Lehner, M; Richter, J L; Kreinin, H; Mamut, P; Vadovics, E; Henman, J; Mont, O and Fuchs, D (2024) Living smaller: Acceptance, effects and structural factors in the EU. Buildings & Cities, 5(1), pp. 215-230. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
This article examines limits to per capita living space (i.e. living smaller and/or sharing living space) as a measure for achieving sufficiency in housing. It studies the acceptance, motivation and side-effects of voluntarily reducing living space in five European Union countries: Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Spain and Sweden. Insights are derived from an extensive collection of qualitative empirical material collected from citizen and stakeholder 'thinking labs' across the five case countries. Overall, the data reveal an initial reluctance among citizens to reduce living space voluntarily. They also point to some major structural barriers: the housing market and its regulatory framework, social inequality, or dominant societal norms regarding 'the ideal home'. Enhanced community amenities can compensate for reduced private living space, though contingent upon a clear allocation of rights and responsibilities. Participants also reported positive effects to living smaller, including increased time for leisure activities and proximity to services. This was often coupled with urbanization, which may also be part of living smaller in the future.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | downsizing; housing; lifestyles; sharing; space standards; sufficiency; sustainability |
| Index terms: | Germany, Hungary, inequality, norms, housing, urbanization, Sweden, lifestyle, European Union, motivation, Spain, Latvia |
| Subjects: | urban planning, psychology, construction type, demography, sociology, Geography, physical geography and landforms |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Research Practice, Construction Technology, Governance, Human Resources, Ethics, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here