Institut for Forretningsudvikling og Teknologi

From thermal comfort to conflict: the contested control and usage of domestic smart heating in the United Kingdom

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Standard

From thermal comfort to conflict : the contested control and usage of domestic smart heating in the United Kingdom. / Sovacool, Benjamin K.; Martiskainen, Mari; Osborn, Jody; Anaam, Amal; Lipson, Matthew.

I: Energy Research and Social Science, Bind 69, 101566, 11.2020.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

Sovacool, BK, Martiskainen, M, Osborn, J, Anaam, A & Lipson, M 2020, 'From thermal comfort to conflict: the contested control and usage of domestic smart heating in the United Kingdom', Energy Research and Social Science, bind 69, 101566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101566

APA

Sovacool, B. K., Martiskainen, M., Osborn, J., Anaam, A., & Lipson, M. (2020). From thermal comfort to conflict: the contested control and usage of domestic smart heating in the United Kingdom. Energy Research and Social Science, 69, [101566]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101566

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Sovacool, Benjamin K. ; Martiskainen, Mari ; Osborn, Jody ; Anaam, Amal ; Lipson, Matthew. / From thermal comfort to conflict : the contested control and usage of domestic smart heating in the United Kingdom. I: Energy Research and Social Science. 2020 ; Bind 69.

Bibtex

@article{ae7fd52d85014fb3b1078c1ca595dbfd,
title = "From thermal comfort to conflict: the contested control and usage of domestic smart heating in the United Kingdom",
abstract = "The possible benefits of the ongoing digitization and enhancement of energy services with smart technologies has been extensively documented in the literature, but is there also scope for smart systems to lead to household conflicts? In this study, using data from the Energy Systems Catapult's Living Laboratory, we explore a fundamental energy service (heat) utilized in buildings from a novel angle: social conflict. We define social conflict as oppositional goals, aims, and values held by different people. We draw from three sets of primary data—diary studies and blogging via mobile ethnography, telephone interviews, and household interviews—involving 100 homes across Birmingham (West Midlands), Bridgend (Wales), Manchester (Greater Manchester), and Newcastle (Northumberland) in the United Kingdom. We identify five different forms of “thermal conflict”: parents versus children, hosts versus guests, roommates vs. each other, landlords vs. tenants, and couples vs. each other. After documenting the presence of 20 specific examples of conflict, we then discuss how they differ by location (intrinsic vs. extrinsic), type (preference, attitude, and variety) and values (hedonic, egoistic, altruistic, biospheric). We conclude with implications for energy and buildings research and policy more broadly, noting that thermal conflicts in the home differ in their location or cause. Moreover, thermal conflicts differ in their severity, with some occurring as more minor annoyances over preferences, but others relating attitudes, where heating actions or preferences become a proxy for something else, and emit strong feelings about how household members view another person as lazy, careless or wasteful. A variety of values remain attached to heating conflicts, with hedonic (self-comfort, self-pleasure), egoistic (saving money, control) and altruistic (helping others, making others comfortable) values almost evenly reflected across our examples.",
keywords = "Big data, Energy practices, Heating and cooling, Living lab, Smart energy, Smart homes",
author = "Sovacool, {Benjamin K.} and Mari Martiskainen and Jody Osborn and Amal Anaam and Matthew Lipson",
year = "2020",
month = nov,
doi = "10.1016/j.erss.2020.101566",
language = "English",
volume = "69",
journal = "Energy Research & Social Science",
issn = "2214-6296",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - From thermal comfort to conflict

T2 - the contested control and usage of domestic smart heating in the United Kingdom

AU - Sovacool, Benjamin K.

AU - Martiskainen, Mari

AU - Osborn, Jody

AU - Anaam, Amal

AU - Lipson, Matthew

PY - 2020/11

Y1 - 2020/11

N2 - The possible benefits of the ongoing digitization and enhancement of energy services with smart technologies has been extensively documented in the literature, but is there also scope for smart systems to lead to household conflicts? In this study, using data from the Energy Systems Catapult's Living Laboratory, we explore a fundamental energy service (heat) utilized in buildings from a novel angle: social conflict. We define social conflict as oppositional goals, aims, and values held by different people. We draw from three sets of primary data—diary studies and blogging via mobile ethnography, telephone interviews, and household interviews—involving 100 homes across Birmingham (West Midlands), Bridgend (Wales), Manchester (Greater Manchester), and Newcastle (Northumberland) in the United Kingdom. We identify five different forms of “thermal conflict”: parents versus children, hosts versus guests, roommates vs. each other, landlords vs. tenants, and couples vs. each other. After documenting the presence of 20 specific examples of conflict, we then discuss how they differ by location (intrinsic vs. extrinsic), type (preference, attitude, and variety) and values (hedonic, egoistic, altruistic, biospheric). We conclude with implications for energy and buildings research and policy more broadly, noting that thermal conflicts in the home differ in their location or cause. Moreover, thermal conflicts differ in their severity, with some occurring as more minor annoyances over preferences, but others relating attitudes, where heating actions or preferences become a proxy for something else, and emit strong feelings about how household members view another person as lazy, careless or wasteful. A variety of values remain attached to heating conflicts, with hedonic (self-comfort, self-pleasure), egoistic (saving money, control) and altruistic (helping others, making others comfortable) values almost evenly reflected across our examples.

AB - The possible benefits of the ongoing digitization and enhancement of energy services with smart technologies has been extensively documented in the literature, but is there also scope for smart systems to lead to household conflicts? In this study, using data from the Energy Systems Catapult's Living Laboratory, we explore a fundamental energy service (heat) utilized in buildings from a novel angle: social conflict. We define social conflict as oppositional goals, aims, and values held by different people. We draw from three sets of primary data—diary studies and blogging via mobile ethnography, telephone interviews, and household interviews—involving 100 homes across Birmingham (West Midlands), Bridgend (Wales), Manchester (Greater Manchester), and Newcastle (Northumberland) in the United Kingdom. We identify five different forms of “thermal conflict”: parents versus children, hosts versus guests, roommates vs. each other, landlords vs. tenants, and couples vs. each other. After documenting the presence of 20 specific examples of conflict, we then discuss how they differ by location (intrinsic vs. extrinsic), type (preference, attitude, and variety) and values (hedonic, egoistic, altruistic, biospheric). We conclude with implications for energy and buildings research and policy more broadly, noting that thermal conflicts in the home differ in their location or cause. Moreover, thermal conflicts differ in their severity, with some occurring as more minor annoyances over preferences, but others relating attitudes, where heating actions or preferences become a proxy for something else, and emit strong feelings about how household members view another person as lazy, careless or wasteful. A variety of values remain attached to heating conflicts, with hedonic (self-comfort, self-pleasure), egoistic (saving money, control) and altruistic (helping others, making others comfortable) values almost evenly reflected across our examples.

KW - Big data

KW - Energy practices

KW - Heating and cooling

KW - Living lab

KW - Smart energy

KW - Smart homes

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85085647978&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101566

DO - 10.1016/j.erss.2020.101566

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85085647978

VL - 69

JO - Energy Research & Social Science

JF - Energy Research & Social Science

SN - 2214-6296

M1 - 101566

ER -