Energy PracticesEnergy Practices

Energy use at home is embedded in various daily routines, such as heating the house, cooking with gas or electricity, showering, and doing laundry. These routines, in which energy is consumed, are referred to as energy practices. Just as CO₂ emissions are usually not the result of a deliberate decision, energy consumption is typically not a conscious choice either; it is a consequence of how we live. For example, daily showers are now considered normal by many, while this was very different in the past. At the same time, discussions about the energy transition often overlook these daily practices. The focus is typically on the energy supply side: the use of clean energy, construction of wind farms, and installation of solar panels. We tend to neglect the demand side: where is all that energy actually going? If the demand side is addressed, it's usually through one-time actions that raise awareness about saving energy, improving insulation, or using energy-efficient appliances. It’s difficult to connect these ideas to the everyday routines in which energy is consumed—like how we load the dishwasher, at what temperature the house feels warm enough, or whether the bedroom window should be left open or closed. In short, how you live in your home, how you organize your day, who you live with, and what you value. In this research, we examine both sides of the equation.

We use energy through various energy practices, such as washing, heating, and cooking. Current policy, however, mainly focuses on retrofitting practices—actions that make homes more energy-efficient. Retrofitting refers to adapting an existing home (literally: fitting new elements in after the fact). Energy retrofitting involves sustainability measures such as installing a heat pump, insulating the home, or installing solar panels. Smaller measures also count, like installing LED lights or applying draft guards and radiator foil. As with energy practices, meanings, skills, and materials play a significant role in retrofitting.

Certain meanings within the energy transition receive more attention than others. Technical specifications and the financial aspects of making homes more sustainable, i.e., saving money and making investments, are often emphasized. While these aspects are important, they are not the only or even the most meaningful ones for everyone. We also encountered meanings like comfort, independence, and making one’s home more beautiful or future-proof.

Making a home more sustainable can also lead to changes in daily routines. Many concerns about retrofitting revolve around these changes, especially in terms of how things sound, look, and feel. For example, people often worry about the noise of heat pumps or dislike how the outdoor units look on their facade or in their garden.

The experience of comfort in the home also changes: it often takes some getting used to when your home maintains a more constant temperature and can’t heat up as quickly. You might no longer be able to sit against a warm radiator when you're cold. As one housing association employee explained:

‘Comfort’ goes beyond just a pleasant indoor temperature. Take a fireplace, for example: for many, it’s not only a way to heat the house but also to create a cozy atmosphere—the glow of the flames, the crackling of the wood, the smell of smoke all contribute to that experience. At the same time, sustainability measures often improve comfort. New windows may reduce drafts, and underfloor heating will keep your feet warmer.

Another example is switching from a gas stove (with an open flame) to an electric or induction hob. This involves a change in materials (new stove and cookware), skills (learning how long things take to cook), and sometimes even the ability to prepare certain traditional dishes. For example, roasting eggplants or peppers directly over an open flame becomes more difficult. This can have a major emotional impact, as food is often deeply tied to culture, identity, and nostalgia.

These examples are not meant to suggest that one practice is better than another, but rather show that new technologies come with the phasing out of old practices and the development of new ones. That takes time and adjustment as new routines must be built.

Based on our research, we can distinguish between two types of energy-saving practices: energy practices in which the use of ecotechnologies plays a central role, and energy practices where energy saving is more closely tied to meanings around moderation and using as few new materials as possible. In the latter, fewer devices and other goods are used, and reuse and second-hand materials are key.

When ecotechnologies are central, energy is saved through their deployment. However, trust in these technologies can sometimes be so great that people allow themselves greater energy use in their daily practices, which can offset (some of) the savings. An overemphasis on the deployment of ecotechnologies and sustainability through new materials without considering our everyday practices, will not solve our problems. This is especially true given the rise in our use of energy-intensive devices and technologies, such as AI and streaming movies and series. The energy we save through small measures and new technologies is often greatly surpassed by new energy-intensive practices. As researcher Sarah Darby puts it:

However, this responsibility does not lie solely with the individual. The energy transition may feel like an individual choice, like something people must take personal responsibility for, but in reality it is largely shaped by our material and institutional environment. For example: does the municipality choose a district heating system or electrification in your neighborhood? Are you a homeowner or a tenant? All of this affects the energy practices you can participate in.

Another risk of focusing heavily on ecotechnological solutions and individual responsibility is that not everyone can afford to participate due to the cost of these technologies. This can lead to feelings of being left behind, even though we know that households with lower incomes tend to have a smaller carbon footprint than wealthier ones.

That’s why we need to reflect on the conditions that make lower energy use the norm, by paying attention to everyday energy practices, but also to our material and institutional context. For instance, more attention could be given to using second-hand materials in retrofitting. New products come with significant (often hidden) environmental costs. Especially within subsidy schemes for sustainable housing, there should be more room for this.

Retrofitting also requires specific skills: gathering information, deciding on measures, scheduling the work, estimating costs, applying for subsidies or loans, and so on. Then there’s the question of whether you can and want to do the work yourself or need to find a reliable contractor. These are not easy tasks. The desire but inability to make a home more sustainable is often not just due to lack of funds, but also lack of time or mental space to manage the process.

Carrying out a sustainability effort together (collective retrofitting) can be a good way for many people to make their homes more sustainable. You can benefit from each other’s strengths: one person might be good at planning and organizing, another at applying for subsidies, and someone else may be a skilled handyman. As one board member of a homeowners' association (VvE) told us:

Especially when collective sustainability actions are combined with subsidies for (second-hand) construction materials, this becomes a promising approach that addresses materials, skills, and also meanings (togetherness, sociability).

In our research, we explored various forms of collective retrofitting. In addition to joint workdays with neighbors, collective sustainability efforts also take place within homeowners’ associations (VvEs) and in “mixed ownership” neighborhoods (where rental and owner-occupied homes are interspersed). In mixed ownership settings, this often happens when housing corporations renovate and invite private homeowners to join in (part of) the sustainability measures. In VvEs, collective sustainability is a necessity, since the VvE jointly manages the building on behalf of its members.

Although collective sustainability efforts are promising, we also observe that the decision-making process can be challenging. A wide diversity of residents, each with their own skills, opinions, and interests, can be both a strength and a limitation. Getting everyone on the same page is no small feat.

Building on our research, we started working with two interrelated questions:

These questions led to one central design challenge, guiding us toward a concrete final product. We decided to develop a conversation tool that addresses the following question:

We collaborated with the design agency morgenmakers on this project. It was important for us to develop this conversation tool together with the people involved in collective retrofitting. This way, the needs, experiences, and interests of residents, homeowners’ association (HOA) members and boards, municipal employees, and advisory organizations could be taken into account, and we could co-create something that truly meets their needs. In three design sessions, we worked toward a prototype, which was tested in practice with residents. Based on their feedback, we created the final design: The “Woonwaardengesprek” (Housing Values Conversation tool).

© 2025 Sem Jordaan.

This is an interactive and accessible conversation tool that allows neighborhood residents, HOA members, or tenants to talk together about what is needed to (continue to) live comfortably in their home, neighborhood, or building.

During the “Woonwaardengesprek” conversation, a small group of residents (5–8 people) discuss what they consider important for comfortable living and what opportunities and concerns they see. They then explore possible measures to improve their living environment, and take the first step toward concrete plans and initiatives.

© 2025 Sem Jordaan.

The conversation kits can be borrowed from the municipalities of Barendrecht, Ridderkerk, and Albrandswaard, as well as from Erasmus University.