Perceived Benefits and Risks of Smart Home Technologies

  • Tom HargreavesEmail author
  • Charlie Wilson
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)


This chapter characterises the perceived benefits and risks of smart home technologies (SHTs) from multiple perspectives. A representative national survey of over a thousand UK homeowners finds prospective users have positive perceptions of the multiple functionality of SHTs including energy management. Ceding autonomy and independence in the home for increased technological control are the main perceived risks. An additional survey of actual SHT users participating in a SHT field trial (see Chap.  1) identifies the key role of early adopters in lowering perceived SHT risks for the mass market. Content analysis of SHT marketing material finds that the SHT industry is insufficiently emphasising measures to build consumer confidence on data security and privacy. These multiple perspectives draw on insights from across the functional, instrumental and socio-technical views identified in the analytical framework for research on smart homes and their users (Chap. 2 and Table  2.1).


Smart Home Technologies (SHTs) Build Consumer Confidence Prospective Users Marketing Materials Potential Early Adopters 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Balta-Ozkan N, Davidson R, Bicket M, Whitmarsh L (2013) Social barriers to the adoption of smart homes. Energy Policy 63:363–374. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, Van Lente H (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technol Anal Strateg Manag 18(3–4):285–298. doi: 10.1080/09537320600777002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boudet HS, Flora JA, Armel KC (2016) Clustering household energy-saving behaviours by behavioural attribute. Energy Policy 92:444–454. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chan M, Campo E, Esteve D, Fourniols J (2009) Smart homes—current features and future perspectives. Maturitas 64:90–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi BCK, Pak AWP (2005) A catalog of biases in questionnaires. Preventing Chronic Dis: Public Health Res Pract Policy 2(1):1–13. doi:
  6. Hargreaves T, Wilson C, Hauxwell-Baldwin R (2013) Who uses smart home technologies? Representations of users by the smart home industry. In: ECEEE summer study (European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy), Hyeres, France, 2013Google Scholar
  7. Harms E (2015) Smart home—good things come to those who wait. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lighting (EEDAL’15), Luzern, Switzerland, 26–18 Aug 2015Google Scholar
  8. Herbes C, Ramme I (2014) Online marketing of green electricity in Germany—a content analysis of providers’ websites. Energy Policy 66:257–266. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nyborg S, Røpke I (2011) Energy impacts of the smart home—conflicting visions. In: European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ECEEE) summer study 2011, Hyères, France, 5–10 June 2011Google Scholar
  10. O’Neill SJ, Boykoff M, Niemeyer S, Day SA (2013) On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Glob Environ Change 23(2):413–421. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. OECD (2008) OECD Information technology outlook. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  12. OECD (2015) System innovation: synthesis report. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  13. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. SMCDB (2013) Engagement plan for smart meter roll-out. Smart Meter Central Delivery Board (SMCDB), London, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Strengers Y (2013) Smart energy technologies in everyday life: smart utopia? Palgrave Macmillan, New York, USA. doi: 10.1057/9781137267054 Google Scholar
  16. van Lente H, Spitters C, Peine A (2013) Comparing technological hype cycles: towards a theory. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 80(8):1615–1628. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wilson C, Hargreaves T, Hauxwell-Baldwin R (2015) Smart homes and their users: a systematic analysis and key challenges. Pers Ubiquit Comput 19(2):463–476. doi: 10.1007/s00779-014-0813-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wilson C, Hargreaves T, Hauxwell-Baldwin R (2017) Benefits and risks of smart home technologies. Energy Policy 103:72–83. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science, Society and Sustainability Research Group (3S), School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  2. 2.Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations