IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v76y2024ics0160791x24000265.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Controlling the ‘elephant in the room’: A new protocol for sharing data from home performance monitoring systems

Author

Listed:
  • Adeyeye, Kemi

Abstract

This study explores the use of smart home performance monitoring systems to deliver reliable and consistent building performance data. Accurate data is essential for the continuous improvement of building regulations and housing quality so that citizens can better cope with volatile energy prices, weather extremes and climate change. While previous research has studied and modelled the adoption factors of home technology systems, this study is the first to address the important question of ‘householder willingness to externally share the resulting data’. It proposes a new theoretical and practical approach to address perceived data-sharing risks, whilst ensuring that the system delivers individual, household, and social benefit. The first stage explored is the privacy paradox, to analyse the underlying contradictions on the importance people place on their privacy and their actual behaviour. Then, the findings from interviews and focus groups are presented, underpinned by detailed data from a nationwide survey of 972 responses. The significant finding is that attitudes and behaviours explained within the privacy paradox do not hold true within the context of the home. Notably, without control,householders were highly averse to sharing data that could transcend the virtual space to directly compromise their privacy and security in their home. Cummulatively, the new findings resulted in an integrated technical, social and policy implementation framework for moderating risk perceptions, thus improving participation and trust in performance monitoring schemes. A 3-level rule-based data approach is developed as a practical tool to analogously deliver technical data control, promote choice, and enable value-based home data transactions. These outputs contribute to a novel evidence-based net-zero pathway that links housing performance data with the standards, design, and delivery of homes.

Suggested Citation

  • Adeyeye, Kemi, 2024. "Controlling the ‘elephant in the room’: A new protocol for sharing data from home performance monitoring systems," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:76:y:2024:i:c:s0160791x24000265
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X24000265
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102478?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anna Alberini, 2019. "Revealed versus Stated Preferences: What Have We Learned About Valuation and Behavior?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 283-298.
    2. Shuhaiber, Ahmed & Mashal, Ibrahim, 2019. "Understanding users’ acceptance of smart homes," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    3. Idris Adjerid & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2019. "Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2267-2290, May.
    4. Sara Cannizzaro & Rob Procter & Sinong Ma & Carsten Maple, 2020. "Trust in the smart home: Findings from a nationally representative survey in the UK," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-30, May.
    5. Wenjuan Li, 2021. "The Role of Trust and Risk in Citizens’ E-Government Services Adoption: A Perspective of the Extended UTAUT Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-17, July.
    6. Hong, Areum & Nam, Changi & Kim, Seongcheol, 2020. "What will be the possible barriers to consumers’ adoption of smart home services?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2).
    7. Ardeshir Mahdavi & Christiane Berger & Hadeer Amin & Eleni Ampatzi & Rune Korsholm Andersen & Elie Azar & Verena M. Barthelmes & Matteo Favero & Jakob Hahn & Dolaana Khovalyg & Henrik N. Knudsen & Ale, 2021. "The Role of Occupants in Buildings’ Energy Performance Gap: Myth or Reality?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-44, March.
    8. Tamilmani, Kuttimani & Rana, Nripendra P. & Wamba, Samuel Fosso & Dwivedi, Rohita, 2021. "The extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT2): A systematic literature review and theory evaluation," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    9. Caleb S. Fuller, 2019. "Is the market for digital privacy a failure?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 180(3), pages 353-381, September.
    10. Naresh K. Malhotra & Sung S. Kim & James Agarwal, 2004. "Internet Users' Information Privacy Concerns (IUIPC): The Construct, the Scale, and a Causal Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 336-355, December.
    11. Miguel Godinho de Matos & Idris Adjerid, 2022. "Consumer Consent and Firm Targeting After GDPR: The Case of a Large Telecom Provider," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3330-3378, May.
    12. Huseyin Cavusoglu & Tuan Q. Phan & Hasan Cavusoglu & Edoardo M. Airoldi, 2016. "Assessing the Impact of Granular Privacy Controls on Content Sharing and Disclosure on Facebook," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 848-879, December.
    13. Kim, Jin-Ho & Shcherbakova, Anastasia, 2011. "Common failures of demand response," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 873-880.
    14. Susan A. Brown, 2008. "Household technology adoption, use, and impacts: Past, present, and future," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 397-402, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pal, Debajyoti & Zhang, Xiangmin & Siyal, Saeed, 2021. "Prohibitive factors to the acceptance of Internet of Things (IoT) technology in society: A smart-home context using a resistive modelling approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    2. Birgul Basarir-Ozel & Hande Bahar Turker & Vesile Aslihan Nasir, 2022. "Identifying the Key Drivers and Barriers of Smart Home Adoption: A Thematic Analysis from the Business Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-19, July.
    3. Attié, Elodie & Meyer-Waarden, Lars, 2022. "The acceptance and usage of smart connected objects according to adoption stages: an enhanced technology acceptance model integrating the diffusion of innovation, uses and gratification and privacy ca," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. John A. Aloysius & Hartmut Hoehle & Soheil Goodarzi & Viswanath Venkatesh, 2018. "Big data initiatives in retail environments: Linking service process perceptions to shopping outcomes," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 270(1), pages 25-51, November.
    5. David Schneider & Johannes Klumpe & Martin Adam & Alexander Benlian, 2020. "Nudging users into digital service solutions," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(4), pages 863-881, December.
    6. Jacobson, Jenna & Gruzd, Anatoliy & Hernández-García, à ngel, 2020. "Social media marketing: Who is watching the watchers?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    7. Caroline Lancelot Miltgen & H. Jeff Smith, 2019. "Falsifying and withholding: exploring individuals’ contextual privacy-related decision-making," Post-Print hal-02156671, HAL.
    8. Tseng, Hsiao-Ting & Ibrahim, Fahad & Hajli, Nick & Nisar, Tahir M. & Shabbir, Haseeb, 2022. "Effect of privacy concerns and engagement on social support behaviour in online health community platforms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    9. Miguel Godinho de Matos & Idris Adjerid, 2022. "Consumer Consent and Firm Targeting After GDPR: The Case of a Large Telecom Provider," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3330-3378, May.
    10. Cheng, Junjun & Chen, Bo & Huang, Zihang, 2023. "Collective-based ad transparency in targeted hotel advertising: Consumers’ regulatory focus underlying the crowd safety effect," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    11. Elena Vechkinzova & Yelena Petrenko & Yana S. Matkovskaya & Gaukhar Koshebayeva, 2021. "The Dilemma of Long-Term Development of the Electric Power Industry in Kazakhstan," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-21, April.
    12. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    13. Morosan, Cristian, 2016. "An empirical examination of U.S. travelers’ intentions to use biometric e-gates in airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 120-128.
    14. Corey Angst, 2009. "Protect My Privacy or Support the Common-Good? Ethical Questions About Electronic Health Information Exchanges," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 169-178, November.
    15. Pieper, Nadine & Woisetschläger, David M., 2024. "Customer misbehavior in access-based mobility services: An examination of prevention strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    16. Joey F George & Rui Chen & Lingyao Yuan, 2021. "Intent to purchase IoT home security devices: Fear vs privacy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-14, September.
    17. Huarng, Kun-Huang & Yu, Tiffany Hui-Kuang & Lee, Cheng fang, 2022. "Adoption model of healthcare wearable devices," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    18. Mario Silic & Andrea Back, 2016. "The Influence of Risk Factors in Decision-Making Process for Open Source Software Adoption," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 151-185, January.
    19. Jean-Luc Gaffard & Mauro Napoletano, 2012. "Agent-based models and economic policy," Sciences Po publications info:hdl:2441/53r60a8s3ku, Sciences Po.
    20. Lim, Joon Soo & Zhang, Jun, 2022. "Adoption of AI-driven personalization in digital news platforms: An integrative model of technology acceptance and perceived contingency," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:76:y:2024:i:c:s0160791x24000265. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.