate and account for the materiality of the home withintheir analyses (Gabriel and Jacobs 2008; Nansen et al. 2011; Smith 2004).

In responding to this concern, our study of sustainable home adaptation draws oninsights emerging from the interdisciplinary fields of material culture studies (Hicksand Beaudry 2010; Miller 2001, 2005), and science and technology studies (STS)(Law 2010; MacKenzie and Wajcman 1999; Pickering 1995; Shove 2003; Shove,Pantzer, and Watson 2012). While these fields share in common a social understand-ing of material and technical artefacts, contemporary material cultural studies emergefrom a tradition of archaeological and social anthropological work, whereas the fieldof STS is informed by claims advanced by actor–network theorists such as Callon(1986, 1998) and Latour (1993, 2005). As Hicks and Beaudry (2010, 7) note, suchstudies “demonstrate how material things emerge in different ways from differentdisciplinary concerns and traditions of thought”. Despite these differing disciplinarytrajectories, a socio-material and/or socio-technical approach offers housing research-ers the opportunity to extend their analytical gaze by de-centring the human subjectas the nucleus of social life and by attending to the role of non-human actorswithin social scientific inquiry (Gabriel and Jacobs 2008, 527). What marks out a

220 M. Gabriel & P. Watson

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

socio-material and/or socio-technical approach as particularly useful to the develop-ment of a research agenda on sustainable housing is a rejection of the assumeddistinction between the natural and social world. Instead, these writers attend to theways in which the technical and human are entangled.

In the paper, we begin by indentifying critical insights from material culture andsocio-technical studies that can assist with our analysis of sustainable home adapta-tion. First, we review social research that has sought to rethink the distinctionbetween “active” occupants and “inactive” buildings. Second, we examine howstudies that focus on the entanglements between humans and non-humans canaccount for social change and adaptation. We then examine three experiences ofsustainable home adaptation, with a focus on people’s experiences of installingSHW systems in their homes. In the analysis, we examine the relationship betweenoccupants and buildings, and how building design and occupant capacity and prac-tices interact with and shape one another. The case studies provide insight into thesignificance of previously articulated concepts within the socio-technical literature,including “scripting” and “appropriation”. The case studies also provide new insightinto the negotiation of “occupant-building” relationships in Australian suburbia byhighlighting the role of “folk knowledge” and “technical knowledge” in the processof sustainable home adaptation. “Folk knowledge” refers to all the things that peo-ple have learnt about their home over time, which in turn informs the way theyrespond to their home. In contrast, “technical knowledge” refers to people’s under-standing of how specific technologies within the home operate.

Rethinking the Distinction between “Active” Occupants and “Inactive”Buildings

We are interested in understanding the process of sustainable home adaptation. Sus-tainable home adaptation is distinguished from home renovation in that it entailsadapting the home for the explicit purpose of reducing the household’s energy,water and resource use. This process of adaptation includes both the process of ret-rofitting a home with appropriate technologies that can reduce energy, water andresource use, and the process of adapting and changing behaviours within the homein order to reduce energy, water and resource use. In this section, we outline analternative model to that of the “active” occupant who makes changes to an “inac-tive” building. In doing so, we flesh out an alternative understanding of the relation-ship between design and behaviour, one that represents a middle road betweenphysical determinism and the privileging of human agency within accounts of thesocial world.

Within the closely aligned fields of material cultural studies and socio-technicalstudies, there has been a provocative and radical reconfiguration of the relationshipbetween agency, object and structure (Latour 1988, 1993, 2005). Of central concernis the question of whether or not objects, like people, have agency. In his (2001)edited collection, Home Possessions, anthropologist Daniel Miller and his co-authorsengage directly with the issue of how objects impact on the lives of theirinhabitants. They draw the reader’s attention to the mundane ways in which a homeand its inhabitants transform one another. As Miller explains, “moving in andmaintaining a home we have constantly to contend with the pre-given decorativeand other ordering schemes of the house” (110). Miller details the way in whichhomes and their inhabitants negotiate a compromise between the house’s given

Reduce Home Energy Consumption 221

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

order and the inhabitant’s preferences. Miller offers a pluralistic approach to thestudy of material culture, which is supported by extensive fieldwork and a compara-tive understanding of the meaning of objects within different contexts. Thisapproach can be distinguished from earlier formalist or structuralist models of mate-rial culture, which were derived from linguistics and which treated objects as signsand as repositories of human culture (Hicks 2010, 59–68).

Similarly, socio-technical writers have sought to emphasize that objects are“thoroughly socialized” (Pels, Hetherington, and Vandenberghe 2002, 1). ElizabethShove (2003) in her study of home comfort, cleanliness and convenience, makeseffective use of Jelsma’s (1999) concept of “scripting” in describing how the designof appliances may work to facilitate, more or less, energy efficiency practices withinthe home. Shove’s (2003) concern is with how technical systems and devices con-figure their users, particularly in the context of the global diffusion of standardizedappliances. Scripting refers to the influence that the physical design of the homeand technologies within the home can have on the actions and practices of theoccupant. For example, the placement of an effective heater in the main livingspace of a home can encourage high use of this area over other areas such as theoffice or bedroom. While products may be designed with particular occupant expec-tations and behaviours in mind, as Ingram, Shove, and Watson (2007, 9) observe,scripting is not always intentional, with some scripts being highly prescriptive oftheir users and others offering more flexibility.

Notably, the above accounts seek to animate objects within the analysis bydrawing attention to the “ordering schemes” or “scripts” of the house, while alsoinsisting on the unpredictability and reversibility of any given network. As Shove(2003, 15) observes, “some technological scripts are more ‘open’ or ‘resistible’ thanothers”. Indeed, as a counterpoint to simplistic accounts of the social impact oftechnologies, Shove and others have sought to emphasize the way people “appropri-ate” technologies for alternative purposes than that intended by designers (Handand Shove 2004, 2) and to track the co-evolution of technological innovation andsocial practices (Shove et al. 2007). As Ingram, Shove, and Watson (2007, 5) note,appropriation recognizes “the active part that users play in fitting technologies andcommodities into existing ways of life, frameworks of meaning and contexts ofpractice”. This entails resisting the predetermined scripts of products and homedesign, and finding alternative ways of managing and living with objects.Retrofitting for sustainability can entail re-examining the scripts implicit in modernpost-war house design in order to improve comfort and reduce household energyconsumption. These concepts of “scripting” and “appropriation” are useful insignalling different weighting in the relationship between appliances and their users.

Studies of material culture have engaged extensively with questions such ashow objects shape human lives and whether or not objects have agency (Hicks andBeaudry 2010; Latour 2005; Miller 2005). Jones and Boivin (2010, 337) suggestthat “imputing agency to inanimate objects is an unhelpful product of the Westernopposition between ‘objects’ and ‘subjects’” and call for the need to “move beyondthis dichotomy”. They argue that we “should rethink the concept of agency, ratherthan material agency” (351). They conclude that:

Agency is not then simply a subject-centred ability to act, but instead definesthe way in which courses of action are mediated and articulated over time,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

whether that action is physically carried out by people or by things….Such aperspective enables us to dissolve the pure distinction between agents actingof their own volition and inanimate materials, and to begin to build models ofsocial action and society that recognize the complexity, and challenges of theworlds that we enact. (351)

For Jones and Boivin then, agency is located in entanglement or networks andtherefore it is “the material qualities of things and their involvement in social prac-tices” which “entrain particular modes of being” (346). Following Callon (1986),they advocate greater symmetry in the treatment of human and non-human actorswithin a given analysis, rather than privileging the voices of human actors. Consis-tent with this approach, we focus from the outset on the entanglements which resultin particular adaptive outcomes. We are interested in both the design–scripts embod-ied within post-war and late twentieth century Australian housing, as well as theways in which people are able to appropriate and challenge such scripts.

Social Change, Sustainable Adaptation and Housing Practices

While our analysis of sustainable home adaptation focuses on the relationshipbetween occupants and their homes, we are also interested in what facilitates andinhibits sustainable adaptation among households, neighbourhoods and societies.Accordingly, in this section, we turn to the treatment of housing adaptation, modifi-cation and change within recent accounts that apply a material cultural or socio-technical framework.

The “material” turn within housing research is characterized by analyses thatfocus from the outset on specific artefacts and the confluence of actors, networksand activities that surround them. In accounting for change, this approach empha-sizes the stabilization and destabilization of networks and practices over time. Forexample, in their study of how people and media coexist within the home, Nansenet al. (2011, 696) are interested in the reshaping of home environments in responseto shifting information and communication technology requirements and mediapractices. Here they draw explicitly on Brand’s (1994) diachronic understanding ofthe life of buildings, in which buildings are continually reshaped in accordance withthe inhabitant’s needs and the inhabitant in turn adjusts their habits and routines inaccordance with the constraints of the building. The reconfiguration of housingpractices over time is also central to Hand, Shove and Southerton (2007, 678)recent work on home extensions in the UK. Here they attend to spatial and tempo-ral pressures within the home, noting that “understandings vary between socialgroups and change through the life course”. They insist that “the relation betweenspace, technology, and practice is never static”, but rather “the home is indeed arestless place: pressure points of space and time are always on the move” (678).

In their more recent work on The Dynamics of Social Practice, Shove et al.(2012) theorize processes of social change. Drawing on theories of practice, theyargue that practices are remade through the recombination of various elementsincluding “materials”, “competences” and “meanings” (14–15). Accordingly, thesocial researcher plays a critical role in identifying key elements which contributeto the stabilization and destabilization of particular practices. Using this approach,Gram-Hanssen (2011, 65) examines changes in residential energy consumption


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

practices. Her study explains variation in energy consumption practices and energyuse in terms of different combinations of four elements: “know-how and embodiedhabits”; “institutional knowledge and explicit rules”; “engagements” and “technolo-gies”.

While the above accounts, focus attention on the constant, adjustments andrealignments taking place within a home on a daily basis, further work by Handand Shove (2004, 4) has sought to understand such local reconfigurations withinthe context of historical and global social change. In their study of the historicalchanges in kitchen ideas and layouts, their aim is to:

develop a theoretical account of how and why particular regimes or combina-tions of technologies, images, meanings and forms of skill, stabilize, becomedominant and fall into decline. (4)

Within their analysis, they attend to the configuration of particular materials,images and skills, but they are also interested in the role of the kitchen as anorchestrating and conceptual force. They argue that prevailing ideas about whatmakes a good kitchen act like a magnet in the sense of attracting and repelling par-ticular elements. They suggest that “orchestrating concepts like ‘the kitchen’ mayhave a life of their own, structuring whilst also being structured by the elementsthey hold together” (13). In doing so, they make two critical points: “that the rela-tion between materials, images and skills is of some consequence for the stabilityand transformation of kitchen regimes”, but also that “orchestrating concepts andprocesses influence the nature of that relation” (17).

Shove’s (2003) study of comfort, cleanliness and convenience provides furtherinsight into processes of social change. In the final chapter of her book, Shove out-lines four images of change underpinning the reconfiguration of particular regimesof comfort, cleanliness and convenience: the ratchet, pinwheel, the system of sys-tems and the spiral. The ratchet, a device to ensure motion in one direction only,represents technical solutions that are heavily scripted and that limit alternativefuture uses and arrangements. In contrast, the pinwheel can move in different direc-tions, with patterns of consumption and demand potentially heading in differentdirections. The third model she terms a “system of systems” in which the elementswhich hold a regime of comfort are complex and yet with a minor adjustment thewhole system can change. The final image is of the spiral, which like the ratchet,gains its own unidirectional momentum, that is “convenient solutions generatedemand for more convenience” (196). In outlining these models of change, Shovehighlights a concern with the development of closed systems that are resistant toreconfiguration, that is, the development and global distribution of standardizedexpectations and technologies that inhibit social and cultural diversity.

In relation to our study of sustainable home adaptation, we have similarlysought to understand the organizing principles that inform the housing scripts avail-able to Australian households and to what extent they act to close and limit alterna-tive future uses and arrangements. The lens of modernity is critical inunderstanding such scripts. Modernity is inscribed within Australian suburban hous-ing through: the standardization of building design (e.g. detached three bedroomhome); the privileging of particular construction materials (e.g. widespread use ofbrick veneer); and the reliance on active rather than passive heating and cooling. It


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

is further inscribed through: uniformity in urban planning; the shift away fromsmall-scale, owner-builders to a reliance on large-scale companies for residentialhousing construction in the post-war period; and resource-intensive household prac-tices (e.g. high use of appliances) (Greig 1997; Rowe 1993). While the impact ofindustrialization and modernization on housing form and modes of living has beendocumented (see, e.g. Rybczynski 1986), there has been limited insight into theway this “orchestrating concept” of modernity has come to configure types of houseconsumers, and further how it prescribes and constrains particular adaptiveresponses.

In summary, a material cultural and/or socio-technical approach has been impor-tant in challenging the distinction between “active” occupants and “inactive” build-ings. This alternative model directs us towards an examination of the capacities ofoccupants and buildings, and provides us with insight into how the relationshipsbetween buildings and their occupants give rise to adaptation. This approachemphasizes the scripts that prescribe particular practices, as well as the ways inwhich people appropriate technologies. Such writers also specify models of socialchange, which entail tracing how entanglements of actors or what Shove, Pantzerand Watson (2012) term “elements and practices” have become stabilized and thendestabilized over time. Drawing on these insights, we now document and analysethree experiences of sustainable home adaptation.

Experiences of Sustainable Home Adaptation

Our analysis is based on three stories of adaptation that were documented as part ofWatson’s PhD project, which examined home adaptation for energy efficiency andequity in Tasmania. Study participants were recruited via a local rebate programme,the Glenorchy Action Energy Rebate programme (GAER). The aim of GAER wasto assist households in a low-income neighbourhood to make improvements thatincreased the energy and water efficiency of their homes. The programme provideda range of rebates, including a rebate for the installation of a SHW system over asix month period in 2007. In our analysis, we focus on experiences of installing anew SHW system and the impact of this installation on energy consuming practicesaround the home. This data were obtained through multiple interviews with partici-pants of the GAER programme in their homes both before and after the installationof the SHW. This approach generated data on both dwelling and occupant capacitythrough observation of the dwelling and interviews with occupants.

Unsuccessful Sustainable Home Adaptation

Our first story of sustainable home adaptation is about an elderly couple whoinstalled a SHW system as part of range of home adaptations aimed at allowingthem to live independently at home as they aged. Unfortunately, installing the SHWsystem resulted in minimal energy savings and in addition resulted in the loss ofsome important features within their home.

Del and Kirk live in a 60m2 detached house on a small (255m2) suburbanblock. Built in the 1990s, the house is single storey brick veneer with a concreteslab on ground and a corrugated iron roof. When Del and Kirk first moved in 12years ago, they realized that they needed to improve the comfort and accessibility


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

of their home. The house was not designed for an aged couple’s needs. The househad doors with clashing swings, narrow corridors, and a tight bathroom that wasdifficult to use. A wheelchair wouldn’t have fit.

Del: I am having a bit of a battle with myself at the moment and the jollywalker [i.e. a walking frame] here because I’ve been told I have to use it allthe time in the house and outside. (22 August 2008)

In addition, their home felt very cold due to lack of insulation and poor orientation.The original heating system, which entailed one electric heater, was insufficient foran elderly couple who spent a considerable amount of time at home and who wereonly moderately active.

Del and Kirk consequently decided to renovate.

Kirk: We are working towards getting it just the way we want it. We havebeen saving up for this … since I retired actually. Now we are workingthrough a list.

Del: Before they cart us off to the old folk’s home. (21 May 2008)

They adjusted doors, fixed drainage, retrofitted the bathroom, installed heaters,added insulation and added window coverings. Time spent renovating was instruc-tive in building-up knowledge about their home and ensuring that their home sup-ported their lifestyle. After the renovations, Del was able to move about the housemore easily and the couple felt warmer.

Del and Kirk were resourceful people, who had built up considerable knowledgeand skills relating to self-sufficiency within the home. They had lived through theSecond World War and had previously owned a farm. While they retained thisknowledge, they were aware that their physical capacity had declined and thismeant they were unable to undertake much of the renovation work themselves.Consequently, they had to rely and trust in tradespeople to complete the renovationsfor them. This entailed trusting the technical competence of their tradespeople andthe quality of their work.

Kirk: We are very handy with the yellow pages [telephone directory]! (26February 2008)

While they had previously thought through ways of addressing energy efficiency,the availability of the GAER rebate provided the financial means to act on one oftheir ideas, which was to install a SHW system. Del and Kirk chose a SHW systemmodel and technology that was supplied by an interstate company, which meantthere was limited interaction with the product provider. They opted for a commonlyavailable all-in-one external SHW system which meant that both the solar collectorsand the tank were placed together on the roof.

Problems started to occur at the point of installation. The installation occurredin a hurry while they were out and the plumber used an electrician inexperienced inSHW installations. The electrician was therefore unaware of the importance ofinstalling an electric booster reminder light and an accessible manual booster


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

switch. The absence of a reminder light was a significant problem for Del and Kirkas they had difficulty monitoring the use of their electric booster.

Kirk: So we are not conscious when it is actually working. We may be con-scious when we get the bills. (26 February 2008)

In addition, the installation of the SHW unit on the roof meant the existing hotwater tank was removed from a cupboard in the laundry, which meant that theywere no longer able to use waste heat from their hot water tank. The tank had beenconveniently positioned next to the kitchen and near the outside drying area. Deland Kirk had used the waste heat from their old tank for a variety of tasks, in par-ticular to: finish drying clothes; dry out moist paper; raise their bread dough; andhelp reduce high moisture levels in the kitchen.

Kirk: It was no longer an airing cupboard and I miss that. (26 February 2008)

The removal of the hot water tank from the cupboard changed their indoor environ-ment and in turn forced Del and Kirk to change some of their habitual laundry andcooking practices. They now found that they could not make bread and their bis-cuits went soggy. Kirk tried to work out ways to recreate a warm airing cupboardwith only minor success. They regretted the loss of key functions in their home asa consequence of the installation and they found it difficult to identify alternativesolutions to compensate for the loss of waste heat in their laundry/kitchen area.Most frustratingly for the couple, the SHW system did not result in energy savings.They were still using large amounts of energy to heat their water and their bills costthe same.

Successful SHW System

Our second story is about a young family, Cara, Edward and their daughter Veron-ica, who installed a SHW system as part of comprehensive process of adapting theirhome for sustainable living. Their aim was to reduce energy and water requirementson site and reduce their consumption generally. In this case, installing the SHWsystem resulted in energy savings. In contrast to Del and Kirk, they used their elec-tric booster minimally. They were aware of the capacity of the solar heating systemand they were able to easily turn the electric booster on and off as required.

Cara, Edward and Veronica live in a 130m2 detached house on a standard(600m2) suburban block. Built in the 1950s, the house is a single storey, three bed-room, weatherboard house on a suspended timber floor with a tile roof. They pur-chased their home three years ago. Cara and Edward were concerned about theimpacts of their living on the environment and they wanted to minimize them.When looking for a home to buy, they explicitly sought a home that could berenovated for sustainability. The house they chose met their criteria because it had:good solar access; a backyard that could readily support food production, includingvegetables and chickens; and it could be retrofitted for energy and water efficiencyeasily. In addition, the location of the house near services, shops and transportenabled them to reduce their dependence on the car.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

The house had been adjusted and changed in various ways over the years beforeCara and Edward bought it. While the house provided sufficient space for the fam-ily of three, its thermal performance was poor with single glazing and no effectiveinsulation. None of the improvements undertaken by the previous owners were forenergy efficiency or sustainability. In response, Cara and Edward began planning acomprehensive renovation programme. The changes they made to the house wereprioritized according to their current capacity and what would provide the greatestsustainable effect. They were keen to use passive methods to reduce energy andwater consumption where possible, and then to supplement these with efficient tech-nologies as they could afford them.

The family was aware that their renovation programme was extensive and there-fore they prioritized the renovation according to their current capacity (e.g. budget,time and knowledge) and in terms of what changes would provide the greatestenergy and water reductions. Edward had the appropriate skills to enable him tomanage the renovation. The family opted for Cara to work full-time, while Edwardworked part-time and undertook most of the labour himself. While they were plan-ning on installing SHW in the future, they had not prioritized this initially becauseof the high costs involved. However, when the GAER rebate became available theydecided to apply for a personal loan and install the SHW system earlier than theyhad planned.

Before choosing a particular hot water system, Edward researched the availabletechnologies, contacted suppliers and sought the opinions of tradespeople withexpertise in installing SHW technologies. Based on his research, they chose an effi-cient split-system model, which meant that the hot water tank could be replaced inthe same position. Edward and Cara found the installation process stressful becauseof the tight timeline remaining for the use of the rebate, the personal loan applica-tion, and because there were not many trades people available.

Before the installation, Edward and Cara had an intimate knowledge of theirhouse, including its heating and plumbing systems and thermal performance. Theyused passive methods (e.g. opening/closing windows and curtains) where possible inpreference to energy efficient technologies that were also available in the house (e.g.heat pump air conditioning) when managing their home comfort. After installation,they continued to follow this passive approach with their hot water system wherepossible and aimed to minimize their use of the electrical booster. They turned theirelectric hot water booster on manually and they only did so when it was required oncold, cloudy winter days. They monitored and measured their use and they wereprepared to change routines to accommodate the SHW heating patterns.

Interviewer: And are you finding the SHW system still performing in winter?

Edward: Not particularly. It might have a residual effect but unless you get areally good sunny day, I will still need to boost every 48 hours ... We manu-ally (self-control) out the front. If it is a bit luke-warm I need to flick it onbefore I go to bed so it can then charge up overnight….If we forget, then it’s7.00 am and we have a cold shower. (23 August 2008)

As low energy use was a priority to them, they were not distressed or inconve-nienced by the lack of instant hot water on the occasional morning.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

For Cara and Edward, the SHW system did result in energy savings. One of thekey elements in their success was that Edward, who had built up considerableworking “folk knowledge” of the home, was also in a position to manage the pro-cess of installing a SHW unit. Edward undertook comprehensive research, whichenabled him to identify an appropriate SHW unit for their home. This integration of“folk” and “technical” knowledge underpinned the successful installation of theSHW unit. Further, the installation importantly resulted in energy savings due to theunit’s capacity, but also due to the family’s understanding of how to use the tech-nology effectively. Prior to the installation, the family were active and able in man-aging their home for day-to-day weather conditions, this continued following theinstallation with the added job of monitoring their hot water use and making adecision about the need for the electric hot water boost on a day-to-day basis.

A Technological Quick-Fix

Our third story is about a single man, Mark, who expressed interest in reducingenergy use. To this end, he decided to take up the GAER rebate and install SHW.Unlike the previous examples, this installation represented a “one-off” adjustmentto the house, rather than being part of a more comprehensive process of sustainablehome adaptation. Following the installation, Mark was happy with the performanceof the SHW system in that he continued to enjoy warm showers. However, he wasnot aware of the contribution of the system to reducing energy consumption in hishome.

Mark lives in a 90m2 detached house on a small (25m2) suburban strata-titledblock. The house is a brick veneer house on a suspended timber floor with a corru-gated iron roof. The house had a semi-open plan living area, with a garage andlarge storage area underneath. Mark had engaged a builder to build the house forhim 14 years ago. He was retrospectively dissatisfied with the quality of the con-struction and he believed that the builder had cut corners. Despite Mark havinginstalled curtains, pelmets and insulation when the house was built, the buildingshell offered little thermal resistance. The windows of the house were single glazedwith aluminium frames. The house sat in an exposed position on a hill and conse-quently it would heat up and cool down to uncomfortable levels.

Apart from using curtains and door snakes to manage draughts and heatflow,Mark had established a routine approach to managing his home comfort. In relationto heating, Mark used preset timers to ensure his home was warm in the mornings,evenings and through the night. In contrast to Cara and Edward, Mark had normal-ized fairly high levels of energy use to manage his comfort. For example, he didnot question his practice of leaving the bedroom heater running through the night,rather than using an extra blanket. Mark’s approach seemed consistent with a gen-eral shift away from managing our bodies’ comfort, towards managing our indoorenvironments, including the car, home and office (Shove, Chappells, andLutzenhiser 2010).

Mark: The office temperature is 22 °C and that is pretty well comfortable. Butit does depend, I think. When it is cold I need it to be hotter to feel warm.(05 June 2008)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

While Mark demonstrated considerable interest and expertise in managing the gar-den and his business, he lacked confidence in his ability to make adaptations andtechnological changes within his home. In his words:

Mark: I have no manual skills, no manual training I am a very clumsy personI hire other people to install things. I am not a handy person at all. (23 August2008)

Mark’s decision to install a SHW unit was based on his concern about environmen-tal impacts and his belief that sustainable home adaptation had inherent value. Markchose a split-system with the hot water evacuated tubes on the roof feeding into hisold tank in the same spot under the house. He acted on advice from the rebateprovider and the SHW provider.

Mark manages his own business and he was less constrained financially thanthe previous two households. However, Mark was time-poor and had limited knowl-edge of the technology and electrical systems around his house and consequentlyhe relied heavily on tradespeople and suppliers to advise and assist him. The instal-lation occurred while Mark was at work. Consequently, Mark was not sure aboutthe details of the installation, such as where the electrical booster switch was andwhether it was turned on or off.

Mark: There is something under the house. ....I imagine it’s there, but hedidn’t point it out to me. (05 June 2008)

Once the SHW was installed, Mark was not able to report any great difference inthe hot water performance. In addition, he was not aware of how the plumber andelectrician had set up his hot water thermostat. Mark seemed unconcerned andassumed that the trades people had set the SHW system up efficiently.

Interviewer: Any differences yet with SHW?

Mark: No. Not as far as hot water goes No. This is same quantity and sameheat as before.

Interviewer: Did they [the plumber and electrician] tell you what the thermo-stat is set to?

Mark: No … They didn’t explain a thing. I wasn’t here when they were doingit. If I had been around they might have told me a few things ... I think theyset it to the same temperature as it was before. I would have liked it a bitlower but I wasn’t here to tell them to do that ... There is a thermostat but itis a matter of finding where it is to adjust it. I am not technically-minded so Iam not willing to have a fiddle around. I don’t know what I am doing. (05June 2008)

For Mark, the installation of the SHW unit had the potential to reduce energy use,but whether it did or not was unclear. Mark was interested in reducing his carbonfootprint, but he was less interested in the specific energy savings being made.Interestingly, the installation of this technology did not substantially reconfigure his


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

home practices. He managed his domestic home life in terms of a routine, whichwas organized by preset timers rather than being adaptive and flexible. While hehad limited “folk knowledge” of his home and he was not confident of his technicalexpertise, Mark did have faith in technological solutions. He liked to “set andforget”, rather than actively engage with his home.

Discussion

Following insights from socio-material and socio-technical studies of the home, wesought to challenge the assumption that “active” occupants make adaptations to“inactive” buildings by focusing attention on the capacity of the dwelling and theoccupant, as well as the relationship between dwellings and their occupants. In thisdiscussion, we examined people’s relationship with their home through the conceptsof scripting and appropriation. We also examined the integration between people’s“folk knowledge” of their home and their capacity to access “technical” knowledgeabout the structural properties of houses and/or particular technologies. In contrastto “technical” knowledge, this term “folk knowledge” refers to all the things thatpeople have learnt about their home over time. This theme of knowledge featureswithin existing accounts of residential energy consumption and home renovation;albeit with a focus on “embodied know-how”, habits built up over time (Gram-Hanssen 2011) and competence, which Shove et al. (2007, 57) argue is “distributedacross human and non-human entities”.

In relation to occupant-dwelling relations, Shove uses the term “scripting” todescribe the way a home configures its occupant and the way the home designgives rise to higher or lower levels of energy consumption despite the occupant’sstated intentions. The three homes shared in common poor thermal performance,largely as a consequence of low levels of insulation and inadequate site orientation.Such poor thermal performance is consistent with homes built prior to the introduc-tion of new building code requirements for energy efficiency in 2003 (AustralianBuilding Codes Board 2008). In addition, the homes relied on aged, electric hotwater systems that were “energy-hungry” relative to new SHW systems.

While these “scripts” facilitated energy-hungry practices around the home, dis-cussions with occupants revealed some “appropriation” of these scripts. As men-tioned previously, appropriation entails using technologies for alternative purposesthan that intended by their designers. From the moment they walked through thedoor, Cara and Edward sought to live in a sustainable and energy efficient way,despite co-habiting with a modern, 1950s, energy-hungry home. They appropriatedtheir home wherever possible in a way that was responsive and flexible. Forexample, they opened and closed curtains, used different rooms throughout the day,and used a fan to encourage warm air flow around the house. They were alsoflexible in their daily living patterns, opting where possible to minimize their energyuse around the home. This responsiveness and adaptability stood in contrast toMark, who expressed concern for the environment, while tacitly accepting theenergy-hungry scripts of his 1990s home. He used heating regularly to warm hishouse with minimal regard to changing weather conditions. Del and Kirk were dif-ferent again. They were constrained in their capacity to challenge the “energy-hun-gry” scripts of the house by virtue of their age and physical limitations. Like Mark,they made use of timers to regulate their heating system, as they sought comfort in


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

the evenings, regardless of changing weather conditions. However, as resourcefulpeople, they had been able to appropriate the “energy-hungry” script of their homeprior to installation of the SHW system by using the waste-heat generated by theirpoorly performing electric hot water system (e.g. bread-making, airing cupboard).

Having examined patterns of “scripting” and “appropriation”, we then looked atthe development of the relationship between occupants and their dwellings overtime. Here we found both similarities and differences in the relationships that thethree households had with their home. In terms of similarities, they each anticipatedliving in their home in the near future and therefore they were all interested inadapting their home to best accommodate their various needs. However, we foundthat there was variation across the three households in terms of the way they incor-porated “folk” and “technical” knowledge to the process of adapting their homes.There was also variation in the extent to which the introduction of the SHW systemreconfigured their relationship with their home.

Del and Kirk had built up significant knowledge of home management andmaintenance which they brought to their new home. Since moving in they had con-tinued to apply this understanding and built up a further working knowledge of thehome over time, which they used for ongoing renovations of their home; they hadestablished a solid “folk knowledge” about their home. When it came to installing aSHW system, Del and Kirk had limited working knowledge of solar technologiesand they lacked the physical capacity to enable them to be involved in the installa-tion of the technology. Instead, they had to depend on and trust the technical know-how of the tradespeople, who installed the unit while they were away from thehome. Here the technical installation proceeded with minimal input from the house-hold, and without regard to an in-depth understanding of the home.

The experience of Del and Kirk is illustrative of the importance of thinkingthrough the capacity of both dwelling and occupant in developing sustainableresponses. Del and Kirk’s physical limitations meant that they required their houseto perform more effectively than what Cara and Edward required, with their highlevel of physical capability. Unlike Cara and Edward, Del and Kirk were limited intheir capacity to constantly engage with and adapt their practices around the home.As an elderly couple with complex health needs, including difficulties with mobil-ity, they relied on regular access to hot water. Therefore, it was even more impor-tant that this elderly couple get fundamental aspects of their home design “right”,that is, they needed to ensure that the design provided them with accessibility andthat technologies were set-up to enable them to manage their home comfort needseasily. While Del and Kirk were physically constrained, they had time to plan andmanage their home in an energy efficient way. For them, an electric booster remin-der light, an inside manual booster switch, and real-time energy feedback wouldhave facilitated interaction with the technology and in turn greater control overenergy use.

In contrast, Cara and Edward had developed an understanding of new moralitiesaround energy consumption (i.e. codes of conduct relating to minimizing consump-tion of fossil fuels) and they had the capacity to apply these effectively. They hadalso increased their “technical” understanding of residential energy efficiency. Afterthe purchase of their home, they adapted their practices to reduce their energy useand they committed to a comprehensive retrofit of their home for energy and waterefficiency. In the process of adapting their home for sustainability, Edward played acentral role in planning and managing the adaptation. In doing so, he was able to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

consistently integrate “folk” and “technical” knowledge, which resulted in identify-ing a SHW system and a set up that was appropriate to his family’s needs and thedesign of the home. Following the installation of their SHW unit, they continued toadopt strategies to minimize energy and water consumption. This adaptableapproach was also transferable to the management of their SHW unit and use of theelectric booster, which they monitored closely. Accordingly, they were able to maxi-mize the energy savings offered by the technology that they had installed. Also, bydeveloping an understanding of contribution of the unit to reducing energy con-sumption generally around the home, they were in effect continuing to build-uptheir “folk knowledge” about their emerging sustainable home.

In contrast to the others, Mark’s belief in technology as a solution limited hismotivation to develop a more intimate relationship with his home and the systemswithin it. Mark had an interesting relationship with technology, privileging it as asolution and yet he was not willing to engage or understand it and therefore he wasunable to maximize its effect. His attitudes and actions reflected a modern way ofliving in a home. There was tacit acceptance of predetermined standards embeddedthrough mass-produced and standardized building design, which ensured that hecould maximize comfort and convenience with minimal input or unique tailoring toindividual needs and without regard to energy consumption levels. Despite havinghigh levels of financial and physical capacity, Mark had little confidence in his tech-nical know-how, and his understanding of the structural and technical systemswithin his home was limited. Like Del and Kirk, he played a minimal role in theprocess of installation. Mark had confidence that technology was the solution, withonly minimal diagnosis of the problem and after installation had no insight intohow his new SHW heater was performing. Mark liked his home and he had builtup some “folk knowledge” about his home, particularly in relation to his garden.The installation however did not build on this “folk knowledge” nor did it encour-age him to investigate the technology, including, what it could deliver and how hemight maximize its performance. There was no evaluation or monitoring of theSHW system and no negotiation with the technology. Therefore, he did not take upthe potential energy saving opportunities of the technology.

Despite the installation of a SHW system, Mark’s behaviour did not change.Mark’s installation was a once-off, rather than a reconfiguring of his practices andhis dwelling’s performance towards a more sustainable and a less energy-hungryhome. In order to mange his energy use more efficiently, Mark could benefit frominterventions that build up his folk and technical knowledge around the home andthat challenge his modern expectations about his home.

Reconfiguring Modern Homes and Practices

In this paper, we set out to examine how occupants and their dwellings are adaptingto reduce home energy consumption. Our study drew explicitly on insights emerg-ing from the interdisciplinary fields of material culture studies and socio-technicalstudies. Rather than viewing the material house as a passive backdrop to humanaction, this approach acknowledges the role of non-human actors and emphasizesthe relationship between occupants and dwellings.

This approach focused our attention on the way past practices shape what ispossible in the present. In our study, we highlighted that the process of sustainable


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

home adaptation occurs in the context of past “combinations” of home design,which in Australia has been centred on resource-intensive comfort and convenience;that is, modern housing. Drawing on the term scripting, we can see how modernexpectations define and shape potential sustainable responses and outcomes. As pre-viously mentioned, scripts are inscribed within Australian suburbia through the stan-dardization of building design, construction, as well as, resource-intensivehousehold practices. The challenge for retrofitters is to work with and where possi-ble appropriate and challenge such modern, energy-hungry scripts.

While “scripting” shapes what adaption responses are possible, the term “appro-priation” is important in highlighting the occupant’s role in engaging with andchanging such scripts. Using a material culture or socio-technical approach, we alsoattended to the interaction and entanglement between buildings and their occupantsin relation to sustainable adaptation. This drew our attention to the way occupant’sused “folk” and “technical” knowledge to support their adaptation. We found thatthe most successful adaptation in terms of a reduction in energy use and occupantsatisfaction occurred when both these elements were present and integrated. More-over, we found that ongoing sustainable patterns of living rely on active engage-ment between occupants and their buildings. Challenging modern scripts andthereby reducing energy is not a straightforward process, but requires a high levelof reflection and responsiveness on the part of the occupant regarding the home.Technical solutions such as installing a SHW system can improve the potentialcapacity of the home, but achieving substantial energy reductions requires ongoingmonitoring of energy use and thereby a more intimate working knowledge of thehome than has typically been required of the modern home dweller.

Adaptation responses are further complicated by the observation that our livinghome environments have become increasingly complex. While for many, theincreased technological complexity of the home has discouraged occupant engage-ment with the home and led to reliance on technical experts to service the home,for others, new technologies, such as smart meters, have facilitated greater under-standing and engagement around energy use in the home. Shove’s (2003) work onhome comfort and convenience is particularly relevant here. She draws attention tothe problems associated with resource-intensive, closed systems that are resistant toreconfiguration. Instead, she emphasizes the value of promoting diverse sustainableresponses, in which patterns of consumption and demand can potentially head indifferent directions. Her point is that we should guard against promoting one tech-nological response, such as installing a SHW system, as the prescription for sustain-ability. Consistent with this view, our study illustrates that the desire to transformour cities and homes for sustainability depends on comprehensive, multilayered anddiverse reconfigurations of modern Australian homes and modern housing practices.

Finally, our study, in exploring new theoretical terrain, contributes to a new wayof tackling housing research. To date, this approach has gained traction in the areaof sustainability where residential architecture and home technologies play a majorrole in facilitating strategies aimed at reducing energy use (See Gram-Hanssen2011; Maller and Horne 2011; Maller, Horne, and Dalton 2011; Shove 2003).However, there is scope for applying a material cultural and socio-technicalapproach more broadly within the field of housing studies. This is important incharting a middle-ground between the physical determinism associated with pastutopian planning and housing models and the object-blindness of past sociologicalaccounts of housing. In contrast, a material culture or socio-technical approach


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

provides researchers with a set of conceptual and analytical tools for investigatingthe evolving role of objects, design and technologies within our contemporarydomestic lives and social housing systems.

Acknowledgements

The research on which this article is based was supported by funding from theDepartment of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Tasmanian Government. Theauthors would like to thank colleagues at the University of Tasmania, staff atSustainable Living Tasmania, and participants of the Housing Theory Symposiumheld in Hobart, March 2012 for all their advice and assistance. The authors wouldalso like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on draftsof this article. Finally, the authors sincerely thank the research participants whowere so generous in providing us with their thoughtful reflections and their valuedtime.

References

Australian Building Codes Board. 2008. History of the Building Code of Australia. Canberra:Australian Building Codes Board.

Baker, S. 2005. Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.Bhatti, M., and A. Dixon. 2003. “Editorial Special Issue Housing, Environment and Sustainability.”

Housing Studies 1 (84): 501–504.Brand, S. 1994. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built. New York, NY: Viking.Callon, M. 1986. “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the

Fisherman of Saint Brieuc Bay.” In Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?edited by J. Law, 196–233. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Sociological Review Monograph(32).

Callon, M. 1998. “Introduction: The Embeddedness of Economic Markets in Economics.” In Laws ofthe Market, edited by M. Callon, 1–57. Oxford: Blackwell.

Edwards, B., and D. Turrent. 2000. Sustainable Housing: Principles and Practice. London: Routledge.Gabriel, M., and K. Jacobs. 2008. “The Post-Social Turn: Challenges for Housing Research.” Housing

Studies 23 (4): 527–540.Goldie, J., B. Douglas, and B. Furnass. 2005. In Search of Sustainability. Melbourne: CSIRO.Gram-Hanssen, K. 2011. “Understanding Change and Continuity in Residential Energy Consumption.”

Journal of Consumer Culture 11 (1): 61–78.Greig, A. 1997. “Australian Housing, Technological Change and the Fordist Regime of Accumulation.”

Housing Studies 12 (3): 321–335.Hand, M., and E. Shove. 2004. “Orchestrating Concepts: Kitchen Dynamics and Regime Change in

Good Housekeeping and Ideal Home, 1922–2002.” Home Cultures 1 (3): 1–22.Hand, M., E. Shove, and D. Southerton. 2007. “Home Extensions in the United Kingdom: Space, Time

and Practice.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25: 668–681.Hicks, D. 2010. “The Material-Cultural Turn.” In The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies,

edited by D. Hicks and M. C. Beaudry, 25–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hicks, D. and M. C. Beaudry, eds. 2010. “Introduction. Material Culture Studies: A Reactionary View.”

The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ingram, J., E. Shove, and M. Watson. 2007. “Products and Practices: Selected Concepts from Science

and Technology Studies and from Social Theories of Consumption and Practice.” Design Issues 23(2): 3–16.

Jelsma, J. 1999. “Toward a Sustainable Society: The Moralising of Machines?” 4S Annual Conference,San Diego, October 27–30.

Jenks, M., and N. Dempsey. 2006. Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities. Oxford:Architectural Press.

Jones, A. M., and N. Boivin. 2010. “The Malice of Inanimate Objects: Material Agency.” In TheOxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies, edited by D. Hicks and M. C. Beaudry, 333–351.Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

Latour, B. 1988. “Mixing Humans and Nonhumans Together: The Sociology of a Door-Closer.” SocialProblems 35 (3): 298–310.

Latour, B. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Law, J. 2010. “The Material of STS.” In The Oxford Handbook of Material Culture Studies, edited by

D. Hicks and M. C. Beaudry, 173–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.MacKenzie, D., and J. Wajcman, eds. 1999. The Social Shaping of Technology. Milton Keynes: Open

University Press.Maller, C., and R. Horne. 2011. “Living Lightly: How does Climate Change Feature in Residential

Home Improvements and What are the Implications for Policy?” Urban Policy and Research 29(1): 59–72.

Maller, C., R. Horne, and T. Dalton. 2011. “Green Renovations: Intersections of Daily Routines, Hous-ing Aspirations and Narratives of Environmental Sustainability.” Housing, Theory and Society 29(3): 255–275.

Miller, D., ed. 2001. Home Possessions: Material Culture Behind Closed Doors. Oxford: Berg.Miller, D., ed. 2005. Materiality. Durham, NC: Duke University.Nansen, B., M. Arnold, M. Gobbs, and H. Davis. 2011. “Dwelling with Media Stuff: Latencies and

Logics of Materiality in Four Australian Homes.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space29: 693–715.

Pels, D., K. Hetherington, and F. Vandenberghe. 2002. “The Status of the Object: Performances, Media-tions and Techniques.” Theory, Culture and Society 19 (5–6): 1–21.

Pickering, A. 1995. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

Rowe, P. G. 1993. Modernity and Housing. Cambridge Mass, London: MIT Press.Rybczynski, W. 1986. Home: A Short History of an Idea. New York, NY: Penguin Books.Shove, E. 2003. Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience. Oxford: Berg.Shove, E., H. Chappells, and L. Lutzenhiser, eds. 2010. Comfort in a Lower Carbon Society. London:

Routledge.Shove, E., M. Pantzer, and M. Watson. 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and

How it Changes. London: Sage.Shove, E., M. Watson, M. Hand, and J. Ingram. 2007. The Design of Everyday Life. Oxford: Berg.Smith, S. 2004. “Living Room.” Urban Geography 25 (2): 89–91.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

0:49

25

Sept

embe

r 20

13

from modern housing to sustainable suburbia: how occupants and their dwellings are adapting to...

Documents