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 westernised 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 performance. In exploring the experience of homeowners, attention is given to the mechanisms 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 renovations. In the findings and discussion attention is focused on common social understandings and how these intersect in renovations: the meanings of heritage, environmental understandings, 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 concludes by highlighting the need for policy that focuses on practices and their constituents, as these underlie household sustainable consumption.

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 environmental 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 greenhouse gas emissions relating to existing buildings (Meijer et al. 2009) as well as conservation 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, outdated, 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 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 householders 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 sociological 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 affordances offered (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 environmental 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 systems; knowledge and know-how; the material culture; cultural conventions; and common understandings relating to the renovation of heritage dwellings.

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 environmental 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, institutional 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 contractors. 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 propose 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 technologies, systems of provision, rules and guidance. The elements of practice combine to apprise what makes sense for someone to do (Schatzki 2002).

Fig. 1
figure 1

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

Full size image

Owners of heritage dwellings were recruited as the source of information for in-depth analysis of renovation practices. In particular, owners who were environmentally concerned were targeted. Research participants were selected using purposive sampling (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 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 motivating 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 Victorian Heritage Database (ibid. 2011), and local municipal council published heritage studies, where available.

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

Fig. 2
figure 2

Examples of Australian heritage housing subject to renovations to improve environmental performance. a Late Victorian brick workers’ cottage, North Carlton; b Edwardian style weatherboard villa, Clifton Hill; c early twentieth century stone villa, Harcourt (Source: E.P. Judson)

Full size image

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.

Table 1 Overview of renovation activities
Full size table

Retrofitting solar hot water and solar photovoltaics (PV) are popular amongst homeowners (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 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.

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 common 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 greenhouse 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)

[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 appliances, 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 environmental 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 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 different 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 renovators 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.

In undertaking the renovation the dilemma between making a building functional, improving environmental performance, and retaining heritage significance was communicated 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 fluctuation 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 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 accomplishing 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 accommodate ‘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 bedrooms, 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 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 understanding 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 programmes 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 opportunities 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 environmental understandings, and extends this in incorporating homeowners concerns and conceptualisations 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 renovations, 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 generalised 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 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 heritage 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.