This article was downloaded by: [University of Sheffield]On: 20 August 2015, At: 02:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,London, SW1P 1WG

Click for updates

Annals of the Association of American GeographersPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raag20

Cold Comfort? Reconceiving the Practices of Bathing inBritish Self-Build Eco-HomesJenny Pickerillaa Department of Geography, University of SheffieldPublished online: 18 Aug 2015.

To cite this article: Jenny Pickerill (2015): Cold Comfort? Reconceiving the Practices of Bathing in British Self-Build Eco-Homes, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, DOI: 10.1080/00045608.2015.1060880

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2015.1060880

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained inthe publications on our platform. Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Versionsof published Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open articles and Taylor & Francis and Routledge Open Selectarticles posted to institutional or subject repositories or any other third-party website are without warrantyfrom Taylor & Francis of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties ofmerchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement. Any opinions and views expressed in thisarticle are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor & Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Terms & Conditions of access anduse can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions It is essential that you check the license status of any given Open and Open Select article to confirmconditions of access and use.

Cold Comfort? Reconceiving the Practices of Bathingin British Self-Build Eco-Homes

Jenny Pickerill

Department of Geography, University of Sheffield

Living sustainably involves a broad spectrum of practices, from relying on a technological fix to a deepgreen vision. The latter is often articulated by advocates and critics alike as involving shifting to a sim-pler lifestyle that dispenses with some of the (perceived) frivolous or environmentally damaging attach-ments to luxury or convenience. This article explores practices of reconceiving comfort in the context ofthe social and material architectures of eco-housing. Comfort is defined as an ongoing process, a negotia-tion between different elements (e.g., climate, materials and bodies) in a particular place. This articleuses three case studies of self-built eco-communities in Britain (Green Hills, Landmatters, and TinkersBubble) and analyzes their bathrooms and bathing practices. In the eco-communities’ bathing practices,comfort was reconceived as not being reliant on particular facilities, furniture, or temperature, as not pri-vate but as collective and shared, and as an embodied relation. This article demonstrates the relationalityof comfort, how it is therefore possible to reconceive comfort, and how comfort can be understood as apractice. This focus on practices also challenges social practice theories to more purposefully engage withthose already living a highly ecological lifestyle to understand how radical change is navigated. KeyWords: bathrooms, comfort, eco-housing, ecological architecture, sustainability.

可持续地生活，涉及从倚赖技术修补到深绿愿景等广泛范围的实践。倡议者和相关评论者，经常将后者

与转向更简单的生活方式相互连结，该生活方式省略部分（被认为的）关乎奢华或便捷的琐碎浪费、或对环境造成伤害的行为。本文探索在生态住宅的社会和物质建筑脉络中再思考舒适之实践。舒适定义为一个持续进行的过程；一种在特定地点中、在不同元素（例如气候、物质与身体）之间的协商。本文运用英国三个自建生态住宅的案例研究（分别名为 Green Hills，Landmatters，以及 Tinkers Bubble），并分析它们的浴室及沐浴行为。在生态社区的沐浴行为中，舒适被再思考为不依赖特定器设施、傢俱或气

温，亦非私人的，而是集体分享的，且为一种身体化的关係。本文显示舒适的相关性、舒适因而如何可能被再思考、以及舒适如何可被理解为一种实践。此般聚焦实践，亦挑战了社会实践理论，以更坚定地涉入这些已经过着高度生态生活方式的人们，从而理解如何通过激进的变革。 关键词： 浴室，舒适，生态住宅，生态建筑，可持续性。

Vivir de manera sustentable involucra un amplio espectro de pr�acticas, desde depender de un esquema tec-nol�ogico hasta una visi�on de profundo verdor. Lo segundo a menudo es articulado tanto por defensores comocr�ıticos como si implicase el tornar hacia un estilo de vida m�as simple que deje de lado algunos de los accesoriosfr�ıvolos (percibidos) o ambientalmente da~ninos, de lujo o conveniencia. Este art�ıculo explora las pr�acticas devolver a concebir la comodidad en el contexto de las arquitecturas sociales y materiales de la eco-vivienda. Lacomodidad se define como un proceso en desarrollo, una negociaci�on entre diferentes elementos (e.g., clima,materiales y cuerpos) de un lugar en particular. En el art�ıculo se utilizan tres estudios de caso de eco-comuni-dades autoconstruidas en Gran Breta~na (Green Hills, Landmatters y Tinker Bubble) y se analizan sus cuartosde ba~no y pr�acticas de ba~no. En las pr�acticas de ba~no de las eco-comunidades, la comodidad fue replanteadacomo si no estuviese supeditada a instalaciones, mobiliario o temperatura particulares, no como privadas sinocolectivas y compartidas, y como una relaci�on personificada. Este art�ıculo demuestra la relacionalidad de lacomodidad, por consiguiente c�omo es posible reformular la comodidad y c�omo la comodidad puede ser enten-dida como una pr�actica. Este enfoque sobre pr�acticas tambi�en reta las teor�ıas de pr�acticas sociales a un compro-miso m�as orientado hacia prop�ositos con quienes ya viven un estilo de vida altamente ecol�ogico, para entenderc�omo se navega por el cambio radical. Palabras clave: ba~nos, comodidad, eco-vivienda, arquitectura ecol�ogica,sostenibilidad.

Copyright � J. PickerillThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), whichpermits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The moral rights of the named author have beenasserted.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 0(0) 2015, pp. 1–17Initial submission, November 2012; revised submissions, May and December 2014, January 2015; final acceptance, March 2015

Published with license by Taylor & Francis, LLC.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

Deep green sustainable living is often associatedwith foregoing many elements of contemporarylife (Dobson 2007). There is an enduring per-

ception that to be environmentally sustainablerequires foregoing elements of comfort, convenience,and to a lesser extent cleanliness (Shove 2003). Thisperception of foregoing is problematic for mobilizingbroader environmental practices. Comfort is a particu-larly interesting concept because it is both hard todefine and simultaneously perceived as being a crucialelement of places such as a home (Rybczynski 1988).Comfort is neither an attribute of a material nor a uni-versally agreed specific and measurable moment (e.g.,a temperature). Instead it is an ongoing process, anegotiation between different elements (e.g., climate,materials, and bodies) in a particular place.

This article explores the tensions between com-fort and sustainable living. Using self-built eco-homes in Britain, particularly the design of bath-rooms and practices of bathing, it critically analyzeshow self-builders are redefining and reconceivingcomfort. By examining how self-builders havedesigned and constructed their homes, it is possibleto examine what practices they believe constitute asustainable lifestyle. This article starts with a puzzle:self-built eco-homes in Britain often lack a bath-room and conventional bathing facilities, yet self-built eco-homes visited in the United States, Spain,Thailand, and Argentina often prioritized buildingbathrooms and frequently housed luxuriously deco-rated facilities. Rather than conducting a cross-cultural analysis between these countries (and theirdiverse histories of bathing), this article uses thisfieldwork observation as a starting point from whichto critically explore the bathing practices of threeBritish case studies (the eco-communities of GreenHills, Landmatters, and Tinkers Bubble).

This article builds on the long-standing concernwith sustainability practices but in so doing incorpo-rates the “already green” and more politically radicalexamples in a bid to push the field to look further forinnovation and inspiration (Pickerill and Maxey2009). It uses a specifically distinct group of thosealready living a highly ecological lifestyle to criticallyanalyze how comfort is practiced and experienced.Much work has been done on how comfort is con-ceived conventionally by society (especially by Shove[2003] and Shove, Chappells, and Lutzenhiser [2009]),but unless we explore how it could be reconceived wemiss a vital part of the story.

This search for hopeful practices is necessary for twooverlapping reasons. First, there is a need to under-stand what the alternative possibilities actually are,and many of these alternatives are rooted in grassrootsinnovations in eco-communities (Seyfang and Smith2007). These pockets of alternative ways of beingoften connect and have influence far beyond theirapparent remit, however small-scale or marginal theymight appear. It can be in the off-grid alternativespaces of eco-communities that these alternatives gettested and the full ramifications of, in the case of Van-nini and Taggart’s (forthcoming) work, the collection,conservation, and disposal of water and consequentpractices of “onerous consumption” (p. 1) becomeclear. They are test beds for innovative ideas. Second,these innovations and new practices are rarely unprob-lematic, engaging in processes of experimentation,learning, and making mistakes: processes from whichwe in turn can learn valuable lessons (Gibson-Graham2006). The challenges that residents encounter indeveloping these practices and how they overcomethese problems are likely representative of many of theissues that others would also face in implementingmore sustainable practices. Some of the institutionaland structural barriers to sustainable practices in, forexample, eco-housing, are already understood (Lovell2008; Rogers 2010; Faulconbridge 2013), but there isfar less work on how to overcome, challenge, andnegotiate these challenges.

Eco-housing is used as an object in this article,through which different practices and processes can beexplored. By focusing on practices in the home andpractices of building a home, the interplay anddynamic relation between people and the structure ofa house can be explored and understood. The analysisof eco-housing has been largely ignored by geogra-phers, leaving it to architects and engineers to design,test, and evaluate their potential. A geographical per-spective adds a grounded concern not just with occu-pant behavior (already central to many architecturalapproaches) but with practices; it enables a politicalreading of the processes of eco-housing; creates spacefor analysis of feelings, emotions, and attachments;and thus enables a more holistic (and multiscalar)understanding of the interplay among people, society,and structures (Kraftl 2010; Jacobs and Merriman2011; Vasudevan 2011; Chatterton 2013). Few placesoffer geographers such opportunity to interrogate aspace so laden and imbued with so many meanings,while also offering individuals possibilities for self-

2 Pickerill

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

expression and the ability to change the physical aswell as the social structure.

As this article builds on the extensive geographiesof home, architecture, and sustainability literatures, itseeks to make contributions to two dimensions of thesefields: environmentally sustainable practices and con-cepts of comfort. First, in recent years, a large body ofwork has emerged that has examined the potential,possibility, and existence of environmentally sustain-able practices. Much of this work has examined theutility and effectiveness of government strategies inencouraging environmentally sustainable behaviorchange in mainstream society (see Barr and Gilg 2006;Cupples and Ridley 2008; Barr, Gilg, and Shaw 2011,as some examples of such work). This rather unidirec-tional approach has been challenged, however, bysocial practice theory (Shove, Pantzar, and Watson2012). Building on the work of Shove (2003), Reck-witz (2002), and Warde (2005), social practice theoryinvestigates how a diverse set of influences (socialnorms, commercial intent, and government structures)shapes practices. Although Hobson (2006) alsoexplored the productivity of advocating eco-efficienttechnologies encouraged by a government program,she illustrated how their use shifted users’ relationstoward a broader environmental ethic. In other words,the adoption of these technologies had caused users toask questions of their other practices.

Although social practice approaches have tended tofocus on those in mainstream society, there is increas-ing interest in those living an already environmentallysustainable lifestyle. The works of Black and Cherrier(2010), Vannini and Taggart (2013), and Lane andGorman-Murray (2011) signals a shift toward under-standing the motivations and desires of those who arealready “green.” This article extends this work byexplicitly extending social practice theory into therealm of deep green sustainable practices.

Second, geographers have sought to reconceive thenotion of comfort. Bissell (2008) proposed that weneed a more corporeal sensibility of comfort, in hiscase exploring the comfort of the sedentary body.Others, such as Brickell (2012), have challenged theassumed associations between comfort and domesticityand between home and comfort. As such, this articledisassociates comfort from femininity, care, or home asbeing implicit and instead explores how comfort isitself created (or not). As discussed in detail later,comfort is a complex and relational concept but hasrarely been considered in relation to environmentallysustainable practices.

Bathrooms enable us to explore the complex relation-ships among personal habits, use of resources, and com-fort. The function and form of a bathroom have changedconsiderably over the centuries. The contemporary Brit-ish bathroom is now conceived of as a space of privacywhere multiple activities take place (cleaning, washing,relaxing), and the privacy increases the emphasis oncomfort rather than convenience or cleanliness. More-over, bathrooms are an ideal microcosm of social practicewhere the prefigurative actions of those advocating anecotopia clash with the increasingly environmentallydamaging practices of society at large.

The three case studies used in this article (GreenHills, Landmatters, and Tinkers Bubble) were chosenbecause they are all communities (with multiplehouses and land-based income projects on collectivelyowned sites), they are deeply ecological (all aim toradically minimize their environmental impact, withTinkers Bubble rejecting use of all fossil fuels), theyself-built their housing from a variety of locallysourced materials (e.g., straw bale, reclaimed tires,earth, wood, and thatch), and they had different bath-room facilities.

These case studies, and the examples drawn on fromThailand, Spain, the United States, and Argentina, arepart of a larger research project conducted by the authorinto thirty affordable eco-housing communities since2010 (Pickerill 2011). A participatory action researchapproach was taken and was driven by requests from eco-builders to garner greater political and social support for,and understanding of, their projects. These requestsemerged during an earlier research project into actualexisting alternatives to capitalism where the authorworked with the new eco-village of Tir y Gafel in westWales. Tir y Gafel faced significant local and politicalopposition to their plans and struggled to communicatetheir intent in ways that their neighbors could under-stand. These experiences led to eco-village residents ask-ing for help in navigating this gulf of understandingabout the purpose of eco-housing and sustainable practi-ces. The extent of participation varied significantlybetween case studies. When possible, the author joinedin activities on-site such as building, gardening, scything,cooking, and eating communally; engaging in groupmeetings; socializing; and staying on site for several daysor more. Such engaged participation was possible atTinkers Bubble (Somerset) and Green Hills (Scotland).Green Hills is a pseudonym and its location has beenmoved to protect residents’ privacy. My visit to Land-matters (Devon) was limited to a day, an interview, anda tour of the site. Nine face-to-face, in-depth interviews

Practices of Bathing in British Self-Build Eco-Homes 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

were conducted with members of the three case studies.At each case study, photographs, field diary observations,and sketches of the site were recorded.

Comfort

Comfort is a vital component of what we expect ahome to provide and is core to the success, or percep-tion, of a house as home (Rybczynski 1988; Blunt andDowling 2006). As McCloud (2010) argued, “Comfortis the most civilizing aspect of design or architecture”(119), and for Rybczynski (1988), “We must redis-cover for ourselves the mystery of comfort, for withoutit, our dwellings will indeed be machines instead ofhomes” (232). Defining what this comfort entails, andhow it is to be achieved, though, is fraught with diffi-culty (Bissell 2008).

It is only in recent years that comfort shifted frombeing a relation (about, e.g., consoling someonethrough bereavement) to being about things (in thatmaterials can give comfort), of which the sense ofphysical comfort began to predominate (Crowley1999). As Crowley (1999) noted, ‘“Comfort’ increas-ingly applied to a middle ground between necessityand luxury” (760) and over time has become normal-ized as an entitlement. As this shift defined comfort as“to do with things, conditions and circumstances”(Shove 2003, 24), it became a state that was consid-ered an attribute of such materiality, rather than some-thing to be achieved, which Shove argued is a moreaccurate understanding of its form. This is furthercomplicated by the reality that “people seem torespond more to their ideas about comfort than to theiractual physical experience of it” (Cranz 1998, 113).

If comfort is considered an attribute, an entitlement,and separated from what is medically healthy, then thisenables the notion of comfort to be shaped by all sortsof people with different vested interests. Thus, scien-tists, industry, and government all played a part inshaping the idea that thermal comfort in a building wasoptimal only in a narrow technologically controlledtemperature range, or “comfort zone” (Shove 2003). Insummary, comfort became an attribute defined by thosewho benefited from selling the things necessary toensure it: it became a commodity, which in turn furthershaped people’s expectations of comfort need. Theseexpectations then traveled globally. The result is a bur-geoning worldwide industry in heating and coolingtechnologies, and comfort standards for houses that arehard to achieve without such technology.

There is a counter story to the preceding one, and itis led by advocates of ecological architecture. Hum-phreys (1978) developed an alternative model thatpersuasively showed that what people deem as a com-fortable temperature can vary dramatically with theexternal climate: people adapt to their local tempera-ture range, and thus comfort is determined through arelationship among climate, bodies, and culture. Sim-ply put, the comfort of a building can be determinedby its comfort temperature (Tc), calculated as the bal-ance between mean outdoor temperature and meanindoor temperature (Humphreys 1978; Roaf, Fuentes,and Thomas 2007). Thus,

The fundamental function of buildings is to provide safeand healthy shelter. For the fortunate they also providecomfort and delight. In the twentieth century comfortbecame a “product” produced by machines and run oncheap energy. In a world where fossil fuels are becomingever scarcer and more expensive, and the climate moreextreme, the challenge of designing comfortable build-ings today requires a new approach. (Nicol, Humphreys,and Roaf 2012, xiv)

The outcome of such an approach is to accept thatcomfort is a process, not an attribute, and thus weneed to build houses that enable people to negotiatecomfort through adjustment and adaptation (Coleet al. 2008). This opens the possibility of ecologicalarchitecture producing comfortable homes; not homeswith a guaranteed narrow comfort zone but homesthat are flexible to occupy (Brown and Cole 2009).This understanding of comfort, however, does requirechallenging people’s expectations (now normalized) ofwhat thermal comfort is. In part this includes encour-aging people to enjoy the contrasts and changes intemperature around a house, what Roaf, Fuentes, andThomas (2007) called “thermal delight”; “comfort canbe seen simply as the absence of discomfort but ther-mal delight makes people happier” (319); for example,the joy of a fresh breeze through an open window orthe sun heating our toes. This has been developed intothe RayMan model that calculates thermal comforttaking account of people’s thermal sensations (Matzar-akis, Rutz, and Mayer 2010). It also extends to individ-ual behavior, such as the need to wear a sweater insideduring winter (Fordham 2000). In addition, comforthas increasingly been dominated by a concern withthermal comfort (and the related issues of air flow andventilation), precluding understanding of its broadermeaning and implications (Cooper 1982; Healy andClinch 2002; Wong et al. 2002; Peeters et al. 2009).

4 Pickerill

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

In this context, the corporeal experience of comfortremains important. A social practice approach rejectsthe physiological method of measuring comfortthrough scientific analysis of human biology alone. Yetthe body (and embodiment) remains an importantdeterminant of comfort, not just in terms of tempera-ture but in washing, our bodily functions, our health,and our senses (Longhurst 2001). The embodied rela-tion of comfort, how a body “gets comfortable,” butalso the sensibility of comfort through the body can beunderstood as how “corporeal comfort is an embodiedcontingency forged between the body and the proxi-mate environment” (Bissell 2008, 1703).

Pink (2004) detailed the sensory embodied joy ofthe smell of a clean house, as one of her intervieweesargued, “You’re much more comfortable in a clean andtidy house” (Ana, quoted by Pink 2004, 91). Day(2002) also asserted the importance of the senses inhow we feel about a house: “The senses tell us aboutwhat is important in our surroundings; mostly, weexperience things through the outer senses; sight,smell, taste, sound, warmth, touch. Architecture inthe sense of environmental design is the art of nourish-ing these senses” (49). Our senses thus inform our feel-ing of comfort. Rybczynski (1988) extended thisfurther to include “feelings” of ease and relaxation.Comfort is closely related to feelings of “homeyness”that are shaped by people’s sense of flow in a house;thus, “flow was both a visual and whole-of-body expe-rience that gave rise to feelings of homeyness througha sense of freedom, mobility and comfort” (Dowlingand Power 2011, 83). Thus, homeyness is comfortingand is created through embodied relations with mate-rialities of the house. These practices of homeynessunderpin possibilities of sustainability.

Thus, the concept of comfort needs to beextended to include bodily comfort, without resort-ing to the discredited physiological approach, toenable a better examination of the relationshipamong our bodies, comfort, and our environmentalpractices. In this way, comfort is defined in thisarticle as an ongoing process of negotiation usingmaterials, habits, and practices but also includeshow one feels, senses, and delights.

In this definition, the importance of practices tohow comfort is understood is central. It is throughsocial practices that the different influences—materi-als, social norms, government structures, and commer-cial aims—are navigated. Practices are considered asroutine and habitual and a way of understanding theimplicit choices people make every day. Although

implicit, rather than explicit and conspicuous forms ofconsumption (e.g., flying), the environmental conse-quences of these repeated practices can have signifi-cant environmental impacts. Yet precisely becausethey are habitual and inconspicuous, such as the every-day seeking of comfort, they can be hard to challengeand change. Understanding how eco-community resi-dents have changed their environmental practicesaround comfort offers the possibility of encouragingothers to change their practices, too.

Bathrooms as Spaces of Comfort

Like many other aspects of our homes, bathroomsare complicated and specialized spaces. As Hardyment(1992) detailed, their function, form, and place in ahome has evolved dramatically over the centuries (seealso Bushman and Bushman 1988; Adams 1992). It isnot a linear progression but, rather, discourses haveemerged as a result of a myriad of influences (socialnorms, commercial interest, government regulation)to produce habits that we now consider normal (Shove2003). These habits continue to evolve. We use bath-rooms to satisfy multiple demands—cleanliness,health, comfort, and convenience (Shove 2009).

At one stage, bathrooms were considered as anindex of civilization and were a crucial part of the pro-cess of social acceptance. At other times, immersingoneself in water was considered highly dangerous andled to the “dirty centuries” in Britain between 1500and 1750 (Worsley 2011). It only returned through amixture of religious and medical encouragement, buteven then cold water washing was perceived as safest.Plumbed-in baths only appeared in the wealthiest ofBritish houses in the 1860s, but many remained with-out bathrooms into the mid-twentieth century. Thiswas not due to a lack of technology: systems of pipingwater (through aqueducts, cisterns, and reservoirs) andrainwater harvesting had existed in Britain since themedieval era (Hardyment 1992).

Bathrooms have been shaped far more by culturalpractices than technological innovation; for example,the British bathhouses of the 1160s grew in responseto returning Crusaders’ stories of enjoyable Turkishpublic baths (Worsley 2011). Bathing used to be asocial affair and baths were communal, public, andmixed gender (Busch 1999). In Britain they onlybecame privatized and formed their own room in thehouse in the twentieth century and are now increas-ingly considered “a place for solitude and thought”(Busch 1999, 142). In other countries (e.g., Finland

Practices of Bathing in British Self-Build Eco-Homes 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

and Japan), bathing remains a communal practice.The bathroom is becoming more complex partlybecause people are demanding more of it: “Our bath-rooms are not primarily used for cleaning the body,but instead take the place of morning exercises, andare used for dressing, styling hair and applying make-up” (Salomon 2006, 28). Shove (2003, 108) catego-rized these different discourses of bathing intomoments of positioning in relation to self and society,body and nature, and pleasure and duty. For each ofthese positions Shove identifies three dimensions ofbathing: hydrotherapy and gentility; sanitation andsocial order; and comfort, convenience, and commodi-fication. Thus, for self and society bathing signalshigh social status (hydrotherapy and gentility),“membership of civilised society” (108; sanitation andsocial order), and is used to reflect a concern withimage and appearance (comfort, convenience, andcommodification).

Although bathrooms remain spaces of multipleactivities and satisfy multiple demands, they areincreasingly conceived of as spaces of comfort. For ahome space to provide this comfort, a bathroomneeds to become more than a container for cleaningfacilities. Recently, “the modern bathroom is depictedas a site of leisure and pleasure as well as efficiencyand convenience” (Shove 2003, 105). With this lei-sure comes increased resource use as people use show-ers as a form of relaxation (from stress), and it is onlyrelatively recently that we have begun to wash so fre-quently or have expectations that showering daily isnormal. This change in use has resulted in largeincreases in use of water and energy, and the trendfor power showers in particular is environmentallyworrying (Hand, Shove, and Southerton 2005; Shove2009; Shove, Chappells, and Lutzenhiser 2009),although as Berker and Josok Gansmo (2010) showed,increased attention to the aesthetics of bathroomsneed not necessarily result in increased consumptionof resources, because with careful design, aestheticfixes enable people to follow fashions while reducingconsumption.

In contemporary British bathrooms, renewed atten-tion is being paid to aesthetics, private access(ensuite), bigger spaces, individualized sinks, andlarger multijet showers (Hobson 2006). Simulta-neously, the commercial market for soaps, shampoos,shower gels, and in-shower products continues togrow. As a result, bathrooms are increasingly beingassociated with comfort, although as examined next,these relations vary between places and practices.

The Diverse Forms and CommonFunctions of Eco-Housing

Advocates of ecological architecture, a design andbuild process that has only recently started to receivemainstream recognition, have long argued for a closerconsideration of the inherent relationships amongpeople, buildings, environment, and climate (Borerand Harris 1998; Ward 2011). Modern conventionalarchitecture, evident across the world, often displays adissociation from its context and, as a result, has torely on energy-intensive technologies to operate (e.g.,heating, cooling, waste disposal, and water deliverysystems), with residents often being oblivious to howit functions. Instead, ecological architecture calls foran understanding of the peculiarities of place, materi-als, cultural context, climate, solar and wind patterns,people’s lifestyles and needs, and existing biodiversity.This can then be used to design a house that requiresfar less energy to both build and run. Most important,it is the interconnectedness of these features thatrequires attention and understanding (Wines 2000);thus,

A building is very different [to a machine] because,although it is true that it can be controlled by its occu-pants, the driving force that acts upon the building tocreate comfort and shelter is the climate and its weather,neither of which can be controlled, predicted or turnedon and off. . . . Buildings are part of a complex interac-tion between people, the buildings themselves, the cli-mate and the environment. (Roaf, Fuentes, and Thomas2007, 24)

In response to this plethora of factors that need tobe taken into consideration, there are a multitude oftypes and forms of eco-houses. The term can includezero- or low-carbon houses, low-impact developments,sustainable housing, green building, passive houses,zero-net energy housing, and energy-plus houses(Borer and Harris 1998; Roaf, Fuentes, and Thomas2007; Broome 2008; Pickerill and Maxey 2009;Pelsmakers 2012; Williams 2012). Here it is importantto distinguish between the function and the form ofeco-housing, as each of the preceding terms implies aslightly different emphasis of function and form. Thefunction refers to the intended outcome of a designchoice, whereas the form refers to the process by whichthat function is to be achieved. Thus, the forms of eco-housing vary enormously and include using highlytechnological systems or low-tech vernacular natural-build approaches to achieve the same function of

6 Pickerill

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

low-carbon housing. Although highly entwined, thefunction of eco-housing does not always determine itsform. Instead, there is a continuous evolution of archi-tectural and building practices aiming to improve theability of different forms of houses to achieve thesefunctions, resulting in a broad range of forms of eco-houses.

As the form of eco-housing is different from itsfunction, it is possible to identify certain commonali-ties as to what makes a house an eco-house, withoutpredisposing how that might be achieved. This open-ness to diversity is important because there is no agree-ment on the perfect way to build an eco-house.Indeed, “Sustainable construction strikes a balancebetween the potentially conflicting demands of the useof energy, other resources and ecology” (Broome 2008,18), and these conflicts result in diverse buildingapproaches. Thus, the common functions of an eco-house are for a building across its whole life cycle tominimize resource use (in materials, embodied energy,energy requirements, water use), minimize waste (inmaterials, space, energy, leakage), and maximize use ofrenewable energy (e.g., solar, wind, water) and renew-able materials (e.g., straw, sheep’s wool, wood, earth;see Bird 2010; Pickerill 2012; Williams 2012). Aneco-house minimizes resource use (in construction andlife cycle) while also providing a comfortable environ-ment in which to live.

For example, a zero-carbon house will achieve thesefunctions through the form of mainly technologicalfixes, including decarbonizing the energy supply,increasing the energy efficiency and performance ofthe building, and attempting to change householdbehavior (Williams 2012). Borer and Harris (1998)argued that “sustainable housing for the future must bedurable so that the energy invested . . . represents a pru-dent use of resources. It must also be flexible so that dif-ferent patterns of living can be accommodated” (6).Wines (2000) also argued for the importance of lowmaintenance and “cost-effective upkeep” (66).

This separation between function and form alsohelps explain some of the problems encountered byecological architecture; a focus on function can limiteco-houses “to checklists of moral responsibility andremedial action” (Wines 2000, 68), rather than abroader focus on the aesthetics, a theoretical context,or a concern with developing new ways of connectingeco-housing to its cultural and natural context. Afocus on materials and aesthetics, however, can pre-clude adequate consideration of required building per-formance in terms of durability, comfort, and energy

supply. Thus, there is a well-worn and unresolved ten-sion between those build approaches that employhighly technological systems and those approachesthat use low-tech materials that participants perceivedas being “natural.”

Comfortable Eco-Homes

The debate as to whether eco-houses can be as com-fortable, or might be more comfortable, than conven-tional buildings is complicated by the sheer diversityof eco-house forms. It is, of course, also bound up inthe ongoing debates as to what is comfort and comfort-able: a standardized homogenous temperature or thethermal delight of change (e.g., the growth of air con-ditioning is a reflection of the preference for homoge-neity; see Miller, Buys, and Bell 2012). Given thecentrality of comfort to people’s conception of ahome, however, it is unlikely that eco-house builderswould deliberately seek to create discomfort, which initself would undermine one of the principal purposesof a home. Rather, eco-house builders reconceive com-fort and seek to adjust its meaning.

Herein lies the dilemma: Many eco-buildersbelieve their houses provide more comfort, and yetaccording to the expectations of society as identifiedby Shove (2003), many would actually be consideredless comfortable than conventional buildings. Eco-builders might well believe that “sustainable homeswill provide greater comfort . . . provide healthy liv-ing environments” (Broome 2008, 18) or that theyare “safe, comfortable, healthy and functionalbuildings” (Association for Environmentally Con-scious Builders 2009). Eco-houses might well havemore even internal temperatures through well-balanced passive heating or careful choice of wallmaterials or plentiful hot water through solar ther-mal panels, but this does not mean that othersequate this with more comfort. For many, eco-hous-ing continues to be viewed as involving a loss ofcomfort (Sibley, Hes, and Martin 2003). Williams(2012) defined this comfort as requiring “a constant,ambient indoor temperature, hot water, fully func-tioning appliances and lighting . . . critical to thesuccess of eco-housing” (305). She went on to illus-trate how “the low carbon technical systems them-selves may have a negative impact on householdcomfort” (305) using, as examples, the intermittentenergy supply of renewable energy and problems ofinternal condensation, dampness, and mold in

Practices of Bathing in British Self-Build Eco-Homes 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

highly airtight houses. Indeed, solar thermal panelsstore heat during the day, making the most plentifultime for hot water in the evenings, not the morningswhen many people choose to shower. Moreover,eco-houses often require more maintenance andmanual operation (e.g., wood stove heating or man-ual ventilation systems, rather than automated air-conditioning or heating), to the extent that lowoccupancy can result in houses becoming too cold(Williams 2012). The manual effort required, espe-cially in the more self-built natural eco-houses, canbe quite extensive, with even the most ardent sup-porter finding the daily chores of collecting waterand wood difficult (Laughton 2008). Comfort hasalso become blurred with convenience; for example,it is not enough that a house has an average internaltemperature of 21�C but that this should be avail-able instantly and without manual effort. This con-flation means that convenient facilities (e.g., water,bathrooms, heat, refrigeration) become bound upwith comfort in new ways.

As Kraftl (2007) argued, ecotopias are alreadydeeply unsettling for much of mainstream society.Despite often containing a desire and vision of com-fort, safety, and homeyness, utopias (and the eco-houses envisioned within them) often nonethelesschallenge the societal order. Kraftl urged us to furtherconsider that some utopias might actively seek discom-fort in the process of achieving their vision, thus “themechanism to achieve many political utopias is com-monly unsettling, yet the end goal—although it mightcause political discomfort—is essentially a compensa-tory, comforting, stable version of the ‘good life’”(122). Thus, what might appeal to environmentalists(or what Kraftl termed “those inside”) as a homely,comforting, and earthy way of life might to the rest ofsociety be deeply unsettling.

Interpreted in a rather simple way, although the eco-housing as built by British eco-communities mightappeal as comforting and homely to residents, it doesnot to “those ‘outside’ such communities” (Kraftl 2007,123). This was perhaps best summarized by Kraftl(2007) when he argued that “often this involves a com-forting return to the materiality and imagery of nature,housed in ‘green buildings’ which phenomenologicallyconnect with the earth and the memory in a form ofhomely, perhaps ‘originary’ dwelling” (123).

This conflicting relationship between eco-homesand comfort is indicative of the broader tensionbetween comfort and sustainable living. The extent towhich sustainable alternatives (e.g., eco-housing)

should challenge conventional ways of living orinstead seek to make conventional ways simply moreefficient lies at the center of the environmentaldilemma. Conventional expectations of comfort need,to some extent, to be assuaged to appeal to mainstreamsociety. Advocating environmentally sustainable prac-tices, however, is in large part about reconceptualizingwhat needs it is desirable to meet and what needs aretoo environmentally costly. This involves challengingthe social conventions and expectations of comfort.Thus understandings of comfort are central to explor-ing eco-housing. How eco-builders negotiate the bal-ance of conforming to existing expectations whilechallenging the same perception of comfort providesan insight into this dilemma.

Bathrooms and Bathing Practices

Answering the question of what a bathroom is, whatbathing practices constitute, and what facilities arerequired to undertake the practices is the first steptoward understanding how the eco-community resi-dents reconceived the practices of bathing. Thearrangement at each of the case studies differs and sug-gests different solutions to the issues of water supplyand energy to heat water. As explored in the followingsection, this article uses an examination of practices asa way to understand how comfort was reconceived,rather than the verbalization of what residents consid-ered as comfort. Indeed, it was the absence of consider-ation of comfort in Britain compared to overseasexamples that was the starting point of this research.

Green Hills

Green Hills is a small eco-community in Scotland(its actual location has been protected at the requestof the residents) that makes its living from running acommunity-supported agriculture scheme wherebythey sell weekly vegetable boxes of home-grownorganic food. They have built an oak-framed straw-bale home in the woods and have recently startedbuilding an earth-sheltered house with earth-filledtires as its back insulating wall. There are also a fewother structures on the land such as a yurt and a can-vas-covered tunnel. Green Hills is completely off-grid,generating all of its electricity from photovoltaic pan-els and a small wind turbine.

At Green Hills there is no separate bathroom on-site, and over time different systems and spaces have

8 Pickerill

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

been used to accommodate the functionality of theroom. A separate compost toilet is positioned awayfrom the main house, at one time located in a strawbale hut and at a later stage moved into a tarpaulin-covered bender. There is no main water supply to thesite. Residents initially used river water boiled on gasfor washing up and bathing and tap water brought on-site in 25-L containers for drinking and cooking. Theynow have a well on site supplying them with clean,drinkable water and rainwater collection systems thatresidents use for washing up and bathing.

In our ten years of being here we have never had a bath-room, bath, or shower system. One day maybe. Insteadour primary means to wash is simply the bucket wash. . . .This involves using a trug placed on a towel typically inour bedroom. There is an order to which bits you wash!Face first, arse last! . . . We also dip in the river on a hotday. (Will, Green Hills)

There are no bath or shower facilities on site, sotheir primary means to wash is simply the bucketwash. Rainwater is heated in kettles either on the gas-fed cooker or the wood-burning aga (depending on thetime of the year; see Figure 1).

Landmatters

Landmatters is a 42-acre eco-community in Devon(near Totnes). The land was bought collectively bythe Landmatters cooperative, and when the residentscame together over the purchase of the land it became

clear that the common factor and core principle waspermaculture. Thus, they have used permaculture tostructure how they have built their houses around theedge of a purposefully designed village green and howthey grow their food. Part of their remit is in experi-menting in, and proving, what could be done withminimal impact.

In terms of housing, all buildings are temporarybecause that was a condition of the planning permis-sion. The homes are situated at the top of the hill onthe site, which means that they are able to benefitfrom passive solar gain, photovoltaic panels, and windturbines. There are currently twelve adults and fivechildren living on-site.

Landmatters residents have spread the function-ality of their bathrooms across the site. Unlike con-ventional homes, the toilet is across a field and thewater supply point is in the other direction: “Allthat you need for our house is not in one place, thecompost toilet is down behind us in that field, andour water is over the other side of the field in theother direction” (Josh, Landmatters). Water comesfrom a 300-foot borehole that provides all of thedrinking water and is extracted using a donateddeep-bore hand pump. Water for everything elsecomes from rainwater harvesting. There are twocompost toilet blocks onsite (Figure 2). Outsideeach there is a sink with a tap running from a rain-water tank, soap, and a storage cupboard. Sewage iscollected in big plastic drums that are thenwinched out and rotated.

Figure 1. Kitchen at Green Hills. (Color figure available online.)

Practices of Bathing in British Self-Build Eco-Homes 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

On the other side of the residential area, a bath-house has been under construction since 2009. Arobust construction of new wooden planks and linedwith ply, it has a see-through plastic corrugated roofto help light penetrate. Inside there are several differ-ent rooms—a clothes washing space, and separateshower rooms (Figure 3). The bathhouse has been ajourney of experimentation for those at Landmattersand they have run into reliability issues with the solar

water heater, which has variously worked and thenfailed. A particularly cold winter burst the pipes;these problems have persisted and the bathhouseremains incomplete.

Tinkers Bubble

Finally, Tinkers Bubble in Somerset is a long-stand-ing eco-community. Established in 1994 near Little

Figure 3. The bathhouse at Landmatters, Devon. (Color figure available online.)

Figure 2. Compost toilets at Landmatters, Devon: (A) Inside the compost toilet and (B) the outside and hand basin. (Color figure availableonline.)

10 Pickerill

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

Norton, the residents manage forty acres without theuse of fossil fuels or internal combustion engines; “theaim of the community’s 16 residents is to derive theirlivelihoods from the sustainable management of theland and its resources” (Laughton 2008, 145) andgoods are moved around site using a horse and cart.They had a long battle for planning permission but arenow a legal and established site (although with restric-tions as to what they can build).

The houses at Tinkers Bubble are at the top of asteep hill, deep in a Douglas fir woodland. They haveseveral photovoltaic panels and a wind generator toprovide for all their electricity needs. There is anabundance of wood on site, and this is used as fuel forspace and water heating and all cooking.

All water is sourced from a local spring and is fedinto the communal building where it is used in thebathhouse and kitchen. The only water points on-siteare in the communal kitchen area, so residents have tocarry what they need to their individual dwellings.Toilets are all compost and their waste is collectedbelow the toilet seats; water is not required for theirfunctioning. The community has one of the moreadvanced communal bathhouses (see Figure 4). A sep-arate wooden building, it has a bath and a wood-firedstove. Members of the community book in to use thebath (one allowed a day among the whole community)using the blackboard by the door. They then light thestove, wait for the water tank above it to heat up, andhave a bath.

More Than a Resource Issue

The facilities and practices of these three case stud-ies are summarized in Table 1. It is illustrative at thispoint to briefly compare these bathroom facilities withthose provided by some of the international examples.Eco-communities visited in Spain, Thailand, Argen-tina, and the United States had prioritized the impor-tance of building functioning bathrooms with hotwater—using solar power or propane gas. Often thebathroom was the first building to be finished, andmany had large (albeit shared) shower areas, basins,baths, and drying space. For example, as shown inFigure 5, Panya Project (Thailand) had a large showerblock (divided by gender) with two showers in eachsection, a sink, mirror, storage unit, and bench.Although open to the elements, it was decorated withmosaics (a time-consuming method) and water wassupplied through rainwater collection. Earthships atTaos all had private bathrooms with showers fed hotwater via solar panels, and at El Valle de Sensaciones(Spain) there was a Gaudi inspired-shower and toiletblock, tall and slender hemp concrete blocks withcurved roofs, and entire external walls of mosaics. Thebath at the Lama Foundation was a large mosaic com-munal space with a ceiling of hanging plants.

Key infrastructural components of bathrooms arewater supply and a source of energy (mainly for waterheating but also electricity for lights and other elec-trical appliances). In the overseas examples, a great

Figure 4. Bathhouse at Tinkers Bubble, Somerset. (Color figure available online.)

Practices of Bathing in British Self-Build Eco-Homes 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

deal of effort had gone into actively overcoming thelimited availability of water and energy. Some briefexamples include the development of complex triplereuse water systems in Earthships (United States) andbuying water as truck shipments at Panya Project(Thailand). The reliance on spring water systems atLama Foundation (United States) and La EcoaldeaDel Minchal (Spain) meant that rainwater was notharvested, but it still required connecting miles of

black water pipe to the nearest spring. Energy supplytended to be solar or propane. In Spain, in the eco-communities, solar panels were the primary source.Most places did not have many panels and althoughsome struggled to get a reliable supply (because theycould not afford good batteries), most had power allyear. At the Lama Foundation, because solar capacitywas limited, residents used propane gas to heat waterfor their showers.

Figure 5. Bathrooms at Panya Project (Thailand), Earthship Biotecture (United States), and El Valle de Sensaciones (Spain). (Color figureavailable online.)

Table 1. Communal bathroom facilities and practices at Green Hills, Landmatters, and Tinkers Bubble

Bathroom facilities and practices Green Hills Landmatters Tinkers Bubble

WaterMains running waterLocal water supply (spring, well, or borehole) * * *Rainwater collection * * *

Heat (energy)Solar water heater *Wood-fired water heater * * *Propane or gas water heater

FixturesSeparate bathroom * *Separate toilet room * * *Bath *Shower *Bucket wash * * *Flushing toiletCompost toilet * * *

12 Pickerill

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

These examples illustrate that eco-communitiesidentified creative ways to ensure that they had waterand energy supply to their bathrooms. Even those withplentiful water encountered other issues, such as poorsolar capacity or the ability to afford the necessarytechnological infrastructure, and others encounteredbarriers in building regulations.

Understanding how other eco-communities built theirinfrastructure for water and energy enables us to explorepotential resource reasons for its absence in British eco-communities. Given the similarity in resource problemsamong these nations and the similar availability of waterand energy resources, however, the resource perspectivedoes not in itself explain why British eco-communitiesactively deprioritized bathrooms. In other words, a lackof plumbing skills, the high cost of heating water, and alack of reliable water supply are all issues that other eco-communities put effort into resolving. They are notinsurmountable problems.

Challenging Bathroom Norms

In the case studies in Britain, bathrooms were oftenthe last to be built and were often unfinished. Feweco-houses had ready access to hot water or even run-ning water. Bathing at Green Hills and Landmatterswas limited to bucket washes in kitchen or bedroomspaces. In Britain, the functionality of a bathroom wasalso spatially dispersed, with the toilets often beinglocated far from washing facilities.

This challenge to bathroom norms is rooted in aknown British historical resistance to bathing facilitiesand to-be-expected environmental objections. As dis-cussed earlier, the British have never been renownedfor their bathrooms; indeed, even the wealthy did notoverly embrace their installation. In the 1890s, U.S.visitors were purportedly horrified at the primitivebathing facilities in Britain. It took the British severalyears to adopt the U.S.-invented shower and morethan sixty years to follow the U.S. trend for en suitebathrooms (Ierley 1999; Worsley 2011).

In terms of the environmental impact of bathing andbathrooms, the rejection of the need for high-flowshowers, chemical hair and skin care lotions, and theneed to wash daily also fits expected environmentalpractices. In each case study, electricity was generatedthrough solar and wind renewable systems, but it wasnot used for bathrooms; instead, it was directed to kitch-ens and living spaces. In other words, the ready adop-tion of photovoltaic panels undermines any suggestion

that a rejection of bathrooms was indicative of a broaderrejection of technology. Rather, that technology wasput to different, seemingly more important, uses.

For some, bathrooms were deliberately rejected infavor of discomfort. As Kraftl (2007) suggested, somein eco-communities actively seek discomfort in theprocess of achieving their end goal of an ecotopia: thevery mechanism required to achieve an ecotopia hasto be discomforting for both society at large and thoseinside such communities. It is both about sacrifice forthe environment and a way of showing themselves asbeing sufficiently dedicated to their cause. There wereelements of this sacrificial approach at Tinkers Bubbleand Landmatters.

For the majority of interviewees in the case studies,however, their approach to bathrooms was not a rejec-tion of comfort (and consequent embracement of dis-comfort) but, rather, an attempt to reconfigure what abathroom and comfort were. Returning to the question“What is a bathroom?” there is a clear disjuncturebetween what those in the case studies understood abathroom to be and do and conventional demands ona bathroom. This reconceiving of comfort sought toreject the association between comfort and privacy,bathrooms, and homogenous temperatures and insteadreconfigure comfort as being about cleanliness, shar-ing, bodies, and thermal delight. This does not rejectall understandings of comfort but instead seeks toreconceive some of them into more environmentallysustainable practices.

Comfort Is Cleanliness

For eco-communities, a bathroom was primarily aspace (not even a room) where one could wash his orher body. Hence, it was not necessary to have a sepa-rate dedicated space as long as the ability to washexisted. This approach challenges the normalized rela-tionship between bathrooms and cleanliness. It is per-fectly possible to remain clean by using a bowl ofwater and thus a lack of a bathroom does not imply alack of cleanliness. That said, these eco-communitiesdid challenge the notion that daily full-body washeswere necessary by washing on average weekly ratherthan daily. This in itself serves to reconceive bodilycomfort as not requiring daily washing.

Comfort Is Collective

In the case studies, the bathing facilities were com-munal, not private; even when conducted in the

Practices of Bathing in British Self-Build Eco-Homes 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

private home, bathing was often practiced in thekitchen rather than the bedroom. Bathrooms werethus rarely private spaces; rather, they were shared,communal spaces that, although they could be usedprivately, were also used collectively. In other words,one bucket of water would be used for several familymembers and baths were shared. Bathrooms are usedfor relatively short periods of time and these casestudies illustrate that it is not necessary to have a pri-vate bathroom (especially the current trend for ensuite). Developing a commons for bathrooms, anethics of sharing, not only critiques the quest for pri-vacy but also criticizes the concept that comfortinvolves privacy and harks back to the days of com-munal bathhouses (Jarvis 2011). It is also a politicalact to accept that sharing bathroom space across awhole community (and thus well beyond the family)is sustainable and comfortable.

Comfort Is Embodied and Sensual

This more collective approach to bathing also ena-bles a more sensual approach to comfort. Comfortbecomes less about an individual bathing and moreabout the comfort of washing with others’ bodies andin washing others. Comfort becomes about not justhow one’s body feels but each body in relation toanother’s. Bathing also becomes about connectingwith nature. The simplicity of these bathing arrange-ments, the implications in terms of collecting, con-serving, heating, and disposing of water, and the needto go outside as part of the process (to collect materialsor access facilities) connects residents with nature in away that conventional bathrooms do not. This processboth reminds residents of where they are and theresources they are using and satisfies their connectionto that place.

Comfort Is Thermal Delight

The lack of en suite bathrooms meant that residentsat each case study site did not enjoy the homogenoustemperatures of a centrally heated (or air-conditionedhome). Instead, they endured the sharp contrasts oftemperature between inside and out and between coldair and warm water. Residents relished the thermaldelight of different temperatures. Indeed, Will (GreenHills) spoke of the joy of having a “dip in the river ona hot day.”

In these ways, bathing was still relaxing and pleasur-able for many at the case study sites. It did not becomesimply a utilitarian act. For example, the bathhouse atTinkers Bubble was a relaxation room. Given the lackof access (in a community of sixteen people plus visi-tors and volunteers, only one bath was allowed a day),however, a bath remained a monthly treat. In otherwords, the comfort was reconfigured temporally andspatially away from the convenience of a privatelyaccessible bathroom.

Conclusions

This article has used an analysis of bathrooms inBritish self-built eco-communities to interrogate theways in which comfort is reimagined. Thus, thisresearch has demonstrated how comfort is practiced,rather than experienced passively. Examining bath-rooms allows us to begin to understand this importantinterplay among buildings, practice, and comfort andis a useful space in which to explore how collectiveconventions can be changed and more sustainablepractices developed. Finally, this article has sought toextend and challenge social practice theory to betterengage with those already living a highly ecologicallifestyle.

Comfort is not predetermined or fixed but is insteada process that can be renegotiated. As demonstrated,there are existing working examples where comfort hasbeen reconfigured to reduce the negative environmen-tal consequences of conventional expectations forcomfort. This reconfiguration of what a bathroom is,and should do, helps inform the debate as to the per-ceived tension between sustainability and comfort. Ifcomfort in bathing practices can be reconceived asbeing about cleanliness, sharing, bodies, and thermaldelight, then this can have implications for othereveryday practices. Therefore, conceptually, this articlechallenges the presumption often propagated in socialpractice theory that practices cannot be changed unlesssocial and material infrastructures are also radicallyaltered. The examples explored in this article illustratethat radical change can be instigated despite significantinstitutional and cultural barriers. The creative andresourceful measures by which residents at these eco-communities established a sense of comfort suggeststhat other forms of comfort (particularly those that areresource greedy) could also be reconfigured.

Although it is important and necessary to under-stand why people perpetuate environmentally

14 Pickerill

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

unsustainable practices, unless we explore how it couldbe reconceived we miss a vital part of the story. Thebathing practices explored here were reconceived inknowingly alternative and marginal spaces. We needto know what these practices are, what possibilitiesthey offer, and in what context they exist. Too muchof the existing work on sustainable practices concen-trates on the mainstream and the conventional,exploring dominant social and material infrastructures.This misses the opportunity to understand where thequest for sustainability is heading and fails to explorethe possibilities of a radically different route.

This article has illustrated the detail of what thesealternative possibilities look like and how they work.The case studies make visible all of the different ele-ments of what constitute bathrooms, elements that areoften hidden from residents of conventional housing.Plumbing, waste disposal, heating systems, and waterprovision are literally hidden in walls and underhouses. The engagement required with all of these ele-ments has ramifications not only for those living inthese eco-communities but also their friends, families,and visitors, who also engage with these more trans-parent bathroom practices. These pockets of alterna-tive ways of being have influence far beyond theirapparent remit, however small-scale or marginal theymight appear.

This engagement with the elements of bathroomsis not, of course, free from problems. Residents of thecase studies had all endured a process of experimenta-tion and failure. Rather than repeat these mistakesand potentially dissuade people from being more eco-logical, we need to learn how residents overcame thechallenges. There is still too much focus on institu-tional, governmental, and capitalist barriers to alter-native ways of living. There remains a need toexplore how people negotiate and overcome thesebarriers, often through informal skill sharing, creativ-ity, trial-and-error, and invention. As such, socialpractice theory needs to be engaging more with someof the hopeful solutions and alternatives, with thosepracticing the alternatives, so that we can understandhow it is possible (and comfortable) to livedifferently.

Simultaneously, this article urges a rejection of con-ventional norms of comfort. The notion of comfort asan attribute has been repeatedly called into questionby eco-architects (e.g., Humphreys 1978; Brown andCole 2009) and a more embodied sensual understand-ing of comfort advocated by academics (Day 2002;Pink 2004). All too often, however, government

bodies and commercial interests encourage the notionthat comfort can be standardized. This article calls formore varied examples of how, in what ways, and inwhat context comfort is reconceived and practiced.Such an approach is particularly pertinent and neededin encouraging greater understanding and acceptanceof eco-housing where, as already explained, thereremains a presumption that ecological living requires aforegoing of comfort. Central to this task is the needto explore how comfort is practiced, rather than justpassively felt or experienced. Comfort, as demon-strated in the example of bathrooms, becomes anactive configuration of achievements and therefore acondition over which individuals can have significantcontrol. This focus on the practice of comfort givesmore agency and possibility to doing comfortdifferently.

Exploring bathrooms in British eco-communitieshas demonstrated the relationality of comfort, how itis therefore possible to reconceive comfort, and howcomfort can be understood as a practice. This focus onpractices also challenges social practice theories tomore purposefully engage with those already living ahighly ecological lifestyle to understand how radicalchange is navigated. It is from this perspective thatthis article offers hopeful ways forward and avenuesthrough which comfort, sustainability, and practicescan be better understood and ultimately improved.

References

Adams, A. 1992. Waste not, want not: An exhibitionreview. Winterthur Portfolio 27 (1): 75–82.

Association for Environmentally Conscious Builders. 2009.AECB CarbonLite Programme: Delivering buildingswith excellent CO2 performance: Vol. 5. Steps two &three design guidance. Passivhaus/Gold Standard.https://www.aecb.net/publications/clp-volume-5-the-gold-standard-sample/ (last accessed 13 May 2015).

Barr, S., and A. Gilg. 2006. Sustainable lifestyles: Framingenvironmental action in and around the home.Geoforum 37 (6): 906–20.

Barr, S., A. Gilg, and G. Shaw. 2011. “Helping people makebetter choices”: Exploring the behaviour changeagenda for environmental sustainability. Applied Geog-raphy 31 (2): 712–20.

Berker, T., and H. Josok Gansmo. 2010. Paradoxes ofdesign: Energy and water consumption and the aesthe-ticization of Norwegian bathrooms, 1990–2008. Sus-tainable Development 18:135–49.

Bird, C. 2010. Local sustainable homes: How to make themhappen in your community. Totnes, Devon, UK: Transi-tion Books.

Bissell, D. 2008. Comfortable bodies: Sedentary affects.Environment and Planning A 40:1697–1712.

Practices of Bathing in British Self-Build Eco-Homes 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

Black, I. R., and H. Cherrier. 2010. Anti-consumption aspart of living a sustainable lifestyle: Daily practices,contextual motivations and subjective values. Journalof Consumer Behaviour 9:437–53.

Blunt, A., and R. Dowling. 2006. Home. London and NewYork: Routledge.

Borer, P., and C. Harris. 1998. The whole house book: Ecologi-cal building design and materials. Machynlleth, Wales,UK: CAT Publications.

Brickell, K. 2012. Geopolitics of home. Geography Compass6 (10): 575–88.

Broome, J. 2008. The green self-build book. Totnes, Devon,UK: Green Books.

Brown, Z., and R. J. Cole. 2009. Influence of occupants’knowledge on comfort expectations and behaviour.Building Research and Information 37 (3): 227–45.

Busch, A. 1999. Geography of home: Writings on where welive. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Bushman, R. L., and C. L. Bushman. 1988. The early historyof cleanliness in America. The Journal of AmericanHistory 74 (4): 1213–38.

Chatterton, P. 2013. Towards an agenda for post-carbon cit-ies: Lessons from Lilac, the UK’s first ecological, afford-able cohousing community. International Journal ofUrban and Regional Research 37 (5): 1654–74.

Cole, R. J., J. Robinson, Z. Brown, and M. O’Shea. 2008.Re-contextualizing the notion of comfort. BuildingResearch and Information 36 (4): 323–36.

Cooper, I. 1982. Comfort theory and practice: Barriers tothe conservation of energy by building occupants.Applied Energy 11 (4): 243–88.

Cranz, G. 1998. The chair: Rethinking culture, body anddesign. New York: Norton.

Crowley, J. E. 1999. The sensibility of comfort. The Ameri-can Historical Review 104 (3): 749–82.

Cupples, J., and E. Ridley. 2008. Towards a heterogeneousenvironmental responsibility: Sustainability andcycling fundamentalism. Area 40:254–64.

Day, C. 2002. Spirit and place: Healing our environment, heal-ing environment. London: Elsevier.

Dobson, A. 2007. Green political thought. 4th ed. Londonand New York: Routledge.

Dowling, R., and E. Power. 2011. Beyond McMansions andgreen homes: Thinking household sustainabilitythrough materialities of homeyness. In Material geogra-phies of household sustainability, ed. R. Lane and A. Gor-man-Murray, 75–88. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

Faulconbridge, J. R. 2013. Mobile “green” design knowledge:Institutions, bricolage and the relational production ofembedded sustainable building designs. Transactions ofthe Institute of British Geographers 38 (2): 339–53.

Fordham, M. 2000. Natural ventilation. Renewable Energy19 (1–2): 17–37.

Gibson-Graham, J. K. 2006. A postcapitalist politics. Minne-apolis: University of Minnesota.

Hand, M., E. Shove, and D. Southerton. 2005. Explainingshowering: A discussion of the material, conventional,and temporal dimensions of practice. SociologicalResearch Online 10 (4). http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/hand.html (last accessed 13 July 2015).

Hardyment, C. 1992. Home comfort: A history of domesticarrangements in association with the National Trust.London: Viking.

Healy, J. D., and J. P. Clinch. 2002. Fuel poverty, thermalcomfort and occupancy: Results of a national house-hold-survey in Ireland. Applied Energy 73 (3–4): 329–43.

Hobson, K. 2006. Bins, bulbs, and shower timers: On the“techno-ethics” of sustainable living. Ethics, Place andEnvironment 9 (3): 317–36.

Humphreys, M. 1978. Field studies of thermal comfort com-pared and applied. Journal of the Institute of Heat andVentilation Engineering 44:5–27.

Ierley, M. 1999. The comforts of home: The American houseand the evolution of modern convenience. New York:Three Rivers Press.

Jarvis, H. 2011. Saving space, sharing time: Integrated infra-structures of daily life in cohousing. Environment andPlanning A 43 (3): 560–77.

Jacobs, J. M., and P. Merriman. 2011. Practising architec-tures. Social and Cultural Geography 12 (3): 211–22.

Kraftl, P. 2010. Geographies of architecture: The multiplelives of buildings. Geography Compass 4:402–15.

———. 2007. Utopia, performativity and the unhomely.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25 (1):120–43.

Lane, R., and A. Gorman-Murray, eds. 2011. Material geog-raphies of household sustainability. Farnham, UK:Ashgate.

Laughton, R. 2008. Surviving and thriving on the land: How touse your time and energy to run a successful smallholding.Totnes, Devon, UK: Green Books.

Longhurst, R. 2001. Bodies: Exploring fluid boundaries. Lon-don and New York: Routledge.

Lovell, H. 2008. Discourse and innovation journeys: Thecase of low energy housing in the UK. Housing Studies20 (5): 613–32.

Matzarakis, A., F. Rutz, and H. Mayer. 2010. Modellingradiation fluxes in simple and complex environments:Basics of the RayMan model. International Journal ofBiometeorology 54:131–39.

McCloud, K. 2010. Principles of home: Making a place to live.London: Collins.

Miller, W., L. Buys, and J. Bell. 2012. Performance eval-uation of eight contemporary passive solar homes insubtropical Australia. Building and Environment56:57–68.

Nicol, F., M. Humphreys, and S. Roaf. 2012. Adaptive ther-mal comfort: Principles and practice. London and NewYork: Routledge.

Peeters, L., R. de Dear, J. Hensen, and W. D’haeseleer.2009. Thermal comfort in residential buildings: Com-fort values and scales for building energy simulation.Applied Energy 86 (5): 772–80.

Pelsmakers, S. 2012. The environmental design pocketbook.London: RIBA.

Pickerill, J. 2011. Affordable eco-homes: Low income envi-ronmental solutions. Winston Churchill Policy Report.http://naturalbuild.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/report-on-key-findings-from-research-affordable-eco-homes/(last accessed 13 July 2015).

16 Pickerill

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015

———. 2012. The buildings of ecovillages: Exploring theprocesses and practices of eco-housing. Rachel CarsonCenter Perspectives 8:99–110.

Pickerill, J., and L. Maxey. 2009. Geographies of sustain-ability: Low impact developments and radical spaces ofinnovation. Geography Compass 3 (4): 1515–39.

Pink, S. 2004. Home truths: Gender, domestic objects andeveryday life. Oxford, UK: Berg.

Reckwitz, A. 2002. Toward a theory of social practices: Adevelopment in culturalist theorizing. European Journalof Social Theory 5 (2): 243–63.

Roaf, S., M. Fuentes, and S. Thomas. 2007. Ecohouse: Adesign guide. London: Architectural Press.

Rogers, H. 2010. Green gone wrong: How our economy isundermining the environmental revolution. London: Verso.

Rybczynski, W. 1988. Homes: A short history of an idea. NewYork: Viking.

Salomon, S. 2006. Little house on a small planet: Simplehomes, cozy retreats and energy efficient possibilities. Guil-ford, CT: Lyons Press.

Seyfang, G., and A. Smith. 2007. Grassroots innovationsfor sustainable development: Towards a newresearch and policy agenda. Environmental Politics 16(4): 584–603.

Shove, E. 2003. Comfort, cleanliness and convenience: Thesocial organization of normality. Oxford, UK: Berg.

———. 2009. How people use and “misuse” buildings. ESRCSeminar Series: Mapping the Public Policy Landscape,ESRC Economic and Social Research Council.

Shove, E., H. Chappells, and L. Lutzenhiser, eds. 2009.Comfort in a lower carbon society. London and NewYork: Routledge.

Shove, E., M. Pantzar, and M. Watson. 2012. The dynamicsof social practice: Everyday life and how it changes.London: Sage.

Sibley, J., D. Hes, and F. Martin. 2003. A triple helixapproach: An inter-disciplinary approach to researchinto sustainability in outer-suburban housing estates.Paper Presented at Methodologies in Housing ResearchConference, Stockholm. http://www.infra.kth.se/bba/IAPS%20papers%20pdf/full%20paper_016.pdf (lastaccessed August 15, 2012).

Vannini, P., and J. Taggart. 2013. Voluntary simplicity,involuntary complexities, and the pull of remove: Theradical ruralities of off-grid lifestyles. Environment andPlanning A 45 (2): 295–311.

———. Forthcoming. Onerous consumption: The alterna-tive hedonism of off-grid domestic water use. Journal ofConsumer Culture. Advance online publication.doi:10.1177/1469540513509642

Vasudevan, A. 2011. Dramaturgies of dissent: The spatialpolitics of squatting in Berlin, 1968–. Social and CulturalGeographies 12 (3): 283–303.

Ward, C. 2011. Alternatives in architecture. In Autonomy,solidarity and possibility: The Colin Ward reader, ed. C.Wilbert and D. F. White, 17–21. Edinburgh, UK: AKPress.

Warde, A. 2005. Consumption and theories of practice.Journal of Consumer Culture 5 (2): 131–53.

Williams, J. 2012. Zero carbon homes: A road map. Abing-don, UK: Earthscan.

Wines, J. 2000. Green architecture. Koln, Germany:Taschen.

Wong, N. H., H. Feriadi, P. Y. Lim, K. W. Tham, C.Sekhar, and K. W. Cheong. 2002. Thermal comfortevaluation of naturally ventilated public housingin Singapore. Building and Environment 37 (12):1267–77.

Worsley, L. 2011. If walls could talk: An intimate history of thehome. London: Faber and Faber.

Correspondence: Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK, e-mail: j.m.pickerill@sheffield.ac.uk.

Practices of Bathing in British Self-Build Eco-Homes 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

2:52

20

Aug

ust 2

015