HOUSING, THEORY AND SOCIETY

2019, VOL. 36, NO. 3, 298–318

https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2018.1487879

ARTICLE

Towards a Typology of Tiny Houses

Heather Shearer and Paul Burton
Cities Research Institute, Southport, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The emergent tiny house movement is gaining momentum glob- Received 21 November 2017
ally, in the United States where it originated, and in countries such Accepted 8 June 2018
as Australia. Little scholarly research exists on the tiny house KEYWORDS
movement, with most information limited to social and popular Tiny houses; housing
media. Moreover, there is limited information on the definition of affordability; urban
a tiny house. As an important first step in bringing a more scho- consolidation; sustainable
larly focus, this article presents a typology of tiny houses; what is a construction; community
tiny house and what defining characteristics allow a tiny dwelling
to be considered a tiny house? This study involved an analysis of
social media, face to face interviews with key protagonists and a
questionnaire survey, to establish a preliminary classification of
tiny houses. We aimed to place the movement in its wider context,
and establish a foundation for future research into the move-
ment's potential to trigger positive economic and environmental
change towards more sustainable urban environments.

Introduction
The housing affordability “crisis” is a pressing problem in many countries, and the
continued rise in house prices is seemingly resistant to any number of policy interven-
tions. A related issue is the increasing size of many newly constructed detached houses.
In many countries, large houses are generally limited to the wealthiest sectors of society,
but in countries such as the United States of America and Australia, very large houses
are more commonplace among the middle classes. However, these large and expensive
houses are unsustainable in many ways; socially, economically and environmentally. In
contrast, the tiny house movement promotes the philosophy that small is beautiful,
small is more sustainable, and smaller is a pathway to greater affordability. But are tiny
houses just another niche market with limited potential to be scaled-up to make a
significant impact on affordability and sustainable living for the population as a whole?
While there is no widely accepted definition of a tiny house, a common starting point
is to ask: is it merely a case of being smaller than a certain size? In which case, is an
apartment, even if very small, considered a tiny house? Theoretically, yes, but most tiny
house advocates disagree. If the criteria are something other than mere size, what
exactly is a tiny house, in terms of the tiny house movement?

CONTACT Heather Shearer h.shearer@griffith.edu.au Cities Research Institute, Building G51, Griffith University
Gold Coast Campus, Southport, 4222, Australia
© 2018 IBF, The Institute for Housing and Urban Research
 HOUSING, THEORY AND SOCIETY 299

Given the current fluid definition of a tiny house, we believe it is useful to have a
working definition to guide future research. Tiny houses cover a fairly broad spectrum,
so devising a typology is a useful way to begin describing and analysing the phenom-
enon. This article aims therefore to establish a lineage and categorization of tiny dwell-
ings in Australia, as well as describe how the motivation of those wishing to build or live
in such a dwelling can differ markedly according to the type of tiny house. Also
considered is the question of whether this is an individualistic or community movement;
to what extent do tiny house dwellers wish to live alone in their tiny house, or with
others in a tiny house community?
The article is structured as follows: it reports on the issues of large house sizes and
unaffordability, and then discusses the tiny house movement in greater detail, focussing
on the United States and Australia, two countries where the movement is well devel-
oped. In the Results and Discussion section, the different characteristics of tiny houses,
such as size, design and mobility are further discussed, and a tentative tiny house
typology is presented and discussed. The article concludes that there is a need for
further research into many aspects of the tiny house movement, given the relative
dearth of scholarly study to date.

Our Big, Expensive Houses

The vast majority of humans have always lived in small dwellings, and these remain the
norm in most of the world, including Asia, Africa and the European Union (EU). In
contrast, some countries, predominately the Anglophone ex-colonies of the United
Kingdom, such as Australia, the United States and Canada, are characterized by sub-
urban sprawl, mostly large detached houses with a big backyard (Hall 2010). Australia,
for example, has some of the largest houses among Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) member countries, with house sizes increasing
nearly 20% over the past two decades, and new houses currently averaging around
241 m2 (Cox and Pavletich 2015, 2009; Milligan et al. 2017; Worthington 2012; Yates and
Gabriel 2006). The United States is similar, with average house sizes increasing 61% from
the early 1970s (ICC 2017). Concomitant with the increase in house size has been
decreases in household size. In Australia and the United States, mean house size in
the 1950s was around 90 m2 and the average household size was 3.6, whereas in 2011,
house sizes were around 241 m2 and household sizes were 2.5, with approximately four
times as much space per person in 2011.
Related to house size is housing affordability, and all major Australian housing markets are
ranked as severely to extremely unaffordable (Worthington 2012; Cox and Pavletich 2015).
The median house price in the most unaffordable market, Sydney, is now approaching A$118
million (Domain 2017). A decline in housing affordability is also a characteristic of the other
Anglophone ex-colonies (Cox and Pavletich 2015; Berry et al. 2006; Yates 2008).
There are multiple, complex and interrelated reasons for the continued rise in house
prices, hence it is often considered a “wicked problem” with no simple solution (Walter and
Holbrook 2015). The scholarly consensus views housing unaffordability as the product of a
combination of factors: on the demand side, population growth and in-migration to urban
areas, spatially concentrated demand, easily accessible housing finance, tax incentives such
as negative gearing, and a “strong cultural preference for owner-occupied detached
300 H. SHEARER AND P. BURTON

houses” (Worthington 2012; Milligan et al. 2017; Pawson, Hulse, and Cheshire 2015; Cox and
Pavletich 2015; Yates 2008); and on the supply side, increase in land costs, a lack of
infrastructure, and time consuming and inefficient planning processes and development
assessment procedures (Worthington 2012; Milligan et al. 2017; Pawson, Hulse, and
Cheshire 2015; Cox and Pavletich 2015; Yates 2008).
Large and unaffordable housing can have significant negative consequences for
urban areas, for general economic growth as well as environmental impacts (Xue
2012). From an economic perspective, it can exacerbate polarization, with the affluent
living in the desirable inner city suburbs, and the less affluent in more remote suburbs.
One consequence is that “essential workers”, such as healthcare workers, teachers, and
public transport drivers, are faced with lengthy commutes into the city (Yates and
Gabriel 2006; Randolph and Holloway 2005; Dodson and Sipe 2008).
From an environmental perspective, housing is a significant contributor to green-
house gas (GHG) emissions, second only to transportation (Jones and Kammen 2011;
Carlin 2014). Generally speaking, the larger the home, the greater its resource use in
construction, operation and maintenance (Carlin 2014; Wentz and Gober 2007; Wilson
and Boehland 2008). Building construction uses a significant proportion of non-renew-
able resources, such as fossil fuels, hardwood timber, concrete etc. Heating and cooling
buildings also contributes to GHG emissions as well as increased household water use
(Wentz and Gober 2007). The long-term climate impact of unsustainable housing is
exacerbated by workers moving to the outer suburbs with inadequate public transport,
with increased private vehicle use adding to GHG emissions, and fragmentation of the
landscape and land clearing (Dodson and Sipe 2008). Clearly, reducing both the size and
the cost of houses can save significant resources and energy, and combined with
increasing density closer to the Central Business District (CBD), could reduce emissions
from private vehicle use.
The majority of governments in Australia, at all levels, promote urban densification
policies aimed at consolidating urban settlements into a smaller footprint, reducing
resource use and encouraging public transport use. In response to these strategies, and
also to the cost of land and changing demographic makeup, a wider variety of house
types have emerged. These include low- and high-rise apartments, semi-detached
properties and townhouses. Nonetheless, the dominant housing type in most
Australian urban areas remains the detached house, with for example, Brisbane having
approximately76% detached houses (ABS 2017). High levels of urban sprawl are not
unique to Australia of course, such morphologies are characteristic of many cities in the
United States, Canada and New Zealand, and even some EU cities (Oueslati, Alvanides,
and Garrod 2015).

The Tiny House Movement

It is important to differentiate between the tiny house movement and tiny houses, the
typology of which is the subject of this article. In the United States, the trend towards smaller
homes began as far back as the 1850s as a counter-cultural response to conspicuous
consumerism, a search for “freedom” and individualism and a desire to live more simply
(Anson 2014). The trend to smaller dwellings was influenced by writers such as Thoreau, the
post-war houses of the 1940s, Frank Lloyd Wright with his “Natural House” in the 1950s and
 HOUSING, THEORY AND SOCIETY 301

the environmental movement of the 1960s (Bares et al. 2017; Anson 2014; Carlin 2014;
Diguette 2017). The publication of the books, Shelter (Kahn 2000) and The Not So Big
House (Susanka 1998) were also influential.
Likewise, the tiny house on wheels trope is often stated as originating in the United
States in the late 1990s, but this is incorrect (Anson 2014). Living in small wheeled
dwellings was historically common in many nations, for example, the Vardo or Gypsy
wagon originated in Europe in the 1500s. Mobile or house trucks emerged in the late
1800s, as did the establishment of mobile home (trailer) parks. Unlike the popular tiny
houses of today however, people living in these tiny mobile dwellings are not viewed as
a “trendy” rebels against consumerism, but often stigmatized and referred to by pejora-
tive terms such as “trailer trash”. In Australia, small footprint dwellings have in some
debates, been portrayed (erroneously) as precursors of slums or as “shacks”.
Beginning in the 1990s, the middle classes started to experience the consequences of
the Reagan and Thatcher neo-liberal economic policies and the deregulation of the
housing finance market. This led to increasing income disparity, rapidly rising house
prices and a decrease in employment (Hodkinson and Robbins 2012; Yates and Berry
2011). This economic environment was an ideal incubator for change. Jay Schafer’s
creation of the Tumbleweed Tiny House Company in 1998, for example was highly
influential in the popularization of the contemporary tiny house movement, and the rise
of dedicated tiny house builders.
The tiny houses built in the 1990s were typically around 37 m2 (400 ft2), and mobile,
on trailer bases. With the exception of those built by tiny house builders, they were
constructed and inhabited by the same people and used as primary dwellings. These
mobile tiny houses originated less from a desire to travel, as in caravanning, than a
response to restrictive planning laws, such as mandatory consumption laws which
required minimum room and house sizes, connection to utilities and of course, owner-
ship of land (Mutter 2013; Wilson and Boehland 2008). Tiny house advocates often
strongly affirm desires for freedom, independence, to be off the grid, to minimize
possessions and to be environmentally sustainable (Wilson and Boehland 2008; Carlin
2014). Tiny houses arguably are a response of privileged, mostly white, middle class
people to housing affordability, economic insecurity and an unwillingness to live in
“unattractive trailer parks” because of perceived social stigma (Anson 2014). Tiny houses
are seen as more aesthetically desirable and thus popular on social media like Facebook
and Instagram. Apparently in direct opposition to the conspicuous consumption of the
McMansion1 and the economic excesses of the late 20th Century, they are still essen-
tially, middle class (Anson 2014). Conversely, the rise of the tiny house movement in the
middle classes, could be seen as “. . .examples of resistance and counter resistance to
contemporary practices of the state and the genesis of alternative strategies for housing
policy” (Jacobs and Manzi 2013, 221).
The dominance of tiny houses in Anglophone, former colonies of the United Kingdom
is likely due to a number of interrelated factors, including high levels of unaffordable
housing, low population densities, greater amounts of vacant land, the expectation of a
“backyard” as part of a suburban good life, and planning systems that constrain land
development (Cox and Pavletich 2015; Yates and Berry 2011; Monk et al. 2013; Gurran
and Whitehead 2011). Countries such as Australia and the United States originally based
their urban planning regulations on those of the United Kingdom, but they diverged to
302 H. SHEARER AND P. BURTON

become more market and efficiency based, with strong pressure to constrain the release
of land for development. This benefits existing landowners and large developers who
practice land banking (Gurran and Whitehead 2011; Coiacetto 2007). Additional drivers
for larger houses include market deregulation and access to easy housing finance. These
factors were responsible for growth in house size and conversely, the rise of the tiny
house movement as a push-back.
Tiny houses are also becoming popular in non-English speaking countries, particularly in
the EU and often as a response to rising rental prices. The tiny house movement is lesser
developed in the EU, likely due to most dwellings being already small and the dominance of
rental tenures. EU-based companies such as Rolling Tiny House and Tiny House Manufaktur
(Germany); La Tiny House and Ma Petite Maison (France); Tiny Wunderhouse (Romania); and
Walden Studio and Woonpioniers (Netherlands), all build tiny houses on wheels (Tiny
Wunderhouse 2016; Tiny Houses Consulting UG 2018). Other manifestations of tiny houses
have largely been driven by architects, as second homes/holiday houses (Small House Bliss
2016; Gallent 2014) or tiny houses on wheels for refugees (Peters 2017; Tiny Wunderhouse
2016). In the EU, Germany appears to be the most active country with regard to the tiny
house movement (Tiny Wunderhouse 2016).
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the increasing topicality of tiny houses. In the period of 2004–
2017, the phrase tiny houses’ occurred increasingly often in the social and mainstream
media (Google Trends 2017). Despite this, and the relative maturity of the tiny house
movement in the United States, this house type comprises a very minor component of the
total housing market, with the proportion even “tinier” in Australia (Shearer 2015b). Despite
the small market share, in the United States and to a lesser extent in Australia, New
Zealand, Germany and Canada, tiny house living has moved beyond the fringe and into
the mainstream, with a growing number of municipalities permitting tiny houses, and an
increasing number of bespoke tiny house construction companies active in the market.

Figure 1. Google trend search on “tiny houses”, 2004–2017 (Google Trends 2017).
 HOUSING, THEORY AND SOCIETY 303

Figure 2. Tiny house searches by country (Google Trends 2017).

Institutional Barriers to Tiny Houses

Despite their acceptance in some municipalities, tiny houses face a range of institutional
barriers. In Australia, for example fixed tiny houses can be legally built or placed on
residential land as ancillary dwellings. Mobile tiny houses on wheels on the other hand,
are generally classified as caravans and are subject to limited periods of residence,
sometimes less than 2 weeks. Adding to this complexity, the rules about tiny houses
differ between and within municipalities and between States. Institutional barriers were
the most important reasons noted as preventing people from actually building or
purchasing a tiny house (Shearer 2015a). Even in the United States, the “home of tiny
houses”, they are not generally permitted in most jurisdictions, but recent moves to
clarify their regulatory status include a tiny house appendix in the International
Residential Code (IRC). Nonetheless, many tiny houses (especially tiny houses on wheels)
are often parked semi/illegally in urban areas or placed on rural properties where
neighbour complaints are less problematic. This is relevant to the typology, as the
legal status of a tiny house differs by type.

Tiny House Appendix Q International Residential Code

The International Code Council (applicable primarily in the United States) approved a
Tiny House Appendix (Q) to the IRC (ICC 2017; ecobuilding.org. 2017). Appendix Q does
not become part of the IRC, however, unless specifically adopted by a building authority
of a State or County. To date, Appendix Q has been approved in one county in Colorado
and one in Idaho (Tiny House Build 2017). The IRC is similar to the Australian National
304 H. SHEARER AND P. BURTON

Construction Code (NCC) and covers aspects of health, safety, energy conservation etc.
for the construction industry (ICC 2017; ABCB 2018).
The ICC justifies the need for the inclusion of tiny houses in the IRC by stating that
“the issue of small houses and apartments is important” and needs a more comprehen-
sive approach (ICC 2017). It provides broad statistics on the resource use and energy
consumption of tiny houses versus standard housing, the savings in cost and the
benefits that tiny houses (in the form of affordable housing) can provide to cities.
Including tiny houses in the IRC aims to address the strong need for standards and
codes pertaining to both mobile and fixed tiny houses (ICC 2017; ecobuilding.org. 2017).
Despite this move towards recognition in policy, in most countries tiny houses are
still an outlier in terms of legal status and as a mainstream dwelling type. Currently, the
majority of local and state governments in Australia are relatively conservative and
unwilling to change the status quo. This is in contrast to the 20th century when a
range of Australian governments actively worked to legislate alternative dwellings and
tenures, particularly intentional communities (Crabtree 2018).

Methods
This study used a mixed methods, exploratory approach, with qualitative analysis of
textual and internet sources combined with a quantitative survey. The study was
designed to provide descriptive analysis, and as a foundation for a more detailed future
analysis and the formulation of theory. The authors conducted a literature review and
content analysis of popular and social media, particularly tiny house groups and pages
on Facebook. Visual media sources included the films, Small is Beautiful (Beasley 2015)
and Tiny: a story about living small (Mueller and Smith 2013), and the YouTube series,
Living Big in a Tiny House (Langston 2017). The author/s attended meetings of tiny
house groups, forums and workshops such as the Tiny House Deep Dive (ESC Consulting
2017). For these meetings, an ethnographic approach was used, with observation,
listening and participation in discussions about tiny houses.
Finally, an online survey was conducted in late 2014/15 and repeated in 2017. The
survey was posted on tiny house groups on Facebook, shared on an Australian planning
forum, on other social media accounts and emailed to interested parties. The survey was
divided into five sections, and included questions on whether the respondent had built
a tiny house, what type of tiny house, its location, drivers and barriers and demographic
information (age, gender and income). The study focussed primarily on the United States
and Australia given the origin and maturity of the contemporary tiny house movement
in the United States, and the location of the research project in Australia. Nonetheless,
reference is made to tiny houses in other regions, including members of the EU. The full
results of the research will be reported in a further study; however, this article reports on
tiny house typology.

Typology of Tiny Houses

Definitions of tiny houses vary widely, often based on the type of trailer used or on
design. The former include “A tiny house is a house built to fit within the New Zealand
Transport Agency’s light trailer (TB class) specifications” (Langston 2015) or a house built
 HOUSING, THEORY AND SOCIETY 305

on a trailer ‘that conforms to the maximum trailer sizes that govern shipping containers
and RVs’ (Murphy 2014). Design-based definitions include, “. . .tiny houses are built
individually, not just moulded and assembled, there are many different styles to choose
between” (Tiny mountain living 2015; Mitchell 2014) and “effective use of space, relies
on good design, vehicle for a desired lifestyle” (Mitchell 2014). Others state “people have
tried to define exactly what a tiny house is, and these definitions have brought much
debate” (Mitchell 2014).
Thus, how should a tiny house be defined, with reference to the tiny house move-
ment? Tiny dwellings abound, and vary widely in size, location, mobility, tenure, con-
struction type, legal status and form. These dwellings include (but are not limited to),
the iconic tiny house on a trailer, a tiny house on skids, a cottage, townhouse, apart-
ment, granny cottage, extension, holiday house, converted shed, container house,
caravan, beach shack, converted bus or truck, mining hut, tourist cabin, laneway dwell-
ing, Japanese flats, yurts, fonzi flats, squats, tiny house villages, intentional communities,
eco-housing, co-housing etc. (Crabtree 2018). The image below (Figure 3) is a broad
infographic of a specific definition of a tiny house, and further states that a tiny house is
not RV, park model or manufactured home) (Tiny House Build 2017).
To simplify the issue and establish a preliminary typology of tiny houses, the authors
established a list of characteristics common to tiny houses (in the contemporary tiny
house movement). This served both to clarify the types of dwellings included in the
typology as well as to eliminate others. Tiny houses were defined as small dwellings with
certain characteristics in common, and either mobile or permanent. Most small apart-
ments were excluded because although “tiny”, they had few characteristics common to
tiny houses, although some were incorporated in Type 2c, tiny house communities.
With regard to RVs, there is a strong “grey nomad” (snowbird) caravanning culture in
Australia, the United States and the EU but these vehicles are not commonly considered as
tiny houses. Likewise, the Tiny House Appendix Q specifies that tiny houses are not RVs
(ecobuilding.org. 2017; Tiny House Build 2017). Nonetheless, many tiny house advocates live
in modified RVs. The typology therefore excludes regularly mobile RVs such as caravans and
motorhomes unless purposefully modified as a tiny house. Tiny houses are constructed
similarly to standard houses, and despite some mobility, are heavy and bulky, and unsuited
for regular travelling on most roads (ecobuilding.org. 2017; Tiny House Build 2017).
Tiny houses had in common that they are generally very small dwellings (<40 m2),
frequently built on a mobile foundation, such as a trailer base, and in a temporary
location (ecobuilding.org. 2017; Mitchell 2014; Langston 2015). They were also charac-
terized by design ethos, affordability and legal status, and for some, a focus on environ-
mental sustainability and community. The most important defining factors, and those
used as the basis for the typology are size and mobility. These are further discussed
below and in Table 1.

Size
Size is of course the major defining characteristic of tiny houses, for example, the US-
based IRC Appendix Q defines tiny houses as “. . .a dwelling which is 400 or less square
feet (37 m2) in floor area excluding lofts” (ICC 2017). The size of 400 ft2 (37 m2) is based
on the maximum possible size that can be built on a trailer base towed by a standard
306 H. SHEARER AND P. BURTON

Figure 3. What is a tiny house? (Image courtesy of Tiny House Build 2017).

vehicle (Mitchell 2014). The majority of size-based tiny house definitions however
exclude exterior space, such as decks and often loft areas (ecobuilding.org. 2017; ICC
 HOUSING, THEORY AND SOCIETY 307

Table 1. Types of tiny houses.

Typology Description
Type 1. Mobile (fully or partially)
1a Iconic tiny house on a trailer.
● Size: < max dimensions allowable (around 20 m2 or <3.5 tonnes (EU))
● Mobile, on a trailer
● Owner/friends/family built
● House fully owned, trailer and vehicle possibly financed
● Legal as a “caravan” or RV, varies depending on location
● Moves from construction site to permanent or semi-permanent site in urban or rural land, free
campsites, friends/family land, caravan parks
● Dwellers often have strong environmental focus, and often off-grid
● Can have a community focus, urban tiny house dwellers report size of house forces community
activities
1b Relocatable tiny house, moved to site then fixed or semi-permanent. Prefab, cabin, shipping container,
“tiny house”, mine hut, kit home etc.
● Size – larger than 1a; mostly <40 m2
● Moved infrequently (<6 months is general minimum lease time)
● Owner/friends/family build, purchased second-hand or as a kit
● Cost (likely greater than 1a). House often fully owned, land owned, mortgaged or rented
● Legal as primary/secondary/ancillary dwelling on own or rented land
● No specific environmental or community focus (other than the individual)
1c Fully mobile dwellings: Caravans, boats, bus, trucks, tents, tepees
● Very small (smaller than 1a and 1b)
● Highly mobile and often temporary structures
● Not generally built from scratch, purchased new/used or repurposed (e.g. bus/truck)
● Cost, varies wildly (<$1000–$100,000+)
● Environmental ethos as per tiny house movement
● Legal to park in designated areas, such as caravan parks, free camping, state forests; if on others
(friends/family) property, time permitted depends on council
● Often a strong community focus. Environmental sustainability not a prime motive, depends on
individual
Type 2. Permanent (non-mobile)
2a Purpose built tiny house/cottage
● Size, generally under 50 m2
● Semi/detached, usually built by registered builder, or owner, friends and family
● Cost (varies widely, likely $50 k plus, depending on construction material, builders)
● Fully legal (subject to council restrictions, such as on potable water and sewage) on own land.
Generally in a rural/rural residential area
● No particular environmental or community focus (other than the individual)
2b Converted non-residential building (shed, garage, barn)
● Under 70 m2
● Can be a temporary dwelling but is not usually moved
● Detached or semi-detached (attached to a larger property)
● Cost? Mostly relatively inexpensive <$20,000. Often rented or built on family/friend’s land
● Legal, but councils differ widely regarding these dwellings, and length of permitted residence.
Located in all areas, from suburban to rural
● No particular environmental or community focus (other than the individual)
2c Tiny house village (apartment complex/cottage/townhouse in intentional or co-housing community).
These include apartments.
● Generally the individual’s private space is small (mostly under 40 m2), with shared facilities (i.e.
kitchen, garden, tools)
● Designs vary widely, and may include “alternate” dwellings such as converted railway carriages and
yurts
● Cost is variable, and depends on tenure and location. Either rented or owned or subject to alternate
tenures such as tenants in common or social housing
● Fully legal in many countries. Located from city centres to rural and regional areas.
● Frequently have a strong fundamental ecological and/or social philosophy and rules.

2017). Size might also be defined as relative to cultural norms, rather than an absolute,
for example, a tiny dwelling in the United States is likely to be larger than a tiny dwelling
in Hong Kong or Germany.
308 H. SHEARER AND P. BURTON

Tiny houses in Anglophile countries tend to be delineated by the size definitions of

the United States. In the EU, however, the definition is more fluid, with mobile tiny
houses much the same size as in the United States, and cottages, apartments and the
like being a wide range of sizes (noting that ordinary dwellings in Europe, Asia etc. tend
to be much smaller than in the United States and Australia). Due to transport regulations
in the EU, the size of tiny (mobile) houses is defined more by weight than dimensions
(under 3.5 tonnes) (Tiny Houses Consulting UG 2018). In Australia, the size of tiny houses
varies widely, ranging from very small (under 10 m2) to relatively large (<100 m2).
Broadly, mobile tiny houses (purpose built tiny houses on wheels or converted vehicles
such as busses) are very small (around 20 m2 excluding lofts and decks), and fixed tiny
houses are larger with decks and sometimes outbuildings.
Nonetheless, the mere fact that a dwelling is under a certain size does not classify
it as a tiny house. As discussed earlier, very small dwellings are the norm in every
country, and yet many are not considered tiny houses in terms of the tiny house
movement. Is a tiny studio apartment considered a tiny house? If the criteria is merely
size, and if it is under 37 m2, then it can be (the IRC does not specify the dwelling
must be detached). If the definition includes other criteria, such as mobility and a
design/DIY and environmentally sustainable focus, then it is not by definition a tiny
house.
Size is therefore an important but not the sole defining feature of tiny houses;
pertinently, most in the tiny house movement do not consider studio apartments as
tiny houses. In Australian and the United States and to a lesser extent Canada and New
Zealand, the concept of tiny houses, from the perspective of the tiny house movement,
is also linked with the great Australian (or American) dream of a detached house with a
backyard (Vail 2016; Hall 2010; Head and Muir 2007).

Mobility
Mobility is another important defining characteristic, and in this typology, is used to
differentiate between the major categories of tiny houses, which tend to fall into one of
three mobility categories, fully mobile (on a trailer base/wheels), partly mobile (on a
temporary foundation, skids etc.) or permanent (fixed to the ground on a foundation).
For the purposes of the typology, partly mobile tiny houses are considered a sub-
category of mobile tiny houses (because they can be moved and because even fully
mobile tiny houses are moved infrequently).
Figure 4 shows results of a survey conducted in Australia in 2017 showing that the
majority of tiny houses (94) had some degree of mobility (even if only potential). The
Other category included “haven’t decided”, “anything is possible” and “currently fixed,
proposed mobile”. Interestingly, the degree of mobility was significantly related to the
type and location of the tiny house. Those building or wishing to build a tiny house on
wheels wanted to locate these in the inner and middle suburbs of capital cities, and
those building or wishing to build a permanent tiny house wanted to locate these in
rural residential or rural areas (see Figure 5). This is likely due to the extremely high cost
of land in Australian cities, and in countries such as New Zealand and Canada.
 HOUSING, THEORY AND SOCIETY 309

Figure 4. Mobility of tiny houses (2017 Survey).

Figure 5. Location of tiny houses (2017 Survey).

Design and DIY

A strong emphasis on architecture and design is evident in many tiny houses, with some
terming these intentional dwellings with a deliberate “use of space, materials, light and
function” (Mitchell 2014). Tiny houses are frequently “bespoke”, specifically designed for the
individuals who will live in them, and are often unique, creative, and indeed, beautiful. Design
also informs the function and lived experience of the dwelling as it interacts with the built and
natural environment (Ford and Gomez-Lanier 2017). Tiny house designs frequently incorpo-
rate some aspects of refuge or escape and could even be considered the adult equivalent of a
310 H. SHEARER AND P. BURTON

childhood “fort” (Mitchell 2014). Interestingly, more women than men build their own tiny
houses (Mitchell 2014; Tiny House Build 2014).
This reflects a strong Do It Yourself (DIY) philosophy because the design and some-
times the construction of the tiny house is commonly undertaken fully or in part by the
individual/s intending to live in it (Anson 2014; Crabtree 2018). DIY or self (owner)
building has a strong history in Australia (and the United States) and gives the owner/
builder almost total control over all construction, including building material, plans,
interior finish, furniture etc. (Crabtree 2018). It is worth noting however, that materials
used for interior and exterior surfaces besides indicating personal choice, also indicate
economic status, cultural values and beliefs. As highlighted in Anson (Anson 2014, 294),
part of the appeal of tiny houses is that they are cute, and constructed of attractive new
materials, unlike say, trailers or “shacks”.

Legal Status
Legal status is relevant because the fully mobile typologies are often not recognized by
regulators as dwellings, but as RVs or caravans. Permanent tiny houses on the other
hand are fully legal, but require land ownership and most often constructed as second-
ary dwellings. In most states in Australia, secondary dwellings (or granny flats) have
restrictions on who can live in them. In some states, they can be rented to anyone, but in
others, they have to be rented to a member of the main “household” or a “dependent
member” of the household (Bares et al. 2017). This restricts the extent to which they can
address housing affordability, both in terms of the necessity to own land as well as
limitations on residents. Legal status is also related to type of tiny house, as only
permanent dwellings of specific tenures qualify for mortgage finance. Unlike most
other types of tiny house too, the owners of permanent tiny houses, such as granny
flats or cottages are often not the primary occupants, yet nor are they temporarily
inhabited, as are second/holiday homes (Gallent 2014).

Affordability
Research by Shearer (2015b, 2014) shown in Figure 6, shows the strongest motivation
for building a tiny house is economic, with factors such as reducing costs, reduction of
mortgage debt and housing affordability. Other studies support this, showing that the
“. . .biggest incentive for living tiny is saving money” (Kilman 2016). Tiny houses are seen
as a means by which those excluded from the traditional housing market can own their
own home and in the process, reduce debt. A common theme in tiny house media is
that “debt consumes time”, and reducing debt gives more disposable income, provides a
buffer against market crashes, and reduces future risk of energy, water and food
shortages. Tiny houses can give the owner more flexibility in working, allow earlier
retirement, and may even provide an income by subletting it for short term tourist
accommodation, for example Airbnb.
In terms of total cost, tiny houses are often touted as more affordable than standard
houses, with prices estimated as low as $20,000. This is likely a significant underestimate
as it is difficult to accurately cost many tiny houses as stated prices do not include the
cost of the owner/builder’s time and labour and the true cost of recycled and upcycled
 HOUSING, THEORY AND SOCIETY 311

Figure 6. Main drivers for building tiny houses (2017 survey).

materials. Costing is also difficult due to the unavailability of mortgage finance and the
scarcity of accurate data, as tiny houses are mostly funded by cash, short-term loans,
mortgages on land, credit cards, paid off over time by working, crowdsourcing, joint
purchases, proceeds of an annuity etc. When full costings are done, tiny houses often
cost more than a standard house per square meter (Shearer et al. 2016).

Environmental Sustainability
Environmental sustainability and the related desire to minimize possessions and reduce
consumerism are strongly characteristic of those dwelling in or building tiny houses.
Traditional house building can have many impacts on the natural environment such as
destruction of habitat, increased GHG emissions, waste and use of non-renewable resources
(Wallis et al. 2010; Wilson and Boehland 2008). Tiny houses on the other hand have lower
energy and water requirements, are often built out of recycled or natural materials and use
proportionately less resources (Carlin 2014; Tiny House Build 2014).
The environmental drivers that motivate tiny house living are complex and include
not only the building material but also the desire to live more sustainably, general
environmental values, wanting to downsize and minimize possessions and to live off the
grid. This environmental ethic was part of other environmental movements long before
tiny houses became popular, and include movements such as DeGrowth which empha-
size zero or minimal economic growth (Schneider, Kallis, and Martinez-Alier 2010; Xue
2012). Minimization and the lack of space in a tiny house mean that consuming is a
conscious choice, with every new purchase evaluated for necessity, and for environ-
mental and social harm. Tiny house advocates opine that stuff makes people unhappy;
ties them down, costs money and is largely unused, while conscious consuming aims to
reduce debt and possessions and prevent environmental degradation and waste. On the
other hand, a tiny house may be personalized consumption manifest in choice of
housing (as well as interior and exterior finishes) (Jacobs and Manzi 2013).
312 H. SHEARER AND P. BURTON

Community Focus
The final commonality is that living in tiny houses can somehow offer the inhabitants a
stronger sense of community, emphasizing relationships and social networks rather than
status. Tiny house living, particularly in urban areas, often forces people to socialize and
conduct many of their activities in the community rather than indoors in private space.
The 2017 survey and qualitative analysis of tiny house social media showed a strong
emphasis on community; for example, “I would love to see tiny houses become part of
an eco-village” and “A tiny house with a small fenced off yard for my small dogs is really
all I need. I’d be happy to live in a TH community with communal gardens etc.”; and the
2014 survey, “I want to live in a community where I have my own space but am
surrounded by people who actually speak to me and share the big things (mowers,
gardens etc.). We need to strive for more affordable land usage and more community?”
Australia also has a growing cohousing, eco-village property type, which are now
being constructed in inner city areas (Crabtree 2018). Historically these tended to be
located in rural, attractive areas not too far from major cities, such as Crystal Waters and
Currumbin EcoVillage (both in South East Queensland). Recent more urban examples
include the Nightingale model in Melbourne and Brisbane, Murundaka and Urban Coup
in Melbourne, Christie Walk in Adelaide, and Illabunda in Sydney (Crabtree 2018).
So given the above commonalities, the authors devised the following typology
(Table 1) with reference to dwelling form, mobility, size and legal status, and making
reference to design, affordability, environmental and community focus where relevant.

Specific Tiny House Types

Type 1: Mobile
The first category is small and mobile tiny houses, and was further divided into three
types differentiated by degree of mobility, including type 1a, the tiny house on wheels,
type 1b, potentially mobile tiny houses and type 1c, converted fully mobile dwellings.
Nearly all are built or purchased by individuals for their own living purposes, and unless
the tiny house dweller also owns the land on which the house is built, they cannot be
financed with mortgage loans.
Type 1a, tiny houses on wheels are the type that most people associate with the
contemporary tiny house movement. These come in a multitude of designs, but are
commonly constructed similarly to standard houses, but on a trailer base. They are small
in order to comply with the allowable dimensions for a trailer to be road registered for a
standard vehicle, although the maximum permissible size (and weight) differs per country.
They tend to be narrow to comply with transport regulations, and can be up to 4.2 m high,
to enable the construction of a loft bedroom. They are heavy, often weighing 3 tonnes or
more, and require a large and powerful towing vehicle. These may be built fully or partially
by the intended occupants, or bought from a tiny house builder as a trailer and frame, shell
without fittings, or a complete house. The movement is more advanced in the United States,
and it has the most dedicated tiny house builders. When owner-built, these may be
constructed on one property or in an industrial area, and moved to a permanent or semi-
permanent site. They range in price from around A$20,000 to over A$100,000. It is not
possible to get mortgage finance in any country for tiny houses on wheels, although they
 HOUSING, THEORY AND SOCIETY 313

can be paid for by personal loans, savings, income from employment or other funding
sources. Although fully mobile, tiny houses on wheels are not intended to be moved
frequently; they are heavy, cumbersome and have poor aerodynamics for towing. They
are usually situated on land that is leased to the tiny house dweller, or provided free in lieu
of caretaking or other duties.
Type 1b, relocatable tiny houses, can be any type of moveable dwelling including
manufactured (prefabricated) homes, sheds, container houses, kit homes, granny flat
kits, site huts or pop-up houses. Unlike tiny houses on wheels, these are not usually built
by the intended inhabitants but bought as a ready-made building, as a kit or second-
hand. With the exception of shipping container houses, they also tend to be larger than
Type 1a, because they are not as constrained by transport regulations. They are infre-
quently, if ever, moved, but if so, require the use of a large commercial vehicle such as a
tilt-tray truck. Costs vary widely, depending on the source of the building, ranging from
under A$10,000 to over A$100,000. Many are bought second-hand or converted from
their original purpose. Manufactured and kit homes are common, and long predate the
contemporary tiny house movement. They are usually placed on land that belongs to
the tiny house dweller or are located in specifically zoned areas, such as trailer or RV
parks.
Type 1c, “permanently” mobile tiny house include caravans, boats, RVs, converted
buses, and even tents. Some emphasize that it is important for a tiny house to be
recognized instantly as a house and not a RV; the Tiny House Appendix Q specifically
states that RVs are not tiny houses (Tiny House Build 2017). Regardless, a large propor-
tion of tiny house advocates live in RVs or other mobile vehicles. Unlike the Grey
Nomads in Australia, snowbirds in the United States or itinerant workers; however, the
major points of difference to RVs are that when used as a tiny house, dwellers do not
move frequently, settle longer in one place and frequently repurpose these to be more
“house-like” (Onyx and Leonard 2005; Mitchell 2014; Murphy 2014). Like semi-permanent
tiny houses, these dwellings are rarely built from scratch by the tiny house dweller, and
are bought new or used, or repurposed from their original use. They are also the
smallest of the three types (very large “fifth wheeler” caravans are available, but can
be very expensive and relatively uncommon as tiny houses). Cost varies widely, from <A
$1000 to A$500,000 + . They can be placed on land belonging to the inhabitant, but are
more found on rented land, or land specifically zoned such as caravan parks, or marinas
in the case of boats.

Type 2: Permanent
The second category is small and permanent tiny houses. Like mobile tiny houses, this
category was subdivided further into three types, differentiated by scale and included
type 2a, permanent purpose built tiny house, type 2b conversion of other permanent
structure, and type 2c, tiny house community. These can be built as personal residences,
for holiday or other letting purposes, or for cohousing or social welfare purposes.
Permanent tiny houses also differ in that they can be funded by mortgages from
traditional home lenders, such as banks. They are generally accepted in most municipal
planning schemes, providing an approved building permit.
Type 2a, purpose built permanent tiny houses are a common trope in the contem-
porary tiny house movement. These include dwellings such as granny flats, country
314 H. SHEARER AND P. BURTON

cottages and cabins. They are generally constructed on land belonging to the builder,
with some built as secondary dwellings by the owners of an existing house to provide
additional living space, dependent family living or for rental income. Others are built as
holiday houses or rural retreats, often out of natural materials. Yet others, such as urban
infill properties and bespoke cabins, are designed and built by architects and are
frequently aesthetically very pleasing, albeit costly. These are small, mostly averaging
around 50 m2, and can be constructed by owner-builders, registered builders, subcon-
tracted by architects or in kit form. Costs also vary widely, ranging from around A$30,000
for a completed kit home to many hundreds of thousands of dollars for a bespoke,
architect designed dwelling.
Type 2b, converted non-residential buildings, are similar to type 1b, except that they
are usually permanent structures on a foundation, and cannot be easily moved. These
include converted sheds, garages and barns and can be attached or detached from
another property. These are relatively common in Australia, found mostly in rural or
semi-rural areas, and their legality and maximum length of tenure differs widely by
jurisdiction. Similarly to other permanent structures, these are usually built on land
belonging to the tiny house dweller, or land owned by a friend or relative. These are
relatively inexpensive, and often do not have the same aesthetic as other tiny houses.
They are included in the typology because they are often used as “temporary” tiny
houses while the owner is building another house or a mobile tiny house.
Type 2c are tiny house villages. These can be attached or detached, for example
apartments in a community apartment block, townhouses or cottages in a cohousing or
intentional community, or even a collection of mobile tiny houses for a specified aim,
such as for homeless people. These are considered permanent even if comprising
mobile tiny houses, as the land is permanent, and the dwellings do not usually move
unless regulatory constraints require this. They have shared facilities such as kitchens,
laundries, vehicles and tools, and often shared tasks, such as property maintenance.
They can either be rented, owned outright, or government provided social housing.
Location is also variable, and they can be situated anywhere, from inner city areas to
remote rural areas. Mostly, they have an overarching and guiding philosophy, such as
environmental sustainability, social cohesion or as a specific social focus, such as
providing homes for the homeless. Costs vary widely, as some of these are built by
volunteers and then “given” to disadvantaged social groups, whilst others own or rent
the land and house in community title type schemes.

Conclusion
In this article, we set out to develop a typology of tiny houses to help inform future
research and policy on the subject. Categorizing tiny houses in this way enables further
research, for example into related questions of mobility and whether those building tiny
houses on wheels differ in motivation to those merely wishing to build a smaller house.
Other research topics include cost and affordability, new tenure models, the use of new
construction materials and techniques, as well as which types are more suited to urban,
suburban or peri-urban environments and how these fit within current local planning
schemes, see (Bares et al. 2017).
 HOUSING, THEORY AND SOCIETY 315

Our preliminary classification of tiny houses was differentiated by mobility and type
of dwelling, and we found that multiple small dwelling types can be considered as tiny
houses. Tiny houses also share certain characteristics apart from mobility and size,
including a strong sense of bespoke design, reflecting their origins in the architectural
professions, a motivation to achieve greater environmental sustainability, living off the
grid and minimizing possessions, some degree of anti-establishmentarian philosophy,
and a strong focus on community and sharing resources.
Nonetheless, despite widespread public interest in tiny houses, the movement, at least
in Australia, is relatively small, and remains a niche market. This raises the question, is the
tiny house movement more of a philosophy than an actual housing type? The importance
of the movement may lie more in its foreshadowing a broader trend to reducing conspic-
uous consumption especially in house sizes, and the desire for a more sustainable lifestyle.
As one respondent said, “the ability of tiny houses to inspire, to empower, and to bring
about change is the real impact of tiny houses, not the structure themselves” and tiny
houses means, “financial independence, freedom and ecological responsibility”.
This remains a relatively unexplored subject and there are many questions still to be
answered, but a future research agenda may include the following:

● How can (or will) the tiny house movement lead to changes in mainstream housing
markets?
● What are the challenges facing people who want to live in a tiny house?
● What contribution can tiny houses make to the broader housing affordability crisis?
● What is the potential for greater commercialization of tiny house production?
● To what extent does the provision of tiny housing require changes to local plan-
ning schemes?

Note
1. A pejorative term for an overly large, poorly designed suburban house.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Heather Shearer http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7434-1794
Paul Burton http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6092-0779

References
ABCB. 2018. “National Construction Code.” In Edited by Australian Building Codes Board. Canberra:
Australian Building Codes Board.
ABS. 2017. “2016 Census QuickStats. Brisbane (C).” [Web page]. Accessed September 5 2017. http://
www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/LGA31000.
316 H. SHEARER AND P. BURTON

Anson, A. 2014. ““The World Is My Backyard”: Romanticization, Thoreauvian Rhetoric, and

Constructive Confrontation in the Tiny House Movement.” From Sustainable to Resilient Cities:
Global Concerns and Urban Efforts 14: 289–313. doi:10.1108/s1047-004220140000014013.
Bares, V., R. Pieters, L. Nobel, B. Winkle, K. Meathrel, H. Shearer, and F. Caniglia. 2017. A Place for
Tiny Houses. Exploring the Possibilities: Tiny House Planning Resource for Australia, 2017. Brisbane:
ESC Consulting.
Beasley, J. 2015. Small Is Beautiful: A Tiny House Documentary. Portland, OR.
Berry, M., C. Whitehead, P. Williams, and J. Yates. 2006. “Involving the Private Sector in Affordable
Housing Provision: Can Australia Learn from the United Kingdom?” Urban Policy and Research 24 (3):
307–323. doi:10.1080/08111140600876851.
Build, T. H. 2014. “Why Tiny Houses Can Save the Earth.” https://tinyhousebuild.com/tiny-houses-
infographic/.
Carlin, T. M. 2014. “Tiny Homes: Improving Carbon Footprint and the American Lifestyle on a Large
Scale.” Celebrating Scholarship & Creativity Day.
Coiacetto, E. 2007. “The Role of the Development Industry in Shaping Urban Social Space: A
Conceptual Model.” Geographical Research 45 (4): 340–347. doi:10.1111/j.1745-5871.2007.00473.x.
Cox, W., and H. Pavletich. 2009. 5th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability
Survey: 2009-International Housing Affordability Survey: 2009. Demographia, 2009. http://
www.demographia.com/.
Cox, W., and H. Pavletich. 2015. 11th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability
Survey: 2015. Demographia, 2015. http://www.demographia.com/.
Crabtree, L. 2018. “Self-Organised Housing in Australia: Housing Diversity in an Age of Market
Heat.” International Journal of Housing Policy 18 (1): 15–34. doi:10.1080/14616718.2016.1198083.
Diguette, R. 2017. “Lessons from the First ‘Tiny House’ Evangelist, Henry David Thoreau.”
Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/home/lessons-from-the-first-tiny-
house-evangelist-henry-david-thoreau/2017/03/13/3dddc69e-02d0-11e7-b1e9-a05d3c21f7cf_
story.html?utm_term=.08d80b37891f.
Dodson, J., and N. Sipe. 2008. “Shocking the Suburbs: Urban Location, Homeownership and Oil
Vulnerability in the Australian City.” Housing Studies 23 (3): 377–401. doi:10.1080/
02673030802015619.
Domain. 2017. “Domain State of the Market Report.” Accessed September 5 2017. http://www.
domain.com.au/product/state-of-the-market-report-june-2017/.
ecobuilding.org. 2017. “2018 Tiny Houses Appendix Q in International Residential Code.” http://
www.ecobuilding.org/code-innovations/policy-profiles/2018-tiny-house-appendix-to-residen
tial-code/tiny-house-appendix-q-as-proposed.
ESC Consulting. 2017. “Tiny House Deep Dive.” https://escconsulting.com.au/2017/10/11/tiny-
house-deep-dive/.
Ford, J., and L. Gomez-Lanier. 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.
doi:10.1111/fcsr.12205.
Gallent, N. 2014. “The Social Value of Second Homes in Rural Communities.” Housing, Theory and
Society 31 (2): 174–191. doi:10.1080/14036096.2013.830986.
Google Trends. 2017. “Google Trend Search: Tiny Houses.” https://www.google.com/trends/
explore#q=tiny%20houses.
Gurran, N., and C. Whitehead. 2011. “Planning and Affordable Housing in Australia and the UK: A
Comparative Perspective.” Housing Studies 26 (7–8): 1193–1214. doi:10.1080/
02673037.2011.618982.
Hall, T. 2010. “Goodbye to the Backyard?—The Minimisation of Private Open Space in the
Australian Outer-Suburban Estate.” Urban Policy and Research 28 (4): 411–433. doi:10.1080/
08111146.2010.496715.
Head, L., and P. Muir. 2007. “Changing Cultures of Water in Eastern Australian Backyard Gardens.”
Social & Cultural Geography 8 (6): 889–905. doi:10.1080/14649360701712651.
Hodkinson, S., and G. Robbins. 2012. “The Return of Class War Conservatism? Housing under the
UK Coalition Government.” Critical Social Policy 33 (1): 57–77. doi:10.1177/0261018312457871.
 HOUSING, THEORY AND SOCIETY 317

ICC. 2017. Overview of the International Residential Code® (IRC®). International Code Council. https://
www.iccsafe.org/codes-tech-support/codes/2018-i-codes/irc/.
Jacobs, K., and T. Manzi. 2013. “Investigating the New Landscapes of Welfare: Housing Policy,
Politics and the Emerging Research Agenda.” Housing, Theory and Society 31 (2): 213–227.
doi:10.1080/14036096.2013.857716.
Jones, C. M., and D. M. Kammen. 2011. “Quantifying Carbon Footprint Reduction Opportunities for
US Households and Communities.” Environmental Science & Technology 45 (9): 4088–4095.
doi:10.1021/es102221h.
Kahn, L. ed. 2000. Shelter. Shelter Publications., Inc..
Kilman, C. 2016. Small House, Big Impact: The Effect of Tiny Houses on Community and
Environment. Undergraduate Journal of Humanistic Studies 2: 2. (Winter 2016).
Langston, B. 2015. “Living Big in a Tiny House: What Is a Tiny House?” http://www.livingbiginatiny
house.com/tiny-house/
Langston, B. 2017. Living Big in a Tiny House.
Milligan, V., H. Pawson, R. Phillips, C. Martin, and Elton Consulting. 2017. “Developing the scale and
capacity of Australia’s affordable housing industry.” AHURI Final Report No. 278, Melbourne:
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited. https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/
final-reports/278
Mitchell, R. 2014. “Tiny House Living: Ideas for Building and Living Well in Less than 400 Square
Feet.” F+ W Media, Inc.
Monk, S., C. M. E. Whitehead, Y. Tang, G. Burgess, and S. Justice. 2013. International Review of Land
Supply and Planning Systems. London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Mueller, M., and C. Smith. 2013. Tiny: A Story about Living Small. Speak Thunder Films.
Murphy, M. 2014. “Tiny Houses as Appropriate Technology.” Communities (Winter 2014: 54.
Mutter, A. 2013. Growing Tiny Houses Motivations and Opportunities for Expansion through Niche
Markets. http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4196241&fileOId=
4196242.
Onyx, J., and R. Leonard. 2005. “Australian Grey Nomads and American Snowbirds: Similarities and
Differences.” Journal of Tourism Studies 16 (1): 61.
Oueslati, W., S. Alvanides, and G. Garrod. 2015. “Determinants of Urban Sprawl in European Cities.”
Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland) 52 (9): 1594–1614. doi:10.1177/0042098015577773.
Pawson, H., K. Hulse, and L. Cheshire. 2015. “Addressing Concentrations of Disadvantage in Urban
Australia.” AHURI Final Report No. 247. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute Limited. https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/247
Peters, A. 2017. “These Tiny Houses Are Designed To Give Refugees a Home In Your Backyard.” Fast
Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/40474575/these-tiny-houses-are-designed-to-give-
refugees-a-home-in-your-backyard.
Randolph, B., and D. Holloway. 2005. “Social Disadvantage, Tenure and Location: An Analysis of
Sydney and Melbourne.” Urban Policy and Research 23 (2): 173–201. doi:10.1080/
08111470500135136.
Schneider, F., G. Kallis, and J. Martinez-Alier. 2010. “Crisis or Opportunity? Economic Degrowth for
Social Equity and Ecological Sustainability. Introduction to This Special Issue.” Journal of Cleaner
Production 18 (6): 511–518. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.014.
Shearer, H. 2014. “Move over McMansions, the Tiny House Movement Is Here.” The Conversation.
https://theconversation.com/move-over-mcmansions-the-tiny-house-movement-is-here-32225
Shearer, H. 2015a. “The ‘Tiny House’ Movement: Its Implications for Housing Affordability and
Urban Sustainability.” Australian Housing Researchers Conference, Hobart, Tasmania, February.
Shearer, H. 2015b. “Australians Love Tiny Houses, so Why Aren’t More of Us Living in Them? .” The
Conversation. https://theconversation.com/australians-love-tiny-houses-so-why-arent-more-of-
us-living-in-them-44230.
Shearer, H., E. Coiacetto, J. Dodson, and P. Taygfeld. 2016. “How the Structure of the Australian
Housing Development Industry Influences Climate Change Adaptation.” Housing Studies 31 (7):
809–828. doi:10.1080/02673037.2016.1150430.
318 H. SHEARER AND P. BURTON

Small House Bliss. 2016. “Small House Bliss.” accessed 20 March 2018. https://smallhousebliss.com/
tag/germany/.
Susanka, Sarah, and K. Obolensky. 1998. The not so big house: A blueprint for the way we really live.
Taunton Press.
Tiny House Build. 2017. “Tiny House Appendix Q.” https://tinyhousebuild.com/code/.
Tiny Houses Consulting UG. 2018. “Tiny Houses. Provider in Germany and Other European
Countries.” Accessed 20 March 2018. http://tiny-houses.de/was-sind-tiny-houses/hersteller-in-
europa/.
Tiny mountain living. 2015. “What Is a Tiny House.” http://www.tinymountainhouses.com/what-is-
a-tiny-house/
Tiny Wunderhouse. 2016. “Tiny Wunderhouse.” Tiniwunder S.R.L. Accessed 20 March 2018. http://
www.tinywunderhouse.com/.
Vail, K. 2016. “Saving the American Dream: The Legalization of the Tiny House Movement.” Hein
Online. Citation: 54 U. Louisville L. Rev. 357 2016.
Wallis, I., L. Bilan, M. Smith, and A. S. Kazi. 2010. Industrialised, Integrated, Intelligent Sustainable
Construction. I3CON in collaboration with BSRIA (www.bsria.co.uk). ISBN: 978-0-86022-698-7.
Walter, J., and C. Holbrook. 2015. ““Housing in a Federation: From Wicked Problem to Complexity
Cascade?”.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 74 (4): 448–466. doi:10.1111/1467-
8500.12174.
Wentz, E. A., and P. Gober. 2007. ““Determinants of Small-Area Water Consumption for the City of
Phoenix, Arizona.”.” Water Resources Management 21 (11): 1849–1863. doi:10.1007/s11269-006-
9133-0.
Wilson, A., and J. Boehland. 2008. ““Small Is Beautiful U.S. House Size, Resource Use, and the
Environment.”.” Journal of Industrial Ecology 9 (1–2): 277–287. doi:10.1162/1088198054084680.
Worthington, A. C. 2012. ““The Quarter Century Record on Housing Affordability, Affordability
Drivers, and Government Policy Responses in Australia.”.” International Journal of Housing
Markets and Analysis 5 (3): 235–252. doi:10.1108/17538271211243580.
Xue, J. 2012. ““Potentials for Decoupling Housing-Related Environmental Impacts from Economic
Growth.”.” Environmental Development 4: 18–35. doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2012.08.003.
Yates, J. 2008. ““Policy Forum: Housing Affordability: What are the Policy Issues? Australia’s
Housing Affordability Crisis.” ” The Australian Economic Review 41 (2): 200–214. doi:10.1111/
aere.2008.41.issue-2.
Yates, J., and M. Berry. 2011. ““Housing and Mortgage Markets in Turbulent Times: Is Australia
Different?”.” Housing Studies 26 (7–8): 1133–1156. doi:10.1080/02673037.2011.609328.
Yates, J., and M. Gabriel. 2006. “Housing Affordability in Australia.” AHURI Research Paper No.
NRV3–3. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited, Melbourne. https://www.
ahuri.edu.au/research/nrv-research-papers/nrv3-3.
Copyright of Housing, Theory & Society is the property of Routledge and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.