Social practice theory and household water demand: A review of literature and research evidence

The changing climate, rapid increases in global consumption, and shock events are increasing stress on water resources globally. For policy makers and water sector stakeholders tasked with reducing demand, and for academic researchers interested in understanding how these complex issues intertwine to create current and future water demand profiles, the shortcomings of individualized behavior change approaches driven by psycho‐econometric understandings of resource consumption is increasingly evident. Since the early 2000s, social practice theory has been increasingly recognized as deepening understandings of the complex ways water is consumed and the dynamic factors that influence household demands. This review examines evidence of how social practice ideas are deployed in academic research in scope (theory; geographical; practices entities/performances; sites, locations, and temporality of practices; infrastructural configurations); methods (historical; talk—interviews, focus groups; diaries; ethnography and home tours; surveys; living labs, experiments, design methods; mixed methods); and implications (co‐production; materiality; diversity; disruption and insecurity; inequalities) including for policy and practice. Emerging from the review is a set of ideas that demonstrate how to apply insights from social practice more effectively in water studies and in water management, aiding the exploration of new areas of enquiry, policies and mechanisms to enable less intensive patterns of water use. This review points to a need for increased collaboration across the water sector and wider stakeholders to enact deep and meaningful change to how water is supplied and consumed in society.


| INTRODUCTION
Water demand management is crucial for sustainability and resilience, as water scarcity is anticipated to be one of the most immediate and tangible consequences of a changing climate in many global regions (He et al., 2021).This is no less true in the United Kingdom (UK) where many regions are already water scarce and demand for water exceeds available supplies.For many regions, and several of the most water scarce, domestic demand is the most substantial contributor to overall demand (DEFRA, 2008).If no action is taken to address water scarcity, the UK's Environment Agency predict there will be a shortfall in public water supply of 4000 million liters per day by 2050 (DEFRA, 2020).Demand management is anticipated to contribute around half of the activity needed to resolve the forecast deficit, particularly in the short-term (DEFRA, 2020).To reflect this, Defra, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, established a legally binding target to reduce the use of public water supply in England per head of population by 20% by 2038, including a target to reduce average use from 144 to 122 liters per person per day over the same period (DEFRA, 2023).These developments are broadly consistent with experiences worldwide, with water scarcity presenting a widespread environmental concern (He et al., 2021).
To date, substantial activity to reduce demand has failed to counter population growth and changing patterns of water use, which together with changes to climate, environmental policies, and supply arrangements mean that more ambitious demand management activities are needed (DEFRA, 2023).Previous efforts have focused on systems of provision (e.g., by reducing leakage) and consumption (e.g., by improving domestic appliance efficiency), however, measures have yet to be taken that fully address how ordinary patterns of water use co-evolve with wider societal developments (Strengers, 2011a).Patterns of water use are continuously evolving, as has been illustrated by historic accounts of bathing practices (Hand et al., 2005) and by the dramatic shifts in domestic demand observed during the Covid-19 pandemic (Cahill et al., 2022), which demonstrates that changes in the volume, location, and timing of water use can change substantially over very short timeframes.With a growing imperative to find ways to reduce water use, there is a need to identify novel conceptual and practical approaches to inform activities.
This article reviews developments in social practice research, an area of socio-geographic research that centers on everyday action to transform how problems, policies, and practices for effecting change are framed (Watson et al., 2020).Social practice research has grown as a sub-field of water studies since the early 2000's (cf.Medd & Shove, 2007;Shove, 2003) and has expanded our understanding of water use in England and Wales (cf.Pullinger et al., 2015), Europe (cf.Gram-Hanssen et al., 2020), Australia (cf.Strengers & Maller, 2012), and the Global South (cf.Kadibadiba et al., 2018).This body of research highlights how mundane everyday actions, like showering, are contingent on collective meanings and expectations about what water is for, as well as infrastructures, technologies, and ordinary materials like bathroom spaces and clothes.While this body of research has contributed to critically reflecting on developments in policy and intervention, these developments are yet to be consolidated and applied to their full effect (Watson et al., 2020).This article addresses this gap, summarizing key developments in this field, and discussing the implications of this corpus of literature for water studies, policy, and practice.This is the first systematic review of social practice research in water studies, and we aim to render the insights from this body of work accessible to researchers and practitioners so that they can be more fully applied.
The article proceeds as follows: Section 2 presents the systematic review method used to collate and analyze social practice research in water studies.Section 3 presents an overview of the reviewed body of research to demonstrate how social practice theories have been applied in water studies, including detail on the coverage of different water using practices as well as the geographic and temporal scope of this literature.Section 4 describes the empirical advances made in this field of research, outlining the methodological contribution of the articles reviewed.Section 5 summarizes the key conceptual implications of social practice research for water studies, and Section 6 discusses practical implications for policy and intervention.

| SYSTEMATIC REVIEW METHOD
We conducted a systematic review of the anglophone literature using the terms "Water" AND ("household" OR "domestic") AND ("everyday practices" OR "social practices") in Scopus.Our literature review took place during 2023 with a date range of 2003-2022.The year 2003 was selected as the start year due to the publication of "Comfort, cleanliness, convenience: The social organisation of normality" (Shove, 2003), a book that brought together ideas from a wider body of practice theoretical research and applied these to the topic of demand.We searched titles, keywords, and abstracts of peer reviewed publications in scientific journals, which returned 1710 results.By screening titles and abstracts to exclude articles that did not use social practice concepts, these were reduced to 100 articles.These 100 articles were further screened by reviewing the full text to exclude those that: (i) did not analyze water demand or waterrelated practices; (ii) did not use concepts from social practice theories; and (iii) those that focused solely on individual attitudes and/or norms despite meeting criteria.The latter exclusion ensures that the reviewed articles upheld the distinctive contribution that social practice theories make in terms of decentring individuals from demand, which sets them apart from most behavioral theories (Browne, 2015, see Section 3).
Based on these criteria and maintaining a focus on empirical research, 65 articles were identified for in-depth analysis.Our analysis sought to respond to four key questions: 1. How have social practice theories been applied in water studies?2. What social practice research methods have been used in studies of water demand?3. What are the key conceptual contributions of social practice research to water studies?4. What are the policy and practical implications of social practice research?
Our four research questions were used to structure a coding framework with four categories; (1) "scope"-collecting information on research questions, scale, and geographical focus; (2) "methods"-distinguishing empirical articles from conceptual and gathering details and reflections on the methods deployed; (3) "theories and concepts"-summarizing how the sample defined social practices and how these terms were related to water use; and (4) "implications for policy and practice"-collating the contributions of these studies to discussions around water governance and social change.The relevant articles were read and manually coded using an excel-based framework, extracting key information which was then synthesized.This article will now discuss the key findings emerging from this review.

| SCOPE OF SOCIAL PRACTICE RESEARCH IN WATER STUDIES
There is not a single unified practice theory within or beyond this corpus of research (Watson et al., 2020), although Shove et al.'s (2012) three element model has been frequently applied in water studies.In this model, practices are conceptualized as dynamic clusters of competencies, meanings, and materials (Shove et al., 2012).This means practices are understood to undergo continuous reformation as a variety of competencies (e.g., abilities, skills, training), meanings (e.g., collective ideas of normal conduct, cultural and religious conventions), and materials (e.g., infrastructures, homes, technologies, bodies, and objects like clothes) are brought together during performances of everyday actions like showering or cleaning.While many of the reviewed articles apply a three-element model, others take a looser conceptual approach to examine relationships between everyday actions and various socio-cultural and material developments.For example, Davies et al. (2014, p. 7) conceptualizes practices as activities that are "mediated by complex and evolving social and material elements, including infrastructures of provision, technologies, regulatory measures, commercial forces and socio-cultural norms."Whether using a three-element model or a broader approach, social practice research repositions water use as a collective outcome of multiple developments in society, rather than being determined by water users, which sets social practice research apart from most behavioral research.Watson et al. (2020), following Schatzki (2002), describes how the distinct ontological position of practice theories, where "practices" are the primary focus, provides a substantial contribution to understanding mundane consumption as it emphasizes that practices can and do change, and so efforts to affect change require engagement with the "distributed relations, interactions and interdependencies" that shape the actions of concern (Watson et al., 2020, p. 6).
Before looking further at the conceptual contributions of this body of work (Section 5), this section provides an overview of the scope of social practice research as it has been applied in water studies, providing an overview of the coverage of this literature in terms of water-using practices, geography, and temporality.

| Focus on water using practices
Social practice theories have been applied to understand particular water-using practices (e.g., Jack, 2017 on cleaning jeans), clusters of practices (e.g., Pullinger et al., 2015 on laundry, bathing and gardening), and bundles of practices (e.g., Gram-Hanssen, 2007 on the connections between water use, care and work).Most commonly in water studies are articles that look at clusters of practices, particularly showering and outdoor water use, which reflects the dominance of these practices in water demand profiles (Pullinger et al., 2015).For example, in terms of articles focused on showering, Hand et al. (2005), present a historical perspective on how gradual changes in the meanings and materials associated with showering have produced different ways of doing throughout history, while Kuijer (2017) examines how bodily washing became connected to flowing water and how future practices could disconnect to reduce demand.In terms of gardening, Adams et al. (2014) examine the interactions between spirituality, aging, changing climates, and gardening practices, while Chappells et al. (2011) show how peoples experiences of drought and temporary use bans manifest in garden practices, and Delaney and Fam (2015) how the introduction of new infrastructure, in this case rainwater tanks, affect garden water use.
Other sites of exploration have included laundry (Anderson, 2016;Jack, 2013aJack, , 2013b;;Pink et al., 2015;Retamal & Schandl, 2018;Yates & Evans, 2016), kitchen practices (see Hobman et al., 2017;Hagejärd et al., 2020), bathing and bathroom practices (Pickerill, 2015;Quitzau & Røpke, 2009), and domestic cleaning practices (Jack, 2017).Some articles cover multiple everyday water practices (Pullinger et al., 2015) or specific bundles of practices (Browne, 2016;Pickerill, 2015) in domestic spaces.However, there is lack of empirical literature exploring sanitation, toileting, and flushing practices, as observed by Alda- Vidal et al. (2020), and articles that engage with these practices are focused on the Global South (e.g., Kadibadiba et al., 2018).While there are insights to be gained from this literature, particularly about the interaction between infrastructure systems, water insecurity and sanitation practices, there are also important historical, cultural, and infrastructural differences between countries that challenge the transferability of these insights to countries like the UK.

| Geographical focus
The geographic scope of articles shows the dominance of social practice research in the Global North (particularly UK and Australia) relative to the Global South and underscores the importance of understanding personal practices of water use within the specific local infrastructural and governance context.Table 1 illustrates the spread of literature noting country and any specific regional/urban focus of the articles.We see a variety of Australian cities and towns represented and a concentration of UK-based research in southeast England, which reflects the importance of water scarcity in these areas.Evident are other articles across Northern Europe and North America, and a smaller body of research consisting of five articles in the Global South.We have tried to focus on the synergies and differences across this whole body of social practices research rather than imposing an artificial Global North/South comparison.
In terms of geographic scale, most articles take a national approach, investigating practices within centralized infrastructure systems.For example, studies in the UK are predominantly focused on England and Wales where similarities in systems of provision outweigh the differences.There are then clusters of articles focusing on practice in particular cities and regions, several of which examine particular events in these areas, for example, Chappells et al. (2011) on drought in the southeast of England, and Lindsay and Supski (2017) on the Millennium Drought event in Brisbane, Melbourne, and Perth, Australia.In the Global South, articles focus on cities and communities, highlighting the relevance of the more localized infrastructural arrangements within countries to everyday practices (Kadibadiba et al., 2018;Mguni et al., 2020).

| Temporal focus
The articles reviewed illustrate the dominance of present and historical social practice perspectives in water studies, with only a few articles providing a perspective on water futures.Several articles take a historical perspective, illustrating how social practices have evolved over time and to situate current issues in water demand in historical developments.For example, Quitzau and Røpke et al. (2009) demonstrate how the transformation of Danish bathrooms co-evolved with broader social and cultural changes, and the meanings associated with the room and the related practices.Their study shows how bathroom design has historically evolved with associations of hygiene, and that this is changing to reflect emergent ideas around wellness and wellbeing.Another historical perspective by Hand et al. (2005) shows how bathing transitioned to showering as a usual mode of practice, co-evolving with the rhetorical and moral positioning of showering in society as the most appropriate practice.Illawarra Delaney and Fam (2015).
United Social practice approaches have predominantly been deployed to understand how contemporary practices of domestic water use are assembled, performed, and shared.For example, Anderson (2016) explored how everyday laundry practices are "done" and how these performances contribute toward energy and water demand.Though much social practice research is invested in understanding water consumption as a gradual outcome of evolving everyday practices, there is considerable research on how practices are adapted during periods of disruption to normal water supply conditions (see Section 5.3).For example, studies have explored how drought impacts on water demand management (Chappells et al., 2011), and how supply system failures reveal normative understandings of water (Kadibadiba et al., 2018).Many studies combine a social practice approach with cultural studies or urban governance literature, for example, Sofoulis' notion of "Big Water" explores how everyday practices vary within and without large centralized systems of water provision and disposal (Sofoulis, 2005).Browne et al. (2019) contributed to literatures on everyday experimentation exploring how practices are temporarily modified when "normal" access to water is inhibited at a camping music festival.Collectively, these studies provide insight into the dynamic qualities of everyday practices, and their coevolution with changing social, material, and political conditions.
Amongst the more limited future-focused literature, social practice approaches have been used as a tool to explore and imagine alternative water futures, for example, Kuijer (2017) developed a practice-oriented design approach to explore how less water intensive alternatives to showering ("splashing") could be facilitated through bathroom design.Strengers (2011b) explored the role in home displays (IHDs) could play in creating less resource intensive water futures, arguing future intervention programs need to better account for householders as part of socio-technical systems that influence and alters water demand.Likewise, Davies and Doyle (2015) developed a practice-oriented participatory backcasting method to facilitate debate around the future of personal washing and imagine how interventions across multiple sites and agendas might be coordinated to reduce the material intensity of everyday life.

| PRACTICE-ORIENTED METHODS FOR WATER DEMAND STUDIES
The articles reviewed demonstrate that social practice research takes forward a range of methods that are relatively underrepresented in water studies, particularly qualitative methods (as illustrated in Table 2).This section summarizes the methods used in the reviewed body of research, and how these contribute different forms of knowledge to advance water studies.

| Historical methods
As discussed, several articles use historical methods to analyze everyday practices of water use (see Anderson, 2016;Chappells et al., 2011;Greene & Royston, 2021;Hand et al., 2005;Quitzau & Røpke, 2009;Shove, 2003).These methods enable the examination of the evolution of social practices by tracking variations in the performance of a practice and the social and material systems that drive them.For example, Anderson (2016) used historical time-use data to explore the evolution of the temporal variations of "doing laundry" across a 20-year period, arguing that traditional methodological approaches focused on household consumption and appliance monitoring fail to consider the interconnections between household consumption patterns and societal developments.By tracking changes to the performance of laundry practices overtime, changes in the timing of laundry (specifically a shift away from traditional mid-week morning toward early weekday, evening, and Sunday mornings) can be linked to wider societal changes such changing participation in the labor market.Greene and Royston (2021) present an uncommon longitudinal study, exploring a 4-year study of energy biographies to examine how and why individuals' consumption practices change over the life course.They found that people can talk about past practices in intricate and detailed ways, evidencing the powerful role retrospective talk can play in understanding the evolution of practices across life-course.Historical methods help to show how particular practices and patterns of water use became normalized, contributing to our understanding of how these practices could change in future, either through strategic efforts to change demand or due to wider social or material developments.

| Talk based methods: Interviews and focus groups
Talk-based methods are widely used in social practice research, particularly interviews and focus groups (Interviews were used in 38 of the reviewed articles either as the sole method or one of multiple methods).Most commonly, these were semi-structured interviews that focused on understanding how and why people perform practices, how these vary within and between households over time or in response to disruptions or changes in infrastructure.For example, Strengers and Maller et al. (2012) interviewed multiple generations of migrants from the same household to explore how practices vary across generations and individuals.Vannini and Taggart (2016) used interviews to explore how living without connection to centralized systems of water provision affects how practices are performed and enacted, and how practices circulate within communities.Adams et al. (2014) used interviews to explore the impacts of drought on older gardeners, revealing the disproportionate impact that water restrictions had on the wellbeing of older people.Interviews help to access the meanings associated with water use, enabling understanding of why people use water as they do, and what affects everyday action.
Only four articles reviewed used focus groups.Browne (2016) presents the first published example of practiceoriented focus group research, using collective conversations and humor to create a space where participants felt comfortable sharing details on private and intimate practices linked to water use in the home.This study highlights the value of focus groups, which provide opportunities for comparative reflection and make the value of exploring differences in mundane activities obvious for participants, which eases reflection.Three other articles used focus groups: Lindsay and Supski (2017) in a study on household responses to the Millennium Drought, Hagejärd et al. (2020) to investigate how kitchens are used and transformed to meet households needs, and Jack (2022) to examine the role of media in the construction of cleanliness practices.In combination, these studies show how bringing people together to talk about practices helps to reveal the intangible, social and cultural influences on everyday action, and the variety of roles, relationships and materials that shape domestic water use.By enabling naturalistic reflection on practices that are otherwise so mundane they avoid much conscious reflection, focus groups can help enable explanation of observed similarities and differences between seemingly normal conduct.
T A B L E 2 Summary of methods used in research articles.

| Water use diaries
Water use diaries were typically used alongside other methods (e.g., Allon & Sofoulis, 2006;Anderson, 2016;Breadsell & Morrison, 2020;Greene & Royston, 2021).For example, Allon and Sofoulis (2006) conducted a mixed method study aiming to understand peoples' capabilities to reduce consumption in the context of centralized water supply systems and changing societal factors.As part of their case study, 25 participants kept a diary over a 1-4 week period, using physical dairies, cameras, exercise sheets, and images to prompt participants to capture everyday water use and water saving habits and ideas.Breadsell and Morrison (2020) also used diaries while studying the everyday practices of Australian households 2 weeks before and after moving into a low carbon home, to explore how social practices change and interlock with new home environments.They asked participants to record details of frequency and duration of practices via a workbook (diary) as well as respond to survey questions about their resource use.Here, diaries were used to improve recall accuracy.More broadly, diary methods help to show the links between water use and other domestic practices and routines beyond the home, and how practices linked with those of other people in the household.

| Visual ethnography and home tours
Ethnography and home tours offer opportunities to explore subconscious actions associated with routine, and the specific material assemblages involved in household practice performances.As summarized by Waitt (2018, p. 4) "[home tours] offered the potential to better understand the material sensory components of mains water by inviting participants to show us where, how and when water is used."In the same way, Adams et al. ( 2014) used garden tours to reveal connections between garden watering, materiality of the garden space (design of the space, what is planted, and watering equipment), and how water was accumulated during periods of drought.Without these methods, the material setting of everyday action may be assumed by a researcher, disguising valuable explanatory detail and potential avenues to effect change.These methods allow participants to demonstrate the embodied qualities of practice, with homes filled with materials, meanings, and memories providing prompts for reflection.For example, Pink et al. (2015) used visual ethnography (an approach that uses photography, video, and film (cf.Pink, 2021)) and home tours to immerse themselves within the everyday routines of participants and to visualize how these take place within their homes, enabling them to understand laundry practices as processes through which the social and material textures of the home are negotiated and renewed (Pink et al., 2015).
Ethnographic methods have also been well used to explore water use outside of centralized supply systems, as a way to understand how practices relate to less usual infrastructural settings, and how infrastructures mediate relationships between people, practices, and water.For example, Vannini and Taggart (2016) used ethnography to profile the practices of households in a community that is not connected to municipal sewers and central water supplies.Ethnographic methods provide insight into how such communities become self-sufficient in gathering, conserving, recycling, and disposing of water used for domestic purposes.Similarly, Pickerill (2015) used ethnographic methods to understand bathroom and bathing practices in self-built eco-communities, exploring how comfort and convenience is reimagined in the context of the social and material architectures of eco-housing, and how these qualities of water use are achieved with localized water collection, storage and treatment processes (e.g., wells, rainwater collection), shared toileting and wash facilities or a lack of formal wash infrastructure all together.Mguni et al. (2020) also used ethnographic methods to follow along with household members as they complete everyday practices (collecting water, preparing food, etc.) in locations with informal water supply systems in Kampala.Reflections in these articles show how ethnographic methods allow researchers to immerse themselves into the communities studied, allowing them to gain a fuller, richer picture of how social practices are performed, imagined and negotiated in settings that would otherwise be unfamiliar to the researcher.

| Surveys
Surveys have been used in social practice studies of water, though to a lesser extent than some of the previous methods discussed.Qualitative surveys were used by Jack (2017) as a method to characterize laundering habits, particularly those associated with washing jeans, finding that the resulting data provided an accessible snapshot into current laundering practices that enabled comparison between people.Hobman et al. (2017) used surveys with open questions to gather data on intervention and behavior change potentials for household practices relating to energy and water, showing how qualitative surveys and analysis aided the identification and explanation of diverse practices in households, better informing their analysis and intervention recommendations.
Across the sample, the use of quantitative surveys was more limited.Browne et al. (2014) and Sharmina et al. ( 2019) have previously discussed the difficulties of aligning quantitative methods for understanding water demand (most often focused on behavior, attitudes, and willingness to pay) and the ontological and epistemological commitments of those interested in using social practice theories (cf.Browne et al., 2015).There are, however, exceptions to the use of quantitative and survey approaches by those interested in the social practices of water demand.Pullinger et al. (2015) incorporates quantitative methods (surveys) in a mixed methods research design and shows that quantitative data can be used to characterize diversity in practices at a population level (e.g., in terms of frequency and duration), enabling connections to be made between qualitative interview data and consumption data (e.g., from meters) more commonly used in the water industry.In addition to this, Yates and Evans (2016) and Hess et al. (2018) used quantitative surveys to address fundamental practice questions (practice characteristics, timings, frequency, and duration of different practices) rather than questions that focused on people (socio-demographic and attitudinal data).Both articles noted how quantitative surveys facilitated the exploration of practices at scale, Yates and Evans (2016) administered a questionnaire to 1502 UK residents and Hess et al. (2018) to 5486 Swiss participants (a representative sample of Switzerland's population).Quantitative survey data, and quantitative methodologies more broadly, could provide a means to better integrate insights from social practice research into existing water management practices, given the familiarity of this data to water industry stakeholders (Browne et al., 2015;Pullinger et al., 2015;Sharmina et al., 2019).

| Mixed methods
Mixed method studies combine quantitative data (usually consumption data) with qualitative methods or multiple forms of qualitative data, to generate a more holistic understanding of household water use (e.g., Bellotti & Mora, 2016;Breadsell et al., 2019;Breadsell & Morrison, 2020;Delaney & Fam, 2015;Gram-Hanssen et al., 2020).For example, Greene and Royston (2021) combined talk-based methods (interviews, walking tours), diaries and surveys to elicit detailed reflections on how everyday practices interact with social and material changes through the life course.In this case, mixed methods were used to explore past and present practices, supporting the development a rich picture capable of portraying and explaining the evolution of consumption over time.Foulds et al. (2013) and Gram-Hanssen et al. (2020) both combined consumption data and semi-structured interviews for households in their studies, to produce insights that exceed the quality of data that either method would produce independently.These studies demonstrate how consumption data shows changes to patterns and volumes of water use, while qualitative methods allow participants to reflect on how and why, as well as what might change in the future.
There are many different combinations of methods used, and Thornton and Riedy (2015, p. 673) argue that these studies, and particularly those that enable the analysis of consumption data, are "more suitable to develop insights into everyday water practices than conventional quantitative end-use studies or stand-alone qualitative behavioural studies."Mixed methods help to generate multi-dimensional representations of everyday activity, improving the explanatory value of data, and also increasing the accuracy and reliability (Thornton & Riedy, 2015).

| Living labs, design methods, and everyday experiments
A small collection of articles advances an action research agenda using living labs, design methods, and practiceoriented experiments.These methods blur the boundary between research and intervention, for example, Bergvall-Kåreborn et al. (2009, p. 3) define living labs as "an approach that facilitates user influences in open and distributed innovation processes engaging all relevant partners in real-life contexts aiming to create sustainable values."This is evident in Kuijer's (2017) living lab project which positions practices, in this case showering, as a unit of design to develop less resource intensive alternatives to the dominant practice of showering, named "splashing."Kuijer (2017)  Other examples of action research methods include Browne et al.'s (2019) research on "already existing sustainability experiments."This term describes instances in which dominant practices are put on hold and replaced with alternative ways of doing, with the example of a camping music festivals.Again, by focusing on alternative performances of practice, this method reveals how different water supply use settings facilitate novel cleanliness practices, and contribute to reconfiguring meanings, norms, and shared skills.Jack (2013aJack ( , 2013b) also conducted everyday experiments, tasking 31 participants in Melbourne, Australia to wear the same pair of Jeans for 3 months without washing them, with the aim of uncovering opportunities for intervention.They found that intervening in laundry practices may be more effective if they engaged with collective conventions of cleanliness (cultural norms and shared habits) to increase societal of infrequent washing rather than challenging individual routines.
Two different approaches are that of Davies and Doyle (2015) and Hoolohan and Browne (2020), each of which use action research methods to facilitate debate and investigation of pathways toward alternative, less intensive futures.Davies and Doyle (2015) developed a practice-oriented participatory backcasting method to explore "promising practices," hypothetical ways of using water that involve meanings and materials that are better aligned with solutions to socio-environmental challenges.This method enables transdisciplinary participation-bringing together stakeholders from different arenas-to explore the possibilities and challenges that would be encountered if alternative visions for future consumption were adopted, and to outline how sequences of strategic action could enable transition toward these.Similarly, the Change Points toolkit (Hoolohan & Browne, 2020), was produced to enable practitioners involved in sustainability interventions to engage in practice-oriented design processes to imagine alternative policy frameworks and intervention strategies targeted to enable transition toward sustainable everyday practices (see also Watson et al., 2020).
Action research methods are shown to be powerful tools to understand possibilities for future practice that deviate from conventions today, and facilitate deeper engagement with the lived experience of individuals.As expressed by Browne et al. (2019), engaging with the specific context of water use (in their case in camping music festivals) provides insights into what water futures may be possible, what people are willing and able to adapt to and the importance of taking the social dynamics within sustainability experimentation seriously.Therefore, living labs, design methods, and everyday experiments provide valuable opportunities to explore possibilities for less resource intensive actions and climate adaptation strategies.

| Summary
Overall, the methods used in social practice research are not unusual within the social sciences but are underrepresented in water research as a wider field, and the orientation on practices rather than people, water, or infrastructure improves understanding of how efforts to manage demand might engage with everyday action.Indeed, Strengers (2011aStrengers ( , 2011b) ) makes the case for co-management of everyday practices, a concept that emphasizes everyday action as a site for change that can be supported by effecting change in the simultaneous developments ongoing in systems of provision and consumption.Water studies could make further use of these methods, as a means to explore a wider variety of avenues for policy and intervention, and to understand peoples' diverse and relational experiences of efforts to change demand.

| IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIAL PRACTICE RESEARCH FOR WATER STUDIES
Sections 3 and 4, outline the scope of social practice research in water studies and provide an overview of methodological developments in this field, highlighting some of the potential of these studies for wider scholarship and action on water scarcity.In this section, we reflect on how the body of literature reviewed advances critical conversations on water use and intervention.The following sections outline how social practice studies of water conceptually reframe water use, foregrounding consumption as the dynamic, relational outcome of simultaneous developments in systems of provision and consumption.We highlight the contributions social practice theoretical studies make to decenter a focus on individual behaviors of water users, then outline how social practices have been used in water studies to emphasize the materiality of water use and diversity of water practices, before proceeding to discuss how research on disruptions have contributed to understanding change.Section 6 then advances these discussions further by drawing out practical implications for policy and intervention.

| The production of everyday water use
The reviewed articles demonstrate how social practice theories reveal the mundane and routinized qualities of water use.These studies show how practices evolve over time and attain an appearance of stability as particular variations of practice become more widely shared and embedded in materials, infrastructures, and expectations (Sofoulis, 2011).Water use becomes taken-for-granted as practices like showering and laundry are integrated in wider routines to accomplish the multiple commitments arising from, for example, work and care (Browne et al., 2014;Gram-Hanssen, 2007;Shove, 2003;Strengers, 2011a).Shove (2003) illustrates how laundry practices comprise of normative elements, including what it means to be clean, what clothes people are expected to wear (e.g., to go to work, to see friends), and the number of clothes a person possesses, as well as material elements (bodies, fabrics and storage spaces), and the embodied and experiential knowledge (or know-how) people draw on to perform a practice.These elements shape when, how and how often clothes are washed (Jack, 2017;Yates & Evans, 2016), and are co-productive, for example, shared expectations about how clothes should be washed contribute to the design of appliances and vice versa, with consequences for the ongoing performance of water using practices.In this way, a practice lens reveals resource intensive patterns of consumption to be collectively produced (Watson et al., 2020).
Practices are also co-produced within systems of provision (Strengers, 2011a).Those working with social practice theories in water studies show that the development of the centrally controlled, large-scale water management system (for both provision and disposal) that is present in many countries in the Global North has resulted in water suppliers (often governments and private utilities) being cast as the key actors responsible for water, and water users as recipients of water services (Fam & Lopes, 2015;Sofoulis, 2005;Strengers, 2011a).In contemporary water management, expectations that water users will voluntarily alter their personal consumption are growing, however, a social practice perspectives argues that individualized behavioral approaches distract from fundamental changes in the systems of provision and consumption (Davies et al., 2014;Maller et al., 2012;Watson et al., 2020).Common behavioral approaches to intervention were often critiqued in the studies reviewed for their lack of consideration of the complex and routinized nature of water-related practices in the home (Eon et al., 2018;Foden et al., 2019).In contrast and from a social practice perspective, routines are collective rather than personal, and are upheld normalized ways of using water, with agency distributed across all actors (human and non) involved in mediating water use (Browne et al., 2014;Strengers, 2011a).

| Materiality of water practices
One of the key developments in social practice research on water is to foreground the materiality of water use by positioning material elements as part of social practices.While the role of infrastructures (e.g., reservoirs, pipes, and connections), appliances (e.g., taps, showerheads, and washing machines), and meters are widely recognized in water studies, policy, and practice, social practice theories help to reveal the more mundane material elements involved in everyday practices like cleaning products, hairstyles, handbasins, and hanging baskets.These material elements reflect normalized ideas of water availability, continuity, and quality (Allon & Sofoulis, 2006).They uphold current modes of everyday water use by limiting options for achieving similar ends in different ways, and in doing so, contribute to defining what is normal and acceptable in terms of water use (Strengers, 2011b).
Several of the reviewed articles explored the materiality of water use by evaluating technology-oriented interventions.For example, Strengers (2011b) note how IHDs and smart meters relate systems of energy and water provisioning to everyday action, improving the potential for water managers and consumers to understand the temporality of water consumption, and how demand profiles relate to routines within households.However, consumption data are limited in its capacity to show why routines within and between households vary and can therefore disguise how differences in culture and commitments configure households water use (Watson, 2017).IHDs are shown to have potential to challenge taken-for-granted patterns of water use, by conveying their resource intensity, however, by providing feedback in terms of units of water (e.g., liters) or money (e.g., pounds and pence) there is also a risk that they normalize resource intensive practices and entrench existing ideas about what water is for, and how it is to be used (Mela et al., 2018;Strengers, 2011b).Mela et al. (2018) show that the capacity for meters to effect change is limited as they typically remain disconnected from practices as they are not necessary for their performance, both Mela et al. (2018) andStrengers' (2011b) suggest that feedback alone is insufficient to affect change if wider material elements and shared meanings that produce practices remain unchanged.
Other articles sought to emphasis the materiality of social practices beyond technologies, including bodies and wider things, objects, and materials (Gram-Hanssen, 2007).For example, Gram-Hanssen (2007) looks to explore how bodily development during teenage years connects to different collective ideas of cleanliness and practices, finding that ideas about what the body is or should be (in terms of smell, appearance, etc.) pressure teens into routines of daily showering.In Kuijer's (2017) study, the centring of bodily performances also highlights the associated bathing products, things (sponges, pouring, soaping, etc.) and bathroom design, enabling Kuijer to demonstrate how differences in wetting, soaping, and rinsing the body link to objects and configuration of space within the bathroom (see also Quitzau & Røpke, 2009).Similarly, Gram-Hanssen et al. (2020) found differences in the duration of showers (and therefore volume of water used) related to the use of showering products (e.g., creams, shampoos, and soaps for longer showers in the name of relaxation and self-care).Watson (2017) found resistance amongst young women to showering interventions that would limit the use of these product as they are socially important amongst peers: "the use of a plethora of body essences and creams, shampoos, and conditioners, was seen as crucial to their daily routine to perform their bodies in ways that fit in with their peers" (p.1245).Other studies looked to explore how these products and materials are represented in the media and reproduce common ways of renovating, arranging, and using one's bathroom (Quitzau & Røpke, 2009) and standards around which products, materials, and objects should be used to achieve specific ends (Jack, 2022).
As well as these mundane objects within the home, several of the studies highlight the influence of systems of provision on producing everyday practices.For example, the "Everyday Waters Project" (Allon & Sofoulis, 2006) demonstrates the co-productive relationship between water practices and systems of water provisioning and disposal.Strengers (2011a) takes this further, drawing on Kaika (2004), Sofoulis (2005), and Strang (2004) to illustrate how centralized systems of water provision have been designed to enable consumers to forget about where their water is coming from separating domestic spaces and activities from natural flows of water and events external to the home that would otherwise affect the continuity and quality of water supplies (Kaika, 2004in Strengers, 2011b).Fam and Lopes (2015) show that small-scale systems of provision contribute to different meanings and values, but for these to be implemented successfully in communities with prior experience of centralized systems of supply requires appreciation for the interactions between users, social networks, and technologies, as it is through these that technological performance is achieved (or undermined).They argue that the positive impact of newly developed small systems of provision (e.g., those which incorporate urine diversion toilets, gray water recycling system, and septic tanks) is limited by planners' lack of appreciation for how "historically derived patterns of water use are and local distinct socio-cultural contexts" (p.762).These tacit qualities of water use have been designed out of centralized systems, which are designed for a generic water user (Sofoulis, 2005), which in turn limits the potential for future patterns of use to be attuned to address socioenvironmental challenges.
In combination, social practice studies of water highlight the potential for intervention beyond usual efforts to improve the efficiency of supply (e.g., pipes and showerheads), or metering.Mundane objects and technologies are uncommon targets for intervention-viewed as impartial obstacles to sustainable consumption that managers and individuals must negotiate.Similarly, developments in systems of provision are seen to be linear, with public policy and industry action providing incentives and instruments to assist consumers in reducing demand without fundamental changes to systems of provision.However, social practice research shows these to be co-productive, thereby providing important and extended possibilities for intervening in ways of doing (Strengers, 2011b).

| Diversity in water-related practices
Studies that have used social practices in relation to water use contribute to understanding how water use inside of peoples' homes varies and changes.Variations in practice have implications for the volume of water use and the timing, with implications for water management during periods of scarcity, times of crisis, and for energy use.Several studies have demonstrated the diversity of practice, showing, for example, the variety of ends that showering serve, including cleanliness, comfort, freshness, relaxation, and peace (Allon & Sofoulis, 2006;Gram-Hanssen et al., 2020;Vannini & Taggart, 2016).Others have shown the considerable variation in the material organization of spaces that have implications for water use, for example, the presence of a garden, its size, layout, and design vary (Pullinger et al., 2015).
Furthermore, different commitments to, for example, work and childcare have implications for the timing and frequency of water use for a variety of practices (Browne, 2015), and household experiences of disruption (Greene et al., 2022).
There are variety of ways that diversity is examined and represented in the studies reviewed, and what sets these studies apart from a wider body of literature on demand is the centring of practices, rather than people (Browne, 2015).This means that diversity can be understood in terms of the performance of practices, for example, by characterizing their frequency, duration, and nature, and also by the composition of meanings, materials, and other elements involved in a practice.This gives two different approaches that social practices' enable diversity in water use to be considered, both providing perspectives that help overcome the issues associated with representing water use in terms of "average" per capita consumption (Sofoulis, 2005) and sociodemographic segmentation (Browne et al., 2015;Pullinger et al., 2015).Both per capita consumption and sociodemographic profiles are commonly used in the water industry to disaggregate demand profiles, however, neither well represent how different practices (and combinations of practices) are performed in households, even when households have similar total demand (Pullinger et al., 2015).Pullinger et al. (2015) demonstrate the value of characterizing water use in terms of diversity; their mixed method study enables the explanation of substantial variations in water use in single occupancy households with similar average levels of water use.For example, when looking to outdoor water use, Pullinger et al. (2015) demonstrate variation in how frequently garden water use occurred, the technologies and sources of water involved (i.e., by hosepipe, tap and watering can, or water butt) and the number of factors that influence the timing of watering.This characterization supports the characterization of six variants of practice ranging from "casual gardening" performed by 18% of the population surveyed who water their gardens by hand rather than hosepipe, to "high-tech gardening" performed by 26% of the population that use mains water and devices like sprinklers and automated irrigation.This study illustrates not only the variations in materiality, but also the meanings and associations with water use.Again, for gardening, showing the garden ranges in providing a place for flowers and plants, an outdoor living area, a place to grow food, a car parking space, or a place for children to play.This study demonstrates how all key water using practices (bathing, laundry, outdoor use, kitchen use) are only weakly predicted by sociodemographic variables, showing these to be a problematic source of data to estimate and predict water use (Browne et al., 2015).
Social practice theories have also been used to explain generational and cultural differences in water using practices.For example, Waitt (2018) investigated Burmese migrants everyday water practices in Sydney, Australia, highlighting how historical ways of using water influence contemporary practices.Competencies (e.g., collecting and boiling), meanings (e.g., cleanliness and safety) and materials (e.g., wells and rivers) involved in water provisioning and consuming drinking water in Burma created a strong connection to water and entrenched ethics of water conservation which traveled with migrants, producing different patterns of water use to other residents in Australia (see also Strenger and Maller, 2012).The literature also revealed diversity in practices across generations as well as households which had children and did not, finding differences in frequency and duration of practice performances and variation in commitments to social norms and standards (Kadibadiba et al., 2018;Lindsay & Supski, 2017;Pullinger et al., 2015;Watson, 2017).For example, laundry routines in households with children relate to school uniforms, cleanliness standards and a sense of pride in how ones child appears (Watson, 2017).There are cautions in several of these studies about overgeneralizing, for example, both Waitt (2018) and Strengers and Maller et al. (2012) evidence how descendants of migrants' defect from practices in favor of high consumption activities in less water scarce settings.Nevertheless, these studies help to demonstrate how present (and future) water practices relate to practices of water use that arise in different infrastructural and cultural contexts that produce shared ways of understanding and using water.
A small number of recent studies have used social practice theories to explore the connections between water practices and inequality.For example, Satur and Lindsay (2020) compare water practices in different communities in Australia, finding that communities who did not experience economic, social, and cultural disadvantages used water more for leisure, while socially disadvantaged communities struggle for sufficient water to meet health and welfare needs.Similarly, Zhen et al. (2019) shows how institutional discrimination against Shanghai's migrant communities manifests in disparate access to water resources.Mguni et al. (2020), demonstrates the connections between informal settlements, inequalities and the negotiation of water practices, arguing that inequalities faced by households named as "informal" are continuously contested and made visible by precarious access to safe water supplies and its subsequent impact on everyday cooking practices.Satur and Lindsay (2020), Zhen et al. (2019), andMguni et al. (2020) all highlight how everyday practices perform structural inequalities, and Zhen et al. (2019, pp 247) emphasize that is it imperative that "practice-oriented epistemology incorporates meaningful approaches to power, such that it can help us to understanding how everyday practices constitute, reproduce or transform structural forms."Therefore, future research should focus on the way in which "everyday practices of water demand" reinforce infrastructural, social, economic, and political inequalities.

| Disruption and insecurity
Disruption and insecurity, particularly related to water scarcity, is apparent within this body of work both as problems needing to be overcome, and instances in which there lies potential for alternative forms of practice to take hold.Droughts have been extensively researched, as periods where usual standards of supply are compromised, and there is also research on decentralized and informal water supply systems that highlights how inconsistencies in the predictability, quality and accessibility of water supplies affects water use.More recently, Covid-19 has provided an alternative lens to view disruption, showing how water using practices are (co)produced and sustained by their links to other practices like travel, work, and exercise.Collectively, these studies illustrate the adaptability of water use and how takenfor-granted ways of doing are contingent on systems of provision (Lindsay & Supski, 2017).
Practice-oriented research on droughts positions these as periods where water practices-related to both consumption and management-are rendered contentious by the apparent insufficiency of supplies.Chappells et al. (2011) argue that when "Big Water" is interrupted, social practices that are otherwise so normalized they are invisible, become visible, rendering them subject to critical discussion.Lindsay and Supski (2017) highlight how during drought, gardens became spaces where the contingency of accepted ways of doing in taken-for-granted systems of provision become visible (e.g., the browning of lawns).Similarly, Adams et al. ( 2014) noted how droughts revealed deeply held emotional and spiritual meanings associated with gardening for older people, and the consequential impact of drought restrictions on wellbeing.
The literature also revealed how drought provides opportunities to challenge dominant water practices.Lindsay and Supski (2017) found that long-term restrictions on garden water use provoked material changes in garden spaces, such as the installation of rainwater tanks or new drought-resistant plants.These material changes were accompanied by the development of new skills related to drought resistant gardening and effective watering, and alternative ideas about acceptable garden appearances that helped to normalized less frequent watering.Chappells et al. (2011) found little evidence that a hosepipe ban imposed in southeast England provoked critical reflections on garden use or watering, nonetheless practices involving different technologies (watering cans over hosepipes) emerged, contributing to stocks of knowledge and experience to shape future watering practices.These studies position droughts as moments in which water using practices are renegotiated and reconfigured, adapting to apparent water scarcity.
Social practice ideas have also been deployed to assess long-term water scarcity in decentralized and informal supply systems.Notably, Kadibadiba et al. (2018) employs social practice theories to understand how water supply infrastructure influences how water practices emerge and are shared, and how past practices that are no longer commonly in use can be revived in times of need.In this study, insecure supplies in Gaborone, Botswana are shown to contribute to the production, circulation and resurrection of particular practices involved in washing, bathing, and cooking.Kadibadiba et al. (2018) conclude that practices are highly adaptable and peoples' resourcefulness enables the reconfiguration of practices to live with water scarcity.These findings are echoed in case studies of decentralized systems of water provision, for example, Delaney and Fam (2015) show how rainwater harvesting makes visible distinct historical, cultural, and emotional meanings that are attached to rainwater and its use in everyday water practices, disrupting ways of knowing water that have arisen through interactions with centralized supply systems.Browne et al. (2019) explored camping music festivals as a site in which water conventions around personal hygiene and presentation are renegotiated and practices adapted to accommodate informal supplies and reduced accessibility of appliances like showers and taps.Though temporary, they argue that these experiences could increase the adaptive capacity of everyday practices and resilience to future disruptions.
A small collection of articles investigated the impact of Covid-19 on water use, showing how wider impacts on everyday life manifest in water use.Greene et al. (2022) was the only empirical article identified that reflected on the impact of Covid-19 on everyday water use, as part of a wider study on how the pandemic reconfigured temporal rhythms (e.g., school closures and changes to working patterns) and consequently unsettled previously strong relationships between domestic practices.For example, the shift to working-from-home weakened the impact of work-related rhythms and expectations on the performance of showering, reducing overall participation in daily showering and shifting the timing.These findings are further evidenced by an international review by Cahill et al. (2022) that shows consistency in reporting of Covid-19 impacts on water demand.Initially there was a relocation of water use into homes from other locations, and a shift in priority from comfort to hygiene, each of which can explain initial increases in the amount of water consumed at home.International studies reported changes in the timing of water demand, with a decrease in the dominance of morning water use on diurnal profiles, and more diffuse patterns of use throughout the day.The long-term impacts of Covid-19 on water practices are unknown, however, like other disruptions, the articles reviewed propose that disruptions to rhythms and routines allowed people to enact different forms of practices (unintentionally), that could favor less intensive water futures (Greene et al., 2022).

| USING SOCIAL PRACTICE RESEARCH TO ENACT CHANGE IN WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Many of the reviewed studies highlight how historic efforts to reduce demand-either through changes in systems of provision, or behavior change-have failed to offset the overall growth in water demand resulting from changing patterns of consumption, population growth, and urbanization.As a result, more ambitious and wide-ranging demand management activities are sought that could pave the way toward the deep reductions in domestic demand outlined in water policy (e.g., DEFRA, 2023).Yet there is little evidence in the corpus of literature of a social practice approach successfully being applied to shaping policy and demand management practices outside of academic and research circles.As expressed by Hoolohan and Browne (2018, p. 1) "despite making a compelling case for reframing demand management, there is limited evidence of practice-based approaches having gained a foothold in policy and business practices."Fundamentally, by showing everyday practices to be complex, relational, and dynamic, social practice theories reposition water use as the outcome of multiple cultural, material, political developments (Hoolohan & Browne, 2020).In terms of managing water demand, this reframing underwrites calls for a more distributed approach to water demand management that involves recognizing the role of a substantially extended range of actors in shaping patterns of domestic water use (Browne, 2015), and one oriented around co-management of everyday practices, which focus' on the mutual reconfiguration of systems of provision and consumption (Strengers, 2011a).In this section, we draw together practical insights from the reviewed articles that relate to policy and intervention design.
Critical reflections within the articles reviewed reveal what practice-oriented approaches to water demand management might entail.For example, Strengers (2011b) and Mela et al. (2018) describe how smart meters and feedback could be designed to more effectively contribute to managing demand by positioning practices as negotiable and changing, providing feedback that sparks debate about what is normal or acceptable and provide practical information on how to achieve the ends that water using practices provide (cleanliness, relaxation, freshness, therapy) in alternative-less water intensive-ways (Mela et al., 2018;Strengers, 2011b).However, both articles also highlight that meters and other initiatives intended to encourage behavior change should not distract from wider efforts to create social and material conditions that enable sustainable practices to emerge and popularize.This is echoed by Lindsay and Supski (2017) whose critical reflections on water efficient showerheads show these to be only a weak material intervention that fails to unsettle normalized practices of showering in the long-term (see also Gram-Hanssen, 2020).Similarly, Chappells et al. (2011) show how a hosepipe ban challenges ideas about essential use by making unsustainable practices visible (e.g., indiscriminate hosing down paving) but offered little to reconfigure the social, material, and cultural developments that support hosing as a normalized mode of outdoor water use (see also Adams et al., 2014).Metering, water efficient devices, and temporary use bans are common interventions in domestic water demand management, however, the research reviewed highlights that these have limited capacity to effect deep and lasting changes to how and why water is used.
Examples of practice-oriented policies and intervention strategies are relatively uncommon, however, illustrations within the reviewed articles help to understand what these could entail.Crucially, policy and intervention must challenge ways of doing that are problematic-regardless of how normal or acceptable they appear-by creating conditions for more sustainable practices to emerge, circulate, and stabilize.Practice-oriented policies and interventions could include, for example, efforts to effect change in the design of domestic spaces, for example, to facilitate alternative forms of bathing (Kuijer, 2017) or enable storage of clothes that are not sufficiently clean to return to a wardrobe but not yet in need of washing (Yates & Evans, 2016).For example, Kuijer's (2017) "Splash" shows what might be needed to enact stronger forms of material intervention.Intervention would include efforts to alter the social and cultural elements that shape how, when and how often clothes are washed and increasing common knowledge of how to manage clothing differently, as well as the fabric and design of clothing (Jack, 2022;Yates & Evans, 2016).This could include working with retailers, marketing agents, and the media to undermine dominant representations of normality (Jack, 2022).Finally, it could include the development of alternative systems of provision, that re-establish the connections between the flows and fluctuations of the water cycle, "external" environmental events and domestic water use to foster alternative ways of living with water (Fam & Lopes, 2015).
These examples illustrate how to begin moving beyond conventional demand management approaches, focusing on practices as relational collections of factors, and recognizing the co-productive relationship between systems of provision and everyday action as a site for policy and intervention is needed.Achieving any one of these interventions would require considerable coordinated activity by many different actors, working across different spheres of production and consumption (e.g., plumbers, interiors designers, retailers, fashion, product manufacturers (Foden et al., 2019;Watson et al., 2020)).In addition to this, effort may be directed toward a specific practice (e.g., showering), but joined up approaches to policy and intervention are needed that address multiple issues such as socio-cultural surroundings, material implications and systems of provision in order to enact deep and meaningful change to how water use is (and can be) performed (Aro, 2020).
In Section 5, diversity and disruption are discussed as two potential ways to identify possibilities for less water intensive practices to emerge.First, by observing and understanding diversity in everyday water use, it becomes possible to identify how practices are produced in different households, and how they become normalized as they integrate in wider routines and commitment (Hoolohan & Browne, 2020).These insights in turn provide guidance for research and action not least by enabling the identification of more and less intensive variations of current practice, enabling reflection on social and material developments that contribute to these, and possible avenues through which to enable defection from intensive ways of using water.Second, disruptions-though undesirable-are existing moments in which taken-for-granted ways of using water are exposed, and practices may be more malleable, presenting opportunities to enable, and solidify less water intensive ways of using water (Chappells et al., 2011;Lindsay & Supski, 2017;Manouseli et al., 2018).In a similar way, informal and decentralized supply systems are shown to contribute to producing different meanings and expectations, contributing to different social practices, some of which are less water intensive (Fam & Lopes, 2015;Pickerill, 2015;Vannini & Taggart, 2016).This adds weight to arguments that water demand management require a more fundamental reimagining of systems of provision as well as engaging in water use within the home (Alda- Vidal et al., 2020;Browne et al., 2019;Foden et al., 2019;Hoolohan & Browne, 2020;Kadibadiba et al., 2018;Strengers, 2011aStrengers, , 2011b)).Fam and Lopes (2015) highlight that it is not only the elements of practice that must change for alternative ways of using water to stabilize, but also how these circulate and become normal.Their work points to water users as carriers of social practices, helping to spread ways of doing (both novel and normal).Through their own actions-and conversations-family, neighbors, peers, colleagues can help normalize ways of doing that otherwise seem atypical, for example, Fam and Lopes (2015) show how initial reluctance to adopt urine diversion toilets was reduced, contributing to wider uptake.Recognizing the multiple roles people play-for example, as parents, carers, employees, and employers, hobbyists, maintainers, and renovators-can aid the identification of mechanisms to mobilize networks through which practices circulate and establish (Browne, 2015).
Practice oriented design research highlights the importance of challenging dominant "ways of doing" in water demand management, offering tools, and creative processes for collaborative learning through which the transformation of everyday practices can be collectively reimagined (Davies & Doyle, 2015;Hoolohan & Browne, 2020;Kuijer, 2017).Hoolohan and Browne (2018) illustrate how practices of demand management are as routinized and entrenched in the social and material as the domestic practices they aim to influence.This makes innovation difficult as approaches are locked in by existing ways of doing water management in the policy and business landscape.For example, Foden et al. (2019) noted that policy makers still question the novelty of social practice research given the absence of formalized evidence, and Moloney and Strengers (2014) describe how the nature of program delivery means that organizations may not have enough time, resources, or organizational support to generate and trial novel strategies, a finding echoed by Hoolohan and Browne (2020) who note the time and resource required to meaningfully reframe intervention.Davies and Doyle (2015) discuss how strategic planning is imbued with assumptions about the future of demand that are characterized by conditions of uncertainty but also limited in imagining the range of futures possible, and normative judgments about what can (and should) be done to direct change.To overcome such challenges, an openness to transformation and emerging ways of understanding water demand needs to be implemented in ways of doing demand management so that innovation can occur (Sharmina et al., 2019), supported by further transdisciplinary work to embed ideas from social practice research into professional practices (Hoolohan & Browne, 2018;Sharmina et al., 2019).One example identified within this literature, the Change Points project, attempts to do this and acts as a method to unsettle dominant "ways of doing."This toolkit is grounded in social practice and design-led thinking and facilitates the creation of new ways of imagining and talking about change, as well as tools for practitioners and policy makers to support practice-oriented intervention planning and evaluation (Hoolohan & Browne, 2020;Watson et al., 2020).This article has reviewed the contributions that social practice research have made in water studies, showing how this body of work has been used to increase our understanding of the mundane nature of water use in the home.Practice research has shown the importance of viewing resource (in this case water) demand as dynamic and situated in time and place, the outcome of everyday interactions with wider social, material, and political developments.Water use is contingent on factors like water supply systems, homes, weather, fashion, work, routine, and wellbeing.As evident in the sample, these factors are constantly changing and influencing how, why, where and when water-related practices are performed.Future water studies and management activity would benefit from approaching demand with this in mind, seeking to affect change by engaging with the wide variety of factors that contribute to producing and sustaining contemporary patterns of consumption.
While there is evidence of a growing body of research centered on practices and lived experiences, there were few empirical case studies found that demonstrate how practice theories have been applied to enact change in water sector settings, and the effect that results from doing so.Future research projects could valuably evaluate attempts to embed social practice understandings in water industry activities, and this review identifies a ranging methodological catalogue that can be drawn from.Crucially, the power of mixed methods to enable a multifaceted understanding of water demand is evident in this body of work, whether it be mixed qualitative methods to consider changes in practice over time or in different households, or qualitative-quantitative mixed methods used to elaborate on observed patterns in consumption data.These methods help reframe industry agendas and provide foundations for more ambitious and wide-ranging strategies to affect change.Similarly, living labs and design methodologies provide tools for collaboration and participation, contributing to imagining more unusual and creative angles from which to approach water demand.
Collectively, a practice-centered approach has been shown to challenge industry and academic understandings of demand by moving away from a focus on water and consumers to reenter practices and examine the diverse array of elements and developments in society that contribute to their performance.Overall, the literature highlighted difficulties in applying ideas from social practice research to policy and intervention, as this approach challenges ways of knowing and doing demand management that have become widely entrenched, particularly in the Global North.Emerging from the review is a set of evidenced and engaging ideas that demonstrate how to apply insights from social practice more effectively in water studies and in water management, aiding the exploration of new areas of enquiry, policies, and mechanisms to enable less intensive patterns of water use.Further collaborative effort is needed to learn how to implement social practice ideas in water demand management activities, to improve understanding of how we might prepare for climate change, mitigate the impacts of consumption, and change resource intensive practices.
allows people to experiment with alternative equipment and ways of bathing to better understand how conventional hygiene practices are normalized, and what might enable transition toward less water intensive alternatives.
Summary of geographical locations of research articles.