FOI 24/25- 0013
DOCUMENT 25
Home automation as an everyday living cost
The content of this document is OFFICIAL.
Please note:
The research and literature reviews collated by our TAB Research Team are not to be
shared external to the Branch. These are for internal TAB use only and are intended to
assist our advisors with their reasonable and necessary decision-making.
Delegates have access to a wide variety of comprehensive guidance material. If
Delegates require further information on access or planning matters, they are to call the
TAPS line for advice.
The Research Team are unable to ensure that the information listed below provides an
accurate & up-to-date snapshot of these matters
Research question: How common is home automation/”smart homes” in Australia?
What is the typical ‘scope of works’ for a standard ‘smart home’ vs disability-specific home
automation features?
What is the typical cost or price range to setup a ‘smart home’?
Are existing homes able to accommodate home automation without needing to upgrade
electrical features (e.g. switchboard, wiring)?
Is there a significant dif erence in outcomes between low cost solutions (e.g. Google Home)
and high cost solutions (e.g. Control 4)?
What is the current evidence base regarding home automation and people with disability? Is
there evidence home automation is linked to increased independence, or other positive
outcomes (e.g. improved quality of life, wellbeing)? Are there any best practice guidelines?
What is the Agency’s risk appetite for home automation requests? Do mitigation strategies
need to be put in place (e.g. TAB mandatory referral for requests above $20,000)?
Date: 09/05/2022
Requestor: Claire s22(1)(a)(ii)
- irrele
Endorsed by (EL1 or above): Sandi s22(1)(a)(ii) - irrelevant material
Researcher: Aaron s22(1)(a)(ii)
- irrelevant ma
Cleared by: Stephanie s22(1)(a)(ii)
- irrelevant mate
Page 278 of 425
FOI 24/25- 0013
1. Contents
Home automation as an everyday living cost ............................................................................. 1
1.
Contents ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2
3.
What is home automation? ........................................................................................... 3
4.
Home automation in Australia ....................................................................................... 4
5.
Home automation as a disability support ...................................................................... 4
5.1 Benefits ...................................................................................................................... 5
6.
Risk ............................................................................................................................... 7
6.1 Safety and security .................................................................................................... 7
6.2 Cost effectiveness ..................................................................................................... 8
7.
References ................................................................................................................. 10
8.
Version control ............................................................................................................ 12
2. Summary
Smart home technology is growing in popularity in Australia. Most people having at least one
smart home device in their home. While common, only certain types of automations (eg.
entertainment) are ubiquitous in Australian homes. Whether a particular home automation
support is more likely an everyday living cost wil depend on the type and function of the
technology.
With the technology growing and changing, there is inconsistent and outdated information
online. Much of the research is still in very early stages and so the evidence base is minimal.
There is more research focussing on maintaining independence of older people compared to
other disability cohorts.
There is a body of research focussed on using sensors and the Internet of Things (IoT) in the
home to monitor and assess people at risk of various harms (for example, trips or falls, burns
when cooking etc.). Although home automations are often integrated with IoT, this paper will
only discuss IoT technology when it relates to automating processes in the home. Similarly,
there is a strong research focus on use of robotics to automate processes in the home (for
example, a robot vacuum to clean the floor). There may not be distinct boundaries between
home automations and robotics, but this paper will focus on the automation of processes
related to structure or fixtures of the house and environment (for example, automated lights,
doors or heating/cooling systems).
Page 279 of 425
FOI 24/25- 0013
From the available information it appears that for most common home automations, off-the-
shelf control units like Google Home, Apple Home kit or Amazon dot may be sufficient with
installation of automated appliances or fixtures. If these mainstream options are not accessible
for a user, or if they require a more customised solution, then specialised home automation
systems may be required.
Currently, we do not have accurate information about how often home automations are funded
and what the average costs that quotes are implemented for. Without this information we
cannot accurately determine financial risk to the scheme.
3. What is home automation?
Anything that moves or turns on and off can be automated. In a house, this can include lights,
electricity outlets, doors, windows, drawers, blinds, locks, showers, baths, sinks, toilets, air-
conditioning, ceiling fans, platform or stair lifts, cameras, intercoms, alarms or other security
features, watering or reticulation systems. Any home appliance can be automated including
TVs, sound systems, vacuums, fridges, kettles and coffee makers etc.
Home automations, sometimes called domotics, can be linked or integrated via home internet
or wireless technology and operated via phones, tablets, computers or dedicated control
interfaces, allowing users to control structural or environmental features of their home. A home
in which automation is integrated with the Internet of Things is often called a smart home (Choi
et al, 2021; Katre & Rojatkar, 2017). The Internet of Things refers to a network of computing
devices which can communicate with each other via a system of sensors (Choi et al, 2021).
For example, a bedroom light turns on when the bedroom door is opened thanks to a sensor in
the door, or a wearable temperature sensor can send information to an air-conditioner to
regulate the room temperature. This is an example of an automated system with a passive
input. It’s called passive because the user does not have to intentionally turn the light on, it is
turned on by doing another activity the user would have done anyway (opening the door). This
contrasts with active input, in which the user speaks or operates controls on a tablet or phone
(Hampton, 2019). Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between inputs and outputs in a home
automation system.
Figure 1: Home automation systems. Source: Hampton, 2019.
Page 280 of 425
FOI 24/25- 0013
4. Home automation in Australia
There is little reliable data on the prevalence of home automations in Australian households.
The information that is available was gathered for commercial purposes and may have
inherent bias. Data from the Statista Global Consumer survey of 2049 people found 85% had
some smart home device in their house. Entertainment devices are the most common (79%),
followed by:
• devices for monitoring and automating electricity and lighting (30%)
• safety and security (29%)
• smart appliances (26%)
• smart speakers with virtual assistant (22%)
• energy management (22%) (Statista 2022).
A 2022 Savvy survey of 1000 people found 48% aged over 55 have at least one smart home
device and 41% have 5-10 devices. 58% of people 18-44 have at least one smart home device
in their home (Chavda, 2022). Due to barriers accessing the ful datasets or reports for these
surveys, the definitions of ‘smart device’ or ‘smart home device’ are not clear. They may
include devices as common as Bluetooth speakers or motion sensor lights. Also, information
substantiating the representativeness of the survey group is not available.
5. Home automation as a disability support
There is no standard home automation scope of works in either a mainstream or disability
support context. However, based on a review of 20 TAB advice requests from 2021/2022,
common automation requests include:
• doors and locks
• windows and blinds
• lighting (ceiling lights or lamps)
• heating/cooling (air-conditioner, ceiling fans)
• intercom / video doorbell
• entertainment (TV, sound systems).
In a mainstream context, the goals of home automation include safety and security, comfort,
convenience and energy efficiency (Statista, 2022). Features designed for comfort or
convenience in a mainstream context can have significant implications for independent living
for people who live with a disability (Hampton, 2019). A 2021 survey of allied health
practitioners found commercially available home automation technology has been used to
assist people with traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis, multiple sclerosis, stroke, dementia, Alzheimer’s, mild cognitive impairments, autism,
Page 281 of 425
FOI 24/25- 0013
Parkinson’s disease, low vision or blindness, and Down syndrome (Ding et al, 2021). Home
automation can be useful to:
• remove physical barriers to the use of fixtures or appliances
For example, the automation of doors, windows, and blinds can be used to change the
usual physical input (pushing, lifting, reaching, pulling) which a user might have difficulty
with to a different input within the user’s ability (speaking a voice command, using a
touch screen).
• prompt a user to complete daily activities
For example, a user might require prompting to brush their teeth in the morning, so they
install a sensor on the bedroom door which triggers a voice prompt when the user first
leaves their bedroom in the morning.
• simplify complex process
For example, if a user has difficulty remembering everything they need to do to secure
their house when they leave, multiple processes (lock doors, close windows and blinds,
turn off all lights and appliances), could be activated via a single input (press a single
button on their smartphone).
5.1 Benefits
Research focussing on the use of home automation in a disability, health or ageing context is
only a smal portion of the research literature on home automation (Li et al, 2022; Choi et al,
2021). Despite this, healthcare was one of the first applications of smart home research
represented in the literature. This body of research looks at technology for monitoring health of
patients, improving service delivery and promoting ageing in place.
Much of the literature on the effectiveness of home automation or Smart home technology
focusses on home care for older people (Lee & Kim, 2020; Tural et al, 2021; Astasio-Picado et
al, 2022). This literature has shown that smart home technology including sensors, automated
lighting, locks and fire detection devices can reduce hospitalisation among older adults,
improve feelings of safety and security and promote ageing in place. However, since the focus
is on older people, the results may not generalise across disability cohorts.
Research into the use of home automation in a disability context is still developing. As late as
2008, a Cochrane review found no randomised controlled trials, quasi‐experimental studies,
controlled before and after studies or interrupted time series analyses looking into home
automation as a treatment for people with physical disability, cognitive impairment or learning
disability. Noting that these technologies are in use, the authors recognise that technology
often finds its way into the healthcare industry “without comprehensive evaluation of the health
impact or a true understanding of the added value of ICT to health services” (Martin et al,
Page 282 of 425
FOI 24/25- 0013
2008, p.5). Research also often develops slower than technology, so that by the time research
is completed, a technology may be obsolete (TAC, n.d).
The evidence base is still minimal though preliminary studies show a positive effect of home
automation. A 2021 review into the use of home automation and smart home technology for
people with Parkinson’s found benefit in improving autonomy and safety, but this is primarily
using sensors and data-collection to inform health care providers of risks (Simonet & Noyce,
2021). Two pilot studies into the use of home automation found improvements in social
adaptation, activities of daily living and quality of life for people with Parkinson’s disease
(Latella et al, 2021) and improvements in social and cognitive functioning and autonomy in
people with chronic stroke (Maggio et al, 2020). However, both pilot studies measure use of
home automation in short sessions rather than as a ubiquitous living environment.
Victoria’s Transport Accident Commission has funded a research project looking at smart
home technology for supporting memory, planning and organisation. The research is
scheduled to be completed in 2022 (TAC, n.d.).
Removing physical barriers. There is some evidence on the usability and accessibility of
control systems for operating common home automations (Masina et al, 2020; Conado et al,
2022). For example, Masina et al (2020) found accessibility issues in the use of voice
assistants (Siri, Alexa, Cortana etc) for people with cognitive and linguistic impairments. I have
found no evidence relating to the effectiveness of common home automations to remove
physical barriers. This may be due to the early stages of the evidence base or the typical
heterogeneity of new technologies. It may also relate to the fact that home automations
straight-forwardly allow people to perform these basic activities (turn lights on and off, open
doors and windows) provided the controls are accessible.
Prompting. A 2015 study into prompting technology found an effective prompting system:
can improve the efficacy of cognitive interventions, minimize the necessity for human
assistance, and allow users to feel more independent. Research has shown that
prompting technologies can enhance medication adherence, improve the use of
external compensatory strategies, reduce caregiver burden, and increase functional
independence in those with cognitive impairment (Robertson et al, 2015, p.9).
The authors note prompting is most ef ective during points of transition (when finishing or
starting a different activity) and less effective when the prompt occurs at a specific time of day
regardless of what the user is doing (for example, a reminder set for 8:30am every day). Smart
home technology can facilitate prompting triggered by certain activities (leaving or entering a
room, getting out of bed, turning an appliance on or off) and so may be more targeted than
simple time-of-day prompts.
Simplifying complex processes. In a 2019 introduction to home automation, Hampton
suggested there was no significant evidence base for the effectiveness of home automation for
people with disability. However, he does acknowledge the usefulness of automated lights,
Page 283 of 425
FOI 24/25- 0013
Other risks relate to networking and remote operation of basic household processes. If a
device is connected to a user’s Wi-Fi and there is a network failure this may cause be safety
issues such as the inability to open or unlock doors. This might be mitigated by systems which
connect via Bluetooth or Z-Wave and do not depend on Wi-Fi network. If a smart home system
is hacked, all the automated systems may be vulnerable to remote operation. This may be
mitigated by appropriate digital security measures. In addition, remote operation of doors and
locks raises concerns of restrictive practice. This risk could be mitigated by limiting number of
users with access to the systems and identifying if a behaviour support plan involving
restrictive practice is required.
6.2 Cost effectiveness
I have not found any research on the cost effectiveness of home automations compared to
personal assistance. There is a suggestion in the literature that home automation can increase
independence and reduce carer burden, but this is not quantified into reduced hours of
support. In theory, a person who only requires monitoring over the day could reduce the
amount of on-site care they require. However, for both on and off-site care, reduced hours
would depend on the support arrangement in place. There is some evidence that a person
only requiring prompting to complete daily activities could rely less on personal assistants and
therefore reduce care hours (5.1 Benefits). However, I have not seen any evidence showing
that home automations designed for prompting do reduce support hours.
As such, we cannot say that home automations have a track record of reducing support hours
and we cannot say in general that home automations are likely to be value for money.
Individual requests for funding may be able to demonstrate a likely reduction in support hours
or some comparable benefit that would make the request value for money. For example, if a
participant can sometimes navigate the community independently and an automated door will
enable them to enter or exit their home independently, then the request may increase their
independence to an extent that funding would be justified, even if it does not reduce support
hours.
There is inconsistent information available when comparing mainstream smart home hubs
(Google Home, Amazon Dot, Samsung SmartThings, Apple HomeKit etc) with more
specialised control units (C-Bus, Crestron, Mobotix, Control 4). This may be due to the
commercial nature of the reviews and the rapid progress of the technology. Most online
reviews compare mainstream hubs with each other or specialised control units with each
other, but do not compare mainstream with specialised.
Specialised units require more set-up and are more costly but allow for greater customisation.
Mainstream hubs are cheaper, fulfill most basic automation needs but their interface is less
customisable and may be less accessible. I have not found a home automation technology
designed specifically for people with disabilities, though with some specification both
mainstream hubs and specialised units can accommodate some accessibility measures. The
most cost-ef ective system will depend on the needs of the individual.
Page 285 of 425
FOI 24/25- 0013
For example, Apple Home is a free app which works with various accessories. It advertises the
ability to automate or work with air conditioners, air purifiers, bridges, cameras, doorbells, fans,
garage doors, humidifiers, lights, locks, power points, receivers, routers, security, sensors,
speakers, sprinklers, switches, taps, thermostats, TVs, and windows. It is compatible with
hundreds of products of various brands (Apple Home).
Google Home setups are currently selling for $99 and can automate several processes
independently (email, phone, entertain systems) and can link to additional modules (for
example, Samsung’s SmartThings) to:
lock and unlock doors, regulate air-con settings, open and close windows blinds, water
plants, start robotic vacuum cleaners, and arm and disarm alarm systems, [operate]
plug and power outlet, motion sensor, security camera, Honeywell thermostat, garage
door opener, washing machine, door bell and garden irrigation controller (Noda, 2018,
p.675).
Mainstream smart home hubs are inexpensive but require compatibility with devices or fixtures
in the home. This can involve buying new appliances or separately automating household
processes, which can sometimes involve substantial costs.
An additional consideration is re-wiring of a home. Mainstream accessories (lights and
appliances) and accessories or systems that run on batteries will often not need re-wiring.
Many home automation systems or devices need neutral wires and so some older homes may
require re-wiring. Some people choose to install deep junction boxes, wiring closets or higher
grade ethernet cables (Fritz, 2021; SmartHome, n.d., Tholen, 2021).
6.2.1 Reducing financial risk
When a request for home automation is determined to be reasonable and necessary a plan
developer includes the line item:
Environmental Control (ECU)/ Safety-Related Products 05_241303121_0123_1_2.
This is a quotable item in the Assistive Technology category with a benchmark of $17,474. The
line item for repair and maintenance is:
Repairs and Maintenance - Communication Cognitive or ECU AT
05_502200312_0124_1_2
and has a notional value of $500. Home automations are not a mandatory referral to TAB and
do not have any mandatory referral rules associated with them.
We do not currently have data on how frequently this line item is included in the plan and
whether the benchmark represents to average cost quotes are implemented for. However, this
information may be obtained from the Office of the Scheme Actuary. Without this information
we don’t have a good idea of the financial risk associated with these requests and we don’t
know if further risk mitigation strategies are required.
Page 286 of 425
FOI 24/25- 0013
However, without an idea of scale, some concerns and strategies are stil apparent. It is also
possible home automations are being included in plans without the line item or with a different
line item, contributing to the lack of clarity about how often this support is being funded. There
could be a few reasons for this. Home automations are funded through the Assistive
Technology category, though they sometimes blur the line between AT and Home
Modifications, requiring rewiring efforts or installation of built-in features like doors and
cabinetry. Plan developers may be looking to fund the support through the Home Modifications
budget. Environmental control unit is a technical term which may not be widely known. This
term may or may not be used in the request, assessment or quote and may not signal to the
plan developer to include the correct line item.
Either changing the name of the line-item to include a reference to home automation or
publicising the current line item and what it’s for could reduce the potential for home
automation funding being included via a different route.
Some risk reduction measures are introduced for supports costing above $15,000 such as a
full assessments and quotes. Risk of supports being funded that are not value for money could
be further reduced by creating a mandatory TAB referral rule (eg. mandatory referral to home
automations over $20,000).
Further support for decision makers might include adding a home automation example to the
Would We Fund It guide or adding a home automation advice request to the TAB digest.
7. References
Astasio-Picado, Á., Cobos-Moreno, P., Gómez-Martín, B., Verdú-Garcés, L., & Zabala-Baños,
M. (2022). Efficacy of Interventions Based on the Use of Information and
Communication Technologies for the Promotion of Active Aging.
International journal of
environmental research and public health,
19(3), 1534.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031534
Condado, P. A., Lobo, F. G., & Carita, T. (2022). Towards Richer Assisted Living
Environments.
SN computer science,
3(1), 96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-021-
00983-0
Chavda, S. (2022).
Smart home technology adoption rises with more Australians over 60
buying tech devices. Savvy. Retrieve May 6 2022, from
https://www.savvy.com.au/smart-home-technology-adoption-rises-with-more-
australians-over-60-buying-tech-devices/
Choi W, Kim J, Lee S, Park E. (2021) Smart home and internet of things: A bibliometric study.
Journal of Cleaner Production. 301, 126908
Ding, D., Morris, L., Messina, K., & Fairman, A. (2021). Providing mainstream smart home
technology as assistive technology for persons with disabilities: a qualitative study with
Page 287 of 425
FOI 24/25- 0013
professionals.
Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology, 1–8. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2021.1998673
Fritz, R. (2021). How to wire your New House for home automation. Lifewire. Retrieved May 6,
2022, from https://www.lifewire.com/preparing-new-house-for-home-automation-817661
Hampton S. (2019). Internet-Connected Technology in the Home for Adaptive Living.
Physical
medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America,
30(2), 451–457.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmr.2018.12.004
Katre S and Sojatkar D. (2017). Home automation: past, present and future.
International
Research Journal of Engineering and Technology,
4(10), 343-346.
Kang, H. J., Han, J., & Kwon, G. H. (2021). Determining the Intellectual Structure and
Academic Trends of Smart Home Health Care Research: Coword and Topic Analyses.
Journal of medical Internet research,
23(1), e19625. https://doi.org/10.2196/19625
Latella, D., Maggio, M. G., Maresca, G., Andaloro, A., Anchesi, S., Pajno, V., De Luca, R., Di
Lorenzo, G., Manuli, A., & Calabrò, R. S. (2021). Effects of domotics on cognitive, social
and personal functioning in patients with Parkinson's disease: A pilot study.
Assistive
technology : the official journal of RESNA, 1–6. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2020.1846095
Lee LN and Kim MJ (2020) A Critical Review of Smart Residential Environments for Older
Adults With a Focus on Pleasurable Experience.
Front. Psychol. 10:3080. doi:
10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03080
Li, C. Z., & Borycki, E. M. (2019). Smart Homes for Healthcare.
Studies in health technology
and informatics,
257, 283–287.
Li, W., Yigitcanlar, T., Liu, A., & Erol, I. (2022). Mapping two decades of smart home research:
A systematic scientometric analysis.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
179(121676), 121676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121676
Luo, H., Liu, X., & Wang, P. (2021). Safety risk analysis of Home Automation products.
Journal
of Physics. Conference Series,
1986(1), 012103. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
6596/1986/1/012103
Maggio, M. G., Maresca, G., Russo, M., Stagnitti, M. C., Anchesi, S., Casella, C., Zichitella, C.,
Manuli, A., De Cola, M. C., De Luca, R., & Calabrò, R. S. (2020). Effects of domotics on
cognitive, social and personal functioning in patients with chronic stroke: A pilot study.
Disability and health journal,
13(1), 100838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.100838
Martin S, Kelly G, Kernohan WG, McCreight B, Nugent C. Smart home technologies for health
and social care support. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 4. Art.
No.: CD006412. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006412.pub2.
Masina, F., Orso, V., Pluchino, P., Dainese, G., Volpato, S., Nelini, C., Mapelli, D., Spagnolli,
A., & Gamberini, L. (2020). Investigating the Accessibility of Voice Assistants With
Page 288 of 425
