Adjustable Green Defaults Can Help Make Smart Homes More Sustainable

Abstract

Smart home technologies offer exciting opportunities to promote more efficient uses of energy. For instance, programmable thermostats, centralized lighting controls, and rooftop solar panels all have potential for energy conservation and efficiency. However, these technologies alone will not guarantee energy savings. Whereas previous research on smart homes has focused on the technologies themselves, relatively little work has addressed the factors that shape the human-technology interface. In this review paper, we argue that in order to ensure any savings, smart home technologies must first be adopted by end-users, and once adopted, they must be used in ways that promote energy efficiency. We focus on three areas of behavioral research with implications for smart home technologies: (1) defaults; (2) perceived adjustability or control; and (3) trust in automation. Linking these areas, we propose a new concept for improving the efficiency gains of smart homes. First, although smart device controls can help save energy, considerably larger energy efficiency gains can be realized through smart automation. But importantly, the default settings of systems should be "green", to maximize energy savings. Second, many people have concerns around relinquishing decision-making to technologies, which can reduce the likelihood of adoption. People want to be, or at least to feel, in control of their homes, even if they do not adjust settings post-installation. Further, consumer trust in technologies encourages adoption in the first place; trust also impacts consumer interactions with installed devices and can impact default acceptance. Combining these concepts, we recommend that smart home technologies build consumer trust and come pre-programmed with adjustable green defaults, which permit consumers to change initial green settings.

At Home with Sustainability: From Green Default Rules to Sustainable Consumption

“…Second, the apparent inseparability of market and consumer in this research implies that for default rules for broader social change, such as with green default rules for sustainable consumption, shared social values are needed. Whereas Sintov and Schultz highlight the importance of adjustable controls, consumer trust, and interaction in designing green default rules for sustainable building [7], the findings herein indicate that building users must first experience contrast to be able to take advantage of these dynamics and partake in the design process.…”

“…Instead of directly standardizing behavior, a choice architect standardizes the design of the infrastructure within which daily life is carried out. In the case of default green rules, the idea is to design the infrastructure in such a way that instead of expecting consumers to choose to sustainable behavior, it is the default action, making other selections more challenging [6,7]. Thus, default rules are similar to standards in that they are voluntary and make nonadherence difficult [21,29], yet they differ by their invisibility and the lack of awareness surrounding them, arguably making responsibility even more significant.…”

Nudge for Good? Choice Defaults and Spillover Effects

“…However, the literature provides multiple explanations for why people stick to defaults. For example, defaults may be set such that it may be rational to follow the default (Croson and Treich, 2014), they may convey information about certain choices over others and signal quality (Dinner et al, 2011;Coffman et al, 2015), or following the default may simply be cognitively less challenging (Sintov and Schultz, 2017). The latter point indicates that often, defaults seem to work (i.e., people stay with the default) because it is laborious for people to make an active choice and to opt out of the default.…”

“…The defaults differ in the effort level required to change the pre-set donation amount. While reasons to follow default decisions are diverse, the literature also indicates that effort is a prime factor preventing individuals to change preset choices (Brown et al, 2013;Altmann et al, 2014;Egebark and Ekstroem, 2016;Sintov and Schultz, 2017 These moral licensing hypotheses stand in contrast to literature describing moral consistency effects, i.e., higher pro-social behavior following anti-social behavior in an initial decision (e.g., Freedman and Fraser, 1966;Beaman et al, 1983;Cialdini et al, 1995;Burger, 1999;Knez and Camerer, 2000;Fitzsimons and Shiv, 2001;Cherry et al, 2003;Grimm and Mengel, 2012;Baca-Motes et al, 2013;Brandon et al, 2017). As discussed in the introduction, however, this literature identifies spillover effects from a first decision on a second decision where the first decision is conceptually different from the second.…”

A Review on Building Integrated Photovoltaic Façade Customization Potentials

“…It has been argued that sustainability goals of the future can only be achieved if we look beyond new technologies themselves, and account for the complex human factors influencing their adoption and use [73]. Several researchers have investigated these barriers and their studies show that there are various perspectives and issues of concern.…”