Hargreaves, T; Wilson, C and Hauxwell-Baldwin, R (2018) Learning to live in a smart home. Building Research & Information, 46(1), pp. 127-139. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Smart homes promise to significantly enhance domestic comfort, convenience, security and leisure whilst simultaneously reducing energy use through optimized home energy management. Their ability to achieve these multiple aims rests fundamentally on how they are used by householders, yet very little is currently known about this topic. The few studies that have explored the use of smart homes have tended to focus on special-interest groups and be quite short-term. This paper reports on new in-depth qualitative data that explore the domestication of a range of smart home technologies in 10 households participating in a nine-month field trial. Four core themes emerge: (1) smart home technologies are both technically and socially disruptive; (2) smart homes require forms of adaptation and familiarization from householders that can limit their use; (3) learning to use smart home technologies is a demanding and time-consuming task for which there is currently very little support available; and (4) there is little evidence that smart home technologies will generate substantial energy savings and, indeed, there is a risk that they may generate forms of energy intensification. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of these findings for policy, design and further research.;Smart homes promise to significantly enhance domestic comfort, convenience, security and leisure whilst simultaneously reducing energy use through optimized home energy management. Their ability to achieve these multiple aims rests fundamentally on how they are used by householders, yet very little is currently known about this topic. The few studies that have explored the use of smart homes have tended to focus on special-interest groups and be quite short-term. This paper reports on new in-depth qualitative data that explore the domestication of a range of smart home technologies in 10 households participating in a nine-month field trial. Four core themes emerge: (1) smart home technologies are both technically and socially disruptive; (2) smart homes require forms of adaptation and familiarization from householders that can limit their use; (3) learning to use smart home technologies is a demanding and time-consuming task for which there is currently very little support available; and (4) there is little evidence that smart home technologies will generate substantial energy savings and, indeed, there is a risk that they may generate forms of energy intensification. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of these findings for policy, design and further research.;
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | feedback; household energy; occupant behaviour; domestication; energy demand; smart homes; users; technology systems; field trial; Smart buildings; Energy use; Interest groups; Households; Smart houses; Security; Custom design; Energy; Energy conservation; Qualitative analysis; Energy management; Residential energy |
| Index terms: | qualitative analysis, evidence, smart building, domestication, smart housing, field trial, technology system, smart home, residential energy, comfort, household, energy-saving, custom design, occupant behaviour, energy conservation, energy management, interest group, energy use, energy demand, adaptation |
| Subjects: | sustainability and energy, innovation and technology management, energy systems, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, construction type, research design and methodology, user focus, health behaviours and lifestyles, demography, occupational health and safety management, sociology, communities and social development, design practice, design process |
| Topics: | Design Practice, Urban Studies, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here