Envase entregado a PLARMEX para compactar y re-usar en productos no utilizados para comestibles

practices: it may be difficult to know how to exactly delimit a practice; or to effectively distinguish between a practice’s constitutive elements and the context of the practice; the social nature of practices inevitably confers variability in enacting practices between different groups, which can present problems in the classification of practices from empirical observations;

difficulties in the operationalisation of practice theoretical approaches and methods of ascertaining practices. The integration with and effectiveness of practice theoretical approaches is also the subject of discussion. These are considered further in the following sections.

154 5.9.1 Delimiting renovation as practice

One of the challenges presented by theories of social practice is delimiting the practice (Warde, 2013). While there is no unifying definition of a practice, it is loosely described as ‘bundles of activities’ (Schatzki, 2002),!an organised cluster or set of activities which are recognisable across time and space (Røpke, 2009: 2491; Shove et al., 2007) and that are performed by people—

not only by a few particular individuals but by larger groups of people (Røpke, 2009). Examples of practices given by Schatzki (1996: 89) are ‘cooking practices, voting practices, industrial practices, recreational practices, and correctional practices’ illustrating a range in their diversity and complexity, as some practices appear more involved than others.

Although some practices are carried out by individuals, others often involve some sort of interplay with other people. When the parts differ, it could be argued that the practitioners are involved in different practices, although they meet in a common situation. Røpke (2009) argues that where the activities of the actors are mutually conditioned and the practice cannot be accomplished without the participation of all parts, it seems better to conceptualise such activities as one practice. For instance, in home-renovation, different contractors are often involved in seemingly separate activities, such as

building a wall, plastering or painting, but all are participating in the practice of renovation through shared purposes of engagement (Warde, 2013).

Elsewhere, renovation and retrofitting are considered to be sub-practices of and emergent from the broader practice of home improvement (Maller and Horne, 2011); and energy renovation is considered a sub-set of home-renovation activities (Bartiaux et al., 2011). As such, home-renovation may be

conceptualised as complexes of practices, which are closely entangled (Shove et al., 2007). In Schatzki's terminology, practices may be understood as an organised constellation of actions which forms a bundle or cluster of activities (Schatzki 2002: 71). As Reckwitz (2002: 249-50) puts it: ‘a practice represents a pattern, which can be filled out by a multitude of single and often unique

155

actions reproducing the practice’. A pattern may be interpreted as a regular and intelligible form or sequence discernible in certain actions or situations.

There is some discussion over whether renovation constitutes a practice, as it may be carried out infrequently. Although a practice is regarded as a

routinised type of activity (Reckwitz, 2002), a distinction is made between everyday routine practices which are identified as having environmental

implications and other ‘less routine’ practices (Maller & Horne, 2011: 63). Thus a distinction is made between domestic practices, and renovation practices.

Home improvement and renovation is discussed within the scope of social practice in the literature (Bartiaux et al., 2011; Hand et al., 2007; Maller et al., 2011; Moloney et al., 2008; Watson and Shove, 2008). Gram-Hanssen (2009) argues that practices need not be frequent or regular; they can comprise occasional, rare, or novel sayings and doings, tasks, and projects. Although undertaken only intermittently, the practice of renovating is carried out by many people in numerous houses across many countries and therefore is recognized as a practice (Bartiaux et al., 2011). There is evidence that home-renovation is becoming a ‘ubiquitous’ phenomenon (Maller et al., 2011: 1), a view supported by the statistical data of the housing sector in Victoria, as demonstrated in Chapter 2. Reproduced by sufficient numbers of practitioners, renovation is viewed as a valid and increasingly normal practice (Shove, 2010;

Shove et al., 2007).

Home renovation is regarded as a complex activity, akin to an integrated practice (Warde, 2005), defined as the ‘more complex practices found in and constitutive of particular domains of social life’ (Schatzki, 1996: 98), and constituted by shared purposes of engagement (Warde, 2013). Task-based instrumental activities associated with renovation might include, for instance, installing insulation, a heating or hot water system, lighting, replacing windows, fitting a new kitchen or bathroom, reconfiguring spaces within the dwelling and extending to provide additional facilities, but also what could be called ‘the

156

practice of making a home’, which includes keeping a comfortable temperature and lighting as well as decorating, adding window and floor coverings—which are all considered to be different integrated practices (Gram-Hanssen, 2009).

Warde argues that some complex and heteronomous practices—termed composite or compound practices—have multiple organisational

underpinnings, with performances following from the intersection of several integrated practices (Warde, 2013). Following Watson and Shove (2008), and referring to Warde (2005: 145), Bartiaux et al. (2011: 69) consider home renovating to be an integrated practice because ‘competent practitioners will avail themselves of the requisite services, possess and command the

capability to manipulate the appropriate tools, and devote a suitable level of attention to the conduct of the practice ...in addition to exhibiting common understanding, know-how, and commitment’, thereby satisfying the

components that co-ordinate and institute practices as recognisable entities.

With reference to do-it-yourself home improvements (DIY), Shove et al. (2007) use the concept of projects as a way to understand to how practices are

organised in relation to each other to achieve an objective: ‘In everyday life, projects, which take many forms, are significant devices deployed in bounding and in making sense of the temporal now, and in actively orchestrating and interweaving complexes of practices’ (2007: 144). Thus renovation is a complex practice, consisting of many different and connected parts.

5.9.2 Integration with behavioural theoretical approaches

There is some contestation over whether social practices can be combined with other theoretical perspectives, in particular, the extent to which practice theory might be compatible with other behavioural accounts of energy use (see Shove, 2011; Whitmarsh et al., 2011). In a recent debate in Environment and Planning A journal, Shove (2010) is emphatic in arguing social theories of practice on the one hand, and of behaviour on the other, are ‘like chalk and cheese’, and points out their distinctive differences. ‘Whereas social theories of practice emphasize endogenous and emergent dynamics, social theories of

157

behaviour focus on causal factors and external drivers. Likewise, people figure in the first case as carriers of practice and in the second as autonomous

agents of choice and change. It is useful to be clear about the

incommensurability of these contrasting paradigms, and hence about the impossibility of merger and incorporation.’ (Shove, 2010: 1279). Taking issue with Shove’s theoretical stance, Whitmarsh et al. (2011) argues for an

interdisciplinary approach, with integration of a range of perspectives to address the complex and multi-layered problem of sustainability. However, Shove (2011: 264) responds by arguing that ‘contrasting paradigms are valuable because they generate different definitions of the problem’.

In his empirical studies of pro-environmental behaviour change interventions and how practices interact with these Hargreaves (2011) is intervening in a debate in the literature around the possibility of integrating or at least holding open the possibility of working with both choice based approached to

behaviour and practice based approaches to everyday life. Hargreaves suggests, ‘some (e.g. Shove, 2010) argue that the terms practice and

behaviour are incompatible, …This article does not fundamentally depart from this position, but it also contends that given the contemporary ‘doing’ of

numerous ‘pro-environmental behaviour change interventions’, it would be unwise to ignore them altogether, and empirically misleading to call them by another name. Whilst preserving this important distinction, therefore, the aim in the rest of this article is to use practice theory’s broader and more holistic perspective as a means of exploring what actually happens within behaviour change interventions and, in so doing, to try and understand the effects they have on the social practices they tackle (even if they tackle such practices unwittingly)’ (Hargreaves, 2011: 84). Reflecting on the relationship between practices and behaviour change interventions, Hargreaves reconceptualises behaviour change initiatives as ‘attempts to intervene in the organisation of social practices.’ (Hargreaves, 2011: 84). Whilst maintaining the distinctive differences between behavioural and social practices, Strengers et al. (2012)

158

discuss whether, in implementing social and environmental change, it may be worthwhile to conceptualise behavioural and social practice theoretical

approaches as ends of a ‘theoretical continuum’.

5.9.3 Effectiveness of practice theory

As practice theories have only limited empirical application to date, the extent to which practice theory enables scholars and researchers to accomplish more than is possible without it remains unclear. In his influential review of practice theory, Warde (2005: 146) suggests that ‘[t]he argument remains to be made that theories of practice perform better than, or at least as well as, other approaches claiming similar merits...’. In responding to criticisms of practice-based approaches made by Jackson (2005), Evans et al. (2012) posit that there is not yet an empirical base for exploring policies initiated in the light of theories of practice. However, they argue that research that has analysed existing behaviour change interventions using theories of practice shows how the actual workings of initiatives are better explained in terms of the dynamics of interconnected practice, citing as an example the analysis of the London Congestion Charge (Shove and Walker, 2010). Also, in the ethnographic study of a workplace behaviour change initiative—Environment Champions—in process, Hargreaves (2011) argues that theories of practice provide a more robust account of how the intervention actually operated in situ than is offered by the framework within which it was most likely initiated. Practice-based approaches thus present an opportunity to re-frame common behaviour change problems, and reorient policy initiatives.

5.9.4 Operationalisation and methods

One of the challenges in operationalising practice theoretical approaches is that elements of a philosophical account of practice cannot be easily

transposed into empirical analysis. In his review of the potential of practice theoretical perspectives for analyses of consumption, Warde (2005) argues

159

that general theories of practice tend to be idealised, abstract and insufficiently attentive to the social processes involved in the creation and reproduction of practices (Warde 2005: 135). The potential usefulness of practice theory, therefore, requires more analytical translation between applied practice theoretical concepts and operative methodological procedures (Halkier et al., 2011).

Given the abstract nature of practice theory, application in empirical studies raises questions—for instance, it may not be so obvious how to delimit a practice. Defining something as a practice must make sense to people; but apart from that, there is little guidance. Røpke (2009) suggests that the actual delimitation of a practice must be determined by a study's research purpose. A further complication in delineating a practice, is that some practices may be interconnected, or can be considered sub-practices in relation to a more general heading: for example, washing the car can be considered an element of motoring (Røpke, 2009). As noted earlier, Bartiaux et al., (2011) regard energy improvements as part of broader renovation practices.

It is argued that practices are best understood through their performance rather than reports of their performance (Røpke, 2009). A better understanding of some practices associated with energy use such as comfort could be

achieved by paying attention to practices and, where possible, observing behaviour in context. Direct observation through round the clock observation either in person or remotely, requires participants to agree to such

surveillance, due to ethical implications. This would also involve significant costs in terms of researcher time and, if remote surveillance was pursued, monitoring equipment. However, Hitchings (2012) confirms that talking to participants is a suitable approach for understanding householders’ practices, and overcomes the ethical issues associated with observing householder daily practices (Strengers, 2009). Through focusing questions on particular

practices in the places that these practices occur, Hinton (2010) argues that it

160

is possible to understand the ways that individuals exert agency in their

interactions with related socio-technical systems, and how these systems may constrain and enable particular forms of practice and experiences. The

methodological implications of the practices approach and methods adopted for this research are discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.