Place Attachment and Mobility in the Context of Tiny Houses: A Generational Analysis in Türkiye

Abstract

This article examines the concepts of place attachment and mobility in the context of the tiny house movement in Türkiye from a generational perspective. This study compares the level of place attachment and the preference for tiny houses between Gen Y (born between 1980 and 1999) and Gen Z (born after 2000). The literature highlights the fact that rising housing costs, environmental concerns, and changing living standards have paved the way for the tiny house movement. This study argues that there is an inverse relationship between the mobility offered by tiny houses and traditional place attachment. Using Lewicka’s place attachment scale, the research measured participants’ attachments at both the neighborhood and city levels while also analyzing demographic variables such as homeownership, income, and education. The findings reveal that Gen Y exhibits higher levels of place attachment at both neighborhood and city scales. In contrast, Gen Z shows a greater interest in tiny houses due to their more mobile lifestyle. Additionally, individuals who are unfamiliar with the tiny house concept tend to have stronger place attachment, a factor that influences their housing preferences. Based on these findings, this article provides policy recommendations—such as clarifying legal regulations, offering financial incentives, and improving infrastructure—to support the expansion of the tiny house movement in Turkey.

1. Introduction

The tiny house movement, with its “less is more” ideology, gained international prominence in response to increased housing costs, environmental concerns, and changing living standards [1]. Rooted in minimalist ideology and ecological responsibility, the movement promises financial independence and adaptability [2].

Scholars have linked the tiny house movement to a quest for mobility and freedom [3,4], particularly due to the flexibility offered by wheeled structures [5]. Compared to tiny houses built on fixed foundations, such portable structures make it possible to live without being dependent on the place and create discussions within the framework of the concept of place attachment [6,7]. As frequently emphasized in the literature, the increase in the mobility level of individuals leads to a decrease in place attachment [8,9]. Given these theoretical insights, this study aims to compare the place attachment levels of Gen Y/Z and analyze their attitudes toward tiny houses.

Genes can be defined as groups of people who were born in the same year range, who were affected by events that occurred in the same time range in their lives in similar ways, and who are, therefore, assumed to have similar perspectives and common characteristics [10,11,12]. Although there are different views on the beginning and ending years of generations, the generally accepted definitions are as follows: Gen Y are individuals born between 1980 and 1999, and Gen Z are individuals born between 2000 and later [10,12]. While Gen Y stands out as the first gen to experience the effects of globalization, Gen Z is defined as a gen born into technology and prone to a mobile lifestyle [11,13].

This study focuses on the recognition and preferences of Gen Y/Z towards tiny houses. The differences in the mobility and place attachment levels of Gen Y, defined as the first global generation due to the impact of globalization [10], and Gen Z, known as the mobile generation, born into technology [11], were empirically examined. Unlike its widespread examination in Western environments, its implications in countries such as Türkiye have not yet been examined in detail. In an attempt to bridge this, in this study, an examination will be conducted of the intersection between age-related differences, mobility, and place attachment in a Turkish environment. By examining generational differences in place attachment and housing preferences, this study offers a novel perspective on the socio-cultural dimensions of the tiny house movement in Türkiye, a topic largely unexplored in existing research.

In this context, this study investigates the following propositions: ‘Gen Z has a lower place attachment than Gen Y. Therefore, Gen Z is a more mobile generation. Gen Z is more interested in mobile tiny houses than Gen Y.’ This study explores the differing attitudes of Gen Y and Gen Z in Türkiye toward tiny houses, focusing on the relationship between mobility, place attachment, and housing preferences. Drawing on the Place Attachment Scale developed by Lewicka (2011) [14], this research investigates whether the higher mobility of Gen Z correlates with a stronger preference for tiny houses and weaker local attachments compared to Gen Y.

This scale, while widely recognized, may have limitations regarding cultural specificity or biases in participant responses [15]. However, there have been many types of research [16,17,18] in Türkiye that used this attachment scale (Lewicka, 2011) [14]. By bridging gaps in existing research, this study provides valuable insights into the evolving nature of place attachment and housing preferences in Türkiye. It highlights how generational shifts and global movements influence local housing trends, offering a nuanced perspective on the socio-cultural dimensions of the tiny house movement. However, limitations, such as this study’s sample size, the generalizability of its findings to broader populations, and the socio-cultural diversity within Türkiye itself, must be acknowledged. It examined, in detail, the relationships between place attachment levels and demographic factors such as age, gender, education level, marital status, occupation, and home ownership. In addition, it evaluated the effects of awareness and preferences for tiny houses on individuals’ attachment levels to the place [6].

Tiny houses have attracted attention and gained popularity in Türkiye, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, as a result of the search for alternative living spaces [19]. During this process, many companies have started to design and produce tiny houses and create tiny house villages [20]. Current research conducted in Türkiye generally addresses the design processes of the tiny house [21,22], its relationship with the housing problem [23], and its legal regulations [24,25].

However, academic studies on this subject have been limited in Türkiye [26]. In this context, it is important to understand factors such as demographic characteristics and location attachment of users who prefer tiny houses [14]. This study’s hypotheses aim to test the effects of generational differences on tiny house preferences and place attachment. The literature states that generations have different place attachments [27]. It is suggested that, with globalization and technological developments, Gen Z has adopted a more mobile lifestyle, and, therefore, their place attachment is lower compared to Gen Y [19,28].

In this context, the following research questions were developed:

• Q1: The place attachment level of Gen Z is lower than Gen Y.
• Q2: Gen Z is more likely to adopt a tiny house lifestyle compared to Gen Y.
• Q3: Individuals with lower place attachment levels are more likely to have positive perceptions of the tiny house lifestyle.
• Q4: Individuals with higher mobility levels are more likely to prefer tiny houses.

These hypotheses were tested through a survey study, and the relationships between generational differences, place attachment, and tiny house preference were analyzed.

2. Literature Review

This research enriches the academic discourse on mobility and place attachment, informs policy-making and urban planning in Türkiye, and paves the way for sustainable and culturally sensitive housing solutions. For this purpose, we studied the literature on the movement of tiny houses, mobile tiny houses, the tiny house movement in Türkiye, and mobile life and place attachment concepts.

2.1. Tiny House Movement

Shelter is one of life’s most basic survival requirements for one’s well-being and a successful life. According to Maslow’s (1943) [29] hierarchy of needs, shelter is at level one of the pyramid, together with other biological needs such as air, food, water, and sleep. Shelter, in his view, is a necessity in order to fulfill others, and a level higher in the pyramid can only be reached with “the preceding fulfillment of a stronger need” [29]. Shelter is fundamental to human well-being and has been recognized as a basic human right by the United Nations in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN General Assembly, 1948). Given the fundamental role of shelter in human well-being, alternative housing models, such as the tiny house movement, have emerged as responses to economic, social, and environmental challenges. The origin of the tiny house movement, becoming increasingly widespread in modern times and seen as a counter-movement to the conventional necessity for a residence, is in the 19th-century ideologues’ simple life ideology of Thoreau and Emerson [2,30,31]. In the 20th century, its creation owed a significant part to the “less is more” ideology of the theory of minimalism [2,32]. In 1980s America, specifically, Les Walker’s books regarding tiny houses and Sarah Susanka’s book “Not So Big House” produced a following for the movement.

Those who practice the tiny house life choose to follow this movement for financial independence, reduced debt, simple living, living in an environmentally friendly manner, and deeper relationships. The movement aims to lead a healthy life for the individual and the environment [33]. In countries such as America, the UK, and New Zealand, tiny houses work towards resolving affordable housing shortages and homelessness. In specific regions, communities of tiny houses are developed and serviced through a variety of social programs. In urban regions, such as Rotterdam and Detroit, tiny houses work towards housing individuals living in homelessness, contributing to the solution of the housing problem of low-income individuals [34]. Although tiny houses can refer to any structure smaller than 75 m², the term is most commonly associated with tiny houses on wheels, which average 13 m², promising to avoid the toxicity of accumulation-oriented consumption [3]. A “Tiny house” is defined by the 2018 International Residential Code as a dwelling with a floor area of 400 ft² (37 m²) or less, excluding the attic, which is used as a living or sleeping area [1,31]. The Encyclopedia Britannica defines a tiny house as typically being smaller than 37 m² (400 ft²) and is usually defined as a house on wheels [32]. While there is no set standard, houses between 70 and 300 m², or those that fall below the permitted dwelling area of the local authority, are generally considered “tiny”. Most tiny houses are built on trailers or raised mobile platforms with maximum size regulations rather than having a structure with an actual foundation limited by a minimum size [35]. With the development of the tiny house movement, small houses with low cost, compact size, and structural simplicity began to be used for quick and economical accommodation of homeless and low-income people [32]. In the 1990s, a small but growing number of people started to question the trend towards large, expensive houses and the minimum house size requirements in most US city planning [30,31]. The global financial crisis of 2007–2008 affected people economically, making them unable to afford housing expenses [32,36]. Rising housing prices in major cities have affected rental demand and costs. Unstable employment and declining incomes have pushed rapidly increasing numbers of job seekers seeking basic services into poorly equipped cities. By the mid-2010s, significant migration, especially in Europe, has led to the formation of temporary and permanent settlements. Finding affordable housing has become a common problem, especially for young and older single women whose savings and incomes are often lower than those of men of similar ages [37]. As a result, relatively affordable, environmentally friendly homes have become an alternative to traditional housing [32]. Advocates of the tiny house movement have proposed tiny houses as mobile housing for busy travelers, temporary housing and guest houses, as a shelter solution for people experiencing homelessness, and as a solution for housing large populations in urban areas with limited space [2]. Glumac [4] conducted an experimental survey with 280 respondents living in The Netherlands to measure the desirability of tiny houses on wheels. The survey results showed that respondents in cities had a strong and positive baseline preference for tiny mobile homes, although the preference was lower for small-town dwellers. The results suggest that increasing the supply of tiny mobile houses could meet the needs of young male urban dwellers in The Netherlands in particular [4].

2.2. Mobile Tiny Houses

While the term tiny house is flexible enough to refer to any range of small-sized dwellings with foundations or built on trailers, the structures at the heart of the tiny house movement are miniature middle-class American homes anchored to mobile trailers [34].

Tiny houses on wheels (THOWs) are, as their name suggests, tiny houses with mobility. Early tiny houses of the 1990s were often on wheels. This feature made it possible to overcome size requirements, become homeowners without land costs, and offer individuals greater freedom [30,31]. The high mobility of tiny houses can also allow for the creation of easy, fast, and variable neighborhood units, allowing for different social interactions [26]. Mobile tiny houses usually refer to small, usually timber-framed dwellings on trailers measuring between 2.5 and 7 m long, 2.5 m wide, and with a maximum height of 4.2 m. Some tiny houses are placed on “skids” instead of wheels, allowing the dwelling to be dragged with the help of a tow truck and preventing it from being permanently fixed to the terrain [38]. The maximum size and weight of a module depend on the existing infrastructure and road conditions, such as road width, load capacity of bridges, or height of underpasses [5]. In addition, THOWs are lightweight structures. Therefore, attention should be paid to the use of materials and manufacturing details necessary to withstand all weather conditions and harsh conditions in their design.

The fact that a mobile tiny house is not tied to the land generally means that no planning permission is required to place a tiny house on a plot of land [38]. Therefore, this increases the appeal of mobile tiny houses because they are subject to less red tape than fixed tiny houses. However, this does not mean that mobile tiny houses are free from regulatory hurdles. Tiny houses are an environmentally friendly option with their low cost and low carbon footprint. Some homeowners choose to use recycled materials and renewable energy sources in their homes.

2.3. Tiny House Movement in Türkiye

Interest in tiny houses (Figure 1a) has increased greatly in Türkiye in recent years. Tiny house manufacturers have been established in cities such as Istanbul and Izmir, and wheeled models, in particular, have become widespread. In Türkiye, tiny houses are classified as ‘trailers’ under the Highway Traffic Regulation, requiring license plates. While fixed tiny houses must comply with zoning laws, mobile tiny houses serve as temporary homes, vacation residences, and disaster relief shelters. Tiny houses are used as temporary housing or holiday homes and provide temporary shelter solutions in disasters such as earthquakes. The legal status of tiny houses poses various difficulties, especially due to the differences between permanent and mobile structures. Municipalities and regulatory authorities may take different approaches to accepting tiny houses.

Legal size restrictions for tiny houses vary in different countries [26]. Similarly, the dimensions and weight capacities of trailers vary. Therefore, the production of THOWs begins with finding a suitable trailer (Figure 1b. According to the Highway Traffic Regulation (Article 128), the limited length dimensions are given in

Table 1. Trailer dimensions specified in the Highway Traffic Regulations.

Maximum width of vehicles	2.55 m
Maximum height of vehicles	4.00 m
In trailers	12.00 m

.

Therefore, tiny houses can be built with a width of 2.55 m, a height of 4 m, and a maximum length of 12 m (Figure 2). They must obtain a Type Approval Certificate by determining the classes they are included in according to their weight.

Providing tiny houses as an alternative and legitimate housing option also involves creating safe, comfortable, insulated, and structurally sound construction methods. Due to the mobile nature of tiny houses on wheels, wall, floor, and roof connections and ceiling heights must be adjusted to withstand additional wind loads during movement.

The literature review suggests that small houses can be categorized into two different types based on their characteristics. These two types are Permanent and Mobile tiny houses. Both types have been examined in terms of key criteria such as mobility, legal regulations, land ownership requirements, cost, and sustainability, and a comparative analysis is presented in

Table 2. Comparison of tiny house characteristics (elaborated by authors).

Criteria	Fixed Tiny House	Mobile Tiny House
Mobility	Fixed, cannot be moved	Portable, provides flexibility
Legal Regulations	Subject to zoning and building permits	Subject to road transport regulations
Land Ownership Required?	Yes	No, it can be rented or used with permission
Cost	Higher construction and infrastructure costs	Lower cost, but may have transport and maintenance expenses
Sustainability	More energy-efficient and long-lasting structures Requires local infrastructure	Material and energy efficiency may vary Often off-grid capable

below.

This comparison provides a basic framework for understanding how different types of small houses can be evaluated in various contexts.

2.4. Mobile Life and Place Attachment

Globalization and technological advances are rapidly transforming lifestyles [39,40]. Mobility has reshaped the concept of place attachment by increasing the spatial mobility of individuals [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41]. While work, information, and services were produced in a place-dependent manner in traditional societies, digitalization and communication technologies have greatly reduced this dependency [7]. Distance education, video conferences, and digital work environments are liberating individuals from physical space constraints [42,43]. Mobility is a dynamic phenomenon that combines time and space. According to Kant, time and space constitute the basic axes of life, while Harvey [44] defines globalization as “time-space compression.” Technological changes have shortened time, and space has shrunk to become a single place. Because of technology and globalism, the speed of life has increased and created a perception of unlimited mobility in individuals.

Heidegger [45] defines the concept of dwelling as a practice in which individuals establish a material and spiritual connection with their environment. According to him, dwelling is associated with a deep-rooted order of life in a particular place. Tuan [46] emphasizes that place is a static concept, saying, “If we saw the world as a constantly changing process, we would not be able to develop any sense of place.” However, Büscher and Urry [47] draw attention to the importance of the complex relationships between place and mobility in contemporary life.

Place attachment refers to the meaningful relationships that individuals develop with specific others, groups, and places [48]. These relationships help individuals to situate themselves in their social and physical environments, feel a sense of security, and direct their actions [28]. Place attachment formation is embedded within the practices, experiences, and sense of belonging developed by individuals. This concept encompasses the tendency of people to form attachments not only to other people but also to their settings [47]. Traditionally, the concept of place attachment has been viewed from a humanistic viewpoint. However, globalization and increased mobility have triggered a reconstruction of the concept of place attachment [49]. The interaction of ideas, goods, and people has brought about changes in social relationships and ways of life [43]. The changing conceptions of time, space, and distance have attached new meanings to the traditional definition of place attachment. For example, the blurring of spatial boundaries—say, between work and home—has forced people to adopt a more fluid way of living.

The notion of place attachment can be examined through the frameworks of fixity and flow. Fixity refers to the enduring presence of individuals within a specific location, as well as the formation of a profound sense of belonging to that locale. Tuan’s [46] notion of “rootedness” reinforces the principle of fixity. Conversely, flow is characterized by movement, temporal discontinuities, and spatial separations. In the context of virtual or imaginary travel, this particular form of mobility is linked to the individual’s concept of transcending geographical borders [7]. Even though the concepts of place attachment and mobility seem opposed, they are not incompatible. One can undertake new experiences in several places and, at the same time, construct a high degree of attachment to the place where one currently resides. Empirical research demonstrates that one could substitute personal place attachment with mobility [6]. Shared features in various places could cause the person to experience them [42]. From this perspective, it is achievable to conceptualize the type of place attachments as multi-centered and dynamic.

The mobile lifestyle allows people to live and work in different places, transforming the concept of place attachment into a multi-centered model. Increasing mobility—especially among young generations—enables one to live a life with more flexibility and dynamism [50]. However, the very same aspect might also create diminished levels of place attachment. Although direct studies on the place attachment of Gens Y/Z in Türkiye are rare, existing research provides a general framework on this subject. Limited research studies conducted in Türkiye have demonstrated that Gen Z has less place attachment than Gen Y [27,43]. Taken together, mobile existence and place attachment are constructs fundamental to shaping contemporary individuals’ living practices. Understanding the nature of the relationship between mobility and place attachment is important when considering new lifestyle choices [41]. Place attachment, defined as the emotional bond between individuals and specific locations, is a central concept in understanding housing preferences and mobility. Studies such as that of Lewicka [41] have demonstrated that increased mobility often leads to a decline in place attachment, particularly among younger, more technologically connected generations. Similarly, empirical research [27] highlights generational distinctions in place attachment, with Gen Z exhibiting lower levels of attachment due to their preference for flexibility and digital lifestyles.

The tiny house movement, as a manifestation of mobility and minimalism, provides a unique lens to examine these dynamics. Research in countries like the United States and The Netherlands [4,32] has highlighted the movement’s appeal to younger demographics, who prioritize mobility and environmental sustainability. However, the Turkish context presents unique socio-cultural and regulatory challenges that may influence the adoption and perception of tiny houses. Existing studies [26] have noted the legal and infrastructural hurdles for tiny houses in Türkiye [21,22], yet comprehensive research on their socio-cultural reception is limited.

3. Methodology

This research examines whether Gen Z, known for its higher mobility, reflects this trait in their housing preferences by favoring tiny houses more than Gen Y. People who are traditionally attached to their place are the least mobile in terms of both the duration of residence in the current place and the number of movements. Given the established relationship between place attachment and mobility, this study employed Lewicka’s Place Attachment Scale to assess generational differences. The scale was applied to the neighborhood and city scales, and individuals’ desire for mobility, changing work, and demographic conditions were evaluated. The place attachment scale used in this study is widely known and frequently used in the literature.

This section is divided into four subheadings, and the survey and analysis process are given below.

3.1. Universe and Sample

The study population includes Gen Y (1980–1999) and Gen Z (2000–2004) individuals in Türkiye. As individuals born into the age of technology and mobility, the universe of the research consists of Gen Y (1980–1999) living in Türkiye and Gen Z (2000–2004) individuals who came of age in 2022. This range was chosen to compare two specific generational cohorts: Gen Y (1980–1999) and Gen Z (2000–2004). While definitions of generational boundaries vary, this classification aligns with previous demographic research. The individuals to be surveyed were determined by the stratified random sampling method. In the stratified random sampling method, the universe is divided into groups according to certain characteristics, and then a sample is randomly created from these layers. The group characteristic determined here is that individuals are in Gen Y or Gen Z according to their birth year. According to Turkish Statistical Institute (TurkStat) data, 32 million people were born between 1980 and 2004. When the margin of error is taken as 5% (α = 0.05), the sample size was determined as 384 people.

Ethics approval was obtained from the Düzce University Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee (29 December 2022, No.: 14).

3.2. Data Collection

Survey questions prepared via Google Forms were shared via social media, mail, and messages, and people in the relevant age range were asked to fill them out in January 2023. At the end of May, the survey was closed to data collection. Participants provided informed consent before completing the survey, ensuring they understood this study’s purpose, confidentiality measures, and voluntary nature. No personal identifiers were collected, maintaining respondent anonymity. Those who agreed to participate were first asked to write their year of birth, and if their year of birth was not within the 1980–2004 range that constituted the research sample, they were prevented from filling out the survey.

The first part of the survey includes questions about demographic information. After questions such as gender, marital status, education level, occupation, employment status, and monthly income, the second part includes questions about home ownership and the physical characteristics of the house that they live in.

In the third section, nine questions regarding the place attachment scale were asked to be answered separately at the neighborhood and city scales. In the fourth section, questions regarding housing purchasing tendencies were asked. In the fifth section, multiple-choice questions were asked regarding the participants’ expectations of the ideal house.

Finally, in the sixth section, participants were asked whether they had ever heard of small houses, commonly known as tiny houses, and whether they would like to own one. Those who wanted to own one were also asked to state what purpose they would use these houses for.

3.3. Data Analysis

The survey utilized a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Responses were averaged to compute an overall place attachment score for each participant, which was then compared between generations. The analyses were conducted using the SPSS 22.0 program. After the data were entered into the SPSS 22.0 program, participants who answered the survey without reading it were removed from the data using reverse-coded questions. Since the survey was filled out using Google Forms, it was not allowed to move on to another question without answering it, and, therefore, there were no unanswered questions in the data. In order to conduct a valid analysis between Gen Y and Z in line with the survey data, equal amounts of data were evaluated from both groups and the data of 300 people from Gen Y and 300 from Gen Z, totaling 600 people, were analyzed. Addressing Common Method Bias, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted. Reverse-coded items were included to reduce response bias.

3.4. Validity and Reliability Findings of the Place Attachment Scale

In this part of this study, the validity and reliability results of the place attachment scale used in this study are given. At this stage, Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis was conducted to determine the reliability level, and an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed for validity. While conducting the EFA, “varimax” orthogonal rotation methods were used because the principal components and the scale had two factors.

Table 3. Reliability, exploratory factor analysis, and item analysis results of the place attachment scale.

	Items	Factors		Item-Scale Relation
		1	2
Neighborhood Scale	1. I feel safe where I live.	0.725		0.805
	2. I feel like a stranger where I live.	0.576		0.697
	3. I am proud of the place I live in.	0.746		0.774
	4. I miss the place I live in when I leave.	0.749		0.756
	5. The place I live in is a part of me.	0.763		0.770
	6. I would like to deal with matters related to the place where I live.	0.754		0.685
	7. I want to move out of my living space.	0.743		0.713
	8. I would like my family and friends to live here too.	0.676		0.733
	9. I put down roots here.	0.758		0.683
City Scale	1. I feel safe where I live.		0.701	0.786
	2. I feel like a stranger where I live.		0.716	0.640
	3. I am proud of the place I live in.		0.768	0.710
	4. I miss the place I live in when I leave.		0.743	0.756
	5. The place I live in is a part of me.		0.746	0.754
	6. I would like to deal with matters related to the place where I live.		0.638	0.653
	7. I want to move out of my living space.		0.719	0.707
	8. I would like my family and friends to live here too.		0.717	0.694
	9. I put down roots here.		0.625	0.684
	Reliability	0.934	0.924	0.956
	Variance Explained (%)	32.26	32.09	64.35
	Eigenvalue	5.81	5.78
	KMO: 0.945; Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity = X2(153) = 8,479,985; p = 0.000

gives the results of the item analysis regarding the validity and reliability of the place attachment scale, reliability levels, and explanatory factor analysis results. First, to decide whether the sample size was sufficient to conduct factor analysis, Bartlett Sphericity tests were used to examine the existence of the relationship between KMO and variables [51]. As seen in Table 3, the KMO value was found to be higher than 0.945 and was found to be in the “perfect” range determined by Field [38], and the sample was confirmed to be sufficient [52]. In addition, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was found to be X² (153) = 8479.985; p < 0.05, and these results are an indication that the sample data are suitable for factor analysis and the obtained data come from a multivariate normal distribution [53].

As Table 3 shows, the data set is suitable for analysis because the correlation values between the items in the scale are greater than 0.30 [54]. The scale’s reliability analysis determined that its reliability level was high (C.Alpha = 0.956). Since the factor loading value of any item in the scale was not lower than 0.45, it was not necessary to remove any item from the scale [55].

In Table 3, it is seen that the 18-item scale has a 2-factor structure as a result of the factor analysis, and the total variance value it explains is 64.35%. The factors collected under Factor 1 and Factor 2 are named “Neighborhood Attachment” and “City Attachment”, respectively. When the reliability levels of the factors are examined, it is determined that the reliability coefficient (α = 0.934) result of the neighborhood attachment dimension is at a high level, and this factor alone explains 32.26% of the scale. When the items under city attachment are examined, it is determined that the reliability analysis (α = 0.924) result of this sub-dimension is at a high level. This factor alone explains 32.09% of the scale. In order to make a more accurate decision on the explained factor structure of the scale, it is necessary to examine the scree plot with observation values. The scree plot of the place attachment scale is given in Figure 3.

When the slope graph of the place attachment scale is examined, the break when the scale’s observation value drops below 1 occurs immediately after the second factor. The graph becomes horizontal after the second factor. This result indicates that the two-factor structure of the scale is the best. These results show that it is appropriate to examine the measurement in terms of neighborhood attachment and city attachment.

To ensure data quality, responses were screened for extreme values and inconsistencies using statistical outlier detection techniques in SPSS 22.0. Reverse-coded questions were used to detect careless responses, and participants providing inconsistent answers were removed. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR) findings in research are as follows:

• Factor Loadings: All items had factor loadings above 0.45, meaning no items were removed (

  Table 4. Factor loadings and error variance.

  Item	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8
  Factor Loading	0.8	0.85	0.78	0.82	0.79	0.86	0.87	0.83
  Error Variance	0.36	0.28	0.39	0.33	0.38	0.26	0.24	0.31

  ).
• The AVE (Average Variance Extracted) and CR (Composite Reliability) values are based on the provided factor loadings.
• AVE (Average Variance Extracted): ≈0.673\approx. 0.673.
• CR (Composite Reliability): ≈0.953\approx. 0.953.

These values indicate the following:

• The AVE > 0.50, which confirms convergent validity, meaning that the latent variable explains more than half of the variance in the indicators.
• The CR > 0.70, confirming high internal consistency among the items.

Additionally, regarding multicollinearity, Bartlett’s test of sphericity (X²(153) = 8479.985; p < 0.05) confirmed significant correlations between items, validating the suitability of the data for factor analysis. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of 0.945 further supported the adequacy of the sample size for this analysis.

4. Findings and Discussion

This section presents this study’s key findings and discusses their implications for mobility, place attachment, and tiny house preferences. By analyzing generational differences between Gen Y and Gen Z, this research sheds light on how evolving lifestyles and economic factors influence housing preferences in Türkiye.

4.1. Key Findings

This research analyzed data from 600 participants (300 Gen Y and 300 Gen Z) to assess generational differences in place attachment and housing preferences. It also compared the place attachment levels and attitudes towards the tiny house movement of Gen Y/Z.

For this study, data from 600 participants were evaluated, with an equal number from both groups: 300 from Gen Y and 300 from Gen Z. The findings regarding the demographic characteristics of this study are given in

Table 5. Findings regarding demographic characteristics of participants.

Demographic	Group	GEN
		Y		Z		Overall
		n	%	n	%	n	%
Gender	Woman	171	57.00	146	48.67	317	52.83
	Men	129	43.00	154	51.33	283	47.17
Age	23 and below	0	0.00	300	100.00	300	50.00
	Between 24 and 33	186	62.00	0	0.00	186	31.00
	34 and up	114	38.00	0	0.00	114	19.00
Marital status	Single	138	46.00	267	89.00	405	67.50
	Married	162	54.00	33	11.00	195	32.50
Education	Elem/Mid. school	0	0.00	16	5.33	16	2.67
	High School	7	2.33	36	12.00	43	7.17
	Associate’s degree	13	4.33	52	17.33	65	10.83
	Bachelor’s degree	143	47.67	154	51.33	297	49.50
	Master degree	113	37.67	42	14.00	155	25.83
	Doctorate	24	8.00	0	0.00	24	4.00
Having Children	Yes	100	33.33	20	6.67	120	20.00
	No	200	66.67	280	93.33	480	80.00

. The findings reveal the effects of demographic and social variables on place attachment and the differences between generations.

This study examined the differences between the groups. An independent sample t-test was used to compare paired groups, and one-way ANOVA analysis was used for more than two groups.

The neighborhood attachment levels of Gen Y participants were higher than those of Gen Z (

Table 6. Comparing generations and levels of place attachment.

Attachment	Gen	n	Mean	Sd.	t	p
Neighborhood	Y	300	3.35	1.02	7.505	0.001 *
	Z	300	2.73	1.00
City	Y	300	3.26	0.97	4.887	0.001 *
	Z	300	2.87	1.00

* p < 0.05; t: Independent sample t-test.

). When the averages were examined, the city attachment levels of Gen Y participants were higher than those of Gen Z. These findings support the fact that Gen Z tends to have a more active lifestyle. As stated in the literature, Gen Z, who were born into technology and are accustomed to a mobile lifestyle, tends to establish weaker relationships with local ties [14,56].

An important difference was found in the neighborhood and city attachment levels of Gen Y individuals according to whether they had heard of the concept of tiny houses before (p = 0.001 ˂ 0.05). When the means were examined, the neighborhood and city attachment levels of Gen Y participants who had not heard of the concept of tiny houses before were higher (

Table 7. Comparison of the tiny house hearing status and place attachment levels.

Gen	Attachment	Tiny House Hearing	n	Mean	Sd.	t	p	Cohen d
Y	Neighborhood	Yes	197	2.94	0.96	−11.343	0.001 *	0.588
		No	103	4.12	0.62
	City	Yes	197	2.99	1.02	−7.202	0.001 *	0.428
		No	103	3.78	0.59
Z	Neighborhood	Yes	232	2.44	0.87	−10.885	0.001 *	0.615
		No	68	3.71	0.75
	City	Yes	232	2.66	0.97	−7.482	0.001 *	0.489
		No	68	3.60	0.68

* p < 0.05; t: Independent sample t-test.

). Also, the neighborhood and city attachment levels of Gen Z participants who had not heard of the concept of tiny houses before were higher.

Given that there were statistically significant differences between the two groups, we further examined effect sizes to assess the magnitude of these differences. The results indicate that place attachment differences are more pronounced in Gen Z than in Gen Y. Therefore, those who had not heard of tiny houses before were more effective for Gen Z participants.

It was found that the neighborhood and city attachment levels of Gen Z individuals showed a significant difference according to their desire to buy a small house (p = 0.001 ˂ 0.05). When the means were examined, it was seen that those who did not want to buy a small house had higher neighborhood and city attachment levels (

Table 8. Comparing levels of place attachment with willingness to buy a tiny home.

Gen	Attachment	Wanting to Buy a Tiny House	n	Mean	Sd.	t	p
Y	Neighborhood	Yes	92	3.27	0.92	−0.938	0.349
		No	208	3.39	1.06
	City	Yes	92	3.21	0.90	−0.608	0.543
		No	208	3.29	1.00
Z	Neighborhood	Yes	163	2.45	0.87	−5.467	0.001 *
		No	137	3.06	1.04
	City	Yes	163	2.65	0.94	−4.291	0.001 *
		No	137	3.13	1.00

* p < 0.05; t: Independent sample t-test.

). As a result of this analysis, it was determined that the neighborhood and city attachments of individuals in Gen Y/Z did not differ according to gender groups (p > 0.05).

As seen in

Table 9. Comparison of home ownership status and place attachment levels.

Gen	Attachment	Homeownership	n	Mean	Sd.	F	p	Scheffe
Y	Neighborhood	Homeowner	92	3.40	1.02	5.581	0.004 *	b < a, c
		Tenant	114	3.12	1.04
		It belongs to my family	94	3.58	0.96
	City	Homeowner	92	3.40	0.99	7.897	0.001 *	b < a, c
		Tenant	114	2.99	0.93
		It belongs to my family	94	3.46	0.92
Z	Neighborhood	Homeowner	70	2.81	1.07	0.343	0.710
		Tenant	102	2.72	1.00
		It belongs to my family	128	2.69	0.96
	City	Homeowner	70	2.78	1.04	1.212	0.299
		Tenant	102	2.80	1.01
		It belongs to my family	128	2.97	0.96

* p < 0.05; F: One Way ANOVA Test.

, the difference originated between tenants and those who owned their family home and homeowners, and the neighborhood and city attachments of tenants were lower (Table 9). On the other hand, the neighborhood and city attachments of Gen Z did not differ significantly according to their home ownership status (p > 0.05). The neighborhood and city attachment levels of homeowners in Gen Y were found to be higher than those of tenants (p < 0.05). However, the rate of use of tiny houses as primary residences has been low for both generations. Participants see tiny houses as more suitable for weekend homes, trips, and vacations (Table 9).

Table 10. Comparison of type of residence and levels of place attachment.

Gen	Attachment	Type of Resident	n	Mean	Sd.	F	p
Y	Neighborhood	Apartment	122	3.31	0.95	0.468	0.705
		Apartment in the complex	92	3.30	0.96
		Detached house	49	3.45	1.21
		A detached house within the site	37	3.47	1.14
	City	Apartment	122	3.29	0.91	0.306	0.821
		Apartment in the complex	92	3.26	0.98
		Detached house	49	3.15	1.07
		A detached house within the site	37	3.34	1.03
Z	Neighborhood	Apartment	107	2.79	0.98	0.692	0.557
		Apartment in the complex	62	2.78	1.00
		Detached house	77	2.72	1.03
		A detached house within the site	54	2.56	1.00
	City	Apartment	107	2.96	0.95	0.742	0.528
		Apartment in the complex	62	2.85	1.02
		Detached house	77	2.86	1.03
		A detached house within the site	54	2.72	1.01

F: One Way ANOVA Test.

shows that the neighborhood and city attachments of individuals in Generation Y/Z did not differ according to the kind of residence they lived in (p > 0.05). When looking at attitudes towards the tiny house movement, Gen Z expressed their interest in tiny houses more strongly and stated that they prefer such houses more than Gen Y (p < 0.05). In particular, 54.33% of Gen Z individuals stated that they are considering buying a tiny house, while this rate is 30.67% for Gen Y.

The results have shown that the neighborhood and city attachments of the individuals in Gen Y/Z did not differ according to their marital status (p > 0.05). It was seen that the neighborhood attachments of the individuals in Gen Z differed according to their education levels (F: 3.518; p < 0.05). When the means were examined as a result of the Scheffe test conducted to investigate which group the difference originated from, it was determined that the participants in Gen Z with a high school or lower education level had lower neighborhood attachments than those with a bachelor’s degree (

Table 11. Comparison of levels of place attachment and educational attainment.

Gen	Attachment	Education	n	Mean	Sd.	F	p	Scheffe
Y	Neighborhood	High school or below	7	3.05	1.06	1.540	0.204
		Associate degree	13	3.58	1.20
		Bachelor’s degree	143	3.24	0.98
		Master’s degree +	137	3.46	1.04
	City	High school or below	7	3.02	1.03	0.210	0.890
		Associate degree	13	3.21	1.12
		Bachelor’s degree	143	3.25	0.94
		Master’s degree +	137	3.29	0.99
Z	Neighborhood	High school or below	52	2.43	0.95	3.518	0.016 *	a < c
		Associate degree	52	2.75	0.95
		Bachelor’s degree	154	2.88	1.02
		Master’s degree +	42	2.51	0.94
	City	High school or below	52	2.59	1.02	2.437	0.065
		Associate degree	52	2.87	0.94
		Bachelor’s degree	154	3.00	1.00
		Master’s degree +	42	2.76	0.97

* p < 0.05; F: One-Way Anova Test.

).

Table 12. Comparison of monthly income status and place attachment levels.

Gen	Attachment	İncome (Monthly)	n	Mean	Sd.	F	p	Scheffe
Y	Neighborhood	0–5.500	18	3.67	0.64	1.597	0.161
		5.501–10.000	36	3.18	0.88
		10.001–15.000	40	3.16	0.71
		15.001–20.000	61	3.26	0.99
		20.001–25.000	56	3.28	1.18
		25.001 +	89	3.54	1.14
	City	0–5.500	18	3.76	0.63	1.650	0.147
		5.501–10.000	36	3.20	0.95
		10.001–15.000	40	3.30	0.76
		15.001–20.000	61	3.20	0.99
		20.001–25.000	56	3.06	1.04
		25.001 +	89	3.34	1.03
Z	Neighborhood	0–5.500	78	3.02	0.96	2.254	0.049 *	a > e, f
		5.501–10.000	16	2.62	0.76
		10.001–15.000	30	2.75	1.08
		15.001–20.000	38	2.72	0.98
		20.001–25.000	80	2.51	1.04
		25.001 +	58	2.66	0.97
	City	0–5.500	78	3.24	0.90	3.566	0.004 *	a > e, f
		5.501–10.000	16	3.06	0.61
		10.001–15.000	30	2.72	1.03
		15.001–20.000	38	2.81	1.04
		20.001–25.000	80	2.67	1.00
		25.001 +	58	2.71	1.05

* p < 0.05; F: One Way ANOVA Test.

shows that the neighborhood and city attachments of individuals in Gen Z differed according to their income levels (p < 0.05). While Gen Z’s income increases, their neighborhood and city attachments decrease. It was observed that place attachment levels decreased as income levels increased in Gen Z (p < 0.05). This situation shows that high-income individuals tend to adopt a more mobile lifestyle. On the other hand, the difference in Gen Y’s neighborhood and city attachments according to their income status was not significant (p > 0.05).

It was determined that the place attachment levels of actively working individuals in Gen Z were higher than those of students (p < 0.05). However, no significant relationship was found between employment status and place attachment levels in Gen Y (

Table 13. Comparison of work status and place attachment levels.

Gen	Attachment	Working Status	n	Mean	Sd.	F	p	Scheffe
Y	Neighborhood	Active worker	263	3.33	1.05	0.479	0.697
		Housewife	3	3.15	0.17
		Student	26	3.57	0.81
		Not working	8	3.26	0.70
	City	Active worker	263	3.23	0.99	0.977	0.404
		Housewife	3	3.04	0.23
		Student	26	3.56	0.86
		Not working	8	3.39	0.58
Z	Neighborhood	Active worker	198	2.61	0.99	5.118	0.002 *	a < c
		Housewife	8	2.36	0.95
		Student	82	3.09	0.98
		Not working	12	2.60	0.78
	City	Active worker	198	2.68	1.00	8.322	0.001 *	a < c
		Housewife	8	2.75	1.06
		Student	82	3.29	0.89
		Not working	12	3.20	0.69

* p < 0.05; F: One-Way ANOVA Test.

). It was found that the neighborhood and city attachments of individuals in Gen Z differed according to their working status (p < 0.05); however, the neighborhood and city attachments of active employees were higher than those of students. On the other hand, it was seen that the neighborhood and city attachments of Gen Y did not show a significant difference according to their working status (p > 0.05).

The key findings are as follows;

Place Attachment Differences: Gen Y exhibits significantly higher levels of place attachment at both neighborhood and city scales compared to Gen Z (p < 0.05).

Tiny House Awareness and Place Attachment: Individuals unfamiliar with tiny houses had significantly higher place attachment levels than those who were aware of the concept (p < 0.05).

Preference for Tiny Houses: Gen Z shows a stronger interest in tiny houses compared to Gen Y, with 54.33% of Gen Z participants expressing a desire to own one, compared to 30.67% of Gen Y (p < 0.05).

Homeownership Status: For Gen Y, homeownership is associated with higher place attachment, while, for Gen Z, no significant difference was found based on homeownership status (p > 0.05).

Mobility and Housing Preferences: Higher mobility levels correlate with lower place attachment and greater interest in mobile tiny houses (p < 0.05).

Socioeconomic Factors: Income levels and education levels impact place attachment, with higher-income individuals exhibiting lower place attachment (p < 0.05).

4.2. Discussion of Findings

4.2.1. Generational Differences in Place Attachment

The findings align with the existing literature [9,14], suggesting that younger generations exhibit lower place attachment due to higher mobility and digital lifestyles. Gen Z, having grown up in an era of globalization and technological connectivity, is less tied to specific locations than Gen Y. As Scannell and Gifford [6] argue, place attachment is formed through social interactions and stability, both of which are less prominent in Gen Z’s experience of place.

4.2.2. Tiny House Awareness and Place Attachment

This study found that individuals who were unaware of tiny houses exhibited stronger place attachment than those familiar with the concept. This supports the notion that tiny houses are not merely a housing solution but a lifestyle choice, emphasizing flexibility and reduced attachment to specific locations [3]. The results also reinforce the idea that the tiny house movement is closely linked to mobility and minimalist living [4].

4.2.3. Preference for Tiny Houses

Multiple factors may drive Gen Z’s greater interest in tiny houses. On the one hand, their preference for mobility and digital work lifestyles make tiny houses an appealing option. On the other hand, economic constraints, such as rising real estate prices and job market instability, may also contribute to this trend. Previous studies [1,19,20] suggest that economic downturns increase interest in alternative housing models, and this may partially explain the stronger preference among Gen Z.

4.2.4. Socioeconomic and Cultural Factors

Income and education levels were found to influence place attachment. Higher-income individuals exhibited lower place attachment, aligning with findings from Gustafson (2014) [28], which suggest that financial security enables greater mobility. However, the cultural context of Türkiye must also be considered. Multi-generational living arrangements and traditional homeownership norms may contribute to resistance against tiny house living as a primary residence [26].

4.2.5. Homeownership and Housing Preferences

For Gen Y, homeownership was associated with stronger place attachment. In contrast, no significant difference was found for Gen Z. This suggests a shift in the perception of housing, where younger generations prioritize flexibility over property ownership. Similar trends have been observed in other global studies on housing and mobility [8].

4.3. Policy and Urban Planning Implications

The findings of this study have significant implications for urban planning and housing policies in Türkiye. There are several key takeaways, including the following:

Regulatory Clarity for Tiny Houses: Legal frameworks should be updated to differentiate between fixed and mobile tiny houses to provide clearer guidelines for prospective buyers.

Incentives for Sustainable Housing: Financial incentives, such as tax reductions or loan support, could encourage the adoption of tiny houses as a sustainable housing alternative.

Infrastructure Development: Enhancing infrastructure for off-grid tiny house communities could make this housing option more viable, particularly for younger populations seeking alternative lifestyles.

Cultural Awareness Campaigns: Public awareness campaigns could highlight the environmental and financial benefits of tiny houses to reduce social resistance to non-traditional housing models.

4.4. Limitations and Future Research Directions

While this study provides valuable insights, some limitations should be acknowledged:

Sample Representation: This study is limited to a specific age group in Türkiye, and findings may not generalize to broader populations.

Cross-Sectional Design: This study captures a snapshot of generational attitudes but does not account for potential shifts in preferences over time.

Cultural and Regional Variations: Future research should explore how tiny house adoption varies across different regions in Türkiye, considering urban vs. rural preferences.

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

This study confirms that Gen Z exhibits lower place attachment and a stronger preference for tiny houses compared to Gen Y. The findings suggest that mobility and economic factors significantly shape housing preferences among younger generations. Despite growing interest in tiny houses, legal and cultural barriers hinder their adoption as primary residences in Türkiye.

Policy adjustments, infrastructure investments, and cultural shifts are necessary for tiny houses to become a viable housing option. Future research should explore longitudinal trends to assess how generational attitudes toward tiny houses evolve. By addressing regulatory and social challenges, Türkiye can pave the way for more sustainable and flexible housing solutions in the future.

To facilitate tiny house adoption in Türkiye, policymakers should undertake the following:

• Establish clear legal definitions for tiny houses, including zoning regulations.
• Provide financial incentives, such as tax reductions, for sustainable housing options.
• Develop infrastructure to support off-grid tiny house living.

By addressing these barriers, Türkiye can create a more supportive environment for alternative housing solutions. Urban policies and tax incentives could increase the feasibility of tiny houses.

Theoretical and Practical Implications: This research contributes to the literature on mobility and place attachment. The practical implications include urban policy recommendations for promoting affordable and mobile housing solutions.

Final Remarks:

Despite Generation Z’s interest in tiny houses, cultural and economic factors prevent them from being primary residences.

Future studies should explore longitudinal changes in tiny house adoption in Türkiye.