ARTICLE

Greening heritage housing: understanding homeowners’renovation practices in Australia

Ellis P. Judson • Usha Iyer-Raniga • Ralph Horne

Received: 7 April 2012 / Accepted: 15 March 2013� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract In the context of recent policy moves to reduce environmental impacts, it is

argued that significant improvements are required to heritage housing stock. Existing

housing stock is recognised in planning/legislation for some form of protection based upon

its heritage significance. Although renovation of existing dwellings is the principal means

promoted to reduce energy and associated environmental emissions, little attention has

been given to how this is achieved in practice. This paper joins an emerging body of work

that draws on social practice theory, as an alternative to rational and behaviourist per-

spectives, to investigate renovation practices in heritage housing. Based on analysis of

interviews with homeowners, this paper discusses the common social understandings

associated with heritage buildings, environmental sustainability, and comfort, and how

these intersect in home-renovation. The study explores how households balance emerging

needs for environmental sustainability with retaining heritage significance. Questions are

raised as to the extent to which renovations can contribute to objectives for reducing

energy use and emissions, and implications are drawn for future policy approaches

regarding the attainment of more sustainable practices.

Keywords Environmental performance � Historic heritage � Housing consumption �Renovation � Social practice

E. P. Judson (&)Department of Anthropology, Durham University, Dawson Building, South Road,Durham DH1 3LE, UKe-mail: ellis.judson@durham.ac.uk

U. Iyer-RanigaSchool of Property, Construction and Project Management, College of Design and Social Context,RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australiae-mail: usha.iyer-raniga@rmit.edu.au

R. HorneCentre for Design, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3001, Australiae-mail: ralph.horne@rmit.edu.au

123

J Hous and the Built EnvironDOI 10.1007/s10901-013-9340-y

1 Introduction

Reducing energy use and related emissions from buildings has become an increasingly

important objective and features prominently in policy and programs across the western-

ised world. Similarly, efforts to promote conservation of cultural historic built heritage

have become embedded within planning policy and regulation. In this paper attention is

placed upon the alignment or otherwise of built heritage and energy efficiency aspirations

as seen through the eyes of owner occupiers seeking to renovate their heritage dwellings.

The term heritage is used here to refer to the historic built heritage in the Australian

context where a distinction is made between natural, indigenous and historic heritage

(Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities 2011).

This includes the buildings erected following settlement by European and other migrants

and, more specifically, dwellings with designated cultural or heritage significance as

defined in the Burra Charter (Australia ICOMOS 1999).

Although the socio-cultural and economic benefits associated with historic heritage are

well-documented (Department of the Environment and Heritage 2004; The Allen Consulting

Group 2005; Throsby 2007), there is suggestion that heritage conservation has become

displaced by other objectives such as environmental sustainability (SOEC 2011). The

perception here is that heritage is expendable, and at risk of being over-ridden by the green

building agenda. The renovation of heritage buildings to improve their environmental

performance continues to be a contested issue (see Boardman 2007; Lowe 2007), which

has not been resolved.

This paper is driven by the research question, ‘How do households go about undertaking

improvements to existing dwellings in the context of environmental performance, heritage

significance, and other motivations and aspirations?’ We draw on qualitative interviews

with home-renovators who have embarked on a process to improve environmental per-

formance. In exploring the experience of homeowners, attention is given to the mecha-

nisms shaping the practice of renovation in heritage dwellings.

We begin by providing an account of the context for the study, by describing the

building stock, and outlining the rise of housing renovation prevalent in Australia. We then

turn our attention to the theoretical approach underpinning the research; using a framework

of social practices. Social practice theory is being increasingly explored and applied to

studies of change although little attention has been directed towards it in the context of

heritage buildings and their refurbishment. Hence, an introduction to social practice theory

in this context is provided here. The starting point is household renovation activities,

interpreted as an outcome of socially shared, institutionally situated and technologically

mediated practices, rather than the product of personal attitudes, or preferences (Strengers

and Maller 2011).

We then provide a brief synopsis of the methods used for this study of home renova-

tions. In the findings and discussion attention is focused on common social understandings

and how these intersect in renovations: the meanings of heritage, environmental under-

standings, and other motivations for the renovation of heritage dwellings.

The findings provide insight for policy-makers in developing policies and programs for

renovation of existing dwellings to improve environmental performance. The paper con-

cludes by highlighting the need for policy that focuses on practices and their constituents,

as these underlie household sustainable consumption.

E. P. Judson et al.

123

2 Background: heritage housing in Australia

Australia is a largely urbanised country with around two-thirds of the population living in

cities (ABS 2011a). Over 57 % of the dwellings in Australia are more than 20 years old

(Australian Greenhouse Office and Department of the Environment and Water Resources

2007). From a heritage perspective, the vast majority of statutory-listed historic heritage

places are of local significance—around 160,000 in number in the State of Victoria alone.

Buildings constructed in the past have not considered energy efficiency or other envi-

ronmental considerations.

While this number may be considered to be a very small proportion of the existing

building stock, these buildings are significant for their broader social benefits to society.

Accurate information of the actual size of the heritage places founded on published data

(Productivity Commission, 2006) is likely to be an underestimate based on recent work to

catalogue heritage buildings included within local Heritage Overlays in Victoria. There is

no authoritative data on the numbers of heritage buildings in Australian states/territories, as

accurate information is not available.

Since early 2000 the Building Code of Australia (BCA) has been instrumental in

bringing energy efficiency standards in the residential and commercial sector of the

building industry. At the time of this study, the requirement was 5 Star or equivalent for the

building fabric, which has now been increased to 6 Star from 2011 (Building Commission

of Victoria 2011). The intent in bringing these Standards was to ensure energy efficient

designs for the building fabric, however, no studies have been undertaken to ensure that

these designs are constructed as per the plan, or how these buildings perform after these

energy efficiency measures have been introduced. From 2011, in Victoria, the measures

have extended not just to new buildings, but also to the alteration and extension of existing

buildings.

There is indication that Australia’s domestic energy consumption is increasing; largely

attributed to population growth, increase in the number of households, smaller household

size, more household appliances and ICT equipment, and a trend towards larger dwellings

(Sandu and Petchey 2009; Akmal and Riwoe 2005; Newton and Meyer 2012). At the same

time, ideas of environmental performance and climate change have permeated into the

home and in the space around the home. Water efficiency fittings for example have been

mandated, but other environmental apparatus, such as installation of solar panels are

subject to planning controls.

3 Home renovation in heritage dwellings

Renovation offers opportunities to increase building energy efficiency and reduce green-

house gas emissions relating to existing buildings (Meijer et al. 2009) as well as conser-

vation of built heritage. Renovation involves an element of upgrading to improve

performance to meet new conditions or standards (Australia ICOMOS 1999; Douglas

2006), but may also involve the introduction of new elements or partial demolition to

remove parts that are unsafe, functionally redundant, have maintenance problems, out-

dated, or limit a viable use (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) 1996).

Retrofitting is another term that is commonly used to describe undertaking modifications,

including to the exterior envelope; equipment, lighting, appliances; management and

control systems to improve the performance of buildings (Nilsson 1996). For the purposes

of this study, renovation involves modifications to a dwelling to improve some aspect of

Greening heritage housing

123

performance, including environmental performance, and may also incorporate upgrading,

internal reconfiguration or extension, and retrofitting.

In Australia, renovation in the domestic sector is widespread and continues to increase

(Housing Industry Association (HIA) 2011; Johanson 2011). Studies indicate that house-

holders are guided by multiple motivations to renovate (for example, Crosbie and Guy

2008; Dalton et al. 2007; Gram-Hanssen 2011; Wilk and Wilhite 1985). From the socio-

logical perspective, renovation is bound up in the process of making a home (Blunt and

Dowling 2006), and in the meaning of home through the possibilities or affordancesoffered (Coolen and Meesters 2012). In a study of UK householders’ who had extended or

significantly remodelled their home, Hand et al. (2007) examined the opportunities and

motivations to extend. Their analysis related spatial changes to the acquisition of new

technologies and goods and to daily practices, which are about supporting particular

images of domestic life (Hand et al. 2007). An illustration is the trend towards the open-

plan domestic interior, which is based around ideals of family life (Dowling and Mee

2007).

Ideas around environmental sustainability and heritage intersect with changing social

and cultural notions of home to provide complex challenges for policy, and this needs to be

noted. For example, between 2005 and 2008, the proportion of households using energy

saving lights increased from 33 to 59 % (ABS 2010) amidst various initiatives to phase out

incandescent bulbs and save energy. Despite this, energy consumption on lighting

increased, and suggested explanations include greater use of halogen lamps associated with

changing ideas, and increasing the size of the home (Sandu and Petchey 2009) thus

requiring greater number of lamps. Similarly, efforts to improve thermal performance via

building codes have coincided with a substantial increase in the number of households with

air conditioning, which has more than doubled, from 32 % in 1994 to 73 % in 2011 (ABS

2011b).

Thus, home owners in Australia and elsewhere have continued to renovate their homes

for a number of reasons, with reasons ranging from regulatory compliance, and real and

perceived environmental considerations. Yet, in reality there is a conflict between

increased regulated environmental stringency and the practice of home renovation.

4 A social practices approach to heritage renovation

To inform the debate around home renovation of heritage dwellings in an era of envi-

ronmental concern, we draw on theories of social practice and present here the key

attributes of social practices as these relate to heritage home renovation. Social practice has

been used because existing explanations based on rational economic and psychology

theory do not fully explain renovation activities of homeowners to improve environmental

performance. Practice theories can provide in situ understanding of how home owners go

about their renovations. In particular, it sheds some light on the discrepancy between

attitudes and actions—described as the ‘value-action gap’ (Barr 2006; Blake 1999; Kollmuss

and Agyeman 2002).

Practice theory was selected because of the focus on what people actually do, and

because it provided insight into the relationship of renovation activities with the dynamics

of everyday life (including habits); social interaction; social structures and technical sys-

tems; knowledge and know-how; the material culture; cultural conventions; and common

understandings relating to the renovation of heritage dwellings.

E. P. Judson et al.

123

Whilst theories of practice vary, a practice is commonly understood as a routinised form

of activity, which involves connected elements of bodily activities, mental activities,

things, knowledge, skills, emotion and motivational knowledge (Reckwitz 2002). For

detailed accounts of theories of practice, the reader is referred elsewhere (for example,

Reckwitz 2002; Røpke 2009; Schatzki et al. 2001; Warde 2005).

A brief description of the application of practice theory in renovation is provided.

Practice based approaches to studying renovation include UK home extensions (Hand et al.

2007), kitchen renewal (Shove and Hand 2005), and Do-It-Yourself home improvements

(Watson and Shove 2008); energy-efficiency renovations of homes in Belgium, Denmark,

Latvia and Portugal (Bartiaux et al. 2011); and ‘green renovations’ in Australia (Maller

et al. 2012). None of these have specifically addressed renovations of dwellings with

cultural heritage significance, nor provide insights resulting from the tensions with envi-

ronmental sustainability.

Renovation is comprised of various interrelated activities, relatively enduring, and

relatively recognisable as an entity (Shove et al. 2007)—in short, a coherent set of

activities recognisable across time and space. The performance of renovation involves

various skills and competences, including knowledge and know-how, planning, organising,

and managing resources. Furthermore, home-renovators embarking on alterations to a

heritage dwelling encounter additional layers of complexity in terms of controls and

specialised knowledge.

The practice of renovation not only includes elements of the building, and its systems,

equipment and products, but takes place within and is shaped by technological, institu-

tional and infrastructural contexts (Randles and Warde 2006; Crosbie and Guy 2008).

Practices ensue from the interaction of rules, materials, skills/know-how and common

understandings. Hence, the practice of renovation is governed by a system of permits,

together with the physical condition of the existing building, and the available technology

and infrastructure, as well as the capabilities of home renovators, professionals and con-

tractors. We can reasonably expect that the configuration of these elements result in

variation and change in renovation practice; from place to place and from time to time and

from person to person.

5 Method

Theories of practice vary, and there is no universally agreed framework. Different elements

comprising the framework are proposed by different authors. The conceptual framework

for analysis for this research is adapted from Shove and Pantzar (2005) who developed a

useful analytical framework of a practice for empirical investigations. From this we pro-

pose a framework for understanding the practice of renovation in heritage dwellings

involving three elements: meanings and understandings, competences, and material

infrastructures, as illustrated in Fig. 1. This conceptual framework positions heritage home

renovation practices as a series of interrelated components (Reckwitz 2002) encompassing

common understandings about home renovation, including heritage and the environment;

competences, including knowledge and skills; and material infrastructures, such as tech-

nologies, systems of provision, rules and guidance. The elements of practice combine to

apprise what makes sense for someone to do (Schatzki 2002).

Owners of heritage dwellings were recruited as the source of information for in-depth

analysis of renovation practices. In particular, owners who were environmentally con-

cerned were targeted. Research participants were selected using purposive sampling

Greening heritage housing

123

(Bryman 2008: 415), recruited through various key organisations namely, local councils, a

government heritage agency, professional institutions, and community organisations. Other

sources included internet forums, magazines and newspapers featuring individual houses

that had been upgraded to improve environmental performance, and the Victorian Civil

and Administrative Tribunals database. Snowballing was also employed to identify further

potential research participants (Robson 2002).

Participants were selected to elucidate the unique features of the case (Bryman 2008),

and to develop as full an understanding as possible (Silverman, 2010). Case studies also

illustrate issues that are considered relevant to a wider population or groups of heritage

buildings. This study employs a qualitative approach, borrowing from ethnographic

methods catering to the study of complex, real-world settings. A similar approach has been

used elsewhere for providing insights in housing renovations (for example, Bartiaux et al.

2011; Crosbie and Baker 2010; Maller and Horne 2011).

Information on homeowners’ experiences of undertaking renovations to heritage

dwellings was collected using face-to-face, semi structured interviews to gain an in-depth

understanding of the complex range of mechanisms and social interactions involved. This

approach offers flexibility in the amount of time and attention given to different aspects

depending on the interviewee’s responses, and the sequencing of questions and wording

can be varied depending on the particular circumstances of the interviewees. An interview

guide approach (Patton 2002) was employed, using an outline or schedule of topics of

importance to the research. Discussions centred on the motivations for the renovation;

aspects of environmental performance; meaning of heritage; where information or advice

was sourced; objectives and how these were conciliated; strategies used to improve

environmental performance; and any particular difficulties renovators’ encountered. With

Fig. 1 Key components of renovation practice in heritage dwellings (Source: E.P Judson)

E. P. Judson et al.

123

participants’ consent, interviews were recorded and photographic records made of the

dwellings, to assist with analysis. A pilot interview was carried out to trial the topics

covered and questions, which highlighted the importance of thermal comfort as a moti-

vating factor for occupants and this topic was included in subsequent interviews. The

number of interviews was felt to be sufficient when the collection of further data confirmed

the codes, categories and concepts that had been developed (Denscombe 2003).

Heritage status was verified independently using the Victoria’s Planning Schemes

Online website (Department of Planning and Community Development 2010), the Vic-

torian Heritage Database (ibid. 2011), and local municipal council published heritage

studies, where available.

In total twenty interviews were conducted, between February and May 2011. Tran-

scriptions were combined with other documents including field notes, magazine articles,

planning appeal decision notices, drawings and digital photographs. Qualitative analytic

software was used to facilitate systematic analysis (Denscombe 2003; Miles and Huberman

1994; Richards and Morse 2007). Analytic coding was used to analyse the interview

data (Richards 2009) where extracts and notes were grouped together for further

analysis.

6 Composition of participant households, dwellings and renovations

Participants are located in eight different municipalities in Victoria, with sixteen homes

located in metropolitan Melbourne, and four in regional Victoria. Of the 26 homeowners

interviewed, sixteen were female and ten were male. Ages ranged from 37 to 65? years,

although four participants did not provide details of age. The period that renovators had

owned the dwelling ranged from 1 to 27 years with average period of ownership being

10 years. While all were single-family dwellings, the type, age and construction of

dwellings varied. Examples are provided in Fig. 2a–c.

7 Heritage renovation preferences

A summary of the renovations is provided in Table 1. Activities range from modest

changes such as draught proofing measures, or ceiling insulation, which do not require any

specialist skills or structural works; in other cases, the works require specialised knowledge

and skills, and involve some intrusion e.g. installing a new heating system, or solar panels;

but the majority comprise material transformations which involve significant structural

works and disruption, and require the engagement of professional advisers and contractors.

These major renovations often incorporate reconfiguring domestic space or an extension.

Most homeowners enlisted professional advisors to assist them navigate through the

process of renovation; fourteen engaged an architect or a designer, along with and other

professional consultants (e.g. engineer, heritage specialist, energy rating assessor) where

necessary, confirming that the practice of renovation is complex.

Retrofitting solar hot water and solar photovoltaics (PV) are popular amongst home-

owners (Table 1), assisted by government subsidies for installation and generous feed-in

tariffs for renewable energy systems. This is regarded as potentially contentious because of

the possibility of adverse impacts on heritage significance, since many of these systems

Greening heritage housing

123

alter views of the structure and roofline. The prevalence of these indicates that, in the

contest between the environment and heritage, there may indeed be a shift in favour of the

former among renovation preferences.

Fig. 2 Examples of Australianheritage housing subject torenovations to improveenvironmental performance.a Late Victorian brick workers’cottage, North Carlton;b Edwardian style weatherboardvilla, Clifton Hill; c earlytwentieth century stone villa,Harcourt (Source: E.P. Judson)

E. P. Judson et al.

123

Table 1 Overview of renovation activities

Renovations Number ofhouseholds(n = 20)

Comments

Kitchen and bathrooms

No new kitchen or bathroom 4

New kitchen only 1

New bathroom only 0

New kitchen and one bathroom 1

New kitchen and two bathrooms 12 Two refurbished an existing bathroom, and added afurther bathroom

New kitchen and three bathrooms 2 One household refurbished one bathroom and addedtwo further

One family had an ensuite shower room from anearlier renovation, then re-sited the family bathroomand added a further bathroom on the upper storey

Extensions

Extension on ground level only 10 Nine replaced sub-standard or smaller single storeyadditions

Added second storey 7 One had already been extended by the previousowners

One extended into the roof space of the existingdwelling as well as an extension to the ground floor

Solar hot water

Installed solar hot water 12

No solar hot water 8 Of these, 7 would like to install SHW but unable todue to planning constraints (3); technical issues (1);space (1); financial constraints (1); and combinationof these reasons (1)

Renewable energy

Installed PV panels 11

Intending to install PV panels 4 Included as part of the current renovations

Not installed PV panels 5 Three would like to install PV panels but unable todue to: physical and technical constraints (1); andplanning constraints (2)

One aspires to having PV panels

Principal source of heating

Hydronic heating 11 Driven by various energy sources: mains gas (7); solarboosted with gas (2); air source heat pump (1); solidfuel stove (1)

Wood heater 3 Wood heater used as secondary form of heating in 3other households

Electric 3 Electric panel heaters

Mains gas 2 Gas heater (1); ducted heating (1)

LPG 1 Gas fire

Principal source of cooling

Air conditioning 9 Air conditioning to 1 or more rooms

Other 11 e.g. fans, passive cooling, or combination

Both A/C and fan 3

Greening heritage housing

123

8 Heritage renovation social practice

To meet space requirements our discussion of renovation social practice focuses on

common understandings, and how these interface in the practice of home-renovation. We

focus on common understandings as this element is recognized by practice theorists as

critical to explaining social practices (Schatzki et al. 2001), and underlies homeowners’

renovation practice in heritage dwellings, included in the framework outlined earlier.

Shove (2004: 1064) refers to the need to understand, question, and debate normal and

taken-for-granted practices, ‘[t]his means paying attention to the intersection of actors’

definitions, understandings, competences and senses of obligation on the one hand, and to

rules, resources, institutions and infrastructures on the other.’ In this section therefore, we

examine homeowners’ understandings associated with renovation practices. Although

diverse, the insights communicated by individuals undertaking home-renovations are often

shared by others in the study, and relate primarily to ‘the shifting visions and expectations

of home and daily life’ (Hand et al. 2007: 669). Given the purposive selection of the

participants, it is unsurprising that, our expectations that environmental considerations and

heritage considerations would each form particular arenas of common understandings were

indeed met. In addition, we grouped a third set of common understandings as they relate to

participants’ notions of what Shove (2003) terms ‘comfort, cleanliness and convenience’.

8.1 Environmental common understandings

Homeowners’ perception of environmental sustainability varies but there are some com-

mon understandings evident amongst those participating in the research. Embedded within

the notion of environmental sustainability in home-renovation are issues of climate change

and greenhouse gas production, minimising use of resources and waste, energy efficiency,

and water conservation. Only four of those interviewed regarded retaining and adapting

heritage buildings as contributing to sustainability.

[W]e just sort of feel like if you can you should do the right thing. … Yeah I guess,

yeah it’s a concern about the world; it’s a concern about – you just can’t keep taking

you know, coal is a finite resource you know gas is a finite resource (Jemma)

Partly we wanted to just reduce the amount of energy that we’re using and green-

house is a worry; I think you should do whatever you can to reduce that. (Jeremy)

[W]e want to be comfortable and we want to try and do that in a responsible way. I

mean we believe we shouldn’t be emitting carbon and so forth … (James)

Table 1 continued

Renovations Number ofhouseholds(n = 20)

Comments

Windows

Double glazed 11

Secondary glazed 2

Window coverings 12 Heavy curtains (4); blinds or shutters (8) installedprimarily for shading

E. P. Judson et al.

123

[W]e should be able to use [electricity] but not have to feel guilty about it because of

coal fired power stations. (Julia)

[T]he impact of climate was secondary to our impact on energy demands. This was

our primary reason for building a sustainable house, lower energy consumption.

(Martin)

Environmental understandings, together with other components, are important in

shaping homeowners’ strategies for improving environmental performance:

[T]here’s cost in knocking down a perfectly good dwelling and rebuilding it, I mean,

building, to build something, it takes a lot of energy to build something. … And so

that, I certainly thought about that. That what’s there that’s still good, that seemed

like a shame to, while it was still performing pretty well, it kind of seemed like a

shame to knock it down, ‘cause that would actually be taking up, detracting from

what you were going to do by making it a more energy efficient place. (Jeremy)

We felt that pulling the existing building down over the long term would be more

energy efficient, therefore more sustainable. (Martin)

[I]f we’d knocked down the whole house and, and started afresh. I don’t know we

haven’t looked into that. But you could probably [get] a far more environmentally

efficient house from scratch (Jemma)

[I]t takes a lot of energy to build a house from scratch, so if you can raise the

performance of the building as a general statement I think that’s a good thing to do, it

would be worth trying. (James)

As indicated in Table 1, in terms of improving environmental performance, most

households were focused on energy and water efficiency, and reducing CO2 emissions,

through technical improvements to the building shell, and more efficient appliances,

indicating that the current policy focus on energy efficiency and environmental emissions

has had some influence on renovation practices. During the interviews homeowners were

enthusiastic about their acquisitions and technologies to enhance efficiency, particularly

double-glazing, central heating, solar installations, water tanks and grey water recycling

systems. Homeowners were keen to demonstrate their environmental credentials and most

of those interviewed had chosen to undertake visible measures, such as installing solar

panels, fitting energy efficient light bulbs or purchasing energy or water-efficient appli-

ances, whereas draught-sealing was carried out in only four dwellings. Similar findings are

reported in a study of household energy conservation practices by Wilk and Wilhite (1985),

in which they argue that draught-sealing, being invisible and unglamorous, is largely

unattractive to householders. Although technical strategies predominated, homeowners

also reported efforts to ‘save’ energy and water, such as turning down heating thermostats;

only using air-conditioners in extreme circumstances; taking shorter showers; using water-

efficient showerheads; and installing water tanks or grey-water systems. New environ-

mental understandings were also resulting in some homeowners questioning the use of

energy-intensive appliances, such as air conditioners and electric clothes dryers, which

were considered wasteful or irresponsible. However, for others the use of energy-intensive

appliances was justified by a concern for the welfare of young or aged family members,

pets, or visitors.

Most of the homeowners interviewed see living more sustainably as a new standard to

be achieved to be a responsible citizen, or as an ethical duty. However, practices varied

depending on their perceptions of the issues. Although convinced of the need to reduce

Greening heritage housing

123

greenhouse gas emissions, one homeowner did not install solar panels because he did not

agree with the particular technology configuration.

8.2 Heritage common understandings

It is generally recognized that the historic built heritage encompasses not only material

objects but also the meanings of heritage items to people (Aplin 2004; Pendlebury 2009).

Contemporary conservation theory contends that heritage has different meanings for dif-

ferent people (Gibson and Pendlebury 2009), with heritage objects interpreted in multiple

and often conflicting ways; interpretations may be symbolic, and are often linked to

contemporary purposes and needs. Within this study, owners’ appreciation of heritage

related predominantly to retaining aesthetic appearance, character or distinctive qualities,

or providing a link to the past—but in a personalised way. This is illustrated by the

following comments made by home-renovators:

They come up with ridiculous things and wanted to take out the old chimney down

the back here and this wall, and things like that. And [I] said ‘‘No! [but] they are the

things I love about the house’’. (Debbie)

I actually have memories of it when I was small so, you know, and my sisters have

memories of it when they were young as well. So, there are some things we wish to

reinstate, that were here. (Joy)

Understandings of heritage dwellings and their significance involves people’s memory

and association with place as well as an understanding of elements such as the historic

fabric and its setting and use (Gibson and Pendlebury 2009: 8), whereby significance is not

limited to an architectural or archaeological appraisal of fabric (in an expert sense), but it is

also about a homeowner’s experience. Therefore, we argue that an owner’s understanding

of what is significant has a bearing on the renovations, and those elements that are retained

and incorporated into contemporary practices, as demonstrated by the following:

At ridiculous expense we kept the chimney because they had to reinforce the

chimney and they had to do structural engineering, we probably spent $30,000 on

simply just keeping the chimney which in hindsight … We were advised that we

didn’t have to do it but we did it anyway. (Gareth)

And yeah, it was important not to change the appearance of the house. We wouldn’t

– we could probably get better performance if we put shutters on the outside of

windows, say, or yeah, we wouldn’t do that … (Jill)

[W]e kept the original kitchen fireplace and chimney as well. I didn’t want to remove

more than we had to in terms of the original bit of the house (Maisie)

Character was communicated as a particular quality homeowners’ admire or the

existence of features that have significance for them. Rarity or distinctiveness was seen as

worth retaining, with homeowners pointing out unusual or quirky features. Several reno-

vators gave examples of how they had retained elements of the building which resonated in

some way with their images, memories and emotions, such as brick fireplaces which also

embody meanings of home (Somerville in Blunt and Dowling 2006). It would appear that

homeowners are more likely to retain features of heritage significance in renovations where

this is aligned with their own understandings of what is meaningful, and does not interfere

with their expectations or prevailing ideas of what a home should be.

E. P. Judson et al.

123

In undertaking the renovation the dilemma between making a building functional,

improving environmental performance, and retaining heritage significance was commu-

nicated by several homeowners, and summed up in the following statement:

… how can you marry a heritage building with environmental infrastructure … that

is really the crux of it. (Gareth)

Some homeowners made extensive changes to the interior, or added large extensions

behind the building frontage but retained the external aesthetic appearance. The ‘heritage

aesthetic’, is a theme taken up by Pendlebury (2009) and others who claim that greater

value is placed on the image associated with a heritage building, rather than the principles

of authenticity and integrity endorsed in conservation charters. This approach may also

serve as a strategy for combining visual distinctiveness (on the outside) with aspirations for

a modern home that can accommodate valued everyday practices relating to comfort,

cleanliness and convenience.

8.3 Common understandings of comfort, cleanliness and convenience

While thermal comfort was referred to by all of the homeowners interviewed, as Gareth’s

quote above indicates, it was not always the first consideration mentioned in the context of

heritage renovation in an era of environmental concern. Despite this, thermal comfort is

clearly of primary importance and may be regarded as a ‘given’ in the ambitions of the vast

majority of heritage renovators. Discomfort due to extremes of temperature, both heat and

cold, was an issue reported by all interviewees from their experience of living in a heritage

dwelling, as illustrated by these examples:

The back of the house was hideous in the summer because it had quite a lot of roof

and it had no insulation and it was tin or corrugated steel and it used to get really hot

and there was no way for the heat to get out. So it was particularly bad in summer.

(Maisie)

I can remember days with the kids just sitting in the kid’s bedroom and my mother-

in-law loaned us this portable air conditioner and we’d just stay in the whole day in

the room with the kids because it was just so hot. And then kind of take them into the

bath and putting them in the bath every now and then to cool them down, it was just

shocking yeah. (Jessica)

Compared to their modern insulated counterparts, older buildings exhibit greater fluc-

tuation in internal temperature mirroring the external temperature (Ding et al. 2010),

leading to the common perception that all old buildings perform poorly (Nilsson 1996).

However, for some homeowners, their understanding of thermal comfort involves not only

managing extremes in temperature through installing insulation and external shading, but

also includes drawing blinds and closing doors, or patterns of occupying different rooms:

I must say in summer on stinking hot days it’s lovely to sit up in that front room

because it stays really cool. We just need to shut the door in the hall and you can feel

an immediate difference. I get home from work and you leave that shut, all of the

blinds I’ve done everything I can, it’s still a little warm around the back. So we will

just escape up the front. Well it’s nice and cool in there. (Debbie)

[A]t night in summer we leave the front door open and the side door open, so we

have the cold breeze coming through at night to cool the house down and then in the

morning we just shut everything back down again … so we don’t have any air

Greening heritage housing

123

conditioning, and we just maintain the temperature by operating the house manually.

(Heidi)

Thus, encouraging households to engage with and play a more active role in the

performance of their building is a strategy that has potential for reducing environmental

impacts.

Some homeowners acknowledged the virtues of living in an older house, which often

related to the construction material or architectural features designed to moderate the

effects of the climate, such as high ceilings or verandah. However, understandings of what

was considered as normal thermal comfort clearly influenced material transformations,

with homeowners seeking to equalize thermal conditions throughout the dwelling, through

their renovation practices, for example, by retrofitting central heating, air conditioning or

reconfiguration, as expectations of thermal comfort have become more standardized

(Foruzanmehr and Vellinga 2011; Healey 2008; Roaf et al. 2010; Wilhite 2009).

An important explanation for the renovation practices observed is to do with accom-

plishing what is seen as normal ways of life (Hand et al. 2007; Wilhite and Lutzenhiser

1999). Liveability was narrated by 10 home-renovators as reason for renovating, which is

interpreted as adapting the house to suit occupants’ preferred way of living, and accom-

modate ‘normal’ daily practices. The installation of hydronic heating, in 11 out of the 20

homes as part of the renovations, intersects with expectations of comfort and convenience

(Henning 2005), as illustrated by one homeowner who removed the wood burning heater

because the practice of cutting wood was inconvenient:

We did have a, in the existing part of the house, in our living room, we did have our

Coonara heater. That was a lovely type of heat and very cosy, but we got sick of

splitting logs. (Justine)

9 Discussion and conclusions

Using social practice as a lens through which to examine homeowners’ renovations of

heritage dwellings is illuminating in three main ways. Firstly, it illuminates the contest

between cultural preferences to retain heritage elements and the need to address perceived

problems of performance associated with emerging environmental concerns. The analysis

of common understandings using a social practice lens indicates that, in fact, comfort,

cleanliness and convenience dominate this contest; improving thermal comfort and

reducing energy costs were the most common reasons recounted for renovations.

Secondly, it illuminates the gulf between oft-stated environmental goals and the not-so-

stated yet ever-present common understandings around perceived needs for spare bed-

rooms, extra bathrooms and so on. Many renovations included expanding the size of the

dwelling, and as energy consumption is strongly related to the size of the dwelling, the

number of people in the household, and their practices (Newton and Meyer 2012; Wilson

and Dowlatabadi 2011), any improvement in efficiency of the envelope and appliances is

likely to be offset by these other factors.

The ‘ratcheting up’ of social standards and expectations over time is a theme discussed

by Shove (2003) and others, and evidenced in the recurrent renovations that have taken

place in the dwellings in this study. Amongst the most common renovations examined as

part of this study are improvements to kitchens and bathrooms, with the number of

bathrooms per household increasing from 1 to 2 or 3 (16 out of the 20 households in the

study had renovated an existing bathroom and/or added at least 1 bathroom. In total there

E. P. Judson et al.

123

are 40 bathrooms for 59 people (including 19 children), a bathroom for every 1.5 persons).

The multiplication of bathrooms is consistent with the findings of Hand et al. (2007),

Maller et al. (2012), Shove (2003), who argue that the creation of additional bathrooms is

related to practices of bathing, showering, and underlying social conventions of cleanliness

and convenience.

Thirdly, a social practice lens illustrates the importance of everyday life in shaping

renovation practice and, in turn, environmental and heritage outcomes. It is evident that

material transformations to dwellings through renovation practices have implications for

present and future patterns of materials, energy and water use. Therefore, better under-

standing of resource intensive activities, including renovating, and how this relates to more

routine household practices, is of immediate significance for future policy and program

development to improve environmental performance of existing dwellings, and especially

those with heritage significance.

From a policy perspective, it is worth noting that top down measures for efficiency

improvements alone are insufficient for achieving targets. There are untapped opportunities

for change in home-renovation practice to reduce energy use, particularly in the owner-

occupied sector. Policymakers should give attention to the wider social context and those

components that hold particular practices in place. This needs to be matched by an

understanding of what underlies homeowners’ renovation practices, and support for pro-

grammes to identify and cultivate particular practices.

Greater consideration needs to be given to the relationship between the materiality of

housing renovation, daily routines and environmental impact. Focus needs to be directed to

household practices, and everyday routines associated with renovations, rather than just

energy efficiency—as this has limited effectiveness as shown by this research. Policies that

facilitate adaptive thermal comfort practices should be encouraged, and there are oppor-

tunities to target practices relating to renovation, rather than just the individual. As the

study focused on heritage housing, it challenges not just current notions of environmental

sustainability in relation to heritage dwellings, but also questions existing ideas about

housing aspirations (e.g. comfort) and obsolescence.

This paper adds to the body of work addressing changing notions of heritage and home

renovation. Although a small sample, this research confirms previous studies of renovation

practice regarding homeowners’ notions of everyday standards of comfort and environ-

mental understandings, and extends this in incorporating homeowners concerns and con-

ceptualisations of heritage dwellings. It is perhaps unsurprising that home-renovators have

difficulty combining the demands of everyday life with environmental sustainability

practices and conserving heritage significance. However, as suggested by Anker-Nilssen

(2003), where there is a rationality conflict between the needs and aspirations of the

household and wider social and environmental concerns, those practices that prioritise

comfort, cleanliness and convenience tend to prevail. Although most of the participants

expressed concern about the environment, they also communicated other priorities e.g.

additional bathrooms, more space, increased comfort, which are manifested in the reno-

vations, and reflect broader homeowner expectations and everyday practices.

This paper discusses the analyses of home-renovation practices in Australia, focusing on

a limited sample in the State of Victoria. The preferences and practices of homeowners and

dwelling types, therefore, reflect their particular regional context, and should be general-

ised with caution. While homeowners were interviewed, the environmental conditions

were not monitored to provide a holistic assessment of environmental impact. The study of

social practices in tandem with technical data on energy and occupant comfort would have

provided a better dimension to the research. Nevertheless, the conceptual framework

Greening heritage housing

123

presented here offers a different perspective and interpretation of the renovation of the

existing residential stock to improve environmental performance, in particular objectives

for reducing energy use and emissions, and how this intersects with conservation of her-

itage significance, an issue common to other countries. Thus, it has potential for broader

application, informing a more in-depth understanding for the development of policy.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructivecomments on the earlier draft of this paper. They also acknowledge the Australian Postgraduate Awardthrough which this research was funded, and the support of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors(RICS) Education Trust. The authors would like to thank those municipalities, professional bodies, prac-titioners and community groups within Victoria for their assistance, and all of the homeowners whowillingly participated in the interviews.

References

ABS. (2010). 1301.0: Year Book Australia, 2009–10, Jun 2010. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.ABS. (2011a). 3218.0: Regional Population Growth, Australia, 2009–10, Mar 2011. Canberra: Australian

Bureau of Statistics.ABS. (2011b). 4602(0), pp. 55.001: Environmental Issues: Energy use and conservation, Mar 2011. Can-

berra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.Akmal, M., & Riwoe, D. (2005). Australian energy: National and State Projections to 2029–30, ABARE

eReport 05.9, Prepared for the Australian Government Department of Industry, Tourism andResources. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

Anker-Nilssen, P. (2003). Household energy use and the environment—A conflicting issue. Applied Energy,76, 1–3, 189–196.

Aplin, G. J. (2004). Heritage identification, conservation and management. South Melbourne: OxfordUniversity Press.

Australia ICOMOS. (1999). The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of CulturalSignificance. Retrieved January 23, 2012 from Australia ICOMOS Web site: http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/BURRA_CHARTER.pdf.

Australian Greenhouse Office and Department of the Environment and Water Resources. (2007). Anassessment of the need to adapt buildings for the unavoidable consequences of climate change.Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Barr, S. (2006). Environmental action in the home: Investigating the ‘value-action’ gap. Geography, 91(1),43–54.

Bartiaux, F., Gram-Hanssen, K., Fonseca, P., Ozolina, L., & Haundstrup Christensen, T. (2011). A practice-theory based analysis of energy renovations in four European countries. Paper presented at TheEuropean Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ECEEE) 2011 Summer Study, Energy efficiencyfirst: The foundation of a low-carbon society, France.

Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the, ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: Tensions between nationalpolicy and local experience. Local Environment, 4(3), 257–278.

Blunt, A., & Dowling, R. (2006). Home. London: Routledge.Boardman, B. (2007). Examining the carbon agenda via the 40% House scenario. Building Research and

Information, 35, 363–378.Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Building Commission of Victoria. (2011). Introduction of 6 Star: What you need to know about the 6 Star

Standard—From 1 May, 2011, Retrieved March 1, 2012, from http://www.buildingcommission.com.au/www/html/2562-introduction-of-6-star.asp.

Coolen, H., & Meesters, J. (2012). Editorial special issue: House, home and dwelling. Journal of Housingand the Built Environment, 27(1), 1–10.

Crosbie, T., & Baker, K. (2010). Energy-efficiency interventions in housing: Learning from the inhabitants.Building Research and Information, 38, 70–79.

Crosbie, T., & Guy, S. (2008). En’lightening’ energy use: The co-evolution of household lighting practices.International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 9, 220–235.

Dalton, T., Horne, R., Hafkamp, W., & Lee, M. (2007). Retrofitting the Australian suburbs for sustainability.In A. Nelson (Ed.), Steering sustainability in an urbanizing world: Policy, practice and performance(pp. 215–225). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

E. P. Judson et al.

123

Denscombe, M. (2003). The good research guide for small-scale social research projects. Maidenhead,England: Open University Press.

Department of Planning and Community Development. (2010). Planning schemes online. Retrieved January26, 2012, from Victorian Government Web site: http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/.

Department of Planning and Community Development. (2011). The Victorian Heritage database. RetrievedJanuary 26, 2012, from Victorian Government Web site: http://vhd.heritage.vic.gov.au.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. (2011). Annual Report2010–2011. Retrieved March 1, 2012 from Australian Government Web site: http://www.environment.gov.au/about/publications/annual-report/10-11/index.html.

Department of the Environment and Heritage. (2004). Adaptive reuse: Preserving our past, building ourfuture. Canberra, Department of the Environment and Heritage. Canberra: Australian Government.

Ding, K. C., Ge, X., & Phillips, P. (2010). Heritage and sustainability: Modelling environmental perfor-mance of historic buildings in Xiao He Zhi Jie. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from DAB LAB ResearchGallery. Sydney, UTS Web site: http://www.dab.uts.edu.au/dablab/docs/hangzhou.pdf.

Douglas, J. (2006). Building adaptation. Amsterdam, Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.Dowling, R., & Mee, K. (2007). Home and homemaking in contemporary Australia. Housing, Theory and

Society, 24, 161–165.Foruzanmehr, A., & Vellinga, M. (2011). Vernacular architecture: Questions of comfort and practicability.

Building Research and Information, 39, 274–285.Gibson, L., & Pendlebury, J. (2009). Valuing historic environments. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.Gram-Hanssen, K. (2011). Existing buildings—users, renovations and policy. World Renewable Energy

Congress, Future Trends and Applications in Renewable Energy Technologies and SustainableDevelopment, 8–13 May 2011, Linkoping, Sweden.

Hand, M., Shove, E., & Southerton, D. (2007). Home extensions in the United Kingdom: Space, time, andpractice. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 25, 668–681.

Healey, S. (2008). Air-conditioning and the ‘homogenization’ of people and built environments. BuildingResearch and Information, 36, 312–322.

Henning, A. (2005). Climate change and energy use: The role for anthropological research. AnthropologyToday, 21, 8–12.

Housing Industry Association (HIA). (2011). Reno’s continue as shining light of residential building In SeptemberQuarter, Housing Institute of Australia media release 23 November 2011. Retrieved January 26, 2012 fromhttp://hia.com.au/media/Media%20centre/Media%20release%20archive.aspx?mkeyword=&year=2011#release-nov.

Johanson, S. (2011). The Block unearths home truths about renovation spending. The Age, 5 November2011.

Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are thebarriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.

Lowe, R. (2007). Technical options and strategies for decarbonizing UK housing. Building Research andInformation, 35, 412–425.

Maller, C. J., & Horne, R. E. (2011). Living lightly: How does climate change feature in residential homeimprovements and what are the implications for policy? Urban Policy and Research, 29, 59–72.

Maller, C., Horne, R., & Dalton, T. (2012). Green renovations: Intersections of daily routines, housingaspirations and narratives of environmental sustainability. Housing, Theory and Society, 29(3),255–275.

Meijer, F., Itard, L., & Sunikka-Blank, M. (2009). Comparing European residential building stocks: Per-formance, renovation and policy opportunities. Building Research & Information, 37(5), 533–551.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. ThousandOaks: Sage Publications.

Newton, P., & Meyer, D. (2012). The determinants of urban resource consumption. Environment andBehavior, 44(1), 107–135.

Nilsson, P.-E. (1996). Learning from experiences with energy efficient retrofitting of residential buildings.Sittard, Netherlands: CADDET.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Pendlebury, J. (2009). Conservation in the age of consensus. London: Routledge.Productivity Commission. (2006). Conservation of Australia’s historic heritage places inquiry report. Report

no. 37. Canberra, Australian Government.Randles, S., & Warde, A. (2006). Consumption: The view from theories of practice. In K. Green &

S. Randles (Eds.), Industrial ecology and spaces of innovation (pp. 220–237). Northampton, MA:Edward Elgar Pub.

Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices. European Journal of Social Theory, 5, 243–263.

Greening heritage housing

123

Richards, L. (2009). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage Publications.Richards, L., & Morse, J. M. (2007). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks:

Sage Publications.Roaf, S., Nicol, F., Humphreys, M., Tuohy, P., & Boerstra, A. (2010). Twentieth century standards for

thermal comfort: Promoting high energy buildings. Architectural Science Review, 53, 65–77.Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers.

Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Røpke, I. (2009). Theories of practice—New inspiration for ecological economic studies on consumption.

Ecological Economics, 68, 2490–2497.Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Building Conservation Practice Panel (1996). Principles of

building conservation note 6 Appendix B. London: RICS.Sandu and Petchey. (2009). End use energy intensity in the Australian economy, ABARES research report

09.17. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and

change. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K. D., & Savigny, E. V. (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory.

New York: Routledge.Shove, E. (2003). Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: The social organization of normality. Oxford,

England: Berg.Shove, E. (2004). Efficiency and consumption: Technology and practice. Energy & Environment, 15,

1053–1066.Shove, E., & Hand, M. (2005). The restless kitchen: Possession, performance and renewal. Paper presented

at Kitchens and bathrooms: Changing technologies, practices and social organisation—Implications forsustainability, Manchester, University of Manchester.

Shove, E., & Pantzar, M. (2005). Consumers, producers and practices. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5,43–64.

Shove, E., Watson, M., Ingram, J., & Hand, M. (2007). The design of everyday life. Oxford: Berg.Silverman, D. (2010). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. London; Thousand Oaks: Sage.State of the Environment Committee (SOEC). (2011). Australia State of the Environment 2011. Independent

report to the Australian Government, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population andCommunities. Canberra: DSEWPC.

Strengers, Y., & Maller, C. (2011). Integrating health, housing and energy policies: Social practices ofcooling. Building Research and Information, 39, 154–168.

The Allen Consulting Group. (2005). Valuing the priceless: The value of historic heritage in Australia,research report 2. Heritage Chairs and Officials of Australia and New Zealand.

Throsby, D. (2007). The value of heritage. Paper presented at Heritage Economics Workshop. AustraliaNational University, Canberra.

Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5, 131–153.Watson, M., & Shove, E. (2008). Product, competence, project and practice. Journal of Consumer Culture,

8(1), 69–89.Wilhite, H. (2009). The conditioning of comfort. Building Research and Information, 37(1), 84–88.Wilhite, H., & Lutzenhiser, L. (1999). Social loading and sustainable consumption. Advances in Consumer

Research, 26, 281–287.Wilk, R. R., & Wilhite, H. L. (1985). Why don’t people weatherize their homes? An ethnographic solution.

Energy, 10, 621–629.Wilson, C., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2011). Aligning consumer decisions and sustainable energy objectives. In

S. G. McNall, J. C. Hershauer, & G. Basile (Eds.), The business of sustainability: Trends, policies,practices, and stories of success (pp. 221–240). Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group.

E. P. Judson et al.

123