Living with extreme heat: perceptions and experiences

1.1 Adapting to and mitigating heat

Cooling can be delivered through passive and active solutions. Passive cooling may mitigate overheating risk in an estimated 80% of UK dwellings in warming scenarios of < 2°C (ARUP 2022) and offers sustainable solutions to heat (Hoggett et al. 2024). Passive cooling measures include: neighbourhood green and blue infrastructure; building-level natural shading, ventilation, reflective surfaces and green roofs; and building thermal mass, orientation and material specification (Khosravi et al. 2023).

Active cooling solutions such as electric fans require limited energy use (Taylor et al. 2023); air-conditioning (AC) systems have far greater impacts. AC is widely cited as the most accessible and reliable cooling solution (Khosla et al. 2022) and as an effective response to heat-related health issues (Patz et al. 2014). Lizana et al. (2022) highlight the incumbency of AC as a cooling technology, reinforced through socio-cultural and technical dependence. Impacts of wider AC adoption include increased energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (UNEP 2023), increased emissions from the use refrigerants such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) or fluorinated gases (F-gases) (Carbon Trust et al. 2020), energy system stress (e.g. black outs) and exacerbation of urban heat island effects through waste heat generation (CCC 2022). Moreover, a fully decarbonised electricity system does not mitigate the challenges of increased AC uptake, which contributes to peak energy demand, reinforces social and structural inequalities, and risks locking-in energy-intensive cooling practices which undermine passive and low-impact cooling (see Hoggett et al. 2025 for further discussion). Socio-economic issues such as access and affordability are also central to cooling debates (Khosla et al. 2022). A growth in active cooling in the UK would impact energy consumption and net zero transitions (Khosravi et al. 2023).

A policy focus on heat preparedness, resilience and adaptation fails to respond to the heat risks set out in the Third Climate Change Risk Assessment (Howarth et al. 2024). Overheating in new buildings has been addressed to some extent through revisions to building regulations providing increased passive cooling measures (HM Government 2021). The Adverse Weather Health Plan (UKHSA 2023) provides the UK’s principal guidance on heat and cold, drought and flooding, with a heat-health alert system. It does not address adaptation to reduce overheating risk (Howarth et al. 2024). The Third National Adaptation Programme (DEFRA 2023) provides policy actions for climate change adaptation; however, it does not set out specific guidance to address heat risk. Calls for a coherent resilience strategy are therefore increasing (EAC 2024).

1.2 Experience and perceptions

Empirical evidence of lived experience and perceptions of heat is essential to shape effective, acceptable policy and to support risk communication (Whitmarsh & Capstick 2018). Understanding how people respond to heat also informs alternative cooling approaches and may slow the broader uptake of AC, particularly in temperate climates, regions where experience of extreme heat is limited.

Studies have examined heat responses and risk perceptions across diverse contexts (Esplin et al. 2019; Steentjes et al. 2020). Perceptions are key in shaping adaptive responses (Hass et al. 2021; McLoughlin et al. 2023), though are influenced by inequalities across housing, income and access to green space (Li et al. 2019). Several studies have identified that older people do not perceive themselves at risk from extreme heat (Abrahamson et al. 2009; Lai et al. 2023). Although low risk perception may prevent or delay adaptive behaviour (Hass et al. 2021), routines and habits and embodied experiences of heat drive adaptive behaviours, irrespective of perceived vulnerability (Sulaimanova et al. 2025).

Institutional mistrust impacts adaptive responses to heat (Heidenreich & Thieken 2024; Howe et al. 2019). Positive cultural narratives of hot weather may also obscure risk (O’Neill et al. 2023). Heat-related warnings and public health interventions should be underpinned by experience and risk perception (McLoughlin et al. 2023). This highlights the need for situated knowledge, drawing on lived experiences of heat.

1.3 Research aims

Research and policy in response to extreme heat has largely focused on health impacts and adaptation-response strategies in vulnerable populations (Khosravi et al. 2023). While studies have examined UK household responses and perceptions of increased temperatures (McLoughlin et al. 2023), less focus has been placed on implications for cooling demand (Khosla et al. 2022). This study seeks to understand the perspectives and social and structural contexts underpinning UK household responses to heat in 2022. This is expected to provide valuable insights into the diversity of experience in temperate climates.

Three key research questions are addressed:

• How were the 2022 UK heatwaves experienced by households?

• How are coping strategies shaped by wider social and structural contexts?

• How are current and future heat risks perceived and what are the implications for future cooling demand?

Findings will help shape coherent approaches to heat resilience policy in the UK and similar temperate climates.

2.1 Recruitment and data collection

The study area was selected to reflect experiences of heat in urban conurbations, contributing to existing urban studies (Howarth et al. 2024; Murtagh et al. 2022) and providing variation in geography and exposure to heat (Erens et al. 2021). A total of 40 householders participated in the study, enabling a deep analysis of lived experience. The sampling strategy prioritised housing type as a key criteria, recruiting a proportionate sample of dwellings based on housing stock reported in the English Housing Survey (EHS) 2021 (DLUHC 2021) which records housing stock as comprising terraced houses (28%), semi-detached houses (25.5%), detached houses (17.1%), flats (20.3%) and bungalows (9.2%). The sample provides a reasonable representation of English housing stock and draws from urban conurbations in South West England, where high temperatures were experienced in summer 2022 (Met Office 2023). To ensure a diverse quota, participants were not restricted by gender, age, and household size and tenure, but rather were sampled broadly (Table 1).

Participants, approached through a research recruitment agency in July 2023, were asked to provide a maximum of five photographs prior to a semi-structured interview and given the following instructions:

• Take/share up to five photographs that represent how you see/imagine staying comfortable at home during warmer weather.

• You may wish to use photographs you took during the July 2022 heatwave.

Participants took part in a 60-min interview in October 2023, conducted on Microsoft Teams by the lead author with participants initially talking through their current home, type and age of dwelling, tenure, occupancy, duration of occupation and intentions to move/remain. Participants, who were unknown to the authors prior to recruitment, were given an honorarium of £25. Over 200 photographs were provided by the participants. The contents of the photographs guided the first stage of the interview; the second stage focused on current and future perceptions of, and responses to, extreme heat (see Appendix A in the supplemental data online). To reduce bias, neutral prompts were used during interviews, and reflexive thematic analysis grounded in participants’ narratives guided interpretation.

2.2 Analysis

Grounded visual pattern analysis (Shortt & Warren 2019) was used to analyse data, integrating visual and textual narratives, with meaning attribution drawn from the significance of the image to the participant, rather than the visual content alone (Wang & Burris 1997). The first ‘dialogic’ stage established participant attribution, asking participants why they selected or captured images and their importance. Photographs were coded according to attributed meanings, then ‘grouped’ to form thematic image sets. The grouping of images allowed researchers to understand how dialogic meaning is visualised and communicated. Image sets were re-examined in a final structured viewing stage. Here, compositional and symbolic viewing were undertaken to analyse content and identify patterns, e.g. the presence or absence of people, before considering how patterns contribute to dialogic meaning. A theorising stage drew together the patterns identified and meanings attributed to understand the implications for the study and wider theoretical knowledge. To minimise interpretive bias in visual representation, the images selected reflected inductively derived themes, diversity across participants (e.g. housing type, tenure, adaptation strategies), and rich narrative contexts, rather than aesthetic or novel appeal. This analytical approach ensured a rigorous examination of photographs and provided novel insights into perceptions and experiences of heat.

Reflexive thematic analysis (Clarke & Braun 2017) was conducted on interview data using qualitative data analysis software (QSR NVivo 12), allowing flexibility in this exploratory study. Following initial and focused coding, emerging themes and subthemes were openly coded. The second stage of coding was undertaken to create codes identified from initial data analysis as significant and frequent. Data were then revisited to ensure a systematic and thorough analysis. Finally, data were triangulated across visual and thematic analysis to draw together findings into themes presented in the next section. Following initial analysis, themes and key findings were discussed with the second author to sense-check and deepen the analysis.

2.3 Reflexivity and bias

Recognising the potential for bias in the collection and interpretation of the qualitative study data, reflexive insights were systematically documented throughout coding and theme development, e.g. reflecting on the alignment of interpretative choices and overarching research objectives to minimise researcher influence and enhance the credibility of the study (Ahmed et al. 2025; Braun & Clarke 2024). While the authors acknowledge that the phrasing of certain questions, such as the use of the term ‘technology’ in Q13, may have introduced a technical framing, the breadth of participant responses, including behavioural and non-technological adaptations, suggests that interpretation was not unduly constrained. Terms such as ‘many’ or ‘most participants’ were used cautiously and reflexively, grounded in the recurrence and diversity of themes rather than frequency or quantification.

3.1 Theme 1: enjoyment and misery

When asked to recall experiences of summer 2022, participant images (Figure 1) featured vivid, saturated palettes of colours depicting pleasure and relaxation. Images were typically taken outside of participants’ homes, in gardens or on terraces, restaurants or pubs, often shared across social media platforms. When discussing image selection, participants described their enjoyment of hot weather in general terms, as an inherently positive experience, often long-awaited in the UK.

Figure 1

While participants’ images framed the 2022 summer in narratives of enjoyment, emphasising the novelty of ‘Mediterranean’ weather in the UK and lifestyle changes such as eating outdoors, this contrasted starkly with the negative lived experiences in their homes described by almost all participants. Impacts reported ranged from inconvenience, discomfort, lethargy and difficulty sleeping to the exacerbation of underlying health conditions, social isolation, productivity reduction and aggravation of complex care needs. Table 2 summarises the key impacts described by participants alongside illustrative quotations.

Difficulty sleeping and lethargy are recognised in the literature as important impacts of heat (Khosla et al. 2022). Almost all participants reported discomfort, difficulty sleeping and maintaining daily activities. Those with underlying health conditions recognised increased health risks associated with heat; few considered their own vulnerability to heat other than those with pre-existing conditions. Periods of extreme heat were framed in terms not only of thermal discomfort but also of worrying management of health risks, including a concern around medication efficacy.

Many older participants described the experience of heat as socially limiting, remaining indoors, reducing opportunities for social interaction, while participants of all ages commonly described socialising less frequently, staying inside and lacking energy for habitual activities such as exercising, meeting up with friends and using local amenities, though some found respite, e.g. visiting air-conditioned supermarkets. Importantly, perceptions of relief within actively cooled third spaces were frequently captured in participant accounts.

Reduced productivity was widely reported, relating to those working from home with accounts of difficulty concentrating and lethargy. Participants did suggest home working allowed more flexibility, e.g. adapting clothing though experiences diverged, dependent on capacity for agency. Implications of these constraints are discussed in more detail in Theme 2.

3.2 Theme 2: responsibility and consumption

The theme of responsibility and consumption was central to the experiences of extreme heat. Images representing strategies to cope with heat largely featured active or passive cooling solutions (Figure 2). People and pets were frequently foregrounded, juxtaposed with consumer cooling products: electric fans/AC. Approaches were framed as an individual concern; strategies were described through the lens of personal responsibility. Although the domestic cooling market in the UK is currently immature (Hoggett et al. 2024), the images suggest that cooling is framed as a consumer goods issue. Most respondents used multiple coping strategies to deal with heat, commonly a combination of active (typically electric fans) and passive cooling. Coping with heat was seen as a practical issue to be managed within households.

Figure 2

Managing heat was explained in terms of personal thermal comfort, health and wellbeing, caring for children, relatives, pets and maintaining daily life, often mediated through consumption. Participants framed heat management in terms of protective behaviour, both for themselves and their families. This was often described as taking ‘common sense’ actions, making minor adjustments to daily life such as increasing showering frequency, changing diet, increasing fluid intake, avoiding alcohol, wearing lighter clothing, sleeping in cooler rooms, and creating shade using windows and blinds. Table 3 summarises with illustrative quotations.

Many protective actions involved creating cool refuges within homes and gardens, adapting routines and habits, including altering working hours, exercise, childcare, and pet care routines; one participant described adjusting dog walking schedules during heatwaves.

Consumer goods were frequently implicated in cooling strategies. For many, low-cost products such as electric fans and paddling pools provided affordable and accessible solutions. Trusted brands were relied upon. Patterns of consumption contrasted with accounts of the natural environment providing refuge from heat. The importance of nature and wildlife was emphasised by many participants, with a concern around the preservation and protection of natural environments and animals during extreme heat. Many images represented a connection with nature and natural materials, using nature to create cool refuges within urban areas. One participant described bringing nature to their city centre apartment, others creating outdoor ‘rooms’. One participant used planting to create an outdoor living and working space, while others made use of existing gardens and trees for natural shading. In contrast to this connection with nature, some described a sense of loss during the summer of 2022, with narratives of disconnection from life outside of their homes. This loss of connection contributed to a sense of isolation, often exacerbated by the vulnerability of participants, e.g. those who were elderly expressed feelings of sadness and isolation, ‘shutting out the world’ the only option to stay safe during periods of intense heat.

AC was recognised as an effective solution to heat, though considered inaccessible and a significant financial burden for many. Structural changes to housing were described by some participants as a potential solution to reduce overheating in homes or an unintended consequence of, for example, improving home insulation. However, this was largely a future consideration should high temperatures persist. Reactive responses to cooling needs dominated discussions with less consideration of proactive, preparative action.

Finally, many participants sought information on effective heat-coping strategies across a variety of sources, including word of mouth, the internet, weather forecasts and social media. Cooling strategies were also drawn from participants’ experiences of living in or visiting hotter climates, childhood experiences and heritage links. Maller & Strengers (2013) note the ability of practices to travel across geographical and cultural contexts. This was reflected in many accounts where participants drew on experiential knowledge. However, it may be challenging for cooling practices to take hold more broadly as building design and structure vary across geographical contexts, and living and working practices are underpinned by culture and convention.

3.3 Theme 3: precarity and inadequacy

An overarching theme drawn from visual and thematic analysis was that of precarity and inadequacy. Images here foregrounded objects that failed to provide adequate cooling solutions: broken cooling equipment; failed attempts to engineer a home-made AC unit; out-of-stock products; and images of beds or couches which participants described collapsing into when no relief from heat could be achieved (Figure 3). Images lacked vibrancy and colour, were dehumanised and anonymous, often darkly lit, eliciting the backstage elements of everyday life: coping with heat, devoid of social media filters or cultural representations. While Figures 2 and 3 share some visual elements, e.g. fans, indoor settings, they reflect distinct participant narratives, shifting emotional tone and contextual meaning from control and adaptation to frustration and constraint.

Figure 3

Participants described the difficulties of maintaining comfort in their homes, the inadequacy of current cooling solutions, both active and passive, and the challenges of adapting to high temperatures for sustained periods of time. Illustrative quotations are presented in Table 4.

Brief heatwaves of two to three days were framed as ‘manageable’, while more sustained periods presented difficulties in maintaining everyday life. The summer of 2022 was described by many participants as presenting novel cooling challenges. Measures taken to provide cooling were largely protective, reacting to discomfort experienced rather than preparative. Reactive measures were compounded by diverse and unsettled knowledge of how to cope with heat, e.g. uncertainty around shading and ventilation. Accessing reliable, consistent information was also reported as challenging; participants described information as inadequate or inaccurate. As discussed in Theme 2, this uncertainty catalysed searches across social networks and online. This exchange of information contributed to virtual or in-person heat management communities; a key social media hashtag #beattheheat had over 60,000 posts on Instagram, and TikTok was cited by many as offering advice. While the democratised nature of social media enabled the sharing of information, as an unregulated space, scope to ensure consistent, rational messaging is challenging. The polarisation of media reporting was also described as adding confusion and anxiety.

In addition to unsettled knowledge and communication, social and structural contexts impacted on the capacity to stay cool and exacerbated negative experiences. Participants described the impact of housing quality and tenure, household size, access to outdoor space, and economic constraints. This was often grounded in precarious factors such as access to resources, capacity to engage with adaptation measures, and health and social inequalities, consistent with the disproportionate and unequal experiences associated with climate threats (Howarth et al. 2024). Indeed, cooling was framed as an unequal concern with the agency to adapt homes or behaviours dependent on individual contexts, e.g. access to outdoor space and capacity to make changes to one’s home (e.g. installing additional shading).

Inequalities were also experienced more broadly. The ability to alter working hours was often beyond participants’ control. While some described the provision of advice from employers to outdoor and office workers, this was absent amongst home workers. Those in more senior roles had greater flexibility adapting workplaces (e.g. working in air-conditioned cafés) and altering working hours.

3.4 Theme 4: normalising air-conditioned futures

Many participants described the summer of 2022 as a novel experience, likely to catalyse future action. While few participants had installed AC, many were contemplating purchases, driven by experience of extreme discomfort. Air-conditioned lifestyles were framed as an unavoidable pathway to maintaining daily life in response to rising temperatures and an overarching theme of normalising air-conditioned futures emerged, as set out in Table 5.

Images captured within these discussions show living rooms and bedrooms with AC centrally framed. Images did not show everyday internal spaces, rather they were drawn from advertising photography, depicting aspirational settings, a notable narrative underpinning AC marketing (Basile 2014), associating active cooling with modern and ‘civilized’ society (Ackermann 2010).¹ Techno-optimism was evident, with active cooling technology centrally framed rather than individual or passive cooling solutions. AC was described as a panacea to extreme heat, often drawing on narratives of experience in warmer climates.

Existing studies highlight contested narratives around AC including comfort, interruptions in the energy supply and inequality of access (Murtagh et al. 2022). Inequality of access was also discussed by some participants, e.g. affordability of AC, particularly amongst private rental and social housing participants. Many envisaged state intervention to support wider access, e.g. active cooling enshrined within regulation.

Support for sustainable cooling pathways did emerge within discussions; however, gaps in knowledge and understanding of alternatives to AC were clear, underlining the opportunity for AC, the incumbent cooling technology, to take hold. While current estimates indicate around 5% of UK households own active cooling (BEIS 2021), discourses of normalised air-conditioned futures suggest a shift in social norms, critical in shaping socio-technical configurations (Brown & Martiskainen 2024). Understandings of AC as the only effective solution to managing heat appear grounded in lived experience and perceptions of the technology as culturally embedded within warmer climates.

The convergence of shifting social norms around AC, the diffusion of AC use through social networks, perceived institutional intervention and understandings of AC as a cooling solution indicate that the risk of the incumbent technology becoming a default response to heat is significant. While AC has not yet become culturally embedded in the UK and other temperate climates, discourses of AC as the only effective solution to heat must be challenged and wider initiatives are needed to interrupt and prevent the development of unsustainable cooling pathways.

4.1 Changing narratives of heat

Narratives of extreme heat are shaped by complex social and structural factors. Theme 1 (Enjoyment and misery) highlights a dissonance between positive cultural conventions associated with hot weather and participants’ negative lived experiences. This aligns with previous studies examining how media representations of heat can influence risk perceptions (O’Neill et al. 2023), while also reinforcing links established between positive affect and lower risk perceptions (Lefevre et al. 2015). This tension is important in shaping adaptation behaviours (Hass et al. 2021; McLoughlin et al. 2023). Positive affect may reduce risk perception, suggesting the need for balanced narratives in policy communication to reflect this contrast and support pragmatic cultures of heat (Howarth et al. 2024).

Themes 1 (Enjoyment and misery) and 3 (Precarity and inadequacy) also reveal how novelty shaped participant responses. Experiential learning was found to increase the salience of climate change for participants, consistent with findings from existing pro-environmental research (Brügger et al. 2021; Demski et al. 2017; Whitmarsh et al. 2022). The present findings contribute novel insights into how such experiences influence cooling pathways and decision-making in domestic contexts and raises further questions around how lived experience could be leveraged systematically to support heat resilience in the UK and other temperate regions.

4.2 Social and structural contexts

Theme 2 (Responsibility and consumption) suggests that managing heat impacts is widely framed as a personal responsibility, consistent with findings on the individualisation of climate adaptation (Kennedy-Asser et al. 2022). However, the capacity to respond was shaped by broader social and structural factors such as housing quality, tenure, household composition, income and access to adaptation strategies, factors known to intersect with vulnerability (Howard Boyd et al. 2024; Kennedy-Asser et al. 2022). This study emphasises the importance of these structural determinants while highlighting the relevance of less examined factors such as agency and decision-making power.

Responses to and knowledge of heat risks were frequently described as ‘common sense’, suggesting existing knowledge. While cultural heritage or experience of living in warmer regions can inform risk perceptions and awareness of cooling measures, knowledge was often unsettled with inconsistent guidance across digital and social media. In the absence of clear local or national guidance, participants described confusion and a reliance on informal or anecdotal sources, reflecting unsettled understandings of heat resilience (Hoggett et al. 2024). Addressing this gap requires clear, context-sensitive communication of heat risks, moving beyond direct physical impacts to consider social isolation, daily disruption and wellbeing.

Support and information should draw on social networks, reflect local priorities and extend existing definitions of vulnerability. Building on existing work linking social networks with health and climate resilience (Drageset 2021), the present findings suggest the importance of locally embedded communication strategies.

4.3 Disrupting pathways to air-conditioned futures

Many participants described AC as an effective, if often inaccessible, solution to heat. Theme 4 (Normalising air-conditioned futures) captures the growing narrative of AC as necessary or inevitable. This reflects similar trends in warmer regions, where cooling has become culturally embedded (Ackermann 2010; Basile 2014). However, the findings provide novel insights into how these narratives are beginning to take shape in a temperate climate where AC ownership remains relatively low (BEIS 2021).

Although previous studies have noted AC environmental and economic costs (Lizana et al. 2022; Murtagh et al. 2022), the present study contributes qualitative evidence of techno-optimism and distress-driven consumption, which may accelerate and lock in energy-intensive cooling pathways. Participants expressed concerns around comfort, cost and disconnection from nature, revealing that opportunities exist to interrupt unsustainable trajectories and support more equitable, sustainable cooling pathways, engaging with shared values such as nature and care for others. Such consistent perspectives across this study support the argument that policy intervention is needed to disrupt unsustainable cooling pathways.

4.4 Policy implications

Developing heat resilience presents complex challenges for policymakers across energy and climate, health, housing and infrastructure. In temperate climates, the temporal and often invisible nature of heat risks delays action (Brimicombe et al. 2021); however, the intensifying frequency of extreme events requires coordinated intervention. Developing a heat-resilience strategy presents opportunities to align fragmented policy spheres, e.g. overheating risk and cooling pathways, within housing decarbonisation, connecting heating and cooling policies (Hoggett et al. 2025). Findings from this study offer insights to support this alignment by evidencing how heat is experienced and navigated in everyday life.

The analysis shows that responses to heat are mediated by complex social and structural contexts. Perceptions of risk and capacity to adapt are influenced by housing quality, tenure, access to outdoor space, caring responsibilities and financial constraints. Policy must account for these intersecting factors by grounding heat-resilience strategies in lived experience, connecting impacts and solutions, e.g. responding to systemic inequity through incentive schemes for passive cooling measures such as external shading. Theme 4 (Normalising air-conditioned futures) demonstrates how the perceived inevitability of AC uptake, even amongst those not anticipating future use, is shaped by the lived experience of discomfort and constraint. Without targeted intervention, these narratives may accelerate unsustainable cooling demand. Policy must therefore respond not only to material need but also to evolving social norms around cooling, e.g. regulation around domestic AC use, expanding incentives for passive cooling measures or communication strategies foregrounding sustainable alternatives.

While nature-based solutions, such as tree-planting or green infrastructure, offer valuable cooling benefits, their implementation is not without challenges, including potential for increased allergen exposure and heightened risks from vector-borne disease (Paudel & States 2023) which must be considered within policy intervention.

Up- and downstream approaches are needed at multiple scales, including strengthened building regulations or retrofit standards supporting thermal performance in existing homes. At a local level, targeted support for vulnerable housing sectors (e.g. social housing, private rental) could include maximum and minimum temperature thresholds or heat-resilience funding. Community-scale interventions, such as mapping public cool spaces, can also reduce the reliance on individualised, energy-intensive cooling. These strategies shift the emphasis from reactive protection towards equitable preparative action.

4.5 Limitations

As with all studies, some limitations should be acknowledged within the scope of this research. While the sample of 40 households generated a rich and diverse dataset, designed to support qualitative analysis of lived experience across a range of housing types and tenures, it does not produce nationally representative findings. The sampling strategy, informed by the EHS 2021 (DLUHC 2021) reflects diversity in the UK housing stock; however, income data were not systematically recorded, limiting the ability to examine national patterns of socio-economic inequality. Participant experiences, however, suggest their experiences were consistently shaped by housing quality, tenure, knowledge and agency rather than by income alone. As such, the findings should be understood as analytically generalisable (Yin 2018), offering insights relevant to other temperate regions. While participants were drawn from diverse contexts, it would be useful to examine intersections between housing, adaptation and socio-economic disparity through quantitative methods.