Housing and household practices: Practice-based sustainability interventions for low-energy houses in Lahore, Pakistan

Highlights

• Housing practices influence household practices, mediated through the house design.

• “Good” housing (design) practices can lead to “good” household (use) practices.

• Recrafting, substituting & changing interlinks in housing and household practices.

• A ‘systems’ approach is required to make housing practices less energy-intensive.

• Technological and socio-cultural innovation should drive sustainability transitions.

Abstract

This paper focuses on low-energy interventions in the design and use of houses from a socio-technical perspective. It explores the links between housing (design) and household (use) practices for sustainability transitions in middle-class housing in Lahore, Pakistan. Using two case-study houses as examples of variation in design, in addition to semi-structured interviews with housing practitioners, the paper investigates the transitions needed in housing practices that, through interventions in house design, can lead to less energy-intensive household practice-arrangements. It uses a practice-based intervention framework to explore how housing and household practices can be recrafted, substituted and changes made to how they interlock for improved sustainability. “Good” housing practices such as integration of more flexible, performance-based byelaws to meet minimum standards, better knowledge and skills of practitioners, good communication between stakeholders and the availability of low-carbon material supply chains can lead to “good” household practices, such as changed meanings of comfort, more outdoor-based activities and collective practice-arrangements. The paper thus highlights inadequacies of existing economically-driven, techno-determinist efficiency models to meet required levels of housing energy demand. The practice approach makes the connections between “good” and “bad” housing and household practices visible and demonstrates their significance in identifying key areas of sustainability interventions.

Introduction

Low-energy housing transitions are inevitable under rapid urbanisation, escalating energy demands and rising consumption of the emerging middle-class in the Global South (EIA, 2016; UNDP, 2013). During the first decade of the 21st century, the middle-class² in Pakistan grew from 32% to 55% of the total population and accounted for 90% increase in national consumption³ (Ghani, 2014), specifically in urban regions. Although urban residential consumption is on the rise, estimates reveal a housing shortage of roughly 10 million units and the deficit continues to grow, particularly in the urban areas (World Bank, 2017). Pakistan's national housing policy remains inadequate in dealing with housing shortage under unprecedented urban population growth and poor environmental performance of existing housing stock (National Housing Policy Pakistan, 2001; Tiwari & Rao, 2016).

Most energy policies for low-energy transitions focus on economic rationale models and psychological behaviour change models (Shove, 2010; Strengers & Maller, 2015). In the building construction industry, either a technologically determinist paradigm dominates, or aesthetics take centre stage with architects considered as ‘artistic form-givers’ (Lorne, 2017). While alternative architectural frameworks, such as user-centred design exist, such frameworks often take conventional needs for granted, reproducing high demands and maintaining the unsustainable status quo (Redström, 2006; Shove, Watson, Hand, & Ingram, 2007; Scott, Bakker, & Quist, 2012).

Instead, a socio-technical approach to societal transition has recently been advocated (e.g., Geels, 2002; Horta, Wilhite, Schmidt, & Bartiaux, 2014; McMeekin & Southerton, 2012; Strengers & Maller, 2015; Shove, 2017); an approach that moves beyond change at the micro-scale of the individual or isolated technologies to the interrelated social systems in place (Watson, 2012). In architectural practice, there has been similar critique of architecture representing autonomy or individual artistry (e.g., Imrie & Street, 2014; McNeill, 2006). Recent work in the sociology of architecture calls for spatial design and processes that prioritise socio-economic and cultural objectives (Dutton & Mann, 1996; Lorne, 2017; Müller & Reichmann, 2015; Till & Schneider, 2012. A socio-technical approach to low-energy housing thus considers buildings as not just grounds for technological efficiency in construction and appliances, but the ‘material counterparts of competing social practices’ (Guy & Shove, 2000, p. 67).

Most practice-based research on domestic energy-use has focused on practices of homeowners (see e.g., Hand, Shove, & Southerton, 2005; Higginson, Thomson, & Bhamra, 2014; Foulds, Powell, & Seyfang, 2013; Gram-Hanssen, 2008, Gram-Hanssen, 2011; Halkier & Jensen, 2011; Maller, Horne, & Dalton, 2012; Ropke, Gram-Hanssen, & Jensen, 2007 among others) and not of the professionals who design these domestic spaces. Such a one-sided approach creates gaps in the understanding of domestic energy demand and misses the critical links between housing and household practices for low-energy interventions. A broader understanding of low-energy housing as an intervention in a whole system of practice is required. This includes interrelations of many different stakeholders, including housing professionals, policy-makers, designers and builders as well as daily routines and practices of homeowners (Macrorie, Foulds, & Hargreaves, 2015). Buildings as shared objects can play a central role in connecting practices of professional experts and homeowners (Jensen, Wade, Pettersen, & Kuijer, 2014).

This paper investigates the links between housing and household practices as mediated through the house design. Using two case-study houses as examples of variation in house design, it investigates the transitions needed in housing practices that, through interventions in house design, can lead to less energy-intensive household practice-arrangements. Consequently, it explores potential practice-based interventions for low-energy house design and use applying Spurling, McMeekin, Shove, Southerton, and Welch's (2013) practice-oriented framework.

Methodology section explains the practice-based intervention methodology, followed by a brief review of the case-studies explaining how the house design mediates differences in household practice-arrangements. This sets the ground for the main findings in Findings section. In Discussion section, the potential of practice-based interventions in house design and use is discussed. Conclusions are presented in Conclusions section.