For this analysis, we filtered out responses using two questions placed throughout the survey to check if respondents were paying attention. We do this to strengthen our predictions of adoption patterns and refine implementation strategies. From the initial sample of 4,953 responses, we obtained 3,539 responses that aligned with our established criteria for the predictive model. 

We took the homeowners' statements about their position on each innovation and used them to create a four-quadrant model for the study based on two variables:

• Willingness to adopt the innovation (X-axis): Assessed through survey questions evaluating homeowners' consideration level to implement the innovation within a five-year timeframe.
• Capability to adopt the innovation (Y-axis): Assessed through survey questions evaluating homeowners' perceived ability to implement the innovation within a five-year timeframe.

The quadrant below presents the homeowner segmentation. The quadrants selected for in-depth analysis describe the homeowners with high capability paired with either high or low willingness to adopt each innovation. We will refer to individuals with high capability and high willingness to adopt a given housing type in the top right quadrant as High Potential Adopters. Individuals with high capability and low willingness, located in the top left quadrant, are referred to as Capable Yet Unconvinced Adopters.

The quadrant model enables innovators to identify key homeowner demographics, barriers, and drivers for each innovative housing type. Innovators can address barriers specific to these groups and adapt their value propositions to enhance adoption rates. While capability often depends on structural and economic factors that are harder to influence, willingness can be increased by effectively addressing perceived barriers and emphasizing key adoption drivers. Using this model, innovators can distinguish between homeowners who have the financial and practical means to adopt innovations but differ in willingness to proceed.

We categorized each homeowner's willingness and ability to adopt housing innovations based solely on their self-reported responses without making any assumptions based on other data. For willingness to adopt, we looked at whether respondents said they would consider implementing the innovations within the next five years without factoring in any barriers or drivers mentioned. Similarly, to measure one’s ability to adopt, we relied on the self-assessment of homeowners' capacity to purchase the innovation over the next five years. 

This approach enabled us to avoid making any assumptions about the current living situation or household income of respondents. By basing these classifications directly on the homeowners' perspectives alone, we got a clearer picture of their true potential to adopt the innovative housing options without as much risk of introducing any biases on our part.

Homeowners were classified with a high or low score for each of the evaluated dimensions based on their self-declared intent and capability to adopt on a five-level Likert scale. While “strongly disagree,” “disagree,” and “neutral” are classified as low intent or capability to adopt the innovation, “strongly agree” and “agree” are classified as having a high intent or capability to adopt the innovation.

To determine the main characteristics that affect whether homeowners would adopt the innovations, we used a statistical analysis called logistic regression. This process allowed us to identify the key homeowner characteristics that impacted their willingness to adopt. The factors we used to train the model are the following:

• Age
• Sex
• Type of population 
• Urban or rural location, 
• Province, 
• Household income, 
• Type of dwelling, 
• Co-inhabitants,
• Innovation-specific barriers,
• Innovation-specific drivers,
• Social perceptions of the innovation

The logistic regression gave us coefficients that showed how much each unique homeowner characteristic influenced adoption, whether it made respondents more or less likely to adopt, and by how much. We only included factors where we could be confident (at least 95% sure) that the results were accurate. We left out any homeowner characteristics that had a minimal influence on the classification (coefficients smaller than 0.1). This analysis helped us pinpoint the critical drivers and barriers that were shaping homeowners' decisions about adopting innovative housing options.

It’s worth stressing that this analysis excludes the respondents who have already adopted each innovation. Instead, our study aims to identify the main characteristics of potential adopters—including what is driving their adoption and what is blocking their implementation. Adding declared adopters of the innovation would unfavorably skew the results. 

In this section, we will dive into each innovative form of housing, the population distribution of the potential adopters, and the attributes that each group has in common. 

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), also known as additional dwelling units, laneway houses, and granny flats, among other terms, are secondary housing units placed on a single-family residential lot. ADUs can be detached (such as a separate unit in a backyard) or a conversion of existing space (such as turning a garage into a living space). They provide an independent living area with sleeping, cooking, and bathroom facilities. 

To determine the homeowner adoption potential, we use two main questions to classify each respondent's capability and willingness to adopt: 

• Willingness: I would consider building an ADU on my property in the next 5 years.
• Capability: I could afford to build an ADU on my property or future property within the next 5 years.

The quadrant below shows the distribution and proportion of homeowners by their ADU adoption potential. The analysis will be focused on the two upper quadrants. These individuals with a declared capacity for adoption have the most potential to adopt. Innovators can influence their willingness by adapting their value proposition to address homeowners' barriers and leveraging their drivers for adoption. Meanwhile, capability is more challenging to influence since innovators cannot change the structural and economic factors determining a homeowner's ability to implement ADUs. 

High Potential Adopters of ADUs 

The first group that we will analyze includes respondents with high willingness and high capacity to adopt ADUs. This group consists of 296 homeowners. We ran a logistic regression that takes all the demographic variables of the homeowners as well as their barriers, drivers, and social perceptions of ADUs as inputs to identify the main unique traits of the group. This approach allows key stakeholders to understand the main factors surrounding the high-potential group, their views regarding ADUs, and ways to tailor their approach to meet their needs.

The above image shows the most common attributes of High Potential Adopters of ADUs. High potential ADU adopters answered “none of the above” to the question about ability barriers to adoption. This finding validates our model and methodology since it is logical that individuals with a high willingness and capability to adopt will not present many barriers to adoption.

The strongest predictor for this group is the fear that people they care about would think less of them if they built an ADU. It may at first seem counterintuitive that a barrier to building ADUs would be the main shared attribute; given that this group is the most likely to adopt, we would expect a driver or a demographic variable to be the most impactful factor. However, if we look at this barrier from the perspective of those unwilling or incapable of building an ADU, the significance of this predictor becomes clearer. Homeowners belonging to this group will not choose this barrier because other obstacles like the building process, permits, or the lack of alignment with their future goals are more likely to hinder an unwilling or incapable homeowner. In contrast, for a homeowner who is both capable and willing to adopt, it is the perceived social backlash that hinders adoption the most.

The demographic populations of South Asians and Arabs are more prone to have a higher likelihood of adopting ADUs. Living in British Columbia and Ontario, along with the age ranges of 31-40 and 61-70, are also predictors of belonging to this high-potential group. Finally, men in general are also more likely to belong to this category. The more demographics a participant shares, the higher the likelihood of them adopting ADUs. Innovators can target these specific demographics in their communications or consider partnerships with community organizations to reach their target audience. Developers, innovators, and policymakers can consider each demographic characteristic independently.

The household income bracket of more than $130,000 was also aligned with an individual’s likelihood of having the capability of adopting an ADU. It is important to reiterate that for all innovation types, the self-declared capability of the homeowner determines their adoption quadrant classification. We utilized this approach to ensure no bias is introduced from our end when determining what income or additional characteristics should be established as a threshold for each category. This method ensures that the model is working as intended and that the responses extracted from the survey are of high quality.

Capable Yet Unconvinced Adopters of ADUs

The plot below shows all the attributes that homeowners with high capability but low willingness to adopt ADUs have in common.

The primary predictive demographics for this group are age (individuals between 61-80 years old) and income ($100,000 or more). It is expected to see an overlap in the demographic characteristics between this group (low willingness and high capability) and the previous (high willingness and high capability) since they both share the attribute of high capability to adopt. 

The primary barriers for the Capable Yet Unconvinced group are related to ADU regulations, including a lack of awareness about the rules or a belief that such regulations prohibit this type of housing. To tackle this issue, we recommend that innovators trying to target this market segment provide a service that facilitates understanding and navigating local ADU regulations. Additionally, partnerships with local municipalities and planning departments could help create a more transparent and accessible process for potential ADU adopters. By addressing these regulatory knowledge gaps, innovators can reduce adoption barriers and increase market penetration in the unconvinced adopters section.

Middle Housing Adoption

Middle housing is a form of housing that fits the gap between low-rise, primarily single-family homes and mid-rise apartment buildings, such as duplexes, triplexes, and multiplexes. It provides an important stepping stone in housing choices, offering more density without dramatic changes to neighborhood character.

To determine the homeowner's potential for middle housing adoption, we used two main questions: 

• Willingness: If you were to purchase a home in the next 5 years, how would you describe your preference for purchasing a unit in a middle housing building?
• Capability: I could afford to purchase a unit in a middle housing building within the next 5 years.

The quadrant below shows the distribution and proportion of homeowners by their middle housing adoption potential. The analysis will be focused on the two upper quadrants. These individuals with a declared capacity for adoption have the most potential to adopt. Innovators can influence their willingness by adapting their value proposition to address homeowners' barriers and leveraging their drivers for adoption. Capability is more challenging to influence since innovators cannot change the structural and economic factors determining a homeowner's ability to adopt middle housing.

High Potential Adopters of Middle Housing

The plot below shows mainly demographic attributes that are more likely to be present in Canadians willing and capable to buy a unit in a middle housing home in the next five years. A South Asian man of 31-40 years of age, living with his spouse, and a household income of $70,000-100,000 is the demographic that fits the best with a High Potential Adopter. The model treats each unique characteristic indistinctly from each other. This means that the more attributes a homeowner has, the more likely it is for them to be willing and capable of adopting the innovation. However, it is not mandatory to fill out the complete checklist of attributes.

Capable Yet Unconvinced Adopters of Middle Housing

Meanwhile, the chart below shows the main attributes of all homeowners capable but unwilling to adopt middle housing. This group does not present unique barriers or drivers that can distinguish them from the rest of the homeowners. The biggest predictor for this group is their living situation, with homeowners living with their grandchildren being the main characteristic. 

Household income is also tied to this group, as we should expect the capable segment to declare a high capability of purchasing a middle housing unit within the next five years. The higher their income, the higher the likelihood of them belonging to this group, which helps us validate the classification and the correct functionality of the model.  

Middle Housing Conversion

Middle housing conversion refers to the process of transforming a single-family home into multiple housing units, increasing the number of dwellings on a property.

To determine the potential for middle housing conversion, we use two primary questions to identify the homeowners' capability and willingness to convert: 

• Willingness: I would seriously consider converting a home into middle housing in the next 5 years.
• Capability: I could afford to convert a home into middle housing within the next 5 years.

The quadrant below shows the distribution and proportion of homeowners by their middle housing conversion potential. The analysis will be focused on the two upper quadrants. These individuals with a declared capacity for adoption have the most potential to adopt. Innovators can influence their willingness by adapting their value proposition to address homeowners' barriers and leveraging their drivers for adoption. Capability is more challenging to influence since innovators cannot change the structural and economic factors determining a homeowner's ability to adopt middle housing conversion. 

High Potential Adopters of Middle Housing Conversion

The plot below shows the attributes more likely present in the high-potential adopter group for middle housing conversion. The best predictor for this group by a large margin is feeling a sense of shame or disappointment if a respondent were to convert their unit into middle housing. Given its high prevalence in the group, this misconception must be targeted in messaging efforts. The second best predictive attribute for this group is thinking one’s neighbors will object if they convert their unit into middle housing. Given that this group is the most likely to convert their unit, it’s interesting that the best predictors are barriers to implementing middle housing. What makes this notable is that psychological or social barriers can outweigh practical considerations, even among those most likely to adopt. This presents a unique opportunity for innovators to address these barriers in their value proposition so that potential homeowners are not discouraged by these two main factors.

The primary predictive demographics for this quadrant are young homeowners from 26-40 with a household income ranging from $40,000-100,000. The provinces of Alberta, Ontario, British Columbia, and Prairies are the most likely to have homeowners willing and capable of converting into middle housing.

Capable Yet Unconvinced Adopters of Middle Housing Conversion

The plot below illustrates the unique attributes of homeowners capable yet unwilling to convert their units into middle housing. Compared to the High Potential Adopters, this group has an older demographic with a higher income bracket. Individuals who are capable yet unwilling to adopt middle housing are characterized by an age group ranging from 61-81+ with a household income of $70,000-130,000+. The higher the income, the higher the likelihood of the homeowner belonging to this group. The population group of Métis is a big predictor for this group as well.

The biggest driver for Capable Yet Unconvinced Adopters is the belief that converting their unit into middle housing will increase the value if they sell their property in the future. Considering this group is still unwilling to convert, innovators should realize that this is not a strong enough driver to change perceptions toward adoption. The main barrier for this group is not knowing the local regulations for middle housing conversion. To reach this group more effectively, innovators should work to eliminate homeowners' knowledge gap on the local regulations for middle housing conversion.

Prefabricated and Modular Housing 

Prefabricated (prefab) and modular housing techniques create housing by building sections in off-site factories (either individual panels or entire modules) and then assembling the building on-site. These may be commonly associated with structures like mobile homes, but they may also include a range of architectural designs and styles.

To determine the homeowner's potential for adopting prefabricated and modular housing, we use two primary questions to identify the homeowners' capability and willingness to adopt: 

• Willingness: If you were to purchase a home in the next 5 years, how would you describe your preference for purchasing a home built using prefabricated or modular methods?
• Capability: I could afford to purchase a prefabricated or modular home within the next 5 years.

The quadrant below shows the distribution and proportion of homeowners by their prefab and modular housing adoption potential. The analysis will be focused on the two upper quadrants. These individuals with a declared capacity for adoption have the most potential to adopt. Innovators can influence their willingness by adapting their value proposition to address homeowners' barriers and leveraging their drivers for adoption. Capability is more challenging to influence since innovators cannot change the structural and economic factors determining a homeowner's ability to adopt prefab and modular housing. 

High Potential Adopters of Prefabricated and Modular Housing

The chart below shows the most prevalent and unique attributes in individuals with a high adoption potential for prefabricated and modular housing. The primary demographics for this group are individuals living in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec with a household income of $70,000-130,000. The lower the income within this bracket, the higher the likelihood of belonging to this group. Women have a higher likelihood of being High Potential Adopters, along with the respondents living with their spouse or common-law partner. 

Our model is validated by the fact that the group that declares to have a high willingness and adoption capability would have fewer perceived barriers. 

We encourage innovators to target the mentioned demographics since they are the most likely to adopt prefabricated and modular housing. It's relevant to include a clear comparison of the financial benefits and returns of prefabricated and modular techniques, as this can address the main perceived barrier of High Potential Adopters.

Capable Yet Unconvinced Adopters of Prefabricated and Modular Housing

The chart below shows the main characteristics of the individuals who can buy a house built with modular or prefabricated techniques but are unwilling to do so. Unlike the high-potential individuals, this group is more likely to be men with a higher average household income; the higher the income, the more likely the individual is to belong to this group.

Interestingly, perceiving modular and prefab techniques as having the same or even better quality than traditional techniques is a characteristic of this group. This means that just perceiving better quality is not enough motivation for an individual to be willing to adopt this type of housing innovation. Although it is still essential to emphasize quality, it should not be the only benefit mentioned. We encourage innovators to promote additional perks for these innovations to persuade potential adopters to implement such techniques. 

Community Bonds 

Community bonds allow individuals to lend money to directly support the development of affordable housing in their local area, with the promise of a financial return over a set time period and a positive social impact. These financial instruments encourage community members to invest directly in neighborhood development projects, such as affordable housing or community facilities. 

To determine the homeowner's potential for investing in community bonds, we use two primary questions to identify the homeowners' capability and willingness to invest: 

• Willingness: I would consider investing in community bonds in the next 5 years.
• Capability: I could afford to invest in community bonds within the next 5 years.

The quadrant below shows the distribution and proportion of homeowners by their potential to invest in community bonds. The analysis will be focused on the two upper quadrants. These individuals with a declared capacity for adoption have the most potential to adopt. Innovators can influence their willingness by adapting their value proposition to address homeowners' barriers and leveraging their drivers for adoption. Capability is more challenging to influence since innovators cannot change the structural and economic factors determining a homeowner's ability to invest.

High Potential Adopters of Community Bonds

The graph below illustrates the unique attributes of individuals with a high potential for investment in community bonds. Age is the biggest predictor for a respondent to be categorized as belonging to this group. The age brackets below 30 years old and above 70 are the sections where it is less likely to find high-potential investors. The second best predictor for this group is the household income. The only income bracket that is not considered a unique characteristic of this group is the lowest household income bracket available in the question, which was less than $40,000. The higher the income, the higher the likelihood of the individual belonging to the high-potential adoption group. Belonging to either Arab or Black populations is a unique characteristic for this group, as well as being a resident of British Columbia.

It’s reassuring that the model identifies the absence of barriers as the strongest predictor for this group, as these individuals self-reported a high willingness and capability to invest in community bonds. The second barrier for this group is the perceived lack of investment opportunities. This hurdle can be overcome by innovators emphasizing investment possibilities for homeowners, especially those belonging to the demographics mentioned above, who have a high potential for community bond investment. 

Capable Yet Unconvinced Adopters of Community Bonds

The chart below illustrates the characteristics more likely to be found in individuals capable yet unconvinced of investing in community bonds. The best predictor for this group is a high household income. The higher the income, the higher the likelihood of belonging to this group, starting from $70,000. This group consists of a young population aged 26-30 or a more mature population aged 71-80, unlike the high-potential adopters who have an age range between these two groups.  Men are more prone to being Capable Yet Unconvinced Adopters, as well as citizens of Alberta and the Prairies. In addition, living in large multiplexes of 5-12 units increases the likelihood of individuals belonging to this group.

The unique motivators for the unconvinced adopters include a stronger emphasis on community, alignment with personal goals, and a greater sense of control than traditional investments. This group's lack of consideration for other potential drivers, such as financial benefits, affordability, and support for local economic development, highlights which factors they fail to perceive as advantages of community bonds.

This report has shed light on the adoption of several innovations across different groups of potential homeowners, focusing on those with a strong willingness and capability to adopt new housing innovations, as well as those with the capability but lower willingness to do so.

To uncover these insights, we conducted a national survey of over 4,900 Canadian homeowners. This allowed us to identify influential factors such as demographics, perceived barriers, and motivating drivers that shape homeowner attitudes towards the innovations of ADUs, middle housing, modular and prefabricated homes, and community bonds.

The findings reveal both opportunities and challenges for innovators aiming to drive adoption. Homeowners who are High Potential Adopters are drawn to clear benefits like rental income and sustainability yet face regulatory and social perception hurdles. Meanwhile, Capable Yet Unconvinced Adopters often hesitate due to knowledge gaps or insufficient motivating factors.

To successfully engage these different homeowner segments, innovators should tailor their strategies accordingly. This could involve partnering with community organizations, simplifying regulatory processes, or enhancing communication around financial benefits. By targeting the specific barriers and drivers within each group, stakeholders can catalyze the shift toward adoption.

Ultimately, understanding and responding to the unique attributes of Canadian homeowners is vital to unlocking new pathways for housing innovation. This, in turn, can foster a more adaptable and inclusive housing ecosystem across the country.