Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of
Science in Global Sustainability Science
Sifting through the glamorization of the Tiny House Movement –
Perceptions among affordable housing stakeholders
in Lüneburg, Germany
Submitted by:
Tara Lucia Freude
Leuphana matriculation number: 3029319
ASU ID: 1212106361
Tara.freude@gmail.com
Auf der Höhe 50
21339 Lüneburg, Germany
Examined by:
Prof. Dr. Deirdre Pfeiffer (Zweitprüferin, Co-Chair of the committee)
Deirdre.pfeiffer@asu.edu
School of Geographical Science & Urban Planning
Arizona State University
PO Box 855302
Tempe, AZ 85287-5302, USA
Prof. Dr. Henrik von Wehrden (Erstprüfer, Co-Chair of the committee)
Henrik.von_wehrden@leuphana.de
Leuphana University of Lüneburg
Universitätsallee 1, C11.325
21335 Lüneburg, Germany
Prof. Dr. Daniel Lang (Member of the committee)
Daniel.lang@uni.leuphana.de
Leuphana University of Lüneburg
Universitätsallee 1, C11.210f
21335 Lüneburg, Germany
Submitted on: July 9, 2018

Table of Content
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1 The Tiny House Movement in Germany
1.2 Current Housing Challenges in Lüneburg
1.3 Research Question
2. Materials and Method
2.1 General Overview of Q Methodology
2.2 Q Set Design and Materials
2.3 Participants
2.4 Procedure
2.5 Statistical Analysis and Interpretation
2.6 Limitations
3. Results
3.1 Summaries of the Background of Participants of each Group
3.2 Fulfillment
3.3 Awareness Raising
3.4 Individual Lifestyle
3.5 Bridge Peaks
3.6 Communalities and Disagreement
4. Discussion
4.1 Underlying Values
4.2 Contribution to Affordable Housing in the City
4.3 Reaching Compromises
5. Conclusion
Appendix
References
Statutory Declaration

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

1

of 39

Abstract: How we divide space in ever growing urban areas in an equitable, efficient and aesthetic
fashion is one of the big questions of our time. In Lüneburg, Germany, citizens think more
alternative forms of housing will be an important element of a sustainable future (Lüneburg 2030,
2018). Tiny Houses, dwellings that downsize an entire household to its minimum, are currently
gaining attention in the country, but legal barriers make their implementation difficult. It has to be
decided if legislations should be changed to allow these structures in the housing mix of Lüneburg.
It is a difficult task to sift through the glamorization of Tiny Houses past the ideological utopia to
see their value for the individual (Ansons, 2015). Therefore, it is of interest to fully understand what
Tiny Houses offer for affordable housing stakeholders. Twenty-five evaluations of criticism and
praise of the Tiny House Movement are collected by applying Q method, a tool to gather subjective
viewpoints (Barry & Proops, 1999). Results indicate, four salient perceptions on that matter. Each
viewpoint identifies different opportunities and risks when evaluating Tiny Houses for Lüneburg.
This research demonstrates the potential of Tiny Houses to trigger participation by bringing people
with diverse backgrounds together.
Keywords:
Tiny Houses, Tiny House Movement, Affordable Housing, Q Method

1. Introduction
The Tiny House trend, which received growing attention after the financial crisis in the U.S., is
currently reaching Germany. This form of housing downsizes a normal household to its minimum,
and it is seen as a solution for creating housing in dense areas. The first official definition in the U.S.
specifies the size: “A dwelling that is 400 square feet (37 sqm) or less in floor area excluding lofts”
(ICC, 2018). Individual design and sustainability aspects vary with the interpretation of the
inhabitants. Advocates have praised Tiny Houses as a solution for affordable housing (Brown, 2016),
mass consumption (Kilman, 2017), and to increase wellbeing (Gentili, 2017). They often identify
themselves as part of a global network (Tiny Home Builders, 2018), share experiences in social
networks and blogs and advise others to follow them (The Tiny Life, 2009).
Media has romanticized Tiny Houses as a solution for various socio-economic groups and
sustainability challenges, but little research has been done on outcomes (Ford & Gomez-Lanier,
2017). It is a difficult task to sift through the glamorization of Tiny Houses past the ideological utopia
to see their legitimate impact on human beings (Ansons, 2015). How Tiny Houses will be
implemented in Germany and whether they are a viable and desired contribution to the housing mix
remains to be seen. Further, it is still unclear if the positive effect on community and environment
the Movement claims to bring (Kilman, 2016) meet the needs for an inclusive housing alternative of
local stakeholders.

1.1 The Tiny Houses Movement in Germany
In Germany, housing and zoning legislation has failed to stay abreast the recent Tiny House
trend, causing various difficulties, including the tenuous legality of year-round residence, even on
private property (Neupert, 2018). This creates unstable living conditions for the inhabitants and
hinders individuals from realizing their personal housing dreams (Vervoorts, 2017).
Tiny Houses are defined as portable, fully equipped, 100-300 sq ft microhouses on a trailer
frame that can be individually designed for certain lifestyles while suitable for year-round residence.
Inhabitants thrive for minimalism and gain emotional benefits through do it yourself (DIY)

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

2 of 39

capabilities and reduced income dependence. They are either placed on private, joint or informal
property and are often organized with similar dwellings in so called communities (Vervoorts, 2017).
Lüneburg is one exception in creating a grey area which allows the structures a legal tolerance
on two sites in the city (Schäfer, 2018), while in many other German cities such communities are
informal settlements. While problems arise through informal settlements, it is acknowledged by the
Right to the City Movement that they are an expression of political revolt and an act of
self-management and direct democracy (Harrison et. al, 2003). In this school of thought activists
such as the architect Van Bo Le-Mentzel initiated a Tiny House University in an open space in Berlin.
The collection of about ten Tiny Houses, skirted zoning codes by being defined as an installation by
the Bauhaus Museum. They tested tiny life for one year. This experiment started discussions on how
a minimum sized flat could look like, the paradigm shift that comes with basic income and crypto
currencies (Bauhaus Campus, 2017).

(a) Source:

https://www.landeszeitung.de/wpcontent/

(b) Source: Own photograph

uploads/2016/07/Bauwagen.jpg

(c) Source: http://bauhauscampus.org/wp-content/uploads/

(d) Source: http://tinyhouse-wanderlust.com/wp-content/uploads

2017/07/170720_tinyhouses_136_web-1024x683.jpg

/2017/11/2w993qhighc0.bild_.jpg

Figure 1. Examples of Tiny House projects addressing affordable housing in Germany
(a) Manufactured homes community in Lüneburg (LZ, 2016); (b) Visitors at the Bauhaus Campus
(Own photograph); (c) The 100 € flat at the Bauhaus Campus is designed to research how far living
space can be reduced before it impacts quality of life (Bauhaus Campus, 2017); (d) A student who
built a Tiny House in his parent’s yard (Ranf, 2016)

While this project does not contribute significantly to housing supply, it exemplifies the use of
Tiny Houses to mobilize people, triggering positive emotions, and publicly debating housing issues
that are top down by nature and often dominated by fears, personal tragedies, and inequity. The
recognition of social movements to reduce market pressures and privatization processes on the
housing market is growing (Schipper, 2018). Another common implementation of Tiny Houses is
placing them on private property along with a main house. Additionally, homeless assistance
institutions have received a rise in inquiries if Tiny Houses could be a contribution to create

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

3 of 39

affordable housing (Neupert, 2018). Experts don’t see them as substitute for social housing efforts.
They claim Tiny Houses are not suitable to address the complex challenges associated with housing
disadvantaged groups (Ibid., 2018). One other suspicion is that Tiny Houses could undermine
minimum housing standards and tenant’s rights (Ibid., 2018). Therefore, it is questionable if this type
of living is suitable to the local housing market and if it really has potential in addressing inequity.

1.2 Current Housing Challenges in Lüneburg
Housing scarcity is currently observed in metropolitan areas around the world (Aalbers, 2015).
In Germany these dynamics have been reported in many popular university cities (von Einem, 2016)
and risk housing supply and housing quality for low-income households (Brinker & Sinning, 2014).
For this reason, Lüneburg, a popular university city close to the metropolitan area of Hamburg, will
serve as the research site for this study. The main groups demanding housing in the contested parts
of Lüneburg are people ages 65 and older as well as families (GEWOS, 2016). Students account for
12% of Lüneburg’s 77,000 inhabitants. Their housing demand focuses on the inner city, where they
often share larger apartments. This creates a competition for low income families. In addition,
refugees are found to be at a disadvantage in the housing market. To allow for integration of the
estimated 4,400 refugees in Lüneburg and ensure a social mix, access barriers must be reduced (Ibid.,
2016, p. 67). Housing in the inner city is becoming increasingly difficult for people with reduced
mobility and other disabilities whose demand is primarily concentrated on these areas due to
dependence on infrastructure, such as public transportation and medical care.
When being consulted about solutions for a sustainable future in the participation process of a
national competition for future cities, citizens in Lüneburg demanded more information about
alternatives to traditional housing (Lüneburg 2030, 2018). The housing market analysis for Lüneburg
by GEWOS (2016) supports these findings as it suggests multi-story flats as one of the solutions,
while simultaneously suggesting a stronger establishment of innovative forms of living, more
flexible types of living, innovative space-saving construction, and the redensification of vacant lots
to tackle Lüneburg’s housing shortage (Ibid., 2016, p. 84-85). One vision that derived from Lüneburg
2030 is to increase equity on the housing market by implementing alternative forms of housing
(Lüneburg 2030, 2018). One consideration for alternative housing are Tiny Houses.

1.3 Research Question
The rising interest in alternative housing demands both, securing standards and flexibility in
building and zoning codes. Communicative acts have long been acknowledged to have an inclusive
effect on planning efforts (Healy, 1997). However, including diverse forms of information other than
technical information, e.g. participant’s personal sense of the situation, is a crucial element of
consensus building in such processes (Innes, 1998, p. 59). An insight of the current perceptions of
people affected is especially of interest for stakeholders who are confronted with a future
legalization of Tiny Houses. This study aims to address this research gap by examining what Tiny
Houses offer for affordable housing stakeholders in Lüneburg.
Findings display existing viewpoints among stakeholders. Additionally, results display points
of agreement and disagreement between common perspectives.
Specifically, I address the following question (1) ‘What are perceptions of informed
stakeholders regarding Tiny Houses as a contribution to affordable housing in Lüneburg?’

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

4 of 39

2. Materials and Method
2.1 General Overview of Q Methodology
I collected viewpoints by applying Q method, a suitable tool to gather subjective viewpoints
and to explore a new field of research (Barry & Proops, 1999). The Method was introduced by
Stephenson (1953), a psychologist eager to measure subjectivity. Today the method is used across
academic fields to study taste, values, and beliefs (Baker, 2006). It is widely used in studies that
explore the nature of contested discourses and uncover attitudes impacting the environment
(Addams & Proops, 2000), by displaying agreement, disagreement and controversy among diverse
stakeholders (Rastogi et al., 2012; Neff, 2011; Zagata, 2009).
Strengths of Q method are that it (1) extracts an individual’s perspective on a topic; (2) is
suitable to question experts as well as laypersons; (3) identifies shared and diverging viewpoints
amongst the subjects and therefore; (4) allows researchers to understand groups of participants
(Watts & Stenner, 2012).
Individuals display their viewpoint about an issue by ranking statements that are pre-selected
by the researcher (Brown, 1980). Individuals are then asked to sort statements along the subjective
dimension, e.g. “most disagree/ most agree” (Watts & Stenner, 2012). Asking participants to sort the
statements (Q set) relative to each other, results in a characteristic structure (Q sort) for each
participant.
To assist the later interpretation of the Q sorts, this method is complemented by collecting
demographic data, noting comments by the participant in an interview protocol and conducting
interviews after the sorting activities (Watts & Stenner, 2012). After all Q sorts are collected, they are
factor analyzed. This procedure extracts the holistic nature of viewpoints, a clear advantage over
using qualitative methods e.g. semi-structured interviews for this purpose (Danielson et al. 2009).

2.2 Q Set Design and Materials
First step in conducting Q is designing a balanced set of possible opinions and perspectives on
the matter (Watts & Stenner, 2012). The Q set used in this study captures positive and negative
statements about affordability claims of the Tiny House Movement.
Statements derive from media and literature about Tiny Houses. I selected resources through
performing web searches on Google and YouTube with the keywords (1) Tiny House Movement;
and (2) Tiny House Affordable Housing. I extracted Videos, documents, newspaper and journal
articles. Coding up to code saturation, (i.e. no new arguments were found in the data) led to 341
relevant items in 26 relevant resources (Appendix A). I followed instructions to develop a structured
Q set that covers the relevant ground (Ibid., 2012). Thus, I generated ten reoccurring key themes in
an iterative process. Finally, I assigned three to seven items to each key theme (Appendix B), using
the original wording or rephrasing in a more general fashion (Ibid., 2012).
This process resulted in a balanced set of 47 positive, negative and neutral statements about the
affordability claim of the Tiny House Movement (see Table 4: Research Statement). Additional
interview material of this study is attached in the Appendix C-F (Pre-questionnaire, written
instructions, semi-structured interview guide, and interview protocol). In addition, I taped the
interview and took photographs of the Q sort. A dry-run with an affordable housing expert with
knowledge of Tiny Houses was conducted to ensure a comprehensible, balanced and complete Q
set. The 47 statements are printed on 2.7 x 4 inch laminated cards.

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

5 of 39

For the range and slope of the Q sort, an 11-point distribution (-5 to +5) was chosen (see Figure
2), as recommended by Brown (1980) for Q sets of 40 items and more. The diagram on which the
statements are placed has a wide rather than steep form, suitable for participants who are likely to be
familiar with the topic (Watts & Stenner, 2012).

Figure 2. Range and slope of the Q sort. Own illustration adapted from Watts & Stenner (2012, p. 81)

2.3 Participants
The next step in conducting a Q survey is contacting participants with crucial viewpoints on the
issue of interest (Ibid., 2012). I included 25 affordable housing stakeholders with diverse
perspectives on Tiny Houses for the context of Lüneburg. Therefore, inclusion criteria were
threefold; participant had to (1) be located in Lüneburg, (2) be engaged in affordable housing, and
(3) know about Tiny Houses. The depths, duration, and areas of life participants engage with the
three criteria aimed to be as diverse as possible. I further include strategic agents (politicians,
investors), operating agents (planners, experts, researchers) as well as participating stakeholders
(public, citizens, small businesses, small governmental agencies, NPOs) (Cohen & Wiek, 2017, p. 13).
Subjects were identified using snowball sampling method and contacted via email. According to
Stephenson (1953), the Q sort statement to participant ratio should be below two. As this study used
47 statements, a need for inclusion of at least 24 participants was identified and fulfilled by including
25 participants.
It is important to note, that this method does not quantify the collected viewpoints.
Consequently, the sample does not have to be representative (Brown, 1980). The aim for diversity
resulted in participants’ age ranging from 21 to 71 and their occupation ranging from, but not
limited

to,

Musician,

Gardener,

Academia,

Architect,

Refugee,

Student,

Politician,

Social/Housing/Public/Health Services, Investor, Unemployed, Urban Planner and Social
Entrepreneur. Unfortunately, only 24% women were identified through the snowball sampling.
Participant’s housing situation was not collected. However, four out of the 25 subjects involved in
the study stated they live in a similar dwelling to a Tiny House. One participant was formerly
homeless.
Table 2 gives an overview of the results of the pre-questionnaire. Demographics, inclusion
criteria and if participants generally oppose or favor seeing Tiny Houses in Lüneburg was assessed.

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

6 of 39

Table 2. Background of participants.

2.4 Procedure
I collected the data from April 9, 2018 to May 24, 2018 at a location of the participant’s choice.
After obtaining consent and informing the subject about the background of the study, I defined key
terms and underlined the focus on the local context Lüneburg and their personal perspective. After a
pre-questionnaire, participants received a written instruction guide for the sorting exercise.
During the Q sort, I noted observations on the participants’ behavior in an interview protocol
and minimized interaction with them to avoid influencing their responses. When the participants
successfully ranked all statement cards within the given distribution, a post-interview was
conducted and recorded. The transcript of the interviews and the interview protocol captured
participant’s reasoning for the later interpretation of the Q sorts. After the interview, a photo of the
Q sort was taken.

Figure 3. Q sort: Participants model their viewpoint by rank-ordering statements in a forced
distribution

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

7 of 39

2.5. Statistical Analysis and Interpretation
The 25 collected Q sorts were factor analyzed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and
later rotated with Varimax in the software PQMethod (version 2.35) (Schmolck, 2014). Four factors
were extracted according to Humphrey’s rule (Watts & Stenner, 2012). All factors and the related
loadings of participant 1 to 25 are illustrated in Table 2. With factor loadings of +/- 0.38 or above
being significant at the p < 0.01 level, all 25 loaded on one or more of these four factors. As this
resulted in the exclusion of six confounded Q sorts (3, 6, 16, 17, 19, 23) the significant factor loading
was corrected to +/ - 0.42, resulting in 22 Q sorts loading on one or another factor and reducing the
number of confounded Q sorts to three (3, 16, 17) (Ibid., 2012).
Table 3. Rotated factor matrix. Defining sorts are indicated with an X. Confounded Q sorts are
marked grey, loadings on confounded factors are marked with an x.

The four factors therefore account for 22 of the 25 Q sorts in the study. They together explain
52% of the study variance (19%, 15%, 9%, 9% respectively). The four factors represent joint
viewpoints of the participants that loaded significantly on them. I will refer to them interchangeably
as factors or groups. A typical Q sort for each group was conducted using weighted averaging
(Brown, 1980). This factor arrays were the base for the interpretation of the four viewpoints.
Secondly, I used results of the coding of the post-interviews to convey the reasoning of the
participants. Third, the results of the pre-questionnaire display the characteristic of each group.
Lastly, relevant quotes of interviewees are included.

2.6. Limitations
It is important to note that due to a study variance of 52% not all opinions expressed by each
stakeholder are represented in the factors. Furthermore, this study does not evaluate and quantify
the frequency of the collected viewpoints. However, results provide insights into values and
assumptions held by the individuals sampled. These perceptions can inform policy making and can
support legitimate decisions. However, this collection cannot be expected to capture all possible

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

8 of 39

viewpoints, a common criticism for studies using Q. Nevertheless, it has been found that repeating
the study possibly produces very similar results (Stephenson, 1972).
Data collected in the pre-questionnaires indicates no strong opposition towards Tiny Houses
among participants. It has to be kept in mind that this study includes people who know about Tiny
Houses in order to evaluate the 47 claims of the Tiny House Movement with expertise, therefore
findings do not display the overall local demand for this form of housing. This is due to the novelty
of Tiny Houses in Germany. Nevertheless, Q is a suitable method for this context, as it is
acknowledged for exploring new research fields (Barry & Proops, 1999).
Feelings are an important element of this method (Watts & Stenner, 2012). Consequently, the
interpretation of the factor array and the narrative of the results in Q is could lead to subjectivity. To
ensure the holistic nature of each viewpoint without imposing my own views I used ‘crib sheets’.
This method is supporting a consistent and data-driven interpretation (Ibid., 2012). For additional
transparency of the interpretation I include references to statements and the corresponding ratings.
The aim of this study is to identify shared mental frameworks of affordable housing
stakeholders in Lüneburg. It has to be understood that factors do not fully represent individuals and
all participants expressed ideas associated with several factors.
Some participants mentioned in the post-interviews that their viewpoint is likely to change over
time. Barry & Proops (1999) also recognize this limitation. Consequently, it has to be understood that
this study displays viewpoints of spring 2018. The term might have biased people’s opinion.
additionally Repeating the study in fall or winter might produce different results due to the
connection to nature and built environment tiny living demands.
In addition, some participants were irritated by the forced distribution and felt limited in
expressing their viewpoints. This has been recognized in other Q studies and could be avoided with
a free distribution, i.e. allowing to sort any number of statements to any of the given rankings.
However, a free distribution can also cause distress due to even more decisions that have to be made
by the participants (Watts & Stenner, 2012).
Q method is criticized to limit findings due to pre-selected statements (Danielson, 2009).
Moreover, there is no universal method to generate a Q set as demands vary by study context
(Stephenson, 1953). In this study, I generating statements based on media used by Tiny House
advocates (Ford & Gomez-Lanier, 2017) to extract common claims of the Movement. This approach
produced statements that originated from different local contexts than the study site. Furthermore, it
has to be acknowledged that I did not complete a content analysis but used the resources to develop
a structured Q set that covers the relevant ground (Watts & Stenner, 2012). I performed a dry-run
with an expert to ensure balance and relevance of the Q set. Secondly, I asked in the post-interviews
if participants are aware of an effect of Tiny Houses that is not represented in the Q set (see
Appendix E). Overall, participants stated their thoughts were stimulation but not limited by the
statements.

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

9 of 39

3. Results
I titled the four factors according to the nature of the opinion they hold in common. These four
perspectives, namely ‘Fulfillment’, ‘Awareness raising’, ‘Individual lifestyle’ and ‘Bridge peaks’ are
displayed below. The statements used in this study and the exemplifying Q sort for each group, are
displayed in Table 4. Distinguishing statements however, i.e. statements that one group sorted
significantly different than other groups are highlighted in grey. The last column indicates the rank
of the statements along the criteria consensus vs. disagreement. The resulting viewpoints are
displayed in a narrative, while reference is included in brackets. The first number in the brackets is
the number of statement this finding in referring to (see Table 4, Statement 1-47). The second number
in the bracket indicates where this statement was sorted in the typical Q sort of this group (see Table
4, factor array column). Factor arrays range from -5 to +5 according to the forced distribution that
was used for this study. Therefore, the reference (47: 5) indicates that statement 47 was sorted at +5
by this group. Searching the statement number 47 in Table 4, shows additionally that this statement
is a distinguishing statement for factor 1 as the column is highlighted grey, i.e. this statement is
sorted in a unique fashion by factor 1 and therefore indicates a diverging viewpoint on the matter of
the statement.
Table 4. Research statements and factor scores. Distinguishing statements of each factor are
highlighted in grey, rank by consensus vs. disagreement

#

Factor
Number of participants significantly associated with this factor
Statements

1
9

2
3
7
2
Factor array

4
4
Rank

1

Tiny Houses are cheaper than other types of affordable housing

2

-3

0

0

23

2

Tiny Houses make home ownership affordable

1

0

3

3

9

The high initial investment for a private Tiny House is recommended for people
with low income due to the money they save in the future
The economical costs of constructing Tiny Houses puts people with low income
at risk to live in uninhabitable dwellings
The Tiny Houses we are seeing are not cheap - surely the same money could be
put towards a deposit on a small traditional house, not a Tiny House, with a
better end result
The price for land is the major factor in areas of high demand. Therefore, high-rise
residential dwellings will be the most efficient use of resources
The price for land is rising dramatically, therefore reducing square footage is one
solution to keep home ownership affordable in areas of high demand
This Movement points to growing insecurity and a troubling future in which
temporary, unstable, and atomized living arrangements potentially become the
norm. What’s next? Coffin Homes where you live in a slot in the wall?
As spaces in city housing are cut into smaller and smaller swaths, designed to
privileged young, independent, salaried workers, the most vulnerable members
of the community lose out
Rushed construction of affordable housing can be unattractive and unsustainable.
Tiny Houses on vacant lots can be a solution to bridge the current lack of
affordable housing until the market catches up
Tiny Houses can be used for creating additional space, alongside the main house
Tiny Houses are a fad. It is not a solution to our current housing crisis. And just
try getting rid of them in a few years
Small square footage of Tiny Houses moderates energy use and significantly
reduces utility costs
Reducing utility costs is a way to increase the affordability of a home for people
who struggle with having enough money at the end of the month
Provide space for people to grow their own food should be considered when
creating affordable housing
There is no significant correlation between urban gardening and Tiny Houses

0

-2

-2

0

-3

0

-4

0

-4

-1

0

1

3
4
5
6
7
8

9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

14
26
28

-1

0

1

5

1

1

5

3

-4

-3

-1

1

40
21
35

0

4

3

-3
39

-1

0

-3

3
36

1
-5

1
-1

1
-5

2
-1

3

1

-1

0

3

5

-5

4

1

1

2

-1

-3

-1

0

-1

1
34
22
47
10
6

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

17

People living in communities of Tiny Houses share infrastructure and tools and
therefore reduce expenses for all
Sharing infrastructure and tools leads to conflicts in Tiny House communities

10 of 39
4

2

0

2

7

-2

-4

-3

-3

-2

-3

-1

-2

-1

-3

-4

0

1

-4

1

1

37
38
39
40

When living in a Tiny House one is very dependent on other people, for some this
might be a unstable living situation and lead to homelessness
Tiny House inhabitants are self-sufficient, this creates a stable living condition, as
they don’t rely on other people
The popularity and romantic image of Tiny Houses leads to donations and the
engagement of volunteers and therefore creates affordable housing quickly and
unbureaucratic
Tiny Houses help their inhabitants find financial stability through minimalism as
they limit consumerism
Life in a Tiny House does not reduce consumerist behavior. While accumulation
of stuff might be limited to reduced space, inhabitants demand more of other
goods and services than in traditional housing (e.g. eating out more frequently)
Downsizing might be a healing strategy for fortunate people, for the poor this
credo is ironic
Videos detailing the happiness of Tiny House owners are a genre of lifestyle
media, they don’t display the reality of people with low income
Tiny Houses can reduce the costs of public services such as police, emergency
rooms, and jails. This is because people experiencing homelessness have access to
comfortable, safe, dignified housing instead of homeless shelters or depending on
hosts
Tiny House communities make poverty visible and can lead to a discrimination of
the inhabitants
Tiny Houses are an euphemism for garden shacks, not housing in dignity
The Tiny House Movement embraces individualistic visions of property while
ignoring the real causes of the housing shortage
The charm of Tiny Houses is that they can be designed to the individual needs of
their inhabitants, this is a new perspective for people with low income who often
live in standardized apartments, e.g. the accessibility can be easily adapted to
handicaps
It will be difficult for Tiny House owners to find a lot
The unclear legal situation of Tiny Houses brings inhabitants in uncomfortable
living situations
Tiny Houses can be put anywhere
Zoning and building codes should be adapted to the demand for Tiny Houses
Tiny Houses increase environmental injustice as people with low income are
displaced to areas with noisy streets, industrial areas, and lack of infrastructure
Renters who move frequently or people entering the housing market have a
disadvantage due to rent adjustments, Tiny Houses on wheels are a solution for
this problem
Tiny Houses are attractive to all sorts of people demanding affordable housing
Tiny Houses are attractive for students living alone or with a partner
Tiny Houses are attractive for people +65 living single or with a partner
Tiny Houses are attractive for refugees living alone or with a partner

-1
4
0
0

-5
3
-1
2

2
0
-3
-1

-1
5
-4
4

45
32
27
33

41

Tiny Houses are attractive for people experiencing homelessness

0

2

3

2

5

42

Tiny Houses are attractive for families

2

-4

-1

1

37

43

Politicians failed to ensure sufficient affordable housing

3

5

4

4

8

Tiny Houses empower people with low income to change their own living
situation
Tiny Houses are a lifestyle trend, they are not suitable for people with low income

2

-1

1

-1

-4

0

-1

-5

2

0

0

-2

5

2

2

-5

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26

27
28
29

30
31
32
33
34
35
36

44
45
46
47

Tiny Houses can be combined well with other social services low income groups
demand
Everybody should be allowed to live in a house of their choice, politics should not
limit people’s freedom in designing their own house

2
3
11
29

3

-2

2

0

-1

0

0

-4

30
17

-3

4

-3

1

-2

4

1

-1

-2

1

3

-3

44
41

38
-3

-2

1

-2

-5
-2

-5
3

-2
-2

-3
-2

4

2

3

3

18
20
42

4
0
2

3
1

4
4

1
2

19

0
5
-1

-2
3
-2

-4
-3
-2

-4
2
0

24
43

-1

-1

2

-2

16

15
25

13
31
12
46

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

11 of 39

3.1 Summaries of the Background of Participants of each Group
In the following section, I subdivided the results of the pre-questionnaire to display the
characteristics of each group. The breakdown of the participants loading on each factor is displayed.
The figures will support the interpretation below.

Distribution of Gender

Distribution of Age
Factor 4

Factor 4

Factor 3

Factor 3

Factor 2

Factor 2

Factor 1

Factor 1
0%

20%

<30 years

40%

60%

30-50 years

80%

0%

100%

20%

40%
Female

>50 years

(a)

60%

80%

100%

Male

(b)

Attitude Towards Tiny
Houses in Lüneburg

Distribution of Occupation
Factor 4
Factor 3

Factor 4

Factor 2

Factor 3

Factor 1

Factor 2
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%
Factor 1

Strategic Agents
0%

Operating Agents

20%

In favor

Participating Stakeholders

(c)

40%

60%

Opposed

80%

100%

Not sure

(d)

Affordable Housing Background
100
80
60
40
20
0
Private
demand

Job

Investment

Factor 1

Academia

Factor 2

Demand of
family/ friends

Factor 3

(e)

Factor 4

Activism

Other*

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

12 of 39

Tiny House Background
100
80
60
40
20
0
Media
Consumption

Public debate

Factor 1

Advocate

Knows someone Lived in/ owned/
living in a Tiny
used a Tiny
House
House

Factor 2

Factor 3

Other**

Factor 4

(f)
Figure 4. Demographic summaries of the four factors based on pre-questionnaire data of the 22
individuals with factor defining Q sorts. (a) Distribution of Age; (b) Distribution of Gender; (c)
Distribution of Occupation; (d) Attitude towards Tiny Houses in Lüneburg; (e) Affordable Housing
Background (Other*: founder of a Tiny House community, app-developer, formerly homeless;) (f)
Tiny House Background; (Other**: investment, academia, founder of a Tiny House community,
founder of a Tiny House initiative, currently building one, job (2), living in similar dwelling ( 5)),

3.2 Fulfillment
Nine participants significantly associated with the first perspective, I labeled ‘Fulfillment’. This
perspective is convinced of the benefits of tiny living for the individual. Participants emphasize Tiny
Houses are not a one size fits all solution but claim that freely chosen, it can be an affordable housing
option that has numerous positive side effects. The main goals for this group are personal fulfillment
and minimalism. Tiny Houses are understood to create consistence in values like connectedness to
nature and do it yourself.
The background of the participants is displayed in detail in Figure 4. This group demands
affordable housing. Many currently live in a similar dwelling and most of them know someone who
lives in a Tiny House. Many advocate Tiny Houses. Mostly participating stakeholders are
represented in this group. Four participants are currently not professionally employed due to
unemployment, legal status or studies. All state they hope to see Tiny Houses in Lüneburg in the
future.
Freedom and self-realization in designing one’s own house is important to participants in this
group (47: 5). Tiny Houses can be customized to individual needs (30: 4) which can lead to a high
living standard (28: -5), e.g. luxury material could be affordable due to small scale and often is
accessible for free.
These participants understand Tiny Houses as best placed in a community (20: -1) which
reduces expenses (17: 4). Simultaneously, people significantly loading on this group are aware of but
not preoccupied with conflicts this might create (18: -2). A participant that was homeless before
moving into a manufactured home, further states an improved quality of life through social and
cultural activities in the community. A woman living in a mobile home with her daughter
additionally appreciates the balance between community and privacy this type of housing creates.
“The mix of community and privacy is ideal for me, like in a village back in the days” (I 14)

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

13 of 39

Individuals with this viewpoint evaluate Tiny Houses as suitable for two main groups demanding
affordable housing in the city, namely families (42: 2) and students (38: 4). The additional use along
with a main house is also seen as a viable solution (11: 1), e.g. for housing family members when
they wish to live alone but need minor support. People in this group do not think this lifestyle is for
everybody (37: -1). Especially, it is not understood as one size fits all solution for housing low
income groups like elderly people (39: 0), refugees (40: 0) or people experiencing homelessness
(41: 0), as money (3: 0), material (21: 1), skills and a social network must be accessible.
“Responsibility is a key skill one must bring. Who is able to light a fire these days? If a
municipality really wants to burn some money, they invest in a few, like 100 Tiny Houses and
provides them to people. In my experience, those will be run down in about three years. It’s not
a life where you just come home and sit down in front of the TV“ (I 11)
Simultaneously, individuals must freely choose this way of life (39: 0) in order to lead to the
happiness displayed in media (25: -2). Downsizing is more than just a trend (24: - 3) and Tiny
Houses provide economic benefits for people with low income (13: 3), as they are cheaper than other
types of affordable housing (1: 2), reduce costs for utilities (13: 3), and limit consumerism (22: 3).
Individuals of this group do not see a traditional house as viable alternative (5: -4), as tiny living is a
lifestyle decision where return on investment and possession play a minor role. The low financial
liability compared to a traditional house is appreciated.
Tiny Houses are evaluated to be a positive development (8: -4), creating empowerment (44: 2)
and supporting a healthy life (16: -3), due to an increased connectedness with nature. At the same
time, finding a lot is not a problem (33:0). An architect believes that vacant lots for transitional use
will open up periodically and availability of affordable land is more a matter of political will than
shortage (9: 0). A participant living in a similar dwelling to a Tiny House compared tiny living to
underseeding crops in agriculture. He states, in areas difficult for development, Tiny Houses are
ideal for subsidence sites, air corridors, and areas zoned as unsealed lots (e.g. compensating area for
roads). Connectedness to nature but also to the built environment is a reoccurring theme in the
interviews.
“Being connected with the outside world is the strongest argument for me to live this way, this
living room, because it has a very pleasant ceiling height, does not have walls, and I do not have
to leave my living room, I can go into town and I'm still at home” (I 11)
People associated with this viewpoint see major benefits in spaciously arranging Tiny Houses to
dense and vertical housing (6: -1), e.g. a musician enjoys practicing without affecting neighbors and
a journalist associates a feeling of freedom and independence with this open space. For these
individuals this form of housing does not lead to discrimination (27: -3) but participants witness a
risk for environmental injustice (35: -1). This can be avoided when living in a community because
activism increases bargaining power of the inhabitants. Legal barriers that currently exist hinder
many from realizing their dream to live tiny and therefore this factor demands a clear legal solution
in the future (34: 5).

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

14 of 39

3.4 Awareness raising
Seven participants determine the second factor ‘Awareness raising’. Representatives are not
convinced of the benefits of tiny living and they see Tiny Houses as a patch that ignores the real
causes of housing scarcity. However, these stakeholders see an opportunity to use Tiny Houses to
start a conversation and raise awareness about sustainability issues.
Most of them demand affordable housing, some professionally engage with this issue.
Individuals of this group consumes more media about Tiny Houses and are younger than people in
other groups. Few additionally engage in public debates, describe themselves as advocates of the
Movement, or currently live in a manufactured home. The majority are operating agents.
For the representatives of this group politics are responsible for the current inequity on the
housing market (43: 5) and gentrification in the city (9: 4). Since not opposed to the idea of Tiny
Houses (34: 3) people with this viewpoint admit that it might be an attractive lifestyle for a minority
(37: -5). On the other hand, Tiny Houses are not perceived to be suitable for people with low income
(24: 4). Reasons are that they are not cheaper than other types of affordable housing (1: -3) and the
high initial investment required to set up Tiny Houses is not easily accessible to everybody (3: -2).
Furthermore, these participants disagree that life in a Tiny House triggers minimalism (22: -2) and
empowerment (44: -1). Moreover, the promises of the Movement are perceived to be an illusion
(25: 4).
“Even with Tiny Houses, the remaining spots in the city center will be occupied by the
privileged who can afford it” (I 19)
People associated with this factor do not believe Tiny House owners will be discriminated against
(27: -2) in contrary, a single father criticizes the high financial barriers for people with low income.
Furthermore, these stakeholders doubt that donations will significantly contribute to overcome
those barriers (21: -4).
“I do not think it will create affordable housing, this is a lifestyle trend, for people who use it for
other purposes than housing, like workshops, exhibitions, office space, libraries and places to
meet with other young academics. I believe willingness for donation for the former is much
lower, because it is about solving real political problems, maybe even taking responsibility and
therefore I see less interest than supporting a utopia” (I 7)
A journalist argues that affordable housing cannot be left to volunteers and bottom-up movements,
as housing is a human right and should not be handed patronizingly. Therefore, the state should
ensure housing suitable to local standards for everybody. Individuals associated with this group
worry that individuals searching for freedom (29: 3) restrict themselves in uncomfortable, short term
living situations due to bureaucratic barriers (33: 3). A social worker of the department integration
and asylum further associates social stigmas to this form of housing.
Tiny living is not perceived to be attractive for families (42: -4) because of small space with little
privacy. Simultaneously, the risk of a capitulation of the individual, without removing root causes of
inequity on the housing market is emphasized (1:- 1).
“We see families, who lived in Lüneburg for generations, being forced to leave the area when
increasing in family size, I see no reason to offer these people a trailer. Reality is, they move out
to the east [of the city] and then just go to work by bus” (I 19)

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

15 of 39

Other than being the solution for housing scarcity, the founder of a Tiny House initiative evaluates
this Movement as opportunity to debate political issues and start a conversation about minimalism,
equity, homelessness, affordable housing, immigration, community, and public space.
“Living space per person increases annually but there is a discrepancy in distribution. Many
questions confronting the Tiny House Movement are similar to other forms of living in the end”
(I 23)
These participants claim current building and zoning codes secure living standards and limit
environmental injustice (35: -2) and further support the idea of adjusting them in order to secure
these rights for people who choose to live tiny (34: 3).
“In order to rethink and reinvent housing, especially in cities where living is increasingly
difficult, I think it would be efficient to finally adapt zoning codes” (I 7)
For scaling up the idea to a more economically viable and equitable solution an urban planner
suggests stacking Tiny Houses vertically and create community spaces to make up for reductions in
private space.

3.4 Individual Lifestyle
Two people are significantly associated with the third viewpoint, ‘Individual lifestyle’. These
stakeholders emphasize the complicated dynamics of homelessness and criticize Tiny Houses as
having even higher investment barriers than other forms of affordable housing in Lüneburg. Yet,
people associated with this factor acknowledges they might be attractive for people currently
neglected on the housing market when investment barriers are reduced, and a social mix ensured.
Only men are represented in this factor. Individuals are employed in public and social services
and demand affordable housing. One is department manager for housing and shelter. Both know
someone who lives in a Tiny House but are unsure if they want to see Tiny Houses in Lüneburg in
the future.
This perspective shows no opposition to the idea of using Tiny Houses to create affordable
housing (12: -5) for diverse groups (37: 2). While these participants can imagine Tiny Houses for
transitional housing (26: 3) or people experiencing homelessness (41: 3), more risk for discrimination
is perceived than by other groups (27: 1). Moreover, people associated with this viewpoint see an
answer to an increased desire for mobility in society (36: 2) and the adaptation of housing to
individual needs (32: 3). Tiny Houses are not perceived as a gateway to create uncomfortable living
conditions (4: -4) but it is understood that people experiencing homelessness, often need social
services not just a dwelling (34: -3).
“A project with Tiny Houses can certainly be an opportunity to allow people a life in dignity.
Most do not demand a villa but simply a dwelling, in my experience however, people who
come to the homeless assistance, need also other social services, thus simply to say here you
have a Tiny House won’t work out. We need a social mix” (I 24)
On the other hand, Tiny House inhabitants are perceived to depend on other people, which can
create unstable living conditions (20: -4). The manager for housing and shelter further questions the
benefits of switching from currently well-organized homeless shelters to Tiny Houses. The
viewpoint indicates awareness of gentrification (9: 3) but participants associated with this factor see
this dynamic, occurring with or without Tiny Houses (35: 2) and therefore demand a social mix in all

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

16 of 39

housing projects. Tiny Houses for these participants are rather a chance for the individual to escape
social pressures and change their own living situation (44: 1). Other than economic reasons, these
participants think downsizing can be a good way to simplify life (24: -3) and break out of
standardized conditions (30: 3).
“Individual lifestyles are important. If everybody has the opportunity to live the way they want
is it a great development” (I 25)
People associates with this factor don’t think that utilities have a significant impact on affordability
(14: -5) as the price for land is the major cost factor (7: 5) and the creation of affordable housing in
general is limited by political will rather than financial (I 24) or planning resources (10: -3).
“The Movement is a reaction to the absolute failure in creating affordable housing, for me a
basic right like air or water” (I 24)
While alternative housing projects currently happening in the city are appreciated, a gardener
criticizes that those exclude many less fortunate. Therefore, these individuals remain careful
towards adapting building and zoning codes (34: -3) to not allow a further gentrification in the city.
While Tiny Houses are perceived as a lifestyle trend, they can still be suitable for people with low
income (45: -1). For scaling up the solution these stakeholders consider a mass production of Tiny
Houses to reduce barriers to participate, like social network, skills and initial investment.

3.5 Bridge Peaks
Four individuals are significantly associated with the last group ‘Bridge peaks’. This
perspective indicates that space in high demand areas should be used for forms of affordable
housing that are more economically viable and culturally more suitable for Lüneburg. However,
these stakeholders state that Tiny Houses can be attractive to create additional space quickly if the
city has to bridge peaks in demand.
Again, only men are associated with this factor, most of them demand affordable housing and
some work in this field. Half of them consume media about Tiny Houses, others engage in public
debates, while one participant is currently building a Tiny House. Participating stakeholders are not
represented in this group that mainly consists of operating stakeholders.
These people generally support the idea of Tiny Houses but are unsure if this is the most
economically viable solution for Lüneburg (1: 0). Representatives don’t think Tiny Houses (45: -5)
and downsizing in general (24: 1) are suitable for people with low income. While making home
ownership affordable (2: 3), these participants claim a short durability of Tiny Houses limits
economical implementations (3: 0). When considering the high initial investment of Tiny Houses
(3: 0) and use of space, building vertically will be the most efficient use of resources for people
associated with this group (6: 5). A politician made positive experiences with mobile homes when
bridging peaks in demand for refugee accommodation (10: 3) but does not see a current necessity.
“The sustainability criterion for me is how much sqm of space do I need to produce living space
for what amount of people. The advantage of Tiny Houses is the immediate availability, but it is
not the most efficient use as far as the sqm are concerned” (I 6)
For this group Tiny Houses do not reduce utilities (13: 0) due to a low energy efficiency of small
structures. People associated with this factor assume that the lack of affordability will therefore not

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

17 of 39

meet local demands (43: 4). A social housing manager states the investment in social housing was
recently picked up and perceives the biggest barriers in creating new affordable housing in the city
to be the prices for land and personnel capacities of construction companies.
Members of this group witness less gentrification in Lüneburg’s core than other university cities
(9: -3) as social housing thrives to reduce inequalities and ensure social peace. Furthermore, the
German social system, building, and zoning codes (35: 0) ensure high living standards (47: -5) and a
harmonic townscape that should not be negatively affected by a minority that chooses an individual
lifestyle.
“I consider building law regulations to be correct and important. Certainly, a lot of thinking has
to be invested into the adaptation of zoning codes to include all interests” (I 20)
On the other hand, people associated with this group perceive a potential for redensification (11: 2)
in line with townscape. Furthermore, students (38: 5) develop self-sufficiency (23: -4) and can realize
ecological ideals. While an urban garden does not necessarily have to be available with affordable
housing (15: -1), Tiny Houses are seen as opportunity to test green innovations.
“There are good reasons why wastewater must be treated but this prevents the possibility of
ecological decomposition through compost toilets, regulations could perhaps become a little
more flexible” (I 1)
Representatives see a chance for refugees (40: 4) to be integrated in Tiny House communities rather
than in more isolated forms of living. On the other hand, a researcher criticizes that the idea of
integration is not necessarily met when housing people in ‘unusual’ conditions for local living
standards. People associated with this group do not see these benefits to be necessarily accountable
for housing the homeless (26: -3) as they require access to infrastructure that is often lacking for Tiny
House lots (35: 0).

3.6 Communalities and Disagreement
The correlation between the factors displayed in Table 4 describes the extent of similarity
between the groups. Overall positive correlations indicate that there are similarities among all
viewpoints. However, a correlation figure of 0.1645, between ‘Individual lifestyle’ and ‘Bridge
peaks’ and a correlation figure of 0.2584 between ‘Individual lifestyle’ and ‘Awareness raising’
indicate that participants of factor 3 are likely to contradict with the viewpoints of group 2 and 4.
Table 4. Correlation between factors.

In order to assess why people associated with ‘Individual lifestyle’ are likely to disagree with
viewpoints of ‘Awareness raising’ and ‘Bridge peaks’, consensus statements (i.e. statements that are
similarly arranged between factors) and statements of disagreement (i.e. statements that are

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

18 of 39

differently arranged between factors) will be analyzed. The last column in Table 4, shows the rank of
each statements among the criteria agreement to disagreement. Additionally, main points of
consensus and disagreement are displayed in Table 5.
Table 5. Statements of Consensus and Statements of Disagreement

Most similarity between all four perspectives was found in terms of statements 11, 18, 19, and
30. Indicated by statement 11, viewpoints show consensus in terms of the potential use of Tiny
Houses as additional space along with a main house. Furthermore, participants are generally not
preoccupied with conflicts when organizing Tiny Houses in a community. Simultaneously,
perspectives resemble in the notion that Tiny House inhabitants are at risk to live in unstable living
conditions due to dependence on others. Participants see the charm of Tiny Houses to be that they
allow inhabitants to customize them for individual needs. In contrast, perceptions strongly disperse
in terms of statements 14, 47, 37, and 24.
The similar ranking of statement 2 indicates that participants agree that a reduction of utility
costs makes a home more affordable. However, people associated with factor 3 claim, that this is not
the major barrier for people with low income. Placement of statement 47 indicates that participants
of ‘Fulfillment’ strongly believe everybody should live in a house of their choice, but individuals of
‘Bridge peaks’ strongly disagree with this statement and emphasize the importance of building and
zoning codes. Ratings of statement 37, indicate that participants of ‘Awareness raising’ strongly and
others lightly disagree with the claim of individuals in the third group, that Tiny Houses could be
attractive for all sorts of people demanding affordable housing. Another statement that is partly
contested is statement 24. While participants associated with factor 2 and 4 think downsizing is a
theme claimed by the fortunate, people in group 1 and 3 disagree.

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

19 of 39

4. Discussion
The research question (1) ‘What are perceptions of informed stakeholders regarding Tiny
Houses as a contribution to affordable housing in Lüneburg?’ is answered by the four viewpoints
displayed above. Out of 22 individuals, the four salient viewpoints, ‘Fulfillment’, ‘Awareness
raising’, ‘Individual lifestyle’ and ‘Bridge peaks’ could be extracted.
In the following the underlying values of the different perspectives and how perceptions differ
in terms of the contribution of Tiny Houses to affordable housing will be discussed. Moreover,
suggestions how compromises can be reached will be derived from the results.

4.1. Underlying Values
Tiny Houses are advertised as innovative sustainability solution. However, similar housing
trends have existed for decades and reoccur in different gestalt at times of “conflicts about
fundamental beliefs of home and community and conformity and individuality” (Wallis, 1999, pp.
22-23). Therefore, to fully understand the values stakeholders associate with these dwellings is a
crucial element of the task of sifting through the glamorization of this Movement. Findings indicate
the four viewpoints share conflicting as well as common values. Values of participants associated
with ‘Fulfillment’ and ‘Awareness raising’ can be found in movements of the urban commons,
where economic outcome plays a minor role compared to building relationships and trust (Carlsson,
2008). Moreover, materialism is consciously neglected by the urban commons movement and
alternative values are emphasized. This paradigm shift is supported through learning from and with
each other, experimentation and creativity (Carlsson, 2008, p. 46). People associated with ‘Bridge
peaks’ also value this innovation potential of Tiny Houses.
Participants associated with ‘Awareness raising’ value political correctness and have the desire
to educate others about sustainability issues. These participants fear an increased gentrification
when allowing Tiny Houses in dense areas. Similarly, people associated with ‘Individual lifestyle’
worry that the high financial barriers of the movement hinder a social mix. The interest in Tiny
Houses of these participants derives from their personal aim for equality in society. Tiny Houses are
appealing to them due to the low access barriers this movement claims to provide.
To the contrary, people associated with ‘Fulfillment’ understand Tiny House communities as a
strategy to win back urban space from investors and capitalistic paradigms. Chatterton & Pickerill
(2010) claim that shared productivity in urban spaces and the relationships that are created by this
process are a crucial yet undervalued element of spatial justice.
On the other hand, individuals of ‘Awareness raising’ and ‘Bridge peaks’, claim that Tiny
Houses risk established standards of housing. Mostly stakeholders of ‘Bridge peaks’ are convinced
that dynamics of the social state through laws and regulation will be the best way to tackle housing
issues. These participants especially value Lüneburg’s historic townscape and demand architecture
that preserves it. Similar to these findings Sauve (2017) criticizes the Tiny House Movement’s
rejection of the needs of low-income workers and suggest socialist alternatives like demanding
control over time and work, access to affordable housing, better incomes and environmental justice.
The individuals associated with ‘Fulfillment’ claim however, that Tiny Houses already provide
these assets. For this group, tiny living reduces expenses and therefore provides independence of
income. This results in available time for the inhabitants, that these participants claim to use for
creative tasks like DIY and spending time in nature.

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

20 of 39

4.2 Contribution to affordable housing in the city
Findings show a high awareness about gentrification dynamics in the city and a common
ground that these have to be reduced. They vary however in the way they believe Tiny Houses can
contribute to this process. Stakeholders associates with ‘Bridge peaks’ trust in the implementation of
zoning codes and the recent reuptake of social housing investments (Hansestadt Lüneburg, 2016).
While they doubt the affordability claim of the Movement they see an opportunity to test housing
innovations like composting toilets. This is exemplified by the social start-up Goldeimer. They
currently are touring in the region with a self-built Tiny House and raise awareness about sanitation,
composting toilets, and water waste (Altonale, 2018). Individuals of ‘Awareness raising’ additionally
suggest transferring the values and paradigms of the Movement into micro units. This form of
alternative housing is also promoted by the architect Van Bo Le-Mentzel who tested Tiny Houses for
one year (Bauhaus Campus, 2018). If this is in line with the thrive for connectedness to nature of
people associated with ‘Fulfillment’, is unclear. People in group 2 and 3 are further sceptic if market
dynamics will reduce current injustice on the housing market and therefore demand discourse and
public participation processes.
While stakeholders associated with ‘Individual lifestyle’ do not see Tiny Houses as up-scalable
contribution to the housing supply in the city, they value Tiny Houses as tool for raising awareness
about inequity on the housing market. The perspective of ‘Fulfillment` however indicates that there
are indeed people in the city that value tiny life and see several positive side effects. The other
groups respect this choice and have a generally positive opinion about the underlying values of the
Tiny House Movement. Therefore, most viewpoints match in terms of the requirement of building
and zoning codes to secure this way of life for people who want to live that way. However,
interpretation indicates that this lifestyle is not for everybody and most participants don’t see it as
equitable alternative for people with low income.
In contrast participants associated with ‘Individual lifestyle’ see it as suitable for everybody but
do not support the adaptation of building and zoning codes if this means more space in the city is
delegated towards people that can afford an independent lifestyle. Along these lines these
stakeholders think Tiny Houses have even more financial barriers than other forms of affordable
housing in Lüneburg. Their suggestion of using pre-fabricated houses in order to reduce financial
barriers would probably be opposed by individuals of ‘Fulfillment’ as this is contradicting with core
values of DIY they share. Yet, people associated with ‘Individual lifestyle’ acknowledge Tiny Houses
might be a tool for integrating some of the up to 100 people that are currently homeless (LZ, 2017). If
they wish to live this way, access is supported, and a social mix ensured.
Wyatt (2014) found that the desire for a social mix as demanded by participants associated with
‘Individual lifestyle’ causes tensions in Tiny House communities, and therefore suggests to set
priorities who will be served. Experiences with Tiny Houses to house people that have problems
finding housing or experience homelessness have been found to have positive outcomes in in the
U.S. (Brown, 2016). However, such projects are criticized by housing experts in Germany, because
Tiny Houses are not suitable to address complex challenges. Therefore, Neupert (2018) claims Tiny
Houses do not serve as a substitute for social housing efforts.
Moreover, findings show people who significantly loaded on ‘Bridge peaks’ are convinced that
living tiny is not only a personal decision. This form of housing poses various infrastructural and
social implications and risks undermining tenants’ rights. It was found that Tiny Houses are not
perceived suitable to contribute significantly to affordable housing and are not likely to replace

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

21 of 39

construction of traditional housing in the city. A common claim among all participants is that
‘nobody should have to live in a Tiny House if they don’t desire to’.

4.3 Reaching Compromises
Results indicate there might not be a one size fits all implementation in the city. The found
factors point out diverse applications that are directed towards different goals and challenges they
witness. Considering limited space, Tiny Houses are not seen as viable alternative to other forms of
housing in Lüneburg’s highly demanded areas. Findings demonstrate however, a lot of the charm of
Tiny Houses lies in the political values they represent, therefore a limited assessment to its
characteristics as housing type remains difficult. The general openness to the trend shows a potential
to use Tiny Houses for awareness raising campaigns, participation processes and testing innovations
in the city. In addition, the tolerance towards the two existing communities of manufactured homes
should be maintained. Furthermore, legal barriers for people who choose to live this way need to be
reduced by adapting zoning and building codes in other areas as well. However, the adaption of
regulations has to be carefully tested and developed in a participatory fashion in order to reduce
risks of undermining tenant’s rights and excluding low-income groups. Tiny Houses cannot
substitute traditional housing efforts and a social mix has to be emphasized similarly to other forms
of housing. The potential application for an inclusive project that reduces barriers for homeless
people and people with low income is contested. Therefore, it should be assessed by experts before
further implementation. A social mix is crucial for the acceptability of all new housing projects due
to the limited availability of the resource space. It should not be underestimated that some view Tiny
Houses in communities with shared spaces and values. Such an alternative lifestyle cannot be
imposed top-down but evolves out of growing relationships and creative processes. Others
dreaming about living tiny might have a distinct vision of community not represented by the
viewpoints in this study.
I recommend an open discourse between participating stakeholder and strategic and operating
stakeholders. Participating stakeholders should be aware that oppositions might arise due to
implication for townscape, tenants’ rights and equity in the city. Respecting these perceptions will
support policy making and reduce risks. Operating stakeholders can use these findings to facilitate
mutual learning between bottom-up developments and top-down legislation. Simultaneously, these
results might support strategic stakeholders in detecting goals and values of different requests they
are confronted with. Therefore, adapting building and zoning codes for the use of Tiny Houses for
awareness raising might differ from adaptation for their use as housing type or for testing
innovations.

Global Sustainability Science 2016-18

22 of 39

5. Conclusion
The current lack of affordable housing is deep rooted. Knowing the areas of agreement and
disagreement between the perceptions of informed stakeholders is important for the development
and successful implementation of acceptable policies. The examination of perceptions among
affordable housing stakeholders at the local level has proven that Tiny Houses are not a free ticket to
sustainability and most definitely not a significant contribution to reduce housing scarcity.
However, the Movement’s potential to start debates about consumerism and inequity is further
proven with this study. This may be due to its attractiveness for different socio-economic groups and
the positive emotions it triggers in a debate that often is exclusive and concentrated on problems
rather than solutions. Furthermore, criticism towards Tiny Houses, such as high barriers to
participate, exclusion of low income groups and inefficient use of space is similar to general
problems on the housing market. Therefore, Tiny Houses seem to be an attractive model of a
solution. Debates on Tiny Houses as a potential solution can help to address current problems and
find ways to solve them. Furthermore, potential compromises among the different viewpoints are
evident. These findings can support a more inclusive and just distribution of housing in the city.
While Tiny Houses as a free-standing structure don’t fit into locals’ visions for an up-scalable,
inclusive housing alternative, the values the Movement claims are shared by several participants
and all of them could relate to at least some of them.
Implementation of Tiny Houses in Germany is still in its infancy, and surely a lot of learning
processes and debates about their contribution to affordable housing will follow this study.
However, the given viewpoints can be used as a starting point to design participation processes that
include diverse opinions and stakeholder into the process of designing such regulations. A Tiny
House designed for stakeholder engagement would most definitely be a good place to meet and
exchange ideas about inclusive housing alternatives for the future. Q was found to be a suitable
method for this type of study. It may find good implementation in other studies concerning this area
of research. A further study could build on my findings and use Q to collect perspectives on the
adaptation of building and zoning codes in the city.

Appendix
Appendix A: Resources Statement Collection
Appendix B: Items per Key Theme
Appendix C: Pre-questionnaire
Appendix D: Written Instructions
Appendix E: Semi-structured Interview Guide
Appendix F: Interview Protocol

Appendix A: Resources Statement Collection

Video Document
Breena, C. (2018). I lived in a TINY HOUSE! Tiny Room Tour! Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6icCZMIpmM&t=4s (Accessed 15 May 2018)
Carey, T. (2013). prebuilt homes -Off grid cabin - tiny house - options you can afford for 10k. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYcL2fm-510 (Accessed 15 May 2018)
Curbed. (2018). Can Tiny Houses Save Detroit? Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY4s5T6cLSw (Accessed 15 May 2018)
Exploring Alternatives. (2018). Woman Living in a Tiny House Loves the Small Space & Financial Freedom.
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQoQv0C_EK8 (Accessed 15 May 2018)
Living Big in a Tiny House. (2018). Debt-Free Family Life in a Zero Waste, Plant Based Tiny House. Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=higZGd1fU4Q&t=1s (Accessed 15 May 2018)
Living Big in a Tiny House. (2018). Incredible Salvaged Off-Grid Tiny House On Permaculture Farm. Retrieved
from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbUkLeBUmxI (Accessed 15 May 2018)
Living Big in a Tiny House. (2018). Spectacular Zen Inspired Dream Tiny House. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXOZLskXCog&t=4s (Accessed 15 May 2018)
Marrieddragon. (2014). Tiny House for under $5000. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XTPM5IQo2Y (Accessed 15 May 2018)
Planting Freedom. (2015). Buy A Tiny House for $100 Down: Tiny Homes, Mortgage Free, Self Sufficient, Living
Off The Grid! Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cstq3j2SLQ (Accessed 15 May 2018)
Reason TV. (2015). Jay Austin's Beautiful, Illegal Tiny House. Retrieved from
https://i.ytimg.com/an_webp/n-zESacteu4/mqdefault_6s.webp?du=3000&sqp=CK7-kdYF&rs=AOn4CLDcz
hzOtzgxg67YXH5KzPLqDBN-Yw (Accessed 15 May 2018)
Tiny House Giant Journey. (2018). Family of 5 Downsize to a Nerdy Tiny House with No Mortgage. Retrieved
from https://i.ytimg.com/an_webp/F_Uiy40vEj8/mqdefault_6s.webp?du=3000&sqp=CLeBktYF&rs
=AOn4CLD8ZqgtJg30fjY38jpHPslsaRmQcw (Accessed 15 May 2018)
Tiny House Listings. (2018). Mother and Daughter's Awesome Tiny House. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgmk9IDEYas&t=551s (Accessed 15 May 2018)
Tiny House Listings. (2018). Sonoma Fire Victim Build Gorgeous Tiny House. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaEtG_W7y-8&t=189s (Accessed 15 May 2018)

Internet Document
Brown, E. (2016). Overcoming the Barriers to Micro-Housing: Tinny Houses, Big Potential. Retrieved from
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/19948/Brown_final_project_2016.pdf?seque
nce=4&isAllowed=y (Accessed 15 May 2018)
KW San Antonio. 6 Big Reasons the Tiny House Movement is on the Rise. Retrieved from
https://www.kwsanantonio.com/news/6-big-reasons-the-tiny-house-movement-is-on-the-rise/ (Accessed 15
May 2018)

Matthews, D. The case against tiny houses. Retrieved from
https://www.vox.com/a/new-economy-future/tiny-houses (Accessed 15 May 2018)

Journal Article
Anson, A. (2014). “The World is my Backyard”:: Romanticization, Thoreauvian Rhetoric, and Constructive
Confrontation in the Tiny House Movement. In W. G. Holt (Ed.), Research in urban sociology. From
Sustainable to Resilient Cities: Global Concerns and Urban Efforts (Vol. 14, pp. 289–313). Emerald Group
Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1047-004220140000014013
Kilman, C. (2016). Small House, Big Impact: The Effect of Tiny Houses on Community and Environment.
Undergraduate Journal of Humanistic Studies, 2016(Vol. 2).
Turnbull, E. (2009). Tiny House. Oz, 31(1). https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5853.1461
Watson, J. (2017). Do tiny houses fit into your community. The Western Planner. Retrieved from
https://www.westernplanner.org/housing-articles/2017/2/22/do-tiny-houses-fit-into-your-community
Anson, A. (2014). “The World is my Backyard”:: Romanticization, Thoreauvian Rhetoric, and Constructive
Confrontation in the Tiny House Movement. In W. G. Holt (Ed.), Research in urban sociology. From
Sustainable to Resilient Cities: Global Concerns and Urban Efforts (Vol. 14, pp. 289–313). Emerald Group
Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1047-004220140000014013

Newspaper Article
Hawkes, C. (2017, June 8). Why I am over the tiny house movement. Stuff. Retrieved from
https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/home-property/92388775/why-i-am-over-the-tiny-house-movement
(Accessed 15 May 2018)
Lowe, L. (2018, March 21). Here's why so many seniors are joining the tiny-house movement Seniors are finding
freedom in the tiny-house lifestyle. Today. Retrieved from
https://www.today.com/home/senior-citizens-are-moving-tiny-homes-now-t125102 (Accessed 15 May 2018)
Lundahl, E. (2014, February 20). Tiny Houses for the Homeless: An Affordable Solution Catches On. Retrieved
from
http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/tiny-house-villages-for-the-homeless-an-affordable-solution-c
atches-on?utm_source=YTW&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=20140221 (Accessed 15 May 2018)
MacDonald-Evoy, J. (2018, April 3). With rents on rise, Tempe makes room for 'tiny homes' on city-owned land.
AZ Central. Retrieved from
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2018/04/03/tiny-homes-tempe-aim-tackle-big-affordabl
e-housing-problems/469792002/ (Accessed 15 May 2018)
Milkmann, A. (2018). The Tiny House Fantasy. Retrieved from
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/tiny-house-movement-nation-tumbleweed-environment-consumeris
m/ (Accessed 15 May 2018)

Appendix B: Items per Key Theme
A. Investment (Capital necessary to participate)
1.

Tiny Houses are cheaper than other types of affordable housing

2.

Tiny Houses make home ownership affordable

3.

The high initial investment for a private Tiny House is recommended for people with low
income due to the money they save in the future

4.

The economical costs of constructing Tiny Houses puts people with low income at risk to
live in uninhabitable dwellings

5.

The Tiny Houses we are seeing are not cheap - surely the same money could be put towards
a deposit on a small traditional house, not a Tiny House, with a better end result

B. Land use (Efficiency in use of space)
1.

The price for land is the major factor in areas of high demand. Therefore, high-rise
residential dwellings will be the most efficient use of resources

2.

The price for land is rising dramatically, therefore reducing square footage is one solution to
keep home ownership affordable in areas of high demand

3.

This movement points to growing insecurity and a troubling future in which temporary,
unstable, and atomized living arrangements potentially become the norm. What’s next?
Coffin Homes where you live in a slot in the wall?

4.

As spaces in city housing are cut into smaller and smaller swaths, designed to privileged
young, independent, salaried workers, the most vulnerable members of the community lose
out

C. Time Horizon (Long-term vs. short-term use of Tiny Houses)
1.

Rushed construction of affordable housing can be unattractive and unsustainable. Tiny
Houses on vacant lots can be a solution to bridge the current lack of affordable housing until
the market catches up

2.

Tiny Houses can be used for creating additional space, alongside the main house.

3.

Tiny Houses are a fad. It is not a solution to our current housing crisis. And just try getting
rid of them in a few years.

D. Economize (Resources that can be saved by living in a Tiny House)
1.

Small square footage of Tiny Houses moderates energy use and significantly reduces utility
costs

2.

Reducing utility costs is a way to increase the affordability of a home for people who
struggle with having enough money at the end of the month

3.

Provide space for people to grow their own food should be considered when creating
affordable housing

4.

There is no significant correlation between urban gardening and Tiny Houses

E. Sharing economy (Sharing knowledge and resources in a community)
1.

People living in communities of Tiny Houses share infrastructure and tools and therefore
reduce expenses for all

2.

Sharing infrastructure and tools leads to conflicts in Tiny House communities

3.

When living in a Tiny House one is very dependent on other people, for some this might be
a unstable living situation and lead to homelessness

4.

Tiny House inhabitants are self-sufficient, this creates a stable living condition, as they don’t
rely on other people

5.

The popularity and romantic image of Tiny Houses leads to donations and the engagement
of volunteers and therefore creates affordable housing quickly and unbureaucratic

F.

Fulfillment (Contributes to the happiness of inhabitant)

1.

Tiny Houses help their inhabitants find financial stability through minimalism as they limit
consumerism

2.

Life in a Tiny House does not reduce consumerist behavior. While accumulation of stuff
might be limited to reduced space, inhabitants demand more of other goods and services
than in traditional housing (e.g. eating out more frequently).

3.

Downsizing might be a healing strategy for fortunate people, for the poor this credo is ironic

4.

Videos detailing the happiness of Tiny House owners are a genre of lifestyle media, they
don’t display the reality of people with low income

G. Social Costs (Effect of Tiny Houses on society)
1.

Tiny Houses can reduce the costs of public services such as police, emergency rooms, and
jails. This is because people experiencing homelessness have access to comfortable, safe,
dignified housing instead of homeless shelters or depending on hosts

2.

Tiny House communities make poverty visible and can lead to a discrimination of the
inhabitants

3.

Tiny Houses are an euphemism for garden shacks, not housing in dignity

4.

The Tiny House Movement embraces individualistic visions of property while ignoring the
real causes of the housing shortage

5.

The charm of Tiny Houses is that they can be designed to the individual needs of their
inhabitants, this is a new perspective for people with low income who often live in
standardized apartments, e.g. the accessibility can be easily adapted to handicaps

H. NIMBYism (Oppositions to implement Tiny Houses in certain areas)
1.

It will be difficult for Tiny House owners to find a lot

2.

The unclear legal situation of Tiny Houses brings inhabitants in uncomfortable living
situations

3.

Tiny Houses can be put anywhere

4.

Zoning and building codes should be adapted to the demand for Tiny Houses

5.

Tiny Houses increase environmental injustice as people with low income are displaced to
areas with noisy streets, industrial areas, and lack of infrastructure

I.

People (Target Group)

1.

Renters who move frequently or people entering the housing market have a disadvantage
due to rent adjustments, Tiny Houses on wheels are a solution for this problem

2.

Tiny Houses are attractive to all sorts of people demanding affordable housing

3.

Tiny Houses are attractive for students living alone or with a partner

4.

Tiny Houses are attractive for people +65 living single or with a partner

5.

Tiny Houses are attractive for refugees living alone or with a partner

6.

Tiny Houses are attractive for people experiencing homelessness

7.

Tiny Houses are attractive for families

J.

DIY Empowerment (Increased autonomy through creative search for sustainable solutions)

1.

Politicians failed to ensure sufficient affordable housing

2.

Tiny Houses empower people with low income to change their own living situation

3.

Tiny Houses are a lifestyle trend, they are not suitable for people with low income

4.

Tiny Houses can be combined well with other social services low income groups demand

5.

Everybody should be allowed to live in a house of their choice, politics should not limit
people’s freedom in designing their own house

.

Appendix C: Pre-questionnaire
Name:

Date:

Place:

# of Interview:

A) Questionnaire
1.

What is your current occupation?

2.

How old are you?

3.

In which way do you engage with affordable housing in Lüneburg. Please circle one or
more of the following:
a.

private demand (current, future, past)

b.

job

c.

investment

d. academia
e.

demand of a family member (current, future, past)

f.

activism

g.

other ______

h. none

4. In which way do you engage with the Tiny House Movement. Please circle one or more of
the following:
a.

Media, e.g. Newspaper articles, YouTube, Blogs

b.

Public debate

c.

I advocate the idea

d. I know someone who lives in a Tiny House
e.

Personal experience (current, future, past)

f.

This topic is new to me

g.

other ________

5. Would you like to see Tiny Houses in Lüneburg in the future? Please circle your answer.
a.

Yes

b.

No

c.

Not sure

Appendix D: Written Instructions

Which of those statements about Tiny Houses in Lüneburg
do you most agree or most disagree with?
1.

Please divide the given statements about the effects of Tiny Houses in three simple
categories.
Category 1: Statements you feel positive about
Category 2: Statements you feel negative about
Category 3: Statements that make you feel indifferent/unsure/or induce both positive and
negative feelings dependent on their context and potential application

2.

Please take the Category 1 pile and spread them out relative to one another following the
distribution below.

Start on the right hand side. Continue to the items you feel most negative about, which
will be awarded the lower rankings at the right-hand end of the distribution.
3.

Please take the Category 2 pile and spread them out relative to one another on the left
hand side. Continue to the items you feel less negative about, which will be awarded the
higher rankings at the left-hand end of the distribution.

4.

Please take the Category 3 pile and spread them out relative to one another along the
center of the distribution.

Appendix E: Semi-structured Interview Guide
1.

How was the sorting activity for you?

2.

Do you think Tiny Houses will contribute to affordable housing in Lüneburg?

3.

Which statements especially attracted your interest?

4.

Which statements were difficult to sort? Why?

5.

Were there any statements you didn't understand?

6.

Is there an obvious effect of Tiny Houses that was not represented in the Q set?

Appendix F: Interview Protocol
Name:

Date:

Place:

# of Interview:

A) Pre-Questionnaire
Notes:

B) Q-Sort
Questions raised by interviewee:

Discussions:

Comments by interviewee:

Atmosphere:

Sorting:
most

neutral

most

disagree
-5

-4

agree
-3

-2

C) Post Interview
Statements addressed and comment:
Stmt

Reason

Comment

-1

0

+1

+2

+3

+4

+5

References
Aalbers, M. B. (2015). The Great Moderation, the Great Excess and the global housing crisis. International
Journal of Housing Policy, 15(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616718.2014.997431
Addams, H., & Proops, J. L. R. (Eds.). (2000). Social discourse and environmental policy: An application of Q
methodology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub.
Altonale. (2018). Tiny House auf dem vvisionAIR. Retrieved from
https://www.altonale.de/altonale/2018/06/16/tiny-house-auf-dem-vvisionair/ (Accessed 15 June 2018)
Baker, R. M. (2006). Economic rationality and health and lifestyle choices for people with diabetes. Social
Science & Medicine (1982), 63(9), 2341–2353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.06.007
Barry, J., & Proops, J. (1999). Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. Ecological Economics,
28(3), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00053-6
Bauhaus Campus. (2017). Die Tiny Houses. Retrieved from http://bauhauscampus.org (Accessed 15 June 2018)
Brinker, D., & Sinning, H. (2014). Wohnraumversorgung und Wohnqualität einkommensschwacher Haushalte.
Herausforderungen, Handlungsmöglichkeiten und Grenzen für Wohnungspolitik und Stadtentwicklung
am Beispiel des Sonnenbergs in Chemnitz. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 72(1), 39–53.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13147-014-0269-8
Brown, E. (2016). Overcoming the Barriers to Micro-Housing: Tinny Houses, Big Potential. Retrieved from
https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/19948/Brown_final_project_2016.pdf?seque
nce=4&isAllowed=y (Accessed 15 June 2018)
Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Carlsson, C. (2008). Nowtopia: How pirate programmers, outlaw bicyclists, and vacant-lot gardeners are
inventing the future today. Oakland, Calif.: AK Press.
Chatterton, P. (2010). Seeking the urban common: Furthering the debate on spatial justice. City, 14(6), 625–628.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2010.525304
Cohen, M., & Wiek, A. (2017). Identifying Misalignments between Public Participation Process and Context in
Urban Development. Challenges in Sustainability, 5(2), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.12924/cis2017.05020011
Danielson, S., Webler, T., & Tuler, S. P. (2009). Using Q Method for the Formative Evaluation of Public
Participation Processes. Society & Natural Resources, 23(1), 92–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802438626
Eggeling, C. (2017, November 28). Jung, psychisch krank, obdachlos. Landeszeitung. Retrieved from
https://www.landeszeitung.de/blog/lokales/1271122-jung-psychisch-krank-obdachlos (Accessed 15 June
2018)
Einem, E. v. (Ed.). (2016). Stadtforschung aktuell. Wohnen: Markt in Schieflage - Politik in Not. Wiesbaden:
Springer. Retrieved from http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=4398749
Ford, J., & Gomez-Lanier, L. (2017). Are Tiny Homes Here to Stay?: A Review of Literature on the Tiny House
Movement. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 45(4), 394–405.
https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12205

Gentili, E. (2017). Exploring Wellbeing in Small and Unconventional Dwellings: Understanding living in small
and unconventional dwellings through a multidimensional perspective of space.Växjö, Sweden: Linnaeus
University.
GEWOS Institut. (2016). Wohnungsmarktanalyse Landkreis Lüneburg: Bericht Hamburg 2016. Retrieved from
https://www.landkreis-lueneburg.de/Portaldata/42/Resources/bauen,_umwelt_und_tiere/bauen/2016_07_2
1_Endbericht_Wohnungsmarktanalyse_LK_Lueneburg.pdf (Accessed 15 June 2018)
Hansestadt Lüneburg. (2016). Sozialer Wohnungsbau kommt in Fahrt. Retrieved from
https://www.hansestadtlueneburg.de/Home-Hansestadt-Lueneburg/Stadt-und-Politik/Aktuelles-hansestad
t-lueneburg/Pressearchiv-hansestadt-lueneburg/Sozialer-Wohnungsbau-in-der-Hansestadt-kommt-in-Fahr
t.aspx/15474_page-3/ (Accessed 15 June 2018)
Harrison, P., Huchzermeyer, M., Mayekiso, M., & Sholto-Douglas, S. (Eds.). (2003). Confronting fragmentation:
Housing and urban development in a democratising society. South Africa: University of Cape Town Press.
Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies / Patsy Healey (2nd ed.).
Planning, environment, cities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from
http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0634/2005054413-d.html (Accessed 15 June 2018)
Innes, J. E. (1998). Information in Communicative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association,
64(1), 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369808975956
International Code Council. (2018). 2018-International Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings:
Appendix Q Tiny Houses. Retrieved from
https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/document/IRC2018/appendix-q-tiny-houses (Accessed 15 June 2018)
Kilman, C. (2016). Small House, Big Impact: The Effect of Tiny Houses on Community and Environment.
Undergraduate Journal of Humanistic Studies, 2016(Vol. 2) 1-12. Retrieved from
https://apps.carleton.edu/ujhs/assets/charlie_kilman_tinyhouses__4_.pdf (Accessed 15 June 2018)
Landeszeitung für die Lüneburger Heide. (2016). Leben im Bauwagen: Das Paradies am Rande der Stadt.
Retrieved from https://www.landeszeitung.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Bauwagen.jpg (Accessed 15
June 2018)
Lüneburg 2030. (2018). Lüneburger Lösungen. Retrieved from
http://www2.leuphana.de/zukunftsstadt2030/?s=%23Wohnprojektekontor (Accessed 15 June 2018)
Lundahl, E. (2014). Tiny Houses for the Homeless: An Affordable Solution Catches On. Retrieved from
http://www.yesmagazine.org/new-economy/tiny-house-villages-for-the-homeless-an-affordable-solution-c
atches-on?utm_source=YTW&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=20140221 (Accessed 15 June 2018)
Lutz, M. Informelles Leben in Deutschland und den USA. Retrieved from
http://www.academia.edu/18988309/Informelles_Wohnen_in_Deutschland_und_den_USA_-_Ein_Beitrag_
zur_planerischen_Bearbeitung_irregulärer_Wohnformen_I_2015_Raumplanung_Vol._178_2_44-49
(Accessed 15 June 2018)
Neff, M. W. (2011). What research should be done and why?: Four competing visions among ecologists.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(8), 462–469. https://doi.org/10.1890/100035
Neupert, P. (2018). Leben im Tiny House: Ein geeignetes Intrument gegen Wohnungsnot? Wohnungslos,
60(1/18), 14-19.
Ranf, K. (2017). NDR. Nachrichten. Niedersachsen Der 18-jährige Häuslebauer aus dem Wendland. Retrieved
from

https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/niedersachsen/lueneburg_heide_unterelbe/Der-18-jaehrige-Haeuschenbau
er-aus-dem-Wendland,tinyhouse158.html (Accessed 15 June 2018)
Rastogi, A., Hickey, G. M., Badola, R., & Hussain, S. A. (2013). Diverging viewpoints on tiger conservation: A
Q-method study and survey of conservation professionals in India. Biological Conservation, 161, 182–192.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.03.013
Sauve, E. (2017). Minimum Houses for minimum wages: Are Tiny Houses a solutions for low-wage workers?
(Major Research Project). Wilfrid Laurier University. Retrieved from
http://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=brantford_sjce (Accessed 15 June 2018)
Schäfer, A. (2018, June 26). Pachterhöhung um 400 Prozent? Landeszeitung Für Die Lüneburger Heide (LZ).
Schipper, S. (2018). Wohnraum dem Markt entziehen? Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Schmolck, P. (2014). PQ Method. Retrieved from http://schmolck.org/qmethod/downpqwin.htm
Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior. Q-Technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Stephenson, W. (1972). Applications of Communication Theory: II — Interpretations of Keats’ ”Ode on a
Grecian Urn”. The Psychological Record, 22(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03394078
Vervoorts, H. (2017). Tiny Houses: Definition und rechtliche Grundlage der Realisierung am Beispiel von
Dortmund Hörde. Technische Universität Dortmund.
Wallis, A. D. (1991). Wheel estate: the rise and decline of mobile homes. New York, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method and Interpretation / Simon
Watts and Paul Stenner. Los Angeles: SAGE
Wyatt, A. (2014). Rethinking Shelter and Tiny House Communities: Dignity Village, Portland, and Lessons from
San Luis Obispo. ocus, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.15368/focus.2014v11n1.4
Zagata, L. (2010). How organic farmers view their own practice: Results from the Czech Republic. Agriculture
and Human Values, 27(3), 277–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9230-9

Eidesstattliche Erklärung/ Statutory Declaration
Ich versichere, dass ich diese Master-Arbeit selbstständig verfasst und keine anderen als die angegebenen
Quellen und Hilfsmittel benutzt habe. Ich versichere, alle Stellen der Arbeit, die wortwörtlich oder sinngemäß
aus anderen Quellen übernommen wurden, als solche kenntlich gemacht und die Arbeit in gleicher oder
ähnlicher Form noch keiner Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegt zu haben

Lüneburg, 09.07.2018

Tara Lucia Freude