Dreaming big and living small: examining motivations and satisfaction in tiny house living

  • Lauren M. Boeckermann
  • Andrew T. Kaczynski
  • Sarah B. King


In America, the average house size has increased from 1660 to 2596 ft2 from 1973 to 2013 with home prices rising to more than nine times the average price in 1970. Additionally, the increase in urban sprawl and city dwelling has caused a 50% increase in the negative environmental impact of housing since the 1950s. Given these concerns, many people have reevaluated their needs and desires leading to the tiny house movement. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to examine tiny house dwellers’ motivations and understanding whether they are correlated to tiny house satisfaction. The Tiny House Community Survey was an online survey to assesses tiny house residents’ motivations for living tiny through seven diverse items (e.g., simpler life, sustainability, cost, etc.). Overall tiny house satisfaction was also measured by asking if the respondent was satisfied with his or her tiny house, captured on a five-point scale. Descriptive and multivariate analyses within SPSS 22.0 compared the motivations of tiny house dwellers according to a variety of socio-demographic and structural factors (e.g., gender, location, house size). Decreased costs, a simplified lifestyle, and increased freedom were salient motivations for more than half of the surveyed population. In examining the association between motivations and housing satisfaction, a simplified lifestyle was the only motivation held by respondents with significant relationship. Increased knowledge regarding tiny homes and their impact could help overcome some of the challenges faced by the tiny house community such as lack of awareness, legality concerns, and financing opportunities.


Built environment Environment Housing Housing satisfaction Motivation Sustainability Tiny house Tiny house community 



Funding was received by the South Carolina Honors College.


  1. Beam, J. P. (2015, August). Tiny house, big rewards? University of Texas. Accessed 10 Oct 2016.
  2. Conley, M., McBride, K., & McIlhoney, S. (2015, October). Tiny house communities: The next big thing? Student Publications. Accessed 10 Oct 2016.
  3. Hu, F. (2013). Homeownership and subjective wellbeing in urban China: Does owning a house make you happier? Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 951–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Huang, Z., Du, X., & Yu, X. (2015). Home ownership and residential satisfaction: Evidence from Hangzhou, China. Habitat International, 49, 74–83. Scholar
  5. Levy-Leboyer, C. (1993). The need for space and residential satisfaction. Architecture & Behaviour, 9(4), 475–490.Google Scholar
  6. Lu, M. (1999). Determinants of residential satisfaction: Ordered logit vs. regression models. Growth and Change, 30(2), 264–287. Scholar
  7. Mingoya, C. (2015, June). Building together. Tiny house villages for the homeless: A comparative case study. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Accessed 10 Oct 2016.
  8. Murphy, M. (2014). Tiny houses as appropriate technology. Communities, 165(Winter), 54–59.Google Scholar
  9. Mutter, A. (2013). Growing tiny houses: Motivations and opportunities for expansion through niche markets. Lund University. Accessed 10 Oct 2016.
  10. Peck, C., & Kay Stewart, K. (1985). Satisfaction with housing and quality of life. Home Economics Research Journal, 13(4), 363–372. Scholar
  11. Pekkonen, M., & Haverinen-Shaughnessy, U. (2015). Housing satisfaction in Finland with regard to area, dwelling type and tenure status. Central European Journal of Public Health, 23(4), 314–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pflaumer, D. H. (2015, May). Tiny house handbook. Ball State University. Accessed 10 Oct 2016.
  13. Rérat, P. (2012). Housing, the compact city and sustainable development: Some insights from recent urban trends in Switzerland. International Journal of Housing Policy, 12(2), 115–136. Scholar
  14. Sirgy, M. J., Grzeskowiak, S., & Su, C. (2005). Explaining housing preference and choice: The role of self-congruity and functional congruity. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20(4), 329–347. Scholar
  15. Swope, C. (2006). Giving shelter: Housing the homeless in restored San Francisco hotels. Preservation, 58(2), 12–13.Google Scholar
  16. Wilson, A., & Boehland, J. (2005). Small is beautiful: U.S. house size, resource use, and the environment. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(1/2), 277–287. Scholar
  17. US Census Bureau MCD. (2013). Characteristics of New Housing. Accessed 10 Oct 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren M. Boeckermann
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrew T. Kaczynski
    • 1
  • Sarah B. King
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public HealthUniversity of South CarolinaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Master of Public Health Program, Department of Environmental HealthUniversity of Cincinnati College of MedicineCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations