No abstract

No abstract

Reducing residential energy use and related CO2 emissions across society requires approaches that understand energy demand as dependent on the performance of a range of interconnected social practices, which includes aspects of timing, location and material contexts. However, current energy policy and change initiatives often rely on a somewhat narrow combination of rational consumer choice models, efficiency measures and information-based behavioral change theory, thus falling short on anticipated reductions (EEA, 2013). Insights from the ENERGISE project highlight the merits of a practice-theoretical approach to social scientific energy research that explicitly recognizes complex interactions in the social organization of everyday life. The paper demonstrates how such an approach provides knowledge on variations in energy use across households, social groups and societies and how these are (not) acknowledged in the problem framings of dominant energy policies and change initiatives. Reflecting on experiences made during a large-scale comparative analysis of sustainable energy consumption change initiatives in 30 European countries, this paper presents a new and innovative methodology for investigating the dynamics of change initiatives that target energy use within households and communities. It concludes with some critical reflections on the methodology presented.

In this article, we examine a change initiative designed to involve households in testing ways to transform two everyday practicesheating and doing laundry. The research design included an examination of the challenges of changing practices either in a setting that fosters collective engagement or with individual households. Two different types of living labs were carried out simultaneously in eight European countries in Autumn-Winter 2018. We reflect on differences in results in terms of both changes in practices and the experiences of participating households that we argue can be at least partially attributed to householders' engagement in different types of living labs. We discuss the implications of an individualfocused vs. community-oriented approach for change initiatives seeking to challenge social norms for sustainability transitions, concentrating in particular on differences in the nature of participants' engagement and their willingness and ability to challenge routine practices. This is complemented by analytical reflections on the differences in design, interaction, and performance between the two types of living labs. We show that an explicit focus on collaborative engagement in living labs can produce results that reflect shared experiences, community support, challenging established norms, and collective commitment toward change.

No abstract