We analyse qualitative data from home energy retrofit projects in England, looking beyond the boundaries of the building and its design for human behavioural influences on home energy use. We recognise that energy use is not solely determined by the decisions of building users or designers, but that intermediaries involved in energy retrofit may also be influential. Our focus is on retrofit which encompasses a range of changes to existing buildings to alter energy use. Decisions to incorporate new energy technologies into the home (both energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies), and how these technologies are then used, are shaped by the advice and action of energy efficiency advisers and energy technology installers (intermediaries). Understanding the nature of this influence, and how it might be directed to increase energy efficient behaviours, is an overlooked opportunity. We found that influence was greatest at the pre-installation stage, and that influence which could be exercised post-installation was not realised. We conclude that by recognising how the role and influence of intermediaries varies at each stage of the retrofit process, policy and action can be identified to enhance the contribution intermediaries can make to changing behaviours and reducing domestic energy use.
Sustainable Development Commission. Stock take: delivering improvements in existing housing, London: SDC, 2006. .
3.
StaniaszekDRapfOMariottiniFLottesRKunkelSDanciuSFabeerMMarianCDumitruM. Renovation strategies of selected EU countries: a status report on compliance with Article 4 of the Energy Efficiency Directive, Brussels: Buildings Performance Institute Europe, 2014.
4.
SorrellS. Jevons' Paradox revisited: the evidence for backfire from improved energy efficiency. Energy Policy2009; 37: 1456–1469.
5.
DobbynJThomasG. Seeing the light: the impact of microgeneration on the way we use energy, London: Sustainable Development Commission, 2005.
6.
MiddenCJHKaiserFGMcCalleyLT. Technology's four roles in understanding individuals' conservation of natural resources. J Social Issues2007; 63: 155–174.
7.
LilleyD. Design for sustainable behaviour: strategies and perceptions. Des Studies2009; 30: 704–720.
8.
RisholtBBerkerT. Success for energy efficient renovation of dwellings—learning from private homeowners. Energy Policy2013; 61: 1022–1030.
9.
GalvinRSunikka-BlankM. The UK homeowner-retrofitter as an innovator in a socio-technical system. Energy Policy2014; 74: 655–662.
10.
PettiforHWilsonCChryssochoidisG. The appeal of the green deal: empirical evidence for the influence of energy efficiency policy on renovating homeowners. Energy Policy2015; 79: 161–176.
11.
AndrewsCJYiDKrogmannUSenickJAWenerRE. Designing buildings for real occupants: an agent-based approach. IEEE Transact Syst Man Cybernetics Part A-Syst Humans2011; 41(6): 1077–1091.
12.
MirosaMLawsonRGnothD. Linking personal values to energy-efficient behaviors in the home. Environ Behavior2013; 45: 455–475.
13.
MarechalK. Not irrational but habitual: the importance of “behavioural lock-in” in energy consumption. Ecol Economics2010; 69(5): 1104–1114.
14.
Shove E. How people use and ‘misuse’ buildings. In: ESRC/TSB Policy briefing. Swindon: ESRC, 2009, pp.20–25.
15.
SchäferMJaeger-erbenMBambergS. Life events as windows of opportunity for changing towards sustainable consumption patterns?J Consumer Policy2012; 35(1): 65–84.
16.
JandaKB. Buildings don't use energy: people do. Archit Sci Rev2011; 54(1): 15–22.
17.
GuySMarvinSMeddWMossT. Shaping urban infrastructures – intermediaries and the governance of socio-technical networks, London: Routledge, 2010. .
18.
StewartJHyysaloS. Intermediaries, users and social learning in technological innovation. Int J Innovat Manage2008; 12: 295–325.
19.
PAS2030:2014 Edition 1. Improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings: specification for installation process, process management and service provision. London: BSI, 2014.
20.
FischerJGuyS. Re-interpreting regulations: architects as intermediaries for low-carbon buildings. Urban Studies2009; 46: 2577–2594.
21.
GeelsFW. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res Policy2004; 33(6–7): 897–920.
22.
SmithA. Transforming technological regimes for sustainable development: a role for alternative technology niches?Sci Public Policy2003; 30(2): 127–135.
23.
BanksNSocio-technical networks and the sad case of the condensing boiler. In: BertoldiPRicciAAlmeidaA (eds). Energy efficiency in household appliances and lighting, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2001, pp. 141–155.
24.
JandaKBParagY. A middle-out approach for improving energy performance in buildings. Build Res Inform2013; 41(1): 39–50.
25.
BlakeJ. Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environ1999; 4(3): 257–278.
26.
HuberAMayerIBeillanVGoaterATrotignonRBattagliniE. Refurbishing residential buildings: a socio-economic analysis of retrofitting projects in five European Countries, Brussels: FEDARENE, 2011. .
27.
GillinghamKNewellRGPalmerK. Energy efficiency economics and policy. Annual Rev Resource Econom2009; 1(1): 597–620.
28.
BergmanNEyreN. What role for microgeneration in a shift to a low carbon domestic energy sector in the UK?Energy Efficiency201; 4(3): 335–353.
29.
BergmanN. Why is renewable heat in the UK underperforming? A socio-technical perspective. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part A-J Power Energy2013; 227(1): 124–131.
30.
OwenAMitchellGGouldsonA. Unseen influence—the role of low carbon retrofit advisers and installers in the adoption and use of domestic energy technology. Energy Policy2014; 73: 169–179.
31.
Nosberger S, Killip G and Janda KB. Building expertise: a system of professions approach to low carbon refurbishment in the UK and France. ECEEE summer study: energy efficiency first: the foundation of a low carbon society, 5–10 June 2011, Belambra Presqu'île de Giens, France.
32.
PAS2030 Edition 2. Improving the energy efficiency of existing buildings. BSI, London, 2012.
33.
WeissJDunkelbergEVogelpohlT. Improving policy instruments to better tap into homeowner refurbishment potential: lessons learned from a case study in Germany. Energy Policy2012; 44: 406–415.
34.
RogersEM. Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York: Free Press, 2003.
35.
Owen A. Factors that affect the diffusion and impact of domestic ‘green technology’ and the role of ‘place’. PhD Thesis, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK, 2013.
36.
OwenA. not just any old place: how place, people, and technology affect the impact of area approaches to domestic resource conservation. Int J Environment Cultural Economic Social Sustain: Ann Rev2015, pp. 19–29.
37.
AjzenI. The theory of planned behavior. Organization Behav Human Decision Process1991; 50(2): 179–211.
38.
WilsonCChryssochoidisGPettiforH. Understanding homeowners' renovation decisions: findings of the VERD Project, Norwich: UK Energy Research Centre, 2013.
39.
KingNUsing templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: CassellCSymonG (eds). Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research, London: Sage, 2004, pp. 256–270.
40.
MallerCHorneRDaltonT. Green renovations: intersections of daily routines, housing aspirations and narratives of environmental sustainability. Housing, Theory & Society2012; 29(3): 255–275.
41.
MallerCJHorneRE. Living lightly: how does climate change feature in residential home improvements and what are the implications for policy?Urban Policy Res2011; 29(1): 59–72.
42.
OwenAMitchellGUnsworthR. Reducing carbon, tackling fuel poverty: adoption and performance of air-source heat pumps in East Yorkshire, UK. Local Environ2012; 18(7): 817–833.
BrownPSwanWChahalS. Retrofitting social housing: reflections by tenants on adopting and living with retrofit technology. Energy Efficiency2014; 7(4): 641–653.
