My research begins with residents' energy practices. It concerns what residents say and do with regard to energy and objects in their homes. What residents say and do (i.e., their “practices”) does not exist in isolation, but is connected to the world outside their homes. My research begins at home (inside) and then moves outside; from inside to outside. This means that information about residents' energy practices comes directly from themselves.
That is very important. Previous research shows that there is often a gap between the energy practices of residents and those of the professionals who devise solutions for the energy transition: government agencies, network operators, landlords, and installers. There is also a gap between residents' practices and professionals' views on them. This gap is particularly evident in lower-income neighborhoods.
At Just PREPARE, we see this gap as problematic. According to previous research, the gap hinders the effectiveness of the energy transition. And an ineffective energy transition leads to injustice and resistance from residents. My research focuses on describing and explaining this gap. Consider, for example, an automatic ventilation system that eliminates the need for residents to open their windows. The system also recovers heat, so residents need to heat their homes less. Sounds like a great solution, right? But for many residents this not the case.
Based on three theoretical backgrounds, I analyze solutions such as a ventilation system:
1. Social practice theories, because we are talking about the actions and statements of residents and professionals. Social practices are the ‘standard ways’ in which people think and work, including the techniques and objects they use to do so. Ventilation is one such practice; combining ideas about comfort, health, and energy saving with objects such as windows and ventilation systems.
2. Energy justice, because different residents and professionals have different ideas about what is considered unfair. For example, a resident may want to decide for themselves when to open or close a window because they find a fresh breeze in their home pleasant and healthy, while a professional may want to control ventilation automatically to promote health and low energy consumption. Residents prefer to decide for themselves when to ventilate. Or the ventilation system causes noise pollution. This places an additional burden on residents. Residents do not experience the benefits of energy savings because they prefer to continue ventilating in their own way.
3. Visions of the future, because the energy transition requires changes to current energy practices, but how, why, and where to differ depending on who is involved. The existing gap can cause residents and professionals to have different (implicit) visions of the future—and that can widen the gap. Take the example of a ventilation system: professionals envision a future in which ventilation systems optimize air supply, while residents would rather continue to do so themselves, because the system does not take into account the pleasure of a fresh breeze.
For this research, I use creative methods to discuss difficult topics such as energy practices, the future, and justice with residents. These methods help to elicit richer information than interviews alone. Inspired by Participatory Action Research, we want to listen to the residents first and foremost and try to bring their perspective to the fore. We take into account what residents want to share, what they are interested in, and how we can sort this out together.
Sources:
Sociale praktijken:
Kuijer, L., & Watson, M. (2017). ‘That’s when we started using the living room’: Lessons from a local history of domestic heating in the United Kingdom. Energy Research & Social Science, 28, 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.04.010
Schatzki, T. R. (2011). Where the action is (on large social phenomena such as sociotechnical regimes). Sustainable Practices Research Group, Working Paper, 1, 1–31.
Shove, E. (2022). Connecting Practices: Large Topics in Society and Social Theory. Taylor & Francis.
Rechtvaardigheid:
Galvin, R. (2019). What does it mean to make a moral claim? A Wittgensteinian approach to energy justice. Energy Research & Social Science, 54, 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.04.018
Lennon, M. (2017). Energy Research & Social Science Decolonizing energy: Black Lives Matter and technoscienti fi c expertise amid solar transitions. 30(May), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.06.002
van Uffelen, N. (2022). Revisiting recognition in energy justice. Energy Research & Social Science, 92, 102764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102764
Wood, N. (2023). Problematising energy justice: Towards conceptual and normative alignment. Energy Research & Social Science, 97, 102993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.102993
Toekomsten:
Groves, C. (2017). Emptying the future: On the environmental politics of anticipation. Futures, 92, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.06.003
Pink, S., Strengers, Y., Fernandez, M., & Sabiescu, A. (2016). Understanding energy futures through everyday life observation following an ethnographic approach. 41st IAHS World Congress on Housing Sustainability and Innovation for the Future, September 13 to 16, 2016: Albufeira, Algarve, Portugal – Proceedings. IAHS World Congress on Housing 2016. https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/understanding-energy-futures-through-everyday-life-observation-fo
Rasch, E. D., & Köhne, M. (2017). Practices and imaginations of energy justice in transition. A case study of the Noordoostpolder , the Netherlands ☆. Energy Policy, 107(November 2016), 607–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.03.037
Veenman, S., Kaufmann, M., & Haarbosch, S. (2023). Futures in the present: Unraveling foreclosing and pre-opening desired futures in the local environment with a Bourdieusian perspective. Futures, 149, 103134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103134