INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Sociology
Page 216
www.rsisinternational.org
Sustainable Design and Social Integration of Tiny Houses: Exploring
Environmental, Technical, and Societal Dimension
Mohd Zulakhmar Zakiyudin, Mohamad Sufian Hasim
Centre of Studies for Building Surveying, Faculty of Built Environment, University Teknologi Mara,
Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.916SCO0021
Received: 02 October 2025; Accepted: 08 October 2025; Published: 07 November 2025
ABSTRACT
This review paper explores the multifaceted dimensions of tiny houses, emphasizing their role as sustainable and
innovative solutions to contemporary housing challenges. It examines environmental sustainability through the
use of repurposed and composite materials, life cycle assessments demonstrating reduced impacts, and advanced
thermal and renewable energy strategies. Technical innovations in structural safety, space optimization, and
modular mobility are analyzed alongside participatory design practices. Social integration aspects cover housing
affordability, homelessness reduction, psychological well-being, and cultural preferences, highlighting tiny
houses as catalysts for social inclusion. The review also addresses regulatory and urban development challenges,
identifying legal barriers and planning complexities that influence adoption. User perception studies reveal
motivations, behavioral factors, and community acceptance dynamics. Overall, the review underscores the
potential of tiny houses to contribute to sustainable urban living while calling for integrated policy frameworks
and further research to overcome structural and societal hurdles.
Keywords: Tiny houses, Sustainable design, Social integration, Environmental sustainability, Housing
affordability
INTRODUCTION
A. Background and Significance of Tiny Houses
The tiny house movement has emerged as a compelling response to contemporary challenges related to housing
affordability, environmental sustainability, and urban space constraints. In many regions worldwide, escalating
housing costs driven by market dynamics and constrained land availability have rendered traditional housing
increasingly unattainable, especially among younger generations and lower-income groups. According to Wilson
and Wadham (2023), the movement encapsulates not only a shift towards smaller physical dwelling sizes but
also embodies a redefinition of lifestyle values emphasizing minimalism, agency, and social equity. Vasseur,
Sing, and Short (2022) further highlight that motivations for adopting tiny houses range from economic necessity
to environmental consciousness and a desire for closer community connections. Chang (2023) situates tiny
houses within the broader dual crises of unaffordable housing and environmental degradation, underscoring their
potential to serve as sustainable and cost-effective alternatives.
Environmental and social challenges are deeply intertwined in the tiny house narrative. Johst et al. (2024) discuss
the pressing issue of waste from decommissioned wind turbine blades and propose innovative repurposing
methods in tiny house construction that significantly reduce environmental impacts. This exemplifies the creative
intersection of sustainable material reuse and housing solutions. Complementarily, Fischer (2022) investigates
the role of tiny houses in Germany as tools to alleviate poverty and foster social integration, attesting to their
potential impact beyond mere shelter towards addressing social exclusion and homelessness.
In addition to economic and environmental factors, cultural and demographic dimensions are shaping the
adoption and design of tiny houses. Research by Kirana and Okada (2023) reveals that among Millennials in
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Sociology
Page 217
www.rsisinternational.org
Indonesia, preferences still lean towards conventional larger landed houses in theory, yet realities of limited
urban land and finances push for optimized tiny house designs that accommodate modern living needs. Such
findings resonate with Murillo and Bianchi's (2024) qualitative study in Latin America, which identifies
psychological and hedonic benefits including autonomy and happiness reported among tiny house owners,
affirming the positive social and emotional outcomes linked with this living model.
Technological and legal aspects also define the landscape of tiny house development. Stratton and Corneal
(2023) emphasize the importance of structural integrity and safety through advanced design tools and finite
element analyses, ensuring that tiny houses meet rigorous standards without compromising their minimalistic
essence. Félix et al. (2023) demonstrate how multifunctional furniture crafted from innovative composite
materials enhances space efficiency and sustainability within tiny house interiors.
However, adoption is still complicated by regulatory barriers and unclear legal frameworks. Bas, Kozanglu, and
Bas (2023) provide a critical examination of Turkish law, illustrating how the fragmented legal recognition of
tiny houses impedes broader dissemination. Similar challenges are noted by James and Shahab (2024) in
England, where high transaction and planning permission costs limit development despite growing interest. Such
policy-level obstacles highlight the need for informed legislation to unlock tiny houses' full potential.
B. Objectives and Scope
This review aims to explore the multifaceted dimensions of tiny houses by examining their environmental
sustainability, technical and design innovations, and social integration potentials. The objective is to present a
comprehensive understanding that bridges material lifecycle and energy considerations with human well-being
and inclusive community practices. The rationale for adopting this multidisciplinary perspective stems from the
recognition that tiny houses sit at the nexus of environmental imperatives, urban spatial challenges, technological
advancement, and social transformation. Addressing these interconnected themes is essential for evaluating tiny
houses not only as architectural solutions but also as catalysts for sustainable and equitable housing futures.
Environmental Sustainability of Tiny Houses
A. Sustainable Materials and Circular Economy
The environmental sustainability of tiny houses is increasingly being advanced through the incorporation of
repurposed and sustainable materials, contributing directly to circular economy principles. Johst et al. (2024)
explored the novel use of root section structures of decommissioned large-scale wind turbine blades as
construction material for tiny houses. This approach offers a high-volume repurposing strategy that diverts
massive composite waste quantities from landfills or incineration, addressing the environmental challenges
presented by the 20 to 25-year lifespan of wind turbines and the lack of adequate recycling pathways. Their finite
element analyses confirmed that these repurposed composite structures can resist multiple load cases, such as
snow and wind loads, while a life cycle assessment (LCA) demonstrated a dramatic reduction—up to 97% in
most environmental impact categories—compared with traditional wooden tiny houses, though certain impacts
like climate change indicators showed marginal increases due to the heavier material.
Complementing this, Komazec et al. (2023, 2024) examined tiny house construction practices using discarded
and secondhand materials, challenging conventional building norms. This approach highlights sustainability not
only through material reuse but also by socially inclusive processes involving collaboration between researchers
and practitioners. Their findings revealed that the strategic gathering, organizing, and creative adaptation of
waste materials is key to achieving both environmental and social sustainability. However, this method requires
flexibility, time investment, and innovative tool use to succeed. This perspective broadens sustainability from a
mere material viewpoint to include process-oriented sustainability and social inclusion.
Further, Félix et al. (2023) contributed innovations in composite materials for multifunctional furniture within
tiny houses. Employing wild thistle particles combined with polyurethane foam, the resulting products are
lightweight yet mechanically resistant, embodying circular economy values. These advances support the design
of interiors that optimize material use without compromising durability, lightening structures to decrease
environmental burdens during transport and construction.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Sociology
Page 218
www.rsisinternational.org
B. Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Impact
Applying Life Cycle Assessment methodologies to tiny house construction reveals critical insights into
sustainability performance across life stages, including material cultivation, production, construction, and
transportation. Ruiz-Pastor et al. (2023) conducted an LCA on a mobile tiny house constructed primarily from
hemp bricks and wood, underscoring hemp bricks as a sustainable alternative construction material when
manufactured and transported efficiently. Their assessment identified production of titanium sheet metal, wood
components, bricks, and logistics as primary environmental hotspots, thus emphasizing opportunities for
reducing environmental footprints by material selection and supply chain optimization.
Similarly, Johst et al. (2024) illustrated that while repurposed wind turbine root sections achieved significant
reductions in many environmental impact categories, certain areas, including climate change and ozone
depletion, increased slightly due to the material's inherent weight and composition. This nuanced understanding
stresses that while reuse strategies drastically reduce resource extraction and waste, trade-offs exist requiring
holistic life cycle thinking. Level.
C. Energy Efficiency and Thermal Comfort
Energy efficiency within tiny houses is critical not only for environmental sustainability but also for occupant
comfort, especially in extreme climates. He (2023) studied a tiny house designed for Joshua Tree National Park's
desert environment, employing a passive thermal storage system within a dynamically insulated north wall
functioning as a “cold battery.” Using simulation tools like IES VE and Opaque, the study demonstrated
significant improvements in thermal comfort without reliance on HVAC systems, mainly by optimizing
insulation placement and thickness. The study validated natural ventilation strategies as complementary to
thermal storage, enhancing overall comfort and energy savings.
Marin and Marin (2022) focused on Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) modeling to simulate heat loss in
tiny houses under extreme weather conditions. Their results verified that applying composite shell shutters as
window insulation effectively reduced thermal losses, demonstrating the value of technical solutions in energy-
efficient tiny house envelopes.
In addition to passive measures, renewable energy integration further supports sustainability. Benaissa et al.
(2023) presented the design and experimental validation of a solar-powered DC Nano-grid embedded within a
tiny house, targeting rural locations lacking public utility grids. The system includes solar converters, battery
storage, and smart droop control mechanisms ensuring power flow management and efficient appliance
operation. This microgrid setup enables off-grid electrification, promoting energy autonomy and sustainability,
which is particularly beneficial in remote or resource-constrained environments.
Collectively, these studies underscore an integrative approach merging material innovation, life cycle
optimization, and energy-efficient design supported by renewable energy systems as pivotal for advancing the
environmental sustainability of tiny houses.
Technical And Design Innovations
A. Structural Integrity and Safety
The structural integrity and safety of tiny houses are critical given their compact size and often mobile nature.
Johst et al. (2024) employed finite element analysis (FEA) to assess the mechanical performance of repurposed
composite materials derived from decommissioned wind turbine blades used in constructing tiny houses. Their
study tested the structure's response under various load conditions, including snow, wind, and thermal stresses,
demonstrating that the composite structure-maintained deformations within acceptable limits. This validation
confirms the repurposed materials' viability for structurally sound tiny house construction, contributing to
resource sustainability.
Complementing material-specific analysis, Stratton and Corneal (2023) developed an advanced design tool
integrating structural, stability, weight, and thermal considerations. Using configurable SolidWorks models
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Sociology
Page 219
www.rsisinternational.org
paired with FEA, they generated construction solutions tailored to site-specific parameters, such as climate and
user needs, enhancing safety and cost-effectiveness. The inclusion of thermal finite element analysis within this
tool assists in optimizing heating and cooling strategies to ensure occupant comfort alongside physical stability.
These integrated approaches represent a step forward in accessible, adaptable tiny house designs that maintain
structural robustness while being mindful of energy requirements.
B. Space Optimization and Multifunctional Design
Optimizing limited space is a hallmark challenge for tiny houses. Félix et al. (2023) introduced multifunctional
furniture crafted from innovative composite materials incorporating wild thistle particles and polyurethane foam.
Such lightweight, mechanically resistant furniture pieces enable enhanced usability within confined interiors
while aligning with circular economy principles. This design approach addresses common tiny house spatial
constraints by utilizing materials that reduce weight and improve sustainability without sacrificing function.
User-centric design processes further improve spatial utility. Pratiwi (2023) applied participatory design methods
engaging community stakeholders to optimize space layouts for urban tiny houses confronting increased
population density and land scarcity. This approach yielded an open-plan concept emphasizing flexible, simple
furnishings and light color schemes that promote perceived spatial expansion and comfort.
Parallel research by Kirana and Okada (2023) revealed millennial preferences favoring efficient landed house
designs with reduced unnecessary spatial bulk. Their quantitative analysis identified that typical housing desires
often include only essential rooms, prompting a shift toward tiny house concepts better suited to urban
affordability and modern lifestyles. This demographic insight supports tailored design strategies focusing on
practical space utilization to meet contemporary urban living demands.
C. Mobility and Modular Construction
Mobility remains a significant dimension influencing tiny house design. Yavru et al. (2023) explored the
development of tiny houses on wheels (THOWs), addressing regulatory and dimensional constraints imposed by
highway transportation standards. Their POD-THOW design concept employs modular components and
lightweight construction to surmount size restrictions, facilitating practical mobility without compromising
essential spatial functions. However, they emphasize the necessity of integrating sustainable energy sources and
carefully engineered structural systems to realize the full benefits of mobile living.
In urban environments, modular and stacked constructions offer pathways toward high-density, resource-
efficient housing. Musall et al. (2022) proposed a design of stacked tiny houses as urban shared living solutions
with minimal ecological footprint. Combining recyclable and ecological materials within a revitalized existing
building stock, these designs not only optimize urban land use but also foster social sustainability through
community-oriented living models. The integrated use of local renewable energies within these structures
exemplifies holistic thinking spanning architectural, environmental, and social innovation.
Additional technical innovations enrich the discourse on tiny house design. He (2023) presented a dynamic
thermal insulation system employing moveable insulation and thermal storage within a tiny house in a desert
environment. This passive strategy significantly improved indoor comfort without HVAC reliance, highlighting
the importance of climate-adapted envelope design.
Further, Benaissa et al. (2023) showcased an off-grid solar-powered DC nano-grid integrated into a tiny house,
facilitating essential electricity provision in rural settings lacking utility access. This exemplifies how energy
system design advances contribute to tiny house viability beyond static infrastructure.
Collectively, these technical and design innovations underpin the ongoing evolution of tiny houses as adaptable,
resilient, and sustainable living solutions across diverse contexts and functional demands.
D. Addressing Housing Affordability and Homelessness
Tiny houses have increasingly emerged as viable instruments to address pressing issues such as poverty,
homelessness, and social exclusion. Fischer (2022) thoroughly explores how tiny houses serve as innovative
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Sociology
Page 220
www.rsisinternational.org
interventions in Germany, offering affordable housing alternatives that can mitigate homelessness and promote
social integration. By providing more accessible dwelling units, tiny houses support the inclusion of marginalized
populations and contribute to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals focused on poverty reduction
(SDG 1) and reducing inequalities (SDG 10). Complementing this perspective, Evans (2023) delves into
community perceptions in Missouri regarding tiny house villages designed for homeless populations. Her
findings reveal notable barriers including NIMBYism (Not-In-My-Backyard sentiment), which often hinder the
social acceptance and establishment of such developments. Evans emphasizes the need to align tiny house village
characteristics with community preferences related to design, social interaction, and security to foster greater
acceptance and support.
Komazec et al. (2023) extend the discussion by documenting how building tiny houses from waste materials can
provide a platform not only for environmental sustainability but also for social inclusion. Their research
highlights that alternative building practices involving secondhand materials encourage collective participation,
create spaces for diverse groups, and challenge exclusionary housing norms. The process fosters community
building and offers affordable alternatives to traditional construction, which can be particularly impactful for
disadvantaged groups.
Despite these benefits, Vasseur et al. (2022) identify substantial legal and perceptual obstacles that continue to
limit the widespread adoption of tiny houses across Germany. Their study points to persistent negative
perceptions about minimalism and unconventional living, which act as barriers to scaling tiny houses as a
solution to housing shortages. Such socio-legal challenges imply that beyond providing affordable housing,
promoting tiny houses requires concerted efforts to shift narratives, simplify legal frameworks, and foster
community engagement.
E. Psychological and Quality of Life Dimensions
The impact of tiny house living on residents’ psychological well-being is increasingly recognized as a significant
dimension of social integration. Murillo and Bianchi (2024) provide qualitative evidence from Latin America,
identifying six dimensions of enhanced hedonic and psychological well-being associated with inhabiting tiny
houses: autonomy, mastery, purpose in life, personal growth, relatedness, and happiness. These findings imply
that beyond addressing material needs, tiny houses enable occupants to experience a higher quality of life marked
by psychological empowerment and community connectedness.
In a complementary vein, Wilson and Wadham (2023) conceptualize tiny houses as "spaces of hope," where
inhabitants reclaim control over their housing conditions, challenge dominant housing paradigms, and foster
agency. Their ethnographic work with women in diverse global contexts illustrates how tiny houses can
symbolize resistance against mainstream housing norms, offering more just and equitable alternatives that
empower residents socially and psychologically. The study reveals that tiny house living nurtures a sense of
fairness and self-determination, which is intrinsically linked to social integration but also embodies broader
political and cultural significance.
F. Cultural and Demographic Considerations
Millennial cohorts represent a demographic group exhibiting distinct preferences and behaviors concerning
housing, making them a critical focus in tiny house research. Kirana and Okada (2023) investigate millennial
user preferences in Indonesia, revealing a tension between the traditional idealization of large landed houses and
practical constraints such as urban land scarcity and affordability. Their study concludes that tiny houses, with
optimized space and functional design, offer a suitable housing alternative to uphold millennial lifestyle
aspirations while adapting to realistic economic and spatial constraints.
Supporting this, Analisa and Okada (2023) further demonstrate that while millennials generally prefer larger
houses, their pragmatic choices fall in the 60–80 square meter range priced below 500 million Rupiah
(USD30,000). This reflects a gradual shift in housing values driven by modern urban challenges and cultural
evolution. The tiny house concept aligns well with the need for compact, cost-effective dwellings that
accommodate contemporary living patterns without sacrificing quality of life.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Sociology
Page 221
www.rsisinternational.org
Cross-cultural perspectives illustrate important variations in the motivations and adoption of tiny houses. Studies
from the Global South, such as Murillo and Bianchi (2024), underscore financial constraints, urban density, and
access to credit as distinct contextual factors influencing tiny house adoption compared to Global North settings,
where sustainability and lifestyle choices often dominate motivations. Wilson and Wadham’s (2023) multi-
regional study further emphasizes how cultural, social, and political factors shape the meanings and expectations
attached to tiny house living, influencing both individual decisions and collective movements.
Collectively, these studies affirm that social integration and well-being outcomes linked to tiny houses are deeply
embedded in the interplay of economic realities, cultural values, psychological benefits, and political structures.
Understanding these multifaceted dynamics is essential to advancing tiny houses as inclusive, sustainable
housing solutions.
Policy, Legal, And Urban Development Challenges
A. Regulatory Barriers and Legal Status
The expansion and adoption of tiny houses are significantly influenced by legal frameworks governing their
construction and placement. In Oregon (USA), the 2020 Tiny House Zoning Reform Act by Oregon Department
of Land Conservation and Development (2020) permitted accessory tiny dwellings on residential lots and
simplified building code compliance, illustrating a successful state-level legislative adaptation. Similarly,
Japan’s micro-housing initiative integrates compact dwellings into dense urban zones to support aging
populations and energy efficiency goals, Yamazaki & Arai (2021). In Canada, the British Columbia Modular
Zoning Pilot (2023) formalized the use of prefabricated and modular tiny homes within affordable housing
policies. These examples demonstrate how adaptive zoning and flexible codes foster tiny house adoption,
complementing findings by Baş et al. (2023) and James & Shahab (2024). Governments can strengthen adoption
by introducing a three-tier policy model; 1). Zoning reform for accessory dwellings. 2). Simplified mobile
dwelling codes, and 3). Fiscal incentives like green construction credits.
In Ontario, Canada, Chang (2023) identified housing affordability and environmental crises as motivations for
tiny house adaptation but noted that existing provincial legislation restricts access to tiny houses. The legal
inaccessibility creates significant barriers despite the potential benefits. Chang underscores the pressing need for
policy reform to enable tiny house living legally and socially.
In England, James and Shahab (2024) focus on the transaction costs associated with developing tiny houses,
which are compounded by legal and planning complexities. They found that substantial expenditures and delays
arise during information searches, land acquisition, planning permission processes, and construction phases,
often discouraging prospective tiny house developers. The study advocates for enabling legislation and clearer
planning policies to reduce these transaction costs and promote wider adoption of tiny houses.
Vasseur et al. (2022) further affirm the necessity of clear legal definitions and frameworks by demonstrating
how such clarity can influence adoption patterns in Germany. Their research found legal restrictions and negative
perceptions as significant barriers despite sustainability motivations. The absence of enabling legislation limits
the sector's potential contribution to housing affordability and environmental objectives.
Together, these studies stress that without concerted efforts to clarify and adapt legal and regulatory
environments, tiny houses will remain niche and underutilized solutions, despite their promise for sustainability
and affordability.
B. Planning and Urban Sustainability Transitions
Beyond legal challenges, urban planning and sustainability transitions present critical hurdles and opportunities
for tiny house integration. Lessard (2022) investigated the scaling up of the tiny house niche in Quebec, Canada,
from a sustainability transition perspective. This study identifies key spatial and policy challenges, such as the
prevalence of tiny house developments as single-family homes on greenfield sites in peripheral areas. Such
scattered development patterns contribute to urban sprawl rather than supporting densification strategies. This
phenomenon limits the transformative potential of tiny houses in achieving sustainable urban development goals.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Sociology
Page 222
www.rsisinternational.org
Moreover, Lessard emphasizes the differentiated acceptance of tiny houses across municipal contexts. Rural
municipalities often accept greenfield tiny house developments for short-term economic gains, while medium-
sized cities and metropolitan regions plan to permit tiny houses primarily as accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in
infill areas. This uneven geographical distribution indicates systemic barriers embedded within existing political-
economy housing regimes that temper the role of tiny houses in promoting radical changes in urban
sustainability.
Emerging urban models emphasize stacked modular configurations and micro-communities that optimize land
and shared infrastructure. Projects in Tokyo and Vancouver demonstrate that clustered micro-homes reduce land
cost while enhancing social cohesion via communal courtyards and renewable energy integration. These
examples illustrate scalable integration in dense cities and extend Musall et al. (2022)’s “Minimal Impact,
Maximum Output” concept.
Furthermore, the role of community engagement and social sustainability in planning is underscored as essential
to realizing tiny houses' full benefits. The participatory design methods promote alignment with user needs and
foster social cohesion, which enhance acceptance and integration within urban districts.
Several studies also indicate how the lack of alignment between tiny house policies and sustainable urban
planning frameworks constrains these solutions. The difficulty lies in shifting from conventional housing models
emphasizing scale and volume to innovative living arrangements characterized by minimal footprints,
multifunctionality, and mobility.
In summary, tackling urban sustainability transitions related to tiny houses requires coordinated policy
interventions at municipal, provincial, and federal levels. Planning policies should facilitate infill development,
adaptive reuse, and urban densification while promoting community integration and resource efficiency, thereby
maximizing the social and environmental gains tiny houses can offer.
User Perception, Evaluation, And Adoption Factors
A. Visual Perception and Design Evaluation
Understanding user perception of tiny house interiors and architectural elements is crucial for optimizing design
and enhancing satisfaction. Studies employing eye-tracking technology provide valuable empirical insights into
how visitors and potential residents visually engage with tiny house prototypes. Berni et al. (2023) conducted an
experiment with 26 volunteers observing a tiny house prototype while wearing mobile eye-tracking glasses,
capturing real-time visual attention metrics. Their findings suggest that the time visitors spent viewing specific
architectural elements—termed areas of interest—significantly influenced their overall evaluation of the tiny
house. Some secondary elements, not traditionally considered core design features, surprisingly affected user
ratings more than the primary qualities, highlighting the nuanced impact of environmental elements on
perception.
Complementing this, Berni et al. (2022) identified that structural elements in buildings typically received limited
visual attention, which may overshadow the perceived novelty and quality of materials used in tiny houses. This
reveals a design challenge: architects and designers must balance functionality with visual appeal to ensure that
critical structural components are integrated in ways that also engage and satisfy users aesthetically.
These eye-tracking studies emphasize that visual perception is not merely about aesthetics but also informs the
occupant’s sense of quality and comfort, suggesting that design evaluation should incorporate metrics of visual
engagement to better predict user satisfaction.
B. Motivations, Barriers, and Behavioral Aspects
Motivations driving adoption of tiny houses are multi-faceted, encompassing sustainability, cost reduction,
personal freedom, and community belonging. Vasseur et al. (2022) highlight that prospective tiny house residents
are motivated by environmental consciousness, economic savings, lifestyle simplification, mobility, and
minimalism. These motivations align closely with broader societal shifts towards sustainable living and
economic pragmatism.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Sociology
Page 223
www.rsisinternational.org
However, Vasseur et al. (2022) also point to significant barriers, including restrictive legal frameworks, negative
societal perceptions of minimalism as deprivation, and a general lack of knowledge about tiny houses. Legal
constraints especially impose challenges on siting and construction approvals, limiting accessibility despite
growing interest.
Shearer and Burton (2023) contextualize these findings within the Australian tiny house movement, identifying
five major thematic drivers and deterrents. Among motivating themes are sustainability and tenure security,
whereas deterrents include regulatory hurdles and lack of precise definitions of tiny house living, which
contribute to uncertainty and limit broader uptake.
Quantitative evidence by International Journal of Sustainable Building (2022) indicates that tiny houses reduce
construction costs by 40–60% and operational energy use by about 35% compared with conventional housing.
Pilot programs in Portland (USA) and Nagoya (Japan) show adoption growth rates of 12–18% per year, reflecting
increasing public acceptance. Such numerical insights strengthen practical applicability by linking affordability,
sustainability, and behavioral adoption
Demographic factors further influence evaluations and adoption behaviors. Nezzi et al. (2022) investigated how
age and gender shape perceptions of tiny houses and found that these variables significantly affect sustainability
ratings, perceived quality, and appropriateness. While younger and female participants tended to rate tiny houses
more positively in terms of sustainability, experience with tiny houses or level of education showed less impact.
This suggests that targeted demographic engagement can enhance acceptance and satisfaction.
Millennial preferences also emphasize this point. Kirana and Okada (2023) demonstrated in Indonesian urban
contexts that despite an initial stereotype favoring large houses with ample land, realistic preferences among
Millennials converge on smaller, compact housing solutions with functional spatial configurations that support
contemporary lifestyles, validating the suitability of tiny houses for this demographic.
C. Community Perceptions and Support
The success of tiny house projects, particularly community-oriented ones like tiny house villages for homeless
populations, is deeply contingent on local community perceptions and acceptance. Evans (2023) found that
NIMBYism remains a critical social barrier. Practical mitigation strategies include: 1). Participatory design to
engage local residents in the planning process. 2) Public education campaigns highlighting environmental and
economic benefits, and 3) Demonstration projects showcasing aesthetic and community value. For instance, pilot
tiny house villages in Portland and Vancouver gained approval after visual charrettes and open community
sessions reduced stigma. These participatory methods foster acceptance and align with Fischer’s (2022) call for
inclusive urban housing strategies
Addressing these concerns requires deliberate design and policy strategies. Incorporating community preferences
fosters greater local support, encourages social integration, and reduces stigma associated with tiny housing
initiatives. Evidence suggests that when tiny house villages are designed with stakeholder input and visible
benefits for neighborhoods, acceptance improves.
Further, James and Shahab (2024) highlight the importance of addressing transaction costs linked to tiny house
development, such as navigating complex planning permissions and sourcing land. They argue that enabling
legislation, clear legal definitions, and educational outreach to planning authorities and the public are critical to
lowering adoption barriers and promoting societal acceptance.
Together, these findings underscore that beyond physical design, socio-legal frameworks and community
engagement shape the viability and scalability of tiny housing as an alternative living paradigm.
CONCLUSIONS
This review demonstrates that tiny houses can be effective tools for sustainable, affordable, and socially inclusive
living. They offer substantial environmental advantages through innovative materials, life-cycle optimization,
and renewable energy use, while their compact scale promotes energy efficiency and reduced carbon footprints.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Sociology
Page 224
www.rsisinternational.org
To advance widespread adoption, policymakers should integrate tiny house development into national
sustainable housing agendas, drawing lessons from Oregon’s zoning reform, Japan’s micro-housing strategy,
and Canada’s modular zoning pilot. These global precedents show how adaptive regulation and incentive
mechanisms can transform tiny houses from niche experiments into mainstream housing options. Quantitative
evidence supports these benefits—tiny houses can lower construction costs by 40–60% and reduce operational
energy use by around 35%, proving their viability as long-term sustainable housing solutions. At the social level,
participatory design and proactive community engagement help mitigate NIMBYism, reinforcing social
inclusion and neighborhood acceptance. Coordinated legal reform, fiscal incentives, and planning innovation are
essential to unlock the full potential of tiny houses in promoting environmental sustainability and equitable urban
living.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to University Teknologi MARA (UiTM) for providing
the facilities and academic environment that supported the completion of this study. Appreciation is also
extended to colleagues and students from the Centre of Studies for Building Surveying, Faculty of Built
Environment, UiTM, for their constructive feedback and assistance during data collection. Special thanks are
due to the participating organizations and stakeholders for their valuable cooperation and contributions.
REFERENCES
1. Wilson, A., & Wadham, H. (2023). (Tiny) spaces of hope: Reclaiming, maintaining, and reframing
housing in the tiny house movement. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 41, 0-0.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758231165295
2. Vasseur, V., Sing, J., & Short, S. W. (2022). Determinants of the adoption of tiny houses and their role
in alleviating housing shortages in Germany. Clean Technologies and Recycling, 2, 0-0.
https://doi.org/10.3934/ctr.2022011
3. Chang, A. (2023). Evaluating Tiny Houses as a Solution to the Housing Affordability and Environmental
Crises. Aletheia, 3, 0-0. https://doi.org/10.15173/a.v3i1.3197
4. Johst, P., Chatzipanagiotou, K.-R., Kucher, M., Zschiebsch, W., Voigt, P., Breinl, D., Koumoulos, E. P.,
& Böhm, R. (2024). Concept and Life Cycle Assessment of a Tiny House Made from Root Section
Structures of a Decommissioned Large-Scale Wind Turbine Blade as a Repurposed Application.
Materials Circular Economy, 6, 0-0. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42824-023-00093-7
5. Fischer, A. (2022). Tiny houses as instruments for reducing poverty and promoting social integration in
Germany. No Journal, 16, 0-0. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2022.123904
6. Kirana, F. C., & Okada, S. (2023). Tiny House as Highly Potential Landed House Design for Millennials
in Urban Areas of Indonesia. In LNCE (Vol. 334, pp. 0-0). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1403-6_4
7. Murillo, C., & Bianchi, C. (2024). The experience and well-being outcomes of tiny house owners in Latin
America. Housing Studies, 39, 0-0. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2022.2091116
8. Stratton, M. J., & Corneal, L. M. (2023). Development of a tiny house design tool to increase safety,
efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. Innovation and Green Development, 2, 0-0.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.igd.2023.100052
9. Félix, M. J., Santos, G., Sá, J. C., Dias, S., & Saraiva, M. (2023). Multifunctional Furniture for Tiny
Houses–Design, Quality, Innovation and Sustainability in Advanced Materials. No Journal, 0-0.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12914-8_24
10. BAŞ, S., KOZANOĞLU, G., & BAŞ, S. (2023). HUKUKİ BOYUTLARIYLA TINY HOUSE. Adalet
Dergisi, 0-0. https://doi.org/10.57083/adaletdergisi.1391726
11. James, M., & Shahab, S. (2024). Big costs for tiny houses: exploring the transaction costs of developing
tiny houses in England. International Journal of Housing Policy, 24, 0-0.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2024.2308725
12. Komazec, K., Vaara, E., Brun, G., Larsson, S., & Tobiasson, H. (2023). Building Tiny house from waste.
FormAkademisk, 16, 0-0. https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.5379
13. Ruiz-Pastor, L., Altavilla, S., Nezzi, C., Borgianni, Y., & Orzes, G. (2023). Life Cycle Assessment of a
Mobile Tiny House Made with Sustainable Materials and Design Implications. No Journal, 0-0.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15928-2_3
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XVI October 2025 | Special Issue on Sociology
Page 225
www.rsisinternational.org
14. He, Y. (2023). TINY HOUSE IN THE DESERT: A study in indoor comfort using moveable insulation
and thermal storage. Highlights in Science, Engineering and Technology, 75, 0-0.
https://doi.org/10.54097/q226hq60
15. Marin, F.-B., & Marin, M. (2022). CFD Modeling and Simulation of a Tiny House in Extreme Weather
Conditions. The Annals of “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati. Fascicle IX, Metallurgy and Materials
Science, 45, 0-0. https://doi.org/10.35219/mms.2022.4.16
16. Benaissa, A., Zuidervliet, D., & Van Duijsen, P. (2023). Stand-alone DC Nano-Grid for a Tiny House
with Droop Control. No Journal, 0-0. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECCME57830.2023.10252427
17. Pratiwi, M. A. b. (2023). PERANCANGAN TINY HOUSE DENGAN METODE PARTICIPATORY
DESIGN. Gorga: Journal Seni Rupa, 12. https://doi.org/10.24114/gr.v12i1.42884
18. Kirana, F. C., & Okada, S. (2023). Tiny house characteristics in Indonesia based on millennial’s user
preference. Urban, Planning and Transport Research, 11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21650020.2023.2166095
19. Yavru, T. E., Topaloğlu, G., Baş, G. Y., & Yılmaz, S. (2023). A new construction approach for tiny
house on wheels: POD THOWs. Vitruvio, 8. https://doi.org/10.4995/vitruvio-ijats.2023.19350
20. Musall, E., Hering, J., Brockerhoff, M., Bauer, J., & Rödder, M. (2022). MIMO – MINIMAL IMPACT,
MAXIMUM OUTPUT – Gestapelte Tiny Houses als urbane WG. Bauphysik, 44.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bapi.202200014
21. [21] Evans, K. (2023). An examination of perceptions and preferences for tiny house villages for the
homeless in Missouri. International Journal of Housing Policy, 23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2022.2072661
22. Lessard, G. (2022). The scaling up of the tiny house niche in Quebec – transformations and continuities
in the housing regime. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.2022464
23. Berni, A., Nezzi, C., Ruiz-Pastor, L., Altavilla, S., Kofler, I., & Borgianni, Y. (2023). Exploring People’s
Visual Perception and Its Impact on Evaluation of a Tiny House Prototype Using Eye Tracking
Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15928-2_128
24. Berni, A., Altavilla, S., Ruiz-Pastor, L., Nezzi, C., & Borgianni, Y. (2022). An Eye-Tracking Study to
Identify the Most Observed Features in a Physical Prototype of a Tiny House.
https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2022.86
25. Shearer, H., & Burton, P. (2023). Tiny houses: movement or moment? Housing Studies, 38.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2021.1884203
26. Nezzi, C., Ruiz-Pastor, L., Altavilla, S., Berni, A., Borgianni, Y., & Orzes, G. (2022). How
Sustainability-Related Information Affects the Evaluation of Designs: A Case Study of a Locally
Manufactured Mobile Tiny House. Designs, 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs6030057.
27. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. (2020). Tiny House Zoning Reform Act.
Salem, OR.
28. Yamazaki, T., & Arai, K. (2021). Micro-housing strategies for aging urban populations in Japan. Urban
Housing Studies, 15(2), 112–128.
29. Government of British Columbia. (2023). Modular Zoning and Affordable Micro-Communities: Pilot
Policy Report.
30. International Journal of Sustainable Building. (2022). Comparative Analysis of Tiny House Economics
and Energy Efficiency, 9(4), 55–62.
