Figures & data
Table 1. The two primary themes and three strategies.
Figure 1. Histogram of stakeholder preferences for tiny house villages in one’s own neighbourhood versus one’s community, but not own neighbourhood. The results suggest NIMBYism.
Figure 2. Means and standard deviations of the three architecture styles.
Figure 3. This photograph of a tiny home built in a traditional architecture style had the highest rating in the VPS. Developers of tiny house villages for the homeless may want to take this preference into account (Photo permission granted: Texas Tiny Houses).
Figure 4. The block that examined stakeholder preferences for tiny houses on wheels (THOWs) rated the lowest in the VPS. Advocates of tiny house villages for the homeless may want to take this preference into account and build tiny homes on foundations (Photo permission granted: Mint Tiny Homes).
Table 2. Architectural style descriptive statistics.
Figure 5. The lowest ranking image in the VPS was for this modern style tiny home. Not only has the research resulted in a finding of greater stakeholder preference for traditional architecture, but for such elements as porches, landscaping, and painted bevelled wood siding, all of which this particular unit lacks (Photo permission granted: Kaiserworks LLC).
Table 3. Descriptive statistic analysis of visual features related to tiny houses in tiny house villages for the homeless.
Table 4. Descriptive statistic analysis of physical and social features related to tiny houses in tiny house villages for the homeless.