Automating Behavior? An Experimental Living Lab Study on the Effect of Smart Home Systems and Traffic Light Feedback on Heating Energy Consumption

Buhl, Johannes; Suski, Paul; Berg, Holger

doi:10.9734/cjast/2017/34414

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are many motivations to design and develop applications in smart homes, the main ones being independent living [ 3 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 57 ]; wellbeing [ 4 , 6 , 8 , 12 , 58 ]; efficient use of electricity [ 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ]; and safety and security [ 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 ].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Human–Machine Interface Based on Eye Tracking for Controlling and Monitoring a Smart Home Using the Internet of Things

Bissoli

Lavino-Júnior

Sime

et al. 2019

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People with severe disabilities may have difficulties when interacting with their home devices due to the limitations inherent to their disability. Simple home activities may even be impossible for this group of people. Although much work has been devoted to proposing new assistive technologies to improve the lives of people with disabilities, some studies have found that the abandonment of such technologies is quite high. This work presents a new assistive system based on eye tracking for controlling and monitoring a smart home, based on the Internet of Things, which was developed following concepts of user-centered design and usability. With this system, a person with severe disabilities was able to control everyday equipment in her residence, such as lamps, television, fan, and radio. In addition, her caregiver was able to monitor remotely, by Internet, her use of the system in real time. Additionally, the user interface developed here has some functionalities that allowed improving the usability of the system as a whole. The experiments were divided into two steps. In the first step, the assistive system was assembled in an actual home where tests were conducted with 29 participants without disabilities. In the second step, the system was tested with online monitoring for seven days by a person with severe disability (end-user), in her own home, not only to increase convenience and comfort, but also so that the system could be tested where it would in fact be used. At the end of both steps, all the participants answered the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire, which showed that both the group of participants without disabilities and the person with severe disabilities evaluated the assistive system with mean scores of 89.9 and 92.5, respectively.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Human–Machine Interface Based on Eye Tracking for Controlling and Monitoring a Smart Home Using the Internet of Things

Bissoli

Lavino-Júnior

Sime

et al. 2019

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Liedtke et al 2015 [72] and Baedeker et al 2017 [74] consider SLL research to be an effective way to create and implement new eco innovations due to stronger focus on users' behavior, habits, or practices. The core of SLL is the co-development and testing of sustainable product and service innovations to provide insights into the usability and adoption for industry, public, and academic stakeholders [24,75]. The potential of SLL has been demonstrated in various cases including energy efficiency solutions [75].…”

Section: Sustainable Living Labs (Sll) and Human-centered Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reasons for this include the poor understanding of user needs and emotions in real-life contexts [19,20]. Furthermore, behavioral-oriented solutions may even stimulate reactance [21] and feelings of manipulation and control (paternalism) [22,23] and developed solutions do not meet the initial expectations because of unexpected patterns in the usage phase, where efficiency gains are counteracted by increases in consumption or sustainable actions are balanced with unsustainable practices (the rebound effect [24][25][26]. Finally, solutions can have difficulties accounting for changes in behavior because interventions are rather "rhetorical," supporting "green" attitudes but not leading to actual and intended behaviors (the "attitude-to-action-gap") [27][28][29].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactive Design to Encourage Energy Efficiency in Offices: Developing and Testing a User-Centered Building Management System Based on a Living Lab Approach

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many technical solutions have been developed to enhance the energy efficiency in buildings. However, the actual effectiveness and sustainability of these solutions often do not correspond to expectations because of the missing perspective of design, user’s real needs, and unconsidered negative side effects of their use (rebounds). With the aim to help address these challenges, this paper presents results of a longitudinal living lab study and proposes a user-centered building management system (UC-BMS) as a prototype for office buildings. Based on mixed methods, UC-BMS was co-developed, tested, and evaluated in Germany in up to six office buildings, 85 offices, and within two heating periods. The results demonstrate that such user-oriented approach can save up to 20% of energy while maintaining or even improving comfort and work productivity. The findings show three main areas of intervention and elements of UC-BMS: (1) How interactive design and feedback systems (e.g., air quality) can stimulate ventilation practices and energy efficiency in offices and (2) supporting heating system optimization e.g., by better understanding office behavior. (3) Finally, an office comfort survey was conducted to enable communication between facility management and office users and thus limiting complaints and adapting the heating system towards actual office user needs.

show abstract

“…The living lab paradigm has origins in smart-building innovation and ubiquitous computing, with early examples being the Aware Home and the Intelligent Workplace at Carnegie Mellon [49,50], and a recent example being SenseLab [51]. In the last decade, living labs have been used to evaluate technology adoption [52], test healthcare delivery methods [53], and evaluate energy consumption behaviors [54,55]. Applied as a scientific research methodology, living labs are useful for observing long-term human-building interactions in ecologically valid settings [56].…”

Section: Experimental Design In Building Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Spatial and Temporal Variability of the Indoor Environmental Quality during Three Simulated Office Studies at a Living Lab

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The living lab approach to building science research provides the ability to accurately monitor occupants and their environment and use the resulting data to evaluate the impact that various components of the built environment have on human comfort, health, and well-being. A hypothesized benefit of the living lab approach is the ability to simulate the real indoor environment in an experimentally controlled setting over relatively long periods of time, overcoming a significant hurdle encountered in many chamber-type experimental designs that rarely reflect typical indoor environments. Here, we present indoor environmental quality measurements from a network of sensors as well as building system design and operational data demonstrating the ability of a living lab to realistically simulate a wide range of environmental conditions in an office setting by varying air temperature, lighting, façade control, and sound masking in a series of three human subject experiments. The temporal variability of thermal and lighting conditions was assessed on an hourly basis and demonstrated the significant impact of façade design and control on desk-level measurements of both factors. Additional factors, such as desk layout and building system design (e.g., luminaires, speaker system), also contributed significantly to spatial variability in air temperature, lighting, and sound masking exposures, and this variability was reduced in latter experiments by optimizing desk layout and building system design. While ecologically valid experimental conditions are possible with a living lab, a compromise between realism and consistency in participant experience must often be found by, for example, using an atypical desk layout to reduce spatial variability in natural light exposure. Based on the experiences from these three studies, experimental design and environmental monitoring considerations for future office-based living lab experiments are explored.

show abstract

Automating Behavior? An Experimental Living Lab Study on the Effect of Smart Home Systems and Traffic Light Feedback on Heating Energy Consumption

Cited by 8 publications

References 13 publications

A Human–Machine Interface Based on Eye Tracking for Controlling and Monitoring a Smart Home Using the Internet of Things

A Human–Machine Interface Based on Eye Tracking for Controlling and Monitoring a Smart Home Using the Internet of Things

Interactive Design to Encourage Energy Efficiency in Offices: Developing and Testing a User-Centered Building Management System Based on a Living Lab Approach

The Spatial and Temporal Variability of the Indoor Environmental Quality during Three Simulated Office Studies at a Living Lab

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About