Living smaller: acceptance, effects and structural factors in the EU

Overview of the Study

The article “Living smaller: acceptance, effects and structural factors in the EU” is published in Buildings & Cities and authored by Doris Fuchs together with a multidisciplinary team from several European institutions (Matthias Lehner, Jessika Luth Richter, Halliki Kreinin, Pia Mamut, Edina Vadovics, Josefine Henman, Oksana Mont). It investigates voluntary reductions in per‑capita living space across Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Spain and Sweden as a potential route to housing sufficiency and climate mitigation. Data were gathered through citizen and stakeholder “thinking labs” conducted between September 2022 and February 2024 under the EU Horizon 2020 project EU 1.5° Lifestyles.

Research Aim and Methodology

The study aims to understand acceptance, motivations, side‑effects and necessary societal shifts for “living smaller”. Qualitative evidence was collected via three rounds of citizen thinking labs (acceptance, effects, pathways) and two rounds of stakeholder labs, producing extensive interview transcripts that were coded deductively with software assistance. The sample includes diverse participants—citizens, policy makers, academics, industry representatives—providing a broad perspective on structural barriers such as market regulations, social inequality and cultural norms.

Acceptance Levels

When asked about willingness to give up excess square metres, only 29 % of participants expressed approval; willingness to choose shared housing was even lower at 21 %. Country‑specific acceptance ranged from 13 % (shared housing in Germany) to 42 % (giving up space in Latvia). Main reasons for low acceptance include perceived market complexity, fear of loss of privacy, and entrenched norms favoring ownership of larger homes.

Motivations for Downsizing

Among participants who had already reduced their living space, motivations clustered into four categories:

1. Value‑based – environmental ethics, social fairness, opposition to material excess.
2. Practical – changes in family composition, desire for central urban locations, reduced maintenance.
3. Economic – high rents, mortgage pressures, lower utility costs.
4. Structural – limited housing options, rapid need for accommodation, urban density advantages.

Reported Effects

Positive effects reported include:

• Decluttering and more intentional consumption.
• Time saved on cleaning and maintenance, leading to improved mental health and leisure.
• Ability to move to central, well‑connected neighborhoods, enhancing access to services and active transport. Negative effects include:
• Reduced space for social gatherings, leading to higher costs for hosting friends or family elsewhere.
• Conflicts over privacy, noise and shared resources.
• Practical constraints such as limited storage, difficulty accommodating hobbies, and higher food costs due to inability to buy in bulk.

Enabling Factors and Policy Recommendations

Key enablers identified are: flexible housing markets (e.g., exchange platforms, reduced administrative barriers), abundant high‑quality common amenities, and cost savings that can be redirected to better locations or other consumption. Experts suggest:

• Reforming minimum dwelling‑size regulations and incentivising smaller units.
• Implementing graduated property taxes to discourage oversized homes.
• Supporting rental and co‑housing models, modular designs, and “housing‑match” programmes.
• Strengthening community infrastructure (green spaces, shared facilities) to compensate for private space loss.
• Promoting public dialogue to shift cultural norms away from equating larger homes with status.

Broader Implications for Sustainable Housing

The research highlights that voluntary living‑smaller can contribute to EU climate goals by reducing per‑capita energy demand—households already account for 27 % of EU final energy consumption, with over 60 % used for space heating. However, the study warns that without addressing structural barriers and societal narratives, downsizing may lead to lower satisfaction and possible rebound effects (e.g., increased travel). A holistic approach involving policy reform, urban planning, community building and cultural change is deemed essential for scaling the benefits across Europe.

Conclusions

The article concludes that while there is measurable willingness to adopt smaller living under the right conditions, entrenched market structures, social norms and perceived loss of freedom currently limit widespread acceptance. Effective transition to housing sufficiency will require coordinated actions: regulatory adjustments, financial incentives, enhanced shared amenities, and a shift in public perception toward viewing smaller dwellings as compatible with high quality of life and environmental responsibility.