Creating Smart Neighborhoods Insights From Two Low Carbon Communities in Sheffield and Leeds United Kingdom

Journal of Urban Technology
ISSN: 1063-0732 (Print) 1466-1853 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjut20
Creating Smart Neighborhoods: Insights from Two

Low-Carbon Communities in Sheffield and Leeds,
United Kingdom
Jenni Viitanen, Paul Connell & Martine Tommis
To cite this article: Jenni Viitanen, Paul Connell & Martine Tommis (2015) Creating Smart
Neighborhoods: Insights from Two Low-Carbon Communities in Sheffield and Leeds, United
Kingdom, Journal of Urban Technology, 22:2, 19-41, DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2014.971537
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.971537
Published online: 13 May 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 291
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjut20
Download by: ["University at Buffalo Libraries"] Date: 07 November 2017, At: 19:07
Journal of Urban Technology, 2015
Vol. 22, No. 2, 19 –41, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.971537
Creating Smart Neighborhoods: Insights from Two Low-

Carbon Communities in Sheffield and Leeds, United
Kingdom
Jenni Viitanen, Paul Connell and Martine Tommis

Downloaded by ["University at Buffalo Libraries"] at 19:07 07 November 2017
ABSTRACT This paper presents the design and implementation of a state-of-the-art ICT
system to facilitate energy efficiency in two residential developments in Leeds and Sheffield
(UK). Reflexive design practice understands end users as active agents in service design
and the energy-efficiency agenda—underpinned by a new energy paradigm based on
better information. The paper also demonstrates how ICTs can facilitate community-
based energy governance, and what wider benefits a neighborhood approach can bring to
both the social embedding of energy efficiency and future innovation. It also demonstrates
how energy-efficiency technologies and data offer added value to inhabitants making
purchase and rental decisions.
KEYWORDS energy efficiency; ICTs; smart; neighborhood; innovation
Introduction
Concerns about sustainability and climate change have given rise to the intersec-
tion of urban energy, infrastructure, and information and communication technol-
ogies (ICTs) as a burgeoning global industry offering solutions for “smart”
neighborhoods and cities (Viitanen and Kingston, 2014). The authors argue that
under these conditions, innovators as well as their sponsors should pay close
attention to the values underpinning technology design and implementation.
Community and geography rarely come to the fore in the development and
deployment of often “borderless” technologies, nor do the business models they
enable and build on receive much attention in debates fixed on the technocratic
concept of “energy efficiency.” In this context, “community” can be understood
both as a process relating to participatory innovation and as a site of the social
embedding of technology. Business models relate to both data ownership and
energy governance in low-carbon developments. Increasingly, the role for com-
munity in energy governance is thought to have a positive contribution to behav-
ioral change and the social embedding of carbon governance (Walker, 2011).
Where the provider-consumer dynamic of liberalized energy markets dominates
the domestic energy-efficiency agenda (Meyer, 2003), community approaches
Correspondence Address: Jenni Viitanen, School of Environment, Education, and Develop-

ment, The University of Manchester, Humanities Bridgeford Street Building, Oxford
Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. E-mail: viitanenjv@gmail.com
# 2015 The Society of Urban Technology

20 Journal of Urban Technology
are often neglected, which in turn can lead to less sustainable outcomes (Heiska-
nen et al., 2010). Therefore, neighborhoods are an increasingly important unit in
energy governance, which is also a key recommendation behind a European
ICT innovation Roadmap for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods (IREEN, 2013a).
While the community benefits of energy and carbon governance are hinted at in
the literature, practical examples are less abundant. This paper fills this empirical
gap by offering a detailed insight into how these ideas can be implemented in
practice.
Smart metering, or advanced network management, is a mass-deployed tech-
nology pitched as a “sustainability solution” relating to domestic energy use
(Derby, 2010). At the moment, only 10 percent of EU households have a smart
meter, but the European Commission takes the view that 80 percent of all electricity
meters in the EU should be smart by 2020 (EC, 2012). In the United Kingdom, the gov-
ernment states that most households will have smart meters with data displays
installed by their energy company between 2015 and 2020, with some energy compa-
nies already installing meters (Energy Saving Trust, 2013). However, the overarching
aim of balancing peak loads on the network may not be conducive to overall energy
efficiency, demand reduction, and behavioral change and may indeed serve to disen-
gage the end customer and legitimize high-demand practices (Derby, 2010).
Smart meters position end users as passive agents and do not create user
empowerment. This violates the fundamental principles of changing socio-
technical systems, which emphasize user communities and the social contexts
that shape technical infrastructures through demand as well as supply (Geels
and Kemp, 2007). The wider social context is also linked to the way in which
business interests relate to low-carbon innovation. Therefore, this paper explains
how a community-controlled local energy service company emerged as the pre-
ferred model of energy governance in the case study.
Understanding domestic energy consumption as fundamentally linked to the
built environment and the home, the authors draw on Karvonen (2013) who high-
lights what social practices theory can bring to understanding and achieving
energy efficiency in the domestic sector. Discussing the role of community, Karvo-
nen (2013: 568) draws on the social aspects of domestic energy consumption as
well as “lifestyle benefits” that energy efficiency might bring to residents.
“Smart” could be better understood as user-led ICT solutions that fit the lifestyles
and the social, and cultural expectations of residents. This may have more traction
than devices designed only from the supply perspective for the purposes of
“advanced network management,” or from the perspective of top-down carbon
reduction agendas.
Cole et al. (2010: 339) argue that human agency and its social, cultural, and
environmental context is becoming increasingly important in low-carbon building
design: “a shift in thinking that has occurred over the past few years [ . . . ] towards
reframing building energy consumption as a social and ethical challenge.” This
social and ethical challenge is also at the heart of the “digital transformation” cur-
rently underway in the home, neighborhood, and city where intelligent devices
track and send data, control systems, and connect previously unconnected
things and people into networks that are subject to social, political, and economic
interests, creating new possibilities as well as risks (Thrift, 2014). A point of depar-
ture for this paper is that smart meters are part of the transformation in the way
networked infrastructures are being configured, and that there is an empirical
gap regarding community-focused alternatives.
Creating Smart Neighborhoods 21
In this paper, the introduction offers an overview of the literature on energy

feedback systems and links it to a conceptual framework built on a new energy
paradigm based on better information and the social embedding of technology.
A critique of mainstream smart meters is offered from the perspective of human
agency and community, linked to socio-technical systems change. The next
section two provides insights into the European ICT innovation roadmap for
energy-efficient neighborhoods, as well as offers an account of the methodology
that is based on reflexive action research. The third section introduces the case
studies and illustrates the evolution of the service design and business model
for a Multi Utility Service Company (MUSCo) through action research. The
results of the research are presented in the following sections. The final section
offers reflections on, and conclusions about the local case studies, the European
ICT innovation roadmap IREEN, and the implications of both for future research
in the field of energy-efficient neighborhoods.
Background
Energy efficiency through better informed end users has been a concern for
researchers for some time. Henryson et al. (2000: 180) found that, “It is fully poss-
ible to decrease energy consumption through information” in a study of the
impact of energy information on behavior change in Swedish households. In
terms of behavior change and the role of information supporting it, Henryson
et al. (2000: 176) make an important observation about the importance of how
information is designed and presented: “it has to be designed in such a way
that the customer absorbs it and is motivated to take the appropriate action.”
Indeed, there is no standard way of providing domestic feedback systems on
energy use. Attitudes and behavior change in sustainability is a complex field
(Jackson, 2005). Owens and Driffill (2012) point to the complexity of individuals’
energy behaviors and the failure of the “communicative approach,” or infor-
mation/education campaigns, and argue for more systemic approaches, which
include socio-technical change, to reduce energy consumption.
A growing body of literature hints at the benefits of enabling people to learn
and adapt their energy behaviors through sensors and displays based on real-time
data (Derby, 2006, 2010; Lanzarone and Zanzi, 2010; Petersen et al., 2007). Inter-
national examples of commercially deployed feedback technologies are available.
For example, the cloud-based service Opower works with utility companies and
offers customer engagement to assist behavior-related energy efficiency. For elec-
tricity data, Opower shows “consistent steady-state saving between 1.5– 2.5
percent” in the 33 months since the program started, which would suggest that
long-term efficiency can be achieved through engaging end users.
Smart meters can be a trigger for socio-technical change, but the direction of
change needs to be examined. Derby (2010: 449) argues that “smart metering
could allow [consumers] to come in from the periphery of energy systems as
active investors and managers rather than more or less fatalistic bill-payers; or
it could pave the way for more passive cooperation with energy suppliers or
third parties, by making their homes into sites for remote control of usage.”
To avoid casting end users as passive agents, and with a view to embedding
socio-technical innovation, Batey et al. (2013) argue that a greater potential
impact of ICT on energy efficiency can be achieved by involving users in a
process of participatory innovation. This involvement helps develop a sense of

ownership and empowerment that results in users’ commitment to actively
using energy-efficiency tools for their benefit. The authors argue that participatory
innovation is one step towards empowering and engaging end users, but on its
own, it is not transformative. There are other critical elements too, such as data
ownership and community energy business models, which need to be examined
in light of end-user technologies. Apart from immediate, household-level impacts,
appropriate feedback systems can trigger wider community benefits. A recent
study by Grønhøj and Thorgesen (2011) confirmed an 8.1 percent saving in parti-
cipating households as opposed to 0.8 percent saving in the control group, but
over and above energy and carbon reductions, there were wider social and econ-
omic effects. Interviews with participants “revealed that the feedback made
household electricity consumption more visible and salient, and empowered elec-
tricity consumers to take action with respect to lowering their energy consump-
tion.” Notably, the study also found that energy feedback “stimulated social
influence processes related to energy savings” among family members (Grønhøj
and Thorgesen, 2011: 138).
If there is promise in using displays to support energy-efficient behaviors,
there are barriers too. Henryson et al. (2000) emphasize that increased information
does not necessarily mean that households can or will become better informed
and able to change their energy behaviors. Indeed, the likelihood of long-term
reduction in energy consumption as a result of real-time feedback has been
brought to question, as some studies have highlighted that after an initial
period, the energy savings wane (van Dam et al., 2010). For energy monitors to
be effective in the longer term, van Dam et al. (2010: 458) argue “a deeper under-
standing is needed that embraces social science, contextual factors, usability, and
interaction design research.” This point is echoed by Derby (2010: 442) who called
for “designing customer interfaces for ease of understanding and on guiding
occupants towards appropriate action.” Similar findings about the efficacy of
eco-feedback systems and the importance of interface design can be found in
Jain et al.’s (2012) evaluation which concluded that increased user engagement
correlated with lower energy consumption. The study also found that historical
comparisons and incentives were more likely to encourage users to engage, high-
lighting the nuances of technology design, and emphasizing that not all feedback
systems fulfill their potential (Jain et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, the benefits from appropriate feedback has led Berstein and
Collins (2014) to put forward the case that energy efficiency through better infor-
mation is a “new energy paradigm,” emerging after the effects of previous energy
saving initiatives have waned. There is a growing recognition that household elec-
tricity demand is projected to rise, the EIA predicts a 20 percent increase by 2030,
from 2007 levels (Jain et al., 2012). Ropke et al. (2010) discuss household electricity
consumption arguing that increasing demand has less to do with personal choice
and more to do with wider socio-technical developments; ICTs and further dom-
estic electrification are part of this directionality. Energy-efficiency technologies
should be subjected to a social critique because technocratic arguments tend to
dominate in networked infrastructures; Graham (2001: 340) argues: “radical
changes in the social organization and supply of networked technologies go
unnoticed.” This is why smart meters should be critiqued according to other
value frameworks, apart from “network efficiency.”
A rising inequality in energy services is a major socio-technical theme of the

last few decades, associated with the privatization of the utility sector in the 1990s,
the focusing of energy services on a supplier-consumer relationship (Eyre, 1998;
Meyer, 2003), and the subsequent “cherry picking” utility providers have been
able to carry out in providing better services to affluent customers (Guy and
Marvin, 1995: 53). Notably, the provision of metering technologies, especially
the pre-payment meter in Guy and Marvin’s (1995) analysis and more recently
in the equity concerns expressed about the smart meter rollout (Derby 2010;
McGann and Moss, 2010), is central to discourses of inequality embedded in
energy infrastructure. Top-down agendas of demand-side management through
pricing policy related to peak loads are likely to adversely affect vulnerable house-
holds (Derby 2006: 4, 2010), and as such, continue the trajectory of the existing
power relationships in electricity generation, transmission, and retail.

As opposed to individual-consumer or single-utility perspectives, the case
studies presented in this paper explore the consumption of domestic energy
that results from a multitude of everyday practices. It considers “users” not as a
fixed set of criteria, but understands the different roles and interests that users
can have in relation to a property. Captured, energy-efficiency data becomes a
community asset, providing local opportunities that mainstream smart meters,
with their centralized data storage, cannot deliver. The data can also become an
important tool for existing and prospective inhabitants at the individual house-
hold level. The community perspective explored in this paper shifts the focus
away from the private supplier-consumer relationship, at the heart of the inequal-
ity trend over the past two decades, towards more collective and locally governed
energy systems.
European RTD Priorities and ICT Roadmap for Energy-Efficient

Neighborhoods
This paper contributes to the Framework 7 funded ICT Roadmap for Energy-
Efficient Neighborhoods (IREEN) project, providing a practical illustration of
technology for energy efficiency in situ. It also attempts to broaden the debate
about integrating energy efficiency into a housing development by using a holistic
energy systems approach. The IREEN vision is one where neighborhoods use
smart, efficient systems to distribute and manage energy in order to maximize
the environmental and social benefits for residents (IREEN, 2013a). The IREEN
methodology includes developing scenarios, i.e., stories of possible futures, ima-
gining how technology could be applied over the next 10 to 15 years, as well as
state-of-the-art research to provide real examples of the application of ICTs for
energy efficiency, and in doing so capture new capabilities. This paper presents
a detailed case study of a state-of-the-art ICT system designed for user feedback
on energy and other related information in a residential development. The
scope of the IREEN project is summarized in Figure 1 below, which presents
the application and technology areas relevant to the vision and roadmap. This
paper primarily addresses two “application areas” – – People Involvement and
Buildings, and Infrastructures and Open Spaces; and the following “technology
areas:” Visualization of Energy Use and Production and Behavioral Change.
It also touches upon Systems Integration and Open Data, as well as Energy-Effi-
ciency Services, Business Concepts, and Financing (IREEN, 2013b).
Figure 1: IREEN matrix describing the taxonomy of IREEN project; rows represent technology areas to
be applied to the columns which represent the neighborhood application areas
Source: IREEN 2013b
As part of the roadmapping process, IREEN has used feedback from stake-
holder engagement to shape future scenarios. The case studies in this paper
provide a window into the scenarios “Energy Awareness Support Tool for the
Neighborhood Community” and “A Social Network to Connect Neighbors with
the Aim of Improving Neighborhood EE” (IREEN, 2013c: 74– 77). In terms of
alignment with the IREEN implementation action recommendations, there are a
number of target outcomes where the case studies in this paper make a contri-
bution by showing what specific actions are required from different actors,
especially regarding resident engagement in energy-efficient living, frameworks
and concepts for business models that allow aggregation, and the pooling of
energy services. The MUSCo model described in the paper also relates to concepts
and business models/services for neighborhood management operators, brokers,
and stakeholders, which are called for in the IREEN recommendations.
Methodology
Principles of Action Research

The technology applications described in this paper were created through a cycle
of action and research in the two case studies. From a methodological perspective,
action research is a reflexive practice where practitioners engage in a cycle of
action and reflection, learning from their practice, with the aim of improving prac-
tice. McNiff and Whitehead (2010: 5) provide a simple yet effective definition:
Action research is about two things: action (what you do) and research
(how you learn about and explain what you do). The action aspect of
action research is about improving practice. The research aspect is
about creating knowledge about practice. The knowledge created is
your knowledge of your practice.
This paper is based on two case studies illustrating the action-reflection cycle. The
case studies demonstrate how learning and insights relating to energy monitoring
and feedback systems in the Greenhouse (Case Study 1) have been taken forward
into the development at Little Kelham (Case Study 2). The authors contend that
action research is appropriate in conjunction with user-led technology design. It

allows the methods used for engagement to be “context-sensitive,” and it also
develops a relational approach to end users that creates a more dynamic view
of the end users and their contribution to the design, deemed to be beneficial in
managing socio-technical change and energy demand (Heiskanen et al., 2009).
Research Validity
Because case studies do not pertain to the rules of random sampling, concerns are
raised about population validity in the positivist tradition. However, Flyvbjerg
(2006) advocates the idea that knowledge generated in context, meaning
through case studies, can be more meaningful than universal laws in social
sciences. According to Flyvbjerg, insights achieved through proximity to the
studied reality are central to the learning process, or the iterative, circular chain
of enquiry and feedback required as part of a reflexive research practice. The foun-
dations of the knowledge advanced through this paper are thus grounded in the
studied reality and validated through the practitioner-researcher cycle of action
and reflection. The findings are used to demonstrate the design of ICT systems,
the related user engagement and experiences, and how the knowledge has been
translated into a live development project. Inference is not made to wider popu-
lations as each context and neighborhood is seen as a unique set of circumstances.
Instead, conclusions and recommendations are made in order that other prac-
titioners and researchers involved in the design of technologies for energy effi-
ciency can take the principles forward in their own work.
Introduction to the Case Studies

The Greenhouse, in Beeston, Leeds, and Little Kelham, at Kelham Island in Shef-
field, both in the United Kingdom, are urban neighborhoods with approximately
400 and 500 inhabitants respectively. The developments represent the state of the
art in low-carbon technology by providing measurements on a range of metrics
including district energy, heating, and water. In both cases the energy, water,
and communications utilities are provided as district schemes and delivered
and managed through the operation of a Multi Utility Service Company
(MUSCo) (Utility Week, 2010). Consideration of how these service companies cur-
rently operate is briefly examined within this paper, but the main emphasis here is
on the ICT for user-led energy governance.
The Greenhouse
The Greenhouse is a mixed use urban brownfield development in Beeston, Leeds,
United Kingdom. The building is a total refurbishment of a 1930s workers’ hostel
and began construction in 2008; the first residents moved in in March 2010. The
Greenhouse has 172 residential one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments, and
1,400 square meters of office units, an events space, gym, shop, and café, and a
concierge service. It is a low-carbon construction built to Level 4 of the “Code
for Sustainable Homes” (Breeam, 2014). The scheme incorporates a range of
low-carbon building technologies and renewable energy generation: ground
source heating, solar thermal hot water, wind turbines, rain and gray water har-
vesting, and super insulation, and it uses recycled material in the building speci-
fication. For the monitoring technology, the development includes approximately

1,000 digitally connected meters. The meters link heating, electricity, and water
(hot, cold, and gray) data, controlled through a building management system
that, along with transport information, is communicated to residents via a TV
interface.
Little Kelham
Little Kelham, Sheffield, United Kingdom, is a mixed use development of an inner
city brownfield site under construction at the time of writing. Preparation of the
site began in autumn 2013 with the first residential units being scheduled for occu-
pation in spring 2014. It includes 150 residential units, including three- and four-
bedroom houses with gardens and apartments, along with approximately 2,700
square meters of work space. The development will be built to a passive house
standard, using the Beattie Passive system ,www.beattiepassive.com. and
includes renewable energy from solar photo-voltaic and rainwater harvesting.
The ICT system and energy service to be incorporated here will be designed
according to the findings from the Greenhouse case study, and the active involve-
ment of future residents at Little Kelham.
Action Research at the Greenhouse for the Little Kelham Service Design
The design phase of the Greenhouse scheme took place during 2007/8 and was
completed in 2010. The research that forms the basis of the system improvement
as described in this paper took place during January to August 2013. Residents
had been using the system with a TV interface for 24 – 36 months on average.
The design of the Little Kelham system began in September 2013 and is
ongoing; a demonstration development (beta) version of the technology and
user interface is being tested at the time of writing and will be operational in
Spring 2014.
In order to better understand the technology deployed at the Greenhouse and
how users were interacting and using the services, two linked work streams were
completed during January to August 2013, led by the practitioners involved in the
design and development of both schemes (the Greenhouse and Little Kelham):
(1) A technology and business process review and mapping of metering, billing,
building management and data storage, analytics, and MUSCo operation
(2) A service design review of the user interface and user stories for the systems at
the Greenhouse, and concept design for the new “ActuateTM Interface” to be
deployed at Little Kelham.
The technology and business process review was completed during the period
January to May 2013 via a series of workshops conducted to provide a rapid review
of the current system using an amended version of the Cognitive EdgeTM research
method Future BackwardsTM alongside detailed mapping of the current technol-
ogies, systems processes, and business model, using business model canvas tech-
niques (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2009). This involved consultation with six
experts who are responsible for the design, construction, management, mainten-
ance, and operation of the energy systems at the Greenhouse, representing the
developer (CITU). Based on initial desk research and the business process
review, residents’ changing relationships to their homes were mapped, according
to whether they acted as prospective buyers, current owners, or residents (See
Figure 2). The service design review and concept design followed from the technol-
ogy and business process review, completed during the period May to July 2013.
Separate but linked discussion guides were generated for the interviews with resi-
dents and the developer to explore their requirements, needs, and expectations for
energy-related information. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with six
households, a mix of owner occupiers and tenants at the Greenhouse, alongside a
wider consultation via the social media groups established at the Greenhouse.
Further interviews were undertaken with four staff members of the developer,
working in different roles: commercial, marketing, operations, and project manage-
ment. For residents, the focus was on their initial experiences of choosing to live at
the Greenhouse; the process of moving and settling in; and how they now used the
energy and data services provided. For building managers and the developer, the
focus was their experience in delivering the development, and the formal and infor-
mal systems they had put in place to provide ongoing support to residents.
Figure 2: Changing roles in a property lifecycle

Source: Actuated Futures
Findings from the Greenhouse

The interview transcripts were analyzed in relation to specific themes for the
purpose of making recommendations for the design of Little Kelham. The discus-
sion below reflects the service design themes: User Interface; Choice of Green-
house; Behavior Change; Energy Data; and Community Energy and MUSCo
Operation.
User Interface
The current interface at the Greenhouse is delivered by use of a television screen.
All residents consulted made use of the data presented via the TV user interface.
However, they all expressed a preference for being able to access data via the web
and by using mobile devices. Since the Greenhouse solution was designed, the
United Kingdom has experienced an exponential market penetration of smart-
phones. In 2013, almost half of the UK population had a smartphone (ONS,
2013). Unsurprisingly, the idea of using smartphones for energy feedback was
welcomed by the interviewees at the Greenhouse, while the existing TV interface
was not considered to be equally convenient. The ability to visualize and to share
and compare data using a smart phone was identified as a critical use case for the
Little Kelham service design (See Figure 8 for a beta version of the mobile inter-
face).
Motivation for Choosing the Greenhouse

People were attracted to an “eco development” mainly by the cost saving potential
as well as efficient, accurate billing. Geographical location and “green” or “sus-
tainability” credentials were secondary considerations for those who took part
in the Greenhouse consultation:
“Smart metering was appealing to me rather than having an estimated bill
. . . I can work it out quite accurately.”
“My reasons are more self-centered, selfish, closer to my place of work,
reasonable electricity costs . . . .”
The importance of the cost efficiency argument is consistent with the evidence
from the recent UK Green Deal1 Assessment Survey, which shows that the main
motivation for households to take energy-efficiency measures is the possibility
of saving money (DECC and GfK, 2013). This gives clues as to the expectations
end users have for the system in Little Kelham.
Behavior Change
There is evidence of behavior change at the Greenhouse based on the information
provided on the TV interface and in the billing cycle, particularly comparison data
over time in the same household and between similar dwellings. Behavior change
relates to the potential “lifestyle benefits” that end users could associate with a
smart energy system. The householders’ quotes offered here show how living at
the Greenhouse has influenced their energy behaviors and perceptions:
“I bought the most efficient technology and white goods because I was
moving in to an energy-efficient apartment, and there would be no
point in buying a big huge waste of energy.”
“I think it would very hard to move to somewhere that wasn’t energy effi-
cient and didn’t have the smart meters.”
“I switch it on sometimes just to show my girlfriend: ‘This is how much
water you use when you have a shower and this is how much I use in
the shower.’ Just to prove a point, to say: ‘You use three times as much
water as I do. Get it sorted.’”
There is also evidence of wider community impacts, either through interaction
with other residents or interaction with family or friends who do not live at the
Greenhouse:
“My parents bought a rainwater harvesting kit for their house after seeing
the Greenhouse.”
“I was speaking to some chap in the car park one time and he was asking
how much I paid.”
The billing system which provides comparison between similar apartments and
between time periods for individual users was described as useful. The points
raised in the literature on the usefulness of an energy feedback system or
energy information generally are salient (Bottrill, 2007; Henryson et al., 2000).
The evidence from the Greenhouse suggests that data that relates to one house-
hold only is less useful without the ability to compare the performance with
similar households. The following quotes illustrate the usefulness of the compari-
son data to the users:
“My hot water was average, my cold water was twice as much, and my
electricity was low.”
“When the heating was three times the average—I thought that’s not right
and did something about it.”
There was also active comparison of utility bills and energy usage on “The
Greenhouse Facebook Group” with exchanges on the cost of utilities and tips
on saving shared and re-shared among members of the group and their “Facebook
friends.” The embracing of social networks to compare and contrast energy usage
and bills shows that increased energy awareness and being part of a low-carbon
community with advanced feedback systems created an appetite and an opportu-
nity for further comparison and social embedding of energy efficiency. The evi-
dence also supports the findings of Heiskanen (2010) and Walker (2011) who
suggest that community-based initiatives have wider benefits for energy and
carbon governance than individual consumer-focused interventions.
Energy Data
The research identified that the greatest need for energy data and intelligence was
at times of transition in the building “user journey;” this means, for example,
making a decision about buying or selling a property, or a change in external cir-
cumstances, such as weather conditions. The examples given by residents reflect
their use of the TV interface at the Greenhouse after first moving in, and also
during seasonal changes when the weather turns warmer or colder:
“I used to look at it quite frequently but as my bills are quite consistent

now I usually know what’s coming each month. When I first moved in
it was very useful.”
“In the first year I used to check it a lot. Now I’d probably check it more
when it starts to get warmer or starts to get colder.”
The business process review identified a number of roles that purchasers move
through in a property’s lifecycle (See Figure 2). These roles are important for
the alignment of interests (See Figure 3) in the creation and management of an
energy-efficient neighborhood. The need for longer term relationships in the gov-
ernance of energy between the different stakeholders, including energy suppliers
and developers, and the changing roles of the buyer/seller/occupant/tenant was
recognized through the research. The relationships usually applied or expected in

the UK property market and energy supply models are fragmented, with the
responsibility for energy being with the current occupier, with the developer’s
interests and responsibilities terminating as soon as the development is com-
pleted. Later on in the property’s lifecycle, when a seller “moves on” from a prop-
erty, all the risk and responsibilities transfer to the new occupier who normally has
limited information on previous energy performance.
In the United Kingdom, the Energy Performance Certificate provides a rough
guide to overall energy efficiency based on materials and specifications to the new
buyer or tenant, but offers no information about the actual energy performance
when the building is in use. Detailed data relating to overall cost savings and
the efficiency of a development, with individual cost savings compared with pre-
vious or equivalent properties, can be obtained with a state-of-the-art feedback
system. Demonstrable energy efficiency achieved over a long term can improve
a developer’s reputation.
Figure 3: Aligning interests

Figure 4: Realizing Smart ECO Value

Community Energy and MUSCo Operation

Conventional UK property business models and contracts tend to separate
responsibility and risk between parties in transactions and allow an exit in the
short term (usually approximately three years) in connection with property devel-
opment. Energy supply at the residential level is further commodified in the pro-
vider-consumer relationship. The prevalent short-term thinking can be a barrier to
aligning the long-term interests of stakeholders seeking to achieve energy effi-
ciency. At the Greenhouse, the MUSCo collective purchasing and energy manage-
ment model was instigated by the developer to bring together long-term, energy-
efficiency interests of different stakeholders in the development (See Figures 2 – 4).
The Greenhouse MUSCo is managed professionally by the scheme developer, and
bulk purchasing decisions are based on feedback from residents about their pre-
ferences. However, residents did raise a concern in relation to the MUSCo since
it prevents them from switching utility suppliers individually, and different resi-
dents may have different priorities:
“The more competition the better. We can’t do that because they have to
buy in bulk so we don’t have individual choice.”
“There’s a few people who want to get the greenest energy they can from
wind power and so on, but there are a lot who just want the cheapest
energy.”
The ability to switch energy suppliers receives much attention in the UK
media and policy discourses around energy. It is unsurprising that the residents
involved in the research felt that the ability to switch suppliers was important
to them, even when research shows that only 11 – 12 percent of UK households
switched energy suppliers in 2013, and that these figures show a steady decline
since 2007 (Ipsos Mori, 2013). The same study revealed that the proportion of
people who had never switched supplier is 38 percent. The MUSCo enables the
collective procurement of utilities for the whole development at wholesale
prices; therefore, individual households cannot switch suppliers. This can create
a de facto local monopoly. The developer upheld, however, that the most signifi-
cant energy-efficiency objectives are delivered and realized over the long-term col-
lective operation of the entire development, enabled by the MUSCo, rather than
from short-term price gains associated with switching suppliers individually.
Therefore, other measures were introduced to mitigate against the local monopoly
effects. To increase residents’ ability to influence decisions about energy procure-
ment and service provision in the MUSCo, a residents’ cooperative was identified
as a mechanism to give direct control of energy governance to the end customers

in the new development at Little Kelham. Therefore, at Little Kelham, the MUSCo
model is extended so that all residents are members of a cooperative that controls
key decisions relating to the operation of the MUSCo. The cooperative model
seeks to ensure that owners and residents control utility decisions regarding
service charges, upgrades, maintenance contracts, choice of supplier for the collec-
tively bought utilities, and the criteria for the purchase decision, e.g., tariffs and
whether to use the cheapest or greenest supplier.
A detailed discussion on the operation of energy service companies is not
within the scope of this paper. A cooperative, community-based approach to
energy governance enabled a longer term perspective on energy efficiency and
the alignment of sometimes competing interests. This required certain trade-offs
with the traditional approach to consumer-provider relations in the liberalized
energy market. There is no specific regulated model for the operation of
MUSCos in the United Kingdom, but there is signifcant policy momentum in
the direction of more collective management of energy at a district or multi-user
scale, which is included in the current energy market reviews underway by gov-
ernment and explored further by an OFGEM funded research paper (Boait, 2009).
Application of Learning from Greenhouse to Little Kelham

At Little Kelham, a web-based user interface is being developed, with responsive
design suitable for smartphones, tablets, and PCs, acknowledging that users’
technology preferences are likely to change. This interface can be personalized
to each dwelling and provide real-time and long-term data and control for elec-
tricity, water, heating, and security. Travel, housekeeping, and lifestyle modules
have been identified for future development. Taking the learning from the Green-
house to Little Kelham, the ActuateTM system at Little Kelham (See Figure 5) has
been developed so that it allocates responsibilities and obligations, aligns the
interest of different stakeholders in the property lifecycle, and provides a user
interface with ongoing software and hardware update cycles. It will be devel-
oped with users as they occupy the houses, so that at full occupancy the
service will be co-created with the users. At the time of writing, new occupants
have welcomed the opportunity to be engaged in this process. The evidence
comes from feedback through marketing of the development, where purchasers
have expressed their interest to be involved in the co-creation phase of the
ActuateTM system.
Figure 5: ActuateTM energy service system at Little Kelham

In terms of data and hardware governance for the metering system, the devel-
oper is responsible for establishing and commissioning the delivery infrastructure
for energy, water, and data metering, and the MUSCo is responsible for establish-
ing the data storage, billing, accounting, and the customer view. Once commis-
sioned, the delivery and metering infrastructure transfers to the MUSCo.
The concept design for the data requirements at Little Kelham identified the
following themes that were appropriate for the service being offered to residents:
Billing, Logbook/presentation of data, Waste, Energy, Open Data, Living, Security,
Mobility, and Water (See Figure 6).
Figure 6: Data requirements at Little Kelham

The main aims of the user-centric interface at Little Kelham were to allow
users to learn about their passive house, encourage sustainable living, and build
a sense of community by a process of shared knowledge and intelligence.
Additionally, an online logbook will form part of the sales pack providing resi-
dents with information about their home, instructions, warranties, and useful
tips. Looking to the future, data relating to each home will be saved, and it can
be transferred with the home, demonstrating its operation and the actual cost of
living to the prospective new occupant. This feature supports the “customer jour-
neys” and changing roles identified in the Greenhouse research. Data relating to
energy use and costs in each property is an asset that can be valuable to existing
or prospective occupants, whether owners or tenants.
The technical model and software and hardware stack for Little Kelham is
presented in Figure 7, with a schematic overview of the Building Management

System and data technology stack that will be implemented:
. Sensing and Monitoring—Smart Meters, Occupancy, Heating, Security, Trans-

port
. Data Storage Using Cloud Servers
. Building Management Systems
. Real-Time and Longitudinal Monitoring and Feedback of Data
. Metering, Billing, and Credit Control
A demonstration of the beta version of the mobile user interface at Little Kelham is
presented in Figure 8a-h.
Figure 7: Technology stack and technical model at Little Kelham

Figure 8: (a)-(h): ActuateTM beta user interface demonstration
Looking into the Future of Local Energy Data

As the Little Kelham development is still under construction, the potential uses for
the high-resolution energy data generated via the digital monitors present an
opportunity to imagine future innovation and potential applications. These
include the idea of “exposing” ambient energy data not only to individual users
but also in communal spaces to demonstrate how the on-site renewable energy
generation and other aspects of the local energy system operate in real time.
This idea brings to the fore the often “hidden” networked infrastructures that
remain “invisible” typically until something goes wrong (Graham and Thrift,
2007). Making networked infrastructures more visible and their operation more
transparent to the occupants can assist in the social and contextual embedding
of low-carbon technologies that is often lacking. The visibility can help to increase
user engagement with energy feedback, which is conducive to longer term energy
conservation, as shown by Jain et al. (2012).
Ownership of data is an important question which determines who ulti-
mately is “empowered.” At Little Kelham, the data generated belongs to the com-
munity. As the market for energy-efficient technologies for low-carbon living
expands, predictably, a number of companies will be looking for “test beds” or

“urban laboratories” (see Evans and Karvonen, 2014 ) for their products. A
closed loop system such as Little Kelham will have a market advantage, as the
system will include APIs (application programming interfaces) for third party
user interfaces and analytics, open source where possible. The cooperative
MUSCo management model goes some way to mitigate against the “uneven par-
ticipation” problem highlighted by Evans and Karvonen (2014), albeit only within
the confines of the scheme. What can be said for certain however, is that main-
stream smart meters would not afford local participation and innovation opportu-
nities for end users.
This future potential of using data and Internet-enabled ICT systems for
energy efficiency demonstrates the wider, perhaps unforeseen and unexplored
benefits of collective, neighborhood-based approaches to energy and carbon gov-

ernance. The collectively owned data hub provides not only the opportunity for
innovation using the data generated within the neighborhood itself, but also the
chance to generate and release data and thus create opportunities for innovation
beyond the immediate context, for example in data simulation/modelling in lab-
oratory-based research.
Conclusions
The social and ethical challenges relating to socio-technical systemic change
towards domestic energy efficiency cast a light on how residential buildings are
designed and developed, how new technologies are integrated into everyday
life, and how energy is governed. The case studies presented here described
how a developer approached this challenge through action research that identified
the various, sometimes conflicting interests in the development process relating to
long-term energy performance, different requirements from existing and potential
residents, building contractors, etc. The developer was committed to becoming a
leader in creating business models appropriate for local community-based energy
governance. This is an important point of consideration for other practitioners and
researchers, because without the developer’s commitment underpinning the
schemes, they would not have been realized. The property development market
and the utility sector are typically fragmented where different actors’ interests
tend not to be aligned for the purpose of long-term energy efficiency. Traditionally,
actors take a short-term view of energy performance in terms of immediate cost
saving or minimization of risk and responsibility, and this can be a barrier to
longer-lasting outcomes.
The case studies also offer a perspective on SMEs as innovators, as opposed to
large scale top-down agendas in mainstream smart meter deployment by the “big
six” energy retailers that dominate the UK market. A comparison could be made
with Monstadt’s (2007: 333) analysis of Berlin, where the political efforts of eco-
logical modernization had largely failed because the regional energy companies
protected their economic interests and showed “innovational lethargy.” Innova-
tive ecological entrepreneurs, or “ecopreneurs,” emerged in the energy sector as
agents of change: “The rise of the ecopreneurs indicates a step towards private
self-regulation in climate protection and technological innovation” (Monstadt,
2007: 334– 335). In the context of the Greenhouse and Little Kelham, the developer
and the SME involved in the service development are “ecopreneurs” in the same
vein, generating new business and service models around energy, responding to
local market signals and opportunities ahead of what large energy companies
or mainstream housing developers provide.
Mainstream smart meters privilege the interests of the utility sector and
render end customers mainly as passive agents. Further, they have no relationship
with the built environment and, therefore, lack contextual as well as social embed-
ding. There does not appear to be any systemic “change” in a socio-technical
sense, only deepening of the existing patterns of power and interests. An alterna-
tive approach to developing technology for energy efficiency, embracing human
agency and community, is described in this paper. Established literature high-
lights the importance of the usefulness of information given by energy feedback
systems. To determine what is “useful,” the ideas from “social practices” (Karvo-
nen, 2013) were adopted in this paper. The findings emphasized ease of use and
compatibility with lifestyle choices, such as smartphone use. In terms of
content, a focus on demonstrable cost savings and the ability to share and
compare data emerged as priorities for residents.
Because of the unique role of the developer, the approach that is described
here may not immediately be transferable or scalable elsewhere, whereas the tech-
nology deployment could very well be transferred. Furthermore, some trade-offs
were encountered, the main one being about enhancing an individual consumer’s
role in what is in principle a local monopoly as utilities are bulk purchased via a
MUSCo. This was the biggest challenge for the developer, as the feedback from
residents at the Greenhouse clearly identified a need for more direct control
over utility purchase decisions to rest with residents. The subsequent configur-
ation of the cooperative governance model for the MUSCo in Little Kelham
created a need to innovate not only technologically, but also in terms of energy
governance, as there are no blueprints for how these relations should be
managed in the UK context. The commitment by the developer (CITU) to build
a long-term solution for the neighborhood was fundamental to the success of
the project.
The cooperative model where every resident is a member emerged as a way
to increase end users’ sense of ownership and control of the MUSCo. This model is
relevant to community energy governance; this paper highlighted how ICTs can
enhance this, giving usually “hidden” energy data and networked infrastructure
added visibility. Internet-enabled platforms also allow wider benefits to be rea-
lized through social networks, as well as APIs for third parties or potential
service providers. The intersection of energy utilities and ICTs at a small scale is
enabling communities to become more central in developing or benefitting from
new business models and innovations; the local and cooperative governance of
the data and energy infrastructures is a critical element in this.
Linking the findings of this paper to the broader picture of the European ICT
Roadmap for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods (IREEN), a number of observations
and recommendations can be made for future RTD priorities in Europe. The scope
of the ICT roadmap is to assess the kind of research and technical development/
innovation that would be required for ICT supporting innovation in energy-effi-
cient neighborhoods. The case studies demonstrate the need for user involvement
in the design, implementation, and governance of ICT systems for energy effi-
ciency, and this to be integrated into building design and the built environment
more widely. From a neighborhood perspective, it is argued that state-of-the-art
ICT systems should enable a community to make decisions about their energy
governance and future technological innovation, too. Data ownership and

business models around utility provision are central to the realization of
bottom-up, innovative, and socially just energy efficiency where opportunities
for participation and community benefits are democratically governed.
Socio-technical systems have the potential to lock households into unsustain-
able pathways towards ever-increasing inequality in energy services and render
households as passive energy consumers. We argue that the case studies pre-
sented here suggest that an emerging energy paradigm based on better infor-
mation and networked ICTs and infrastructures can offer a way for
communities to become active agents in the socio-technical transformation of
energy governance. There are no easy answers or “one size fits all” solutions for
user-led energy efficiency, but better information through Internet-enabled feed-
back systems and neighborhood-based models for managing utilities offer one
potential way that merits further research in different live contexts. To better
understand the medium- and long-term prospects of ICT-enabled, energy-effi-
cient neighborhoods, future research partnerships between communities and
other stakeholders, notably SMEs involved in energy services and sustainable
housing, need to be fostered. Particularly, more research is required with house-
holds that are experiencing energy poverty to understand how user-led ICTs
and the cooperative model could be used to reduce the inequalities and socioeco-
nomic disadvantages inherent in mainstream energy infrastructure and retail
models.
Disclosure Statement
Paul Connell is a founding partner of Actuated Futures. Actuated Futures is a partnership between
CITU (property developer involved in the case studies) and Halcyon No1 (innovation company). Actu-
ated Futures provides the design, specification, and implementation of the ActuateTM Digital Home
solution that has been deployed at the Greenhouse and Little Kelham—the two case studies presented
in this paper.
Note
1
The Green Deal is the UK government’s flagship policy to enable private households to pay for energy
efficiency improvements by a loan that is paid back via their utility bills. See the Energy Saving Trust’s
website for more details about the Green Deal: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Take-action/
Find-a-grant/Green-Deal-and-ECO. Accessed August 2, 2014.
Acknowledgments
The work leading to the presented findings has received funding from the Euro-
pean Union’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-13) under grant agreement
No 285627.
The case studies presented, service design review at the Greenhouse and
concept design for Little Kelham, were supported by an Innovation voucher
(Voucher Reference IV0113; Application ID 1636) from the UK Technology Strat-
egy Board, a UK government-led initiative to accelerate economic growth by sti-
mulating and supporting business-led innovation.
The authors would like to thank the developer, CITU, for its support and
involvement in the case studies, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their
insightful comments.
Notes on Contributors
Jenni Viitanen is a member of the Centre of Urban Policy Studies and the Centre
for Urban Resilience and Energy at the University of Manchester, and an expert
advisor to the IREEN project, School of Environment, Education, and Develop-
ment, The University of Manchester.
Paul Connell is a founding partner of Actuated Futures, Leeds, UK, and an expert
advisor to the IREEN project.
Martine Tommis is principal digital development officer at Manchester City

Council and IREEN project coordinator.
Bibliography
M. Batey, R. Bull, and R. Decorme, Living Labs: Successful User Engagement on Energy-efficiency Through
Participatory Innovation. Research paper for IREEN (2013), ,http://www.ireenproject.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2012/09/IREEN-Living-Labs-User-Engagement-on-Energy-Efficiency-.pdf.
Accessed October 30, 2013.
M. Bernstein and M. Collins, “Saving Energy Through Better Information: A New Energy Paradigm?,”
Contemporary Economic Policy 32: 1 (2014) 219– 229.
P. Boait, Energy Services and ESCOS—Their Benefits and Implications for Regulation and the Consu-
mer Institute of Energy and Sustainable Development (2009), ,https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-
publications/52028/ofgem-rpi-x20-esco-paper-final.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2013.
C. Bottrill, Internet-based Carbon Tools for Behaviour Change. Environmental Change Institute Oxford
University Centre for the Environment (2007), ,http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/
downloads/botrill07-calculators.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2013.
Breeam, “Code for Sustainable Homes,” (2014) ,http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=86. Accessed

August 2, 2014.
R. Cole, Z. Brown, and S. McKay, “Building Human Agency: A Timely Manifesto,” Building Research &
Information 38: 3 (2010) 339–350.
S. van Dam, C. Bakker, and J. van Hal, “Home Energy Monitors: Impact Over the Medium-Term,”
Building Research & Information 38: 5 (2010) 458– 469.
Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and GfK, Green Deal Assessment Survey (2013),
,www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266006/_P23__
Green_Deal_Assessment_research_wave_3_-_Final_draft__for_publication___2_.pdf#!. Accessed
September 22, 2013.
S. Derby, “The Effectiveness of Feedback on Energy Consumption: A Review for DEFRA of the Literature on
Metering, Billing and Direct Displays“ Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford (2006),
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/energy/downloads/smart-metering-report.pdf Accessed July
3, 2013.
S. Derby, “Smart Metering: What Potential for Householder Engagement?,” Building Research & Infor-
mation 38: 5 (2010) 442– 457.
Energy Saving Trust, Smart Meter Roll-out, Installation and Other FAQs (2013), ,www.
energysavingtrust.org.uk/Electricity/Smart-meters/Smart-meter-roll-out-installation-and-other-
FAQs. Accessed October 30, 2013.
European Commission, Energy: Commission Paves the Way for Massive Roll-out of Smart Metering Systems.
Press release March, 9 (2012). http://ec.europa.eu/energy/gas_electricity/smartgrids/doc/
20120309_smart_grids_press_release.pdf Accessed December 24, 2013.
J. Evans and A. Karvonen, “‘Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Lower Your Carbon Footprint!’—Urban
Laboratories and the Governance of Low-Carbon Futures,” International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 38: 2 (2014) 413–30.
N. Eyre, “ A Golden Age of a False Dawn? Energy Efficiency in UK Competitive Energy Markets,”
Energy Policy 26: 12 (1998) 963–972.
B. Flyvbjerg, “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research,” Qualitative Inquiry 12: 2 (2006)
219–245.
F.W. Geels and R. Kemp, “Dynamics in Socio-Technical Systems: Typology of Change Processes and
Contrasting Case Studies,” Technology in Society 29: 4 (2007) 441 –455.
S. Graham, “The City as Sociotechnical Process Networked Mobilities and Urban Social Inequalities,”
City 5: 3 (2001) 339 –349.
S. Graham and N. Thrift, “Out of Order: Understanding Repair and Maintenance,” Theory, Culture &
Society 24:3 (2007) 1– 25.
A. Grønhøj and J. Thøgersen, “Feedback on Household Electricity Consumption: Learning and Social
Influence Processes,” International Journal of Consumer Studies 35: 2 (2011) 138–145.
S. Guy and S. Marvin, “Reconfiguring Urban Networks: Demand-side Management in the United
Kingdom,” Journal of Urban Technology 2: 3 (1995) 45– 58.
E. Heiskanen, M. Johnson, and E. Vadovics, Creating Lasting Change in Energy Use Patterns Through
Improved User Involvement. Paper presented at Joint Actions on Climate Change, Aalborg, June, 9–10
(2009), ,http://www.energychange.info/articles. Accessed January 5, 2014.
E. Heiskanen, M. Johnson, S. Robinson, E. Vadovics, and M. Saastamoinen, “Low-Carbon Communities
as a Context for Individual Behavioural Change,” Energy Policy 38: 12 (2010) 7586–7595.
J. Henryson, T. Håkansson, and J. Pyrko, “Energy Efficiency in Buildings Through Information—
Swedish Perspective,” Energy Policy 28: 3 (2000) 169–180.
Ipsos Mori, Customer Engagement with the Energy Market—Tracking Survey 2013 A report prepared for
Ofgem (2013), ,http://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/1566_reputation-ofgem-
customer-engagement-with-energy-market-2013.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2014.
IREEN, Reference Guide. (2013a), ,www.ireenproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Ireen-
Reference-Guide-Online.pdf. Accessed October, 30 2013.
IREEN, Deliverable 2.2.1: Report on State-of-the-art (International) ICT-based innovation projects (2013b),
,http://www.ireenproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/IREEN_D2.2.1-Report-on-state-of-
the-art.pdf. Accessed December 24, 2013.
IREEN, Deliverable 2.2.2: Structured Approach to Cases. (2013c), ,http://www.ireenproject.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2012/09/IREEN_D2.2.2_Structured_Approach_to_Cases_V1.0.pdf. Accessed
December 24, 2013.
T. Jackson, Motivating Sustainable Consumption: A Review of Evidence on Consumer Behavior and Behaviour-
al Change (2005), Report to the Sustainable Development Research Network University of Surrey,
Centre for Environmental Strategy, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
R. Jain, J. Taylor, and G. Peschiera, “Assessing Eco-Feedback Interface Usage and Design to Drive
Energy Efficiency in Buildings,” Energy and Buildings 48 (2012) 8– 17.
A. Karvonen, “Towards Systemic Domestic Retrofit: A Social Practices Approach,” Building Research &
Information 41: 5 (2013) 563–574.
G.A. Lanzarone and A. Zanzi, “Monitoring Gas and Water Consumption Through ICTs for Improved
User Awareness,” Information, Communication & Society 13: 1 (2010) 121–135.
J. Macniff and J. Whitehead, You and Your Action Research Project. 3rd ed. (Abingdon: Routledge, 2010).
M. McGann and J. Moss, Smart Meters, Smart Justice? Energy, Poverty and the Smart Meter Rollout (Social
Justice Initiative, University of Melbourne, 2010), ,http://www.socialjustice.unimelb.edu.au/
Research/smart_meters_smart_justice.pdf. Accessed December22, 2013.
N. Meyer, “Distributed Generation and the Problematic Deregulation of Energy Markets in Europe,”
International Journal of Sustainable Energy 23: 4 (2003) 217– 221.
J. Monstadt, “Urban Governance and the Transition of Energy Systems: Institutional Change and Shift-
ing Energy and Climate Policies in Berlin,” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31: 2
(2007) 326– 343.
Office of National Statistics, Internet Access Quarterly Update Q2 2013 (2013), ,http://www.ons.gov.uk/
ons/rel/rdit2/internet-access-quarterly-update/q2-2013/stb-ia-q2-2013.html. Accessed October 5,
2013.
Opower, “Results Page” ,https://opower.com/results. Accessed August 21, 2014.
A. Osterwalder and Y. Pigneur, Business Model Generation (2009) Self-published title.
S. Owens and L. Driffill, “How to Change Attitudes and Behaviors in the Context of Energy,” Energy
Policy 36: 12 (2008) 4412– 4418.
E. Petersen, V. Shunturov, K. Janda, G. Platt, and K. Weinberger, “Dormitory Residents Reduce Electri-
city Consumption When Exposed to Real-Time Visual Feedback and Incentives,” International Journal
of Sustainability in Higher Education 8:1 (2007) 16–33.
“The Rise of the MUSCO,” Utility Week (July 22, 2010), ,http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/news/the-
rise-of-the-musco/766372#.VOR_6y7SnzE. Accessed December 18, 2013.
I. Ropke, T.H. Christensen, and J.O. Jensen, “Information and Communication Technologies—A New
Round of Household Electrification,” Energy Policy 38: 4 (2010) 1764–1773.
N. Thrift, “The Promise of Urban Informatics: Some Speculations,” Environment and Planning A 46
(2014) 1263–1266.
J. Viitanen and R. Kingston, “Smart Cities and Green Growth: Outsourcing Democratic and Environ-
mental Resilience to the Global Technology Sector,” Environment and Planning A 46: 4 (2014) 803– 819.
G. Walker, “The Role for Community in Carbon Governance,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate
Change 2: 5 (2011) 777–782.

Creating Smart Neighborhoods Insights From Two Low Carbon Communities in Sheffield and Leeds United Kingdom

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creating Smart Neighborhoods Insights From Two Low Carbon Communities in Sheffield and Leeds United Kingdom

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Urban Technology

ISSN: 1063-0732 (Print) 1466-1853 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjut20

Creating Smart Neighborhoods: Insights from Two

Jenni Viitanen, Paul Connell & Martine Tommis

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.971537

Published online: 13 May 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 291

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Creating Smart Neighborhoods: Insights from Two Low-

Jenni Viitanen, Paul Connell and Martine Tommis

KEYWORDS energy efficiency; ICTs; smart; neighborhood; innovation

Correspondence Address: Jenni Viitanen, School of Environment, Education, and Develop-

# 2015 The Society of Urban Technology

In this paper, the introduction offers an overview of the literature on energy

process of participatory innovation. This involvement helps develop a sense of

A rising inequality in energy services is a major socio-technical theme of the

power relationships in electricity generation, transmission, and retail.

European RTD Priorities and ICT Roadmap for Energy-Efficient

Principles of Action Research

action research is appropriate in conjunction with user-led technology design. It

Introduction to the Case Studies

fication. For the monitoring technology, the development includes approximately

Figure 2: Changing roles in a property lifecycle

Findings from the Greenhouse

Motivation for Choosing the Greenhouse

“I used to look at it quite frequently but as my bills are quite consistent

recognized through the research. The relationships usually applied or expected in

Figure 3: Aligning interests

Figure 4: Realizing Smart ECO Value

Community Energy and MUSCo Operation

as a mechanism to give direct control of energy governance to the end customers

Application of Learning from Greenhouse to Little Kelham

Figure 5: ActuateTM energy service system at Little Kelham

Figure 6: Data requirements at Little Kelham

presented in Figure 7, with a schematic overview of the Building Management

. Sensing and Monitoring—Smart Meters, Occupancy, Heating, Security, Trans-

Figure 7: Technology stack and technical model at Little Kelham

Figure 8: (a)-(h): ActuateTM beta user interface demonstration

Looking into the Future of Local Energy Data

expands, predictably, a number of companies will be looking for “test beds” or

benefits of collective, neighborhood-based approaches to energy and carbon gov-

governance and future technological innovation, too. Data ownership and

Martine Tommis is principal digital development officer at Manchester City

Breeam, “Code for Sustainable Homes,” (2014) ,http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=86. Accessed

You might also like