Energy Efficiency

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 353–364 | Cite as

Anchoring energy efficiency information in households’ everyday projects: peoples’ understanding of renewable heating systems

  • Charlotta IsakssonEmail author
  • Kajsa Ellegård
Original Article


This article claims that the contents of energy conservation information policy instruments must be better adapted to household members’ everyday life experiences in order to capture their interest and transform information into action. The article elaborates on how to ground energy policy information in the everyday doings and strivings of households. Using two time-geographical concepts, i.e. activity and project, we investigate how people understand and define their energy-related activities as parts of overarching everyday projects with a focus on the constraints on energy conservation. The analysis is empirically based on interview data from a case study of households’ use of renewable heating technologies. The results illustrate how peoples’ heating activities are related to everyday projects such as reducing environmental impact, comfort for a convenient daily life, the household budget balance, learning about and/or maintaining home technologies and hobbies. One conclusion is that information instruments focusing solely on one or two such projects might hamper the translation from information to action and also limit the number of people interested in or able to access the information. Another conclusion is that the growing use of energy-efficient technologies might influence new habits and perceptions of the everyday use of energy, making common economic motives for saving energy less useful. Anchoring energy-related information and support in the everyday activities and projects of households would facilitate the translation process. If this is achieved, information could prove a useful instrument in the broader reorganization of societal institutions in a sustainable direction.


Energy use information Household context Time-geography Translation Renewable heating systems 



This research is part of the programme Sustaining Everyday Life–Information instruments for sustainable resource use in households based on daily activity pattern analysis, funded by the Swedish Research Council Formas.


  1. Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2005). A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(3), 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aune, M. (2007). Energy comes home. Energy Policy, 35(11), 5457–5465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartiaux, F. (2008). Does environmental information overcome practice compartmentalisation and change consumers’ behaviours? Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(11), 1170–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berner, B. (2009). Learning control: sense-making, CNC machines and changes in vocational training for industrial work. Vocations and Learning, 2, 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blaye, A., Ackermann, E., & Light, P. (1999). The relevance of relevance in children’s cognition. In J. Bliss, R. Säljö, & P. Light (Eds.), Learning sites: Social and technological resources for learning (pp. 120–132). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  6. Bruel, R., & Hoekstra, J. (2005). How to stimulate owner-occupiers to save energy? eceee 2005 Summer Study proceedings: Energy savings—What works and who delivers? Panel, 6, 1197–1204.Google Scholar
  7. Christoff, P. (1996). Ecological modernization, ecological modernities. Environmental Politics, 5(3), 476–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Critchley, R., Gilbertson, A., Grimsley, M., & Green, G. (2007). Living in cold homes after heating improvements: evidence from Warm-Front, England’s home energy efficiency scheme. Applied Energy, 84(2), 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darby, S. (2006). Social learning and public policy: lessons from an energy-conscious village. Energy Policy, 34(17), 2929–2940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Druckman, A., & Jackson, T. (2008). Household energy consumption in the UK: a highly geographically and socio-economically disaggregated model. Energy Policy, 36(8), 3177–3192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dryzek, J. (2005). The politics of the earth: environmental discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Ellegård, K. (1999). A time-geographical approach to the study of everyday life of individuals: a challenge of complexity. GeoJournal, 48(3), 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellegård, K. (2001). Att hitta system i den välkända vardagen. En tankeram för studier av vardagens aktivitetsmönster och projekt. In K. Ellegård & E. Wihlborg (Eds.), Fånga vardagen: Ett tvärvetenskapligt perspektiv [Capturing everyday life: An interdisciplinary perspective] (pp. pp. 41–pp. 66). Lund: Studentlitteratur. in Swedish.Google Scholar
  14. Erickson, R. (1997). Paper or plastic? Energy, environment and consumerism in Sweden and America. Westport Connecticut: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Gatersleben, B., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). Measurement and determinants of environmentally significant consumer behavior. Environment and Behaviour, 34(3), 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaunt, L. (1985). Bostadsvanor och energi- om vardagsrutinernas inverkan på energiförbrukningen i elvärmda småhus. [Living habits and energy—everyday routines and their effects on energy consumption in electrically heated single-family homes]. Gävle, Sweden: Statens Institut för byggnadsforskning [in Swedish].Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis. Boston: Northeastern University Press. 1974.Google Scholar
  18. Gram-Hanssen, K. (2013). Efficient technologies or user behaviour, which is the more important when reducing households’ energy consumption? Energy Efficiency, 6(3), 447–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gyberg, P., & Palm, J. (2009). Influencing households’ energy behaviour: How is this done and on what premises? Energy Policy, 37(7), 2807–2813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hägerstrand, T. (1970). What about people in regional science? Regional Science, 24, 6–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hägerstrand, T. (1985). Focus on the corporeality of man, society and environment: the science and praxis of complexity. Tokyo: The United Nations University.Google Scholar
  22. Hallin, P.-O. (1989). Tid för omställning – om hushållens anpassningsstrategier vid en förändrad energisituation. [Time for change—households’ adaptation strategies in a changing energy situation.]. Lund, Sweden: Lund University [dissertation in Swedish].Google Scholar
  23. Henning, A. (2005). Equal couples in equal houses: cultural perspectives on Swedish solar and bio-pellet heating design. In Guy, S., Moore, S (Eds.) Sustainable architectures: cultures and natures in Europe and North America.Google Scholar
  24. Herring, H. (2006). Energy efficiency: a critical view. Energy, 31(1), 10–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herring, A., & Sorell, S. (Eds.). (2009). Energy efficiency and sustainable consumption: the rebound effect. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: from garden to earth. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Isaksson, C. (2009). Uthålligt lärande om värmen? Domesticering av energiteknik i passivhus. [Sustainable learning about indoor heating?] Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and social change [dissertation in Swedish].Google Scholar
  28. Isaksson, C. (2011). From an active to a passive house. In B. Moshfegh (Ed.), Proceedings of the World Renewable Energy Congress, Linköping Sweden, 8–13 May 2011.Google Scholar
  29. Isaksson, C. (2014). Learning for lower energy consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(1), 12–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Isaksson, C., & Karlsson, F. (2006). Indoor climate in low-energy houses: an interdisciplinary investigation. Building and Environment, 41(12), 1678–1690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jonsson, D. K., Gustafsson, S., Wangel, J., Hojer, M., Lundqvist, P., & Svane, O. (2011). Energy at your service: highlighting energy usage systems in the context of energy of efficiency analysis. Energy Efficiency, 4(3), 355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kempton, W., & Montgomery, L. (1982). Folk quantification of energy. Energy – The International Journal, 7, 817–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Klintman, M., Mårtensson, K., & Johansson, M. (2003). Bioenergi för uppvärmning Hushållens perspektiv. Lund, Sweden: Lund University, Department of Sociology [in Swedish].Google Scholar
  34. Lindén, A.-L., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., & Eriksson, B. (2006). Efficient and inefficient aspects of residential energy behaviour: What are the policy instruments for change? Energy Policy, 34(14), 1918–1927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mahapatra, K., & Gustavsson, L. (2008). Innovative approaches to domestic heating: homeowners’ perceptions and factors influencing their choice of heating system. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32, 75–87.Google Scholar
  36. Mahapatra, K., & Gustavsson, L. (2009). Influencing Swedish homeowners to adopt district heating system. Applied Energy, 86(2), 144–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mårtensson, W., & Fredriksen, S. (2005). Effektiv marknadsföring av småhusfjärrvärme. [Effective marketing of district heating in detached homes]. Lund: Lund University [in Swedish].Google Scholar
  38. Palm, J. (2010). The public–private divide in household behavior: How far into home can energy guidance reach? Energy Policy, 38(6), 2858–2864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Palmborg, C. (1986). Social habits and energy consuming behaviour in single-family houses. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Building Research.Google Scholar
  40. Pyrko, J., & Darby, S. (2011). Conditions of energy efficient behavior: a comparative study between Sweden and the UK. Energy Efficiency, 4(3), 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sernhed, K., & Pyrko, J. (2006) Småhusägarnas syn på att köpa fjärrvärme. [Homeowners’ view of buying district heating]. Stockholm: Swedish District Heating Association.Google Scholar
  42. Shove, E. (2003). Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: the social organization of normality. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  43. Shove, E. (2004). Efficiency and consumption: technology and practice. Energy and Environment, 15(6), 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Skill, K. (2008). (Re)creating ecological action space: households’ activities for sustainable development in Sweden. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, W., & Pett, J. (2005). Energy efficiency refurbishment programmes help, but are the end-users doing their bit? eceee 2005 Summer Study proceedings: Energy savings—What works and who delivers? Panel, 5, 957–968.Google Scholar
  46. SOU (2008). Vägen till ett energieffektivare Sverige: Slutbetänkande av Energieffektiviseringsutredningen. [The path to a more energy efficient Sweden: final report of energy efficiency inquiry]. Stockholm: SOU 2008:110 (State Official Report) [in Swedish].Google Scholar
  47. Spaargaren, G. (2000). Ecological modernization theory and domestic consumption. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2(4), 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spaargaren, G., & Van Vliet, B. (2000). Lifestyles consumption and the environment: the ecological modernization of domestic consumption. Environmental Politics, 9(1), 50–76.Google Scholar
  49. Swedish Parliament (2009). En sammanhållen klimat- och energipolitik – Energi.[An integrated climate and energy policy- Energy]. Proposition 2008/09:163, Stockholm [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  50. Swedish Energy Agency (2013). Energispartips värme [Energy advice: heat]. Accessed 30 September 2013 [in Swedish].Google Scholar
  51. Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. (2005). Temperatur inomhus. [Indoor temperatures] SOSFS 2005:15. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen [in Swedish].Google Scholar
  52. Wilhite, H., & Lutzenhiser, L. (1999). Social loading and sustainable consumption. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 281–287.Google Scholar
  53. Wilhite, H., & Nilsson, H. (2008). Breaking out of the efficiency box. Energy Efficiency, 1(2), 105–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilhite, H., Hidetoshi, N., Masuda, T., Yamaga, Y., & Haneda, H. (1996). A cross-cultural analysis of household energy use behaviour in Japan and Norway. Energy Policy, 24, 795–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Winther, T., & Ericson, T. (2013). Matching policy and people? Household responses to the promotion of renewable electricity. Energy Efficiency, 6(2), 369–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social and Behavioural StudiesUniversity WestTrollhättanSweden
  2. 2.Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social ChangeLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations