Nesta’s clean heat neighbourhood work is exploring how households engage with and respond to the idea of a coordinated clean heat transition within their local area. The project aims to understand how people react to their area being set in a clear direction for clean heat. One of the key questions this project seeks to address is:

“If we communicate future home heating options to residents, how will they respond?”

We took a design-led, iterative approach: prototyping, testing and refining what clean heat neighbourhoods could look and feel like from a household’s point of view. Our goal is to uncover what works for households and to refine the tools and methods that could improve their clarity, confidence and actions around heating choices.

This work builds on our previous testing, and work with BIT, which looked to understand whether clear direction and understanding of the low-carbon transition can help households make more informed decisions about their heating options and ease the process of adopting low-carbon technologies in their homes. 

Through qualitative research, we heard a strong need for wider direction-setting – people were unsure why they’d been contacted or how this related to a broader plan. We also heard that even though social reinforcement may build confidence in the scheme, individual agency must be stressed – people expressed the need for a balance of convenience in coordination, while still maintaining the ability to have their own say. 

Lastly, we saw the importance of building trust in the technology itself – people want to understand what it is and how it works. There is a need for the proposed technologies to feel more familiar, especially compared to more traditional heating systems, such as boilers.

To test some of our understanding from the previous phase, we focused this round of testing on three core questions:

• How do we build confidence in clean heat neighbourhoods, and that an area-based transition is going to happen?
• How can we understand household preferences around what is collective and what is individual in a clean heat neighbourhood process?
• How do we communicate information about the technology proposed for each home in a way that builds confidence?

We conducted 10 in-depth, one-on-one interviews with individuals living across the UK. Participants were selected to reflect a mix of housing types, tenures, heating systems and local contexts. This diversity allows us to explore how different household characteristics might shape people’s reactions to a clean heat neighbourhood approach.

We took a participatory approach grounded in activity-based research. In this phase, we invited participants to shape what a clean heat neighbourhood could feel like from their perspective – how it’s introduced, who makes which decisions, and what kind of information would help them feel confident taking part. 

The interviews were structured around a set of hands-on exercises designed to prompt personal interpretation, reflection, and decision-making. This design-led approach helped us surface participants’ expectations, concerns, and mental models around a neighbourhood-wide shift to clean heat. It also gave us insights into the kinds of information, support and timing they need to feel confident moving forward. 

Each 45-minute session explored three core areas of interest. Participants: 

• reacted to staged communications simulating how a clean heat neighbourhood might be introduced over time
• reflected on which aspects of the process they felt should be individual vs coordinated
• designed their own journey, mapping the support, information and actions they would want between being notified and actually switching to clean heat.

We used a Miro board to make these workshop sessions feel interactive and tangible in an online setting. This allowed participants to engage visually with the materials in real time as we moved through the exercises together.

The first activity

We began by presenting a three-part sequence of communications that simulate how households might first come into contact with a clean heat neighbourhood in the real world. Each message represented a different touchpoint and level of proximity, moving from broad (national) to personal (household).

In our previous testing, we introduced clean heat neighbourhoods using a single letter and text message. People said it lacked context, and felt “nervous or singled out as no rationale was given”. In this phase, we tested whether a sequenced and layered communication approach across three scales (national → local → household) could build confidence in the legitimacy, coordination and relevance of clean heat neighbourhoods for households over time.

The second activity

After exploring participants’ expectations for how a local clean heat neighbourhood scheme might be rolled out and introduced, we presented a set of digital cards representing possible key elements in a clean heat neighbourhood process (eg, ‘Opt-in timing’, ‘Installer selection’, ‘Street improvements’).

Participants were asked to place each card along a simple diagram divided between ‘individual’ and ‘coordinated’, depending on whether they saw the element as a personal decision, or one shared or led by others. This sparked conversations about where people wanted more control and where they were open to coordination. This activity was shaped by insights from Phase 1, where we heard that while social reinforcement may build confidence in the scheme, people still valued having their own say.

There was a clear desire for a balance between the convenience of coordination and the preservation of individual agency. Here, we explored how those preferences play out in specific elements of a clean heat neighbourhood scheme.

The third activity

Our previous testing highlighted a common barrier to clean heat neighbourhood adoption: the technologies being proposed often feel unfamiliar. Compared to more traditional heating systems, such as boilers, low-carbon systems can seem abstract, harder to visualise, or less intuitive. We saw the importance of building trust in the technology itself – people want to understand what it is, how it works, and why it fits in their home.

To explore this, we facilitated a ‘mapping the journey to confidence’ activity. Participants were given a defined start point (clean heat neighbourhood is identified) and an end-point (your home switches to clean heat). We asked them: If you could design a scheme/process for your area, what would it look like? What would help you feel confident between these two moments? When would you want that information or support? Participants were provided with some prompts (indicated in blue), and we encouraged them to add their own (indicated in yellow).

Prior to the activities, we began each session by introducing the concept of a clean heat neighbourhood through a short spoken description, unaccompanied by visuals or prompts. We explained it as a coordinated, area-based shift away from gas heating to cleaner systems, like heat pumps, supported locally rather than households navigating the shift alone. This was an intentional way to test the concept in the abstract, before layering in any of the messaging touchpoints that might influence perception. 

Our aim was to meet people where they are, to understand what ‘clean heat neighbourhood’ evokes on its own. Is it something they care about? Does it feel relevant to them? What assumptions, questions, or hesitations arise before any framing is introduced?

This zoomed-out first step gave us a macro-level view, a way to hear how people initially interpret the idea of a clean heat neighbourhood, and how they filter it through their own personal context. It also set the stage for the rest of the session. By starting with open-ended reactions, we were better positioned to observe how and if people’s understanding shifted once we introduced sequenced communications later on.

What we heard

Most participants expressed openness or cautious interest, but personal relevance varied, often shaped by their housing type, financial concerns, or trust in coordination.

Key themes

Relevance is shaped by personal values

Some participants were motivated by environmental concerns or a desire to leave a better world for the next generation. Some connected clean heat neighbourhoods to collective responsibility towards a shared problem; the climate crisis, and to the idea of community-based neighbourhood-level change: 

“We are in a climate crisis and have been for many years. The government is not doing enough to bring us closer to green energy or to slow down the climate issues.” "When I had my son, he's three, you don't think about your own life in the same way. He's going to outlive me and I want the world to be a better place for him."

Perception of feasibility depends on housing context 

Some immediately assessed whether it fits their home and often judged relevance based on where they lived. Tenements, shared flats, and conservation areas raised questions about whether a clean heat neighbourhood could be implemented practically. Some felt a clean heat neighbourhood made more sense in new builds than in retrofits: 

“Makes me think of new builds, an estate getting built, they're all getting built with solar panels and heat pumps, and that to me makes more sense to have from the beginning.” “Seeing a clean heat neighbourhood in this estate, (10-15 years old), to come in and change everything, the infrastructure required would be huge. I don't think we’ll manage to get the consent of everybody.”

Coordination increases confidence

Some generally preferred the idea of joining something local and supported, rather than navigating heating choices individually. Several described clean heat neighbourhoods as more trustworthy and less risky than doing it alone. It felt logical and helpful, particularly if it removed burden from the individual and if someone led it: 

“Getting the word out there that there are alternative options and being able to do it together, collectively rather than just being one person that goes out there on their own might give people more confidence.”

Cost is universal

Everyone mentioned cost, though not always first. For some, affordability was the most immediate concern. For others, cost surfaced after considerations around environmental benefits, housing constraints or personal timing. It was either the strongest driver, or the condition. Regardless of when it appeared, it shaped how realistic and attractive the idea felt: 

“I think cost is number one, isn't it for most people?” “We're in an arms race of cost, it's only going up with fossil fuels anyway.”

To build on these early impressions, we tested a series of communication prototypes to explore what kinds of messaging best support awareness, trust, and personal relevance. The prototypes we used moved from national messaging to more local and personal invitations (see the ‘What did we do’ chapter to view the prototypes). 

Across interviews, several themes emerged about what helps (or hinders) confidence in the introduction of a clean heat transition. The insights map closely to the signals we were tracking: trust, comprehension and appetite. In this section, we unpack how different ways of introducing the idea shaped people’s reactions.

Prototype 1: national campaign poster – “What is this?”

At this early stage, the signal was awareness. The poster introduced clean heat neighbourhoods at a macro level: the idea that change is coming. But on its own, the message landed with uncertainty. Many participants struggled with the terminology or intent: 

“I see that and wonder what does ‘clean heat neighbourhoods’ mean?” “There’s a sense of it being a mandate rather than opportunity. Almost feels like an enforcement.” “Sounds futuristic…should I be concerned?”

Several noted that without context or explanation, the phrase ‘clean heat’ raised questions: What does clean heat mean? What’s being proposed? “It’s telling you that clean heat is coming – but a lot of people might not know what that means.”

Trust, however, was supported by the messenger. Government logos conveyed some credibility: “Seeing a government logo would give me confidence in whatever the scheme was.” “Feels reassuring and comforting that it’s a government initiative.”

Still, most expected more clarity from the outset, not just legitimacy: “Nothing stands out from this advert, needs more information really.” “I would expect much more information. I would expect communication to come from the local council. I don’t think it’s something for me to go and find out about, I think it’s something I should be contacted about and informed of.”…something I should be contacted about and informed of.”

Some version of engagement started to form when participants viewed the video ad, when the message hinted at practical relevance, particularly around energy bills: “I connect more with this as it mentions ‘bills’ and I’m definitely interested in saving.” “When it says managing your bills and heating your home, it immediately pulls you in, economic situation isn’t great.”

Prototype 2: local council leaflet – “Is this for me?”

The second touchpoint shifted scale and messenger, simulating a more local message from the council. The aim was to deepen the message, bring it closer to home and clarify participation. This stage helped in several ways. Participants welcomed the added detail: “Good to see details without having to guess.” “Makes me curious…it’s more than just an idea.”

In addition, having the local council as the sender improved trust: “Wouldn’t feel bad if it came from the local council, they’ve done their research.” “People don't have much trust in the government either, but you wouldn't have any trust in an external company, because you wouldn't really know who they are. So maybe that's why you would expect council.” “It should really only come from the council.”

However, clarity remained uneven. Some still questioned the intended audience, and the confusion increased for others with the introduction of the council logo: “Is this just about social housing?” “I am getting the impression that the new houses will have this new system in place.” This shows that while legitimacy and locality matter, so does specificity. Without clear eligibility, people may exclude themselves by assumption. 

Some expressed they’d take action to find out more: “If it had a QR code I would scan to find out more”, but for others, there were lingering questions about next steps: “No idea what to expect next. You don’t see any sort of timeline.” “I don’t think the onus should be on me to go and find out about this. I expect the council to come to me about it.”

And finally, even though added detail was appreciated, information gaps began to show. Participants wanted to understand practicalities: What does installation involve? How much will it cost? “I'm thinking what does it mean for me, how long will it take to switch over, what's the digging around the system, how much is it going to cost me.” “How can I get involved, what’s the commitment from me, what am I giving, what do I expect.” “Can everybody afford this change?” “How can I get involved, what’s the commitment from me, what am I giving, what do I expect?”

Prototype 3: letter through the door – “This is for me”

The final touchpoint zoomed in further, simulating a letter addressed to the household. This grounded the message in individual experience – and in many cases, marked the first moment participants felt the initiative applied to them directly: “Now that our home has been included…I know it’s for me.” “Happy that the letter is addressed to me.” “This would tell me that the local authorities are serious about this.”

By this point, confidence shifted towards action. Participants described what they would do next – talk to neighbours, visit the website, contact the advisor: “Would want to talk to neighbours about it and see if we want to do it together.” “I’d do my own research.” “I’d contact the advisor.” 

At the same time, the need for detail didn’t go away. The questions got sharper: “What does ‘group savings’ mean?” “I’d be curious how everyone is brought together, whether it's something that we'd have to do ourselves or if it's something that's taken out of our hands by someone and made easy?” “My home is included, what does good look like? At what point is this going to be introduced and what is the cost as a homeowner? Is it free to us or is there a cost we need to consider? And also, are we able to opt out because we can't afford it? What are the payment options? What incentives do you have?”. 

Participants also showed much greater appetite when benefits were clearly spelled out. Most focused on the bullet points in the letter – highlighting cost, coordination and support. “The bullet points were very helpful – especially ‘group savings’ and ‘dedicated support’.” “The letter gives you the opportunity to do something you thought was way too expensive.” “This letter will be more relevant to encourage most people to take action, from seeing that there’s cost savings.”

Finally, cost was still a major concern for people, who were asking about grants and incentives, and seeking examples that show this will be financially better for them: “I would expect to see some sort of grant." “I’d want examples on how it's going to be financially better for me as well.” “How is it any different if there's not a grant or financial incentive with something to get you to do it. It's something you can do on your own, it's not anything new.” “Some people are used to the way they do things, and because of that they're not willing to change. What sort of encouragement are you giving to them to make them understand this is the best way forward?”

Each stage of the three-part communication brought the idea of a clean heat neighbourhood closer – moving from abstract concept to personal invitation. The macro narrative (national messaging) sets the tone and values; the meso message (local council) gives the idea proximity and legitimacy; and the micro interaction (personal letter) brings it into contact with people’s real-world decisions. But sequencing alone isn’t enough. To build confidence and not just awareness, each stage must clearly show: What is this, how does it relate to me, what do I gain? People need to see tangible benefits and practical details that speak to the household level.

Based on the insights gathered, we have a stronger sense of what may help build confidence and engagement in the clean heat transition. The key takeaways from this phase suggest a set of actionable steps we could take forward as opportunities to test and refine our approach in response to what people told us.

1. Keep a gradual, layered communication approach

What we heard

People responded well to a phased build-up of information – from broad concepts to specific and personal details, compared to our previous testing. Interest increased as messaging became more tangible and locally relevant. But when introduced through the local council leaflet, some participants reflected that they would have expected to hear about something like this more – on the news, on social media or in everyday spaces like supermarkets or GPs. This revealed an expectation that this big change should show up more visibly in public life. While the framing didn’t explicitly lead with climate or health, people made those associations early on – suggesting that national-level messaging could build resonance by connecting to widely held values.

What this means 

• Keep using a sequenced approach
• Ensure messages are clear, visible and resonate
• Use national messaging to tap into personal and shared values

2. Localise and personalise the experience

What we heard

Messages felt trustworthy coming from local sources (like councils), and became more relevant when tailored. But participants still weren’t always sure if the information applied to them personally.

What this means

• Strengthen local messaging with area-specific detail
• Tailor content by housing type or tenure
• Clearly state who it’s for to avoid self-exclusion

3. Provide detailed and actionable information early on

What we heard

People wanted more detail, especially around cost, timelines and what the change would involve. Some participants said they would take next steps – like scanning a QR code – but mainly because they still had a lot of questions. Others said they would expect more detailed information to come to them, rather than having to actively seek it out. Together, these signal a need to provide clearer, more proactive information earlier in the journey. 

What this means 

• Share practical info (costs, timelines, support) early
• Use proactive outreach, not just passive signposting
• Deliver information in simple, accessible formats (eg, videos)

4. Revisit cost messaging and make financing clear

What we learned

Cost was a central concern. People wanted clarity early on about what the transition would cost, what support exists, and whether it’s worth it in the long run.

What this means

• Be transparent about costs, funding, and benefits
• Show how group schemes or support can make it easier
• Connect value to both short-term affordability and long-term savings

5. Strengthen the connection to climate and community impact

What we learned

Some participants were motivated by climate, fairness, and future generations, even if practical concerns came first. These values made the clean heat neighbourhood idea feel more meaningful. Others saw practical upsides in doing this as a group, like shared costs or knowing others were also involved, without necessarily wanting to engage socially.

What this means

• Tap into both shared values and practical benefits of a coordinated approach, while still being clear on individual agency
• Highlight group advantages (like savings or coordination), without overstating social cohesion
• Show how individual actions contribute to collective change
• Use local stories to build trust and a sense of shared effort

How to build confidence with households

To bring together what we’ve heard across interviews and testing, the table summarises the key roles, expectations, actions and outcomes involved in building confidence through communication about a clean heat neighbourhood transition. It outlines how communication and engagement could evolve across three levels – national, local, household – with each scale playing a distinct role in shaping awareness, trust and readiness to act. 

This synthesis is grounded in participants’ responses and our learning from the prototypes. It offers a practical framework to guide how and where different types of support and messaging could be most effective – from establishing national legitimacy, to reinforcing local credibility, to enabling personal relevance and action.

After exploring how the idea of a clean heat neighbourhood might be introduced, we turned to what it would mean in practice. We asked participants to reflect on which parts of the process they felt should be coordinated – and where they preferred more individual control. This section of the report looks at which elements of the scheme people saw as personal choices, and where they were open to collective, coordinated approaches.

Opt-in timing: needs to fit individual circumstances

Opt-in timing was commonly seen as an individual decision, and participants wanted enough time and information to feel confident opting in. Sales pressure, decision fatigue, and the need to align with personal circumstances were all mentioned:

“Three months is not enough time. You need longer to do the research. First instinct is to say no – and then change your mind later.” “When and if depends on when I can remove my old system. If someone else won’t take it out, I can’t just say yes.”

Several participants flagged a fear of missing out vs fear of acting too soon, noting that schemes can be complex or feel rushed: “I’d want time to compare grants, compare systems. I don’t want to be pushed into it.”

Installer selection: experience and trust drive preferences

Participants were divided on installer selection, based on whether they trusted the provider. Some leaned toward wanting individual choice, often due to prior negative experiences: “The council rolled out solar panels before. The company people went with was not one we would have chosen. So we kept out of the system.”

For others, a coordinated approach was acceptable if it included quality assurance or a choice among vetted options: “Helpful if someone you could trust provided the contractors. Like: here’s a list of relevant installers for this tech – we’re trusting them to give us the best.” Others imagined hybrid models: “You can have the option of who to do it. Everyone has their own rate, their own budget, so someone might choose someone different.”

A recurring theme was the need to validate both the finance providers and the quality of installers or the specific technology setups. Many participants expressed a strong desire for reassurance through sufficient online reviews (eg, Checkatrade) or word-of-mouth recommendations: “Would want to make sure they’ve installed before – with some reviews, something like Checkatrade.”

Some were more comfortable if they could speak with a nearby friend or neighbour in similar circumstances who had used the same installer. While some trusted their council to coordinate a reliable contractor, others emphasised the importance of independently verifying quality and trustworthiness before committing. 

Some recognised that coordination might make logistics smoother or cheaper, but were still cautious: “If we all have the same installer, it means we have the same tech, and that makes everything easier. But getting that agreement can be difficult.” This suggests that clean heat neighbourhoods should not exclude people from choosing their own supplier and making the switch individually, without the support of an area-based scheme.

Technology type: balancing expertise with perceived suitability

Opinions on technology choice were mixed. Some felt this was something best decided by experts, particularly if they lacked the time or knowledge to evaluate systems themselves: “I don’t feel informed enough. I wouldn’t have the time to sit and read about every type. If someone I trust – even my partner or neighbour – knows better, I’d let them choose.”

Others, especially homeowners, emphasised that technology must fit their specific property, lifestyle, or preferences: “Heat pumps are large – where you can put it really matters. I’d want to know if I can have it in a less obvious spot.” “It’s got to suit your household – your living style. Are they tailoring it to that?”

Still others felt comfortable deferring to the council or trusted experts, but only if the scheme came with a reliable contact point: “Ideally you go along with what the council recommends. But if it’s your house, you need to work with them – not just be told what to do.”

Participants also raised concerns about the visual and spatial impact of large heat pumps, and whether they would have any say over placement and design: “Acceptability depends on whether you can put it in a less conspicuous area.”

A few also raised concerns about longevity and cost-effectiveness: “It’s important to know the technology is going to be cost-effective and will last more than 5-10 years. Don’t want a repeat of when boilers first came out – you had to either change them every few years or keep paying for constant servicing.”

For others, a lack of familiarity with the range of clean heat system options was in itself off-putting. This led to suggestions that any introductory information or adverts should include simple, high-level summaries or comparisons: “Just something short – like a simple comparison of what the technologies are.”

Installation timing: the need for flexibility

Most participants leaned towards wanting individual control over when installation happens, citing personal routines, care responsibilities, or work schedules: “If someone works from home or has young children, they’ve got to factor that in.” “I’d need to know when they’re coming – I don’t want it done while we’ve got guests or I’m away.”

However, three participants placed installation timing between ‘individual’ and ‘coordinated’, suggesting they saw potential for coordination to offer practical or financial benefits – as long as some flexibility remained: “I get that the savings might be better if it’s all on the same day – but that’s not always possible.” “If it’s in the same week, maybe. But same day with everyone? That’s too much.”

Some also assumed that coordination might require all installations to happen at once – raising concerns about feasibility: “Do you also need to talk to your neighbours (and coordinate) when to install? Is it the same day? I’d need to know more.”

In addition to timing, participants highlighted the importance of personal agency during installation: “Don’t touch or work on this wall or room and so on.”

Financing options: a personal decision

Across nearly all interviews, financing was seen as a personal element. Seven participants placed it squarely on the individual side, citing how financial circumstances vary widely between households, making standardised or coordinated finance options feel impractical: 

“A blanket finance plan won’t work for everyone. Everyone’s income is totally different. Everyone’s life stage is different – someone could be on maternity leave, someone else just had a big windfall.” “You might want to pay over two years; I might want to pay upfront. That’s not something you can coordinate.”

Participants expressed a strong desire for flexibility, including payment timelines and grant availability. Trust was also critical, particularly in relation to any third-party finance or lenders: “You’d want to make sure the people you might borrow from are trustworthy.”

Two participants placed this element between individual and coordinated, acknowledging that coordination could sometimes help enable access to finance or group savings, but only if individual control remained. Still, for most, finance was the top priority to control: “Finance – that’s the biggest part.”

Grants were seen as not just helpful, but necessary, both to motivate opt-ins and to avoid leaving some households behind: “If the grant covers everything, then I’d let them do it all, but I still want to see if there are other options.”

Some participants also raised concerns about being left behind without the right financial support. One quote captured the multiple layers of concern: “Have you got the money? Or if you haven’t, is there another suitable way to do it economically? And are the people you might borrow from trustworthy?”

Street improvements and coordination: collective by nature, but must be communicated

All participants, except for one who said that both of these elements are “unimportant” to them and thus left them aside, expressed that street improvements and street works coordination were inherently coordinated. However, they wanted these efforts to be clearly communicated, well managed, and respectful of local logistics (eg, parking, schools, emergency services): 

“If you close the road for four weeks, people aren’t going to be happy. Might have to start commuting at 4:00am instead of 7:00am.” “You’ve got to tell people what’s going on. Like, how many vehicles will be on the street? Will the fire services still get through?” “We’ve got a school across the street, starting work before 9:00am would be a disaster.” 

Participants raised concerns about how large numbers of contractor or installer vehicles could create major disruptions, especially in areas with limited parking or narrow access. Several participants also linked coordination quality to trust, noting that even if they weren’t involved in decision-making, they needed to be kept informed. Others expressed concern that street works might not clearly relate to the clean heat neighbourhood scheme at all or to enabling ‘clean heating’, and should be presented in a way that makes the connection to the scheme obvious. There was also an appetite for consultation and co-design, especially if street changes could improve the area: “It would be nice to get ideas from people who live on the street. Some streets don’t need much, but others could really benefit.”

Other key insights

Beyond the specific elements people placed on the individual–coordinated spectrum, we heard broader reflections on what enables trust, how much agency people are willing to trade off and under what conditions, and what kind of community coordination feels realistic. This section captures those wider insights, along with key considerations for anyone designing future clean heat neighbourhood schemes.

On agency trade-off: flexible with strong incentives

A few participants said they would accept reduced choice over design, technology, or installer if specific conditions were met, especially where financial savings or trusted assurances were present. This was most often mentioned in relation to: group-based savings (eg, collective installation discounts), grants that covered full or majority costs, confidence that a neighbour with a similar home had already tested the setup, and perceived guarantees under a council-backed scheme: 

“If the grant covers everything, then I’d let them do it all – but I still want to see if there are other options.” “If someone else on my street has it and it’s working, then I’d probably go with that.”

On community coordination: expected, but few wanted to lead it

Some participants imagined that neighbours or the wider community would play a role in shaping scheme choices, like selecting technologies or coordinating installations. This expectation was often linked to a desire for local, street-level leadership. 

“It should be a community decision, or at least have a few people on the street to help coordinate things.”

But only three participants said they’d be willing to take on that kind of role. Two said they’d act as a street leader or scheme liaison only if: there were two to three others sharing the role, or the group was small (around 20 households), or the tasks and expectations were clearly defined: “I wouldn’t do it alone. If it was two or three of us, sure – we could share the load.” 

While informal leadership may emerge in some streets, schemes should not assume this will happen organically – and may need to support it more formally if community input is desired.

This activity helped to define the elements of area-based low-carbon heat schemes and the agency required for households. It leaves a number of options to explore and those delivering area-based schemes may want to consider variables within their offers. These options are outlined in the table below.

Finally, in the last activity, we asked participants to map their own journey from hearing about a clean heat neighbourhood to actually switching. This section of the report captures what builds trust in the proposed technology itself, what information and support people need, and how decision-making rhythms differ.

Across the participant-created journey maps, certain needs appeared consistently:

• Clarity on the technology: understanding how the proposed system works.
• Cost and financial clarity: upfront costs, running costs, how it compares to current bills, and what support is available.
• Real-world demonstrations: seeing a system installed in a real home or hearing from someone who had made the switch already.
• Disruption detail: what installation involves in practice – time, noise, access etc.
• A named, local point of contact: someone they could go back to with questions throughout the process.

The role of cost: a condition gateway

Cost came up in every map, but not always at the same time. In several journeys, participants placed cost-related questions right at the start, including running costs, comparisons with current bills, and grant eligibility. For these participants, cost acted as a first filter: if it didn’t feel viable, the journey might not proceed. In others, cost appeared later, after seeing the system in a real home or hearing from someone who had already installed it. Talking to someone who ‘had done it before’ helped them decide whether they wanted to engage further. In these cases, cost became more meaningful after credibility was established.

Confidence doesn’t end at installation

Several participants included steps after installation – check-ins, follow-ups, or having a contact for future questions. This reinforces that confidence in technology relies on knowing a person would be there if things don’t go as planned, even after installation. 

Seeing it makes it real

Participants often included a moment where they’d ‘see it in action’ – either by visiting a real home, watching a video, or talking to someone who had made the switch. People wanted to hear what it was actually like: how long it took, what they thought of it, what the actual disruption was, and whether it worked for a similar property. “I want to talk to someone who’s had it – not someone trying to sell it to me.” In several maps, this kind of peer reassurance came before deeper interest in cost and installation details.

Two decision-making rhythms

The journeys also revealed differences in how people structure decisions to build confidence. While most participants included the same core steps, they approached them in very different orders.

Rhythm 1: Building confidence over time

These participants moved through multiple steps, often including time for reflection or feedback loops like ‘ask questions → reflect → ask again.’ Trust built gradually through advisor contact, seeing a real home, and talking to others. This journey aligned with participants who needed reassurance before moving forward.

Rhythm 2: Making a decision early

Others preferred a small number of touchpoints with all essential information up front – technology, cost, disruption, support. If the offer met their criteria, they proceeded. These journeys often included headings like ‘what I need to know before I say yes’.

Both of these journeys and the decision-making styles they represent are valid, and well-designed schemes can support both. Some residents may be interested in clean heat, or curious about the switch, but not yet in a position to commit. For them, a step-by-step process with space to explore, reflect and build trust over time is helpful. It allows confidence in low-carbon technologies to grow gradually through clear information, visible explanations and someone to ask questions to. 

Others will need to make faster decisions, for example those replacing a broken boiler or facing urgent change. For them, what matters most is a front-loaded, clear offer: what it is, what it costs, how it works, and what to expect. A well-structured, high-information starting point helps them decide quickly and more confidently. The challenge for future area-based schemes is to enable both of these example journeys, as seen in the sections above. Information should be presented in a timely and salient moment.

This research forms part of our broader work on clean heat neighbourhoods. Over the coming months, we will be working with local authorities and the supply chain to help embed some of this learning into existing work, ground-truthing and testing some of our learning.

If you’re interested in applying some of the learning, or have any questions please reach out to clean heat neighbourhoods or sign up to receive updates about our work.