This study employed a structured survey method to gather data on Canadian homeowners' and prospective homeowners' perceptions, awareness, and attitudes toward various housing innovations. The survey sampled 4,953 respondents, comprising 85% of current homeowners and 15% of individuals planning to purchase a home within the next five years. We included 65 questions covering psychological and systemic barriers to housing innovation adoption, aiming to uncover insights that could inform more effective adoption strategies.

Participants represented three main residential contexts: urban (41%), suburban (40%), and rural (19%). Regional representation included Ontario (38%), Quebec (23%), British Columbia (14%), Alberta (12%), the Prairies (7%), Atlantic Canada (6%), and less than 1% from the Northern Territories.

Participants ranged in age, with the majority falling into the 35 to 64 age group. Household income levels were also diverse, with 13% earning less than $40,000 annually, 20% earning $40,000–$70,000, 19% earning $70,001–$100,000, another 19% earning $100,001–$130,000, and 20% earning more than $130,000. Nine percent of participants chose not to disclose their income.

Ethnic representation was primarily White, with smaller yet significant groups including Chinese, South Asian, Black, Southeast Asian, Latin American, Filipino, Arab, and Indigenous participants. Indigenous respondents included First Nations and Métis individuals.

This robust sampling method ensured the study captured a wide range of perspectives and provided insights into homeowner attitudes toward housing innovations across different demographics and geographic regions.

Exploring Emerging Housing Innovations

The survey explored several emerging housing types to tackle Canada’s housing challenges and offer homeowners more adaptable and affordable options. Each innovation was chosen for its potential to meet diverse housing needs, from increasing density to creating supportive, community-driven spaces. Below are the key innovations analyzed, describing each type’s unique characteristics:

By understanding the behavioral hurdles surrounding these innovations—whether due to regulatory complexity, financial uncertainty, or resistance to change—stakeholders can better promote their adoption.

The survey identified key barriers to adopting innovative housing solutions, including awareness and trust. The following sections outline these obstacles and strategies to address them.

Barrier: Lack of Familiarity with Housing Innovations

Our survey reveals a significant awareness gap among Canadian homeowners regarding innovative housing options. While traditional options like single-family homes, condos, and townhouses are well-known, newer housing solutions are not.

For instance, community bonds are known by only 3% of homeowners. Expanding public knowledge about community bonds could highlight their potential for promoting community-driven housing projects, offering homeowners a tangible way to invest in local development while fostering affordable housing solutions. 

Similarly, only 8% of Canadians are familiar with the term "Accessory Dwelling Units.” In a prior qualitative study, respondents often understood this concept through other terms, which may help explain the low awareness. We gathered a list of alternative terms that respondents commonly used to describe the concept of ADUs. Once we asked about the alternative terms, 36% of surveyed respondents recognized ADUs as "in-laws" or "mother-in-law suites," 25% as "granny flats," 20% as "backyard cottages," and 19% as "bachelor's apartments." 

Only 10% of housing consumers were familiar with middle housing while 58% were unaware if the rules in their area allow for middle housing. This lack of awareness may stem from the fact that middle housing options—such as duplexes, triplexes, and townhouses—are not prominently marketed or widely discussed as viable solutions to strained housing supply.

Interestingly, awareness of prefabricated and modular housing appears to be higher compared to other housing innovations, with 42% of respondents reporting a clear understanding of prefabricated construction and 34% indicating the same for modular construction. This higher awareness sets these options apart, potentially making them a more accessible entry point for promoting innovative housing solutions.

Opportunity: Pushing for Acceptance Through Awareness

Increasing the visibility of community bonds, ADUs, and middle housing conversions represents a key step toward addressing housing challenges in Canada. In behavioral science, the mere exposure effect suggests that people are more likely to accept and even prefer options they encounter frequently. By leveraging the mere exposure effect in initiatives like targeted campaigns, partnerships with community leaders, and accessible resources, stakeholders can make these housing solutions feel more familiar and trustworthy. As homeowners encounter these solutions more often, they can begin to see their practical benefits, creating momentum for broader adoption and acceptance.

While raising awareness of innovative housing solutions is a necessary first step, it does not guarantee their widespread adoption. In the following section, we delve deeper into the elements of trust and credibility essential for encouraging homeowners to explore and adopt these new housing options.

Barrier: Trust and Source Credibility

Trust is a crucial factor in homeowner decision-making. For homeowners to seriously consider these alternatives, they must also trust the information they receive about them. 

Our survey shows that respondents are more likely to consider information on housing innovations if it is verifiable, expert-driven, and free from financial or political motivation. When homeowners lack trust in the sources promoting these innovations, they may dismiss valuable opportunities due to perceived bias or conflict of interest.

Source credibility is also essential, as 51% of respondents indicated they trust information more when it comes from an expert or professional. However, while developers are industry experts, they can be perceived as having a conflict of interest, because they are promoting innovations that directly align with their own financial goals, such as selling the housing solutions they develop. To counteract this perception, developers can engage trusted figures, a concept linked to the authority bias—the tendency to place greater trust in information from credible, knowledgeable sources. For example, previous customers who can provide testimonials, non-profit organizations, or research institutions. These partnerships can help address skepticism and counter perceptions of profit-driven agendas.

Opportunity: Enhancing Trust through Transparency

Building trust in housing innovations starts with transparency, a critical factor in bridging the gap between curiosity and commitment. Homeowners are more likely to move from interest to action when they feel confident in the integrity and clarity of the information they receive. Thoughtful, transparent communication can address concerns, establish credibility, and ultimately ensure that awareness translates into meaningful engagement.

One possible approach is implementing trust-building practices that emphasize openness and accountability. For example, including clear disclosures about potential conflicts of interest—such as financial ties or partnerships—can actually increase trust, as research suggests transparency fosters greater confidence. Developers can also clearly articulate their organizational values to align with homeowners’ priorities, such as affordability or sustainability. Nearly half (49%) of respondents are more likely to trust information that appears free from financial or political motivations. By collaborating with neutral organizations and incorporating transparent communication strategies, developers can reduce perceptions of profit-driven agendas, foster trust, and build stronger connections with homeowners.

Other practical strategies might include community-centered pilot projects or case studies where homeowners can see innovations firsthand and hear directly from those who have already adopted these solutions. This approach could build credibility more effectively than promotional messaging alone.

Additionally, homeowners value a balanced perspective. Communicating both risks and financial benefits is essential, as the respondents expressed nearly equal interest in these aspects across all the housing innovations we investigated. This preference indicates that a transparent approach could be more effective than purely promotional messaging.

In sum, trust-building in housing innovation requires a transparent, credible, and balanced strategy. By meeting these criteria, stakeholders can create a foundation of trust that encourages homeowners to explore and adopt new housing solutions.

Having explored the overarching challenges to housing innovation, investigating specific housing solutions reveals more nuanced obstacles. By taking a closer look at these four housing innovations—ADUs, prefabricated and modular housing, middle housing, and community bonds—we can uncover the unique factors influencing homeowner perceptions and behaviors. These analyses will provide actionable strategies to address the distinct psychological, regulatory, and practical hurdles that must be overcome to unlock the full potential of these innovative solutions.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

While 18% of respondents expressed interest in adding an ADU to their property within the next five years, several factors could play a role in encouraging adoption among a broader segment of homeowners.

Barrier: Fear of Losing Outdoor Space

Homeowners often perceive potential losses—whether financial, spatial, or lifestyle-related—more intensely than potential gains. This phenomenon, known as loss aversion, describes the tendency for individuals to prioritize avoiding losses over acquiring equivalent gains. For instance, 49% of homeowners indicated that a lack of suitable space limits their consideration of ADUs, while 30% cited a fear of losing outdoor space as a barrier. This spatial limitation reflects the importance homeowners place on maintaining outdoor areas, which often outweighs the perceived benefits of adding an ADU.

Perceived regulatory hurdles further discourage adoption, as 62% of homeowners are uncertain whether ADUs are allowed in their area, and 29% believe the permitting process is complex. The uncertainty surrounding ADU legality and the anticipated challenges of navigating the permit system add layers of difficulty, deterring homeowners who might otherwise consider this option.

Opportunity: Highlighting Long-Term Gains and Security

To counteract loss aversion, communication efforts should emphasize the long-term benefits of innovations, such as increased property value, rental income, and accommodating extra family members. Presenting data on how other homeowners have benefited financially and socially from adding ADUs or other housing solutions can help shift the focus from perceived losses to tangible, long-term gains.

To further support this shift, stakeholders could provide tools and resources that help homeowners weigh future benefits more effectively. For example, offering clear, personalized financial return calculators or projecting potential rental income over time could make the financial benefits of ADUs more tangible. Case studies and testimonials from other homeowners who have successfully added ADUs could also reinforce these positive outcomes. Additionally, transparent information about expected costs, timelines, and common challenges could help demystify the process and empower homeowners to make informed decisions.

Although loss aversion can cause homeowners to place additional focus on short-term costs, it is worth stressing that the price of ADUs does present a significant barrier for some. Financial support measures, such as subsidies, grants, or financing options, could help make these innovations more accessible. Partnering with financial institutions to provide low-interest loans or deferred payment options could further alleviate financial concerns and encourage adoption.

Despite any barriers, there are strong drivers of interest in ADUs among a subset of homeowners. Financial gain is a key incentive, with 34% of homeowners motivated by the potential for rental income and 17% seeing an ADU as a way to increase property value. ADUs also appeal to those looking for flexible housing options to support family needs; 20% view ADUs as a solution for accommodating elderly family members, and 18% consider them useful for hosting guests. By combining practical tools, supportive financing, and targeted messaging, stakeholders can better demonstrate how ADUs align with both homeowners' financial goals and lifestyle needs.

Prefabricated and Modular Housing

Prefabricated and modular housing options are gaining visibility among Canadian homeowners, yet skepticism remains. Although about three out of ten homeowners report being aware of prefab or modular homes, many still hesitate to consider them as viable options for homeownership. This reluctance stems largely from perceptions around quality and customization limitations, with 31% of homeowners expressing a preference against purchasing a home built using these methods. Interestingly, developers often contend that, when viewed in person, modular homes are indistinguishable from traditionally constructed ones. This professional perspective suggests that some of these misconceptions may stem from limited exposure or preconceived notions rather than actual differences in quality or design.

Barrier: Perception of Inferior Quality and Limited Customization

The most commonly cited concerns include the perceived lower quality and durability of prefab and modular homes (27%) and the belief that these homes offer limited customization options (26%). For homeowners accustomed to traditional construction methods that offer extensive flexibility in design and materials, prefab and modular homes can feel restrictive and less durable.

Opportunity: Reframing Advantages to Highlight Quality and Customization

Traditional homes are often framed as superior in quality and flexibility, leading homeowners to view new housing innovations like prefab and modular options less favorably. To counteract these perceptions, stakeholders can reframe the narrative around prefabricated and modular housing. 

For example, emphasizing high-quality materials, rigorous construction standards, and customizable design options can shift homeowner perceptions. In previously conducted interviews, some developers even argued that modular homes are often of higher quality because they are constructed to withstand the rigors of transportation and assembly. 

In the survey, homeowners identified speed of construction (36%) and cost-effectiveness (26%) as significant motivators for choosing these options. By reducing construction time and offering competitive pricing, prefab and modular homes present a practical solution for homeowners looking to save both time and money. By presenting these homes as modern, durable, and adaptable, developers can leverage the framing effect to positively influence homeowner decisions.

Barrier: Ambiguity Aversion in Regulations and Availability

Additionally, there is a clear need for better education on the regulatory landscape for prefab and modular homes. Currently, 66% of homeowners are unaware of the existing regulations governing these options in their area, which creates uncertainty and limits their willingness to pursue these innovations. Aside from this, limited access to prefab and modular housing across regions heightens this uncertainty, as many homeowners are unsure whether these options are even available to them in the first place.

This aversion is driven by the ambiguity effect—the tendency to avoid options with unclear or uncertain outcomes. As a result, homeowners who may be interested in these housing types might be deterred by the uncertainty surrounding the zoning rules, building codes, and legality surrounding innovations.

Opportunity: Reducing Ambiguity through Clear Information and Expanded Access

To address the ambiguity effect, stakeholders can reduce uncertainty by providing clear, accessible information on the regulatory landscape for prefab and modular housing. Creating simple, user-friendly guides on zoning, building codes, and local requirements can help homeowners understand what’s involved in adopting these options, increasing confidence and interest. Additionally, expanding the market reach of prefab and modular housing across more regions would make these homes a more visible, accessible choice, reducing perceived risks. By making regulatory information and availability transparent and straightforward, stakeholders can position prefabricated and modular housing as a practical, feasible alternative to traditional construction, overcoming hesitation rooted in ambiguity.

Middle Housing

Middle housing, which includes housing types that fill the gap between single-family homes and larger apartment complexes, has yet to gain significant traction among Canadian homeowners. Adoption consideration remains low, with only 13% of homeowners expressing serious interest in purchasing middle housing. 

Barrier: Privacy and Proximity Concerns

The reluctance surrounding middle housing is largely driven by apprehensions over privacy and proximity to neighbors. Nearly half (48%) of homeowners surveyed cite privacy concerns as a deterrent, while 44% are hesitant due to the close living quarters associated with these housing types.

Homeowners may perceive middle housing as a potential infringement on the privacy and “space” they value in their current homes. This perception can be linked to the endowment effect, where individuals place heightened value on what they already own and fear the loss of its unique characteristics. Even when middle housing offers clear advantages, such as increased affordability and reduced maintenance, this sense of loss tied to private ownership often outweighs the perceived benefits, limiting its appeal.

Opportunity: Framing Middle Housing as a Value-add

Middle housing offers several appealing aspects for homeowners open to exploring this option. The innovation’s perceived low maintenance and affordability are major factors drawing interest, with 36% of homeowners valuing the reduced time and expense of maintaining a smaller property. Additionally, 30% see middle housing as a more affordable choice compared to other housing types, making it particularly attractive to those seeking cost-effective homeownership solutions.

Beyond its purchase appeal, middle housing provides an opportunity for homeowners to generate additional income. For example, converting a property to middle housing allows for renting out additional units, a motivator cited by 30% of respondents as a key driver for adoption. Emphasizing how middle housing can offer both financial and practical benefits could help reduce resistance and expand adoption.

To address privacy concerns, developers can reframe middle housing as a solution that fosters community engagement and reduces social isolation. According to Statistics Canada, nearly one in five Canadian seniors experience loneliness, with women, immigrants, and residents of densely populated cities being particularly affected.⁵ Middle housing options, such as duplexes and triplexes, can foster closer-knit communities, providing opportunities for social interaction and support. By highlighting these social benefits, stakeholders can position middle housing as a means to improve quality of life, appealing to homeowners who value community connection.

Community Bonds

Community bonds—a financial tool enabling residents to invest in local housing projects and receive a return—show significant potential yet remain underutilized among Canadian homeowners. The survey indicates a high level of reluctance and indifference toward investing in community bonds, with 42% of homeowners expressing no intention of investing in the next five years and 39% remaining unsure. This hesitation is largely driven by two main factors: 34% of homeowners report a lack of community bond opportunities in their area, and 29% cite difficulties in understanding how these investments work.

Interestingly, the hesitation to invest likely isn’t due to financial incapacity since 74% of homeowners report having at least $500 available, and 51% indicate they could afford to invest in community bonds. However, the disconnect appears to stem from a misalignment with financial goals, with 29% of respondents stating that community bonds do not align with their priorities. Many homeowners may view other investment options as better suited to their financial objectives, which limits the appeal of community bonds.

Barrier: Lack of Social Proof and Behavioral Friction

To drive greater interest in community bond investments, developers and policymakers can emphasize their potential for meaningful socio-economic impact. The opportunity to support affordable housing and stimulate local economic development resonates with a subset of homeowners, with 28% motivated by the potential to improve access to affordable housing in their community and 27% interested in contributing to local economic growth. 

Social proof—or the tendency to follow the actions of others, especially peers—strongly influences financial decisions. With community bonds being a relatively new and lesser-known investment option, many homeowners are understandably reluctant to commit without seeing others in their community doing the same. When homeowners don’t see neighbors, friends, or family members investing in community bonds, they may feel uncertain about whether it’s a safe or worthwhile choice, leading to hesitation and even inaction.

Additionally, behavioral friction—such as difficulties understanding the investment process or navigating unfamiliar platforms—further widens the intention-action gap, a phenomenon where individuals express interest or intention but fail to act due to structural or psychological barriers. Even when homeowners express interest, these minor inconveniences can create disproportionate barriers, preventing them from following through.

Opportunity: Building Social Proof through Success Stories and Local Champions

Positioning community bonds as a way for homeowners to make a tangible difference in their local community may increase this option’s attractiveness and better align the investment option with homeowners' values and financial goals. Stakeholders can actively build social proof by sharing success stories and highlighting local champions, such as community leaders, respected residents, or previous investors who have invested in community bonds.

Promoting case studies of community members who have successfully invested in and benefited from these bonds can help normalize the concept and reduce skepticism. Additionally, community events or forums where homeowners can learn directly from local investors or community leaders about their positive experiences can create a sense of trust and familiarity. By showcasing real-life examples and endorsements from respected community members, stakeholders can make community bonds feel like a proven, trusted investment choice, increasing homeowners’ confidence and willingness to participate.

After enhancing credibility, addressing the intention-action gap in accessing community bonds becomes an important next step. Behavioral interventions, such as scheduled contributions, incremental investment increases, or pre-set investment amounts, can make participation more intuitive and reduce decision fatigue. Moreover, simplifying the investment process through user-friendly platforms and clear, step-by-step guidance can alleviate friction and encourage follow-through.

Canada's housing crisis presents complex challenges, from affordability pressures to density constraints, demanding bold and innovative responses. This report underscores the importance of not only developing alternative housing models like ADUs, prefabricated and modular homes, middle housing, and community bonds but also addressing the systemic and psychological barriers that hinder their adoption.

By shedding light on homeowners' perceptions and the underlying psychological hurdles, this study provides actionable insights that can guide policymakers, developers, and other stakeholders in fostering a more resilient and inclusive housing landscape. 

Housing innovations are not just solutions to individual problems—they are essential tools for creating sustainable communities and ensuring equitable access to housing for future generations. 

The stakes are high, but so is the potential for meaningful progress. This report is more than a snapshot of current barriers; it is a call to action to collaborate, innovate, and reimagine what housing can look like in Canada. By taking decisive steps now, we can lay the groundwork for a housing system that is as diverse, adaptable, and dynamic as the communities it serves.