The availability and affordability of housing is a growing challenge across Canada. Population growth, paired with declining interest rates, has increased demand for housing. Unfortunately,  supply growth has not been able to keep pace, especially in Canada’s most populous regions, such as the Greater Toronto Area. 

The Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) projects that 3.5 million homes beyond the current projection must be built before 2030 to alleviate the housing shortage and restore affordability. This effort requires cooperation at all levels of government and may require changes in how builders and developers select, execute, and manage residential construction projects. 

Innovation in the housing sector is integral to restoring housing affordability in Canada. Housing innovation can take the form of reworking existing structures so that they include more units, pursuing construction strategies that are faster and cheaper, novel financing methods, and increasing the efficiency of land use as compared to traditional stick-built, single-family homes.¹

For any innovation to become widespread, it must move beyond individual adopters to cultural acceptance. Previous investigations in the field, including our own, have shown this to be a formidable barrier in the case of housing. Before designing this survey, we performed qualitative research with municipal planners and developers across Canada that demonstrated the extent to which community opposition is an obstacle to adopting housing innovation. Community members are highly influential stakeholders in developing their neighborhood’s homes—thus, community opposition can cause significant delays or even end a construction project altogether. A notable component of this opposition is NIMBYism, a mindset where people oppose certain developments or projects in their local area because they perceive them as undesirable, despite their proven success in other locations. However, the sociology behind the spread of innovation is complex and requires an understanding of both individual decision-making and the social norms contextualizing these decisions.^2,3

"I would say NIMBYism is the greatest challenge that is faced." — Municipal Planner

"I think from a decision-maker perspective, there’s a paralysis that I’ve observed—the policy is directing that we need to facilitate affordability, [developers] are being told that this is the density and height that’s required to achieve that affordability, but then they’re receiving this pushback from a very vocal public that doesn’t want to see the character [of the neighborhood] change" — Municipal Planner

"Here's the thing: the building permit is not the issue… The part that is the hard part, like I said, is… the neighborhood association stuff. That's the issue." — Developer

This report dives into a rarely explored aspect of housing transformation—not the perspective of someone looking to build or live in innovative housing but the openness to adoption by others within one’s community.

Through interviews, surveys, and in-depth analyses, our research spells out what it will take to shift public perception and overcome community resistance. This report offers a roadmap for change, revealing insights on how to move housing innovation from aspiration to reality in neighborhoods across Canada. 

We conducted a multi-stage qualitative and quantitative research project on behalf of innovators in the building and development sectors of the housing ecosystem. However, this report mainly details the quantitative results, with some mentions of important qualitative insights. Our main objectives were to understand which specific housing innovations residents are aware of and interested in, the barriers and drivers to adoption, the trusted channels of communication for disseminating information about housing innovations, and demographic trends that may influence all of these aspects. 

These themes apply to four key forms of housing innovation: additional dwelling units (ADUs), middle housing, prefabricated and modular housing, and supportive housing. Although they are distinctive, we grouped prefabricated and modular construction together because the findings from our qualitativephase showed that residents don’t distinguish between these two forms of innovation—-which meant the barriers and drivers to their adoption should be the same.

We surveyed 2,516 individuals across Canada of varying ages, urbanities, income brackets, genders, and ethnicities. Respondents were excluded if they were under 25 years old or if they failed to correctly answer certain questions included in the survey to check their attention. We only surveyed Canadians who were already homeowners or who were considering buying a home in the next five years. 

Just under half of our sample was from urban areas, while 36% were from suburban and 17% from rural areas. At the provincial level, Ontario made up the largest percentage of the sample (38%), followed by Quebec (23%) and British Columbia (13%). Eighty percent of survey respondents were white, and the majority of the sample had a before-tax household income of $100,000 or less.

To analyze the survey results, we used linear regression to model the probability of supporting an innovation based on a wide range of variables, ranging from demographics to a respondent’s motivations for innovation adoption. We also used a decision tree classification algorithm to identify what distinguishes supporters from non-supporters of a given innovation the most.

Our research showed that awareness of an innovation and the perceived neighborhood attitude toward that innovation are key drivers of adoption. In this section, we discuss the relationships between these factors and how developers and policy-makers can use them to their advantage. 

Building Awareness to Drive Adoption

To set the scene for our analysis, it is important first to understand respondents’ previous levels of awareness of each innovation’s presence in their neighborhoods. 

For ADUs, prefab and modular, and supportive housing, more than half of Canadians had never seen the innovation in their neighborhood. The only exception is middle housing, for which 66% of respondents had observed it in their neighborhood to some degree. On average, respondents from British Columbia, Nunavut, the Yukon territories, and the Northwest Territories were most likely to have seen housing innovation in their neighborhoods. However, overall awareness of these innovations is still low among the surveyed population.

Despite these numbers demonstrating modest awareness, there is a strong correlation between any level of awareness of an innovation and its positive perception. We can see that middle housing, which respondents were most familiar with, also had the highest level of baseline support at 60%. The presence of supportive housing, which was observable to just 29% of respondents, was supported by only 36% of Canadians—making it the least accepted innovation out of the four tested. Younger Canadians showed higher baseline support for all innovations, as did respondents from Atlantic Canada, British Columbia, and Quebec. The combination of high awareness and high support for innovation in BC may make this an especially promising province for innovative developers. 

We identified a statistically significant correlation between the awareness of the innovation’s presence within a respondent’s community and their support for that innovation. A respondent who said the innovation was everywhere in their neighborhood was up to 12 times more likely to support the innovation than a respondent who said they’d never observed it in their neighborhood. The correlation with support was apparent whether the innovation was estimated to be ‘everywhere,’ ‘common,’ or ‘rare’ within a community. Additionally, the more they saw the innovation, the more likely they were to support it. For instance, residents who saw the innovation ‘everywhere’ were more likely to support it than those who said it was ‘rare.’

Understanding how visibility influences support provides a valuable lens through which innovators can shape their strategies. By examining the interpretation of this correlation in the context of specific innovations like ADUs, prefab and modular homes, middle housing, and supportive housing, it becomes evident that each type presents unique challenges and opportunities for gaining public approval.

ADUs, along with prefab and modular homes, may be less salient in a neighborhood than other innovations because they are tucked into a backyard or built in a similar style to the homes already in the community. Innovators seeking to develop these types of housing could emphasize the fact that ADUs or prefab and modular builds already exist in a neighborhood—and are potentially inconspicuous—to drive support from community members.

Middle housing may ‘compete’ with traditional single-family homes in a way that the other innovations do not because they are visually distinctive, house more people, and can take up lots in residential neighborhoods that previously held single-family homes. The relationship between awareness and acceptance suggests that opposition in communities with exclusively single-family homes could be exceptionally high. Areas downtown with high rises may also see very little middle housing, but objections to this innovation form mostly stem from concerns associated with densification. Increasing density was the second-most commonly selected reason to oppose the local presence of middle housing. So, high-density neighborhoods without pre-existing middle housing would not be expected to object as much as low-density areas. 

For supportive housing, NIMBYism is a significant source of opposition that can be difficult to overcome, as it is strongest when an innovation is first introduced. However, the association between the presence of this innovation and its positive perception is a hopeful indication that opposition might die down once these projects become integrated into a community. Amplifying the voices of residents where there is already supportive housing could be an impactful tactic in diminishing the fears of residents who are opposed. 

With this correlation in mind, we can assume that neighborhoods where an innovation is already present will be much more receptive to further developments of this innovation than in communities where it would be entirely novel. As such, developers should prioritize projects in areas where visibility and familiarity with specific housing types are higher. For regions with low familiarity, public awareness campaigns can prime communities for smoother project approvals. Prompting awareness of successful projects in nearby communities at town hall meetings, open houses, or other vital points in the approval process could also be an important strategy for driving acceptance.

Through homeowner and resident interviews during the qualitative phase of our study, we also found that factors like the physical size and the number of units, the precise location, and the considerations for parking and traffic can be very influential in determining the level of support or opposition to a particular innovation. Early transparency on these parameters can help avoid disputes between community members and developers that can be costly in both time and money.  

"As long as it's out of sight in a big backyard or something, then I don't think [the community] would care." — Resident

"I think [the community] wouldn't mind so much so long as the outward appearances of [the converted multiplexes] remain as a single family." — Resident

Despite community opposition being a powerful obstacle to developers and municipal planners, we discovered that on average, less than 10% of respondents were against having a form of housing innovation within their neighborhood. This corroborates our interviews with homeowners, where most participants were generally supportive of housing innovation in general as it relates to solving the housing crisis. Overall, community opposition seems to take the form of a loud minority more than a widespread majority, which requires more targeted sensitization efforts to the opposed.

"Everybody just wants housing. Pronto. So even if there were potentially some downsides, those would be trumped by the fact that this is a fast way of getting [housing]." — Resident

In our survey, we asked respondents about many factors that might help explain their support for each type of housing innovation. To investigate this influence, we collected demographic information, respondents’ perceptions of the current presence of each innovation within their community, and the perceived barriers and drivers to accepting each innovation. In addition to asking if respondents would personally support the presence of a given innovation in their community, we asked if they expect that their neighbors would support the presence of the same innovation.

The expected support from neighbors was the single most indicative predictor of an individual’s support for all the housing innovations. Someone who believes their neighbors would strongly support an innovation is up to 25 times more likely to support the innovation themselves than someone who believes their neighbors would strongly oppose it. Although the direction of causality is unclear (i.e., whether a neighbor’s support leads to an individual’s support or vice versa), we can firmly say that there is a strong association between individual support for housing innovation and their beliefs about their neighbor’s support. In reality, the relationship is likely bidirectional.

The only way to confirm this relationship's directionality and causality would be through experimentation. Developers trying to increase individual support or make the community’s support visible for a particular housing innovation should try harnessing the power of this relationship. The more approval may be visible, the more approval it has the potential to create. For instance, innovators could share statistics about community support or encourage advocates to speak their minds at town hall meetings to try and drive consensus. 

Strategies for Communication and Engagement

Effective communication and engagement are essential for fostering support for housing innovations. Developers and policymakers can tailor their strategies to build transparency and trust with local communities by understanding what information residents prioritize and the channels they trust most.

Our research identifies two critical areas of information that residents want to have: the potential benefits of a project to the community and building specifications. These two pieces of information were selected by 44% of respondents as most important for ADUs, middle housing, and prefab and modular construction. By delivering clear, detailed updates on these elements, developers can align their projects with community expectations early in the planning process.

For ADUs and middle housing, there were differences in information preferences based on home ownership. Homeowners had a more pronounced preference to know about building specifications, and a less pronounced preference to learn about community benefits and funding sources. Developers can tailor the information they share with these populations to reflect these preferences. 

In terms of preferred channels for disseminating such information, our qualitative research determined that word-of-mouth, site visits, traditional media (such as newspapers, flyers, and posters), and local government websites are the most highly trafficked sources for local housing information. Participants emphasized the local government as a trustworthy place to find information, sometimes even more so than the developer’s site. With this in mind, developers should work with the municipality wherever possible to disseminate essential information.

"I would like to see that information coming from the city, because then I trust the more I know that it's less for profit, more for the community." — Resident

When exploring new regions for development, some key predictors of support and opposition can be used strategically by developers and policymakers to understand how promising a municipality may be for development. The capacity to survey a resident population on their awareness of the innovation in their community and the perceived attitudes of their neighbors can allow for quick indexing of the potential for development within a region.

While the previous sections highlighted generalized predictors of awareness and support, this section of the report breaks down the specific barriers, drivers, and communication strategies for each innovation. By sharing the distinct factors influencing acceptance of or resistance to each innovation, we provide developers and policymakers with more precise insights to tailor their approaches and better align with community needs and expectations.

Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs) are secondary housing units on a single-family residential lot. ADUs can be detached (a separate unit in a backyard) or a conversion of existing space (like turning a garage into a living space). They provide an independent living area with its own sleeping, cooking, and bathroom facilities. Sometimes, ADUs are called laneway homes, suites, carriage houses, or go by other names.

Barriers

The reasons most likely influencing someone’s opposition to ADUs are traffic and parking, which are the top concerns of about 35% of respondents. Homeowners and older respondents were more likely to select this as a barrier, as well as residents of Alberta and BC. We heard from developers and municipal planners alike that not only is a persistent area of dispute in town halls or council meetings, but that it can also be difficult to convince citizens otherwise. Creating clear plans to mitigate parking shortages or traffic problems should be a top priority for developers and municipal planners pushing ADUs in any community.

"We can have studies done by the developer that show that, you know, there’s not going to be any traffic concerns… and it’s not believed by the public that that’s true." — Municipal Planner

Concerns about traffic and parking are common among any innovation that densifies or intensifies a neighborhood. More generally, concern about increasing density was selected by 22% of respondents and was one of the most impactful barriers. We can also see that other density-related concerns were relatively common for ADUs, such as worries that there is not enough space in the neighborhood and that new residents could disrupt the neighborhood.

Drivers

On average, drivers of ADU support are nearly twice as influential as the barriers in terms of predicting attitudes. The strongest predictor of support was also one of the most frequently selected reasons to be in favor of ADUs: bringing more affordable housing to the neighborhood. About 35% of respondents selected this option, indicating a respondent is almost three times as likely to support ADUs than someone who does not see affordable housing as a driver of this innovation. Further demographic analysis showed that women and respondents with a household income of less than $40,000/year were most likely to select affordable housing as a driver. Conversely, homeowners and older respondents were less likely to select it.

Residents across Canada are acutely aware of the state of the housing market, and many have been personally affected by the challenging search for affordable housing. In a housing market that feels increasingly unattainable, positioning ADUs as a tangible step toward affordability could turn the tide of public opinion. Municipal planners and developers should consider messaging that highlights how ADUs benefit entire communities by creating accessible housing solutions. One example is providing options for older adults, for whom this was the most frequently selected driver. Additionally, ADUs are inconspicuous in nature, allowing for the preservation of neighborhood character, the third-most selected driver of support.

Communication and Messaging

To assess local attitudes toward ADUs, developers should consider examining specific factors that reliably predict support or opposition, such as the desire for affordable housing, preservation of neighborhood character, and perceived availability of space. These statistically validated indicators can give developers a nuanced understanding of likely adopters in a given community. Asking directly about ADU support can also be useful, but may not offer the same predictive accuracy.

We observed that age demographics significantly affect the reasons behind support for ADUs, and the types of benefits that would appeal to them differ. Older individuals tend to support ADUs for providing options for aging-in-place and maintaining community character, whereas younger respondents are more affordability-driven. Provincial differences also matter: Quebec residents were 1.6 times more likely to support ADUs than those in Ontario, signaling regional variations that could shape strategic messaging.

Developers should prioritize addressing the community's primary interests through their communication efforts. For older residents, messaging should emphasize the benefits of ADUs for enabling aging-in-place, fostering multi-generational living, and maintaining the existing character of the neighborhood. For younger audiences, developers should highlight how ADUs can enhance housing affordability and provide flexible living arrangements that adapt to their evolving needs.

In addition to age-specific appeals, communication strategies should include transparent details on funding sources, clear and thorough building specifications, and the tangible benefits that ADUs bring to the community. Providing this information through trusted channels, such as local government websites, community meetings, and traditional media, can enhance credibility and foster trust. Developers can further strengthen their message by collaborating with municipal authorities to disseminate these updates, ensuring that the communication is perceived as community-focused and not solely profit-driven.

Middle housing is generally defined as housing that fits the gap between low-rise, primarily single-family homes and mid-rise apartment buildings, such as duplexes, triplexes, and multiplexes. 

Barriers

Traffic and parking again emerge as dominant concerns, with 38% of respondents citing these as reasons for opposition. This was the most prevalent concern by a significant margin, with worries about density (25%) and noise (22%) being selected by far fewer respondents. Residents in urban areas were more likely to choose this as a barrier for middle housing, as well as older homeowners and residents of Alberta and BC (as with ADUs). However, aesthetic disruptions—often a sticking point in single-family neighborhoods—were a concern for only 13% of respondents, indicating that middle housing’s visual integration is not a common concern. This insight suggests that middle housing could find a smoother path to acceptance after traffic and other density-related concerns are addressed.

Drivers

Forty percent of Canadians indicated that bringing more affordable housing to their neighborhoods would be a top reason for their support for local middle housing, and respondents who selected this option were 3.5 times more likely to be in support than those who didn’t. Similar to ADUs, homeowners were less likely to choose affordable housing as a driver, while women were more likely. 

However, the most commonly chosen factor was not the strongest predictor of support—in fact, the factor selected by the least number of respondents was the strongest predictor. Those who said they’d like to have the option to convert their own home to middle housing were 5 times more likely to support middle housing. This number delineates a small but powerful minority who could hold significant sway in a neighborhood where zoning is changing to introduce middle housing for the first time.

As with ADUs, respondents’ attitudes toward middle housing were more influenced by drivers than by barriers. In other words, one’s belief in the potential benefits of an innovation appeared to be a more persuasive force than fear of the negative aspects. This underscores the importance of emphasizing utility to the community in gaining citizen approval of a project. For instance, the desire for affordable housing, or any housing, is strong enough that the positives are likely to be more persuasive than the negatives for a resident on the fence. Other commonly selected advantages that can be emphasized are the maximization of land use in the neighborhood and the low environmental impact of middle housing.

Communication and Messaging

The desire for more affordable housing in a respondent’s neighborhood emerged as a key factor distinguishing supporters from non-supporters of middle housing. This insight can guide developers and innovators as they assess a community’s openness to middle housing when considering expansion into new areas.

To build support effectively, developers should prioritize clear and targeted communication that emphasizes the benefits of middle housing for community affordability and sustainable development. As with ADUs, detailed information about the project’s benefits to the community and building specifications should be at the forefront of messaging. Canadians are also highly interested in understanding the funding sources for these developments and the credibility of the developers behind them.

For those opposed to middle housing, a different communication strategy is required. This group tends to prioritize verifying the trustworthiness of developers over learning about building specifications or community benefits. This finding aligns with insights from the qualitative research, where residents expressed skepticism toward private developers, often perceiving their for-profit motives as potentially compromising community interests.

To bridge this trust gap, developers should establish their credibility early by showcasing past successful projects in similar neighborhoods and sharing testimonials or endorsements from previous clients and local officials. Transparent communication is essential; providing clear and accessible contact information, references, and third-party reviews or audits can reassure residents of the developer’s integrity and community-oriented approach.

"I am less trusting of [the developer’s] website than of other information. They're going to tell you, you know, they're going to paint it with a rosy brush." — Resident

Prefabricated and modular building techniques create housing by building in sections in off-site factories (either individual panels or entire modules) and then assembling the building on-site. 

Barriers

The most common and impactful barriers to adopting prefabricated and modular homes are distinct from other innovations in this report. Durability was the most common reason for opposition, selected by 30% of respondents. However, the most impactful factor was neighborhood aesthetics—Canadians who selected this barrier were 2.6 times more likely to oppose prefab and modular builds. 

Our qualitative research demonstrated that aesthetic opposition may stem from a common association of prefabricated and modular homes and trailer parks. Although it’s true that mobile homes are usually modular, this type of construction displays a wide range of possibilities in terms of aesthetics and size. Furthermore, because concerns about structural integrity were the second-most commonly selected barrier, overcoming this misconception is critical for developers, especially those pioneering these techniques in a new community. Showcasing examples of prefabricated and modular homes that have successfully integrated into the existing aesthetics of the neighborhood is an important strategy to drive adoption. 

Drivers

The desire for local affordable housing continues to emerge as a powerhouse driver of innovation support. In the case of prefab and modular housing, it is by far the most common, having been selected by 44% of respondents (compared with 25% for the second-most common) and the most impactful driver. Respondents who indicated the creation of local affordable housing as a driver of support were 3.6 times more likely to approve of prefab and modular homes in their neighborhoods. Once again, homeowners were less likely to select this as a driver for prefab and modular homes. However, Black respondents and people registered under the Indian Act were more likely to when compared to white respondents. 

This innovation’s unique advantage is that it can offer affordability without necessarily altering the single-family dwelling landscape or adding too much density. For residents who are attached to having a single-family dwelling, prefab and modular can be an economical alternative that doesn’t come with concerns about reduced space. Developers and policymakers can position prefab and modular housing as a modern solution that integrates with, rather than disrupts, existing communities. The commonly chosen drivers of reduced construction disruptions and the decreased environmental impact of this innovation can also be emphasized as benefits. 

"Most people make decisions on price. So provided the price is okay, I think most people embrace it...

So most people, especially the newcomers, for instance, would embrace [modular or prefab]." — Resident

Communication and Messaging

For prefabricated and modular homes, impactful communication and engagement must address residents’ desire for tangible, visual proof of quality and aesthetics. While information on community benefits and building specifications remains crucial, showcasing images or physical demonstrations stands out as particularly important, with nearly half (48%) of participants prioritizing this. This emphasis likely stems from common misconceptions about the appearance and durability of prefab and modular housing, which can evoke concerns about trailer-park associations or substandard construction. Aesthetic opposition was a key determinant of whether a participant would fall into the supporter or non-supporter category for this innovation.

To counteract these misconceptions and overcome aesthetic resistance, developers entering new regions should prioritize hosting open houses and interactive showcases. Allowing residents to experience firsthand the modern design, quality, and seamless integration of these homes within existing neighborhoods can significantly shift perceptions. These visual demonstrations alleviate concerns and create an opportunity for developers to engage directly with the community, addressing questions and highlighting the long-term benefits of prefab and modular builds.

Supportive housing combines affordable housing with a range of services designed to support individuals and families facing challenges such as homelessness, mental health issues, substance abuse, or disabilities. The goal is to provide a stable and supportive environment that enables the residents to live more independently and improve their quality of life. Services may include case management, healthcare, job training, and social activities, tailored to the needs of the residents.

Barriers

The most common barrier to adopting supportive housing is that it could attract residents who might disrupt neighborhood safety or harmony. Having been selected by 56% of respondents, it is also the most unanimously selected barrier to any innovation. Concerns of poor management were also prevalent, chosen by 54% of respondents. In terms of demographics, being a homeowner, being older, and being a temporary resident were all associated with less support for this innovation.

"Personally, I must admit, I wouldn't want supportive housing right beside where I live. There's that fear factor, too. I don't want to have to take my dog out for a walk and have to look over my shoulder.
But again, that could be because of over sensationalized news. But it's already ingrained.
It's in my head. It will take time to reverse that." — Resident

However, once again, the least commonly selected barrier was also the most potent predictor of opposition. Those who do not see supportive housing as an effective means of housing or support were 3.3 times more likely to oppose the presence of supportive housing in their neighborhood. Overcoming misconceptions of poor efficacy could be an important strategy for developers or municipal planners facing a loud minority of residents who gravely object to supportive housing in their communities.

Drivers

Support for supportive housing is closely tied to respondents’ desire to benefit vulnerable populations, with 38% highlighting this as a motivating factor, and 29% selecting addressing social issues as an important driver. With the most impactful driver being alignment with personal values, describing the benefits to the community with appeals to personal values is important to emphasize in communications from the provider.

Residents are not motivated by a belief that supportive housing makes their neighborhoods safer. Combined with the worries described above of disruptions to neighborhood safety and harmony, the public perception of the tenants this innovation attracts is a more significant barrier than for other innovations. To dispel concerns, developers or non-profits working with supportive housing should provide transparent and detailed information to communities about the criteria for selecting future tenants and what kind of problems they may be facing. 

Communication and Messaging

Two critical predictors of community approval or opposition to supportive housing emerged: the desire to benefit vulnerable populations and concerns about neighborhood safety or harmony. Developers should leverage these insights as a litmus test when assessing a community's potential openness to supportive housing. Engaging with residents early to understand their perceptions on these issues can guide the project introduction and messaging approach.

Survey results highlighted that, in addition to the standard information needs, residents placed particular importance on understanding the type of support tenants would receive and the social benefits the development would bring. This need suggests that developers and policymakers should adopt an educational approach that prioritizes transparency and highlights how supportive housing can be a positive force in the neighborhood without compromising safety. By communicating the types of services that will be provided and showcasing successful projects in other neighborhoods, developers can alleviate concerns and demonstrate that safety and harmony will be maintained.

Our findings emphasize a critical yet often underutilized insight for developers, municipal planners, and policymakers: the presence of housing innovations within a community drives familiarity and, consequently, acceptance. For ADUs, middle housing, prefab and modular builds, and supportive housing, the data reveals that awareness translates to increased endorsement. This relationship highlights the importance of introducing innovations in areas with familiarity or investing in awareness campaigns to build community support in unfamiliar regions. 

For developers and policymakers, the takeaways are clear. Strategic communication efforts that prioritize transparency and provide tailored, community-oriented information can mitigate common opposition points such as traffic and aesthetic concerns while fostering a sense of collective benefit. By leveraging trusted channels like local government websites and community newspapers, developers can ensure that messaging aligns with residents’ preferences. Moreover, providing physical demonstrations of housing types, whenever feasible, can address misconceptions, particularly for prefabricated and modular housing. Generally, campaigns in new areas are more likely to be effective if they include ways to test and see the innovation, such as with an open house or if references can be made to successful projects in similar contexts. 

Importantly, our findings underscore that public opposition often represents a vocal minority rather than widespread disapproval. When developers engage early with communities, directly addressing concerns and visibly sharing neighborhood support, they can significantly increase the likelihood of success. For example, encouraging advocates to speak at public forums or presenting neighborhood survey results indicating support for housing innovations can shift perceptions and inspire greater openness among residents.

The Canadian housing crisis demands an openness to new solutions and a collaborative approach across all levels of government, developers, and residents. By understanding the social and cultural context surrounding housing innovations, stakeholders can champion meaningful change that not only meets Canada’s urgent housing needs but also builds resilient, supportive communities in the process. The insights here provide a foundation for a more adaptive and responsive housing market that prioritizes both the demand for housing and the values of the communities it serves.

1. “Canada’s Housing Supply Shortages: Estimating What Is ...” CMHC-SHCL, June 2022. https://assets.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/sites/cmhc/professional/housing-markets-data-and-research/housing-research/research-reports/2022/housing-shortages-canada-solving-affordability-crisis-en.pdf?rev=88308aef-f14a-4dbb-b692-6ebbddcd79a0.
2. “Behavioral Change Models.” Diffusion of Innovation Theory. Accessed November 5, 2024. https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/SB/BehavioralChangeTheories/BehavioralChangeTheories4.html.
3. Paternotte, Cédric. “Cristina Bicchieri, Norms in the Wild. How to Diagnose, Measure, and Change Social Norms.” Œconomia. History, Methodology, Philosophy, June 1, 2018. https://journals.openedition.org/oeconomia/2980#:~:text=Factual%20beliefs%2C%20empirical%20and%20normative,preferences%20depend%20on%20these%20expectations.