For consumers and their households, smart home and smart devices are useful things in everyday life. They can be easily controlled at the right time and from anywhere. Smart thermostats and lamps allow users to control temperature and lighting remotely and configure timer programmes. The work of smart devices can often be managed using a single application that allows for supervising the house, checking whether the TV has been turned off, or changing the settings of the air conditioning, and washing machine — all to prevent wastage of energy, water and money (Stańczyk, 2020). Taking this into account, for resource-saving households, having energy-saving appliances is one of the ways to introduce proecological solutions into their everyday lives. The Internet of Things (IoT) is inherently linked to smart homes and things. The main factors that are conducive to the development of consumer IoT applications are convenience of use and facilitation of consumers’ everyday life. The term ‘Green Internet of Things’ aims at reducing electricity consumption by remotely controlling heating, lighting and electronic devices using a computer, smartphone or voice commands (Alsamhi, Ma, Ansari, & Meng, 2018). IoT can be used in smart homes to connect home electronic devices (e.g., smart TVs and streaming servers), home appliances (e.g., smart refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines) and home automation devices (e.g., thermostats, smoke detectors, alarm systems). Within the IoT, it is possible to combine all appliances that can be monitored and controlled. The ease of use and control of devices operating in IoT networks via mobile devices, mainly smartphones and installed applications, are also significant in this regard (Mącik, 2018a). In addition, integration of the smart home with IoT, as well as smart city technologies, can create new opportunities for innovation and improvement (Hui, Sherratt, & Sánchez, 2017).

A smart home is perceived not only through the context of convenience and comfort but also through ecological living, thanks to the possibility of reducing energy consumption through the use of innovative technological solutions (Kasprzyk, 2019). The chief motivation for designing smart houses is to make living in them not only pleasant but also as cost-effective as possible for the residents. Smart houses can be ecological, not only due to the use of solutions typical for smart houses but also to the use of ecological materials for their construction (Eklogiczny i inteligentnyñ, 2022). A house with minimal environmental impact is considered to be ecological, while simultaneously ensuring convenience, comfort, modernity, contact with nature as well as a sense of security (Dom ekologiczny, 2022) for its users.

In addition to the advantages, which are without doubt the declared possibility of energy savings and improved security, threats to the privacy and security of data downloaded by smart devices are also indicated (Kolny, 2021b; Wilson, Hargreaves, & Hauxwell-Baldwin, 2017). Concerns are also related to the use of smart devices and homes. A report presenting research conducted on a sample of 10,002 respondents commissioned by Dynatrace in eight countries around the world (the UK, the USA, France, Germany, Australia, Brazil, Singapore and China) shows that 73% of respondents expressed fear of being locked in a smart home or outside it. The inability to control the temperature (68%) and lights (64%) in a smart home was also pointed out (Dynatrace, 2018). Again, the results of a qualitative study among smart homeowners conducted by Hargreaves, Wilson, and Hauxwell-Baldwin (2017) show that smart homes are burdensome for their users both in relation to other household members and in technical terms. These houses require adaptation to their functionality, which may limit their use. Learning to use smart home technology is also a demanding and time-consuming issue, and the lack of technical support by sellers is an inconvenience. In addition, it was found that there is a risk that they may generate some form of intensification of energy consumption.

It is noted that smart home systems are becoming more common every year, and predictions indicate that the number of smart homes will increase (Statista, 2022). In Poland, according to a survey conducted by Oferteo.pl, in 2018, 23% of respondents decided to implement smart home solutions in their newly built homes, while in 2019, a third of the respondents opted for them. People who did not decide to use these solutions indicated high prices, and a lack of need to possess any knowledge about them as reasons (Majchrzyk, 2020). The latter reasons are also confirmed by the research conducted by Kolny (2021a), which shows that although 75.8% of the respondents consider facilitating everyday activities to be an advantage, and 58.9% that everyday life becomes more convenient and comfortable, the following reasons for which consumers and their households do not buy smart devices were also indicated: high prices (79.5%), no need to own (59%) and no knowledge about them (55.6%). The next report prepared by Oferteo.pl in 2020 shows that the most frequently chosen intelligent solutions were heating (68%) and lighting (64%) control systems, which significantly facilitate saving electricity or gas. According to the respondents, the reasons they decided to introduce intelligent solutions into their home were increased comfort (78%), willingness to use modern technologies (50%), savings (43%), the need for safety (36%), as well as ecological considerations (19%) (Inteligentne systemy, 2021).

This article aims to present the attitude of young consumers (aged 18–34 years) to selected issues related to the ecological approach to life during the popularisation of smart devices and houses that can improve the management of electricity, water and gas consumption, and increase awareness of care for health and achieving well-being. The article focuses on issues from three separate research areas that are, however, related to the topic. The first concerns the respondents’ attitude to environmentally friendly products. The second is the attitude to smart devices and the convenience of their use, and the third focuses on the attitude of young consumers to greening life as a result of the use of smart home devices and the usefulness of these devices in practicing such an approach to life. It is assumed that young consumers have a positive attitude to the use of smart homes and devices that facilitate the implementation of an ecological lifestyle.

This article presents theoretical information on the greening of life, smart homes and devices, and IoT. It describes the research methodology and sample, presents the results of the author’s research, and conclusions along with a recommendation for further research.

Theoretical Background

The ecological approach to life is related to various consumer behaviours on the market, in the household and in the natural environment. The greening of consumption manifests itself in the economical and rational use of consumer goods and the reduction of consumption of very rare, nonrenewable, resource-intensive goods, which at the same time, may contain dangerous post-consumer waste. Significant opportunities for greening consumption lie in the modernisation of energy production and distribution by increasing the use of natural energy sources in the activities of consumers and their households (Bywalec, 2017), or reducing the level of energy consumption (Connolly & Prothero, 2008). Consumers usually understand the term ‘ecological’ or ‘environmentally friendly’ as taking care of the Earth, acting by the laws of nature, not disturbing the balance of the environment, segregating garbage, saving electricity and water, as well as using reusable paper bags, conscious organic food purchases, and the use of environmentally friendly cars (Dąbrowska, Jurowczyk, & Ozimek, 2022). An important role in this regard is played by environmental awareness, which determines the consumer’s attitude to the natural environment and the amount of information and beliefs about it, as well as the system of values that guide the consumer behaviour towards this environment (Kiełczewski, 2001) and environmental education to shape this awareness (Ambalagan & Shanthi, 2015; Omoogun, Egbonyi, & Onnoghen, 2016). Among the components of the consumer’s ecological awareness, the descriptive-technical and axiological-normative spheres can be distinguished. The first of them includes their environmental knowledge, the elements it consists of, the laws that govern it, as well as environmentally friendly and harmful behaviour. In addition to this, ecological imagination, that is, the ability to predict the ecological effects of the actions taken, design them in line with the requirements of ecological knowledge, and the ability to perceive and capture the connections between human activity and ecological processes. The second of them, that is, the axiological-normative sphere includes a system of values and norms that relate to the interconnections between the whole of society and nature as well as between the individual and the environment. This sphere also includes relations between people in the context of the natural environment (Kiełczewski, 2001). The concept of greening is also related to sustainable development conditioned by ecological space. It is beneficial for humans, the environment and the economy through the assumed synergy of economic, environmental and social aspects (Santhanlaxmi & Chandramohan, 2020). Sustainable development is also a way of life that enables one to choose the forms of consumption. The consumer usually associates an organic product with something safe and healthy, with something modern (Janoś-Kresło, 2006). Sustainable and balanced development is aimed at increasing both social and individual well-being. Not only does this prosperity depend on the consumption of goods and services, but also on the ecological living conditions. The goal is therefore not so much to increase the level as to increase the quality of life while trying not to harm the ecosystem that sustains life (Kunarto & Prasetyo, 2022). Hence, the essence of sustainable development is to ensure a lasting improvement in the quality of life of the present and future generations by shaping the right proportions between three types of capital: economic, human and natural (Klarin, 2018). Therefore, it is a development based on properly shaped structures, which include the natural environment, and the integrating criterion is the category of quality of life (Piontek, 2002). Greening of life causes greater care for the natural environment but also for one’s health and fitness. For a consumer who promotes an ecological lifestyle, it is important to both what is outside in their environment, the natural environment, but also what is inside them, that is, the condition of their body. Taking care of health has become one of the main determinants of consumption in recent years. The increased interest in health problems is also prompted by the growing fear of disease and death (Rachocka, 2003). The ecological approach to life is also related to the zero-waste philosophy, which promotes zero waste footprint. The zero waste definition indicates ‘the protection of all resources through responsible production, consumption, reuse, and recovery of products, packaging, and materials without incineration and without discharges into the ground, water or air that threaten the environment or human health’ (The Zero Waste International Alliance, 2018). According to this concept, every resource should be reused instead of being thrown away. The zero-waste philosophy is based on six pillars (the 6R principle): Refuse, Reduce, Repair, Reuse, Recycle, Rot (Ecological, 2021). For eco-conscious households, it is important to use resources sparingly. These savings are possible thanks to the use of smart homes and devices that help reduce the consumption of electricity, water and gas while increasing the comfort of living. Smart homes can help improve energy efficiency and promote sustainable development (Reinisch, Kofler, & Kastner, 2010). It is also assumed that energy efficiency is one of the main advantages of a smart home (AsareBediako, Ribeiro, & Kling, 2012). Although smart home technologies are increasingly contributing to more efficient energy use, their use rate is estimated to remain lower than expected, with environmental awareness influencing the use of these technologies playing an important role (Ferreira, Oliveira, & Neves, 2023).

Smart homes can help improve energy efficiency and promote sustainable development (Reinisch et al., 2010). It is also assumed that energy efficiency is one of the main advantages of a smart home (AsareBediako et al., 2012). Although smart home technologies are increasingly contributing to more efficient energy use, their use rate is estimated to remain lower than expected, with environmental awareness influencing the use of these technologies playing an important role (Ferreira et al., 2023). The concept of a smart home equipped with smart devices is not something new. The first of them using technology in the field of home automation, based on the existing electrical installation to transmit signals controlling lights, home appliances and so on, were already known in the second half of the 20th century, as they were introduced to the market in 1978 by the Scottish company Pico Electronics, and the term ‘smart home’ itself was coined in 1984 (Miller, 2016). ‘A smart home can be defined as a place of residence incorporated with a communication network, modern household appliances, devices and sensors that can be remotely accessed, monitored and controlled, and provide services that respond to the needs of residents’ (Yang, Lee, & Zo, 2017). When analysing the meaning of the word ‘smart’ concerning homes and devices, it should be assumed that the ability to remotely manage, turn on and off an object determines whether an object is called ‘smart’ (Miller, 2016). A modern smart home is a place equipped with various devices, lighting, heating, air conditioning, radio and television equipment, household appliances and security systems that can communicate with each other and are controlled using an application on a smartphone or tablet to remotely start or turn off the equipment (Domb, 2019). The operation of a smart home is based on the use of a wireless home network (WiFi, Bluetooth, RFID), which allows users to connect many devices and an appropriate application developed and made available by manufacturers of smart devices. Items that can be connected to a smartphone or tablet are perceived as having extended functionalities. Mobile devices act as a control centre for consumer electronics and household appliances connected to the home network. For an average user with the skills to use a smartphone, and in particular, to install a control application, using them should be easy, and adding another device to the home IoT ecosystem is not a problem (Mącik, 2018b).

The main element of a smart home is the integrated building management system (BMS) which controls household appliances, RTV equipment, alarm system and all controllable activities such as heating or lighting, including central unit, power supply, and electricity control subsystems, subsystems ensuring comfort, safety and control devices (Malinowska, 2021).

All the smart devices in one’s home are designed to automate household chores. When various intelligent devices that communicate with each other are gathered under one roof, the result is a smart home. Even a house equipped with basic automation has some intelligent functions (Miller, 2016). In a smart home, apart from simply controlling and automating individual devices, smart devices communicate with other devices and synchronise their operation. A smart home can be seen as fully autonomous and acts on behalf of its occupants. Smart home systems can be easily adapted to the changing needs of its inhabitants. A smart home learns the behaviour and preferences of the people living in it. It adapts to these behaviours, anticipates needs and responds accordingly. It uses data collected from devices and sensors in the home, but also from wearables and even connected cars (Ekholm, 2018). For example, smart thermostats can remember a homeowner’s daily schedule and adjust their temperature to save energy, as they can be programmed to turn off at the right time (Nacer, Marhic, & Delahoche, 2017; Pang et al., 2021). A well-configured smart home system means that when its user closes the door with a key, the alarm system is automatically activated, the blinds in the windows are lowered, the temperature in individual rooms is lowered, lamps left on turn off by themselves, electronics and household appliances are automatically turned off, and when a homeowner comes back, it automatically adjusts to their preferences (including, for example, appropriate lighting, music, heating). Thanks to the system, one can check what is going on at home, and when the system itself senses something dangerous, it activates the alarm and sends information to the security office or the fire brigade. The house and the smart devices in it perform most of the activities for humans, both when they are inside and outside of it. From an eco-friendly lifestyle point of view, smart home technology can help homeowners save energy and thus lower their energy bills by automating energy-saving actions, such as turning off lights when not needed, adjusting the thermostat to more energy-efficient temperatures, and turning off appliances when not in use (Jo & Yoon, 2018).

The concept of smart homes and smart devices is inextricably linked to IoT (Gunge & Yalagi, 2016). It is defined as an open and comprehensive network of intelligent objects that can self-organise, share information, data and resources, and react and act in the event of changes in the environment (Madakam, Ramaswamy, & Tripathi, 2015). IoT is perceived as a set of intelligent objects that can react to the environment and process and remember digital information, as well as send it to other objects (and users) via Internet protocols. Not only does IoT enable communication between people and smart objects, but also between such smart devices. This leads to ensuring communication anytime and anywhere, that is, anywhere, using any information carrier (Kwiatkowska, 2014). According to another source, the term IoT was created to reflect the growing number of intelligent, connected devices and to emphasise the new possibilities that they can present (Porter & Heppelmann, 2014). One of the simplest definitions of IoT indicates that it is a system of physical objects that can be discovered, monitored, controlled and interacted with through the use of electronic devices that provide communication via various network interfaces and the ability to connect to the wider Internet (Guinard & Trifa, 2016). IoT consists of four basic elements: devices that allow for the active collection and transmission of measurement data indicating their functioning; a communication network connecting devices (i.e., the internet); IT systems capable of collecting incoming data; and analytical solutions that process data and allow for inference and obtaining additional business value (Rozmus, 2019). IoT can connect many different devices, both very small and large. The important thing is that the object does not need to have a physical form. It may be data, that is, information about the location and temperature in the room collected using a device designed for this purpose (e.g., thermostat, smartphone) (Miller, 2016). In addition, both living beings (humans and animals) as well as plants and inanimate objects are perceived as things (Madakam, Ramaswamy, & Tripathi, 2015). IoT is about collecting data, using it, and mutual communication between devices and the environment. This requires huge storage capacity, cloud computing, a high channel bandwidth for transmission and high power. In order to carry out the development of a smart world and sustainable development, the Green IoT has been introduced to reduce carbon emissions and energy consumption. Green IoT is related to technology that makes it environmentally friendly, using devices and warehouses that allow consumers to collect, store, access and manage various information (Alsamhi et al., 2018). Adopting smart home technology and IoT not only saves money but also helps to reduce our carbon footprint and protect the environment (Zhou et al., 2016).

Research Methodology

This article was written based on secondary and primary sources of information. The former made it possible to characterise the discussed issues related to the greening of life through the use of smart homes and devices and IoT. Secondary information was supplemented with primary information collected by the author in the mode of direct research using the online survey technique on 1 March 2021–18 May 2021. The survey questionnaire was made available on the SurveyMonkey platform, and the link to the survey was sent by e-mail to potential respondents. Over 1,000 completed questionnaires were returned. However, taking into account the limitations of the research technique used, resulting from, for example, too hasty completion of the questionnaire by a respondent (this is evidenced by the time devoted to reading it and completing it before sending it back), skipping questions, and deficiencies in the details that would not allow us to describe the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents. Another constraint was the overrepresentation of women (588 in number) in the research sample described in this article. Therefore, we selected only young consumers aged 18–34 years, including 50% of females and 50% of males. The detailed characteristics of the respondents indicate that 20.7% of the respondents lived in the countryside, 27.6% lived in towns with up to 99,000 inhabitants, 24.0% lived in towns with a population of 100,000 to 199,000, while 27.7% of the respondents lived in cities with more than 200,000 inhabitants. Most of the respondents assessed the financial situation of their household as good (63.8%) and stated that they could afford some luxury goods; 26.0% of the respondents assessed the financial situation of their household as satisfactory, meaning that they had to plan all major expenses. A very good financial situation was declared by 9.7% of the surveyed households and only 0.5% answered that their financial situation was bad. When analysing the respondents’ competences in terms of the ability to use objects and tools necessary to operate the smart home and devices, it was found that 70.1% of the respondents declared very high skills related to the use of a smartphone, 49.8% of the tablet, and 61.9% of various Internet applications. When declarations of high and very high skills were compared, the percentage of respondents in almost all cases increased to well over 90% (except for the tablet, where skills at these levels were declared by 75.8% of respondents). In terms of the subject of the article, the declarations of 66.3% of the respondents who answered that they consciously purchase environmentally friendly products, and the responses of 33.7% of the respondents who stated that they do not pay attention to whether the product is environmentally friendly, are also important.

Research Results

At the outset of the study, it was attempted to identify the general attitude of respondents to issues related to the greening of life, and in particular, to buying and using environmentally friendly products, by asking them to respond to selected statements related to this topic on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 meant that the respondent completely disagrees with a given statement and 7 that they completely agree with it. The highest average score was given to the statement: ‘I feel that using environmentally friendly products is right (average 5.84). A slightly lower average of 5.79 achieved the statement: ‘Buying environmentally friendly products is setting a good example.’ An equally high average of 5.53 achieved the statement: ‘Buying environmentally friendly products can make a difference to the environment.’ Average scores above 5 were also given to the following statements: ‘If I use environmentally friendly products, my friends or family will think it’s a good thing’ (5.30) and ‘Environmentally friendly products are as effective as regular products’ (5.15). It is worth noting that all the listed statements with an average score above 5 had the highest number of scores of 7 confirming that the respondents strongly agreed with them. In addition, women more often than men agreed with these statements, as in all cases the average of the ratings given by them is higher than the ratings given by men. A similar relationship was noted in the case of people declaring that they consciously purchase environmentally friendly products compared with those who do not pay attention to whether the product is environmentally friendly (Table 1).

Next, the study diagnosed the respondents’ attitudes to smart devices and the benefits for the consumer resulting from their use, including the possibility of saving time as a result of their use. The assessment was made on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 meant that the respondent completely disagreed with the presented statements covering the analysed issues, and 7 meant that he completely agreed with them. The respondents agreed with the statement ‘Smart devices enhance the comfort and conditions of life’ (average score of 5.64). Two statements achieved almost the same average, namely ‘The use of smart devices in households, i.e., washing machines, vacuum cleaners, etc. contributes to the rational consumer’s time management and saving this time’ (average 5.35) and ‘Use of smart devices in households (cameras, sensors, etc.) increases the consumer’s sense of security’ (average 5.34). The dominant score assigned to each of these statements was 7, meaning that the largest number of respondents completely agreed with them. Women and people consciously purchasing environmentally friendly products more often agreed with these statements. Despite the advantages of smart devices, which the respondents agreed with, it is worth emphasising that they did not fully agree with the statement indicating that consumers willingly install smart devices in their homes, which can be controlled using a smartphone or tablet. This statement did not receive full support and the average rating was only 4.69, while the most frequently awarded rating was 4 (Table 2).

Given that smart home devices enhance the comfort and conditions of life — this was also confirmed by the conducted research — the respondents were asked to comment on the convenience of using these devices in the context of greening life. Each of the presented ideas received an average score of above 5 (on a scale from 1 to 7). Most respondents agreed with the statement indicating that it is convenient that smart devices can provide automatic temperature control at home (average 5.71), then that they can provide access to a lot of information (average 5.65). It is also convenient that they can control any electrical apparatus through simple operation (average 5.52) and that these devices give the opportunity to actively help residents without human intervention (average 5.23). People consciously purchasing environmentally friendly products agreed with these statements more often than people who did not pay attention to whether the product is environmentally friendly. Concerning all the statements, the dominant rating was 7, so most people strongly agreed with them (Table 3).

Table 3 shows research data from several researchers regarding the limitations experienced by MSMEs in the UK and Commonwealth countries, which are developed countries, in improving their entrepreneurial strategic orientation and firm performance of MSMEs.

Referring to the issues considering the ecological approach to life in the era of smart homes and devices, the respondents were also asked to react to statements containing these aspects on a scale of 1–7. When analysing the answers received, it was noted that the respondents agreed with the statement that ‘Smart devices used in homes contribute to environmental protection by reducing electricity and water consumption by households’, awarding an average of 4.79. The median of the answers was 5, which means that half of the respondents gave a score lower than 5, and the other half was higher than 5. The dominant score was 4, so it can be considered that the respondents agreed with this statement, although it is not an assessment indicating complete compliance. Higher average scores and the highest number of highest scores confirming that the respondents strongly agreed with them were obtained by statements pointing out that for those living in a smart home, these devices ‘will allow for accurate knowledge of energy and water consumption (expenditure, consumption of water, heat, etc.)’ — average 5.67, then that ‘They will save resources (energy, water, etc.)’ — average 5.49. The statement that most closely corresponds to the subject of the article: ‘Smart devices will allow an ecological approach to life’ received an average rating of 5.18. The statement emphasising that these devices will reduce costs was also rated above 5 (average 5.17). All these statements were more often agreed upon by women than men, and by people paying attention to the purchase of environmentally friendly products (Table 4).

In the end, respondents were asked to comment on statements related to the usefulness of smart devices in practicing an ecological approach to life, and in particular, taking care of their well-being and health. As in the previous questions, a seven-point scale was used concerning these issues, and the respondents agreed with them. The highest average score was given to the statement indicating that smart home devices can provide information when needed to help make better decisions about health and well-being (average 5.29). A slightly lower average was achieved by the statement that these devices can increase health and well-being awareness when needed (average score of 5.16). The average ratings of the last two statements stating that smart home devices can, if necessary, increase the chances of a healthier lifestyle (average 5.12) and give greater control over health and well-being (average 5.11) are also very similar. As in all the presented statements, women and people paying attention to whether the product is environmentally friendly agreed with them more often (Table 5).

Conclusions, Recommendations and Research Limitations

The ongoing development of technology means that modern consumers live in an extremely interesting world offering a countless range of communication possibilities between themselves, between them and objects, and objects themselves without human interference to facilitate and improve everyday life activities and implement an ecological approach to life. This article therefore aimed at diagnosing the attitudes of consumers to selected issues related to the greening of life at a time when smart devices are becoming popular and smart homes are being built to improve the management of electricity, water, and gas consumption and give a chance to increase health and well-being awareness outreach. Only young consumers aged 18–34 years were selected for the study as they seem to be more willing than others to adapt all technological innovations and conveniences created and potentially be their future users to improve their daily lives while protecting the environment (Baudier, Ammi, & DeboeufRouchon, 2020). The conducted research shows that young consumers have a positive attitude to the use of smart devices in the context of an ecological approach to life. They agreed with the statement that smart devices will allow for an ecological approach to life, giving an average rating of 5.18 on a scale from 1 to 7. They also agreed with the statement that ‘Smart devices used in homes contribute to protecting the environment through reducing electricity and water consumption by households.’ In their opinion, these devices ‘will allow people living in a smart home to know exactly the consumption of energy and water, and will also save resources (energy, water, etc.).’ Young consumers agreed with the statement that smart devices enhance the comfort and conditions of life. In their opinion, it is convenient that smart devices can provide automatic temperature control in the home, can provide access to a lot of information, and can control any electrical apparatus through a simple operation. Smart home devices can provide information when needed to help one make better health and wellness decisions, increase health and well-being awareness, increase one’s chances for a healthier lifestyle, and give more control over one’s health and well-being.

The collected responses confirm the assumption that young consumers have a positive attitude to the use of smart homes and devices, facilitating the implementation of an ecological lifestyle. In the respondents’ answers, one can see positive reactions to statements on the use of smart homes and devices related to the possibility of enhancing the comfort and conditions of life as well as saving resources, a chance for a healthier lifestyle, and control over health and well-being. However, it is difficult to predict whether these opinions would be confirmed during the actual use of smart homes and devices. Therefore, in conclusion, attention should be paid to the limitation of the presented research results given that the respondents were not asked who already lives in a smart home or whether their opinions are a result of the acquired experience of using smart homes and devices. The focus was only on obtaining their subjective opinions on the issues discussed in this article. Therefore, it would be essential to repeat the research in the future, including, in particular, the use of in-depth research techniques and diagnosing the attitudes towards the ecological approach to life of people who have decided to live in a smart home and have knowledge resulting from the experience gained through its use.

References

1. Alsamhi, S. H., Ma, O., Ansari, S., & Meng, Q. (2018). Greening Internet of Things for smart everythings with a green-environment life: A survey and future prospects. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324908310_Greening_Internet_ of_Things_for_Smart_Everythings_with_A_Green-Environment_Life_A_Survey
_and_Future_Prospects [dostęp: 10.11.2022].
2. Anbalagan, G., & Shanthi, K. (2015). A study on environmental awareness and related practices among the high school students at Madurai district, Tamil Nadu. Indian Streams Research Journal, 5(9), 1–9.
3. Asare-Bediako, B., Ribeiro, P. F., & Kling, W. L. (2012). Integrated energy optimization with smart home energy management systems. In 2012 3rd IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe (ISGT Europe), 1–8. doi:10.1109/ISGTEurope.2012.6465696
4. Baudier, P., Ammi, Ch., & Deboeuf-Rouchon, M., (2020). Smart home: Highly-educated students’ acceptance. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 153, 119355.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.043
5. Bywalec, Cz. (2017). Gospodarstwo domowe. Ekonomika. Finanse. Konsumpcja. Kraków, Poland: Wyd. UE w Krakowie.
6. Connolly, J., & Prothero, A. (2008). Green consumption: Life-politics, risk and contradictions. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(1), 117–145. doi:10.1177/ 1469540507086422
7. Dąbrowska, A., Jurowczyk, P., & Ozimek, I. (2022). The greening of consumption: Challenges for consumers and businesses. Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, 45(3). 44–56.
8. Dom ekologiczny. (2022, 26 październik). Retrieved from https://wlaczoszczedzanie.pl/ ekodom/[dostęp: 10.11.2022].
9. Domb, M. (2019). Smart home systems based on Internet of Things. In: Yasser Ismail (Ed.), Internet of Things (IoT) for Automated and Smart Applications. London, England: IntechOpen.
10. Dynatrace. (2018). IoT Consumer Confidence Report: Challenges for Enterprise Cloud Monitoring on the Horizon. Retrieved from https://assets.dynatrace.com/en/docs/ report/2824-iot-consumer-confidence-report-dynatrace.pdf [dostęp: 28.10.2022].
11. Ekholm, J. (2018, 31 maj). Good Bye Connected Home — Hello Intelligent Home, Gartner. Retrieved from https://blogs.gartner.com/jessica-ekholm/2018/05/31/good-byeconnectedhome-hello-intelligent-home/? [dostęp: 3.11.2022].
12. Ekologiczny i inteligentny dom? To możliwe! (2022, 16 luty). Retrieved from https://www.technical-solution.pl/ekologiczny-i-inteligentny-dom-to-mozliwe/[dostęp: 6.11.2022].
13. Ekologiczny styl życia czyli jaki? (2021, 21 marzec). Retrieved from https://eko360.pl/ekologiczny-styl-zycia-czyli-jaki/[dostęp: 6.11.2022].
14. Ferreira, L., Oliveira, T., & Neves, C. (2023). Consumer’s intention to use and recommend smart home technologies: The role of environmental awareness. Energy, 263, 125814. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2022.125814
15. Guinard, D. D., & Trifa, V. M. (2016). Internet rzeczy. Budowa sieci z wykorzystaniem technologii webowych i Raspberry Pi. Gliwice, Poland: Helion.
16. Gunge, V. S., & Yalagi, P. S. (2016). Smart home automation: A literature review. International Journal of Computer Applications (0975–8887). National Seminar on Recent Trends in Data Mining (RTDM), Retrieved from
https://research.ijcaonline.org/rtdm2016/number1/rtdm2568.pdf.
17. Hargreaves, T., Wilson, Ch., & Hauxwell-Baldwin, R. (2017). Learning to live in a smart home. Building Research & Information, 46(1). 127–139.
18. Hui, T. K. L., Sherratt, R. S., & Sánchez, D. D. (2017). Major requirements for building smart homes in smart cities based on Internet of Things technologies. Future Generation Computer Systems, 76, 358–369. doi:10.1016/j.future.2016.10.026.
19. Inteligentne systemu częściej dla komfortu niż bezpieczeństwa. Raport Oferteo.pl o smart home w Polsce. (2021, 19 marzec). Retrieved from https://www.obud.pl/ art,22448,inteligentne-systemy-czesciej-dla-komfortu-niz-bezpiecze-stwa — raportoferteopl-o-smart-home-w-polsce,d_eko [dostęp 2.01.2023].
20. Janoś-Kresło, M. (2006). Koncepcja trwałej i zrównoważonej konsumpcji. W: Konsument i konsumpcja we współczesnej gospodarce. Red. nauk. M. Janoś-Kresło, B. Mróz, Warszawa, Poland: SGH.
21. Jo, H., & Yoon, Y. I. (2018). Intelligent smart home energy efficiency model using artificial TensorFlow engine. Human-Centric Computing and Information Sciences, 8(1), 9. doi:10.1186/s13673-018-0132-y.
22. Kasprzyk, A. A. (2019, 24 kwiecień). Inteligentny dom a ekologia, Retrieved from https://www.aak.pl/smart_home/inteligentny-dom-a-ekologia/[dostęp: 6.11.2022].
23. Kiełczewski, D. (2001). Ekologia społeczna. Białystok, Poland: Wydawnictwo Ekonomia i Środowisko.
24. Klarin, T. (2018). The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the contemporary issues. Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 21(1). 67–94. doi:10.2478/zireb-2018-0005.
25. Kolny, B. (2021a). Equipping households with durable goods in the age of the Internet of Things. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Oeconomia, 20(3). 23–32.
26. Kolny, B. (2021b). Attitudes of young consumers on the security of their data collected by smart devices in the age of the Internet of Things. Marketing of Scientific and Research Organizations, 41(3). 21–38. doi:10.2478/minib-2021-0013
27. Kunarto, K., & Prasetyo, B. (2022). Sustainable development review. UNTAG Law Review, 6(1), 84–94, doi:10.56444/ulrev.v6i1.3215
28. Kwiatkowska, E. M. (2014). Rozwój Internetu rzeczy — szanse i zagrożenia. Internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny, 8(3), 60–70, Retrieved from www.ikar.wz.uw.edu.pl [dostęp 6. 11.2022].
29. Mącik, R. (2018a). Konsument w świecie internetu rzeczy (IoT) — uwarunkowania akceptacji technologii IoT. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 526, Wrocław, Poland: UE Wrocław, 48–59.
30. Mącik, R. (2018b). Postrzeganie i użytkowanie technologii Internetu Rzeczy przez młodych konsumentów — wyniki badań. W: Sułkowski Ł., Kaczorowska-Spychalska D. (red.) Internet of Things. Nowy paradygmat rynku (pp. 224–245). Warszawa, Poland: Difin.
31. Madakam, S., Ramaswamy, R., & Tripathi, S. (2015, May). Internet of Things (IoT): A literature review. Journal of Computer and Communications, 3. 164–173. Retrieved from http://www.scirp.org/journal/jcc; http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jcc.2015.35021 pobrane z https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JCC_2015052516013923.pdf, [dostęp: 28.10.2022].
32. Majchrzyk, Ł. (2020). Już co 3. nowy dom w Polsce jest inteligentny. Retrieved from https://mobirank.pl/2020/02/16/juz-co-3-nowy-dom-w-polsce-jest-inteligentny/[dostęp: 8.11.2022].
33. Malinowska, K. (2021, 30 październik). Co to jest inteligentny dom? Co się w nim znajduje? Retrieved from www.compero pl. [dostęp: 28.10.2022].
34. Miller, M. (2016). Internet rzeczy. Jak inteligentne telewizory, samochody, domy i miasta zmieniają świat. Warszawa, Poland: PWN.
35. Nacer, A., Marhic, B., & Delahoche, L. (2017). Smart home, smart HEMS, smart heating: An overview of the latest products and trends. In 2017 6th International Conference on Systems and Control (ICSC), 90–95. doi:10.1109/ICoSC.2017.7958713
36. Omoogun, A. C., Egbonyi, E. E., & Onnoghen, U. N. (2016). From environmental awareness to environmental responsibility: Towards a stewardship curriculum. Journal of Educational Issues, 2(2). 60–72. doi:10.5296/jei.v2i2.9265
37. Pang, Z., Chen, Y., Zhang, J., O’Neill, Z., Cheng, H., & Dong, B. (2021). How much HVAC energy could be saved from the occupant-centric smart home thermostat: A nationwide simulation study. Applied Energy, 283, 116251. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116251
38. Piontek, B. (2002). Koncepcja rozwoju zrównoważonego i trwałego Polski. Warszawa, Poland: PWN.
39. Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014, 1 November). How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard Business Review, 64–89.
40. Rachocka, J. (2003). Dekonsumpcja, domocentryzm, ekologizacja życia — nowe tendencje konsumenckie w rozwiniętych gospodarkach rynkowych. W: Problemy globalizacji gospodarki, red. T. Bernat (pp. 185–191). Szczecin, Poland: PTE.
41. Reinisch, C., Kofler, M. J., & Kastner, W. (2010). ThinkHome: A smart home as digital ecosystem. In 4th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies, 256–261. doi:10.1109/DEST.2010.5610636.
42. Rozmus, S. (2019). Gospodarstwo domowe w dobie Internetu Rzeczy. Rocznik Kolegium Analiz Ekonomicznych, SGH, nr 54 (pp. 61–73). Warszawa, Poland.
43. Santhanlaxmi, K., & Chandramohan, S. (2020). Organizational contention and confrontation to sustainable development a socio-economic perspective. Shodh Sanchar Bulletin, 10(38), 69–73.
44. Stańczyk, M. (2020, 22 kwiecień). Jak inteligentny sprzęt AGD może pomóc oszczędzać energię i chronić naszą planetę, aby każdy dzień był Dniem Ziemi? Retrieved from https://lgnews.pl/93902-jak-inteligentny-sprzet-agd-moze-pomoc-oszczedzac-energie-ichronicnasza-planete-aby-kazdy-dzien-byl-dniem-ziemi, [dostęp: 10.11.2022].
45. Statista. (2022). Smart home device shipments worldwide 2020–2025. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1223274/smart-home-device-shipments-worldwide/, [dostęp: 2.01.2023].
46. The Zero Waste International Alliance. Zero Waste Definioton (2018, 20 December).
https://zwia.org/zero-waste-definition/[dostęp: 6.11.2022].
47. Wilson, C., Hargreaves, T., & Hauxwell-Baldwin, R. (2017). Benefits and risks of smart home technologies. Elsevier. Energy Police, 103, 72–83.
48. Yang, H., Lee, H., & Zo, H., (2017). User acceptance of smart home services: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(1). 68–89.
49. Zhou, B., Li, W., Chan, K. W., Cao, Y., Kuang, Y., Liu, X., & Wang, X. (2016). Smart home energy management systems: Concept, configurations, and scheduling strategies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 61, 30–40. Doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.047

A smart home is also referred to as an interactive or networked home. Many ‘define it as a home that includes digital sensing and communication devices’ (Baudier, Ammi, & Deboeuf-Rouchon, 2020). It increases the quality of life of its inhabitants, allows them to better care for their security and safety, and reduces utility expenses. It offers greater convenience than its regular counterpart, in which the various devices are separately or individually operated and controlled by their users (Yang et al., 2017). In a smart home, less is done by its owners, and less needs to be remembered because the installed devices communicate with each other by performing the necessary activities. Smart homes create an economically optimised and effective space for people living in them owing to the appropriate structure, power supply and control systems for electric energy, systems ensuring comfort and safety, and the mutual relations between them. The appliances of a smart home include, among others, smart devices, smart lighting, smoke and gas detectors and intrusion detection systems. These devices can be connected wirelessly to the internet and controlled remotely. Smart devices include television sets, audio-video equipment, vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, ovens, washing machines, dishwashers, light bulbs, air conditioners, doorbells, locks, devices classifiable under heating systems, and systems using security cameras and sensors for intrusion detection and alert. What distinguishes a smart home from an ordinary home is that in the case of the former, its smart devices communicate with each other and synchronise their activities.

Smart home technologies are gaining popularity. In Poland, according to a study conducted by Oferteo.pl, 23% of respondents decided to implement smart home solutions in their newly built home in 2018, while every third respondent chose them in 2019. People who did not choose to use these solutions in their new homes indicated high prices to be the reason, as well as the absence of a need to know about or have them (Majchrzyk, 2020). The latter reasons are confirmed in research findings available from the same author and forming part of the published literature (Kolny, 2021a), in which it is demonstrated that 75.8% of respondents consider facilitating the performance of everyday activities as an advantage, and 58.9% that everyday life becomes more satisfying and comfortable. However, the consumers constituting the respondents in the earlier study (and their households) who did not buy smart devices indicated the following factors to be the reason: high prices (79.5%), no need to have them (59%), or lack of knowledge about them (55.6%).

According to the Digital Market Outlook, the number of smart homes in the world in 2025 is expected to reach 478.2 million (Statista, 2021a), and the market penetration rate will reach 21.1% (Statista, 2021b). In 2020, the total number of smart home devices worldwide was 349 million. This number is predicted to increase significantly in the next few years, reaching 1.77 billion in 2025 (Statista, 2022).

As smart home systems are gaining more and more popularity from year to year, and since it is expected that their number will increase, despite the mentioned factors discouraging their implementation, an attempt was made to answer the question of what the attitude of consumers towards,  them is. Therefore, the article aims at assessing the attitude of young consumers towards a smart home and its devices. The study exclusively focuses on young consumers aged 18-34 years, who are more likely than others to adapt to all technological innovations and potentially become smart home users in the future. The research results can indicate what the level of acceptance of the smart home technology will be, and what is and will be the willingness of consumers to use these solutions. The focus was on issues from three research areas. The first area concerned the general attitude towards the concept of smart homes; the second, the possibility of using smart devices and smart homes in the future; and the third area covered issues related to the sense of security and safety as well as the possibilities offered to consumers using smart home solutions. It is assumed that young consumers intend to use a smart home in the future and have a positive attitude towards it, especially towards those solutions that are related to ensuring a sense of security and safety for its inhabitants.

The article provides information on smart homes and their devices. It describes the research methodology and the research sample, as well as presents the results of the author’s research and conclusions with recommendations for further research.

Resources and Method

The article is based on primary and secondary sources of information. Issues discussed pertaining to smart homes come from secondary information, which was supplemented with primary information collected by the author during direct research using the internet questionnaire technique from Mar. 1, 2021 to May 18, 2021. The questionnaire was made available on the SurveyMonkey platform, and the link to the research was sent by e-mail to potential respondents. The research sample, which consisted of 588 individuals, exclusively focussed on young consumers aged 18-34 years, out of whom 50% were women and 50% men. Among the respondents, 20.7% lived in rural areas, 27.6% lived in cities with up to 99,000 residents, 24.0% lived in cities from 100,000 to 199,000 residents and 27.7% of the respondents lived in cities with more than 200,000 residents. Most respondents assessed the financial situation of their household as good (63.8%) and answered that they could afford some luxury goods. Among the respondents, 26.0% declared the financial situation of their households as sufficient, meaning that they have to plan all major expenses. A very good financial situation was declared by 9.7% of the surveyed households and only 0.5% assessed their financial situation as bad. When analysing the respondents’ competencies to use objects and tools necessary to operate devices adopted in a smart home, it was found that very high skills related to the use of a smartphone were declared by 70.1% of respondents, a tablet by 49.8% and various internet applications by 61.9%. When declarations of high and very high skills were compared, the percentage of respondents in almost all cases increased to well over 90% (except for the tablet, where 75.8% of respondents declared skills at these levels). Moreover, 67.2% of the respondents declared that they were interested in technological innovations, which undoubtedly include all devices used in a smart home, whereas 32.8% declared that they were not interested in them.

Smart Home Features

The concept of a smart home is not something new, as the automation of household duties has been known for nearly 100 years. It emerged with the spread of electricity and electrical household appliances. The first devices using technology in home automation, based on the existing electrical installation to transmit signals controlling lights and home appliances, were introduced to the market by the Scottish company Pico Electronics in 1978, and the concept of the ‘smart home’ was created in 1984 (Miller, 2016). When reflecting on the meaning of the word smart concerning things, it seems that the point is that many people will find that calling an object smart is determined by the ability to manage it remotely, and turn it on and off. ‘Smart home can be de?ned as a residence equipped with a communication network, high-tech household devices, appliances, and sensors that can be remotely accessed, monitored, and controlled and that provide services responding to the residents’ needs’ (Yang et al., 2017). Thus, the modern smart home is a place equipped with various devices, lighting, heating, air conditioning, RTV equipment, household appliances and security systems that can communicate with each other and are controlled by using an application on a smartphone or tablet to by remotely turning on or off a given hardware contraption (Domb, 2019). The operation of a smart home is based on the use of a wireless home network (WiFi, Bluetooth, RFID) that allows many devices to be connected with an appropriate application developed and made available by manufacturers of smart devices. The Internet of Things is the most broadly utilised in the areas related to smart home furnishing (Gunge & Yalagi, 2016). The Internet of Things is viewed as a body of smart things that can react to the environment, process and remember digital information, and transfer it to other objects (and users) via internet protocols. The Internet of Things not only enables people to communicate with smart objects but also allows the interface between such smart devices.

This ensures the capability for communication anytime and anywhere, using any information carrier (Kwiatkowska, 2014). The Internet of Things consists of four basic elements: devices that allow for the active collection and transmission of measurement data that indicate their functioning; the communication network that connects the devices (i.e. the internet); information systems capable of collecting incoming data; and analytical solutions that process data and allow for inference and obtaining additional business value (Rozmus, 2019).

The main elements of a smart home, in which the integrated Building Management System (BMS) manages household appliances, include RTV equipment, alarm system and all controllable activities, such as lighting or heating, including central unit, power supply subsystems and control of electric energy, subsystems ensuring comfort and security and control devices (Malinowska, 2021). The central unit is defined as the ‘heart’ of the BMS, to which all devices in the smart home are connected. There is also the need for electricity supply and control subsystems, i.e. various types of power supply installations, wiring, smart plug sockets, security, lighting and emergency power supply. Among the subsystems that ensure comfort, the following stand out, among others: heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting control, audio-video devices, sound system, entrance gate, garage door and sprinklers. On the other hand, the subsystems ensuring security and safety include alarms, smoke monitoring system and gas, motion and temperature detectors. For all of this to work smoothly, a control device is needed, i.e. a tablet, smartphone or other device dedicated to a given system, using which the functionalities of the home can be managed.

Objects that can be connected to a smartphone or tablet are perceived as having enhanced functionalities. Mobile devices act as a control centre for consumer electronics and household appliances connected to the home network. It should be easy for an average user, in particular one having the ability to use a smartphone, to install a control application and add another device to the home IoT ecosystem (Mącik, 2018).

All the smart devices in the home are designed to automate the performance of household chores. When various smart devices, communicating with each other, are gathered under one roof, this results in a smart home. Even a house equipped with basic automation has some smart functions (Miller, 2016). Apart from simply controlling and automating individual devices, home automation ensures that smart devices in a smart home communicate with other devices such that their operation is synchronised. A smart home can be seen as a fully autonomous system that works on behalf of its residents. It is the next step in the operation of the Connected Home, where devices can be controlled from anywhere using an application. Smart home systems can be easily adapted to the changing needs of smart home inhabitants. A smart home learns the behaviour and preferences of people living in it. It adapts to these behaviours, anticipates needs and reacts appropriately. It uses data collected not only from devices and sensors in the home but also wearable devices and even connected cars (Ekholm, 2018). A well-set-up smart home system means, e.g. that when a person locks the door with a key, the alarm system is automatically turned on, the blinds in the windows are automatically lowered, the temperature in particular rooms is automatically reduced and the lamps, home electronics and household appliances are automatically turned off. When the person comes back, the system automatically adjusts to their preferences (turning on, e.g. appropriate lighting, music or heating). The system incorporates the advantage that the user can continually check what is happening at home, and when it senses something dangerous, the automated system activates the alarm and sends information to the security company office or the fire brigade. The house, and the smart devices inside it, do most things for people, both inside and outside.

Apart from the advantages, such as the undoubted likelihood of energy savings and improved security and safety, there are also threats to privacy and security data that are downloaded by smart devices (Wilson, Hargreaves, & Hauxwell-Baldwin, 2017; Kolny, 2021b). These concerns are also related to the operation of smart devices and homes. A report on a survey of 10,002 respondents commissioned by Dynatrace in eight countries around the world (Great Britain, USA, France, Germany, Australia, Brazil, Singapore and China) showed that 73% of respondents fear that they may be locked inside or outside a smart home. The inability to control the temperature in a smart home was indicated by 68% of respondents, and light by 64% (Dynatrace, 2018). Furthermore, the results of a qualitative study among smart homeowners conducted by Hargreaves, Wilson and Hauxwell-Baldwin (2017) pointed out that smart home technologies are both technically and socially disruptive, it is not easy for all household members to adapt to the functionality of a smart home and learning to use this technology is a demanding and time-consuming task.

Research Results

At the beginning of the study, respondents were asked what smart devices their households are equipped with and which ones they are planning to buy in the future. It was found that most households were furnished with RTV equipment such as a smart TV (68.7%) and a multimedia player (49.5%). Among household equipment, the most popular type of appliance used by respondents’ households was a vacuum cleaner (41.7%), followed by a washing machine (39.5%) and a refrigerator (39.4%). The lowest share of surveyed households had an oven (37.3%) and a dishwasher (27.8%). The last two mentioned appliances are also not planned purchases in the future, because as much as 62.5% of respondents replied that they did not plan to buy a dishwasher, and 56.8% that they did not plan to buy an oven (Table 1).

RTV equipment and household appliances are only part of the furnishings of the connected house. Smartphones and tablets, via the internet, can control, for example, lighting, temperature, roller shutters and alarm systems. Therefore, the respondents were asked what home furnishings, classified as home automation devices, their households had. It was found that most of them had smart lighting (44.5%), followed by heating (38.3%), sockets (37.7%) and door locks (34.1%). About 15% of the surveyed households had other analysed appliances. These were air quality monitoring devices, weather stations and alarm systems. Among the respondents, 13.4% had smart homes that were equipped with monitoring cameras, 12.0% with video intercoms and the least number of them with window and door sensors (6.4%). The respondents’ declarations showed that most of them did not plan to purchase these devices (Table 2).

Source: Own study.

The attitude of young consumers to the concept of having a smart home installed and equipping it with smart devices was studied in three areas, each with corresponding statements. The first research area concerned the general attitude towards smart homes, the second area referred to the use of smart devices and a smart home in the future, and the third area concerned the sense of security and safety and the additional possibilities offered by the use of smart home solutions. Attitudes were tested on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 meant that the respondents strongly disagreed with a given statement and 7 that they strongly agreed with it. It is worth noting that among all the scores, the respondents most often awarded 7, i.e. the highest score confirming that they definitely agreed with the particular statement.

Source: Own study.

The calculated average scores indicate that in terms of the issues from the first research area, the respondents agreed with the statements regarding smart homes, giving each of them an average score of more than 5. Moreover, their answers were dominated by scores of 7, and the median was mostly 6. The respondents gave high scores mostly towards indicating their agreement with the statements that smart home appliances are fun and that smart home appliances are enjoyable, giving each of these an average score of 5.45. The respondents also agreed with the statements that smart home devices are easy to use (average score 5.41) and that they are useful in everyday life (average score 5.38). A similar average score was also obtained for statements indicating that the use of smart home devices helps complete chores faster (average score 5.35) and that the interaction with smart home devices is clear and meaningful (average score 5.31). The lowest mean (3.45), as well as the median (3) and the mode (4), were obtained for the statement that smart devices have a reasonable price. Analysing the largest differences in respondents’ answers by gender, it was noted that women more often than men agreed with the statement that using smart home devices helps complete chores faster (average score of 5.56 compared to 5.13), while men agreed more often than women with the statement that they know how to use smart home devices (average score of 5.28 compared to 4.85). Considering the respondents’ declarations of interest in technological innovations, it was found that in all cases, higher average scores were awarded by people declaring themselves interested in technological advances (Table 3). When analysing the respondents’ answers in terms of their place of residence, it was noted that in most cases, residents of smaller cities (up to 99,000) agreed with these statements more than others, as evident from the results presented in Table 4. If we consider the percentage of respondents giving the highest scores, it can be concluded that most respondents (34.6%) agreed with the opinion that using smart home devices is fun, giving a score of 7. Then, 33.5% confirmed that smart home devices are useful in life. Slightly less, 32% confirmed that smart home devices are enjoyable, and 28.4% thought that smart devices are easy to use. The obtained results show that the general attitude of young consumers towards smart homes and devices is positive due to the pleasure derived from their use and their usefulness in everyday life.

INT, respondents interested in new technologies; M, men; Me, median; Mo, mode; NINT, respondents not interested in new technologies; T, total sample; W, women. *The scoring was based on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 meant strongly disagree and 7 strongly agree. Source: Own study.

The respondents’ attitude towards smart home solutions may be related to the possibility of using them in the future and the acceptance of this technology. Therefore, when analysing the respondents’ declarations on their predicted use of smart devices and smart homes in the future, as part of the scope of the second research area, it was noted that they agreed with the statement indicating that they could use smart home devices (average score 5.58), and further, that the use of smart devices could become a habit for them (average score 5.45). It can therefore be assumed that the use of a smart home would not be a major problem for the respondents. They also agreed with the statement that they might use smart home services in the future (average 5.35), and even explicitly indicated that they intend to use smart home services in the future (average 5.23). Despite the declaration of willingness to use smart home solutions, it should be noted that they are not indispensable for the respondents because they did not agree

unequivocally with the statement that they could get addicted to using a smart home device (mean 3.96, median and mode 5). Among those interested in technological innovations, female more often than male respondents agreed with all the statements on the possibility of using smart devices and a smart home solution. The biggest difference in declarations was noted concerning the statement, ‘I intend to use smart home services in the future’ (the average score given by women was 5.37 compared to 5.10 by men, and the average score given by respondents interested in technological innovations was 5.44 compared to 4.81 by those not interested), as can be seen from the results presented in Table 5. Considering the place of respondents’ residence, it was also found that for the statements on the use of smart home solutions in the future and statements reflecting attitudes towards smart homes, the residents of smaller cities (up to 99,000) agreed with them more often than other urban

INT, respondents interested in new technologies; M, men; Me, median; Mo, mode; NINT, respondents not interested in new technologies; T, total sample; W, women. *The scoring was based on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 meant strongly disagree and 7 strongly agree. Source: Own study.

and rural dwellers. Only the residents of rural areas agreed more often than city dwellers with the statement ‘I could get addicted to using smart home devices’ (Table 6). The highest score (7) was given by 37.4% of respondents who stated that they could use smart home devices, while 35.4% definitely admitted that the use of smart devices may become a habit for them. Over every third respondent (34.8%) definitely confirmed that they would use smart home services in the future, and not much less, almost every third (32.3%) gave a score of 7 stating that they intend to use smart home services in the future. Only 21.3% strongly confirmed that using smart home devices could become a habit for them and only 14.6% strongly admitted that they could become addicted to using smart home devices. The obtained results show a positive attitude in young consumers towards the possibility of using a smart home, although it should be emphasised that the declarations related to the use of a smart home in the future are contradictory to the described declarations regarding the intention to purchase (Tables 1 and 2). This can only be explained by the

*The scoring was based on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 meant strongly disagree and 7 strongly agree. Source: Own study.

fact that an intelligent house is perceived as a comprehensive facility with devices and services, and individual smart things about the intention to buy that were asked may be the equipment of every regular house and flat.

Living in a smart home is undoubtedly associated with benefits for its user in terms of ensuring security and safety, reducing utility costs and facilitating everyday activities. Therefore, during the study, the attitude of young consumers towards the sense of security and safety associated with the use of a smart home solution, as well as the additional possibilities offered by the use of a smart home, was assessed. These issues were surveyed in the third research area. The mode score in all cases is 7, and the highest average score-indicating that the respondents agreed with the given statement-was that using a smart device at home can increase security and safety by detecting gas and smoke emissions (average 6.13), and by notifying in the event of unauthorised home intrusion (average 5.95). Also important are the abilities to provide automatic temperature control in the house (average score of 5.71), to control any electrical apparatus through simple operation (average 5.52), and to control whether the doors and windows in the house are closed (average 5.45), as well as active help without the need for human intervention (average 5.23) and the possibility of reducing costs (5.18). As far as the issues of the third research area are concerned, which are related to the sense of security and safety obtained from implementation of a smart home system as well as the additional possibilities created by the use of a smart home, among respondents interested in technological innovations, women agreed with them more often than men. The biggest difference in the declarations of women and men was noted concerning the statements that a smart home allows for the ‘possibility of reducing utility costs’ (the average assessment given by women was 5.33 compared to 5.02 by men) and that it provides active help to residents without human intervention (5.37 average score awarded by respondents interested in technological innovations compared to 4.94 by those not interested), as can be seen from the data presented in Table 7. The study also showed that those city dwellers living in towns having a population of up to 99,000 agreed more often than other respondents with the statements presented to them from the third research area concerning the sense of security and safety obtained from implementation of a smart home system as well as the additional possibilities created by the use of a smart home (Table 8). These respondents also more often agreed with the statements from the first and second research areas (Tables 4 and 6). When analysing the scores in detail, it was noted that the largest proportion of respondents agreed with and assigned the highest score to the statements that using a smart device at home may increase their security and safety by detecting gas and smoke emissions (60.7%), and by informing in the event of an unauthorised home intrusion (52.9%). In these two cases, both the mode and the median were also 7 (Table 7).

The obtained research results indicate that households most often had smart electronic devices such as TV sets and multimedia players. Less than half of the surveyed households declared having smart home automation devices such as lighting (light bulbs) and heating (thermostats). When

INT, respondents interested in new technologies; M, men; Me, median; Mo, mode; NINT, respondents not interested in new technologies; T, total sample; W, women. *The scoring was based on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 meant strongly disagree and 7 strongly agree. Source: Own study.

examining the attitudes of young consumers towards the smart home and its equipment, it was found that the respondents most often agreed with the statements indicating the sense of security and safety obtained from implementation of a smart home system as well as the additional possibilities created by the use of a smart home, especially those specifying the capability of the smart home system to increase safety by detecting gas and smoke emissions. Young consumers also agreed with the statement that they could use smart home devices and that the use of smart home devices is fun, and even declared their intention to use smart home

*The scoring was made on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 meant strongly disagree and 7 strongly agree. Source: Own study.

solutions in the future. It should be noted that a full conviction concerning the sense of security and safety deriving from implementation of a smart home system has not yet been reflected in the current equipment of the respondents’ households, because their houses and flats were least often equipped with window and door sensors (6.4%), surveillance cameras (13.4%) and alarm systems (13.4%).

Conclusions

The constant development of technology has come to mean that the modern consumer has to live in an extremely interesting world, offering a countless range of possibilities for consumers to communicate with each other, for communication between consumers and objects and for that between the objects themselves without a consumer’s interference to facilitate and improve everyday life activities. Smart home systems are becoming more common day by day and forecasts indicate that the number of smart homes will increase. Therefore, the undertaken research was aimed at answering the question of what the attitude of young consumers is towards smart homes and furnishings in a smart home. Can the opinions expressed by young consumers give hope that these solutions will be used in the future? The survey shows that young consumers most often agreed with the statements indicating the sense of sense of security and safety obtained from implementation of a smart home system as well as the additional possibilities created by the use of a smart home, especially those specifying the capability of the smart home system to increase safety by detecting gas and smoke emissions. Importantly, the respondents agreed with the statement that they could use smart home devices, even agreeing with the statements that they intend to use smart home services in the future and that using smart home devices is fun. The obtained responses confirm the assumption that young consumers intend to use smart home solutions in the future and have a positive attitude towards them, especially those related to ensuring a sense of safety. In the responses of the respondents, one can see great optimism towards the use of smart homes, and this is related to both the sense of security derived from their use and the pleasure and ease of using them. However, it is difficult to predict whether these opinions would be confirmed during use, and when they will actually use it. Therefore, finally, attention should also be paid to the limitations of the results of the present research. No question was asked about who among the respondents already lives in a fully autonomous smart home and will continue to live in it. The questions referred only to individual smart devices, which do not always have to be synchronised with other smart devices used by households but are controlled separately by mobile devices. Therefore, it would be important to ascertain the opinions of people who have already decided to live in a smart home and repeat the research in the future.

References

1. Baudier, P., Ammi, Ch., & Deboeuf-Rouchon, M., (2020). Smart home: Highly-educated students’ acceptance. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 153, 119355. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.06.043

2. Domb, M. (2019). Smart home systems based on internet of things. In Y. Ismail (Ed.), Internet of Things (IoT) for automated and smart applications (pp. 25–37). London, UK: IntechOpen.

3. Dynatrace. (2018). IoT consumer confidence report: Challenges for enterprise cloud monitoring on the horizon. Retrieved from https://assets.dynatrace.com/en/docs/report/ 2824-iot-consumer-confidence-report-dynatrace.pdf.

4. Ekholm, J. (2018, May 31). Good bye connected home — Hello intelligent home, Gartner. Retrieved from https://blogs.gartner.com/jessica-ekholm/2018/05/31/good-byeconnectedhome-hello-intelligent-home/?

5. Gunge, V. S., & Yalagi, P. S. (2016). Smart home automation: A literature review. International Journal of Computer Applications (0975–8887). National Seminar on Recent Trends in Data Mining (RTDM), Retrieved from https://research.ijcaonline. org/rtdm2016/number1/rtdm2568.pdf.

6. Hargreaves, T., Wilson, Ch., & Hauxwell-Baldwin, R. (2018). Learning to live in a smart home. Building Research & Information, 46(1), 127–139.

7. Kwiatkowska, E. M. (2014). Rozwój Internetu rzeczy — szanse i zagrożenia, Internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny, 8(3), 60–70, Retrieved from www.ikar.wz.uw.edu.pl.

8. Kolny, B. (2021a). Equipping households with durable goods in the age of the internet of things. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum. Oeconomia, 20(3), 23-32.

9. Kolny, B. (2021b). Attitudes of young consumers on the security of their data collected by smart devices in the age of the Internet of Things. Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych, 41(3), 21–38.

10. Malinowska, K. (2021). Co to jest inteligentny dom? Co się w nim znajduje? Retrieved from www.compero.pl.

11. Majchrzyk, Ł. (2020). Już co 3. nowy dom w Polsce jest inteligentny. Retrieed from https://mobirank.pl/2020/02/16/juz-co-3-nowy-dom-w-polsce-jest-inteligentny/

12. Mącik, R. (2018). Konsument w świecie internetu rzeczy (IoT) — uwarunkowania akceptacji technologii IoT, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, nr 526, Wrocław: UE Wrocław, 48–59.

13. Miller, M. (2016). Internet rzeczy. Jak inteligentne telewizory, samochody, domy i miasta zmieniają świat. Warszawa, Poland: PWN.

14. Rozmus, S. (2019). Gospodarstwo domowe w dobie Internetu Rzeczy. Rocznik Kolegium Analiz Ekonomicznych, SGH, nr 54. Warszawa, Poland, 61–73.

15. Statista. (2021a). Number of smart homes forecast in the world until 2025. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/forecasts/887613/number-of-smart-homes-in-the-smarthomemarket-in-the-world

16. Statista. (2021b). Smart Homes penetration rate forecast in the World until 2025. https://www.statista.com/forecasts/887636/penetration-rate-of-smart-homes-in-theworld

17. Statista. (2022). Smart home device shipments worldwide 2020–2025. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1223274/smart-home-device-shipments-worldwide/

18. Wilson, C., Hargreaves, T., & Hauxwell-Baldwin, R. (2017). Benefits and risks of smart home technologies. Energy Police, 103, 72–83.

19. Yang, H., Lee, H., & Zo, H. (2017). User acceptance of smart home services: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(1), 68–89.

The Internet can be perceived, on the one hand, as a static archive of information, and on the other as a rapidly growing interactive system, in which objects can identify one another and are endowed with “intelligence” through the ability to communicate information about themselves and access data collected by other objects. As the number of devices connected to the Internet continues to grow, so do the possibilities offered by the use of technology to forge connections not only between people but also between objects and between objects and people. The Internet of Things (IoT) has evolved from a network of interconnected computers (as well as smartphones and tablets) to a network of interconnected objects. These include home electronics (e.g. smart TVs and streaming servers), household appliances (e.g. smart ovens, washing machines and refrigerators) and smart home automation devices (e.g. alarm systems, thermostats and smoke detectors), as well as smart medical equipment, cars, airplanes, houses, towns, cities and even countries. It is safe to assume that the Internet of Things comprises all interconnected things that can be monitored and controlled, and remain connected to the Internet at all times, which allows them to communicate and exchange information. However, the Internet of Things means that objects are not only interconnected but also capable of working autonomously with little need for human intervention. In this way, the Internet of Things facilitates the active participation of things/objects in the human environment, for example by sharing information with other network users or members using wireless technology. In the Internet of Things, objects can autonomously identify events and changes in their surroundings and act and react appropriately without human intervention (Malucha, 2019, p. 57).

The traditional Internet differs from the Internet of Things in that the former involves such objects as computers, smartphones and tablets that are interconnected chiefly for the purpose of being used by humans. People use such devices to connect to the Internet, search for information, send emails, watch films, listen to music and so on. In the Internet of Things, in turn, data is additionally collected and exchanged by devices in what is referred to as machine-to-machine communication, or M2M (Miller, 2015). Since the collection of data within the Internet of Things is indispensable, it is crucial to ensure that such data can be managed and communicated in a secure manner that protects user privacy. Therefore, protecting consumer data to prevent unauthorized access and maintain their integrity is crucially important for their IoT transmission (Krawiec, 2020, p. 74).

Kwiatkowska (2014, p. 69) argues that as the Internet of Things evolves, it is necessary to build trust in such systems and guarantee to users that the data generated in the network is protected from unauthorized access. Without trust, it is not possible to exploit the full potential of the IoT. Most users realize that, for example, Google mobile apps track their location, but this is done to provide them with additional benefits. However, there are situations in which users may not be aware of what data is collected and when. For example, this happens when applications are running in the background, the devices on which they are installed remain inactive or users forget to turn them off. It will not be possible to fully tap into the potential of IoT devices unless people are confident that these objects pose no major threats to their privacy.

Given that network-connected devices have become commonplace to such an extent in today’s households, the purpose of this paper is to examine the attitudes of young consumers — who inevitably have or will have contact with smart devices interconnected via the existing Internet infrastructure or other network technologies within the framework of IoT systems — regarding the security of their data collected by those devices.

Material and Methodology

The study utilized both secondary and primary sources of information. Secondary sources were used to characterize issues related to the Internet of Things and the security of data collected by IoT devices. Information from secondary sources was supplemented by information from primary sources gathered by the author through direct research using an online survey taken between 1 March 2021 and 18 May 2021. The study questionnaire was made available through the SurveyMonkey platform, and the link was sent to potential respondents by email. The sample of 588 individuals was selected to consist exclusively of young consumers aged 18–34, with 50% of the sample being women, the other 50% men. Among those surveyed, 20.7% lived in rural areas, 27.6% in cities of up to 99,000 inhabitants, 24.0% in cities of 100,000–199,000 inhabitants and 27.7% in cities of more than 200,000 inhabitants. Most respondents rated the financial situation of their households as “good” (63.8%) and stated that they were able to afford certain luxury goods. Among those surveyed, 26.0% rated the financial situation of their households as “sufficient” (i.e. they were forced to budget for all major purchases), compared with 9.7% who declared that their financial situation was “very good” and only 0.5% who rated the condition  of their finance as “bad”. For the purposes of this paper, it appeared useful to examine the competence of the respondents in the use of objects and tools necessary to operate smart devices. “Very good” skills at using smartphones were declared by 70,1% of the respondents, at using tablets by 49.8% of the respondents and at using various Internet applications by 61.9% of the respondents. When the declarations of “good” and “very good” skills were aggregated, the percentage shares in almost all cases rose to well over 90% (except for tablets, where “good” and “very good” skills at using those devices were declared by a total of 75.8% of the respondents).

Defining the Internet of Things

The Internet of Things is generally seen as being comprised of four different elements: devices that allow the active collection and transmission of measuring data that represents how they function; a communication network that connects devices (i.e. the Internet); IT systems capable of collecting incoming data; analytical solutions that process the data and allow conclusions to be drawn and additional business value to be created (Rozmus, 2019, pp. 65–66). As a result of difficulties in defining the concept, the Internet of Things may also be understood as including the following: the use of radio frequency identification (RFID) technology to determine the location (markings) of objects in order to monitor their position; communication between machines, or communication between devices aimed at optimizing their performance; the use of a network of sensors to transmit data and information from these objects to the network (Mazurek, 2018). In addition, the Internet of Things can be understood as all smart objects capable of reacting to their surroundings, as well as processing and remembering digital information and transmitting it to other objects (and users) via Internet protocols. In considering the use of the word “smart” to describe such objects, we can assume that objects can be called smart if they can be managed and controlled remotely (for example by setting a timer to preheat an oven or turning on a dishwasher or a washing machine) via smartphone or tablet applications (Miller, 2015), share data about themselves and provide access to the information collected by other things.

The person who claims to have coined the term “Internet of Things” is Kevin Ashton, who first used the words as the title of a presentation at Procter & Gamble in 1999, explaining that “[l]inking the new idea of RFID in P&G’s supply chain to the then-red-hot topic of the Internet was more than just a good way to get executive attention” (Ashton, 2009). He argued that computers and the Internet depended on people for information because almost all the data available on the Internet had been posted there by people. He observed that humans nonetheless had “limited time, attention and accuracy” to capture and create data, but no such limitations applied to RFID and sensor technology, which was why the Internet of Things could transform the world, perhaps even more profoundly than the Internet did (Ashton 2009). A transformed world will become possible thanks to communication not only between humans and smart objects but also between smart objects themselves, and such communication will be enabled anytime, anywhere and on any medium (Kwiatkowska, 2014, p. 60). In the position paper on standardization for Internet of Things technologies issued in January 2015 by the European Research Cluster on the Internet of Things (IERC), the Internet of Things is defined as a “dynamic global network infrastructure with selfconfiguring capabilities based on standard and interoperable communication protocols where physical and virtual ‘things’ have identities, physical attributes, and virtual personalities and use intelligent interfaces, and are seamlessly integrated into the information network” (Guillemin et al., 2015, p. 13, quoted after Vermesan et al., 2011, p. 10). Another definition emphasizes that the Internet of Things is “[a]n open and comprehensive network of intelligent objects that have the capacity to auto-organize, share information, data and resources, reacting and acting in face of situations and changes in the environment” (Madakam et al., 2015, p. 165). According to another source, the term “Internet of Things” was coined “to reflect the growing number of smart, connected products and highlight the new opportunities they can represent” (Porter & Heppelmann, 2014). One of the simplest definition of the Internet of Things is as “a system of physical objects that can be discovered, monitored, controlled, and interacted with by electronic devices that communicate over various networking interfaces and can be connected to the wider internet” (Guinard & Trifa, 2016, p. 3). The devices that can be connected within the IoT may vary greatly, including in terms of size. Importantly, the “things” in the Internet of Things do not actually have to have a physical form. They may include points or sets of data, for example information about a person’s location or the temperature in a room collected by a dedicated device such as a thermostat or a smartphone (Miller, 2015). In addition, the word “things” may comprise both living things (such as human beings, animals, and plants), as well as inanimate ones (Madakam et al., 2015, p. 165). Consequently, the Internet of Things is formed by all objects equipped for example with sensors/detectors. However, this does not mean that a specific object must be directly connected to the Internet. But to connect to the IoT, objects must be able to communicate, which means sending and receiving data (e.g. Auto-ID, short-range radio transmission such as Bluetooth, ZigBee and NFC, as well as Wi-Fi networks; Guinard & Trifa, 2016). Such communication means that devices must be on the one hand fitted with sensors (such as temperature, vibration, humidity and movement sensors, as well as GPS) to collect information from their surroundings and pass it on and on the other hand capable of receiving a transmitted signal, processing it and triggering a specific reaction (such devices include smartphones, tablets, computers or other objects that will automatically perform a specific action; Kokot & Kolenda, 2016).

The research and advisory company Gartner forecasted that there would be 8.4 billion connected things in use worldwide in 2017. Most of these (5.2 billion, or 63% of all applications in use) would be used by consumers and their households (Gartner, 2017). According to data published on Statista, the total installed base of IoT-connected devices is expected to reach 30.9 billion units worldwide by 2025, compared with 13.8 billion units projected in 2021. In turn, the total base of non-IoT devices (such as smartphones, laptops and computers) is expected to reach just over 10 billion units by 2025, three times less than the IoT units (Statista, 2021). Moreover, statistics from 2019 show that one in four Poles would like to have IoT devices in their homes, chiefly to improve their quality of life (for the purpose of monitoring utilities as well as home and health monitoring; Statista, 2019). Apart from offering unquestioned benefits, smart devices and houses also raise certain concerns. A survey commissioned by Dynatrace and taken on a sample of 10,002 respondents in eight countries of the world (the UK, the US, France, Germany, Australia, Brazil, Singapore and China) found that 73% of the respondents feared being locked in or out of a smart home. Those surveyed were also concerned that they would not be able to control the temperature or lights in a smart home (68% and 64% respectively; Dynatrace, 2018). When it comes to consumer trust in the IoT, Cisco’s report The IoT Value/Trust Paradox from 2017 describes the findings a survey of 3,000 consumers. According to the report, consumers noticed the growing value of IoT services, but they were very concerned about the security of their data and how it was used. Only 9% of the respondents believed that their data was secure, and only 14% believed that companies did a good job of informing them what data they collected and how they used such information. Despite expressing mistrust, however, consumers would not want to disconnect from the IoT devices: 42% said that such devices were too integrated into their daily lives for them to disconnect, regardless of the perceived risks. The same survey also found that the share of consumers who correctly identified personal IoT devices such as wearables and home security systems was more than twice as large that the share of the respondents who recognized public IoT devices such as streetlights, energy meters and traffic systems (63% versus 27%, respectively). Such results show that consumers are less aware of public IoT implementations (Cisco, 2017). According to the antivirus software company Bitdefender, typical IT devices such as computers, tablets, laptops, routers, smartphones and consoles account for slightly under two thirds of all devices in a home network, while IoT devices (such as robot vacuums, smart light bulbs, etc.) account for the remaining one third. It is expected that the number of IoT devices will continue to grow, which will greatly increase the risk that the data of their owners will be intercepted (Krakowiak, 2020). When consumers and their households decide to purchase smart devices, they must therefore pay attention to the manufacturer’s policy on releasing updates and bug fixes and keep their information secure on an ongoing basis.

Data Security in the Internet of Things

Data security in the Internet of Things is understood as the security of information collected by devices connected to the network. Guaranteeing data security involves meeting the requirements of data availability, confidentiality and integrity. Availability means that the data must be available exactly when it is needed. Confidentiality requires data owners or administrators to decide on who can access data, and data integrity requires data accuracy, authenticity, timeliness, and completeness. However, the existing infrastructure appears insufficient to manage Internet of Things systems (Karimi & Atkinson, 2013, p. 14). Similarly, in the opinion of Sikorski & Roman (2020, p. 46), data security is the most immature aspect of the IoT despite the fact that every business must implement numerous security measures to guarantee product quality from both technological and organizational perspectives. It is important to have clear information about the data being collected and processed, the assigned role of the data controller and the international standards, as well as norms and certifications that have been implemented. Polish provisions regulating the use of the Internet of Things can be divided into four basic groups: legal regulations relating to cyber-security, regulations on protecting personal data and privacy, provisions of civil law dealing with accountability for harm caused by unsafe products, and provisions dealing with intellectual property rights (Konarski, 2000).

Security aspects should be considered and addressed from the very beginning of the IoT design process. Security by design is a popular concept that aims to encourage businesses to plan security features from the outset, as opposed to additional, hasty implementations made at the end of the design process or after the launch of product sales (Wytrębowicz et al., 2020, p. 69).

In the implementation of security features in the development of the IoT, the recommendations of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) may be used as a point of reference. The recommendations list the functional requirements for IoT devices in the area of the processing, storage, transmission and aggregation of data from IoT elements (Krawiec, 2020, p. 74). One of the key elements ensuring cyber security is a gateway.

This is an IoT unit that connects devices to the communication network and translates communications between network protocols and device protocols. In order to ensure the security of applications, the ITU recommends that gateways control access to devices and to themselves, protect data security and confidentiality for themselves and devices, and support self-management and remote maintenance. In order to meet the requirement of security and confidentiality, gateways must support identification access to IoT devices, mutual authentication with applications, the security of data transmission and storage, and confidentiality protection mechanisms, among other things. As for the requirement of self-management and remote maintenance, gateways must support self-diagnosis, self-repair, remote maintenance, software updates and automatic configuration or configuration by applications (International Telecommunication Union, 2017, p. 2, 9).

Given that IoT devices can be so attractive to consumers, they must be informed about the risks associated with the use of such devices and the security measures they should adopt (Royal Society, 2017). Using IoT devices may pose a problem related to ownership. Obviously, consumers become owners of the physical devices they purchase, but they may not have full ownership of the data being collected within IoT systems. Issues that should be resolved are related to the question of who owns such data, restrictions in data processing and transfer to third parties, free updates and access to data for consumers. In addition, consumers should be made aware of any threats that may be posed, for example by the collection of data by voice-control devices. If the manufacturer of devices is able to remotely decide about what functions are available, this may be seen as a disadvantage of IoT systems (Maj, 2015, p. 54).

Another issue related to the security of IoT systems is the protection of the privacy of both the users of such systems and any third parties whose data is simultaneously collected. Privacy threats typically result from a careless approach to the security of these systems. Threats can be mitigated by the proper design of security policies, which provide the basis for such implementations as authentication, encryption and access rights (Wytrębowicz et al., 2020, p. 69). Businesses implementing IoT systems must remember that they need users’ consent to share detailed data on how those users interact with IoT devices. Consumers must be offered true and reliable solutions that will balance their privacy concerns related to how the data that accurately profile their daily behaviours might be used in the future, as well as to who will be using such data and how. This will allow them to make informed decisions about providing data about their behaviour to obtain significant benefits. A survey conducted on 6–31 May 2015 on a sample of 1,121 individuals by IAB Polska and GoldenSubmarine found that 47% of the respondents feared leaks of their data and the data of their loved ones, 43% were concerned about privacy loss, and 34% feared loss of control over devices. However, it is worth mentioning the main benefits associated with the use of IoT devices and the hopes expressed by consumers. Among the respondents, as many as 38% expected a greater sense of personal security, 28% expected the security of their loved ones to improve, and 20% hoped for better security in the context of their health (Kolenda, 2016, p 30). IoT users expected above all a greater sense of security in the broad sense, control over their devices and appliances, as well as comfort and the possibility to save money. In the eyes of the respondents, such benefits could most easily be provided by technologies allowing the smart management of devices, appliances and energy in their homes (Krejtz, 2016, pp. 26–27). Ensuring the privacy of users remains important in this context.

Survey Results and Discussion

A survey of opinions on IoT data security conducted by the present author found that one in two respondents pay great attention to where data collected by devices used in their households is kept and whether such data is secure. Such declarations were more likely to be made by men (57.7%) than by women (46.2%). One in three respondents answered that they had not thought about such issues, and the share of women who declared this was significantly greater than the share of men (41% compared with 24.4%). Nearly 12% of respondents declared that they did not pay any attention to where their data was kept and whether it was secure (Table 1). Other responses included, in particular, statements that respondents had no control over where data is kept. Some of the respondents answered that although they tried to pay attention to such issues, and would rather keep data sharing to a minimum, they had no control over this process and were forced to accept it if they wanted to use such devices. Other respondents, in turn, were aware that their data was being collected, but did not pay much attention to this fact. In addition, they paid attention to where the data was kept depending on what types of devices wanted to access their data and whether data collection was needed to continue to use such devices. The respondents also replied that they sometimes paid attention to where the data collected by such devices was kept, but they did not always do so, and that they found data security important and believed that the manufacturer’s assurances in this respect were sufficient. Where possible, they also tried to minimize the amount of data they shared, and were careful not to provide any sensitive data.

When the respondents were asked about their opinion about the security of consumer and consumer behaviour data collected by smart devices, more than one in two (54.4%) had no knowledge about the level of the protection of such data. Such an answer was more likely to be indicated by women (62.6%) than by men (46.2%). More than 28% of respondents felt that data collected by smart devices was not well protected. This answer was indicated by more women than men (36.1% and 20.7%, respectively) Only 17.2% of respondents believed that data collected by smart devices were well protected. The opinion was more likely to be expressed by men than by women (17.7% compared with 16.1%) (Table 2).

The respondents were also asked to rate selected aspects of data security on a scale of one to seven, where one represented “strongly disagree” and seven “strongly agree.” The survey found that most respondents agreed with the statement that before purchasing smart devices consumers wanted to know who would have access to their personal data collected by such devices, and whether such data would be secure (a mean rating of 4.68). Women were found to agree with this statement more than men (mean ratings of 4.77 versus 4.59). A slightly lower mean rating (4.56) was given to the statement that before purchasing smart devices consumers wanted to know where the data collected about them by these devices would be stored. Women were again found to agree with this statement more than men (mean ratings of 4.70 versus 4.43). Very similar mean ratings, confirming that respondents agreed with the statements in question, were given to the statements that consumers accepted the uncertainty related to the loss of control over their personal data collected by smart devices more quickly than the risk of becoming disconnected (4.21) and that consumers were more concerned about disconnection from smart devices than the risk of losing control over them (4.15; see Table 3). Importantly, the results of the present study are consistent with the results presented in the Cisco report (Cisco, 2017). Despite not having sufficient knowledge about data security, respondents would not like to be disconnected from smart devices because they accepted the loss of control over smart devices more quickly than becoming disconnected.

Summary

Ever-more rapid technological advances have created an extremely interesting world for consumers, offering countless possibilities of communication between humans, between objects and humans and between these objects themselves — all this with little or no human intervention. Such technologies are aimed at helping humans perform daily tasks faster and more easily. But despite offering unquestioned benefits, the use of smart devices also poses dangers related to the collection of user data by such devices. As the popularity of IoT systems grows every year, devices that are connected or have access to the network have become commonplace in homes. A survey of consumer attitudes to the security of data collected by smart devices (connected to the existing Internet infrastructure or using another network technology) found that more than half of the respondents declared that they pay great attention to where the data collected by devices used in their household was kept, and whether such data was secure — and so we may assume that they treat their interactions with IoT devices very consciously and responsibly. But on the other hand, we note that at the same time, more than half of them declared that they had no knowledge about the level of the protection of the data that smart devices collected about them. This observed discrepancy in responses may indicate that the respondents wanted to present themselves as being more responsible and competent than they actually are, or that such responses were given by those who declared that they did not pay attention to where their data is kept and do not think about the issue. Only just over 17% of respondents believed that the data collected by smart devices was well protected, which points to the importance of detailed information in this regard and educational efforts towards rasing consumers’ awareness about the security of their data gathered under the framework of the IoT. In addition, respondents agreed with the statement that consumers accepted the uncertainty involved in losing of control over their personal data collected by smart devices more quickly than they accepted the risk of becoming disconnected, and the statement that they were more concerned about becoming disconnected from smart devices than about the risk of losing control over them. These findings suggest that the possibility of using such devices is more important to consumers than the security of their data. Finally, it is worth noting the limitations of the presented findings — these include the non-representative nature of the sample and reliance on the declarations of respondents pertaining to general aspects of data security, without detailed investigation of the specific functions of individual devices and their security.

References

1. Ashton, K. (2009, 22 June). That ‘Internet of Things’ Thing: In the real world, things matter more than ideas. RFID Journal. Retrieved May 4, 2021, from http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/pdf?4986
2. Cisco. (2017, December 12). Cisco Survey Reveals Divide Between IoT Value and Trust [Press release]. The Newsroom: Cisco’s Technology News Site. Retrieved June 23, 2021, from https://newsroom.cisco.com/press-release-content?articleId=1900060
3. Dynatrace. (2018). IoT Consumer Confidence Report: Challenges for Enterprise Cloud Monitoring on the Horizon. Retrieved June 14, 2021, from https://assets.dynatrace.com/en/docs/report/2824-iot-consumer-confidence-reportdynatrace.
   pdf
4. Gartner. (2017, February 7). Gartner Says 8.4 Billion Connected “Things” Will Be in Use in 2017, Up 31 Percent From 2016 [Press release]. Retrieved June 17, 2021, from https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2017-02-07-gartner-says-8billion-connected-things-will-be-in-use-in-2017-up-31-percent-from-2016
5. Guillemin, P., Berens, F., Vermesan, O., Friess, P., Carugi, M., & Percivall, G. (Eds.).
   (2015, January). Internet of Things: Position Paper on Standardization for IoT Technologies. European Research Cluster on the Internet of Things (IERC). Retrieved June 22, 2021, from http://www.internet-of-things-research.eu/pdf/IERC_
   Position_Paper_IoT_Standardization_Final.pdf
6. Guinard, D. D., & Trifa, V. M. (2016). Building the Web of Things: With examples in Node.js and Raspberry Pi. Manning Publications.
7. International Telecommunication Union (2017, October 29). Recommendation ITU-T Y.4101/Y.2067. Common requirements and capabilities of a gateway for Internet of things applications. http://handle.itu.int/11.1002/1000/13384
8. Karimi, K., & Atkinson, G. (2013, June). What the Internet of Things (IoT) Needs to Become a Reality [White paper]. Freescale Semiconductor & Arm. https://www.mouser.com/pdfdocs/INTOTHNGSWP.PDF
9. Kokot, W., & Kolenda, P. (2016). Czym jest Internet rzeczy [What Is the Internet of Things]. In P. Kolenda (Ed.), Internet rzeczy w Polsce. Raport. IAB Polska [Report] (pp.
   8–11). ICAN. https://www.iab.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Raport-InternetRzeczy-w-Polsce.pdf
10. Kolenda, P. (2016). Pierwsze badanie Internetu rzeczy w Polsce [The first survey of the Internet of Things in Poland]. In P. Kolenda (Ed.), Internet rzeczy w Polsce. Raport, IAB Polska [Report] (pp. 28-30). https://www.iab.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/RaportInternet-Rzeczy-w-Polsce.pdf
11. Konarski, X. (2020, 17 June). Internet Rzeczy — najważniejsze regulacje prawne w Polsce [Internet of Things — the most important legal regulations in Poland]. Traple Konarski Podlecki. Retrieved on July 28, 2021, from https://www.traple.pl/2020/06/17/ internet-rzeczy-najwazniejsze-regulacje-prawne-w-polsce/
12. Krakowiak, L. (2020, November 30). Potężny wzrost ataków ma urządzenia IoT [A surge in attacks on IoT devices]. Computerworld. Retrieved June 20, 2021, from https://www.computerworld.pl/news/Potezny-wzrost-atakow-na-urzadzenia-IoT,424095.html
13. Krawiec, J. (2020). Internet Rzeczy (IoT). Problemy cyberbezpieczeństwa [Internet of Things (IoT): Cyber security problems]. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej.
14. Krejtz, K. (2016). Prywatność w Internecie rzeczy [Privacy in the Internet of Things]. In P. Kolenda (Ed.), Internet rzeczy w Polsce. Raport. IAB Polska [Report] (pp. 26–27). ICAN. https://www.iab.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Raport-Internet-RzeczywPolsce.pdf
15. Kwiatkowska, E. M. (2014). Rozwój Internetu rzeczy — szanse i zagrożenia [The development of the Internet of Things — opportunities and threats]. Internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny, 8(3), 60–70. https://ikar.wz.uw.edu.pl/ images/numery/22/pdf/60.pdf
16. Madakam, S., Ramaswamy, R., & Tripathi, S. (2015). Internet of Things (IoT): A Literature Review. Journal of Computer and Communications, 3(5), 164–173.
    https://doi.org/10.4236/jcc.2015.35021
17. Maj, I. (2015). Internet rzeczy i zagrożenia z nim związane [The Internet of Things and Related Threats]. Bezpieczeństwo. Teoria i praktyka, 3, 51–57. Oficyna Wydawnicza AFM.
18. Malucha, M. (2018). Internet rzeczy — kontekst technologiczny i obszary zastosowań [Internet of Things — the technological context and areas of application]. Studia i Prace WNEIZ US, 54/2, 51–69. https://doi.org/10.18276/sip.2018.54/2-04
19. Mazurek, G. (2018). Internet Rzeczy a cyfrowa transformacja — implikacje dla marketingu B2C [The Internet of Things and the digital transformation — implications for B2C marketing]. In Ł. Sułkowski & D. Kaczorowska-Spychalska (Eds.), Internet of Things. Nowy paradygmat rynku (pp. 33–57). Difin.
20. Miller, M. (2015). The Internet of Things: How Smart TVs, Smart Cars, Smart Homes, and Smart Cities Are Changing the World. Que Pub.
21. Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How Smart, Connected Products Are Transforming Competition. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 64–88. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2014/11/how-smart-connected-products-are-transformingcompetition
22. Royal Society. (2017, December). The Internet of Things: Opportunities and threats.
    Conference report. Retrieved June 22, 2021, from https://royalsociety.org/~/media /events/2017/10/tof-iot/iot-conference%20report-final.pdf
23. Rozmus, S. (2019). Gospodarstwo domowe w dobie Internetu Rzeczy [Households in the era of the Internet of Things]. Rocznik Kolegium Analiz Ekonomicznych, 54, 61–73.
24. Sikorski, M. (Author), & Roman, A. (Ed.) (2020). Internet Rzeczy [Internet of Things].
    Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
25. Statista. (2019, December 16). Share of consumers interested in Internet of Things improvements in Poland in 2019, by type of improvement. Retrieved June 21, 2021, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1083078/poland-interest-in-internet-of-thingsimprovements/
26. Statista. (2021, March 8). Internet of Things (IoT) and non-IoT active device connections worldwide from 2010 to 2025. Retrieved June 21, 2021, from https://www.statista.com statistics/1101442/iot-number-of-connected-devices-worldwide/
27. Vermesan, O., Friess P., Guillemin, P., Gusmeroli, S., Sundmaeker, H., Bassi, A., Jubert, I. S., Mazura, M., Harrison, M., Eisenhauer, M., & Doody, P. (2011). Internet of Things Strategic Research Roadmap. In O. Vermesan & P. Friess (Eds.), Internet of Things — Global Technological and Societal Trends (pp 9–52). River Publishers.
28. Wytrębowicz, J., Radziszewski, P., & Cabaj, K. (2020). Inżynieria systemów Internetu rzeczy. Zagadnienia bezpieczeństwa i komunikacji [Engineering aspects of the Internet of Things systems: Issues of security and communication]. Oficyna Wydawnicza
    Politechniki Warszawskiej.