Table 1.
Commercial products categorised [4].
Table 2.
Smart home technology products and services shown to participants. Table footnotes include links to video demonstrations presented during the interviews [4].
Table 3.
Demographic distribution (n = number of participants).
Table 4.
Participants’ living arrangements and technology adoption counts.
Fig 1.
A participant’s home in a rural area of Pakistan.
The image was obtained during the research process with the permission of the individuals appearing in the photo and is not sourced from third-party copyrighted material. (a) Dining and bedroom area of the house. Traditional bed shown in the image used for sleeping and having meals. (b) Kitchen and storage area of the house.
Fig 2.
Participants’ knowledge about Smart Homes.
The terms “Basics,” “Basics+ ,” and “Most of it” reflect increasing levels of understanding of these technologies, from fundamental operations to advanced system integration and customised smart home systems.
Fig 3.
Technology-related questions, where SH: Fully-integrated smart home, SP: Smartphone, SW: Smart wearables, C: Cameras (security only), O: Other (e.g., smart plugs, lights, meters, assistants, clinical devices, etc.).
(a) Technology owned, (b) Willingness to adopt technology, (c) Technology perceived to have privacy concerns, (d) Technology perceived to provide less control.
Fig 4.
Technology-related questions, where SH: Fully-integrated smart home, SP: Smartphone, SW: Smart wearables, C: Cameras (security only), O: Other (e.g., smart plugs, lights, meters, assistants, clinical devices, etc.).
(a) Which provides most beneficence for you? (b) Which is most unobtrusive? (c) Which promotes independence? (d) Which promotes autonomy?.
Fig 5.
Technology-related questions, where SH: Fully-integrated smart home, SP: Smartphone, SW: Smart wearables, C: Cameras (security only), O: Other (e.g., smart plugs, lights, meters, assistants, clinical devices, etc).
a) Which supports socialising?.
Fig 6.
Participants willingness to spend on smart technology (excluding an outlier of GBP 75,000), where SH → Smart Home, SP → Smart Phone, SW → Smart Clothes/Wearables, C → Cameras (security only), O → Other.
Fig 7.
Participants willingness to spend on smart technology in Pakistan and Europe, where SH: Smart home, SP: Smartphone, SW: Smart wearables, C: Cameras (security only), O: Other.
(a) Urban Pakistani participants affordability, (b) Rural Pakistani participants affordability, (c) Urban/Rural Pakistani participants affordability, (d) European participants affordability.
Fig 8.
Reasons for hesitation in adoption of technology among all participants arranged by the first rank order only (where P: Privacy, C: Control, B: Beneficence, U: Unobtrusiveness, At: Autonomy, S: Supporting Supporting socialisation, Af: Affordability, D: Discomfort).