What happens when a city wants to build small homes for people with co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders – right in the middle of an established neighborhood? In my master’s thesis, I compared how three Norwegian municipalities approached this challenge. The answers might surprise you.
Blog post
The blogpost is written by
This blog post is written by master's student Jone Vistnes, under the supervision of Tegg Westbrook.
In response to housing pressure and rising costs, municipalities across Norway are turning to tiny homes – 25-35 m² detached units – to support residents with ROP (substance use and psychiatric disorders). Inspired by the Housing First model, these homes promise autonomy and stability without preconditions.
But integrating them into existing neighborhoods often sparks resistance. Fear, frustration and “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY) dynamics quickly surface.
Why Protest Matters
My study is a comparative case analysis of Stavanger, Sandnes, and Sola – three neighboring municipalities with very different approaches. The empirical data includes:
- Protest letters from local residents
- Group interviews with planners and social workers
- Official housing and welfare documents
Using a seven-code thematic structure (location, opposition, staffing, dialogue, design, allocation, economy), I analyzed the municipalities’ strategies through three theoretical lenses:
- Housing First: Housing as a right, not a reward
- NIMBY: Understanding neighborhood resistance
- Planning legitimacy: How trust, process, and fairness shape local support
Three Cities – Three Strategic Logics
Stavanger spreads housing based on social vulnerability indicators and occasionally uses leftover plots. Protest levels are high, and staffing is introduced to calm fears.
Sandnes prioritizes central locations and public transit. Early neighborhood meetings and visible caretakers have prevented formal opposition.
Sola accepts remote locations but compensates with a fully staffed base on-site. The result? Low resistance and smoother integration.
What Are Neighbors Afraid Of?
In Stavanger, residents voiced three types of concerns:
- Safety: “We have children here – who’s watching over this place?”
- Process: “Why were we not informed before the decision was made?”
- Costs: “The municipality is shifting the burden onto us.”
Meanwhile, both Sandnes and Sola saw less resistance – likely because they communicated early and transparently. Trust, not just information, made the difference.
Staffing as Social Infrastructure
One of the most surprising findings? Staffing and resistance appeared equally often in the data. When municipalities introduced:
- A dedicated contact person
- 24/7 service bases
- Caretakers familiar to the neighborhood
… residents were more likely to accept the project. Staffing was not just a social service – it became a symbol of accountability.
Key Takeaways: It’s Not Just About Housing
If municipalities want small homes to work – both for residents and neighbors – they need more than planning permission. They need strategy.
Here’s what works:
- Early dialogue with neighbors, before formal planning starts
- Staffing models that are visible, consistent, and responsive
- Location choices that balance service access with neighborhood tolerance
- Recognizing protest not as irrational fear, but as a signal of unmet expectations
Small homes are not just units – they are stress tests of local democracy, trust, and planning capacity.