![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
There is a growing body of research arguing the relevance of practice approaches to understand resource consumption, and to highlight alternative pathways to sustainability. These practice approaches offer an alternative conceptualisation of demand and have been demonstrated largely by qualitative research, particularly in the work on water and energy consumption in the home. However, these historical narratives and qualitative research have not, to date, lead to the development of quantitative or mixed methodologies that could potentially reflect the diversity of performances of practice across populations in a more systematic way. This paper reflects, critically, on one such attempt to scale a practice-based perspective into a quantitative survey on water consumption and practice in homes in the south and South-East of England. The use of quantitative and mixed methodology has substantial potential – from translating practice-based research to policy; developing indictors to track patterns of practices as they change over time; and the exploration of methodologies that reflect the bundling and coordination of practices associated with water use inside and outside the home. The benefits and utility of such a methodological approach are highlighted as cautions and future research directions.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council ARCC-Water project (Adaptation and Resilience in a Changing Climate), and the Economic and Social Research Council/DEFRA/Scottish Government Sustainable Practices Research Group (SPRG) ‘Patterns of Water’ project. The authors would like to thank our research colleagues on both of these projects for their support and feedback on various aspects of our work (particularly those at the University of Oxford, University of Manchester, UCL, Loughborough University, Leeds University, Edinburgh University, Essex University) as well as participants for generously giving up their time to complete both the quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. Ali Browne would particularly like to thank Elizabeth Shove for parachuting in to assist in the projects first year and beyond, to the Lancaster practice theory reading group for feedback early in the survey development, and the helpful comments of the two anonymous reviewers.
Notes
1. Micro-component data are gathered by putting a ‘logging’ device on each water using infrastructure or technology in the home. These data log the volume of water consumed at each point of use of these infrastructures and technologies over various time periods. These data reveal consumption in total volumes consumed (and when), but it does not generally give an indication as to what the technology infrastructure is being used for (e.g. whether a sink is being used to wash vegetables or to wash hands or hand washed laundry), nor any detailed picture of the routines and habits of the household.
2. Note that the names given to these dimensions are intended to be purely descriptive and are not intended to convey any normative value judgement regarding which ways of performing a practice are “better” or “worse”. In particular, the term efficiency is used purely to indicate whether the amount of water used in the performance of a practice could be higher or lower than it is, if other dimensions are controlled for. Different efficiency levels may not even be functionally equivalent in all cases – in the case of kitchen practices, for example, efficiency refers to whether the respondent leaves the tap running before drawing water, for rinsing plates, or for other purposes – while not running the tap is allocated a higher efficiency score, in some instances (such as if the respondent has lead pipes), doing this can be seen as serving an important function (ensuring the water to be drunk contains as little lead as possible).