Guilbert, A (2024) Energy sufficiency and recognition justice: A study of household consumption. Buildings & Cities, 5(1), pp. 489-505. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
The energy 'crisis' in Switzerland during the winter of 2022–23 highlighted the need to integrate the idea of sufficiency into previously efficiency-focused discourses and policies. A mixed-methods approach was used to explore emerging sufficiency practices and energy justice. Qualitative interviews (n = 28) with a diverse range of households and building management companies ('régies') in Geneva, as well as a quantitative online survey, were undertaken in 2023. It was found that different measures and recommendations did lead to efforts to reduce energy consumption, but also revealed flaws as practices typically lacked an energy justice perspective. Important discrepancies occurred between low-and high-income groups, tenants and owners, inhabitants of houses and apartments. These included a misrecognition of some residents' vulnerabilities, their limited agency and a lack of acknowledgment of differentiated responsibilities. This led to a negative impact on the implementation of sufficiency. Some residents were marginalised: feeling anxious, disregarded, powerless, belittled and hence excluded from collective sufficiency efforts.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | energy justice; energy transition; equity; heating; housing; inequality; recognition justice; social justice; sufficiency; vulnerability; questionnaire survey |
| Index terms: | tenant, social justice, survey, interview, winter, building management, justice, consumption, agency, housing, Switzerland, questionnaire, vulnerability, owner, efficiency, implementation, energy consumption, income, household, inequality |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, energy systems, management, performance management, sociology, construction type, consumer economics, practitioner, climate science, contractual arrangements, legal systems, economic analysis, Geography, demography, environmental hazards |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Procurement, Geographical Context, Legal Issues, Quality Management, Ethics, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here