Sustainable Technology – Smart Houses
Global Warming and Energy Efficiency
Mankind has always strived for progress. This progress can be attained in the largest, existential scales, and the most mundane, everyday ones. Certainly, global warming is an existential challenge for humanity. The United States Energy Information Administration (2014) discloses that fossil fuel consumption for electricity generation has increased from 1990 to 2014. This trend indicates a general increase of global demand for electricity, which places pressure on more environmentally-friendly forms of power generation (that use renewable resources), which can curtail their development. It is also true that technological breakthroughs are commonly brought about to improve aspects of our daily routines, be it with regards to safety, entertainment, efficiency, or comfort.
A technological breakthrough that tackles both existential challenges and humanity’s undying need for improvement in their everyday quality of life, is both rare and significant. According to Rokach (2012), “smart houses offer the ultimate in comfort. Sophisticated technology gives customers complete flexibility in scheduling energy consumption to fit their schedules. One type of software automatically opens and closes lights and appliances, including air conditioners, according to the length of the day and the family’s routine for meals and rest. The system turn lights and appliances on and off, and it can dim lights and run other appliances, such as air conditioners at less than full capacity. The software allows residents to choose any time interval – minutes or hours – they wish for these changes. In addition, the system permits the resident to override scheduled changes, if necessary. Smart houses can function as energy savers, similar to smart meters. The software should enable customers to program their washers and dryers to run at night and can choose to turn off air conditioners for a few or many minutes each hour when demand stretches supplies to the breaking point.”
As is the case when any state-of-the-art technology is being introduced, there are important repercussions to be studied. When it comes to smart houses, it is necessary to investigate the environmental benefits of their introduction and mass implementation. Certainly, to introduce this technology to the mainstream there are social and economic feasibility matters to be analyzed. Researchers in this field are certainly passionate about this concept and the need for further development, but the question as to whether this is a priority for society in general remains.
This paper will analyze the relevant environmental, social, economic and governance aspects as they pertain to the current state of research and implementation of smart houses. Moreover, an assessment of the general sustainability, and pathways for future development and applications of this technology will be presented herein.
Smart Houses - Fundamentals
Smart houses are residences equipped with a high-tech network, linking sensors and domestic devices, appliances, and features that can be remotely monitored, accessed or controlled, and provide services that respond to the needs of its inhabitants (Balta-Ozkan, Boteler and Amerighi, 2013). Certainly, this definition is applicable to any form of housing. That is, it may refer to standalone houses, apartments, community homes, etc. ‘Sensors’ are, in the context of this application, defined as equipment that may be used to detect a person’s or object’s location and/or collect data regarding temperature, energy usage, open windows , etc. ‘Domestic devices, appliances and features’ can include washing machines, air conditioning and lighting systems, media and entertainment devices, as well as user-home interfaces that enable the user to manage the house’s data and services.
Smart house services are the benefits that this technology provides to the user and the energy provider, namely the ability to manage demand. This is facilitated by the smart house’s network of technological components. The services can be classified according to what type of benefit they bring the user (security, assisted living, health, entertainment, communication, convenience and comfort and energy efficiency).
For example, an assisted living smart house may be able to monitor the occupier’s activity, and be programmed to contact a specific caretaker in case of unusual patterns or activities. Knowing this kind of backup is present can give and elderly or disabled occupant comfort in trusting that a familiar parson will be contacted may they suffer an accident or illness. In this sense, they can achieve the personal security that is inherently necessary because of their age and/or condition, while maintaining the independence that they may otherwise lose. The state of research with regards to these services features important work done by Adami, Hayes and Pavel (2003), on vital signs monitoring and features of lifestyle; and Colombo (2001), on systems providing users with the ability to quickly contact others in case of emergencies.
Smart house security services, through the use of movement sensors, may detect and identify potential intruders, alert about open doors and windows or program lighting patterns to deter thieves from unoccupied homes. Research work done by Kidd et al. (1999) has advanced the development of these types of services.
On the other hand, energy efficiency smart house services assist homeowners in reducing energy demand, either by directly managing lighting systems and appliances, or by providing energy usage information and recommendations to the user that render them able to make better domestic energy usage choices. Participating in the advancement of these services are the works by Hargreaves et al. (2010), Reinisch and Kofler (2011), among others.
As presented herein, there are many potential consumer benefits to smart houses. If mass implementation is the objective, these are to be discussed on similar grounds as those pertaining to energy efficiency and global sustainability. More than this, the approach is to be directed towards the priorities of consumers.
Smart Houses and Sustainability – Environment
Louis, Calo and Pongracz (2014) investigated the energy consumption and emission reductions that could be achieved by the implementation of smart houses. In this study, they estimated the energy consumption and corresponding CO2 emissions for a typical Finnish household with and without smart house services. Within their findings, it is noted that energy consumption can be reduced through home automation by up to 13%, and CO2 emissions may be reduced by up to 12.7%. These reductions are reached through user-influencing, where a smart house service is dedicated to informing the occupant of current and projected energy consumption patterns, and making recommendations on how to optimize this usage; direct peak shifting is also necessary in achieving these savings, as smart houses are found to optimize energy usage by moving it to nighttime instead of daytime. Certainly, users are to make their own decisions with regards to using appliances and electronics, but knowing what the optimal schedule is, is bound to influence routines towards the adoption of more favorable practices.
Smart Houses and Sustainability – Social
There are many challenges in the introduction and implementation of smart houses. Some of the more prevalent challenges are related to societal aspects and the general idea of what a home should be, and how that idea has and will evolve.
Balta-Ozkan, Bicket, Davidson and Whitmarsh (2013) presents and discusses a wide range of societal challenges for smart houses. Perhaps a mundane observation, but as discussed in this study, any technological system to be applied must be integrated in a way that does not damper the aesthetical characteristics desired by the owner. Moreover, it there are questions regarding what level of functionality is attractive to users, and noting that redundancy is not a desirable feature, smart houses are to provide functionality that is not perceived to replicate an already existing and preferred tool. Additionally, smart house service systems are required to evolve at a much faster rate than other elements of the home, to maintain their usefulness. However, even if smart houses can be aesthetically pleasing, and the functionality is considered relevant, some users are still found to struggle with delegating responsibilities and relying on automation, which has slowed momentum for mainstream implementation of this modality of housing.
Finally, as discussed by Rokach (2012), there are privacy concerns relating to the implementation of smart houses. As previously mentioned, some smart house services rely on the bulge collection of behavioral and biological data pertaining to the user. With the advent of cyber-security risks and in a world where privacy is becoming ever more vulnerable, willingly complying with this type of personal data collection can be troubling for some. Balta-Ozkan (2014), in a study that analyzes the implementation of smart houses in European countries, reports that participants expressed concerns regarding the potential for these systems to be compromised and third parties having knowledge of their daily practices and occupancy. In the UK, particularly, several respondents cited feeling smart houses were akin to a ‘Big Brother’ type entity. In Italy, the suggested use of smartphones to collect data that would feed to the smart house systems was a cause of concern, as these devices can easily be stolen or compromised. Older participants in this study raised concerns regarding limited freedom and creativity stemming from smart house influenced schedules.
Smart Houses and Sustainability – Economics
Ozkan (2014) studied the difference and similarities of smart house development in three different European markets with markedly different socioeconomic characteristics.
On one hand, the possible reductions in electricity consumption and the corresponding savings stemming from smart house technologies was found to be a significant point of appeal of these systems across the three countries. This appeal was magnified when combined with a grander idea of contributing to global environmental sustainability. Moreover, as energy costs and environmental sustainability concerns have caused some users to alter their routines. These changes included less use of driers and drying close in the open air. In his sense, the idea that smart houses can help optimize these adjustments, while lessening the impact on their preferred way of life has an inherent appeal.
However, in the UK, Italy and Germany, there were concerns raised with regards to the installation and maintenance costs of smart house technologies. Also across the three countries, maintenance and repairs were thought to be burdensome and costly.
In discussing smart house technologies as long-term investments for home owners, the paper by Ozkan et al. (2014) states that “In the UK and Germany, the perceived high costs of smart home technologies have led householders to think of them as long-term investments, making them viable for home owners only. When discussing the cost saving potential of smart home technology, respondents tended to assume it would involve a long-term investment. Therefore consumers would have to live in a property for a number of years before recouping costs and making significant savings. The tenant participants and pre-family participants (most of whom are renters in individual or shared properties) in particular felt these technologies and services were exclusive to them as a result. The difficulties and problems experienced currently when changing their energy suppliers led them to question how they can take their smart home services to the next property they move into and how complex it might become. Similarly in Germany, some groups are concerned with increasing rent prices in the city and expressed concern regarding purchasing energy efficient technologies because of cost barriers they experienced as renters. Other groups voiced concerns that there would be potentially large limitations to energy efficiency measures if they live in a rented place or if the property is an existing building”.
Smart Houses and Sustainability – Governance
Bounegru (2009) expands on the issue of governance in relation to smart houses. In this thesis, the transition from the manageable house to the self-managing house is discussed.
When a device is incorporated to the smart house services system, it can be said that it is being granted intelligence. However, the programmability and automation capabilities of smart houses are such that some devices in the system can be self-programming. When information sensing, processing and networking capacities are features of these devices, the home environment is endowed in learning capabilities, through which it can evaluate options, compute probabilities and make its own choices. In this sense, smart houses can reach levels of autonomy that can enhance their functionality, but may seem troubling to users, as traditionally the governing role corresponded only to them.
In a way, these changes illustrate the transition between humans being able to instruct computers to perform predetermined tasks that suit their needs, and computers being able to give advice to humans regarding what those needs actually are.
Future Developments
GaffharianHoseini, Dahlilah, Berardi and Makaremi (2013) contend that the next step in smart housing, and one that is necessary for its incorporation to the mainstream, is integration with smarter urban areas. In this sense, smart houses are to transition from being discrete entities relevant domestically, to ones that are intertwined with urban life and are a part of greater environments. The author expresses that the idea of being able to extract information from a built urban environment can help the development of new smart house services, without privacy and ethical concerns being raised. That is, the current state of knowledge with regards to smart houses is focused on how to extract, process and analyze information from inside the house, an what information is relevant and appropriate to utilize, while future research is to be directed to the integration of houses with their urban environment, extracting information from outside the house. Following this path may result not only in smarter houses, but in smarter urban areas and cities in general.
References
Adami, A., Hayes, T., & Pavel, M. (2003). Unobtrusive monitoring of sleep patterns. Proceedings of the 25th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (pp. 1360-1363). IEEE.
Balta-Ozkan, N., Boteler, B., & Amerighi, O. (2014). European smart home market development: Public views on technical and economic aspects across the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy. Elsevier - Journal of Energy Research & Social Science, 65-77.
Balta-Ozkan, N., Davidson, R., Bicket, M., & Whitmarsh, L. (2013). Social Barriers to the Adoption of Smart Homes. Elsevier - Journal of Energy Policy, 363-374.
Bounegru, L. (2009). Smart Houses: From Managing the House at a Distance to the Management of Life Itself. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Colombo, M. (2001). Gerontechnology: Why and How? by T.L; Harrington, M.K. International Journal on the Fundamental Aspects of Technology to Serve the Ageing Society, 81.
GhaffarianHoseini, A., Dahlilah Dahlan, N., Berardi, U., GhaffarianHoseini, A., & Makaremi, N. (2013). The Essence of Future Smart Houses: From Embedding ICT to Adapting to Sustainability Principles. Elsevier - Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 593-607.
Hargreaves, T., N. M., & Burgess, J. (2010). Making Energy Visible: A Qualitative Field - Study of How Householders Interact With Feedback from Smart Energy Monitors. Elsevier - Journal of Energy Policy, 6111-6119.
Kidd, C., Orr, R., Abowd, G., Atkeson, C., Essa, I., MacIntyre, B., & Mynatt, E. (1999). The Aware Home: A Living Laboratory For Ubiquitous Computing Research. Georgia Institute of Technology.
Louis, J.-N., Calo, A., & Pongracz, E. (2014). Smart Houses for Energy Efficiency and Carbon Dioxide Emission Reduction. ENERGY 2014 : The Fourth International Conference on Smart Grids, Green Communications and IT Energy-aware Technologies (pp. 44-50). Oulu, Finland: University of Oulu.
Louis, J.-N., Calo, A., Leiviska, K., & Pongracz, E. (2015). Environmental Impacts and Benefits of Smart Home Automation: Life Cycle Assessment on Home Energy Management System. Elsevier, 880-885.
Reinisch, C., & Kofler, M. (2011). Think Home Energy Efficiency in Future Smart Homes. Journal on Embedded Systems, 1-18.
Rokach, J. (2012). Smart Houses in a World of Smart Grids. The Electricity Journal, 94-97.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2014, October 21). Electricity - Detailed State Data - Annual Consumption. Retrieved from EIA - Independent Statistics & Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/
Wilson, C., Hargreaves, T., & Hauxwell-Baldwin, R. (Pers Ubiquit Comput). Smart Homes and Their Users: A Systematic Analysis. 2013, 463-476.
