But while many of our household appliances and utilities services are managed using small micro-processors, we make little use of the potential to combine these technologies to alleviate routine and tedious tasks, or to facilitate greater independence for elderly people and those with disabilities.
Two smart home demonstrator projects have tested how such combinations of systems could assist older people and people with disabilities at sites in Edinburgh and York. One is a flat, the other a bungalow. The main partners include The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Scottish Homes, Edinvar housing association and SPRU, together with a large number of equipment suppliers. Work began with user-needs workshops and a review of standards and protocols carried out by the BRE. A brief was drawn up and detailed discussions were held with a number of leading suppliers. Siemens was chosen to provide the network and main infrastructure for communications and control on the Edinburgh site. The American LonWorks system developed by Echelon was used on the York site.
Previous attempts to integrate and install smart home systems have failed in the affordable homes market. The main problems have been a narrow "technology-push" approach by suppliers, coupled with high costs and disruptive installation procedures. User interfaces are often cumbersome to operate and manufacturers' bespoke systems lock users into particular equipment, failing to provide the type of inter-operability required for markets to grow.
The smart homes project looked at how to overcome these barriers by adopting a user-driven approach. The project resulted in a model specification describing the best ways to develop systems that are:
- safe and easy to use, assisting independent activities within the home;
- cost effective and replicable in the social housing and low-cost owner-occupied sector;
- reliable and flexible enough to accommodate future additions and adaptations;
- easy to install and maintain.
The specification is written in three levels. The first is a generic specification to provide communications and control infrastructure in any type of housing. The second level is context specific. It depends upon the type of dwelling and its location, ranging from detached bungalows to warden-assisted apartments. The third level is designed to accommodate the needs of specific occupants.
Applications include home security and control over the domestic environment. These range from cookers which automatically detect when pans are boiling over, to more effective management of heating and ventilation and automatically controlled bathroom taps and showers.
Telecare applications may include the provision of advice and remote monitoring or diagnosis of medical conditions - for example using technologies like the Japanese intelligent toilet.
Memory-joggers can help people with learning difficulties, or mild forms of dementia.
Technologies to summon help, such as pendant radio transmitters, are already widely used. Smart homes may link these to other monitoring systems triggered by sensors. People with reduced vision could benefit from 'smart-cards' which can be programmed to switch devices on or off. Automatic door entry or central locking could help those with problems in mobility or manipulation.
Smart Homes technologies increase the possibility of meeting the changing needs of occupiers throughout their lives and enabling greater independence. They can play an important part in advancing the concepts of flexibility and adaptability in "lifetime" or "barrier-free" housing.
In the long run, it may even be possible to generate new living environments by automatically manipulating housing systems according to changing user needs.
The use of these technologies raise many ethical questions from those concerning privacy and the degree of "telesurveillance" to issues relating to independence and control. Nevertheless, they also offer the benefit for more effective and efficient communication between those who need assistance and those who can provide it. This could be a boon for the increasing numbers of elderly people living alone and for cash-strapped health and care services.
Equipment proved to be far more expensive than had been anticipated at the start of the project. On one site, costs have exceeded £12,000 excluding time involved in planning, systems integration and installation. Increased market demand would result in economies of scale and resultant reductions in equipment costs. Manufacturers often failed to deliver on time and there were problems with compatibility between different systems. Installation was also time consuming and disruptive, with an additional 400 m of cabling being installed on one of the sites.
New skills have been needed particularly in areas such as software programming and in dealing with electro-mechanical systems such as door openers. Internal controls have proved problematic: for example, curtain motors and door openers are provided with dedicated infra red controllers, resulting in a plethora of small remote controllers.
Both housing associations employed their own systems integrators because it was not possible to find appropriate external advice. This led to additional expense, but also provided added benefits in embedding lessons within the organisations. At York, The Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust has even developed its own combination ceiling rose, incorporating new controls technologies, sensors, alarm and light fitting.
Both demonstration houses have now been completed and are entering a period of evaluation where potential users of such systems will stay in the properties for short periods to assess how useful these technologies are in day-to-day usage. Edinvar and the Joseph Rowntree Housing trust are planning to build upon their initial experiences and develop second generation prototypes.
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet