Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 28 (2014) 81 86

Conference on Systems Engineering Research (CSER 2014)

Eds.: Azad M. Madni, University of Southern California; Barry Boehm, University of Southern California;
Michael Sievers, Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Marilee Wheaton, The Aerospace Corporation
Redondo Beach, CA, March 21-22, 2014

Conceptual Modeling of the Impact of Smart Cities on Household

Energy Consumption
Nasrin Khansari, Ali Mostashari, Mo Mansouri
School of Systems and Enterprises, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ, USA 07030
{nkhansar, amostash, mo.mansouri}@stevens.edu

Abstract

Smart cities provide citizens with information on various urban services and allow them to track the impact of their resource
consumption on the overall sustainability of their city. The premise of smart cities is that with improved access to information on
resource consumption, residents make better use of those resources, resulting in increased sustainability of the city.
This paper explores the influence of the smart city technologies on individuals resource consumption behavior, in particular
on energy consumption, aiming at achieving environmentally sustainable development. This approach combines systems thinking
with existing social science theories, such as cognitive and learning theories, to explore the impact of smart city information on
individual decision-making and behavioral change. Using a CLIOS (complex, large-scale, interconnected, open, and
sociotechnical) model, a conceptual soft systems model, the paper explores the impact of smart city technologies on behavioral
change of households with regards to energy consumption.

2014
2014 The
The Authors. Published by
Authors. Published by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V.
Selection
Selection and peer-review under responsibility
responsibility of
of the
theUniversity
Universityof
ofSouthern
SouthernCalifornia.
California.

Keywords: Smart city; Information and Communication Technology; Energy Behavior; Behavior Change; Conceptual Systems Model; CLIOS
Model.

1877-0509 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the University of Southern California.
doi:10.1016/j.procs.2014.03.011
82 Nasrin Khansari et al. / Procedia Computer Science 28 (2014) 81 86

1. Introduction

The world population is expected to reach to nine billion in 2050. The population growth rate is more significant in
developing countries. Accordingly, providing the basic needs of human beings such as space and basic materials to
live implies a further increase in environmental impacts1. However, Natural resources are limited. On the other
hand, energy demands and costs are increased over time2. Increasing usage of energy-intensive products and
services directly affect greenhouse gas emissions and climate change3. Since the beginning of 20th century, the
global mean of surface temperature has increased by 0.6 C. The northern hemisphere surface temperature has
increased more in the 20th century than the previous 1,000 years. The warmest decade of the millennium was the
1990s and the warmest year was 1998 4. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) predicts a global mean surface
air temperature increase of 2.5 to 10.4F between 1990 and 2100 due to increasing greenhouse gases5. Therefore,
there is urgent need to a move towards urban sustainability and in particular reducing energy consumption. Recent
studies show that information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) play an active role in reaching the goals of
urban sustainability. Benefiting from ICTs, we can reduce energy costs, increase energy efficiencies, and improve
the quality of life in cities6. The utilization of ICTs by citizens, service providers and city government has formed
the general concept of a smart city.
In smart cities, governments and businesses invest in ICTs to improve sustainable development and quality of
life, by providing smart urban infrastructures that will inform residents about the desired environmental agenda7. In
fact, a smart city provides the required infrastructure for citizens and officials to make more intelligent decisions. In
doing so, it plays an essential role in dealing with challenges relating to ecological, social, cultural, and economic
sustainability8.
Smart cities provide citizens with information on various urban services and allow them to track the impact of
their resource consumption on the overall sustainability of their city. The premise of smart cities is that with
improved access to information on resource consumptions, residents make better use of those resources, resulting in
increased sustainability of the city. This paper explores the influence of the smart city technologies on individuals
resource consumption behavior, in particular on energy consumption, aiming at achieving environmentally
sustainable development. This approach combines systems thinking with existing social science theories, such as
cognitive and learning theories, to explore the impact of smart city information on individual decision-making and
behavioral change. Using a CLIOS model, the paper explores the impact of smart city technologies on behavioral
change of households with regards to energy consumption. CLIOS process as an organizing mechanism helps to
understand the structure and behavior of system and identify strategic options for improving, developing, and
monitoring systems performance and strategic alternatives9.
The paper maps the impact of information technologies on the individuals energy-related decision-making
process. The paper further discusses the role of information technologies as a way for residents to change energy
behaviors and explores the mechanisms by which information sharing enables overcoming resistance against
change. The model shows how communication and collaboration within an urban system can result in more
effective energy structures and practices.
The paper is organized as follows. First, section II represents social science theories, such as cognitive and
learning theories, that can be utilized to explore the impact of smart city information on individuals decision-
making and behavioral change. Then, in Section III, the authors explore strategies to influence behavioral change.
Section IV presents a conceptual CLIOS model to investigate effects of information feedback and socioeconomic
structure in managing energy consumption behavior. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section V.

2. Theoretical Background

According to social learning theory, the result of interactions between personal and environmental variables identify
behavior. Although environment plays a key role in shaping behavior though learning, environment, itself, is shaped
by individuals. Individuals behavior is the result of direct experience, observational, or vicarious learning10. Social
learning theories express that most behaviors lead to consequences that in turn feedback to behavior, either
maintaining or changing behavior in the future 11. Social cognitive theory explores that neither environment nor inner
forces control individuals. Social cognitive theory addresses an agentic conceptual framework to analyze the
 Nasrin Khansari et al. / Procedia Computer Science 28 (2014) 81 86 83

determinants and psychosocial mechanisms through which symbolic communication influence thought, affect and
action12. The theory points to the psychosocial functioning as a triadic reciprocal caustion including cognitive,
behavioral and environmental events that operate interm of interacting determinants and influence each other
bidirectionally. Each of the major interactants in the triadic causal structure cognitive, behavioral, and
environmental functions play an essential role in the dynamic environment13. In other words, the theory
emphasizes the importance of evolutionary factors in human adaptation and change while denies the social behavior
as result of evolved biology. In practice, social cognitive theory focuses on a key role of social and technological
innovations in creating new environmental selections that while push for being adaptive have no effect on biological
evolution12.
In Banduras social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is the core construct. Bandura defines self-efficacy as
individuals confidence in producing behaviors. According to the theory, behavior change is result of a personal
sense of control. In practice, if people believe that they can take action or if people have a sense of self-efficacy,
they take action or they commit more to do so13. The concept of self-efficacy plays an essential role in models of
behavior change. Self-efficacy affects initiating the behaviors as well as the level of effort required to maintain the
behaviors. In practice, the development of self-efficacy is investigated by the theory of social learning since most of
self-efficacy is learned through social contexts15. Self-efficacy is highly crucial in decision about behavioral
maintenance. In fact, individuals maintain a behavior when they are able to perform that behavior. In other words,
because perceived self-efficacy is thought to be able to facilitate the initiation of behavior change, people who reach
the maintenance phase of the behavior change process should be characterized by a relatively high level of self-
efficacy16.

3. Behavior Change (Household Energy Consumption Behavior)

Social behavior change is not always welcomed by individuals and resistance against behavior change is one of the
major challenges that sociologists deal with. Change is a source of stress for individuals and habits are a source of
resistance. In practice, individuals do not want to lose their control on their life in the new condition 17. Energy
consumption feedback strategy plays a key role in energy use reduction by 10-15% on average18. Both energy
consumption feedback and price strategies impact on reduction in energy consumption. Social norms are able to
influence energy conservation through interactions between friends, neighbors, family in the community that
emphasizes on energy saving. Energy cost, environmental attitudes, and social interactions affect energy
conservation19. To change energy behavior, belief, value, and attitude should be considered. Combination of
information and goal setting strategies is able to motivate individuals to have an energy efficient pattern. According
to a psychological tendency, individuals look for supportive information to decrease their energy consumption. To
achieve such goal, individuals need to improve their attitude and obtain required information20.
Psychological variables and the contextual conditions affect energy consumption behaviors. Contextual
conditions are complex and heterogeneous categories that include physical structural conditions (e.g., home size, the
design of houses including room sizes and window area, technologies including furnaces and thermostats, standards,
and the format and frequency of information about the households energy consumption), socio-demographic
characteristics (household size, and number of teenagers in the household, age, and gender of household),
supporting infrastructure and institutions (e.g., electricity grids, utility tariffs, and services) as well as cultural and
economic aspects (e.g., social norms including indoor temperatures and room occupancy profiles, as well as
economic incentives such as income of household occupants) 14, 21. Accordingly, the sociostructral condition
enhances households self-efficacy and their effort regarding to energy efficiency behaviors 14.
Both technology and human approaches are able to motivate sustainable energy behavior. In human approach,
understanding how and why people use energy play role in achieving energy conservation. Technologies provide
real-time and continuous energy consumption feedbacks including energy use, energy cost, and environmental
impact and influence positively on energy behaviors20.
84 Nasrin Khansari et al. / Procedia Computer Science 28 (2014) 81 86

4. A Conceptual Model for the Energy Consumption Behavior Change

The CLIOS process shown in Fig. 1 illustrates the impact of smart cities on households energy behavior. The
structure of CLIOS application represents actors, policy/regulations, interventions/decision variables, behavioral
variables, and goal/performance metric in the process of households energy behavior change. As shown in Fig. 1,
utility companies, local-, state-, and federal-government, urban non-governmental and sustainability groups,
residents and households all are key actors in this process. External variables include technology and cost
improvement in solar and wind energy, climate change, limited natural resources, population growth, economic
growth, and costs of fossil fuel.
Information historic and comparative feedbacks including raw energy use (kWh), environmental impact (CO2)
and economic incentives positively alter residential household demand for energy. In the process of energy saving,
moral utility that identifies believes, values, attitudes, routines, norms, self- efficacy, constraints, and habits play a
key role in social pressure for increased environmental sustainability. On the other hand, physical-structural
conditions including home size, room size, widow area, technology, and standards positively influence information
on energy consumption behavior and residential households demands for energy. Socio-demographic
characteristics including households size, household income, size of the home, age-compositions, and households
education level affects the residential energy consumption from fossil resources. For the demand side of energy
management strategy, demand load shifting is applied during off-peak hours to reduce air pollution. Informative
energy billing influences comparative information energy, decreases energy demand of households, reduces
residential energy consumption, negatively affects greenhouse gas emissions, and finally improves urban
environmental sustainability. In this process, resistance to behavior change negatively affects residential energy
demand, adoption of household solar and wind energy technologies, and urban environmental sustainability
condition.
On the hand, Fig. 1 shows the impact of urban environmental sustainability on social norms and attitudes
towards sustainability. Household sustainability indexes alter both the impact of comparative information on energy
consumption behavior and the impact of cost and emission information on solar and wind energy adoption.
Moreover, number of households in the neighborhood with renewable energy systems positively affects moral utility
that in turn impacts peer (social network) pressure. In addition moral utilities affects sustainability and the
adaptation of household solar and wind energy technologies. Peer (social network) pressure for increased
sustainability, adoption of household solar and wind energy technologies, number of households in the
neighborhood with renewable energy systems, and moral utility all compose the reinforce loop that reinforces
change with even more positive change.
 Policy/Regulations Interventions/decision variables Climate
Actors Behavioral Variables Goal/Performance Metric
Change
-
+ Investment in
efficient energy
Cost of devices
fossil Residential energy
consumption from fossil Population growth
+ fuel
Utility company + + - sources
Tougher + - + Greenhouse gas
Impact of comparative
Environmental + information on energy + emissions
Provision of comparative and +
Regulation peer information on energy Comprehensive Utility bill + -
(enriched with consumption + consumption behavior - Residential household - + Urban
consumption ++ + demand for energy -
info) + Resistance to Total city-wide fossil - Environmental
behavior change + fuel +energy consumption Sustainability
Local, State and Household +
Household size/age - Demand load shifting
Federal Government Provision of cost savings - sustainability index Air Pollution
+ -
information for efficient
Household income Peer (social network) - Adoption of household
Investments in energy consumption
renewable energy pressure for increased solar and wind energy +
sustainability + technologies
infrastructure + Household
education level + + +
Smart Energy Residential energy
Tax credits for + Moral utility R consumption from
awareness campaigns + +
Urban non-governmental renewable energy + renewable energy
consumption Number of households in the +
environmental and
sustainability groups + neighborhood with renewable
+
+ energy systems
Impact of cost and emission +
information on solar and wind Social norms and +
Residents and energy adoption attitudes towards
Economic Growth sustainability
Households Technology & +
cost +
Nasrin Khansari et al. / Procedia Computer Science 28 (2014) 81 86

improvement Limited
in solar and Natural
wind energy Resources

Figure 1: Application of CLIOS Process for Impact of Smart Cities on Household Energy Behaviour
85
86 Nasrin Khansari et al. / Procedia Computer Science 28 (2014) 81 86

5. Conclusion

In smart cities, comparative energy information on various urban services affect households energy behavior to
improve urban environmental sustainability. The premise of smart cities is that with improved access to information
on resource consumption, residents make better use of those resources, resulting in increased sustainability of the
city. According to social learning and social cognitive theories, the information technologies of smart city impact
positively on energy conservation. The CLIOS conceptual model represents the process of energy behavior change
based on socio-structural and technostructural context and can be used to assess whether such assumptions are true
if integrated into a systems model. Once a CLIOS model is constructed one can design experiments that test the
assumptions of change underlying social learning and cognitive theories. This is possible by creating a set of metrics
for each of the variables and controlling for changes in behavioral outcomes. What the CLIOS model shows is that
the combination of changes in renewable technology as well as awareness campaigns and comparative information
can collectively drive a change both in consumption behavior as well as the adoption of renewable energy systems,
contributing to reduced environmental impact. Additionally individual household changes are also driven by social
norms, which change in a feedback loop structure, as the consumption behavior in the city changes. This represents
both the promise and challenge of smart energy usage, as a shift towards less sustainability in a community can have
a negative impact on individual household behavior and vice versa. Future work will focus on designing
experiments to assess the strengths of each of the given interventions in a more quantitative framework.

6. Reference

1. C. Vlek and L. Steg, Human behavior and environmental sustainability: Problems, driving forces, and research topics, Journal of social
issues, vol. 63(1), pp. 119, 2007.
2. M. Chetty, D. Tran, and R. E. Grinter, Getting to green: understanding resource consumption in the home, In Proceedings of the 10th
international conference on Ubiquitous computing, ACM, pp. 242251, September, 2008.
3. W. Abrahamse and et al., The effect of tailored information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related
behaviors, and behavioral antecedents, Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 27(4), pp. 265276, 2007.
4. S. R. Brechin, Comparative public opinion and knowledge on global climatic change and the Kyoto protocol: the U.S. versus the world?,
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 3(10), 2003.
5. J. Mathews, Seven steps to curb global warming, Energy Policy, vol. 35, pp. 4247-4259, 2007.
6. M. Naphade, Smarter cities and their innovation challenges, Annual. Review Environment and Resources, vol. 44.6, pp. 3239, 2011.
7. A. Sharma, and et al. Sustainable urbanization: the role of ICT in city development, Booz and Company, 2010.
8. A. Caragliu and et al., Comparative performance assessment of smart cities around the north sea basin, Network Industries Quarterly, vol.
13(3), 2011.
9. J. Sussman, and et al. The CLIOS process: a users guide, Course materials for ESD. 04J, Frameworks and Models in Engineering
Systems, Spring 2007, 2007.
10. A. Holloway and H. E. Watson, Role of self-efficacy and behavior change, International Journal of Nursing Practice, vol. 8, pp. 106
115, 2002.
11. Ph. Zimbardo and E. B. Ebbesen, Influencing Attitudes and Changing Behavior: A Basic Introduction to Relevant Method- ology, Theory,
and Applications, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969.
12. A. Bandura, Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective, Annual review of psychology, vol. 52(1), pp. 126, 2001.
13. A. Bandura, Social cognitive theory of self-regulation, Organizational behavior and human decision processes, vol. 50(2), pp. 248287,
1991.
14. J. Thogersen and A. Gornhj, Electricity saving in households a social cognitive approach, Energy Policy, vol. 38(12), pp. 7732 7743,
2010.
15. J. E. Heimlich and N. M. Ardoin, Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: A literature review, Environmental Education
Research, vol. 14(3), pp. 215237, 2008.
16. A. S. Baldwin and et al., Specifying the determinants of the initiation and maintenance of behavior change: an examination of self-
efficacy, satisfaction, and smoking cessation, Health Psychology, vol. 25(5), pp. 626634, 2006.
17. S. Oreg, Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 88(4), pp. 680693,
2003.
18. J. Froehlich, Promoting energy efficient behaviors in the home through feedback: The role of human-computer interaction, In
Proceedings of HCIC Workshop, vol. 9, pp. 515524, 2009, February.
19. K. Ek and P. Sderholm, The devil is in the details: Household electricity saving behavior and the role of information, Energy Policy, vol.
38(3), pp. 15781587, 2010.
20. H. A. He, S. Greenberg, and E. M. Huang, One size does not fit all: applying the trans theoretical model to energy feedback technology
design, In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, pp. 927936, April 2010.
21. C. Wilson and H. Dowlatabadi, Models of decision making and residential energy use, Annual Review Environment and Resources, vol.
32, pp. 169203, 2007.