Energy Policy 108 (2017) 344–354

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Individual metering and debiting (IMD) in Sweden: A qualitative long-term MARK

follow-up study of householders’ water-use routines
Helena Köhler
The Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental Change, Linköping University, SE 581 83 Linköping, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: The EU Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU) emphasises individual metering and debiting (IMD) of
Water use energy and hot water to reduce households’ usage. Householders respond in different ways to IMD. Studies on
Hot water aggregated water demand before and after IMD show a range of results—from about 15% increased usage to
Household 50% less. Little is known of the long-term durability of routine change. This article describes and qualitatively
Routines
analyses the short- and long-term impacts of IMD on householders’ water-use routines. A combination of time-
IMD
Smart metering
diaries, interviews, metering data and simple observations was used for the study of seven households. The
households were studied at the introduction of IMD and after 5–17 months of experience; five of these
households also participated in a follow-up study a decade later. The study shows that routines changed early,
when households were informed about the new option that IMD provided and when getting billed. The routines
were kept over time. Later changes in water usage related to changes in household composition and everyday
activities and were not attributable to IMD. Implementers of IMD are advised to be careful in the introduction
phase, e.g. when constructing debiting norms, performing information activities, and giving other feedback to
the households.

1. Introduction tance of variations in individual water-use routines. On average,

Householders find it comfortable and convenient to be connected to
a centralised water and wastewater system, but they receive only
rudimentary feedback on sustainability issues pertaining to their water
and energy use. Fetching, treating, heating water and treating dis-
charged water are not part of modern urban life for households. Rather,
provision of hot and cold water and treatment of discharged waste-
water is managed by large technical systems. What householders
perceive and use are taps, faucets, plugs and drains, while water and
wastewater treatment processes are out of sight. Water flows are
hidden underground, and hot water is provided by electric water
heaters or by distant district heating. Water use in homes remains
routinized and taken for granted, but is conceptually isolated from
impacts on the natural resource and the environment (Krantz, 2012).
In Sweden, 50% of all dwellings are in multi-residential buildings
(SCB, 2014), and about 40% of the Swedish population reside in them
(SCB, 2016a). Most of the multi-residential buildings in Sweden (90%)
are heated with district heating (Svensk fjärrvärme, 2015), and hot
water comprises about 35% of the total water delivered
(Energimyndigheten, 2012). Actual usage per capita and day can vary
between households in similar forms of housing by a factor of two to six
(Energimyndigheten, 2009; Hiller, 2012), which points to the impor-
residents in flats use larger volumes of water per capita than those in
private houses (Boverket, 2002; Energimyndigheten, 2012). Most
residents in flats pay a rent that includes the cost of space heating
and the cost of hot and cold water. This decoupling of usage and cost is
thought to be an important cause behind the larger volumes of water
used in flats compared to private houses (Boverket, 2002; Rajala and
Katko, 2004).
Individual metering and debiting (IMD) of space heating and hot
water in multi-residential buildings has intermittently been on
Sweden's energy agenda since the 1970s but has never resulted in an
absolute demand or legal requirement. The reason is that builders,
housing companies and governmental agencies such as the Swedish
National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, have claimed the
cost effectiveness of IMD to be low (Berndtsson, 2005; Boverket, 2014,
2015). Others have assumed that IMD eventually would be introduced
by law when Sweden joined the EU in 1995, since there are EU
Directives that users pay according to usage (Berndtsson, 2005). The
current EU Energy Efficiency Directive (2012/27/EU) requires
Swedish legislation (SFS 2014:267) to demand individual metering of
household energy when constructing new or renovating old residential
buildings if it is cost effective and technically possible. This last proviso
allows for national governments and parliaments to avoid mandatory

E-mail address: helena.kohler@liu.se.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.005
Received 29 June 2016; Received in revised form 16 May 2017; Accepted 2 June 2017
Available online 09 June 2017
0301-4215/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Köhler
legislation. However, housing companies and housing cooperatives
have voluntarily installed IMD for space heating and hot water and
continue to do so.
The leading idea behind IMD is that residents use more water and
energy than they need, and that they would reduce their excess in
consumption if the cost is visible. Many studies of aggregated demand
of hot water measured before and after a switch to IMD demonstrate
reductions in the range of 10–30% (Boverket, 2008; Boyle et al., 2013;
Hjerpe, 2005; Mangold et al., 2014; SOU, 2008). However, IMD is a
‘soft instrument’, leaving it to residents to decide whether to act or not
(Glad, 2008). Water and energy systems face increasing challenges in
terms of resource availability, efficiency and environmental demands,
and there is a growing interest in designing system–user interfaces that
motivate users to change their daily routines. It is a central but
challenging task (Darby, 2010). Expanded knowledge about contexts
of individuals’ use of water and energy and how users navigate resource
conservation is needed for IMD to become an effective tool. Such
knowledge can be gained through qualitative studies with detailed
household responses, but although in high demand they are rare
(Energimyndigheten, 2009; Hargreaves et al., 2010, 2013; van Dam
et al., 2010).
Sustainability is about long-term consequences. A similar research
gap relates to the long-term durability of routine change; how do
individual water-use routines evolve over time in relation to IMD? The
literature covers the immediate change as IMD is introduced, but to
evaluate the impact of IMD in the long term we need longitudinal
studies of routine change spanning a number of years (Sønderlund
et al., 2014).
This article describes a qualitative analysis of the short- and long-
term impact of IMD on household water-use routines. Seven Swedish
households were studied at the introduction of IMD in 2002–2003 and
after 5–17 months of experience (2004); a third phase of the research
was performed on five of the households in a follow-up study a decade
later (2013). Time-diaries, interviews, metering data and simple
observations were used to explore individual water-use routines and
perceptions of water use. Overall, this study addressed questions such
as: What were the initial water-use routines? Did they change? If so,
when, why and how? Is routine change persistent in the long term? Are
there other factors behind changes in water usage that are not explicitly
related to IMD?
2. Literature review
Earlier research on IMD, also often referred to as ‘smart meters’,
mainly concerns electricity and gas (Darby, 2001, 2006, 2008a, 2008b,
2010; van Dam et al., 2010). The metering device communicates some
basic data to the users as well as to the service supplier. Darby (2001,
2006) showed that household-specific interactive displays providing
immediate feedback are more effective (10–15% reduction) than
delayed feedback via invoices (0–10% reduction). Darby also found
that feedback on a household's own usage seemed to be more effective
than feedback focused on comparisons with other people's consump-
tion or in relation to targets. The effectiveness of IMD is also strongly
influenced by the design, content and timing of the feedback. Results of
IMD also depend on other factors such as social and cultural context,
household characteristics, climate and type of housing (Darby, 2006,
2008a, 2010).
Hargreaves et al. (2013) conducted one of the few qualitative
longitudinal studies on the impact of so-called smart energy displays.
They concluded that the display unit increased household members’
knowledge of their own use, but soon the unit faded into the back-
ground and was only checked for controlling incongruities with normal
usage. Wasteful use had already been reduced on the introduction of
the display. Thereafter the ‘new normal’ usage persisted with few
possibilities for further reductions being perceived. Another long-
itudinal study (van Dam et al., 2010) arrived at similar conclusions;
345
Energy Policy 108 (2017) 344–354
household members lost interest in the display and in this study the
initial savings decreased over time.
Research on smart metering and other feedback systems of water
and its impact on household usage is embryonic (Sønderlund et al.,
2014) and shows large variations in results. Sønderlund et al. (2014)
reviewed 13 studies and found impacts varying from 53.4% decrease to
16% increase in water usage. Hjerpe (2005) studied the impact of water
metering in two housing complexes with about 300 apartments
situated in the same area as the study described in this article. He
found a 20–30% decrease of aggregated water usage after the intro-
duction of IMD. The high-usage half of the households decreased their
water usage by an average of 30%, while the low-usage half reduced
their usage by 0–10%. Hot and cold water usage decreased in the same
pattern of results.
Studies have also reported on how different actor groups perceive
IMD and on householders’ potential to reduce resource demand. For
instance, Sochacka et al. (2009) showed that policy makers anticipated
that IMD in combination with information on water scarcity and water
savings would result in a 10–15% decrease in targeted households
without lowering their standard of living. The technicians group
entertained similar expectations and regarded households without
meters as wasteful. In contrast, householders did not consider them-
selves to be wasteful (considering that possibly other residents and the
housing company were the wasteful ones) and self-limited their own
opportunities to save water. Several studies (e.g. Hargreaves et al.,
2013; Strengers, 2009, 2011b) concluded that individuals in house-
holds only considered some water-use routines to be negotiable for
change, while other routines were advocated and legitimised.
Implementers, inventors of feedback programs and providers of water
services shared these views (Strengers, 2011b). Related research also
found that from an environmental point of view, householders see
factors other than changed routines to be more important, such as how
buildings were constructed and which energy- and water-using appli-
ances were installed (Drangert and Krantz, 2002; Drangert et al.,
2005). Householders may alter practices to minimize ‘waste’ and make
existing practices more resource-efficient (Strengers, 2009).
Previous research has also found that general demand management
programs do not reach everyone who is targeted; the information is
often misread, misunderstood, or is simply disregarded (Krantz, 2005).
Women tend to engage less in reading the display and consumption
figures than men (Hargreaves et al., 2010; Strengers, 2009), albeit
women perform most of the ‘water chores’ in the home (Krantz, 2005)
and are found to be more concerned about social standards of
cleanliness of home and body (Strengers, 2009).
The concept of IMD may be strongly related to economic theory and
the concept of rational choice, but seen by non-economists as too
narrow a view on what premises householders choose to act (Sochacka
et al., 2009; Strengers, 2011a). Social scientists studying water con-
sumption often suggest a closer look at effects of ongoing changes of,
for example, appliances, detergents, clothing materials, and infrastruc-
ture, impacting on notions of cleanliness and comfort and hence
‘normal’ demand for water and energy (Allon and Sofoulis, 2006;
Shove, 2003; Strengers, 2011a). They claim contemporary demand
management approaches to be insufficient in the long term, since the
context of use is ever changing, and because the approaches do not
involve challenging ideas of how, why and for what purposes water and
energy should be used. Water cannot be regarded simply as a
commodity, but must be understood in the light of changed definitions
of use, services, cultural traditions, expectations, everyday routines and
their interconnection with socio-technical systems (Allon and Sofoulis,
2006; Sofoulis and Williams, 2008). Strengers (2011a) maintains that
policy makers and demand managers need to understand that changes
in use are more likely to transpire when there are changes in house-
holds’ provision of resources, or changes in the context of what
Strengers calls the ‘practice components’. The practice components
comprise, for example, material resources, cultural norms, individual
H. Köhler Energy Policy 108 (2017) 344–354

Table 1
Participating households and methods of data collection.

Household characteristics Phase 1 (2002–2003) Phase 2 (2003–2004) Phase 3 (2013)

(2002–2003)

A – Single male, 30+, three
children, part- time
B – Single woman 65+
C – Single woman 65+
D – Couple 55+
E – Couple 45+, one
teenager. Foreign descent.
F – Couple 35+, three
children. Foreign descent.
G – Couple 50+, one
teenager, one adult child
Male wrote time-diary and was interviewed. Metering data for Interview and metering data. Moved from the area and not possible to
time-diary days. reach. No data.
Wrote time-diary and was interviewed. Metering data for time- Interview and metering data. Time-diary, interview and metering data.
diary days.
Wrote time-diary and was interviewed. Metering data for time- Interview and metering data. Deceased. No data.
diary days.
Male and female wrote time-diary and were interviewed Male and female interviewed Couple separated, female moved out.
individually. Metered data for time-diary days failed, so individually. Metering data. Individual time-diary and interview.
reference metering data was used instead. Metering data.
Female wrote time-diary with some help from her daughter. Female interviewed. Metering One adult child living at home. Female
Female interviewed. Metered data for time-diary days failed, data. wrote time-diary and was interviewed.
reference metering data was used instead. Metering data.
Female wrote time-diary and was interviewed. Metered data for Couple separated, female Female moved out in 2012. No children at
time-diary days failed, reference metering data used instead. interviewed. Metering data. home. Time-diary, interview and metering
data.
All household members wrote time-diary and were interviewed All household members One adult child living at home.
individually. Metered data for time-diary days failed. Reference interviewed individually. Individually written time-diaries and
metering data not obtainable due to meter failure. Metering data. group interview. Metering data.

properties/characteristics and responsibilities. Darby (2010), using a
similar argument, applies this to the concept of ‘affordances’.
Affordances may be understood as the individual's action space, which
is defined by the surrounding environment, how it is perceived and the
individual's specific skills. Affordances do not cause specific practices,
but can limit or make certain practices possible. If households are to be
involved and contribute, their affordances must be identified and
included in system design (Darby, 2010).
diary and to identify the routines using most water resources. Most
importantly, writing a time-diary makes study participants reflect on
their own water use, substantially aiding the interview situation. The
introspective effect could influence the routines under study but to
what extent is likely to be dependent on the nature and content of time-
diary feedback. Information from interviews and time-diaries provides
the main empirical input to the study, while metering data and
observation were primarily used for validation purposes.

3. Method 3.1. The residential area and water-related equipment

The present qualitative study applies a time-geographical toolbox
with special attention to individual action space in relation to material
and social dimensions of everyday life. Time-geography emphasises the
total set of activities and projects, taking place both sequentially and
integrated, and assesses its importance for the outcomes of everyday
life (Hägerstrand, 1985; Krantz, 2006). Time and space are the basic
resources for carrying out an activity, forming the time-space. The
time-space is limited, which makes all activities competitors. In every-
day life, it means that individuals must prioritize different projects and
activities. Projects are goal-oriented and activities are what we need to
do to achieve these goals. All activities and projects need certain
resources to be fulfilled. A time-geographical approach, for instance,
has been used to explore changes in the everyday life of individuals
(Ellegård and Wihlborg, 2001). The concept of routines refers to
activities that are regularly repeated, often without reflection
(Ellegård and Wihlborg, 2001). Routines save time resources in a
constrained environment. The study of routines is especially relevant
when studying water use, since the usage occurs in many ordinary and
non-reflected everyday activities.
The Swedish IMD-case study covered three separate periods over
ten years and combined time-diaries, interviews, metering data and
observations. The time-diary method was developed in time-geography
(see for instance Ellegård (1999) and in relation to this study, Krantz,
2005) and differs from an ordinary diary in that all individual activities
are recorded and specified to time of day, place and other people
involved. The time-diary allows the researcher to study specific
information, such as use of hot and cold water including estimated
volumes. Hence, the time-diary provides information on how indivi-
duals lead their everyday life at home, who uses the water, when, how
much and for what purpose. Time-diary information generates both
individual and general questions, which are fed into interview proto-
cols. Ideally, time-diary information can be synchronised with metered
data, which allows the researcher to assess the accuracy of the time-
The residential area comprised approximately 950 rental flats
owned by a public housing company. The area was built in the late
1960s and early 1970s during a housing construction boom in Sweden.
The housing market was soon saturated, and the area was gradually
inhabited by families with social and/or economic problems or by
immigrants. In the early 2000s, the area underwent a major restruc-
turing, aiming to improve the physical and social status of the area. It
involved large structural changes, and the residents were evacuated
from their flats during the renovation process. Physical changes in the
bathrooms included dual-flush toilets (6- and 3-litre flush) replacing
older toilets, installation of new taps with a thermostat for combined
use in washbasin and bathtub/shower, and removal of all bidets and
laundry benches with sinks. Water-saving taps with single lever valves
were mounted in the kitchens. In the process, the former all-inclusive
rent was replaced by a basic rent and individual metering and debiting
(IMD) of four separate items: space heating, electricity, hot water and
cold water.
3.2. Selection of households and structure of the study
In 2002, seven households were selected to participate in a study of
water routines and changes in routines related to the introduction of
IMD. The selection of households mirrored the social composition of
the area; immigrant families (2), families with children/teenagers (4),
middle-aged and elderly singles/couples without children (3), lower
middle-age single (1). A household could belong to more than one
category. There was potentially a slight bias towards more engaged and
environmentally aware households, since five households were re-
cruited at a residents’ meeting about the outdoor environment. The
seven households had a total of 20 members, of whom eleven took an
active part in the study (see Table 1).
The empirical material was collected during three periods. The first
collection took place before households had received information about

346
 Table 2
Household original routines and routine changes, phase 1–phase 2.
H. Köhler

Original water routines Phase 1; info on IMD Phase 2; actual billing Metering data analysis Comment
2002–04

A High Single, part-time parent; varying number of
household members. Spends much time at
home, on sick leave. Daily baths, which often
replaced showers. Bathing is a routine since
childhood and it also limbers up stiff joints.
Shaves, brushes teeth, washes and rinses the
dishes under running tap. All washing of
laundry done at home.
B Low Single. Retired, but active and spends much
time outside the home. Lives in summer
cabin during summer with only sporadic
visits in the apartment e.g. to shower. Does
not have a bathtub, showers every third day
(dry skin). Pet showers 30 min every second
day. All washing done in communal laundry
room. Considers self to have normal use, not
wasteful.
C Low Single. Retired, but active. Does all her
washing of laundry at home out of
convenience. Habit of flushing the pipes to
get fresh cold water each morning (30–40 l/
time). Takes baths approx. twice a week,
Does not like to shower (freezes). Does all
dishwashing by hand and uses a washing-up
Reduced number of baths (once every second
day), no running tap while brushing his teeth.
Uses less water when shaving.
Has become more careful, knows that hot
water costs more. Takes shorter showers (also
for pet), turns shower off while soaping, uses a
washing-up bowl for rinsing dishes. Limited
economic resources and has difficulties in
understanding the new technology installed, e.
g. the difference between the two flushing
knobs on the toilet (small and large flush).
No change; is already mindful out of
environmental concern and cannot use much
less. She has some difficulties in understanding
the new technology installed, e.g. the function
of the safety lock on the combined mixer tap.
Unemployed, much time at home. Girlfriend
who stays with him occasionally. Claims not to
have altered his water use, but sometimes gives
in to brushing teeth under running tap. Would
not give up bathing even if the price doubled.
Has difficulties understanding the invoice.
The first tap water that is flushed in the
morning (to get it fresh) is used for the dishes.
She may shower some extra minutes to treat
herself. Does not always flush the toilet when
urinating at night. Does not save water that
much, more concerned about heating. Just
looks at the total debit/credit on the invoice as
she has been advised by a housing company
employee.
Has become a little more careful with hot
water, more out of principle than cost. Has
altered washing-up technique (filling largest
pot to be washed and washing the rest in it)
and turned mixer tap in bathroom to provide
cold water in normal position, hot water must
be actively chosen.
Increased cold water use. Uses
somewhat less hot water, but
has a fairly stable use over
time.
Some decrease in cold and hot
water from an already low
consumption. Stable use.
Conceivably a slight decrease
in hot and cold water from an
already low use. Stable use.
The extra person explains probably most of
the increase in cold water (extra toilet visits,
laundry, etc.), but should affect hot water
too. The irregular number of household
members makes metering analysis difficult.
Change of habits in phase 1 part of everyday
routines. Considers her monthly payment
for water to be low (100 SEK in total)
despite limited economic resources. She was
credited in the first settlement of account
and mostly (90%) related to savings on
heating.
High cold water share of total use due to all
washing done at home and the morning
habit of flushing water for it to be cold and
fresh.

347
bowl with cold water for rinsing. Does not
flush the toilet after each use. Thinks that
childhood experiences of fetching water have
left their mark on behaviour.
D Average Active couple, much time out of home on No change; is already mindful out of Sees no possibility to reduce use further Water use the same or slightly More time at home and visiting children
weekdays. Both take showers once a day; environmental concern. without health risks (e.g. not to flush tap to get higher. probably the most important factor behind
female prefers longer and hotter showers cold and fresh water). changes in use, not routine change.
than the male, who showers for about 5 min.
Male takes 4–5 baths/year when feeling sick.
They have no dishwasher. The female does
most of the washing-up, filling up the sink
and using a rinsing bowl. Male washes up
under continuously running water. Washing
of laundry is done in the communal laundry
room. Female is doing most of the ‘water
chores’, e.g. cooking, washing dishes and
cleaning.
E Average Female working, male on sick leave, daughter No change; do not use more than they need. No adjustments of water-use routines. No Stable use, conceivably a slight Female feeling stressed by the metering,
at school and rarely at home. No one uses the Water should not just run out of the tap, but be washing machine in flat (all washing done in reduction. maybe behind the small reduction.
bath, daughter can take long showers. Male used. communal laundry room). Female reveals a
short daily showers, female irregular showers stress of being monitored and billed.
for 5–15 min (depending on available time
and if having aches). Female is doing most of
the ‘water chores’ and is continuously using
water. Dishwashing is done by hand, rinsing
under running water. Most laundry done in
communal laundry room. Frequent toilet
visits and washing hands (female). Does not
flush after each toilet visit.
(continued on next page)
Energy Policy 108 (2017) 344–354
 Table 2 (continued)
Original water routines
F High Male working, children at school, female out
of work. All take daily showers. Children and
male take baths occasionally. Female takes
no baths due to eczema. Female does most of
the household chores and use water
continuously (mainly cold). They have a
washing machine in the home but do most of
the washing in the communal laundry room.
Use a dishwasher (rinsing items first), but
larger items are washed by hand in a filled
sink. Rinsing in running cold water.
G High Male working, female retired. Adult son
unemployed, daughter at school. Daughter
takes daily hot baths, sometimes two times a
day. Male also takes nearly daily baths. The
son showers for about 15 min. Female takes a
bath once a week, and a daily 5 min shower.
Have a washing machine that is used
occasionally, most laundry done in the
communal laundry room. Dishwasher
connected to hot water. Dishes rinsed in hot
water before being put in the dishwasher.
Larger items washed manually in hot water.
Shaving done in running water.
348
‘High’ use is > 10 m3/flat/month, ‘average’ 5–10 m3/flat/month, and ‘low’ < 5 m3/flat/month. Note that categorisation of the households as low or high users was not sensitive to number of household members. There were no excessive users
in this study ( > 20 m3/month), and in relation to the Swedish average use (200 l per person per day in 2004) all households in the study were low or average users.
Phase 1; info on IMD
No change; does not know how to go about
change.
Made adjustments in use when moving back
into their newly refurbished apartment after
being evacuated. No running water without
use, let water run less when showering (male
and female turning off water while soaping,
made possible with the new mixer tap keeping
the same temperature), peeling potatoes,
brushing teeth, etc.
Phase 2; actual billing
Couple separated, male moved out and
children stay with him sporadically (but mostly
with female). Female has employment. Have
not cut down on use; saving should not be
exaggerated. Female observes children's use
more carefully, and informs them of high bills.
Does not accept too long showers and water
running for no reason.
Adult child moved out. No adjustments in
routines. Have discussed the daughter's
frequent baths but not restricted them.
Concentrated on saving heating energy.
H. Köhler
Metering data analysis Comment
2002–04
Lower use of hot and cold Fewer household members in the apartment
water. significant cause of reductions in use.
Increased monitoring of children's use also
likely to be of importance.
Lower use of hot and cold One person less probably to explains most
water. reduction in use. Have focused on saving on
heating.
Energy Policy 108 (2017) 344–354
H. Köhler
their own usage, but knowing that IMD was to be introduced. The
intention was to capture the pre-IMD routines, and the study partici-
pants wrote a time-diary for three consecutive days: two weekdays and
one weekend day. They were instructed to note all activities, but as a
minimum their water-using activities at home. Metered data from three
households were available and could be compared with corresponding
time-diaries. Interview protocols were developed using the analysis of
time-diary and (where available) metering data. Individual interviews
were conducted in the study participants’ homes. The interview focused
on the information in the time-diary, individual and household water
routines and the study participants’ views on IMD. Being in the home
of study participants allowed for some rudimentary observations.
The second intervention took place when IMD had been in
operation for 5–17 months. All eleven participants were interviewed
again, focusing on their reactions to IMD and how they chose to act.
This time, all households and the interviewer had access to metered
data. The households had also paid their monthly norm-based bills of
usage (i.e. same amount each month), and been informed if being
debited or credited in relation to the norm-based billing at the end of
the first year.
The third intervention was conducted in 2013, about ten years after
the first. As anticipated, substantial changes had taken place for the
eleven study participants. Six study participants from four households
remained in the housing area and agreed to participate once more. In
one of these households, the couple had separated, but both agreed to
take part. Two households had moved from the area. One of these
households agreed to participate while the other household member
did not respond to contact efforts. One of the previous study partici-
pants in a single household had passed away. Thus, eight respondents
from five of the original seven households took part in the third
intervention. They wrote a time-diary for three consecutive days (two
weekdays and one weekend day), and were interviewed individually or
by household. Historical monthly metering data from 2004 to 2013
were obtained from the housing company for hot water, cold water,
space heating and electricity. Water usage data was the focus, but space
heating and electricity data were used to control some interview
statements. The time-diaries could not be compared with metering
data this time due to too crude metering data (100-litre units per hour).
Hence, the time-diaries mainly enabled comparisons with routines and
everyday living from the previous decade. The time-diaries also
stimulated thinking about water use. The study structure is outlined
in Table 1.
3.3. Generalisation
This case study is qualitative in character and involves a small, not
randomly selected sample of households. The collected household and
individual data from time-diaries, interviews, metering data and
observations on three occasions over a long period, provide ample
opportunity to analyse perceptions and routines related to water usage.
The thickness of the empirical material complements other statistical
studies made for larger samples to model human behaviour. The
generalisations made here are analytical generalisations (Brinkmann
and Kvale, 2014).
4. Results
The results are reported in two parts. The first part (Section 4.1)
describes the introduction of IMD and its immediate effect on house-
hold water-use routines as investigated in phases 1 and 2 (2002–2004).
This part of the study has been published before (Krantz, 2005) and is
summarised in Section 4.1. The second part covers phase 3 (2004–
2013), and focuses on long-term changes in water routines and usage
under the influence of IMD (Section 4.2).
349
Energy Policy 108 (2017) 344–354
4.1. Phase 1 and phase 2: introducing the IMD (2002–2004)
Individual metering of water usage started with IMD, and partici-
pants’ reports of previous routines are shown in Table 2. Reports on
participants’ routine changes after being informed about IMD (Phase
1) and, later, when being billed according to usage (Phase 2), are also
presented.
In phase 1, the high-consuming households A and G became more
attentive to water use and made efforts to reduce usage such as keeping
tap water running without being used, e.g. when brushing teeth and
shaving. The male in household A stated that he had reduced the
frequency of baths already when moving to the area, then under
renovation. This is consistent with the results of Hjerpe (2005) in the
same area, that high-usage households are prone to saving. The low-
usage household B took some early measures to save; for example, a
low retirement income motivated activities such as cutting back on her
shower time and for washing her pet and use of a washing-up bowl for
rinsing dishes. The other four households in the study could not
identify any unnecessary use at this point and took no action: two
households (C, D) claimed to already be mindful of environmental
concern, and the other two (E, F) were not able to identify any change
in water-use routines.
When IMD became operational in phase 2, the study participants
considered themselves to be ‘normal’ users with few opportunities for
further reductions in water use. Reductions would challenge norms of
cleanliness: e.g. not to flush the toilet after each use or to forgo daily
showers. Nevertheless, three out of seven households reported that
they altered their routines and reduced their usage further. Household
B, who already had changed routines for economic reasons, and
household C, with strong environmental concerns, explored further
opportunities. Both households comprised a single elderly woman with
the lowest hot water usages per capita in the study. Also, household F,
with three children/teenagers, found economic gain to be important.
The mother started to monitor the children's use more closely, such as
length of showers and letting the water run. She also tried to impress
on her children the choice between high water and energy costs and
alternative redirection of savings to other desired expenses.
The participants who took a bath continued with this practice and
stated that the comfort of a bath was not negotiable. The parents in
household G gave an unexpected example of socio-cultural values,
accepting the daughter's frequent baths since she did her schoolwork
while bathing.
The efforts to reduce water usage in the households rendered small
routine changes. For instance, no one gave up on bathing, or altered
showering frequency, or changed habits relating to the wearing time of
clothes and laundry.
The low impact of IMD on routines calls for an analysis of interview
responses. There was a strong norm among most participants that
water should be used but not wasted. None of the participants regarded
themselves as wasteful with water; IMD was not really for them, but for
others who were seen as wasteful. Consequently, the majority were
positive to IMD, since they no longer had to pay for others’ excessive
usage.
Before IMD, tenants did not need to negotiate within the household
about water use in relation to other resources. Hot and cold water were
virtually limitless resources that admitted almost any kind of water use,
partly because the cost was hidden in the rent and could not be lowered
by a single household, and partly because, with district heating, hot
water never ran out. Routines were established in this infinite
environment. Yet, some households constrained water usage out of
environmental concern (C, D) or from memories of childhood experi-
ences (B, C), when water needed to be fetched from an outdoor well. In
part, these households already exercised routines that IMD was
expected to foster, and therefore they found it difficult to do more.
IMD introduced visible economic consequences, and several water-
saving devices were installed. These devices were required to be
H. Köhler
operated as intended; otherwise, water saving would be reduced. For
example, water-saving taps saved water for showers and hand-washing,
but the economies could be circumvented by extended time of use. No
participant refrained from taking a bath because of slower fill-up of
bathtub. The dual-flush toilets saved water compared to the old toilets,
but only if used according to the designer's intentions. But one woman
(B) did not know the difference and always pulled the large flush. The
technology itself could also cause excessive usage. One example
involved the combined bathroom mixer tap that needed a certain flow
rate in order not to switch automatically from shower mode to bath
mode. The woman in household C experienced her required flow rate
for showering was too low to keep the shower mode constant.
Furthermore, hand-washing in a wash basin could tolerate lower
temperatures than a shower, but if the temperature on the combined
mixer tap always was set on shower temperatures, unnecessary hot
water was being used. Household C recognised this and chose cold
water as default mode.
The motives for routine change focused on volumetric and mone-
tary data, and therefore the way the housing company produced and
communicated this information became crucial. The water cost was
decided only by volume used (no fixed cost), which provided the
households a stronger incentive to save than an actual sharing of cost.
However, the cost per cubic meter was low in relation to incomes, even
in this low-income area, and gains in kronor were small. Even the
household with particularly small economical means (B) considered the
water price to be low (2003: cold water 17.15 SEK/m3 (1.8 €), hot
water 40.50 SEK/m3 (4.3 €). In 2003, her actual cost was 50 SEK/
month (~5.3 € or the cost of 4 l of milk) for both cold and hot water
(average cold water usage 1.1 m3/month and hot water 0.8 m3/month).
The largest user (G) paid on average 440 SEK/month (~46€) for water
(cold water usage 9.4 m3/month and hot water 6.9 m3/month). After
some reductions of ‘unnecessary’ water use, participants stated they
were willing and able to pay for desired water use. Hot water was more
than twice as expensive as cold water, and only household C shifted
some usage from hot to cold water.
The billing arrangement was problematic the first year. The
monthly bill was calculated on the old tariff based on flat size, i.e. the
same amount was paid each month. On the bill, the actual cost was
deducted from the flat-size cost and communicated as a ‘debt’ or ‘credit’
to be paid or repaid at the end of the year. Even in the second year of
metering, the same amount was paid each month but this time based
on the previous year's usage. The total debit or credit was settled at the
end of each year or when residents moved out. The chosen IMD-system
made it hard for users to understand the connection between cost and
everyday water routines (see also Glad (2012)). Flat size was to define
‘normal’ usage, while the number of persons in a flat could differ a lot.
In combination with an underestimated hot water norm, 29% of total
water usage while the Swedish norm is 35%, many households
experienced a built-up debt for hot water. On the other hand, a single
person in a large flat usually ended with a credit. To complicate things
even more, the space-heating norm was generously set and in many
cases compensated for the debt on hot water. At the second interview,
two households (B, G) expressed a conscious focus on saving on space
heating rather than water because it was easier to be refunded.
4.2. Phase 2 – phase 3 (2004–2013)
During the period 2004–2013 the price for cold water rose 21%
from 17.15 SEK/m3 to 20.72 SEK (2.2 €) and hot water rose 50% from
40.50 SEK/m3 to 60.71 SEK (6.4 €). In 2010, the billing arrangement
changed, and the households paid for actual monthly usage with a two
months’ delay. From 2003, residents were already able to monitor their
own usage online by means of their “My pages” on the housing
company's website. The website information changed in 2012, shifting
focus to volumes rather than cost, and allowing for historical compar-
ison of individual household usage of electricity, space heating and hot
350
Energy Policy 108 (2017) 344–354
water. The rest of this section presents changes in household composi-
tion and hot and cold water use for the five remaining households.
Household A: Moved from the area.
Household B: Low income remained an important constraint on
her water use, but she has not made any additional changes in routines
regarding taking a shower, washing dishes, washing clothes, etc. She
repeatedly emphasised the importance of hygiene and not smelling like
an old woman, which conflicted with her dry skin that suffers further
from frequent washing. Her big adjustment was made when being
informed of IMD and these routines she has kept since. She said:
BF: I do not think you change routines really, just activities.
Her change in activities mostly related to ageing, increasing the
demand for convenience and comfort. Summers were still spent in the
summer cottage, but to an increasing degree she has begun to return to
the flat to sleep and shower. This pattern was evident in her time-diary,
although she said it also was caused by the cabin being in a messy state
at the time. She was no longer at ease with sleeping alone in the
summer cottage at night and preferred to shower in the flat instead of
using the cold sea water available at the cottage. She never used the
housing company web page. Her bills had been controlled for incon-
sistencies, but not closely since she knows herself to be careful.
Fig. 1 reveals that after a slightly higher use of hot water in 2004
(monthly average 1.1 m3) compared to 2003 (0.8 m3), the usage was
restored to 2003 levels for the years 2005–2007. From 2008 onwards,
hot water usage was consistently higher than in 2003 (average 2008–
2012, 1.0 m3/month). Cold water on the other hand, was somewhat
reduced in 2004 and 2005 from the 2003-year level (1.1 m3/month),
but from 2006 it always exceeded the 2003 levels (average 1.4 m3/
month).
The metering data showed an increased water use (both hot and
cold) in summertime from 2008 and onwards, supporting her stated
preference to sleep and shower in the flat. Earlier, usage during
summers was extremely low, some months even displaying zero-values
for hot water.
The highest total water usage was in 2012 when, due to an injury,
she had to spend most of the summer in the flat. This increase in water
use was a clear indicator of the importance of presence and activities of
persons in the home for shifts in usage. That year she used 96 l of water
per day on average. Lowest usage of 54 l per day was in 2005, while
average usage was 72 l per day for the period 2004–2012. During
2003–2012, 43% of the water used was hot water. The relatively high
hot water share can partly be explained by the fact that all laundry
washing was done in the communal laundry room.
Household C: Deceased.
Household D: The couple, now separated, still referred to
environmental principles guiding water use and claimed that IMD
had no effect on their water routines. The male said:
DM: We have not changed our habits and, to the extent that we
5
IMD from January
4.5
4
Water (cubic meter)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
Total Hot Cold
Fig. 1. Household B yearly average water usage (per month) 2003–2012.
H. Köhler Energy Policy 108 (2017) 344–354

have, they are hardly measurable.
His routines, like turning off the shower when soaping, have been
there for a long time. Bathing and showering routines have stayed the
same. Washing dishes, not done often but stated to be his Achilles’ heel,
was still done under a running tap at low speed. He considered himself
a low user, and believed he could use even lower volumes of water, e.g.
by refraining from flushing the toilet after every visit. However, this
was not approved by his new partner.
The female stated that she tried to think of what was reasonable,
but that she may not always reach all the way. Water should be hot
when showering and doing the dishes. As she did ten years ago, she still
struggled with balancing good hygiene versus living on small resources.
She said:
DF: I hope to be an average user, but I would like to be a low user
[…] to keep to two-minute shower […] it tends to be longer than
that and you remain in the shower as some sort of […] what could
you call it? therapy or something[…]it is some sort of golden lining
on life to take long showers […].
I: Why do you not reach the low level?
DF: Partly it is difficult to adjust and partly you get distracted […]
when are you really clean […] I am reflecting on that… what you
are when you are clean is it just a feeling or is there an actual
borderline which tells that you are now clean […]
Both have kept track of their use by looking at the bill and checking
it for incongruities. They have never used the housing company web
page to control their usage.
No routine change was reported since phase 2, yet metering data
revealed changes in usage (see Fig. 2). During the first years of IMD,
water usage was stable. In 2003, usage was on average 6.9 m3/month
(4 m3 cold water and 2.9 m3 hot water/month). In 2004, the second
year of IMD, water usage reached its lowest level of 6.3 m3/month due
to reduced usage of cold water. After 2004, usage increased to 7.2 m3/
month (2005), 8.2 m3/month (2006), 7.1 m3/month (2007), 8 m3/
month (2008), variations in cold and hot water usage running
approximately in tandem. A more pronounced shift in usage occurred
from 2009 onwards. In 2009 usage peaked at 11.7 m3/month (cold
water usage increased with 35% and hot water with 57% compared to
2008), also 2010 (8.4 m3/month) and 2011 (10.8 m3/month) displayed
higher values than earlier. In 2012, however, usage returned to the
early levels. During the entire period, all washing was done in the
communal laundry room. The share of hot water was on average 44%.
The rise in water usage in 2009 mainly related to an increased water
usage in January–May, for which no certain explanation was provided
in the interviews. The male moved out in April 2009, but continued to
spend time in the flat using an office space there. Water usage did not
seem to be markedly effected by this shift in household composition in
2009. This confirmed the interview and time-diary data, that the
female was the main water user in this household. Other important
factors behind the unchanged or even elevated water usage after 2008
was a returning adult child. The child lived with them sporadically
during the entire study period, but moved back more permanently in
the second half of 2009. From summer 2008 and onwards, they
periodically started to have various lodgers, sometimes whole families.
The female did nothing to restrict lodgers’ water usage e.g. for
showering and bathing, and the variations in numbers of persons
inhabiting the flat could be behind the larger fluctuations in usage from
2008 onwards. The decrease in water usage for 2012 coincides with the
adult child moving out.
Household E: The female, who was the spokesperson for this
household, asserted that no routines had been altered but they were
mindful of usage:
EF: People in the area have responded differently [to IMD] but I
have not changed […] okay, you reflect somewhat more on water.
She has always thought that water should not run from the tap
without being used, but neither should one economise too much on
water. She claimed some elderly people have been reducing their water
usage to levels where it has become a hygienic hazard, e.g. using the
same dishwater day after day and only flushing the toilet once a day.
This effect from IMD was a concern she expressed already in phase 2.
The stress felt over IMD that she revealed at the introduction of
IMD was still there: she knows what her household's water usage costs
and what causes it, but has not been capable to take measures since it is
related to a sickness condition in the family. The bill was not controlled
regularly, due to lack of time and energy, and she has never consulted
the housing company web page.
Routines were somewhat altered with the installation of a dish-
washer in 2008–09. The dishwasher was used for most dishes, and
before putting the dishes in the dishwasher, she wiped them off with a
sponge in lukewarm water. Larger pots, however, were washed
manually under running water. She believed the dishwasher was saving
water and that less water had been used since its installation.
Metering data disclosed a stable use over time (see Fig. 3). The
average monthly value was between 6.3 and 6.7 m3 for cold water
except for 2005–2007 when it was slightly higher (7.5–7.8 m3). Hot
water was between 3.2 and 3.5 m3/month during 2003–2007, there-
after 2.5–2.8 during 2008–2011 and raised again to 3.4 m3 in 2012.
Hot water share was on average 31%, a low value considering that the
household washed most of their laundry in the communal laundry
room. The female also reported frequent toilet visits and no use of the
low flush option, which could explain a comparable high cold water
share. The household has had three household members over the entire
period; one child moved out in 2008 but was instantly replaced by
another (adult) child. The dip in water usage for 2008 was potentially
caused by the installation of the dishwasher (usually connected to cold
water), saving both cold and hot water. Also, the adult child moving in

15 15
IMD from March

IMD from March

14 14
13 13
12 12
11 11
Water (cubic meter)

Water (cubic meter)

10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year Year
Cold Hot Total Cold Hot Total

Fig. 2. Household D yearly average water usage (per month) 2003–2012. Fig. 3. Household E yearly average water usage (per month) 2003–2012.

351
H. Köhler
20
IMD from September
18
16
Water (cubic meter)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year
Cold Hot Total
Fig. 4. Household F yearly average water usage (per month) 2003–2012.
may have had less water-intensive routines than the child moving out.
This household has changed flats twice during the study period. The
first move occurred in mid-2005 and the second in autumn 2006.
However, related shifts in usage could not be confirmed by interviews
or metered data.
Household F: The female said IMD made her ponder why she let
water run without being used. She started to rinse her vegetables in a
bowl instead of under the tap; experiencing positive effects in metering
data, she continued with this practice. She had also tried to control the
children's water use. She had never restricted hygienic practices, but
opposed hour-long showers. She observed that savings could be
exaggerated:
FF: I know some retired people who save to the extent that they do
not even flush the toilet at night not even after they defecate […]
and showers once a week […] I also know a lady who uses the
water used for cleaning the floors several times.
She claimed that such practices could lead to health problems.
Turning down the space heating, and instead using additional sweaters
and blankets to avoid being cold, was also considered going too far.
Metering data (Fig. 4) showed that hot water usage decreased
steadily from 2003 to 2008, from an average monthly usage of 6.3 m3
to 2.5 m3. Thereafter it rose again to 4.9 m3 in 2011, only to drop again
in 2012 (2012 data only based on nine months since she moved out).
Cold water usage showed a similar pattern, and fell continuously until
2007 from about 10.5 m3/month (2006) to 8.3 m3/month. Cold water
usage was lowest in 2009 with 7.6 m3/month on average, after which
usage rose again and peaked in 2011 at 12.1 m3/month. Cold water
usage was down again in 2012. Laundry was mostly done in the
common laundry room, but also at home. The share of hot water
peaked in the beginning with 36% (2003), and was at its lowest point in
2008 with 23%. During the entire period the hot water share was 30%.
The couple separated in 2003 and the male moved out in late spring
the same year. During a five-year period, starting around 2006/07, the
female had some tough years with health problems, even involving
hospital care. Due to her illness, she could not work and had a very low
income for about four years (2006/2007 – 2010/2011). The three
children lived with their mother most of the time. One child moved out
in 2009, and another child was away for a while but returned home in
2011. She has never used the housing company web page, but she has
checked the bills for both cost and volumes. From that information, she
learned about the importance of saving hot water:
FF: […] sometimes I thought I must save and on the bill … I saw
that cold water was cheaper but when you shower of course you
use hot water […].
The awareness of the difference in price between hot and cold water
could be one explanation for the relatively low hot water share and that
hot water was reduced more than cold water. The decrease in water use
coincided with her health problems and related financial worries. But
Energy Policy 108 (2017) 344–354
confronted with the metered data, she could not explain the shifts in
usage. She did not believe her absence could have such a large impact,
since the children were still at home doing chores. The increase in use
in 2010–2011 coincided with the return of the absentee child and the
female's recovery. In 2012 she started work again and one child moved
out, which could have been a factor behind the decreased usage.
Household G: This household adjusted their routines when
moving back to their flat after the renovations. The main adjustment
was not to let the water run from the tap without being used. After ten
years, the household members stated they had not altered routines.
2010 2011 2012 They may not be as careful as in the start-up of IMD, but the routines
established then were largely the same. The female says:
GF: […] it happens that some items are washed under running
water like stewpan, frying pan and the larger casserole, but
otherwise this does not occur [washing under running water].. It
is deep-rooted… and what you always did before IMD. It was not a
question of washing in a washing-up bowl or something like that.
Other changes in life have led to changes in practices. The daughter
had grown from a schoolgirl to an adult with working hours. She could
no longer find time for two daily baths, as she indulged ten years
before, but took daily baths. However, these were equivalent to 1.5 bath
tubs since her baths were prolonged and she added more hot water
when the water cooled off. The male had difficulty finding time for a
daily bath since two dogs acquired in 2010 demanded care. He took a
bath about once every second week (from about once a day in 2004),
more during wintertime. Showering the pets needed extra water. To
remove the shampoo from the dogs’ furs, the water-saving shower head
had been replaced with one that provided a higher flow rate. The family
did not believe this change had affected water usage since it allowed
quicker showers. They focused much on the actual cost, which had been
about the same since IMD came into effect, despite the price increase.
Metered data showed a decrease in usage from the beginning of the
period (see Fig. 5). In 2004 water use peaked with an average use of
cold water of 12.7 m3 and hot water of 8.3 m3. But from 2005 onwards
the usage has decreased; between 8 m3 and 10 m3 for cold water and
between 5.4 m3 and 7.1 m3 for hot water. Hot water usage was on
average 41% of total usage. Frequent baths and the dishwasher being
connected to hot water were two potential causes behind the high hot
water proportion.
In 2004, the daughter, presently living at home, was not home
much because she had a boyfriend in another city. However, another
daughter came to live with them during this period, and the family
believe she was possibly behind the higher water usage this year. Until
2006–2007 they had a washing machine at home, which they used
quite frequently. When it broke down, it was not replaced. From this
point, all laundry took place in the common laundry room, which
potentially decreased cold water usage in the flat. The mother and
daughter had consulted the housing company web page. The mother
22
IMD from April
20
18
16
Water (cubic meter)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year
Cold Hot Total
Fig. 5. Household G yearly average water usage (per month) 2003–2012.
352
H. Köhler
mostly took the opportunity to check on usage when logging in to book
the laundry room. Once she noticed a very large hot water usage; it
turned out to be related to the daughter dying her hair.
5. Analysis
Metering data showed that water usage changed in most of the
households studied during the period 2003–2013; both downwards
(G), upwards (B, D) or both (F). Only household E displayed a more
stable usage. Irrespective of usage pattern, no household thought that
changes in water-using routines explained variations in usage over
time. Data from interviews and time-diaries between 2002/03 and
2013 confirm this picture. Some new routines were established in the
initial stage of IMD, sometimes even before being informed of used
volumes and costs. Primarily, households perceived that they redu-
ced’wasteful’ water use, that is, water being flushed without productive
use, which confirms what other studies (e.g. Strengers, 2009) have
found. Thereafter, water-use routines have essentially stayed the same.
Another important aspect of willingness to change routines to
reduce water use relates to how people perceive the notion of being
clean. Some participants claimed that they had to shower every day to
feel fresh or clean, while others commented on the need not to smell
bad when meeting other people.
The households studied were from slightly above average to low
water users in the area. High users are more likely to respond to
economic incentives (Hjerpe, 2005). However, the present study shows
that low users with ‘stretched’ financial status initially also found good
reasons to save. Some respondents even claimed that some elderly
residents were saving too earnestly and creating unhygienic situations.
Later modifications in billing arrangements and improved information
on ‘My pages’ on the website had no impact on usage. Nor did a 50%
price increase for hot water from 2003 to 2013 leave an imprint on
household perspectives or routines, despite a general inflation rate of
13% during the same period (SCB, 2016b) and living in a low-income
area. Most households considered the cost of water to be small in
relation to other household expenditures. A more important reason
seems to be that, after the initial changes in routines, the households
regarded themselves as ‘normal’ users with limited possibilities to save
more on water. Instead, changes in water usage 2003–2013 were often
related to changes in household composition and activities related to
ageing, work life and health conditions.
Changes in the number of persons in the flat were important
in affecting water usage. The Swedish average is 160 l per person per
day (SWWA, 2015) which adds up to 4.8 m3 per person per month of
hot and cold water. All households except G used less, and household B
used considerably less than the Swedish average. Two partial explana-
tions are that almost all households used the common washing
machines in the building, and little water was used for watering
gardens, which may comprise a considerable amount of water use in
private single houses.
Did one more or one less person change the total household usage
by 4 m3 or 5 m3 in our sample? Changes of such magnitude were only
shown in household G between 2004 and 2005, which could be
connected to an adult child, said to be a high user, moving in
temporarily during 2004. The impact on use was strongly related to
the water routines people followed. Water for cooking and washing
dishes were likely to be marginal uses regardless, while a person with
extensive bathing and showering habits would render a larger visible
impact on usage. In households D and F, also with changing residents
in the household, we could not detect such large impacts in usage from
one year to another. In these two households, it was much more
difficult to relate usage to number of residents since it was constantly
shifting. However, larger variations could often be related to interview
reports on the more pronounced shifts in household composition such
as keeping lodgers, separations and children going away or moving
back for longer periods.
353
Energy Policy 108 (2017) 344–354
Growing old and being sick entailed shifts in household
activities including water usage. The older woman in household B
reported that she enjoyed the comfort of a warm shower and greater
security, so she spent more time in the flat than previously during
summers towards the end of the study period. The short walking
distance and her health allowed her to move between the two
residences. Likewise, an injury in 2012 made her stay in the flat and
resulted in a clear rise in water usage. The female in household F
encountered health problems, which probably made for changes in the
way she went about normal everyday chores; some behaviours might be
abandoned altogether. Her periods of hospitalization meant a down-
turn in water usage. Lower income due to sickness was likely to result
in lower water usage.
Poor health could also restrict the opportunities to save on water.
Household E reported on a sickness condition that entailed the use of
more water compared to what would have been demanded under
normal circumstances. The female in this household strongly empha-
sised the connection between water use and health. She was appalled
by the fact that some elderly people in the area jeopardized their own
health to save on water.
In household G, other changes in life were the cause of reduced
usage over time. The daughter had started working, which limited her
time to bathe twice a day. Her father also took fewer baths compared to
2003, which partly was due to the new dogs procured in 2010
demanding much time for walks and other care. Less time was
available for his own baths.
6. Conclusions and policy implications
This study showed that all routine changes with the purpose of
reducing water usage transpired at an early stage of IMD implementa-
tion. Therefore, housing companies or other potential initiators of IMD
systems are advised to invest enough time and other resources to
involve and inform affected households at an early stage of the process.
It is not just about installing new technology, but introducing a whole
concept that may affect norms, behaviours and economics.
The design of the intervention comprises water-saving devices,
practical robust tips of water-saving routines, and a recurring feedback
system. Residents are likely to expect that the housing company should
be serious about the intervention. If the feedback information is
delayed, residents may be less interested once the system is in place.
Economic theory suggests that payment systems such as IMD will
direct most users to follow the intentions. However, if the cost of water
is considered low, the tariff will be less effective. Therefore, housing
companies together with service providers must add other incentives to
achieve a more sustainable resource use, such as environmental
benefits related to a decreased water use in general, e.g. increasing
the concentration of contaminants in wastewater, making wastewater
cheaper and easier to treat, and to curb water shortages such as those
presently becoming a common problem in large parts of southern
Sweden.
Information on how all-inclusive rents are constructed, why IMD is
installed, how metering and tariffs work, and what households can do
to save on water are crucial messages. For example, practical tips on
measures to save on water, such as how much water is used during a
minute in the shower, or how many litres a bath requires. The billing
must be transparent and provide accurate and easily accessible
information. The housing company must give the same information
to new tenants.
Most residents may have little time and interest to search informa-
tion that is not vital to them. One way to take advantage of the
established and long-term relation with tenants would be to visit them
and spread information by word of mouth, providing tips, instructions,
and responding to queries. Such activities should preferably take place
before implementation, or in connection with households being
informed of their own usage, when households seem to be most
H. Köhler
responsive to changing routines. Households are likely to interpret
these initiatives as an expression of a genuine interest by the housing
company in to reducing demand.
Complementing the information provided on displays and bills
could also appeal to women, the main water users in relation to
cooking, cleaning, laundering and washing dishes (Krantz, 2005).
Women have also been shown to be generally less interested in reading
consumption figures on interactive displays and bills (e.g. Strengers,
2009; Hargreaves et al., 2010). The present study contradicted these
findings to some extent; the women in the study showed interest in bills
to a varying degree, and one of them even in the online information on
the Internet. This behaviour possibly reflects a slight bias towards more
environmentally aware households, volunteering to take part, or
mirrors the position and role of women in different societies. Still,
the women's general lack of enthusiasm over bills indicates a need to
develop new methods within IMD regimes for reaching this important
target group for improved water efficiency.
Ideas and expectations on what is ‘normal’ usage seem to guide how
residents think about their use and what can be done about it. And as
showed by previous studies (e.g. Strengers, 2011b), those views are
shared by other actors involved in IMD interventions. Addressing, and
even challenging, the issue of normality could possibly increase the
efficiency potential of IMD. One way to start discussing issues of
normality is to include unconventional examples of water saving in
information materials. For example, the information could provide
examples about not only the relation between shower time and volume
used, but also what effect would be of decreasing the number of
showers and relinquishing the norm of one shower a day.
The study showed that IMD helps to uphold the positive routine
changes. This is a most important finding that water-efficient routines
remained over the decade-long period of this investigation. This result
further emphasises the benefit of making large efforts to impact on
routines at an early stage, since such efforts seems to pay off also in the
long term.
In conclusion, this study showed that IMD is a measure capable of
increasing water efficiency in households in both in the short and long
term.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council Formas
[Grant number 2008-1335]. The author also would like to express her
gratitude to Associate Professor Jan-Olof Drangert, Professor Henrik
Kylin and anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on earlier
drafts of this article.
References
Allon, F., Sofoulis, Z., 2006. Everyday Water: cultures in transition. Aust. Geogr. 37,
45–55.
Berndtsson, L., 2005. Individuell mätning av värme och varmvatten i lägenheter. Projekt
22101/311/5111. Boverket Karlskrona.
Boverket, 2002. Hushållning med varmt och kallt tappvatten. Individuell mätning och
temperaturstyrning. Boverket, Karlskrona.
Boverket, 2008. Individuell mätning och debitering i flerbostadshus. Boverket,
Karlskrona.
Boverket, 2014. Individuell mätning och debitering vid ny- och ombyggnad. Boverket,
Karlskrona, p. 326.
Boverket, 2015. Individuell mätning och debitering i befintlig bebyggelse, Karlskrona, p.
118.
Boyle, T., Giurco, D., Mukheibir, P., Liu, A., Moy, C., White, S., Stewart, R., 2013.
Intelligent metering for urban water: a review. Water 5, 1052–1081.
Brinkmann, S., Kvale, S., 2014. Interviews. Learning the craft of qualitative research
interviewing. Sage, London.
Darby, S., 2001. Making it obvious: designing feedback into energy consumption, In:
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Energy Efficiency in Household
Appliances and Lighting Italian Association of Energy Economists/EC-SAVE
Programme.
Darby, S., 2006. The effectiveness of feedback on energy consumption. A review for
DEFRA of the literature on metering, billing and direct displays. Environmental
Change Institute, Oxford.
354
Energy Policy 108 (2017) 344–354
Darby, S., 2008a. Energy feedback in buildings: improving the infrastructure for demand
reduction. Build. Res. Inf. 36, 499–508.
Darby, S., 2008b. Why, What, When, How, Where and Who? Developing UK Policy on
Metering, Billing and Energy Display Devices., 2008 ACEEE Summer Study on
Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Pacific Grove, CA, pp. 7-70-77-81.
Darby, S., 2010. Smart metering: what potential for householder engagement? Build.
Res. Inf. 38, 442–457.
Drangert, J.O., Krantz, H., 2002. Hammarby Sjöstad - residents’ environmental
perceptions and realities (in Swedish). VATTEN 58:89-95. Lund 2002.
Drangert, J.O., Klockner, A., Nors, L., 2005. På väg mot en hållbar stad. (Towards a
sustainable city - perceived and measured impacts by environmental interventions in
Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm). VA-Forsk Report 2005-08. Svenskt Vatten AB.
Stockholm.
Ellegård, K., 1999. A time-geographical approach to the study of everyday life of
individuals - a challenge of complexity. GeoJournal 48, 167–175.
Ellegård, K., Wihlborg, E. (Eds.), 2001. Fånga vardagen. Ett tvärvetenskapligt perspektiv.
Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Energimyndigheten, 2009. Mätning av kall- och varmvattenanvändning i 44 hushåll.
Energimyndigheten, Eskilstuna.
Energimyndigheten, 2012. Vattenanvändning i hushåll. Med schabloner och mätningar i
fokus. Energimyndigheten, Eskilstuna.
EU, 2012. Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25
October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/
EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC, L 315/1. Official Journal
of the European Union, L 315/1.
Glad, W., 2008. Individuell mätning – mjuk reglering för minskad energianvändning i
hyreslägenheter. In: Palm, J., Ellegård, K. (Eds.), Vardagsteknik: Energi och IT.
Forskning om hållbar användning av samhällets IT- och energisystem.
Glad, W., 2012. Housing renovation and energy systems: the need for social learning.
Build. Res. Inf. 40, 274–289.
Hargreaves, T., Nye, M., Burgess, J., 2010. Making energy visible: a qualitative field study
of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. Energy
Policy 38, 6111–6119.
Hargreaves, T., Nye, M., Burgess, J., 2013. Keeping energy visible? Exploring how
householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors in the longer term.
Energy Policy 52, 126–134.
Hiller, C., 2012. Influence of residents on energy use in 57 Swedish houses measured
during four winter days. Energy Build. 54, 376–385.
Hjerpe, M., 2005. Sustainable development and urban water management: linking theory
and practice of economic criteria, department of water and environmental studies.
Linköping university, Linköping.
Hägerstrand, T., 1985. Time-geography: focus on the corporeality of man, society, and
environment., The science and praxis of complexity. The United Nations University,
New York, 193–216.
Krantz, H., 2005. Matter that matters. A study of household routines in a process of
changing water and sanitation arrangements. The Tema Institute; Water and
Environmental Studies. Linköping University, Linköping.
Krantz, H., 2006. Household routines–a time-space issue: a theoretical approach applied
on the case of water and sanitation. Appl. Geogr. 26, 227–241.
Krantz, H., 2012. Water systems meeting everyday life: a conceptual model of household
use of urban water and sanitation systems. Public Works Manag. Policy 17, 103–119.
Mangold, M., Morrison, G., Harder, R., Hagbert, P., Rauch, S., 2014. The transformative
effect of the introduction of water volumetric billing in a disadvantaged housing area
in Sweden. Water Policy 16, 973.
Rajala, R., Katko, T., 2004. Household water consumption and demand management in
Finland. Urban Water J. 1 (1), 17–26.
SCB, 2014. Antal lägenheter enligt lägenhetsregistret. 〈http://www.scb.se/sv_/Hitta-
statistik/Statistik-efter-amne/Boende-byggande-och-bebyggelse/Bostadsbyggande-
och-ombyggnad/Bostadsbestand/87469/87476/Behallare-for-Press/374838/〉.
Retrieved 2017-01-04.
SCB, 2016a. Statistikdatabasen. Retrieved 2017-01-04.
SCB, 2016b. Konsumentprisindex, 〈http://www.scb.se/sv_/Hitta-statistik/Statistik-
efter-amne/Priser-och-konsumtion/Konsumentprisindex/Konsumentprisindex-
KPI/33772/33779/Konsumentprisindex-KPI/272151/#〉, Retrieved2016-06-21.
Shove, E., 2003. Comfort, cleanliness and convenience. The social organization of
normality. Berg, Oxford.
Sochacka, N., Jolly, L., Kavanagh, L., 2009. A realistic evaluation of universal water
metering in the United Kingdom's South East Environmental Research Event 2009.
Noosa Heads, Queensland.
Sofoulis, Z., Williams, C., 2008. From pushing atoms to growing networks: cultural
innovation and co-evolution in urban water conservation. Social. Altern. 27, 50–57.
SOU, 2008. SOU 2008:110 Vägen till ett energieffektivare Sverige. Fritzes, Stockholm.
Strengers, Y., 2009. Bridging the divide between resource management and everyday life.
Smart metering, comfort and cleanliness. RMIT University, Melbourne, 288.
Strengers, Y., 2011a. Beyond demand management: co-managing energy and water
practices with Australian households. Policy Stud. 32, 35–58.
Strengers, Y., 2011b. Negotiating everyday life: the role of energy and water consumption
feedback. J. Consum. Cult. 11, 319–338.
Svensk fjärrvärme, 2015. Värmerapporten 2015. Svensk fjärrvärme, Stockholm.
SWWA, 2015. Fakta om dricksvatten. Svenskt vatten.
Sønderlund, A.L., Smith, J.R., Hutton, C., Kapelan, Z., 2014. Using smart meters for
household water consumption feedback: knowns and unknowns. Procedia Eng. 89,
990–997.
van Dam, S.S., Bakker, C.A., van Hal, J.D.M., 2010. Home energy monitors: impact over
the medium-term. Build. Res. Inf. 38, 458–469.